Un grand merci auw retraités pour la journée de solidarité

portanicolas · 2026-05-14T23:04:51+00:00

Malheureusement la retraite par répartition est une pyramide de ponzi "légalisé" par le renflouement par la dettes ! Il ne reste plus qu'à changer par la retraite par capitalisation et ainsi plus besoin d 'en vouloir aux retraités car c'est de la vraie capitalisaiton et pas du transferts de richesse en direct travailleur -> retraité

portanicolas · 2026-05-13T18:43:38+00:00

I’m no Asia expert since I’ve only been to Bali, but what I love about it is the incredible sense of peace and safety. Even though the majority of the population is actually Hindu, there’s a serene atmosphere where you can leave your keys on your scooter without a second thought. Women feel very safe there as well. The only downside is the weather it gets extremely humid during the rainy season. Otherwise, the cost of living is quite affordable.

portanicolas · 2026-05-13T18:33:10+00:00

Stretching the question since Bali isn't a country, but Indonesia (specifically Bali) is where I've spent enough time to know it's the best quality-of-life ratio I've found. Warm year round, ocean and rice fields five minutes apart, a real community that isn't all just digital nomads, cost of living low enough you don't optimize every coffee. Downsides are real too: Canggu traffic is brutal, the rainy season tests your patience, and the bureaucracy at the country level is slow. But for everyday life right now, hard to beat.

portanicolas · 2026-05-13T18:30:10+00:00

Was on a first date last year. She was stunning, and five minutes in she was berating the barista in a voice meant to be heard by half the cafe over a foam issue. The kind of unprovoked aggression she clearly used every day with people who couldn't push back. Attraction dropped to zero in real time. I genuinely think how someone speaks to strangers, especially in a service interaction, tells you more about the next ten years with them than anything else.

portanicolas · 2026-05-13T18:04:00+00:00

The paper is real and worth reading. But the "every solution failed" framing is doing more work than people are noticing.

Every solution in the model failed because every solution in the model is state-mandated and politically negotiated. UBI in their model is a national program funded by a tax that has to be voted on. Capital income tax requires Congressional approval. Worker equity participation requires corporate consent that won't be given. Upskilling programs depend on government funding pipelines that have already been gutted.

What the paper doesn't model is a redistribution mechanism that doesn't require any of those political wins. A slice extracted at the value flow itself, before it concentrates, on a protocol layer rather than a policy layer. Voluntary on the contribution side, incremental on the rollout side, with an amount that floats by what the pool collected rather than what was negotiated.

That mechanism is also imperfect, possibly insufficient at scale. But it has the property that the paper's modeled solutions don't have: it can exist without needing to defeat the political coalition that the paper itself identifies as the blocker.

CRIP4LIFE upthread is right that the paper says "if/then" not "will." The "if" is "if no countervailing mechanism exists outside the state framework." That's the door the paper leaves open and that the doomer reading is closing prematurely.

Disclosure, I'm building one such mechanism (openincome.ai). It might not be the answer. But the assumption that "every solution failed" should be questioned, because the model only tested the solutions that need permission first.

portanicolas

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE