Alexey Guzey    Blog    Feed    Blog Archive + Site Contents

Last Posts

11 Apr 2018 » Links for Jan-Mar 2018
17 Jan 2018 » Tinder Is Effectively Deanonymized in Russia
23 Dec 2017 » Polynomial Time Reductions
05 Dec 2017 » Why You Should Not Go on a Tinder Date with Me
09 Oct 2017 » Make Your Android Experience Better

Against Basic Income

I used to think that basic income was a good idea. I no longer do. Here’s why:

  1. Basic income solves the wrong problem.
  2. Means-tested social programs are just better than basic income.
  3. Basic income is an exercise in the typical mind fallacy.

1. Basic income solves the wrong problem.

Key argument: in developed countries the main problem is the absence of meaning and cultural and status inequality. Basic income doesn’t address any of these problems and may only exacerbate them.

Chris Arnade’s tweetstorm:

  1. I know many think Universal Basic Income is the cool “hack” solution to our problems. But it is addressing the wrong problem

  2. Our problems not just about a inequality in wealth, although that is a problem[.] It is also inequality in social capital. In meaning

  3. Places that I go to, minority or white, have broken social structures. Have disintegrated networks. Communities have been destroyed.

  4. People in them feel very much “left behind”, & not just economically. The educated set the social agenda. From language allowed to style

  5. Almost all “valid social networks” these days are driven by education & the culture that follows. They are left with McDonald’s & Chili’s

  6. That loss of meaning, of being on the outside of what is cool, and NOT having a job that is also considered cool – that is humiliating

  7. Universal Basic Income does nothing to solve the issue of humiliation. In fact, for many, it will be MORE humiliating.

  8. I guarantee within X months of there being a UBI program there will be nasty & derogatory terms for those on it. UB-ees, or something […]

Rory’s The Redistribution of Humiliation:

One problem is inequality of wealth. In theory, this is simple to solve, we just give people money. If we don’t have enough money to give people, this is unfortunate, but long term growth, trade and neoliberalism will mean there is more to go round. This misses the bigger picture though. People are very poor at identifying disparities in wealth, their perceptions are very far from reality, and so addressing this is unlikely to allay frustrations. When people talk about inequality in society, they are really talking about the hierarchy of status.


Redistributing wealth does little to address inequality of status, and may even make the problem worse. While making money yourself confers status, being given it doesn’t. In fact, being able to afford to give a handout is a costly signal of your own strength, whereas accepting a handout incurs reputational costs. The hierarchy is reinforced. In the past, the government has managed to work around this by disguising the handouts. They use white lies like the contributory principle to justify tax credits and pensions, or more roundabout ways, like the Thatcher government’s subsidised sell off of council housing. […]

2. Means-tested social programs are just better than basic income.

Different people require different amount of assistance. A typical healthy adult doesn’t need any. A typical sick and old person needs a lot. It’s not clear why we would want to break this asymmetry. Here’s Vipul Naik elaborating this point:

It seems overall that the incentive structures of these programs [Food stamps, etc.] are reasonably okay – the bureaucratic structures around them help guard against both over fraud and a lot of people using the programs when they don’t really “need” it. And the programs meet specific use cases (like, if somebody is really bad at handling money, food stamps help the person buy food without blowing away the money; if somebody has started working and needs encouragement, EITC steps in. If a family is going through a hard time and has dependent children, TANF steps in. […]

3. Basic income is an exercise in the typical mind fallacy.

There’s a blog post (not mine) on this point which is currently offline and wasn’t archived anywhere, as far as I know. Below are several quotes from it. I’m not sure if I can publish the whole post, so message me if you want to see it.

This rigorous yet free life of the mind sounds extremely appealing to the intellectual 1%, and living in this utopia would be reason enough to favor the basic income guarantee, even leaving out all the selfless stuff about fixing the culture of poverty.


Even after the death of the old aristocracy, there was a pretty guaranteed way to live a low-key life of the mind; you could join academia.  Now academia today is a rat race like any other prestigious career track, and if you want to make it you have to apply your nose firmly to the grindstone and not spend too much time fooling around. But it’s really only quite recently that academia was so difficult and Darwinian to try to break into.  James Watson, as recently as the 1950s, was a mediocre college student until he read What is Life, got excited, and decided to go to grad school in Indiana to work on it.  Today he wouldn’t stand a chance against students who had spent undergrad getting good grades, working with the right mentors, and generally jumping through the right hoops.

I think the basic income folks are fundamentally reacting to this shift, this closing of the last sanctuary of aristocratic intellectual freedom.  The reason they have a low-resolution view of the poor[3] but portray an incredibly compelling portrait of what an aristocratic intellectual life could look like is exactly because that is the main driving force, a semiconscious cry of pain at the possibilities that were lost as the last academies closed their gates.  And whatever one may think of the policy proposal itself, I think this pain is perfectly real, not only for individuals but for a society’s intellectual health, and whatever else they do, the proponents have done a great service by articulating it.


[3] Of course it has to be pitched as reforming charity, because “creating a new lifestyle for the intellectual elites” would poll terribly.  This despite the fact that the basic income is a much better tool for the latter than the former.

Anki Intro / Tips / Strategies

I find myself recommending Anki quite often. It’s an app that helps you remember anything you want (words, formulas, maps, poems, etc). If you aren’t using it, you should. Actually remembering things is like a minor superpower! Unfortunately, Anki has a rather steep learning curve, which means that simply recommending is not enough – some introduction is necessary.

First, go to this page and read Introduction section up until The Basics section. It should have gotten super you excited to actually try the app out :) So navigate to, download the program, and install it on your computer.

Then, watch this video, which is a very nice demonstration of the learning process itself. Just like on the video, instead of creating our own deck, I would recommend to start with a shared deck, for example, “Countries of the World”.

After you have studied for a bit, click Decks (to leave the studying mode) –> Browse. You’re gonna get overwhelmed by the window that has just opened, so simply click random things, derp around, maybe try to understand something. When you’re satisfied, go back to Anki’s site and read the instructions until you get too bored, which would probably be enough. The only thing to remember is that this page exists and whenever you’re confused about something, go read it.

Now, you’re capable of creating your own decks and notes. However, there’s a whole lot of implicit knowledge involved with using Anki, which is why if you google “anki tips”, you’ll see a lot of differet articles. I tried to assemble the best tips that I know and my strategies below.

Continue reading...

A Comment on Dalio

Alternatively titled, “Why you don’t want to reason about economics, without having actually studied economics”.

This is an explanation of faulty reasoning in “How The Economic Machine Works by Ray Dalio” video, attempted to be clear for people with no ready economic intuition.

The specific claim I have a problem with is “When interest rates are high, there’s less borrowing because it’s expensive” (time: 4:15).

This statement is important not mainly because it’s wrong, but because it’s a perfect example of something that sounds entirely uncontroversial, common-sense, and does not raise any red flags, unless you’re deliberately looking for them.

Continue reading...

Hierarchies of Status

Imagine a world where everybody plays a single videogame with a global ranking of players. Exactly one half of all people are above average and one half are below.

Now imagine a world where all the people play two games simultaneously. Assuming their skills at each game are independent, the situation is quite different:

Continue reading...

Playing With Identity

Abstract: In this post I generalize the “go work to Starbucks because can’t concentrate at home” thing.

Bullshit test

Before reading any further, you can test whether whatever I want to say in this post is total bullshit or not by doing this:

Continue reading...

Thought Patterns: Marginal

Problem: you have a certain action you want to be doing but when the moment comes you forget about it or the trigger just never fully comes to your attention.

Example: Instead of postponing small tasks (e.g. taking out the trash) I want to do them immediately, but when they actually come, I forget about this intention and continue with whatever I was doing before i.e. telling myself I’ll do them later.

How to solve? Make these if-else action plans to always be somewhere at the back of the mind, preferably not far from the working memory, always on the edge of awareness.

Solution: Anki deck with the maximum card interval of 1 day and long initial learning curve.

(Assumption I have to make here is that you use Anki at least somewhat daily (I do it while commuting))

Continue reading...

Can We Trust Peter Turchin?

Edit: Peter Turchin wrote a response to this on his blog. My response is at the end of this post.

This is a short-ish critique of his book Ultrasociety. I’ll only cover its one paragraph, which, I hope to show you, is absolutely enough. The paragraph was taken from the 4th chapter titled “Cooperate to Compete”. Here’s what Turchin writes:

Frederick Wiseman and Sangit Chatterjee sorted the Major League Baseball teams into four payroll classes, ranging from those with the biggest disparities to those with the smallest. Between 1992 and 2001, teams in the most equal class won an average of eight more games per season than those in the most unequal class.

Here’s what the paper he refers to says:

Continue reading...

Cargo-Cult Productivity

Abstract: Productivity hacking based on naive introspection will almost certainly fail due to the inability to isolate particular productivity-affecting variables and rife reverse causation. This sounds obvious but it isn’t.

In a conversation with Malcolm several weeks ago, upon hearing about my perceived total lack of control over the productive mood, he suggested to look for the mental processes accompanying occasional bouts of this mood and try to understand what stands behind them. I was quite dumbfounded by the fact that this thought didn’t strike me before, given my apparent commitment to self-development and ruthless introspection.

Well, in retrospect I shouldn’t have been dumbfounded. In fact, after paying even more attention to my brain states since this talk, I realized that I’ve been acting on his suggestion for as long as I can remember, and from my apparent lack of progress it does not seem a particularly useful strategy.

Cargo-cult productivity is what I came to call it:

Continue reading...