Wiki Contributions


Seeing that this question is quite popular, but there's a lack of responses, I'll try to do some research myself and post answers in their own posts.

Hey, thanks for the insight.

The running in-line with a political party is a great point for anyone in America. The successes of third-party candidates are rare enough, that the rational first step to take is probably always joining one of the two parties.

The mapping of voting blocs seems like a really good idea, very actionable, and a great way to visualize who could be electing you. Putting their requirements, or encouragements out in a visual way, to weigh where the least action can cause the greatest gain.

I think that the situation I'm considering has an intensely powerful patronage network that it can relatively easily attach itself to. Other patronage networks will also be necessary.


Anecdotal evidence here, Germany (or at least one hospital in Germany) uses activated charcoal to combat alcohol poisoning.

Source: Youth/idiocy.

I guess my heuristic here would be looking to see if there are similar situations to the American situation in the world, and what they're doing differently. Europe has quite a few similarities (EMA to FDA), (440 million to 330 million), and so I'd look to Europe for comparisons. 

Anecdotally, buying a bundle of rapid tests in Europe was cheap and easy. They were available in every drugstore, and the ease/price of access was a huge advantage, which may be hard to overstate, especially if you're coming from a position of "high" access to the American rapid tests.

(No easy ability to research these numbers at this time, apologies.)
Quoting half-remembered articles without sources, Europe hasn't had higher numbers of super-spreader events. Europe hasn't had significantly higher case numbers over the whole pandemic. Hard to think of what other statistics would show "extra information outweighing misplaced confidence", but I feel that Europe has outperformed the US or been even with the US in the majority of those cases.

I agree with a lot of this post, and think it's well written, thanks for overlay of Delta and Omicron numbers, I hadn't thought too much about the lack of variant tracing in America and what that means for their reaction times. 

I do agree with the gist, (though I don't know your family, their precautions seem very reasonable) that depending on your situation, it's safe to meet for the holidays. I disagree with your assessment of it being an increasingly large risk of an increasingly small harm, though maybe we just have different lengths of time that we're looking at. I think that with the likelihood of an overwhelmed medical system climbing along with the chance of infection, I'd assess it as more of an increasingly large risk of an increasingly large harm. 

I don't have (and can't have) these numbers in front of me, but I can imagine a boosted Bob in January, at the theoretical peak of Omicron, having a higher chance of [serious outcomes] than a vaccinated Vicki in November, just because once hospitalized, the treatment will be much poorer around January. Would be interested in people's feelings/actual numbers on this.

Hey datscilly, thanks for your two comments. I could very well believe that the ACX-hosted Book Review and later research had tinged my thoughts on this. I still need to understand more of the Land Value Tax to see how something like that could be integrated into this idea.

I think the majority of BLM land could probably be bundled under a similar swath. Alternately, large chunks of land in Russia, Canada, Alaska, South America, etc. could maybe benefit from a similar program. Like I said above, the land has been classically unattractive, but remote work, global internet, a drive out of some cities, and whatever interest this program would generate could lead to the land being seen as much more attractive in the coming decades.

That's a great point, thank you for bringing the idea back down to earth.

Answer by Asgård10

For the BLM:


  • Takes land that currently creates little to no value for the US Government, and immediately monetizes it, despite the actual sale of the land maybe being years off.


  • If the value of the currency dips below the USD value of the amount of land that it's worth, then investors could buy it up and use it to get BLM land for cheaper than expected. This feels like it would be self-correcting.

In relation with other cryptocurrencies:


  • A branch of the US Government would accept this coin as legal tender, which is a level of recognition sought by many cryptocurrencies.
  • There is a minimum value set, which (afaik) no other coins have.


  • The government would have the ability to stop the sale of this coin at any time, which removes some of the decentralized aspect of it.
  • There's no clearly defined mining procedure, since the coins are created in correlation with land. So, I don't even know if this is considered a cryptocurrency?

Thanks for the comment, lechmazur, I referenced Alaska in my question, but disqualified it from UBI status on the basis of it not being an "income", e.g. not being significant enough to live on, and also to a lesser degree, not being paid monthly or weekly, but yearly.

I do agree with you though, that Alaska seems to be the US State most oriented towards a UBI, the dollar value of their PFD would just need to increase by an order of magnitude for it to qualify as a UBI, imo.

Load More