• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    11 months ago

    If their art doesn’t make enough money then it’s clearly not in enough demand. It sucks but thats how things work. Only a small number of artists can ever coexist at the same time.

    • Magnergy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      If their art doesn’t make enough money then it’s clearly not in enough demand.

      Unless you burden the word ‘enough’ with far too much work in that sentence, then that implication doesn’t necessarily follow. It is possible for something to be in great demand by those without money to spend. Furthermore, it is possible for there to be issues with the logistics between the source and the demand (e.g. demand is very physically distributed, or temporally limited and/or sporadic).

      Money is a very particular way of empowering and aggregating only some demand. It ties the power of demand to history and not moral or egalitarian considerations for one.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I have absolutely no idea what that means.

        But to answer the actual question, I don’t disagree that universal basic income would be great I just don’t think that the above arguement is a particularly great one for it. There are many better arguments that could be made and I don’t appreciate the false dichotomy that OP is putting out that because it just makes the whole idea seem hippie and stupid.

        Also been aggressive with people who even marginally disagree with your opinion isn’t productive.