Jack Dorsey Is Giving Andrew Yang $5 Million To Build the Case for Universal Basic Income (thehill.com) 271
Jack Dorsey, the chief executive of Twitter and mobile-payments firm Square, said today he is giving $5 million to Humanity Forward, a group launched by former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang to build the case for a universal basic income. A report adds: The donation is part of Dorsey's Start Small LLC, a $1 billion foundation he launched last month to support global COVID-19 relief efforts. "Not only will Jack's donation directly impact tens of thousands of people in need during the current economic downturn, it will help Humanity Forward and our movement continue to make a case for Universal Basic Income (UBI) in the United States," Yang said in a statement. "We know UBI for every American is possible, and this $5 million from Start Small is going to help demonstrate what is possible for families across the country."
I always thought Twitter was stupid.. (Score:3, Insightful)
DIAF, Miss Mash. (Score:5, Insightful)
You sicken me and should be deported, Ms. Mash.
Re:DIAF, Miss Mash. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We never had communism. In Russia they had Stalinism and in China Maoism, the political branding was just political branding, they were both monarchist style governments, with all the power at the top and setting up to passed along on a family succession. In reality they were monarchist police states, calling themselves communist as branding. China still calls itself communist, when it reality it is entirely Fascist, with alignment of government and corporations to be one in the same (just a change in direc
Re:DIAF, Miss Mash. (Score:5, Informative)
The anti-ubi movement is common sense.
It is difficult to argue against.
Sure, you can throw money into the ether and pretend Venezuela isn't turning towards piracy to feed it's leaders.
Sure, UBI can work, in imaginary land where unicorns and fairies live.
Re: (Score:2)
And that goes double for Kansas under Republican Governor Brownback [wikipedia.org]!
Re: Better stock up on fava beans (Score:2)
This guy gets it!
Damned rich dragons hoarding all the food!
Re: Venezuela isn't a fair comparison (Score:2)
There will never be a fair comparison because every time it fails it was the wrong way!
They of course did it wrong now give me more free stuff!
Re: (Score:3)
Could you add some explanation of where your question is coming from?
I can't tell whether (a) you somehow think the State doesn't already rely on armed enforcement, (b) you're sarcastically suggesting UBI is doomed to fail because it'd require violence to overcome the entrenched interests exploiting the inefficiencies of the existing welfare system, (c) you think that any welfare system more complicated than having the local sawbones check the company flophouses for fleas is still too big-government for you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Find me a place in a functional society where calling someone from India a "retarded chimpanzee" is acceptable? If you know of such a place, let me know, because I'd prefer to stay as far away as possible.
But, that's the beauty of free speech, they are technically allowed to say it, by the letter of the law. But I'm perfectly fine with Slashdot at least requiring an e-mail address, a throwaway or not, for someone to post shit like that. At least having to type it in there's always that slight pang of "w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I always thought Twitter was stupid.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I always thought Twitter was stupid.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Guilty by association; if Dorsey the human is willing to spend that much of his own money on a stupid idea, then it goes a long way towards explaining why Twitter is so stupid.
Guilt by association is a terrible idea used by people too lazy to even try to come up with a better reason. Twitter is stupid for it's own, entirely separate reasons.
Also: if you buy someone a gun that they end up using to murder someone, you're an accessory to murder.
Outside of some very specific circumstances or intent for them to use the gun for murder, a person wouldn't be considered an accessory.
He's buying Andrew Yang a gun (or at least bullets) with which he's going to try to kill the U.S. economy.
I'm not even sure the analogy you were going for worked to begin with, now it's just ridiculous. If all it took to kill the U.S. economy were $5 million that someone was going to give away as part of an experiment then the economy would have been crushed long ago. Someone tell Al-Qaeda that they shouldn't have bothered crashing planes into buildings to try to topple the U.S. They just needed to give away $5 million instead. Better not Russia, China, or anyone else that might want to take us down a peg or two cause we're fucked if they ever find out.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's a murder investigation and they find out you bought the murderer ammunition for his murder weapon, you likely get indicted too.
The rest of your objections are just your opinions in opposition to my opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation? I've never heard of that happening except in places where it was already a crime to own a weapon....
Re: (Score:2)
Then Americans could decide for themselves what to spend their extra $1,000 on, and some good might come from all his money.
Re: (Score:2)
Soooo, how do _you_ propose to get money to people when the "jobs" mechanism is failing?
Because if enough people do not have money to spend, first the economy crashes and then society disintegrates. That is probably not something you want, I take it?
Re: (Score:2)
I can actually map the UBI to a kind of insurance policy that would fit in as part of a coherent response to Covid-19. As long as the UBI functioned to keep the essential parts of the economy functioning, then that would be a good thing. If you let people starve to death then they tend to stay out of the economy, even after times get better.
Consider some of the reactions we had in Australia:
1) $$$ to business to pay people laid off work due to COVID (
2) increased $$$ to those already unemployed
3) free childcare to those still working (prioritised to those not WFH)
4) evictions of renting tenants not allowed for 6 months (which lead to some tenants refusing to pay rent)
5) loan payment holidays for 6 months on your house / business loans (capitalised onto your loan)
Now, how many of those would have been required if we had a UBI? 1 - yes,
Not the time (Score:5, Insightful)
Pandemic relief aside, I don't see how we talk about UBI while health care is still such a mess. Having a true universal system (Not necessarily M4A) like the rest of the first world would do a lot more for the average American and the economy than a $1000 or so a month. It's good that UBI is being brought more into the public eye more but there's a reason health care is a top election concern for the last 30 years and we are still trying to figure it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pandemic relief aside, I don't see how we talk about UBI while health care is still such a mess.
Maybe because almost everyone talking about UBI already has healthcare, so it's a lower priority.
Re:Not the time (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet many of the other countries with free health care are doing significantly better than the US in dealing with the pandemic. If you don't trust your government to manage things like healthcare and people would rather pay over $1000 a month for private insurance while still having to pay deductibles and other medical fees when they actually try to use that insurance, then I would say your government in general is completely inept and you should all be having a revolution. Seriously, if you've gotten to the point where you don't trust your government to do anything important for you, then why even have the government at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And the free health care paradises like New Zealand and South Korea which have a handful of deaths compared to just New York City, much less the entire United States? It's because they took the pandemic seriously and early. Not complicated.
Re: (Score:3)
Never-mind the fact that the government already has a HUGE say in our healthcare currently. Safety regulations, CDC/FDA standard, NIH research and standard, medical licensing, OSHA, malpractice laws and that's not even mentioning the VA/Medicare/Medicaid. It has it's hands in everything. Are there some bad laws and bad efficiency, of course there is, but the "free market" and peoples health are not really compatible so it's an area the government has to have some influence and control.
Re: (Score:2)
" would say your government in general is completely inept and you should all be having a revolution. Seriously, if you've gotten to the point where you don't trust your government to do anything important for you, then why even have the government at all?"
Nail, head, hit.
Our government works for corporations. It does a good job of that. It's not incompetent, it's just not working for us.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want the US federal govt having a say one way or another in my health care.
I'd rather the government, who would be required and guaranteed to pay, had a say than my insurance, who can be relied upon to deny payments, deny coverage, and make it as hard as possible to get what I need. And with the government paying you know the price going in and that price is the same for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So far in this pandemic (and any other health needs in past), they are woefully inept and too full of red tape to get anything properly done.
What we've seen is actually a fairly fundamental problem with the way the federal government is structured. Too many of the decisions end up getting made by political hires instead of people who know how the organization works, so when you get a grossly incompetent POTUS, everything comes apart at the seams.
But it should be noted that Medicare has been mostly insulated from that because of its distance from the top of the org chart. :-)
Either way, though, you're right. Government shouldn't be running what
Just to point out something (Score:2)
I'm sure people will always find issues with UBI and depending on the degree of UBI we're talking about, I could agree with some of them. However, any discussion of UBI in the US should also include talking about APFC and what that has and has not done for Alaska. Because if there was something similar to UBI in America, the APFC is just that thing.
There's people that want to be outright dismissive, but there we are at a point that this topic ain't dying out anytime soon. At some point actual debate abou
Re: (Score:2)
Not relevant, what the Alaska Permanent Fund is pay $2072 at the most for a YEAR, that's $225 per month. It can't pay 10 times that year, ever, which would be range of UBI
Re: (Score:2)
which would be range of UBI
You're picking a particular definition of UBI. UBI can range from supplemental to full coverage. And that is not just me, there's plenty of policy makers that have pointed at APFC. So, I don't know what you're arguing. Other than apparently supplemental UBI appears to be something that didn't cross your mind.
Re: (Score:2)
What debate, the people who would have to pay for such a thing can't afford it and don't want it. Debate over. Get a job.
Re: (Score:2)
Money isn't something real, it's a social agreement. There's not a limited amount of money, only of value or wealth.
A UBI is more like a law to change taxes than a question of "Who could pay for it?". This doesn't make it either a good or a bad idea, but it makes that objection silly.
Just call this what it is, it's charity. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's insurance in lieu of all of the other taxes we get slammed with to fund our dozen or so social benefit networks.
Oh boy... (Score:2)
...can't wait to see what the Medium.com of UBI looks like.
Fuck Jack.
Always a great idea (Score:5, Insightful)
When the 0.001% tell the 49% paying taxes how they should be paying for the other 50% that are wards of the state.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo? I thought we were playing battleship?!
Is anyone studying how to pay for it? (Score:5, Insightful)
All these trials, as flawed as they are because they are limited in time and population, focus purely on the benefits. I think everyone will agree that a utopian society where nobody has to work to live at some commonly agreed upon standard of living would be great - yes it would enable arts, creativity, spawn new businesses, etc. I don't think any of that is in doubt here. The problem is what nobody is studying, how to pay for it, and what this commonly agreed upon standard of living is (and therefore how much it would cost).
It's about time (Score:2)
I'm entertained by the envy and hatred spilling out of people over this, but UBI is the barn we need to drag worthless businesses behind and to give them the headshot they need. Because businesses, which cannot create a product or a service that's worth paying good money for need to die.
No small town needs hundreds of restaurants with waitresses on zero-hour-contracts who rely on tips for their income just because some loser had a dream of opening yet another burger joint and thinks he knows how to cook, bu
Re: (Score:2)
>some loser had a dream of opening yet another burger joint and thinks he knows how to cook
At least that "loser" tried something to better his lot in life instead of sitting around waiting for government to take care of him. He didn't force anyone to sacrifice anything for his dream unlike the "winners" doing nothing but waiting and begging for UBI.
You sound like a very nasty authoritarian being upset by other people deciding what to do with their own lives. Here is a protip. Mind your own business.
Re: (Score:2)
At least that "loser" tried something to better his lot in life ...
No. Just because you open a shop doesn't mean you've bettered your life. That's exactly the illusion those loser fall for every time. Many businesses close in their first year. And businesses that declare bankruptcy don't even need to pay all their debts. Compare this to getting money from your government. At least the people who know they cannot run a business and register for unemployment leave it up to the government to decide. But businesses that fail to pay their debts end up dragging other businesses
Re: (Score:2)
>doesn't mean you've bettered your life.
No shit. It means you are "trying" to better your lot in life. That's a hell of a lot more than UBI "winners" begging for government money.
>businesses close in their first year.
Because it's hard. If it was easy everyone would do it.
>declare bankruptcy
UBI won't solve your problems with bankruptcy.
>Compare this to getting money from your government.
Pay more taxes while pretending I get something back. Sounds retarded. Just tax less and I'll decide how to use
Re: (Score:2)
>doesn't mean you've bettered your life.
No shit. It means you are "trying" to better your lot in life. ...
This may be something your mum told you to get you of your lazy arse, but in business "having tried" is no good to anyone. Nobody gives a shit in business if you've tried. You need to succeed or you're gone. Do you think you'll get a medal for trying?!
Running a business doesn't have to be hard, but for those who need a pat on their back at every turn may it be the hardest thing they've ever tried. I assume this would be you.
Re: (Score:2)
and no one gives a single fuck that you sit on ass begging for other peoples money. There is a difference between trying and failing and communist dipshit college stoner bro's whining about other peoples successes or failures.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't act so stupid. We have plenty of regulations that sort out businesses already. Take hygiene regulations for instance... We actually have to send inspectors to make sure it's clean or otherwise would some businesses not even clean up if it was up to them.
So suck it up, eat cockroaches or stay miserable. Not that I care. Though chances are your favourite shops do know how to run successfully and they won't have to worry about UBI and will gain from it and so will you. And you already choose which busine
Great, thanks. (Score:2)
This is like somebody at the office saying they're ordering pizza and somebody trying to buy in with a quarter.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Not in the least.
This is like charging the $8/hr workers nothing, the $10/hr workers $0.20, the $12/hr workers $0.40, the $14/hr workers $0.60...the $24/hr workers $2.00.....the $40/hr workers $4.00, then pooling all that money and buying everyone a slice of pizza for lunch.
Most of the people making middle-class wages get either a little bit more pizza than they paid for or a little less, the people making poverty wages get heavily discounted pizza, and the upper class folks pay for expensive pizza.
Th
Not an objective test of UBI (Score:2)
This new test of UBI is inherently flawed because it is being conducted by advocates, not objective researchers.
Re: (Score:2)
Automobile manufacturers are advocates for their products, but they test their designs.
The NTSB, a government agency, conducts safety tests on automobiles.
Priorities (Score:3)
Wow! (Score:2)
I didn't know UBI was 5 million per year! Sign me up!
Re: Fuck you (Score:3, Funny)
You can't really blame msmash. The writing is on the wall for Slashdot's future and she's unemployable in the real world at least at the value she believes.
Learn to wash dishes is my advice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fuck you (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who believe the top 1% should have their money confiscated shut up real quick when you point out that $30k earnings puts them in the 1% globally and their money needs to confiscated for redistribution too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey there comrade citizen, I see you have two cars! We don't think you need two cars when someone else can't afford one, so we're going to confiscate one of yours and give it to someone else!
Basically, you're right: the average American citizen has more than they need to just survive and if you try to take their 'extra' stuff they'll fight tooth-and-nail, too.
But if it's one of The Rich, they somehow think those people wouldn't fight as hard to keep their money and their stuff, if you try to take it by force? LOL.
I imagine, in a dystopian UBI near-future, that some of The Rich would rather hire a mercenary army to protect them, their stu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I have no idea what happened here, other than for the last couple days I've been dealing with an allergic reaction to an antibiotic, it's making me feel fatigued, and just now reading back through things I realized that I screwed up; I'm sorry. I must have somehow gotten someone elses' comment mixed up with yours; my mistake, I take it all back, and although it won't make up for it, thanks for trying to help earlier, as you said.
Again, my apologies, my mistake, you didn't d
Re: (Score:3)
It's all good my man, all good. I appreciate, and accept, the apology.
I also appreciate the sentiment towards the trolls. I haven't gotten too many mods I didn't deserve, but it's hard to not take it personal when you do.
Have a good night, and thank you for taking the time to reply.
Re: (Score:2)
"The rich" that most sane people tend to target aren't the people that make $100,000 a year.
Many social programs are sold to the public by saying "the rich" will pay for them. But it doesn't work that way.
Obama said the ACA would "benefit 98% of all Americans and 99% of all plumbers".
When it was actually passed, it benefited the bottom 40% and everyone else paid in more than they received. There is nothing wrong with that. If we are going to have health insurance for everyone, of course the middle class will have to pay for it. But that is not how it was sold.
Re: (Score:2)
...of course the middle class will have to pay for it. But that is not how it was sold.
For sure, the middle class is going to be share a bunch of the burden, but that's simply a function of there being WAY more of us than there are of the ultra-wealthy. When the gov't comes to collect, the chunk of fat they are going to take from me is going to be far smaller than the chunk they could/should get from someone making a lot more money. Holding to his analogy, if the gov't came to me looking for an extra $30,000 they are going to be sorely out of luck. For someone making $1M+/year, $30k is wha
Re: (Score:3)
I wasn't allied with any political party at the time, and I'm Democrat now, but then and now I'm not for the ACA, I resent having to be required to pay for something that I rarel
Re: (Score:2)
You can go the French Revolution route if you want, and you may even succeed -- for the time being. But it always ends up back the way it was before.
'Meet the new boss, just the same as the old boss' (Beatles).
Sadly, I think even if we had energy sources so ubiquitos and cheap that everyone has all the power they need for free, matter replicators so no one ever goes hungry or want
Re: (Score:2)
The typical American isn't making THAT much more than the global average...
Median household income in the US: $63,179/year
Average household size in the US: 2.52
Per capita income of median American: $25,071/year (47.5% above world average)
World per capita GDP: $17,000/year
Household income of average American household at World per capita GDP rate: $42,840/year
Saying that someone's $30k/year earnings puts them in the global 1% is complete garbage.
Re:Fuck you (Score:4, Insightful)
Yang getting 1% (really 0.39% or less) of the primary vote is a terrible way to measure support for UBI. He dropped out before anyone could vote for him, only running in the Iowa caucus and not getting any delegates there. More importantly, support for him as a candidate has almost nothing to do with support for UBI, even though it is his signature policy. Plenty of people who would support a UBI voted for the other candidates instead.
In contrast, when you actually ask people if they would support a UBI, then it's pretty close to 50-50, though it'd lose in a popular vote in the US at the moment. Here's the numbers: https://news.gallup.com/poll/2... [gallup.com]
While perhaps Slashdot does perhaps obsess over this issue (much like cryptocurrency a few years ago), it's not like this is some niche idea with almost no support.
Re: (Score:2)
In contrast, when you actually ask people if they would support a UBI, then it's pretty close to 50-50
Sure, but the Average Person wouldn't be thinking 'X' moves ahead when you ask them, all they hear is FREE GOVERNMENT MONEY and not what it'd do in the long term to the country as a whole. You start explaining that to them and they'd get a look of horror on their faces and shake their heads adamantly no no no!
Re: (Score:2)
.."small scale tests", which we all know by now prove absolutely nothing since the concept doesn't scale very well...
More exactly, the experimental designs of all tests to assess UBI have only ever measured the social benefits of receiving UBI without accounting for the social costs of providing UBI-- that those compelled to pay for it are made worse off.
Once you think about it, you realize this is absolutely idiotic. We tax Peter $1000.00 a month. We give Paul $1,000.00 a month. Then we measure if Paul is better off and completely ignore the impact on Peter. If Paul is better off then we declare UBI to have net socia
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty dumb strawman.
What you're saying is that paying insurance makes us worse off. Because that's what UBI is, just in a slightly harder to recognize form.
Re: (Score:2)
A real test would be to get a family that live off several social programs, then cut em out out and just give em the money.
That's the argument of the UBI, "cut all social programs, just give money".
Re: (Score:2)
Just keep ignoring the reality....
Spouts off the asshole who's ignoring everything we've learned about UBI so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Trouble is...if they'd give UBI $1K to everyone...if you have even close to a 'real job' with a real salary, it will be immediately eaten up by taxes and you'll not really see any benefit to it.
In fact in the not so long run, you might actually lose money on the whole deal knowing what they'll have to raise taxes to so support such a program.
And if they try to add on
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but the whole point of UBI is that it's supposed to be the only help you get from the government. No more food stamps, no more WIC, no more unemployment insurance, no more government pension. Many such as those who are permanently unable to work for whatever reason would actually be worse off as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't eliminate pensions. It would eliminate those other things, though.
Localities wanting people to flip burgers or whatever might choose to chip in some rental assistance, too. But that wouldn't be federal.
Re: (Score:2)
you mean steal it from the a) the people that earned it by taxing their pension out of existence b) the people who actually need it who are government assistance c) raising taxes to hell and back on people who bother to work.
I'm in the C category and I already have another country I'll evacuate to and retire there. I'm not giving up my savings for a bunch of losers. Go migrate to one of the socialist hell holes.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound so nice. I bet your grandma is proud.
Re: (Score:2)
If you do the math on how much a UBI would realistically cost, it ranges anywhere from less than our current programs (if pretty much the whole current welfare state is dismantled) to moderately more (if programs that the UBI would realistically replace like SS and TANF/Food Stamps are dismantled but free medical care for people not making much beyond the UBI are also included). The benefits to society may well be worth the extra cost that we have to pay in taxes.
You have to dismantle at least some of the e
Re: (Score:2)
So explain to my why the extensions to unemployment are already out of money and we have only hit 13% unemployment?
Surely the government can fund 100% unemployment so we can all dance around in the sugar plum fair land!
Re: (Score:2)
We've hit over 20% unemployment, with each week still bringing record high numbers of new unemployed, even if it has cooled down since the first few insane weeks.
It's always harder to fund a response to a sudden crisis spike rather than something slow and planned. Government tax collection is already set in place, so if they don't have enough in the general fund to spend on some big new expense, they would have to increase taxes for next year and adjust people's withholding to bring in some more money now,
Re: (Score:2)
Just as an example, let's implement the strawman version of a UBI program where we don't cut any other programs.
Yearly program cost: $3.936 trillion (328 million Americans * $1000 * 12 months)
US GDP: $22.321 trillion
Tax needed to cover program as a % of GDP: 17.63%
There's lots of possible ways to tax 17.63% of the GDP, but to be especially ungenerous lets do a flat tax! (which is not too unrealistic as it's similar to a payroll tax)
I assume that the UBI income itself is not taxed, but all other income is. I
Re: Fuck you (Score:2)
So you basically say the whole plan is to take money of the rich and hand them out to the rest?
This will give a strong motivation for the rich to move away and then the ingenious plan collapses. Also ignoring the fact that many of the lower class people will lose an incentive to work at all, further accelerating the failure.
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't factoring in globalization. The wealthy have already maximized their reasonable capital flight options. Outside of emigrating and renouncing their US citizenships en-masse, what are they going to do?
Plus, where are they going to move to? The EU? Other US allies? China? Russia? The third world? None of these are particularly good options, so it'd require extremely burdensome taxation to get them to actually flee.
Also, crucially, we aren't going to be taxing the wealthy at a burdensomely high rate.
Re: Fuck you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, everything you wrote is either dumb or a flat-out lie.
People will popping out babies like crazy, they do it now, for less.
Yeah, that's one of those flat-out lies.
First, nobody is proposing to give full UBI to kids under 18. The most I've ever seen proposed is $500/kid, maximum 3. Lots propose only to give UBI to adults.
$1000/month is plenty to live on, if you either live with other people or live somewhere where the cost of living isn't stupidly high. UBI isn't supposed to fund a middle-class lifestyle. It's supposed to keep people from dying in the streets. It's a re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well done not even reading my post.
Do you always argue with yourself, or do you only do it when talking about UBI?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a few things.
1. You mentioned it rep
Re: (Score:2)
It does sound like you would be somewhat negatively impacted by a UBI, though if you have a relatively big family it might still be a net benefit, remember that they would all make $1k/month along with you. Even if you just have a wife, you'd be making $2k/mo which would almost replace the SS money (with less administrative overhead). That said, what you said implies that you have a relatively big income, I'd assume in the $150k-250k range, in which case it would probably cost you more money than you get fr
Re: (Score:2)
True. And I think that's the first point of view anybody who is skeptical will and probably should take. And I think people need to be skeptical.
It's also important that people have a serious talk about what the program is supposed to accomplish. People do seem to interpret "everybody gets $1000/month" as in everybody is getting an extra $1000/month. In truth that really just reduces program costs on several levels. It does a few other things.
If everybody gets it, the red tape required to manage who qu
Re: (Score:2)
A big issue is that only direct costs are used, and we can't easily model the indirect changes that may make UBI not as costly as it looks. For instanc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This, UBS > UBI. Universal Basic Telecoms would be another good one to try early, especially now.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always thought that in addition to public water fountains, there should be public "food fountains" where you can get basic, flavorless subsistence calories, in the right macronutrient balance, on any street corner.
Re: (Score:2)
So it was made by McDonald's?