3 ms·
I feel like you are making the complete opposite argument from the linked article: "We should have a BI because it will reduce consumption by the rich and incre
by yummyfajitas 11y ago
I feel like you are making the complete opposite argument from the linked article: "We should have a BI because it will reduce consumption by the rich and increase savings by the poor, thereby increasing investment."
Is that a fair statement?
Also, given that you believe the rich and poor have equal propensity to spend, I assume you have no objection to Keynesian stimulus targeting the rich during times of recession?
- djrobstep 11y agoI see you've given up on responding to my points so you're making up strawmen you think you can knock down instead. I didn't claim that a BI will increase investment. I didn't claim that believe the rich and poor have equal propensity to spend. I said that if you want to increase investment (with or without a BI) there are plenty of ways to do that.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago...only shifted consumption from the rich to the poor... I didn't claim that believe the rich and poor have equal propensity to spend. The former implies the latter. I didn't claim that a BI will increase investment. ... if poor and middle class folks have a higher and more reliable income, they are more likely to save. Now you seem to be agreeing with me that the article is wrong, and that a BI would increase real consumption and reduce real investment? Could you state clearly what you think will happen to real (not nominal) consumption/investment under a BI and what the mechanism for that is?