5 ms·

>If you'd just let the banks fail, you could have spent the same money giving everybody The bailouts were asset swaps, repaid with a gain for the taxpayer [1].

>If you'd just let the banks fail, you could have spent the same money giving everybody The bailouts were asset swaps, repaid with a gain for the taxpayer [1]. They were not cash giveaways. Comparing this to simply giving cash to people is ludicrous. The most at risk was about 2T, with only 650B actually out at any time, which at your claim of 20K per person, only pays for 32 million people. You're off by an order of magnitude (completely ignoring that the bailouts were asset swaps, not giveaways). >Hate poverty? The U.S. has spent more than 5 Trillion on it over the last few decades. That's another 20K or so per man, woman, and child Over the course of decades. It's not 20K in a year. It's more like 1/40th ($500) of that a year. And the only places I can find a number this large includes Medicare/SS payouts. Are you going to remove these programs (especially Mecicare/Medicaid) with your conversion to a once in a lifetime check per person? > The national debt is closing in on 20T. Would you rather have a balanced budget and a check for 100K? That's nonsense. Adding massively more to spending via UBI is not going to balance the budget or reduce the debt, and I don't know what magic lets you take 20T of debt (the biggest holder being SS, and large amounts to the Fed and loans to US investors, such as retirement funds) and simply divide by 320M people to get 100K (actually, this is 62.5K) in a check. Nothing in this line of numerology makes any sense. These uses are nowhere near exchangeable. >(I understand the math is way fuzzy here. It's to make a point.) The math isn't fuzzy. It's simply wrong, from the starting values, to the calculations, to the conclusions. >The reason UBI has such broad appeal is that, well, people are able to do basic math. Unfortunately this basic math is not coupled to reality, ignores very important and well tested economic ideas backed by 100+ years of empirical data, and is ignores the downsides and costs involved. And so far, I fail to see many UBI proponents that are able to do basic math. A few can, but mostly they are full of numerology and ignoring the meaning of various amounts. I've yet to see a UBI that doesn't either require massive tax hikes to the point of possibly destroying the economy or leave those needing assistance now in much worse shape. >Slogans are great. Results are better. Intellectually honest claims checking is better, and it helps avoid chasing impossible or unlikely or destructive plans. [1] https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

DanielBMarkham 11y ago
You seem to be in search of an argument. I will not provide you with one. Yes, the math is plain wrong. No, it does not change the point. I am not writing an essay or presenting a white paper on UBI. Heck, I'm not even supporting UBI except in terms of "let's experiment" So that was a wonderful tear down of my math, which I expected, but it doesn't change my thesis any: whatever amount of money you would like to provide for good causes, a good case can be made to eliminate the middleman and provide that money directly to everybody -- no qualifying, no overhead, no gaming the system, no complex system of administration. I'm not in favor of massive tax hikes. I'm also not in favor of bandying around the slogan "UBI". As I said, until there's some real policy there, it looks attractive on the surface. I outlined the reasons why it looks attractive. That's about all we can say about it right now.
- ChrisLomont 11y ago
  >whatever amount of money you would like to provide for good causes, a good case can be made to eliminate the middleman and provide that money directly to everybody -- no qualifying, no overhead, no gaming the system, no complex system of administration. This is my main disagreement with UBI. Resources (money) is limited, and providing the same social help to all regardless of need necessarily hurts those most in need and helps those in the least of need. Your argument to make a simple system can be applied to many places it makes life worse - should we everything and all at the same rate? Experience shows that progressive taxes is probably a big benefit overall, and certainly tax incentives can and do have benefits. I think providing basic assistance, since resources are not enough to simply give everyone goods, should be targeted to minimize human suffering, and providing free cash to those that can work in lieu of providing it to those that honestly cannot is inhumane. You dislike the middleman, but again, middlemen are vastly beneficial in many cases, and likely are here too, to distribute limited resources in a way to do the most good. And the overall cost of the middlemen is small compared to the amount passed out. UBI would also require a decent amount of administration, so it's not completely without admin. >I outlined the reasons why it looks attractive Sure, free money untethered to reality is attractive. The problem is the attractiveness fades when one is tasked with explaining how the money is obtained.

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

You seem to be in search of an argument. I will not provide you with one. Yes, the math is plain wrong. No, it does not change the point. I am not writing an essay or presenting a white paper on UBI. Heck, I'm not even supporting UBI except in terms of "let's experiment" So that was a wonderful tear down of my math, which I expected, but it doesn't change my thesis any: whatever amount of money you would like to provide for good causes, a good case can be made to eliminate the middleman and provide that money directly to everybody -- no qualifying, no overhead, no gaming the system, no complex system of administration. I'm not in favor of massive tax hikes. I'm also not in favor of bandying around the slogan "UBI". As I said, until there's some real policy there, it looks attractive on the surface. I outlined the reasons why it looks attractive. That's about all we can say about it right now.

ChrisLomont 11y ago
>whatever amount of money you would like to provide for good causes, a good case can be made to eliminate the middleman and provide that money directly to everybody -- no qualifying, no overhead, no gaming the system, no complex system of administration. This is my main disagreement with UBI. Resources (money) is limited, and providing the same social help to all regardless of need necessarily hurts those most in need and helps those in the least of need. Your argument to make a simple system can be applied to many places it makes life worse - should we everything and all at the same rate? Experience shows that progressive taxes is probably a big benefit overall, and certainly tax incentives can and do have benefits. I think providing basic assistance, since resources are not enough to simply give everyone goods, should be targeted to minimize human suffering, and providing free cash to those that can work in lieu of providing it to those that honestly cannot is inhumane. You dislike the middleman, but again, middlemen are vastly beneficial in many cases, and likely are here too, to distribute limited resources in a way to do the most good. And the overall cost of the middlemen is small compared to the amount passed out. UBI would also require a decent amount of administration, so it's not completely without admin. >I outlined the reasons why it looks attractive Sure, free money untethered to reality is attractive. The problem is the attractiveness fades when one is tasked with explaining how the money is obtained.