5 ms·

Lack of social safety nets creates unhealthy bias toward preserving jobs that could be automated completely. UBI (universal basic income) actually gives everyon

by anoplus 10y ago

Lack of social safety nets creates unhealthy bias toward preserving jobs that could be automated completely. UBI (universal basic income) actually gives everyone motivation to further automate - the key to freedom. I expect to see more titles about automation and UBI, as I think it is highly crucial.

jMyles 10y ago
I had a thought while driving the other day that an interesting experiment might be to have a government whose only program is UBI.
- legulere 10y ago
  No police, courts, legal system? Where does the money come from when there are no taxes?
  - jMyles 10y ago
    Yeah, it's a hard thing to think through. (I shudder to suggest, but posit for theoretical consideration), a currency whose blockchain has UBI built-in?
    - hsod 10y ago
      not quite what you're talking about since it's centrally managed, but check out the Gresham Dollar: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11441696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11441696
    - godzillabrennus 10y ago
      A block chain where all participants get a minimal income of coinage simply by existing in the mix? That's an interesting idea but a far cry from a government that exists solely to issue currency without all the other important functions that make it a government.
    - slavik81 10y ago
      How do you ensure each person has exactly one identity on the block chain?
      - jMyles 10y ago
        Obviously this is a hugely tough question. Some kind of reputation / web of trust? I bet the Etherium / Counterparty guys have an idea.
      - johncolanduoni 10y ago
        Well since you're still positing a government (which to make this work would likely also need to have some manner of projecting will so that people are forced to use this monetary system instead of a competing one) the valid identities on the block chain could be handed out and verified by a central system (a la social security numbers).
        politician 10y ago
        Don't be naive; duplicate SSNs exist.
        johncolanduoni 10y ago
        I'm not being naive; I never said social security numbers compared in quality to signed cryptographic credentials. The point it is the same basic idea (hand out an officially accepted identity). Duplication isn't even the biggest disadvantage of the current system. I really wish we had an identity with real non-repudiation with our current government structure.
        lmm 10y ago
        Right, but at that point you need people who register births and a fair chunk of the infrastructure of a conventional government.
  - j-pb 10y ago
    You let the government simply print more of it. This replaced taxation with inflation, having the positive side effect that it pushes people to favour investment over capital hoarding, but incentivizes dept at the same time.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      I think you'll find that most people in favour of UBI are not in favour of incentivizing people to go into debt.
      - j-pb 10y ago
        Yeah, that should have been disincentivizing dept. Autocorrect screwed me over there and I just realised. The effect is actually as follows. It disincentivizes dept because there is no reason for lending (as interest is eaten up by inflation), and at the same time it's actually alleviating crippling dept because the relative worth of the dept (what you could actually buy with that money) diminishes with inflation.
  - te_chris 10y ago
    Capital/wealth taxes
    - eru 10y ago
      Tax land instead. Supply is fixed, so no economic deadweight loss. (But this is all orthogonal to the original question.)
- nefitty 10y ago
  That would be a conservative's dream government. The reason UBI is supported on both sides of the aisle is because it touches on the priorities of the left and right. As far as I can tell, some conservatives advocate for UBI and removing all other social safety nets. I don't think this is exactly what everyone has in mind when they consider the program.
  - jMyles 10y ago
    Yeah it's not hard to imagine it becoming a really dystopian scenario. It's more difficult, but not impossible, to imagine it being great.
    - eru 10y ago
      What's dystopian about it?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    That's the way to get bi/multi-partisan support. I support UBI iff we dismantle all (or almost all, like > 95%) of existing government give-money-away programs. I can't imagine that I'm remotely unique in this point of view. If you're asking for it to be meaningful in amount, universal, and additive atop the existing programs, I think you'll find very little support from the working people who will bear the costs.
    - eru 10y ago
      The best version has welfare and tax systems fuse. Why have two government bureaucracies assess your wealth / income, if one suffices? Right now, lots of poor people face extremely high effective marginal tax rates because they are in a region of income where benefits are phased out gradually. A fused UBI/tax system could be more rational here.
  - chillacy 10y ago

by anoplus 10y ago

jMyles 10y ago

I had a thought while driving the other day that an interesting experiment might be to have a government whose only program is UBI.

legulere 10y ago
No police, courts, legal system? Where does the money come from when there are no taxes?
- jMyles 10y ago
  Yeah, it's a hard thing to think through. (I shudder to suggest, but posit for theoretical consideration), a currency whose blockchain has UBI built-in?
  - hsod 10y ago
    not quite what you're talking about since it's centrally managed, but check out the Gresham Dollar: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11441696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11441696
  - godzillabrennus 10y ago
    A block chain where all participants get a minimal income of coinage simply by existing in the mix? That's an interesting idea but a far cry from a government that exists solely to issue currency without all the other important functions that make it a government.
  - slavik81 10y ago
    How do you ensure each person has exactly one identity on the block chain?
    - jMyles 10y ago
      Obviously this is a hugely tough question. Some kind of reputation / web of trust? I bet the Etherium / Counterparty guys have an idea.
    - johncolanduoni 10y ago
      Well since you're still positing a government (which to make this work would likely also need to have some manner of projecting will so that people are forced to use this monetary system instead of a competing one) the valid identities on the block chain could be handed out and verified by a central system (a la social security numbers).
      - politician 10y ago
        Don't be naive; duplicate SSNs exist.
        johncolanduoni 10y ago
        I'm not being naive; I never said social security numbers compared in quality to signed cryptographic credentials. The point it is the same basic idea (hand out an officially accepted identity). Duplication isn't even the biggest disadvantage of the current system. I really wish we had an identity with real non-repudiation with our current government structure.
      - lmm 10y ago
        Right, but at that point you need people who register births and a fair chunk of the infrastructure of a conventional government.
- j-pb 10y ago
  You let the government simply print more of it. This replaced taxation with inflation, having the positive side effect that it pushes people to favour investment over capital hoarding, but incentivizes dept at the same time.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    I think you'll find that most people in favour of UBI are not in favour of incentivizing people to go into debt.
    - j-pb 10y ago
      Yeah, that should have been disincentivizing dept. Autocorrect screwed me over there and I just realised. The effect is actually as follows. It disincentivizes dept because there is no reason for lending (as interest is eaten up by inflation), and at the same time it's actually alleviating crippling dept because the relative worth of the dept (what you could actually buy with that money) diminishes with inflation.
- te_chris 10y ago
  Capital/wealth taxes
  - eru 10y ago
    Tax land instead. Supply is fixed, so no economic deadweight loss. (But this is all orthogonal to the original question.)
nefitty 10y ago
That would be a conservative's dream government. The reason UBI is supported on both sides of the aisle is because it touches on the priorities of the left and right. As far as I can tell, some conservatives advocate for UBI and removing all other social safety nets. I don't think this is exactly what everyone has in mind when they consider the program.
- jMyles 10y ago
  Yeah it's not hard to imagine it becoming a really dystopian scenario. It's more difficult, but not impossible, to imagine it being great.
  - eru 10y ago
    What's dystopian about it?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sokoloff 10y ago
  That's the way to get bi/multi-partisan support. I support UBI iff we dismantle all (or almost all, like > 95%) of existing government give-money-away programs. I can't imagine that I'm remotely unique in this point of view. If you're asking for it to be meaningful in amount, universal, and additive atop the existing programs, I think you'll find very little support from the working people who will bear the costs.
  - eru 10y ago
    The best version has welfare and tax systems fuse. Why have two government bureaucracies assess your wealth / income, if one suffices? Right now, lots of poor people face extremely high effective marginal tax rates because they are in a region of income where benefits are phased out gradually. A fused UBI/tax system could be more rational here.
- chillacy 10y ago