4 ms·

There are a lot of calls in these comments for basic income, or schemes like it. But that is just redistributing existing wealth, not creating new growth, which

by tomjen3 10y ago

There are a lot of calls in these comments for basic income, or schemes like it. But that is just redistributing existing wealth, not creating new growth, which is exactly the problem we have. You have to produce things before they can be consumed, and this is also the case with economics.

mindslight 10y ago
UBI is even worse than redistributing existing wealth. It is a simplistic plan to throw more fuel on the monthly-rent fire, ignoring that price feedback will eagerly consume it. I had been wondering why it had quickly gained mainstream popularity, but then I realized it is simply the latest way central banksters can conjure money to have it collected by their cronies. What we need is an end to this many-decades regressive policy of forcing inflation, so that a middle class is once again able to save and thereby gain economic security and bargaining power.
- imtringued 10y ago
  A lot of people move to the city because that's where the jobs are. If the job is no longer the primary motivation to choose their location then they would go into a low cost city and decrease the pressure on the housing market of the high cost city. Oh and inflation is already very low.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - mindslight 10y ago
    Yes, many people will move to rural areas where a lack of competition for land will keep housing prices down. So BI will be good general welfare program for those rural lower-paced areas. But if one wants much income beyond the BI, they'll still be lured cities for their economic opportunities. Housing competition will still exist there, and thus we'd expect housing prices to stay in line with what people can afford by rising. So the economic divide between the rural poor and urban rat racers will actually increase. I think much the interest in BI comes from urban rat racers frustrated with making rent, wishing for a relief from that pressure so they could take time off. But simplistically adding money to the situation will have the opposite effect of what they want, just as how college loans fucked up college tuition.
- morgante 10y ago
  In case you were unaware, inflation is incredibly low and has been so for quite some time. Thinking that handing out free money will automatically and immediately cause price inflation is naive. If that were true, why would we still have such low inflation after nearly a decade of expansionary monetary policy?
  - mindslight 10y ago
    The price index is rising slowly, but the inflation that's causing it is unprecedented (eg the absurdly low interest rates and talk of going negative). In a technological economy, we'd expect the price of goods and services to be continually decreasing, as price is the fundamental metric an economy optimizes for. Instead, the fed has insisted on rising prices so that everybody is kept working more, in spite of ever-growing technological progress. Predictably, the components of the CPI that are directly dependent on production decrease, while the sectors that have been financialized (housing, education, healthcare) shoot up as that is where conjured money is injected at the consumer level.
ap22213 10y ago
Historically, the wealthy do not create many things. When not funding wars (which do advance knowledge, btw) or accumulating capital, they use their disposable income to fund intellectual things (which can be science) and art and the crafting of luxury goods. But, they're generally not inventors. Why would they be? They already have the lush lifestyle. And, while it's fun to think about things, invention requires a lot of work and grit and getting dirty. But, worse - invention makes you look like a weirdo to your peers, who would prefer things stay in stasis. So, the inventors usually come from the middle classes. Historically, middle classes are formed when there are unexpected population booms (because usually, more population means more production). And, during these times, there's a short window of time when production exceeds consumption. And, when that happens, there's room for excess production to go toward invention. If it is all timed right, the invention period can produce excess growth which can create more invention, etc. But, naturally, Human systems fall back to wealth inequality, because that's a stable equilibrium. Now, it's going to be very unexpected if we have another population boom anytime soon since we're moving more toward population plateau. And, at 7.35 billion people, we'd need the world to quickly support a couple billion more. But, another big, apocalyptic war could happen or maybe disease, in which case there would be a subsequent imbalance in production and consumption. Otherwise, things will kind of reach the equilibrium point and stay there for a long time. Basic income is cool (in my mind), because it frees up large portions of the population to invent new stuff. There's currently a very short window of opportunity for basic income (or something similar), because most elite are (naturally) against it. But, another alternative, maybe, could be if all the billionaires of the world suddenly realize that they're all going to die soon and they collectively decide to continue on this earth for a lot longer (since many don't believe in God anyway). In that case, they could dump most of their capital in life-extending inventions, and that could keep things going for longer. (The cynic in me has always wondered if that's partly what billg is doing with all his humanitarian stuff - save a few billion people, get the smartest of them into becoming inventors, and as a side-effect get (virtual) immortality.)

by tomjen3 10y ago

mindslight 10y ago

UBI is even worse than redistributing existing wealth. It is a simplistic plan to throw more fuel on the monthly-rent fire, ignoring that price feedback will eagerly consume it. I had been wondering why it had quickly gained mainstream popularity, but then I realized it is simply the latest way central banksters can conjure money to have it collected by their cronies. What we need is an end to this many-decades regressive policy of forcing inflation, so that a middle class is once again able to save and thereby gain economic security and bargaining power.

imtringued 10y ago
A lot of people move to the city because that's where the jobs are. If the job is no longer the primary motivation to choose their location then they would go into a low cost city and decrease the pressure on the housing market of the high cost city. Oh and inflation is already very low.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mindslight 10y ago
  Yes, many people will move to rural areas where a lack of competition for land will keep housing prices down. So BI will be good general welfare program for those rural lower-paced areas. But if one wants much income beyond the BI, they'll still be lured cities for their economic opportunities. Housing competition will still exist there, and thus we'd expect housing prices to stay in line with what people can afford by rising. So the economic divide between the rural poor and urban rat racers will actually increase. I think much the interest in BI comes from urban rat racers frustrated with making rent, wishing for a relief from that pressure so they could take time off. But simplistically adding money to the situation will have the opposite effect of what they want, just as how college loans fucked up college tuition.
morgante 10y ago
In case you were unaware, inflation is incredibly low and has been so for quite some time. Thinking that handing out free money will automatically and immediately cause price inflation is naive. If that were true, why would we still have such low inflation after nearly a decade of expansionary monetary policy?
- mindslight 10y ago
  The price index is rising slowly, but the inflation that's causing it is unprecedented (eg the absurdly low interest rates and talk of going negative). In a technological economy, we'd expect the price of goods and services to be continually decreasing, as price is the fundamental metric an economy optimizes for. Instead, the fed has insisted on rising prices so that everybody is kept working more, in spite of ever-growing technological progress. Predictably, the components of the CPI that are directly dependent on production decrease, while the sectors that have been financialized (housing, education, healthcare) shoot up as that is where conjured money is injected at the consumer level.

ap22213 10y ago

Historically, the wealthy do not create many things. When not funding wars (which do advance knowledge, btw) or accumulating capital, they use their disposable income to fund intellectual things (which can be science) and art and the crafting of luxury goods. But, they're generally not inventors. Why would they be? They already have the lush lifestyle. And, while it's fun to think about things, invention requires a lot of work and grit and getting dirty. But, worse - invention makes you look like a weirdo to your peers, who would prefer things stay in stasis. So, the inventors usually come from the middle classes. Historically, middle classes are formed when there are unexpected population booms (because usually, more population means more production). And, during these times, there's a short window of time when production exceeds consumption. And, when that happens, there's room for excess production to go toward invention. If it is all timed right, the invention period can produce excess growth which can create more invention, etc. But, naturally, Human systems fall back to wealth inequality, because that's a stable equilibrium. Now, it's going to be very unexpected if we have another population boom anytime soon since we're moving more toward population plateau. And, at 7.35 billion people, we'd need the world to quickly support a couple billion more. But, another big, apocalyptic war could happen or maybe disease, in which case there would be a subsequent imbalance in production and consumption. Otherwise, things will kind of reach the equilibrium point and stay there for a long time. Basic income is cool (in my mind), because it frees up large portions of the population to invent new stuff. There's currently a very short window of opportunity for basic income (or something similar), because most elite are (naturally) against it. But, another alternative, maybe, could be if all the billionaires of the world suddenly realize that they're all going to die soon and they collectively decide to continue on this earth for a lot longer (since many don't believe in God anyway). In that case, they could dump most of their capital in life-extending inventions, and that could keep things going for longer. (The cynic in me has always wondered if that's partly what billg is doing with all his humanitarian stuff - save a few billion people, get the smartest of them into becoming inventors, and as a side-effect get (virtual) immortality.)