4 ms·

People complaining that UBI wouldn't help are missing an important point. In the US, and most of the world, we have a demand problem not a supply problem. The U

by boulos 10y ago

People complaining that UBI wouldn't help are missing an important point. In the US, and most of the world, we have a demand problem not a supply problem. The UBI "plan" then is to bump up the wealth of those that would essentially immediately consume it, which generates demand. It's not controversial to argue that an extra $1000 a year to a millionaire will just end up being reinvested, while most Americans (the bottom 50%+1) would easily spend it all sloshing it back into the economy.

WillPostForFood 10y ago
Then that's not going to result in much good. To grow the economy, you want investment, not people funneling a free $!000 to China for some cheap consumer goods.
- MarkPNeyer 10y ago
  > you want investment In what? A company that sells goods to consumers who can't buy it? Those aren't doing any good. There are mountains of cash right now, all seeking investment. They have trouble finding anything worth investing in. This is why we see massive valuations - with zero interest rates, a tiny revenue stream is worth a huge amount of cash.
TaylorAlexander 10y ago
I see that a UBI would help in the short term, by getting cash in to the hands of people who don't currently have cash. But it doesn't do anything to solve the systemic problems we have. Internet and telephony companies are still oligopolies that charge huge extractive sums of money for digital services, our food production system degrades the environment, and health care prices are out of control. Yes, we absolutely need to get more wealth into the hands of regular people, but setting a fixed income from on high doesn't do anything to change the power structures that led to so many people being disenfranchised in the first place. To me, there is a problem when power is concentrated in one place, and remote megacorporations flood the market with goods that won't last but are so cheap most people (irrationally) choose them. The end result is that those in power have no connection to consumers except as sources of money, and people and the environment get treated as disposable. I see the solution as something more like what the New Economics Movement has been talking about, which has a big focus on local businesses. What do you think of this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDw4dZLSDXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDw4dZLSDXg
twblalock 10y ago
UBI won't help because in reality, it will not look like what it's proponents think it will. It is naive to assume that the Congress will pass anything near as simple and elegant as the UBI proposals put forward by advocates. It won't replace many parts of our current welfare system, but will be an additional cost on top of them. It's also naive to expect that everyone will receive the same amount under UBI, which would make it neither universal nor basic. UBI proponents really ought to read this: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/what-are-some-of-the-biggest-problems-with-a-guaranteed-annual-income.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/wha... It's also a fact that under every realistic* version of UBI ever proposed, the poorest people in the US would receive less money from the government than they do now, while people who do not need money from the government would start to receive it. It is therefore a regressive policy. * by realistic, I mean "does not have an annual cost greater than the entire US government revenue."

by boulos 10y ago

WillPostForFood 10y ago

Then that's not going to result in much good. To grow the economy, you want investment, not people funneling a free $!000 to China for some cheap consumer goods.

MarkPNeyer 10y ago
> you want investment In what? A company that sells goods to consumers who can't buy it? Those aren't doing any good. There are mountains of cash right now, all seeking investment. They have trouble finding anything worth investing in. This is why we see massive valuations - with zero interest rates, a tiny revenue stream is worth a huge amount of cash.

TaylorAlexander 10y ago

I see that a UBI would help in the short term, by getting cash in to the hands of people who don't currently have cash. But it doesn't do anything to solve the systemic problems we have. Internet and telephony companies are still oligopolies that charge huge extractive sums of money for digital services, our food production system degrades the environment, and health care prices are out of control. Yes, we absolutely need to get more wealth into the hands of regular people, but setting a fixed income from on high doesn't do anything to change the power structures that led to so many people being disenfranchised in the first place. To me, there is a problem when power is concentrated in one place, and remote megacorporations flood the market with goods that won't last but are so cheap most people (irrationally) choose them. The end result is that those in power have no connection to consumers except as sources of money, and people and the environment get treated as disposable. I see the solution as something more like what the New Economics Movement has been talking about, which has a big focus on local businesses. What do you think of this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDw4dZLSDXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDw4dZLSDXg

twblalock 10y ago

UBI won't help because in reality, it will not look like what it's proponents think it will. It is naive to assume that the Congress will pass anything near as simple and elegant as the UBI proposals put forward by advocates. It won't replace many parts of our current welfare system, but will be an additional cost on top of them. It's also naive to expect that everyone will receive the same amount under UBI, which would make it neither universal nor basic. UBI proponents really ought to read this: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/what-are-some-of-the-biggest-problems-with-a-guaranteed-annual-income.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/wha... It's also a fact that under every realistic* version of UBI ever proposed, the poorest people in the US would receive less money from the government than they do now, while people who do not need money from the government would start to receive it. It is therefore a regressive policy. * by realistic, I mean "does not have an annual cost greater than the entire US government revenue."