4 ms·
UBI probably, but funding it with newly printed money. Another way to think of what I'm saying is this: there are billions of people out there in the world who
by baron816 10y ago
UBI probably, but funding it with newly printed money.
Another way to think of what I'm saying is this: there are billions of people out there in the world who want more stuff. There are lot of companies and workers who want sell those people more stuff. And there are enough resources out there to make all that stuff for them (energy for a long time was the big limiter). Obviously, there is an economic disconnect that is limiting people from getting the goods that they want and need. What's really happening is that poor people just don't have anything to trade with. The solution is to give them something to trade with.
We don't have to do a UBI. I think we would be fine if central banks did something like give the bottom 20% of income earners a one time payment of ~$20k.
- jganetsk 10y agoThis is called helicopter money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_money It sucks because it is irreversible. This is unnecessary. Just have the government finance UBI. After all, people like Larry Summers, with his "secular stagnation" theory, are calling for a shift from monetary policy to fiscal policy. And I think UBI, as you say, would be a very effective fiscal policy tool.
- DamnYuppie 10y agoI am not attacking your idea but am curious to know how is this not inflation for everyone else?
- ryandrake 10y agoUBI goes to everyone and affects everyone. Who's the "everyone else"?
- bryondowd 10y agoIn other words, people who already have money would see that money devalued, perhaps very significantly and in excess of the new money they receive. I'm not terribly averse to the concept, but it would seem to be a redistribution of value that would significantly impact the wealthy. Which makes it tough to actually pull off, because they have a lot of resources to fight such a thing.
- jomamaxx 10y ago"And there are enough resources out there to make all that stuff for them " Yes, there is. Advanced economies are mostly service based. Countries are poor because of lack of social organization. Many poor countries have tons of resources (Africa). Many rich countries (UK, Japan, Germany, Singapore) etc. - have none.
- arethuza 10y agoThe UK had huge coal reserves and decent sized oil reserves - the former powered the Industrial Revolution and the latter kept the lights on during the 1980s.
- jomamaxx 10y agoCoal definitely was important for the industrialized revolution, but UK oil is not a hugely important ingredient today. They would be rich without it.