5 ms·

Because no money is being created, it's being reallocated from other people, so it doesn't directly affect the money supply. The recipients are more likely to

Because no money is being created, it's being reallocated from other people, so it doesn't directly affect the money supply. The recipients are more likely to spend it, which creates some demand (and thus inflation), but it should still be less than the increase in spending power it provides them.

neilwilson 10y ago
"Because no money is being created, it's being reallocated from other people, so it doesn't directly affect the money supply." And unfortunately that is bunkum. Money isn't stuff. If you take what is currently savings and put it into flow then you will get an increase in production - that is then effectively taken away and given to people who haven't earned it. The result is, over time, an increase in political pressure to get rid of the hand out from those doing all the work and getting nothing for it in return. And that's how an income guarantee scheme ends. Just like every other 'experiment' in history. People want the ability to exchange their labour for goods and services, not be the recipients of handouts and resented for it by those doing the work.
- shiftpgdn 10y ago
  I'm curious, what do you think should happen to someone who becomes unemployed and then runs through all of their savings? Should they live on the street until they find another job?
- mljoe 10y ago
  Governments have found one neat trick to hide what are exactly handouts from scrutiny like that. They call them "tax credits". A "tax credit" is literally just a handout, a $1000 tax credit means you get a $1000 check. You don't even have to pay any taxes to get a tax credit. It's a pure handout. But the phase "tax credit" implies that it is somehow connected to taxes that you've paid some time in the past, so in people's minds it's not a handout anymore. Even hardcore conservatives can get behind "tax credits"! All you go to do is call the handout a tax credit and give it to almost everyone, and you implemented UBI. In the USA, you wouldn't even need a new system to implement. We have various proto-UBIs written in our tax code, the most notable being the Earned Income Credit, we would just need to "enhance" it.
- drabiega 10y ago
  You recognize that you are no longer supporting the premise that BI will cause inflation, yes? You seem to now be making the argument that altering the distribution in this way is unfair, but the whole point of BI from the point of view of a proponent is that it is an adjustment to balance out inherent systematic unfairness so I don't think you'll get very far with that line of argument.
thescribe 10y ago
A lot of the money held me the wealthy isn't competing with me for potatoes. I could be wrong but if ever single person had 1,000$ more, wouldn't the price of basic goods go up to accommodate?

neilwilson 10y ago

"Because no money is being created, it's being reallocated from other people, so it doesn't directly affect the money supply." And unfortunately that is bunkum. Money isn't stuff. If you take what is currently savings and put it into flow then you will get an increase in production - that is then effectively taken away and given to people who haven't earned it. The result is, over time, an increase in political pressure to get rid of the hand out from those doing all the work and getting nothing for it in return. And that's how an income guarantee scheme ends. Just like every other 'experiment' in history. People want the ability to exchange their labour for goods and services, not be the recipients of handouts and resented for it by those doing the work.

shiftpgdn 10y ago
I'm curious, what do you think should happen to someone who becomes unemployed and then runs through all of their savings? Should they live on the street until they find another job?
mljoe 10y ago
Governments have found one neat trick to hide what are exactly handouts from scrutiny like that. They call them "tax credits". A "tax credit" is literally just a handout, a $1000 tax credit means you get a $1000 check. You don't even have to pay any taxes to get a tax credit. It's a pure handout. But the phase "tax credit" implies that it is somehow connected to taxes that you've paid some time in the past, so in people's minds it's not a handout anymore. Even hardcore conservatives can get behind "tax credits"! All you go to do is call the handout a tax credit and give it to almost everyone, and you implemented UBI. In the USA, you wouldn't even need a new system to implement. We have various proto-UBIs written in our tax code, the most notable being the Earned Income Credit, we would just need to "enhance" it.
drabiega 10y ago
You recognize that you are no longer supporting the premise that BI will cause inflation, yes? You seem to now be making the argument that altering the distribution in this way is unfair, but the whole point of BI from the point of view of a proponent is that it is an adjustment to balance out inherent systematic unfairness so I don't think you'll get very far with that line of argument.

thescribe 10y ago

A lot of the money held me the wealthy isn't competing with me for potatoes. I could be wrong but if ever single person had 1,000$ more, wouldn't the price of basic goods go up to accommodate?