3 ms·

We are taking about "basic" needs here. All your argument then must imply that UBI or NOT UBI, "basic needs" must be denied to part of the population or else th

We are taking about "basic" needs here. All your argument then must imply that UBI or NOT UBI, "basic needs" must be denied to part of the population or else they get too expensive. And as almost all will agree, that's not only logically wrong, it's also morally wrong.

srssays 10y ago
Everybody understands that UBI is a solution to meeting "basic" needs, the contentious part is the "universal". I don't need basic income. If I received free money that I don't need, I might decide to double my cheese consumption. If many people like me do this, then the price of cheese will go up, hurting poor people.
- jganetsk 10y ago
  What is the difference between money "you don't need" and money you do need? If, instead of receiving basic income, you received a pay raise, is that money you do or don't need? Money "you don't need" is an economic absurdity. The only people who double their cheese consumption are people who really like cheese. And if basic income helps you and others truly express their passion for cheese, more power to you. Poor people will eat something else.
  - Qantourisc 10y ago
    Simply put: I _want_ a new car but I _need_ to eat.
    - jganetsk 10y ago
      What's the difference, from an economic standpoint? The original poster is saying that some people want cheese and other people need cheese, therefore the people who need cheese will not get what they don't need? There's something absurd in this argument. No one's going to double their cheese consumption, just because they got money "they don't need", and no one is going to starve because the price of cheese went up. But also, whatever problem we think we are debating here, it exists with or without basic income.
      - jbmorgado 10y ago
        To clarify my point (although from what you wrote I think you got it right): The argument that "basic needs" prices will rise (which was what my OP gave) because of UBI must be false, since being "basic needs", they already must be provided to anyone anyway. In any case, even if a big part of the population didn't had access to "basic needs" the argument would be that: "we can't allow them to have those basic needs or else their price will increase to the rest of us". Than that, is morally wrong. I hope now it is totally clear what I meant above.
DougN7 10y ago
If I had a magic wand and could give everyone everything, I'd do it. But my wishes don't overcome basic supply and demand. Unless there's a lot more goods suddenly being produced, prices will rise if more people want them and can pay for them, which will tend to cancel the benefits of UBI.
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  But you have a magic wand that can give everyone at the very minimum the "basic needs", it's called better wealth distribution.

srssays 10y ago

Everybody understands that UBI is a solution to meeting "basic" needs, the contentious part is the "universal". I don't need basic income. If I received free money that I don't need, I might decide to double my cheese consumption. If many people like me do this, then the price of cheese will go up, hurting poor people.

jganetsk 10y ago
What is the difference between money "you don't need" and money you do need? If, instead of receiving basic income, you received a pay raise, is that money you do or don't need? Money "you don't need" is an economic absurdity. The only people who double their cheese consumption are people who really like cheese. And if basic income helps you and others truly express their passion for cheese, more power to you. Poor people will eat something else.
- Qantourisc 10y ago
  Simply put: I _want_ a new car but I _need_ to eat.
  - jganetsk 10y ago
    What's the difference, from an economic standpoint? The original poster is saying that some people want cheese and other people need cheese, therefore the people who need cheese will not get what they don't need? There's something absurd in this argument. No one's going to double their cheese consumption, just because they got money "they don't need", and no one is going to starve because the price of cheese went up. But also, whatever problem we think we are debating here, it exists with or without basic income.
    - jbmorgado 10y ago
      To clarify my point (although from what you wrote I think you got it right): The argument that "basic needs" prices will rise (which was what my OP gave) because of UBI must be false, since being "basic needs", they already must be provided to anyone anyway. In any case, even if a big part of the population didn't had access to "basic needs" the argument would be that: "we can't allow them to have those basic needs or else their price will increase to the rest of us". Than that, is morally wrong. I hope now it is totally clear what I meant above.

DougN7 10y ago

If I had a magic wand and could give everyone everything, I'd do it. But my wishes don't overcome basic supply and demand. Unless there's a lot more goods suddenly being produced, prices will rise if more people want them and can pay for them, which will tend to cancel the benefits of UBI.

jbmorgado 10y ago
But you have a magic wand that can give everyone at the very minimum the "basic needs", it's called better wealth distribution.