3 ms·
> Economists largely consider payments like this to be the best way to enact policies. It gives people more options instead of trying to control through legal
by chimeracoder 9y ago
> Economists largely consider payments like this to be the best way to enact policies. It gives people more options instead of trying to control through legal pressures.
That's not true at all, and in fact, the last time a large number of economists were surveyed about a proposal, the response was overwhelmingly in opposition: http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/universal-basic-income http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/universal-basic-income
Many economists would agree that, ceteris paribus, cash is "better" than an equivalent amount of earmarked money in most situations, because cash is more flexible. But that's a very narrow statement that isn't applicable here, because it's assuming that the set of people receiving the money would be the exact same (it's not, by the definition of "universal"), and it's also assuming that there are no other external consequences to the proposal (another topic which is, at best, debatable). So even that point of agreement among economists isn't relevant to this proposal.
- Jemaclus 9y agoCitation needed (from both of you).
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y agoI can't talk to the claims about economists but I can tell you that Friedman and people across the political spectrum agreed that this was good public policy. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-are...
- ianai 9y agoThe way that question was worded was a straw man. I’m referring to a general principle regarding transfer payments. They’re usually more simple ways to reach a desired outcome than alternatives.
- chimeracoder 9y ago> The way that question was worded was a straw man. I’m referring to a general principle regarding transfer payments. They’re usually more simple ways to reach a desired outcome than alternatives. Yes, and I'm explaining that that statement isn't true (in the sense of consensus among economists) in any way that is applicable to public policies. Certainly not this one, because that's explicitly not a dichotomy being proposed - there's no tradeoff being proposed between the $1000 stipend and all of the other forms of public assistance that the participants could be or are receiving. It's only true (in the sense of consensus) on a micro level, looking at the value to an individual of cash vs. in-kind payments, ignoring secondary factors, ignoring externalities, and ignoring positive or negative feedback. That's not a relevant framework when discussing public policy.