4 ms·

"it could occur slower and over a few generations but sooner or later poverty is back." But, if the UBI is set to a percentage of GDP, then as overall wealth in

by laser 9y ago

"it could occur slower and over a few generations but sooner or later poverty is back." But, if the UBI is set to a percentage of GDP, then as overall wealth increases, the wealth of those depending on UBI increase. In the past few generations, ex. since the 1950's, real GDP has grown 6x [1] while the population has only doubled [2], meaning the real wealth of our society has grown three-fold in "a few generations". [1] http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/ http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/ [2] https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=country:US&hl=en&dl=en https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&...

jaggederest 9y ago
I'm not sure that it gives good incentives to have it directly linked to GDP. I think it would make more sense to have a circuit-breaker type provision where if GDP increases by more than x% the amount increases by y%, but I doubt we would want to decrease it immediately when GDP decreases, since that has the potential to cause a runaway feedback loop.
- laser 9y ago
  That's really smart. I hadn't even considered that and was naively operating on a default assumption of increasing GDP. Especially during a recession, adjusting the basic-income downwards with GDP could create a devastating runaway feedback loop. I think as you wouldn't want the economy to grow faster than basic income, though, in the circuit-breaker-style implementation as GDP increases by more than x%, the amount should also increase x%, by default. When the GDP is assessed, say annually, it should only increase or maintain the current basic income rate. In the event of an unprecedented long-term decrease in productivity, the congress should be required to take action to lower the payouts.
adventured 9y ago
> But, if the UBI is set to a percentage of GDP, then as overall wealth increases That's an extraordinary assumption. The majority of nations in fact do not see routine, much less significant, overall wealth increases. Major economies as varied as Germany, Mexico, Russia, Britain, Japan, Brazil - have seen near zero economic growth for the last decade. The US appears in fact to be starting a protracted stagnation of growth, due to its extreme debt (in most every regard from public to consumer to corporate), resulting in problems similar to those experienced by Japan due to its egregious debt problems (low productivity gains, weak or negative income growth, weak or negative real wealth gains, low GDP growth, etc). UBI can't be implemented in a nation in which population growth is falling rapidly (fewer workers to carry the tax burden), while debt is already sky high, incomes are stagnant, and existing entitlement system IOU's are already set to bankrupt (either directly via default or indirectly by currency debasement) the government (with already dire perpetual half trillion plus dollar deficits with the public debt soaring toward $30 trillion next and annual deficits set to climb toward a trillion dollars).

by laser 9y ago

jaggederest 9y ago

I'm not sure that it gives good incentives to have it directly linked to GDP. I think it would make more sense to have a circuit-breaker type provision where if GDP increases by more than x% the amount increases by y%, but I doubt we would want to decrease it immediately when GDP decreases, since that has the potential to cause a runaway feedback loop.

laser 9y ago
That's really smart. I hadn't even considered that and was naively operating on a default assumption of increasing GDP. Especially during a recession, adjusting the basic-income downwards with GDP could create a devastating runaway feedback loop. I think as you wouldn't want the economy to grow faster than basic income, though, in the circuit-breaker-style implementation as GDP increases by more than x%, the amount should also increase x%, by default. When the GDP is assessed, say annually, it should only increase or maintain the current basic income rate. In the event of an unprecedented long-term decrease in productivity, the congress should be required to take action to lower the payouts.

adventured 9y ago

> But, if the UBI is set to a percentage of GDP, then as overall wealth increases That's an extraordinary assumption. The majority of nations in fact do not see routine, much less significant, overall wealth increases. Major economies as varied as Germany, Mexico, Russia, Britain, Japan, Brazil - have seen near zero economic growth for the last decade. The US appears in fact to be starting a protracted stagnation of growth, due to its extreme debt (in most every regard from public to consumer to corporate), resulting in problems similar to those experienced by Japan due to its egregious debt problems (low productivity gains, weak or negative income growth, weak or negative real wealth gains, low GDP growth, etc). UBI can't be implemented in a nation in which population growth is falling rapidly (fewer workers to carry the tax burden), while debt is already sky high, incomes are stagnant, and existing entitlement system IOU's are already set to bankrupt (either directly via default or indirectly by currency debasement) the government (with already dire perpetual half trillion plus dollar deficits with the public debt soaring toward $30 trillion next and annual deficits set to climb toward a trillion dollars).