5 ms·

UBI doesn't send money in, it redistributes it. And if solving economic problems were as simple as "just take more money from the rich people and give it to th

UBI doesn't send money in, it redistributes it. And if solving economic problems were as simple as "just take more money from the rich people and give it to the poor people," this problem would have been solved centuries ago.

munk-a 9y ago
Clearly. And is this statement based on the well known fact that rich people have always been happy to have their money taken away and given to poor people without trying to undermine any genuine efforts at wealth redistribution for economic growth? That's why we don't have any rich people any more and wealth inequality is at it's lowest point in decades, right?
shkkmo 9y ago
The post I was responding to wasn't citicizing UBI, but rather criticizing this specific type of program which DOES inject money into the local economy from outside doners. > And if solving economic problems were as simple as "just take more money from the rich people and give it to the poor people," this problem would have been solved centuries ago. When in history have we tried anything like UBI? How can we know if it works if we have never tried it?
- moduspol 9y ago
  We've provided subsidies and guarantees to try to help poor people and manipulated markets with predictable results countless times. In the US, higher education loans and urban housing are modern day examples of this. UBI isn't inherently different. It's trying to pretend you can manipulate a market with no detrimental side effects, but it's been tried many, many times.
  - shkkmo 9y ago
    The whole point of UBI is that markets are being manipulated as INDIRECTLY as possible. You aren't subsidizing people to not work (unemployment benefits), subsidizing people to work (minimum wage), subsidizing particular goods (housing, education loans) or inflating demand for a specific set of goods (food stamps). You seem to be of the opinion that nothing can be done to eliminate poverty, so why even try?
    - moduspol 9y ago
      I disagree. It may not be targeted to an industry, but it is a colossal subsidy that will greatly affect markets in a lot of ways. Plenty can be done to eliminate poverty. I'm confused why you would think large-scale involuntary wealth redistribution is the only way.
      - shkkmo 9y ago
        > it is a colossal subsidy that will greatly affect markets in a lot of ways It is, by definition, not a subsidy since it does not target a subset of economic sectors. > Plenty can be done to eliminate poverty. Name one means of eliminating poverty without wealth re-distribution or subsidies. The only ones I know of involve sterilizing, deporting, killing or otherwise demographically elminating poor people.
        moduspol 9y ago
        It will absolutely subsidize the industries most likely to gain from poorer people having more money. The yacht and high-end watch industries will not benefit while housing, auto, and entertainment industries absolutely will. This is basic common sense. Nobody's eliminated poverty yet, so it may be impossible. We do have ways of fighting it, though, which can (and does) include charitable giving (note: voluntary) and economic development of areas.
      - NeuNeurosis 9y ago
        Just to point out this program is not involuntary. All the funds so far as I understand it, have been generated voluntarily.
        moduspol 9y ago
        Right--sorry. For clarity's sake, I was referring to actual UBI. For these studies (as far as I'm aware), it's voluntarily collected money from outside the area.
PeterisP 9y ago
UBI isn't intended to solve economic problems that existed or even could be centuries ago - it tackles the problem of poverty of people becoming unemployable due to technological progress, despite very high productivity allowing to satisfy the basic needs of everyone with a small fraction of gross national product, or a small fraction of population working on those basic needs. It's a serious problem for the future, but we're just barely (and only in select locations) beginning to have it. UBI doesn't make sense until the abovementioned conditions arrive, but they're coming, and I'm not aware of any other sensible solutions for these solutions. When this situation comes, the good option is that the society simply gives the new class of unemployable people their basic needs one way (like UBI) or another; the evil option is that the society doesn't give them the basic needs and they starve (since their labor has no value and they have nothing to trade for these basic needs); and the third option is that they take the basic needs in a revolution that likely destroys half of the society. Really, noone wants the second or third options, including most of the 0.1%, so we will see some mass redistribution system being implemented. In 1917, taking all the resources from rich people and giving it to poor people wasn't enough to keep the poor people out of starvation for long and destroyed the productivity totally. In 2017, taking more money from the rich to feed the poor doesn't require even close to taking all their resources, as feeding the poor is so much cheaper compared to 1917; it would be deeply unpopular but is doable without killing the rich, and the society could sustain such level of taxation indefinitely if they wished even if nothing changed - but it's going to change, and in 2037 taking enough resources from the rich (i.e. the owners of highly automated means of production) to feed everyone UBI-style would be expected to be just a minor tax, and a boost for the economy, giving spending power to people who'd otherwise have no spending power at all.
- moduspol 9y ago
  Regarding your first paragraph: Agreed. Regarding your second paragraph: You're looking at this as a measurable global issue that will happen at a single time resolvable by a single government entity, but that's not how it will unfold. It won't happen overnight, so there will be no point for those options to be evaluated. Let me pitch you (what I see as) a more realistic option: Some countries will try to implement UBI. They will encounter the same problems opponents have been warning about. The productive will (over time) move to countries that don't take so much of their wealth. The people receiving more than they're contributing will have more children, will have more votes, and will vote to take more and more from the decreasing minority. Even if you can make food truly post-scarcity, housing, healthcare, and other goods/services are not. If everything is truly post-scarcity: It'll be no problem. Those countries won't really need the wealthy. But I'm not sure true post-scarcity actually exists, and I think (especially in the US) UBI would be a moving target that only ever goes in one direction. You're right, though, that I don't really have a solution if (e.g.) 80% of people no longer have a meaningful way to contribute to society. That may be fundamentally impossible to solve. But that may never happen and we may never have true post-scarcity, so we shouldn't be redesigning society based on the premise that wealthy people are an endless money tree, and if it's wrong, society collapses.

munk-a 9y ago

Clearly. And is this statement based on the well known fact that rich people have always been happy to have their money taken away and given to poor people without trying to undermine any genuine efforts at wealth redistribution for economic growth? That's why we don't have any rich people any more and wealth inequality is at it's lowest point in decades, right?

shkkmo 9y ago

The post I was responding to wasn't citicizing UBI, but rather criticizing this specific type of program which DOES inject money into the local economy from outside doners. > And if solving economic problems were as simple as "just take more money from the rich people and give it to the poor people," this problem would have been solved centuries ago. When in history have we tried anything like UBI? How can we know if it works if we have never tried it?

moduspol 9y ago
We've provided subsidies and guarantees to try to help poor people and manipulated markets with predictable results countless times. In the US, higher education loans and urban housing are modern day examples of this. UBI isn't inherently different. It's trying to pretend you can manipulate a market with no detrimental side effects, but it's been tried many, many times.
- shkkmo 9y ago
  The whole point of UBI is that markets are being manipulated as INDIRECTLY as possible. You aren't subsidizing people to not work (unemployment benefits), subsidizing people to work (minimum wage), subsidizing particular goods (housing, education loans) or inflating demand for a specific set of goods (food stamps). You seem to be of the opinion that nothing can be done to eliminate poverty, so why even try?
  - moduspol 9y ago
    I disagree. It may not be targeted to an industry, but it is a colossal subsidy that will greatly affect markets in a lot of ways. Plenty can be done to eliminate poverty. I'm confused why you would think large-scale involuntary wealth redistribution is the only way.
    - shkkmo 9y ago
      > it is a colossal subsidy that will greatly affect markets in a lot of ways It is, by definition, not a subsidy since it does not target a subset of economic sectors. > Plenty can be done to eliminate poverty. Name one means of eliminating poverty without wealth re-distribution or subsidies. The only ones I know of involve sterilizing, deporting, killing or otherwise demographically elminating poor people.
      - moduspol 9y ago
        It will absolutely subsidize the industries most likely to gain from poorer people having more money. The yacht and high-end watch industries will not benefit while housing, auto, and entertainment industries absolutely will. This is basic common sense. Nobody's eliminated poverty yet, so it may be impossible. We do have ways of fighting it, though, which can (and does) include charitable giving (note: voluntary) and economic development of areas.
    - NeuNeurosis 9y ago
      Just to point out this program is not involuntary. All the funds so far as I understand it, have been generated voluntarily.
      - moduspol 9y ago
        Right--sorry. For clarity's sake, I was referring to actual UBI. For these studies (as far as I'm aware), it's voluntarily collected money from outside the area.

PeterisP 9y ago

UBI isn't intended to solve economic problems that existed or even could be centuries ago - it tackles the problem of poverty of people becoming unemployable due to technological progress, despite very high productivity allowing to satisfy the basic needs of everyone with a small fraction of gross national product, or a small fraction of population working on those basic needs. It's a serious problem for the future, but we're just barely (and only in select locations) beginning to have it. UBI doesn't make sense until the abovementioned conditions arrive, but they're coming, and I'm not aware of any other sensible solutions for these solutions. When this situation comes, the good option is that the society simply gives the new class of unemployable people their basic needs one way (like UBI) or another; the evil option is that the society doesn't give them the basic needs and they starve (since their labor has no value and they have nothing to trade for these basic needs); and the third option is that they take the basic needs in a revolution that likely destroys half of the society. Really, noone wants the second or third options, including most of the 0.1%, so we will see some mass redistribution system being implemented. In 1917, taking all the resources from rich people and giving it to poor people wasn't enough to keep the poor people out of starvation for long and destroyed the productivity totally. In 2017, taking more money from the rich to feed the poor doesn't require even close to taking all their resources, as feeding the poor is so much cheaper compared to 1917; it would be deeply unpopular but is doable without killing the rich, and the society could sustain such level of taxation indefinitely if they wished even if nothing changed - but it's going to change, and in 2037 taking enough resources from the rich (i.e. the owners of highly automated means of production) to feed everyone UBI-style would be expected to be just a minor tax, and a boost for the economy, giving spending power to people who'd otherwise have no spending power at all.

moduspol 9y ago
Regarding your first paragraph: Agreed. Regarding your second paragraph: You're looking at this as a measurable global issue that will happen at a single time resolvable by a single government entity, but that's not how it will unfold. It won't happen overnight, so there will be no point for those options to be evaluated. Let me pitch you (what I see as) a more realistic option: Some countries will try to implement UBI. They will encounter the same problems opponents have been warning about. The productive will (over time) move to countries that don't take so much of their wealth. The people receiving more than they're contributing will have more children, will have more votes, and will vote to take more and more from the decreasing minority. Even if you can make food truly post-scarcity, housing, healthcare, and other goods/services are not. If everything is truly post-scarcity: It'll be no problem. Those countries won't really need the wealthy. But I'm not sure true post-scarcity actually exists, and I think (especially in the US) UBI would be a moving target that only ever goes in one direction. You're right, though, that I don't really have a solution if (e.g.) 80% of people no longer have a meaningful way to contribute to society. That may be fundamentally impossible to solve. But that may never happen and we may never have true post-scarcity, so we shouldn't be redesigning society based on the premise that wealthy people are an endless money tree, and if it's wrong, society collapses.