3 ms·

I suspect it is simply not true for most basic necessities. > That's not what the OP is getting at. BI may work well given certain preconditions, and subpopula

by mcny 9y ago

I suspect it is simply not true for most basic necessities. > That's not what the OP is getting at. BI may work well given certain preconditions, and subpopulations. But what use is the money if resource supply and the productive capacity of the economy is limited? I'd go further and say this is not true for most consumables within reasonable limits. Does this sound like a circular logic? I think my reasoning is flawed (I hope it is not) so pardon my thinking out loud. I mean if I define luxuries as superior goods[wiki] which we consume more of as we have more disposable income, then I imagine we might see prices increase on those things at some point but we don't mind because they are luxuries. But can we dismiss all superior goods as luxuries? If we can prove this connection, then I think we can put down this fear of inflation once and for all. Thoughts? [wiki] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_good Superior goods make up a larger proportion of consumption as income rises, and therefore are a type of normal goods in consumer theory. Such a good must possess two economic characteristics: it must be scarce, and, along with that, it must have a high price. The scarcity of the good can be natural or artificial; however, the general population (i.e., consumers) must recognize the good as distinguishably better. Possession of such a good usually signifies "superiority" in resources, and usually is accompanied by prestige.

DougN7 9y ago
There might be enough milk and cereal to go around. I don't think there is enough housing, medical service and transportation (in the US). So those things will all go up in price. However, everyone should be able to afford those necessities so I'm not sure what the solution is. Limited resources is a very tough problem to solve.
- opencl 9y ago
  In the US as of a few years ago, vacant homes outnumbered the homeless around 5:1. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/vacant-houses-outnumber-homeless-people-in-u-s/ https://www.truthdig.com/articles/vacant-houses-outnumber-ho... I think ~1 car per adult is enough transportation for everybody. http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-ihs-automotive-average-age-car-20140609-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-ihs-automotiv... Half of produce in the US is thrown away. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/13/us-food-waste-ugly-fruit-vegetables-perfect https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/13/us-food-... Healthcare is certainly lacking in the US but other countries with far lower GDP per capita have somehow managed to give everyone healthcare. I think the vast majority of necessities are not really particularly scarce in the US and there is easily enough at the very minimum for i.e. absolutely zero homeless and starvation.
  - AdrianB1 9y ago
    Just for info, I live in Europe and health care is almost free for everyone, but most of the time the quality is terrible - if long waiting lists (sometimes longer than your expected lifetime), lack of most medication and having 2 patients in a single bed is what you think "somehow managed" means, then you are right. There is no free meal, but somehow people tend to ignore that.
lr4444lr 9y ago
Calling the Superior Good as "[that] which we consume more of as we have more disposable income" is not quite that of the wiki article. Note that the key word is proportion. Your definition is the basic demand relationship. But even still, I think you're better off considering that as a necessary condition, not a definition. Giffen goods[0] follow the same pattern, and they are almost always under "basic necessities". I return to the basic question: can the PPF curve for the economy under which BI is instituted be reshaped to supply what its recipients would buy? That's the key question. I appreciate your open-mindedness to "think out loud." [0]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/giffen-good.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/giffen-good.asp

by mcny 9y ago

DougN7 9y ago

There might be enough milk and cereal to go around. I don't think there is enough housing, medical service and transportation (in the US). So those things will all go up in price. However, everyone should be able to afford those necessities so I'm not sure what the solution is. Limited resources is a very tough problem to solve.

opencl 9y ago
In the US as of a few years ago, vacant homes outnumbered the homeless around 5:1. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/vacant-houses-outnumber-homeless-people-in-u-s/ https://www.truthdig.com/articles/vacant-houses-outnumber-ho... I think ~1 car per adult is enough transportation for everybody. http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-ihs-automotive-average-age-car-20140609-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-ihs-automotiv... Half of produce in the US is thrown away. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/13/us-food-waste-ugly-fruit-vegetables-perfect https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/13/us-food-... Healthcare is certainly lacking in the US but other countries with far lower GDP per capita have somehow managed to give everyone healthcare. I think the vast majority of necessities are not really particularly scarce in the US and there is easily enough at the very minimum for i.e. absolutely zero homeless and starvation.
- AdrianB1 9y ago
  Just for info, I live in Europe and health care is almost free for everyone, but most of the time the quality is terrible - if long waiting lists (sometimes longer than your expected lifetime), lack of most medication and having 2 patients in a single bed is what you think "somehow managed" means, then you are right. There is no free meal, but somehow people tend to ignore that.

lr4444lr 9y ago

Calling the Superior Good as "[that] which we consume more of as we have more disposable income" is not quite that of the wiki article. Note that the key word is proportion. Your definition is the basic demand relationship. But even still, I think you're better off considering that as a necessary condition, not a definition. Giffen goods[0] follow the same pattern, and they are almost always under "basic necessities". I return to the basic question: can the PPF curve for the economy under which BI is instituted be reshaped to supply what its recipients would buy? That's the key question. I appreciate your open-mindedness to "think out loud." [0]https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/giffen-good.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/giffen-good.asp