4 ms·

That's a really great insight. The fact that such good intentions often lead to bigger problems is what concerns me about UBI - it will surely have huge second

by DougN7 9y ago

That's a really great insight. The fact that such good intentions often lead to bigger problems is what concerns me about UBI - it will surely have huge second-order effects. I'm not sure what they will be, but rent control in a city is tiny compared to the effect a universal change like UBI would introduce.

knodi123 9y ago
> UBI - it will surely have huge second-order effects I absolutely agree, and I think these justifiable and yet ill-defined concerns are shared by a lot of UBI opponents. I just hope anyone trying to come to an informed decision remembers to include unrestrained capitalism's second-order effects on the pro/con list.
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  >>unrestrained capitalism It sounds scary when put like that but it just means people free to interact, while secure from other social actors in their person and property. By the nature of voluntary configuration, interactions have a tendency toward being mutually beneficial, and there are corrective feedback loops that naturally exist in a voluntary society to reduce those that aren't (e.g. scammy operators increasingly excluded by increasing consumer vigilance and growing reputation markets). And you can still have governments provisioning economic resources that qualify as public goods, like basic research, public information resources, policing and national defense, in such a setting, so there is no fundamental deficiency in unrestrained capitalism, aka an absolute free market.
  - knodi123 9y ago
    > so there is no fundamental deficiency in unrestrained capitalism Except a tendency toward consolidation and monopolies. And, inherent in the word "unrestrained", a tendency to use corporate money to unduly influence politics to benefit the corporation at the expense of the public interest. > it just means people free to interact, while secure from other social actors in their person and property It's kind of irrelevant anyway, all I really meant was UBI should be evaluated in comparison to "the status quo", whatever you choose to label it.
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      >>Except a tendency toward consolidation and monopolies. That assumes no government provisioning of public goods that can counteract capture of natural monopolies, but there's nothing inherent to a free market to prevent such government intervention. >>And, inherent in the word "unrestrained", a tendency to use corporate money to unduly influence politics to benefit the corporation at the expense of the public interest. The term here is "unrestrained capitalism", meaning people in possession of their right to contract and secure in their person/property, not "unrestrained society". An absolute free market doesn't mean anarchy. It doesn't preclude checks within the electoral and political process itself to prevent corruption. It doesn't prevent laws from being passed to place restrictions on those in public office, like, to give an extreme example, a lifetime ban on receiving any compensation from the private sector. >>It's kind of irrelevant anyway, all I really meant was UBI should be evaluated in comparison to "the status quo" Fair enough. I just take issue with the connotations of "unrestrained capitalism", where it implies malevolent behavior is legalized. A less biased term would be "free market".
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jules 9y ago
In an ideal world you'd run the experiment and see how it goes. In the real world you'll probably be stuck with it regardless of the outcome, because there will be a concentrated group who will be strongly against ending it, whereas the negative consequences will be diffuse. That rent control is bad is not exactly a new finding. This has been known to economists across the political spectrum for decades.
joejerryronnie 9y ago
One second-order effect of true UBI would be to inflate the cost of goods to the level of UBI, thus rendering UBI pointless.
- taneq 9y ago
  The price of basic necessities is limited by the cost of production, not some fundamental scarcity. We could produce as much food, clothing etc. as anyone could want without increasing the cost. (In fact, the cost should decrease slightly due to economies of scale.)
  - joejerryronnie 9y ago
    The price of basic necessities is based on what people will pay for it (or what merchants can charge for it). If everyone has $10 today to buy groceries and all of a sudden, tomorrow everyone has $100 to buy groceries, what do you think is going to happen to the price of groceries?
    - taneq 9y ago
      Nothing much in the long run, competition between supermarkets is pretty cutthroat and it should level out not too far from where it is now.
      - taysic 9y ago
        If UBI is paid for with inflation than prices will go up to capture an equivalent in value. If UBI is paid for by increased taxes then all businesses will need to raise prices.
  - mdpopescu 9y ago
    price = f(cost) is incorrect cost = f(price) is correct This is basic economics. (Seriously, this is in the easy stuff like Hazlitt.) For an example, see joe's response.

by DougN7 9y ago

knodi123 9y ago

> UBI - it will surely have huge second-order effects I absolutely agree, and I think these justifiable and yet ill-defined concerns are shared by a lot of UBI opponents. I just hope anyone trying to come to an informed decision remembers to include unrestrained capitalism's second-order effects on the pro/con list.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
>>unrestrained capitalism It sounds scary when put like that but it just means people free to interact, while secure from other social actors in their person and property. By the nature of voluntary configuration, interactions have a tendency toward being mutually beneficial, and there are corrective feedback loops that naturally exist in a voluntary society to reduce those that aren't (e.g. scammy operators increasingly excluded by increasing consumer vigilance and growing reputation markets). And you can still have governments provisioning economic resources that qualify as public goods, like basic research, public information resources, policing and national defense, in such a setting, so there is no fundamental deficiency in unrestrained capitalism, aka an absolute free market.
- knodi123 9y ago
  > so there is no fundamental deficiency in unrestrained capitalism Except a tendency toward consolidation and monopolies. And, inherent in the word "unrestrained", a tendency to use corporate money to unduly influence politics to benefit the corporation at the expense of the public interest. > it just means people free to interact, while secure from other social actors in their person and property It's kind of irrelevant anyway, all I really meant was UBI should be evaluated in comparison to "the status quo", whatever you choose to label it.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    >>Except a tendency toward consolidation and monopolies. That assumes no government provisioning of public goods that can counteract capture of natural monopolies, but there's nothing inherent to a free market to prevent such government intervention. >>And, inherent in the word "unrestrained", a tendency to use corporate money to unduly influence politics to benefit the corporation at the expense of the public interest. The term here is "unrestrained capitalism", meaning people in possession of their right to contract and secure in their person/property, not "unrestrained society". An absolute free market doesn't mean anarchy. It doesn't preclude checks within the electoral and political process itself to prevent corruption. It doesn't prevent laws from being passed to place restrictions on those in public office, like, to give an extreme example, a lifetime ban on receiving any compensation from the private sector. >>It's kind of irrelevant anyway, all I really meant was UBI should be evaluated in comparison to "the status quo" Fair enough. I just take issue with the connotations of "unrestrained capitalism", where it implies malevolent behavior is legalized. A less biased term would be "free market".

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jules 9y ago

In an ideal world you'd run the experiment and see how it goes. In the real world you'll probably be stuck with it regardless of the outcome, because there will be a concentrated group who will be strongly against ending it, whereas the negative consequences will be diffuse. That rent control is bad is not exactly a new finding. This has been known to economists across the political spectrum for decades.

joejerryronnie 9y ago

One second-order effect of true UBI would be to inflate the cost of goods to the level of UBI, thus rendering UBI pointless.

taneq 9y ago
The price of basic necessities is limited by the cost of production, not some fundamental scarcity. We could produce as much food, clothing etc. as anyone could want without increasing the cost. (In fact, the cost should decrease slightly due to economies of scale.)
- joejerryronnie 9y ago
  The price of basic necessities is based on what people will pay for it (or what merchants can charge for it). If everyone has $10 today to buy groceries and all of a sudden, tomorrow everyone has $100 to buy groceries, what do you think is going to happen to the price of groceries?
  - taneq 9y ago
    Nothing much in the long run, competition between supermarkets is pretty cutthroat and it should level out not too far from where it is now.
    - taysic 9y ago
      If UBI is paid for with inflation than prices will go up to capture an equivalent in value. If UBI is paid for by increased taxes then all businesses will need to raise prices.
- mdpopescu 9y ago
  price = f(cost) is incorrect cost = f(price) is correct This is basic economics. (Seriously, this is in the easy stuff like Hazlitt.) For an example, see joe's response.