5 ms·

Instead of giving out money, why not give out the basic necessities directly? A free home, free utilities, free food, a basic vehicle, free clothes, free health

Instead of giving out money, why not give out the basic necessities directly? A free home, free utilities, free food, a basic vehicle, free clothes, free healthcare? If you’re happy with these things you’re set, if you want more you work for it and acquire money. Seems like this would accomplish the same goals of UBI, but with less risks and impact on the economy, and at some point you can benefit from economies of scale to provide these things at even lower cost. People would not need the financial discipline and restraint that comes with managing a basic income.

AndrewDucker 9y ago
Because people vary. And while you may need a slightly larger vehicle (because of family size) and are therefore willing to spend a bit less on a home, so live further out, others may make the opposite tradeoff. UBI gives people the ability to make the tradeoffs that work for them personally, rather than being stuck in a one-size-fits-all situation.
- matte_black 9y ago
  You do not need UBI for that, you just need a few more options or packages for people to choose from, which would be trivial to provide.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    More like one package per person. Of course that's still trivial to provide, as you say. You just give everyone a fixed set of points they can allocate to the options available according to their needs. I propose to call those points "money".
    - matte_black 9y ago
      Even if you want a point system it becomes a separated currency from actual money.
      - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
        But money is fungible, even among different currencies; think exchange rates.
        matte_black 9y ago
        What’s the value of a currency that can only be used to buy limited items?
        ghaff 9y ago
        Somewhat lower because of transaction costs associated with barter and black markets but it still has value.
        icebraining 9y ago
        "The black market for food stamps — where recipients sell the federal vouchers for cash — has grown by 30 percent in recent years, the Agriculture Department said in a just-released study. (...) In figures, sales of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program vouchers brought in $858 million in cash in the 2009-2011 period, compared to $330 million in the 2006-2008 time frame."
icebraining 9y ago
Where is that home? In the US, would it be in SF, CA or Alamo, GA? What kind of vehicle? I don't have a license, does that mean I only get a bicycle instead of a car? What about gas? What's "free utilities" - how much can I consume? Can I trade the clothes for something else if I don't need as many? If so, who decides for what and how much I can trade them for? I'm not an expert, but I think the results where this has been tried were bureaucracy, waste and black markets.
- matte_black 9y ago
  > Where is that home? In the US, would it be in SF, CA or Alamo, GA? A dense, tall building in SF could hold homes for a lot of residents at once. >I don't have a license, does that mean I only get a bicycle instead of a car? It means you get a car when you learn to drive, or else just take a bus. > What about gas? Electric vehicle > What's "free utilities" - how much can I consume? A set amount per month based on reasonable usage estimates. > Can I trade the clothes for something else if I don't need as many? You can do whatever you want with your stuff. > If so, who decides for what and how much I can trade them for? Between you and the person you trade with.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    A dense, tall building in SF could hold homes for a lot of residents at once. That's not the point. An apartment in a dense, tall building in SF will still cost more than an apartment in a dense, tall building almost anywhere else. Who gets to live in SF if too many people want to? It means you get a car when you learn to drive, or else just take a bus. So your UBI discriminates against people who can't drive, who are oftentimes the people most in need. Also, it promotes massive waste, since I'll ask for a car even if I don't need one - why not, if I don't gain anything by giving it up? A set amount per month based on reasonable usage estimates. Right, but "reasonable" will depend on geography (for heat/cooling), needs, etc, no? How many jobs will be required to calculate that for the 3000+ counties in the US? You can do whatever you want with your stuff. Between you and the person you trade with. So you're producing and distributing a bunch of clothes, cars, etc, which will then be sold to companies (for low prices, obviously, since everyone has them) which will export them to other countries. Nice corporate subsidy. The WTO might have something to say about your unfair competition practices.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Instead of giving out money, why not give out the basic necessities directly? Because needs vary considerably by circumstance, and trying to address that with bureaucratic central planning rather than leveraging the market is brutally inefficient. And because a universal basic home, for instance, is hard to mix with outside income to get the home.you want. Same with universal basic food. Or a universal basic car. (Though it's interesting if you combine this idea for setting basic benefits with the “why not force people to work a government chosen jov to get basic benefits” alternative to UBI often floated, you've gone a long way to reinventing Leninism.) That being said, UBI advocates often see certain basic needs as efficient and desirable to provide directly in addition to UBI, most notably universal basic health insurance.
tachudda 9y ago
Often times when I've seen this discussed, the reasoning behind straight cash vs just necessities, it often has to do with overhead. If you just give people money, its easier to administer, everyone in the program gets the same cash, theres no inventory to administer, theres nothing to check. The other thing often discussed in the same manner is help that has certain "morality" clauses, such as welfare or help, but only if the poor person makes certain decisions. As far as total impact, you can do more by just giving money, and not spending any of it policing behavior.
- matte_black 9y ago
  To me this is just throwing money at a poverty problem and hoping it will fix itself. It will never work, UBI will inevitably raise prices of things so people will need more basic income to get what they want. That means having to either give out more UBI or have the program become irrelevant because it doesn’t keep up with standards of living. A free house though is a free house. It does not become any less of a houses just because more people have houses. And you don’t have to give out more house to each person over time. It seems to me that we need better systems for administration of free goods. These are problems we can solve, permanently.
  - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
    > A free house though is a free house. It does not become any less of a houses just because more people have houses. What about houses that are damaged or destroyed? Will your "trivial" system repair or replace them? What if the occupant is responsible for the damage or destruction? What if this is the second or third such free home they've destroyed? And how will people move? Can they move? Can people trade homes? Can they still buy and sell them? If a person sells their home will your system give them another one for free?
    - matte_black 9y ago
      Why do you think a free home must come with some restrictions? It’s very simple. It’s yours, free and clear. Do whatever you want with it, even destroy it. But you’re not getting another one. And if it’s damaged you need to repair it. Buy insurance if you can. If you can’t deal with it get a free condo or apartment instead not a SFH. If theres a big natural disaster and your home is affected apply for aid or perhaps a new home for these special cases.
douglaswlance 9y ago
We could give out a token that would be accepted by certain government entities.

AndrewDucker 9y ago

Because people vary. And while you may need a slightly larger vehicle (because of family size) and are therefore willing to spend a bit less on a home, so live further out, others may make the opposite tradeoff. UBI gives people the ability to make the tradeoffs that work for them personally, rather than being stuck in a one-size-fits-all situation.

matte_black 9y ago
You do not need UBI for that, you just need a few more options or packages for people to choose from, which would be trivial to provide.
- yorwba 9y ago
  More like one package per person. Of course that's still trivial to provide, as you say. You just give everyone a fixed set of points they can allocate to the options available according to their needs. I propose to call those points "money".
  - matte_black 9y ago
    Even if you want a point system it becomes a separated currency from actual money.
    - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
      But money is fungible, even among different currencies; think exchange rates.
      - matte_black 9y ago
        What’s the value of a currency that can only be used to buy limited items?
        ghaff 9y ago
        Somewhat lower because of transaction costs associated with barter and black markets but it still has value.
        icebraining 9y ago
        "The black market for food stamps — where recipients sell the federal vouchers for cash — has grown by 30 percent in recent years, the Agriculture Department said in a just-released study. (...) In figures, sales of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program vouchers brought in $858 million in cash in the 2009-2011 period, compared to $330 million in the 2006-2008 time frame."

icebraining 9y ago

Where is that home? In the US, would it be in SF, CA or Alamo, GA? What kind of vehicle? I don't have a license, does that mean I only get a bicycle instead of a car? What about gas? What's "free utilities" - how much can I consume? Can I trade the clothes for something else if I don't need as many? If so, who decides for what and how much I can trade them for? I'm not an expert, but I think the results where this has been tried were bureaucracy, waste and black markets.

matte_black 9y ago
> Where is that home? In the US, would it be in SF, CA or Alamo, GA? A dense, tall building in SF could hold homes for a lot of residents at once. >I don't have a license, does that mean I only get a bicycle instead of a car? It means you get a car when you learn to drive, or else just take a bus. > What about gas? Electric vehicle > What's "free utilities" - how much can I consume? A set amount per month based on reasonable usage estimates. > Can I trade the clothes for something else if I don't need as many? You can do whatever you want with your stuff. > If so, who decides for what and how much I can trade them for? Between you and the person you trade with.
- icebraining 9y ago
  A dense, tall building in SF could hold homes for a lot of residents at once. That's not the point. An apartment in a dense, tall building in SF will still cost more than an apartment in a dense, tall building almost anywhere else. Who gets to live in SF if too many people want to? It means you get a car when you learn to drive, or else just take a bus. So your UBI discriminates against people who can't drive, who are oftentimes the people most in need. Also, it promotes massive waste, since I'll ask for a car even if I don't need one - why not, if I don't gain anything by giving it up? A set amount per month based on reasonable usage estimates. Right, but "reasonable" will depend on geography (for heat/cooling), needs, etc, no? How many jobs will be required to calculate that for the 3000+ counties in the US? You can do whatever you want with your stuff. Between you and the person you trade with. So you're producing and distributing a bunch of clothes, cars, etc, which will then be sold to companies (for low prices, obviously, since everyone has them) which will export them to other countries. Nice corporate subsidy. The WTO might have something to say about your unfair competition practices.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Instead of giving out money, why not give out the basic necessities directly? Because needs vary considerably by circumstance, and trying to address that with bureaucratic central planning rather than leveraging the market is brutally inefficient. And because a universal basic home, for instance, is hard to mix with outside income to get the home.you want. Same with universal basic food. Or a universal basic car. (Though it's interesting if you combine this idea for setting basic benefits with the “why not force people to work a government chosen jov to get basic benefits” alternative to UBI often floated, you've gone a long way to reinventing Leninism.) That being said, UBI advocates often see certain basic needs as efficient and desirable to provide directly in addition to UBI, most notably universal basic health insurance.

tachudda 9y ago

Often times when I've seen this discussed, the reasoning behind straight cash vs just necessities, it often has to do with overhead. If you just give people money, its easier to administer, everyone in the program gets the same cash, theres no inventory to administer, theres nothing to check. The other thing often discussed in the same manner is help that has certain "morality" clauses, such as welfare or help, but only if the poor person makes certain decisions. As far as total impact, you can do more by just giving money, and not spending any of it policing behavior.

matte_black 9y ago
To me this is just throwing money at a poverty problem and hoping it will fix itself. It will never work, UBI will inevitably raise prices of things so people will need more basic income to get what they want. That means having to either give out more UBI or have the program become irrelevant because it doesn’t keep up with standards of living. A free house though is a free house. It does not become any less of a houses just because more people have houses. And you don’t have to give out more house to each person over time. It seems to me that we need better systems for administration of free goods. These are problems we can solve, permanently.
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago
  > A free house though is a free house. It does not become any less of a houses just because more people have houses. What about houses that are damaged or destroyed? Will your "trivial" system repair or replace them? What if the occupant is responsible for the damage or destruction? What if this is the second or third such free home they've destroyed? And how will people move? Can they move? Can people trade homes? Can they still buy and sell them? If a person sells their home will your system give them another one for free?
  - matte_black 9y ago
    Why do you think a free home must come with some restrictions? It’s very simple. It’s yours, free and clear. Do whatever you want with it, even destroy it. But you’re not getting another one. And if it’s damaged you need to repair it. Buy insurance if you can. If you can’t deal with it get a free condo or apartment instead not a SFH. If theres a big natural disaster and your home is affected apply for aid or perhaps a new home for these special cases.

douglaswlance 9y ago

We could give out a token that would be accepted by certain government entities.