5 ms·

Think Like a Martian About Money and Universal Basic Income

28 points by imartin2k 8y ago

Proven 8y ago
Misguided on all levels. When everyone owned the Earth there was nothing to own and everyone was poor. We owe our advance to the concept of private, not communalist property. Basic income nonsense: why don't the proponents buy property where there are no property taxes and go there to distribute basic income to those who want to move in with them? Let's see how long they're gonna last.
b_tterc_p 8y ago
Terrible article. The first half is overly long and feels like it’s just anti capitalism rather than pro ubi The rest is just appeals to emotion. The worst offender being here > We have piles of evidence that a world without UBI is hugely expensive in so many ways. With nothing to say that a world with UBI isn’t.
- HNLurker2 8y ago
  I relate to this sentiment. This is the best system we got so far, would UBI even work here?
Crye 8y ago
Anyone who found this line of thinking intriguing, I would like to recommend a book by Ursula Le Guin, The Dispossessed. It's a story that follows a mathematical genius who lives on a primitive and poor but utopic anarchic planet. His planet, however, orbits a planet very similar to ours. Due to his discoveries, one of the countries on the earth like planet asks him to continue his work on their planet. During his time there, he explores the danger, sickness and wonders our beliefs and system of capitalism creates.
sneak 8y ago
Money was invented as a way of collectively keeping track of who owes what to whom. To abolish it from “the martian perspective” would be to abolish interaction by consent, which has variously been termed slavery and rape throughout the years here on Earth.
- superstructBase 8y ago
  UBI would not abolish money. It would actually create more money for everyone, and having a guaranteed minimum income would allow people to enter into employment relationships on a purely voluntary basis, because they would have the option to abstain from work.
  - sneak 8y ago
    Where is the money to come from? Whether you print more and inflate it (without the consent of existing holders) or take it by force via taxation (by definition without the consent of existing holders) you undermine the basic premise of the tool that money serves as in our society.
    - PebblesHD 8y ago
      Without wanting to sound contrarian, the mere fact that individuals have been able to amass hundreds of billions of dollars seems to indicate that as a tool of exchange, money has failed. These hundreds of billions aren’t helping anyone on the planet find shelter, food, or improve anyone’s quality of life. It’s being used to further the wealth of the already incredibly wealthy. Not to mention, the fact that the CEOs of these companies have hundreds of billions when their employees may only be earning thousands suggests that they are contributing hundreds of thousands of times the effort or value, which can simply not be the case. In any case, the current system has served me well as i possess knowledge that is deemed valuable at present, but i personally know dozens of people who through a variety of causes haven’t been able to extract the same, and who would benefit from a complete rethinking of the system. This again suggests that for the maximum benefit to the most people, something needs to change.
  - htk 8y ago
    "Create more money"? If you mean printing more money, than we just get inflation, otherwise giving money doesn't create any new value by itself, it's just money changing hands.
    - 8y ago
Joky 8y ago
> Think about that fact for a moment through Martian eyes. Humans are the only species on planet Earth who have to pay to live here. Right, other species are just fighting daily for their territory and their life...
- superstructBase 8y ago
  Yes, so we should be less like animals. People should be allowed to live without having to "earn a living" -- the daily struggle for survival would be abolished by UBI.
  - Joky 8y ago
    Actually I'm not against UBI, but I don't think that the martians argument about the money system was a good one: the current system is just much civilized than anything that existed before as far as I can tell. UBI may be part of the next evolutionary step of society, we'll see, but I'm slightly bothered that it relies on the comfort and the wealthiness of the "first world" built to the detriment of the "third world". I personally feel that "people should be allowed to live" would be more convincing to me if it was about worldwide inequality rather than UBI in westerner society.
- teledyn 8y ago
  Right. their territory, ie what they carved out, for free, and what they can catch, for free. Malthus, on the other hand, started the blight of economics that gave all Commons to some self-proclaimed 'king' who would then graciously sell it back to us for money with his picture on it.
newspeedster 8y ago
as a wise man once said, a fool believes and acts as what other fools told him too, but a wise man who does not understand that becomes a fool!
calecon323 8y ago
The problem with universal basic income is that none of the ways to pay for it are palatable. Let's assume for instance that we want a UBI of something like 20% of per capita gdp. Either we (a) cut spending from existing government programs or (b) raise taxes. It is often suggested that the UBI can replace existing social welfare programs and save money in the long run by cutting out administration costs. First, administration costs are already quite low, social security administration costs in the US for example are usually around 2-3% of total outlays and there is no real reason to believe that similar old age pension programs in other countries are any less efficient. Secondly, existing government programs are usually significantly more generous than a proposed UBI to the recipients of such programs. Cutting existing spending means that the existing users of government welfare will suffer a massive drop in living standards. Leaving outside the moral consequences of imposing austerity on the most vulnerable in society this point is almost never acknowledged by proponents of a UBI. Raising taxes is the second option but this is even more problematic than diverting existing government spending. Western governments already impose significant taxation on citizens. If you are living in a rich country with tax receipts over 50% of GDP increasing taxes by over 40% basically means restructuring your entire economy. Since income taxes are already quite high you will almost certainly need some mix of increases in payroll and sales taxes to meet the fiscal demands of a UBI. The poor can't reasonably be exempted from this increased taxation as their income will either be hit by increased consumption taxes on almost every good or service they purchase or their after tax income will be hit by the higher payroll taxes. Trying to means test the payroll tax increase won't work as governments will no longer be able to raise enough income to afford a UBI if they try to carve out exemptions for the poor and lower middle class. Assuming you are comfortable with these tradeoffs and the perverse incentives usually created as people try to avoid the large increase in taxes you will be faced the reality that the UBI will not go nearly as far as it would before the additional taxes are imposed. Not only have you given every worker a pay cut you have also increased the price of almost every good they could conceivably purchase with their new income. Finally, such a large increase in taxation will almost certainly impose a dramatic cost in economic activity. Increasing taxation from 50% to 70% of total economic output is far beyond what even the richest countries can support in taxation. No Scandinavian country is even remotely close to this level for example. The net result is a trilemma in implementing a UBI that cannot be avoided: a) if you reduce the level of the UBI below what a reasonable person could subsist on you defeat the entire point of having a UBI in the first place b) if you cut existing government spending welfare recipients and existing users of government programs will be massive net losers c) dramatic increases in taxation are beyond what is generally considered possible to put it politely Silly articles like this on the UBI never bring up any of the public policy issues that must be addressed to implement a UBI and it's pretty clear why. The UBI as I see it proposed incessently is basically the perpetual motion machine of political thought
akarki15 8y ago
> Thinking as a Martian, if humans were to decide to trust everyone a minimum amount, such that no human had no trust, but every human had some trust, and that amount of trust was sufficient for everyone to obtain a minimum amount of access to the resources necessary for life, then everything would change. This is looking at human beings from a personal standpoint. You have to look at humans as a group and decide what the Nash equilibrium looks like. If everyone tried to trust a minimum amount, there is a large incentive on single individual to break that trust and gain benefits. You need some kind of system to dis incentivize people from breaking trust. Guess what that's what law and order is. But unfortunately nations haven't been able to agree on common international law because the Nash equilibrium in the group of nations happens to be different. While I applaud the optimism of the writer, the piece is too rosy and void of facts/theoretical framework for me to appreciate it.
jhanschoo 8y ago
A related notion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
HNLurker2 8y ago
This is nihilist lenses not martian eyes (anthropologist). This way of working stuff is the reason we have some level of human dignity. Before civilization things where far worst.

28 points by imartin2k 8y ago

Misguided on all levels. When everyone owned the Earth there was nothing to own and everyone was poor. We owe our advance to the concept of private, not communalist property. Basic income nonsense: why don't the proponents buy property where there are no property taxes and go there to distribute basic income to those who want to move in with them? Let's see how long they're gonna last.

b_tterc_p 8y ago

Terrible article. The first half is overly long and feels like it’s just anti capitalism rather than pro ubi The rest is just appeals to emotion. The worst offender being here > We have piles of evidence that a world without UBI is hugely expensive in so many ways. With nothing to say that a world with UBI isn’t.

HNLurker2 8y ago
I relate to this sentiment. This is the best system we got so far, would UBI even work here?

Crye 8y ago

Anyone who found this line of thinking intriguing, I would like to recommend a book by Ursula Le Guin, The Dispossessed. It's a story that follows a mathematical genius who lives on a primitive and poor but utopic anarchic planet. His planet, however, orbits a planet very similar to ours. Due to his discoveries, one of the countries on the earth like planet asks him to continue his work on their planet. During his time there, he explores the danger, sickness and wonders our beliefs and system of capitalism creates.

sneak 8y ago

Money was invented as a way of collectively keeping track of who owes what to whom. To abolish it from “the martian perspective” would be to abolish interaction by consent, which has variously been termed slavery and rape throughout the years here on Earth.

superstructBase 8y ago
UBI would not abolish money. It would actually create more money for everyone, and having a guaranteed minimum income would allow people to enter into employment relationships on a purely voluntary basis, because they would have the option to abstain from work.
- sneak 8y ago
  Where is the money to come from? Whether you print more and inflate it (without the consent of existing holders) or take it by force via taxation (by definition without the consent of existing holders) you undermine the basic premise of the tool that money serves as in our society.
  - PebblesHD 8y ago
    Without wanting to sound contrarian, the mere fact that individuals have been able to amass hundreds of billions of dollars seems to indicate that as a tool of exchange, money has failed. These hundreds of billions aren’t helping anyone on the planet find shelter, food, or improve anyone’s quality of life. It’s being used to further the wealth of the already incredibly wealthy. Not to mention, the fact that the CEOs of these companies have hundreds of billions when their employees may only be earning thousands suggests that they are contributing hundreds of thousands of times the effort or value, which can simply not be the case. In any case, the current system has served me well as i possess knowledge that is deemed valuable at present, but i personally know dozens of people who through a variety of causes haven’t been able to extract the same, and who would benefit from a complete rethinking of the system. This again suggests that for the maximum benefit to the most people, something needs to change.
- htk 8y ago
  "Create more money"? If you mean printing more money, than we just get inflation, otherwise giving money doesn't create any new value by itself, it's just money changing hands.
  - 8y ago

Joky 8y ago

> Think about that fact for a moment through Martian eyes. Humans are the only species on planet Earth who have to pay to live here. Right, other species are just fighting daily for their territory and their life...

superstructBase 8y ago
Yes, so we should be less like animals. People should be allowed to live without having to "earn a living" -- the daily struggle for survival would be abolished by UBI.
- Joky 8y ago
  Actually I'm not against UBI, but I don't think that the martians argument about the money system was a good one: the current system is just much civilized than anything that existed before as far as I can tell. UBI may be part of the next evolutionary step of society, we'll see, but I'm slightly bothered that it relies on the comfort and the wealthiness of the "first world" built to the detriment of the "third world". I personally feel that "people should be allowed to live" would be more convincing to me if it was about worldwide inequality rather than UBI in westerner society.
teledyn 8y ago
Right. their territory, ie what they carved out, for free, and what they can catch, for free. Malthus, on the other hand, started the blight of economics that gave all Commons to some self-proclaimed 'king' who would then graciously sell it back to us for money with his picture on it.

newspeedster 8y ago

as a wise man once said, a fool believes and acts as what other fools told him too, but a wise man who does not understand that becomes a fool!

calecon323 8y ago

The problem with universal basic income is that none of the ways to pay for it are palatable. Let's assume for instance that we want a UBI of something like 20% of per capita gdp. Either we (a) cut spending from existing government programs or (b) raise taxes. It is often suggested that the UBI can replace existing social welfare programs and save money in the long run by cutting out administration costs. First, administration costs are already quite low, social security administration costs in the US for example are usually around 2-3% of total outlays and there is no real reason to believe that similar old age pension programs in other countries are any less efficient. Secondly, existing government programs are usually significantly more generous than a proposed UBI to the recipients of such programs. Cutting existing spending means that the existing users of government welfare will suffer a massive drop in living standards. Leaving outside the moral consequences of imposing austerity on the most vulnerable in society this point is almost never acknowledged by proponents of a UBI. Raising taxes is the second option but this is even more problematic than diverting existing government spending. Western governments already impose significant taxation on citizens. If you are living in a rich country with tax receipts over 50% of GDP increasing taxes by over 40% basically means restructuring your entire economy. Since income taxes are already quite high you will almost certainly need some mix of increases in payroll and sales taxes to meet the fiscal demands of a UBI. The poor can't reasonably be exempted from this increased taxation as their income will either be hit by increased consumption taxes on almost every good or service they purchase or their after tax income will be hit by the higher payroll taxes. Trying to means test the payroll tax increase won't work as governments will no longer be able to raise enough income to afford a UBI if they try to carve out exemptions for the poor and lower middle class. Assuming you are comfortable with these tradeoffs and the perverse incentives usually created as people try to avoid the large increase in taxes you will be faced the reality that the UBI will not go nearly as far as it would before the additional taxes are imposed. Not only have you given every worker a pay cut you have also increased the price of almost every good they could conceivably purchase with their new income. Finally, such a large increase in taxation will almost certainly impose a dramatic cost in economic activity. Increasing taxation from 50% to 70% of total economic output is far beyond what even the richest countries can support in taxation. No Scandinavian country is even remotely close to this level for example. The net result is a trilemma in implementing a UBI that cannot be avoided: a) if you reduce the level of the UBI below what a reasonable person could subsist on you defeat the entire point of having a UBI in the first place b) if you cut existing government spending welfare recipients and existing users of government programs will be massive net losers c) dramatic increases in taxation are beyond what is generally considered possible to put it politely Silly articles like this on the UBI never bring up any of the public policy issues that must be addressed to implement a UBI and it's pretty clear why. The UBI as I see it proposed incessently is basically the perpetual motion machine of political thought

akarki15 8y ago

> Thinking as a Martian, if humans were to decide to trust everyone a minimum amount, such that no human had no trust, but every human had some trust, and that amount of trust was sufficient for everyone to obtain a minimum amount of access to the resources necessary for life, then everything would change. This is looking at human beings from a personal standpoint. You have to look at humans as a group and decide what the Nash equilibrium looks like. If everyone tried to trust a minimum amount, there is a large incentive on single individual to break that trust and gain benefits. You need some kind of system to dis incentivize people from breaking trust. Guess what that's what law and order is. But unfortunately nations haven't been able to agree on common international law because the Nash equilibrium in the group of nations happens to be different. While I applaud the optimism of the writer, the piece is too rosy and void of facts/theoretical framework for me to appreciate it.

jhanschoo 8y ago

A related notion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

HNLurker2 8y ago

This is nihilist lenses not martian eyes (anthropologist). This way of working stuff is the reason we have some level of human dignity. Before civilization things where far worst.