4 ms·

The whole point of a market based economy is allocation of resources. Yes, rent, transport, and other costs may go up in the short-term with a UBI. However th

The whole point of a market based economy is allocation of resources. Yes, rent, transport, and other costs may go up in the short-term with a UBI. However that creates strong opportunities for companies to come in and compete to drive those costs down. In contrast, when you nationalize those industries, there is no incentive to drive costs down. In fact, costs will likely go up because the more a nationalized industry spends, the more it gets from next year's budget.

tehjoker 7y ago
A market economy distributes scarce resources to those with the most money. It is fundamentally irrational. To reuse an example from Richard Wolfe, if there are ten people that need milk, and there are 5 units of milk, we should distribute them according to need (e.g. medical, children, vs someone baking a cake). Instead, under a market, the rich get to buy it for their cat while the poor are priced out of the market.
- aeternum 7y ago
  It may not seem moral, but allowing the rich to buy the milk for the cat often makes everyone better off. The high price for milk and inflow of dollars from the high demand lead to more dairy farms, or research into milk alternatives. That does not happen if you seize the milk and distribute it according to need.
  - c0nducktr 7y ago
    Why wouldn't the wealthy not having milk for their cat not also result in more dairy farms or research into milk alternatives? Both ways there's less milk available than needed, so the problem (lack of milk) still exists.
    - yellowapple 7y ago
      Because in one case the one selling the milk gets money to invest into providing more milk, and in the other case said seller does not (or gets less of it). If those five gallons are to be distributed by need, then that difference in return needs accounted for as well (i.e. the government doing the redistribution should also be putting resources into improving milk production to avoid that situation in the future).
      - c0nducktr 7y ago
        Well what prevents the government putting resources into improving milk production? That just seems to be the logical next step. It seems the same activity (more milk production) would happen regardless, but instead of placing the rate of milk production in the hands of the current milk suppliers, it would be democratically controlled by the people buying the milk.
        aeternum 7y ago
        In theory it could work, but the government would need experts in milk production to determine what to invest in. Expand this to every possible good, and it becomes un-manageable quickly, while also being ripe for corruption. The producers of the good are typically much better positioned to determine how to efficiently spend resources to increase production. It is their own profits, future, and livelihood on the line so they are much more likely to choose carefully.
        c0nducktr 7y ago
        I'm still not really following. Can people with knowledge of milk production not be selected for government? Why would people choose to have those with less knowledge of milk production to run the milk production department?
        aeternum 7y ago
        Who decides who runs the milk production department? In a market economy, everyone is free to compete, and everyone votes with his/her hard-earned dollars each time they purchase some milk. With the government system, would you have people vote for the best milk producer? Is the general populace qualified or able to assess skill in milk production? If you instead decide to appoint this milk producer, how do you prevent corruption?
        yellowapple 7y ago
        > Is the general populace qualified or able to assess skill in milk production? Is the general populace somehow more qualified or able to make that assessment if they're voicing said assessment in the form of dollars paid?
- ygggdrasil 7y ago
  Most resources are not scarce, and most industries have healthy competition. If a business tries to raise prices after UBI is implemented, other companies will enter the market for the increased margins and in turn, drive prices down again.
- campfireveteran 7y ago
  Do you mean Richard Wolff?

tehjoker 7y ago

A market economy distributes scarce resources to those with the most money. It is fundamentally irrational. To reuse an example from Richard Wolfe, if there are ten people that need milk, and there are 5 units of milk, we should distribute them according to need (e.g. medical, children, vs someone baking a cake). Instead, under a market, the rich get to buy it for their cat while the poor are priced out of the market.

aeternum 7y ago
It may not seem moral, but allowing the rich to buy the milk for the cat often makes everyone better off. The high price for milk and inflow of dollars from the high demand lead to more dairy farms, or research into milk alternatives. That does not happen if you seize the milk and distribute it according to need.
- c0nducktr 7y ago
  Why wouldn't the wealthy not having milk for their cat not also result in more dairy farms or research into milk alternatives? Both ways there's less milk available than needed, so the problem (lack of milk) still exists.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    Because in one case the one selling the milk gets money to invest into providing more milk, and in the other case said seller does not (or gets less of it). If those five gallons are to be distributed by need, then that difference in return needs accounted for as well (i.e. the government doing the redistribution should also be putting resources into improving milk production to avoid that situation in the future).
    - c0nducktr 7y ago
      Well what prevents the government putting resources into improving milk production? That just seems to be the logical next step. It seems the same activity (more milk production) would happen regardless, but instead of placing the rate of milk production in the hands of the current milk suppliers, it would be democratically controlled by the people buying the milk.
      - aeternum 7y ago
        In theory it could work, but the government would need experts in milk production to determine what to invest in. Expand this to every possible good, and it becomes un-manageable quickly, while also being ripe for corruption. The producers of the good are typically much better positioned to determine how to efficiently spend resources to increase production. It is their own profits, future, and livelihood on the line so they are much more likely to choose carefully.
        c0nducktr 7y ago
        I'm still not really following. Can people with knowledge of milk production not be selected for government? Why would people choose to have those with less knowledge of milk production to run the milk production department?
        aeternum 7y ago
        Who decides who runs the milk production department? In a market economy, everyone is free to compete, and everyone votes with his/her hard-earned dollars each time they purchase some milk. With the government system, would you have people vote for the best milk producer? Is the general populace qualified or able to assess skill in milk production? If you instead decide to appoint this milk producer, how do you prevent corruption?
        yellowapple 7y ago
        > Is the general populace qualified or able to assess skill in milk production? Is the general populace somehow more qualified or able to make that assessment if they're voicing said assessment in the form of dollars paid?
ygggdrasil 7y ago
Most resources are not scarce, and most industries have healthy competition. If a business tries to raise prices after UBI is implemented, other companies will enter the market for the increased margins and in turn, drive prices down again.
campfireveteran 7y ago
Do you mean Richard Wolff?