4 ms·

“Unconditional” is a nice euphemism for “free”. There is no such thing as a free handout (and, thusly, an unconditional handout), unless it’s coming in the form

“Unconditional” is a nice euphemism for “free”. There is no such thing as a free handout (and, thusly, an unconditional handout), unless it’s coming in the form of manna from heaven. In these limited studies that don’t affect the inflation rate or the greater macroeconomic picture, there appears to be no conditions, especially none imposed on the recipients. If you expand a study like this, in your mind, to include e.g., the entire population of America, you don’t need to be a PhD economist to see that there are certainly conditions involved.

dwaltrip 7y ago
There are always at least some constraints on the givers, e.g. there is X amount of money available to be distributed in a given time period. This should not be conflated with conditions that the recipients must first meet. The article is referring to this second type.
- gonational 7y ago
  The reason there are no conditions for these recipients is because this is a small, controlled experiment, with outside resources. If you expand this experiment to include the entire population, then each recipient has to meet the condition of welcoming expansion (inflation) of the money supply, each time they receive a payment (unless each recipient is also taxed 100% of what they receive each month). Inflation comes at the expense of savings, and also discourages lending (since the money repaid will be worth less - e.g., Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, et al). Given the aforementioned circumstances, if you are a saver (with money to lend) OR a borrower (e.g., attempting to grow a business), then you have to accept that these activities will be economically discouraged by the inflationary effects of this income payment system. Only economic inactivity is rewarded (e.g., folks who retire without savings, folks without a job, etc.) without conditions. This is all axiomatic and completely provable with syllogism alone, except for in one scenario: new wealth is discovered (free energy, manna from heaven, altruistic robots, etc.).
  - dwaltrip 7y ago
    Nothing is axiomatic in economics. It's not a hard science -- there is too much complexity for us to create highly accurate models yet. It's not proven that UBI will cause inflation uniformly across the board. You can make argument that this will happen. But it is simply wrong to state that it is an obvious mathematical derivation. And once again, the potential systemic impacts of the policy that you are describing are not the same type of thing as a condition that an individual must meet to receive the payment.
  - stallmanite 7y ago
    Why is it that massive handouts in the form of quantitative easing over the past decade are fine but giving money to poor people will lead us to an instant Zimbabwe/Weimar situation?
    - gonational 7y ago
      Being against personal welfare and being against corporate/bank welfare are not mutually exclusive. Nobody that I know, is OK with giving out corporate welfare or quantitative easing of any kind. Certainly, I’m not.
      - thawaway1837 7y ago
        Well, the point is not whether you’re ok with it or not. The point is why did the massive amount of quantitative easing not lead to Zimbabwe, since there is very little difference between that and giving handouts to poorer people. Basically, QE completely undermines your claims about “handouts = Zimbabwe”. If you really want to know what caused Zimbabwean hyperinflation, it was the fact that Mugabe took land from people who knew how to use it productively to grow produce and rear livestock, and gave it to people who didn’t know how to do that. IOW hyperinflation happens when the money supply exceeds the productive capacity of the economy in question. If the productivity of the economy grows then the money supply can be increased without causing hyper inflation. If there is slack in the labour market, potentially caused by the money supply being too low, the money supply can be increased without hyper inflation simply because because the increased output matches the increased money supply.
pesmhey 7y ago
About 40% have conditional payments, in which recipients must fulfil certain obligations, such as getting their children vaccinated or enrolling them in school. It's unequivocally clear how the word 'unconditional' is being used in this context. The article even gives some examples of unconditional welfare to the poor around the world. And if you do some research, it seems like these programs are reducing poverty. On a macro scale, where does the money go when you give it to the poor? They buy things, so, it goes into the economy, doesn't it? When you give money to the ultrarich, it goes into offshore accounts, more than it goes back into the economy. Not that we shouldn't be giving money to the rich in the form of tax cuts and monetary policy - having dudes shoot their dick shaped rockets into space is beneficial for everyone. But save us all your 'fuck-the-poor' attitude. edit: a word
tehwebguy 7y ago
> “Unconditional” is a nice euphemism for “free”. No it means that there are no hoops that the people receiving it must jump through in order to receive it (e.g. look for a job, report in periodically, pass a drug test, volunteer time)
- kijin 7y ago
  Just as importantly from the point of view of those who support UBI, it means a whole lot less bureaucracy for deciding who gets how much.
TrinaryWorksToo 7y ago
It is not free if it's unconditional. It comes from a wealth transfer. It's just that the transfer always happens

dwaltrip 7y ago

There are always at least some constraints on the givers, e.g. there is X amount of money available to be distributed in a given time period. This should not be conflated with conditions that the recipients must first meet. The article is referring to this second type.

gonational 7y ago
The reason there are no conditions for these recipients is because this is a small, controlled experiment, with outside resources. If you expand this experiment to include the entire population, then each recipient has to meet the condition of welcoming expansion (inflation) of the money supply, each time they receive a payment (unless each recipient is also taxed 100% of what they receive each month). Inflation comes at the expense of savings, and also discourages lending (since the money repaid will be worth less - e.g., Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, et al). Given the aforementioned circumstances, if you are a saver (with money to lend) OR a borrower (e.g., attempting to grow a business), then you have to accept that these activities will be economically discouraged by the inflationary effects of this income payment system. Only economic inactivity is rewarded (e.g., folks who retire without savings, folks without a job, etc.) without conditions. This is all axiomatic and completely provable with syllogism alone, except for in one scenario: new wealth is discovered (free energy, manna from heaven, altruistic robots, etc.).
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  Nothing is axiomatic in economics. It's not a hard science -- there is too much complexity for us to create highly accurate models yet. It's not proven that UBI will cause inflation uniformly across the board. You can make argument that this will happen. But it is simply wrong to state that it is an obvious mathematical derivation. And once again, the potential systemic impacts of the policy that you are describing are not the same type of thing as a condition that an individual must meet to receive the payment.
- stallmanite 7y ago
  Why is it that massive handouts in the form of quantitative easing over the past decade are fine but giving money to poor people will lead us to an instant Zimbabwe/Weimar situation?
  - gonational 7y ago
    Being against personal welfare and being against corporate/bank welfare are not mutually exclusive. Nobody that I know, is OK with giving out corporate welfare or quantitative easing of any kind. Certainly, I’m not.
    - thawaway1837 7y ago
      Well, the point is not whether you’re ok with it or not. The point is why did the massive amount of quantitative easing not lead to Zimbabwe, since there is very little difference between that and giving handouts to poorer people. Basically, QE completely undermines your claims about “handouts = Zimbabwe”. If you really want to know what caused Zimbabwean hyperinflation, it was the fact that Mugabe took land from people who knew how to use it productively to grow produce and rear livestock, and gave it to people who didn’t know how to do that. IOW hyperinflation happens when the money supply exceeds the productive capacity of the economy in question. If the productivity of the economy grows then the money supply can be increased without causing hyper inflation. If there is slack in the labour market, potentially caused by the money supply being too low, the money supply can be increased without hyper inflation simply because because the increased output matches the increased money supply.

pesmhey 7y ago

About 40% have conditional payments, in which recipients must fulfil certain obligations, such as getting their children vaccinated or enrolling them in school. It's unequivocally clear how the word 'unconditional' is being used in this context. The article even gives some examples of unconditional welfare to the poor around the world. And if you do some research, it seems like these programs are reducing poverty. On a macro scale, where does the money go when you give it to the poor? They buy things, so, it goes into the economy, doesn't it? When you give money to the ultrarich, it goes into offshore accounts, more than it goes back into the economy. Not that we shouldn't be giving money to the rich in the form of tax cuts and monetary policy - having dudes shoot their dick shaped rockets into space is beneficial for everyone. But save us all your 'fuck-the-poor' attitude. edit: a word

tehwebguy 7y ago

> “Unconditional” is a nice euphemism for “free”. No it means that there are no hoops that the people receiving it must jump through in order to receive it (e.g. look for a job, report in periodically, pass a drug test, volunteer time)

kijin 7y ago
Just as importantly from the point of view of those who support UBI, it means a whole lot less bureaucracy for deciding who gets how much.

TrinaryWorksToo 7y ago

It is not free if it's unconditional. It comes from a wealth transfer. It's just that the transfer always happens