4 ms·

I too think this is silly. Everyone wants to use this disaster to achieve the policy goals they wanted anyway. Republicans want to use it as an excuse for tax c

by Gunax 7y ago

I too think this is silly. Everyone wants to use this disaster to achieve the policy goals they wanted anyway. Republicans want to use it as an excuse for tax cuts. Democrats want to expand public healthcare and benefits. Everyone is trying to attach riders for domestic violence victims or pork spending or whatever pet issue they have. And now the Ubi folks want this. Nothing changes. Same BS.

andreilys 7y ago
What do you think will help the recovery more, QE by central banks or UBI?
- beatgammit 7y ago
  Neither? Markets have been overheated, so a correction makes a ton of sense. What we need is to get over this pandemic as quickly as possible so we can stop disrupting trade and get people back to work. The news coming out of China is encouraging, and production seems to be slowly returning to normal. Any discussion about UBI should be based on the long term merits, not a reaction to any current crisis. QE is a bit different, but honestly I think it does more harm than good much of the time, especially once it makes it through the political system.
- nostromo 7y ago
  QE tends to be net neutral financially. The Fed steps in, makes some loans or buys some securities -- when the disaster abates, they get some money back from their loans and sell the securities for a profit.
gdubs 7y ago
UBI, Tax Cuts, Social Safety Net – these are all different approaches to solving actual problems. Are politics full of pork and cynicism? Sure. But at the end of the day _something_ needs to be done, and it would be more constructive to have a rational discussion of which of the tools at our disposal stand a chance against this menace.
- Gunax 7y ago
  Sure. I agree. I think everyone agrees. I suppose I just get skeptical whenever a solution has been proposed that is apparently a panacea to all of societies problems. When 'x' has been purported to solve everything for 30 years, I start to get skeptical about x has any bearing on whatever disaster occured today.
NamTaf 7y ago
This is hardly a UBI. It's also been done before, for example in Australia during the GFC. The idea is to get money into the hands of people who will actually spend it - the poor will tend to go buy their kid a desperately needed new pair of school shoes, for example, whereas the rich will just throw it in with their other savings. Only one of those stimulates the economy in the short term.
- WC3w6pXxgGd 7y ago
  "It's been done before" is not an argument.
- Gunax 7y ago
  While I agree it isn't UBI, I think it's UBI-light. I am not necessarily saying it's a bad idea, I am just jaded that solutions always follow existing political ties. I am sure there are logical arguments for it. But there are also logical arguments for tax cuts right now. I am just an idiot on the internet. All I can say is I get skeptical whenever an idea purports to solve any situation that arises.
- magduf 7y ago
  The US did something similar around 15 years ago: has everyone forgotten when George W. Bush gave everyone $400?
justin66 7y ago
I don't get it, particularly in the context of emergency relief for individuals, which is where this conversation started. 1. The pandemic reveals major holes in the social safety net that people are pretty upset about. 2. One party wants the patch the holes, and they continue to feel that way. The other party regards the holes as grimly necessary to keep people properly motivated, or part of God's divine plan, or impossibly expensive to fix in spite of the fact that less wealthy countries manage it, or something, and they continue to feel that way. therefore 3. Woo, both sides are equally crazy!!! This is why we can't have nice things.
- Gunax 7y ago
  One party wants to fix the economy and promote jobs and enterprise. The other wants to destroy the economy so we are all dependent on government handouts and keep voting for more handouts. See how I can easily spin it the other way? I hate to say it--and I hope this doesn't sound too flippant--but I think you're doing exactly what I described. If you started out thinking that your ideology is clearly correct and the opposition has nefarious motives, then rather than this disaster leading anyone to question their beliefs, it will stand to reinforce them.
  - justin66 7y ago
    It does sound flippant, but that's not the point. A situation like "everyone wants to use this disaster to achieve the policy goals they wanted anyway," while a slight exaggeration, might productively lead a person interested in the function of their government to evaluate the quality of those policy goals, rather than withdraw into cynicism. In an election year, it'd actually be somewhat appropriate. > If you started out thinking that your ideology is clearly correct and the opposition has nefarious motives, then rather than this disaster leading anyone to question their beliefs, it will stand to reinforce them. If you're the kind of person who gives a damn about "motives" instead of ideas and policies, well... it is understandable at times, but that's not something to aspire to.

by Gunax 7y ago

andreilys 7y ago

What do you think will help the recovery more, QE by central banks or UBI?

beatgammit 7y ago
Neither? Markets have been overheated, so a correction makes a ton of sense. What we need is to get over this pandemic as quickly as possible so we can stop disrupting trade and get people back to work. The news coming out of China is encouraging, and production seems to be slowly returning to normal. Any discussion about UBI should be based on the long term merits, not a reaction to any current crisis. QE is a bit different, but honestly I think it does more harm than good much of the time, especially once it makes it through the political system.
nostromo 7y ago
QE tends to be net neutral financially. The Fed steps in, makes some loans or buys some securities -- when the disaster abates, they get some money back from their loans and sell the securities for a profit.

gdubs 7y ago

UBI, Tax Cuts, Social Safety Net – these are all different approaches to solving actual problems. Are politics full of pork and cynicism? Sure. But at the end of the day _something_ needs to be done, and it would be more constructive to have a rational discussion of which of the tools at our disposal stand a chance against this menace.

Gunax 7y ago
Sure. I agree. I think everyone agrees. I suppose I just get skeptical whenever a solution has been proposed that is apparently a panacea to all of societies problems. When 'x' has been purported to solve everything for 30 years, I start to get skeptical about x has any bearing on whatever disaster occured today.

NamTaf 7y ago

This is hardly a UBI. It's also been done before, for example in Australia during the GFC. The idea is to get money into the hands of people who will actually spend it - the poor will tend to go buy their kid a desperately needed new pair of school shoes, for example, whereas the rich will just throw it in with their other savings. Only one of those stimulates the economy in the short term.

WC3w6pXxgGd 7y ago
"It's been done before" is not an argument.
Gunax 7y ago
While I agree it isn't UBI, I think it's UBI-light. I am not necessarily saying it's a bad idea, I am just jaded that solutions always follow existing political ties. I am sure there are logical arguments for it. But there are also logical arguments for tax cuts right now. I am just an idiot on the internet. All I can say is I get skeptical whenever an idea purports to solve any situation that arises.
magduf 7y ago
The US did something similar around 15 years ago: has everyone forgotten when George W. Bush gave everyone $400?

justin66 7y ago

I don't get it, particularly in the context of emergency relief for individuals, which is where this conversation started. 1. The pandemic reveals major holes in the social safety net that people are pretty upset about. 2. One party wants the patch the holes, and they continue to feel that way. The other party regards the holes as grimly necessary to keep people properly motivated, or part of God's divine plan, or impossibly expensive to fix in spite of the fact that less wealthy countries manage it, or something, and they continue to feel that way. therefore 3. Woo, both sides are equally crazy!!! This is why we can't have nice things.

Gunax 7y ago
One party wants to fix the economy and promote jobs and enterprise. The other wants to destroy the economy so we are all dependent on government handouts and keep voting for more handouts. See how I can easily spin it the other way? I hate to say it--and I hope this doesn't sound too flippant--but I think you're doing exactly what I described. If you started out thinking that your ideology is clearly correct and the opposition has nefarious motives, then rather than this disaster leading anyone to question their beliefs, it will stand to reinforce them.
- justin66 7y ago
  It does sound flippant, but that's not the point. A situation like "everyone wants to use this disaster to achieve the policy goals they wanted anyway," while a slight exaggeration, might productively lead a person interested in the function of their government to evaluate the quality of those policy goals, rather than withdraw into cynicism. In an election year, it'd actually be somewhat appropriate. > If you started out thinking that your ideology is clearly correct and the opposition has nefarious motives, then rather than this disaster leading anyone to question their beliefs, it will stand to reinforce them. If you're the kind of person who gives a damn about "motives" instead of ideas and policies, well... it is understandable at times, but that's not something to aspire to.