3 ms·

I’m trying to understand your point here. Weakens the dollar, sure, to some degree. I’m not understanding the “billionaires will die without UBI” part though.

• sova 7y ago
  It's a tongue-in-cheek statement to highlight the absurdity of giving money to everyone especially the affluent. Clearly, issuance of new currency must be done decisively, the point is that billionaires do not need UBI and therefore it should not be "universal." Giving money to all without "means testing" increasing the cost of the program by about 2x and reduces the benefit to the people intended to benefit. It does not delete the income inequality gap, but would simply displace it vertically without affecting the endpoints if everyone got an equal sum.
  • donavanm 7y ago
    And are billionaires a meaningful portion of the populace or total payments? Or are you trying to both use means testing as a way of significantly restricting beneficiaries while still calling it “universal”?
    • sova 7y ago
      The "universal" in "universal basic income" is what makes it undesirable because affluent people don't need money and giving it to them devalues money given to the needy, commodity prices spike when a fund is issued (like in Kuwait, they could not avoid it because when the supply of money increased commodity prices spiked up). While there are only 607 billionaires in the US, I was using the term billionaires as emblematic of anyone with a decent level of affluence. I do not think we should be striving for "universal" basic income because it turns into "universal" rampant inflation with diluted (= eventually zero ) beneficiaries