3 ms·

Meta: countless fiscal policy changes are made in weeks. But for UBI, decades of experiments and data-driven validation seem to be required. Why is it accepta

Meta: countless fiscal policy changes are made in weeks. But for UBI, decades of experiments and data-driven validation seem to be required. Why is it acceptable that UBI requires such huge burden of proof? Don't tell me that it's more radical than other reforms: when used as a replacement for welfare and other subsidies at comparable cost, it is pretty mild.

Proven 6y ago
> Meta: countless fiscal policy changes are made in weeks. It's not policy changes, it's just politicians and central banks trying to postpone the end of fake money. Had we had free market capitalism, we wouldn't have this crisis, governments wouldn't have borrowed an entire GDP worth of money and we wouldn't witness any of this nonsense. > Don't tell me that it's more radical than other reforms It's not a reform at all. It's a huge step back. It's laughable and at the same time sad that people actually discuss this as if it were anything else but another attempt at an even more extreme form of theft and socialist redistribution. It's not.
dexterdog 6y ago
Because it would be bigger than any other program and likely bigger than every other program combined and like every other program will be impossible to remove once it is in place. This is Russian Roulette with a 64-chamber revolver with only one round removed.
peteretep 6y ago
> But for UBI, decades of experiments and data-driven validation seem to be required. Because it costs so much, and is so radically different. > when used as a replacement for welfare and other subsidies at comparable cost, it is pretty mild Buzzocks. UK over 18 population is ~52m. Give them each £1,000 a month, and you get a cost of £624,000,000,000, which is 3 times what the UK currently spends on "welfare"[0], and is about 3/4 of the overall UK budget. And you're cutting the payments of a sizeable number of current welfare receipients. Sure you can find more recent figures, or play around with how much you claim you're going to give, but let's not entertain the fantasy that this is a "mild comparative cost". [0] https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare-budget/ https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare-budget/

Proven 6y ago

> Meta: countless fiscal policy changes are made in weeks. It's not policy changes, it's just politicians and central banks trying to postpone the end of fake money. Had we had free market capitalism, we wouldn't have this crisis, governments wouldn't have borrowed an entire GDP worth of money and we wouldn't witness any of this nonsense. > Don't tell me that it's more radical than other reforms It's not a reform at all. It's a huge step back. It's laughable and at the same time sad that people actually discuss this as if it were anything else but another attempt at an even more extreme form of theft and socialist redistribution. It's not.

dexterdog 6y ago

Because it would be bigger than any other program and likely bigger than every other program combined and like every other program will be impossible to remove once it is in place. This is Russian Roulette with a 64-chamber revolver with only one round removed.

peteretep 6y ago

> But for UBI, decades of experiments and data-driven validation seem to be required. Because it costs so much, and is so radically different. > when used as a replacement for welfare and other subsidies at comparable cost, it is pretty mild Buzzocks. UK over 18 population is ~52m. Give them each £1,000 a month, and you get a cost of £624,000,000,000, which is 3 times what the UK currently spends on "welfare"[0], and is about 3/4 of the overall UK budget. And you're cutting the payments of a sizeable number of current welfare receipients. Sure you can find more recent figures, or play around with how much you claim you're going to give, but let's not entertain the fantasy that this is a "mild comparative cost". [0] https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare-budget/ https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare-budget/