3 ms·

How is UBI not resource allocation by the government ?

by aww_dang 6y ago

baddox 6y ago
There’s very little the government does that isn’t resource allocation.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Agreed. >Maybe we shouldn't be presupposing that governments are better at resource allocation than their citizens A. allocate resources via new deal work programs B. allocate resources via UBI The choice between 1930's work programs and UBI is a false dichotomy. (C.) None of the above The great depression was exacerbated by gov. spending and the new deal. Rarely mentioned is the crisis of 1920 which was resolved relatively quickly by cutting spending.
lmm 6y ago
It's the most lightweight, nonintrusive form of it. It doesn't require any but the most trivial exercise of judgement on the government's part to administrate.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  That's only if you ignore the unseen, i.e. the broken window fallacy. It becomes a tax on everyone else who is holding cash when we assume that the money supply will be inflated, which is the default scenario. Otherwise actual taxes will have to be levied to fund UBI. If we accept that society has witnessed massive increases in productivity over the last hundred years, what happened to the 5 cent hamburgers? How does this price inflation help the impoverished? When we create a monetary spigot and allocate resources via gov. intervention, those who specialize in currying favor with gov. will always benefit disproportionately. Ironically, proponents of further gov. intervention use this wealth inequality to rationalize further gov. allocation of resources.
  - lmm 6y ago
    > It becomes a tax on everyone else who is holding cash when we assume that the money supply will be inflated, which is the default scenario. Otherwise actual taxes will have to be levied to fund UBI. Of course taxes would need to be levied to fund it, as with any other government expense. And setting the tax curve right is nontrivial. But a complex tax system and a simple disbursement system is still an improvement over a complex tax system and a complex disbursement system which is what we currently have. (Eliminating almost all tax deductions would also be a good programme to follow). > If we accept that society has witnessed massive increases in productivity over the last hundred years, what happened to the 5 cent hamburgers? How does this price inflation help the impoverished? So what you're saying is that in a non-UBI world, increases in productivity have not helped the poorest. How is that an argument against UBI? > When we create a monetary spigot and allocate resources via gov. intervention, those who specialize in currying favor with gov. will always benefit disproportionately. That's true in proportion to how complex the rules are. E.g. most TARP funding went to New York 1%ers, because those were the people who knew how to meet the TARP requirements. The whole point of UBI is to reverse that by having the simplest, most transparent rules possible for who gets what money.
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      >So what you're saying is... What I am saying (sorry for not being explicit) is that increases in productivity have not helped the poorest because they have been robbed of said benefits by price inflation, which is a symptom of an inflation of the money supply. >The whole point of UBI is to reverse that by having the simplest, most transparent rules possible for who gets what money My expectation is that those who collect rent on low income housing will benefit more than those who pay the increased rent. At the end of the day low income people will have more money, but all of their expenses for basics like food and rent will increase. >Of course taxes would need to be levied to fund it, as with any other government expense. Recent history suggests that this is simply not the case. Budget deficits would be a more reasonable expectation. Either way, increased taxes will similarly create increased prices. Those with lesser incomes will suffer the most.
      - 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

How is UBI not resource allocation by the government ?

baddox 6y ago

There’s very little the government does that isn’t resource allocation.

aww_dang 6y ago
Agreed. >Maybe we shouldn't be presupposing that governments are better at resource allocation than their citizens A. allocate resources via new deal work programs B. allocate resources via UBI The choice between 1930's work programs and UBI is a false dichotomy. (C.) None of the above The great depression was exacerbated by gov. spending and the new deal. Rarely mentioned is the crisis of 1920 which was resolved relatively quickly by cutting spending.

lmm 6y ago

It's the most lightweight, nonintrusive form of it. It doesn't require any but the most trivial exercise of judgement on the government's part to administrate.

aww_dang 6y ago
That's only if you ignore the unseen, i.e. the broken window fallacy. It becomes a tax on everyone else who is holding cash when we assume that the money supply will be inflated, which is the default scenario. Otherwise actual taxes will have to be levied to fund UBI. If we accept that society has witnessed massive increases in productivity over the last hundred years, what happened to the 5 cent hamburgers? How does this price inflation help the impoverished? When we create a monetary spigot and allocate resources via gov. intervention, those who specialize in currying favor with gov. will always benefit disproportionately. Ironically, proponents of further gov. intervention use this wealth inequality to rationalize further gov. allocation of resources.
- lmm 6y ago
  > It becomes a tax on everyone else who is holding cash when we assume that the money supply will be inflated, which is the default scenario. Otherwise actual taxes will have to be levied to fund UBI. Of course taxes would need to be levied to fund it, as with any other government expense. And setting the tax curve right is nontrivial. But a complex tax system and a simple disbursement system is still an improvement over a complex tax system and a complex disbursement system which is what we currently have. (Eliminating almost all tax deductions would also be a good programme to follow). > If we accept that society has witnessed massive increases in productivity over the last hundred years, what happened to the 5 cent hamburgers? How does this price inflation help the impoverished? So what you're saying is that in a non-UBI world, increases in productivity have not helped the poorest. How is that an argument against UBI? > When we create a monetary spigot and allocate resources via gov. intervention, those who specialize in currying favor with gov. will always benefit disproportionately. That's true in proportion to how complex the rules are. E.g. most TARP funding went to New York 1%ers, because those were the people who knew how to meet the TARP requirements. The whole point of UBI is to reverse that by having the simplest, most transparent rules possible for who gets what money.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    >So what you're saying is... What I am saying (sorry for not being explicit) is that increases in productivity have not helped the poorest because they have been robbed of said benefits by price inflation, which is a symptom of an inflation of the money supply. >The whole point of UBI is to reverse that by having the simplest, most transparent rules possible for who gets what money My expectation is that those who collect rent on low income housing will benefit more than those who pay the increased rent. At the end of the day low income people will have more money, but all of their expenses for basics like food and rent will increase. >Of course taxes would need to be levied to fund it, as with any other government expense. Recent history suggests that this is simply not the case. Budget deficits would be a more reasonable expectation. Either way, increased taxes will similarly create increased prices. Those with lesser incomes will suffer the most.
    - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]