2 ms·

>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 be

>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.

lmm 6y ago
> 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. Price inflation doesn't change how much real value exists is in the world. The problem the working poor have isn't inflation (if anything, inflation costs the rich more than the poor, since the rich are more likely to have savings), it's that they're taking home an ever smaller proportion of the value they produce. > 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. Cheap food is a competitive, low-margin business, so it's unlikely that the cost would increase. (If you're thinking about labour costs going up, higher-end goods are generally much more labour-intensive than cheap goods). Housing markets are their own total mess, but if there's a lot less need for people to live near their job then that should make housing a lot more competitive and if anything lower prices. > Recent history suggests that this is simply not the case. Budget deficits would be a more reasonable expectation. It's not like governments don't already run the highest deficits they can get away with. The mechanisms that limit them (credit ratings etc.) will be the same mechanisms we currently have; introducing UBI doesn't change that one way or another. > Either way, increased taxes will similarly create increased prices. Those with lesser incomes will suffer the most. It's absurd to think that doubling the proportion of extant dollars in the hands of the working poor (at the expense of people on the high end) would make those people worse off. Price adjustments might blunt some of the effect, but wealth redistribution must ultimately work; why would the rich be so afraid of it otherwise?
- aww_dang 6y ago
  >inflation costs the rich more than the poor, since the rich are more likely to have savings The truly wealthy have a lower proportion of their savings in cash. They preserve their wealth in assets like stock or property which pays dividends and increases in value along with price inflation. >Cheap food is a competitive, low-margin business, so it's unlikely that the cost would increase The Federal Reserve cannot print more supply for consumers. When they increase the supply of money to chase the same supply of assets, the outcome is price inflation. Food and rent is a disproportionately larger expense for low income individuals. >The mechanisms that limit them (credit ratings etc.) These mechanisms are not limiting them from monetizing debts. Additionally, credit ratings organizations are subject to retaliation by sufficiently powerful governments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_credit-rating_downgrades#Potential_consequences_to_credit_rating_agencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_governme... >but wealth redistribution must ultimately work; why would the rich be so afraid of it otherwise? I'm not sure it is fair to assume that 'the rich' want 'the poor' to be worse off. Producers create products which consumers want to consume, because they perceive it to benefit themselves. Finally, I'm not sure that the truly rich elites are opposed to UBI. Bloomberg has published the article and continues to push this narrative. If anything greater centralization favors elites. When asset prices increase those who have their savings in assets benefit the most. Again, the elites are not keeping their savings in cash.
  - lmm 6y ago
    > The truly wealthy have a lower proportion of their savings in cash. They preserve their wealth in assets like stock or property which pays dividends and increases in value along with price inflation. I don't think that's really true. The middle class often have a negative proportion of their savings in dollar-denominated assets (their mortgage), and the poor usually have no relevant savings at all (compared to their expected future income). > The Federal Reserve cannot print more supply for consumers. When they increase the supply of money to chase the same supply of assets, the outcome is price inflation. Food and rent is a disproportionately larger expense for low income individuals. The food supply is far from fixed (and the government does have a number of levers with which to affect it). Food and rent are a disproportionately large expense for the poor because they are poor; if we redistribute wealth towards the poor we should expect it to become a proportionately smaller expense for them. Demand for food will only actually increase if people are currently not getting as much food as they want, and in that case we should want prices to increase so that more food supply comes online. > These mechanisms are not limiting them from monetizing debts. Additionally, credit ratings organizations are subject to retaliation by sufficiently powerful governments. Be that as it may, all of that is happening anyway. UBI doesn't change the deficit because the deficit will always be as high as politically possible.

lmm 6y ago

> 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. Price inflation doesn't change how much real value exists is in the world. The problem the working poor have isn't inflation (if anything, inflation costs the rich more than the poor, since the rich are more likely to have savings), it's that they're taking home an ever smaller proportion of the value they produce. > 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. Cheap food is a competitive, low-margin business, so it's unlikely that the cost would increase. (If you're thinking about labour costs going up, higher-end goods are generally much more labour-intensive than cheap goods). Housing markets are their own total mess, but if there's a lot less need for people to live near their job then that should make housing a lot more competitive and if anything lower prices. > Recent history suggests that this is simply not the case. Budget deficits would be a more reasonable expectation. It's not like governments don't already run the highest deficits they can get away with. The mechanisms that limit them (credit ratings etc.) will be the same mechanisms we currently have; introducing UBI doesn't change that one way or another. > Either way, increased taxes will similarly create increased prices. Those with lesser incomes will suffer the most. It's absurd to think that doubling the proportion of extant dollars in the hands of the working poor (at the expense of people on the high end) would make those people worse off. Price adjustments might blunt some of the effect, but wealth redistribution must ultimately work; why would the rich be so afraid of it otherwise?

aww_dang 6y ago
>inflation costs the rich more than the poor, since the rich are more likely to have savings The truly wealthy have a lower proportion of their savings in cash. They preserve their wealth in assets like stock or property which pays dividends and increases in value along with price inflation. >Cheap food is a competitive, low-margin business, so it's unlikely that the cost would increase The Federal Reserve cannot print more supply for consumers. When they increase the supply of money to chase the same supply of assets, the outcome is price inflation. Food and rent is a disproportionately larger expense for low income individuals. >The mechanisms that limit them (credit ratings etc.) These mechanisms are not limiting them from monetizing debts. Additionally, credit ratings organizations are subject to retaliation by sufficiently powerful governments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_credit-rating_downgrades#Potential_consequences_to_credit_rating_agencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_governme... >but wealth redistribution must ultimately work; why would the rich be so afraid of it otherwise? I'm not sure it is fair to assume that 'the rich' want 'the poor' to be worse off. Producers create products which consumers want to consume, because they perceive it to benefit themselves. Finally, I'm not sure that the truly rich elites are opposed to UBI. Bloomberg has published the article and continues to push this narrative. If anything greater centralization favors elites. When asset prices increase those who have their savings in assets benefit the most. Again, the elites are not keeping their savings in cash.
- lmm 6y ago
  > The truly wealthy have a lower proportion of their savings in cash. They preserve their wealth in assets like stock or property which pays dividends and increases in value along with price inflation. I don't think that's really true. The middle class often have a negative proportion of their savings in dollar-denominated assets (their mortgage), and the poor usually have no relevant savings at all (compared to their expected future income). > The Federal Reserve cannot print more supply for consumers. When they increase the supply of money to chase the same supply of assets, the outcome is price inflation. Food and rent is a disproportionately larger expense for low income individuals. The food supply is far from fixed (and the government does have a number of levers with which to affect it). Food and rent are a disproportionately large expense for the poor because they are poor; if we redistribute wealth towards the poor we should expect it to become a proportionately smaller expense for them. Demand for food will only actually increase if people are currently not getting as much food as they want, and in that case we should want prices to increase so that more food supply comes online. > These mechanisms are not limiting them from monetizing debts. Additionally, credit ratings organizations are subject to retaliation by sufficiently powerful governments. Be that as it may, all of that is happening anyway. UBI doesn't change the deficit because the deficit will always be as high as politically possible.