4 ms·

Your argument is easily shown to be silly if we replace $1000 with $1 mil. Now everybody is a millionaire. Does this mean that prices will increase? Of course.

Your argument is easily shown to be silly if we replace $1000 with $1 mil. Now everybody is a millionaire. Does this mean that prices will increase? Of course. But will people be just as poor as before? No! People that were millionaires before are nothing special after this measure. That's what UBI does, it reduces wealth inequality between lower and upper class. Now this argument does not and will not apply to the billionaire class. For that inequality we need a different solution, starting with unavoidable progressive taxes.

zpeti 6y ago
So... why isn't it $1m? Or $1bn for that matter? As long as its something like $1000, my argument still applies. Are you saying you'd like to see a UBI of $1m?
- mytherin 6y ago
  You stated that the poor people would be in the exact same situation if they got UBI. Clearly this is not true if the UBI would be $1M. Perhaps $1000 is not enough to accomplish this, but it is obvious that UBI has the potential to lift people out of poverty. It is a wealth equalising measure. Everyone gets X+1000 instead of X. That means if X used to be 1000, you now get double your income. If X used to be 100000, basically nothing changes for you. Perhaps double the income does not mean double the purchasing power because of the effects you stated, but there is no doubt your purchasing power will increase. Rents will go up, that is very likely. However, it is extremely unlikely the rents will go up by $UBI everywhere. Most other products will remain unaffected. That means that if your rent goes up by $UBI/2, your purchasing power has still increased by 1.5X. This is a gigantic increase for poor people that live paycheck to paycheck.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    Giving the poor $1M is the same as taxing the rich more heavily. The richest would just leave, and those with more modest wealth would be less happy, possibly leaving in the future. There have been countries that seized the assets of corporations and the wealthy, and redistributed them; this rarely worked out well. > there is no doubt your purchasing power will increase Why is there no doubt? Just because you having more money, you must have more PP? But if everyone* gets more money, it might not. What you are doing is devaluing currency. Everyone invested in currency loses as their investment loses value. The rich have more "money" so it might seem this proportionally penalises the rich, but it doesn't - a person whose large wealth is invested in things that aren't dollars doesn't really lose a lot, the dollar-amount value of their investments just increases, which cancels out the effect of a lower-value dollar.
    - mytherin 6y ago
      > Giving the poor $1M is the same as taxing the rich more heavily. The richest would just leave, and those with more modest wealth would be less happy, possibly leaving in the future. There have been countries that seized the assets of corporations and the wealthy, and redistributed them; this rarely worked out well. This is a rather nop argument that can be made against any and all taxation. Giving everything to the rich and leaving the poor to starve has rarely worked out well either. It tends to lead to rather violent uprisings and riots. Those also tend to make countries less attractive places to live. > Why is there no doubt? Just because you having more money, you must have more PP? But if everyone* gets more money, it might not. My post was stating this from the perspective of poor people. UBI equalises purchasing power. If the amount of products produced remains the same, adding a constant amount of money to everyone's income will increase the purchasing power of the people in the bottom, and decrease it for those in the top. It is obvious in extreme examples: if Bob makes 1000 per month, and Alice makes 99.000 per month, then Bob has 1% of the total PP, and Alice has 99%. If we then add 1 billion to both of their incomes, both Alice and Bob now have roughly 50% of the total purchasing power.
      - CryptoPunk 6y ago
        >Giving everything to the rich and leaving the poor to starve has rarely worked out well either. Not taxing the rich does not equate to "giving everything to the rich and leaving the poor to starve". Almost all the decline in poverty over the last 30 years was due to economic development which, according to economists who study development, was massively facilitated by the spread of market institutions like property rights 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-ending-poverty/308134/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-pol... 2. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-global-war-on-poverty https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-gl... 3. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/06/01/towards-the-end-of-poverty https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/06/01/towards-the-end... The solution to poverty isn't for government to take money from the productive and give it to the poor. The actual solution is to increase employment options and the earning power of the poor. Socialist ideologues need to look at the empirical evidence, and the economic literature, and learn that the welfare state works against the solution to poverty. The profit-motivated investment that emerges when people's right to their private property is protected, is the solution to poverty.
- ivalm 6y ago
  UBI increases aggregate demand, so as you point out it increases inflation. However, it doesnt increase individual demand equally. Rich people’s demand will increase fractionally less than poor people’s. This means consumption inequality will decrease. So the choice of how much UBI to give is a balance between the good of decreasing consumption inequality (us has too much) and the bad of inflation.

zpeti 6y ago

So... why isn't it $1m? Or $1bn for that matter? As long as its something like $1000, my argument still applies. Are you saying you'd like to see a UBI of $1m?

mytherin 6y ago
You stated that the poor people would be in the exact same situation if they got UBI. Clearly this is not true if the UBI would be $1M. Perhaps $1000 is not enough to accomplish this, but it is obvious that UBI has the potential to lift people out of poverty. It is a wealth equalising measure. Everyone gets X+1000 instead of X. That means if X used to be 1000, you now get double your income. If X used to be 100000, basically nothing changes for you. Perhaps double the income does not mean double the purchasing power because of the effects you stated, but there is no doubt your purchasing power will increase. Rents will go up, that is very likely. However, it is extremely unlikely the rents will go up by $UBI everywhere. Most other products will remain unaffected. That means that if your rent goes up by $UBI/2, your purchasing power has still increased by 1.5X. This is a gigantic increase for poor people that live paycheck to paycheck.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  Giving the poor $1M is the same as taxing the rich more heavily. The richest would just leave, and those with more modest wealth would be less happy, possibly leaving in the future. There have been countries that seized the assets of corporations and the wealthy, and redistributed them; this rarely worked out well. > there is no doubt your purchasing power will increase Why is there no doubt? Just because you having more money, you must have more PP? But if everyone* gets more money, it might not. What you are doing is devaluing currency. Everyone invested in currency loses as their investment loses value. The rich have more "money" so it might seem this proportionally penalises the rich, but it doesn't - a person whose large wealth is invested in things that aren't dollars doesn't really lose a lot, the dollar-amount value of their investments just increases, which cancels out the effect of a lower-value dollar.
  - mytherin 6y ago
    > Giving the poor $1M is the same as taxing the rich more heavily. The richest would just leave, and those with more modest wealth would be less happy, possibly leaving in the future. There have been countries that seized the assets of corporations and the wealthy, and redistributed them; this rarely worked out well. This is a rather nop argument that can be made against any and all taxation. Giving everything to the rich and leaving the poor to starve has rarely worked out well either. It tends to lead to rather violent uprisings and riots. Those also tend to make countries less attractive places to live. > Why is there no doubt? Just because you having more money, you must have more PP? But if everyone* gets more money, it might not. My post was stating this from the perspective of poor people. UBI equalises purchasing power. If the amount of products produced remains the same, adding a constant amount of money to everyone's income will increase the purchasing power of the people in the bottom, and decrease it for those in the top. It is obvious in extreme examples: if Bob makes 1000 per month, and Alice makes 99.000 per month, then Bob has 1% of the total PP, and Alice has 99%. If we then add 1 billion to both of their incomes, both Alice and Bob now have roughly 50% of the total purchasing power.
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      >Giving everything to the rich and leaving the poor to starve has rarely worked out well either. Not taxing the rich does not equate to "giving everything to the rich and leaving the poor to starve". Almost all the decline in poverty over the last 30 years was due to economic development which, according to economists who study development, was massively facilitated by the spread of market institutions like property rights 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-ending-poverty/308134/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-pol... 2. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-global-war-on-poverty https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-gl... 3. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/06/01/towards-the-end-of-poverty https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/06/01/towards-the-end... The solution to poverty isn't for government to take money from the productive and give it to the poor. The actual solution is to increase employment options and the earning power of the poor. Socialist ideologues need to look at the empirical evidence, and the economic literature, and learn that the welfare state works against the solution to poverty. The profit-motivated investment that emerges when people's right to their private property is protected, is the solution to poverty.
ivalm 6y ago
UBI increases aggregate demand, so as you point out it increases inflation. However, it doesnt increase individual demand equally. Rich people’s demand will increase fractionally less than poor people’s. This means consumption inequality will decrease. So the choice of how much UBI to give is a balance between the good of decreasing consumption inequality (us has too much) and the bad of inflation.