5 ms·

They also only give the money to a small number of people Not to mention that the real question is whether UBI makes sense economically, not whether people lik

by jpxw 6y ago

They also only give the money to a small number of people Not to mention that the real question is whether UBI makes sense economically, not whether people like money, which is almost indisputable

notahacker 6y ago
Strip away the clickbait 'Germany begins' headline and it's 'a pro-UBI lobbying group adds 120 people to its latest trial'
Proven 6y ago
> Not to mention that the real question is whether UBI makes sense economically It's not, because we already know that it can't possibly work.
MisterBastahrd 6y ago
The thing about government programs that hand out cash is that the money will be circulated back into the local economy most of the time, which is a net benefit (I think it would be a net positive if the money was required to be spent locally if the beneficiary makes above a certain income). It's not like it's getting thrown down a black hole. Even if a person is making great money, that additional money is more likely to be spent on higher quality local services, aside from online purchases from places like Amazon.
- scohesc 6y ago
  I would like to see a source for that if you could provide one :) If I was working full-time and could live comfortably off that plus extra UBI, I think the majority of people would spend it on more luxurious goods (phones, laptops, drugs, etc.) which are mostly ran by/on outside/blackmarket economies... We're not sure of the magic number/ratio between "person will use UBI for basic, locally-sourced needs" vs. "person will use UBI for 'wants', sourced elsewhere" and I think there's so many factors that it will be hard (almost impossible) to come up with a palpable answer.
  - MisterBastahrd 6y ago
    Source? Reality. Look at the savings and investment rates for the poor. Where do you think the money is going? Most people still source their large purchases locally, even if it's at a store chain, which keeps the local economy going because there are plenty of services used at those stores that are local. A guy who goes and buys a nice new luxury TV from a local Best Buy is still supporting local businesses indirectly because that Best Buy is going to have multiple contracts with local businesses for services.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  >The thing about government programs that hand out cash is that the money will be circulated back into the local economy most of the time, which is a net benefit How is taxing the local economy to spend in the local economy (and some abroad) a net benefit? That's just transfer payments with some friction loss.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    Taxing the national economy, with distribution locally. IE, tax a wealthy NYer, transfer to a poor Appalachian, and the Appalachian economy sees a small boost.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      ... with the added friction of a UBI system. In most Western countries, you'll also have plenty of transfers to other countries, recent immigrants supporting their families, buying properties in "the old country" etc. Being able to do just that is a major incentive for immigration, both within Europe and from outside Europe. That's development aid with extra steps then. Granted, you might argue that it's more efficient than regular development aid since it's bottoms up, not top down, but still. It's not going to re-circulate in the same economy that it's taxed out of.
      - alistairSH 6y ago
        The argument is generally that a single UBI system has lower friction than many disparate social support programs. The goal is to remove food stamps, income insurance (the dole, welfare, whatever you want to call it), rent subsidies, etc. All replaced with a single cash payment. Fewer programs, no income validation, no enforcement action after the fact, etc. This also has the benefit of reducing friction on the consumption side. No need to exchange food stamps for cash at 50% face value in order to by beer, just take some of the cash and buy beer. Empower individuals to live how they want.
        luckylion 6y ago
- makomk 6y ago
  In some real economic sense the money is gone, though. Think for a moment of money not as some abstract numbers, but a representation of a claim on actual, real resources and suppose for example you go for a haircut, stop at a cafe on the way back, have a coffee and a pastry, all in the local economy. The resources you've consumed - the coffee and food, the workers' time, the space in the cafe and barbers - all those are gone, they don't recirculate. When that money gets spent, the person spending it is claiming a whole new set of resources with (in a sense) new money created through the process of it circulating within the economy. One interesting corollary of this is that speeding up the recirculation of money increases the money supply and slowing it down decreases it, just as though some central bank was actually printing or destroying money. This is particularly relevant right now, when a lot of countries seem to be running the metaphorical money printers flat out and the circulation of money has been temporarily impaired by extremely limited things to spend it on.

by jpxw 6y ago

They also only give the money to a small number of people Not to mention that the real question is whether UBI makes sense economically, not whether people like money, which is almost indisputable

notahacker 6y ago

Strip away the clickbait 'Germany begins' headline and it's 'a pro-UBI lobbying group adds 120 people to its latest trial'

Proven 6y ago

> Not to mention that the real question is whether UBI makes sense economically It's not, because we already know that it can't possibly work.

MisterBastahrd 6y ago

The thing about government programs that hand out cash is that the money will be circulated back into the local economy most of the time, which is a net benefit (I think it would be a net positive if the money was required to be spent locally if the beneficiary makes above a certain income). It's not like it's getting thrown down a black hole. Even if a person is making great money, that additional money is more likely to be spent on higher quality local services, aside from online purchases from places like Amazon.

scohesc 6y ago
I would like to see a source for that if you could provide one :) If I was working full-time and could live comfortably off that plus extra UBI, I think the majority of people would spend it on more luxurious goods (phones, laptops, drugs, etc.) which are mostly ran by/on outside/blackmarket economies... We're not sure of the magic number/ratio between "person will use UBI for basic, locally-sourced needs" vs. "person will use UBI for 'wants', sourced elsewhere" and I think there's so many factors that it will be hard (almost impossible) to come up with a palpable answer.
- MisterBastahrd 6y ago
  Source? Reality. Look at the savings and investment rates for the poor. Where do you think the money is going? Most people still source their large purchases locally, even if it's at a store chain, which keeps the local economy going because there are plenty of services used at those stores that are local. A guy who goes and buys a nice new luxury TV from a local Best Buy is still supporting local businesses indirectly because that Best Buy is going to have multiple contracts with local businesses for services.
missedthecue 6y ago
>The thing about government programs that hand out cash is that the money will be circulated back into the local economy most of the time, which is a net benefit How is taxing the local economy to spend in the local economy (and some abroad) a net benefit? That's just transfer payments with some friction loss.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  Taxing the national economy, with distribution locally. IE, tax a wealthy NYer, transfer to a poor Appalachian, and the Appalachian economy sees a small boost.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    ... with the added friction of a UBI system. In most Western countries, you'll also have plenty of transfers to other countries, recent immigrants supporting their families, buying properties in "the old country" etc. Being able to do just that is a major incentive for immigration, both within Europe and from outside Europe. That's development aid with extra steps then. Granted, you might argue that it's more efficient than regular development aid since it's bottoms up, not top down, but still. It's not going to re-circulate in the same economy that it's taxed out of.
    - alistairSH 6y ago
      The argument is generally that a single UBI system has lower friction than many disparate social support programs. The goal is to remove food stamps, income insurance (the dole, welfare, whatever you want to call it), rent subsidies, etc. All replaced with a single cash payment. Fewer programs, no income validation, no enforcement action after the fact, etc. This also has the benefit of reducing friction on the consumption side. No need to exchange food stamps for cash at 50% face value in order to by beer, just take some of the cash and buy beer. Empower individuals to live how they want.
      - luckylion 6y ago
makomk 6y ago
In some real economic sense the money is gone, though. Think for a moment of money not as some abstract numbers, but a representation of a claim on actual, real resources and suppose for example you go for a haircut, stop at a cafe on the way back, have a coffee and a pastry, all in the local economy. The resources you've consumed - the coffee and food, the workers' time, the space in the cafe and barbers - all those are gone, they don't recirculate. When that money gets spent, the person spending it is claiming a whole new set of resources with (in a sense) new money created through the process of it circulating within the economy. One interesting corollary of this is that speeding up the recirculation of money increases the money supply and slowing it down decreases it, just as though some central bank was actually printing or destroying money. This is particularly relevant right now, when a lot of countries seem to be running the metaphorical money printers flat out and the circulation of money has been temporarily impaired by extremely limited things to spend it on.