4 ms·

> probably Government funded things go up in price. Prime example: eductation and child care. Government funded problems that lead to government funded soluti

> probably Government funded things go up in price. Prime example: eductation and child care. Government funded problems that lead to government funded solutions.

username90 6y ago
The point of UBI is that it isn't government funding, the government have no control how it is spent, people get to decide themselves how to spend it. People wont choose to spend it all on housing just like they currently don't choose to spend all of their disposable income on housing.
- wernercd 6y ago
  isn't government funding? it's literally redistrubtion of wealth by the government. I never said they had control of what's spent... just that government help leads to higher prices. And it's easily provable that where government puts money, prices go up. Supply and demand - more money available? prices go up.
- ctdonath 6y ago
  UBI is literally government funding. The point of it is to provide all with means to buy staple goods/services, and as with all government funded goods/services the price will go up.
blackbrokkoli 6y ago
Yeah, if you do it uncontrolled and with the prime motivation of a few people getting rich in the process. My university in Europe literally costs me a hundred bucks a year, and child care is a similar story (although my country has some problems with providing enough capacity).
- wernercd 6y ago
  and you also pay a MASSIVE amount more in taxes and your education is more controlled with shortfalls and limitations. https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/free-college-would-be-disaster-just-ask-europe https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/free-college-w... https://www.aei.org/articles/what-european-countries-sacrifice-for-free-college/ https://www.aei.org/articles/what-european-countries-sacrifi... "capacity" amazing how forced markets can't create capacity? its also why healthcare is rationed in places like Europe and Canada. Free? Sure if you don't mind waiting months or years...
  - kalleboo 6y ago
    Man, your conservative think tank articles aren't even consistent - the first one decries the increase in cost caused by free education in the UK, the second one celebrates the "increased funding" caused by the end of free education in the UK. The first link is really egregious in that it just cites a bunch of non-sequitur cherry-picked facts and doesn't even compare outcomes, or even anything with the US. The second link tries harder, but it's still obvious that it came to a conclusion and tried to find ways to explain that conclusion, instead of showing the curiosity to find which system is actually better. There are way more variables in a school system than "degree attainment" and "money spent". E.g. European schools generally don't spend any money on sports stadiums etc - is that extra funding in the US actually creating any useful results? Many European school systems also have more focus on getting people prepared for work straight out of High School with trade and other focused programs directly in high school, does that lead to fewer cases of "I dunno I just needed a degree to pass HR checks so I got something random" and actually better job outcomes? Who knows, maybe not, would love to see a proper treatment.
    - wernercd 6y ago
      > aren't consistent Those idea's aren't opposing and aren't the brunt of my point. "Free Education" causes an increase in cost? Self evident. No market feedback and an increase in demand? Massive cost increased. And removing the "free education" (not really free) results in increased funding (more money from individuals than from a single government program) doesn't negate the first point. So your "they aren't consistent" example doesn't in any way shape or form contain two opposing points - they are actually complementary points. Government control of markets make them more expensive and opening markets leads to more money in the market? complementary ideas that feed each other. And, as I said, those are tangential points to my main idea: "Free education" isn't free and the thought that it doesn't come with it's own shortfalls, issues and complications is short sighted. > less sports and focus on jobs Again, tangential ideas but that's largely because those schools don't have freedom as extensions of Big Government. I'm okay with less time in sports and more focus on functional educations - but those do come at the cost of freedom on the part of schools AND students and lower capacity, etc. These ARE complicated topics and your points aren't 100% wrong or pointless... but again - my main point is that free isn't free and for the few bonus's that are lauded ("free"), it's amazing that the shortcomings and limitations somehow get left out of the conversation.

> probably Government funded things go up in price. Prime example: eductation and child care. Government funded problems that lead to government funded solutions.

username90 6y ago

The point of UBI is that it isn't government funding, the government have no control how it is spent, people get to decide themselves how to spend it. People wont choose to spend it all on housing just like they currently don't choose to spend all of their disposable income on housing.

wernercd 6y ago
isn't government funding? it's literally redistrubtion of wealth by the government. I never said they had control of what's spent... just that government help leads to higher prices. And it's easily provable that where government puts money, prices go up. Supply and demand - more money available? prices go up.
ctdonath 6y ago
UBI is literally government funding. The point of it is to provide all with means to buy staple goods/services, and as with all government funded goods/services the price will go up.

blackbrokkoli 6y ago

Yeah, if you do it uncontrolled and with the prime motivation of a few people getting rich in the process. My university in Europe literally costs me a hundred bucks a year, and child care is a similar story (although my country has some problems with providing enough capacity).

wernercd 6y ago
and you also pay a MASSIVE amount more in taxes and your education is more controlled with shortfalls and limitations. https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/free-college-would-be-disaster-just-ask-europe https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/free-college-w... https://www.aei.org/articles/what-european-countries-sacrifice-for-free-college/ https://www.aei.org/articles/what-european-countries-sacrifi... "capacity" amazing how forced markets can't create capacity? its also why healthcare is rationed in places like Europe and Canada. Free? Sure if you don't mind waiting months or years...
- kalleboo 6y ago
  Man, your conservative think tank articles aren't even consistent - the first one decries the increase in cost caused by free education in the UK, the second one celebrates the "increased funding" caused by the end of free education in the UK. The first link is really egregious in that it just cites a bunch of non-sequitur cherry-picked facts and doesn't even compare outcomes, or even anything with the US. The second link tries harder, but it's still obvious that it came to a conclusion and tried to find ways to explain that conclusion, instead of showing the curiosity to find which system is actually better. There are way more variables in a school system than "degree attainment" and "money spent". E.g. European schools generally don't spend any money on sports stadiums etc - is that extra funding in the US actually creating any useful results? Many European school systems also have more focus on getting people prepared for work straight out of High School with trade and other focused programs directly in high school, does that lead to fewer cases of "I dunno I just needed a degree to pass HR checks so I got something random" and actually better job outcomes? Who knows, maybe not, would love to see a proper treatment.
  - wernercd 6y ago
    > aren't consistent Those idea's aren't opposing and aren't the brunt of my point. "Free Education" causes an increase in cost? Self evident. No market feedback and an increase in demand? Massive cost increased. And removing the "free education" (not really free) results in increased funding (more money from individuals than from a single government program) doesn't negate the first point. So your "they aren't consistent" example doesn't in any way shape or form contain two opposing points - they are actually complementary points. Government control of markets make them more expensive and opening markets leads to more money in the market? complementary ideas that feed each other. And, as I said, those are tangential points to my main idea: "Free education" isn't free and the thought that it doesn't come with it's own shortfalls, issues and complications is short sighted. > less sports and focus on jobs Again, tangential ideas but that's largely because those schools don't have freedom as extensions of Big Government. I'm okay with less time in sports and more focus on functional educations - but those do come at the cost of freedom on the part of schools AND students and lower capacity, etc. These ARE complicated topics and your points aren't 100% wrong or pointless... but again - my main point is that free isn't free and for the few bonus's that are lauded ("free"), it's amazing that the shortcomings and limitations somehow get left out of the conversation.