3 ms·

I do not understand what you are trying to convey through either of these points. Would you mind clarifying?

ars 5y ago
He's saying that if everyone has extra money, then everyone can afford higher prices. Since they can afford higher prices, people will charge those higher prices. And you are back where you started.
- bo1024 5y ago
  That’s not how market prices are generally set. Competition and demand keep them low. It might happen the way you describe sometimes but it’s far from a guarantee.
  - shukantpal 5y ago
    Then you can simply encourage competition to drive down prices lower.
  - ars 5y ago
    You'd think so, but history shows different. If everyone has the same extra money, prices go up to match. It's a type of inflation I guess.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > He's saying that if everyone has extra money, then everyone can afford higher prices. UBI only gives everyone extra money if it is unfunded; typical UBI proposals are funded by either increased progressive income taxes or cutting other spending (which produces income to the recipient), and so is (in first order effects) zero-sum. (Typically, it replaces rapid clawbacks from means testing with slow clawbacks by progressive tax increases.)
bduerst 5y ago
There are goods and services with income-elastic pricing, like housing. UBI indirectly and unfairly benefits only the people who control those goods and services. If everyone made $1000 more per month, housing prices would raise up to that amount for everyone. This means the majority of the UBI raise would go into just the landlords pockets. This is why many welfare programs are expense- or need-dependent, because it maximizes the benefit to those who need it without impacting price inflation as much.
- yazaddaruvala 5y ago
  That said, the UBI inflation would incentivize construction. But this requires zoning changes, approvals, and consecutive land reclamation anyways. Might as well start with: - Removal/reduction in zoning - Automate construction approval workflows - Leverage eminent domain to aggregate land, and sell for profit to the builders. Its just a win-win-win (given the views / property values would be reduced regardless without extra housing causing SF/LA/Seattle levels of homeless people): - Homeowners get paid, by the city / local gov, at market rate or slightly above market rate. - The city / local government has a new profit stream, to be used for more housing / services / reduced taxes. They would aggregate land, re-zone it, get approvals completed, and sell the whole package to the highest bidding developers. - Developers reduce costs to aggregate land and due to interest payments while waiting for all the land + approvals. - City gets to better plan the hosing market, i.e. superblocks, transit, etc. - City dwellers get more access to housing (i.e. cheaper housing), and possibly reduced taxes. Also reduced crime and homelessness because the city is affordable for everyone.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    Whitewashing UBI as a "win-win" is pretty bold considering I just showed how UBI disproportionately benefits property owners and discriminates against everyone else. There are ways to achieve all of the above that doesn't require destroying income-elastic priced markets. UBI is not a good solution.
    - yazaddaruvala 5y ago

ars 5y ago

He's saying that if everyone has extra money, then everyone can afford higher prices. Since they can afford higher prices, people will charge those higher prices. And you are back where you started.

bo1024 5y ago
That’s not how market prices are generally set. Competition and demand keep them low. It might happen the way you describe sometimes but it’s far from a guarantee.
- shukantpal 5y ago
  Then you can simply encourage competition to drive down prices lower.
- ars 5y ago
  You'd think so, but history shows different. If everyone has the same extra money, prices go up to match. It's a type of inflation I guess.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> He's saying that if everyone has extra money, then everyone can afford higher prices. UBI only gives everyone extra money if it is unfunded; typical UBI proposals are funded by either increased progressive income taxes or cutting other spending (which produces income to the recipient), and so is (in first order effects) zero-sum. (Typically, it replaces rapid clawbacks from means testing with slow clawbacks by progressive tax increases.)

bduerst 5y ago

There are goods and services with income-elastic pricing, like housing. UBI indirectly and unfairly benefits only the people who control those goods and services. If everyone made $1000 more per month, housing prices would raise up to that amount for everyone. This means the majority of the UBI raise would go into just the landlords pockets. This is why many welfare programs are expense- or need-dependent, because it maximizes the benefit to those who need it without impacting price inflation as much.

yazaddaruvala 5y ago
That said, the UBI inflation would incentivize construction. But this requires zoning changes, approvals, and consecutive land reclamation anyways. Might as well start with: - Removal/reduction in zoning - Automate construction approval workflows - Leverage eminent domain to aggregate land, and sell for profit to the builders. Its just a win-win-win (given the views / property values would be reduced regardless without extra housing causing SF/LA/Seattle levels of homeless people): - Homeowners get paid, by the city / local gov, at market rate or slightly above market rate. - The city / local government has a new profit stream, to be used for more housing / services / reduced taxes. They would aggregate land, re-zone it, get approvals completed, and sell the whole package to the highest bidding developers. - Developers reduce costs to aggregate land and due to interest payments while waiting for all the land + approvals. - City gets to better plan the hosing market, i.e. superblocks, transit, etc. - City dwellers get more access to housing (i.e. cheaper housing), and possibly reduced taxes. Also reduced crime and homelessness because the city is affordable for everyone.
- bduerst 5y ago
  Whitewashing UBI as a "win-win" is pretty bold considering I just showed how UBI disproportionately benefits property owners and discriminates against everyone else. There are ways to achieve all of the above that doesn't require destroying income-elastic priced markets. UBI is not a good solution.
  - yazaddaruvala 5y ago