3 ms·

One of the arguments I’ve heard is that if you give $1,000 to everyone who has zero dollars, you’ve just raised the value of zero.

by arrakis2021 5y ago

xnorswap 5y ago
That's not an argument. At best it's reductio ad absurdum, but where's the argument? It wouldn't change the value of zero, because even if it devalued the dollar heavily everyone still has something. There's no attempt in that argument to say why it would change the "value of zero".
- globular-toast 5y ago
  Essentially if everyone had $1000 extra then everything would cost $1000 extra. So if you went from 0 to $1000, you'd just be left with $1000 and nothing to spend it on. You can't eat money.
  - Retric 5y ago
    The question is where did you get the $1,000 from. If you print money to build a bridge then you can argue that building a bridge caused inflation, but it wasn’t the bridge that was at fault.
  - dagss 5y ago
    There is no argument here -- why would everything cost $1000 extra? You just said "then". Where is the argument? So if I earn $500 now, and buy 500 lollipops at $1 each. If everyone gets $1000 as UBI, then those 500 lollipops will cost ... $1001 each and $501000 in total? Isn't that absurd? That is what the sentence "everything will cost $1000 extra" means, and the only way "raising the value of zero" makes mathematical sense. What is probably meant here -- that the sum of what you buy will be $1000 more in total -- is accurarely captured by the term "inflation" in the OP. But then the statement "raise value of zero" does not make sense.
    - globular-toast 5y ago
      > There is no argument here -- why would everything cost $1000 extra? Because you can't print food, houses, energy etc. Give everyone $1000 and you won't magically create any more food or any more houses or any more energy out of thin air. So the market will adjust the price to account for the increased demand. It's basic supply and demand. > If everyone gets $1000 as UBI, then those 500 lollipops will cost ... $1001 each and $501000 in total? > Isn't that absurd? Yes it is, but you misunderstand. It's not that every individual item would cost $1000 extra, it's that the total cost of living would be $1000 extra.
      - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
        But everyone won't immediately demand $1000 more food or housing. Sure I'd buy 1000 slim jims the minute I got the check, but other people may find that ridiculous. Many people will save it, or spend it on something else. Everyone who has their cost of living already accounted for won't participate in this.
      - mnkmnk 5y ago
        The only way that this will work is if companies reduce their margins making companies less profitable, reducing wealth inequality. That is never going to happen.
      - dagss 5y ago
        "..you misunderstand..." Hey, I even quoted the interpretation you explain to me here further down in the post I wrote. What I was arguing about was whether the specific phrase "change the value of zero" makes sense to describe inflation.
    - Workaccount2 5y ago
      You are conflating "giving everyone $1000 of currency" with "giving everyone $1000 worth of value" The first one just requires changing some digits in a bank account. The second requires an enormous amount of positive work by the whole of society to generate that much value.
- Workaccount2 5y ago
  > It wouldn't change the value of zero, because even if it devalued the dollar heavily everyone still has something. Yes, the value of some ink and paper.
aceazzameen 5y ago
Random thought, what if that $1000 UBI was instead a percentage of something else? I'm not sure what though. The GDP Deflator? Total stock market cap? Something to keep it on a level playing field with everything else.
leothecool 5y ago
But its not the position of zero, its the derivative. The car analogy would be something like "If you raise the speed limit by 1 mph, you've just moved everyone's houses exactly one mile."

One of the arguments I’ve heard is that if you give $1,000 to everyone who has zero dollars, you’ve just raised the value of zero.

xnorswap 5y ago

That's not an argument. At best it's reductio ad absurdum, but where's the argument? It wouldn't change the value of zero, because even if it devalued the dollar heavily everyone still has something. There's no attempt in that argument to say why it would change the "value of zero".

globular-toast 5y ago
Essentially if everyone had $1000 extra then everything would cost $1000 extra. So if you went from 0 to $1000, you'd just be left with $1000 and nothing to spend it on. You can't eat money.
- Retric 5y ago
  The question is where did you get the $1,000 from. If you print money to build a bridge then you can argue that building a bridge caused inflation, but it wasn’t the bridge that was at fault.
- dagss 5y ago
  There is no argument here -- why would everything cost $1000 extra? You just said "then". Where is the argument? So if I earn $500 now, and buy 500 lollipops at $1 each. If everyone gets $1000 as UBI, then those 500 lollipops will cost ... $1001 each and $501000 in total? Isn't that absurd? That is what the sentence "everything will cost $1000 extra" means, and the only way "raising the value of zero" makes mathematical sense. What is probably meant here -- that the sum of what you buy will be $1000 more in total -- is accurarely captured by the term "inflation" in the OP. But then the statement "raise value of zero" does not make sense.
  - globular-toast 5y ago
    > There is no argument here -- why would everything cost $1000 extra? Because you can't print food, houses, energy etc. Give everyone $1000 and you won't magically create any more food or any more houses or any more energy out of thin air. So the market will adjust the price to account for the increased demand. It's basic supply and demand. > If everyone gets $1000 as UBI, then those 500 lollipops will cost ... $1001 each and $501000 in total? > Isn't that absurd? Yes it is, but you misunderstand. It's not that every individual item would cost $1000 extra, it's that the total cost of living would be $1000 extra.
    - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
      But everyone won't immediately demand $1000 more food or housing. Sure I'd buy 1000 slim jims the minute I got the check, but other people may find that ridiculous. Many people will save it, or spend it on something else. Everyone who has their cost of living already accounted for won't participate in this.
    - mnkmnk 5y ago
      The only way that this will work is if companies reduce their margins making companies less profitable, reducing wealth inequality. That is never going to happen.
    - dagss 5y ago
      "..you misunderstand..." Hey, I even quoted the interpretation you explain to me here further down in the post I wrote. What I was arguing about was whether the specific phrase "change the value of zero" makes sense to describe inflation.
  - Workaccount2 5y ago
    You are conflating "giving everyone $1000 of currency" with "giving everyone $1000 worth of value" The first one just requires changing some digits in a bank account. The second requires an enormous amount of positive work by the whole of society to generate that much value.
Workaccount2 5y ago
> It wouldn't change the value of zero, because even if it devalued the dollar heavily everyone still has something. Yes, the value of some ink and paper.

aceazzameen 5y ago

Random thought, what if that $1000 UBI was instead a percentage of something else? I'm not sure what though. The GDP Deflator? Total stock market cap? Something to keep it on a level playing field with everything else.

leothecool 5y ago

But its not the position of zero, its the derivative. The car analogy would be something like "If you raise the speed limit by 1 mph, you've just moved everyone's houses exactly one mile."