4 ms·

Inflation is more complicated than people thinking "money is abundant". Current inflation is mostly caused by businesses increasing prices to increase profits,

Inflation is more complicated than people thinking "money is abundant". Current inflation is mostly caused by businesses increasing prices to increase profits, not by the general public perceiving themselves as having more money.

jfjfmfmmf 4y ago
According to which economists? Robert Reich doesn't count.
- Tanjreeve 4y ago
  No true economist would disagree with the economists that are funded and pushed into publications by large businesses like Uber and small government lobbyists.
churchill 4y ago
Ahh. Armchair economics strikes again. So, your pet theory disproves thousands of years of economic evidence that draws a direct line between money supply and inflation? Sure, if you say so.
- mjirv 4y ago
  If UBI is paid for by taxes, the money supply hasn’t changed.
  - jfjfmfmmf 4y ago
    What if those taxpayers move?
    - jen20 4y ago
      If you’re a U.S. citizen: it doesn’t matter. You’ll pay already. Whether this is OK is a different question.
  - neilwilson 4y ago
    Except it isn’t. UBI is paid for by workers producing items that they are then prevented from consuming so that those who refuse to take part in production can do so instead. In other words it is a monetary illusion. The workers can’t be allowed to be any richer because there isn’t any extra production they can consume with that extra money. Money supply is a flow, not a stock. There isn’t a fixed amount of money.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > UBI is paid for by workers producing items that they are then prevented from consuming so that those who refuse to take part in production can do so instead. This is true exactly as much as it is true with “capitalism” in place of “UBI” (particularly if the UBI is, in the more direct sense, funded by taxes on capital.)
- jfjfmfmmf 4y ago
  You're right and being downvoted. Politicians apparently hold more weight here than Nobel laureates in economics.
- richbell 4y ago
  > Ahh. Armchair economics strikes again. So, your pet theory disproves thousands of years of economic evidence that draws a direct line between money supply and inflation? > Sure, if you say so. Economics is a social science, not a hard science based on empirical evidence. Denying that there's an incentive for the ultra-wealthy (e.g., billionaires, corporations) to fund and promote specific ideologies is to deny reality; similar to denying that oil and gas companies influenced climate and environmental research or Purdue influences medical research and practices, in the pursuit of profit.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Economics is a social science, not a hard science based on empirical evidence Social sciences are based on empirical evidence the same way hard sciences are; to the extent they are more problematic it is because they deal with complex and in part, chaotic systems where isolating effects is difficult (a problem shared, often, with life sciences), plus they frequently deal with issues about which political, religious, commercial, and/ir identity issues are tied up (this is true for subfields scattered across the rest of the sciences, but it is true of almost every subfield of the social sciences).
cuteboy19 4y ago
Source: https://twitter.com/noahpinion/status/1493705974669930498 https://twitter.com/noahpinion/status/1493705974669930498

jfjfmfmmf 4y ago

According to which economists? Robert Reich doesn't count.

Tanjreeve 4y ago
No true economist would disagree with the economists that are funded and pushed into publications by large businesses like Uber and small government lobbyists.

churchill 4y ago

Ahh. Armchair economics strikes again. So, your pet theory disproves thousands of years of economic evidence that draws a direct line between money supply and inflation? Sure, if you say so.

mjirv 4y ago
If UBI is paid for by taxes, the money supply hasn’t changed.
- jfjfmfmmf 4y ago
  What if those taxpayers move?
  - jen20 4y ago
    If you’re a U.S. citizen: it doesn’t matter. You’ll pay already. Whether this is OK is a different question.
- neilwilson 4y ago
  Except it isn’t. UBI is paid for by workers producing items that they are then prevented from consuming so that those who refuse to take part in production can do so instead. In other words it is a monetary illusion. The workers can’t be allowed to be any richer because there isn’t any extra production they can consume with that extra money. Money supply is a flow, not a stock. There isn’t a fixed amount of money.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > UBI is paid for by workers producing items that they are then prevented from consuming so that those who refuse to take part in production can do so instead. This is true exactly as much as it is true with “capitalism” in place of “UBI” (particularly if the UBI is, in the more direct sense, funded by taxes on capital.)
jfjfmfmmf 4y ago
You're right and being downvoted. Politicians apparently hold more weight here than Nobel laureates in economics.
richbell 4y ago
> Ahh. Armchair economics strikes again. So, your pet theory disproves thousands of years of economic evidence that draws a direct line between money supply and inflation? > Sure, if you say so. Economics is a social science, not a hard science based on empirical evidence. Denying that there's an incentive for the ultra-wealthy (e.g., billionaires, corporations) to fund and promote specific ideologies is to deny reality; similar to denying that oil and gas companies influenced climate and environmental research or Purdue influences medical research and practices, in the pursuit of profit.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Economics is a social science, not a hard science based on empirical evidence Social sciences are based on empirical evidence the same way hard sciences are; to the extent they are more problematic it is because they deal with complex and in part, chaotic systems where isolating effects is difficult (a problem shared, often, with life sciences), plus they frequently deal with issues about which political, religious, commercial, and/ir identity issues are tied up (this is true for subfields scattered across the rest of the sciences, but it is true of almost every subfield of the social sciences).

cuteboy19 4y ago

Source: https://twitter.com/noahpinion/status/1493705974669930498 https://twitter.com/noahpinion/status/1493705974669930498