5 ms·

UBI will always be the best answer. MLK advocated for it as the best way to alleviate poverty. Even Milton Friedman believed in a pseudo-UBI through his Negati

UBI will always be the best answer. MLK advocated for it as the best way to alleviate poverty. Even Milton Friedman believed in a pseudo-UBI through his Negative Income Tax.

skeeter2020 4y ago
The biggest problem is that NIT or even UBI is supported by many on the right as an alternative to the "government knows best" spending programs and as an addition by many on the left. For someone like me who ends up paying the majority of any social program, the former is a good idea and the latter a non-starter, but politically you'll never find an elected (or even electable) politician who will advocate for replacing existing, entrenched programs with direct cash payments.
peanuty1 4y ago
Why should we care what MLK thought about UBI?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jobs_throwaway 4y ago
  His great moral standing and wisdom
- glhaynes 4y ago
  MLK is largely seen as a virtuous, wise person. A lot of moral sentiment enters into people's opinions on social economics. Also, people look to group sentiment to calibrate whether a proposal is more extreme than they want to think of themselves/be thought of. MLK having expressed a favorable opinion about it makes UBI less susceptible to "that's evil, naive communism"-style attacks.
  - rhaway84773 4y ago
    It also helps fight against the reverse, a knee jerk “that’s evil, hyper capitalism in disguise” sentiments.
- TigeriusKirk 4y ago
  Because he thought a lot about poverty and how to relieve it, as well as having practical working knowledge of the problems.
- rolenthedeep 4y ago
  Other than championing human and civil rights for all, equality, the end of government sanctioned and funded inequality and suppression or minorities, non-violent protest, and overall social reform? Can't think of a single reason.
- bigtex88 4y ago
  I was trying to show that people on both the "left" (MLK) and the "right" (Friedman) advocate for UBI. But thank you for revealing your thoughts on MLK through your question.
claytongulick 4y ago
Cost living expenses before UBI = x. Cost of living expenses after UBI = x + UBI. The price of goods will always rise to what the market will bear. If you inject money into a market with schemes like UBI, all you do is creating a forcing function for inflation. Fundamentally, money represents a debt that society owes based on creation/consumption of goods and services. If you create money (debt symbols) without the corresponding good or service, you devalue the debt. So, an apple that was worth $1 now becomes worth $2 because your symbols that represent debt have been artificially modified. Then, first order thinking drives yet another "UBI+" solution to give more money, and the cycle continues until an apple is "one billion dollars". World history has many examples of this, but you don't really need to look harder than covid related inflation. The best solution to human poverty and suffering that we've ever created is economic opportunity. When given the chance, humans will thrive and succeed. The best way to create economic opportunity is to reduce barriers to success (like onerous income taxation, and excessive regulation) and to invest in infrastructure that enhances and supports economic activity.
- spaceguillotine 4y ago
  Answer: Regulation. Your theory is only viable in unrestricted hedonistic capitalism. Cap prices.
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    That's certainly the solution that first-order thinking would suggest. Command economies have never worked in history, though lots of folks have tried [1]. It's good to learn from past mistakes. It's also sort of a fun thought experiment. When you grant this power to the government, the sorts of things they can do. There's lot of obvious things like "make eggs cheaper!!", but the more fun thought experiment is with something esoteric like the sex industry. Let's conceive of the correct pricing for a lap dance. That's a bit complex, it's certainly not fair to charge the same amount for everyone - an attractive, skilled dancer would be forced to charge the same as someone who is unattractive and disinterested. We're going to need a rate table. Hygiene, attractiveness, skill, friendliness. What else? Age? The body politic has decided that you're not allowed to factor age into a lap dance or to discriminate on what dancer you chose based on age. So we can exclude that from our rate table. Going to need to create a bureaucracy to develop fair standards for all of those things. Also, as a footnote, let's create another agency to advertise exotic dancing to the elderly as an excellent career opportunity. Of course, we'd need to add more regulation that would require the dancers to register their weight and attractiveness with a government agency, and we'd need inspectors to verify that. We'd also probably need to watchers to watch the watchers because the inspectors may be tempted by some "extra services" to inflate their scoring, allowing a dancer to charge more. Probably also going to need to add some undercover officers to make sure that unenlightened customers aren't expressing an opinion on what age of dancer they receive. Of course, all lap dances aren't created equal - so rates may vary based on how many people are involved, whether the patron is allowed to touch the dancer, and if so the minimum necessary security involved. We'll probably need some secret shoppers to go out and verify that the rates are being charged properly and in-line with dictates. This would all be pretty costly though, so we'll have to increase taxes on the dancers to pay for it all. But we can't allow them to raise their rates, that would defeat the purpose. Now we'll need a way to confront the unpatriotic, unwilling masses who have for completely selfish reasons decided that a non-lucrative career in exotic dancing doesn't seem very fun. Regulation is the answer! Like the Soviet Union, let's decide what profession folks would go into at a young age. Perfect! Hmm, quality is suffering. Strangely, forcing folks into a profession to meet the needs of our dictated economic constraints resulted in a sub-par experience. There aren't any customers anymore. Fine, mark the whole thing as a loss and outlaw it, certainly can't have an underground economy operating on market forces undermining what our enlightened leaders have decided for us. (Psst. there's a reason why command economies fail, and freedom matters. Even China understands this.) [1] https://helpfulprofessor.com/command-economy-examples/ https://helpfulprofessor.com/command-economy-examples/ (edited to try to make it more funny)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

UBI will always be the best answer. MLK advocated for it as the best way to alleviate poverty. Even Milton Friedman believed in a pseudo-UBI through his Negative Income Tax.

skeeter2020 4y ago

The biggest problem is that NIT or even UBI is supported by many on the right as an alternative to the "government knows best" spending programs and as an addition by many on the left. For someone like me who ends up paying the majority of any social program, the former is a good idea and the latter a non-starter, but politically you'll never find an elected (or even electable) politician who will advocate for replacing existing, entrenched programs with direct cash payments.

peanuty1 4y ago

Why should we care what MLK thought about UBI?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jobs_throwaway 4y ago
His great moral standing and wisdom
glhaynes 4y ago
MLK is largely seen as a virtuous, wise person. A lot of moral sentiment enters into people's opinions on social economics. Also, people look to group sentiment to calibrate whether a proposal is more extreme than they want to think of themselves/be thought of. MLK having expressed a favorable opinion about it makes UBI less susceptible to "that's evil, naive communism"-style attacks.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  It also helps fight against the reverse, a knee jerk “that’s evil, hyper capitalism in disguise” sentiments.
TigeriusKirk 4y ago
Because he thought a lot about poverty and how to relieve it, as well as having practical working knowledge of the problems.
rolenthedeep 4y ago
Other than championing human and civil rights for all, equality, the end of government sanctioned and funded inequality and suppression or minorities, non-violent protest, and overall social reform? Can't think of a single reason.
bigtex88 4y ago
I was trying to show that people on both the "left" (MLK) and the "right" (Friedman) advocate for UBI. But thank you for revealing your thoughts on MLK through your question.

claytongulick 4y ago

Cost living expenses before UBI = x. Cost of living expenses after UBI = x + UBI. The price of goods will always rise to what the market will bear. If you inject money into a market with schemes like UBI, all you do is creating a forcing function for inflation. Fundamentally, money represents a debt that society owes based on creation/consumption of goods and services. If you create money (debt symbols) without the corresponding good or service, you devalue the debt. So, an apple that was worth $1 now becomes worth $2 because your symbols that represent debt have been artificially modified. Then, first order thinking drives yet another "UBI+" solution to give more money, and the cycle continues until an apple is "one billion dollars". World history has many examples of this, but you don't really need to look harder than covid related inflation. The best solution to human poverty and suffering that we've ever created is economic opportunity. When given the chance, humans will thrive and succeed. The best way to create economic opportunity is to reduce barriers to success (like onerous income taxation, and excessive regulation) and to invest in infrastructure that enhances and supports economic activity.

spaceguillotine 4y ago
Answer: Regulation. Your theory is only viable in unrestricted hedonistic capitalism. Cap prices.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  That's certainly the solution that first-order thinking would suggest. Command economies have never worked in history, though lots of folks have tried [1]. It's good to learn from past mistakes. It's also sort of a fun thought experiment. When you grant this power to the government, the sorts of things they can do. There's lot of obvious things like "make eggs cheaper!!", but the more fun thought experiment is with something esoteric like the sex industry. Let's conceive of the correct pricing for a lap dance. That's a bit complex, it's certainly not fair to charge the same amount for everyone - an attractive, skilled dancer would be forced to charge the same as someone who is unattractive and disinterested. We're going to need a rate table. Hygiene, attractiveness, skill, friendliness. What else? Age? The body politic has decided that you're not allowed to factor age into a lap dance or to discriminate on what dancer you chose based on age. So we can exclude that from our rate table. Going to need to create a bureaucracy to develop fair standards for all of those things. Also, as a footnote, let's create another agency to advertise exotic dancing to the elderly as an excellent career opportunity. Of course, we'd need to add more regulation that would require the dancers to register their weight and attractiveness with a government agency, and we'd need inspectors to verify that. We'd also probably need to watchers to watch the watchers because the inspectors may be tempted by some "extra services" to inflate their scoring, allowing a dancer to charge more. Probably also going to need to add some undercover officers to make sure that unenlightened customers aren't expressing an opinion on what age of dancer they receive. Of course, all lap dances aren't created equal - so rates may vary based on how many people are involved, whether the patron is allowed to touch the dancer, and if so the minimum necessary security involved. We'll probably need some secret shoppers to go out and verify that the rates are being charged properly and in-line with dictates. This would all be pretty costly though, so we'll have to increase taxes on the dancers to pay for it all. But we can't allow them to raise their rates, that would defeat the purpose. Now we'll need a way to confront the unpatriotic, unwilling masses who have for completely selfish reasons decided that a non-lucrative career in exotic dancing doesn't seem very fun. Regulation is the answer! Like the Soviet Union, let's decide what profession folks would go into at a young age. Perfect! Hmm, quality is suffering. Strangely, forcing folks into a profession to meet the needs of our dictated economic constraints resulted in a sub-par experience. There aren't any customers anymore. Fine, mark the whole thing as a loss and outlaw it, certainly can't have an underground economy operating on market forces undermining what our enlightened leaders have decided for us. (Psst. there's a reason why command economies fail, and freedom matters. Even China understands this.) [1] https://helpfulprofessor.com/command-economy-examples/ https://helpfulprofessor.com/command-economy-examples/ (edited to try to make it more funny)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]