3 ms·

Probably quite a lot. Ny guess is that rents rise since landlords know everyone has an extra cash infusion now. Until it settles out merchants will pick over t

Probably quite a lot. Ny guess is that rents rise since landlords know everyone has an extra cash infusion now. Until it settles out merchants will pick over this until it is eaten up. Was part of sales in gov subsidized market and the gov grant was a big part of figuring price. That is to say "inflating" the price for the customer. Just human nature. UBI will be the same.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Everybody knows there's more money around. That's transparent. The alternative to 'a wealthier populace' is 'keep them poor', right? This argument that 'don't bother helping people, it'll just be wasted' smacks of marxism to me. Society needs the hard-working poor/slave labor class or everything will fall apart. So make sure we have the poor, at all costs! I have a more optimistic view of society - that we're now capable of providing plenty for everybody. Due to automation etc.
- askin4it 3y ago
  I actually agree with you, and I know for a fact that the planet (which includes human society) has a huge untapped potential for supporting many billions if everyone just allows things to work. Why cash? Why not a free apartment, free local transportation, free food, free doctor, and free TV. That would cover 90% of the people 100% of the time. The reason is that cash is fungible and will therefore flow more freely to the actual recipients of the handouts, which are merchants who price necessities according to what the market will bear. If anyone would like to debate that last assertion, I'd be interested in a counter-example where the price of essentials just kept on getting lower and lower. I'm not sure UBI is any different than all the prior plans to spend our way to prosperity. To learn the truth, we will have to ask our descendants when they are paying for all this. (Of course this assumes we don't bankrupt first.)

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

Everybody knows there's more money around. That's transparent. The alternative to 'a wealthier populace' is 'keep them poor', right? This argument that 'don't bother helping people, it'll just be wasted' smacks of marxism to me. Society needs the hard-working poor/slave labor class or everything will fall apart. So make sure we have the poor, at all costs! I have a more optimistic view of society - that we're now capable of providing plenty for everybody. Due to automation etc.

askin4it 3y ago
I actually agree with you, and I know for a fact that the planet (which includes human society) has a huge untapped potential for supporting many billions if everyone just allows things to work. Why cash? Why not a free apartment, free local transportation, free food, free doctor, and free TV. That would cover 90% of the people 100% of the time. The reason is that cash is fungible and will therefore flow more freely to the actual recipients of the handouts, which are merchants who price necessities according to what the market will bear. If anyone would like to debate that last assertion, I'd be interested in a counter-example where the price of essentials just kept on getting lower and lower. I'm not sure UBI is any different than all the prior plans to spend our way to prosperity. To learn the truth, we will have to ask our descendants when they are paying for all this. (Of course this assumes we don't bankrupt first.)