3 ms·

Another way to frame it rather than ‘costs $85bn a month’ is ‘stimulates $85bn of economic activity a month’. Or at least that’s the intent. UBI changes the ec

Another way to frame it rather than ‘costs $85bn a month’ is ‘stimulates $85bn of economic activity a month’. Or at least that’s the intent. UBI changes the economic model so that the minimum amount of economic participation a person can have in a month is greater than zero. Cash you can spend is equivalent to votes in how the market allocates capital, and UBI just makes sure everyone gets at least one vote (people with more money still get more votes, but nobody gets completely excluded). Once you have that mechanism in place, the idea goes, the invisible hand of the market will do a better job of solving all the other problems. The challenge is preventing it all getting swallowed up by rentiers - landlords, lenders, basic services like healthcare and education, etc. - so it actually gives that market feedback.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
If UBI is paid for without printing money, then it will make people more equal even without price controls. Yes, the low end will rise a bit, the high end will fall a bit (assuming they are taxing the rich), the middle should stay the same. It just puts people in more even ground when bidding for a fixed amount of resources. Universal healthcare would also contribute to equity, probably more effectively than UBI. We should definitely do that first.
- M2Ys4U 3y ago
  >Universal healthcare would also contribute to equity, probably more effectively than UBI. We should definitely do that first. We already have universal healthcare
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    No, we have some bastardization of the Swiss system.
    - M2Ys4U 3y ago
      I'm absolutely certain that the NHS is a universal healthcare system, free at the point of use and funded by the state.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Ah, yes, I'm not in the UK. I forgot this was an article from there. Good to go to the next step then.
- smileysteve 3y ago
  Universal healthcare and state paid (or at least price controlled public universities), IRS providing taxpayers with a prefilled 1040ez would all contribute to more efficiency (fewer admins) and less inequality in the United States
mytailorisrich 3y ago
You're avoiding the crucial question: where would the money come from? Either borrowing or printing money. Neither are sustainable and would collapse the value of the currency.
- jameshart 3y ago
  Where does any money come from? And where would the money go is just as important a question. The answer is 'around'. At varying speeds. The economy is a dynamic system, not a static one. The amount of money in it is one variable. The velocity of that money is another. But the money is just a made up thing. The thing that an economy is actually FOR is to decide how the scarce resources that are available get allocated. What do we use the land, the raw materials, the precious hours of productive human labor, the capital we've already invested in, and the energy we're able to generate... what do we use all that to DO? And like I said, UBI is a way of giving more people a vote in those decisions. So yes, that does mean the people who previously had ALL the votes are going to find they have less of a say. The 'value' of their money has gone down, in that it has less impact on resource allocation. So maybe it makes sense that such a scheme causes the currency unit to become less valuable. But if it results in a better allocation of resources, why does that matter?
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    This is not an answer... and the usual problem when discussing UBI, because it is an unrealistic and utopian idea, and we can see that in you comment. It is not possible to hand £85 billion a month to everyone in the UK (in this case but that applies everywhere), this is not a "made up thing", this is economics 101.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

If UBI is paid for without printing money, then it will make people more equal even without price controls. Yes, the low end will rise a bit, the high end will fall a bit (assuming they are taxing the rich), the middle should stay the same. It just puts people in more even ground when bidding for a fixed amount of resources. Universal healthcare would also contribute to equity, probably more effectively than UBI. We should definitely do that first.

M2Ys4U 3y ago
>Universal healthcare would also contribute to equity, probably more effectively than UBI. We should definitely do that first. We already have universal healthcare
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  No, we have some bastardization of the Swiss system.
  - M2Ys4U 3y ago
    I'm absolutely certain that the NHS is a universal healthcare system, free at the point of use and funded by the state.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Ah, yes, I'm not in the UK. I forgot this was an article from there. Good to go to the next step then.
smileysteve 3y ago
Universal healthcare and state paid (or at least price controlled public universities), IRS providing taxpayers with a prefilled 1040ez would all contribute to more efficiency (fewer admins) and less inequality in the United States

mytailorisrich 3y ago

You're avoiding the crucial question: where would the money come from? Either borrowing or printing money. Neither are sustainable and would collapse the value of the currency.

jameshart 3y ago
Where does any money come from? And where would the money go is just as important a question. The answer is 'around'. At varying speeds. The economy is a dynamic system, not a static one. The amount of money in it is one variable. The velocity of that money is another. But the money is just a made up thing. The thing that an economy is actually FOR is to decide how the scarce resources that are available get allocated. What do we use the land, the raw materials, the precious hours of productive human labor, the capital we've already invested in, and the energy we're able to generate... what do we use all that to DO? And like I said, UBI is a way of giving more people a vote in those decisions. So yes, that does mean the people who previously had ALL the votes are going to find they have less of a say. The 'value' of their money has gone down, in that it has less impact on resource allocation. So maybe it makes sense that such a scheme causes the currency unit to become less valuable. But if it results in a better allocation of resources, why does that matter?
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  This is not an answer... and the usual problem when discussing UBI, because it is an unrealistic and utopian idea, and we can see that in you comment. It is not possible to hand £85 billion a month to everyone in the UK (in this case but that applies everywhere), this is not a "made up thing", this is economics 101.