4 ms·

You'd think people would learn after the covid money printer that giving people paper with funny pictures doesn't actually do anything. UBI, like Roko's basili

You'd think people would learn after the covid money printer that giving people paper with funny pictures doesn't actually do anything. UBI, like Roko's basilisk, is the magical thinking of our age. We need a working government to meet people's needs because the market sure as hell can't. That's a lot harder than just brrrr.

lannisterstark 3y ago
UBI isn't covid money printer though. You're misrepresenting it either intentionally or by mistake to discredit it. UBI would, and should, replace current welfare schemes. We already have those in place.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > UBI would, and should, replace current welfare schemes. We already have those in place. But that would still require a huge amount of additional money if you want UBI to be above subsistence levels. Otherwise the amount received by current welfare recipients would have to be cut several times. Also what about disabled people and others who can't work? Would they get the same amount as everyone?
  - gchamonlive 3y ago
    I don't really understand the subject too deeply, just enough to have me convinced UBI should be implemented in some form, but I think the fundamental assumption is that everything that the government has to provide, it is going to do so, by no fault of the government itself, in a very inefficient way. So by the mere act of UBI replacing many systems and centralising in a single program many forms of wealth redistribution, it would do so with less waste, even if UBI would be by itself inefficient.
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      It is incredibly easy to automate giving every citizen an unconditional electronic deposit. The inefficiency and overhead of social programs comes from individual assessments to figure out who to exclude.
      - gchamonlive 3y ago
        I am not sure if I agree. Govmnt has to deal with much more than mere function of their programs. It must have approval, integrate with other social databases, be somewhat resilient against fraud. Not to mention this assumes everybody can be reached by electronic deposits which isn't a given.
        michaelmrose 3y ago
        This is pretty much a reasonably solved problem. You issue a bank card to anyone who doesn't have a bank and deposit the funds and resolve issues of identity by physically showing up an an office. Post offices are pervasively available and usually very close to where most people live. For fraud issue you have the bank or banks running the program handle fraud per normal procedures and the government steps in to prosecute people who abuse the system as they do in present situations. The program loses no more than a normal bank to fraud and covers losses from fraud by investing deposits in safe securities.
        qwytw 3y ago
        Identity fraud is a solved problem (in most developed countries anyway) a bigger issue is false claims and general inefficiency of government welfare programs. You can just give everyone an equal amount of cash instead but then disabled and other people who are unable to work would starve to death unless there is massive increase in taxes/redistribution.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > it is going to do so, by no fault of the government itself, in a very inefficient way Whose fault is it then? I mean if we agree that some governments/organizations are more efficient than others who else could we blame? >UBI replacing many systems For instance the British government spends about £2500 per capita on welfare. Even if admin etc. would cost nothing £200 per month is not exactly an amount which would allow you to not work, meaning people who can't actually work would starve/freeze/etc. to death without any additional support from the government or somebody else.
      - gchamonlive 3y ago
        It is nobody's fault, it is intrinsically difficult to organize a large group of humans. Some countries deal with it better, many examples come to mind from Europe, but they have many advantages and still are far from being efficient in general. Look I am not a political philosopher, not even close. But I can refer you to Robert Nozick's the Minimal Estate. I am not sure I agree with everything he says there, but I think he describes interesting points regarding govnmt efficiency.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > UBI would, and should, replace current welfare schemes. It can't. There still needs to be a safety net for people who don't use their UBI to buy food or shelter. And then you're back where we are now - some sort of safety net for people who don't have food or shelter.
  - Jochim 3y ago
    That's a much smaller proportion of people than are served by welfare programs, and as a group, they're often not able to access current programs due to mental health issues or lack of knowledge. Some initiatives still need to exist but UBI obviates the need for the majority of them, simplifies the administration, removes bureaucratic expenses, and reduces the "othering" of people who depend on the support the most.
    - lelanthran 3y ago
      > That's a much smaller proportion of people than are served by welfare programs, That's still a non-zero need for the administration and overhead of a welfare system. > Some initiatives still need to exist but UBI obviates the need for the majority of them, simplifies the administration, removes bureaucratic expenses, How does it remove anything if the other systems still need to exist? By definition alone, the existing systems still need to exist, only without the economies of scale that they have today. By the way, I don't think UBI obviates the need for a "majority" of them. It obviates the need for one welfare payment system. The others still need to exist to serve whoever they are serving now.
      - Jochim 3y ago
        > How does it remove anything if the other systems still need to exist? Most of the other systems don't need to exist. Those that do are narrower in scope and can better serve a much smaller group of people. > By definition alone, the existing systems still need to exist, only without the economies of scale that they have today. Means tested welfare systems have almost no economies of scale. Every case needs an assessor and the more people you deal with the more assessors you need. The alternative is to reduce the quality of the assessment. Even worse, the assessment process is often contracted out. So now the program pays wages to a fleet of assessors and also to shareholders. > By the way, I don't think UBI obviates the need for a "majority" of them. It obviates the need for one welfare payment system. The others still need to exist to serve whoever they are serving now. In the UK, off the top of my head, it would entirely replace: unemployment benefits, housing benefits, child tax benefits, disability benefits, working tax credits, EMA, and childcare payments. The main difference to many of the people who are "served" by the current system is that they'll actually receive the benefits they're entitled to, without having to know how to apply, and roll the dice on a minimally trained assessor with a financial incentive to say no.
wizofaus 3y ago
Covid printer money worked just fine, in terms of allowing businesses to stay afloat while not being able to operate at normal capacity. But it was never set up as a long-term sustainable program. There may well be things to learn about how well and in what ways UBI might work from it, but there are way too many unusual circumstances surrounding how government policy helped economies navigate a once-in-100-year pandemic to extrapolate many general principles from.

lannisterstark 3y ago

UBI isn't covid money printer though. You're misrepresenting it either intentionally or by mistake to discredit it. UBI would, and should, replace current welfare schemes. We already have those in place.

qwytw 3y ago
> UBI would, and should, replace current welfare schemes. We already have those in place. But that would still require a huge amount of additional money if you want UBI to be above subsistence levels. Otherwise the amount received by current welfare recipients would have to be cut several times. Also what about disabled people and others who can't work? Would they get the same amount as everyone?
- gchamonlive 3y ago
  I don't really understand the subject too deeply, just enough to have me convinced UBI should be implemented in some form, but I think the fundamental assumption is that everything that the government has to provide, it is going to do so, by no fault of the government itself, in a very inefficient way. So by the mere act of UBI replacing many systems and centralising in a single program many forms of wealth redistribution, it would do so with less waste, even if UBI would be by itself inefficient.
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    It is incredibly easy to automate giving every citizen an unconditional electronic deposit. The inefficiency and overhead of social programs comes from individual assessments to figure out who to exclude.
    - gchamonlive 3y ago
      I am not sure if I agree. Govmnt has to deal with much more than mere function of their programs. It must have approval, integrate with other social databases, be somewhat resilient against fraud. Not to mention this assumes everybody can be reached by electronic deposits which isn't a given.
      - michaelmrose 3y ago
        This is pretty much a reasonably solved problem. You issue a bank card to anyone who doesn't have a bank and deposit the funds and resolve issues of identity by physically showing up an an office. Post offices are pervasively available and usually very close to where most people live. For fraud issue you have the bank or banks running the program handle fraud per normal procedures and the government steps in to prosecute people who abuse the system as they do in present situations. The program loses no more than a normal bank to fraud and covers losses from fraud by investing deposits in safe securities.
        qwytw 3y ago
        Identity fraud is a solved problem (in most developed countries anyway) a bigger issue is false claims and general inefficiency of government welfare programs. You can just give everyone an equal amount of cash instead but then disabled and other people who are unable to work would starve to death unless there is massive increase in taxes/redistribution.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > it is going to do so, by no fault of the government itself, in a very inefficient way Whose fault is it then? I mean if we agree that some governments/organizations are more efficient than others who else could we blame? >UBI replacing many systems For instance the British government spends about £2500 per capita on welfare. Even if admin etc. would cost nothing £200 per month is not exactly an amount which would allow you to not work, meaning people who can't actually work would starve/freeze/etc. to death without any additional support from the government or somebody else.
    - gchamonlive 3y ago
      It is nobody's fault, it is intrinsically difficult to organize a large group of humans. Some countries deal with it better, many examples come to mind from Europe, but they have many advantages and still are far from being efficient in general. Look I am not a political philosopher, not even close. But I can refer you to Robert Nozick's the Minimal Estate. I am not sure I agree with everything he says there, but I think he describes interesting points regarding govnmt efficiency.
lelanthran 3y ago
> UBI would, and should, replace current welfare schemes. It can't. There still needs to be a safety net for people who don't use their UBI to buy food or shelter. And then you're back where we are now - some sort of safety net for people who don't have food or shelter.
- Jochim 3y ago
  That's a much smaller proportion of people than are served by welfare programs, and as a group, they're often not able to access current programs due to mental health issues or lack of knowledge. Some initiatives still need to exist but UBI obviates the need for the majority of them, simplifies the administration, removes bureaucratic expenses, and reduces the "othering" of people who depend on the support the most.
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > That's a much smaller proportion of people than are served by welfare programs, That's still a non-zero need for the administration and overhead of a welfare system. > Some initiatives still need to exist but UBI obviates the need for the majority of them, simplifies the administration, removes bureaucratic expenses, How does it remove anything if the other systems still need to exist? By definition alone, the existing systems still need to exist, only without the economies of scale that they have today. By the way, I don't think UBI obviates the need for a "majority" of them. It obviates the need for one welfare payment system. The others still need to exist to serve whoever they are serving now.
    - Jochim 3y ago
      > How does it remove anything if the other systems still need to exist? Most of the other systems don't need to exist. Those that do are narrower in scope and can better serve a much smaller group of people. > By definition alone, the existing systems still need to exist, only without the economies of scale that they have today. Means tested welfare systems have almost no economies of scale. Every case needs an assessor and the more people you deal with the more assessors you need. The alternative is to reduce the quality of the assessment. Even worse, the assessment process is often contracted out. So now the program pays wages to a fleet of assessors and also to shareholders. > By the way, I don't think UBI obviates the need for a "majority" of them. It obviates the need for one welfare payment system. The others still need to exist to serve whoever they are serving now. In the UK, off the top of my head, it would entirely replace: unemployment benefits, housing benefits, child tax benefits, disability benefits, working tax credits, EMA, and childcare payments. The main difference to many of the people who are "served" by the current system is that they'll actually receive the benefits they're entitled to, without having to know how to apply, and roll the dice on a minimally trained assessor with a financial incentive to say no.

wizofaus 3y ago

Covid printer money worked just fine, in terms of allowing businesses to stay afloat while not being able to operate at normal capacity. But it was never set up as a long-term sustainable program. There may well be things to learn about how well and in what ways UBI might work from it, but there are way too many unusual circumstances surrounding how government policy helped economies navigate a once-in-100-year pandemic to extrapolate many general principles from.