3 ms·

> Fast forward 10 years and the same problems will remain. I don’t have a strong opinion on UBI, but I want to challenge you on this. If everyone gets $20k pe

> Fast forward 10 years and the same problems will remain. I don’t have a strong opinion on UBI, but I want to challenge you on this. If everyone gets $20k per year, let’s say the median earner goes from $40k to $60k. An increase of 50%. And let’s assume that we don’t increase taxes, even though it would definitely play a role. Pretty soon, inflation kicks in and everything goes up 50% in price. But a low income earner of $16k per year is now making $36k per year. More than double! So the 50% increase of prices means that the UBI helps the lower income person’s purchasing power to be on a more level field with the middle earners, even though the middle earners obviously still are better off with their larger income. Just less so. And the person making $200k is now making $220k. But the 50% inflation means that they have to lower their consumption a bit, to be more in-line with the median earner. So introducing UBI like this causes an automatic rebalancing between different levels of income, somewhat, even if the median earner is unaffected. Obviously this is greatly simplified though.

psd1 3y ago
Yes, and... Poor people buy goods, driving a productive economy. Rich people buy financial vehicles. Yeah yeah yeah liquidity makes it easier for businesses to raise capital... tired old bollocks. However seductive the reasoning may sound, it's turned out to be bullshit every time it's tried. If the financial sector is the most profitable part of your economy, you've got it precisely the wrong way round. Predicating your economy on appeasing the rich is like putting accountants in charge of a company - the headline numbers look good for two years, then it dawns on you that you don't have any products to sell. You get a more vigorous economy when the poor people can take part, because while they may not spend much, there's a lot of them.
mongol 3y ago
I think there is no point to reason about a scenario which don't involve raised taxes. I can't see it happen. It will most definitely be neccessary, one way or another. I seldom see UBI proponents take a holistic view and consider the whole economy. Most arguments revolve around individuals, with other factors unchanged. I don't think that is an interesting discussion.

psd1 3y ago

Yes, and... Poor people buy goods, driving a productive economy. Rich people buy financial vehicles. Yeah yeah yeah liquidity makes it easier for businesses to raise capital... tired old bollocks. However seductive the reasoning may sound, it's turned out to be bullshit every time it's tried. If the financial sector is the most profitable part of your economy, you've got it precisely the wrong way round. Predicating your economy on appeasing the rich is like putting accountants in charge of a company - the headline numbers look good for two years, then it dawns on you that you don't have any products to sell. You get a more vigorous economy when the poor people can take part, because while they may not spend much, there's a lot of them.

mongol 3y ago

I think there is no point to reason about a scenario which don't involve raised taxes. I can't see it happen. It will most definitely be neccessary, one way or another. I seldom see UBI proponents take a holistic view and consider the whole economy. Most arguments revolve around individuals, with other factors unchanged. I don't think that is an interesting discussion.