4 ms·

The only reason we dont have policies that give people money directly is because it doesn’t allow for the people who have money, to control what the people who

The only reason we dont have policies that give people money directly is because it doesn’t allow for the people who have money, to control what the people who get it, do with the money Why, cause what people typically do with money like in UBI situations, is get out from under the control of people with money. As the system exists, all the money resides with people who don’t want other people to get it. It’s overwhelmingly clear the majority of people with more than living wage amount of money, want to spend it exclusively on their own consumptive pleasure with no positive externalities. So they’re not going to support or implement policies (via the government they’ve captured) to make it easier for people to be less dependent on existing power structures Where is any of this confusing at this point? It’s all very specifically explicitly understood to work like this. What’s baffling?

austin-cheney 2y ago
None of that makes sense. The primary driver of economic health in the US is frequency of domestic spending. It goes in self fulfilling cycles in that when the economy is healthy people make more money and thus can spend money more frequently. When the economy is unhealthy people make less money that drives down spending, which puts other people out of work thus further driving down the economy. If the wealthy people want to become even more wealthy they will work to increase economic health to ensure the regular people earn higher wages which then drives spending and thus drives up the wealthy people’s stock value. In that regard the wealthy people have only a negligible increase of power compared with regular people who vote with their spending. There is no conspiracy to this.
- refurb 2y ago
  > The primary driver of economic health in the US is frequency of domestic spending. It goes in self fulfilling cycles in that when the economy is healthy people make more money and thus can spend money more frequently. Sure, but money doesn't grow on trees. If you're paying UBI, that money comes from somewhere - tax, debt, etc. That has a negative economic impact in and of itself. There is no free lunch.
  - 6510 2y ago
    > Sure, but money doesn't grow on trees. You know, it is funny that this slogan is only ever used in this context. For all other things no one ever talks about where money comes from. It's created out of thin air, mostly by private corporations. It is no more than a unit of accounting. You can create as much of it as you want as long as something of equal value is created. This may be for example a signature for a lone if one is credit worthy or on the larger scale a disaster or war effort. If quality of life or employability is worth something to a nation they would want to spend on it. We could also ask where the tax is coming from if people cant figure out how to find or hold a job.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Money grows in central bank ledgers. There is no intrinsic limit to the money supply. There is intrinsic limit to what that money supply can buy. But that's an entirely different question. And adjustments to the money supply will have effective redistributive effects depending on where and to whom that new money is distributed. Which tends to prompt "money doesn't grow on trees" commentary from those adversely affected or politically aligned with those, whether for or against their own interests. See generally: MMT.
    - refurb 2y ago
      > See generally: MMT. MMT was proven false by the run up in inflation since Covid.
- AndrewKemendo 2y ago
  This is the well debunked “trickle down” theory and capitalist economic health measures don’t say shit about thriving. Look at GINI. There’s no need for a formal conspiracy when it’s considered just “how the system works” instead of embedded unethical incentives In reality “work” isn’t how wealthy people grow their money. So you make the mistake of believing the wealthy telling you there’s a ladder to the moon they pay you to keep building.

austin-cheney 2y ago

None of that makes sense. The primary driver of economic health in the US is frequency of domestic spending. It goes in self fulfilling cycles in that when the economy is healthy people make more money and thus can spend money more frequently. When the economy is unhealthy people make less money that drives down spending, which puts other people out of work thus further driving down the economy. If the wealthy people want to become even more wealthy they will work to increase economic health to ensure the regular people earn higher wages which then drives spending and thus drives up the wealthy people’s stock value. In that regard the wealthy people have only a negligible increase of power compared with regular people who vote with their spending. There is no conspiracy to this.

refurb 2y ago
> The primary driver of economic health in the US is frequency of domestic spending. It goes in self fulfilling cycles in that when the economy is healthy people make more money and thus can spend money more frequently. Sure, but money doesn't grow on trees. If you're paying UBI, that money comes from somewhere - tax, debt, etc. That has a negative economic impact in and of itself. There is no free lunch.
- 6510 2y ago
  > Sure, but money doesn't grow on trees. You know, it is funny that this slogan is only ever used in this context. For all other things no one ever talks about where money comes from. It's created out of thin air, mostly by private corporations. It is no more than a unit of accounting. You can create as much of it as you want as long as something of equal value is created. This may be for example a signature for a lone if one is credit worthy or on the larger scale a disaster or war effort. If quality of life or employability is worth something to a nation they would want to spend on it. We could also ask where the tax is coming from if people cant figure out how to find or hold a job.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Money grows in central bank ledgers. There is no intrinsic limit to the money supply. There is intrinsic limit to what that money supply can buy. But that's an entirely different question. And adjustments to the money supply will have effective redistributive effects depending on where and to whom that new money is distributed. Which tends to prompt "money doesn't grow on trees" commentary from those adversely affected or politically aligned with those, whether for or against their own interests. See generally: MMT.
  - refurb 2y ago
    > See generally: MMT. MMT was proven false by the run up in inflation since Covid.
AndrewKemendo 2y ago
This is the well debunked “trickle down” theory and capitalist economic health measures don’t say shit about thriving. Look at GINI. There’s no need for a formal conspiracy when it’s considered just “how the system works” instead of embedded unethical incentives In reality “work” isn’t how wealthy people grow their money. So you make the mistake of believing the wealthy telling you there’s a ladder to the moon they pay you to keep building.