5 ms·

Good news! It doesn't have to be implemented at the federal level. We could do it at the state or local level. Please: show us the way. I'll be the first to co

Good news! It doesn't have to be implemented at the federal level. We could do it at the state or local level. Please: show us the way. I'll be the first to congratulate you on a long-term sustainable UBI implementation.

arrosenberg 2y ago
It kind of does. States don’t have monetary policy and are limited to taking debt in fiscal policy. They don’t have expansionary options to fund it.
- alex_young 2y ago
  How does Alaska do it then?
  - coldtea 2y ago
    Alaska has basically free money from oil.
  - dmoy 2y ago
    It's funded by the giant firehose of money from oil It's closer to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund than anything else
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    by not being limited to taking debt in fiscal policy states can balance their budget, its not controversial, just ignore the person that suggests otherwise
- ajsnigrutin 2y ago
  But if it doesn't work on a state level, why would it work on a national level or a global level?
  - echoangle 2y ago
    > States don’t have monetary policy and are limited to taking debt in fiscal policy. Because this doesn't apply to countries, only states.
    - windward 2y ago
      Don't let the Eurozone hear that
      - arrosenberg 2y ago
        Those programs were all established prior to the EuroZone. A single European country would find it much harder to do today for the reasons stated.
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    Internally the US has free movement of both labor and capital, so any single state trying broad social programs without federal support will run into free rider and arbitrage problems pretty quickly. Since the US can control its border and currency, it’s less likely to be a problem if it’s a national program.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > any single state trying broad social programs without federal support will run into free rider and arbitrage problems pretty quickly Internationally, capital and labour are also mobile. If the argument for UBI is basically North Korea, I’m not seeing it. Put simply, if a UBI scheme doesn’t work at the state level, it won’t federally in the long run.
      - dmoy 2y ago
        > Isn’t the argument UBI will promote growth? Some types of growth, yea that's the theory. But I don't think there's any theory of UBI with freedom of movement between borders where UBI isn't present. If every single person who doesn't want to work shows up to your state, you won't be able to keep UBI running. > Internationally, capital and labour are also mobile. Capital yes. Labor ... not really? Even historically immigrating to the US is kinda difficult. Immigrating into any developed country is hard. > If the argument for UBI is basically North Korea, I’m not seeing it. No it's not even NK. It's socialism but no central planning. NK (and really any prior long running example of socialism in US history) doesn't do free market do decide e.g. who picks up the trash. So it could well be that UBI works, but a lot of grunge jobs just don't get done. Maybe people are happier and have more free time, but there's fewer janitors so things are dirtier, and a much higher percentage of money goes towards paying people to farm so good is way more expensive. Things definitely wouldn't be the same as they are now, even if it did hypothetically work. > Put simply, if a UBI scheme doesn’t work at the state level, it won’t federally in the long run. There could easily be things that break it at the state level (especially, freedom of movement of people), that don't apply federally. It might also fail at a federal level, but you can't claim there aren't major differences between a single state UBI and a federal UBI
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > States don’t have monetary policy This is basically saying you need inflation to make the scheme work.
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    It’s much easier to go that route, but you could also ask the uberwealthy to pony up instead. Social insurance is cheaper than revolutions, after all.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > you could also ask the uberwealthy to pony up instead Then you don’t need monetary policy. Saying it cannot happen at the state or local level is basically admitting it isn’t solvent or requires a population filter to keep the wasteful people out.
      - arrosenberg 2y ago
        Define wasteful people? For example, is it wasteful to joyride into space when rural hospitals are shutting down for a lack of funding?
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Define wasteful people? I don’t need to. The point is if free movement of people is a problem, there is clearly a category you need to keep out (or in).
        arrosenberg 2y ago
        You say that, but I admit as much below, and you even found a way to argue with me there. There's no pleasing some people.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago

arrosenberg 2y ago

It kind of does. States don’t have monetary policy and are limited to taking debt in fiscal policy. They don’t have expansionary options to fund it.

alex_young 2y ago
How does Alaska do it then?
- coldtea 2y ago
  Alaska has basically free money from oil.
- dmoy 2y ago
  It's funded by the giant firehose of money from oil It's closer to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund than anything else
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  by not being limited to taking debt in fiscal policy states can balance their budget, its not controversial, just ignore the person that suggests otherwise
ajsnigrutin 2y ago
But if it doesn't work on a state level, why would it work on a national level or a global level?
- echoangle 2y ago
  > States don’t have monetary policy and are limited to taking debt in fiscal policy. Because this doesn't apply to countries, only states.
  - windward 2y ago
    Don't let the Eurozone hear that
    - arrosenberg 2y ago
      Those programs were all established prior to the EuroZone. A single European country would find it much harder to do today for the reasons stated.
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  Internally the US has free movement of both labor and capital, so any single state trying broad social programs without federal support will run into free rider and arbitrage problems pretty quickly. Since the US can control its border and currency, it’s less likely to be a problem if it’s a national program.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > any single state trying broad social programs without federal support will run into free rider and arbitrage problems pretty quickly Internationally, capital and labour are also mobile. If the argument for UBI is basically North Korea, I’m not seeing it. Put simply, if a UBI scheme doesn’t work at the state level, it won’t federally in the long run.
    - dmoy 2y ago
      > Isn’t the argument UBI will promote growth? Some types of growth, yea that's the theory. But I don't think there's any theory of UBI with freedom of movement between borders where UBI isn't present. If every single person who doesn't want to work shows up to your state, you won't be able to keep UBI running. > Internationally, capital and labour are also mobile. Capital yes. Labor ... not really? Even historically immigrating to the US is kinda difficult. Immigrating into any developed country is hard. > If the argument for UBI is basically North Korea, I’m not seeing it. No it's not even NK. It's socialism but no central planning. NK (and really any prior long running example of socialism in US history) doesn't do free market do decide e.g. who picks up the trash. So it could well be that UBI works, but a lot of grunge jobs just don't get done. Maybe people are happier and have more free time, but there's fewer janitors so things are dirtier, and a much higher percentage of money goes towards paying people to farm so good is way more expensive. Things definitely wouldn't be the same as they are now, even if it did hypothetically work. > Put simply, if a UBI scheme doesn’t work at the state level, it won’t federally in the long run. There could easily be things that break it at the state level (especially, freedom of movement of people), that don't apply federally. It might also fail at a federal level, but you can't claim there aren't major differences between a single state UBI and a federal UBI
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> States don’t have monetary policy This is basically saying you need inflation to make the scheme work.
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  It’s much easier to go that route, but you could also ask the uberwealthy to pony up instead. Social insurance is cheaper than revolutions, after all.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > you could also ask the uberwealthy to pony up instead Then you don’t need monetary policy. Saying it cannot happen at the state or local level is basically admitting it isn’t solvent or requires a population filter to keep the wasteful people out.
    - arrosenberg 2y ago
      Define wasteful people? For example, is it wasteful to joyride into space when rural hospitals are shutting down for a lack of funding?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Define wasteful people? I don’t need to. The point is if free movement of people is a problem, there is clearly a category you need to keep out (or in).
        arrosenberg 2y ago
        You say that, but I admit as much below, and you even found a way to argue with me there. There's no pleasing some people.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago