5 ms·

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
- dmoy 2y ago
  The fed does have the ability to control monetary policy. This is akin to why some problems in the EU - individual countries gave up monetary policy rights, which means they have to do what Germany wants w.r.t. the euro. They can't control interest rates like the US Fed can, can't expand or contract money supply, and have fewer tools to deal with problems that arise. Imagine if NYC couldn't build buildings over 1 story because of a state law. That would complicate adding new residents. It might work for awhile and they could get creative, but eventually it would become untenable. --- This is not all to say that there aren't any problems with UBI specifically. We haven't really tested that level of socialism anywhere with still trying to also do free market and no planned economy. It could well be that a lot of stuff wouldn't get done, or at least not done as much. There's a lot of shit jobs that are done for cheaper now because people gotta eat & put a roof over their head. Unless you do a U"B"I solution which isn't actually covering the basics, but is lower than necessary.
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

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
dmoy 2y ago
The fed does have the ability to control monetary policy. This is akin to why some problems in the EU - individual countries gave up monetary policy rights, which means they have to do what Germany wants w.r.t. the euro. They can't control interest rates like the US Fed can, can't expand or contract money supply, and have fewer tools to deal with problems that arise. Imagine if NYC couldn't build buildings over 1 story because of a state law. That would complicate adding new residents. It might work for awhile and they could get creative, but eventually it would become untenable. --- This is not all to say that there aren't any problems with UBI specifically. We haven't really tested that level of socialism anywhere with still trying to also do free market and no planned economy. It could well be that a lot of stuff wouldn't get done, or at least not done as much. There's a lot of shit jobs that are done for cheaper now because people gotta eat & put a roof over their head. Unless you do a U"B"I solution which isn't actually covering the basics, but is lower than necessary.

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