3 ms·

300,000,000 people in the US. You give them each 10,000 dollars. That's 3T dollars, or roughly the size of the existing federal budget (~3.5T). US GDP is ~16T.

300,000,000 people in the US. You give them each 10,000 dollars. That's 3T dollars, or roughly the size of the existing federal budget (~3.5T). US GDP is ~16T. It's a lot, but that's not beyond the pale of possibility, and the poorest people will spend that money nearly instantly, reving the economy and making the world a little bit better for everyone. "If corporations essentially pay their customers (via the government) to buy their goods the world would eventually collapse." I feel like this betrays a misunderstanding of how money works. First of all, 10k per person isn't enough to create an extreme situation. Secondly, it is the circulation of money that drives progress. If companies didn't disperse the money they accumulate somehow, the economy would stall. On a more noble level, giving people the option to not work is simply removing additional coercive elements from society. People should be free to choose what they wish to do with their lives. 10k isn't enough to remove the incentive to better yourself, but it is enough of a cushion so that you don't need to submit to awful situations simply to survive. If janitorial tasks become in high demand, they will pay appropriately or design machines to do it - just like everything else.

lettergram 13y ago
"Money" (or any currency) is just a means of trading one good for another, if there are no goods being transferred via the currency it cannot be considered a currency. That being said, if you simply hand out 3 trillion a year then you would be effectively taxing everyone by (3T/total wealth) then redistributing it does nothing because you've also taxed EVERYONE by that same amount. To follow up my argument: 3T/16T is 25% that would be the inflation rate per year, of course each year it would increase as follows: (3 * 1.25)/(16 * 1.25) (3 * 1.25 * 1.25)/(16 * 1.25 * 1.25) etc. Of course this doesn't take into consideration the approximate 1% growth or what ever it currently is. The point remains that the redistribution of wealth will decrease the amount the currency is worth. Currency that is handed out WITHOUT something being traded for it does not apply to "currency circulation." Instead what you have is a situation where every person is taxed at about 25% and receives slightly less than that tax in return (which was used to disburse the collected taxes). This is why NO COUNTRY ON EARTH gives out tax money to all of its citizens. It may on the other hand provide welfare checks to its needy, which again deflates the wealth of others (by inflating the currency), but keeps those poor from starving. Hopefully my explanation is somewhat sufficient...
- SapphireSun 13y ago
  I do agree that it may cause some inflation (I'm not sure how much). I don't think those computations are correct though (3/16 = 18.75, not 25 for example). Inflation is measured as the cost for a basket of goods. Simply giving lots of people more money would not change the cost structure immediately. It would provide a larger consumer pool that companies can compete to server. The effects are complex and it's not immediately clear that inflation would spike to sky high levels, though a rise in inflation does occur when there is more trade because people are getting higher wages. A little bit of inflation is a positive indicator. However, redistributing definitely does have an economic effect because richer people has an increase propensity to save. When you take 10k that they weren't using and give it to someone poor, that money starts flowing immediately. An analogy would be something like, say you have a lake with some water seeping out from a small waterfall. If you go and take 10,000 liters and put it in a dry lake (ignoring soil absorption :P), that water will start flowing net much faster since you now have two waterfalls going. I'm not dismissing your inflation argument, I just anticipate that the magnitude of the effect is small (or at least able to be dealt with with monetary policy) compared to the benefit of giving people (especially poor people) some money. As an aside, part of the reason for doing this is not economic (assuming that inflation does not outpace reasonable technical measures to oppose it). The real question is are we rich enough to afford taking basic care of all of our citizens, regardless of where they started in life? It's a question of justice. We may not have reached that point yet, but I think it's definitely arguable that we have. You may reach a different conclusion, but ask yourself, if you were teleported outside of time and space, and didn't know if you were going to be rich or poor. What sort of system would you advocate for? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance We may not agree on the conclusions, but my position is that we should not let people starve or suffer if we can afford not to. Secondly, we should allow people the ability to choose their life circumstances to the best of their abilities. 10k a year removes many coercive influences and allows them to eat and sleep in safety.
ihateloggingin 13y ago
You can't really take this guy seriously. He wouldn't say the same thing about someone making $10k in investment income, for example.

lettergram 13y ago

"Money" (or any currency) is just a means of trading one good for another, if there are no goods being transferred via the currency it cannot be considered a currency. That being said, if you simply hand out 3 trillion a year then you would be effectively taxing everyone by (3T/total wealth) then redistributing it does nothing because you've also taxed EVERYONE by that same amount. To follow up my argument: 3T/16T is 25% that would be the inflation rate per year, of course each year it would increase as follows: (3 * 1.25)/(16 * 1.25) (3 * 1.25 * 1.25)/(16 * 1.25 * 1.25) etc. Of course this doesn't take into consideration the approximate 1% growth or what ever it currently is. The point remains that the redistribution of wealth will decrease the amount the currency is worth. Currency that is handed out WITHOUT something being traded for it does not apply to "currency circulation." Instead what you have is a situation where every person is taxed at about 25% and receives slightly less than that tax in return (which was used to disburse the collected taxes). This is why NO COUNTRY ON EARTH gives out tax money to all of its citizens. It may on the other hand provide welfare checks to its needy, which again deflates the wealth of others (by inflating the currency), but keeps those poor from starving. Hopefully my explanation is somewhat sufficient...

SapphireSun 13y ago
I do agree that it may cause some inflation (I'm not sure how much). I don't think those computations are correct though (3/16 = 18.75, not 25 for example). Inflation is measured as the cost for a basket of goods. Simply giving lots of people more money would not change the cost structure immediately. It would provide a larger consumer pool that companies can compete to server. The effects are complex and it's not immediately clear that inflation would spike to sky high levels, though a rise in inflation does occur when there is more trade because people are getting higher wages. A little bit of inflation is a positive indicator. However, redistributing definitely does have an economic effect because richer people has an increase propensity to save. When you take 10k that they weren't using and give it to someone poor, that money starts flowing immediately. An analogy would be something like, say you have a lake with some water seeping out from a small waterfall. If you go and take 10,000 liters and put it in a dry lake (ignoring soil absorption :P), that water will start flowing net much faster since you now have two waterfalls going. I'm not dismissing your inflation argument, I just anticipate that the magnitude of the effect is small (or at least able to be dealt with with monetary policy) compared to the benefit of giving people (especially poor people) some money. As an aside, part of the reason for doing this is not economic (assuming that inflation does not outpace reasonable technical measures to oppose it). The real question is are we rich enough to afford taking basic care of all of our citizens, regardless of where they started in life? It's a question of justice. We may not have reached that point yet, but I think it's definitely arguable that we have. You may reach a different conclusion, but ask yourself, if you were teleported outside of time and space, and didn't know if you were going to be rich or poor. What sort of system would you advocate for? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance We may not agree on the conclusions, but my position is that we should not let people starve or suffer if we can afford not to. Secondly, we should allow people the ability to choose their life circumstances to the best of their abilities. 10k a year removes many coercive influences and allows them to eat and sleep in safety.

ihateloggingin 13y ago

You can't really take this guy seriously. He wouldn't say the same thing about someone making $10k in investment income, for example.