3 ms·
Your points are inconsistent with each other: first you claim that no one's pattern of consumption will be affected, but then you move to claiming that the pric
by scarmig 13y ago
Your points are inconsistent with each other: first you claim that no one's pattern of consumption will be affected, but then you move to claiming that the prices of basic goods will change. Those two things cannot both be true: which would you like me to address?
Overall, your main flaw is that you're considering the economy an entirely static thing. But as the demand for basic goods increases, it creates new business opportunities for both incumbents and potential entrants into the market. Capital seeks out profits, and relatively more capital would flow into the provision of basic goods. That's what prevents the basic income from dissipating into worthlessness.
- f055 13y agoNot at all, not static. I'm just saying you cannot give people free money and not take that money from somewhere else. FED has been doing this, the quantitative easing, for some time now, but it's not feasible in the long run. Wealth is created, not given.
- russgray 13y ago"I'm just saying you cannot give people free money and not take that money from somewhere else" No-one is saying that you should. A theoretical BIG would be funded by the money that is currently spent on inefficient and mismanaged state welfare. It's money that is already being spent, used in a different way.