3 ms·

This is the dumbest socialist propaganda I've read in quite some time. The end result of such an intervention is inflation, not poverty cuts. Because the money

by raelmiu 13y ago

This is the dumbest socialist propaganda I've read in quite some time. The end result of such an intervention is inflation, not poverty cuts. Because the money will be going out faster than it is collected simply because of logistics and population increase. There is a famous event of this happening in the old west, large portions of land was just handed out in a state lottery. It changed nothing. This is not a sustainable solution to the problem of bad income mobility.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> This is the dumbest socialist propaganda I've read in quite some time. The end result of such an intervention is inflation, not poverty cuts. Presumably, redistribution increases inflationary pressure in some sectors and reduces it in others, but it only increases them across the board if it results in more money being spent, e.g., by increasing the domestic velocity of money, total economic activity, and aggregate demand. But that's not a bad thing, and the danger of high inflation can be managed by monetary policy -- tightening monetary policy in response to expansionary conditions that would otherwise produce inflation is pretty much monetary policy 101. > Because the money will be going out faster than it is collected Obviously, its trivial to aggregate benefit to a dedicated revenue source so that its money is going out no faster than it is collected. > There is a famous event of this happening in the old west, large portions of land was just handed out in a state lottery. Presumably, this is a somewhat confused reference to the Homestead Act, which had a pretty significant impact on building the American middle class. But, even so, a continuous redistribution through basic income is different than a one-time distribution of land.
- raelmiu 13y ago
  First point: Inflation doesn't profit anyone, and it isn't strictly necessary, just hard to avoid. Handing out money that then, because of the hand out, loses a large portion of its value is not redistribution of wealth, but only paper. Second point: Trivial? It has never been done so far. No government has managed to do this yet, it's the main source of inflation today. Third point: It is different in that it's recurring instead of a one time hand out. The problems still remain. But the idea of "citizen pay" is not a new one. The problems remain: logistically difficult. Economically inflation removes the "wealth" being redistributed so people end up with nothing. Socioeconomically it removes pressure to invent wealth generating enterprises.

by raelmiu 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> This is the dumbest socialist propaganda I've read in quite some time. The end result of such an intervention is inflation, not poverty cuts. Presumably, redistribution increases inflationary pressure in some sectors and reduces it in others, but it only increases them across the board if it results in more money being spent, e.g., by increasing the domestic velocity of money, total economic activity, and aggregate demand. But that's not a bad thing, and the danger of high inflation can be managed by monetary policy -- tightening monetary policy in response to expansionary conditions that would otherwise produce inflation is pretty much monetary policy 101. > Because the money will be going out faster than it is collected Obviously, its trivial to aggregate benefit to a dedicated revenue source so that its money is going out no faster than it is collected. > There is a famous event of this happening in the old west, large portions of land was just handed out in a state lottery. Presumably, this is a somewhat confused reference to the Homestead Act, which had a pretty significant impact on building the American middle class. But, even so, a continuous redistribution through basic income is different than a one-time distribution of land.

raelmiu 13y ago
First point: Inflation doesn't profit anyone, and it isn't strictly necessary, just hard to avoid. Handing out money that then, because of the hand out, loses a large portion of its value is not redistribution of wealth, but only paper. Second point: Trivial? It has never been done so far. No government has managed to do this yet, it's the main source of inflation today. Third point: It is different in that it's recurring instead of a one time hand out. The problems still remain. But the idea of "citizen pay" is not a new one. The problems remain: logistically difficult. Economically inflation removes the "wealth" being redistributed so people end up with nothing. Socioeconomically it removes pressure to invent wealth generating enterprises.