3 ms·

This is interesting because, in contrast to the (many) other discussions of basic income, the author's proposal is to make it run by the Fed, not Congress, and

by noahl 13y ago

This is interesting because, in contrast to the (many) other discussions of basic income, the author's proposal is to make it run by the Fed, not Congress, and to distribute money on a whenever-the-Fed-wants-to basis, rather than every year. This wouldn't really address the concerns about poverty that make many people interested in a basic income, because it wouldn't happen regularly and there's no guarantee that the money would be enough to make a difference in peoples' lives. But it could still have a good effect on the economy as a whole, which seems to be what he is aiming for.

r00fus 13y ago
Exactly. Basic income as implemented by the native american tribe (i.e., casino profit sharing) mainly won by reducing anxiety and being a regular dependable payment. Without regularity, it's just random windfalls, nothing you can bank against.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  So use the windfalls to buy an annuity and it becomes regular. Surely either the Fed or the government could do that internally at a lower cost.
- TimJYoung 13y ago
  Yes, but that (basic income) is not the point of this proposal. The idea is that you have a lot of people that are un-employed or under-employed, but shouldn't be, which is where we are today. This is a tool to a) get them a job and b) (by driving down un-employment) increase their wages. If this tool does it's job, then they won't need a basic income anymore - they'll be earning it at their new job.
dragonwriter 13y ago
There's no reason you can't have both. "Fiscal UBI" (what would come from Congress and be regular) addresses things like progressive automation and the need for a long-term trend away from employment-based survival in a world with progressive automation, "Monetary UBI" (what would be run by the Fed) is about providing monetary stimulus, where needed, in a manner that avoids being an upward redistribution of wealth (and, also, because it goes to people with a higher propensity to spend and thus has an initially higher velocity, also produces a greater stimulative effect per dollar.)

by noahl 13y ago

r00fus 13y ago

Exactly. Basic income as implemented by the native american tribe (i.e., casino profit sharing) mainly won by reducing anxiety and being a regular dependable payment. Without regularity, it's just random windfalls, nothing you can bank against.

Zigurd 13y ago
So use the windfalls to buy an annuity and it becomes regular. Surely either the Fed or the government could do that internally at a lower cost.
TimJYoung 13y ago
Yes, but that (basic income) is not the point of this proposal. The idea is that you have a lot of people that are un-employed or under-employed, but shouldn't be, which is where we are today. This is a tool to a) get them a job and b) (by driving down un-employment) increase their wages. If this tool does it's job, then they won't need a basic income anymore - they'll be earning it at their new job.

dragonwriter 13y ago

There's no reason you can't have both. "Fiscal UBI" (what would come from Congress and be regular) addresses things like progressive automation and the need for a long-term trend away from employment-based survival in a world with progressive automation, "Monetary UBI" (what would be run by the Fed) is about providing monetary stimulus, where needed, in a manner that avoids being an upward redistribution of wealth (and, also, because it goes to people with a higher propensity to spend and thus has an initially higher velocity, also produces a greater stimulative effect per dollar.)