5 ms·

The moral hazard you've described is definitely a thing, and it would be silly to expect 0 slippage in the labor market after BI introduction, but I guess the c

by avn2109 11y ago

The moral hazard you've described is definitely a thing, and it would be silly to expect 0 slippage in the labor market after BI introduction, but I guess the claim is that we already spend so much on inefficient social welfare programs that if we just killed them all and gave the money to the people directly that it would be better for literally everyone involved. And it is an elegant sort of solution; after all, cutting out the middleman is the American way.

sillygoose 11y ago
Decades of increasingly large and seemingly free lunches have gotten us to a point where people actually think there is such a thing. But there isn't. The money has always had to come from somewhere, and it's always had consequences. It's just that the consequences can't be swept under the rug anymore, and soon even the most fervent propaganda will fail to convince the masses that everything is alright and the economy is recovering (when in reality it's not, and it's not).
- icebraining 11y ago
  What's the evidence that the weak state of the economy is caused by those "free lunches"?
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    Evidence? Isn't reasoning enough? Or do you think there's no limit to how much of other people's money governments can spend?
    - ncallaway 11y ago
      I would argue that the prolonged debate between well-educated and well-respected economists on the topic of government spending[1] indicates that reasoning alone does not lead to a single straightforward answer on the topic. Since reasoning alone doesn't lead to an obvious answer on this topic, then I would argue that yes, you do need evidence to back up your claims. > "do you think there's no limit to how much of other people's money governments can spend?" It's obvious that there exists such a limit. However, the existence of that limit doesn't do anything to help us determine what amount of government spending is the most efficient. The claim that: 1) There is a maximum amount of government spending possible 2) Therefore, the current government spending is too high Has the same flaws as: 1) There is a maximum velocity that we can travel (c) 2) Therefore, the current highway speed limit is too high. [1] For example, there were a large number of respected economists that weighed in on both sides of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
      - sillygoose 11y ago
        Well then, we can assume that all those economists have also presented evidence to support their cases, but even with evidence, they haven't reached an agreement. Therefore, it's pointless to demand evidence from me either. You want to know what amount of government spending is the most "efficient", but you should first define what you mean with efficiency in that context. In ordinary life, efficiency involves maximizing output from input, right? A car can be more fuel-efficient than the previous year's model, and so on. So you want government spending to be "efficient", but all government spending represents a wasteful middle-man between people and their money and whatever goods and services they need. Therefore, all government spending is "inefficient" from the point of view of the people whose money governments spend. So I'd say that there's no such thing as efficient government spending. What's efficient is people paying for stuff on a free market with free and unhindered competition among providers. Surely you know how competition works, and results in lower prices and higher quality, right? In other words, free competition results in maximal "efficiency" in an economy. In conclusion, if you want maximal efficiency in the way money is spent, you can't support the idea of any government spending.
        ncallaway 11y ago
        > "Well then, we can assume that all those economists have also presented evidence to support their cases, but even with evidence, they haven't reached an agreement. Therefore, it's pointless to demand evidence from me either." The main difference being that evidence changes between 2009 and 2015. Maybe there is new evidence since then to really support your claim that I'm not aware of? Evidence is constantly changing. Raw reasoning and logic is not constantly changing. If the only basis we're working from is rational thought, then you should be able to reach the same conclusions that Aristotle did. Hence, the request for evidence. > 'You want to know what amount of government spending is the most "efficient", but you should first define what you mean with efficiency in that context.' I'm using efficiency specifically in the economic context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_efficiency). I'm sorry for assuming an economic context for my terms — elsewhere in the thread you asserted that "Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics" so I made the assumption that you were familiar with economic terms. Additionally, I'll be the first to admin that my economics background is merely some early econ classes in college and a general interest afterward. I'd be very interested to hear from any economics if I've badly mucked up any of these concepts. > "In conclusion, if you want maximal efficiency in the way money is spent, you can't support the idea of any government spending." I don't think there are many serious economists that you back you up on this assertion. This claims that I would be happier if there were no roads, no water supply, no education systems, no protection from criminals (which technically don't exist because there's no criminal behavior), and no protection from other countries. I absolutely would like some of my money taken and spent on those thing. I'm happy to debate if the amount of government spending is currently too high or too low; I'm happy to discuss where the best place for it to be is. However, if you would seriously contend that the correct number is zero I think we may be too far apart on a base ideological level to continue this conversation in a productive way. At the very least arguing economics won't get us to any common ground — I think we'd have to switch over to philosophy before we'd find common ground.
gaius 11y ago
The problem with "inefficient welfare programs" is that they're actually very efficient... at providing well-paid, secure jobs for bureaucrats and civil servants. UBI or similar ideas only really work if the overhead of running them is very, very low.
jchrisa 11y ago
I'd argue that UBI would unlock latent productivity of all the people doing shitty jobs who would otherwise being doing something they love, and thus contribute to society instead of seeing the world as a zero sum game that they got the short stick of. Opposition to UBI comes mostly from people stuck in a zero sum mindset.
- sillygoose 11y ago
  Taking away someone's money to give it to someone else IS actually a zero-sum game. Of course, bureaucratic waste and/or graft makes it actually a negative-sum game. Two people trading with each other is not, because both perceive a benefit, because otherwise they wouldn't trade. Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics. One more time: the money for UBI has. to. come. from. somewhere. Money is not free, and therefore it can't be just handed out by the truckload without adverse effects elsewhere in the economy. Whoever gets free money is happy, but someone somewhere was burdened more than before and is unhappy.
  - ncallaway 11y ago
    I would argue that wealth redistribution (which UBI absolutely is) is not a zero sum game. First, let's talk about utility. Utility of capital is non-linear. So, if we take $100 out of a millionaire's pocket, and distribute it evenly to 10 people who each have $100. The millionaire's ability to contribute to society has decreased by 10 units. The ten other members of society each had their ability to contribute to society increase by 2 units. We've generated a net-gain for society by redistributing wealth. Second, we can look at the dollar value of the system. Yes, I would argue that even the dollar value of this redistribution is not a zero sum game. Obviously the basic transfer of wealth was zero sum. But it made our enonomy slightly more efficient by improving the capacity of the 10 citizens. Let's say the economy grows $10 more than it would have without the redistribution. Suddenly, even in just dollar-value the redistribution was not zero-sum. It's important to realize that UBI is a response to extreme income inequality, which can cause large ineffeciencies in a market. Automation obsoleting jobs only needs to lead to UBI if that automation leads to rising income inequality. If we find a way to work with technology that keeps income disparities at a reasonable and efficient value, then there's no need for UBI. However, income inequality has reached to pretty significant heights and continues to grow.

by avn2109 11y ago

sillygoose 11y ago

Decades of increasingly large and seemingly free lunches have gotten us to a point where people actually think there is such a thing. But there isn't. The money has always had to come from somewhere, and it's always had consequences. It's just that the consequences can't be swept under the rug anymore, and soon even the most fervent propaganda will fail to convince the masses that everything is alright and the economy is recovering (when in reality it's not, and it's not).

icebraining 11y ago
What's the evidence that the weak state of the economy is caused by those "free lunches"?
- sillygoose 11y ago
  Evidence? Isn't reasoning enough? Or do you think there's no limit to how much of other people's money governments can spend?
  - ncallaway 11y ago
    I would argue that the prolonged debate between well-educated and well-respected economists on the topic of government spending[1] indicates that reasoning alone does not lead to a single straightforward answer on the topic. Since reasoning alone doesn't lead to an obvious answer on this topic, then I would argue that yes, you do need evidence to back up your claims. > "do you think there's no limit to how much of other people's money governments can spend?" It's obvious that there exists such a limit. However, the existence of that limit doesn't do anything to help us determine what amount of government spending is the most efficient. The claim that: 1) There is a maximum amount of government spending possible 2) Therefore, the current government spending is too high Has the same flaws as: 1) There is a maximum velocity that we can travel (c) 2) Therefore, the current highway speed limit is too high. [1] For example, there were a large number of respected economists that weighed in on both sides of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
    - sillygoose 11y ago
      Well then, we can assume that all those economists have also presented evidence to support their cases, but even with evidence, they haven't reached an agreement. Therefore, it's pointless to demand evidence from me either. You want to know what amount of government spending is the most "efficient", but you should first define what you mean with efficiency in that context. In ordinary life, efficiency involves maximizing output from input, right? A car can be more fuel-efficient than the previous year's model, and so on. So you want government spending to be "efficient", but all government spending represents a wasteful middle-man between people and their money and whatever goods and services they need. Therefore, all government spending is "inefficient" from the point of view of the people whose money governments spend. So I'd say that there's no such thing as efficient government spending. What's efficient is people paying for stuff on a free market with free and unhindered competition among providers. Surely you know how competition works, and results in lower prices and higher quality, right? In other words, free competition results in maximal "efficiency" in an economy. In conclusion, if you want maximal efficiency in the way money is spent, you can't support the idea of any government spending.
      - ncallaway 11y ago
        > "Well then, we can assume that all those economists have also presented evidence to support their cases, but even with evidence, they haven't reached an agreement. Therefore, it's pointless to demand evidence from me either." The main difference being that evidence changes between 2009 and 2015. Maybe there is new evidence since then to really support your claim that I'm not aware of? Evidence is constantly changing. Raw reasoning and logic is not constantly changing. If the only basis we're working from is rational thought, then you should be able to reach the same conclusions that Aristotle did. Hence, the request for evidence. > 'You want to know what amount of government spending is the most "efficient", but you should first define what you mean with efficiency in that context.' I'm using efficiency specifically in the economic context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_efficiency). I'm sorry for assuming an economic context for my terms — elsewhere in the thread you asserted that "Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics" so I made the assumption that you were familiar with economic terms. Additionally, I'll be the first to admin that my economics background is merely some early econ classes in college and a general interest afterward. I'd be very interested to hear from any economics if I've badly mucked up any of these concepts. > "In conclusion, if you want maximal efficiency in the way money is spent, you can't support the idea of any government spending." I don't think there are many serious economists that you back you up on this assertion. This claims that I would be happier if there were no roads, no water supply, no education systems, no protection from criminals (which technically don't exist because there's no criminal behavior), and no protection from other countries. I absolutely would like some of my money taken and spent on those thing. I'm happy to debate if the amount of government spending is currently too high or too low; I'm happy to discuss where the best place for it to be is. However, if you would seriously contend that the correct number is zero I think we may be too far apart on a base ideological level to continue this conversation in a productive way. At the very least arguing economics won't get us to any common ground — I think we'd have to switch over to philosophy before we'd find common ground.

gaius 11y ago

The problem with "inefficient welfare programs" is that they're actually very efficient... at providing well-paid, secure jobs for bureaucrats and civil servants. UBI or similar ideas only really work if the overhead of running them is very, very low.

jchrisa 11y ago

I'd argue that UBI would unlock latent productivity of all the people doing shitty jobs who would otherwise being doing something they love, and thus contribute to society instead of seeing the world as a zero sum game that they got the short stick of. Opposition to UBI comes mostly from people stuck in a zero sum mindset.

sillygoose 11y ago
Taking away someone's money to give it to someone else IS actually a zero-sum game. Of course, bureaucratic waste and/or graft makes it actually a negative-sum game. Two people trading with each other is not, because both perceive a benefit, because otherwise they wouldn't trade. Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics. One more time: the money for UBI has. to. come. from. somewhere. Money is not free, and therefore it can't be just handed out by the truckload without adverse effects elsewhere in the economy. Whoever gets free money is happy, but someone somewhere was burdened more than before and is unhappy.
- ncallaway 11y ago
  I would argue that wealth redistribution (which UBI absolutely is) is not a zero sum game. First, let's talk about utility. Utility of capital is non-linear. So, if we take $100 out of a millionaire's pocket, and distribute it evenly to 10 people who each have $100. The millionaire's ability to contribute to society has decreased by 10 units. The ten other members of society each had their ability to contribute to society increase by 2 units. We've generated a net-gain for society by redistributing wealth. Second, we can look at the dollar value of the system. Yes, I would argue that even the dollar value of this redistribution is not a zero sum game. Obviously the basic transfer of wealth was zero sum. But it made our enonomy slightly more efficient by improving the capacity of the 10 citizens. Let's say the economy grows $10 more than it would have without the redistribution. Suddenly, even in just dollar-value the redistribution was not zero-sum. It's important to realize that UBI is a response to extreme income inequality, which can cause large ineffeciencies in a market. Automation obsoleting jobs only needs to lead to UBI if that automation leads to rising income inequality. If we find a way to work with technology that keeps income disparities at a reasonable and efficient value, then there's no need for UBI. However, income inequality has reached to pretty significant heights and continues to grow.