jganetsk

18 ms·

121.
by jganetsk 10y ago
The problem isn't AI. It's capitalism. People are fearing the ultimate triumph of capital over labor.. If people owned the robots, then there would be no problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAwB9-9QOQI
122.
by jganetsk 10y ago
Few things wrong in your post: > So your scenario of paying off debt for one year just pushes the inevitable out one year. There is enough debt out there that the poor can spend many years paying it off. > Raising the minimum wage eve
123.
by jganetsk 10y ago
You haven't read the article. Printing presses are not in consideration here. The whole point was that basic income is redistributive: basic income is financed by income tax.
124.
by jganetsk 10y ago
It is unlikely that the kind of income tax increase suggested in the article will have a material impact on the extremely wealthy. But that's beside the point. I was trying to answer the claim that "demand for goods will only go u
125.
by jganetsk 10y ago
I was just giving one scenario, though unlikely, in which consumer spending does not increase whatsoever. It is likely that a large fraction, maybe even a majority, of basic income would go to paying off debt rather than consumer spending.
126.
by jganetsk 10y ago
Yes but that's irrelevant. What will really happen is, as I said earlier, a combination of saving/investing, spending, and paying off debt. (Obviously, what else can you do with money?) Spending on basic needs is not the only opti
127.
by jganetsk 10y ago
Here's another simple example. Let's assume that basic income will cause net income to go up for the poor (otherwise, what's the point?) But let's also assume that prices on certain goods will go up (a totally reasonable
128.
by jganetsk 10y ago
Ok, let's spell it out with a basic example You said we are going to give $12 billion to the poor There is $747 billion of credit card debt in the United States. Much of that comes from lending in the past to the poor to finance their
129.
by jganetsk 10y ago
Prove that it will be "massive". How much? The numbers are important here. I am willing to accept that some prices will go up. But I don't think it's "massive" and some are claiming that there's runaway in
130.
by jganetsk 10y ago
What's the difference, from an economic standpoint? The original poster is saying that some people want cheese and other people need cheese, therefore the people who need cheese will not get what they don't need? There's some
131.
by jganetsk 10y ago
Very little of what you said is reality. > They, and everyone else, receive $12k per year. You didn't read the article. The only people who receive net $12k per year are those who have zero income. Everyone else receives net <$12
132.
by jganetsk 10y ago
What is the difference between money "you don't need" and money you do need? If, instead of receiving basic income, you received a pay raise, is that money you do or don't need? Money "you don't need" is a
133.
by jganetsk 10y ago
Is the important part here labor or output? Automation means people working less with output increasing.
134.
by jganetsk 10y ago
It seems like you read neither my post nor the article itself. The article was proposing redistribution of income, so it's definitely NOT equivalent to the government printing money. And in my post, I listed several cases of stuff peop
135.
by jganetsk 10y ago
> There is no sure fire way to reduce the value of a dollar then to redistribute it to people that didn't work for it. The fact that you have to work for the dollar is the thing that gives the dollar value. Citation needed. The valu
136.
by jganetsk 10y ago
Claims are misleading, wrong, and unsupported. > Demand for goods increases. Citation needed. Demand for some goods will possibly decrease: like payday loans or bankruptcy law. Demand for luxury goods won't change at all: yachts, pr
137.
by jganetsk 10y ago
That's not at all what the great-grandparent comment said. It was talking about the aggregate cost of the entire system. And the great-great-grandparent was wondering "just where is the money going to come from?" but fundamen
138.
by jganetsk 10y ago
Absolutely it does get around the cost issue. Someone with no income receives just a UBI. They cost the system $20. Someone with non-zero income recives both a UBI and a higher income tax burden. What net impact does that individual have on
139.
by jganetsk 10y ago
Only 200 lux, according to Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Philips-GoLITE-Energy-Light-Rechargea...
140.
by jganetsk 10y ago
No one even came close to suggesting that a redistributional tax scheme is free. But interestingly: basic income provides more benefits with as income inequality goes up. That is, if everyone in society already has the same level of income,
141.
by jganetsk 10y ago
I don't need to define it though. India has non-zero tax revenue. It can raise that revenue somehow (to claim otherwise would be bold and would require evidence). And some individuals will have a tax liability greater than the level of
142.
by jganetsk 10y ago
What, in your judgement, makes it not a UBI? If basic income is X, some of the individuals receiving it will have a tax liability >= X. All legitimate UBI proposals I've ever heard share this property. It's either that, or the
143.
by jganetsk 10y ago
You can raise income taxes on the employed pay for UBI for the unemployed. Therefore, the cost would only be $20 * India's unemployed adult population, which is a lot less than 900 million.
144.
by jganetsk 10y ago
You will have to explain why you think currency would become worthless. That would be a monetary problem, not a fiscal one. Basic income is financed with debt and taxes, and monetary policy remains a separate concern. We have already done t
145.
by jganetsk 10y ago
We have always been in the process of automating all jobs. This is the age-old battle between labor and capital.
146.
by jganetsk 10y ago
> It's important to remember that past revolutions in automation have destroyed one field of labor while creating another. That's exactly right. We've been creating work to keep people busy for 200 years in many more ways
147.
by jganetsk 10y ago
That's my point. I have a contrarian analysis. You have the conventional analysis. I think the conventional wisdom is wrong. It's frustrating that people just throw out economics and history and go for some sort of post-modern ana
148.
by jganetsk 10y ago
Secular stagnation
149.
by jganetsk 10y ago
> I agree, but this only leads to more questions: why? And is it permanent? Our rapid technological progress in the last 2 centuries was an anomaly. We have 200,000 years of history as a species, most of which did not have nearly the sam
150.
by jganetsk 10y ago
This is exactly wrong. Automation happened already, 200 years ago. It upended society. It was called the Industrial Revolution. Things changed dramatically, and nothing remotely of that scale is occurring now. We are suffering today not bec

More ›