And that would go back to my response… What would be the point?
A basic income is supposed to cover basic necessities, if those are already covered what is the point other than driving inflation and driving down productivity?
It’s amazing to me how some people fight so hard against something that would benefit them. Like, if I offered to send you $500 a month no strings attached, would you really be against it?
They have done a lot of studies and test runs with UBIs, they seem to work pretty well and most people use them to pay off debts, save up some, educate themselves and still work. Iirc employment actually went up and people were more productive because they didn’t have to worry as much. (Not that productivity should like, be a goal that magically makes something valid to exist and if it isn’t should be scrapped) You’ve probably seen a bunch of stuff online about it so I doubt I’d convince you of anything at this point.
As for inflation, looks like people can price gouge their way to hyper inflation just fine without a ubi, so yeah, not sure why you’d be against a check every month.
It’s amazing to me how some people fight so hard against something that would benefit them. Like, if I offered to send you $500 a month no strings attached, would you really be against it?
Because there are always strings attached… Just because you don’t know enough about macroeconomics to foresee any potential negative outcomes doesn’t mean there won’t be any.
They have done a lot of studies and test runs with UBIs, they seem to work pretty well and most people use them to pay off debts, save up some, educate themselves and still work.
And these studies are operating in our current economy, not one where basic needs have already been met. In the theoretical scenario where the government is insuring basic needs like housing, food, medical, and education are already being paid for, adding an additional UBI would just be an additional revenue burden.
If we’re already raising taxes enough to guarantee the populations basic needs are taken care of, UBI would be that much harder to secure funding for.
Iirc employment actually went up and people were more productive because they didn’t have to worry as much. (Not that productivity should like, be a goal that magically makes something valid to exist and if it isn’t should be scrapped)
Again, this would already be a problem addressed by the just securing people’s basic needs.
As for inflation, looks like people can price gouge their way to hyper inflation just fine without a ubi, so yeah, not sure why you’d be against a check every month.
Yeah…you want to extrapolate that thought just a little more? Price gouging is only possible if people have the money to still pay for the items.
One of the reasons why prices shot up during/after the pandemic is because of the covid checks. Don’t get me wrong, for the amount of people who were temporarily out of work we needed to increase the money supply. However, a natural response to an increase of money supply without an increase of production is inflation/price gouging. The demand isn’t being met by supply, this increases the price of the current supply to what the market is willing to pay. When you increase theoney supply, it increases what the market is willing to pay.
You can’t just increase the money supply from thin air for nothing in return. Macroeconomics is a careful balance between spending, revenue, and productivity.
Whatever man if you care more about macroeconomics than actually helping people that’s a pretty sociopathic take. We could easily pay for a ubi with tax reform and it is one of those things that generates more money than we put into it, but what do I know, I’m someone you assume is an idiot.
Whatever man if you care more about macroeconomics than actually helping people that’s a pretty sociopathic take.
If you think you can help people at a national scale without macroeconomics then you are a moron.
We could easily pay for a ubi with tax reform
Again, under the original premise tax reform would already be occurring to pay for people’s basic needs…you know, the thing that UBI is supposed to partially cover.
it is one of those things that generates more money than we put into i
In our current economy…not in one where people’s basic needs are already being met.
The theory of UBI generating more money than it cost relies on the fact that covering some people’s basic needs increases their productivity. In the economic theory we were talking about their needs would already be fully covered. Meaning there wouldn’t be an increase in productivity, meaning UBI would not generate more money than it cost.
but what do I know, I’m someone you assume is an idiot.
In all fairness, what you are claiming is pretty idiotic.
Even in communist countries where people’s most basic needs are fully covered by the government, they don’t the receiver free checks from the government, in fact in most of them it’s illegal to be unemployed for long periods. Arguably productivity is even more important in planned and centralized economies, and a UBI with a socialized system would just motivate people not to work.
That’s pretty fucking stupid since people worked on stuff outside of subsistence farming well before money existed. You’re so wrapped up in how things are and how you think things should work you’re not seeing anything potential. In your bleak worldview humanity must enslave itself. Maybe if you had a perspective that was more focused on the happiness and well-being of humans you could use that oh-so-massive big brain of yours to figure out a way for people to have their needs met and have a functioning society, but your motivations are clearly set in a different direction.
That’s pretty fucking stupid since people worked on stuff outside of subsistence farming well before money existed.
Economics existed before capitalism… Macroeconomics does not solely consist of the evaluation of currency. You can do a modern economic evaluation of subsistence farming communities, or a historical macroeconomic evaluation of previous societies.
Macroeconomics studies large scale forces of the economy, like a population’s effect on productivity, labor policy, government type, taxation, or even how weather will affect food growth.
In your bleak worldview humanity must enslave itself.
Lol, even in economies where people equally own the means of production, individual people still have to be productive…
You are just a lazy ass who wants to receive the benefits of a socially and economically equitable society without labouring for it.
figure out a way for people to have their needs met and have a functioning society, but your motivations are clearly set in a different direction.
I started this conversation by arguing we should have a system that already insured our needs were met… You just want your needs met and then extra money so you can be a lazy ass and not contribute anything to society.
UBI is a scam that billionaires put forward because they know cutting a check for 500 bucks every month is a hell of a lot cheaper alternative than providing food, education, housing, and healthcare.
Maybe learn a iota about the economy before you start gargling Andrew Yang’s ballsack…
I meant if housing, healthcare, and food were guaranteed, what would be the point of UBI?
Politicians currently advocating for UBI are doing so as a replacement for things like universal healthcare, not in conjunction with it.
So that goes back to my original comment, porque no las dos?
And that would go back to my response… What would be the point?
A basic income is supposed to cover basic necessities, if those are already covered what is the point other than driving inflation and driving down productivity?
It’s amazing to me how some people fight so hard against something that would benefit them. Like, if I offered to send you $500 a month no strings attached, would you really be against it?
They have done a lot of studies and test runs with UBIs, they seem to work pretty well and most people use them to pay off debts, save up some, educate themselves and still work. Iirc employment actually went up and people were more productive because they didn’t have to worry as much. (Not that productivity should like, be a goal that magically makes something valid to exist and if it isn’t should be scrapped) You’ve probably seen a bunch of stuff online about it so I doubt I’d convince you of anything at this point.
As for inflation, looks like people can price gouge their way to hyper inflation just fine without a ubi, so yeah, not sure why you’d be against a check every month.
Because there are always strings attached… Just because you don’t know enough about macroeconomics to foresee any potential negative outcomes doesn’t mean there won’t be any.
And these studies are operating in our current economy, not one where basic needs have already been met. In the theoretical scenario where the government is insuring basic needs like housing, food, medical, and education are already being paid for, adding an additional UBI would just be an additional revenue burden.
If we’re already raising taxes enough to guarantee the populations basic needs are taken care of, UBI would be that much harder to secure funding for.
Again, this would already be a problem addressed by the just securing people’s basic needs.
Yeah…you want to extrapolate that thought just a little more? Price gouging is only possible if people have the money to still pay for the items.
One of the reasons why prices shot up during/after the pandemic is because of the covid checks. Don’t get me wrong, for the amount of people who were temporarily out of work we needed to increase the money supply. However, a natural response to an increase of money supply without an increase of production is inflation/price gouging. The demand isn’t being met by supply, this increases the price of the current supply to what the market is willing to pay. When you increase theoney supply, it increases what the market is willing to pay.
You can’t just increase the money supply from thin air for nothing in return. Macroeconomics is a careful balance between spending, revenue, and productivity.
Whatever man if you care more about macroeconomics than actually helping people that’s a pretty sociopathic take. We could easily pay for a ubi with tax reform and it is one of those things that generates more money than we put into it, but what do I know, I’m someone you assume is an idiot.
If you think you can help people at a national scale without macroeconomics then you are a moron.
Again, under the original premise tax reform would already be occurring to pay for people’s basic needs…you know, the thing that UBI is supposed to partially cover.
In our current economy…not in one where people’s basic needs are already being met.
The theory of UBI generating more money than it cost relies on the fact that covering some people’s basic needs increases their productivity. In the economic theory we were talking about their needs would already be fully covered. Meaning there wouldn’t be an increase in productivity, meaning UBI would not generate more money than it cost.
In all fairness, what you are claiming is pretty idiotic.
Even in communist countries where people’s most basic needs are fully covered by the government, they don’t the receiver free checks from the government, in fact in most of them it’s illegal to be unemployed for long periods. Arguably productivity is even more important in planned and centralized economies, and a UBI with a socialized system would just motivate people not to work.
That’s pretty fucking stupid since people worked on stuff outside of subsistence farming well before money existed. You’re so wrapped up in how things are and how you think things should work you’re not seeing anything potential. In your bleak worldview humanity must enslave itself. Maybe if you had a perspective that was more focused on the happiness and well-being of humans you could use that oh-so-massive big brain of yours to figure out a way for people to have their needs met and have a functioning society, but your motivations are clearly set in a different direction.
Economics existed before capitalism… Macroeconomics does not solely consist of the evaluation of currency. You can do a modern economic evaluation of subsistence farming communities, or a historical macroeconomic evaluation of previous societies.
Macroeconomics studies large scale forces of the economy, like a population’s effect on productivity, labor policy, government type, taxation, or even how weather will affect food growth.
Lol, even in economies where people equally own the means of production, individual people still have to be productive…
You are just a lazy ass who wants to receive the benefits of a socially and economically equitable society without labouring for it.
I started this conversation by arguing we should have a system that already insured our needs were met… You just want your needs met and then extra money so you can be a lazy ass and not contribute anything to society.
UBI is a scam that billionaires put forward because they know cutting a check for 500 bucks every month is a hell of a lot cheaper alternative than providing food, education, housing, and healthcare.
Maybe learn a iota about the economy before you start gargling Andrew Yang’s ballsack…