Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 114 posts

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#21

Post by Retric »

candiodari wrote: post #6
uoaei wrote: post #2

Basic income is a bottom-up stimulus package, like how bailouts for banks are "stimulus" packages but nestled in Reaganomics, i.e., expecting the money to trickle down. Except that bailouts sequester the money almost exclusively in the banking industry and so are useless for everyone except those who are already rich, and the government itself. Basic income fills the economy with money that can be really spent, and l…

How about I just point out the huge flaw here: Bank bailouts, in theory, are to be paid back, with interest. In a lot of cases they were. Not all, of course, but the economy turned. Net, bank bailouts were a good investment. QE may turn out to be as well (I may doubt that, but truth it the jury's still out) If that same deal can be made, believably, for basic income, we wouldn't be having this argument: we'd provide…

In risk adjusted terms bailouts lose money by having easier terms than private investments.

Further, bailout money came from loans (bonds), and the government lost money both from the loan payment and the higher interest rate from selling more bonds.

People in prison do no work yet society has plenty of surplus to cover them. The reality is minimum wage jobs are a tiny slice of the economy because they create so little value. If BI means 1/2 of those jobs don't get done then no great loss.

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#22

Post by flotillo »

candiodari wrote: post #6
uoaei wrote: post #2

Basic income is a bottom-up stimulus package, like how bailouts for banks are "stimulus" packages but nestled in Reaganomics, i.e., expecting the money to trickle down. Except that bailouts sequester the money almost exclusively in the banking industry and so are useless for everyone except those who are already rich, and the government itself. Basic income fills the economy with money that can be really spent, and l…

How about I just point out the huge flaw here: Bank bailouts, in theory, are to be paid back, with interest. In a lot of cases they were. Not all, of course, but the economy turned. Net, bank bailouts were a good investment. QE may turn out to be as well (I may doubt that, but truth it the jury's still out) If that same deal can be made, believably, for basic income, we wouldn't be having this argument: we'd provide…

> You shouldn't blame economics for this. Nor should you blame states, banks, the rich, or anyone. The only things to be blamed for it is thermodynamics. Of course the universe couldn't exist stably without those laws, so maybe math itself should bear the guilt.

Could you elaborate on how you believe thermodynamics is to blame? I don't quite follow your argument.

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#23

Post by tzakrajs »

I think UBI needs to be thoughtfully and strategically phased so as not to disrupt the status quo derogatorily. An overnight switch to UBI seems politically unfeasible because of typical quixotism of so many people. It's an experiment on a grand scale which always unnerves markets.

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#24

Post by jostylr »

The author also has a series of different ideas on how to pay for it without raising income taxes. I found that more interesting than this, but I already fully support and believe in the capacity for amazing stuff from people who are set free

https://medium.com/economicsecproj/how-to-reform-welfare-and...

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#25

Post by flotillo »

mmjaa wrote: post #9

I feel like this basic income ideology is really rooted in laziness - like, everyone likes free things, right? You don't have to work for it? But - do we ever really ask where that money is coming from? The rich just give it? So then, why would I work hard to become rich, if its just going to be taken from me? Its like income tax. Everyone loves paying tax on their income, right? (I, personally, do not.). So why don'…

> So then, why would I work hard to become rich

Why do you think that working hard will make you rich? For the vast majority of people, this isn't the case at all.

Let's not revere the rich. Most of them acquired their wealth through a mixture of luck, unethical behaviour, and corruption.

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#26

Post by madez »

candiodari wrote: post #6
uoaei wrote: post #2

Basic income is a bottom-up stimulus package, like how bailouts for banks are "stimulus" packages but nestled in Reaganomics, i.e., expecting the money to trickle down. Except that bailouts sequester the money almost exclusively in the banking industry and so are useless for everyone except those who are already rich, and the government itself. Basic income fills the economy with money that can be really spent, and l…

How about I just point out the huge flaw here: Bank bailouts, in theory, are to be paid back, with interest. In a lot of cases they were. Not all, of course, but the economy turned. Net, bank bailouts were a good investment. QE may turn out to be as well (I may doubt that, but truth it the jury's still out) If that same deal can be made, believably, for basic income, we wouldn't be having this argument: we'd provide…

Your argument fails at the reality. For example in Germany there is social security since a very long time. Some people there get money without doing any work! Still, the country works, pretty good actually.

And that is because states don't work always in ways that are intuitive. If you always follow your intuition, you might end up writing what you did.

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#27

Post by IvanK_net »

"First, saying basic income is socialism is as absurd as saying money is socialism. It’s money. It’s all it is. What do people do with money? They use it in markets. In other words, basic income is fuel for markets."

The brilliant flow of thoughts and deduction just blew my mind.

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#28

Post by dingo_bat »

I want to write a loooong point-by-point rebuttal but I'm just too lazy. Now if I were awarded a basic income maybe I'd take out a day and write it up! But here's a summary:

I am in the top 20% whose income is still going up and whose tax will be used to pay out the UBI. What's in it for me? Why should I care? I really don't. And all the politicians are also in the top 1% (POTUS is a fucking billionaire, former POTUS gets $400k for a speech). Even a poor man becomes rich when he is elected. Why would he care about the 80%. There is no rational world in which a UBI will work or be implemented as envisioned by the author.

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#29

Post by devdad »

mmjaa wrote: post #9

I feel like this basic income ideology is really rooted in laziness - like, everyone likes free things, right? You don't have to work for it? But - do we ever really ask where that money is coming from? The rich just give it? So then, why would I work hard to become rich, if its just going to be taken from me? Its like income tax. Everyone loves paying tax on their income, right? (I, personally, do not.). So why don'…

Comparing it with laziness is not far away from saying poor people are lazy. Laziness has nothing to do with it.

More often than not, such claims are often connected with not seeing hidden privilege as a competitive advantage. Of all of my successful friends, only one come from a socioeconomic environment that isn't middle class or above.

The ability to climb on the socioeconomic ladder is much harder for those without means and connections - these means and connections are almost always directly correlated to your family.

As a personal anecdote, all of my kids friends have parents which are able to support them financially and are able to work 40-hour weeks. They are all academics and their kids get the benefit from having the language and mindset of academics from an early age.

At the same time, my cousin is a couple of steps down on the same ladder. Her kids friends parents are working part time, often several jobs, and still have a hard time making ends meet.

My kids are according to studies (on phone so won't be able to reference - an easy Google away) more likely to achieve economic success, go to college and have a better chance ending up one step up on the ladder. Her kids are more likely to end up in crime, less likely to go to college, more likely to stay in the same socioeconomic class.

I'm pretty sure my work gives me more slack and ability to be able to be lazy than the part time factory worker. "Free money" would probably create more equality and a better chance for all kids. Your statement is shortsighted.

Re: If You Think Basic Income Is “Free Money” or Socialism, Think Again

#30

Post by DanielBMarkham »

pjc50 wrote: post #15

Well, it is free money, that's the point; but neither that nor being "socialism" automatically makes it bad. This article is an interesting way of pitching basic income to a "capitalist"/right audience by phrasing it in ways like "basic income is fuel for markets", "buying is like voting" (!) and "I like markets. I want to reduce the size of government. I want less bureaucracy. I want less administration. I want fewe…

Yes, it was an unusual article in that the author was doing a lot of work to strawman-out conservatives and then make the UBI pitch.

It wasn't a bad pitch, but it felt really loose and meandering, like it could have ran a third of its length and been much more cogent and direct. Instead of direct and succinct, I got the feeling of an author standing out in a field, waving their arms around, while breathlessly making all sorts of tangentially-related generalizations and responses.

And I think that's the problem here: folks on both sides of the UBI issue would rather deal in generalities and grandstanding instead of just trying the dang thing out a bunch of times and seeing what works and what doesn't.

Twenty years ago, the U.S. was obviously in need of some kind of revamping of its healthcare system. Instead of trying hundreds of things out and quickly iterating a learning over time, what happened was that the issue was argued at the highest level of abstraction and in generic terms: what kind of modern country doesn't provide healthcare for it's people?

It took decades of argument, and in the end we got a one-size-fits-all solution that is now going to take decades to modify and adjust. If you want responsive government, this way of discussion and change is a dysfunctional way to improve the quality of people's lives.

So with UBI, I'm quite interested in the various experiments and the low-level details of what was tried and what kind of results are produced, much more so than some nebulous arguing and strawmanning around the concept in general. I support the concept in general -- if we're going to spend a lot of money on the poorer folks in society (I believe that isn't changing), then we should be constantly looking for ways to make the outcomes better. Big, animated discussions around what socialism is or isn't? Not part of an effective national dialog.

Also, Alaska is not a conservative state. It's a libertarian one. Many, many people seem to want to conflate libertarianism with conservatism. They are entirely separate (Insert long discussion here about the differences between libertarianism in the states and conservatism. Also another discussin about just what the heck conservatism is after the election of the recent president. Neither of these discussions are probably useful or germane to the topic of the essay)

Post reply on HN