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

We're officially launching UBI

givedirectly.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 185 posts

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#71

Post by shkkmo »

chatmasta wrote: post #22

How can you meaningfully experiment with UBI if the “BI” is not even universal ? My understanding is that many of the criticisms of UBI are based on externalities that would only become manifest in a meaningfully large population. For example, price increases and inflation might arise from everyone having extra money. If you’re only testing UBI on a small population, then 1) it’s not even universal, and 2) there will…

1) How do you mean it isn't "universal"? My understand is that this initiative is universal within these communities? Are you saying that there is no meaningful way to test UBI without jumping immediately into a global program?

2) 6000 is a pretty good sample size. Given that this will be universal within these communities, we can certainly look for any evidence of local price changes.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#72

Post by shkkmo »

ucaetano wrote: post #67
shkkmo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the exact opposite of that. When you send free goods into an economy, you inhibit demand which in turn inhibits economic growth. When you send money into an economy, in increase demand and it will have the opposite effect.

Not necessarily. Increased demand solely from cash injections in an economy will increase prices without an increase in investments, since those investing can't know if the cash injections will continue or not. So it will lead to short-term inflation, and without the long-term investments in production, that inflation will continue for as long as the injections continue. As the cash injections aren't universal, those…

I was specifically disputing the analogy with providing goods like shoes and good to impoverished communities.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#73

Post by SilasX »

ttoinou wrote: post #68

Now it’s time for us to do our jobs, and wait to learn. They will never learn anything from this experiment as long as they keep hiding where does the money come from. Let's not fool ourselves : if UBI is implemented, money will come from taxpayers citizens, and will increase the power of governments over our lives. For good arguments against UBI, cf Hazlitt : https://fee.org/articles/income-without-work/ . - UBI is…

There may be an issue with government control, but I think the "how is it funded" is a bigger problem: an experiment were the money comes from a different society is not going to model the effects of the taxes needed to fund it. You're not seeing a major downside of the policy, which is the deadweight loss induced by having all those work/investment acts taxed more.

(I know, "people still work", "people still invest". That's not the problem. The problem is the marginal unit of labor/investment, and quantifying how that compares to the benefit of the UBI.)

There's also, of course, the issue of how much gets eaten away by higher rents, which everyone just assumes away.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#74

Post by chatmasta »

shkkmo wrote: post #71
chatmasta wrote: post #22

How can you meaningfully experiment with UBI if the “BI” is not even universal ? My understanding is that many of the criticisms of UBI are based on externalities that would only become manifest in a meaningfully large population. For example, price increases and inflation might arise from everyone having extra money. If you’re only testing UBI on a small population, then 1) it’s not even universal, and 2) there will…

1) How do you mean it isn't "universal"? My understand is that this initiative is universal within these communities? Are you saying that there is no meaningful way to test UBI without jumping immediately into a global program? 2) 6000 is a pretty good sample size. Given that this will be universal within these communities, we can certainly look for any evidence of local price changes.

That would be true if every economic good were produced within the community. I don’t know how isolated these experimental communities are, but I doubt they source 100% of supplies from the same group that’s getting the basic income.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#75

Post by munk-a »

moduspol wrote: post #66
shkkmo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the exact opposite of that. When you send free goods into an economy, you inhibit demand which in turn inhibits economic growth. When you send money into an economy, in increase demand and it will have the opposite effect.

UBI doesn't send money in, it redistributes it. And if solving economic problems were as simple as "just take more money from the rich people and give it to the poor people," this problem would have been solved centuries ago.

Clearly. And is this statement based on the well known fact that rich people have always been happy to have their money taken away and given to poor people without trying to undermine any genuine efforts at wealth redistribution for economic growth?

That's why we don't have any rich people any more and wealth inequality is at it's lowest point in decades, right?

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#76

Post by burkaman »

ttoinou wrote: post #70
pc86 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most popular UBI proposals that I've seen all contain some level of social safety net reduction (some more than others). None of the proposals I've seen suggest that social services remain at their current level and we give everyone $ N on top of that.

But, will it happen ? Are laws implemented according to the proposals ? Of course the most urgent thing will be to implement UBI. And then to raise it. No one will think about deleting previous welfare benefits

Where do you live that politicians aren't constantly trying to remove welfare benefits?

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#77

Post by munk-a »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #28

Like others have said, pilot programs are a poor trial for UBI. You're creating wealth for select individuals (even a village), so you aren't dealing with economic issues such as inflation. For example, read about Mansa Musa, who gave away so much gold in his pilgrimage to Mecca in the 1300s that he caused devaluation of money (hyperinflation) for nearly 10 years [1]. The huge influx of "free" money caused lasting da…

I haven't seen any proposals for UBI that rely on printing money to fund the benefits so I imagine that the Fed will still be able to control money production rates and keep the total currency within fixed limits.

Would this run away inflation be possible in a system where we're drawing money out of the top of the economy?

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#78

Post by shkkmo »

moduspol wrote: post #66
shkkmo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the exact opposite of that. When you send free goods into an economy, you inhibit demand which in turn inhibits economic growth. When you send money into an economy, in increase demand and it will have the opposite effect.

UBI doesn't send money in, it redistributes it. And if solving economic problems were as simple as "just take more money from the rich people and give it to the poor people," this problem would have been solved centuries ago.

The post I was responding to wasn't citicizing UBI, but rather criticizing this specific type of program which DOES inject money into the local economy from outside doners.

> And if solving economic problems were as simple as "just take more money from the rich people and give it to the poor people," this problem would have been solved centuries ago.

When in history have we tried anything like UBI? How can we know if it works if we have never tried it?

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#79

Post by ttoinou »

SilasX wrote: post #73
ttoinou wrote: post #68

Now it’s time for us to do our jobs, and wait to learn. They will never learn anything from this experiment as long as they keep hiding where does the money come from. Let's not fool ourselves : if UBI is implemented, money will come from taxpayers citizens, and will increase the power of governments over our lives. For good arguments against UBI, cf Hazlitt : https://fee.org/articles/income-without-work/ . - UBI is…

There may be an issue with government control, but I think the "how is it funded" is a bigger problem: an experiment were the money comes from a different society is not going to model the effects of the taxes needed to fund it. You're not seeing a major downside of the policy, which is the deadweight loss induced by having all those work/investment acts taxed more. (I know, "people still work", "people still invest"…

I agree. Maybe all this experiment can prove is that giving money directly to people in "poor" countries is more effective than international aid programmes that started after WWII. Big news.

Re: We're officially launching UBI

#80

Post by matt4077 »

ttoinou wrote: post #41
vinceguidry wrote: post #19

UBI desperately needs to be tried out on a semi-large scale as a social experiment. We can't even form a useful moral argument about it until we know its effects. Will it start shaping local and regional policy or is it just going to quietly get discarded as a idea before its time?

We can't even form a useful moral argument about it until we know its effects Of course we can. It's ok for people to donate their money and time for this kind of experiment. It's not ok for governments to tax citizens for a new social giveaway unless others social benefits are reduced accordingly (which will never happen).

It's completely ok to spend citizens' money on benefits both old and new, if that's what society decides.

It might not always be smart, or sustainable. Just as it wouldn't be smart not to do it at all. But there's no first principle of morality to reduce to. And if there were, there'd be you'd still need agreement on it for it to be meaningful.

Post reply on HN