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

What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#141

Post by godelski »

v64 wrote: post #115
godelski wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> prices will rise in an attempt to capture some of that known financial excess The assumes financial excess. The reason for UBI is that there isn't excess. If 78% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, then that's not excess. If 63% of Americans can't afford an unexpected $500 bill, that's not excess. You're right that inflation happens when there is excess, but given these stats, I don't buy that part of the…

> A person that couldn't afford a car can now. I person with a $1k beater car can now buy a $5k car. Wouldn't car dealers raise their prices some value up to $1k because they know anyone coming in that month to buy a car also just received a $1k check from the government? > Someone that was living paycheck to paycheck can now take a breath, buy a TV and a Netflix subscription. Netflix may raise their prices knowing e…

> Wouldn't car dealers raise their prices some value up to $1k because they know anyone coming in that month to buy a car also just received a $1k check from the government?

Why would they. They just got more customers. They already have a surplus of supply. In fact, you could make the argument that they could reduce car prices because with more customers you can operate on smaller margins. This is literally operating at scale. But it is hard to say, I'm just pointing out that the exact opposite could happen.

> Netflix may raise their prices knowing everyone has a little extra cash to spend, and that people would rather pay a dollar or two more than cancel.

Or look at Netflix's strategy. It is to corner the market. The classic Silicon Valley strategy. Corner the market, hemorrhage money, and then make a profit. More customers works into their plan perfectly without raising prices. In fact, now they have more competition. If every streaming service raises prices then people will have less of them and pirate more (this is already starting to happen). Even a lot of companies outside SV run a loss in the beginning, until they reach scale.

TLDR: More customers doesn't mean prices go up. Frequently it means the opposite. Scale.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#142

Post by Tempest1981 »

RedneckBob wrote: post #16
grecy wrote: post #9

We don't have to entirely speculate, we can look at existing evidence. Australia has the most liberal welfare in the world. Anyone over 18 can get $984 per month, and up to another $242 in rent assistance. [1] It has nothing to do with your previous employment history, or being fired, or anything like that. In fact, you can get it if you've never had a job in your life. You need to be "actively looking for work" whic…

Good post. Yang provides additional answers in the FAQ he prepared for his POTUS run: - https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/ Aside from COVID-19, we have the 4th industrial revolution in progress now. Just take a look at these truck driver's faces once they realize just how far self driving trucks are: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iaKHeCKcq4

Another similar video - a PBS special on AI, showing Embark's technology in action: https://www.limitstogrowth.org/articles/2019/11/06/pbs-front...

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#143

Post by paulmd »

bumby wrote: post #11
timw4mail wrote: post #6

I don't see how a universal basic income could be sustainable in any way. You either have debt hyperinflation, or you have taxes high enough that the universal basic income is meaningless.

I think some are advocating for a value added tax with certain categorical exemptions. My limited understanding is this would make necessity purchases more secure while making discretionary “luxury” purchases more expensive

VAT is kind of a bad tax scheme. It's regressive and discourages consumption (which, like it or not, is the engine that drives our economy).

It's better just to have income and wealth taxes.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#144

Post by trymas »

kuzimoto wrote: post #98
93po wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing unethical about a wealth tax. Billionaires made their fortunates on the backs of society and have only maintained that power and wealth through corruption and bribery. They should have never had that money to begin with.

You realize the top 1% already pay for a disproportionate amount of the taxes? Also they own businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of people. To tax people's wealth on top of the standard tax is plain evil, and will end up driving all the wealthiest people out of the country...

Billionaires need your country more than you think. It's just a bluff.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#145

Post by cycomanic »

aazaa wrote: post #3

The interview here is compelling. Yang's book is even more compelling. But what Yang doesn't do here or in his book is make a powerful case to fiscal conservative spelling out just how universal income will avoid demolishing the economy through inflation. Until this happens, UBI is going nowhere. Although COVID-19 is on everyone's minds right now, it wasn't too long ago that Venezuela, its hyperinflation, and empty s…

Why would giving everyone an grant a month result in inflation? That is entirely not clear, alluding to Venezuela does not make it an argument.

Essentially you seem to be saying that creating a more equal society results in higher inflation. I don't see your argument being supported by reality, I am not aware of studies showing that the North European countries have statistically higher inflation.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#146

Post by cycomanic »

Fjolsvith wrote: post #83
hyperpallium wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Also, first home owner's grants increased prices. Reduced interest rates increased house prices. Perhaps the great covid-19 WFH experiment will (partially) undermine the housing geography monopoly. Would socialist free housing, utilities, food, medical care, education might work better than UBI? What incentives would make capitalism provide them?

Capitalism can't provide housing, utilities, food, medical care and education for free. People would just quit their job if they got all that with no effort. Then how would the government be able to pay for the free stuff if it wasn't able to tax workers? Edit: It occurred to me the government could lock people up in work camps in order to be able to tax them.

> Capitalism can't provide housing, utilities, food, medical care and education for free.

> People would just quit their job if they got all that with no effort.

Citation needed. All previous experiments on ubi have shown the opposite. You are just painting a boogeyman, without evidence to back it up.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#147

Post by dmix »

lukifer wrote: post #130
allovernow wrote: post #65

The fact that covid is screwing the world right now does not mean that we should all be getting UBI under non emergency conditions. Putting Romney's plan in with Yang's is a conflation here because one is only for a single unprecedented global emergency, not everyday life. That said, UBI is quite literal wealth redistribution. You take taxes from the haves and give the cash directly to the hands of the have nots. The…

Bear in mind, we already engage in significant wealth redistribution. There's an argument that it's more efficient to do by writing checks, rather than through complex federal bureaucracies. It's the reason that Milton Friedman favored a negative income tax, and that GiveDirectly.org is considered by the Effective Altruism community to be one of the best charities.

What hasn't been established and what I think is a fair question, is whether this could ever practically roll out while simultaneously shutting down the existing welfare/disability/etc systems. As others have mentioned if it doesn't work people (see: vested political interests) will want a way to roll it back.

So in almost any practical case they will have to be running at the same time and will never truly be a net-neutral fiscal operation (assuming this is the outcome in practice) for at least the first 1-3+yrs.

Adopting UBI means increasing taxes, period. Even under ideal situations where the fiscal and productivity gains of replacing the current overly selective and bureaucratic processes, which significantly favours full-employment or zero-employment/disabilities in a black and white way with nothing in between - as opposed to the broader spectrum that markets can support when monthly deposits are not limited (including self-employed, disability, welfare, [un]employment income, etc) via far more efficient distributions systems replacing top-heavy systems, start to really take effect.

The whole "we'll just tax the 1%" hand-wavy stuff is not a good enough answer here. The amount of times that excuse has been used during political campaigns without congress doing anything significantly different is enough to be skeptical. As it then is no longer just UBI but UBI + significant tax code changes.

I personally don't think some trial runs in small parts of Canada or towns in individual states will be enough to prove much of anything. Especially given the vast amount of disparate systems these UBI systems would currently encompass across both federal/state governments in a big spectrum of economic/political environments across a large geographic area - which can't realistically be tested without it being a truly national affair. Of course federalism was designed exactly for this type of problem (individual states experimenting with policies so the cycle of progress is not forever limited to a long series of impractical all or nothing proposals across of bunch of states who disagree with each other) but the US has long ago sacrificed states government power for top heavy federal/executive run systems and this is the reality in which UBI must operate within.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#148

Post by harry8 »

surewhynat wrote: post #136
zenhack wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You realize the top 1% already pay for a disproportionate amount of the taxes? In absolute terms maybe (though there are some glaring exceptions -- Amazon famous literally pays $0 in taxes), but not relative to how much they make. > To tax people's wealth on top of the standard tax is plain evil, I don't see any reason why taxing net worth is at all less sensible than income. If anything I think it makes more sense…

Bill Gates once talked about money no longer having a utility for him. The utility of money goes away at a certain point when you accumulate too much and there is no longer something you cannot buy. The utility would be most efficient when applied to a better use such applied as the needy, perhaps in a UBI, or some other strategy, which would free up their time to do something more productive for society. Unfortunate…

It took Bill a long time to get there too. But it's the same for any billionaire. They can't possibly spend their money, neither can their children or grandchildren so the only thing you can do with it is give it away. Be that to charity, good works, monuments to yourself (art museums, university buildings) or politicians and think-tanks in an attempt to bend the world to your will.

The money is just one scoreboard among billionaires and not great one. Murdoch would be far more self-impressed with his power he weilds through media than someone with an additionall couple of hundred million.

Gates is more interested in being the great philanthropist. It seems his scoreboard is how much positive effect on the world he can have. It sounds ideal and I don't like to be cynical about it.

Koch Brother(s), Soros also can't spend their money on more houses, cars and private jets. More money is only useful to get more power. Do you like the way either or both weild it? Do you think they should have a bigger say than you purely by virtue of cash rather than making a convincing case?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#149

Post by JeremyBanks »

olivermarks wrote: post #74

Congress woman Tulsi Gabbard (the Clinton blacklisted presidential candidate) took on Yang's UBI initiative after he ran out of money and dropped out of the presidential race. Gabbard introduced HRes 897 last Thursday and has been vocal about providing an urgent $1k per month UBI payment for the projected 10 million US citizens who will lose their jobs. The DNC in their wisdom have again chosen to blank Gabbard and f…

Tulsi is going on Fox to complain about not being allowed in the debates despite having ~0 support. She is not a good-faith actor, and blacklisting her is entirely appropriate.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#150

Post by alkibiades »

beastcoast wrote: post #71

The problem with UBI is that most versions of it would essentially liquidate social services that people would normally receive. UBI only makes sense in addition to the other parts of a comprehensive safety net (universal housing and healthcare), not as a replacement.

you don’t explain why. i think the opposite. that it should only work as a replacement. part of the draw is it’s more efficient than existing programs
Post reply on HN