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

201–210 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#201

Post by TimJRobinson »

justchilly wrote: post #37
mrfusion wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m so confused why this inflation argument keeps popping up. If you’re paying for the Ubi with taxes then there’s no inflation. Net money supply hasn’t changed (0). If you pay for ubi by printing money then yes, inflation would be a problem. But no one has suggested that. (0) I’m willing to entertain an argument about the velocity of money increasing from ubi but I really doubt it would be too significant.

Rich people aren't spending all their money on stuff, they're investing it. If wealthy people were to take all that wealth and start buying stuff (themselves or via redistribution through taxes to UBI), there isn't magically more stuff, so the price of stuff goes way up => inflation.

> there isn't magically more stuff

Most companies can easily ramp up production to meet increased demand. It's not magic, it's the modern world.

Most general goods companies are demand constrained, that's why they need to do marketing campaigns to make more sales. It's only if they had too many orders and couldn't grow production that we'd have inflation. So there may be some inflation immediately but not long term.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#202

Post by atq2119 »

cycomanic wrote: post #145
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.

Unfortunately, many people equate "printing money" with inflation, which is too simplistic.

That said, all those monetary grants could lead to excessive demand which leads to inflation, especially in sectors of the economy that are not competitive. Whether it actually would lead to inflation and, more importantly, to how much is a question that needs to be answered empirically.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#203

Post by endisukaj »

manigandham wrote: post #197
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.

There are several founders of YC companies that are self-made billionaires and they post on this very forum. Do you really think they made it on the "backs of society" through "corruption and bribery" rather than building a company that provides value to those willing to pay for it?

Whether that value is real or whether that value was created just by the founders is something that needs to be discussed.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#204

Post by endisukaj »

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...

Do you have any source or proof that the wealthy pay a disproportionate amount of taxes compared to the rest of us?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#205

Post by krapp »

GrantSolar wrote: post #193
krapp wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem is the implication behind that critique, that the poor should rather be kept poor until their anger is useful for class warfare (the political gain of the left.) I sympathize with the left far more than the right but both sides seem perfectly happy to consider the proletariat as sheep when it serves their purpose. As far as I'm concerned, UBI would be meaningful change to the system.

>the implication behind that critique, that the poor should rather be kept poor until... I think it's more that UBI will result in at best a brief reprieve from poverty. It won't be a long-term or even medium-term solution as it only treats the symptom, not the cause. While I can celebrate anyone promising/implementing welfare programs such as UBI and the huge social benefits they bring, I am cautious of how these wi…

An at least brief reprieve from poverty would be better than nothing. We can treat the symptoms and the cause under UBI, just as we could do now, with the existence of welfare (such as it is in the US) and the minimum wage. I don't think these positions are mutually opposed.

Yes, UBI can be weaponized politically, and probably will be. But the current system is already weaponized. If it's turned against people hard enough, that only works in the left's favor. If not, it at least suggests that some degree of meaningful change is possible within the system.

>Just want to throw out that I disagree with this

Fair enough.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#206

Post by maigret »

GrantSolar wrote: post #185
Proziam wrote: post #88

My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people in power to use it against the people. Once UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. It will be the single most influential campaign topic. Worse, if UBI were to get 'Obamacared' then we'd end up with a massive battle over implementation, followed by a much worse system than the one we had prior (worst of all worlds with numerous '…

This is one of the bigger leftist critiques of UBI - instead of enacting meaningful change to the system, gifting the people just enough money to keep them docile and prevent upsetting the ruling class and, like you said, weaponising for further political gain

If that was true there would be more protests in the US than in France. I think the exact opposite of that is true.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#207

Post by dragonwriter »

logicchains wrote: post #114
buzzkillington wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make them grow with productivity.

This destroys incentive to invest in productivity improvements, because the gains are eaten by wages. Most productivity gains in the economic sense don't come from people working smarter/harder, they come from investment in better machines and technology (capital). If you took the most productive worker today back two thousand years, their productivity would be massively reduced without access to any modern tools or…

> This destroys incentive to invest in productivity improvements, because the gains are eaten by wages.

No, the share of returns that go to labor is constant, so productivity gains are split between labor and capital the same as returns prior to the gains are.

In the alternative, capital captures an ever greater share of the returns over time because they are incentivized to invest in those areas that creates the most return to capital.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#208

Post by buzzkillington »

manigandham wrote: post #192
buzzkillington wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, so the only way to increase profits is to increase automation. A much better use of human brains then using them to flip burgers.

So automate away all the jobs? What are people supposed to do then?

The sewers have put all the nightsoil men out business, yet I say society is better for automated toilets.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#209

Post by dntbnmpls »

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…

> 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.

Society is wealth distribution. Wealth doesn't exist outside of society. The US's existence is wealth distribution. Stealing land from natives to give to settlers. Stealing african's labor and distributing the wealth among slave owners. The rights to oil, resources, etc are wealth distribution.

Also, no wealth of any significance is ever earned by an individual. I hate how people say, Bezos, Gates, etc earned their wealth. Bezos didn't earn $100 billion. There is no way one person can physically earn that much. Bezos can't physically sell 100 billion items from the dollar menu. Wealth is generated by laws and cooperation and a fair/unfair distribution of value generated. Simple as that.

Also, don't give me the "great man" bullshit. Had bezos never been born, we'd still have an amazon of some kind. Jobs death didn't end Apple. There's always a "great man" to fill any void.

> There's a point where it becomes unethical and/or counterproductive...but where that point is perhaps remains to be seen.

Agreed. It's probably impossible to reach a happy medium since people always want more and whichever side gets a slight advantage will use it to further advantage themselves until society skews to one side and collapses.

Also, the other side of the coin is at what point does wealth accumulation become unethical and/or counterproductive.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#210

Post by notahacker »

qqqwerty wrote: post #187
Proziam wrote: post #88

My primary concern with UBI is not the concept itself, but the risk for people in power to use it against the people. Once UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. It will be the single most influential campaign topic. Worse, if UBI were to get 'Obamacared' then we'd end up with a massive battle over implementation, followed by a much worse system than the one we had prior (worst of all worlds with numerous '…

The 'Universal' part of UBI is the key here. The problem with our current patch work of social programs is that the constituencies for each program are fractured and disorganized. A child tax credit here, a food program there, it is easy to slowly whittle down a social program in those cases. But a Universal BI means that any changes or cuts to the program will impact everyone. It is much harder to play politics when…

> ...it is easy to slowly whittle down a social program in those cases. But a Universal BI means that any changes or cuts to the program will impact everyone

Sure, because the effect will be permanent removal rather than slow whittling down of other programs people depended on, and the people that depended on them will have to make do with whatever lesser payment the government can afford to pay out to much larger numbers of net recipients of a UBI

"Hey America, here is $1000, and $2000 in extra taxes to fund all those people that didn't need welfare before" is also a surprisingly hard sell. It's only an easy sell when you assume everyone's a net beneficiary

Post reply on HN