What If Andrew Yang Was Right? • Hacker News Board

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#411

Post by godelski » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:28 PM UTC

bnjms wrote: post #369

SilasX wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. But if the core problem is that everyone is bidding away all their financial slack on rent, then they will still take any such windfall and do the same with it, pushing themselves right ba…

This is what bothers me most about arguments against UBI. They seem to have baked into them an assumption that any reduction of inequality will be eaten by rents. Then it follows that the only thing is to balance concentrated private economic power with concentrated public economic power. But what I want to see is more people with more control for themselves not planned for them by a program or economic happenstance.…

I have a modest proposal of how to fix the rent issue. If poor people just sold their children as food, then they would have enough money for rent. And then they wouldn't need jobs, which would lower the rent! Clearly more money more problems. If we take away the their jobs then the market will respond by lowering rent.

[for those that don't get this historical reference] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#412

Post by godelski » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:30 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #373

bnjms wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what bothers me most about arguments against UBI. They seem to have baked into them an assumption that any reduction of inequality will be eaten by rents. Then it follows that the only thing is to balance concentrated private economic power with concentrated public economic power. But what I want to see is more people with more control for themselves not planned for them by a program or economic happenstance.…

So you're saying the argument must be wrong because it would imply things are hopeless? That's a textbook fallacy of appeal to consequences. You're not actually addressing whether it's true. The point is that the UBI isn't going to fix things until you first fix the dynamic that's responsible for gobbling up all the economic slack, so that should be the priority.

They are saying you are wrong because there are other things in the market besides housing. If you inverse your logic it means lowering wages provides cheaper rent. And that just sounds ludicrous.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#413

Post by godelski » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:31 PM UTC

dx87 wrote: post #251

kkdaemas wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? There is still competition between car dealers, so I doubt this would happen.

It would absolutely happen. When I was in the military, the town I lived in had to pass laws preventing landlords from changing your rent based on your rank because everyone's pay information was public. It's naive to think dealerships would try to undercut each other instead of colluding to all get more money.

Charging rent based on rank would be a form of discrimination... also this is anti-competitive behavior. It is pretty well understood that regulation should exist. It is just a question of how much and how to regulate.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#414

Post by sybarita » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:33 PM UTC

ajr0 wrote: post #360

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.

out of curiosity, why not just tax people less rather than offer UBI? either lower the tax or start offering monthly tax refunds? would that work as an alternative or equivalent to UBI or am I thinking of something very different?

Because the people who need/would benefit aren't paying anything remotely near 1k/month in taxes, that's the whole point. Your solution only works in a society where people already have a reasonable amount of income.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#415

Post by mandelbrotwurst » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:37 PM UTC

JDiculous wrote: post #234

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…

There is nothing inflationary about UBI. It's interesting how people think the onus is on UBI proponents to justify why their policy wouldn't cause inflation. Even if it did cause inflation, ultimately it's just a redistribution of wealth, and it still helps those most at the bottom. You mention Venezuela which is a totally different scenario. They had an economy overly dependent on imports paid for by the revenue fr…

Irrespective of UBI, is the US similarly not highly dependent on imports paid for by debt issuance, demand for which is not guaranteed to persist in the future just as Venezuela's oil income was not guaranteed?

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#416

Post by true_religion » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:37 PM UTC

olivermarks wrote: post #402

charwalker wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they mean that if a Democratic candidate is going on the (known to the left wing as pure propaganda and lies) right wing network of choice to make their case then they are not arguing in good faith and simply looking to score points with people who will never vote for her anyway. It's disingenuous and she had next to 0 support anyway.

Here's the sequence of events with Tulsi Gabbard's presidential campaign which is important if you believe in running a fair democracy, my fundamental point here. Gabbard resigned as a rising star DNC VP in 2016 to endorse Bernie Sanders over Mrs Clinton who had bought the party off with a cash infusion (largely raised by Weinstein) on the agreement she had control of party strategy and messaging, and could include m…

Bloomberg is a nationally known politician who was willing to spend 230 million in a 4 week span. Gabbard isn’t comparable to that.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#417

Post by godelski » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:37 PM UTC

supportlocal4h wrote: post #355

godelski wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 operatin…

> They just got more customers. They already have a surplus of supply. Um, wouldn't that be increased demand? More customers with more money. That's the definition of more demand. Economics 100 forecasts a price increase under those circumstances.

I too think naive models are the most accurate. Linear fits for everything.

But seriously, no. I literally gave you examples of this strategy happening. Here's some more companies doing it: Venmo, Move Pass, YouTube, Google, Amazon (store), Facebook, Robinhood, Vanguard, need I continue?

Simple models are great to get the basics, but if they worked for most things in the world everything would have a O1 solution. Frankly the world is more complex and can't be explained in a 10 minute lecture. That's why we have experts in subjects and why basic knowledge is drastically different than expertise knowledge.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#418

Post by dnautics » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:39 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #408

dnautics wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the intent is to 'keep employment numbers up at any cost'. But that there is a (predictable, and evidenced) unintended consequence to the prescribed method of attaining that objective is an indictment of the class-blindness of the liberal economic polity, and, secondarily, the brokenness of modern 'science' and 'scientistic' pursuits. (not saying the right is much better on that front)

i'm sympathetic to the original indictment that capital holders (like many hbs grads) realized, and then moved to solidify, this tilting of the board in their favor by supporting inflationary policy. i'm not sure that the liberal economic polity is a distinct class from those same capital holders (but i generally disfavor left-right political framing anyways).

Yeah sorry to make it seem too much like a left versus right issue, I hate both sides, I just specifically pointed out "left" because the left purports to care about the "little people" (see Krugman) while very much actively pursing policies that are great for capital holders and rhetorically espousing policies tantamount to throwing bones to everyone else.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#419

Post by godelski » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

dpbriggs wrote: post #221

godelski wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 operatin…

For people who can afford cars today -- Why wouldn't they? I'm not convinced economy of scale applies the same way in this case. Cars (and mattresses, etc) are large and infrequent purchases dominated by preference. Dealerships make most of their money through sketchy financing and tricks. There's a large class of financially illiterate people who routinely make massive mistakes like monthly income spend planning. Gi…

Because you're only applying economy of scale to a single market. What I tried to illustrate is that different classes would spend the money differently. So it isn't just everyone buying cars. Come on, that's idiotic and unreasonable. But what I'm saying is that new people are entering MANY markets. Not a single one. That there are so many markets and that we are no where near full market capture (this is the important part) that thinking just rent would go up is also an unreasonable assumption.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#420

Post by bnjms » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #373

bnjms wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what bothers me most about arguments against UBI. They seem to have baked into them an assumption that any reduction of inequality will be eaten by rents. Then it follows that the only thing is to balance concentrated private economic power with concentrated public economic power. But what I want to see is more people with more control for themselves not planned for them by a program or economic happenstance.…

So you're saying the argument must be wrong because it would imply things are hopeless? That's a textbook fallacy of appeal to consequences. You're not actually addressing whether it's true. The point is that the UBI isn't going to fix things until you first fix the dynamic that's responsible for gobbling up all the economic slack, so that should be the priority.

I am obviously not addressing whether it's true or saying the argument must be wrong. I'm pointing out there's some circular reasoning here that's unexamined in most online discussions about UBI.

I am pointing out there is an assumed and implied argument that 1) inequality is a problem and must be corrected, but 2) straight redistribution of some wealth with UBI will fail because-inflation/rents, but 3) we should have less inequality though even if we did that would put us in the similar position as with UBI where costs rebalance.

And at the end I ask, rhetorically but still, what's to be done. So here you also assume it's true without addressing it and offer no answer to how to address the gobbling up of the economic slack.