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

431–440 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#431

Post by godelski »

v64 wrote: post #426
godelski wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was suggesting that regulations have to exist in general. Over the entire market. But what you said just flat out confuses me. That we shouldn't implement something because we currently don't have regulations for it? Why would we? We haven't implemented it. I mean with that kind of attitude we can't get anything done. Do I expect hiccups and bumps in the road? Yeah, why wouldn't I? Humans aren't perfect. Never have…

> That we shouldn't implement something because we currently don't have regulations for it? Why would we? We haven't implemented it. I mean with that kind of attitude we can't get anything done. I think before implementing UBI, we have to address the broader issue of anticompetitive behavior in American business, due largely to decades of ill-advised deregulation, coupled with regulatory bodies who refuse to prevent…

I mentioned something similar in another comment. But I'm confused why everything is becoming an "or" conversation. We're a pretty rich nation, we can have more than one cake. There's lots of talk about regulation, we don't have to focus on only one topic at a time.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#432

Post by olivermarks »

true_religion wrote: post #416
olivermarks wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct. There needs to be campaign finance restrictions put in place, otherwise these media owning oligarchs and their networks will continue to have overwhelming control over democracy. Gabbard is just a congresswoman and army major with a very modest background.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#433

Post by boomboomsubban »

Fjolsvith wrote: post #370
boomboomsubban wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Edit: It occurred to me the government could lock people up in work camps in order to be able to tax them So people end up in a situation where they are forced to work in order to survive, the same situation they are in now.

Ah, but in Capitalism, they can choose not to work.

You could have the choice to refuse the UBI and end up in a similar position to homeless today, though most homeless did not make a choice not to work.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#434

Post by Proziam »

JDiculous wrote: post #231
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 '…

> but the risk for people in power to use it against the people. As opposed to what, private undemocratic unaccountable authoritarian institutions controlling peoples' lives? > nce UBI exists, people will rely on it for survival. Anybody who's dependent on their employers' paycheck is dependent on their employer for survival. How is dependence on the government any more dangerous than being dependent on a corporation…

A few points to unpack here.

1. "private undemocratic unaccountable authoritarian institutions" are a lot of buzzwords, which don't accurately describe your local businesses. If every company was google, we could go there, but in the current reality, you're presenting a false dichotomy. The balance of power between people and their local institutions is wildly different than people and the federal government and megacorps.

2. A person can freely look for work at any time. They can upskill and seek more gainful employment, transfer into a better paying position in another company, or find employment that is more suitable to their immediate needs (part-time work for those studying as example.) You can't do that with government - unless you compete directly against the megacorps who use their power and influencer to affect elections and legislation.

Example: We got rid of net neutrality despite it being enormously popular. That's massively undemocratic and demonstrates that large institutions, government or not, don't always act in the best interests of the people.

3. Social Security is its own creature and requires a more thorough discussion. What I can say is based on my own experience - my family didn't benefit from Social Security. By the time my father was eligible for benefits, he was already on his death bed. Spousal benefits are "up to" half, meaning my father worked his entire life and my mother only got to benefit from half the 'savings.' If he had just put that money away like he did all his regular earnings my mother would be much better off.

I can't imagine my family was the only one in such a situation.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#435

Post by v64 »

godelski wrote: post #431
v64 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That we shouldn't implement something because we currently don't have regulations for it? Why would we? We haven't implemented it. I mean with that kind of attitude we can't get anything done. I think before implementing UBI, we have to address the broader issue of anticompetitive behavior in American business, due largely to decades of ill-advised deregulation, coupled with regulatory bodies who refuse to prevent…

I mentioned something similar in another comment. But I'm confused why everything is becoming an "or" conversation. We're a pretty rich nation, we can have more than one cake. There's lots of talk about regulation, we don't have to focus on only one topic at a time.

I agree with you generally, but believe this is a case where the two events have to occur one after the other.

Putting UBI on the table today without already having a reformed regulatory framework in place from day one will result in a failed project, IMO. Opponents of UBI will use this to say that UBI is broken, instead of pointing to the real problem, that regulation is broken.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#436

Post by Fjolsvith »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #433
Fjolsvith wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but in Capitalism, they can choose not to work.

You could have the choice to refuse the UBI and end up in a similar position to homeless today, though most homeless did not make a choice not to work.

But, could you choose to not be one of the taxpayers to fund UBI?

I say if you want to do UBI, add a checkbox on the tax return where a person can choose to donate $1000 to the UBI program out of their tax refund. Let the UBI recipients all have an equal share of the funds collected from that checkbox.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#437

Post by Fjolsvith »

cycomanic wrote: post #146
Fjolsvith wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was talking about the list of Socialistic welfare handouts the parent said should be free, not UBI.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#438

Post by digitaltrees »

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #415
JDiculous wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Two important points. 1. US debt is denominated in its own currency not the currency of a foreign government. 2. The US economy is not dependent on one volatile commodity. Worse for Venezuela is the price of oil is set for a large part by OPEC so they have little control of the price.

In fact, the crisis in Venezuela was driven by OPEC dropping the price of oil to keep market share and prevent US oil production from fracking and the like from being viable.

Every time you think of Venezuela, think of these issues because any model of economics without this complete picture will yield inaccurate conclusions and fear of inflation being right around the corner when that is not the case.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#439

Post by digitaltrees »

mech1234 wrote: post #356
JDiculous wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is a large risk of inflation under UBI. You cannot make an honest argument about UBI without accepting this risk. 1. On the margin, UBI reduces employment and production. This contributes to inflation. 2. On the margin, UBI increases consumption of consumer staples. This contributes to inflation. 3. On the margin, UBI increases the velocity of money. This contributes to inflation. 4. Under most assumptions, UBI…

1. Early evidence of UBI reducing employment actually shows the opposite.

2. Increased demand for consumer staples, if met with increased supply won't lead to inflation, if suppliers and entrepreneurs see the increase in demand as stable, they will make investments to increase supply. As long as we allow the price seeking mechanism of the market reach equilibrium, inflation will be at most momentary.

3. Velocity of money doesn't, by itself create inflation. Said another way, it's not a sufficient condition to bring about inflation. Sometimes a massive increase in money is just hoarded and doesn't enter the economy in any real sense.

4. Taxes don't necessarily have to rise in a regressive way such as sales tax and instead could be redistribution. I suspect what we would see is less inflation in the luxury art and real estate market if taxes were increased and the proceeds redistributed.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#440

Post by digitaltrees »

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.

Colluding to prevent competition is and should be illegal in a market economy. We can't say we can't implement a viable and beneficial social policy because people will break the law. We should enact the policy and ensure the culture, norms and laws are in place to make it effective.
Post reply on HN