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

Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

timjrobinson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#721

Post by mac01021 »

I just googled "advertising as fraction of gdp" and the two top results are 19% [1] and 1.17% [2], respectively. It's almost as though random pages on the web are not to be trusted.

The OP's argument, to a large extent, would seem to me to hinge on this number, though I'm not sure I can work out the relevant math on my own. (If anyone else can, I would definitely like to see it)

[1] https://www.ana.net/content/show/id/37679

[2] https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/273094/us-adv...

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#722

Post by account42 »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #660
habosa wrote: post #526

I like the simple argument made here about UBI enabling efficient consumption. I worry about three things with UBI though and they're more social than economic. 1. Power Divide - society will be easily divided into two groups: those who depend on the UBI to live and those who don't. The former will be absolutely at the mercy of the latter. We can see this a little bit with the coronavirus relief packages. 2. Predator…

The question I can't answer is "what stops a nation voting itself more income?" If every unscrupulous politician can promise to raise the base UBI rate to get elected, what stops that? Obviously, inflation will fix it in the relatively short term, but that's not a good result. And there's an unscrupulous politician in power.

What's stopping a nation for voting itself more than 0 UBI now?

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#724

Post by mac01021 »

bmitc wrote: post #652
onion2k wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Power Divide - society will be easily divided into two groups: those who depend on the UBI to live and those who don't. The former will be absolutely at the mercy of the latter. One aspect of UBI is that poor people would be less at the mercy of the rich. If you're a poor person now you absolutely have to try to keep your horrible job else you'll lost the ability to pay rent and buy food. You have to take all the cra…

> One aspect of UBI is that poor people would be less at the mercy of the rich. That is a very strong statement that I don't think can be claimed at this point. In my opinion, I feel things will simply shift under UBI. People will receive UBI, but then other things, like rent, food, etc. will all just magically get more expensive. I cannot see any implementation of UBI working any better than things now unless the pr…

It should be easier for the poor to get mortgages if the bank knows UBI can be relied on. Landlords will lose some leverage as a result.

If target and walmart, currently competing for business on opposite sides of the same street, both raise their margins on food and clothing in response to the implementation of UBI then they are clearly colluding and I would hope that an enormous antitrust thing would ensue.

But I'm no expert. You may be right.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#725

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

infogulch wrote: post #533
habosa wrote: post #526

I like the simple argument made here about UBI enabling efficient consumption. I worry about three things with UBI though and they're more social than economic. 1. Power Divide - society will be easily divided into two groups: those who depend on the UBI to live and those who don't. The former will be absolutely at the mercy of the latter. We can see this a little bit with the coronavirus relief packages. 2. Predator…

> some governments give poor people vouchers for rent ... targeted by slumlords who find a way to give you as little as possible for them This seems to be a problem because the vouchers are only redeemable by government-granted monopolies, and thus neither tenant nor landlord are participating an open market. If the tenant could go anywhere else with their money a la UBI nobody would choose those terrible living quar…

An open market will always favour the landlord, so you'd end up with more homelessness, or more slum housing and ten-people-to-a-room at the very best.

We've been trying these approaches for centuries now, and they always end the same way. There has never been a "free" market which hasn't vastly increased inequality of opportunity across the population as a whole. Why is it so hard for proponents of "free" markets to accept this fact?

UBI simply highlights that money is a proxy for political power, and there's no way - short of violence - that those with limited power can access personal or political leverage in any system which over-rewards concentrations of power.

UBI will improve nothing, and may make some problems much worse. The real solution is improved public education at all levels, limits to advertising that promotes selfish greed and consumption, regulation of the press to eliminate the deliberate dissemination of obvious fake news, good public healthcare, higher taxation for giant monopolies and their owners, improved regulation to end the financialisation of everything, much improved public infrastructure, stronger unionisation and other forms of collaborative politics, and easier and cheaper access to capital for small business of all kinds.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#726

Post by somewhereoutth »

Universal Basic Stake would be more in tune with the idea of Capitalism 2.0

Instead of everyone being born with nothing (except that provided by their parents), everyone would 'own' a share of the national wealth. This share would provide a UBI, and eventually transition into a retirement fund. The bulk of the capital in the share would be in safe income bearing assets (interest rates will need to go back to ~5% for this), but a potion could be allowed for spending at the discretion of the individual, to cover large purchases such as deposit on a house, or a car. You would be able to pay into your stake if you wanted a better retirement or to save for something.

This would be financed through a sovereign wealth fund, constructed from taxes on natural resource extraction (e.g. Norway), but also heavily progressive wealth taxes (perhaps increasing up to as much as 20% each year on personal wealth above 5MM USD). Such a wealth tax acts to counterbalance the natural accumulation effect of capitalism, i.e. the rich getting richer only because they are rich.

People will see it not as a handout, but as a way of participating in the capitalist economy. If the economy does well, then the stakes will increase. There would be a sense of ownership and (hopefully) a stronger feeling of social responsibility flowing from that connection.

However a UBI/UBS should only come after universal benefits in kind: Healthcare, public transport, professional policing, transparent and democratically accountable governance, education according to ability not ability to pay, high quality housing stock, consumer protection standards, environmental protection standards...

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#727

Post by jostylr »

habosa wrote: post #526

I like the simple argument made here about UBI enabling efficient consumption. I worry about three things with UBI though and they're more social than economic. 1. Power Divide - society will be easily divided into two groups: those who depend on the UBI to live and those who don't. The former will be absolutely at the mercy of the latter. We can see this a little bit with the coronavirus relief packages. 2. Predator…

Read this article: https://www.marieclaire.com/career-advice/a32827211/universa...

A book to read, though older, is Tyranny of Kindness and it expands on the plight in vivid detail of our current system.

The article is an anecdote, but it tells the narrative of how the current setup is pretty difficult for people, particularly single mothers with children. They are already at the mercy of people and find no help for charity. In the article, it even mentions how the family that gets supported moves out of their subsidized apartment. It also mentions how brutal the current system is in terms of cutting off benefits.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#728

Post by dalbasal »

habosa wrote: post #526

I like the simple argument made here about UBI enabling efficient consumption. I worry about three things with UBI though and they're more social than economic. 1. Power Divide - society will be easily divided into two groups: those who depend on the UBI to live and those who don't. The former will be absolutely at the mercy of the latter. We can see this a little bit with the coronavirus relief packages. 2. Predator…

These are red herrings.

The problems exist now. How does more income make poor people more at the mercy of wealthier people? How does more income make poor people more susceptible to predators and scams?

UBI helps mitigate these problems, it doesn't create or make them worse. Even charity... I expect some people will increase their donations, because the UBI is free money and they don't necessarily need it.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#729

Post by dutch3000 »

it’s not the only way and i think there could be massive, negative side effects. economic localization is the way forward. it would help with carbon reduction, offset job loss from automation, counteract the loss of human scale with regards to the interconnected, toxic mass consciousness by moving our realities back to our communities.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#730

Post by zarathustreal »

Upvoter33 wrote: post #290
jtlienwis wrote: post #258

I am opposed to UBI. I want smart people to have more money. I want less smart people to have less money, provided they have enough to live on. A smart person might invest in books, study and self improvement. Then those industries that create these will be stimulated. That is what you want. Less smart people might spend their money on lottery tickets, junk food, booze etc. Those industries would be stimulated by UBI…

"I want smart people to have more money" Why? Shouldn't it be "people who have a more positive impact on society should have more money"? Being smart isn't anything, it's like being tall. You got it because you were born with it. Also, what about those who weren't born "smart"? Should society just tell them "tough luck"? Shouldn't we think about everyone and how they will all do in our future, more perfect country/wo…

Are you really suggesting that it’s not possible to cultivate intelligence in an age where even the lowest classes have instant access to the sum of human knowledge? You either agree that all men(humans) are born equal or you agree that some men(humans) have a right to rule. You can’t assert that everyone deserves equal rights while also asserting that some people are simply smarter by nature, obviously smarter people need to be making the decisions right? Or are we already at the point that we’re calling intelligence subjective
Post reply on HN