>Yours is a Randian analysis and it has been the sole argument from Republicans for not giving people UBI.
>What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"?
I'd argue that significantly enhancing the social safety net, significantly increasing minimum wages and, most importantly, providing strong incentives toward reduced incomes at the very high end, would provides significant long term economic advantages.
Why do I say this? For a variety of reasons:
1. >70% of US GDP is consumer spending. Increasing the amount and number of folks with discretionary income will boost demand significantly;
2. Enhancing the social safety net would encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. When you have an idea that you want to develop, but most folks don't even have a few hundred dollars available in an emergency will stop those folks from doing so -- In the current environment, unless there's immediate success, it's likely that such a person, and their family, will be sleeping rough and eating out of garbage cans pretty soon. With a robust social safety net, those folks can pursue their entrepreneurial ideas without worrying about starving in the street;
3. Incentivizing lower incomes at the very high end, via income taxes (cf. the 1950s), write offs for new business formation/development and other, similar incentives can boost employment, new business creation and focus resources on an ecosystem of smaller companies with real competition in many (if not most) industries;
4. Raising wages at the low end dovetails nicely with (1) above. Spreading wealth more widely (I am emphatically not suggesting forced wealth redistribution) among the population won't harm those at the top. How many houses, cars, dishwashers, pizza pies, miniskirts, throw rugs, yachts, toaster ovens, ball gags, window fans, telephones, snow globes, etc., etc., etc. can one family reasonably buy/use? Significantly increasing the incomes of those at the bottom will increase demand for all manner of products and services, strengthening the broader economy over the long term.
5. Finally, I'll wonder out loud how much "poorer" or "worse off" someone earning $5,000,000/annum is vs. someone earning $15,000,000/annum?
Having wealth/income more widely distributed across the population would create a stronger, more resilient economy over the long term -- one which would benefit those at the top and the bottom -- and lead to significantly better outcomes for everyone over the long term.
I'd note note that my reasoning doesn't include any arguments for "socialism." Rather, every single one focuses on how to strengthen and enhance a society and economy based on market principles.
Feel free to disagree, as I'm sure many of you will. I'd be interested to hear your arguments and will attempt to respond thoughtfully.
Edit: Fixed numbering.