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

Universal Basic Income Has Been Tried over and over Again. It Works Every Time

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 236 posts

Re: Universal Basic Income Has Been Tried over and over Again. It Works Every Time

#211

Post by anon-sre-srm »

unethical_ban wrote: post #63
SirMaster wrote: post #6

When has UBI actually every been tried? I don't think any trials really qualify as "Universal". IMO the universal part is the hard part and changes it drastically. Compared to a small limited trial of giving people money, where does it all come from when it's actually universal? And what are the effects on the overall economy when it's universal?

Taxes. One form of UBI is essentially a negative income tax rate for people making below a certain line. As more and more jobs get automated away, we will either become a society of wage slaves with a small upper class controlling trillions (wait a minute...) or we will distribute the benefits of an automated society to all people.

It's already the former. Have a look at all of the homeless Americans and sleeping in cars borderline working poor in shit gig economy jobs working for crumbs. It's a result of decades of political corruption and apathy following widespread, cult belief in "effortless" meritocracy and trickledown Reaganomics.

Re: Universal Basic Income Has Been Tried over and over Again. It Works Every Time

#212

Post by mauvehaus »

HideousKojima wrote: post #158
mauvehaus wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of means testing isn't just what you see on a budget. It's also all of the people who are eligible, but incapable of demonstrating that fact because of some byzantine requirements imposed on them to show eligibility[0]. There will, of course, be people who consider this to be a feature, not a bug. That's an ideological difference outside the scope of this comment. [0] Source: I know someone applying for long…

That's not a "cost" of means testing though, at least not in the accounting sense. If anything, that causes the program to spend less money. Like you said, whether or not otherwise qualifying people get excluded from a welfare program is a good or bad thing is up for debate, but if it has any effect on the cost of a welfare program it only reduces it.

It's a cost borne by society at large and specifically by the people who can't get enrolled in the programs they're eligible for. Not every cost is easily measured by accountants.

Re: Universal Basic Income Has Been Tried over and over Again. It Works Every Time

#213

Post by anon-sre-srm »

DonaldFisk wrote: post #153
arp242 wrote: post #62

Most of these are either fairly short-lived limited pilots, or aren't really "UBI" (e.g. Alaska's $1,600 a year hardly qualifies as UBI as it's just enough to buy groceries with, never mind rent or any other basic needs). A large population with basic needs met and nothing particular they have to do is untested. I don't really know how that will end, but I fear it may not end especially well. Let's be real: no one wo…

> Most of these are either fairly short-lived limited pilots, or aren't really "UBI". True, but the problem is that unless it's introduced, with the intention of it being permanent, there's no way of proving it would work that would satisfy its detractors. And even then, if it's introduced somewhere and works there, people would still argue that it doesn't work in their country.

You're arguing for a no experimentation Catch-22.

Re: Universal Basic Income Has Been Tried over and over Again. It Works Every Time

#214

Post by anon-sre-srm »

Shadowmist wrote: post #87
arp242 wrote: post #62

Most of these are either fairly short-lived limited pilots, or aren't really "UBI" (e.g. Alaska's $1,600 a year hardly qualifies as UBI as it's just enough to buy groceries with, never mind rent or any other basic needs). A large population with basic needs met and nothing particular they have to do is untested. I don't really know how that will end, but I fear it may not end especially well. Let's be real: no one wo…

I’d go work at McDonalds for a PS5 or whatever, even if I didn’t have to pay for rent and food.

Go apply to McDonald's now then because I don't believe anyone sane would work a shit job they didn't have to simply for a trinket.

Re: Universal Basic Income Has Been Tried over and over Again. It Works Every Time

#215

Post by Turing_Machine »

piva00 wrote: post #209
Turing_Machine wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Markets fundamentally drift towards consolidation. Source: the past sixty years. While I'm in favor of UBI (under certain conditions), the "past sixty years" don't back that up at all. Fortune's top 10 corporations in 1960 (roughly 60 years ago) 1 General Motors 2 Exxon Mobil 3 Ford Motor 4 General Electric 5 U.S. Steel 6 Mobil 7 Gulf Oil 8 Texaco 9 Chrysler 10 Esmark Top 10 corporations in 2020: 1 Walmart 2 Amazon…

Sixty years is perhaps too long, neoliberalism really kicked off in the 80s/90s with an increase in globalisation, and corporate consolidation through M&As ramped up quickly in the 2000s after financialisation of the economy went in high gear. If we backtrack to the last thirty to forty years and check which top 20 companies got to that spot through M&As it might paint a different picture.

1990 list:

1 General Motors

2 Ford Motor

3 Exxon Mobil

4 Intl. Business Machines

5 General Electric

6 Mobil

7 Altria Group

8 Chrysler

9 DuPont

Again, Exxon Mobil is the only overlap with 2020's list. (I presume that the references to "Exxon Mobil" in the 1990 and 1960 lists actually refer to pre-merger Exxon, since Mobil by itself is also on both lists).

I checked, and of the 2020 list, only AT&T, McKesson, and Exxon even existed in 1960 (Berkshire Hathaway kinda did, but they made shirts. Warren Buffet didn't come along and turn it into an investment operation until 1965.

Edit: list formatting.

Re: Universal Basic Income Has Been Tried over and over Again. It Works Every Time

#216

Post by Turing_Machine »

ajross wrote: post #205
Turing_Machine wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument seems rather disingenuous. Are they literally printing money? No, not to any significant degree. They're not running the presses 24/7/365 or anything like that. Perhaps, though, you'd care to explain how, if you grow M1 from $4T to $18T, it matters whether you do it with physical printing presses or pushing buttons on a keyboard. The overall effect is the same. In fact, the printing press method would b…

> Are they literally printing money? No, not to any significant degree. Right. So talk about what they are actually doing, be it routine deficit financing (not "printing" under any reasonable definition) or QE (arguably I guess, depending on how you want to spin the repurchase scheduling). Under no circumstances does the government actually create money "out of thin air". Which under some circumstances is fine. If yo…

> That's a 100% bad faith argument

Actually, I'd forgotten about the redefinition. You pretending that when someone says "printing money" they mean physical printing presses with ink and paper, rather than a figure of speech, is the actual bad faith argument here.

Re: Universal Basic Income Has Been Tried over and over Again. It Works Every Time

#217

Post by ajross »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #216
ajross wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are they literally printing money? No, not to any significant degree. Right. So talk about what they are actually doing, be it routine deficit financing (not "printing" under any reasonable definition) or QE (arguably I guess, depending on how you want to spin the repurchase scheduling). Under no circumstances does the government actually create money "out of thin air". Which under some circumstances is fine. If yo…

> That's a 100% bad faith argument Actually, I'd forgotten about the redefinition. You pretending that when someone says "printing money" they mean physical printing presses with ink and paper, rather than a figure of speech, is the actual bad faith argument here.

No, I'm saying that when someone says "printing money" they're engaging in demagoguery instead of discussing the issue on merits. Which is fine, if you're making a political point about your enemies within the in-group that understands your shorthand[1].

But this subthread is an actual point about economics and public financing. You can't demagogue that.

[1] c.f. ACAB, etc... Every partisan subculture has its jargon.

Re: Universal Basic Income Has Been Tried over and over Again. It Works Every Time

#218

Post by seanmcdirmid »

CityOfThrowaway wrote: post #45

Yes, of course giving people money makes their lives better. It especially works when a very small subset of the population receives such treatment, such that their relative income is higher than those outside the experiment. The issue with UBI is that enacting it at scale has two huge problems: 1. Financing it. These programs are monumentally expensive. You need to get the money from somewhere. The easiest place to…

> Look at China's economic situation right now to see how ultimately unproductive that can be.

I’m confused why you think China taxes the rich to take over the poor? Their taxation system is less redistributive than most western developed countries.

Re: Universal Basic Income Has Been Tried over and over Again. It Works Every Time

#219

Post by Turing_Machine »

ajross wrote: post #217
Turing_Machine wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a 100% bad faith argument Actually, I'd forgotten about the redefinition. You pretending that when someone says "printing money" they mean physical printing presses with ink and paper, rather than a figure of speech, is the actual bad faith argument here.

No, I'm saying that when someone says "printing money" they're engaging in demagoguery instead of discussing the issue on merits. Which is fine , if you're making a political point about your enemies within the in-group that understands your shorthand[1]. But this subthread is an actual point about economics and public financing. You can't demagogue that. [1] c.f. ACAB, etc... Every partisan subculture has its jargon…

Okay, since you're apparently never going to respond to the actual issue about why (e.g.) jacking up the money supply by pushing buttons at the Fed and Treasury doesn't have the same effect as running the printing presses (more so, in fact; as I pointed out there's a limit on how fast presses can run), I think we're done.

First you tried to deflect by going off on my mistake about why M1 increased so much, even though that was completely beside the point -- although it DID increase massively, just not as much. This is akin to your pedantic non-argument about how increasing the money supply doesn't generally involve running physical presses.

Now you're trying to deflect by calling me a "demagogue".

I will ask you one last time, and if you don't give me a straight, non-evasive answer (which you won't) we're done.

How, in actual effect, does increasing the money supply $n trillion by running the presses faster differ from the Fed/Treasury increasing the money supply by typing numbers into a keyboard?

Hint: it doesn't. But you can't admit it because that would demolish your entire thesis.

Bye now.

Re: Universal Basic Income Has Been Tried over and over Again. It Works Every Time

#220

Post by Log_out_ »

CityOfThrowaway wrote: post #45

Yes, of course giving people money makes their lives better. It especially works when a very small subset of the population receives such treatment, such that their relative income is higher than those outside the experiment. The issue with UBI is that enacting it at scale has two huge problems: 1. Financing it. These programs are monumentally expensive. You need to get the money from somewhere. The easiest place to…

> you do it by taxing the rich, you wind up hobbling and punishing your most productive citizens. Look at China's economic situation right now to see how ultimately unproductive that can be.

It speaks volume that we assume that China's rich, who largely earned their wealth through nepotism and party connections are a unfairly taxed meritocratic elite.

the golden years of Western society happened during a period of intense competition with a socialist system , that resulted in large scale copying of socialist redistribution policies(unions, state controlled monopolies etc) without any decay of complexity always assigned to those policies. And many democrcies have now majorities of "rebellious" retro movements that try to reenact that past without grasping the core.

Liberal free market always decays to gilded ages, decays to retro rebellions or a retry of socialism, resulting in a redistributing period. The liberal part of the policy loop has run its disastrous course. And It has produced very little, for the titanic scale it's been scaled too. A crispy planet for a electronic opiate system for everyone.

Post reply on HN