Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang • Hacker News Board

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#31

Post by hyperpape » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #16

I think well before we consider universal basic income, we should consider universal basic services . Many services are already highly regulated and naturally somewhat difficult to exploit. Healthcare is the obvious one. It's not like you can get a surgery and then resell it to exploit the system. (You could, of course, exploit things like pain medication, but overall healthcare is not expoitation-friendly.) Some amo…

Healthcare is reasonable, but the right way to provide people food is to give them money. Otherwise, you can't possibly provide a useful service.

People choose to spend more or less on food, eat different things, etc. If I want to spend a lot on food, that's my choice, but I should give up something else. Or if I decide to eat rice and lentils multiple times a week, I should be able to save money.

Even more important than fairness is just practicality. There's a huge amount of infrastructure dedicated to people going to stores/restaurants to buy food in the manner they see fit.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#32

Post by SubiculumCode » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #16

I think well before we consider universal basic income, we should consider universal basic services . Many services are already highly regulated and naturally somewhat difficult to exploit. Healthcare is the obvious one. It's not like you can get a surgery and then resell it to exploit the system. (You could, of course, exploit things like pain medication, but overall healthcare is not expoitation-friendly.) Some amo…

I generally think that people are pretty good at spending money on necessities, which may not be the necessities that others have or want. Universal basic services will likely mismatch resources with demand or need, and will thus be inefficient. A basic income is flexible and lets individuals choose where to use that resource. As a rapper once alluded, foodstamps don't buy diapers.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#33

Post by cultus » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #15

cultus wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way we are funding massive corporate bailouts. Sovereign government debt does not work like personal debt, for the simple reason that money can be printed. Fears of inflation in a time like this are completely unwarranted. edit: Back of the envelope math shows that 1000/month for the US population is about $4 trillion/year. The Fed has pumped more than that into financial markets since this pandemic has star…

Why are they completely unwarranted? I'm not an economist, so it's not obvious to me why printing money wouldn't lead create an inflation problem that is worse than the unemployment problem. I would be very interested to know the details that allow us to say such things so confidently. EDIT: Thanks to those who provided such insightful answers! Very helpful for a layperson like me.

It's completely unwarranted because you essentially can't have inflation in a depression. There isn't enough demand competing for supply to raise prices. That is why governments and central banks usually try to inject money into the economy in lean times, and take it out to keep it from overheating. It's the basis of essentially all macroeconomic management.

The real danger in times of low demand is a deflationary spiral. Those are fiendishly hard to get out of, as the last few decades for Japan have demonstrated.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#34

Post by guerrilla » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

godzillabrennus wrote: post #19

munificent wrote: post #16

I think well before we consider universal basic income, we should consider universal basic services . Many services are already highly regulated and naturally somewhat difficult to exploit. Healthcare is the obvious one. It's not like you can get a surgery and then resell it to exploit the system. (You could, of course, exploit things like pain medication, but overall healthcare is not expoitation-friendly.) Some amo…

Governments that centrally plan all the basic necessities you outline are terrible at all of them. Democide tends to happen as government collects more power in the process. Letting government give a basic income and the private sector filling supply is a much more reasonable solution. Let’s a free market exist to satisfy demand while recognizing the end of jobs is about here.

This isn't true at all. These services are effective in most of Europe and exceptional in Scandinavia. Degradation has increased significantly due to so-called liberalization (privatization) lately with obvious examples in school and healthcare.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#35

Post by war1025 » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

jakearmitage wrote: post #28

munificent wrote: post #16

I think well before we consider universal basic income, we should consider universal basic services . Many services are already highly regulated and naturally somewhat difficult to exploit. Healthcare is the obvious one. It's not like you can get a surgery and then resell it to exploit the system. (You could, of course, exploit things like pain medication, but overall healthcare is not expoitation-friendly.) Some amo…

What about child care? Education? Transportation? Dental care?

Elementary school is effectively universal childcare. It's just you have to make it through the first several years first. Realistically that age is set to when children can be reliably self-sufficient enough that they don't require help with feeding / bathroom things.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#36

Post by SubiculumCode » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

jjtheblunt wrote: post #5

How was $1000/month for anyone over age 18 supposed to be funded? Without exact details answering such, do voters believe this is more than seeking voter-attention. Are there actual plans of implementation whose economics/numbers work? I see people discuss such but never see answers.

Well if it was Andrew Yang's plan, then by a 10% VAT, and other things i.e. a carbon tax. In general, why the taxes are regressive, when paired with the UBI, the product is quite progressive.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#37

Post by bsanr2 » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

Donald wrote: post #4

bsanr2 wrote: post #2

Now is the time to watch closely. When Pelosi got on board healthcare reform, we lost the public option. The chances that her support is a mask for a campaign to water down any potential legislation are high.

The senate dropped the public option under threat of a Joe Lieberman (independent former democrat who caucused with the democrats) filibuster: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/10/why-lie... I don’t recall if the public option was ever included in the house bill. Do you?

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2010....

>On 12 March 2010, as she prepared for her final push to pass reform legislation, House Speaker Pbbnelosi shut the door on using reconciliation to preserve the public option. While citing the lack of support in the Senate, Pelosi was also aware of the deep concerns that moderates in her caucus had regarding the public option. The narrow vote (219–212) in the House on 21 March 2010 suggests that every possible vote was needed. The House passed the Senate bill (HR 3590) and the reconciliation bill without a public option.

It was included in several House versions of the bill coming out of committee. She didn't fight for it. In fact, she heralded its loss as a win for bipartisanship and her own negotiation campaign.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#38

Post by Retric » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #16

I think well before we consider universal basic income, we should consider universal basic services . Many services are already highly regulated and naturally somewhat difficult to exploit. Healthcare is the obvious one. It's not like you can get a surgery and then resell it to exploit the system. (You could, of course, exploit things like pain medication, but overall healthcare is not expoitation-friendly.) Some amo…

The point of UBI is to reduce overhead. America’s subsidies for ‘low cost’ housing in cities is far more expensive than cheap housing elsewhere. Someone just given money is going to try and maximize it’s use, where people running programs have their own incentives.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#39

Post by xyzzyz » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

mister_hn wrote: post #17

jjtheblunt wrote: post #5

How was $1000/month for anyone over age 18 supposed to be funded? Without exact details answering such, do voters believe this is more than seeking voter-attention. Are there actual plans of implementation whose economics/numbers work? I see people discuss such but never see answers.

By really applying taxation to rich?

What’s your definition of “rich” for purposes of funding UBI? How much exactly do you want to tax those rich? How much money do you expect to extract?

These are ideas seldom entertained by UBI proponents, because as soon as they are seriously considered, it becomes clear that there aren’t even nearly enough rich to pay everyone $1000 a month.

Re: Pelosi: It's time to consider universal basic income pushed by Andrew Yang

#40

Post by cultus » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

xur17 wrote: post #14

cultus wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way we are funding massive corporate bailouts. Sovereign government debt does not work like personal debt, for the simple reason that money can be printed. Fears of inflation in a time like this are completely unwarranted. edit: Back of the envelope math shows that 1000/month for the US population is about $4 trillion/year. The Fed has pumped more than that into financial markets since this pandemic has star…

I agree that worries of inflation are unwarranted (if anything we are at risk of deflation), but what happens after the economy returns? Aren't we at risk of inflation from all of the new money dumped into the economy?

We'll have to wait and see. If it winds up being too much government spending to avoid inflation, then taxes would have to be raised to cut down the inflation. I don't think this would be such a bad thing, since the income redistribution would be a benefit anyway.

My guess is that it wouldn't cause much inflation, since much of the demand destruction we've seen will be permanent.