31–40 of 192 posts
UBI's critics expected these programs to have terrible outcomes, where recipients would spend their money on trivialities (or worse: drugs). Instead, what we find is that UBI recipients either spend it on essentials, stuff for their kids children or paying down debt.
[flagged]
Billionaires want us dead
[flagged]
Asset taxes? Do you just tax every dollar over $1B at 100%? What if they own shares in a company that grows beyond $1B? Do they have to sell the shares? What if they then lose control of the company as a result? Maybe that is good. IDK.
Also, is it $1B per person. Could the person get married to let them grow to $2B?
If the rest of the world doesn’t follow suit, then what happens? Do all the billionaires just buy citizenship in Estonia or something?
Again, I am not opposed to the idea. I just think it needs a lot of work. Otherwise, these rants seem like a distraction. If it is never going to happen, maybe we are better off focused on trying to achieve UBI than Universal Asset Equality or whatever.
UBI's critics expected these programs to have terrible outcomes, where recipients would spend their money on trivialities (or worse: drugs). Instead, what we find is that UBI recipients either spend it on essentials, stuff for their kids children or paying down debt.
[flagged]
You already participate in that appropriation. The coercive appropriation is called taxation. You can choose to not pay, but you'll be incarcerated. You cannot choose where your monies go, or what they go for.
You're already a participant, and you don't seem to realize it.
Also, eleemosynary... really? Means charitable or charity. Did you really have to use a word most of the world hasn't ever heard of to prove the point that you don't like charity?
You should stop using our roads then. You should stop using our schools. You should stop using emergency services, voting, or participating in the first world country you're living in.
Because every single program, service, or project uses confiscated monies from the masses to benefit the smaller minority that use those programs, services, or projects.
Taxation is social charity. UBI is social charity. What's the difference?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US handed out $1.8 trillion to individuals and families and $1.7 trillion to businesses during COVID. And then a few years later began experiencing the highest inflation rate in 40 years. And that wasn't even enough money for anyone to live on. I think this needs to be solved before UBI has any chance of working.
It's mainly wealth distribution. The top percent owns too much while the bottom 80% owns too little. There won't be inflation if you take money from the top and give it to the bottom. The total amount of money stays the same.
Our system is far from perfect but I believe history shows that communism is even worse.
UBI's critics expected these programs to have terrible outcomes, where recipients would spend their money on trivialities (or worse: drugs). Instead, what we find is that UBI recipients either spend it on essentials, stuff for their kids children or paying down debt.
The US handed out $1.8 trillion to individuals and families and $1.7 trillion to businesses during COVID. And then a few years later began experiencing the highest inflation rate in 40 years. And that wasn't even enough money for anyone to live on. I think this needs to be solved before UBI has any chance of working.
https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/eco...
> Global supply chain disruptions following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the rapid rise in U.S. inflation over the past two years. Evidence suggests that supply chain pressures pushed up the cost of inputs for goods production and the public’s expectations of higher future prices. These factors accounted for about 60% of the surge in U.S. inflation beginning in early 2021. Supply chain pressures began easing substantially in mid-2022, contributing to the slowdown in inflation.
https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/perspectives...
> The causes of the housing supply crisis are widely understood. After the Great Recession, new home construction dropped like a stone. Fewer new homes were built in the 10 years ended 2018 than in any decade since the 1960s. By 2019, a good estimate of the shortage of housing units for sale or rent was 3.8 million. The pandemic-induced materials and labor shortage exacerbated the trend, however, as evidenced by the surge in rents and home prices in 2021.
https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-bulletin/cor...
> Corporate profits rose quickly in 2021 along with inflation, raising concerns about corporations driving up prices to increase profits. Although corporate profits indeed contributed to inflation in 2021, their contribution fell in 2022. This pattern is not unusual: in previous economic recoveries, corporate profits were the main contributor to inflation in the first year and displaced by costs in the second year.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/08/excess-profits-of-big-firms-...
> “We argue that market power by some corporations and in some sectors – including temporary market power emerging in the aftermath of the pandemic – amplified inflation,” the report said.
> The author’s analysis of financial reports from 1,350 companies listed in the U.K., U.S., Germany, Brazil and South Africa found nominal profits were on average 30% higher at the end of 2022 than at the end of 2019.
UBI's critics expected these programs to have terrible outcomes, where recipients would spend their money on trivialities (or worse: drugs). Instead, what we find is that UBI recipients either spend it on essentials, stuff for their kids children or paying down debt.
The US handed out $1.8 trillion to individuals and families and $1.7 trillion to businesses during COVID. And then a few years later began experiencing the highest inflation rate in 40 years. And that wasn't even enough money for anyone to live on. I think this needs to be solved before UBI has any chance of working.
You don't make double-digit inflation by giving people barely enough money to cover rent in most low-cost American cities.
EDIT:
Also, let us consider why these payments were necessary and why they had to be funded the way they were. They had to be funded by printing money because the US government is deep in debt and there hasn't been a real tax increase since George HW Bush killed his political career with one in 1992. There is no rainy-day fund for the American people, so the FRS had to make one, and quick, lest you have people in the streets in general revolt, which given that the George Floyd protests were around the same time, was a real risk.
The payments were necessary because the American economy is not only leveraged from top-to-bottom, but in fact requires a good chunk of the population be in a good amount of debt with no savings in order to maintain growth of the credit products that many financial institutions rely on for the production of value for their shareholders. If you had over a hundred million people suddenly not making money, it's like the 2008 financial crisis, except instead of mortgage-backed securities, this time, it's every kind of securitized debt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US handed out $1.8 trillion to individuals and families and $1.7 trillion to businesses during COVID. And then a few years later began experiencing the highest inflation rate in 40 years. And that wasn't even enough money for anyone to live on. I think this needs to be solved before UBI has any chance of working.
It's mainly wealth distribution. The top percent owns too much while the bottom 80% owns too little. There won't be inflation if you take money from the top and give it to the bottom. The total amount of money stays the same.
If you give the rich more money, they're not likely to spend it on restaurants and merchandise and services: they can already afford as much of those as they want.
If you give money to people who couldn't afford them without the extra cash, though, you're artificially boosting demand, which would impact inflation.
UBI's critics expected these programs to have terrible outcomes, where recipients would spend their money on trivialities (or worse: drugs). Instead, what we find is that UBI recipients either spend it on essentials, stuff for their kids children or paying down debt.
I don’t really have any horse in the race but the experiments I’ve seen are hardly universal nor sufficiently guaranteed. It’s basically just a one time payment spread over some period, so it’s not surprising people would use money they know won’t be around forever for essentials. On the other hand it would be nice to know what happened with all of the Covid checks since that also was given to many, but again hardly…
A likely picture would be less money going into assets (where wealthy people money tends to end up) and more money going into consumables (where poor people money tends to end up). However the money pile should stay the same all else being equal.