By subsidizing aspects such as schools, police and other govermental institutions a basic payout / investions to the public is already in place. Expanding this to other basic rights would be reasonable and prevent a lot of social problems that will only heavily increase in the future. And im not talking about the country that currently abolishes all good reason and gambles with social security. Basic aspects such as shelter, food and personal security should be given as a basic right.
Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]
51–60 of 76 posts
Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if current economic structures don’t already entrench powerful players? Lol. CBI, as outlined in the paper, is funded through monetary contraction; meaning it does not introduce traditional taxation distortions or increase government control over industry. If anything, UBI/CBI reduces dependence on hierarchical employment structures by providing individuals with a baseline income. This allows more freedom to rejec…
It does not matter how bad the current economic structures are, they have a path out. "Trickle down economics" sounded good at the time too, and now it is recognized as a farce. UBI is a bigger farce. There are at least two major issues with UBI: 1) Any system that does not provide an upward ladder to the economic top, despite being better at the bottom, is not better in whole and is actually negative for the species…
To point 1, how does receiving, say, $1,000 a month remove hope and prevent bettering oneself? Anyone receiving UBI can still get a job to get additional money. Anyone already working is still receiving their salary. I would not stop trying to promote and make more money, let alone quit my job because I was receiving an extra grand a month. Just like suddenly not having to pay for healthcare and having that extra money in my pocket wouldn’t disincentivize me.
On point 2, the idea that UBI is parasitism and corporate handouts are not is ridiculous. UBI is basically the same as a stock dividend paid to shareholders, where everyone owns one “share” of the country, with all of its natural resources, infrastructure, trade, etc (something literally done in Alaska already with oil revenue). Taxes already go to things an individual will not personally use or directly benefit from, but the aggregate is a benefit to all. The highway system for example, where any individual strip of road may or may not “make more” than it costs, but the system of transit benefits everyone. Eliminating (relative) extreme poverty, and all of its criminal, health, productivity loss ills that come with it, while also reducing the massive cost to manage, check, and enforce means tested assistance is a net benefit.
Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]
#53If people are paying a significant portion of their salaries, one-third or even half, towards rent, does it truly make sense to implement UBI? In my opinion, the answer is no. Instead, we should focus on establishing a Universal Basic Land: https://mertbulan.com/2025/03/02/we-need-universal-basic-lan...
It seems to me that receiving a piece of land could be a liability. Some probably likes the freedom to choose where they live. Thus receiving money that one uses to pay rent is better than receiving by lottery a piece of land in the middle of nowhere. Some pieces of land live under municipal/regional rules that forces the user to take care of it in some way (build, prune trees, etc.)
An option to choose UB land or UB income when reaching 18yo might be an interesting compromise.
Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does not matter how bad the current economic structures are, they have a path out. "Trickle down economics" sounded good at the time too, and now it is recognized as a farce. UBI is a bigger farce. There are at least two major issues with UBI: 1) Any system that does not provide an upward ladder to the economic top, despite being better at the bottom, is not better in whole and is actually negative for the species…
To point 1, how does receiving, say, $1,000 a month remove hope and prevent bettering oneself? Anyone receiving UBI can still get a job to get additional money. Anyone already working is still receiving their salary. I would not stop trying to promote and make more money, let alone quit my job because I was receiving an extra grand a month. Just like suddenly not having to pay for healthcare and having that extra mon…
People receiving UBI will have any additional income they generate deducted from UBI. This is human nature.
I do not personally feel that people receiving financial aid is parasitism, but I do understand that is what it will be called by it's opponents, and they have the power to frame public opinion far more than the proponents of UBI.
I do not see the points advocating UBI realistically addressing how every day dirty human politics will distort the reasoning and create emotional negatives that will drive public opinion about those on UBI. I believe UBI would be great in a more mature civilization that we do not have. Also realize that UBI removes economic power from those on UBI; if the economic powers can, UBI will not be issued in normal currency, it will be credits towards only certain approved things. If the economic powers can, those on UBI will lose their vote, or be regulated back to 3/5th of a vote. Do not underestimate what happens when one group gives up power to another. It is never pretty.
Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does not matter how bad the current economic structures are, they have a path out. "Trickle down economics" sounded good at the time too, and now it is recognized as a farce. UBI is a bigger farce. There are at least two major issues with UBI: 1) Any system that does not provide an upward ladder to the economic top, despite being better at the bottom, is not better in whole and is actually negative for the species…
Because the majority of opinion holders are refusing to read and internalize the parent article. You're just echoing sentiments that people make regarding their opinion on typical welfare - which your parent comment already addressed completely. Either TRY and refute those comments or don't comment at all.
I read the article. It's a compromise of UBI. The start of the plethora of confusion diluting the concept, part of the eventual destruction of the idea.
Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone is focused on how the rich are getting richer. This is inevitable in liberal societies. The goal should instead be to stop the poor getting poorer These things are fundamentally connected. When the wealthy have too much power, they squeeze the middle and the poor too hard. Unlike much else in life, the pool of money is a zero-sum game (though this is addressed in the paper, notably). When 3 Americans hold…
Focusing on 'wealth inequality' usually leads to policies that hurt the economy, and make us all poorer, and actually increase the inequality. It hurts poor people more than the rich when we make bad economic decisions, and this paper proposes just such a decision. What can we do that won't backfire? We need a strong economy to help poor people.
When you say "the economy", do you mean "rich people's yachts"? ...
"Trying to address inequality makes us all poorer" - wow.
If you really believe that's true, at least say why, or bring a source (other than Ayn Rand please lol). What's the mistake you believe people are making? Because just declaring something like that is like saying, we can't address unsafe driving because it will make people drive worse. It's clinically absurd.
Here's what I think - economists don't talk about inequality because of the three reasons discussed here [0]. It's not in their models, and it's not in their class interest.
> What can we do that won't backfire?
Tax the wealthy. No it's not easy. Yes it can be done. Yes it has worked in the past.
0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CivlU8hJVwc&embeds_referring...
Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
To point 1, how does receiving, say, $1,000 a month remove hope and prevent bettering oneself? Anyone receiving UBI can still get a job to get additional money. Anyone already working is still receiving their salary. I would not stop trying to promote and make more money, let alone quit my job because I was receiving an extra grand a month. Just like suddenly not having to pay for healthcare and having that extra mon…
People receiving UBI will have any additional income they generate deducted from UBI. This is human nature. I do not personally feel that people receiving financial aid is parasitism, but I do understand that is what it will be called by it's opponents, and they have the power to frame public opinion far more than the proponents of UBI. I do not see the points advocating UBI realistically addressing how every day dir…
> People receiving UBI will have any additional income they generate deducted from UBI. This is human nature.
Then it isn't UBI. By definition, you get exactly the same amount as everybody else, regardless of their income from whatever source. This means that you're always better off if you take a job.
Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]
#58I'm interested in this as a faster intervention than QE. $10 given to a low income family will likely be spent that week. $10 of QE will just sit on somebodies balance sheet. Understanding BI as a tool of monetary policy seems to remove the ideologically charged view we see when it is considered as part of the welfare state
Another angle: We tell people to "vote with their wallet" to let the better producers rise to the top. That works a lot better if more people actually have something in their wallet to vote with.
Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]
#59> UBI is first introduced at any arbitrarily low amount higher than $0. The fiscal authority then gradually increases the payout until the maximum-sustainable level of UBI spending is discovered > Notably, since this policy is proposed to be 'funded' by a monetary policy contraction, it in theory requires no tax or consolidation of existing government programs to implement; nor does it necessarily imply a net increas…
Yours is the first comment that suggests you read the article. At least kinda? Not sure anymore.
US banks create, though lending, 10.7 Trillion per year. If money creation though lending was shut down entirely it would work out to something like 3500 per person per month. You would have the same amount of money in circulation.
Rather than trickle down though clogged tubes it would stimulate spending directly. The economy would then greatly favor companies that do things that are useful to citizens.
Lowering interest rates might stimulate some part but I've never seen it affect my paycheck directly. If the measures don't influence peoples salaries their purchase power doesn't change much and the measures have little effect on that part of the economy that is relevant to citizens. You might improve the economy, if you don't improve quality of life simultaneously the economy increasingly becomes something unrelated to human life - which is bad.
Re: Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]
#60> UBI is first introduced at any arbitrarily low amount higher than $0. The fiscal authority then gradually increases the payout until the maximum-sustainable level of UBI spending is discovered > Notably, since this policy is proposed to be 'funded' by a monetary policy contraction, it in theory requires no tax or consolidation of existing government programs to implement; nor does it necessarily imply a net increas…
Yours is the first comment that suggests you read the article. At least kinda? Not sure anymore. US banks create, though lending, 10.7 Trillion per year. If money creation though lending was shut down entirely it would work out to something like 3500 per person per month. You would have the same amount of money in circulation. Rather than trickle down though clogged tubes it would stimulate spending directly. The eco…
> US banks create, though lending, 10.7 Trillion per year.
for which interest rate? how much was it creating when it was at its lowest rate?