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

Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

scottsantens.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 192 posts

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#71

Post by Workaccount2 »

n2d4 wrote: post #57
Workaccount2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strictly economic theoretical speaking, inflation wouldn't happen if the money isn't "new" money, but instead is fully reallocated money. 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.

That's false, "strictly economic theoretical speaking" inflation is a function of spending and savings (among others). If you take savings and use it to increase spendings, that causes demand-pull inflation.

Very few wealthy people keep their wealth in savings. Maybe now with interest rates up it is higher, but any prudent wealth advisor will steer most of that money pile back into the economy.

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#72

Post by gameman144 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #47
throwawa14223 wrote: post #46

[flagged]

Sure there is. Just give it back if you don't want it. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.h...

As a general rule, "if you don't like this rule we're adding, don't take advantage of it" is a pretty terrible argument. It's absolutely fair to say that a rule shouldn't be implemented while also acknowledging that if it is, it is the best strategy to take advantage of it if it is.

For instance, imagine if the NFL decided to give up to two extra points after a touchdown for how stylishly the players celebrated, as voted by a panel of judges in the end zone. This would be a terrible addition in most people's eyes. If it went through anyway, though, you can bet that every team would start dancing their hearts out after each touchdown.

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#73

Post by toomuchtodo »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #61
toomuchtodo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are attributing to federal fiscal policy what was caused by supply chain dysfunction, housing inventory shortages, and corporate profits. 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 co…

The whole "corporate profiteering drove inflation" narrative is/was entirely driven by click farming economically distressed people. It never was the case and even mild understanding of economics/finance quickly unravels the narrative. Inflation was driven primarily by low interest rates, very generous financial support/relief(rent moratorium, student loan pause, bolstered and extended unemployment), and the ability…

> The whole "corporate profiteering drove inflation" narrative is/was entirely driven by click farming economically distressed people. It never was the case and even mild understanding of economics/finance quickly unravels the narrative.

My citation is the Kansas City Fed in case you missed it.

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#74

Post by spiderfarmer »

throwawa14223 wrote: post #65
spiderfarmer wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of leeway between advocating for gradual, realistic change and reaching for an impossible utopia.

I would argue UBI is in the latter category.

So, let's hear some arguments instead of ad hominems.

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#75

Post by mamonster »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #9
bhouston wrote: post #3

Unrestricted campaign donations is a huge issue in US politics. It allows for the repeated undermining of democracy in favour of rich people's interests. It is anti-democratic to the core. And I do not mean rich people who are in the upper 10% of income, it favours the ultra rich for whom a $100,000 political donation is pocket change.

As a European I already think there is not much democracy left in the USA. At a federal level it's moving towards an autocracy at a rapid pace, and a large part of the electorate seems keen to cheer it on. At a local level money, gerrymandering and propaganda make it impossible to elect politicians who give a fair representation of people's interests. And with a two party system, it's more than likely that both of th…

Its the exact same thing in the majority of European countries.

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#76

Post by ceejayoz »

throwawa14223 wrote: post #59
ceejayoz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure there is. Just give it back if you don't want it. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.h...

That doesn't solve the whole problem. It requires more interaction with the state instead of just allowing an opt out. It also doesn't allow opting out at the paying in layer.

> It also doesn't allow opting out at the paying in layer.

This is the case for every other program, right?

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#77

Post by jackcviers3 »

spamizbad wrote: post #8

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.

How does UBI avoid encouraging excessive inflation on basic goods? If there are more people to afford them, then surely demand will rise and supply will decrease, driving prices up until UBI must rise to compensate.

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#78

Post by [deleted] »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #73
Workaccount2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole "corporate profiteering drove inflation" narrative is/was entirely driven by click farming economically distressed people. It never was the case and even mild understanding of economics/finance quickly unravels the narrative. Inflation was driven primarily by low interest rates, very generous financial support/relief(rent moratorium, student loan pause, bolstered and extended unemployment), and the ability…

> The whole "corporate profiteering drove inflation" narrative is/was entirely driven by click farming economically distressed people. It never was the case and even mild understanding of economics/finance quickly unravels the narrative. My citation is the Kansas City Fed in case you missed it.

[deleted]

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#79

Post by tivert »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #40
endisneigh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Strictly economic theoretical speaking, inflation wouldn't happen if the money isn't "new" money, but instead is fully reallocated money. 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.

> Strictly economic theoretical speaking, inflation wouldn't happen if the money isn't "new" money, but instead is fully reallocated money.

Wouldn't that be in aggregate? So maybe some inflation for food and deflation for luxury yachts.

Re: Billionaire-Fueled Lobbying Group Behind the State Bills to Ban UBI Experiments

#80

Post by Gormo »

plastic_enjoyer wrote: post #25
tiahura wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

In other words, it's pure ideology and not rooted in any scientific evidence.

The discussion pertains to a political position, and all political questions are fundamentally normative ones, on the "ought" side of the gap. Both intended aims and ethical limits are defined by what you're calling "ideology".

The "is" side of the question defines the empirical constraints within which those aims are pursued, but that's an instrumental question: it bears out the means, but has little to say about the value of the ends.

In other words, "is this course of action likely to produce the outcomes we intend?" is a question to be substantiated by evidence, but "are these the ends we wish to pursue?" and "are these ends worth the cost and/or risk to other things we care about?" are normative questions for which subjective values ("ideology") determine the decision criteria for all parties in the debate.

Post reply on HN