@whalecoiner
Better yet:
Establish a UBI so that society compensated them for their work rather than binding them tighter to a scarcity-based capitalism
Top-level
@whalecoiner 44 comments
Establishing UBIs? Yeah that's been hard. The UBIs themselves? @dingodog19 @hunkyscotsman @whalecoiner that's not a real person you're replying to. He's sucking off Elon in numerous posts. @NosirrahSec @hunkyscotsman @whalecoiner @dingodog19 I agree. My concern is what happens the first time we introduce UBI on a macro scale, big enough to potentially start a cycle of high-inflation/needing-to-boost-UBI/high-inflation/… I think the best way to prevent that will be to recognize that UBI at scale needs to be wealth redistribution — we'll have to increase taxation significantly on the most-affluent n percentile to dampen their non-essential spending and offset new (essential) spending by the least-affluent n percentile. @david_megginson @dingodog19 Just so. At least here in Canada, we didn't do that during COVID. The temporary income-support benefits like CERB were critical, but because we did nothing to offset that increase in the money supply at a time when supply chains were already wobbly (i.e. no additional supply to meet increased demand), we ended up with high inflation that we're only now bringing under control. We could take that as a macro-economic lesson in how not to do full UBI when the time comes. @hunkyscotsman wrote > So you want to try communism 2.0 No. I want to improve our current mixed public/private economic system by introducing UBI to replace a big part (not all) of our inefficient, high-overhead mishmash of targeted income-support programmes, and make our taxation a little more progressive to reduce the risk of inflationary pressure. This is all classic Keynes, not Marx Its more Marxist than Keynesian... If you could implement either UBI or universal healthcare, which one would you choose? @hunkyscotsman Strange question. How would paying more tax money for less-efficient healthcare help fund UBI? The U.S. is the only major rich country without universal healthcare, and their governments together spend the most per-capita on healthcare (with worse outcomes), and then force many citizens to pay twice, buying private health insurance to cover what they've already paid for in taxes. @hunkyscotsman On Marx vs Keynes, UBI would be irrelevant in a communist system, since everyone would already (in theory, if not in reality) have everything they need. But by the 1930s, it was clear that both pure communism and pure free-market capitalism were untenable (except as political slogans), which is why rich counties today use blended systems, about 50:50 public:private economic activity, ±10% either way. UBI is a way to make the public part more equitable and efficient. @hunkyscotsman Both. It doesn't make sense to pick one or the other, because they meet different needs. False dilemmas don't advance the discussion. @hunkyscotsman What reality? Every rich country except the U.S. already has universal healthcare — no one's proposing cancelling that. Every rich country including the U.S. already has a web of expensive, targeted income-support programmes and and other benefits. The goal of UBI is to replace many of the social programmes so that more money ends up in beneficiaries' hands rather than bureaucratic overhead. Creating a false dilemma is a beginner's trick to try to derail a discussion. @hunkyscotsman @whalecoiner Do you have any substantive critique of their work, or you just Know Stuff? 1. Most of those experiments were not randomized controlled studies. 2. Many of them were income or needs based. 3. They are not "universal"... Hence why I asked if you have an understanding of macro economics and not micro economics. @hunkyscotsman @whalecoiner Unless you can point to a logical mistake they made. So what is your substantive critique? @hunkyscotsman @whalecoiner I see you didn't read it before commenting. Figures. Let me know when you are up on the literature I read their website, hence why I know how they conducted their studies. I just don't know what paper you are specifically referring to. But initially I find it amusing that the conditions of the "research" they did, somehow doesn't invalidate what their "research paper" concluded, or is it really just an opinion piece? Such papers are open to criticism on two fronts: Which of these critiques are you making? /end Sorry, I gave you the direct link, I thought that would be easier for you. But if you prefer: "What we know about Universal Basic Income: A Cross-Synthesis of Reviews," Rebecca Hasdell, Stanford Basic Income Lab. Here's the link again. It's a PDF. @dingodog19 @hunkyscotsman he's just moving the goalposts. He's a brainless manlet hiding behind a faux-high ground of "centrism." (if not outright some poor third-world troll in a cubicle with no real opinion of their own) The risks and downsides are only going to show in a universally applied system once universally applied. That's a terrible experiment to conduct on a country and one that cannot be researched at small scale to guarantee any outcome. Look at how "scientific" the fed is, its calculated guesswork. That's what happens when you move from micro to macro. @hunkyscotsman @dingodog19 @whalecoiner yep, it worked pretty well on numerous counts, far fewer people lost housing, far fewer people couldn't afford to eat, less importantly the stock market grew tremendously and the recession disappeared
The biggest problem with it is that we didn't increase taxes on the rich to cover it... @dingodog19 @whalecoiner UBI should not be the "reward" for working for others for free. You should still get compensated for your time lol @mitsunee @dingodog19 @whalecoiner itd still be a huge step up from needing a whole other job just so the capitalist system deems you worthy of food tho @dingodog19 @whalecoiner what if people paid for open source software so the development was funded 🤔
|
@dingodog19 @whalecoiner
Has redistribution worked I'm the past?