Hacker News Reader

Comment by grigjd3 | Hacker News Reader

You're confusing the distribution of money with the supply of money. The distribution of money affects economic priorities. The supply of money (as total income per unit time) affects the overall inflation. While the priorities of an economy will certainly affect prices, it's that some prices will go up and others go down.

View on HN

Unless money is redistributed then new money will indeed have to be introduced under UBI.

If it is redistributed, then taxes seem an obvious method. And clearly the richer should be taxed more, since we're attempting redistribution.

Unfortunately we all know that trickle-down economics fail, and corporate/elite lobbyists work hard to restrain corporate/elite taxes, to keep worker wages low, and to engage in practices such as zero-hours contacts.... and so on.

So... introducing new money risks inflation. Redistributing money risks perpetuating the existing broken system.

My understanding is that most UBI proposals see the UBI as a replacement for more traditional welfare with some amount of raising taxes to keep it debt-neutral. As for the rest of what you're saying, I have no idea what you are actually trying to communicate.

If there's a big influx in the supply of money bit it only flows into one sector of the economy then the average inflation might be higher, but won't necessarily mean a constant rise in all prices. So I would argue distribution matters also. Likewise, all that new money being spent inside a certain market might raise the average price level if it's supply constrained, but it might also grow the numbers of players in the market leading to higher supply and price competition.

Typically, prices go down as a product becomes commoditized - which is the common trend after a couple years of high demand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com