Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmwallin | Hacker News Reader

> I know the second the stores realize that every person now has 'x' amount of dollars to spend, they will raise the prices to match the most they can extract.

That's not how economics works. The prices most stores charge is limited by competition. The only areas you might see an effect are in ones where supply is highly, and likely artificially, constrained.

View on HN

Housing is artificially constrained due to zoning regulation, and in any given area there is a small number of major landlords, who all know each other and who all are politically well connected. UBI will be a conduit to funnel money from the taxpayers to large landowners.

I mean rent control would be an answer in these markets. You could have that determined by formula or analysis. In California commercial property use should invalidate prop 13 as well. That should open things up.

However with ubi more people might have the means to move out of the cities sooner than they otherwise would have. This reducing demand.

I think this is why people want 'less government'. What they really mean is there are too many governments, the basic three levels, plus other institutions like home owners associations. Moving means dealing with a whole different bureaucracy, and falling to the bottom of a new list.

>That's not how economics works. The prices most stores charge is limited by competition.

There would be no much change in competition, as everybody that sells anything of low-medium value will benefit from the increased spending capacity UBI receivers. The increased demand across all competitors will raise prices.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com