What do you think would happen if you gave 1000 dollars to each person in America every month? I think a lot of good would come from that and not much bad.
As already seen with covid aid, people wouldn't work in low wage jobs any more. This would lead to inflation or disappearance of some amenities. E.g. you might have to put your groceries into your bag yourself, or might have to pay a dollar extra for that service. This isn't something negative though, just a neutral change I guess.
It would help a lot of poor and suffering people, but note that even in countries with good unemployment benefits, homeless people still exist.
What do you mean by “strict” and why is this inaginee5 to be necessary? Note that UBI is usually envisioned with a defined population but the absence of means or behavior testing within that population, either “citizens” or “citizens and LPRs” or “citizens and aliens with work authorization” or “citizens and aliens with satisfactory immigration status in a specific set of visa categories based on basis and duration” would all be valid populations, with wildly different impacts on the viability of UBI with any given immigration policy.
> I'm in favour of UBI, but note that it'd require extremely strict immigration policy as well as good enforcement of it,
COVID aid isn't like UBI, critically, key parts of it (enhanced unemployment) are conditioned on absence of work or reduction of it below pre-benefits levels, and thus forces people to choose between benefits and work. This is the kind of incentive with means tested benefits that UBI is intended to fix.
Plus I'd say it would be even more unfair for the undocumented immigrants than it is now because they would not get any UBI. But if you gave UBI to the undocumented, way more people would attempt to become undocumented immigrants, by overstaying their visas, etc. Which then probably will lead to you having to issue less short term visas, or actually deporting undocumented immigrants.
It also didn't create new money insofar as it was used to pay existing debts like rent; what it did was avoid a financial crisis.
Other kind of aid designs don't do this very much; demand is infinite and won't go away if you give people some money.
Now if it came out of thin air, right from the printing presses, a whole lotta hurt of inflation
This is not correct. If you try minting coins, you can be shut down. You can buy and sell using whatever you want, yes. There aren't laws against using alternative currencies. But there very much are laws against creating them.
Grandparent comment is referring to the position that taxes are extracted via threat of force. This is an extremely emotionally fraught position, and it's difficult to discuss rationally.
So, the reasoning goes, if you have to tax to print money, it is done by resort to force or threat thereof.
Even if (printing and then) giving everybody $40K/yr caused, say, 40% inflation, anybody making under $100K/year would be better off. You actually wouldn’t need any taxes if the government just printed all money it needed, hopefully most of which is in the form of direct checks to all residents/citizens.
no, it's not a wealth tax. it's a cash tax. if you printed money and caused 100% inflation, that'll just cause every scarce asset (eg. houses, stocks, gold) to double in price. Since the rich hold most of their wealth in assets, not cash, I doubt it will be fair or progressive.
This used to be true before we had computers and free fractional share purchases of course.
Houses aren't really either, it's the land that is. Thanks Henry George.
That doesn't make any sense. Stocks ultimately represent ownership in an enterprise that consists of people, equipment, and intellectual property. Those are scarce. Just because the ownership units is infinitely divisible, doesn't mean they aren't scarce. If people only bought stocks so they could hang a fancy certificate on their wall, you'd be right. But people don't do that, they buy stocks to get dibs on a certain fraction of future production. That's the scarce part.
>Houses aren't really either, it's the land that is. Thanks Henry George.
1. seems like a nitpick? When people talk buying "houses", they generally talk about buying the combo of house + land it sits on.
2. houses are still scarce[1]. we can't will infinite houses into existence. they're more plentiful than original picasso paintings, but that doesn't make them not scarce (at least according to the economic definition).
> If people only bought stocks so they could hang a fancy certificate on their wall, you'd be right.
This is highly underrated as a reason. What's the fundamental improvement in Gamestop and Tesla causing their stock price to go up this year?
See
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-10-25/elon-m...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme_stock
> 1. seems like a nitpick? When people talk buying "houses", they generally talk about buying the combo of house + land it sits on.
Many people don't seem to understand how to separate them, leading to beliefs like "luxury apartments cost more because they have granite countertops" and "gentrification can be prevented by not building new buildings". You can't build houses forever, but you sure can build many more of them than the US does right now.
If you're doing this in an above-board way, it's still scarce, because the whole reason why companies even issue new shares is to raise capital. When you're doing that, you're trading one scarce resource (capital) for shares, which means that the shares are also scarce. You can make an infinite amount of TVs given infinite raw materials, but TVs are still scarce.
>This is highly underrated as a reason. What's the fundamental improvement in Gamestop and Tesla causing their stock price to go up this year?
Any evidence that people bought exactly one share TSLA/GME just so they could hang on their wall and/or feel smug about it? In both cases it's far more likely they bought into it because of expectation of future profits (from greater fools or actual operating profits).
>Many people don't seem to understand how to separate them, leading to beliefs like "luxury apartments cost more because they have granite countertops" and "gentrification can be prevented by not building new buildings". You can't build houses forever, but you sure can build many more of them than the US does right now.
While there might certainly be people who think the housing crisis is caused by "developers only building luxury condos" or whatever, I doubt this is a popular view on HN. Any time a housing-related thread shows up on HN, that explanation almost never shows up, and the NIMBY/zoning explanation almost always does. I'm sure a decade+ member like yourself can see this. Therefore I don't really see much point in arguing this distinction, because you'd be preaching to the choir.
If the economy is running at capacity and you wanted a UBI taxes would have to increase to prevent inflation. This would end up being wealth redistribution.
All fiscal policy is monetary policy; government spending its own fiat is money creation.
UBI is expansionary monetary policy. (Of course, it can be offset with money destruction, e.g., taxation.)
In this case, what fool would make bread when they can get $1000 by sitting around and smoking weed?
Here something that'd happen - the homeless in encampments would get hoovered up by slumlords who put them in squalor and consume their $1k checks. Poor people would have more children because each child = $1k/mo, even if they have to wait 18 years. Abduction would be easy - the ransom pays itself over time. Fraud would be rampant. The ultra poor underclass who are undocumented would still get nothing, further exacerbating the divide.
Do we have any evidence that abduction and fraud is rampant in countries in Western Europe, known for the very generous social programs? Are they exploding with poor people having kids??? Is it dangerous to live in, idk, Sweden because someone is gonna kidnap you for your social bux? I’m genuinely asking because the notion of rampant abducting and child having hasn’t happened in countries I know of with very generous social programs.
"Poor people would have more children because each child = [$$$]"
A lot of poor people already do this for this exact reason.
"The ultra poor underclass who are undocumented would still get nothing"
Should a person be allowed to enter Japan, refuse to leave and then demand the Japanese people pay them $1k a month?