Comment by joegibbs

Comment by joegibbs a day ago

2 replies

I think UBI is something that can only work in small trials.

The people on the trial - whether that’s a random sample or the population of a geographical area - all get an economic privilege over the people who aren’t receiving the UBI, and therefore can buy more goods and services.

But when you expand this to the whole country (which is producing the same amount of goods and services) then prices naturally increase to match the same disposable income that the entire population now has, due to increased demand.

Now you could say that it’s not actually giving everyone the same, increased, amount of money since it would require huge tax raises on the wealthy to afford it.

But when a poor family gets that extra money they’ll spend it on things that a poor family would buy - a new low-tier car, food, a better air conditioner. And a rich family doesn’t just buy the same stuff as a poor one but in greater quantity - that painting is a million dollars and it’s not like it’s going to feed anyone or get them anywhere.

So the price of goods for the average person will increase, because despite redistribution there will be basically the same supply with more demand.

542354234235 21 hours ago

But you can buy anything, so demand for any given thing is only go to go up a tiny fraction. Everyone isn’t going to all buy oranges. Some will pay off debt, some will buy a new TV, some will buy cat food, some will buy new jeans. There is no evidence that all goods and services across the entire economy would rise to match (see the entire history of minimum wage). And buying more goods and service mean that businesses have more business, and will pay for more working hours to meet demand, which puts more money in working class hands.

The US already spend $1.19 trillion a year on welfare programs, or about $4,600 per adult in the country. Much of that is wasted due to the massive bureaucracy required for means testing aid (determining rules for eligibility, having people to administer and test for eligibility, enforcing “proper use”, etc.). UBI could just be a check after you file your taxes every year.

Come to think of it, prices often go down with demand, since so many costs are fixed costs that businesses have to whether they have high or low demand. A restaurant has to pay their lease and their staff whether the place is packed on a Saturday or dead on a Tuesday afternoon. People eating out more would better utilize the space and bring per customer costs down. Same with basically all service industries. For goods, most companies have equipment they have to have for manufacturing but aren’t 100% utilized, and increased demand would allow them to optimize closer to 100%. And if they reach 100% and would need to buy more equipment and raise costs, well then there are probably other companies in that sector that aren’t yet at 100% and can still sell at a lower cost.

ethbr1 21 hours ago

Supply-side UBI (UBE?) is equally curious.

I.e. if we took the money (or a portion of it) that would be going to UBI and instead used it to directly buy the goods, for distribution, at scale.

Universal tertiary education (for the countries that don't have it), universal healthcare (for the US), universal food and shelter entitlements, etc.

I'll grant that some amount of direct income would be best, because of the flexibility it affords, but UBI in capitalist societies is a slippery slope for the reasons you mentioned (especially market price changes).

Why not instead focus on directly driving costs for basic goods so low (via volume) that we can make them effectively free?