Universal Basic Income is a scam. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15189444
Turn the clock back over 30 years. Little old me, a denizen of Syndicalist, Market socialist Yugoslavia accompanied little old dad to a certain little old shop situated across a little old bridge spanning a little old river just behind our free state mandated housing complex. My dad made the equivalent of ~$50 a month in today's terms, barely working for the public sector. Nobody worked in communist yugo. At most 2-3 days a week, max.

It didn't matter because milk, flour for bread, electricity, housing, etc were all free. Used yugo's were cheap so cars weren't a problem. But anything beyond the most basic of goods produced abroad still cost real actual money. And with everybody getting a cut of the pie prices for the goodest of goods (eg VCR players) were astronomical. So there was I, with dad, at the back of this shop, buying a STOLEN 6 head VCR player for $200. That's months of savings. For a fucking stolen VCR recorder that retailed for $500 but we got it cheaper.

This is what happens when you begin handing out gibs and base your entire society around gibs. This isn't star trek. So fuck off with your universal basic income. It won't work. Get a job.
#15189459
Basically, I agree.
A UBI that supports people who could work but choose not to at the "poverty level" in the US today would be what? Maybe $1,500/mo.
There are maybe 270 M adult citizens in the US. The math says this is 1.5 K time 270 M = $405 x K x M = $405 B/mo. This is $4.86 T/yr.
This seems affordable even for an MMTer like me.

However, MMT has a different idea, its Job Guarantee Program that will pay a "socially inclusive wage" to everyone who wants such a job.
I estimate this is $25/hr. with full benefits, incl. free healthcare for almost all normal stuff.
MMRers have detailed this idea for over 2 decades now. It isn't hard to find their details.
The JGP will be Federally funded (incl. its admin.), but will be locally administrated. The local admin. would find socially valuable work for them to do. The workers could suggest the work they want to do. In the US there may be a need for an additional alternate admin. for those states that would discriminate on the basis of sex, race, political leanings, etc. run by the Federal Gov.

In the last week I have suggested that there also be a UBIS program. This Universal Basic Income Supplement Program would not be intended to help the people. Instead the UBISP would be run by the Fed. Res. Bank with the goal of controlling inflation. The amount of the payment would be maybe start at $400/mo for each person in the US legally. [Obviously, this incl. citizens and children.] The parents of the children would be paid the money. Some people would get a debit card so they don't need a bank account.
. . . The math for this is 330 M people x $400 x 12 mo/yr = $1.58 T/yr.
. . . Obviously, I am proposing that the JGP wage be reduced a lot, if this program is in place.

What does this program do?
This gives the Fed. Res. Bk a $1 T lever to move to reduce (or increase) the total incomes of all Americans on a month by month schedule to control inflation. The Fed. maybe can also use interest rates, but MMTers assert that there is no correlation between changes in the Fed's interest rates and changes in inflation (no matter what time delay is used). MMTers therefore, suggest that the Fed. set the interest rate at somewhere between 0% and 1.5% and never change it.
. . . The MS Econ. theory asserts that when the Fed. moves the interest rate up and down that this can fine tune the economy to control inflation. The theory asserts that this will indirectly decrease or increase incomes and so affect the economy. MMTers assert that there is no evidence over the last 40 years that this has worked. MMTers assert that their JGP will not be inflationary because the wage is fixed and doesn't rise with inflation.
. . . My idea here is that the Fed. be given this new lever to directly change to total of all incomes. This has these effects ---
1] The Fed. can fine tune the change in incomes and not rely on market forces and people's behavior to do it.
2] This will end child poverty.
3] This will mostly be spent because the majority of workers now live paycheck to paycheck. OTOH, changing the interest rate mostly effects the well off, not the workers.
4] If the goal is to increase inflation then this is a fast way to do that, because it has no upper limit.

I assert that the economy can adjust to this and prices will stabilize pretty quick.

Note, people can't depend on these payments. They can be reduced to zero if inflation is very high.
#15189475
Igor Antunov wrote:Turn the clock back over 30 years. Little old me, a denizen of Syndicalist, Market socialist Yugoslavia accompanied little old dad to a certain little old shop situated across a little old bridge spanning a little old river just behind our free state mandated housing complex. My dad made the equivalent of ~$50 a month in today's terms, barely working for the public sector. Nobody worked in communist yugo. At most 2-3 days a week, max.

It didn't matter because milk, flour for bread, electricity, housing, etc were all free. Used yugo's were cheap so cars weren't a problem. But anything beyond the most basic of goods produced abroad still cost real actual money. And with everybody getting a cut of the pie prices for the goodest of goods (eg VCR players) were astronomical. So there was I, with dad, at the back of this shop, buying a STOLEN 6 head VCR player for $200. That's months of savings. For a fucking stolen VCR recorder that retailed for $500 but we got it cheaper.

This is what happens when you begin handing out gibs and base your entire society around gibs. This isn't star trek. So fuck off with your universal basic income. It won't work. Get a job.


UBI is a bit too much from the perspective of how much money it needs and also from the perspective of morality. The situation was not that much different in the Soviet Union by the way, it had the same problems as Yugoslavia.

So if UBI is not ideal then what @Steve_American is a better solution that the government scraps most other support programs and introduces guaranteed basic income that as long as the person works in a job then the government will compensate the difference to that basic income threshold. Although this would require having different thresholds for different jobs which is a bit more complicated then it sounds.
#15189766
Igor Antunov wrote:Turn the clock back over 30 years. Little old me, a denizen of Syndicalist, Market socialist Yugoslavia accompanied little old dad to a certain little old shop situated across a little old bridge spanning a little old river just behind our free state mandated housing complex. My dad made the equivalent of ~$50 a month in today's terms, barely working for the public sector. Nobody worked in communist yugo. At most 2-3 days a week, max.

Capitalism outproduces and thus outcompetes socialism because when socialists steal factories, there are fewer factories available for production; but when capitalists steal land, the amount of land available for production stays exactly the same. The problem you are describing was caused by socialized production, not UBI.
It didn't matter because milk, flour for bread, electricity, housing, etc were all free.

There is a great difference between giving people free but limited purchasing power and just making things free. With limited free purchasing power, people still have limits and have to make choices. Making things free means there is no basis for market allocation and no reason to avoid just wasting the freebies.
This is what happens when you begin handing out gibs and base your entire society around gibs.

No. UBI is not socialism. As long as it is implemented in a market economy and is funded out of economic rents rather than taxes that bear on production, there is no reason a UBI shouldn't work a lot better than current means-tested income support programs.
This isn't star trek.

It will be, or something much like it, unless we screw up.
So fuck off with your universal basic income. It won't work.

It or something very much like it had jolly well better work, or we are in for a very bad time.
Get a job.

And what happens when there are no jobs that 50% of the population can do that machines can't do better? 80%? 95%? 100%?
#15189778
Something a lot like UBI could work. It would have a lot less bureaucratic overhead, because it would be nearly automatic, and it would help people a lot.

And everyone knows it, but some us really like the drama...
#15189817
late wrote:Something a lot like UBI could work. It would have a lot less bureaucratic overhead, because it would be nearly automatic, and it would help people a lot.

And everyone knows it, but some us really like the drama...

Sir, with rents shooting up as they have, AFAIK, and my math above,
do you really think a $1,500/mo. UBI can be affordable in the US.

My estimate based on my guess of 270 M adults is $4.86 T/yr.

I think that would be inflationary.
What would you tax to collect even just $3.5 T/yr of that if you funded the rest by selling bonds to the Fed.?
#15189865
Steve_American wrote:
Sir, with rents shooting up as they have, AFAIK, and my math above,
do you really think a $1,500/mo. UBI can be affordable in the US.

My estimate based on my guess of 270 M adults is $4.86 T/yr.

I think that would be inflationary.
What would you tax to collect even just $3.5 T/yr of that if you funded the rest by selling bonds to the Fed?



For one thing, I'd like to see income pegged. So if your income increases, what you get from the government is reduced.

For another, 1.5k/month is crazy...cities have been letting landlords get away with murder. Rental supply is kept artificially low, and we need to do something about that, some sort of federal oversight that will allow demand to increase supply..

This has two parts, one is that we tend to do things a tiny bit at a time. We need to grow up and pull the freaking band aid off. The other is doing the best we can within reason.
#15189875
Igor Antunov wrote:Turn the clock back over 30 years. Little old me, a denizen of Syndicalist, Market socialist Yugoslavia accompanied little old dad to a certain little old shop situated across a little old bridge spanning a little old river just behind our free state mandated housing complex. My dad made the equivalent of ~$50 a month in today's terms, barely working for the public sector. Nobody worked in communist yugo. At most 2-3 days a week, max.

It didn't matter because milk, flour for bread, electricity, housing, etc were all free. Used yugo's were cheap so cars weren't a problem. But anything beyond the most basic of goods produced abroad still cost real actual money. And with everybody getting a cut of the pie prices for the goodest of goods (eg VCR players) were astronomical. So there was I, with dad, at the back of this shop, buying a STOLEN 6 head VCR player for $200. That's months of savings. For a fucking stolen VCR recorder that retailed for $500 but we got it cheaper.

This is what happens when you begin handing out gibs and base your entire society around gibs. This isn't star trek. So fuck off with your universal basic income. It won't work. Get a job.


Generalising from a single experience is a logical fallacy.

This has no argument whatsoever.
#15189894
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Generalising from a single experience is a logical fallacy.

This has no argument whatsoever.



It's worse than that.

When Yugoslavia was able to open itself to investment from the West, they quickly realised they couldn't pull it off. So, almost from the beginning, they were cooking the books to keep dollars rolling in.

As you prob guessed from his comments, it was quite corrupt (everything in the Soviet bloc was) and not at all like the West.

He's also using the Free Rider problem, which has taken a beating from economists, in recent years. A lot of people who lived under Soviet rule swing to the opposite side of the political spectrum. Which is perfectly understandable, but not helpful.
#15189913
late wrote:For one thing, I'd like to see income pegged. So if your income increases, what you get from the government is reduced.

For another, 1.5k/month is crazy...cities have been letting landlords get away with murder. Rental supply is kept artificially low, and we need to do something about that, some sort of federal oversight that will allow demand to increase supply..

This has two parts, one is that we tend to do things a tiny bit at a time. We need to grow up and pull the freaking band aid off. The other is doing the best we can within reason.


Now you tell us that you don't mean a UBI when you say UBI.
Everyone else means the same payment to every adult and maybe less for kids.

Then you call $1500/mo. crazy. but you don't say it is too high or too low.

You need to write to be more clear.
___________.__________________________________________________._______________

Why not comment on the MMT idea of the Guarantee Job Guarantee Program.
1] It is to be mostly run locally, because locals know what socially useful work can be done.
2] But, it is Federally funded, for both the workers wages and for the administration.
3] The wage is fixed, at a socially inclusive level. Families can live on this and go out to eat, etc. It has paid vacations and almost free medical care, and all other benefits. Mothers can run neighborhood daycare out of their homes, that incl. their own kids.
4] A job is "offered" to anyone who wants one. I take this to mean the workers must actually do the work.
5] This program will bring money into dying rural towns. People may even move there for a reduced cost of living and low rents.
6] It is claimed to not be inflationary, because ---
. . . a] The wage is fixed.
. . . b] It replaces many other programs that are supporting those without a job.
. . . c] We are supporting these people anyway.
Last edited by Steve_American on 11 Sep 2021 23:43, edited 1 time in total.
#15189916
Steve_American wrote:
Now you tell us that you don't mean a UBI when you say UBI.

You need to write to be more clear.



I said, and I quote:"Something like UBI could work"

You need to think to be "more clear".
#15190877
Steve_American wrote:Sir, with rents shooting up as they have, AFAIK, and my math above, do you really think a $1,500/mo. UBI can be affordable in the US.

$1K/month should be ample. Half a dozen people can share a nice house for $500/month each or less. But a better solution would be to provide every resident citizen with an equal individual property tax exemption similar to the universal individual income tax exemption, and raise property tax rates on land value to make it revenue neutral. Of course this would have to be done by the states, as a federal property tax would have to be apportioned among the states by population.
My estimate based on my guess of 270 M adults is $4.86 T/yr.

I think that would be inflationary.

If you just give people money, their landlords will just take it all. That's why increasing the tax on land value and giving all resident citizens an equal exemption would work much better: landlords of desirable locations would have to compete for tenants to avoid losing money to the tax, instead of tenants competing for the desirable locations by bidding higher rents.
What would you tax to collect even just $3.5 T/yr of that if you funded the rest by selling bonds to the Fed.?

Taxing land rent could raise that much money and create very large economic benefits.
#15190878
Pants-of-dog wrote:Generalising from a single experience is a logical fallacy.

This has no argument whatsoever.

Nonsense. What Igor reported was similar to effectively the universal experience reported by those who actually lived under socialism.
#15190879
Truth To Power wrote:Nonsense. What Igor reported was similar to effectively the universal experience reported by those who actually lived under socialism.


I have lived under socialism while you have not.

Since you are suggesting that the lived experience of people who have lived under socialism is an irrefutable argument, then you must blindly accept anything I say. Thanks.
#15190881
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have lived under socialism while you have not.

Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. Country and dates?
Since you are suggesting that the lived experience of people who have lived under socialism is an irrefutable argument, then you must blindly accept anything I say. Thanks.

Of course there is a small minority of deluded people who lived under socialism and liked it just fine. No doubt you can find North Koreans who are fully on board with the Kim regime.
#15190886
Truth To Power wrote:Maybe you have, maybe you haven't. Country and dates?

Of course there is a small minority of deluded people who lived under socialism and liked it just fine. No doubt you can find North Koreans who are fully on board with the Kim regime.


So you now seem to be changing your mind and saying that the lived experiences are not necessarily true or universal.

Which was my criticism of the OP.

So you now agree with my criticism. Thanks. Bye.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

@JohnRawls , OK, I see my error. I was quite […]

No, Potemkin, this is what you wrote. Now you s[…]

City design is important

Not all countries are the same, and it's good to r[…]

Do you find these names to be offensive? I mean, […]