Unthinking Majority wrote:Giving people free income should come with conditions, like a clear incentive to find a job. I think UBI would have too many freeloaders. The money you save on gov administration would go out the door to freeloaders, so whats the point?
The far-left and far-right should stay away from economic matters, and most other matters for that matter.
Sir, Obviously, you don't grok the point of a UBI.
1] It can't depend on having a job, because it is mainly intended to support people who's jobs are being done cheaper by AI or robots.
2] In the now, the point is to give everyone more money to spend to provide more demand in the economy. More demand would supposedly lead to investment to make more stuff to meet the demand and so lead to more jobs. Or just lead to restaurants, for example, using their current "assets" more efficiently by hiring more workers to serve more customers.
In my much modified UBIS system (that also includes a MMT-style-Job Guarantee Program), the point is to give the Fed. a fiscal lever to move each month, or quarter, to fine tune the economy to let it have full employment and still have low inflation.
. . . This lever would be more responsive than Congress changing tax rates or reduce fiscal spending.
. . . This is necessary because, contrary to MS Econ. claims, monetary policy is so indirect & delayed, that there is no econ. history to support the assertion that it works at all, let along, fine.