Economics Thread

chop2chip said:
I am not morally against the idea of UBI. I think it merits discussion.

But color me skeptical that UBI would free people up to be creative and innovate. Not a lot of examples from history where innovation wasn’t directly spurred by motive to profit. I would in fact be shocked if it didn’t cause an epidemic of laziness (obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, declining birth rates, etc.)
Click to expand...

Sure bad things could happen. But the idea behind it is simple and relatively sound. No one can comfortably live off 12K a year. Even throwing in welfare, etc. you can't comfortably live at that level. But if you had 12K more per year, maybe you'd take a job somewhere else where you'd rather live than somewhere where you can earn more money.

I understand the aspect of everyone would just increase prices, there is a threat of that, but it's not a lock. Especially with smart usage of it's funding.
 
zitothebrave said:
Sure bad things could happen. But the idea behind it is simple and relatively sound. No one can comfortably live off 12K a year. Even throwing in welfare, etc. you can't comfortably live at that level. But if you had 12K more per year, maybe you'd take a job somewhere else where you'd rather live than somewhere where you can earn more money.

I understand the aspect of everyone would just increase prices, there is a threat of that, but it's not a lock. Especially with smart usage of it's funding.
Click to expand...

UBI only makes sense if you massively scale back other social program spending or you will definitely have massive inflation.
 
chop2chip said:
UBI only makes sense if you massively scale back other social program spending or you will definitely have massive inflation.
Click to expand...

There is an argument to be made that UBI is a "libertarian" substitute for paternalistic or "nanny state" versions of the social safety net.
 
nsacpi said:
There is an argument to be made that UBI is a "libertarian" substitute for paternalistic or "nanny state" versions of the social safety net.
Click to expand...
Which is why I don’t think it ever finds a home as a policy. Libertarians/conservatives aren’t interested in any social program that increases the deficit (only wars will get the preferred treatment). Progressives aren’t interested in UBI if it comes at the cost cuts to targeted social programs.

It’s a fun thing for Andrew Yang to say on a podcast to promote his cute third party ideas. But it’s politically impossible.
 
I also think there is a certain moral stigma attached to poverty. If you are poor you must not be a responsible person. Free to choose doesnt apply.
 
Never forget governments one true and only function.

Protect the American people against enemies of its citizens.
 
sturg33 said:
I don't think we should be restricting what people do with their own property... but I could be convinced that we shouldn't be doing certain business dealing with a hostile foreign actor
Click to expand...

And this is all I'm saying. SOME restrictions always make sense.

Once we realize that corporations are not 'American' but they are actually global interests that sometime go against the American people then people will be more comfortable with the government exercising its one true purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
thethe said:
And this is all I'm saying. SOME restrictions always make sense.

Once we realize that corporations are not 'American' but they are actually global interests that sometime go against the American people then people will be more comfortable with the government exercising its one true purpose.
Click to expand...

There is a considerable difference in what I'm suggesting - that private citizens can't sell domestic assets to foreign governments - and what you are saying - governments should decide winners and losers and what is too big vs not
 
sturg33 said:
There is a considerable difference in what I'm suggesting - that private citizens can't sell domestic assets to foreign governments - and what you are saying - governments should decide winners and losers and what is too big vs not
Click to expand...

I'm aware that you aren't agreeing with the latter. But once you acknowledge that there are certain situations where 'free-market' isn't best then its all about how many of those situations exist.
 
thethe said:
I'm aware that you aren't agreeing with the latter. But once you acknowledge that there are certain situations where 'free-market' isn't best then its all about how many of those situations exist.
Click to expand...
Your solution to these problems seems to always be some form of central planning, comrade thethe
 
chop2chip said:
Your solution to these problems seems to always be some form of central planning, comrade thethe
Click to expand...

No - My solution is to break up the central planning comrade Chop.

You just benefit from the current system so you have no incentive for it to change. I see past my own successes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
thethe said:
No - My solution is to break up the central planning comrade Chop.

You just benefit from the current system so you have no incentive for it to change. I see past my own successes.
Click to expand...

your solution is to replace current central planning with thethe-approved central planning

my solution is remove all central planning
 
sturg33 said:
your solution is to replace current central planning with thethe-approved central planning

my solution is remove all central planning
Click to expand...

You will never remove the central planning that is happening right now without intervention. Its only going to expand as organizations like the WEF and the large corporations merge and impose their agenda globally.
 
thethe said:
You will never remove the central planning that is happening right now without intervention. Its only going to expand as organizations like the WEF and the large corporations merge and impose their agenda globally.
Click to expand...

That is because we have crony capitalism where the government decides what they will subsidize and what they will bail out.

Removing that safety net will solve the majority of the problems we agree exist. ESG is so laughably unpopular that it could never survive without the central planner propping it up
 
thethe said:
No - My solution is to break up the central planning comrade Chop.

You just benefit from the current system so you have no incentive for it to change. I see past my own successes.
Click to expand...

You should make a list of every decision buyers and sellers should be allowed to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top