You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Monsters, Inc. Argument for Unconditional Basic Income: How to convert an economy based on fear to one based on joy
Universal basic income is just socialism/communism repackaged. More dystopian results wrapped in a thin viral shell of utopianism. The Earth is littered with the remains of the bodies of hundreds of millions of dead resulting from the repeated attempts at Communism, yet people keep saying "oh that wasn't real communism, lets try it again". Please read my article on why universal basic income is a dangerous idea destined to fail: https://steemit.com/politics/@ericarthurblair/universal-basic-income-slavery
Sorry, but Alaska is not an example of communism, and Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek did not go down in history as free market communists. You show a poor understanding of what UBI is and what it has the potential to replace, and I suggest doing more reading about how important UBI is to capitalism not destroying itself.
http://www.scottsantens.com/if-you-think-basic-income-is-free-money-or-socialism-think-again
No, Alaska is an example of a state with lots of natural resources and a small population. What happens when the resources run out or the price drops? Oops, I guess we now have thousands of dependent people with no survival or work skills. See Venezuela.
Milton Friedman DID NOT support UBI, that is a complete manipulation of his words. Friedman supported "negative income tax" which is a very different thing, and he even makes the specific distinction between the two in the interview below. Even if he did support it, Milton Friedman is not my God, and I don't have to agree with everything he advocated.
I know exactly what UBI is, and what you theoretically THINK it will fix. Your arguments are ideological and rely almost exclusively on rhetoric. I could write an entire paper breaking down the arguments you make in that article and show why they have no basis and are completely manipulative.
Anything even resembling economics or science is done on such a small scale to be totally irrelevant to a real world roll out of UBI in a large industrialized nation such as the USA. Even the tiny nation of Finland showed mixed results at best experimenting with implementing UBI. You can do 10,000 tiny studies and it is still not evidence of what will happen to society on a larger scale once implemented. Try actually reading the article I wrote and refute the points made there.
Wow, you really think you know a lot of things you don't actually know. Okay, so you've never read that Milton Friedman supported UBI. Does that mean he didn't? Or does it mean you just haven't read where he did? Because guess what, he did, and here's what he said when he was specifically asked about UBI:
So now that you know that, how does it impact your thinking? Milton was right. UBI and NIT are indeed two ways of accomplishing the same thing, and if you read the hyperlink above, you'll better understand that.
You also show that you don't understand what's going on in Alaska. What happens when the oil runs out? The dividends keep on going. That's the entire point of setting up the Alaska Permanent Fund in the first place, which is now over $61 billion in size, to transform a non-renewable resource (oil) into a renewable resource (money). The fund is invested in markets, and the dividend it earns is divided among all Alaskan residents.
Oil is also not the only way of going about creating such a fund. There are many resources that can be used. I suggest looking into them. Here's a good paper about it if you're down for reading a paper to learn lots of new things.
You also show you don't even know what's going on in Finland. It showed mixed results? No it didn't. There ARE NO RESULTS, because the experiment is ongoing to the end of the year. There's not even any preliminary data because there's no access to it yet. Results will be known by the end of next year or early 2020.
You don't know what you think you know. You appear to like to make shit up, or to just accept as fact what others have said, without actually looking into it to verify accuracy.
By the way, your article is just as full of shit as the rest of what you've said here. The very first claim you make is that it's a simple law that if you provide people money all prices rise.
Here's just one example for you to chew on. Let's say a village has an egg scarcity, but people like eggs, so the cost is $1 per egg. Then, everyone is provided UBI. According to your "law" of economics, the cost of eggs should rise.
What happens when a bunch of people use their money to buy chickens? Suddenly, the supply of eggs skyrockets. What happens then? The cost of eggs falls of course, because eggs are now abundant instead of scarce.
Oops, there goes your "law of economics."
By the way, UBI is not about expanding the money supply and dropping new money on everyone (although some people do like that idea). The reason it and NIT are alike, is that both are a net transfer from those above a threshold point to those below a threshold point. That's not inflationary. It's moving existing money from one place to another. And although that can still have some effects on prices, there are a lot of variables involved such that some prices would go up, some down, and some wouldn't be affected at all, and all of these effects also vary by time, such that they can be observed for a matter of days or years depending on other factors.
Markets are not static models. They are complex adaptive systems.
First of all that is not a quote of Friedman supporting UBI, that is him comparing them in a way that is selectively taken out of context in a manipulative way. Second, as I explained before Friedman is not God and he doesn't have all the answers EVEN IF HE DID support UBI (which he doesn't). The interview I linked previously shows him comparing UBI with NIT, and why he supports NIT over UBI specifically.
Regarding Alaska, just because a fund is in place to account for minor market oscillations does not mean the money supplying it is infinite. The same goes for any natural resource. There is no such thing as an infinite supply of anything (except maybe ignorance).
Regarding Finland, no official results have not yet been published. However that by no means makes it impossible to observe existing trends and make extrapolations of the success or failure (in this case failure) of the experiment.
By the way "your article is full of shit" is not a refutation of any of the points made there. Let me ask you a question about your simplistic chicken analogy. What then happens to the price of chicken feed? There is always another down chain cost created by inflation. Your premise operates on the illusion that handing out money will magically make more resources available. Furthermore handing out money is destructive to the VITAL price discovery system of which any resource based economy is based off of. Without that there is no accurate way of monitoring scarcity and value of goods, and the systems of production are destructively skewed.
As far as your "net transfer from those above a threshold point to those below a threshold point", that is also known as re-distribution of wealth, and is at the core of Communist ideology, no matter how apolitical you claim UBI to be. These people may be disproportionately wealthy but they are also the people that GENERATE most of the wealth to begin with. At a certain point you keep taking more and more until they no longer have motivations to keep producing at such levels and tax revenue starts falling.
Once again, the problem with wealth redistribution is eventually you run out of other people's money to spend, then the resulting system simply eats itself as has been demonstrated every time in history when such an economic model was attempted on a large scale. Bury it in all the terminology you like, you are still talking about using the state to take from some by force to give to others.
Markets are complex adaptive systems, yes. However resources are not. Resources are quite finite, and you can wave your magic wand over the money all you want and in whatever way, but more money does not equal more resources.
To the contrary, there is no price discovery possible if people don't have money to signal demand for goods and services.
I suggest reading this to get a bit deeper into just how badly markets can be distorted when a large group of participants have no means of participating in the price discovery calculation mechanism.
By the way, you're welcome to read the actual interview with Milton Friedman instead of continuing to pretend you know what he was thinking.
So by your logic if there is no UBI suddenly money ceases to exist completely and we can't have price discovery? You are quite the contrarian. That works good for ideology, not regarding the laws of economics so much. Price discovery does not cease to exist just because certain people don't participate in the market.
The fact that you linked this segment of an article as an argument shows me you nor the author have any understanding of the definition or function of price discovery (or perhaps are willfully perverting it).
Price discovery is the method by which producers are signaled the supply and demand of limited resources and therefore are able to price them correctly. Certain portions of people not participating in the market (even if true), do not prevent the mechanism of price discovery of RESOURCES. An individual person or even groups of people's inability to "price signal" as the article puts it is irrelevant to the price discovery mechanism because some one else wants those resources more and they are willing to pay for it. No amount of waving your magic money wand will make producers want to sell resources for less than what they could realistically get.
In short price discovery sets the value and price of resources. With out it there is no reliable way to do so and production is interrupted resulting in over or under supply causing instability and shortages long term, for everyone.
I have read enough of Friedman to know he did not support UBI, and enough of your work to know you hear what you like and discount the rest. That article is more contrarian tripe again jam packed with rhetorical and ideological arguments sprinkled with economic terminology in a sad attempt to give it credence.
I am not jumping from anything but from your own statements. If you see senselessness look no further than your own words.
"...there is no price discovery possible if people don't have money to signal demand for goods and services."
Here is where you directly imply some how price discovery stops because some people are unable to participate in price discovery. The fact that you still think this is an argument proves to me beyond a reason of a doubt you either are still ignorant of what the process of "price discovery" is or are purposely trying to redefine it to fit your narrative.
AGAIN - price discovery is set around RESOURCES, not people. Certain people not participating does not prevent price discovery. Your claims otherwise scream of ignorance of the system's workings.
"'Price discovery does not cease to exist just because certain people don't participate in the market.'
If those certain people are the only ones that would demand that resource than it ceases then and there, economic 101."
Once again, whatever resources they actual have in demand still goes through the processes of price discovery regardless of your infantile contrarian statements otherwise.
"That's quite an absurdity but why not, you can be swayed to calling people idiots to their face or telling them kindly that they don't comprehend, either way, it's an Ad Hominem because it doesn't connect any reasoning behind it outside the "fact" that it was presented."
Actually i explained several times in that statement, and in this one as a matter of fact why the argument being presented shows your complete ignorance of the situation. Pointing this out is absolutely not an ad hominem attack, though that would make it a convenient way for you to not address the point.
"Except that without money, how can you discover the price of resources? So back to square one, especially if that is endemic of all of the demand. Again can you have price discovery without money? Not where there's not money, Nope."
And here we are with further demonstrations of your own senselessness. Just a moment ago I read how you were saying that no UBI does not equal no money, yet here you are making that exact claim, but I am the one bouncing around irrationally am I? Not having UBI does not suddenly eradicate existing currency or price discovery systems.
"Unless they don't, so your "assume someone else want's it more and has the money to pay for it" is a nice way to avoid the argument, because why can't you just assume someone with deeper pockets and demand when the argument is empty pockets and demand."
That's a nice way to get DIRECTLY AT THE POINT of the argument, which is price discovery is independent of the lack of small groups participation. Your ENTIRE PREMISE relies on the concept that price discovery MUST allow EVERYONE to "signal prices" or else the process of "price discovery" will not happen. In fact the supplier of the resources will deliver those resources to the highest bidder under price discovery. The fact that some people didn't show up to the auction does not prevent it from happening.
"Price discovery needs the capital, a shortage of capital isn't price discovery, only a Buble. There is nothing more devastating than a shortage of money which affects everyone."
But a shortage is in fact price discovery. A shortage is a clear signal to manufacturers and suppliers of resources are UNDERCHARGING for clearly in DEMAND resources, causing them to adjust the price and normalize the supply chain.
"Of course, your trite remark probably holds that article (which one?) it's contrarian in the same way you think it contrarian because there won't be Price Discovery without UBI, as if they cannot comprehend what they read and can confuse something as simple or succinct as "no price discovery without money"."
Once again, you clearly demonstrate to me that rather than have an honest debate you would rather just choose to redefine terms to fit your own argument on the fly. Your contention that price discovery can not exist without UBI is asinine. Perhaps try learning how price discovery actually works before attempting to arbitrarily dictate the terms of its existence. You have no business presenting yourself as any kind of expert on any kind of economic subject, and your sad attempt at retort here shows me just how shallow your understanding of the subject really is.
There you go jumping from one thing to another, extrapolating without any basis for comparative assessment and therefore lack of sensibility (senseless).
That doesn't equal to No UBI = No Money.
If those certain people are the only ones that would demand that resource than it ceases then and there, economic 101.
That's quite an absurdity but why not, you can be swayed to calling people idiots to their face or telling them kindly that they don't comprehend, either way, it's an Ad Hominem because it doesn't connect any reasoning behind it outside the "fact" that it was presented.
A whole bunch of nothing:
Except that without money, how can you discover the price of resources? So back to square one, especially if that is endemic of all of the demand. Again can you have price discovery without money? Not where there's not money, Nope.
Unless they don't, so your "assume someone else want's it more and has the money to pay for it" is a nice way to avoid the argument, because why can't you just assume someone with deeper pockets and demand when the argument is empty pockets and demand.
Because you've demonstrated how economically literate you are "What happens to the price of chicken feed".
Price discovery needs the capital, a shortage of capital isn't price discovery, only a Buble. There is nothing more devastating than a shortage of money which affects everyone.
Except that interview that came much later af this work when he clearly supports UBI or a basic income.
Of course, your trite remark probably holds that article (which one?) it's contrarian in the same way you think it contrarian because there won't be Price Discovery without UBI, as if they cannot comprehend what they read and can confuse something as simple or succinct as "no price discovery without money".
So we are to take your assertion without any kind of substance because you spoke on scott's actions but spared no word to explain what context you're talking about?
Because those things were Implied at all or someone was arguing that he was a God or that he had ALL the answers. Classic red herring.
And we have been past that and are here is exactly how the interview concludes:
Why did he mention that he isn't familiar with the latest developments in respect with negative income tax, because earlier he had equated the two as being of the same ends:
And that's why he concluded after being thoroughly questioned if he had any idea of the different UBI initiatives and projects because it was the same ends, complementary.
That's not why the foud is there, so take your strawman for a dance home because it's there to directly earn dividends to be paid out to the people not to account for market fluctuations and the money supplying it doesn't need to be infinite, but what was your point? Is the found still working? Why wouldn't it? Lack of reasoning and strawman are your substitute for specificity and sound reasoning?
Vacpus language that once questioned for specificty will demonstrate that there's nothing of substance to it, so without further ado, What current (existing) trends are you assuming to be at play in Finland to effectuate that conclusion?
Wait are you trying to say that the chickenfeed will increase in price simply because you redistributed the chickens around? Only so many chickens are required for the population, the problem is distribution. The same ammount of chickens are going to be tended to, the same ammount of chicken feed will be used, except that it won't be from the demand of a chicken farm but from 1000 smaller families, so instead of 10000 pounds of chicken feed being demanded by the now obselete chicken farms, they go right back into the supply chain to the 1000 smaler farms and their orders of 10 pounds each.
It will make more resources available in the form of abled people that can be productive. It's exacty the distribution and supply of money that is at the core issue of economics, that is after writing his A Modest Proposal Benjamin Frankling enacted the most prosperous time in our history, because in his treatsey he enunciated the fact that without enough money there is no economy. People think that money will normalize the value of goods with a bit of time, yet that is not how it played out in the colonies once Benjamin Franklin was questioning Parlament about the adherent Poverty that was in England, to which the English had only just gotten news of the unprecedented Prosperity of the colonies, where there weren't any poor people to put in poor houses even if they would have built them, and which prosperity was squelced rather quickly by the kings order that comerce be done in gold and silver coins, a short supply of which recked the prosperous colonies into the poverty that the English had attempted to pragmatically clean themselves of through Famine and War, as they considered the workers as an Excess.
No reasoning is offered as to why that is, but we're supposed to take your Assertion that the price of feed will go up even though the demand hasn't done anything but moved from one position to 10000, and previously it was that the discussion was about the Status of God or that the Alaskan State Dividend is there to account for market fluctuations. Ridiculous if I would sit and let that nonsense slide any more than I let the rest slide! Indeed your article would be full of shit if it's all based upon the same kind of errenous reasoning as "what happens with the price of chicken feed?"
There exists almost NO certain point and the proof is in the fact that taxes were as high as 93% and prosperity was climbing:
So much for "wealth producers". There's no wealth without demand, economics 101.
It's the BAD state, taking it by "FORCE". These people have every oportunity to opt out of paying taxes, but they won't get bankruptcy protection anymore. Where do you think the benefits of such come from? Maybe you ought to read some of this guys thoughts, he understood prosperity pragmatically:
Then explain to me how taxes for income for over 100 years for Federal Citizens and then by voluntary choice by American Nationals since WW2, has not yet drained the people?
And people without money willl equal no more markets and revolution in the street, and you forget that Renewable Resources and abbundant resources might not be infinite but there is more than enough to go around, yet all that money that sits in the pocket of "wealth creators" does nothing but diminishes the amount of money people can transact with, money too is a resurce in that sense but you think it's only an abstraction despite what reality tells you.
So we just go on as we are?
Subservient to an economy that serves humanity less and less with a growing accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer privileged hands. Wealth not necessarily resulting from the work of those hands. It is more often than not inherited wealth or wealth gained from rentierism and speculation while more and more of those people who did actually create wealth are living on streets and relying on food banks after the industries they once worked in have departed leaving communities high and dry and destitute including less taxes paid and declining public services.
You don't offer any alternatives in your defence of Capitalism which in itself is a man made finite economic system.
I say start with the needs of human beings in developing an economy rather than the needs of an economy at the expense of human beings.
I am sure a proposition that Eric Arthur Blair would agree with.
As for money supply -there seems to be enough for the Pentagon to misplace 21trillion$
I don't have to have the answer to point out UBI is not a solution. An argument against UBI is not an argument for the status-quo. Big problems exist and need to be solved.
The problem is no matter how much or what you feel about this reality does not magically create more resources. Good intentions can have disastrous consequences often larger than the original problem that act was attempting to resolve.
You act as if we are operating under true "free market"capitalism, but we are not. Government and industry collude to minimize competition for certain oligarchs in exchange for offering the state access to its infrastructure and work around constitutional protections from government by operating within a private entity.
Your "bottom up" approach, while superficially I am sure feels quite noble but if you were to implement it you would create more suffering than you could even imagine, including for those you claim to wish to help.
We need to hold criminals within our government and infrastructure accountable. Enforce existing laws. We do not need to resort to a post modernist deconstructivist approach to every problem encountered.