pull down to refresh
Unless you move towards pure cash transfers, as many economists seem to favor
reply
i actually don't favor that, reason being that I don't think that within a democratic society, there is any credible commitment to let people suffer the consequence of their own bad choices. Thus, cash transfers will never work as a substitute for in-kind transfers. I think it's a sad state of affairs, but I think it is the state of affairs.
reply
there is any credible commitment to let people suffer the consequence of their own bad choices
I agree. To me this is actually the strongest reason not to reform towards UBI, which might otherwise be more efficient.
reply
People sell EBT cards for 50 percent off
In-kind transfers can be sold for cash or bartered
reply
True, but it's a pain in the ass and carries a steep penalty
reply
restricting choice is a necessary consequence of public money
that's why, during the Obamacare debate, I didn't like it when republicans called bureaucrats deciding on healthcare choices as "death panels". If you're gonna be throwing public money around, which the healthcare system already does, you need a non-price form of rationing
ideally, the solution would be to get public money out of as many markets as possible. If that's not possible, then you have to restrict the things that the public money can be used on, sadly.