pull down to refresh
1 sat \ 7 replies \ @charonnakamoto 7 Jan \ parent \ on: Are state subsidised jobs just UBI with extra steps? econ
When I said people will chase after the same goods and services, I meant that the total number of tangible goods and services worldwide will not change because people are getting UBI relief. People will chase after food, shelter, clothing, and other Maslow’s hierarchical needs from a finite pool.
You made an interesting point about the government not judging who gets UBI and who doesn't. However, I'm unsure if that's sufficient to rectify the market-wide distortions this free money will generate. Something to ponder about..
if nobody produces anything (i.e., everyone "living off" UBI), then of course we're getting nowhere--worse, really, we're all impoverished because the relative price of everything goes sky high: lots of consumers, no producers.
The idea with UBI is that it's a more efficient way to distribute social services (bc recipient just gets money, instead of some bureaucratic hoopla, with rules and regulations, and can just spend that into the economy). In theory the proposals "work" when they're set at low enough a level that most people will continue producing.
A UBI generous enough that it cannibalizes production means, like you say, we all become poor; a UBI low enough means most people keep producing but at the margin (and for the poorest) we cut back.
Whether UBI distorts markets I'm not sure of. If anything, it distorts markets less than government-provided replacements I would think
reply
everyone "living off" UBI
a red herring. this is obviously impossible, and implies zero productive effort of any individual, which presumes that the UBI is somehow distributed with no human involvement, then the money is spent with no human involvement.
Whether UBI distorts markets I'm not sure of.
Every monetary action impacts The Market. Whether an impact is a distortion sounds like a value judgement.
reply
nah, "distortion" has a pretty non-judgy meaning in economics
reply
then there should be no question about whether UBI would distort a market.
reply
the total number of tangible goods and services worldwide will not change because people are getting UBI relief.
i specifically want to challenge this assertion. if it's true that redistribution can have an impact, then it would very likely be the case that the total number of goods and services would be increased by whatever help was applied (be that UBI, or some other undiscussed form of "help"). e.g. government doesn't intervene in markets to reduce the availability of goods and services... that's usually an accident (at best) or when it's intentionally reducing the availability that's evil (because it's screwing up the Greater Good in favor of some well connected person's benefit).
my assertion is that the only help that can help is a UBI (which, evidently is stored in the same place as "guaranteed minimum income" in my connectome). it's probably the case that there are other ways to help, that i'm not thinking of.
reply
i don't actually think that the Greater Good is understandable, for the reasons discussed in that 4 hour argument between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris.
reply
instead of pondering, you could try studying the text of Road To Serfdom.
edit to add some GPT results:
F.A. Hayek did not argue that Universal Basic Income (UBI) is the only way for the government to be helpful to the poor. In fact, Hayek's views on UBI are not well-documented, and he did not explicitly advocate for it in his work.
However, Hayek did discuss the concept of a guaranteed minimum income in his 1944 book "The Road to Serfdom." In the book, Hayek argued that a guaranteed minimum income could be a more effective and less intrusive way to alleviate poverty than other forms of government intervention, such as price controls and subsidies.
Hayek's main concern was that government intervention in the economy often leads to unintended consequences, such as inefficiencies, corruption, and the erosion of individual freedom. He argued that a guaranteed minimum income could be a more targeted and efficient way to support the poor, as it would provide a safety net without distorting market prices or interfering with individual choices.
Regarding other means of support, Hayek was critical of government programs that he believed would lead to a slippery slope towards socialism and totalitarianism. He argued that government control of the economy, such as through price controls, rationing, and subsidies, would inevitably lead to a loss of individual freedom and a decline in economic efficiency.
Some of the specific arguments Hayek made against other means of support include:
- Price controls: Hayek argued that price controls would lead to shortages, black markets, and corruption, as people would find ways to circumvent the controls.
- Subsidies: Hayek believed that subsidies would create dependencies and inefficiencies, as people would rely on the government for support rather than taking responsibility for their own lives.
- Government-run industries: Hayek argued that government-run industries would be inefficient and prone to corruption, as they would be shielded from market competition and accountability.
It's worth noting that Hayek's views on poverty and government intervention were shaped by his experiences with the Great Depression and the rise of fascist and socialist regimes in Europe during the 1930s. While he was critical of government intervention, he also recognized the need for some form of social safety net to protect the most vulnerable members of society.
reply