No, it doesn't make it pointless. Supply and demand will play out regardless. Supply is not unlimited in this world, this plays a role in determining prices. As prices go up, UBI will need to be adjusted as you said. When you do this, the prices don't stop going up. They just keep adjusting to the new glut of currency in the markets and the UBI will then continue to adjust to it. This is called a feedback loop. And this is what will lead to hyper inflation. Thus a hyper inflation feedback loop. Also we are already heading into dark times. We don't need hyper inflation on top of our problems. We can talk more about automation and how to handle that issue, but UBI is a bandaid that is a cheap out for dealing with this issue.
Think about all the jobs that will be lost when you do away with those govt programs. Dems definitely don't want to lose their power over people and they love bureaucracies.
It does make it pointless. If UBI taxes are inflation-adjusted monthly, what would companies have to gain by price gouging? It wouldn't save them from the taxes one bit, they would go up in lockstep with any inflation. Inflation is natural for an economy and will continue to go up, but hyperinflation would have to be onset by price gouging in an attempt to make pre-UBI tax profits. Problem with that is the free market will still exist as well, and people will still be fiscal with their cash as this money will be going predominantly (over90%) to the middle and lower class. So not only will price gouging not work (creating hyperinflation) as the taxes will be inflation adjusted, there's still a free market, competition, and a fiscal population to incentive against any price gouging in the first place.
Probably not, but this is the problem with UBI: only a small percentage of US citizens use food stamps (even though millions of people, probably); but wouldn't everybody be getting UBI? I can't imagine how that is not inflationary.
This is correct. Even when the federal government issued oil and gas price controls in the 1970s, they still couldn't totally control prices. You'd have to have a communist/command and control economy -- and it might not control prices even then. In the short term, supplies are not infinite. Prices will rise, for all kinds of goods and services.
Do you know how money works? Clearly you don't if you make such reductive points. Research hyper inflation.... I will wait.
Not gonna lie, for a bit I had Andrew Yang confused with Andrew Ng. They don't look like one another at all, but their names are so similar that when I read Yang my little brain was interpreting it as Ng. Anyway. That's all I have to contribute.
Food stamps are cash equivalents. At least that is the opinion of grocery stores. But you knew that. As far as your claims of hyper inflation, do you see evidence of this in other wealth distribution that the government does?
Why stop at $1,000? Why not $10,000 a month? if everyone could make $120,000 a year, think of those massive tax receipts and economic stimulus. Then everyone can buy those mini mansions and drive luxury vehicles. At $120,000, everyone could retire and never work again! Maybe we can even try the experiment globally. The whole planet receives a livable wage and nobody would have to work. We can just sit back and let the servants tend to our houses and yards and send them off to get food at the supermarket. Sounds awesome!
Because 10k cost 10x more and the goal of UBI is to prevent proverty, not work. This remind me of SSC will be the doom of western democracy scare projected by folks in the 50-60s. For some reason people can’t seem to talk about the actual proposal, but need to dream up of a made up proposal.
via Federal Reserve Bank of SF. "Demand-pull inflation occurs when aggregate demand for goods and services in an economy rises more rapidly than an economy’s productive capacity. One potential shock to aggregate demand might come from a central bank that rapidly increases the supply of money. See Chart 1 for an illustration of what will likely happen as a result of this shock. The increase in money in the economy will increase demand for goods and services from D0 to D1. In the short run, businesses cannot significantly increase production and supply (S) remains constant. The economy’s equilibrium moves from point A to point B and prices will tend to rise, resulting in inflation." Inflation does occcur when you flood the market with money. Because it increases demand beyond supply capacities. A continuously expanding program will do that every month when you raise it. The CPI will rise much faster. Also EBT is not the same as a blank check of monthly adjusted UBI. Stop acting like it is the same thing we are discussing.
We have talked about the actual proposal. I think most agree giving any money to those who are fairing well is ridiculous. The problem with most socialistic programs (speaking in the United States) is they fail to address the issues on how to create wealth and production. Giving 12k to every truck driver who loses his job will only serve to pay for his addiction to help him cope living under a bridge. 12k is not going to pay for his housing, vehicles and bills. It certainly wont give him a job. I am not against socialistic programs. I am against socialistic programs that promote FREE FREE FREE. There is nothing free, no matter what shell game you pretend to play. Why give free health care when the insurance companies and healthcare system are plundering our healthcare. Insurance companies serve to deny and pay the least possible while doctors try their best to get you out of the clinic while finding every possible way to charge the patient/insurance company anything and everything, including dangerous prescriptions many people dont need. Fix these problems and then 'free healthcare for all' can get much more affordable. The same idea applies for college. If we want to discuss UBI, we need to find some way to make people productive. Human productivity creates wealth. The key issue is to keep the wealth created by the person in their hand and not have it given to the massive corporations. Big corporations exploit countries like China and Vietnam and then come to the US and exploit people with their outrageous prices for their product.
Okay CF, at my weed ice cream parlor I will serve Banana splits but instead of using Bananas on the side, it's going to be fatty blunts!!! You can get them in edibles or........ TO SMOKE!!!! It's not right or left, It's forward!!! Yang Gang 420!!!
I think the federal poverty line for an individual is around 12k, and family of 4 is around 30k. Social safety net programs are not directly designed to create wealth and productivity. That is not the goal of such programs. If you measure such programs with that goal, which you seems to be doing, it's likely going to fail. The goal is to prevent starvation, poverty, etc. The idea is a baseline where no one starve or is extremely poor and everyone move up from there. With that said, investing in people can be argued to yield many social benefits - less crimes, less prison population, less drugs problems, less medical care, more educated population, and so on. Those social benefits probably does also have an impact on wealth and productivity of the country as a whole - but that would be secondary factor, not the main factor of social programs. Everything cost something and nothing is free. Risking a population that face starvation and poverty isn't free and has a real cost. Potential costs include higher crimes, higher drug use, higher prison population, less productivity workforce, more expensive health care for everyone, poorer children welfare, poor grades, less educated, .... and if it gets extremely bad, revolt. There is also a humane and moral cost that can last generation. You seem to also think that people want to live off UBI and yet they can't because it's not enough. I think that's not how people work. People generally wants to move up, see the other side as greener. In my experience, people seek to improve upon their live for themselves and for their family. The trick with UBI might be to not have it so big that large number of people simply rely on it for life, instead of seeing it as a baseline where you work from. I also think UBI is a much more efficient use of resources. You get cash and you determine how best to use it. Compare that to the government providing the services (full of inefficiency and cost). As a small example, in the recent 2016 LA flood, I helped with paperwork for some family - this is a bit fuzzy now, but instead of giving $5k to family to rebuild portion of their home to a basic initial living condition so they can get out of temp housing (as an option for those that is willing to do that themselves), the gov have to directly hire contractors and spend $30k on doing the same work (that is often temporary, of poorer quality and takes much longer to complete).
He is right that every candidate should be talking about this. LOL now that Tucker showed agreement, the dems won't want to touch Yang.
