|
ubi doesn't lead to inflation, that's just bullshit.
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
Agnostalgia posted:Hi everyone I'm the guy who thinks a policy whose result is equivalent to a 25% increase in U.S. mean household income would lead immediately to mad max. Please take me seriously.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Well the reason folks say that is we have a simultaneous budget/revenue problem here in the U.S. that'd necessitate debt which would in turn lead to inflation. But if we fixed our tax brackets, closed our investment loopholes, and stopped spending the highest percentage in the world of our enormous budget on useless defense it'd be fine. "inflation!!!" just happens to be the boogeyman that bulgogi has landed on, but he could just have easily landed 'laziness!!' or 'incentive to succeed!!' - they all have exactly the same empirical basis (ie none).
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
You're assuming that they're arguing from first principles or whatever - that's not it. They're rich, don't really care about anyone else, and they want more more more. Things like taxes and regulations and such prevent that, because it implies they have some sort of obligation to society, which they naturally want to jettison as soon as possible. Everything else - the justification for trickle-down, etc - is all an exercise in post-hoc rationalization, of justifying an already assumed conclusion. The belief that income inequality is a factor of individual virtue, rather than an arbitrary result of the system, is just part and parcel of that rationalization - if it weren't, then they might not actually deserve the insane privileges they have (they don't). They know this, deep down, and it conflicts with their conscience. So in order to maintain a sense of innocence, they must naturally come to the conclusion that the poor are dumb/stupid/evil/whatever, and therefore deserving of punishment (ie austerity). This allows them to partake in abuse and perpetuate inequality, while pretending that that is the most just outcome possible. rudatron has issued a correction as of 07:56 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Yeah, we do, but ubi is little more realistic.Lawman 0 posted:There are real costs to bureacray and ubi mostly sidesteps them.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
Sweden had the same results with their trial, right? Good to see more general data.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
What's stopping them from doing that now? UBI doesn't meaningful change the situation with Monsanto.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Price gouging is a thing regardless of where the money comes from, ubi money is not distinguishable from direct wages.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
Price controls are not equivalent to a planned economy, and the soviet economy kicked around for about 60 years, so they clearly in principle work. The assertion that the stagnation/crises of the late soviet period are an insurmountable, inherent flaw of planned economies as whole, rather than a result of much simpler issues such as corruption or simply lack of feedback/trust, is pure market-fundamentalist ideology. That has no empirical basis.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 07:09
|
|