Coolguye posted:

I'm on my phone and hoo buddy is there a lot to unpack here

that is the planned economy. government goes out and tells people what they are doing in terms of production these year and manages everything on behalf of the citizenry. in this way, speculation is impossible and bubbles don't exist. the only planned economy left on the planet is north korea's - all of the rest of them brought stagnation, misery, and deprivation to the people it ostensibly served. and North Korea currently starves its people to build nukes on a regular basis so they arguably are already imploded and are just waiting for the counting to start in economic terms. if this is ostensibly socialism then it's socialism gone too far and again, all the data is very unambiguous about this. there's a lot of reasons why planned economies don't work but that's beyond the scope of this post. for the purposes of this thread you're advocating the policy that lost the second world the Cold War.

you mean the companies that were actively in the middle of making Saudi Arabia irrelevant and stealing their lunches? again, this is a market triumph, not a problem with it. a recalcitrant idiot regime was forced into doing the right thing by legal actors in a more forward thinking one with less bullshit involved. SA literally just figured out how many barrels these pop up North American companies were producing and set their own levers to that level. and btw not all of those companies are out of business; especially the hybrid drillers that eventually went into natural gas and are still in the process of eviscerating oil the way oil eviscerated coal 25 years ago. and again, the entire process could have happened faster if a UBI had let roughnecks retrain faster.

no, because not participating in a market cuts both ways.

markets work better the bigger and more accessible they are. this is neither news nor controversial, it's the entire lesson of the 19th century, and most of the 20th. literally every single government that engaged in protectionism hurt their own economies relative to their more trade hungry neighbors. this happened one hundred percent of the time. every single time import substitution has been attempted it's gone horribly wrong for the country advocating it, whether that was Japan having an industrious revolution instead of an industrial one in the 1870s and regressing to naked rice stompers instead of automated grinders or India trying to foster a native fertilizer industry and triggering famines a century later. government overstepping their bounds and saying "well we don't like the way that is working right now so we are cutting and running" hurts its citizenry by disallowing them from competing with that market in any way. again, this isn't some libertarian screed, this is the entire point of comparative advantage and specialization, which is a principle that has driven not just our own species' prosperity, but the prosperity of a tiny handful of other species that have managed to capture it. ants are one of the most successful life forms on the planet largely because they harness these economic principles. I realize I'm repeating myself but I have to on these forums since most people have allergic responses to market arguments, no matter how cold hard factual they are.

the microeconomic reality is that the profits gained by companies working in that sector and the taxes garnished from them hugely outweigh the price of kowtowing to that sort of dirty market pressure and you only need to look at tax collections by state and federal governments to prove that. your question is a false one because you presume that by doing this we would decrease tax collections from oil companies. that is not the case. if you make a company pay an extra 5% in taxes but reduce their incidental costs or increase their earnings by 7%, they still want to work with you over, say, Venezuela or Guatemala because they still take home more money. and once again this is the overall proposition a UBI offers. pay us 5% more money and you'll get a citizenry that is more capable of reacting to market moves so you can actually seize 10% more of them (or whatever the numbers shake out to). that is exactly what the data suggests in the Iran study as well.