Universal Basic Income - pro.s and con.s

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well in that state there wouldn't be any economic transactions, would there? 

I'm too lazy to do farming and make everything for myself. Plus I'm not multi-talented. I'm only good at a few (very small set) of things.

[mcbigski]

11 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

No, it’s because estate tax law was written for large estates. And really so that people inheriting large estates could pay accountants and attorneys large sums of money in order to aid the tax.

 

You've restored my lack of faith in humanity.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm too lazy to do farming and make everything for myself. Plus I'm not multi-talented. I'm only good at a few (very small set) of things.

Why is it that you assume that you'd have to farm? The talents you have and enjoy employing could be put to good use. And the rewards for such work could produce greater benefits than you currently enjoy. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Why is it that you assume that you'd have to farm? The talents you have and enjoy employing could be put to good use. And the rewards for such work could produce greater benefits than you currently enjoy. 

You stated there wouldn't be any economic transactions. If that were the case, then people would have produce all the stuff they need.

[DMC]

Ty's obviously just been listening to too much John Lennon lately.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

You stated there wouldn't be any economic transactions. If that were the case, then people would have produce all the stuff they need.

No, we'd just mass produce everything, and there would be no need for financial transactions. Again, money would cease to exist. You can't exactly apply current understandings of economics to that kind of system. It would be totally different with it's own seen and unforeseen problems, but if you're gonna go for a UBI which is already not workable, why not go for the real thing?

Regardless, we will have to address what happens in the approaching future after the supply of labor begins to rapidly outpace its demand, and I think the safe bet is that will happen, albeit it's hard to know when until you're already in it.

 

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, we'd just mass produce everything, and there would be no need for financial transactions. Again, money would cease to exist. You can't exactly apply current understandings of economics to that kind of system. It would be totally different with it's own seen and unforeseen problems, but if you're gonna go for a UBI which is already not workable, why not go for the real thing?

Regardless, we will have to address what happens in the approaching future after the supply of labor begins to rapidly outpace its demand, and I think the safe bet is that will happen, albeit it's hard to know when until you're already in it.

 

Umm you're going to have thousands of commodities and services that need to be traded on both spot and future markets. How do you envision all these trades being easily made without money?

I'd really rather not keep a bunch chickens in my back seat, so I can buy a cup of coffee in the morning. Of course, that assumes the clerk will accept a chicken for a cup of coffee.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

Arg, I can’t even edit my own post - sometimes, I hate posting on my phone. First world problems.

Anyways, it is HIGHLY unlikely that someone needs a hedge fund accountant specializing in securities and exchange commission matters if there is no damn money.

Honestly you don't think you could apply that skillset to a job that's more rewarding, less stressful and only requires you to work a few days a week?

Quote

And that is my only talent other than being pretty and also fairly decent in bed.

MZ let it spill that you're a wicked Spades player too. 

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Ty's obviously just been listening to too much John Lennon lately.

I'm more a While My Guitar Gently Weeps kind of guy. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Umm you're going to have thousands of commodities and services that need to be traded on both spot and future markets. How do you envision all these trades being easily made without money.

I'd really rather not keep a bunch chickens in my back seat, so I can buy a cup of coffee in the morning. Of course, that assumes the clerk will a chicken for a cup of coffee.

Why do you keep proposing examples of how things would have worked 200 years ago when I'm trying to argue how things can work 200 years from now?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Umm you're going to have thousands of commodities and services that need to be traded on both spot and future markets. How do you envision all these trades being easily made without money.

I'd really rather not keep a bunch chickens in my back seat, so I can buy a cup of coffee in the morning. Of course, that assumes the clerk will a chicken for a cup of coffee.

I hereby apply for the position of grand allocator of necessary but brutal work, with enforcement powers.  In exchange I demand all the good coffee and some cheese.  I will trade cheese for chicken and a pop song.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Why do you keep proposing examples of how things would have worked 200 years ago when I'm trying to argue how things can work 200 years from now?

Okay, 200 years from now, how do you envision trading.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Okay, 200 years from now, how do you envision trading.

Apparently weed?

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

 I will trade cheese for chicken and a pop song.

I can't sing worth a crap. So no cheese for me or music.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I can't sing worth a crap. So no cheese for me or music.

You will have to settle for me not sending you to the salt mines!  I will take an extra chicken please. 
 

I do sort of fancy myself as a spider-like warlord controlling my post apocalyptic province of New Oblongonia. All shall gaze upon me and despair, then bring me chocolate. Or something. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay, 200 years from now, how do you envision trading.

With the fun disclaimer of *assuming we haven't made alien contact*, I would envision a lot of what we currently view as trade to no longer exist. For example. under the concept of abundance, agriculture largely disappears from our current construct. Once the infrastructure was set up you could run giant skyscraper farms and produce enough food to feed the world on a comparatively small scale staff wise. And that circles back to my point you skipped over. How do you resolve the supply of labor being significantly greater than the demand for labor, or do you not think that is a problem? I do because mass automation was always coming, and COVID is speeding everything up.  

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I do sort of fancy myself as a spider-like warlord controlling my post apocalyptic province of New Oblongonia. All shall gaze upon me and despair, then bring me chocolate. Or something. 

Well you'll have to do the warlordin' cause I don't think warlordin' is in my skill set either.

[OldGimletEye]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

. For example. under the concept of abundance, agriculture largely disappears from our current construct. Once the infrastructure was set up you could run giant skyscraper farms and produce enough food to feed the world on a comparatively small scale staff wise. And that circles back to my point you skipped over. 

You can either smoke weed or read post-modernism. But, never do both at once. Under your scenario, agriculture doesn't "disappear from our construct". Evidently, it is produced by automation.

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How do you resolve the supply of labor being significantly greater than the demand for labor, or do you not think that is a problem? 

I assume you mean here, that AI replaces all human labor or largely replaces it. If that occurs, then something like the UBI would likely would be needed. But, nobody knows how that scenario is going to play out. But, even if such a scenario did occur, there would still be thousands upon thousands of different commodities produced. Likely not everyone will want the same set of commodities. They will of course trade.

[ants]

One other thing I forgot is that a UBI avoids the marginal tax issues that many welfare systems have.  Where due to means testing as your salary goes up, you not only pay a higher marginal rate of tax, you lose support.  Which makes the marginal net benefit of increasing your salary negligible, or even negative. 

This is an argument that a UBI might actually increase the amount of work some people do.   

On 1/26/2021 at 12:06 AM, Werthead said:

.......

The inflationary aspect is a valid point, and one that I haven't seen strongly argued against. However, as noted, people would probably not be receiving $2K a month, rather significantly less.

......

The main offset of the inflationary impact would be demand going up.  So costs go up, but because more people have more money demand for products go up, so some of the profit lost per unit is made up by selling more units.  This then means that inflation is lower than the increase, and cost of living increase is less than the UBI increase.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

You can either smoke weed or read post-modernism. But, never do both at once. Under scenario, agriculture doesn't "disappear from our construct". Evidently, it is produced by automation.

I will go smoke some weed in a little bit, but then unfortunately I will continue to power through a crappy mystery book that I don't even like. Thank god I've only got a few chapters left. 

And yes, agriculture that is almost entirely automated, along with it being given away for free, because remember, no money, would entirely flip the way we understand how things work. Hence how we currently understand the way things work disappearing.

Quote

I assume you mean here, that AI replaces all human labor or largely replaces it. If that occurs, then something like the UBI would likely would be needed. But, nobody knows how that scenario is going to play out. But, even if such a scenario did occur, there would still be thousand upon thousands of different commodities produced. 

Not all, but most. And then if you just go for a UBI, with most people not having ways to make money, you'd create a permanently entrenched caste system far worse than ever seen before. Hence why it would actually make more sense to just remove money from the equation. 
 

Quote

Likely not everyone will want the same set of commodities. They will of course trade.

I think in a society in which I'm describing it would be seen more as pooling resources aided by the myriad advances in technology. Again, not saying we should do this tomorrow, but I do see a rather bleak future if nothing changes and a UBI possibly won't be enough to really advert it. 

[ants]

@Iskaral Pust, your post does seem a bit lopsided.  You capitalise the cashflows for the UBI, but not the welfare payments already in the current expenditure.  

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think the better question is do really need to have money at all? That really does bypass all the pitfalls of a UBI while achieving an even better end result.

Yes. Because we need someway to decide who gets the next Mona Lisa.  Or that particular beachfront piece of land.  Or the last bottles of a scant vintage.  Or who gets which seats in a limited seat concert.  

Abundance in some areas won't end all scarcity.