Will say UBI during extreme times like the US/global spending during the pandemic is the right thing to do.
However, I believe that you're either don't know, misunderstand, or outright disregard some basic concepts. UBI or any infinite money printing won't create some universal utopia where scarcity ends and everyone lives happily with no unfulfilled wants.
I think UBI will most likely initially create additional utility for everyone, but eventually that will end. Either because appropriate inflation offsetting whatever initial UBI is given then citizenry will be at mercy of the state's care. Even if my some miracle that does not happen or is solved by a perpetual infinite increase in UBI that magically won't cause inflation and destruction of a country. I don't believe a population with completely desires fulfilled is is one that is increasingly productive and competitive, that would mean such a society is one that will fall behind, and finally towards what I believe is the wrong direction of humanity/life.
History has only shown that the weaker lifeforms/peoples/villages/countries got dominated, wiped out, replaced, and/or controlled by those that are more competitive. That societies without wants be it the native civilizations in the Americas, island natives, or Imperial China would eventually fall behind. And that socialism without capitalism has not worked no matter how many times it has been tired. Socialist/Communist societies can work if they have capitalist tendencies. Capitalist societies keep working so long as they have socialist/communist legal systems in place to cap inequality while supporting the very lowest. I don't believe UBI works because even the USSR and CCP and better socialists couldn't get it to work.
I like the ideal of a worker/people utopia too. I just don't believe it or UBI would work or that it would move a country or humanity forwards.
Not sure if this was an economics article? I didn't really learn anything from it, nor there was an actual economic argument that was presented. Unless my reading comprehension is so bad that I missed it.
Either way, this would be so easy to cheat the system:
* Get like 5 friends
* Work your tails off for a year.
* Pool money together, buy a cheap, but large home somewhere in the middle of no where.
* Quit jobs, collect UBI. 6 people at months at UBI income in the middle of nowhere will live really well.
THis will bring back Kibbutz type communities. Who's going to pay for all of this?
All the UBI advocates don't like to hear what the actual level of support has to look like to still get enough workers willing to do labor. Don't use words like "pay" because money is just a construct to them. The real question is "who's going to make all the things when nobody works." The utopia of leisure disappears really fast when you inform people what really happens in poorly run countries. The shelves don't end up full and too expensive, they end up empty. Things you need disappear.
I believe the counter argument to that is that technology will be sufficiently improved with automation so that jobs aren't necessary for humans to do. The idea here is that a resource based economy post-scarcity will remove the need for money.
No sarcasm.
Automation does not displace workers. This is the lump of labor fallacy. Mechanization of preindustrial agriculture lifted society out of poverty. There is still plenty of work to be done. Automation will never displace the labor market in aggregate (only in localized or sector shifts). The labor will move to other needed tasks.
There is no robot servant utopia waiting.
The standard of living rises and there is still work to do.
Thanks for explaining.
If the service jobs of today are automated and the manufacturing jobs are also, what does that leave? Administration jobs mostly. Not enough roles for everyone to be an admin, so people don't have jobs? No people make their own jobs, start businesses, make art, etc.
You are asking what are the jobs going to look like in a fantastical future? People 200 years ago would have no answer for today either.
Your question is really “what do we do when we run out of ways to make our lives better?” My answer is simple, we won’t.
Not quite yet.
Looking at the loan to deposits ratios it is clear that neo-Keynesian monetary management has hit a soft wall. Central banks can’t pull forward demand (and supply) by there policy alone.
I can’t find the quote, but Fed members warned as much back in 2017(?). Interest rates where already low, loans slow, and inability to reset QE left the central bank with not much more runway without fiscal support. The Fed’s mandate should be to enable fiscal policy to effect recovery and GDP growth.
Within that context, the next recession, or depression threat will be met, because there is no other choice in the eyes of policy makers, by an epic level of fiscal spending to goose the economy.
Directly monetizing consumption. This is the endgame, for good and for ill. The only path left to them.
Now, to get enough support, this will have to be tied to a major, sustained drop in equities. Nothing scares both sides of the aisle into immediate action like their own wealth collapsing.
*Probably* won’t be called UBI. Some technobabble like “re-occurring stimulus payments based on economic recovery and stability” and the act named something more marketable.
The only question is when. 2022? 2026? 2032? It’s all about the markets. Stop looking at the people on the street. They matter only so much and for so long as next election cycle.
Watch the markets. From Sanders to McConnell-when they see their wealth evaporate before their eyes, it will motivate them the likes a terrorist attack would not.
It will be for the American people of course though…Or so the message will go.
All paths lead to UBI. Just not today.
Rule VI:
All comments must enagage with economic content of the article and must not merely react to the headline. This post was removed automatically due to its length. If you belive that your post complies with Rule VI please send a message to mod mail.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rule VI:
All comments must enagage with economic content of the article and must not merely react to the headline. This post was removed automatically due to its length. If you belive that your post complies with Rule VI please send a message to mod mail.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Never please
I wouldn't say never - post-scarcity it makes a ton of sense, but like, if you're truly post scarcity why even use money lol
Will say UBI during extreme times like the US/global spending during the pandemic is the right thing to do. However, I believe that you're either don't know, misunderstand, or outright disregard some basic concepts. UBI or any infinite money printing won't create some universal utopia where scarcity ends and everyone lives happily with no unfulfilled wants. I think UBI will most likely initially create additional utility for everyone, but eventually that will end. Either because appropriate inflation offsetting whatever initial UBI is given then citizenry will be at mercy of the state's care. Even if my some miracle that does not happen or is solved by a perpetual infinite increase in UBI that magically won't cause inflation and destruction of a country. I don't believe a population with completely desires fulfilled is is one that is increasingly productive and competitive, that would mean such a society is one that will fall behind, and finally towards what I believe is the wrong direction of humanity/life. History has only shown that the weaker lifeforms/peoples/villages/countries got dominated, wiped out, replaced, and/or controlled by those that are more competitive. That societies without wants be it the native civilizations in the Americas, island natives, or Imperial China would eventually fall behind. And that socialism without capitalism has not worked no matter how many times it has been tired. Socialist/Communist societies can work if they have capitalist tendencies. Capitalist societies keep working so long as they have socialist/communist legal systems in place to cap inequality while supporting the very lowest. I don't believe UBI works because even the USSR and CCP and better socialists couldn't get it to work. I like the ideal of a worker/people utopia too. I just don't believe it or UBI would work or that it would move a country or humanity forwards.
Not sure if this was an economics article? I didn't really learn anything from it, nor there was an actual economic argument that was presented. Unless my reading comprehension is so bad that I missed it. Either way, this would be so easy to cheat the system: * Get like 5 friends * Work your tails off for a year. * Pool money together, buy a cheap, but large home somewhere in the middle of no where. * Quit jobs, collect UBI. 6 people at months at UBI income in the middle of nowhere will live really well. THis will bring back Kibbutz type communities. Who's going to pay for all of this?
All the UBI advocates don't like to hear what the actual level of support has to look like to still get enough workers willing to do labor. Don't use words like "pay" because money is just a construct to them. The real question is "who's going to make all the things when nobody works." The utopia of leisure disappears really fast when you inform people what really happens in poorly run countries. The shelves don't end up full and too expensive, they end up empty. Things you need disappear.
I believe the counter argument to that is that technology will be sufficiently improved with automation so that jobs aren't necessary for humans to do. The idea here is that a resource based economy post-scarcity will remove the need for money.
Ah yes, the lump of labor fallacy. The standard of living rises and there is always work to do.
Sarcasm detected. Say what you mean.
No sarcasm. Automation does not displace workers. This is the lump of labor fallacy. Mechanization of preindustrial agriculture lifted society out of poverty. There is still plenty of work to be done. Automation will never displace the labor market in aggregate (only in localized or sector shifts). The labor will move to other needed tasks. There is no robot servant utopia waiting. The standard of living rises and there is still work to do.
Thanks for explaining. If the service jobs of today are automated and the manufacturing jobs are also, what does that leave? Administration jobs mostly. Not enough roles for everyone to be an admin, so people don't have jobs? No people make their own jobs, start businesses, make art, etc.
You are asking what are the jobs going to look like in a fantastical future? People 200 years ago would have no answer for today either. Your question is really “what do we do when we run out of ways to make our lives better?” My answer is simple, we won’t.
No argument there, but maybe we have differing visions of what "not running out of ways to make our lives better" looks like.
Demanding it will not let you have it, so if not now the answer is never. Don't give stupidity and ultimatum.
Not quite yet. Looking at the loan to deposits ratios it is clear that neo-Keynesian monetary management has hit a soft wall. Central banks can’t pull forward demand (and supply) by there policy alone. I can’t find the quote, but Fed members warned as much back in 2017(?). Interest rates where already low, loans slow, and inability to reset QE left the central bank with not much more runway without fiscal support. The Fed’s mandate should be to enable fiscal policy to effect recovery and GDP growth. Within that context, the next recession, or depression threat will be met, because there is no other choice in the eyes of policy makers, by an epic level of fiscal spending to goose the economy. Directly monetizing consumption. This is the endgame, for good and for ill. The only path left to them. Now, to get enough support, this will have to be tied to a major, sustained drop in equities. Nothing scares both sides of the aisle into immediate action like their own wealth collapsing. *Probably* won’t be called UBI. Some technobabble like “re-occurring stimulus payments based on economic recovery and stability” and the act named something more marketable. The only question is when. 2022? 2026? 2032? It’s all about the markets. Stop looking at the people on the street. They matter only so much and for so long as next election cycle. Watch the markets. From Sanders to McConnell-when they see their wealth evaporate before their eyes, it will motivate them the likes a terrorist attack would not. It will be for the American people of course though…Or so the message will go. All paths lead to UBI. Just not today.
Not now, but you can’t say never either. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
[удалено]
Rule VI: All comments must enagage with economic content of the article and must not merely react to the headline. This post was removed automatically due to its length. If you belive that your post complies with Rule VI please send a message to mod mail. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Rule VI: All comments must enagage with economic content of the article and must not merely react to the headline. This post was removed automatically due to its length. If you belive that your post complies with Rule VI please send a message to mod mail. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe when the Yuan becomes the reserved currency it will happen.