Will basic income become the califfornia norm town starts 500.00$ no string payments

[Maxdeath]

So you are hoping that someone will not notice that you are trying to somehow produce money that is not there? We are talking a fundamental principle in everything here. Given a finite number of objects you can not slit those objects indefinitely. They do not magically respawn.

I was using gravity as an example of a simple principle called stupidity. If you think that tossing a rock into the air somehow equates to economics you may need more help in fundamentals.

The safest continent on the planet will be the one that is the least inhabitable, Antarctica.

So you are hoping that someone will not notice that you are trying to somehow produce money that is not there? We are talking a fundamental principle in everything here. Given a finite number of objects you can not slit those objects indefinitely. They do not magically respawn.

It sounds like you are confusing a national economy capable of electronically creating its own sovereign currency with a household economy?

If so, you have a lot in common with your rocks.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"The other option is 'qualitative easing,' a form of central bank quantitative easing in which the money flows directly into the real economy rather than simply into banks.

"In Europe, politicians are taking another look at this once-derided 'helicopter money.'

"A UBI is being proposed as monetary policy that would stimulate productivity without increasing taxes.

"As Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, former senior vice president of the World Bank, explains:

"'. . . [W]hen the government spends more and invests in the economy, that money circulates, and recirculates again and again. So not only does it create jobs once: the investment creates jobs multiple times.'

"'The result of that is that the economy grows by a multiple of the initial spending, and public finances turn out to be stronger: as the economy grows, fiscal revenues increase, and demands for the government to pay unemployment benefits, or fund social programmes to help the poor and needy, go down.'

"As tax revenues go up as a result of growth, and as these expenditures decrease, the government’s fiscal position strengthens.'"

You are doing a great job of cut and paste. To bad you do not understand anything you are posting.

You have yet to post where you are getting the initial investment. The increase in taxes on increased spending will not compensate for the full universal income payments. Yes paying unemployment and other items will go down because it can be reduced by the amount of the income being given by ubi.

We can postulate a world where elephants fly, six equals four, people are self motivated and always good and debt does not matter. BUT in the world that we actually live in none of that is true.

You have yet to post where you are getting the initial investment. The increase in taxes on increased spending will not compensate for the full universal income payments. Yes paying unemployment and other items will go down because it can be reduced by the amount of the income being given by ubi.

The initial investment could come from the Fed and/or Treasury just as it did for Wall Street's benefit a decade ago:

Universal Basic Income Is Easier Than It Looks

"The Federal Reserve alone could do the job.

"It could buy 'Green' federal bonds with money created on its balance sheet, just as the Fed funded the purchase of $3.7 trillion in bonds in its 'quantitative easing' program to save the banks.

"The Treasury could also do it.

"The Treasury has the constitutional power to issue coins in any denomination, even trillion dollar coins."

So in other words we just print the money which in essence devalues the dollar worldwide.

So we might as well just go whole hog and start throwing our money in the toilet now and save time and energy.

So in other words we just print the money which in essence devalues the dollar worldwide.

Can you wrap your mind around the idea that sovereign governments create money by spending?

MMT Primer

"'The basic idea is that the government can’t run out of money,' Kelton said. 'It creates money just by spending.'

"When people talk about government profligacy bankrupting their grandchildren or triggering a cataclysmic debt crisis, Kelton argues, they’re conflating the experience of a typical family, which has to get money from somewhere outside the household to meet expenses, with that of a sovereign government, which creates money as part of its basic operation."

Stephanie Kelton Has The Biggest Idea In Washington | HuffPost

To bad you are trying to use people on the fringe of economics instead of people who really understand economics. But that is fine the only problem you really have is that too many understand economics. There are a few that you maybe able to convince (O.C., Beto and perhaps a few other crazies) we will quickly find the same thing in California that they saw in Finland and your dream of not having to work will die.

 

[Markle]

They could do it the easy and more cost effective way and just look at Finland. They tried it and dropped it. But as in all things there is always hope that doing the same thing over and over will have a different result.

Finland doesn't have the same economy (or population) as the US. Basic Income has the potential to reverse many of the negative economic trends we've seen over the past five decades.

Why we should all have a basic income

"Consider for a moment that from this day forward, on the first day of every month, around $1,000 is deposited into your bank account – because you are a citizen.

"This income is independent of every other source of income and guarantees you a monthly starting salary above the poverty line for the rest of your life...."

"'Basic income' would be an amount sufficient to secure basic needs as a permanent earnings floor no one could fall beneath, and would replace many of today’s temporary benefits, which are given only in case of emergency, and/or only to those who successfully pass the applied qualification tests.

"UBI would be a promise of equal opportunity, not equal outcome, a new starting line set above the poverty line."

I can only presume you are joking! Or...you are a joke.

I can only presume you are joking! Or...you are a joke

What do you find comical about enhancing equal opportunity?

Why we should all have a basic income

"Consider for a moment that from this day forward, on the first day of every month, around $1,000 is deposited into your bank account – because you are a citizen.

"This income is independent of every other source of income and guarantees you a monthly starting salary above the poverty line for the rest of your life.

"What do you do? Possibly of more importance, what don’t you do?

"How does this firm foundation of economic security and positive freedom affect your present and future decisions, from the work you choose to the relationships you maintain, to the risks you take?"

Do you chuckle at the prospect increasing your capacity to act upon your free will instead of blindly submitting to collective market forces?

No, seriously!

 

[WheelieAddict]

So an annual stipend. Do you idiots really want argue over if it is a "dividend" or a stipend. Doesn't matter where it comes from. It is a basic income stipend.

ARE YOU NUTS?

Tell me what sources are approved for basic income stipends.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Alaska already has a form of basic income. You get a stipend.

Based on oil profits.

Jo

And?

 

[P F Tinmore]

They could do it the easy and more cost effective way and just look at Finland. They tried it and dropped it. But as in all things there is always hope that doing the same thing over and over will have a different result.

Finland doesn't have the same economy (or population) as the US. Basic Income has the potential to reverse many of the negative economic trends we've seen over the past five decades.

Why we should all have a basic income

"Consider for a moment that from this day forward, on the first day of every month, around $1,000 is deposited into your bank account – because you are a citizen.

"This income is independent of every other source of income and guarantees you a monthly starting salary above the poverty line for the rest of your life...."

"'Basic income' would be an amount sufficient to secure basic needs as a permanent earnings floor no one could fall beneath, and would replace many of today’s temporary benefits, which are given only in case of emergency, and/or only to those who successfully pass the applied qualification tests.

"UBI would be a promise of equal opportunity, not equal outcome, a new starting line set above the poverty line."

Joe Rogan and Tulsi Gabbard - Universal Basic Income

 

[xband]

Keep a roof over your head, full belly and a car to drive around in. Everything else is gravy.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This is a way of redistributing money from the Americans to the mexican drug dealers.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So where do you suggest that this monthly amount come from? Is it going to just magically appear? Do you suggest that we increase taxes to cover the amount. If so then not only do you have to tax a thousand a month but you also need to include the wages of those that are taking in and distributing this new found wealth. So you are talking giving someone $1,000.00 and taxing $1100.00 so a net loss.

Oh let me guess it is the old someone else will pay for my freebies. Yeah the usual stupid bull.

And as usual it may not have worked before but it will this time. Why do so many people always expect a diffrent result from the same input? If you throw a rock into the air, no matter how many times, it still falls down. It will never take flight.

So where do you suggest that this monthly amount come from? Is it going to just magically appear? Do you suggest that we increase taxes to cover the amount. If so then not only do you have to tax a thousand a month but you also need to include the wages of those that are taking in and distributing this new found wealth. So you are talking giving someone $1,000.00 and taxing $1100.00 so a net loss.

Where are you getting your numbers?

Why we should all have a basic income

"What tends to go unrealized about the idea of basic income, and this is true even of many economists – but not all – is that it represents a net transfer.

"In the same way it does not cost $20 to give someone $20 in exchange for $10, it does not cost $3 trillion to give every adult citizen $12,000 and every child $4,000, when every household will be paying varying amounts of taxes in exchange for their UBI.

"Instead it will cost around 30% of that, or about $900 billion, and that’s before the full or partial consolidation of other programmes and tax credits immediately made redundant by the new transfer.

"In other words, for someone whose taxes go up $4,000 to pay for $12,000 in UBI, the cost to give that person UBI is $8,000, not $12,000, and it’s coming from someone else whose taxes went up $20,000 to pay for their own $12,000."

And we shouldn't forget the citizens (legal and natural) who pay NO taxes:

Amazon will pay $0 in federal taxes this year — and it's partially thanks to Trump

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

You can not have something just show up. If I give you three rocks (I am keeping it simple for you) then you give one rock to each of three people and then they give you back only a portion of the rock you gave them. How long can you give each person a whole rock? It is a simple question, there is no hidden answer.

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

Do you see any reason why government can not spend money directly into the real economy in a similar fashion to how it bailed out the economic parasites who crashed the global economy in 2008 with Quantitative Easing?

So you thought quantitative easing was over? Think again

I take it you are unfamiliar with debt. We can spend money we don't have but eventually it must stop.

When the government uses its sovereign right to issue currency directly into the productive economy (instead of bonds and other debt instruments), it stands to increase tax revenues enough to cover its direct spending.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"This is due to the “velocity of money” – the number of times a dollar is traded in a year, from farmer to grocer to landlord, etc.

"In a good economy, the velocity of the M1 money stock (coins, dollar bills, demand deposits and checkable deposits) is about seven; and each recipient will pay taxes on this same dollar as it changes hands.

"According to the Heritage Foundation, total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is now 26 percent. Thus one dollar of new GDP results in about 26 cents of increased tax revenue.

"Assuming each of the seven trades is for taxable GDP, $1.00 changing hands seven times can increase tax revenue by $7.00 x 26 percent = $1.82.

"In theory, then, the government could get more back in taxes than it paid out."

Confusing to those who have a simplistic view of the economy.

 

[georgephillip]

Where are you getting your numbers?

Why we should all have a basic income

"What tends to go unrealized about the idea of basic income, and this is true even of many economists – but not all – is that it represents a net transfer.

"In the same way it does not cost $20 to give someone $20 in exchange for $10, it does not cost $3 trillion to give every adult citizen $12,000 and every child $4,000, when every household will be paying varying amounts of taxes in exchange for their UBI.

"Instead it will cost around 30% of that, or about $900 billion, and that’s before the full or partial consolidation of other programmes and tax credits immediately made redundant by the new transfer.

"In other words, for someone whose taxes go up $4,000 to pay for $12,000 in UBI, the cost to give that person UBI is $8,000, not $12,000, and it’s coming from someone else whose taxes went up $20,000 to pay for their own $12,000."

And we shouldn't forget the citizens (legal and natural) who pay NO taxes:

Amazon will pay $0 in federal taxes this year — and it's partially thanks to Trump

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

You can not have something just show up. If I give you three rocks (I am keeping it simple for you) then you give one rock to each of three people and then they give you back only a portion of the rock you gave them. How long can you give each person a whole rock? It is a simple question, there is no hidden answer.

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

Do you see any reason why government can not spend money directly into the real economy in a similar fashion to how it bailed out the economic parasites who crashed the global economy in 2008 with Quantitative Easing?

So you thought quantitative easing was over? Think again

I take it you are unfamiliar with debt. We can spend money we don't have but eventually it must stop.

When the government uses its sovereign right to issue currency directly into the productive economy (instead of bonds and other debt instruments), it stands to increase tax revenues enough to cover its direct spending.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"This is due to the “velocity of money” – the number of times a dollar is traded in a year, from farmer to grocer to landlord, etc.

"In a good economy, the velocity of the M1 money stock (coins, dollar bills, demand deposits and checkable deposits) is about seven; and each recipient will pay taxes on this same dollar as it changes hands.

"According to the Heritage Foundation, total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is now 26 percent. Thus one dollar of new GDP results in about 26 cents of increased tax revenue.

"Assuming each of the seven trades is for taxable GDP, $1.00 changing hands seven times can increase tax revenue by $7.00 x 26 percent = $1.82.

"In theory, then, the government could get more back in taxes than it paid out."

Confusing to those who have a simplistic view of the economy.

Confusing to those who have a simplistic view of the economy.

It is counterintuitive for many who've grown up believing the federal government's economic limitations are the same as a household; however, the two are completely different when it comes to managing debt.

MMT and Taxing the Rich | Beat the Press | CEPR

"I don’t consider myself an MMTer, but there is a basic Keynesian concept which has been associated with MMT, (Modern Monetary Theory) which is both true and important.

"For the federal government, taxes are not about raising revenue, taxes are about reducing consumption to prevent inflation.

"The point is that the federal government does not need taxes for revenue, since it can just print money. It instead taxes to create the room in the economy for government spending.

"This view is sometimes wrongly taken as a 'get out of jail free' card, where the government can spend whatever it wants without worrying about raising revenue."

 

[blastoff]

Sounds like a hell of a good plan to me. Think about it. In just a few months some bozo will be able to outfit his rusted, dented beater ride with really cool rims and rubber.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sounds like a hell of a good plan to me. Think about it. In just a few months some bozo will be able to outfit his rusted, dented beater ride with really cool rims and rubber.

Indeed, spend that money into the economy. Get that velocity of money up.

 

[Darkwind]

Where are you getting your numbers?

Why we should all have a basic income

"What tends to go unrealized about the idea of basic income, and this is true even of many economists – but not all – is that it represents a net transfer.

"In the same way it does not cost $20 to give someone $20 in exchange for $10, it does not cost $3 trillion to give every adult citizen $12,000 and every child $4,000, when every household will be paying varying amounts of taxes in exchange for their UBI.

"Instead it will cost around 30% of that, or about $900 billion, and that’s before the full or partial consolidation of other programmes and tax credits immediately made redundant by the new transfer.

"In other words, for someone whose taxes go up $4,000 to pay for $12,000 in UBI, the cost to give that person UBI is $8,000, not $12,000, and it’s coming from someone else whose taxes went up $20,000 to pay for their own $12,000."

And we shouldn't forget the citizens (legal and natural) who pay NO taxes:

Amazon will pay $0 in federal taxes this year — and it's partially thanks to Trump

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

You can not have something just show up. If I give you three rocks (I am keeping it simple for you) then you give one rock to each of three people and then they give you back only a portion of the rock you gave them. How long can you give each person a whole rock? It is a simple question, there is no hidden answer.

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

Do you see any reason why government can not spend money directly into the real economy in a similar fashion to how it bailed out the economic parasites who crashed the global economy in 2008 with Quantitative Easing?

So you thought quantitative easing was over? Think again

I take it you are unfamiliar with debt. We can spend money we don't have but eventually it must stop.

When the government uses its sovereign right to issue currency directly into the productive economy (instead of bonds and other debt instruments), it stands to increase tax revenues enough to cover its direct spending.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"This is due to the “velocity of money” – the number of times a dollar is traded in a year, from farmer to grocer to landlord, etc.

"In a good economy, the velocity of the M1 money stock (coins, dollar bills, demand deposits and checkable deposits) is about seven; and each recipient will pay taxes on this same dollar as it changes hands.

"According to the Heritage Foundation, total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is now 26 percent. Thus one dollar of new GDP results in about 26 cents of increased tax revenue.

"Assuming each of the seven trades is for taxable GDP, $1.00 changing hands seven times can increase tax revenue by $7.00 x 26 percent = $1.82.

"In theory, then, the government could get more back in taxes than it paid out."

What you are essentially cut and pasting is called trickle down economics. There are many that claim it does not work.

You have still not posted where you plan on getting this initial ubi. What happens when the economy crashes? How long do you need to fund this ubi before it can be self sustaining, if ever? What do we do about our existing debt and future debt until ubi pays for itself? How do we convince inflation to not outpace ubi? How do we convince people to actually find and hold a job instead of becoming dependent on ubi just as some have done with welfare?

You seemed to have missed the last line in your whole little post "in theory". Theory is great but seldom proves itself practical in real life. "In theory" the government could give each citizen a million dollars or a billion dollars but in reality it would not work.

He is saying, 'Just print the money' and then distibute it to the people. They will then return it at interest.

This is basically the fallacy of perpetual energy.

Connect a generator to a battery source and use the battery source as an engine to power the generator.

I'll be he doesn't understand why it doesn't work.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

You can not have something just show up. If I give you three rocks (I am keeping it simple for you) then you give one rock to each of three people and then they give you back only a portion of the rock you gave them. How long can you give each person a whole rock? It is a simple question, there is no hidden answer.

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

Do you see any reason why government can not spend money directly into the real economy in a similar fashion to how it bailed out the economic parasites who crashed the global economy in 2008 with Quantitative Easing?

So you thought quantitative easing was over? Think again

I take it you are unfamiliar with debt. We can spend money we don't have but eventually it must stop.

When the government uses its sovereign right to issue currency directly into the productive economy (instead of bonds and other debt instruments), it stands to increase tax revenues enough to cover its direct spending.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"This is due to the “velocity of money” – the number of times a dollar is traded in a year, from farmer to grocer to landlord, etc.

"In a good economy, the velocity of the M1 money stock (coins, dollar bills, demand deposits and checkable deposits) is about seven; and each recipient will pay taxes on this same dollar as it changes hands.

"According to the Heritage Foundation, total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is now 26 percent. Thus one dollar of new GDP results in about 26 cents of increased tax revenue.

"Assuming each of the seven trades is for taxable GDP, $1.00 changing hands seven times can increase tax revenue by $7.00 x 26 percent = $1.82.

"In theory, then, the government could get more back in taxes than it paid out."

Confusing to those who have a simplistic view of the economy.

Confusing to those who have a simplistic view of the economy.

It is counterintuitive for many who've grown up believing the federal government's economic limitations are the same as a household; however, the two are completely different when it comes to managing debt.

MMT and Taxing the Rich | Beat the Press | CEPR

"I don’t consider myself an MMTer, but there is a basic Keynesian concept which has been associated with MMT, (Modern Monetary Theory) which is both true and important.

"For the federal government, taxes are not about raising revenue, taxes are about reducing consumption to prevent inflation.

"The point is that the federal government does not need taxes for revenue, since it can just print money. It instead taxes to create the room in the economy for government spending.

"This view is sometimes wrongly taken as a 'get out of jail free' card, where the government can spend whatever it wants without worrying about raising revenue."

Some people think that printing money leads to inflation. Think about it. Every dollar in our economy was "just printed." That is how sovereign money works. The problem is that the money printed has to be matched with an increased productivity or inflation will occur.

The monkey wrench in the works is the Federal Reserve. Without that we would have no national debt.

 

[georgephillip]

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

You can not have something just show up. If I give you three rocks (I am keeping it simple for you) then you give one rock to each of three people and then they give you back only a portion of the rock you gave them. How long can you give each person a whole rock? It is a simple question, there is no hidden answer.

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

Do you see any reason why government can not spend money directly into the real economy in a similar fashion to how it bailed out the economic parasites who crashed the global economy in 2008 with Quantitative Easing?

So you thought quantitative easing was over? Think again

I take it you are unfamiliar with debt. We can spend money we don't have but eventually it must stop.

When the government uses its sovereign right to issue currency directly into the productive economy (instead of bonds and other debt instruments), it stands to increase tax revenues enough to cover its direct spending.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"This is due to the “velocity of money” – the number of times a dollar is traded in a year, from farmer to grocer to landlord, etc.

"In a good economy, the velocity of the M1 money stock (coins, dollar bills, demand deposits and checkable deposits) is about seven; and each recipient will pay taxes on this same dollar as it changes hands.

"According to the Heritage Foundation, total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is now 26 percent. Thus one dollar of new GDP results in about 26 cents of increased tax revenue.

"Assuming each of the seven trades is for taxable GDP, $1.00 changing hands seven times can increase tax revenue by $7.00 x 26 percent = $1.82.

"In theory, then, the government could get more back in taxes than it paid out."

What you are essentially cut and pasting is called trickle down economics. There are many that claim it does not work.

You have still not posted where you plan on getting this initial ubi. What happens when the economy crashes? How long do you need to fund this ubi before it can be self sustaining, if ever? What do we do about our existing debt and future debt until ubi pays for itself? How do we convince inflation to not outpace ubi? How do we convince people to actually find and hold a job instead of becoming dependent on ubi just as some have done with welfare?

You seemed to have missed the last line in your whole little post "in theory". Theory is great but seldom proves itself practical in real life. "In theory" the government could give each citizen a million dollars or a billion dollars but in reality it would not work.

He is saying, 'Just print the money' and then distibute it to the people. They will then return it at interest.

This is basically the fallacy of perpetual energy.

Connect a generator to a battery source and use the battery source as an engine to power the generator.

I'll be he doesn't understand why it doesn't work.

He is saying, 'Just print the money' and then distibute it to the people. They will then return it at interest.

Actually, the people will consume goods and service with their UBI stipend which will increase GDP, right?

 

[Darkwind]

Do you see any reason why government can not spend money directly into the real economy in a similar fashion to how it bailed out the economic parasites who crashed the global economy in 2008 with Quantitative Easing?

So you thought quantitative easing was over? Think again

I take it you are unfamiliar with debt. We can spend money we don't have but eventually it must stop.

When the government uses its sovereign right to issue currency directly into the productive economy (instead of bonds and other debt instruments), it stands to increase tax revenues enough to cover its direct spending.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"This is due to the “velocity of money” – the number of times a dollar is traded in a year, from farmer to grocer to landlord, etc.

"In a good economy, the velocity of the M1 money stock (coins, dollar bills, demand deposits and checkable deposits) is about seven; and each recipient will pay taxes on this same dollar as it changes hands.

"According to the Heritage Foundation, total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is now 26 percent. Thus one dollar of new GDP results in about 26 cents of increased tax revenue.

"Assuming each of the seven trades is for taxable GDP, $1.00 changing hands seven times can increase tax revenue by $7.00 x 26 percent = $1.82.

"In theory, then, the government could get more back in taxes than it paid out."

What you are essentially cut and pasting is called trickle down economics. There are many that claim it does not work.

You have still not posted where you plan on getting this initial ubi. What happens when the economy crashes? How long do you need to fund this ubi before it can be self sustaining, if ever? What do we do about our existing debt and future debt until ubi pays for itself? How do we convince inflation to not outpace ubi? How do we convince people to actually find and hold a job instead of becoming dependent on ubi just as some have done with welfare?

You seemed to have missed the last line in your whole little post "in theory". Theory is great but seldom proves itself practical in real life. "In theory" the government could give each citizen a million dollars or a billion dollars but in reality it would not work.

He is saying, 'Just print the money' and then distibute it to the people. They will then return it at interest.

This is basically the fallacy of perpetual energy.

Connect a generator to a battery source and use the battery source as an engine to power the generator.

I'll be he doesn't understand why it doesn't work.

He is saying, 'Just print the money' and then distibute it to the people. They will then return it at interest.

Actually, the people will consume goods and service with their UBI stipend which will increase GDP, right?

Wrong.

You do realize that there is always a loss in an enclosed system?

 

[georgephillip]

Do you see any reason why government can not spend money directly into the real economy in a similar fashion to how it bailed out the economic parasites who crashed the global economy in 2008 with Quantitative Easing?

So you thought quantitative easing was over? Think again

I take it you are unfamiliar with debt. We can spend money we don't have but eventually it must stop.

When the government uses its sovereign right to issue currency directly into the productive economy (instead of bonds and other debt instruments), it stands to increase tax revenues enough to cover its direct spending.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"This is due to the “velocity of money” – the number of times a dollar is traded in a year, from farmer to grocer to landlord, etc.

"In a good economy, the velocity of the M1 money stock (coins, dollar bills, demand deposits and checkable deposits) is about seven; and each recipient will pay taxes on this same dollar as it changes hands.

"According to the Heritage Foundation, total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is now 26 percent. Thus one dollar of new GDP results in about 26 cents of increased tax revenue.

"Assuming each of the seven trades is for taxable GDP, $1.00 changing hands seven times can increase tax revenue by $7.00 x 26 percent = $1.82.

"In theory, then, the government could get more back in taxes than it paid out."

Confusing to those who have a simplistic view of the economy.

Confusing to those who have a simplistic view of the economy.

It is counterintuitive for many who've grown up believing the federal government's economic limitations are the same as a household; however, the two are completely different when it comes to managing debt.

MMT and Taxing the Rich | Beat the Press | CEPR

"I don’t consider myself an MMTer, but there is a basic Keynesian concept which has been associated with MMT, (Modern Monetary Theory) which is both true and important.

"For the federal government, taxes are not about raising revenue, taxes are about reducing consumption to prevent inflation.

"The point is that the federal government does not need taxes for revenue, since it can just print money. It instead taxes to create the room in the economy for government spending.

"This view is sometimes wrongly taken as a 'get out of jail free' card, where the government can spend whatever it wants without worrying about raising revenue."

Some people think that printing money leads to inflation. Think about it. Every dollar in our economy was "just printed." That is how sovereign money works. The problem is that the money printed has to be matched with an increased productivity or inflation will occur.

The monkey wrench in the works is the Federal Reserve. Without that we would have no national debt.

The monkey wrench in the works is the Federal Reserve. Without that we would have no national debt.

The Fed is certainly responsible for many of our economic problems, but I wonder what (if anything) would serve as our lender of last resort if it disappeared?

 

[georgephillip]

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

You can not have something just show up. If I give you three rocks (I am keeping it simple for you) then you give one rock to each of three people and then they give you back only a portion of the rock you gave them. How long can you give each person a whole rock? It is a simple question, there is no hidden answer.

So basically you are saying that you think money falls out of the air. We just print more. If you give someone $10.00 you have to get that $10.00 from some where. The funny thing is there is no magic involved.

Do you see any reason why government can not spend money directly into the real economy in a similar fashion to how it bailed out the economic parasites who crashed the global economy in 2008 with Quantitative Easing?

So you thought quantitative easing was over? Think again

I take it you are unfamiliar with debt. We can spend money we don't have but eventually it must stop.

When the government uses its sovereign right to issue currency directly into the productive economy (instead of bonds and other debt instruments), it stands to increase tax revenues enough to cover its direct spending.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"This is due to the “velocity of money” – the number of times a dollar is traded in a year, from farmer to grocer to landlord, etc.

"In a good economy, the velocity of the M1 money stock (coins, dollar bills, demand deposits and checkable deposits) is about seven; and each recipient will pay taxes on this same dollar as it changes hands.

"According to the Heritage Foundation, total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is now 26 percent. Thus one dollar of new GDP results in about 26 cents of increased tax revenue.

"Assuming each of the seven trades is for taxable GDP, $1.00 changing hands seven times can increase tax revenue by $7.00 x 26 percent = $1.82.

"In theory, then, the government could get more back in taxes than it paid out."

What you are essentially cut and pasting is called trickle down economics. There are many that claim it does not work.

You have still not posted where you plan on getting this initial ubi. What happens when the economy crashes? How long do you need to fund this ubi before it can be self sustaining, if ever? What do we do about our existing debt and future debt until ubi pays for itself? How do we convince inflation to not outpace ubi? How do we convince people to actually find and hold a job instead of becoming dependent on ubi just as some have done with welfare?

You seemed to have missed the last line in your whole little post "in theory". Theory is great but seldom proves itself practical in real life. "In theory" the government could give each citizen a million dollars or a billion dollars but in reality it would not work.

He is saying, 'Just print the money' and then distibute it to the people. They will then return it at interest.

This is basically the fallacy of perpetual energy.

Connect a generator to a battery source and use the battery source as an engine to power the generator.

I'll be he doesn't understand why it doesn't work.

Connect a generator to a battery source and use the battery source as an engine to power the generator.

Identify your terms.
To what specific aspect of an economy does "generator", "battery source", and "engine" correspond to?

 

[Darkwind]

Do you see any reason why government can not spend money directly into the real economy in a similar fashion to how it bailed out the economic parasites who crashed the global economy in 2008 with Quantitative Easing?

So you thought quantitative easing was over? Think again

I take it you are unfamiliar with debt. We can spend money we don't have but eventually it must stop.

When the government uses its sovereign right to issue currency directly into the productive economy (instead of bonds and other debt instruments), it stands to increase tax revenues enough to cover its direct spending.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"This is due to the “velocity of money” – the number of times a dollar is traded in a year, from farmer to grocer to landlord, etc.

"In a good economy, the velocity of the M1 money stock (coins, dollar bills, demand deposits and checkable deposits) is about seven; and each recipient will pay taxes on this same dollar as it changes hands.

"According to the Heritage Foundation, total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is now 26 percent. Thus one dollar of new GDP results in about 26 cents of increased tax revenue.

"Assuming each of the seven trades is for taxable GDP, $1.00 changing hands seven times can increase tax revenue by $7.00 x 26 percent = $1.82.

"In theory, then, the government could get more back in taxes than it paid out."

What you are essentially cut and pasting is called trickle down economics. There are many that claim it does not work.

You have still not posted where you plan on getting this initial ubi. What happens when the economy crashes? How long do you need to fund this ubi before it can be self sustaining, if ever? What do we do about our existing debt and future debt until ubi pays for itself? How do we convince inflation to not outpace ubi? How do we convince people to actually find and hold a job instead of becoming dependent on ubi just as some have done with welfare?

You seemed to have missed the last line in your whole little post "in theory". Theory is great but seldom proves itself practical in real life. "In theory" the government could give each citizen a million dollars or a billion dollars but in reality it would not work.

He is saying, 'Just print the money' and then distibute it to the people. They will then return it at interest.

This is basically the fallacy of perpetual energy.

Connect a generator to a battery source and use the battery source as an engine to power the generator.

I'll be he doesn't understand why it doesn't work.

Connect a generator to a battery source and use the battery source as an engine to power the generator.

Identify your terms.
To what specific aspect of an economy does "generator", "battery source", and "engine" correspond to?

It can refer to any closed system. The generator would be the government, the battery would be the people, the money the energy in the system.

With each cycle, the energy becomes less and less. I give a dollar to the government, the government gives a dollar to someone else who then gives back a fraction in the form of taxes. Another dollar is given by someone else, the government hands it out to another who give back a fraction in taxes. In each transaction, the return is a fraction of the outlay.

Eventually it reduces to zero and the system collapses.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I take it you are unfamiliar with debt. We can spend money we don't have but eventually it must stop.

When the government uses its sovereign right to issue currency directly into the productive economy (instead of bonds and other debt instruments), it stands to increase tax revenues enough to cover its direct spending.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"This is due to the “velocity of money” – the number of times a dollar is traded in a year, from farmer to grocer to landlord, etc.

"In a good economy, the velocity of the M1 money stock (coins, dollar bills, demand deposits and checkable deposits) is about seven; and each recipient will pay taxes on this same dollar as it changes hands.

"According to the Heritage Foundation, total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is now 26 percent. Thus one dollar of new GDP results in about 26 cents of increased tax revenue.

"Assuming each of the seven trades is for taxable GDP, $1.00 changing hands seven times can increase tax revenue by $7.00 x 26 percent = $1.82.

"In theory, then, the government could get more back in taxes than it paid out."

Confusing to those who have a simplistic view of the economy.

Confusing to those who have a simplistic view of the economy.

It is counterintuitive for many who've grown up believing the federal government's economic limitations are the same as a household; however, the two are completely different when it comes to managing debt.

MMT and Taxing the Rich | Beat the Press | CEPR

"I don’t consider myself an MMTer, but there is a basic Keynesian concept which has been associated with MMT, (Modern Monetary Theory) which is both true and important.

"For the federal government, taxes are not about raising revenue, taxes are about reducing consumption to prevent inflation.

"The point is that the federal government does not need taxes for revenue, since it can just print money. It instead taxes to create the room in the economy for government spending.

"This view is sometimes wrongly taken as a 'get out of jail free' card, where the government can spend whatever it wants without worrying about raising revenue."

Some people think that printing money leads to inflation. Think about it. Every dollar in our economy was "just printed." That is how sovereign money works. The problem is that the money printed has to be matched with an increased productivity or inflation will occur.

The monkey wrench in the works is the Federal Reserve. Without that we would have no national debt.

The monkey wrench in the works is the Federal Reserve. Without that we would have no national debt.

The Fed is certainly responsible for many of our economic problems, but I wonder what (if anything) would serve as our lender of last resort if it disappeared?

Why would we need a lender if we create our own money?

 

[georgephillip]

I take it you are unfamiliar with debt. We can spend money we don't have but eventually it must stop.

When the government uses its sovereign right to issue currency directly into the productive economy (instead of bonds and other debt instruments), it stands to increase tax revenues enough to cover its direct spending.

How to Fund a Universal Basic Income Without Increasing Taxes or Inflation

"This is due to the “velocity of money” – the number of times a dollar is traded in a year, from farmer to grocer to landlord, etc.

"In a good economy, the velocity of the M1 money stock (coins, dollar bills, demand deposits and checkable deposits) is about seven; and each recipient will pay taxes on this same dollar as it changes hands.

"According to the Heritage Foundation, total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is now 26 percent. Thus one dollar of new GDP results in about 26 cents of increased tax revenue.

"Assuming each of the seven trades is for taxable GDP, $1.00 changing hands seven times can increase tax revenue by $7.00 x 26 percent = $1.82.

"In theory, then, the government could get more back in taxes than it paid out."

What you are essentially cut and pasting is called trickle down economics. There are many that claim it does not work.

You have still not posted where you plan on getting this initial ubi. What happens when the economy crashes? How long do you need to fund this ubi before it can be self sustaining, if ever? What do we do about our existing debt and future debt until ubi pays for itself? How do we convince inflation to not outpace ubi? How do we convince people to actually find and hold a job instead of becoming dependent on ubi just as some have done with welfare?

You seemed to have missed the last line in your whole little post "in theory". Theory is great but seldom proves itself practical in real life. "In theory" the government could give each citizen a million dollars or a billion dollars but in reality it would not work.

He is saying, 'Just print the money' and then distibute it to the people. They will then return it at interest.

This is basically the fallacy of perpetual energy.

Connect a generator to a battery source and use the battery source as an engine to power the generator.

I'll be he doesn't understand why it doesn't work.

He is saying, 'Just print the money' and then distibute it to the people. They will then return it at interest.

Actually, the people will consume goods and service with their UBI stipend which will increase GDP, right?

Wrong.

You do realize that there is always a loss in an enclosed system?

Actually, the people will consume goods and service with their UBI stipend which will increase GDP, right?

Wrong.

You do realize that there is always a loss in an enclosed system?

Closed Economies and Why They Don't Really Exist

"What Is a Closed Economy?
A closed economy is one that has no trade activity with outside economies.

"A closed economy is self-sufficient, which means no imports come into the country and no exports leave the country.

"The purpose of a closed economy is to provide domestic consumers with everything they need from within the country's borders."

What is a closed economy? Definition and meaning - Market Business News