Universal Basic Income: Biden's Best Bet?

Status
Not open for further replies.

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,604
Reaction score
5,011
Points
280
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
It does not take money out of the economy; such a policy has the effect ensuring full employment of capital resources. It is that increase in efficiency that causes the multiplier.
You seem to believe the money will just materialize. Why is that?
We have a Commerce clause and a central bank. Any subscription to capitalism will do.
So you promote inflationary printing of fiat currency of no real value. That's why your incessant cries for a higher MW will never, ever be satisfied, because inflation will always destroy any increase in value. At this point, you're basically advocating that someone go into all the databases of all the banks and just multiply every account balance by 10. That would fix everything, wouldn't it? Kind of like setting the MW to $100/hr, another thing you won't touch.
What doesn't cause inflation? Simply blaming the Poor and claiming wages will be inflationary is meaningless since wages should outpace inflation on an Institutional basis even if socialism is required to accomplish it
You don't seem to realize that "wages should outpace inflation" would CAUSE inflation, as arbitrarily raising a wage without a matching increase in value would lower the value of the money being paid for it. 7 dollars that can buy an hour of labor are worth more than 15 dollars that can buy the same hour of labor. That's 100% inflation and you're just causing the problem you're trying to outrun. You might as well try to outrun a carrot dangling in front of you that's strapped to your forehead. Think for a moment instead of feeling.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,745
Reaction score
2,794
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
Incentivizing sloth and disincentivizing work will result in a negative multiplier.

Sitting on the couch in his mom's basement, he never thinks that far.
Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics?

Only Capital must circulate under Capitalism. Solving simple poverty via the simplicity of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States induces that form of full employment of capital resources.
We cannot take anyone seriously about economics if they believe wealth can just materialize without being taken out of the economy.

You are basically trying to fill up a swimming pool by filling a bucket at the deep end, sloshing half of it out on the ground, then pouring it into the shallow end.
You would need to appeal to ignorance of economics, to do that.

In my opinion, QE put out a lot of fiat money; when was it recovered? Ensuring more people are circulating that existing QE money means less inflationary tendency due to higher paid labor creating more in demand and generating more in tax revenue.
It did that, and was needed at that time to prevent a much greater collapse of the economy. It is not, however, a good strategy for the long term precisely because it does cause inflation. Higher paid labor also causes inflation unless the job represents increased value, which is why we don't believe we can conquer poverty by just setting the MW to $100/hr.
Increase in value of the increase in productivity is what we should be measuring.

It depends on how much tax revenue we need to generate. That could be the basis for a minimum wage for cost of living adjustments.

What if, a minimum wage of one hundred dollars per hour generated enough revenue to balance the budget and start paying down our debt?
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,745
Reaction score
2,794
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
You don't seem to realize that "wages should outpace inflation" would CAUSE inflation, as arbitrarily raising a wage without a matching increase in value would lower the value of the money being paid for it.
So what. Just one inflationary input. Right wingers would like us to believe that is the only inflationary pressure present. The minimum wage was not increase for around a decade, we still had inflation even if Labor was not benefiting from it.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,604
Reaction score
5,011
Points
280
How are they going to automate when you're taking additional trillions out of the economy?
What are you talking about? Solving simple poverty is a Stimulus not a deterrent. More people spending more money to circulate in our economy.
When you take money out of the economy, economic activity slows down. Fewer jobs are created, more jobs are lost, fewer houses are bought, more houses foreclosed on, more bankruptcies happen, incomes drop, tax revenue drops. Do you get the picture? You're shooting the horse, hoping to heal its broken leg.
I would agree with you in general, but your understanding of what is actually being proposed is a misunderstanding not any form of economic logic or reasoning.

UC in its current form has already demonstrated a multiplier of two. Improving that function could render the multiplier even higher.

Equal protection of the law for UC is simply more efficient for our economy when the unemployed can more fully participate in our market economy by simply circulating Capital under our form of Capitalism.
Your misunderstanding is where that capital comes from in the first place. This is the opportunity cost I'm talking about. That money comes from people's paychecks, reducing their ability to provide for their families. It comes out of capital funds, reducing the amount of capital available for business startups. It doesn't just materialize.
Are you new here? What do you believe QE was, besides helping the Rich but not the Poor?
What does QE have to do with it? QE was borrowing a lot of money that will have to come out of the economy. It was done as an emergency measure to prevent economic collapse, not as a long-term measure to provide welfare benefits.
Corporate welfare is means tested welfare.
Which is irrelevant to your dogmatic and incorrect insistence that you are not getting equal protection under the law because you can't collect UC unless you get laid off from a job.
UC has demonstrated a multiplier of two.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
lol. A multiplier of two means for every dollar spent on that policy, two dollars of economic activity is generated. Thus, that approximately three trillion dollar expenditure will generate approximately six trillion in economic activity.
And what is the opportunity cost of taking the money out of the economy? You refuse to address that, like you believe the money will just materialize.
Incentivizing sloth and disincentivizing work will result in a negative multiplier.

Sitting on the couch in his mom's basement, he never thinks that far.
Why should anyone take right wingers seriously about economics?

Only Capital must circulate under Capitalism. Solving simple poverty via the simplicity of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment via unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States induces that form of full employment of capital resources.
We cannot take anyone seriously about economics if they believe wealth can just materialize without being taken out of the economy.

You are basically trying to fill up a swimming pool by filling a bucket at the deep end, sloshing half of it out on the ground, then pouring it into the shallow end.
You would need to appeal to ignorance of economics, to do that.

In my opinion, QE put out a lot of fiat money; when was it recovered? Ensuring more people are circulating that existing QE money means less inflationary tendency due to higher paid labor creating more in demand and generating more in tax revenue.
It did that, and was needed at that time to prevent a much greater collapse of the economy. It is not, however, a good strategy for the long term precisely because it does cause inflation. Higher paid labor also causes inflation unless the job represents increased value, which is why we don't believe we can conquer poverty by just setting the MW to $100/hr.
Increase in value of the increase in productivity is what we should be measuring.

It depends on how much tax revenue we need to generate. That could be the basis for a minimum wage for cost of living adjustments.

What if, a minimum wage of one hundred dollars per hour generated enough revenue to balance the budget and start paying down our debt?
How would it, when almost all jobs would be eliminated and no one would be generating any tax revenue? If anyone thought it would, we would have done it long ago. We didn't, because the reality is it would never work. It is telling, moreover, that your primary concern is that the jobs generate enough tax revenue to pay for your pet projects, not that they provide a living for the workers. You kind of expose your agenda when you do that. You would have the government first wreck the economy and kill tax generation, then pass out money hoping to generate a little bit of new tax revenue, when you could have just left it there in the first place.
 
Last edited:

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,604
Reaction score
5,011
Points
280
You don't seem to realize that "wages should outpace inflation" would CAUSE inflation, as arbitrarily raising a wage without a matching increase in value would lower the value of the money being paid for it.
So what. Just one inflationary input. Right wingers would like us to believe that is the only inflationary pressure present. The minimum wage was not increase for around a decade, we still had inflation even if Labor was not benefiting from it.
It would be an input that would increase inflationary pressure and make it worse. You cannot deny that.
 

Juicin

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
726
Points
140
Day 200, still no UBI check

Killed my 32nd grandma because i got to put food on the table and pay my health insurance

God bless America
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,745
Reaction score
2,794
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
You don't seem to realize that "wages should outpace inflation" would CAUSE inflation, as arbitrarily raising a wage without a matching increase in value would lower the value of the money being paid for it.
So what. Just one inflationary input. Right wingers would like us to believe that is the only inflationary pressure present. The minimum wage was not increase for around a decade, we still had inflation even if Labor was not benefiting from it.
It would be an input that would increase inflationary pressure and make it worse. You cannot deny that.
What do you mean by worse? As a cost of living adjustment it would not be worse for Labor. Wages merely need to outpace inflation on an Institutional basis.
 

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
62,325
Reaction score
9,437
Points
2,070
this Biden-Obama economy is killing us, so is the Biden-Obama corona crisis. we need a new president!
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,604
Reaction score
5,011
Points
280
How would it, when almost all jobs would be eliminated and no one would be generating any tax revenue?
What if all the unemployed could get unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. It could be taxable income.
Think about what you're saying. You're saying that the government should TAX the people already working so it can give some to the people who WON'T work so it can turn around and take some from them. Do you not hear how foolish that is?
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
26,604
Reaction score
5,011
Points
280
You don't seem to realize that "wages should outpace inflation" would CAUSE inflation, as arbitrarily raising a wage without a matching increase in value would lower the value of the money being paid for it.
So what. Just one inflationary input. Right wingers would like us to believe that is the only inflationary pressure present. The minimum wage was not increase for around a decade, we still had inflation even if Labor was not benefiting from it.
It would be an input that would increase inflationary pressure and make it worse. You cannot deny that.
What do you mean by worse? As a cost of living adjustment it would not be worse for Labor. Wages merely need to outpace inflation on an Institutional basis.
You would accelerate inflation. The only way a MW works is if it's kept low enough and increases are small enough that the market can absorb the changes.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,745
Reaction score
2,794
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
How would it, when almost all jobs would be eliminated and no one would be generating any tax revenue?
What if all the unemployed could get unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed. It could be taxable income.
Think about what you're saying. You're saying that the government should TAX the people already working so it can give some to the people who WON'T work so it can turn around and take some from them. Do you not hear how foolish that is?
It sounds like using capitalism for all of its capital worth to me. Capital should be doing the "heavy lifting" in a first world economy.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,745
Reaction score
2,794
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
You don't seem to realize that "wages should outpace inflation" would CAUSE inflation, as arbitrarily raising a wage without a matching increase in value would lower the value of the money being paid for it.
So what. Just one inflationary input. Right wingers would like us to believe that is the only inflationary pressure present. The minimum wage was not increase for around a decade, we still had inflation even if Labor was not benefiting from it.
It would be an input that would increase inflationary pressure and make it worse. You cannot deny that.
What do you mean by worse? As a cost of living adjustment it would not be worse for Labor. Wages merely need to outpace inflation on an Institutional basis.
You would accelerate inflation. The only way a MW works is if it's kept low enough and increases are small enough that the market can absorb the changes.
Market based arbitrage should help our market based economy become more efficient. Who cares if capitalists automate for their bottom line as long as Labor can collect unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

It doesn't get more market friendly than that. UC also acts as an automatic stabilizer and cannot do what right wingers allege.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,968
Reaction score
2,972
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Why not just nationalize all business with revenue under $1 billion and make all people workers for the state?

You can provide housing, food, and medical care.
Why not move away from monopoly capitalism and militarism since the MAGA Virus and its Useless-Eater-in-Chief has proven, once again, how the forces of self-interest regard society solely as a profit opportunity?

Will COVID-19 Make Us More Socialist?

"COVID-19 could also promote grass-roots socialism, or what Mair calls 'mutual aid,' in which people 'organize support and care within their communities' to help people in need.

"Mair notes that local organizations helped overcome the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. 'We can see this as a failure of state responses,' Mair says. 'Or we can see it as a pragmatic, compassionate societal response to an unfolding crisis.'"
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,350
Reaction score
5,699
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
I use a credit card for everything.

I pay the balance in full every statement. Get cash back and convenience. Some free float.

" If you don't have the money for something... don't buy it."
I pay cash for everything, but online, always use a credit card because you really have few other choices. Where I live there are no stores nearby so I do a lot of shopping on Amazon. If somebody breaks into their system, steals your card number and uses it, the credit card company won't charge you for the illegal transactions.
That's true of debit cards as well.

I have two card right now. I have a paypal card which is VISA, and a MasterCard. The MasterCard is a debit card, that is through my bank. And VISA Paypal, is connected to my bank account.

Both cards are covered by VISA and Mastercard. Both of them have the same protections as any other VISA and Mastercard.

Now, I know there are a few bank debit cards, that are not VISA or Mastercard, and then you'd be right.

But most have the same exact protections.

Further, my bank itself also has fraud protection. Meaning in the highly unlikely event that VISA and MasterCard contested the claims of Fraud, my bank itself would cover fraudulent transactions.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,350
Reaction score
5,699
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
n other words, you want the US to hand out $328,000,000,000,000 every month? Thats 4 trillion dollars annually. Are you fucking high?
Do you work in the FIRE sector?
Think of UBI as QE for productive Americans.



The New York Fed, Pumping Out More than $9 Trillion in Bailouts Since September, Gets Market Advice from Giant Hedge Funds

"The New York Fed was in charge of almost all of the secret $29 trillion in bailouts during the 2007 to 2010 financial crisis.

"Congress never approved these loans or was even aware of where the money was going.

"After the Fed lost a multi-year court battle to keep its bailouts a dark secret from the American people, we learned that Morgan Stanley was one of the largest recipients, receiving a cumulative total of $2.04 trillion according to the audit conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)..."

"On top of those facilities, beginning on September 17, 2019 – months before the first case of COVID-19 was reported in the United States – the New York Fed embarked on a massive emergency repo loan operation, which had reached $6 trillion cumulatively in loans by January 6.:eek:

"(See Federal Reserve Admits It Pumped More than $6 Trillion to Wall Street in Recent Six Week Period.).
Because this is bad. This is very bad.

The result will be inflation, that could wreck the economy.

It's exactly what the other posters have said. If you keep on doing that, the result is the money will become worthless.

You should be opposing those bailouts, not encouraging more bailouts.

This is strange thing about left-wingers. You find something bad, but instead of opposing that bad thing, you instead encourage more bad.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,350
Reaction score
5,699
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Anyone who supports handing out 4 trillion per year is irrelevant.
Educate yourself.

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_698.pdf
But that isn't what you complained about. You didn't complain about bailouts, you said let's have more bailouts. That's what your prior post said.

Think of UBI as QE for productive Americans.

If you think bailouts are bad, then we shouldn't have more of them.
If you think bailouts are good, then why are you complaining about Wall St?

You can't have it both ways. You can't say "this is very very very terrible... but we should do more of it".
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,350
Reaction score
5,699
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Free market capitalism and full employment of capital resources is the return on that promotion of the general welfare investment.
When productive capitalism gives way to monopoly capitalism, a new brand of parasite is born:

MR Online | Notes on Marx’s “General Law of Capitalist Accumulation”

"Before long, too, the system breeds a new species: Marx labels them 'a new financial aristocracy, a new variety of parasites in the shape of promoters, speculators and nominal directors, a whole system of swindling and cheating by means of corporation promotion, stock issuance, and stock speculation.'

"Could Marx be talking about us?

"By God yes.

"Nowadays, we know these people by name, by sleazy reputation; we know, too, that within the overall accumulation process this new financial aristocracy has a stake very different to that of productive capital’s."

When productive capitalism gives way to monopoly capitalism, a new brand of parasite is born:

MR Online | Notes on Marx’s “General Law of Capitalist Accumulation”

"Before long, too, the system breeds a new species: Marx labels them 'a new financial aristocracy, a new variety of parasites in the shape of promoters, speculators and nominal directors, a whole system of swindling and cheating by means of corporation promotion, stock issuance, and stock speculation.'


First, there is nothing wrong with capitalist accumulation.

There is nothing wrong, with a person saving and investing, to create more wealth for himself.

Second, monopolies can't exist without government. Stop voting for people who use the power of government to create monopolies through regulations and controls.

You guys create monopolies, not us.

Name one monopoly that exists, without government enforcing it?

Third, there is nothing wrong with promoters. Nothing wrong with speculators. Nothing wrong with corporation promotion.

Who do you think is being cheated?

No one is being cheated.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,350
Reaction score
5,699
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
It is merely and only, compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment.
Capitalism has no requirement to employ everyone. You just want free shit that other, more industrious and competent people have earned.
@Denielpalos has an odd habit of laughing at every post that makes him look stupid....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top