Universal Basic Income: Biden's Best Bet?

[Andylusion]

nvestments are meant to make money; not guaruntee bankruptcy. Youre fucking crazy if you think handing out 4 trillion per year is a good idea.

What's the multiplier effect of that $4 trillion?

https://pulse.naspo.org/post/keeping-up-with-the-economy-local-economic-multipliers/

The multiplier effect - Economics Help

How many jobs are created/saved?

If UBI replaces most of today's welfare benefits, is society more prosperous and egalitarian?

What's the multiplier effect of that $4 trillion?

If I take $20 out of your paycheck every week, and then give you $1,000 a the end of the year, how is that going to create a multiplier effect?

You are going to have less money, than if we never made the exchange.

Well, that's how government works. Government can't give you a dollar, without taking a dollar from you, plus more.

Government has to pay for itself. So it takes $20 a week, that's $1,040 a year, and hands you a check for $1,000 at the end of the year, and you think this is going to have a multiplier effect? How?

Well you can only think that, if you live in the mythology that government can get that money from the rich, or the magic money faeries.

But that's not going to happen. You are not going to get it from the rich. No country has succeeded in getting the money from the rich, because the rich leave.

And there are no magic money faeries. If you just print money, you end up with hyper inflation, which is why all the countries that have ever tried it, ended up in ruins.

So the money has to come from you.

Therefore... there is no multiplier effect.

 

[Andylusion]

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.'"

What are you even talking about? Out of all the Presidents in the last 30 years, Trump was the least militaristic president ever. He pretty much withdrew our troops from every place he could.

As for the rest of your nonsense.... because Socialism sucks, and has destroyed every country that has ever attempted equality.

 

[hadit]

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.

Think though. Any capital you want to use has to come from working people through taxes. More government spending means more money taken from working people. Even you want to raise MW just to increase tax revenue.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

"(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.

Yet, right wingers have no better solutions. Black codes won't work.

 

[danielpalos]

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".

Solving simple poverty acts as a stimulus and multiplier.

 

[danielpalos]

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....

I only do that to know where I have already responded, and the other reaction icons were even less appropriate. Probably nothing more than the fluff of fallacy instead of any "hard work" to come up with valid rebuttals for arguments. Only lazy right wingers do that.

 

[hadit]

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.

Automation is a great thing for business, not so much for the MW worker. Teenagers used to be able to get a first job pumping gas and checking oil. Not now. They used to be able to bag groceries, but that's going away. Same with counter jobs at McDonald's. Look around you. It won't be long before there will be few true MW jobs and it's going to be very difficult for anyone to get started in the job market. That being said, you seem to think that the government can take care of all those idled workers collecting welfare (it's NOT UC) and smoking pot. The problem is, as it has always been, that the money to pay them has to come from somewhere. You can't just pretend it will materialize with no effect on the economy. If you just print the money to double the MW (or in today's world, update some tables in a database), all you're doing is making the dollar less valuable. What used to buy an hour's labor then would only buy 1/2 hour. Raise it slowly enough and keep it low enough and the market can absorb it. Go too far too fast and it can't.

 

[danielpalos]

nvestments are meant to make money; not guaruntee bankruptcy. Youre fucking crazy if you think handing out 4 trillion per year is a good idea.

What's the multiplier effect of that $4 trillion?

https://pulse.naspo.org/post/keeping-up-with-the-economy-local-economic-multipliers/

The multiplier effect - Economics Help

How many jobs are created/saved?

If UBI replaces most of today's welfare benefits, is society more prosperous and egalitarian?

What's the multiplier effect of that $4 trillion?

If I take $20 out of your paycheck every week, and then give you $1,000 a the end of the year, how is that going to create a multiplier effect?

You are going to have less money, than if we never made the exchange.

Well, that's how government works. Government can't give you a dollar, without taking a dollar from you, plus more.

Government has to pay for itself. So it takes $20 a week, that's $1,040 a year, and hands you a check for $1,000 at the end of the year, and you think this is going to have a multiplier effect? How?

Well you can only think that, if you live in the mythology that government can get that money from the rich, or the magic money faeries.

But that's not going to happen. You are not going to get it from the rich. No country has succeeded in getting the money from the rich, because the rich leave.

And there are no magic money faeries. If you just print money, you end up with hyper inflation, which is why all the countries that have ever tried it, ended up in ruins.

So the money has to come from you.

Therefore... there is no multiplier effect.

Our current and less effective regime of unemployment compensation has shown a multiplier of two. It could be improved by actually solving for simple poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Think though. Any capital you want to use has to come from working people through taxes. More government spending means more money taken from working people. Even you want to raise MW just to increase tax revenue.

A disingenuous argument. The same could be said for corporate welfare; stop being such hypocrites toward the Poor, right wingers.

 

[hadit]

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".

Solving simple poverty acts as a stimulus and multiplier.

The problem is this. Your solution for solving simple poverty doesn't work. If it did, we wouldn't have poverty because we've thrown trillions at it.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Automation is a great thing for business, not so much for the MW worker. Teenagers used to be able to get a first job pumping gas and checking oil. Not now. They used to be able to bag groceries, but that's going away. Same with counter jobs at McDonald's. Look around you. It won't be long before there will be few true MW jobs and it's going to be very difficult for anyone to get started in the job market. That being said, you seem to think that the government can take care of all those idled workers collecting welfare (it's NOT UC) and smoking pot. The problem is, as it has always been, that the money to pay them has to come from somewhere. You can't just pretend it will materialize with no effect on the economy. If you just print the money to double the MW (or in today's world, update some tables in a database), all you're doing is making the dollar less valuable. What used to buy an hour's labor then would only buy 1/2 hour. Raise it slowly enough and keep it low enough and the market can absorb it. Go too far too fast and it can't.

Minimum wage jobs are worthless if they need to be subsidized with means tested welfare for Capitalist's bottom line.

Solving simple poverty through unemployment compensation mean automatic stabilization regarding even minimum wage jobs; labor that would have had to find a job could instead find a local school to learn new skills or upgrade their skills to be worth more in the market for labor.

A multiplier of two or more makes it an investment.

 

[DBA]

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.

Think though. Any capital you want to use has to come from working people through taxes. More government spending means more money taken from working people. Even you want to raise MW just to increase tax revenue.

A disingenuous argument. The same could be said for corporate welfare; stop being such hypocrites toward the Poor, right wingers.

I have read through your numerous threads. It is abundantly clear that you have absolutely no idea what made the US the leading economic power in the word. Implementing your ridiculous ideas would simply bring is DOWN to the rest of the world. I know that is the goal of you globalist anti-Americans, but those of us who can think for ourselves won’t fall for this elementary nonsense.

 

[danielpalos]

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".

Solving simple poverty acts as a stimulus and multiplier.

The problem is this. Your solution for solving simple poverty doesn't work. If it did, we wouldn't have poverty because we've thrown trillions at it.

It is easy to think that. But throwing money at our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror has accomplished even less. And, those policies actually kill people and create refugees for right wingers to also complain about.

Means tested welfare is more expensive and less automatically stabilizing.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Think though. Any capital you want to use has to come from working people through taxes. More government spending means more money taken from working people. Even you want to raise MW just to increase tax revenue.

A disingenuous argument. The same could be said for corporate welfare; stop being such hypocrites toward the Poor, right wingers.

I have read through your numerous threads. It is abundantly clear that you have absolutely no idea what made the US the leading economic power in the word. Implementing your ridiculous ideas would simply bring is DOWN to the rest of the world. I know that is the goal of you globalist anti-Americans, but those of us who can think for ourselves won’t fall for this elementary nonsense.

Two world wars and no wartime destruction is what helped the US become the creditor nation and first world economy it became, not right wing fiscal or monetary policies.

Right wingers have nothing but the fallacy of appeals to ignorance while alleging they are Right, simply because they are on the right wing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

It depends on how you're setup. My debit is through my checking account. If somebody gets my credit card number (and they have in the past) I simply get another credit card with a new number,. If somebody gets my debit card, they have to change my entire checking account. That means all the checks I bought have to be destroyed and replaced. I use checks often because I like to have a paper trail of every tax deductible item or potential deductible item. So I have to buy new checks, unable to use my account until those new checks come in, have to change my routing number for my federal and state tax returns since I do that electronically. It would just be a pain in the ass.

I don't like using my card in stores, especially at places like drive-thru windows where the card is out of my sight. They busted one guy at Burger King who had his cell phone by the register, and when he got a card at the window, he would snap pictures of the front and back of it. People can do the same standing in line at the store. A lot of people are messing around with their phone while waiting in line to kill time. You don't know if they're playing a video game or taking a video of you using your card.

 

[hadit]

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.

Think though. Any capital you want to use has to come from working people through taxes. More government spending means more money taken from working people. Even you want to raise MW just to increase tax revenue.

A disingenuous argument. The same could be said for corporate welfare; stop being such hypocrites toward the Poor, right wingers.

What does corporate welfare have to do with anything and why do you think I support it? Stop bringing in unrelated things in a vain attempt to distract from the main point. The fact remains, ALL government spending has to come from taxpayers.

 

[georgephillip]

Whatever the nature of these women's relationship — whether people agree with it or not or if God hates fags — it "shouldn't" be cause to withhold the dividend, but denied is denied, and there is no appeal at that office.

Conservatives often have difficulty understanding the concept of equality:

Alaska’s Discrimination Against a Gay Couple Shows the Continued Threats to Marriage Equality

"More than four years after the Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land, Alaska appears to be engaged in flagrant discrimination against same-sex couples."

 

[hadit]

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.

Automation is a great thing for business, not so much for the MW worker. Teenagers used to be able to get a first job pumping gas and checking oil. Not now. They used to be able to bag groceries, but that's going away. Same with counter jobs at McDonald's. Look around you. It won't be long before there will be few true MW jobs and it's going to be very difficult for anyone to get started in the job market. That being said, you seem to think that the government can take care of all those idled workers collecting welfare (it's NOT UC) and smoking pot. The problem is, as it has always been, that the money to pay them has to come from somewhere. You can't just pretend it will materialize with no effect on the economy. If you just print the money to double the MW (or in today's world, update some tables in a database), all you're doing is making the dollar less valuable. What used to buy an hour's labor then would only buy 1/2 hour. Raise it slowly enough and keep it low enough and the market can absorb it. Go too far too fast and it can't.

Minimum wage jobs are worthless if they need to be subsidized with means tested welfare for Capitalist's bottom line.

Solving simple poverty through unemployment compensation mean automatic stabilization regarding even minimum wage jobs; labor that would have had to find a job could instead find a local school to learn new skills or upgrade their skills to be worth more in the market for labor.

A multiplier of two or more makes it an investment.

Now it sounds like you're actually thinking.
First, MW jobs are not supposed to provide a "living wage", they are supposed to be low value jobs that give a kid a start in the job market or an unskilled worker without a job history a chance.
Second, we've been over the whole UC mess. It's simply not UC, so stop trying to confuse things. It's welfare you want, because UC is TEMPORARY. What you want is permanent.
Third, getting schooling and training is great, but when you have a large percentage of the work force not working, the economy suffers.

The bottom line is, all these ideas are not bad when a small enough percentage of people do them. When you double the MW overnight the economy couldn't handle it.

 

[georgephillip]

Government dependency is always used to control people.

Southern slave owners used public courts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act; do you blame capitalism or government?

 

[georgephillip]

No. I mean slavery under socialism, where everyone is essentially property of the state.

The means of production are "owned" by society under socialism, unlike capitalism where a few rich individuals depend upon a reserve army of labor to maintain their profit margins.

Socialism. - ppt download