
Andrew Yang says the coronavirus outbreak shows why we need basic income - hckr_nj
https://www.inverse.com/innovation/basic-income-coronavirus
======
olivermarks
Tulsi Gabbard took on the primary UBI campaigning after Yang ran out of money
and went to CNN, and floated a bill in congress very early into the CV19
panic. Crickets from the media about this, but lots of noise about other pols
who subsequently stole a lot of the messaging and legal framework. As a
Gabbard supporter I found this extremely irritating.

~~~
stallmanite
As a former Gabbard supporter I was shocked that she endorsed Joe Biden who
has said he’d veto Medicare for All if it passed. To me that’s a much more
direct impact on the COVID issue.

~~~
olivermarks
The rationale for Gabbard supporting - not endorsing - Biden was in part to
short circuit the insane msm Russia/Assad/Modi smears and the 3rd party
predictions. As the only lifelong Democrat in the field, Gabbard had legally
agreed to support the DNC candidate, who is clearly Biden based on Sander's
lamentable performance. Not the outcome I wanted but given that the media hid
Gabbard this tees her up for another shot in 2024 when Trump leaves office.

~~~
hncensorsnonpc
Can you elaborate on "legally agreed". She was openly talking to lots of
alternative media about the currupt establishment and how the DNC does not
want her. She should "illegally" support Sanders or nobody. She would got lot
of press for it. Super disappointed with her, there was also this Israel Gaza
thing where she voted wrong and disappointed me already but I could let that
slide. I will never put my hope into any politician anymore. The system is
broken and even the outcasts who are, at least when they start out, for the
people pathetically cave to it. Same for Sanders, he endorsed Hillary -
pathetic!

~~~
olivermarks
[https://twitter.com/olivermarks/status/1244501028122189824/p...](https://twitter.com/olivermarks/status/1244501028122189824/photo/1)

------
IXxXI
UBI is social security 2.0.

Change my mind.

~~~
sova
Guaranteed Income is raising the sea level of capitalism so that people start
from $1000/mo. instead of $0/mo. That's not SS, that's changing the ambient
conditions of capitalism.

------
lonelappde
Hayek, the god of libertarians, advocate of UBI In the Libetarian Bible "The
Road to Serfdom".

Strangely, I never hear Libertarians tell me that.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek)

------
sova
Too bad UBI gives money to everyone indiscriminately, weakening the dollar
that makes it to the hands of the needy. UBI should be a gradient-based income
scheme for people below a threshold. Otherwise, we are conceding that
"Billionaires will die without UBI" which is disingenuous and not true.

~~~
calmworm
I’m trying to understand your point here. Weakens the dollar, sure, to some
degree. I’m not understanding the “billionaires will die without UBI” part
though.

~~~
sova
It's a tongue-in-cheek statement to highlight the absurdity of giving money to
everyone especially the affluent. Clearly, issuance of new currency must be
done decisively, the point is that billionaires do not need UBI and therefore
it should not be "universal." Giving money to all without "means testing"
increasing the cost of the program by about 2x and reduces the benefit to the
people intended to benefit. It does not delete the income inequality gap, but
would simply displace it vertically without affecting the endpoints if
everyone got an equal sum.

~~~
donavanm
And are billionaires a meaningful portion of the populace or total payments?
Or are you trying to both use means testing as a way of significantly
restricting beneficiaries while still calling it “universal”?

~~~
sova
The "universal" in "universal basic income" is what makes it undesirable
because affluent people don't need money and giving it to them devalues money
given to the needy, commodity prices spike when a fund is issued (like in
Kuwait, they could not avoid it because when the supply of money increased
commodity prices spiked up). While there are only 607 billionaires in the US,
I was using the term billionaires as emblematic of anyone with a decent level
of affluence. I do not think we should be striving for "universal" basic
income because it turns into "universal" rampant inflation with diluted (=
eventually zero ) beneficiaries

