
As Andrew Yang Rises, Silicon Valley Questions Universal Basic Income - lawrenceyan
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/andrew-yang-injected-silicon-valleys-favorite-economic-idea
======
tehjoker
I am against UBI because the soon as you give people $1000 dollars, their
rent, transport, and other associated costs will go up by exactly $1000 over a
relatively quick time frame. It will initially look good, but it will be
extremely transient. You'll then have all the same problems you had before and
a huge financial engine sucking in and spitting out tremendous amounts of
money that needs to be managed to no practical effect.

These effects might not be visible with a "mincome" type RCT experiment
because they rely on there being enough extra income lying around for it to be
worth it to industry to design programs and policies around it.

Instead, we should nationalize certain industries and make them free of charge
to end users (e.g. healthcare, public transit, housing, education, etc).

~~~
aeternum
The whole point of a market based economy is allocation of resources. Yes,
rent, transport, and other costs may go up in the short-term with a UBI.
However that creates strong opportunities for companies to come in and compete
to drive those costs down.

In contrast, when you nationalize those industries, there is no incentive to
drive costs down. In fact, costs will likely go up because the more a
nationalized industry spends, the more it gets from next year's budget.

~~~
tehjoker
A market economy distributes scarce resources to those with the most money. It
is fundamentally irrational.

To reuse an example from Richard Wolfe, if there are ten people that need
milk, and there are 5 units of milk, we should distribute them according to
need (e.g. medical, children, vs someone baking a cake). Instead, under a
market, the rich get to buy it for their cat while the poor are priced out of
the market.

~~~
aeternum
It may not seem moral, but allowing the rich to buy the milk for the cat often
makes everyone better off.

The high price for milk and inflow of dollars from the high demand lead to
more dairy farms, or research into milk alternatives. That does not happen if
you seize the milk and distribute it according to need.

~~~
c0nducktr
Why wouldn't the wealthy not having milk for their cat not also result in more
dairy farms or research into milk alternatives?

Both ways there's less milk available than needed, so the problem (lack of
milk) still exists.

~~~
yellowapple
Because in one case the one selling the milk gets money to invest into
providing more milk, and in the other case said seller does not (or gets less
of it).

If those five gallons are to be distributed by need, then that difference in
return needs accounted for as well (i.e. the government doing the
redistribution should also be putting resources into improving milk production
to avoid that situation in the future).

~~~
c0nducktr
Well what prevents the government putting resources into improving milk
production? That just seems to be the logical next step.

It seems the same activity (more milk production) would happen regardless, but
instead of placing the rate of milk production in the hands of the current
milk suppliers, it would be democratically controlled by the people buying the
milk.

~~~
aeternum
In theory it could work, but the government would need experts in milk
production to determine what to invest in. Expand this to every possible good,
and it becomes un-manageable quickly, while also being ripe for corruption.

The producers of the good are typically much better positioned to determine
how to _efficiently_ spend resources to increase production. It is their own
profits, future, and livelihood on the line so they are much more likely to
choose carefully.

~~~
c0nducktr
I'm still not really following.

Can people with knowledge of milk production not be selected for government?
Why would people choose to have those with less knowledge of milk production
to run the milk production department?

~~~
aeternum
Who decides who runs the milk production department?

In a market economy, everyone is free to compete, and everyone votes with
his/her hard-earned dollars each time they purchase some milk.

With the government system, would you have people vote for the best milk
producer? Is the general populace qualified or able to assess skill in milk
production? If you instead decide to appoint this milk producer, how do you
prevent corruption?

~~~
yellowapple
> Is the general populace qualified or able to assess skill in milk
> production?

Is the general populace somehow more qualified or able to make that assessment
if they're voicing said assessment in the form of dollars paid?

~~~
aeternum
Yes, as it is a much simpler question: Is this gallon of milk worth my $3.27?
Maybe this has been a good week and they choose the $4.27 organic variety.

In contrast, when voting for a national milk producer, voters need to take
into account the needs of the general populace, the future efficiency of each
producer, possibly the weather and health of cows in different regions of the
country. It is a much better deal to have the producers take on that risk, and
let the consumers choose once the price and final product are known.

------
kryogen1c
As someone who disagrees on most things with yang and sanders, I didnt see the
most attractive thing about yangs proposal: this UBI replaces other social
safety net programs and aims to gain efficiency by eliminating the overhead
from multiple government offices.

~~~
tyre
This isn’t a big selling point on the left. It would be in the general, but
the make-up of the primary voters is further to the left. Dismantling
government programs isn’t their jam.

~~~
slowmovintarget
It's also an awfully big "if" that it would actually replace them. "I promise"
isn't enough to risk ending up with both the UBI _and_ all the current
programs. Therefore the qualifications aimed at those who disagree on fiscal
grounds simply evaporate when the policy meets the real world. Bait and switch
is older than politics.

------
jmpman
UBI plus removing the minimum wage seems like an interesting option.

------
lr4444lr
I am against UBI, but credit where it's due: it's not easy these days to break
into the national political conversation with a single issue platform so far
outside the Overton Window as Yang has. This is like the old parties of yore
that campaigned on things like a bimetallism or Prohibition.

~~~
forgot-my-pw
It's definitely something that we should research more. It worked for Alaska,
in a smaller scope.

------
IXxXI
America already has Universal Basic Income. Its called Social Security and it
sucks.

------
tyre
UBI is interesting politically. It combines the social welfare and income
inequality that some like on the left and the libertarianism (people choosing
what to do with their money rather than heavier government services) that’s
popular on the non-batshit right.

I doubt that the American electorate would go for it in the next fifty years.
Given that it’s gaining support first on the left combined with the impressive
propensity of the Democratic Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,
navigating such a successfully nuanced political proposal seems to require one
of the once-in-a-generation leader.

High hopes, no expectations of success.

------
clairity
libertarians seem to embrace universal basic income, which is puzzling.
instead, UBI should be viewed as an absolute affront to liberty and freedom,
as it's designed to shackle everyone, rich and poor, to government largess
(libertarian plank issue, not a personal opinion).

further, it's an insidious wealth concentration mechanism aimed at removing
both the motivation and means for upward mobility.

the better policy is to equalize capital and labor power in the economy. we've
had 50 years of granting capital great favor, and those experiments have only
led to corruption, unfairness, and growing poverty and homelessness.

~~~
lawrenceyan
> it's an insidious wealth concentration mechanism aimed at removing both the
> motivation and means for upward mobility.

Wealth concentration mechanism? This seems like the exact opposite of wealth
concentration to me. You're distributing money here.

The removal of upward mobility? Again, I fail to see how providing a basic
income removes upward mobility. It's quite literally the exact opposite. One
of the most difficult parts of getting yourself out of poverty and moving
upward in class socioeconomically, is the seed level funding required to
bootstrap yourself through your non-earning period to earning period. Usually
in most cases, that's the time required to get an education when you're
hemorrhaging money on both sides (i.e. having to pay tuition on one end while
simultaneously having less time to work in favor of being able to have time to
study/take the classes you're paying for on the other).

~~~
clairity
you've bought into the conceit of the whole thing. who doesn't want "free
money"? but it's literally wealth redistribution, and which libertarian wants
that? that "seed money" simply puts the poor in a deeper hole relative to the
rest of the economy, as inflation stabilizes prices aronnd the new floor.
moreso, wealthy folks have just staved off larger socioeconomic changes for
what amounts to pennies.

then think of an alternative world where labor and capital are equal partners
in the optimal allocation of resources (the central promise of capitalism).
labor is no longer in the dark about opportunity costs and accrued benefits
and their fair share of it. consumers negotiate with corporations on equal
footing so we get the fairest prices. as a free person, you no longer need a
handout because you can negotiate fair wages and fair prices.

~~~
lawrenceyan
> but it's literally wealth redistribution, and which libertarian wants that?

To clarify, in your original comment you said that it was a wealth
concentration mechanism. Are you now saying that it is in fact a wealth
distribution mechanism?

