Socialist Crypto Dystopia

[Machinist]

Sometimes Sparko's arguments that giving the poor money will lead to inflation seem to contain the strange assumption that that inflation will somehow make the money given to the poor worthless and that this will therefore not help the poor. Obviously too much inflation would be bad, but it does not at all necessarily mean that greater good isn't being achieved or that poor aren't still being helped by that money.

I see what you're saying. The economy is like a human body and we're giving it medicine to keep it alive and well, but there may be negative side effects of the medicine. The overall thing we're wanting to achieve is that the body stay alive, and sometimes this means treating it with some pretty harsh medicines. Dang, but we're at 30 trillion on the debt. It's like a really old man now and he's on life support. It seems that everything being done now is just taking shots in the dark and hoping for the best(or worst...like someone is intentionally attempting to bring it all down).

[Machinist]

The problem with most small scale tests is that they give too little, or even if they give people a lot of UBI, the economy in the test area is not isolated, meaning production is not dependent on the local test zone. Goods are still being produced normally in the rest of the country so if the test subjects work less, the goods are still there. The economy would not be really affected.

This is a concise picture here. It would have to go global in order to test it. The problem, that has already been pointed out, is human nature. Most of the population are simply not going to be thrifty with the resources. It would require everyone to be on board with the vision of a global utopia, and that level of cooperation is simply not human nature.

[Machinist]

There actually have been small scale tests done in the US using a carefully handpicked selection of applicants to "prove" that a universal basic income has only upsides and no downsides. Of course being small in scale and only giving the money to people who were picked as most likely to be responsible with it produced almost exclusively positive results.

It sounds like woke economics. I'm beginning to think that supply and demand is simply the natural order. For the longest time I was wrestling with making sense of other monetary theories, but now supply and demand is starting to make sense as the only thing you really need to understand.

[Mountain Man]

It's worth noting that even if UBI program do lead to higher unemployment or greater inflation, those are not necessarily sufficient reasons not to do them. The positive effects might outweigh the negative effects. A lot of people who are a bit iffy on the idea of a UBI seem suddenly a lot more happier with it when it is couched in the form of them getting a dividend of the profits of some companies.

Sometimes Sparko's arguments that giving the poor money will lead to inflation seem to contain the strange assumption that that inflation will somehow make the money given to the poor worthless and that this will therefore not help the poor. Obviously too much inflation would be bad, but it does not at all necessarily mean that greater good isn't being achieved or that poor aren't still being helped by that money.

Of course you're the guy who thinks the government could solve poverty by giving every person $1 million, so your understanding of economic principles is questionable at best.

[Diogenes]

It's worth noting that even if UBI program do lead to higher unemployment or greater inflation, those are not necessarily sufficient reasons not to do them.

Higher inflation and higher unemployment would be a vicious circle for a UBI. As inflation rose, cost of living would increase meaning a higher UBI would be needed. More unemployment would mean less workers to produce goods and services leading to supply shortages and higher demand from those working who would likely want higher wages.

The positive effects might outweigh the negative effects. A lot of people who are a bit iffy on the idea of a UBI seem suddenly a lot more happier with it when it is couched in the form of them getting a dividend of the profits of some companies.

A UBI would be funded by taxes and debt, not profits. There's no comparison.

Sometimes Sparko's arguments that giving the poor money will lead to inflation seem to contain the strange assumption that that inflation will somehow make the money given to the poor worthless and that this will therefore not help the poor. Obviously too much inflation would be bad, but it does not at all necessarily mean that greater good isn't being achieved or that poor aren't still being helped by that money.

You keep showing a poor grasp on basic economics.

[Machinist]

Higher inflation and higher unemployment would be a vicious circle for a UBI. As inflation rose, cost of living would increase meaning a higher UBI would be needed. More unemployment would mean less workers to produce goods and services leading to supply shortages and higher demand from those working who would likely want higher wages.



A UBI would be funded by taxes and debt, not profits. There's no comparison.



You keep showing a poor grasp on basic economics.

I think the basic gist of Star's model are strategic trade-offs here and there to simply keep things going. Under current economic circumstances, sometimes money supplies need to be artificially inflated just to keep it all from crashing, just to keep it artificially limping along long enough to implement real supply and demand solutions. That's just my stab at making sense of what he's talking about.

[Diogenes]

I think the basic gist of Star's model are strategic trade-offs here and there to simply keep things going. Under current economic circumstances, sometimes money supplies need to be artificially inflated just to keep it all from crashing, just to keep it artificially limping along long enough to implement real supply and demand solutions. That's just my stab at making sense of what he's talking about.

Star's model is primarily driven by strategic trade-offs between ideology and reality.

[Machinist]

Star's model is primarily driven by strategic trade-offs between ideology and reality.

Maybe. The economy shouldn't have gotten to this point, but here we are. Now we have to climb out somehow. If we were to suddenly return to a supply and demand driven economy, after having gotten to the point we're at now, it may be too abrupt that it crashes everything. So it's like we have to tip toe out of it. Again, just shooting in the dark here trying to make sense of it all.

[CivilDiscourse]

It's worth noting that even if UBI program do lead to higher unemployment or greater inflation, those are not necessarily sufficient reasons not to do them. The positive effects might outweigh the negative effects. A lot of people who are a bit iffy on the idea of a UBI seem suddenly a lot more happier with it when it is couched in the form of them getting a dividend of the profits of some companies.

Sometimes Sparko's arguments that giving the poor money will lead to inflation seem to contain the strange assumption that that inflation will somehow make the money given to the poor worthless and that this will therefore not help the poor. Obviously too much inflation would be bad, but it does not at all necessarily mean that greater good isn't being achieved or that poor aren't still being helped by that money.

Higher unemployment....I don't think so (at least traditional, want job, don't have job). I would expect lower labor participation rate.

As for inflation. I think that is a no brainer as I put forward in my "Speculation". It's not a matter of "if" but "how much". I don't pretend to know "how much," so I will easily concede the pro/con balance possibly weighing in the factor of UBI. I do know that there would be a feedback cycle between UBI and inflation, it would be (IMO) similar to the physics spring oscillation equation. UBI causes inflation, inflation raises cost of UBI which causes more inflation. I do believe that there is a dampening factor that will lead to an asymptotic steady-state. Again, whether that is a point where the proposed UBI level no longer contributes to inflation, leads to mild steady inflation that is manageable, or leads to unmanageable inflation is a different question.

[Starlight]

Higher inflation and higher unemployment would be a vicious circle for a UBI. As inflation rose, cost of living would increase meaning a higher UBI would be needed. More unemployment would mean less workers to produce goods and services leading to supply shortages and higher demand from those working who would likely want higher wages.

Yawn. Evidence-free assertions aren't very interesting.

A UBI would be funded by taxes and debt, not profits. There's no comparison.

??? What a bizarre assertion.

You keep showing a poor grasp on basic economics.

LOL. You mean I have to keep educating you guys on really basic Econ 101 ideas.

[Diogenes]

Yawn. Evidence-free assertions aren't very interesting.

More money in the money supply or more money chasing the same (or less) number of goods would lead to inflation. That's not controversial. A simply primer from Forbes only two months after the Russian invasion:

What Causes Inflation?


Inflation is caused when demand exceeds supply. In other words, when there is too much money chasing too few goods and services, prices rise. It’s really that simple. Let’s go a bit deeper.

Supply: The pandemic caused the greatest supply-chain disruption of the modern era. Businesses rely on its workers to produce. When workers are in short supply, production falls, reducing supply. That’s precisely what happened. From acquiring the needed materials to processing them for production, to shipping them to distribution centers to transporting goods to the retail outlet, to staffing the retail outlet, the pandemic has caused a major disruption. Thus, supply has declined substantially due to Covid-19. Moreover, some locations are experiencing yet another wave of Covid cases. Remember, supply is not just a U.S. issue, it’s a world-wide issue.

Demand: At the onset of the pandemic, the U.S. government, in an effort to prop up the economy, passed several pieces of legislation, resulting in a great deal of money in the hands of consumers and businesses. Generous unemployment benefits paid low-wage workers more money than they earned when working. Congress also sent direct payments to families. For example, the child tax credit paid $300 per month for each child under age 6, and $250 per month for each child 6-17 years old. This expired at the end of 2021. Government support led to the shortest recession in U.S. history, lasting only two months.

If you prefer, from the Harvard Business Review:

What causes inflation?


At its root, inflation is driven by too much demand relative to supply. More precisely, as former Fed chair Ben Bernanke writes in his macroeconomics textbook with Andrew Abel: “Inflation occurs when the aggregate quantity of goods demanded at any particular price level is rising more quickly than the aggregate quantity of goods supplied at that price level.”

Money supply: Then there’s the demand side of the equation. An increase in the money supply will tend to cause inflation, as Moss explains. “With more cash in their pockets and bank accounts, consumers often find new reasons to buy things,” he writes in the book. “But unless the supply of goods and services has increased in the meantime, the consumers’ mounting demand for products will simply bid up prices, thus stoking inflation. Economists sometimes say that inflation rises when ‘too much money is chasing too few goods.’” This is sometimes referred to as “demand-pull inflation.”

Even Vox, a well know progressive outlet, ran an article in May 2022 (only a few months into the Russian invasion) titled: Biden’s American Rescue Plan worsened inflation. The question is how much.

Even the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco concluded:

The United States is experiencing higher rates of inflation than other advanced economies. In this Economic Letter we argue that, among other reasons explored by the literature, the sizable fiscal support measures aimed at counteracting the economic collapse due to the COVID-19 pandemic could explain about 3 percentage points of the recent rise in inflation.

It's pretty well known that when the government injects cash into the economy, inflation will happen.

??? What a bizarre assertion.

How would a UBI be funded? Alaska and Norway fund their spending via oil extraction, yet oil is haram to environmentalists so even those programs are under threat from the same people who advocate a UBI. Either spending would have to be diverted, more taxes would have to be raised, or otherwise a the UBI would contribute to a deficit (i.e debt financed).

LOL. You mean I have to keep educating you guys on really basic Econ 101 ideas.

That has yet to be demonstrated.

[Sparko]

1. 666 is the opposite of a unique identifier number if every person has it.
2. 666 (or as some manuscripts use, 616), is nothing more than Jewish gematria disguising the name of Nero.
3. I considered sharing my opinon on the actual meat of the topic but it appears the thread has devolved into an End Times Christian circlejerk so I'll leave y'all to it.

I was being facetious. In truth, I think Revelation is apocalyptic literature, basically coded visions, not literal description of the end times events. Whatever the mark of the beast ends up being, it will be something that identifies followers of the devil who choose to identify with him voluntarily, not some trick the devil pulls on people to damn them with his mark.

[Sparko]

With increasing automation, and AI etc, aren't we going to need people to work less anyway?

The people who own the AI and the Business would be getting the fruits of the AI's labor, not the people laid off. But I see AI like I do computers. When computers started on the scene a person could do more work in less time, and so you needed fewer workers to do the same output. You could lay off the extra workers or use them to increase your capacity and output. And you needed people to manage and fix the computers (IT Dept). I think the same will happen with AI. It will become a tool to make people more efficient and increase their output. And you will need people to maintain them and the computers they work on. At first there will be layoffs and such as AI develops and idiot managers think that the AI can replace everyone, But eventually it will all even out. Just another tool to make people more efficient.

And just to take a jab at this OP comment:
You know, like the already existent social security number. (cue ominous music)

[Sparko]

It's worth noting that even if UBI program do lead to higher unemployment or greater inflation, those are not necessarily sufficient reasons not to do them. The positive effects might outweigh the negative effects. A lot of people who are a bit iffy on the idea of a UBI seem suddenly a lot more happier with it when it is couched in the form of them getting a dividend of the profits of some companies.

Sometimes Sparko's arguments that giving the poor money will lead to inflation seem to contain the strange assumption that that inflation will somehow make the money given to the poor worthless and that this will therefore not help the poor. Obviously too much inflation would be bad, but it does not at all necessarily mean that greater good isn't being achieved or that poor aren't still being helped by that money.

Increasing the money supply to anyone rich or poor will cause inflation.

Think of it like this. I sell oranges at $1 apiece. I have 3 workers picking and stocking my fruit stand. Then the government gives them $2000/month UBI. They quit working and I have to do everything myself. That makes me have to charge more for my oranges because I won't have as big a supply picking everything myself, so I raise the price to $5 Orange. Or worse, I just quit and live off of my UBI. Then the supply of oranges goes down even further. All of a sudden there is an orange shortage. People still want oranges but there aren't enough to go around. So the prices go up even further. But people have free money so they aren't bothered. Soon an Orange costs $100 (along with other goods and services) and that $2000/month UBI can only buy what $100 did before UBI. Now people are bothered. They need more UBI!

Another thing to consider. Even if supply doesn't go down, there will be a lot more free money floating around. Unless you can create an unlimited supply there will always be more demand than supply for most things. So people start competing for items, willing to pay more and more to outbid others, again that $1 orange ends up costing $100 because hey, it's free money so I will pay more to get what I want.