/biz/ - Business & Finance

probably not but it's the best we got on short notice

>>17977383
I'd guess so.

>>17977363
Once this artificial deflation is over and the economy picks up again, we Weimar

It'll cause hyperinflation

>>17977417
How exactly?

>>17977363
Have fun with your paper when the stores are empty.

Dunno, how is welfare improving the black community?

There's no solution, we shouldn't have been made this weak to begin with

>>17977440
UBI is different from welfare fundamentally.

>>17977436
Maybe you can use your 100 dollar bills as toilet paper lol.

>>17977435
I just told you >>17977404

>>17977457
But how does it cause inflation if the money distributed is the same one paid by the population?
It's not new money.

>>17977363

No, its retarded. Money is digits, it doesn't DO anything. Its not going to cure people or produce food out of thin air. Its not going to stock the grocery shelves or warp in houses. Its just digits on a piece of paper, at best its a placebo to placate the populace.

>>17977417
t. retard

>>17977508
But what does make people produce more products is other people able to buy them.
Woops, half the population can't buy anything because the corona wrecked their jobs. If only they could have a basic income that's universal to everyone and doesn't stop if they find a new job....

>>17977489

Are you retarded? Of course its "new" money. You think the government was just turning a cool $1trillion+ surplus last year to pay for this stimulus?

>>17977489
Spending causes inflation, especially when everyone suddenly realizes that way too much money was printed, then everybody dumps the currency all at once, which is called hyperinflation

>>17977541

Yeah, its the production that's shut down due to the corona, not because people don't have money to buy the products if they did make them. So handing out money isn't going to make more goods and services available. Its just going to make people have to out bid each other for the limited supply available.

>>17977549
The very foundation of UBI states that it's paid by the population and redistributed to them in a set amount equal to everyone that doesn't stop or lowers if said person finds work that increments that same income.

It's like saying paying taxes causes inflation.

>>17977541
You smell like reddit

>>17977363
There are a lot of people who just don't need to fucking work. They can be replaced by robots. So what do you want to do with them? If you answered "we're just gona kill em" then congrats you're as intelligent as an 18th century French aristocrat. Those of us with a front brain have decided on state welfare.

>>17977363
No, it debases the currency, it can cause hyperinflation, and it can turn the USA into a banana republic country.
Why not 10k, 100k, 1 mi?
Keep prodding USA and we will eventually lose the reserve currency. It's all downhill from there.

>>17977575
Not like the internet is a thing that can be used to adapt to these times, mind you. That would just dumb.

Can you imagine? Buying things online and delivered to your door instead of going to a physical location? Preposterous.

>>17977363
No, it will only hurt the economy. An economy is the goods and services produced. UBI would take money away from those most likely and able to invest money into creating more goods and services and give it to idiots who are more likely to squander it.

The original idea - Negative Income tax, was a far better idea than UBI. It was meant as a politically viable improvement to the welfare system. UBI was a downgrade, and Andrew Yang's system was even more retarded. Literally wouldn't have replaced any of the current welfare and just added more on top. What shitbrain.

>>17977417
Only if they print a shitload of money to fund it.

No because the money leaves the economy. People don't buy domestic products.

>>17977595
>>17977634
You must be over 18 to use 4channel

>>17977639
>Only if they print a shitload of money to fund it.
What else could they even do lmao? Actually pay for it?! HAHAHAHAHAHAH! Good one.

>>17977672
I can see the arguments fail you.
On to ad hominens now....

>>17977363
That would result in a temporary bump in the economy, but after that what? Factories won't start producing more magically.

It's better than another corporate bailout that does nothing but reinflate the bubble

>>17977417
Ok boomer

>>17977713
That's not the objective I'm posing.
Just a way for people to have what to spend when they can't buy anything because work is an impossibility for the time being.

>>17977616
>can turn the USA into a banana republic country.
implying...

>>17977595

The amount of tax needed to full fund any significant UBI would be absurd. To even fund $1000/month in the US would require increasing government revenue by like 50%.

Even if was funded, velocity of money would increase.

>>17977634

Dude, no one is personally delivering your groceries when the grocery has no stock.

>>17977693
You clearly have no idea how inflation works. It's not just about whether the money was printed or taxed, inflation is determined by spending and public sentiment. Come back after you read some investopedia pages

>>17977639
What do you mean squander it? They don't need the peasants to invest or start businesses, they need you to buy things. If there's UBI they expect you to do the exact same thing you do with your paycheck now: pay rent, buy groceries, buy an iPhone, go on a cruise.

The rich can only make money if there is revenue. Someone somewhere has to consume products. So we will play a funny game where the government gives people money which they will then give to the corporations to justify production.

What is your preference, for the government to pay corporations directly to merely exist? Perhaps they make things just to deliver them directly to a large landfill? Should the companies not exist at all once nobody can afford their products?

The fact is, in a post-automation society there's going to be a sizable portion of society that is unneeded in the economy. They aren't going to disappear. They can either live in sheds and eat rice and not participate in society at all, or they can be given a small stipend of money to keep them consuming, thus justifying and enabling the rich to make more money.

>>17977779
>First
The idea of UBI is to replace every tax and government programs with it. So you can grab everything you pay as tax to the gov and deduce that from the amount needed to fund the UBI.

>The second
If I were the company making the groceries I'd happy as fuck because I actually need to make more of my stuff because the demand is so high and suddenly people have the money thanks to UBI.
Thanks internet! Thanks UBI! Now I'm even richer!

>>17977757
And then what? Do you expect those people to eternally survive off of UBI?

>>17977768
The USA is not a banana republic. I was almost convinced it was this year when bloomberg entered the race (i.e. buy the presidency).
Didn't work.
All that russian collusion couldn't even purchase a single delegate lol ;)

>>17977865
UBI is still in test, but the tests they did showed the wanted result: people having more time in their hands thanks to that money to invest in education, better quality of life and search for better jobs.
That happened because people always wants more money, so they won't stop wanting a new and better job and, since the UBI doesn't stop once they get one, this gives them the breathing room to go after one and not feel shackled to that aweful one you need because the rent is due.

>>17977865
The concept of 'earning your keep' will have to go away unless you want 75% of everyone in mud huts because they are incapable of designing an AI. Most people do enough to get a job, which is where they do something they don't care about in exchange for money. Peel the onion back a layer and ask if we expect everyone to 'survive' off of filing paperwork or delivering packages full of bullshit to houses. That's also a contrivance where man has nothing to do with providing for or defending himself.

So yes, UBI would be the solution (curse) to justify capitalism indefinitely.

>>17977945
>but the tests they did showed the wanted result: people having more time in their hands thanks to that money to invest in education, better quality of life and search for better jobs.
Nah.
Maybe in the short term. UBI debases the USD. (why 1000, why not 1 million????).
In the short/long term it eventually leads to loss & collapse of the reserve currency, hyperinflation, or citizens voting for additional UBI (i.e. collapse).

UTI is a valuable sensation for stooping an ergonomic meltdown

>>17977860

Production is shut down because of corona, not because people aren't buying. Do you not get that? Its a supply problem. The story is sold out because production is shut down. Printing bills isn't going to warp in a restock from the nether.

Also you're talking about UBI as a replacement for government safety nets, UBI by definition would cost more because it would apply to every one, not just the poor, and it would not be used for necessities like food, housing and healthcare. So its a lot more wasteful.

You can make an argument the current government safety nets are wasteful, and UBI as a replacement is less worse, (i like the idea of a working welfare type thing) but that's not really my point. UBI would do jack shit in an economic crisis like we have now. Paper money and digits don't actually do anything of value.

>>17977363
No, a ridiculously large one lump sum is though.

>>17977945
What you are suggesting is not a new idea, it's already been tried countless times and it always results in the same: you redistribute wealth from the productive sectors of the economy to the unproductive sectors. Also, lat time I checked UBI tests were a failure.

No, if anything it will create horrific inflation and consumer goods will become unaffordable for most people. Government and the Fed need to step down and let the adjustment take place. The crash of 1920 showed how quickly the economy can recover if they just back the fuck up and let the distortions in the economy sort themselves out.

>>17977997
>So yes, UBI would be the solution (curse) to justify capitalism indefinitely.
No. UBI is reproduction welfare -> acceleration of the loss of reserve currency -> breeding softer people -> voting for more ubi -> zimbabwe levels of poverty... if you go down the rabbit hole just a little bit... it ends in destruction.

>>17978000
I’m actually for giving everyone $1,000,000 in a one lump sum

>>17977848
lol, please don't vote

>>17977945
lol, it's an old idea that has been studied for decades and the results show almost entirely the opposite. The idea isn't new you fucking moron. Even the new studies from it becoming trendy again don't show that, except for maybe one/

>>17978000
>why 1000, why not 1 million????
Short answer: because the B in UBI is for BASIC.
Long answer: because the idea is to give just enough breathing room for people and stimulate growth with that.
That's why it has to be low. If it was high (aside from economically impossible) if would actually have the opposite effect and make every one lazy. Essentially comunism.

>Reserve currency
The tax paid to pay for the UBI comes from the tax you were already paying, because it's a substitute to all gov programs.
Also, it would be a percentage taken out of your total income including the UBI itself.
So rich people probably won't even feel it because the tax and the amount they'd recieve would round up to zero, and the rest of us would feel a more even plane field in terms of buying power and everything that comes with it.

Plus, the more people have money the faster said money circulates, which makes the economy run faster and suddenly the whole system is more robust.
That's the UBI theory.

Ultimately, there is no easy solution, and we have to redefine what produces a healthy economy, and how a person contributes in such an economy.

The reality is that the vast majority of the people do not have the skills or ability to keep up with this explosion of technology and this ever-changing landscape of jobs.

The job-based model used to make sense where you had generations of people performing the same job, and they performed a dire need. Early farming, for example.

Now, everything has changed, and things are becoming easier and easier.

The economy is going to have to change with the times.

>>17978100
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-the-US-government-gave-everyone-in-the-US-a-million-dollars

>>17977757
If no one is working. The things they want to buy are not being produced. Take food, for example:
Crops require nitrogen fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, water, equipment like tractors, and God knows what else since I'm not a farmer. Each of those things requires people working to get them to the farms, use them, get food out of the ground, and then get it to cities. Each of the people along this chain of things that needs to be done, needs to get replacement parts and needs to work for the food to get to the cities. If they aren't working, food is being eaten, not being produced, and less exists in the U.S. Money is just a way for people to allocate all the many resources they need to get shit like this done. When there is more of it in existence, prices reflect that. Centrally micromanaged economies are not as efficient.

>>17978092
>>17978107
We are talking about a fundamental shift in the structure of society and the economy. You are talking about how the piece would fit in the current puzzle. It won't. You are stuck on things remaining the same and they simply can't.

Yes, UBI is unsound based on current fundamental economic principles. It's propping up the current socioeconomic structure, laying it bare as a contrivance.

Would you prefer we allow the majority of people to have no job, no income, no purpose? Do you think that will result in more or less change than UBI? That's the ultimate dice roll for minds so set on the status quo.

>>17978160
>Long answer: because the idea is to give just enough breathing room for people and stimulate growth with that.
The core problem with your "long answer" is that it sets precedent (forever) within the USA. Representatives will promise more gibs and the citizens will vote for more UBI. UBI is a slippery slope that leads to destruction of the nation and loss of reserve currency (loss of standard of living). Why didn't previous reserve currency countries (UK, Spain, Netherlands, France, Portugal) implement UBI?
>The tax paid to pay for the UBI comes from the tax you were already paying
23 tril USA debt (never being paid back).
> because it's a substitute to all gov programs.
No. Once a gov program is passed it stays forever (i.e. precedent). Ref: social security.

>>17978221
>We are talking about a fundamental shift in the structure of society and the economy.
USA didn't become the richest nation on earth from UBI.
Capitlism (nature) was the result.
> You are talking about how the piece would fit in the current puzzle. It won't.
Correct - and, it's the only winning puzzle.
>You are stuck on things remaining the same and they simply can't.
Cut entitlements. End the welfare state. Create strong, independent people. Restore Capitalism. Enough.
>Would you prefer we allow the majority of people to have no job, no income, no purpose?
A rich nation can provide for those that cannot. The USA cannot afford this at this time.

>>17978048
You are fucking retarded. the stores aren't sold out because people are sick and no one can work. They are sold out because people are panicking and buying as much as they can from the stores.
And UBI isn't money that the government just prints for specifically that function you stupid fuck stop making shit up

>>17978107
>gets bested in an argument
>does a faggoty little snipe as retaliation

>>17978354
yes, let's cut entitlements, the things we've been paying for out of our paychecks every month. what a great idea. fucking kys

>>17978389
literally single digit IQ

do I have to say it?