[gnaritas]

> basic income is actually just a continuation of the same inflationary alchemy

It's no such thing; not remotely. BI isn't new money, it's simply a redistribution of money from those with more to those with less. It won't increase the money supply and thus doesn't cause inflation.

[mindslight]

Even if not implemented through monetary inflation, BI will cause price inflation. Housing asset prices are primarily constrained by the affordability of rent - either to a landlord or directly to the bank. If everybody can spend twice as much on rent then rent just doubles, and if interest rates remain the same then paper appraisals double.

BI seems desirable because it addresses a glaring symptom of the inflationary treadmill. But if the treadmill remains the explicit national policy ("full employment"), BI will really just give us even more rope to hang ourselves. The sustainable answer is higher interest rates, so that frugal people can be rewarded for channeling discretionary spending towards paying off principle. But this would diminish our "service economy", which is all we have left after gutting domestic manufacturing.

I think what we're really witnessing is an erosion of money as a decentralized store of value, part of the general centralization of power enabled by digital communication networks.

[gnaritas]

> If everybody can spend twice as much on rent t

False presumption, BI will not enable everyone to spend twice as much on rent.

> BI will cause price inflation.

Unfounded.

> The sustainable answer is higher interest rates, so that frugal people can be rewarded for channeling discretionary spending towards paying off principle.

That doesn't remotely address the issue that BI attempts to solve, lack of available jobs for people due to the effects of automation.

[mindslight]

>> If everybody can spend twice as much on rent

> False presumption

It wasn't a presumption about BI, but a hypothetical framing of an example situation. Please give opposing viewpoints their due interpretation rather than looking for phrases to pick on out of context.

> Unfounded

Once again, this is what we're arguing about. You can't simply quote my conclusion without my supporting arguments and say it's unfounded.

> That doesn't remotely address the issue that BI attempts to solve, lack of available jobs for people due to the effects of automation.

I didn't expand on it, but my view actually does address this. If working people had been able to save money, then they would have had more economic bargaining power to demand higher wages and fewer working hours, gradually over the past few decades. As it stands, we could fix much of the employment issue by redefining "full time" to be 15 hours per week, getting rid of the exempt loophole, and changing overtime to double or triple pay. But this is such a drastic change (because the issue has been building so long), it seems quite ridiculous. But it's important to understand how we got to this point in order to know how to proceed, lest we choose another "quick fix" that actually just makes the situation even worse.

[gnaritas]

I don't think redefining full time to be so few hours would work in this country, nor actually solve the problem, it'd just make most people broke and forced to seek out multiple jobs to survive. Yes, money distribution can affect particular markets where the redistribution increases spending but that's not inflation, inflation is a general rise is all prices, not a rise in a particular sector and BI is a far better longer term solution to the real issue, that life doesn't need to be and long term cannot be dependent on the selling of labor in an age of automation. We need to move beyond the puritan work ethic to something more appropriate for the world that's coming.

[mindslight]

> it'd just make most people broke and forced to seek out multiple jobs to survive

So then change the full time number to be summed over all jobs. It's a cooperation problem where it is in nobody's individual interest to work less (since the marginal utility of surplus over your peer group is extreme), but yet everybody competing for this results in all the surplus thrown onto the bonfire of financialization.

And yes as I said, 15 hours is a drastic change from 40. Because the point is that this should have been happening gradually the whole time. I personally would have preferred it to happen through sane monetary policy rather than government diktat, but either way we should all be working much less.

> We need to move beyond the puritan work ethic to something more appropriate for the world that's coming.

I wholeheartedly agree on this point. But the implementation we're looking for is not BI.

The idea of BI deprecates the idea of having an economy (ie p2p transactions), and replaces it with widespread monthly funding from the government. This will necessarily come with strings attached, inevitably becoming a highly politicized way of dictating individuals' life choices. We already have something quite similar to BI, called welfare/medicaid, which brings no end to hassling its recipients. I believe that BI proponents would say that the aim of BI is to simplify these systems, but this is not a stable state. It is trying to reverse up the gradient of why politicians generate complexity (finding divisive bikeshed issues so people can be led).

[gnaritas]

You're missing something, it doesn't matter how you split the remaining work, the gains from the productivity increases of automation aren't going to the workers regardless of how you muck with their hours; those gains go to the business owners. Splitting up the remaining work to make sure everyone has work only makes sure everyone is poor, they still don't get to keep wealth created by the automation so it's a pointless thing to try and spread the work around.

The goal is not to keep everyone working, the goal is to share the benefits of automation with everyone, not just the capitalist class. BI does this, your solution does not.

Unless you tax automation heavily and redistribute it, workers lose no matter how you slice and dice the hours. It's not enough to work less, you have to work less while not making less and that's simply not in the cards.

> The idea of BI deprecates the idea of having an economy (ie p2p transactions), and replaces it with widespread monthly funding from the government.

Simply not remotely true. Spending money you get from the government is still spending money. Redistributing money from the top to the bottom via BI in no way deprecates the idea of having an economy, it simply depreciates the idea the the economy is based entirely on wage slavery.

> This will necessarily come with strings attached, inevitably becoming a highly politicized way of dictating individuals' life choices.

Also not true, anything with strings isn't BI; the whole point of BI is that everyone gets it without restriction in order to eliminate bureaucracy and thus strings. If it has strings, it isn't BI.

> We already have something quite similar to BI, called welfare/medicaid

Neither of those are remotely similar to BI.

> which brings no end to hassling its recipients

Precisely because they aren't remotely similar to BI and force people to qualify for them; they're exactly what BI is intended to fix, all the hassles and stigma that come with those programs and the shit you have to go through to get them.

Frankly, you leave me thinking you really don't know what BI is, or don't understand it.

[tmnvix]

> Housing asset prices are primarily constrained by the affordability of rent

In a low interest rate environment this is not really true. Speculative booms can and do occur (see Australia). During such booms the ratio of house prices to rents diverges significantly. It is rents that are constrained by wages - not house prices (people don't take out loans to pay rent like they do to buy houses).

[mindslight]

Sure, there are transient booms and busts. But as you imply, those are exceptions. Long term, apartment rents are constrained by wages and likewise monthly payments on mortgages are constrained by wages. Those monthly payments are directly related to interest rate and total asset price.

[AnimalMuppet]

Yes and no. Say I'm a billionaire (I wish). I've got all this money. It's not going into food and rent. (OK, a tiny amount is going into food, but I can only eat three meals a day. And "rent" is more likely buying multi-million-dollar homes.) My money's in investments, maybe some luxuries.

Now we go to BI. Now millions of what used to be my money are going to low-income people. They're spending it on food and rent. No, it's not new money, but it's new to the rent market in whatever city. Will that tend to drive rents up? I think so, yes.

[flukus]

The free market is a tool, a really good one, but just a tool. If it stops producing desirable outcomes then we can use other tools.

Most nations have government housing which serves not just to house the poorest but to put a cap on how much people in the next rung up of society are willing to pay for housing.

[sokoloff]

Absolutely. If I can find some inside track that UBI is coming, I'll be buying a lot of low-end rental property, hopefully before it runs up.

[blurbleblurble]

It's like a game of Monopoly where everyone gets more money, including the people who already have Board Walk and Park Place, etc. #WWJD? Flip the board over. Jubilee.

[sokoloff]

UBI doesn't have that property at all. UBI consciously, intentionally, and overtly transfers money from the net taxpayers to the net benefit receivers. (I support it, but it's absolutely an income transfer mechanism from the higher income to the lower income populations.)

The fact that the "rich" also receive $650/mo in UBI is completely swamped by the fact that they'll pay $30K/month or more in income tax to fund the program.

[gnaritas]

> It's like a game of Monopoly where everyone gets more money,

No it isn't, not even remotely.