|
|
|
|
|
by crooked-v
932 days ago
|
|
There's a huge difference between typical welfare programs and UBI, in that the fundamental principle of the latter is just handing over money with no strins attached and trusting people to (on average) use it efficiently and effectively. |
|
I see a wide swath of the population strata in my travels, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that some benefits must remain universal and UBI alone (only the fiat, no other support) is insufficient, due to combinations of lack of education, unsophistication, and mental health challenges. We don't rely on people coughing up for police and fire protection on the spot, for example.
I think that's the real conversation: what must be universal (healthcare for sure, non market housing potentially [1]), and what do we fill in with direct fiat transfers on a monthly cadence (which provides for autonomy and choice in matters where discretionary spend is involved). Non market/"socialized" housing ensures a relief valve so these aggregate support mechanisms aren't simply soaked up by rent seekers (with the potential for a "benefit rent" price spiral). You cannot hold hostage what you cannot buy and extract returns from. Think in systems.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38117223
(i provide material support to and advocate for some folks very much on the margin as well as some elderly folks, so these ideas and optimal potential configurations are top of mind, strong opinions on the topic)