←back to thread

Are we the baddies?

(geohot.github.io)
692 points AndrewSwift | 3 comments | 06 Jul 25 05:36 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hardwaresofton ◴[06 Jul 25 07:54 UTC] No.44478703[source]▶
> If you open a government S&P 500 account for everyone with $1,000 at birth that’ll pay their social security cause it like…goes up…wait who’s creating this value again?

This is a good point. Some VCs were major proponents of this (and tons of other business people I'm sure), but this is of course just a guaranteed inflow into the largest companies and the companies that think they will be large some day. Yet another way to reallocate public cash to private companies.

Another similar example is UBI -- its proof of an economy that is not dynamic. It's a tacit approval and recognition of the fact that "no, you probably won't be able to find a job with dignity that can support you and your family, so the government will pay to make you comfortable while you exist".

replies(4): >>44478725 #>>44478933 #>>44481973 #>>44485796 #
tossandthrow ◴[06 Jul 25 08:41 UTC] No.44478933[source]▶
> make you comfortable while you exist

I don't think there are many proponents of that type of ubi.

The way, at least I, see ubi is absolute subsistence - with a right to earn above that without affecting your subsistence.

IMHO something along UBI is needed for a democratized market economy - and I think the Scandinavian countries are the support for this claim.

replies(3): >>44479157 #>>44479230 #>>44479465 #
al_borland ◴[06 Jul 25 10:30 UTC] No.44479465[source]▶
If everyone gets an equal raise (whatever the UBI is), wouldn’t the entire market simply adjust to price that in, leaving everyone in the same relative position?
replies(9): >>44479526 #>>44479582 #>>44479597 #>>44479605 #>>44479793 #>>44480381 #>>44485167 #>>44494847 #>>44505740 #
hardwaresofton ◴[06 Jul 25 12:50 UTC] No.44480381[source]▶
Yes, IMO that's exactly what will happen, except companies that can best compete for their share of this $1000 will get a government funded revenue stream (think Amazon, Netflix, rent seeking enterprises, etc).

I have not heard a convincing argument the other way, would really appreciate a link to one if you find one.

replies(1): >>44480438 #
tossandthrow ◴[06 Jul 25 12:58 UTC] No.44480438[source]▶
A class of people would have a larger spending power.

Naturally, implementing UBI would require the entire financial sector to adjust. We would likely need to significantly raise interest rates (Which, IMHO would be great) and have a period to manage inflation.

But beside the initial recalibration phase, I have not seen any convincing arguments for why prices on non-positional goods would increase. Even with the increase interest rates, we would likely see that prices on positional goods / assets would stabilize as dead-cheap capital is not available.

replies(1): >>44480506 #
hardwaresofton ◴[06 Jul 25 13:08 UTC] No.44480506[source]▶
> A class of people would have a larger spending power.

Spending power with no real alternatives (i.e. in monopoly/oligopoly conditions) isn't actually very useful IMO. It's mostly just more guaranteed money for the current monopoly/oligopoly -- you're just guaranteeing revenue streams.

In a pre-UBI world, you can at least assume that companies can't completely shaft employees because then no one can buy anything. If the government steps in to make sure people can still buy stuff, that has almost the opposite effect.

I think walmart & it's treatment of employees (with employees reportedly needing to ALSO depend on food stamps) as a perfect example of the system kind of working against itself. The fix for that problem is within our reach right now, but it's just unpopular for the usual reasons with the people with the ability to make the fix.

> Naturally, implementing UBI would require the entire financial sector to adjust. We would likely need to significantly raise interest rates (Which, IMHO would be great) and have a period to manage inflation. > > But beside the initial recalibration phase, I have not seen any convincing arguments for why prices on non-positional goods would increase. Even with the increase interest rates, we would likely see that prices on positional goods / assets would stabilize as dead-cheap capital is not available.

OK, so then how about we do this without the UBI bit and just raise interest rates? I'm not seeing where UBI actually has a material benefit here, and there are other real problems with raising interest rates, because losing access to cheap credit also hurts those at the bottom of the economy (arguably even more) -- the solution there is political, likely (i.e. lower income borrowers could somehow be advantaged, but then we have shades of 2008 all over again if excessive greed/moral hazard sets in).

replies(1): >>44480663 #
1. tossandthrow ◴[06 Jul 25 13:31 UTC] No.44480663[source]▶
> In a pre-UBI world, you can at least assume that companies can't completely shaft employees because then no one can buy anything. If the government steps in to make sure people can still buy stuff, that has almost the opposite effect.

In my first comment I referred the Scandinavian countries. Read up on the flexicurity model of Denmark.

> OK, so then how about we do this without the UBI bit and just raise interest rates?

You cannot within the confines of the responsibility of the monetary systems (Eg. The FED). What you are seeing now is that the FED "prints" money that accumulate at the top because the fiscal powers (Eg. the government) are p*sies who do not dare to redistribute - this is called the velocity of money. And there is a higher velocity of money when they are in the hands of the people than in the pockets of the rich.

Regardless, proposing UBI on American forums is generally like setting fire to a wasp nest. Americans have been conditioned to support the oligarchy in quite some decades now.

replies(1): >>44480757 #
2. hardwaresofton ◴[06 Jul 25 13:43 UTC] No.44480757[source]▶
> In my first comment I referred the Scandinavian countries. Read up on the flexicurity model of Denmark.

Denmark does not have UBI. They "just" have a good welfare system, good income redistribution policies, and strong labor policy.

They do not make the case for UBI, they make the opposite case -- that the problems of present can be solved without UBI.

> You cannot within the confines of the responsibility of the monetary systems (Eg. The FED). What you are seeing now is that the FED "prints" money that accumulate at the top because the fiscal powers (Eg. the government) are psies who do not dare to redistribute - this is called the velocity of money. And there is a higher velocity of money when they are in the hands of the people than in the pockets of the rich.

You can, and they have. In fact, much of the US wants the FED to lower rates right now, but they have not.

I agree with you that people lack the wherewithal to redistribute more effectively, or at least as a stated goal.

Trying to make sure I'm hitting the points you're noting here but the FED is not "printing" tons of money right now, they have tightened monetary policy, especially relative to the last ~6 years.

It's unclear if the use of "velocity of money" is right here -- I think you're referring to propensity to spend, which would increase velocity of money. Yes, poor people spend more of their income than rich people, and that is stimulative to the economy, and so arguably policies should be crafted that encourage productive work for pay rather than rent seeking or pure accumulation of capital. I'm not sure if that's your point, but that's what I take away from it.

> Regardless, proposing UBI on American forums is generally like setting fire to a wasp nest. Americans have been conditioned to support the oligarchy in quite some decades now.

Welp, that's kind of an unproductive way to end, but sure. Conditioned or not (I'm American), I'm still looking for a good argument for UBI and haven't found one.

Good arguments for better redistribution are easy to make, good argument for higher taxes are good to make, good arguments for better social safety nets are easy to make -- but still can't really find one for UBI specifically above the other options.

replies(1): >>44480859 #
3. tossandthrow ◴[06 Jul 25 13:57 UTC] No.44480859[source]▶
> but still can't really find one for UBI specifically above the other options.

There are a lot of good arguments: stability of monetary systems, democratized marketeconomy, equality, etc.

Just like with other things there is an infinite number of solutions for a given problem.

I stick to Occams razor.