What would the effects of Basic Income be?

>>134326999
If they unilaterally rise the prices, what stops the consumers from just buying cheap chink stuff?

You know, like cars.

Inflation, loss of jobs, ultimately leads to communism and eventually civil war. Maybe if they somehow steal money from the people running the automation robots and used that to give people money... But I don't see how that's profitable to the ones running the machines, other then the fact that no one can buy their shit products if they don't have money. But at that point, with automation being that advanced, they'd probably just cull the population.

File: 1-.jpg (193KB, 600x739px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 600x739px

>>134326999
>What's to stop businesses, landlords, etc. from just raising the price of what they offer to compensate for the guaranteed extra monetary flow? Won't the increased velocity of money increase inflation?

The price of new homes goes so low everyone can afford to own.

Raise prices when costs are getting slashed to a fraction? Enjoy bankruptcy, unless you're apple and people pay you 2 silver kilos worth of cash for a phone put together by chinese slave laborers

>>134326999
Alright. I'm going to go all in with this and give the rundown of a basic income.

A basic income increases demand without increasing supply. It takes money from producers via taxation and redistributes it consumption via the basic income. As a result, the policy is highly inflationary, in the same way that excessive government is also highly inflationary. When the government issues excessive taxes, it takes away from private investment, meaning that private investors become limited in their ability to invest, which means they cannot create supply. But unlike high government taxes, a basic income also increases demand, which means its even more inflationary then mere 'normal taxes' due to the increased velocity of money.

So a Basic Income has the problem, in that the taxes it issues to pay for consumption come directly out of capital investment, which means the increase of the supply of goods is reduced and the level of demand also increases as well.

Now the real question is, how MUCH inflation does a Basic Income create? A Basic Income could create inflation, but not enough to undermine the program. Or a Basic Income could create a great amount of inflation, does undermining the program. As a result, there is probably a rational amount of basic income that can be distributed to the population, that doesn't increase inflation significantly enough. Or, in other words, even though taxes take away from supply and give it to demand, there is still enough capital left in the supply side to compensate for investment in demand.

>>134328030
The REAL problem of Basic Income is that it effectively 'crowds out' government taxes. Meaning, a basic income would raise taxes so high, that effectively supporting a military or other financial programs becomes impossible. A Basic Income could make single payer healthcare impossible, or could make the military unaffordable. It requires a tremendous amount of resources to implement, that it's just not practical to give everyone money when there are other programs that take priority.

>>134327410
It's kind of hard to buy cheap chink housing when you're limited to living in another country

File: 1250507322779.gif (1MB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 576x432px

>>134328030
The world is +40 trillion in debt anyway, mostly for the benefit of the rich and the corporatocracy

If the corporations are allowed to benefit, why not individual people?

Because everyone except the elite and their personal pets, employees and slaves are slated for extermination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler#Business_Plot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

https://youtu.be/zdMbmdFOvTs?t=310

>>134326999
Basic income is stupid. Just implement a negative income tax

>>134328030
In most of the civilized world, some kind of basic income is already in place, without the negative effects you are trying to convince us will come with it. I know that the US is on the level of a 3rd world country in regards to this, because of some kind of ideological belief that is hard to understand for the rest of us, because we could not imagine living without the security that we will be able to keep our house if we for some reason are totally out of luck in life. Some sort of security net makes it possible to maintain a reasonable life, the chances of becoming homeless is zero unless you are injecting heroin into your body and behave criminally insane to get your fix.

The rest of the world is discussing if we should make it a more transparent and less beurocratic system, mostly to save money (because you don't have to employ someone to deal with applications for money and to check if they should get it), while in the US, you are discussing if it is economically possible.

It's quite amusing to be honest.

>>134326999
Those that are parasites to the system are weeded out while quality rises up the system. It's cheaper to payoff those that don't want to work with a set yearly income that covers basic insurance, food, necessities than our current system. If they choose to waste it on drugs and status goods than they either have to work for money that would be seperate from universal income or die out. If you want to increase your social status you pursue education and specialized training.

>>134326999
>What's to stop businesses, landlords, etc. from just raising the price of what they offer to compensate for the guaranteed extra monetary flow?

'The rent here is too expensive, I'm moving somewhere else.'

This is really basic stuff here.

>>134330043
>because we could not imagine living without the security that we will be able to keep our house if we for some reason are totally out of luck in life.

This is the exact logic of Venezuela and Brazil and it led them to only economic decline and poverty. It is more important to be economically efficient than economically just, because you cannot be economically just without being economically efficient. You live in Norway, one of the most economically efficient regimes on the planet, so of course you can afford to be economically just. But regimes that try to make things just first without being efficient collapse rather than prosper.

>>134330209
We can't let drug addicts and losers die! We need to supplement their basic income with welfare!

It wont work because you dont understand economis...
TLDR simple explanation
>small group of people exclusively benefit from making money out of nothing, get free interest/usury free loans
>they then, or already did, buy up all the major manufacturing and mineral/wealth producing rights
>enjoy fucking over everyone for almost 100 years
>once the scam is extended to everyone, its too fucking late... its like letting you get your turn to fuck a corpse after everyone else got their way with it.

UBI is a shiny object to dangle in front of you so you go the way they want

>>134326999
what the fuck im a shill for hill now

>>134326999
the living wage?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0To8NmwJ8Mk

>>134326999
One effect for sure is that if that's your only source of income, she's not moving in.

>>134330391
Off course you have to get rid of most of corruption and greed that undermines the system first. That's the problem with your examples. If you don't have a zero-tolerance policy on corruption (so that even suggesting it to someone is likely to get you fired), you don't have a moral enough society to be civilized. Brazil and Venezuela is not the civilized world. That is the 3rd world. Civilization needs to come first.

>>134330755
It isn't just corruption though. Bad economic policies can make a society economically inefficient, which means it can no longer be economically just. Basic income could be a bad economic policy, which means it's no longer economically just, because it cannot be economically efficient. Which is what I tried to make with my point.

>>134326999
>What's to stop businesses, landlords, etc. from just raising the price

>basic income
>tell them to fuck off
>move somewhere else
>because you are not required anymore to live at some specific place to do a "job"

>>134330755
>Off course you have to get rid of most of corruption and greed that undermines the system first

I do know someone, who had a solution for that problem. A final solution.