Posted on 10/07/2017 10:29:08 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Joseph Stiglitz is a supply side, Keynesian economist. The main issue with these folks is they focus primarily on the positive side of their argument and mute or ignore the negative side.
Here is the fallacy of the argument:
“As Prof. Stiglitz observes, the money issued by the government will return to it simply through an increase in fiscal revenues generated by the UBI itself.”
Money being issued is a ‘creation’ of money. However, money being ‘returned to’ government does not ‘destroy’ that same money since the government just returns the money into circulation through government spending. Therefore, the issuing of the money in the first place (i.e. money creation) without a mechanism to destroy that money has an overall increase to inflation.
This is the “magic hand waving” part of the argument.
Oh, here is some more “magic hand waving”:
“The problem almost always has resulted from wartime foreign currency strains, not domestic spending. “
Got to love the use of the words ‘almost always’. This is called a straw man argument. Start with a weaker version of the negative by using the words ‘almost always’ combine with cherry picking of historical results and there ya go....universal income for all!
JoMa
if they’re going to pay so many people to do nothing, what would we that actually do work get paid?...a million dollars?
No. Everyone doesn't have taxes to cut.
x Some morons believe their job is secure from AI, it isn’t.
UBI, and AI, great combo, what could go wrong. Same feeling about self driving cars, why?
>supply side, Keynesian economist
eh? I’m not sure how such is possible.
this is how moronic these people are... and a perfect example why their political experiments (socialism/communism/marxism) never work.
there are 200m+ adults in the US. Giving them each $1000/mon would cost the federal govt $2.4+ trillion EVERY YEAR.
to say there would be any profit is absurd
and where does that $2.4 trillion come from every year? that's right... the taxpayer (ie: the top 50% of earners today... about 70m people)
It is not possible. I should have written “demand side”. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
JoMa
next thing u know they’ll be turning water into wine..../s
It simply sounds like they are trying to figure out/justify how we won’t need money eventually. Simply because AI will be doing all the work. We humans will not need to work, and be able to lead lives of leisure. Or something like that.
Totally impossible.
It seems to me that the “basic income” would be adding x amount of dollars to the economy without producing x value of product. That is a pretty good approximation of instant inflation and will raise prices accordingly. It will raise the poverty rate by the amount of the stipend.
“Velocity of money” is a crock. It was thought up to make small changes appear to be significant and justifies high inflation and value impoverishment as all those dollars are flying around faster and faster as people try to use them before they fall further in value.
Velocity is touted by the same “economists” who explain and teach whatever it is they are trying to pass off as economics by scribing complicated formulae on the blackboard and Greek looking symbols. There is nothing to it but illusion and intellectual chicanery.
I remember way back taking an economics class, and discussing some things with my professor in class. I can’t remember exactly what it was about, but I said, “Wow, that seems kind of Marxist!” He replied, “You would be surprised at how many economists buy into that.”
It was an eye opener for me, one of many I had in that class.
See Mayflower Compact...
And if this nonsense actually worked, those who already give UBI should and would take these immense "profits" and reinvest them into even MORE Golden Goose UBI payments... and yet they don't. HMMMMMMM!!!
What does that tell us, class?
Iran has already started UBI back in 2010.... what an economic powerhouse they have become! Ahem.
The GDP number does not look at quality, just quantity.
Universal income “seems” like a good plan but there are still that grade of people (disabled or defective) that will continue to make up the safety net.
We can spend the welfare, but THOSE expenditures ARE qualitative.
After global warming this is the next wet dream for the leftists.
“They always leave out the 1 thing that rules all; human nature.”
And all utopians hate human nature, so they’re constantly trying to change it to satisfy their precious sensibilities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.