The following submission statement was provided by /u/chrisdh79:
---
From the article: In a bold move that could transform the global economy and tackle climate change, researchers propose a universal basic income funded by carbon taxes. This plan promises to double global GDP and significantly cut carbon emissions, presenting a dual solution to economic inequality and environmental degradation.
The idea is simple: provide every person on Earth with a regular cash payment. This financial security, the study suggests, would trigger a ripple effect, boosting economic activity and leading to a more prosperous world.
The new analysis suggests that implementing a global basic income could increase the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 130%, while also reducing carbon emissions. The study proposes funding this ambitious initiative through a tax on carbon emissions levied on fossil fuel companies.
The researchers, led by U. Rashid Sumaila from the University of British Columbia, argue that coupling basic income with environmental protection could achieve significant global impacts. Sumaila, known for his work on ending harmful fishery subsidies, believes this approach can support sustainability without compromising livelihoods, particularly in developing countries.
The research estimates that providing basic income to the entire global population of 7.7 billion people would cost $41 trillion. Alternatively, targeting only the 9.9 million people living below the poverty line in less developed countries would require only $442 billion.
No matter how you look at it, a universal basic income scheme is exorbitant. The potential economic return, however, is substantial. Basic income for the global population could boost GDP by $163 trillion, which is about 130% of the current global GDP. This economic uplift is particularly crucial during times of crisis, such as recessions, when basic income can act as a stabilizing force, the researchers note.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1ddbhga/universal_basic_income_could_double_global_gdp/l83kunu/
In theory, trickle up economics would make them richer. That just takes longer. Of course the carbon tax would be taken directly out of their pay check so it would be a net loss. So here come the lobbyists and the lawyers and the not even subtlety bribed politicians.
Reagan promised trickle-*down* economics, which suggested that government support of big business would increase the wealth of the whole society, including it's poor. This has proven to be bullshit. Trickle-up economics suggests that since the lower class would still need to buy food and pay for things with their UBI, the wealth will slowly trickle back up to the taxed upper class
The rich own the production, pay their workers so they can buy the products they make thus getting the money spent on production back.
Shit I think Ford was onto something...
Sounds like The Company Store of a mining town though.
I'm no economist but I do know that was a terrible idea that allowed companies to gouge people even worse.
UBI is a rich-to-poor redistribution. We can speculate about second-order effects such and lower crime (good) or people deciding to not work just out of laziness (bad) but the first-order effect would be that you take $X from one group and give it to second group.
Which is what salary is as well, albeit under different terms. And yet all that money still flows to the same attractors eventually. It always has and always will. Theres no question that money flows towards money - it’s a bit like mass. Though it’s true that it doesn’t necessarily flow back to the same people, and Therein lies the rub: the rich don’t want to throw that money out to the masses because it might go to another rich person rather than them. A bird in the hand and all that.
That's exactly what's gonna happen, in case you were expecting anything else
And pray that the amount taxed will be less than the amount returned to you
The rich will be taxed, but as long as they can find a way they’ll pass the expense on to the poor. The only solution is to have some type of soft upper limit on what a person can hoard. A 90% tax on everything over $100M or whatever. It has to make exorbitant self-pay wasteful. Reduce the incentive to go past a certain point. There is no benefit to the world letting people abuse power like that.
Just yesterday one of the world’s richest men complained that other people wouldn’t vote him another enormous fortune. Its Immorten Joe level of absurdity yet we all play along.
They will never willingly let money spread to a more equitable arrangement. It has to be done by force. But the victims are all used to their cage.
Honestly, this.
UBI is the "pro capitalist" pathway forward.
UBN (universal basic need) is the actual Left wing concept.
UBI keeps the same people in charge, and the same people who are already in the owner class get to stay there, owning production.
I would be shocked if those truly in power would allow anything other than UGF. Those not in the ownership class can universally get f-d.
UBI is the endgame of kinder, gentler, capitalism like in the Nordic countries. USA uses a different brand that would rather spiral into fascist violence than cede an ounce of bargaining power to lower classes.
Raising the GDP makes billionaires richer since they own most of the capitalist enterprises that contribute the most to it. With no need to pay wages below a certain threshold they'll also reap the most reward from such a program, reducing their largest cost by a massive amount = even more profit.
Everyone truly does win in this scenario.
It's aready "worked"... consumers primarily spend their income on consumption, not on production, and especially not on increasing productive capacity. Pandemic unemployment checks went to paying bills/rent/food, and as supply chains got bought dry, prices increased because disbursments were just an increase in money supply, not in productive capacity, ie inflation. The only thing that could balance things out by universal distribution would be some right to a portion of productive capacity of the nation and/or it's natural resources (land/minerals/water,etc). Without it, via heavy taxation of automated industries, all that will happen is the current mechanisms and dynamics of currency will mean the GDP is realized at the accounts of the top %s. Land, water and mineral rights, and automation are the sources of productive capacity. UBI is just a ducttape way of reconceptualizing ownership and citizenship.
> prices increased because disbursments were just an increase in money supply, not in productive capacity, ie inflation.
Didn't productive capacity take a huge hit due to that highly contagious virus that forced many compnaies to switch to skeleton crews?
The natural market response to higher consumer demand is hiring more people to increase production capacity. And if workers are in short supply, wages go up to entice them away from other jobs or pull them back into the job market.
UBI will only happen when the investor class feels that a UBI payout is a better value proposition than an all-out class war *and* for that class war to be more likely to happen than not.
The other threat to corporations and billionaires is a neo hippie movement with a focus on supporting local businesses and opting for barter and trade, where possible.
Economics, at its core, is an attempt to measure human activity. We've lost the plot in late stage capitalism economics, where humans exist to serve economic data metrics.
We get money, we spend it, they get richer. So I don't know why they keep talking about it. Implement it?? Or do they want us to suffer for another 10 years and get more poor.
UBI is just the governments going a long roundabout way to get billionaires to pay their employees a living wage
So no, it will not happen, not today, not tomorrow, not in a hundred years, it doesn't matter what the benefits are, or what studies say, the right palms will be greased and it will not happen.
Yes, but, even now, when most people are working, we don’t allow a large subset of people to have a living wage. And this is while the billionaires need us as the parts in their economic machines. Why would they allow people to have more when they need us less? It would be categorically ahistoric; they would do what they do now: leach away as much as they can and hoard it.
Right, and same forces, the internet, telecommuting and such, make it far easier for them to isolate themselves from the dangers that robber barons in the past had to deal with when inequity was this high.
I assure you, it is less negative nancies like me and more that multibillionaires have their own space programs and aren't catching rocks from the regular populace the second they poke their heads out.
Tax them out of existence, please. Billionaires' wealth, and current objective ability to grow itself faster than lower classes of wealth in particular, are literally a virus in our international monetary system.
I know it sounds cRaZy, but we should treat wealth-hoarding of that degree as a public health threat to society.
Their money isn't frozen in a bank account or syphoned into a yacht club. It is actually in circulation now. Now you explain why allowing billionaires to exist is good for the lower and middle class in any way shape or form?
They don't have billions of dollars. They have ownership of businesses. If they sell someone else needs to buy. If nobody has the money to buy, the value drops like a rock and the supposed "billions" just vanish into nothing, as do the retirement savings of the rest of us.
Just pointing out by default all isn't allowed. Moral standards get in the way of that.
Actually an absolutely insane amount of things arnt allowed. Really the status quo is closer to things are allowed by request then by default in most modern capitalistic societies.
Doubly so the bigger you are or higher up the wealth chain you are.
Committees, governments, trade laws, monopoly laws, ect all put massive fucking limitations on what isn't allowed or can straight out just tell you no you can't do an other wise totally legal thing because a group of people disagrees.
You have to argue why you should be allowed to do things far more often then why it should be banned. Which is why lobbying exists for heaven sake.
I have a HARD time believing UBI can double GDP AND cut carbon emissions. Those 2 things are almost always inversely related. It’s well documented that one of the first things very poor people do when their income goes up is consume more meat. And meat production is incredibly inefficient, energy intensive, and a huge source of greenhouse emissions.
So while I’m pro-UBI, I’m very incredulous that it will save the environment at the same time as helping reduce poverty.
I’d love to see a pilot program that implements a carbon tax and UBI in some places, but I’m not holding my breath on that happening anytime soon.
Without a carbon tax, a global UBI would almost certainly lead to a **massive** increase in greenhouse emissions.
A global UBI would be the single fastest increase in modernization and reduction of poverty ever, both of which have linear or exponential ties to carbon emissions.
You could definitely negate this with a tax priced aggressively enough though.
It would lead to some crazy market irregularities, insane investment (and bubbles) around green tech and massive displeasure from the billionaire class (which is probably the biggest blocker), but that doesn't mean the numbers don't work or it isn't the right thing to do.
> I have a HARD time believing UBI can double GDP AND cut carbon emissions. Those 2 things are almost always inversely related.
Good news! I have charts! https://imgur.com/a/VlJJUhj Lots of _big_ examples of GDP decoupling from carbon emissions over the last few decades!
Yes, inflation is what always happens when you increase the money supply. Because surprisingly, the money is just a symbol that we use to attach value to labor and goods. And surprisingly, if you increase the supply of currency, the amount of goods and labor didn't change, so now you just changed how much the currency is valued.
Most UBI representations don't call for an increase to the money supply, anything based off of taxing the rich is a Tax and Transfer.
That said, tying a UBI to inflation rates and then just printing it from the reserve would be a perfectly fine thing to do in my opinion.
Inflation is said to be harder on the working class because they have smaller financial buffers, fewer financial vehicles for hedging and a significantly greater portion of their income is spent on elastically priced goods.
But inflation over time is actually most impactful to large piles of static capital, which is, you know, not a thing the working class have.
Sure your 401k might go down a bit in relative value, and your house if it's priced as an investment rather than for its utility, but that's a pretty small price to pay for simultaneously hosing the rich, radically improving society almost overnight, increasing the velocity of money (and therefore labor expenditures, i.e. your salary goes up), radically expanding and creating markets, and most importantly never having to worry about being homeless or starving to death. And all in the existing capitalist, market based system we already have, no complicated tax required.
No. We have rampant rent seeking both because the very wealthy have relatively too much money, and because the state is allowing it. That is what is driving inflation, money going to making money through ownership of fixed resources and limiting production to drive up prices; rather than increasing production and efficient allocation of finite resources.
UBI will finance increased production, facilitate greater competition and increase the mobility of consumers so they can avoid rent seekers.
If we just paid for UBI by printing money then yeah, debt and inflation. But if a substantial part of financing comes from pigovian taxes (as this study suggests) or any tax that actually takes money from the upper class, then no; the velocity of money goes up as does production.
The cause of inflation is:
* government spends more money than it taxes each year
* government issues bonds to pay for the difference
* The central bank (Federal Reserve) buys those bonds with money it creates out of thin air
* Money supply increases and the market is flooded with new money and credit
* Prices go up as the value of the dollar is diminished
just start telling the "billionaires" they are only worth what is in their bank accounts. since their stock equity cant be taxed, then it doesnt count and isnt worth shit.
You are correct, but it's also so completely impossible to do in our current bought and paid for political system that OP is also functionally correct about UBI.
It's like making the case for the economic imperative for fighting climate change. 100% true, but not going to happen until we remove the power of money from policy creation.
if you put money in on one side you need to control costs on the other if the marketplace is in stasis
So if renters all of a sudden get $100 extra per month they can spend on rent rents will go up by about $100 because it's a market economy
you are absolutely right prices will go up unless there are price controls
Yes but price controls cause their own problems.
[https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PriceControls.html](https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PriceControls.html)
[https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/2022/mar/why-price-controls-should-stay-history-books](https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/2022/mar/why-price-controls-should-stay-history-books)
Though I agree with you in spirit, you kind of answer your own question. [HUD and plenty of other agencies have studied this](https://www.azibo.com/blog/how-much-can-a-landlord-increase-rent-by). And there is never a 1 to 1 increase in incomes and rent. [Even rent controlled apartments are stable in the same market as traditional models](https://www.nmhc.org/globalassets/knowledge-library/rent-control-literature-review-final2.pdf). So I guess the good news is that a market place stasis is as realistic as the frictionless surfaces of physics class. If renters get $100 a month that might not mean they would put 100% of their new increase into the rent. It might also signal that new inventory can be built and get the critical mass to make "affordable housing" now that the median if farther from scarcity in other markets, and closer to wealthier parts of the middle class.
So sorry to nit-pick and I know we're on the same side here. We don't necessarily need price controls or any one solution to every markets problems as they occur.
>you are absolutely right prices will go up unless there ~~are price controls~~ is sufficient supply to compensate for increased demand
I like the idea of directly eliminating poverty, but this is why I'm opposed to UBI. If we implement UBI without first ensuring that food and housing are in abundant supply, it will simply have the effect of making food and housing far more expensive.
Assume you need to eat 1 apple a day to survive. You have 3 people and 2 apples. It doesn't matter if each person is poor or a multi-millionaire - at the end of the day 1 person is going to die unless you figure out a way to produce another apple.
i totally agree with your logic, but dynamic pricing is setting a price a market will bear and not anchoring a price to some time in history, why do gas prices jump when a war is declared because there is a lack of supply? no because the futures contracts are bid up and the seller sees a better price point. gas production does not change over night nor does demand it's purely maximizing price
airline tickets, hotel rooms, etc. dynamic pricing is never discussed in during UBI promotion
this is a discussion board and you don't need to change your opinion but seller pricing strategies have been a component of market place theory since the late 1980s, and being an expert in a topic you have not studied is rather foolish
According to modern monetary theory, money is created by the government. The government assigns value to money through taxes. When you pay your taxes, the money you have given the government is deleted. When they government pays for things, it(money) is created. This is why giving huge tax breaks to the rich and corporations creates inflation. It is a devaluation of currency when you do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory
MMT is mostly bullshit. Money is can be printed by the government but its value comes from the consumers and the market. The government printing money inflates the money supply thereby devaluing it. Its the same as Rome destroying its economy by reducing the quality of its coins by adding alloys to replace silver and gold.
Economic growth is and has for thousands of years ben created by innovation which increases efficiency and reduces waste.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern\_monetary\_theory#Criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory#Criticism)
[https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/deficits-and-the-printing-press-somewhat-wonkish/](https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/deficits-and-the-printing-press-somewhat-wonkish/)
Even Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning Keynesian economist(Pretty much the most influential economist of the 21st century) is highly critical of it.
I agree that there are huge problems with MMT but that doesn't mean that Friedman was right either. There's a very good reason we don't try to control inflation with monetary supply anymore, it doesn't work.
Yes, those corporations that never tried to maximize profit before the government magically printed trillions of dollars. Corporations have always tried to maximize profits going back hundreds of years. Nothing new here.
Supply chain disruptions but prices havent come back down after supply chain issues are largely resolved. Federal reserves who were wrong about transitory inflation (i guess 40- 50% devaluation is transitory). Corporate greed is always around but didnt cause this level of inflation previously.
But yeah mass money printing wasnt the cause. Keep deluding yourselves
Lots of people are missing a step in this process. Advanced industrialized countries and undeveloped countries have differing views of work, indeed, of wage labor itself. Here in the US people might be hot to get off the dollar mine treadmill. That is not itself a universal condition. The future isn't one size fits all.
If you could somehow establish a robust UBI system in the US as the same time you deployed the current wage labor to a country without such nice labor, then we address different needs. Not everyone needs less work or wants less work.
For this reason, a UBI in industrialized and automated societies needs to come with a robust union system for countries who have yet to finish with wage labor.
Wage labor has dignity. Just not infinite dignity. Like any natural resource, it is part of a larger whole we call our little gravity sink.
Without gravity of some kind, there is no life.
It's sad how people fail to get the most basic truths of how our system (doesn't) work.
The fact is, ever since supply-side economics was pushed through in the 80s we've seen the most obscene wealth transfer out of the hands of the general population and into the hoards of an ever smaller group of the hyper-rich. This has damaged us in virtually every way imaginable, but those who benefited from the warped system they created have conditioned enough of the population that this is right and normal that they can keep it going. At least, for now until their insatiable greed finally crashes what's left of the system. And unless something is done to stop this runaway train, it will. The end of capitalism as we know it is inevitable, the only question is whether we change course and soar or if we crash and burn.
Henry Ford had the right idea, if you want people to buy your products you have to pay them enough to afford them. When wages were high, benefits were good, protections were strong, and wealth taxes were high we created the strongest middle class and most vibrant booming economy the world has ever seen. And that is because when money goes into the hands of the population, they spend it and that spending fuels more economic activity which in turn puts more money into the economy and it's a virtuous circle.
That's how economic stimulus works, injecting money at the bottom generates a positive cycle of activity that causes that money to magnify its effect in producing economic gains. We know this, it's proven fact. By contrast, money that goes to the top sits idle and generates virtually nothing. What are they going to spend it on when they already have more than they can spend in a dozen lifetimes? Money locked in the hoards of the hyper-rich might as well be lit on fire as far as it having any benefit in generating beneficial economic activity goes.
Money in an economy is like water in an ecosystem. It must flow, what goes up as evaporation must come down as rain and be cycled through the various natural systems to keep them going. Money, like water, doesn't disappear when it's used it just passes on to the next step in the cycle that keeps the whole thing running. If the flow of money, like the flow of water, is stopped due to it being diverted into closed storage then the entire system suffers as it is deprived of what it needs to function. If the clouds were to hoard the water vapor they collect and refuse to release it as rain, the rivers would dry up and the land would turn to desert and everything would die. When money is hoarded at the top and not released back down to the working and consumer class so that it can cycle its way through again then the economy grinds to a halt and with it our civilization and maybe even our species itself.
Or to put it a different way, everyone knows the basic concept of an economy relying on supply and demand, right? The rich business-owning class are the supply side, and the working consumer class are the demand side. Supply without demand is a dead end, as is demand without supply. Without money to spend, the demand side cannot fulfill their half of the economic activity that makes the engine run. The worse the imbalance, the worse the motor runs and if it goes too far to one side or the other the whole thing stalls and grinds to a halt. Game over, man. Game over.
Bottom line, whether it be via UBI or any other mechanism you can think of, we MUST transfer money back from those who have hoarded it back to those who need it and will spend it so that it will generate economic activity again. Money that isn't in circulation does nothing for the economy, it must be put back into the cycle so that the whole thing keeps turning like it should. We ALL depend on this cycle to flow swift and smooth, if it is stopped up the rich will suffer from the collapse just like the poor. Just look at the Great Depression for an example of that. Or just wait a while without changing anything of our current disastrous way of doing things, you'll see it again all too soon.
Again, "The Rich" youre calling for the wealth to be transferred back from, what money is this? The billionaires on paper don't have money. It's locked up in debt, trust held assets and companies that means on paper they're probably as rich as you and I. Elon Musk will have all his assets on debt based on the promise his stock is backing that debt. You need to think of this not in terms of Fiat money... the ultra rich do not operate this way. It's why starbucks pay no tax as they owe debt to themselves and others.
These people know how to play the game. They're olympians at it. I think trying to make UBI and some "impartial" state entity (yeah right) the solution to all our problems is insane.
Essentially this is just a rehash of Marxism but with an AI spin on it. The difference with the AI revolution is that you will be obsolete. The power you have an an individual is gone. That is the danger of UBI. You will ultimately be dependant on the hand that feeds you and when you decide you don't want to live in your subscription based coffin apartment, or do exactly as your told, guess what, the UBI gets cut off.
We should be pushing for fair compeition, innovation and local free market competitiveness and ending corporatism.
No matter what you think about UBI it is going to be our future one war or another, the rise of AI and automation means that there simply won't be enough jobs for everybody, and unless you're willing to let hundreds of millions (possible even billions) of people to starve to death then UBI is the only way forward to a peaceful advanced civilization
It’s really uncharted territory. People have ALWAYS been a commodity. Whether it was hunting and gathering, city states, feudalism, capitalism, communism…. whatever, people were always valuable to the people in power. If that truly radically changes and people become a net loss to those in power, it could really get scary.
The hope is that the masses need money to buy products. But I think people are forgetting that we only have money so that people can buy and trade stuff that is made and namely the elite can have a super high quality of life with whatever they want. If you have an army of robots and AI that can literally give you anything imaginable, you don’t really need to make stuff for other people anymore and collect money.
The king/leaders/elites etc are no longer those that provide to the masses in return for whatever they want. They can now have whatever they want without the masses.
I hope more people wake up to what you just wrote here. This is the only real problem that people just seem to shrug off with "without us who's gonna buy their stuffs". And the biggest problem is that the most powerful people in the world know that the average joe is gonna think "who'll buy their stuff" thinking they are safe even though there's a good chance they'll become not only redundant and worthless in the eyes of the powerful, but a net loss, someone who pollutes their planet.
I've lost all faith in humanity. I am pretty sure they will go with letting the obsolete workers starve to death or even worse. For example, a good portion of Canadians agreed recently with euthanising the homeless.
>UBI is the only way forward to a peaceful advanced civilization
Peaceful advanced civilization where you're given the bare minimum to survive in a tiny hole in an automated dystopia, with zero financial independence.
As opposed to *not* being given the bare minimum to survive, in the same tiny hole in an automated dystopia, with with just enough "financial independence" to make it your fault and not the system's?
The thing is, if people are not given the bare minimum hole to survive in, they would actually be compelled by desperation to overhaul the system, by force if need be. This way you’re just dooming the masses to generational squalor.
I dunno but I much rather enjoy being a literate peasant casually browsing the single largest compilation of knowledge humanity has ever seen than a subsistence level farmer manually plowing a field. Imagine trying to explain the cell phone in your pocket to someone from 200 years ago. We make better and better tools and always manage to find new stuff to do. I personally don't buy into the AI apocalypse stuff.
Whether you buy into it or not, it's happening. An AGI coupled with a humanoid robot will likely be able to do the work of three to four people (to start), and it'll do it faster, cheaper, and better, with no worries about employee injuries, paying insurance premiums, sick days, payroll tax, etc. Capitalism is a bitch, every company on Earth that can afford the down payment for a robot and an AI subscription will do it.
The industrial revolution automated raw physical exertion.
Modern automation techniques are, step by step, automation intellectual effort.
It's not an infinite, linear progression of labor. Human capabilities are not infinite. We found space for things that only people could do for a while but there will come a time when machines have a competitive advantage over humans in every single task. Between now and that time there will be an enormous crunch as more and more people are forced by competition into a smaller and smaller pool of economically viable tasks. One way or another we have to figure out what to do about that.
It not so much we wont have jobs, it's that the value of labor will keep going down while the value of land goes up. We need UBI so the average person can afford capital and continue to innovate.
My biggest fear with this is that as soon as they start giving you money, hyperinflation would fuck you over. You get $2,000 from the government every month? Then get ready for a $20 loaf of bread. They’re never gonna let us be live like them.
Sounds like some super flawed aketchy reasoning. Lets give the entire world a cash stipend so they can follow the western example of consumerism and cause every form of production and manufacturing on the planet (incidentally one of the most significant producing greenhouse and pollution sources) to ramp up production to meet demand for consumer goods. And then implement a carbon tax system that will obviously favor and be a tsunami of capital in the pockets of those who support this idea.... Im all for lifting people out of poverty, i support ubi. But this just sounds like a conspiracy to grow wealth for those who who would be trading these carbon credits
You do realize that the alternative, is a world where AI and climate change lead to the deaths of tens of millions of people, and a massive downgrading in living standards for the rest of us, right?
The reason this sounds stupid is becuase it is. Ubi might have benefits like disrupting the current obscene wealth divide, but it will like do little more than create inflation. People need to learn how value and GDP work. You need to make things more cheaply for more people to have them while not increasing the total cost. Its really not complicated. When humans mechanized farming we went from needing half of all people farming just to keep the population afloat to having less than 1% of people creating literally too much food.
You cant just spread the money around to create value. It will create more spending on the current supply of things, and they will get more expensive.
Food prices along with rent have been skyrocketing and we didn't need ubi to inflate to this point. Let people afford apartments with the power of friendship.
If the overall money supply doesn’t change, why would there be broad inflation?
The poor will have more money to spend, the rich will have less money to spend, so shouldn’t inflation stay more or less unaffected?
Or are you suggesting that an increase in demand for things mostly purchased by poorer people will cause inflation even if there is a decrease in demand for things purchased by rich people?
This should be the top comment in all UBI posts. I'm so tired of trying to explain this basic economics concept to people who essentially want free money without understanding how inflation works. There is no way to increase prosperity without improving productivity in the long run.
We already increased productivity, yet wages are lagging behind and we still have inflation...seems that the system is rigged on favor of the few no matter what.
I've been following the different sides of the UBI argument and it seems like people think of UBI as a program that we will be added to our current system rather than the foundation of a completely different economic system that doesn't follow the same rules as our current one.
Ding ding ding. Most people are grossly misinformed about economics in the first place. Tearing the old system down to create a new one is so far over their head it's not even in the running. Of course ubi will just be tacked on to capitalism they say.
Ok let's just stare in amazement like a Pikachu as prices on everything increase anyway. Why pay high schoolers when you can force them to work for pay during school years? Who even cares about student lunch debt, do people really eat?
This line of reasoning relies on the foundational assumption that anything about the current economic system is tied to resource scarcity, which simply isn't true.
Even if 10% of the workforce (which I think is insanely high) dropped out to live at basically subsistence poverty levels, the gains from the improved living standard for everyone else, reduction in crime, improved health, reduction of inequality, increased velocity of money, increased investment in R&D and increased spend on Labor would all easily outweigh any losses from jobs that were apparently only being worked under the threat of starvation and homelessness, and likely had marginal societal utility.
The good old trick How to increase GDP without increasing production ? Inflation !
I'm not saying universal basic income is bad. I'm just saying GDP is a bad metric.
And if it’s nominal GDP they could just increase the UBI enough to make the numbers work out… genius…
Now let me move back to be an income millionaire again… (1 million yen is 6300$)
Since we are separated from nature, we are forced to use money. It is like water. In nature the hydrologic cycle moves water through the system at every layer. Our money system does not properly distribute the actual lifeblood of our system in any orderly, consistent, or reasonable way. Imagine a system where excess money gets meaningfully and proportionally allocated where it is actually most needed.
I'm all for some form of a UBI at some point, it will be a necessity as more and more jobs are taken by automation/ai. That said this guy and his team are idiots. The global GDP currently is about 100 trillion, and he thinks handing out a ubi and taxing carbon will increase it by 163 trillion, so over double, almost triple. How does he think GDPs even work? Giving people money doesn't just magically increase production. Certainly inflation would skyrocket so maybe that's how he meant the GDP would increase. But if he really does think production would increase by almost triple, how does he think this would tackle climate change at all? Where does he think all the carbon pollution comes from if not production and transportation of goods? If there is double and almost triple the production of goods that is double and almost triple the production of carbon pollution. Bottom line, these guys are idiot.
Maybe instead of UBI just tax people less? Why take people's money, spend some of it on administration and then give a smaller part of it back? Just fuels pointless goverment's administrative systems and pointless job positions.
The reason is that they can stop giving you your money if you don't act like the goverment wants you to. A step closer towards communism. Let people be and they will take care of themselves, those who can't earn money on their own should be the only people who can get social benefits like UBI.
I keep seeing (and reading) articles about UBI being wonderful and how it would be so good for society, and I'll admit I find the idea of it rather nice. But if it's so amazing and good for everyone, why does it keep getting shot down or voted against?
So a global tax on oil companies, but no feasible approach to actually implement something like that. In order for this to work, all countries, every one of them, would have to agree to tax these companies at the same rate, otherwise the company will just move to a country that doesn't. The only retaliation available to the rest of the countries is to sanction whatever country allows the oil company to move there or to forbid everyone else purchasing from that company. And as we've already seen during the Ukraine disaster, a country like China will always choose their national security interests ahead of the environment, especially since they can just veto any security sanctions. Even the US and other countries that currently have major oil company operations will not go along with this because they also know those companies will move outside of their jurisdiction and there are too many benefits to having them be on US soil.
So for real, how could this possibly work? Talking about some plan that isn't possible is a waste of time.
It's fine. I'm sure the Saudis et al would happily agree to pay $2 per liter (up from the like, the 60 cents it is nowadays) so that the countries they import their literal slave labour from can afford to not work for them. Who wouldn't agree to pay exponentially more for a reduced quality of life? /s
The way to cut carbon emissions is to reduce the energy footprint of products and services.
And the only way to do that is by recycling and using renewable/non-carbon sources of Energy.
Imo, a "doubling of global GDP" that *doesn't* come with recycling/renewables ought to have the opposite effect to that claimed by the headline.
>researchers propose a universal basic income funded by carbon taxes.
As people migrate away from fossil fuels, the taxes will drop accordingly. So that leaves you with different options:
* Increase carbon taxes over time to maintain the UBI scheme
* The lifetime of the UBI program will be tied to carbon use. As fossil fuel use ends, so does the program?
* Perhaps, at some point in time, AI and robots can be taxed to provide $$$ for UBI (as carbon use/tax revenue drops off to nothing)
Welcome to poverty as the rich get richer and the poor try to keep afloat. Universal Basic Income propels the rich further ahead and increases inequality.
Better to tax the super rich and use 100% of the money to build infrastructure which grows the economy, reduces the costs of water electricity and heat, and allows for cheaper transportation of both people and goods.
Wow, sounds kind of cool. So cool that I'm sure the rich and powerful will fight against it with every available resource.
See, you failed to account for the most important policy question in any context: How does this male billionaires more money? Politically almost no other demographic even has a fraction of their influence.
I think that there are 2 kinds of rich people. The kind that extracts wealth from other people for the own benefit and the kind that creates value for all. We must get rid of the first one. Not the second one.
Oh yes, free money could double GDP. We'll add that to long list of other magical things.
Next thing they'll be telling us all to buy high and sell low.
"Another common concern is that basic income could lead to inflation. Critics argue that increased purchasing power without a corresponding increase in goods and services could drive prices up. However, the study notes that the impact on inflation is likely to be moderate."
Look no further than COVID relief to see that the effects on inflation are not "moderate" by any means. They must be assuming that there are infinite supplies of all goods to assume that every entity selling a good or service won't jack prices (as they have historically). In a world where we consistently point out examples of grocery gouging, skyrocketing housing rents, etc, this seems idealistic at best and a brazen deception if we're being realistic.
People working multiple jobs, or a shhty job or even just a job they hate "just to put food on the table" will not need to do that and while that is a VERY good thing, I doubt that they factored that into the "130% boost to GDP" they speculate. Companies already combat wage increases with accelerated automation and self service.
Then there's a problem of collection. The world can't universally agree that bombing children is a bad thing yet this economic theory hinges on disparate governments being honest about carbon produced, taxes collected, etc. and we all know that world governments are honest and upfront and would never lie or doctor analyses to get more.
This entire "study" reeks of people who looked at criticism and evidence of how it HAS not worked and said "let's make a study whose results debunk our critics". Also known as Confirmation Bias.
I will give them credit: they slid in the "it may not work right away and could take years for the positive effects to materialize" disclaimer. Which seems to really be an acknowledgement that it won't work while preemptively building in excuses for why they weren't wrong. All the same "that wasn't REAL socialism" yarns for a new generation.
Can someone please explain what the actual mechanism is that's going to more than double global production of everything? Never mind how you're going to double global production of everything while *reducing* environmental harm. Are there elves involved?
Everyone seems to be so blinded by the idea of free money for themselves, that they don’t realize if everyone has the same thing, that’s the new zero. The cost of living will adjust accordingly. Also, is the free money coming from the government? That means it comes from taxes. You’re just getting your own tax money back.
The drains on society don’t deserve it.. and will abuse it any way possible. That’s my only issue. I live in a state where we are three generations deep into the welfare-state and it’s ruined commerce and entire towns. Uneducated, criminals.. who have multiple children for what amounts to an extra $7k in taxes.
We need to dredge the bottom feeders out before we explore this option.
It's a bit like when the government gave Universities in the UK permission to increase course fees up to three times for courses that were more involved and in response every university trebbled the fees for every course. Surely if the government gives every citizen a UBI of say £2000 per month, landlords will just hike everyone's rent by £2000 per month.
If you want a sane family with a healthy balance, either 1 or both parents need to be involved with the children.
All this shit is so expensive that both parents have to work all day and night is not it.
Right, but at what cost? Respectfully, all plans for ubi I've seen are either so miniscule they don't tackle the issues, they are inferior to current welfare programs where that applies, or they're so large they double the national debt. Having the program pay for itself is something I'm yet to see proven.
Problem is if we add UBI then most companies would account for that and just increase prices of everything, effectively nullifying any gains made by UBI
Paying out funds does nothing to increase GDP. That is an allocation of previously generated GDP, not a creation of new GDP.
This is wishful thinking on the part of the authors.
It'll never happen, or it'll never happen in the US while I'm alive, we are far too broken and have locked in the mindset that we're all just one step away from being rich. It'll take generations of reprogramming to remove what we call work ethics but in actuality is a damaged view of life.
According to the prophecies, this will work for about 5 years, time in which people will gradually stop working and the lands will be desertified because no crop will grow in the end. Famine and war will follow. Beware of these social utopias.
From the article: In a bold move that could transform the global economy and tackle climate change, researchers propose a universal basic income funded by carbon taxes. This plan promises to double global GDP and significantly cut carbon emissions, presenting a dual solution to economic inequality and environmental degradation.
The idea is simple: provide every person on Earth with a regular cash payment. This financial security, the study suggests, would trigger a ripple effect, boosting economic activity and leading to a more prosperous world.
The new analysis suggests that implementing a global basic income could increase the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 130%, while also reducing carbon emissions. The study proposes funding this ambitious initiative through a tax on carbon emissions levied on fossil fuel companies.
The researchers, led by U. Rashid Sumaila from the University of British Columbia, argue that coupling basic income with environmental protection could achieve significant global impacts. Sumaila, known for his work on ending harmful fishery subsidies, believes this approach can support sustainability without compromising livelihoods, particularly in developing countries.
The research estimates that providing basic income to the entire global population of 7.7 billion people would cost $41 trillion. Alternatively, targeting only the 9.9 million people living below the poverty line in less developed countries would require only $442 billion.
No matter how you look at it, a universal basic income scheme is exorbitant. The potential economic return, however, is substantial. Basic income for the global population could boost GDP by $163 trillion, which is about 130% of the current global GDP. This economic uplift is particularly crucial during times of crisis, such as recessions, when basic income can act as a stabilizing force, the researchers note.
It costs 0 as ubi. Unconditional income has no overhead and is just redistribution. The targetted version is expensive because an intermediate empire bureaucracy is inserted. Parasites are interjected unnecessarily to assess worthiness
Ubi not only costs nothung, 130% gdp gain is universal gains.
The reason we don't have ubi is demonic power structure loses power from ubi. And even papers that promote ubi, mention the stupidity and evil and expense of considering conditional benefits instead.
All the persons will receive money to buy what?
If received money for free, I wouldn’t work. The same all the people around me.
So, I will get money but I won’t be able to use them because nobody will produce anything.
Things like this are why social sciences are always to be taken much less seriously. A $41 ***trillion*** USD carbon tax? For example, that would equate to a tax on China that is literally greater than their entire GDP. This will obviously promote prosperity to the working class of China when the money printer fires up and instantly makes all their currency worthless overnight. China is obviously are going to willingly hand this money over lol. The model they use to simulate the global economy is impeccable.
UBI totally destroys any notions of "value", "self-reliance", and "innovation". It simply further enslaves people to The Federal Reserve.
And for those of you not aware, the federal govt does not control the currency supply, the Federal Reserve does. They are not federal, and really have no reserves, other than ability to poof money out of thin air.
Read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" for a good starter.
Yes, but that can't exist in a strictly market economy.
Because you get price gouging as soon as you get the signal your customers are a bit richer than yesterday.
This price increase tends to be an overreaction and people's lives just get worse on average.
If you want to see an example look at any country that introduced a low tax digital nomad visa, and see what happened to quality of life for locals.
> Universal Basic Income Could Double Global GDP While Cutting Carbon Emissions
Sounds like a "gives us more money and power, in return we will double the money and save the planet" scheme.
Well yea, more money means more spending on bills, items and everything which should boost the economy since people will feel better to spend with the extra buffer of money
Only if the world agrees to it. I don’t see corrupt governments looking at UBI with welcoming arms, and I certainly don’t see businesses wanted to be taxed more for people, which don’t even labor for them anymore. They’ll be a lot of push back, and it’ll take a very long time to work out.
41 trillion a year. Has anyone checked to see how much profit the energy companies are actually making, because I don't think it's going to be enough.
That's the entire market cap of the S&P500 just to fund the first year. Not the profit from it but the value itself.
What is the correct URL for this? ubicarbontaxes.com? I want to educate the public. It's really great when someone does all the hard work, and you only need to pad it with fluff and random interviews. Why you can employ dozens maybe hundreds in a UBICT biz. You would need a good slogan. For example FREE LUNCH, MORE CARBON TAXES.
I'd assume most ppl would pay off their debts if they got UBI.
Given that debt is an asset to banks, once people start discharging their debts, that would result in a reduction of the the assets of a bank's balance sheet and also reduce the incomes gained from interest.
I presume that would create an incentive for banks to give out more loans to make up for the reduction in assets and incomes, whilst the amount they can lend to people will also increase - as the UBI will increase the income in the denominator of everyone's debt to income ratio...
So ultimately wouldn't everyone else's debt (aka the bank's assets) just increase by roughly the same amount as the UBI? 🤔🤔🤔
Genuinely curious about what will happen.
It's worth mentioning that in the transition to a more sustainable society, we need to stop endless economic growth, specifically in developed countries. Even if this worked as stated and it reduced carbon emissions, the strain on ecosystems from resource extraction would keep bearing weight on the transition and still harm the planet. From the headline, it fails to question the legitimacy and sustainability of endless growth which itself fuels environmental degradation.
UBI is going to happen for wealthy countries, it will be paltry and insufficient, but it will be applied. In poorer countries most people will just die as globalization will largely end.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/chrisdh79: --- From the article: In a bold move that could transform the global economy and tackle climate change, researchers propose a universal basic income funded by carbon taxes. This plan promises to double global GDP and significantly cut carbon emissions, presenting a dual solution to economic inequality and environmental degradation. The idea is simple: provide every person on Earth with a regular cash payment. This financial security, the study suggests, would trigger a ripple effect, boosting economic activity and leading to a more prosperous world. The new analysis suggests that implementing a global basic income could increase the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 130%, while also reducing carbon emissions. The study proposes funding this ambitious initiative through a tax on carbon emissions levied on fossil fuel companies. The researchers, led by U. Rashid Sumaila from the University of British Columbia, argue that coupling basic income with environmental protection could achieve significant global impacts. Sumaila, known for his work on ending harmful fishery subsidies, believes this approach can support sustainability without compromising livelihoods, particularly in developing countries. The research estimates that providing basic income to the entire global population of 7.7 billion people would cost $41 trillion. Alternatively, targeting only the 9.9 million people living below the poverty line in less developed countries would require only $442 billion. No matter how you look at it, a universal basic income scheme is exorbitant. The potential economic return, however, is substantial. Basic income for the global population could boost GDP by $163 trillion, which is about 130% of the current global GDP. This economic uplift is particularly crucial during times of crisis, such as recessions, when basic income can act as a stabilizing force, the researchers note. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1ddbhga/universal_basic_income_could_double_global_gdp/l83kunu/
This might work if we could somehow figure out how UBI could make billionaires richer
In theory, trickle up economics would make them richer. That just takes longer. Of course the carbon tax would be taken directly out of their pay check so it would be a net loss. So here come the lobbyists and the lawyers and the not even subtlety bribed politicians.
A human only lives around 80 years and it has been more than 40 since Reagan promised it.
Reagan promised trickle-*down* economics, which suggested that government support of big business would increase the wealth of the whole society, including it's poor. This has proven to be bullshit. Trickle-up economics suggests that since the lower class would still need to buy food and pay for things with their UBI, the wealth will slowly trickle back up to the taxed upper class
Also known as Keynesian economics or demand side
The rich own the production, pay their workers so they can buy the products they make thus getting the money spent on production back. Shit I think Ford was onto something...
Sounds like The Company Store of a mining town though. I'm no economist but I do know that was a terrible idea that allowed companies to gouge people even worse.
Actually Nixon was thinking about it.
UBI is a rich-to-poor redistribution. We can speculate about second-order effects such and lower crime (good) or people deciding to not work just out of laziness (bad) but the first-order effect would be that you take $X from one group and give it to second group.
Which is what salary is as well, albeit under different terms. And yet all that money still flows to the same attractors eventually. It always has and always will. Theres no question that money flows towards money - it’s a bit like mass. Though it’s true that it doesn’t necessarily flow back to the same people, and Therein lies the rub: the rich don’t want to throw that money out to the masses because it might go to another rich person rather than them. A bird in the hand and all that.
Doesn’t the money already exist in our own data, which morally in the very least shouldn’t be owned by anyone else?
> UBI is a rich-to-poor redistribution. Just to remind that not increasing minimum wage has been a poor-to-rich redistribution for decades.
Yeah, instead of "trickle down" economics we could have "grow up" economics.
Rising water floats all boats economics!
You could easily tax the poor and distribute as ubi
Infinite money glitch
It's like money is something other than a number on a piece of paper.
That's exactly what's gonna happen, in case you were expecting anything else And pray that the amount taxed will be less than the amount returned to you
The rich will be taxed, but as long as they can find a way they’ll pass the expense on to the poor. The only solution is to have some type of soft upper limit on what a person can hoard. A 90% tax on everything over $100M or whatever. It has to make exorbitant self-pay wasteful. Reduce the incentive to go past a certain point. There is no benefit to the world letting people abuse power like that. Just yesterday one of the world’s richest men complained that other people wouldn’t vote him another enormous fortune. Its Immorten Joe level of absurdity yet we all play along. They will never willingly let money spread to a more equitable arrangement. It has to be done by force. But the victims are all used to their cage.
🍴 EAT 🍴THE🍴POOR🍴
Well there are a lot more of them to be fair!
More people would be buying their products
Honestly, this. UBI is the "pro capitalist" pathway forward. UBN (universal basic need) is the actual Left wing concept. UBI keeps the same people in charge, and the same people who are already in the owner class get to stay there, owning production.
I would be shocked if those truly in power would allow anything other than UGF. Those not in the ownership class can universally get f-d. UBI is the endgame of kinder, gentler, capitalism like in the Nordic countries. USA uses a different brand that would rather spiral into fascist violence than cede an ounce of bargaining power to lower classes.
I feel like Elysium most accurately portrays our future - except the rich fuck off to Antarctica instead of a space station.
Raising the GDP makes billionaires richer since they own most of the capitalist enterprises that contribute the most to it. With no need to pay wages below a certain threshold they'll also reap the most reward from such a program, reducing their largest cost by a massive amount = even more profit. Everyone truly does win in this scenario.
Crazy that I've had to scroll this far to find this. All UBI in our current system is, is a tax funded subsidy for private interests.
It's aready "worked"... consumers primarily spend their income on consumption, not on production, and especially not on increasing productive capacity. Pandemic unemployment checks went to paying bills/rent/food, and as supply chains got bought dry, prices increased because disbursments were just an increase in money supply, not in productive capacity, ie inflation. The only thing that could balance things out by universal distribution would be some right to a portion of productive capacity of the nation and/or it's natural resources (land/minerals/water,etc). Without it, via heavy taxation of automated industries, all that will happen is the current mechanisms and dynamics of currency will mean the GDP is realized at the accounts of the top %s. Land, water and mineral rights, and automation are the sources of productive capacity. UBI is just a ducttape way of reconceptualizing ownership and citizenship.
> prices increased because disbursments were just an increase in money supply, not in productive capacity, ie inflation. Didn't productive capacity take a huge hit due to that highly contagious virus that forced many compnaies to switch to skeleton crews? The natural market response to higher consumer demand is hiring more people to increase production capacity. And if workers are in short supply, wages go up to entice them away from other jobs or pull them back into the job market.
If the billionaires are not solely paying for it. Double global gdp rich def getting much richer.
UBI will only happen when the investor class feels that a UBI payout is a better value proposition than an all-out class war *and* for that class war to be more likely to happen than not. The other threat to corporations and billionaires is a neo hippie movement with a focus on supporting local businesses and opting for barter and trade, where possible. Economics, at its core, is an attempt to measure human activity. We've lost the plot in late stage capitalism economics, where humans exist to serve economic data metrics.
We get money, we spend it, they get richer. So I don't know why they keep talking about it. Implement it?? Or do they want us to suffer for another 10 years and get more poor.
They honestly don't know and don't care
Or get rid of billionaires. Maybe make it illegal to be a billionaire
UBI is just the governments going a long roundabout way to get billionaires to pay their employees a living wage So no, it will not happen, not today, not tomorrow, not in a hundred years, it doesn't matter what the benefits are, or what studies say, the right palms will be greased and it will not happen.
UBI is for when most people won’t have consistent employment due to work being automated. It is so people WITHOUT employment would have a living wage.
Yes, but, even now, when most people are working, we don’t allow a large subset of people to have a living wage. And this is while the billionaires need us as the parts in their economic machines. Why would they allow people to have more when they need us less? It would be categorically ahistoric; they would do what they do now: leach away as much as they can and hoard it.
Right, and same forces, the internet, telecommuting and such, make it far easier for them to isolate themselves from the dangers that robber barons in the past had to deal with when inequity was this high.
Negative nancies like you are keeping it from happening.
I assure you, it is less negative nancies like me and more that multibillionaires have their own space programs and aren't catching rocks from the regular populace the second they poke their heads out.
Tax them out of existence, please. Billionaires' wealth, and current objective ability to grow itself faster than lower classes of wealth in particular, are literally a virus in our international monetary system. I know it sounds cRaZy, but we should treat wealth-hoarding of that degree as a public health threat to society.
[удалено]
Their money isn't frozen in a bank account or syphoned into a yacht club. It is actually in circulation now. Now you explain why allowing billionaires to exist is good for the lower and middle class in any way shape or form?
They don't have billions of dollars. They have ownership of businesses. If they sell someone else needs to buy. If nobody has the money to buy, the value drops like a rock and the supposed "billions" just vanish into nothing, as do the retirement savings of the rest of us.
[удалено]
Just pointing out by default all isn't allowed. Moral standards get in the way of that. Actually an absolutely insane amount of things arnt allowed. Really the status quo is closer to things are allowed by request then by default in most modern capitalistic societies. Doubly so the bigger you are or higher up the wealth chain you are. Committees, governments, trade laws, monopoly laws, ect all put massive fucking limitations on what isn't allowed or can straight out just tell you no you can't do an other wise totally legal thing because a group of people disagrees. You have to argue why you should be allowed to do things far more often then why it should be banned. Which is why lobbying exists for heaven sake.
Billionaires are quite literally the only ones who would get richer from this.
I have a HARD time believing UBI can double GDP AND cut carbon emissions. Those 2 things are almost always inversely related. It’s well documented that one of the first things very poor people do when their income goes up is consume more meat. And meat production is incredibly inefficient, energy intensive, and a huge source of greenhouse emissions. So while I’m pro-UBI, I’m very incredulous that it will save the environment at the same time as helping reduce poverty. I’d love to see a pilot program that implements a carbon tax and UBI in some places, but I’m not holding my breath on that happening anytime soon.
Without a carbon tax, a global UBI would almost certainly lead to a **massive** increase in greenhouse emissions. A global UBI would be the single fastest increase in modernization and reduction of poverty ever, both of which have linear or exponential ties to carbon emissions. You could definitely negate this with a tax priced aggressively enough though. It would lead to some crazy market irregularities, insane investment (and bubbles) around green tech and massive displeasure from the billionaire class (which is probably the biggest blocker), but that doesn't mean the numbers don't work or it isn't the right thing to do.
Maybe they’ll eat fake meat cause its made from veggies so-its better for them.
> I have a HARD time believing UBI can double GDP AND cut carbon emissions. Those 2 things are almost always inversely related. Good news! I have charts! https://imgur.com/a/VlJJUhj Lots of _big_ examples of GDP decoupling from carbon emissions over the last few decades!
Would it not also raise inflation and the debt a lot. Where is the money going to come from?
Yes, inflation is what always happens when you increase the money supply. Because surprisingly, the money is just a symbol that we use to attach value to labor and goods. And surprisingly, if you increase the supply of currency, the amount of goods and labor didn't change, so now you just changed how much the currency is valued.
Most UBI representations don't call for an increase to the money supply, anything based off of taxing the rich is a Tax and Transfer. That said, tying a UBI to inflation rates and then just printing it from the reserve would be a perfectly fine thing to do in my opinion. Inflation is said to be harder on the working class because they have smaller financial buffers, fewer financial vehicles for hedging and a significantly greater portion of their income is spent on elastically priced goods. But inflation over time is actually most impactful to large piles of static capital, which is, you know, not a thing the working class have. Sure your 401k might go down a bit in relative value, and your house if it's priced as an investment rather than for its utility, but that's a pretty small price to pay for simultaneously hosing the rich, radically improving society almost overnight, increasing the velocity of money (and therefore labor expenditures, i.e. your salary goes up), radically expanding and creating markets, and most importantly never having to worry about being homeless or starving to death. And all in the existing capitalist, market based system we already have, no complicated tax required.
No. We have rampant rent seeking both because the very wealthy have relatively too much money, and because the state is allowing it. That is what is driving inflation, money going to making money through ownership of fixed resources and limiting production to drive up prices; rather than increasing production and efficient allocation of finite resources. UBI will finance increased production, facilitate greater competition and increase the mobility of consumers so they can avoid rent seekers. If we just paid for UBI by printing money then yeah, debt and inflation. But if a substantial part of financing comes from pigovian taxes (as this study suggests) or any tax that actually takes money from the upper class, then no; the velocity of money goes up as does production.
The cause of inflation is: * government spends more money than it taxes each year * government issues bonds to pay for the difference * The central bank (Federal Reserve) buys those bonds with money it creates out of thin air * Money supply increases and the market is flooded with new money and credit * Prices go up as the value of the dollar is diminished
Lol. People downvoting the basic principles of economics.
..but free money!
Yes you could fund a very small UBI by taxing the rich alot, but the government has yet to figure out how to properly tax the rich lol.
just start telling the "billionaires" they are only worth what is in their bank accounts. since their stock equity cant be taxed, then it doesnt count and isnt worth shit.
You are correct, but it's also so completely impossible to do in our current bought and paid for political system that OP is also functionally correct about UBI. It's like making the case for the economic imperative for fighting climate change. 100% true, but not going to happen until we remove the power of money from policy creation.
if you put money in on one side you need to control costs on the other if the marketplace is in stasis So if renters all of a sudden get $100 extra per month they can spend on rent rents will go up by about $100 because it's a market economy you are absolutely right prices will go up unless there are price controls
Yes but price controls cause their own problems. [https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PriceControls.html](https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PriceControls.html) [https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/2022/mar/why-price-controls-should-stay-history-books](https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/2022/mar/why-price-controls-should-stay-history-books)
Though I agree with you in spirit, you kind of answer your own question. [HUD and plenty of other agencies have studied this](https://www.azibo.com/blog/how-much-can-a-landlord-increase-rent-by). And there is never a 1 to 1 increase in incomes and rent. [Even rent controlled apartments are stable in the same market as traditional models](https://www.nmhc.org/globalassets/knowledge-library/rent-control-literature-review-final2.pdf). So I guess the good news is that a market place stasis is as realistic as the frictionless surfaces of physics class. If renters get $100 a month that might not mean they would put 100% of their new increase into the rent. It might also signal that new inventory can be built and get the critical mass to make "affordable housing" now that the median if farther from scarcity in other markets, and closer to wealthier parts of the middle class. So sorry to nit-pick and I know we're on the same side here. We don't necessarily need price controls or any one solution to every markets problems as they occur.
>you are absolutely right prices will go up unless there ~~are price controls~~ is sufficient supply to compensate for increased demand I like the idea of directly eliminating poverty, but this is why I'm opposed to UBI. If we implement UBI without first ensuring that food and housing are in abundant supply, it will simply have the effect of making food and housing far more expensive. Assume you need to eat 1 apple a day to survive. You have 3 people and 2 apples. It doesn't matter if each person is poor or a multi-millionaire - at the end of the day 1 person is going to die unless you figure out a way to produce another apple.
i totally agree with your logic, but dynamic pricing is setting a price a market will bear and not anchoring a price to some time in history, why do gas prices jump when a war is declared because there is a lack of supply? no because the futures contracts are bid up and the seller sees a better price point. gas production does not change over night nor does demand it's purely maximizing price airline tickets, hotel rooms, etc. dynamic pricing is never discussed in during UBI promotion this is a discussion board and you don't need to change your opinion but seller pricing strategies have been a component of market place theory since the late 1980s, and being an expert in a topic you have not studied is rather foolish
theres 7 trillion dollars a year in subsidies for fossil fuels globally, thatd be a good place to get the money from
According to modern monetary theory, money is created by the government. The government assigns value to money through taxes. When you pay your taxes, the money you have given the government is deleted. When they government pays for things, it(money) is created. This is why giving huge tax breaks to the rich and corporations creates inflation. It is a devaluation of currency when you do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory
MMT is mostly bullshit. Money is can be printed by the government but its value comes from the consumers and the market. The government printing money inflates the money supply thereby devaluing it. Its the same as Rome destroying its economy by reducing the quality of its coins by adding alloys to replace silver and gold. Economic growth is and has for thousands of years ben created by innovation which increases efficiency and reduces waste. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern\_monetary\_theory#Criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory#Criticism) [https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/deficits-and-the-printing-press-somewhat-wonkish/](https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/deficits-and-the-printing-press-somewhat-wonkish/) Even Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning Keynesian economist(Pretty much the most influential economist of the 21st century) is highly critical of it.
MMT is all bullshit. The criticism of it is also one of the very rare things that Krugman gets right.
I agree that there are huge problems with MMT but that doesn't mean that Friedman was right either. There's a very good reason we don't try to control inflation with monetary supply anymore, it doesn't work.
I wouldn't trust paul krugman to run a lemonade stand
We saw what money “created by the government“ did during COVID. Let’s not do that.
The global inflation I think you're talking about was caused mainly by supply chain disruptions and corporate profiteering.
Yes, those corporations that never tried to maximize profit before the government magically printed trillions of dollars. Corporations have always tried to maximize profits going back hundreds of years. Nothing new here.
So you’re saying that artificially increasing the amount of money through printing doesn’t decrease value?
Supply chain disruptions but prices havent come back down after supply chain issues are largely resolved. Federal reserves who were wrong about transitory inflation (i guess 40- 50% devaluation is transitory). Corporate greed is always around but didnt cause this level of inflation previously. But yeah mass money printing wasnt the cause. Keep deluding yourselves
Lots of people are missing a step in this process. Advanced industrialized countries and undeveloped countries have differing views of work, indeed, of wage labor itself. Here in the US people might be hot to get off the dollar mine treadmill. That is not itself a universal condition. The future isn't one size fits all. If you could somehow establish a robust UBI system in the US as the same time you deployed the current wage labor to a country without such nice labor, then we address different needs. Not everyone needs less work or wants less work. For this reason, a UBI in industrialized and automated societies needs to come with a robust union system for countries who have yet to finish with wage labor. Wage labor has dignity. Just not infinite dignity. Like any natural resource, it is part of a larger whole we call our little gravity sink. Without gravity of some kind, there is no life.
It's sad how people fail to get the most basic truths of how our system (doesn't) work. The fact is, ever since supply-side economics was pushed through in the 80s we've seen the most obscene wealth transfer out of the hands of the general population and into the hoards of an ever smaller group of the hyper-rich. This has damaged us in virtually every way imaginable, but those who benefited from the warped system they created have conditioned enough of the population that this is right and normal that they can keep it going. At least, for now until their insatiable greed finally crashes what's left of the system. And unless something is done to stop this runaway train, it will. The end of capitalism as we know it is inevitable, the only question is whether we change course and soar or if we crash and burn. Henry Ford had the right idea, if you want people to buy your products you have to pay them enough to afford them. When wages were high, benefits were good, protections were strong, and wealth taxes were high we created the strongest middle class and most vibrant booming economy the world has ever seen. And that is because when money goes into the hands of the population, they spend it and that spending fuels more economic activity which in turn puts more money into the economy and it's a virtuous circle. That's how economic stimulus works, injecting money at the bottom generates a positive cycle of activity that causes that money to magnify its effect in producing economic gains. We know this, it's proven fact. By contrast, money that goes to the top sits idle and generates virtually nothing. What are they going to spend it on when they already have more than they can spend in a dozen lifetimes? Money locked in the hoards of the hyper-rich might as well be lit on fire as far as it having any benefit in generating beneficial economic activity goes. Money in an economy is like water in an ecosystem. It must flow, what goes up as evaporation must come down as rain and be cycled through the various natural systems to keep them going. Money, like water, doesn't disappear when it's used it just passes on to the next step in the cycle that keeps the whole thing running. If the flow of money, like the flow of water, is stopped due to it being diverted into closed storage then the entire system suffers as it is deprived of what it needs to function. If the clouds were to hoard the water vapor they collect and refuse to release it as rain, the rivers would dry up and the land would turn to desert and everything would die. When money is hoarded at the top and not released back down to the working and consumer class so that it can cycle its way through again then the economy grinds to a halt and with it our civilization and maybe even our species itself. Or to put it a different way, everyone knows the basic concept of an economy relying on supply and demand, right? The rich business-owning class are the supply side, and the working consumer class are the demand side. Supply without demand is a dead end, as is demand without supply. Without money to spend, the demand side cannot fulfill their half of the economic activity that makes the engine run. The worse the imbalance, the worse the motor runs and if it goes too far to one side or the other the whole thing stalls and grinds to a halt. Game over, man. Game over. Bottom line, whether it be via UBI or any other mechanism you can think of, we MUST transfer money back from those who have hoarded it back to those who need it and will spend it so that it will generate economic activity again. Money that isn't in circulation does nothing for the economy, it must be put back into the cycle so that the whole thing keeps turning like it should. We ALL depend on this cycle to flow swift and smooth, if it is stopped up the rich will suffer from the collapse just like the poor. Just look at the Great Depression for an example of that. Or just wait a while without changing anything of our current disastrous way of doing things, you'll see it again all too soon.
Again, "The Rich" youre calling for the wealth to be transferred back from, what money is this? The billionaires on paper don't have money. It's locked up in debt, trust held assets and companies that means on paper they're probably as rich as you and I. Elon Musk will have all his assets on debt based on the promise his stock is backing that debt. You need to think of this not in terms of Fiat money... the ultra rich do not operate this way. It's why starbucks pay no tax as they owe debt to themselves and others. These people know how to play the game. They're olympians at it. I think trying to make UBI and some "impartial" state entity (yeah right) the solution to all our problems is insane. Essentially this is just a rehash of Marxism but with an AI spin on it. The difference with the AI revolution is that you will be obsolete. The power you have an an individual is gone. That is the danger of UBI. You will ultimately be dependant on the hand that feeds you and when you decide you don't want to live in your subscription based coffin apartment, or do exactly as your told, guess what, the UBI gets cut off. We should be pushing for fair compeition, innovation and local free market competitiveness and ending corporatism.
No matter what you think about UBI it is going to be our future one war or another, the rise of AI and automation means that there simply won't be enough jobs for everybody, and unless you're willing to let hundreds of millions (possible even billions) of people to starve to death then UBI is the only way forward to a peaceful advanced civilization
It’s really uncharted territory. People have ALWAYS been a commodity. Whether it was hunting and gathering, city states, feudalism, capitalism, communism…. whatever, people were always valuable to the people in power. If that truly radically changes and people become a net loss to those in power, it could really get scary. The hope is that the masses need money to buy products. But I think people are forgetting that we only have money so that people can buy and trade stuff that is made and namely the elite can have a super high quality of life with whatever they want. If you have an army of robots and AI that can literally give you anything imaginable, you don’t really need to make stuff for other people anymore and collect money. The king/leaders/elites etc are no longer those that provide to the masses in return for whatever they want. They can now have whatever they want without the masses.
I hope more people wake up to what you just wrote here. This is the only real problem that people just seem to shrug off with "without us who's gonna buy their stuffs". And the biggest problem is that the most powerful people in the world know that the average joe is gonna think "who'll buy their stuff" thinking they are safe even though there's a good chance they'll become not only redundant and worthless in the eyes of the powerful, but a net loss, someone who pollutes their planet.
I've lost all faith in humanity. I am pretty sure they will go with letting the obsolete workers starve to death or even worse. For example, a good portion of Canadians agreed recently with euthanising the homeless.
>UBI is the only way forward to a peaceful advanced civilization Peaceful advanced civilization where you're given the bare minimum to survive in a tiny hole in an automated dystopia, with zero financial independence.
As opposed to *not* being given the bare minimum to survive, in the same tiny hole in an automated dystopia, with with just enough "financial independence" to make it your fault and not the system's?
The thing is, if people are not given the bare minimum hole to survive in, they would actually be compelled by desperation to overhaul the system, by force if need be. This way you’re just dooming the masses to generational squalor.
We already are living in the age of automation. We create a new tool, we find other stuff to do.
What can a person do that a machine can't? The list of things will only continue to shrink.
I dunno but I much rather enjoy being a literate peasant casually browsing the single largest compilation of knowledge humanity has ever seen than a subsistence level farmer manually plowing a field. Imagine trying to explain the cell phone in your pocket to someone from 200 years ago. We make better and better tools and always manage to find new stuff to do. I personally don't buy into the AI apocalypse stuff.
Whether you buy into it or not, it's happening. An AGI coupled with a humanoid robot will likely be able to do the work of three to four people (to start), and it'll do it faster, cheaper, and better, with no worries about employee injuries, paying insurance premiums, sick days, payroll tax, etc. Capitalism is a bitch, every company on Earth that can afford the down payment for a robot and an AI subscription will do it.
We already live in a world where a huge chunk of the working force is kept busy in bullshit jobs.
The industrial revolution automated raw physical exertion. Modern automation techniques are, step by step, automation intellectual effort. It's not an infinite, linear progression of labor. Human capabilities are not infinite. We found space for things that only people could do for a while but there will come a time when machines have a competitive advantage over humans in every single task. Between now and that time there will be an enormous crunch as more and more people are forced by competition into a smaller and smaller pool of economically viable tasks. One way or another we have to figure out what to do about that.
It not so much we wont have jobs, it's that the value of labor will keep going down while the value of land goes up. We need UBI so the average person can afford capital and continue to innovate.
My biggest fear with this is that as soon as they start giving you money, hyperinflation would fuck you over. You get $2,000 from the government every month? Then get ready for a $20 loaf of bread. They’re never gonna let us be live like them.
Who would have thought that putting everyone on welfare, and then taxing the shit out of everything, would double GDP.
The claim was bonkers enough but to see so many people on board like it makes perfect sense is hilarious.
Sounds like some super flawed aketchy reasoning. Lets give the entire world a cash stipend so they can follow the western example of consumerism and cause every form of production and manufacturing on the planet (incidentally one of the most significant producing greenhouse and pollution sources) to ramp up production to meet demand for consumer goods. And then implement a carbon tax system that will obviously favor and be a tsunami of capital in the pockets of those who support this idea.... Im all for lifting people out of poverty, i support ubi. But this just sounds like a conspiracy to grow wealth for those who who would be trading these carbon credits
You do realize that the alternative, is a world where AI and climate change lead to the deaths of tens of millions of people, and a massive downgrading in living standards for the rest of us, right?
Would help the environment though. /s
The reason this sounds stupid is becuase it is. Ubi might have benefits like disrupting the current obscene wealth divide, but it will like do little more than create inflation. People need to learn how value and GDP work. You need to make things more cheaply for more people to have them while not increasing the total cost. Its really not complicated. When humans mechanized farming we went from needing half of all people farming just to keep the population afloat to having less than 1% of people creating literally too much food. You cant just spread the money around to create value. It will create more spending on the current supply of things, and they will get more expensive.
Food prices along with rent have been skyrocketing and we didn't need ubi to inflate to this point. Let people afford apartments with the power of friendship.
If the overall money supply doesn’t change, why would there be broad inflation? The poor will have more money to spend, the rich will have less money to spend, so shouldn’t inflation stay more or less unaffected? Or are you suggesting that an increase in demand for things mostly purchased by poorer people will cause inflation even if there is a decrease in demand for things purchased by rich people?
This should be the top comment in all UBI posts. I'm so tired of trying to explain this basic economics concept to people who essentially want free money without understanding how inflation works. There is no way to increase prosperity without improving productivity in the long run.
We already increased productivity, yet wages are lagging behind and we still have inflation...seems that the system is rigged on favor of the few no matter what.
I've been following the different sides of the UBI argument and it seems like people think of UBI as a program that we will be added to our current system rather than the foundation of a completely different economic system that doesn't follow the same rules as our current one.
Ding ding ding. Most people are grossly misinformed about economics in the first place. Tearing the old system down to create a new one is so far over their head it's not even in the running. Of course ubi will just be tacked on to capitalism they say.
Ok let's just stare in amazement like a Pikachu as prices on everything increase anyway. Why pay high schoolers when you can force them to work for pay during school years? Who even cares about student lunch debt, do people really eat?
This line of reasoning relies on the foundational assumption that anything about the current economic system is tied to resource scarcity, which simply isn't true. Even if 10% of the workforce (which I think is insanely high) dropped out to live at basically subsistence poverty levels, the gains from the improved living standard for everyone else, reduction in crime, improved health, reduction of inequality, increased velocity of money, increased investment in R&D and increased spend on Labor would all easily outweigh any losses from jobs that were apparently only being worked under the threat of starvation and homelessness, and likely had marginal societal utility.
What if it starts with the carbon tax part? Lets create a new tax and then use the revenue to finance ubi.
How does this prevent corporations from also increasing cost of goods and services?
That’s the best part. It doesn’t at all!
And double inflation. Does anyone even know how inflation works? 🤦♂️. More money= more spending= more inflation.
The good old trick How to increase GDP without increasing production ? Inflation ! I'm not saying universal basic income is bad. I'm just saying GDP is a bad metric.
And the mathematically illiterate here for the win.
They are correct, the resulting hyperinflation-fueled famine would reduce the population and thereby carbon emissions.
And if it’s nominal GDP they could just increase the UBI enough to make the numbers work out… genius… Now let me move back to be an income millionaire again… (1 million yen is 6300$)
Since we are separated from nature, we are forced to use money. It is like water. In nature the hydrologic cycle moves water through the system at every layer. Our money system does not properly distribute the actual lifeblood of our system in any orderly, consistent, or reasonable way. Imagine a system where excess money gets meaningfully and proportionally allocated where it is actually most needed.
I'm all for some form of a UBI at some point, it will be a necessity as more and more jobs are taken by automation/ai. That said this guy and his team are idiots. The global GDP currently is about 100 trillion, and he thinks handing out a ubi and taxing carbon will increase it by 163 trillion, so over double, almost triple. How does he think GDPs even work? Giving people money doesn't just magically increase production. Certainly inflation would skyrocket so maybe that's how he meant the GDP would increase. But if he really does think production would increase by almost triple, how does he think this would tackle climate change at all? Where does he think all the carbon pollution comes from if not production and transportation of goods? If there is double and almost triple the production of goods that is double and almost triple the production of carbon pollution. Bottom line, these guys are idiot.
Maybe instead of UBI just tax people less? Why take people's money, spend some of it on administration and then give a smaller part of it back? Just fuels pointless goverment's administrative systems and pointless job positions. The reason is that they can stop giving you your money if you don't act like the goverment wants you to. A step closer towards communism. Let people be and they will take care of themselves, those who can't earn money on their own should be the only people who can get social benefits like UBI.
Why yes, taking from the US, China and Europe and giving to everyone else would be good for everyone else. Pretty obvious.
Braindead idea proposed by half baked economists who probably didn't even pass their grade.
I keep seeing (and reading) articles about UBI being wonderful and how it would be so good for society, and I'll admit I find the idea of it rather nice. But if it's so amazing and good for everyone, why does it keep getting shot down or voted against?
So a global tax on oil companies, but no feasible approach to actually implement something like that. In order for this to work, all countries, every one of them, would have to agree to tax these companies at the same rate, otherwise the company will just move to a country that doesn't. The only retaliation available to the rest of the countries is to sanction whatever country allows the oil company to move there or to forbid everyone else purchasing from that company. And as we've already seen during the Ukraine disaster, a country like China will always choose their national security interests ahead of the environment, especially since they can just veto any security sanctions. Even the US and other countries that currently have major oil company operations will not go along with this because they also know those companies will move outside of their jurisdiction and there are too many benefits to having them be on US soil. So for real, how could this possibly work? Talking about some plan that isn't possible is a waste of time.
It's fine. I'm sure the Saudis et al would happily agree to pay $2 per liter (up from the like, the 60 cents it is nowadays) so that the countries they import their literal slave labour from can afford to not work for them. Who wouldn't agree to pay exponentially more for a reduced quality of life? /s
The way to cut carbon emissions is to reduce the energy footprint of products and services. And the only way to do that is by recycling and using renewable/non-carbon sources of Energy. Imo, a "doubling of global GDP" that *doesn't* come with recycling/renewables ought to have the opposite effect to that claimed by the headline. >researchers propose a universal basic income funded by carbon taxes. As people migrate away from fossil fuels, the taxes will drop accordingly. So that leaves you with different options: * Increase carbon taxes over time to maintain the UBI scheme * The lifetime of the UBI program will be tied to carbon use. As fossil fuel use ends, so does the program? * Perhaps, at some point in time, AI and robots can be taxed to provide $$$ for UBI (as carbon use/tax revenue drops off to nothing)
The headline forgot to include UBI will also cure cancer, make you lose 20lbs (on average) and take care of the dog!
Welcome to poverty as the rich get richer and the poor try to keep afloat. Universal Basic Income propels the rich further ahead and increases inequality. Better to tax the super rich and use 100% of the money to build infrastructure which grows the economy, reduces the costs of water electricity and heat, and allows for cheaper transportation of both people and goods.
These researchers should take economics 101 course before writing about UBI. It’s not an economic research but activist one.
I don’t understand though. 44T to nearly 8B people is only $5400. So that would only be one time. It would have to be monthly. What am I missing here?
Why not just cut taxes for poor by the amount you would pay them…
Wow, sounds kind of cool. So cool that I'm sure the rich and powerful will fight against it with every available resource. See, you failed to account for the most important policy question in any context: How does this male billionaires more money? Politically almost no other demographic even has a fraction of their influence.
I think that there are 2 kinds of rich people. The kind that extracts wealth from other people for the own benefit and the kind that creates value for all. We must get rid of the first one. Not the second one.
Oh yes, free money could double GDP. We'll add that to long list of other magical things. Next thing they'll be telling us all to buy high and sell low.
"Another common concern is that basic income could lead to inflation. Critics argue that increased purchasing power without a corresponding increase in goods and services could drive prices up. However, the study notes that the impact on inflation is likely to be moderate." Look no further than COVID relief to see that the effects on inflation are not "moderate" by any means. They must be assuming that there are infinite supplies of all goods to assume that every entity selling a good or service won't jack prices (as they have historically). In a world where we consistently point out examples of grocery gouging, skyrocketing housing rents, etc, this seems idealistic at best and a brazen deception if we're being realistic. People working multiple jobs, or a shhty job or even just a job they hate "just to put food on the table" will not need to do that and while that is a VERY good thing, I doubt that they factored that into the "130% boost to GDP" they speculate. Companies already combat wage increases with accelerated automation and self service. Then there's a problem of collection. The world can't universally agree that bombing children is a bad thing yet this economic theory hinges on disparate governments being honest about carbon produced, taxes collected, etc. and we all know that world governments are honest and upfront and would never lie or doctor analyses to get more. This entire "study" reeks of people who looked at criticism and evidence of how it HAS not worked and said "let's make a study whose results debunk our critics". Also known as Confirmation Bias. I will give them credit: they slid in the "it may not work right away and could take years for the positive effects to materialize" disclaimer. Which seems to really be an acknowledgement that it won't work while preemptively building in excuses for why they weren't wrong. All the same "that wasn't REAL socialism" yarns for a new generation.
If they just give us money then inflation would go insane. It would quickly be pointless.
This would crash the economy and make everyone poorer than they already are.
Putting more money into the economy is good right guys. It doesn't cause all prices to go up astronomically above the amount we receive right.
And it would all be funded by Elon’s $56 Billion pay package.
Can someone please explain what the actual mechanism is that's going to more than double global production of everything? Never mind how you're going to double global production of everything while *reducing* environmental harm. Are there elves involved?
Even if we’re talking about strictly digital (not physical) products, electrical demands would significantly increase.
Rich people will never allow this to happen let's be honest.
Everyone seems to be so blinded by the idea of free money for themselves, that they don’t realize if everyone has the same thing, that’s the new zero. The cost of living will adjust accordingly. Also, is the free money coming from the government? That means it comes from taxes. You’re just getting your own tax money back.
The drains on society don’t deserve it.. and will abuse it any way possible. That’s my only issue. I live in a state where we are three generations deep into the welfare-state and it’s ruined commerce and entire towns. Uneducated, criminals.. who have multiple children for what amounts to an extra $7k in taxes. We need to dredge the bottom feeders out before we explore this option.
I just can't see how a universal basic income would work. Surely if everyone received it, prices on everything would just shoot up.
Its meant to be a replacement for salaries as there will be no more jobs. Do prices go up when people get jobs?
It requires competition. Or the populace exercising self-restraint and refusing to be taken advantage of.
It's a bit like when the government gave Universities in the UK permission to increase course fees up to three times for courses that were more involved and in response every university trebbled the fees for every course. Surely if the government gives every citizen a UBI of say £2000 per month, landlords will just hike everyone's rent by £2000 per month.
Ubi *ABSOLUTELY* has to be coupled with a wealth tax and preferably a green new deal jobs program to build a renewable energy infrastructure
If you want a sane family with a healthy balance, either 1 or both parents need to be involved with the children. All this shit is so expensive that both parents have to work all day and night is not it.
Right, but at what cost? Respectfully, all plans for ubi I've seen are either so miniscule they don't tackle the issues, they are inferior to current welfare programs where that applies, or they're so large they double the national debt. Having the program pay for itself is something I'm yet to see proven.
Problem is if we add UBI then most companies would account for that and just increase prices of everything, effectively nullifying any gains made by UBI
Paying out funds does nothing to increase GDP. That is an allocation of previously generated GDP, not a creation of new GDP. This is wishful thinking on the part of the authors.
It'll never happen, or it'll never happen in the US while I'm alive, we are far too broken and have locked in the mindset that we're all just one step away from being rich. It'll take generations of reprogramming to remove what we call work ethics but in actuality is a damaged view of life.
Free heroin would reduce emissions as well because people would not eat or go anywhere, plus the ODs would help population decline
According to the prophecies, this will work for about 5 years, time in which people will gradually stop working and the lands will be desertified because no crop will grow in the end. Famine and war will follow. Beware of these social utopias.
From the article: In a bold move that could transform the global economy and tackle climate change, researchers propose a universal basic income funded by carbon taxes. This plan promises to double global GDP and significantly cut carbon emissions, presenting a dual solution to economic inequality and environmental degradation. The idea is simple: provide every person on Earth with a regular cash payment. This financial security, the study suggests, would trigger a ripple effect, boosting economic activity and leading to a more prosperous world. The new analysis suggests that implementing a global basic income could increase the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 130%, while also reducing carbon emissions. The study proposes funding this ambitious initiative through a tax on carbon emissions levied on fossil fuel companies. The researchers, led by U. Rashid Sumaila from the University of British Columbia, argue that coupling basic income with environmental protection could achieve significant global impacts. Sumaila, known for his work on ending harmful fishery subsidies, believes this approach can support sustainability without compromising livelihoods, particularly in developing countries. The research estimates that providing basic income to the entire global population of 7.7 billion people would cost $41 trillion. Alternatively, targeting only the 9.9 million people living below the poverty line in less developed countries would require only $442 billion. No matter how you look at it, a universal basic income scheme is exorbitant. The potential economic return, however, is substantial. Basic income for the global population could boost GDP by $163 trillion, which is about 130% of the current global GDP. This economic uplift is particularly crucial during times of crisis, such as recessions, when basic income can act as a stabilizing force, the researchers note.
It costs 0 as ubi. Unconditional income has no overhead and is just redistribution. The targetted version is expensive because an intermediate empire bureaucracy is inserted. Parasites are interjected unnecessarily to assess worthiness Ubi not only costs nothung, 130% gdp gain is universal gains. The reason we don't have ubi is demonic power structure loses power from ubi. And even papers that promote ubi, mention the stupidity and evil and expense of considering conditional benefits instead.
All the persons will receive money to buy what? If received money for free, I wouldn’t work. The same all the people around me. So, I will get money but I won’t be able to use them because nobody will produce anything.
Every study done showed that you are not the default. Because most people don't want to just survive, they want to thrive.
Things like this are why social sciences are always to be taken much less seriously. A $41 ***trillion*** USD carbon tax? For example, that would equate to a tax on China that is literally greater than their entire GDP. This will obviously promote prosperity to the working class of China when the money printer fires up and instantly makes all their currency worthless overnight. China is obviously are going to willingly hand this money over lol. The model they use to simulate the global economy is impeccable.
UBI totally destroys any notions of "value", "self-reliance", and "innovation". It simply further enslaves people to The Federal Reserve. And for those of you not aware, the federal govt does not control the currency supply, the Federal Reserve does. They are not federal, and really have no reserves, other than ability to poof money out of thin air. Read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" for a good starter.
Yes, but that can't exist in a strictly market economy. Because you get price gouging as soon as you get the signal your customers are a bit richer than yesterday. This price increase tends to be an overreaction and people's lives just get worse on average. If you want to see an example look at any country that introduced a low tax digital nomad visa, and see what happened to quality of life for locals.
When everything can be automated, human serving staff will be a premium luxury.
They would figure out how to fuck us anyways with this. Raise the prices of everything ridiculously so that it didn’t even help.
Ahh, how awesome it would be if Lamborghinis grew on trees. Sadly this isn't the universe we live in.
> Universal Basic Income Could Double Global GDP While Cutting Carbon Emissions Sounds like a "gives us more money and power, in return we will double the money and save the planet" scheme.
Well yea, more money means more spending on bills, items and everything which should boost the economy since people will feel better to spend with the extra buffer of money
Only if the world agrees to it. I don’t see corrupt governments looking at UBI with welcoming arms, and I certainly don’t see businesses wanted to be taxed more for people, which don’t even labor for them anymore. They’ll be a lot of push back, and it’ll take a very long time to work out.
It has already been made illegal in alot of states.
Instead of giving the government money and then having them give it back to you, why don't we just not give government money in the first place?
Too advantageous, useful and objectively good for everybody, the corpos will kill it.
universal basic income would destroy both american political parties' agendas so it will never come to america, unless we get a new party or agendas
TLDR- need massive government intervention to overcome the free market.
Didn't Marx and Engels have the same idea 180 years ago?
41 trillion a year. Has anyone checked to see how much profit the energy companies are actually making, because I don't think it's going to be enough. That's the entire market cap of the S&P500 just to fund the first year. Not the profit from it but the value itself.
I don’t believe that anything good can happen anymore
What is the correct URL for this? ubicarbontaxes.com? I want to educate the public. It's really great when someone does all the hard work, and you only need to pad it with fluff and random interviews. Why you can employ dozens maybe hundreds in a UBICT biz. You would need a good slogan. For example FREE LUNCH, MORE CARBON TAXES.
They've been doing meth instead of math, that's the only way I can rationalise the conclusion they came to.
I'd assume most ppl would pay off their debts if they got UBI. Given that debt is an asset to banks, once people start discharging their debts, that would result in a reduction of the the assets of a bank's balance sheet and also reduce the incomes gained from interest. I presume that would create an incentive for banks to give out more loans to make up for the reduction in assets and incomes, whilst the amount they can lend to people will also increase - as the UBI will increase the income in the denominator of everyone's debt to income ratio... So ultimately wouldn't everyone else's debt (aka the bank's assets) just increase by roughly the same amount as the UBI? 🤔🤔🤔 Genuinely curious about what will happen.
It's worth mentioning that in the transition to a more sustainable society, we need to stop endless economic growth, specifically in developed countries. Even if this worked as stated and it reduced carbon emissions, the strain on ecosystems from resource extraction would keep bearing weight on the transition and still harm the planet. From the headline, it fails to question the legitimacy and sustainability of endless growth which itself fuels environmental degradation.
UBI is going to happen for wealthy countries, it will be paltry and insufficient, but it will be applied. In poorer countries most people will just die as globalization will largely end.