Do not get me wrong, Helicopter Money would be the greatest thing for Markets, it would send the SP to the moon, especially if CNBC convinces a part of the US population to dump money in US equities... But like anything else, it will get abused and just destroy society's independence... Sucking on the government tits every month is not what I call prosperity. They will do UBI 100 % in this coming recession, due to income inequality created by QE and the fact Fed doesn't want RMBS on there sheet, Helicopter money should be the last resort to stimulate consuming especially in Consumption based Economies... Once addicted, it will be very bad, can't get the people off or they starve, Inflation just went up like crazy. Back at square one, deleverage and raise rates, or live in fantasy land of unlimited fiat and depend on government. Purchasing Power will always adjust, it's just the way it is. Why would people put themselves in Government dependence only for a few years of extra spending... After a few years goes by, that extra money is now budget money
Do you guys know why the MMT cocksuckers don't like Yang's freedom dividend
- Thread starter nooby_mcnoob
- Start date
Do not get me wrong, Helicopter Money would be the greatest thing for Markets, it would send the SP to the moon, especially if CNBC convinces a part of the US population to dump money in US equities... But like anything else, it will get abused and just destroy society's independence... Sucking on the government tits every month is not what I call prosperity. They will do UBI 100 % in this coming recession, due to income inequality created by QE and the fact Fed doesn't want RMBS on there sheet, Helicopter money should be the last resort to stimulate consuming especially in Consumption based Economies... Once addicted, it will be very bad, can't get the people off or they starve, Inflation just went up like crazy. Back at square one, deleverage and raise rates, or live in fantasy land of unlimited fiat and depend on government. Purchasing Power will always adjust, it's just the way it is. Why would people put themselves in Government dependence only for a few years of extra spending... After a few years goes by, that extra money is now budget money
In my unusually humble opinion, I would say that treating the country like a corporation run for its shareholders (citizens) is a step up from what is happening right now because on the whole, shareholders would be treated equally. Currently, we have uneven treatment due to special interests. The more of the government revenue that gets redirected to UBI without sacrificing the basic functions of government, the better for everyone.
In the end, let's say you get the commensurate inflation and are back at square one. You have still reduced the size of government. Yay. Don't forget, the government instituted a "temporary" income tax. Time for us to institute "temporary" dividends.
The only place you can really compare it to is Yukon which is next door and the cost there according to expatistan https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/whitehorse?currency=USD https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/anchorage is almost exactly the same, with potentially a small premium due to the difficulty of getting stuff to Alaska vs (say) Yukon from BC. There is no dividend in Yukon as far as I'm aware.
Better comparison, though the Yukon is definitely not as rich as Alaska, the density is about 2x in favor of Anchorage with the above comparison
Well govt benefits from the productive capacity of its citizens... so a dividend makes some sense. You get a $10K pay raise, tax free. I have listened to Yang and he makes a compelling case. He's clear that it's transitional. I don't know how you would curb inflation and shut down the program... ever.
He is transitional, but imagine if he is able to get the "Humanity first" approach to stick where GDP is the wrong number to focus on, for example.
The other thing I like about him is that he is a child of immigrants so he very acutely understands individual freedom and responsibility. I don't see him being a statist like Obama. As a result, he's not swampy and unless Trump is actually able to "drain the swamp", Yang probably would be unable to stand up to the careerists like Pelosi.
The other thing I like about him is that he is a child of immigrants so he very acutely understands individual freedom and responsibility. I don't see him being a statist like Obama. As a result, he's not swampy and unless Trump is actually able to "drain the swamp", Yang probably would be unable to stand up to the careerists like Pelosi.
The idea of providing a (transitional) source of income in a wildly transformational economy is probably the smartest political platform in recent memory. He needs an educational component.
GDP growth tripling will only add another trillion or so to GDP.
He does have an educational component which is "university/college isn't the only option". I tell my kids this too but they heard too many good stories about my university years.
I could live on $12K tax-free in any state in the US, I don't think an educational component is a necessary part of UBI. A married couple could make it on $24K. I know my parents, who both work, only spend ~$30K and they vacation for months at a time.
Vocational also needs to transition away from electrician/housing trades to programming, green energy, etc.