Do you guys know why the MMT cocksuckers don't like Yang's freedom dividend

destriero said:
I was born and raised in Illinois, but on the North Shore of Chicago (Winnetka).

Drive through Dogpatch SF. We (had) property there and visit nearly every weekend. There are tent "communities" under the 280.

Let's say that the gains in GDP from all of this consumption pays for the program. How do you control the resulting inflation that is the result of two massively inflationary forces? A GDP running perhaps North of 7% and massive gains to CPI.
More...

Simple, you turn off the $1000/month and cause a crash. Win on both ends!

But really, I'm not sure if that is the default outcome. Someone must have modeled this from a game theoretic perspective.
 
nooby_mcnoob said:
Simple, you turn off the $1000/month and cause a crash. Win on both ends!

But really, I'm not sure if that is the default outcome. Someone must have modeled this from a game theoretic perspective.
More...

They (MMT and UBI peeps) use the same playbook. Raise equity through underwriting. Who is going to be buying those bonds? The timing wil always be at the absolute nadir of the cycle.
 
destriero said:
They (MMT and UBI peeps) use the same playbook. Raise equity through underwriting. Who is going to be buying those bonds? The timing wil always be at the absolute nadir of the cycle.
More...

The "trick" in the UBI being proposed is that it eventually does away with all forms of welfare. If you can get an extra $1000 on top of a McDonald's job, you're going to take that McD's job as opposed to welfare where you wouldn't because you would lose the welfare. So "eventually" the cost will be similar, but no welfare bureacracy.

I do see your points about the prior cases being small economies, and I agree that the US is a huge, complex economy. Maybe it won't scale, maybe it will. What the US has going on right now is absolutely not sustainable.

I'm not saying that the bond purchases are not a problem, but where else is China, for example, going to put their money? They were net buyers recently afaik.
 
From usafacts.org, 336 billion annually spent on welfare-like stuff, ~20 billion on "government run businesses". Just that 20 billion and now you've found "UBI" for 1.7 million people.

If I were a conservative (which I am), I would be 100% in favor of getting all this shit out of government.

upload_2019-4-17_10-45-17.png
 
nooby_mcnoob said:
Practically speaking, here is how it would work:

1. My landlord comes to me and says: "Your rent is going up by $1000/month next renewal"
2. I say fuck that shit and find a cheaper place
3. Move on

Unless every landlord in the US will simultaneously raise rent by $1000, there will be some room for efficiency here. I do worry about rent the most, it will disproportionately impact poor people.
More...


Your example is too simplistic and ignores other market participants, and spending needs.

First, your landlord isn't going to raise prices by $1,000 because some of your dividend is going to be eaten up by inflation in other goods and services.... food prices, utilities, health care, transportation, entertainment, clothing prices, pretty much everything you spend money on currently, will gobble up small amounts of your extra $1k.

1. Your LL says "I'm raising your rent by $150"
2. You say "Screw you, I'm out of here"
3. You look around the market and realize that your rent increase was in line with market dynamics because all the other renters are bidding up the market because they have extra $$$ (supply/demand).
4. You say "I guess I'll stay, because I really don't want to move, plus I can afford it with my dividend"

Now your rent inflated just a little. Your car insurance inflated just a little. Your Starbucks inflated just a little. Your new iPhone inflated just a little..... etc, etc, etc
 
It's still welfare, but the "flat tax" equivalent (no paperwork). Trumpers will love it as they'll finally have some disposable monies for vapes and booze.
 
clacy said:
Your example is too simplistic and ignores other market participants, and spending needs.

First, your landlord isn't going to raise prices by $1,000 because some of your dividend is going to be eaten up by inflation in other goods and services.... food prices, utilities, health care, transportation, entertainment, clothing prices, pretty much everything you spend money on currently, will gobble up small amounts of your extra $1k.

1. Your LL says "I'm raising your rent by $150"
2. You say "Screw you, I'm out of here"
3. You look around the market and realize that your rent increase was in line with market dynamics because all the other renters are bidding up the market because they have extra $$$ (supply/demand).
4. You say "I guess I'll stay, because I really don't want to move, plus I can afford it with my dividend"

Now your rent inflated just a little. Your car insurance inflated just a little. Your Starbucks inflated just a little. Your new iPhone inflated just a little..... etc, etc, etc
More...

OK, but then why is inflation in Alaska relatively lower than the average? It's a local enough circumstance that you should be able to find comparisons. It "sounds" like what you're saying will happen, but if the UBI rolls out unevenly, or at random times in random amounts, the market cannot make that adjustment except _maybe_ over the long term. Though I would like to hear why Alaska's inflation is apparently lower than the rest of us.
 
destriero said:
It's still welfare, but the "flat tax" equivalent (no paperwork). Trumpers will love it as they'll finally have some disposable monies for vapes and booze.
More...

Pretty much. I don't see it as anything other than welfare. It's a two-fer: gives people some money for necessities, potentially reduces the size of government.
 
nooby_mcnoob said:
OK, but then why is inflation in Alaska relatively lower than the average? It's a local enough circumstance that you should be able to find comparisons. It "sounds" like what you're saying will happen, but if the UBI rolls out unevenly, or at random times in random amounts, the market cannot make that adjustment except _maybe_ over the long term. Though I would like to hear why Alaska's inflation is apparently lower than the rest of us.
More...


Inflation is low because prices are already at the limits of price elasticity (EOD).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top