Close

Complete Captcha

• 1 year - 58 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 107 Goods vs 70 No Goods

1. Economist
   f84a
   

   ^That's actually a good point. Warren's idea of lowering interest rates for college loans is silly - it would just raise tuition costs even higher and increase the bubble, the same way low lending standards contributed to the subprime mortgage bubble.

   Actually lowering college tuition (since it should be lower and reflect the actual value of the investment, which isn't that great of a ROI for many people who choose questionable degrees) is a much better idea. Get rid of silly admin + sports + new fancy building costs, push tuition lower to reflect ROI, etc.

   I still don't know about that UBI income though. Even with a VAT and removing other social security programs, he's still quite a significant amount short on funding for the UBI. 12k / adult is like 3 trillion a year...

   1 year ago # QUOTE 6 Good 0 No Good !

2. Economist
   fb98
   

   ^ The thing is that he's the only one who is realistic about things. He understands that retraining, free college, etc. don't really work. He also understands that government is inefficient. I don't think there is anything wrong with everyone starting at 12k/year considering the probably wage pressures brought about by an increasing role of technology in production.

   The only issue that I have is whether Yang is overly optimistic about the success of AI.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 6 Good 0 No Good !

3. Economist
   05b9
   

   A disgrace to the Chinese community!

   He is Taiwanese

   A China person is a China person is a China person.

   Daiwanlang msi Dionggoklang.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 6 Good 0 No Good !

4. Economist
   793c
   

   Yang is the CCP in disguise

   1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Good 2 No Good !

5. Economist
   f84a
   

   ^ The thing is that he's the only one who is realistic about things. He understands that retraining, free college, etc. don't really work. He also understands that government is inefficient. I don't think there is anything wrong with everyone starting at 12k/year considering the probably wage pressures brought about by an increasing role of technology in production.
   The only issue that I have is whether Yang is overly optimistic about the success of AI.

   Yeah, I agree that he is very realistic about a lot of things and pretty rational / great overall.

   I feel like the UBI would basically be a fairly significant economic experiment. I could see it going well, and I could also see it going quite badly. The incidence of the VAT will definitely hit consumers as well, and transferring investment savings to a lump sum distribution to consumers may not necessarily stimulate the economy (I think part of the assumption is that the economy still has a decent amount of slack left and thus the redistribution should increase output through increasing aggregate demand...but I don't know if the economy actually has that much slack left).

   On the other hand, if he's right about what tech will do to the economy, then the alternative may well be worse. People laugh, but Trump's enduring (relative) popularity and the hollowing out of the middle class are seriously scary...I think people never really expect a revolution / violence until it suddenly sparks, and then you have a full on French revolution.

   So out of the two, maybe the UBI is the lesser of the two evils, though I don't feel like we really have much data to work with for predicting either the UBI effects or the likelihood of tech screwing up the economy more.

   Unemployment is technically low now, but I think the unemployment number is a much simplified statistic and doesn't represent underemployment, lack of WLB, huge debt for millennials, etc...

   For the record, I'm a UHRM CS undergrad and still not sure how much further tech will screw the middle class. Nothing Andrew says is obviously wrong to me, though, and much of it is right.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Good 1 No Good !

6. Economist
   2d3f
   

   Start measuring outcomes of health and well being

   New economics

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

7. Economist
   072b
   

   Taiwan belongs to China

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 5 No Good !

8. Economist
   072b
   

   A disgrace to the Chinese community!

   He is Taiwanese

   A China person is a China person is a China person.

   Daiwanlang msi Dionggoklang.

   Cut your hokkien out idiot, your officual language is Mandarin.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 3 No Good !

9. Economist
   4a8c
   

   I'm a proud member of the #YangGang !!

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 2 No Good !

10. Economist
    4b7d
    

    He's against free college and understands that universities are overrun with parasitic administrators.

    Other than his focus on UBI because “the AIs are coming!” what is so special about him?
    

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

11. Economist
    6afe
    

    Taiwan belongs to China

    No it doesn't.

    But you know what, Xi Jinping belongs to Prison.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Good 0 No Good !

12. Economist
    e068
    

    UBI is something economists should seriously discuss. The $1000/month doesn't seem sufficient to destroy work incentives. The idea that it can replace many existing social welfare programs sounds plausible, given that the US has plenty of wasteful resource allocations here and there, such as health care.

    Entry level economics courses are almost too indoctrinating. A lot of stances are actually empirical questions that warrant further study.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Good 1 No Good !

13. Economist
    5cf0
    

    UBI is something economists should seriously discuss. The $1000/month doesn't seem sufficient to destroy work incentives. The idea that it can replace many existing social welfare programs sounds plausible, given that the US has plenty of wasteful resource allocations here and there, such as health care.
    Entry level economics courses are almost too indoctrinating. A lot of stances are actually empirical questions that warrant further study.

    I think it could destroy incentives for a segment of the population who will just do things under the table (sell drugs) to supplement their income.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

14. Economist
    05b9
    

    The real story of Emperor's New Cloths is not about the Emperor, but the crowd who fool themselves into admiring the non-existing magic cloths. I am talking about Yang Gangers.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Good 0 No Good !

15. Economist
    61e0
    

    Lmao multiple south east Asians detected

    A disgrace to the Chinese community!

    He is Taiwanese

    A China person is a China person is a China person.

    Daiwanlang msi Dionggoklang.

    Cut your hokkien out idiot, your officual language is Mandarin.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

16. Economist
    fb98
    

    A good chunk of economists dislike UBI because it makes their agenda/research pointless. If UBI is actually feasible, then a whole lot of academics become pointless. In fact, a whole lot of agencies, policy people, etc. will become useless, so they will fight UBI to the death. Technological advancement means the value of labor will continue to slide and a massive number of people are going to be forced to work 70hrs+ just to retain a certain standard of living. If you just gave them a monthly stipend, then it would enable them to work less and have an adequate standard of living. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. The alternative is to raise gov revenues to create fake jobs for everyone. I am absolutely opposed to that.

    UBI is something economists should seriously discuss. The $1000/month doesn't seem sufficient to destroy work incentives. The idea that it can replace many existing social welfare programs sounds plausible, given that the US has plenty of wasteful resource allocations here and there, such as health care.
    Entry level economics courses are almost too indoctrinating. A lot of stances are actually empirical questions that warrant further study.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 3 No Good !

17. Economist
    5cf0
    

    A good chunk of economists dislike UBI because it makes their agenda/research pointless. If UBI is actually feasible, then a whole lot of academics become pointless. In fact, a whole lot of agencies, policy people, etc. will become useless, so they will fight UBI to the death. Technological advancement means the value of labor will continue to slide and a massive number of people are going to be forced to work 70hrs+ just to retain a certain standard of living. If you just gave them a monthly stipend, then it would enable them to work less and have an adequate standard of living. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. The alternative is to raise gov revenues to create fake jobs for everyone. I am absolutely opposed to that.

    I don't think people fight UBI because it makes their agenda/research pointless, or at least at this point I don't think that is why the vast majority of people who oppose it do so.

    A key question is how will it be funded and at the same time target the people who need money above the general UBI (Disabled, those with children). It seems like a lot of programs would need to remain.

    Also, if a large fraction of people are losing their job due to AI as Yang suggests, while the marginal tax rate of those with remaining good paying jobs be super high? I saw a video where he breaks down where the savings would come from and it just doesn't seem like the $$$ would be as high as he is suggesting. For example, he mentions a drop in crime as being a major saving in $, but I doubt crime really would change that much and certain crime could increase.

    I would definitely vote for Yang in 2020 but I don't think his numbers add up here although he is actually looking at issues unlike most of the other candidates.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Good 0 No Good !

18. Economist
    fb98
    

    ^ It's not necessarily that unemployment will rise drastically. If you automate trucking, then goods become cheaper which means that people will be able to spend on other things like maybe going to the restaurant more often. Now the truckers are going to try to fill the jobs available, like cook or waiter. But these jobs don't pay as well. In other words, the middle class is going to get crushed if AI turns out to work. The monthly stipend simply allows the ex-trucker to retain his old standard of living despite having a crappier job.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

19. Economist
    4003
    

    This thread should be renamed “UBI: do or die?”

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

20. Economist
    5cf0
    

    ^ It's not necessarily that unemployment will rise drastically. If you automate trucking, then goods become cheaper which means that people will be able to spend on other things like maybe going to the restaurant more often. Now the truckers are going to try to fill the jobs available, like cook or waiter. But these jobs don't pay as well. In other words, the middle class is going to get crushed if AI turns out to work. The monthly stipend simply allows the ex-trucker to retain his old standard of living despite having a crappier job.

    But how are you going to pay for it? Massively taxing the "middle class"? Or some other source?

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Good 0 No Good !

Reply »