Most people who save, don't buy expensive toys, don't live in a mansion and drive a cheap guitar could not hope to save enough to avoid the need to work for several years.
I'd argue that economic systems primarily depend on the extraction of natural resources, and distribution of those products. Over the last 200 years we've got better at extracting the resources, producing the products, and distributing them, but better food and energy production have been key.
The GP's math was spurious, as it wasn't taking into account the recycling of UBI (take $10k, give back $10k) for many which is zero sum, and the welfare currently paid which would be covered by it, and is also largely zero sum, as well as a UBI figure much higher than that generally suggested. In terms of 'show the math', any detailed analysis depends on the details of any policy that someone wanted to propose for a specific UBI implementation.
The other thing you are not understanding is how it is distributed. E.g. if UBI is $10k, and you earn $200k, then all that $10k you are given is $10k you already paid in tax, so your own UBI has a net cost of $0. For someone otherwise earning $0, then it's a net $10k, except such a person probably already gets somewhere close to $10k now so the net cost might be $2k. So rather than your $10 trillion, the figure might be, net, $0.5 trillion, and then further net the current administration costs, so maybe $0.45 trillion. What the actual figure is depends on the value of UBI, tax rates, and people in each demographic, so not something I can work out immediately, but far lower than your figure.
You then have to look at how the economy works and the value created by the movement of money (i.e. velocity). If those who are less well off end up with an extra $2k that's fairly quickly spent then you may get an overall economic boost, and a relatively small amount of increased economy might them mean the net is $0.4 trillion given that additional activity. Also, if people are not penalised for working, i.e. don't lose welfare and then have to reapply, that might also have a positive effect.
But there are also potential negative effects too. If set at the wrong level if could increase inflation. It might reduce the willingness of some to seek work. If the tax rates are wrong it would be an issue. Mismanagement is possible, as are unintended consequences.
These things need a lot of modelling and trials, and a democratic mandate.
Guaranteeing income without requiring anything useful in return would definitely skew the system of values and decrease the motivation to do anything useful.
It would change the motivation. Whether it would decrease the motivation for enough people to damage the economy is another matter. It also depends on what you consider 'useful'. Is marketing useful? Or is it refuse collection? What if both can be automated?
most of the people who work for living would be forced to contribute to pay
A moment you were saying that motivation would be decreased. This implies doing something useful is optional, so if it is option then how are people being forced to contribute? I believe that people very much should contribute, but your statement doesn't make sense.
Of course, that would require a significant extension of the government bureaucracy
A much simplified system could be automated, and may well require a much reduced bureaucracy. You are failing to think things through fully.
to quote the book title of a British Nobel-winning economist
More international, since he also spent a lot of time as an economist in other places, such as Germany.
Very small pilot schemes require a relatively large overhead per unit of service delivered, thus will not look cost-effective. Trials have to be sufficiently large. Also if the trial is too small then there is no way to measure, in a statistically significant way, the results.
In terms of resources (and most everything else) it is dramatically less expensive to build a handful of high output nuclear plants than thousands of small wind generators.
That depends on the availability of high quality uranium ore. It might be true for a handful, for which ore is available, but it may not be true for enough to replace fossil fuel use. I don't have much issue with the concept of well-regulated nuclear power, but unless there really are undiscovered high quality ore sources out there, it may well not be a scalable solution.
Only 7% in NYC make more than $250k. So given some have had housing longer than 20 years, and $345k is greater than $250k, you are saying something like 95% of people in NYC are at poverty level. Seems unlikely. My wife is from NYC and has lived in SF, and on much less.
That's great. I was worried that it would have been something that could have damaged the ecosystem on the sea floor, but I see it's just going to be dregding it, which would be fine.
4 onwards is not a given. Even if 4 happens, if the energy required to mine and refine is more than the end product can produce, it's a problem (although unlikely to be the case for rare metals, which are mostly not that rare).
Realised screws need a screwdriver not a hammer? Managed to start car by hitting it with a shoe rather than a hammer? Realised Hammer Time at the 80s disco doesn't actually require a hammer? 'Come as a corporate logo' fancy dress party didn't really work out going as Arm and Hammer?
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking of hooking a water cooling loop to my central heating radiators.
Citation?
And this is why the RAF won the Battle of Britain and where Messerschmitt got the idea for the Me163.
Most people who save, don't buy expensive toys, don't live in a mansion and drive a cheap guitar could not hope to save enough to avoid the need to work for several years.
It's not 135% on a like-for-like job basis, though.
I'd argue that economic systems primarily depend on the extraction of natural resources, and distribution of those products. Over the last 200 years we've got better at extracting the resources, producing the products, and distributing them, but better food and energy production have been key.
The GP's math was spurious, as it wasn't taking into account the recycling of UBI (take $10k, give back $10k) for many which is zero sum, and the welfare currently paid which would be covered by it, and is also largely zero sum, as well as a UBI figure much higher than that generally suggested. In terms of 'show the math', any detailed analysis depends on the details of any policy that someone wanted to propose for a specific UBI implementation.
Not only is unemployment low, but also labor participation rates. Which could be good (people can afford not to work) or bad (people have given up).
The other thing you are not understanding is how it is distributed. E.g. if UBI is $10k, and you earn $200k, then all that $10k you are given is $10k you already paid in tax, so your own UBI has a net cost of $0. For someone otherwise earning $0, then it's a net $10k, except such a person probably already gets somewhere close to $10k now so the net cost might be $2k. So rather than your $10 trillion, the figure might be, net, $0.5 trillion, and then further net the current administration costs, so maybe $0.45 trillion. What the actual figure is depends on the value of UBI, tax rates, and people in each demographic, so not something I can work out immediately, but far lower than your figure.
You then have to look at how the economy works and the value created by the movement of money (i.e. velocity). If those who are less well off end up with an extra $2k that's fairly quickly spent then you may get an overall economic boost, and a relatively small amount of increased economy might them mean the net is $0.4 trillion given that additional activity. Also, if people are not penalised for working, i.e. don't lose welfare and then have to reapply, that might also have a positive effect.
But there are also potential negative effects too. If set at the wrong level if could increase inflation. It might reduce the willingness of some to seek work. If the tax rates are wrong it would be an issue. Mismanagement is possible, as are unintended consequences.
These things need a lot of modelling and trials, and a democratic mandate.
Since UBI is generally suggested at $10k or less, why did you pick $30k in your example?
Guaranteeing income without requiring anything useful in return would definitely skew the system of values and decrease the motivation to do anything useful.
It would change the motivation. Whether it would decrease the motivation for enough people to damage the economy is another matter. It also depends on what you consider 'useful'. Is marketing useful? Or is it refuse collection? What if both can be automated?
most of the people who work for living would be forced to contribute to pay
A moment you were saying that motivation would be decreased. This implies doing something useful is optional, so if it is option then how are people being forced to contribute? I believe that people very much should contribute, but your statement doesn't make sense.
Of course, that would require a significant extension of the government bureaucracy
A much simplified system could be automated, and may well require a much reduced bureaucracy. You are failing to think things through fully.
to quote the book title of a British Nobel-winning economist
More international, since he also spent a lot of time as an economist in other places, such as Germany.
Understanding anything about economics would be a good start in answering your question.
Very small pilot schemes require a relatively large overhead per unit of service delivered, thus will not look cost-effective. Trials have to be sufficiently large. Also if the trial is too small then there is no way to measure, in a statistically significant way, the results.
That's wheely bad spelling.
In terms of resources (and most everything else) it is dramatically less expensive to build a handful of high output nuclear plants than thousands of small wind generators.
That depends on the availability of high quality uranium ore. It might be true for a handful, for which ore is available, but it may not be true for enough to replace fossil fuel use. I don't have much issue with the concept of well-regulated nuclear power, but unless there really are undiscovered high quality ore sources out there, it may well not be a scalable solution.
Only 7% in NYC make more than $250k. So given some have had housing longer than 20 years, and $345k is greater than $250k, you are saying something like 95% of people in NYC are at poverty level. Seems unlikely. My wife is from NYC and has lived in SF, and on much less.
That's great. I was worried that it would have been something that could have damaged the ecosystem on the sea floor, but I see it's just going to be dregding it, which would be fine.
There's lots of tritium on the moon, which is also hard to get and might as well be, er, on the moon.
Btw, that's a reference to some suggesting the moon would be a source of this for fusion power plants.
Yes, everything at the bottom of the sea is absolutely trivial to get.
Hubbert talked about oil production basins, and was pretty accurate in his analysis.
The oil age will end because we have better, cheaper sources of energy and we need to stop burning fossil fuels.
Ideally, yes. Running out of oil is not an impossibility in the end.
Or we could just... build nuclear.
Which use generators to turn heat into electrical power... So are more efficient with neodymium.
There's lots of tritium on the moon, which is also hard to get and might as well be, er, on the moon.
4 onwards is not a given. Even if 4 happens, if the energy required to mine and refine is more than the end product can produce, it's a problem (although unlikely to be the case for rare metals, which are mostly not that rare).
Realised screws need a screwdriver not a hammer? Managed to start car by hitting it with a shoe rather than a hammer? Realised Hammer Time at the 80s disco doesn't actually require a hammer? 'Come as a corporate logo' fancy dress party didn't really work out going as Arm and Hammer?