The problem with @AndrewYang@twitter.com:

He diagnoses part of our major economic problems really well.

He addresses it with "let's increase income and **MAGIC HAPPENS!**"

If you're going to upend economic design, you MUST address social adaptation at the same time.

@AndrewYang@twitter.com Sure, UBI is a concept that has worked at smaller scale. I'm not inherently against it.

But you can't propose this and assume that the next-level recipients (retail, housing, utilities) won't jack up prices to consume the new income. They will do it if they can get away with it.

Adding UBI without safeguards to prevent abuse by that next level will basically turn it into a handout for retail, housing, and utilities, putting us right back at Square 1.

Show me a UBI proposal that DOES address these issues. You want to make America think harder, right?

Someone on here tried to keep steering a conversation like this towards "well, people will try home ownership more!"

Yeah, that's not a solution. That's a wishful-thinking attitude borne out of suburbia. Come see how people live in an actual urban center first.

People are still going to need to rent housing, buy groceries, pay for electricity/gas/water (from "deregulated" utilities in some states). These things are ripe for abuse if suddenly Everyone In America Has More Money.

Follow

So again, UBI itself is not bad. But it's PART of a solution. What's your WHOLE solution, @AndrewYang@twitter.com? /fin

This, btw, is why you're having trouble reaching truly progressive and younger people.

We don't trust businesses to Do The Right Thing. If they can get away with highway robbery, THEY WILL.

UBI without protections is useless; and may well end up *expanding* wealth inequality.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
mastodon.cloud

Generalistic and moderated instance.