You have to love liberal economics.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Max E., Dec 28, 2017.

  1. Max E.

    Max E.

    If giving every american 12000 dollars will grow our economy by 2.5 trillion why stop there why not give everyone 100,000 dollars or a million dollars, lol.

    Giving every American $12,000 a year in free money could grow the economy by $2.5 trillion, study finds

    A monthly check of $1,000 delivered to every American adult would grow the US economy by roughly $2.5 trillion over eight years, a new study found.

    Conducted by the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute, the study investigated three strategies for implementing basic income, a form of wealth distribution that involves giving everyone a standard salary just for being alive.

    Proponents of basic income say it would reduce or even eliminate poverty, while skeptics say it could erase people's motivations to keep working, possibly ruining the economy instead of improving it.

    The three basic incomes proposed by the study were $1,000 paid monthly to every US adult; $500 paid monthly to every US adult; and $250 paid monthly to every US child. "For all three designs," a summary of the report said, "enacting a UBI and paying for it by increasing the federal debt would grow the economy."

    Specifically, the study found that the largest of the three — $12,000 a year doled out to every American adult — would grow the economy by 12.6% to 13.1% over eight years, by which time the policy's effects would start to wane. That would translate to an increase in gross domestic product of $2.5 trillion, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office.

    The researchers made some assumptions in the study that could lead to such an optimistic conclusion.

    The team's analysis was based on people continuing to work as if they weren't receiving a basic income, something skeptics have taken issue with. Some believe that basic income, while not enough to live off, would disincentivize full-time work.

    Some studies have found this not to be the case, but most have taken place in developing countries and have prompted skeptics to argue the results wouldn't necessarily translate to a richer, more populous country like the United States. At least in the few basic-income experiments ongoing in the US, employment rates haven't seemed to change much.

    The researchers also assumed basic income would solve a demand problem in the economy — i.e., a lack of people spending their money to buy things. "Fundamentally, the larger the size of the UBI, the larger the increase in aggregate demand and thus the larger the resulting economy is," they wrote.

    Other economic theories put less stock in that idea. They argue that other costs — like interest rates on mortgages and credit cards — would rise.

    The US is still far from a comprehensive basic-income plan. The biggest experiment in the world is set to begin this fall in Kenya. Operated by GiveDirectly, it involves 6,000 people, some of whom will receive a monthly payment every month for the next 12 years. The experiment will cost $30 million.

    Smaller experiments have cropped up around the world over the past few years, including in California, Canada, Finland, and the Netherlands. Other nations, such as India and Switzerland, have discussed experiments of their own in the coming years.

    Until those experiments begin giving people money and analyzing the resulting data, however, economists will be left to speculate as to how transformative a basic income could really be.

    Piptaker, Clubber Lang and Tom B like this.
  2. exGOPer


    If you could take a supplement a day to improve nutrient uptake and prevent diseases, why not take 100 a day and become Superman?

    If you could run 20 minutes a day and be fit, why not run 2 days in a row and be superfit?

    If drinking 8 glasses of day keeps you healthy, why not drink 80 glasses and be a champ?

    Cons = Low effort thinking
  3. RRY16


    Better get your ass in gear and become a rightful U.S. Citizen.
  4. vanzandt


    Because those things have nothing to do with economics and money supply.
  5. Max E.

    Max E.

    The saddest thing is not the aggresive response you always give, its the fact that you think this time it will be different. If you think that the people who 12000 a year makes a difference too, would suddenly spur demand and keep working you are the one who is not a thinker.

    But yeah lets just throw money out the window, its worked so well every time communism has been tried we should do it in the U.S., it definitely wont sap peoples desire to work.

    P.S. One thing that made me happy about this post is that i saw Ricter liked it, nice to see him back after a long hiatus. Nice too see your still here Ricter, even though we never agreed atleast you would come debate some of these topics.
  6. A leftist is the "generous" guy who is willing to give away everything you own.
    Piptaker, MoneyMatthew and Max E. like this.
  7. Here4money


    Just cut taxes by 12k/yr and cons will love you for it
    Tony Stark likes this.
  8. Max E.

    Max E.

    There is a massive difference between cutting taxes which people have to work for in order to accumulate and just handing out money if you dont see that, then not much i can debate with you over.
    Piptaker and Tom B like this.
  9. exGOPer


    The principles are exactly the same - money supply for a sovereign government that prints its own money is unlimited just like the things I mentioned are unlimited - the key factor is optimal utility and arguing for extremes because something is useful in moderation is a fallacy.

    The same argument can be made for tax cuts - if tax cuts stimulate economic growth then why not have zero taxes.
    Tony Stark likes this.
  10. exGOPer


    If you think that most people will stop working because they get a 12000 bonus then you are wrong as well - but that was not even the point you were making, you were arguing for EXCESS which is argument absurdum.
    #10     Dec 28, 2017
    Tony Stark likes this.