RE: Hi Steemit! Scott Santens here. If you've ever googled "basic income", you may have read something I've written.

[alexpmorris]

Welcome to STEEMIT, @scottsantens! Just out of curiosity, I was wondering how you came up with the $1000/month figure, because a few months back, @maryfavour was writing how the $10,000 she earned on STEEMIT was life-changing for her, and that she is now considered a "millionaire" in her country of Nigeria: "STEEMIT HAS MADE ME A MILLIONAIRE"! So at some level, the "correct", useful amount becomes rather subjective and arbitrary.

Furthermore, if everyone in the U.S. alone was given a "basic income" of $12,000 per year, multiplied by 326,474,013 (the 2017 estimated U.S. population), the price tag comes to near 4 TRILLION DOLLARS per YEAR, or over 20% of annual GDP!

And while it may seem like a very noble idea at first glance, my years of market experience suggest we'd see a rapid repricing of literally everything, to the point that the new "basic income" required would quickly rise exponentially.

A few months back, there was a bunch of thought-provoking discussion on this subject in the comment-section of the following post. It'd be interesting to hear your counter-arguments to some of the points brought up over there: "Universal Basic Income is our future, at least according to Mark Zuckerberg".

Comments

[scottsantens]

The $1,000/mo figure comes from the fact I live in the US, and $12,000 is the defined poverty line here. The amount will vary nation by nation depending on what is considered the poverty line in each nation.

I've recently written actually about how to calculate the actual cost of basic income, and even posted it here on Steemit as my first post. You can also find it on the World Economic Forum. Please read it to understand how you're doing it wrong by calculating the number of people by the amount. It's a bit more complex than that.

As for rising prices as a direct result of UBI, that too is a common misunderstanding based on an oversimplification and lack of study. It was one of the first things I ever wrote about UBI in great depth. Please read it in full to get a better hold of all the variables involved, as well as the applicable evidence to apply to the concern.

As for my counter-arguments to common arguments, please see my FAQ. There's a lot there to read but many people ask the same questions and have the same misconceptions.

[alexpmorris]

You're sort of helping me make my point. From my perspective, everything is much more complex than what it seems you're outlining in some of your articles. Everything is a moving target. For example, you wrote "groceries might end up costing you an extra 1.4% per month", based on the following video about what would happen if Walmart paid a "living wage":

But, fast forward a year and a half later, and we got this instead:

Investors revolted after Chief Financial Officer Charles Holley lowered the boom at its annual investor day at the New York Stock Exchange (ICE), disclosing that profits will decline between 6 and 12% in fiscal 2017. The consensus was for a drop of 4%. He also stated that 75% of the reduction was tied to higher wages.

Link: Wal-Mart Lost $21 Billion Wednesday: What Really Happened?

But what's a few extra billion here and there among friends?! ;) Also sounds like taxpayers may have lost quite a bit more in tax revenue than they "saved" from this particular "debacle" as well.

Regarding inflation, the main reason all the Fed Q.E. really didn't work is because all the money they "printed" was not only hoarded by banks, but it still didn't make up for all the money that "evaporated" in the debt bubble collapse. Martin Armstrong has generally been one of the few who's gotten much of this correct. And he's also been right in that inflation shows up as interest rates rise, not when rates fall (as most mainstream news sources often claim)...

All of these gurus assumed that the Fed’s balance sheet would cause huge inflation because they just read headlines and do not comprehend how the system really works. Their assumption was that all this money would spark inflation, which they only see, and the 1970s demand inflation into 1980. The money never made it to the people. The bankers were paid to HOARD that cash, which shows that the Fed is really insane.

Link: Armstrong Economics: The Three Faces of Inflation

Link: Armstrong Economics: The Fed & Interest Rates: The Nightmare That Will Not End Nicely

Regarding Milton Friedman, I've seen that interview a few times and generally agree with what he says. However, he's also making the point that if you're going to have welfare, with all its double-thinking "conditions", and all the additional middle-men and overhead, why not take that money and give it directly to the people instead, where it can do the most good. In 2009, if the bailout money had gone more directly to the people as opposed to the bankers, it may have also had a much greater effect as well.

Finally, I'm always fascinated by how much more "bang for the buck" I seem to extract versus others who seem less able to "afford it" in the first place. As such, I'm intrigued by how some countries such as India are able to perform cataract surgery for $25 per patient versus $1000's of dollars in the West. Perhaps if we could find a way to bring more such competitive "price advantages" to Western cultures, it may go a long way in addressing some of these bigger issues.