The Intellectual Dark Web

[heydaralon]

I think UBI is a bad idea, but I also believe that automation will at the very least create some serious fucking unrest in the meantime. I think we are fucked, but I don't think govt can save us.

[Fife]

The natural sociological bypass valve for too many people has always been killing them somehow.

You have to either make people not useless, or you need to figure out how to kill them. The latter part is where you get dystopia. If we are going down that road, then I choose Sparta. Let the strong inherit the Earth, I guess. At least genetically we will be better off. Letting pencil-necked merchant cunts decide who gets culled is not going to be acceptable. I would rather us off them first.

"us" off them first.

"Us" got a mouse in your pocket, bitch?

[heydaralon]

Speaking of Lenny, what happened to Hwen? Did someone finally tell him about the rabbits? He was into anime, so I know he wanted to pet that pretty lady's hair. She was his waifu whether she knew it or not...


If he comes back I'm gonna start calling him Hwenny Smalls.

[Fife]

Sparta has the best medical bots, tho.

[brewster]

Excerpt from http://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger- ... 2ubi%22%5D

Russ Roberts: Our topic for today is BIG, the Basic Income Guarantee. What is it and how does it work?

Michael Munger: The Basic Income Guarantee is a substitute for all other welfare programs. And the one argument for it--well, there's really two arguments for it and three arguments against; and we'll probably get into it. But the two arguments for are: This is a kind of social insurance, and in an uncertain, maybe increasingly uncertainty society where markets benefit most of us but harm some people, often through no fault of their own because we're not very good at forecasting the future, we're better off if we can provide a certain minimum level of income for everyone, both politically and just on the merits. The other argument is: We're doing this already and we're doing it inefficiently. So, if we start from where we are, then if we consolidate all of the different dogs' breakfast of welfare programs that we have into one, and instead of hectoring people to do what we want we just give them the cash and say, 'Here's what you've got, do your best,' some people will make good choices; some people will make bad choices; but overall it will be cheaper for those of us that are making these contributions into the welfare system through taxes. And, the people that we care about will get more of it.

Russ Roberts: And, was that two arguments in favor? What were they?

Michael Munger: Yeah. Right. To make it clearer--it was a bunch of words: One argument in favor is that we should do this on the merits because there's a lot of uncertainty in the system. And as you've talked about on some EconTalks recently, when we say, 'Trade benefits everyone,' that's not exactly true. A globalized system of capitalism does benefit many people, but it harms others because they lose their jobs; there's these movements of different industries; and so we'd like to have a sort of level of insurance that makes all of us--not almost all, but all of us benefit from the surplus that's created by having an efficient global system. Full stop. Second argument is: Look, we're doing this already; we're just doing it badly. So, BIG would be more efficient.

Russ Roberts: Okay, yeah, we're going to get into how badly we're doing, because I think some of the badness of that is misunderstood. But let's talk about some practical implementation. How would this literally work? I don't mean who would literally send out the check. I mean: What are people talking about in terms of magnitudes across the spectrum here?

Michael Munger: Well, it's hard to keep the two issues separate, on those grounds, if you are going to ask how it's going to work. Because one of the things that I want to advocate is that we eliminate all of the other welfare programs. And this could range from anything from aid to families with dependent children to minimum wages. So, we would eliminate all of the other forms of welfare that go to income insurance. Not health care. Health care is a separate thing. But all the things that go to income support. And we would have to have some way of providing a monthly or quarterly check. Now, I have argued that we already have an infrastructure for doing that; and that is the income tax. The income tax of the United States is handled by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and every year on your tax return you have to declare a personal exemption--a standard deduction. And that amounts, I think right now it's about $1200--all that Basic Income would do would be to change that to about $15,000--$15 thousand--dollars. And make it a credit. So, if you don't earn enough income to have to pay taxes, you would receive a check rather than having to send in a check. So it would be administered through the existing Internal Revenue Service. And all it would really involve, a change in the standard deduction.

Russ Roberts: So, every American of a certain age perhaps, or every American--different ways you could do it--would get a fixed, the same, fixed amount. Let's say $15,000.

Michael Munger: Yes. That's very--that's a lot of money.

Michael Munger: It would. And for many of us, we'd have to change the tax rate so as to make it revenue-neutral. So, we'd have to do some changing in the tax rates or the levels where the new margins come in to make it revenue-neutral. So, there'd be no net effect on me--I'd just get a larger standard deduction and then my taxes would go up to offset that. But for people who don't have jobs or don't have enough income where they are paying taxes, there would be a credit; and they would receive a check, rather than paying in a check.

Russ Roberts: So, for me and you, we're going to raise taxes--because we are fortunate enough to be gainfully employed, make a lot of money. And therefore, we would still get the $15,000; it's just that our tax rates would go up to offset that? Is that the idea?

Michael Munger: That's it. And so for most people, there would be no net effect.

FWIW, Munger is a self described Libertarian.

[heydaralon]

Excerpt from http://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger- ... 2ubi%22%5D

Russ Roberts: Our topic for today is BIG, the Basic Income Guarantee. What is it and how does it work?

Michael Munger: The Basic Income Guarantee is a substitute for all other welfare programs. And the one argument for it--well, there's really two arguments for it and three arguments against; and we'll probably get into it. But the two arguments for are: This is a kind of social insurance, and in an uncertain, maybe increasingly uncertainty society where markets benefit most of us but harm some people, often through no fault of their own because we're not very good at forecasting the future, we're better off if we can provide a certain minimum level of income for everyone, both politically and just on the merits. The other argument is: We're doing this already and we're doing it inefficiently. So, if we start from where we are, then if we consolidate all of the different dogs' breakfast of welfare programs that we have into one, and instead of hectoring people to do what we want we just give them the cash and say, 'Here's what you've got, do your best,' some people will make good choices; some people will make bad choices; but overall it will be cheaper for those of us that are making these contributions into the welfare system through taxes. And, the people that we care about will get more of it.

Russ Roberts: And, was that two arguments in favor? What were they?

Michael Munger: Yeah. Right. To make it clearer--it was a bunch of words: One argument in favor is that we should do this on the merits because there's a lot of uncertainty in the system. And as you've talked about on some EconTalks recently, when we say, 'Trade benefits everyone,' that's not exactly true. A globalized system of capitalism does benefit many people, but it harms others because they lose their jobs; there's these movements of different industries; and so we'd like to have a sort of level of insurance that makes all of us--not almost all, but all of us benefit from the surplus that's created by having an efficient global system. Full stop. Second argument is: Look, we're doing this already; we're just doing it badly. So, BIG would be more efficient.

Russ Roberts: Okay, yeah, we're going to get into how badly we're doing, because I think some of the badness of that is misunderstood. But let's talk about some practical implementation. How would this literally work? I don't mean who would literally send out the check. I mean: What are people talking about in terms of magnitudes across the spectrum here?

Michael Munger: Well, it's hard to keep the two issues separate, on those grounds, if you are going to ask how it's going to work. Because one of the things that I want to advocate is that we eliminate all of the other welfare programs. And this could range from anything from aid to families with dependent children to minimum wages. So, we would eliminate all of the other forms of welfare that go to income insurance. Not health care. Health care is a separate thing. But all the things that go to income support. And we would have to have some way of providing a monthly or quarterly check. Now, I have argued that we already have an infrastructure for doing that; and that is the income tax. The income tax of the United States is handled by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and every year on your tax return you have to declare a personal exemption--a standard deduction. And that amounts, I think right now it's about $1200--all that Basic Income would do would be to change that to about $15,000--$15 thousand--dollars. And make it a credit. So, if you don't earn enough income to have to pay taxes, you would receive a check rather than having to send in a check. So it would be administered through the existing Internal Revenue Service. And all it would really involve, a change in the standard deduction.

Russ Roberts: So, every American of a certain age perhaps, or every American--different ways you could do it--would get a fixed, the same, fixed amount. Let's say $15,000.

Michael Munger: Yes. That's very--that's a lot of money.

Michael Munger: It would. And for many of us, we'd have to change the tax rate so as to make it revenue-neutral. So, we'd have to do some changing in the tax rates or the levels where the new margins come in to make it revenue-neutral. So, there'd be no net effect on me--I'd just get a larger standard deduction and then my taxes would go up to offset that. But for people who don't have jobs or don't have enough income where they are paying taxes, there would be a credit; and they would receive a check, rather than paying in a check.

Russ Roberts: So, for me and you, we're going to raise taxes--because we are fortunate enough to be gainfully employed, make a lot of money. And therefore, we would still get the $15,000; it's just that our tax rates would go up to offset that? Is that the idea?

Michael Munger: That's it. And so for most people, there would be no net effect.

Can you give me shorter version of this? I have cataracts.

[DBTrek]

You could skim the transcript on the page. It's redistributive, you're taking $1000 from everybody then giving it back. Zero sum. Except some give less and some give more. Redistributive. Got it?

No . . . I don't "got it" . . . because in a single month the USA produces $1.65trillion of goods/services.

US GDP: $19,800,000,000,000 per year
/12 months
_____________________________
$1,650,000,000,000 per month

That's it. All of us together, that's what we produce.
To give every adult $1000, we need $2.52 trillion a month.

US ADULT population: 252,063,800
x $1000 per month
________________________
$2,520,638,000,000 per month

So how do you go to a pool of $1.65trillion, and redistribute $2.52 trillion out of it?
You can't redistribute in excess of what exists.

[heydaralon]

You're getting too focused on the numbers. Imagination and integrity are what matters in these kinds of instances. Positive thinking, perserverance, and courage are also important.

[Fife]

FWIW, Munger is a self described Libertarian.

Big L is about right. I listened to this episode when it came out, and I'm familiar with Munger.

I'm always interested in how quickly Marxists glom onto the "libertarian" label when it looks helpful to the state.

Spoiler alert: Strong-arm robbery is inconsistent with liberty.

[brewster]

So how do you go to a pool of $1.65trillion, and redistribute $2.52 trillion out of it?
You can't redistribute in excess of what exists.

You take $1k from everybody and give it back to them. Zero sum. You take $1k from everybody and give it back to some of them, none to some of them, more to some of them. Zero sum. Or you could read the excerpt or transcript.