|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States42005 Posts
On August 09 2019 09:42 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:18 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The prices of simple goods targeted to and frequently consumed by the lower class would naturally rise in response to the sudden disposable income increase, ... Do you believe the above because you think that poor people are not price-sensitive, or do you believe that the sellers of all consumer goods would simultaneously conspire to gouge consumers rather than compete for them by undercutting their competition? Is there a third option I've missed that leads you to believe the above? To be clear I'm thinking things like food, appliances, etc, goods and services that are NOT housing, education, and medical costs. Those 3 are a completely separate topic from what I'm talking about (and what I think you're talking about here). If you believe what I've quoted above, do you believe that poverty is impossible to eliminate, because there will always be a group with the least money, and they will always be preyed upon (relative to groups that have more money)? ... and all kinds of easy credit would have their offer terms adjust in response the same way. The margins of poverty are not denominated in terms of sums like $1,000.00 a month, rather in 72+ month loans, 25+% interest rates on consumer credit, and 0% down adjustable rate mortgages Sure. Do you think that people having more money makes them more susceptible to these types of things? Do you think poor people are just financially stupid and can't help themselves from falling for these types of scams, so giving them money is just giving the scammers money, but with more steps? I really don't understand why you think people become more susceptible to scammers when they have more financial freedom. The examples you cite take advantage of poor people precisely because they have few financial options. Because they are poor, their only option to acquire a home/car/whatever is to take a bad deal. Imagine you're a door to door bullshit salesman. You sell some worthless product for exorbitant prices so you can get a small slice of that profit. You think your job gets easier or harder the month everyone's got a fresh $1000 in their pocket and credit offers up the wazzu in exchange for signing over that UBI to the creditor? In Yang's theoretical UBI, that second part is not legal. You cannot borrow against your UBI payment. Surely the bullshit salesman's job gets easier, if by no other virtue than having more customers. And I wouldn't argue that the very first month of people getting their UBI payment has a real chance of having some weird shit happen. But overall, if the person sells that much more, then perhaps the product isn't as worthless as we are assuming. The only other option, as I see it, is to essentially say that poor people are stupid and incapable of making sound financial decisions. And I am very far from ready to subscribe to that. edit: In fact, I'll go one further and say that the alternative to UBI does no better. Do you know how many people buy food with their EBT card, and then buy cigarettes and lotto tickets with their cash? Even if you really feel deep down that poor people are incapable of making sound financial decisions, the same problem exists with service-based welfare programs.
Money is fungible. If you can borrow against your regular income while using UBI for rent then you have effectively borrowed against UBI. Every UBI dollar frees up a non UNI dollar.
|
On August 09 2019 09:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:42 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:18 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The prices of simple goods targeted to and frequently consumed by the lower class would naturally rise in response to the sudden disposable income increase, ... Do you believe the above because you think that poor people are not price-sensitive, or do you believe that the sellers of all consumer goods would simultaneously conspire to gouge consumers rather than compete for them by undercutting their competition? Is there a third option I've missed that leads you to believe the above? To be clear I'm thinking things like food, appliances, etc, goods and services that are NOT housing, education, and medical costs. Those 3 are a completely separate topic from what I'm talking about (and what I think you're talking about here). If you believe what I've quoted above, do you believe that poverty is impossible to eliminate, because there will always be a group with the least money, and they will always be preyed upon (relative to groups that have more money)? ... and all kinds of easy credit would have their offer terms adjust in response the same way. The margins of poverty are not denominated in terms of sums like $1,000.00 a month, rather in 72+ month loans, 25+% interest rates on consumer credit, and 0% down adjustable rate mortgages Sure. Do you think that people having more money makes them more susceptible to these types of things? Do you think poor people are just financially stupid and can't help themselves from falling for these types of scams, so giving them money is just giving the scammers money, but with more steps? I really don't understand why you think people become more susceptible to scammers when they have more financial freedom. The examples you cite take advantage of poor people precisely because they have few financial options. Because they are poor, their only option to acquire a home/car/whatever is to take a bad deal. Imagine you're a door to door bullshit salesman. You sell some worthless product for exorbitant prices so you can get a small slice of that profit. You think your job gets easier or harder the month everyone's got a fresh $1000 in their pocket and credit offers up the wazzu in exchange for signing over that UBI to the creditor? In Yang's theoretical UBI, that second part is not legal. You cannot borrow against your UBI payment. Surely the bullshit salesman's job gets easier, if by no other virtue than having more customers. And I wouldn't argue that the very first month of people getting their UBI payment has a real chance of having some weird shit happen. But overall, if the person sells that much more, then perhaps the product isn't as worthless as we are assuming. The only other option, as I see it, is to essentially say that poor people are stupid and incapable of making sound financial decisions. And I am very far from ready to subscribe to that. edit: In fact, I'll go one further and say that the alternative to UBI does no better. Do you know how many people buy food with their EBT card, and then buy cigarettes and lotto tickets with their cash? Even if you really feel deep down that poor people are incapable of making sound financial decisions, the same problem exists with service-based welfare programs. Money is fungible. If you can borrow against your regular income while using UBI for rent then you have effectively borrowed against UBI. Every UBI dollar frees up a non UNI dollar.
Mostly, yes, but as far as I understand it, one would not be able to go below the UBI in net income. You can only borrow against as much non-UBI money as you have. Whereas currently, you can borrow against all your income, can you not? So regardless of fungibility, it's a guaranteed income floor that goes unmolested. What people do with additional non-UBI income is up to them.
|
Yeah, it's not a question of people being too stupid, it's a question of the ways in which the adage "it's expensive to be poor" shows itself to be true, from negative equity rollover at a high interest rate in car transactions to the crazy costs of payday loans that are oftentimes obtained in times of emergency need. Rent is another place where a sudden infusion of cash can wind up being funneled to. In the end, without being tied to a service or benefit like a job (or maybe even an asset like a bond, but that has issues too), straight cash welfare is inferior if it does not come alongside reforms so sweeping that they themselves take center stage.
|
i mean you would admit, farv, that it does seem a little difficult to defend the idea that people having $12k more a year makes them worse off without sounding paternalistic. why raise the minimum wage if that were strictly true?
i get the feeling that ultimately objectors to UBI, even progressives, are tied to an accounting logic: UBI is not as effective per dollar as targeted solutions. it puts us all in good company with the effective altruists, where we can be unabashed in our paternalism
|
On August 09 2019 09:42 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:18 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The prices of simple goods targeted to and frequently consumed by the lower class would naturally rise in response to the sudden disposable income increase, ... Do you believe the above because you think that poor people are not price-sensitive, or do you believe that the sellers of all consumer goods would simultaneously conspire to gouge consumers rather than compete for them by undercutting their competition? Is there a third option I've missed that leads you to believe the above? To be clear I'm thinking things like food, appliances, etc, goods and services that are NOT housing, education, and medical costs. Those 3 are a completely separate topic from what I'm talking about (and what I think you're talking about here). If you believe what I've quoted above, do you believe that poverty is impossible to eliminate, because there will always be a group with the least money, and they will always be preyed upon (relative to groups that have more money)? ... and all kinds of easy credit would have their offer terms adjust in response the same way. The margins of poverty are not denominated in terms of sums like $1,000.00 a month, rather in 72+ month loans, 25+% interest rates on consumer credit, and 0% down adjustable rate mortgages Sure. Do you think that people having more money makes them more susceptible to these types of things? Do you think poor people are just financially stupid and can't help themselves from falling for these types of scams, so giving them money is just giving the scammers money, but with more steps? I really don't understand why you think people become more susceptible to scammers when they have more financial freedom. The examples you cite take advantage of poor people precisely because they have few financial options. Because they are poor, their only option to acquire a home/car/whatever is to take a bad deal. Imagine you're a door to door bullshit salesman. You sell some worthless product for exorbitant prices so you can get a small slice of that profit. You think your job gets easier or harder the month everyone's got a fresh $1000 in their pocket and credit offers up the wazzu in exchange for signing over that UBI to the creditor? In Yang's theoretical UBI, that second part is not legal. You cannot borrow against your UBI payment. Surely the bullshit salesman's job gets easier, if by no other virtue than having more customers. And I wouldn't argue against the idea that the very first month of people getting their UBI payment has a real chance of having some weird shit happen. But overall, if the person sells that much more, then perhaps the product isn't as worthless as we are assuming. The only other option, as I see it, is to essentially say that poor people are stupid and incapable of making sound financial decisions. And I am very far from ready to subscribe to that. edit: In fact, I'll go one further and say that the alternative to UBI does no better. Do you know how many people buy food with their EBT card, and then buy cigarettes and lotto tickets with their cash? Even if you really feel deep down that poor people are incapable of making sound financial decisions, the same problem exists with service-based welfare programs.
Wait, you think the merits of snake oil should be judged by the number of people buying into their lies?
And yes, I use snake oil as a catch-all representative of "healing crystals", "homeopathy", or any of the multi-level marketing scams regardless of whether their products are books, plastic containers, women's clothing or vitamin supplements.
|
On August 09 2019 12:00 IgnE wrote:
i mean you would admit, farv, that it does seem a little difficult to defend the idea that people having $12k more a year makes them worse off without sounding paternalistic. why raise the minimum wage if that were strictly true?
i get the feeling that ultimately objectors to UBI, even progressives, are tied to an accounting logic: UBI is not as effective per dollar as targeted solutions. it puts us all in good company with the effective altruists, where we can be unabashed in our paternalism
I don't consider the minimum wage approach to be especially effective given how easily the criticisms I made above can apply to it, but the fact that the process goes through an employer's payment of wages changes the analysis imo. And, I think that a UBI can be regarded as the more paternalistic option when compared to services-as-benefits or a federal jobs program, but I shan't go down that path of inquiry lol.
As for your last point, accounting logic is where the devil is, so I don't take that to minimize the importance of the fact that any kind of effective social welfare is going to have to account for the financial circumstances in which it is implemented. Special interest capture can happen at the policy-making level and at the implementation level, both of which usually end up on the balance sheet, after all.
|
On August 09 2019 18:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:42 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:18 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The prices of simple goods targeted to and frequently consumed by the lower class would naturally rise in response to the sudden disposable income increase, ... Do you believe the above because you think that poor people are not price-sensitive, or do you believe that the sellers of all consumer goods would simultaneously conspire to gouge consumers rather than compete for them by undercutting their competition? Is there a third option I've missed that leads you to believe the above? To be clear I'm thinking things like food, appliances, etc, goods and services that are NOT housing, education, and medical costs. Those 3 are a completely separate topic from what I'm talking about (and what I think you're talking about here). If you believe what I've quoted above, do you believe that poverty is impossible to eliminate, because there will always be a group with the least money, and they will always be preyed upon (relative to groups that have more money)? ... and all kinds of easy credit would have their offer terms adjust in response the same way. The margins of poverty are not denominated in terms of sums like $1,000.00 a month, rather in 72+ month loans, 25+% interest rates on consumer credit, and 0% down adjustable rate mortgages Sure. Do you think that people having more money makes them more susceptible to these types of things? Do you think poor people are just financially stupid and can't help themselves from falling for these types of scams, so giving them money is just giving the scammers money, but with more steps? I really don't understand why you think people become more susceptible to scammers when they have more financial freedom. The examples you cite take advantage of poor people precisely because they have few financial options. Because they are poor, their only option to acquire a home/car/whatever is to take a bad deal. Imagine you're a door to door bullshit salesman. You sell some worthless product for exorbitant prices so you can get a small slice of that profit. You think your job gets easier or harder the month everyone's got a fresh $1000 in their pocket and credit offers up the wazzu in exchange for signing over that UBI to the creditor? In Yang's theoretical UBI, that second part is not legal. You cannot borrow against your UBI payment. Surely the bullshit salesman's job gets easier, if by no other virtue than having more customers. And I wouldn't argue against the idea that the very first month of people getting their UBI payment has a real chance of having some weird shit happen. But overall, if the person sells that much more, then perhaps the product isn't as worthless as we are assuming. The only other option, as I see it, is to essentially say that poor people are stupid and incapable of making sound financial decisions. And I am very far from ready to subscribe to that. edit: In fact, I'll go one further and say that the alternative to UBI does no better. Do you know how many people buy food with their EBT card, and then buy cigarettes and lotto tickets with their cash? Even if you really feel deep down that poor people are incapable of making sound financial decisions, the same problem exists with service-based welfare programs. Wait, you think the merits of snake oil should be judged by the number of people buying into their lies? And yes, I use snake oil as a catch-all representative of "healing crystals", "homeopathy", or any of the multi-level marketing scams regardless of whether their products are books, plastic containers, women's clothing or vitamin supplements.
Healing crystals and homeopathy do absolutely nothing physically but they make people feel good mentally and give them peace of mind, increasing their psychological well-being and overall quality of life. Is that really different from the effects of listing to music, watching movies, etc?
On August 09 2019 09:42 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:18 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The prices of simple goods targeted to and frequently consumed by the lower class would naturally rise in response to the sudden disposable income increase, ... Do you believe the above because you think that poor people are not price-sensitive, or do you believe that the sellers of all consumer goods would simultaneously conspire to gouge consumers rather than compete for them by undercutting their competition? Is there a third option I've missed that leads you to believe the above? To be clear I'm thinking things like food, appliances, etc, goods and services that are NOT housing, education, and medical costs. Those 3 are a completely separate topic from what I'm talking about (and what I think you're talking about here). If you believe what I've quoted above, do you believe that poverty is impossible to eliminate, because there will always be a group with the least money, and they will always be preyed upon (relative to groups that have more money)? ... and all kinds of easy credit would have their offer terms adjust in response the same way. The margins of poverty are not denominated in terms of sums like $1,000.00 a month, rather in 72+ month loans, 25+% interest rates on consumer credit, and 0% down adjustable rate mortgages Sure. Do you think that people having more money makes them more susceptible to these types of things? Do you think poor people are just financially stupid and can't help themselves from falling for these types of scams, so giving them money is just giving the scammers money, but with more steps? I really don't understand why you think people become more susceptible to scammers when they have more financial freedom. The examples you cite take advantage of poor people precisely because they have few financial options. Because they are poor, their only option to acquire a home/car/whatever is to take a bad deal. Imagine you're a door to door bullshit salesman. You sell some worthless product for exorbitant prices so you can get a small slice of that profit. You think your job gets easier or harder the month everyone's got a fresh $1000 in their pocket and credit offers up the wazzu in exchange for signing over that UBI to the creditor? In Yang's theoretical UBI, that second part is not legal. You cannot borrow against your UBI payment. Surely the bullshit salesman's job gets easier, if by no other virtue than having more customers. And I wouldn't argue against the idea that the very first month of people getting their UBI payment has a real chance of having some weird shit happen. But overall, if the person sells that much more, then perhaps the product isn't as worthless as we are assuming. The only other option, as I see it, is to essentially say that poor people are stupid and incapable of making sound financial decisions. And I am very far from ready to subscribe to that. edit: In fact, I'll go one further and say that the alternative to UBI does no better. Do you know how many people buy food with their EBT card, and then buy cigarettes and lotto tickets with their cash? Even if you really feel deep down that poor people are incapable of making sound financial decisions, the same problem exists with service-based welfare programs.
Milton Friedman advocated removing all social welfare and replacing it with a negative income tax (paying people proportionately based on how much their income is below a predefined level of income). Currently the US government spends about 18k a year per person on welfare including overhead costs for welfare programs. Do they get 18k worth of value? Perhaps most poor people know how to help themselves better than "experts", although there will definitely be a few exceptions.
|
The most obvious problem with UBI is that it's untested. There are a myriad of known solutions to improving people's lives, such as single payer health care, rent control, unions, public banking. I don't think Yang is a very smart person, I listened to an hour long interview by him and he is pretty much economically illiterate and can't explain why UBI won't be captured by various cost increases, why it won't functionally replace existing welfare, why it's not effectively funded by a regressive tax, why people wouldn't borrow against it, why it doesn't include children and so on. Maybe UBI works, but why take the risk?
|
On August 09 2019 21:51 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On August 09 2019 09:42 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:18 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The prices of simple goods targeted to and frequently consumed by the lower class would naturally rise in response to the sudden disposable income increase, ... Do you believe the above because you think that poor people are not price-sensitive, or do you believe that the sellers of all consumer goods would simultaneously conspire to gouge consumers rather than compete for them by undercutting their competition? Is there a third option I've missed that leads you to believe the above? To be clear I'm thinking things like food, appliances, etc, goods and services that are NOT housing, education, and medical costs. Those 3 are a completely separate topic from what I'm talking about (and what I think you're talking about here). If you believe what I've quoted above, do you believe that poverty is impossible to eliminate, because there will always be a group with the least money, and they will always be preyed upon (relative to groups that have more money)? ... and all kinds of easy credit would have their offer terms adjust in response the same way. The margins of poverty are not denominated in terms of sums like $1,000.00 a month, rather in 72+ month loans, 25+% interest rates on consumer credit, and 0% down adjustable rate mortgages Sure. Do you think that people having more money makes them more susceptible to these types of things? Do you think poor people are just financially stupid and can't help themselves from falling for these types of scams, so giving them money is just giving the scammers money, but with more steps? I really don't understand why you think people become more susceptible to scammers when they have more financial freedom. The examples you cite take advantage of poor people precisely because they have few financial options. Because they are poor, their only option to acquire a home/car/whatever is to take a bad deal. Imagine you're a door to door bullshit salesman. You sell some worthless product for exorbitant prices so you can get a small slice of that profit. You think your job gets easier or harder the month everyone's got a fresh $1000 in their pocket and credit offers up the wazzu in exchange for signing over that UBI to the creditor? In Yang's theoretical UBI, that second part is not legal. You cannot borrow against your UBI payment. Surely the bullshit salesman's job gets easier, if by no other virtue than having more customers. And I wouldn't argue against the idea that the very first month of people getting their UBI payment has a real chance of having some weird shit happen. But overall, if the person sells that much more, then perhaps the product isn't as worthless as we are assuming. The only other option, as I see it, is to essentially say that poor people are stupid and incapable of making sound financial decisions. And I am very far from ready to subscribe to that. edit: In fact, I'll go one further and say that the alternative to UBI does no better. Do you know how many people buy food with their EBT card, and then buy cigarettes and lotto tickets with their cash? Even if you really feel deep down that poor people are incapable of making sound financial decisions, the same problem exists with service-based welfare programs. Wait, you think the merits of snake oil should be judged by the number of people buying into their lies? And yes, I use snake oil as a catch-all representative of "healing crystals", "homeopathy", or any of the multi-level marketing scams regardless of whether their products are books, plastic containers, women's clothing or vitamin supplements. Healing crystals and homeopathy do absolutely nothing physically but they make people feel good mentally and give them peace of mind, increasing their psychological well-being and overall quality of life. Is that really different from the effects of listing to music, watching movies, etc?
I think the assumption here is that the healing crystal salesman isn't saying "they're just as effective as watching a movie or listening to music!" They are selling it to be more than it actually is. In that way, it's different, yes.
Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:42 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:18 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The prices of simple goods targeted to and frequently consumed by the lower class would naturally rise in response to the sudden disposable income increase, ... Do you believe the above because you think that poor people are not price-sensitive, or do you believe that the sellers of all consumer goods would simultaneously conspire to gouge consumers rather than compete for them by undercutting their competition? Is there a third option I've missed that leads you to believe the above? To be clear I'm thinking things like food, appliances, etc, goods and services that are NOT housing, education, and medical costs. Those 3 are a completely separate topic from what I'm talking about (and what I think you're talking about here). If you believe what I've quoted above, do you believe that poverty is impossible to eliminate, because there will always be a group with the least money, and they will always be preyed upon (relative to groups that have more money)? ... and all kinds of easy credit would have their offer terms adjust in response the same way. The margins of poverty are not denominated in terms of sums like $1,000.00 a month, rather in 72+ month loans, 25+% interest rates on consumer credit, and 0% down adjustable rate mortgages Sure. Do you think that people having more money makes them more susceptible to these types of things? Do you think poor people are just financially stupid and can't help themselves from falling for these types of scams, so giving them money is just giving the scammers money, but with more steps? I really don't understand why you think people become more susceptible to scammers when they have more financial freedom. The examples you cite take advantage of poor people precisely because they have few financial options. Because they are poor, their only option to acquire a home/car/whatever is to take a bad deal. Imagine you're a door to door bullshit salesman. You sell some worthless product for exorbitant prices so you can get a small slice of that profit. You think your job gets easier or harder the month everyone's got a fresh $1000 in their pocket and credit offers up the wazzu in exchange for signing over that UBI to the creditor? In Yang's theoretical UBI, that second part is not legal. You cannot borrow against your UBI payment. Surely the bullshit salesman's job gets easier, if by no other virtue than having more customers. And I wouldn't argue against the idea that the very first month of people getting their UBI payment has a real chance of having some weird shit happen. But overall, if the person sells that much more, then perhaps the product isn't as worthless as we are assuming. The only other option, as I see it, is to essentially say that poor people are stupid and incapable of making sound financial decisions. And I am very far from ready to subscribe to that. edit: In fact, I'll go one further and say that the alternative to UBI does no better. Do you know how many people buy food with their EBT card, and then buy cigarettes and lotto tickets with their cash? Even if you really feel deep down that poor people are incapable of making sound financial decisions, the same problem exists with service-based welfare programs. Milton Friedman advocated removing all social welfare and replacing it with a negative income tax (paying people proportionately based on how much their income is below a predefined level of income). Currently the US government spends about 18k a year per person on welfare including overhead costs for welfare programs. Do they get 18k worth of value? Perhaps most poor people know how to help themselves better than "experts", although there will definitely be a few exceptions.
In my opinion, they get far less than 18k of value. Even ignoring the significant amount of bureaucracy waste and fraud, it's like saying a $20 gift card to Olive Garden is worth $20.
Responding to Acrofales' point:
On August 09 2019 18:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:42 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:18 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The prices of simple goods targeted to and frequently consumed by the lower class would naturally rise in response to the sudden disposable income increase, ... Do you believe the above because you think that poor people are not price-sensitive, or do you believe that the sellers of all consumer goods would simultaneously conspire to gouge consumers rather than compete for them by undercutting their competition? Is there a third option I've missed that leads you to believe the above? To be clear I'm thinking things like food, appliances, etc, goods and services that are NOT housing, education, and medical costs. Those 3 are a completely separate topic from what I'm talking about (and what I think you're talking about here). If you believe what I've quoted above, do you believe that poverty is impossible to eliminate, because there will always be a group with the least money, and they will always be preyed upon (relative to groups that have more money)? ... and all kinds of easy credit would have their offer terms adjust in response the same way. The margins of poverty are not denominated in terms of sums like $1,000.00 a month, rather in 72+ month loans, 25+% interest rates on consumer credit, and 0% down adjustable rate mortgages Sure. Do you think that people having more money makes them more susceptible to these types of things? Do you think poor people are just financially stupid and can't help themselves from falling for these types of scams, so giving them money is just giving the scammers money, but with more steps? I really don't understand why you think people become more susceptible to scammers when they have more financial freedom. The examples you cite take advantage of poor people precisely because they have few financial options. Because they are poor, their only option to acquire a home/car/whatever is to take a bad deal. Imagine you're a door to door bullshit salesman. You sell some worthless product for exorbitant prices so you can get a small slice of that profit. You think your job gets easier or harder the month everyone's got a fresh $1000 in their pocket and credit offers up the wazzu in exchange for signing over that UBI to the creditor? In Yang's theoretical UBI, that second part is not legal. You cannot borrow against your UBI payment. Surely the bullshit salesman's job gets easier, if by no other virtue than having more customers. And I wouldn't argue against the idea that the very first month of people getting their UBI payment has a real chance of having some weird shit happen. But overall, if the person sells that much more, then perhaps the product isn't as worthless as we are assuming. The only other option, as I see it, is to essentially say that poor people are stupid and incapable of making sound financial decisions. And I am very far from ready to subscribe to that. edit: In fact, I'll go one further and say that the alternative to UBI does no better. Do you know how many people buy food with their EBT card, and then buy cigarettes and lotto tickets with their cash? Even if you really feel deep down that poor people are incapable of making sound financial decisions, the same problem exists with service-based welfare programs. Wait, you think the merits of snake oil should be judged by the number of people buying into their lies? And yes, I use snake oil as a catch-all representative of "healing crystals", "homeopathy", or any of the multi-level marketing scams regardless of whether their products are books, plastic containers, women's clothing or vitamin supplements.
I know I'm discussing this with multiple people, but so far in the discussion we are at this:
On August 09 2019 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
You're ascribing stupidity for what I think farv as well as myself would describe as a rigged game. It's not that they are too stupid and biologically incapable of making sound financial decisions, it's that their choices are rigged to start with. Which is one reason why other cash programs have similar issues.
If the argument is "we can't give people money because they will buy healing crystals," then we are back to saying they are too stupid to have their own money, are we not?
FWIW, the bullshit salesman I was thinking of was Cutco knives or something like that.
|
On August 09 2019 21:51 Pangpootata wrote:
I know I'm discussing this with multiple people, but so far in the discussion we are at this:
On August 09 2019 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
You're ascribing stupidity for what I think farv as well as myself would describe as a rigged game. It's not that they are too stupid and biologically incapable of making sound financial decisions, it's that their choices are rigged to start with. Which is one reason why other cash programs have similar issues.
If the argument is "we can't give people money because they will buy healing crystals," then we are back to saying they are too stupid to have their own money, are we not?
FWIW, the bullshit salesman I was thinking of was Cutco knives or something like that.
I'm not one that thinks capitalism is a couple tweaks away from not being exploitative, so perhaps that's where I part ways with the less left posters.
|
That relates to another big criticism I have with regard to most Dems, that being that only a select few seem to think climate change is at all an urgent, pervasive problem requiring a paradigmatic shift in how society operates.
|
On August 09 2019 22:32 farvacola wrote:
That relates to another big criticism I have with regard to most Dems, that being that only a select few seem to think climate change is at all an urgent, pervasive problem requiring a paradigmatic shift in how society operates.
As I understand it they want to change a bit. Republicans want to push further forward in the wrong direction. Comparing them there is a clear winner.
The dual party system of the US strikes again. In most of Europe there is some variant of the green party due to having 10% of the votes being enough to have some representation.
|
Its both the dual party problem and the lack of proportional representation, fixing those would definitely open up the field in a way the US desperately needs.
|
On August 09 2019 22:20 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 21:51 Pangpootata wrote:On August 09 2019 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On August 09 2019 09:42 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:18 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The prices of simple goods targeted to and frequently consumed by the lower class would naturally rise in response to the sudden disposable income increase, ... Do you believe the above because you think that poor people are not price-sensitive, or do you believe that the sellers of all consumer goods would simultaneously conspire to gouge consumers rather than compete for them by undercutting their competition? Is there a third option I've missed that leads you to believe the above? To be clear I'm thinking things like food, appliances, etc, goods and services that are NOT housing, education, and medical costs. Those 3 are a completely separate topic from what I'm talking about (and what I think you're talking about here). If you believe what I've quoted above, do you believe that poverty is impossible to eliminate, because there will always be a group with the least money, and they will always be preyed upon (relative to groups that have more money)? ... and all kinds of easy credit would have their offer terms adjust in response the same way. The margins of poverty are not denominated in terms of sums like $1,000.00 a month, rather in 72+ month loans, 25+% interest rates on consumer credit, and 0% down adjustable rate mortgages Sure. Do you think that people having more money makes them more susceptible to these types of things? Do you think poor people are just financially stupid and can't help themselves from falling for these types of scams, so giving them money is just giving the scammers money, but with more steps? I really don't understand why you think people become more susceptible to scammers when they have more financial freedom. The examples you cite take advantage of poor people precisely because they have few financial options. Because they are poor, their only option to acquire a home/car/whatever is to take a bad deal. Imagine you're a door to door bullshit salesman. You sell some worthless product for exorbitant prices so you can get a small slice of that profit. You think your job gets easier or harder the month everyone's got a fresh $1000 in their pocket and credit offers up the wazzu in exchange for signing over that UBI to the creditor? In Yang's theoretical UBI, that second part is not legal. You cannot borrow against your UBI payment. Surely the bullshit salesman's job gets easier, if by no other virtue than having more customers. And I wouldn't argue against the idea that the very first month of people getting their UBI payment has a real chance of having some weird shit happen. But overall, if the person sells that much more, then perhaps the product isn't as worthless as we are assuming. The only other option, as I see it, is to essentially say that poor people are stupid and incapable of making sound financial decisions. And I am very far from ready to subscribe to that. edit: In fact, I'll go one further and say that the alternative to UBI does no better. Do you know how many people buy food with their EBT card, and then buy cigarettes and lotto tickets with their cash? Even if you really feel deep down that poor people are incapable of making sound financial decisions, the same problem exists with service-based welfare programs. Wait, you think the merits of snake oil should be judged by the number of people buying into their lies? And yes, I use snake oil as a catch-all representative of "healing crystals", "homeopathy", or any of the multi-level marketing scams regardless of whether their products are books, plastic containers, women's clothing or vitamin supplements. Healing crystals and homeopathy do absolutely nothing physically but they make people feel good mentally and give them peace of mind, increasing their psychological well-being and overall quality of life. Is that really different from the effects of listing to music, watching movies, etc? I think the assumption here is that the healing crystal salesman isn't saying "they're just as effective as watching a movie or listening to music!" They are selling it to be more than it actually is. In that way, it's different, yes. Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:42 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:18 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The prices of simple goods targeted to and frequently consumed by the lower class would naturally rise in response to the sudden disposable income increase, ... Do you believe the above because you think that poor people are not price-sensitive, or do you believe that the sellers of all consumer goods would simultaneously conspire to gouge consumers rather than compete for them by undercutting their competition? Is there a third option I've missed that leads you to believe the above? To be clear I'm thinking things like food, appliances, etc, goods and services that are NOT housing, education, and medical costs. Those 3 are a completely separate topic from what I'm talking about (and what I think you're talking about here). If you believe what I've quoted above, do you believe that poverty is impossible to eliminate, because there will always be a group with the least money, and they will always be preyed upon (relative to groups that have more money)? ... and all kinds of easy credit would have their offer terms adjust in response the same way. The margins of poverty are not denominated in terms of sums like $1,000.00 a month, rather in 72+ month loans, 25+% interest rates on consumer credit, and 0% down adjustable rate mortgages Sure. Do you think that people having more money makes them more susceptible to these types of things? Do you think poor people are just financially stupid and can't help themselves from falling for these types of scams, so giving them money is just giving the scammers money, but with more steps? I really don't understand why you think people become more susceptible to scammers when they have more financial freedom. The examples you cite take advantage of poor people precisely because they have few financial options. Because they are poor, their only option to acquire a home/car/whatever is to take a bad deal. Imagine you're a door to door bullshit salesman. You sell some worthless product for exorbitant prices so you can get a small slice of that profit. You think your job gets easier or harder the month everyone's got a fresh $1000 in their pocket and credit offers up the wazzu in exchange for signing over that UBI to the creditor? In Yang's theoretical UBI, that second part is not legal. You cannot borrow against your UBI payment. Surely the bullshit salesman's job gets easier, if by no other virtue than having more customers. And I wouldn't argue against the idea that the very first month of people getting their UBI payment has a real chance of having some weird shit happen. But overall, if the person sells that much more, then perhaps the product isn't as worthless as we are assuming. The only other option, as I see it, is to essentially say that poor people are stupid and incapable of making sound financial decisions. And I am very far from ready to subscribe to that. edit: In fact, I'll go one further and say that the alternative to UBI does no better. Do you know how many people buy food with their EBT card, and then buy cigarettes and lotto tickets with their cash? Even if you really feel deep down that poor people are incapable of making sound financial decisions, the same problem exists with service-based welfare programs. Milton Friedman advocated removing all social welfare and replacing it with a negative income tax (paying people proportionately based on how much their income is below a predefined level of income). Currently the US government spends about 18k a year per person on welfare including overhead costs for welfare programs. Do they get 18k worth of value? Perhaps most poor people know how to help themselves better than "experts", although there will definitely be a few exceptions. In my opinion, they get far less than 18k of value. Even ignoring the significant amount of bureaucracy waste and fraud, it's like saying a $20 gift card to Olive Garden is worth $20. Responding to Acrofales' point: Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On August 09 2019 09:42 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:18 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The prices of simple goods targeted to and frequently consumed by the lower class would naturally rise in response to the sudden disposable income increase, ... Do you believe the above because you think that poor people are not price-sensitive, or do you believe that the sellers of all consumer goods would simultaneously conspire to gouge consumers rather than compete for them by undercutting their competition? Is there a third option I've missed that leads you to believe the above? To be clear I'm thinking things like food, appliances, etc, goods and services that are NOT housing, education, and medical costs. Those 3 are a completely separate topic from what I'm talking about (and what I think you're talking about here). If you believe what I've quoted above, do you believe that poverty is impossible to eliminate, because there will always be a group with the least money, and they will always be preyed upon (relative to groups that have more money)? ... and all kinds of easy credit would have their offer terms adjust in response the same way. The margins of poverty are not denominated in terms of sums like $1,000.00 a month, rather in 72+ month loans, 25+% interest rates on consumer credit, and 0% down adjustable rate mortgages Sure. Do you think that people having more money makes them more susceptible to these types of things? Do you think poor people are just financially stupid and can't help themselves from falling for these types of scams, so giving them money is just giving the scammers money, but with more steps? I really don't understand why you think people become more susceptible to scammers when they have more financial freedom. The examples you cite take advantage of poor people precisely because they have few financial options. Because they are poor, their only option to acquire a home/car/whatever is to take a bad deal. Imagine you're a door to door bullshit salesman. You sell some worthless product for exorbitant prices so you can get a small slice of that profit. You think your job gets easier or harder the month everyone's got a fresh $1000 in their pocket and credit offers up the wazzu in exchange for signing over that UBI to the creditor? In Yang's theoretical UBI, that second part is not legal. You cannot borrow against your UBI payment. Surely the bullshit salesman's job gets easier, if by no other virtue than having more customers. And I wouldn't argue against the idea that the very first month of people getting their UBI payment has a real chance of having some weird shit happen. But overall, if the person sells that much more, then perhaps the product isn't as worthless as we are assuming. The only other option, as I see it, is to essentially say that poor people are stupid and incapable of making sound financial decisions. And I am very far from ready to subscribe to that. edit: In fact, I'll go one further and say that the alternative to UBI does no better. Do you know how many people buy food with their EBT card, and then buy cigarettes and lotto tickets with their cash? Even if you really feel deep down that poor people are incapable of making sound financial decisions, the same problem exists with service-based welfare programs. Wait, you think the merits of snake oil should be judged by the number of people buying into their lies? And yes, I use snake oil as a catch-all representative of "healing crystals", "homeopathy", or any of the multi-level marketing scams regardless of whether their products are books, plastic containers, women's clothing or vitamin supplements. I know I'm discussing this with multiple people, but so far in the discussion we are at this: Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
You're ascribing stupidity for what I think farv as well as myself would describe as a rigged game. It's not that they are too stupid and biologically incapable of making sound financial decisions, it's that their choices are rigged to start with. Which is one reason why other cash programs have similar issues. If the argument is "we can't give people money because they will buy healing crystals," then we are back to saying they are too stupid to have their own money, are we not? FWIW, the bullshit salesman I was thinking of was Cutco knives or something like that.
I wasn't really contesting anytthing in your post other than the idea than the underlying idea of capitalism that "because people are willing to pay X for something, its value is X". I definitely feel people are allowed to own and spend money on whatever they want, including "healing crystals"... but only within a framework where healing crystals are sold and advertised as entertainment, not medicine.
Which is just one small part of the "rigged game" GH is referring to here. UBI is just smoke and mirrors here. Yang isn't using it to address fundamental injustices in society. At best it's a band-aid instead of major surgery, but more probably it's... healing crystals instead of that surgery.
|
On August 09 2019 22:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 22:20 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 21:51 Pangpootata wrote:On August 09 2019 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On August 09 2019 09:42 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:18 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The prices of simple goods targeted to and frequently consumed by the lower class would naturally rise in response to the sudden disposable income increase, ... Do you believe the above because you think that poor people are not price-sensitive, or do you believe that the sellers of all consumer goods would simultaneously conspire to gouge consumers rather than compete for them by undercutting their competition? Is there a third option I've missed that leads you to believe the above? To be clear I'm thinking things like food, appliances, etc, goods and services that are NOT housing, education, and medical costs. Those 3 are a completely separate topic from what I'm talking about (and what I think you're talking about here). If you believe what I've quoted above, do you believe that poverty is impossible to eliminate, because there will always be a group with the least money, and they will always be preyed upon (relative to groups that have more money)? ... and all kinds of easy credit would have their offer terms adjust in response the same way. The margins of poverty are not denominated in terms of sums like $1,000.00 a month, rather in 72+ month loans, 25+% interest rates on consumer credit, and 0% down adjustable rate mortgages Sure. Do you think that people having more money makes them more susceptible to these types of things? Do you think poor people are just financially stupid and can't help themselves from falling for these types of scams, so giving them money is just giving the scammers money, but with more steps? I really don't understand why you think people become more susceptible to scammers when they have more financial freedom. The examples you cite take advantage of poor people precisely because they have few financial options. Because they are poor, their only option to acquire a home/car/whatever is to take a bad deal. Imagine you're a door to door bullshit salesman. You sell some worthless product for exorbitant prices so you can get a small slice of that profit. You think your job gets easier or harder the month everyone's got a fresh $1000 in their pocket and credit offers up the wazzu in exchange for signing over that UBI to the creditor? In Yang's theoretical UBI, that second part is not legal. You cannot borrow against your UBI payment. Surely the bullshit salesman's job gets easier, if by no other virtue than having more customers. And I wouldn't argue against the idea that the very first month of people getting their UBI payment has a real chance of having some weird shit happen. But overall, if the person sells that much more, then perhaps the product isn't as worthless as we are assuming. The only other option, as I see it, is to essentially say that poor people are stupid and incapable of making sound financial decisions. And I am very far from ready to subscribe to that. edit: In fact, I'll go one further and say that the alternative to UBI does no better. Do you know how many people buy food with their EBT card, and then buy cigarettes and lotto tickets with their cash? Even if you really feel deep down that poor people are incapable of making sound financial decisions, the same problem exists with service-based welfare programs. Wait, you think the merits of snake oil should be judged by the number of people buying into their lies? And yes, I use snake oil as a catch-all representative of "healing crystals", "homeopathy", or any of the multi-level marketing scams regardless of whether their products are books, plastic containers, women's clothing or vitamin supplements. Healing crystals and homeopathy do absolutely nothing physically but they make people feel good mentally and give them peace of mind, increasing their psychological well-being and overall quality of life. Is that really different from the effects of listing to music, watching movies, etc? I think the assumption here is that the healing crystal salesman isn't saying "they're just as effective as watching a movie or listening to music!" They are selling it to be more than it actually is. In that way, it's different, yes. On August 09 2019 09:42 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:18 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The prices of simple goods targeted to and frequently consumed by the lower class would naturally rise in response to the sudden disposable income increase, ... Do you believe the above because you think that poor people are not price-sensitive, or do you believe that the sellers of all consumer goods would simultaneously conspire to gouge consumers rather than compete for them by undercutting their competition? Is there a third option I've missed that leads you to believe the above? To be clear I'm thinking things like food, appliances, etc, goods and services that are NOT housing, education, and medical costs. Those 3 are a completely separate topic from what I'm talking about (and what I think you're talking about here). If you believe what I've quoted above, do you believe that poverty is impossible to eliminate, because there will always be a group with the least money, and they will always be preyed upon (relative to groups that have more money)? ... and all kinds of easy credit would have their offer terms adjust in response the same way. The margins of poverty are not denominated in terms of sums like $1,000.00 a month, rather in 72+ month loans, 25+% interest rates on consumer credit, and 0% down adjustable rate mortgages Sure. Do you think that people having more money makes them more susceptible to these types of things? Do you think poor people are just financially stupid and can't help themselves from falling for these types of scams, so giving them money is just giving the scammers money, but with more steps? I really don't understand why you think people become more susceptible to scammers when they have more financial freedom. The examples you cite take advantage of poor people precisely because they have few financial options. Because they are poor, their only option to acquire a home/car/whatever is to take a bad deal. Imagine you're a door to door bullshit salesman. You sell some worthless product for exorbitant prices so you can get a small slice of that profit. You think your job gets easier or harder the month everyone's got a fresh $1000 in their pocket and credit offers up the wazzu in exchange for signing over that UBI to the creditor? In Yang's theoretical UBI, that second part is not legal. You cannot borrow against your UBI payment. Surely the bullshit salesman's job gets easier, if by no other virtue than having more customers. And I wouldn't argue against the idea that the very first month of people getting their UBI payment has a real chance of having some weird shit happen. But overall, if the person sells that much more, then perhaps the product isn't as worthless as we are assuming. The only other option, as I see it, is to essentially say that poor people are stupid and incapable of making sound financial decisions. And I am very far from ready to subscribe to that. edit: In fact, I'll go one further and say that the alternative to UBI does no better. Do you know how many people buy food with their EBT card, and then buy cigarettes and lotto tickets with their cash? Even if you really feel deep down that poor people are incapable of making sound financial decisions, the same problem exists with service-based welfare programs. Milton Friedman advocated removing all social welfare and replacing it with a negative income tax (paying people proportionately based on how much their income is below a predefined level of income). Currently the US government spends about 18k a year per person on welfare including overhead costs for welfare programs. Do they get 18k worth of value? Perhaps most poor people know how to help themselves better than "experts", although there will definitely be a few exceptions. In my opinion, they get far less than 18k of value. Even ignoring the significant amount of bureaucracy waste and fraud, it's like saying a $20 gift card to Olive Garden is worth $20. Responding to Acrofales' point: On August 09 2019 18:30 Acrofales wrote:On August 09 2019 09:42 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 09 2019 09:18 Dromar wrote:On August 09 2019 08:53 farvacola wrote:
The prices of simple goods targeted to and frequently consumed by the lower class would naturally rise in response to the sudden disposable income increase, ... Do you believe the above because you think that poor people are not price-sensitive, or do you believe that the sellers of all consumer goods would simultaneously conspire to gouge consumers rather than compete for them by undercutting their competition? Is there a third option I've missed that leads you to believe the above? To be clear I'm thinking things like food, appliances, etc, goods and services that are NOT housing, education, and medical costs. Those 3 are a completely separate topic from what I'm talking about (and what I think you're talking about here). If you believe what I've quoted above, do you believe that poverty is impossible to eliminate, because there will always be a group with the least money, and they will always be preyed upon (relative to groups that have more money)? ... and all kinds of easy credit would have their offer terms adjust in response the same way. The margins of poverty are not denominated in terms of sums like $1,000.00 a month, rather in 72+ month loans, 25+% interest rates on consumer credit, and 0% down adjustable rate mortgages Sure. Do you think that people having more money makes them more susceptible to these types of things? Do you think poor people are just financially stupid and can't help themselves from falling for these types of scams, so giving them money is just giving the scammers money, but with more steps? I really don't understand why you think people become more susceptible to scammers when they have more financial freedom. The examples you cite take advantage of poor people precisely because they have few financial options. Because they are poor, their only option to acquire a home/car/whatever is to take a bad deal. Imagine you're a door to door bullshit salesman. You sell some worthless product for exorbitant prices so you can get a small slice of that profit. You think your job gets easier or harder the month everyone's got a fresh $1000 in their pocket and credit offers up the wazzu in exchange for signing over that UBI to the creditor? In Yang's theoretical UBI, that second part is not legal. You cannot borrow against your UBI payment. Surely the bullshit salesman's job gets easier, if by no other virtue than having more customers. And I wouldn't argue against the idea that the very first month of people getting their UBI payment has a real chance of having some weird shit happen. But overall, if the person sells that much more, then perhaps the product isn't as worthless as we are assuming. The only other option, as I see it, is to essentially say that poor people are stupid and incapable of making sound financial decisions. And I am very far from ready to subscribe to that. edit: In fact, I'll go one further and say that the alternative to UBI does no better. Do you know how many people buy food with their EBT card, and then buy cigarettes and lotto tickets with their cash? Even if you really feel deep down that poor people are incapable of making sound financial decisions, the same problem exists with service-based welfare programs. Wait, you think the merits of snake oil should be judged by the number of people buying into their lies? And yes, I use snake oil as a catch-all representative of "healing crystals", "homeopathy", or any of the multi-level marketing scams regardless of whether their products are books, plastic containers, women's clothing or vitamin supplements. I know I'm discussing this with multiple people, but so far in the discussion we are at this: On August 09 2019 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
You're ascribing stupidity for what I think farv as well as myself would describe as a rigged game. It's not that they are too stupid and biologically incapable of making sound financial decisions, it's that their choices are rigged to start with. Which is one reason why other cash programs have similar issues. If the argument is "we can't give people money because they will buy healing crystals," then we are back to saying they are too stupid to have their own money, are we not? FWIW, the bullshit salesman I was thinking of was Cutco knives or something like that. I wasn't really contesting anytthing in your post other than the idea than the underlying idea of capitalism that "because people are willing to pay X for something, its value is X". I definitely feel people are allowed to own and spend money on whatever they want, including "healing crystals"... but only within a framework where healing crystals are sold and advertised as entertainment, not medicine.
I agree completely.
Which is just one small part of the "rigged game" GH is referring to here. UBI is just smoke and mirrors here. Yang isn't using it to address fundamental injustices in society. At best it's a band-aid instead of major surgery, but more probably it's... healing crystals instead of that surgery.
I think that the notion that giving money to poor people won't help them is absurd.
And if the logic is "UBI won't solve everything wrong with the world, so why bother?" then there's not really much more to be said.
On August 09 2019 22:37 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 22:32 farvacola wrote:
That relates to another big criticism I have with regard to most Dems, that being that only a select few seem to think climate change is at all an urgent, pervasive problem requiring a paradigmatic shift in how society operates. As I understand it they want to change a bit. Republicans want to push further forward in the wrong direction. Comparing them there is a clear winner.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I honestly think the Dem politicians are only interested in combating climate change in as much as it lets them look and feel superior to Republicans. Most Dem politicians don't actually want to do anything about it.
|
United States42005 Posts
US farmers getting hit by one thing after another. Trump unilaterally resumes the trade war with an open declaration of new sanctions on Twitter, of all places, and China promptly reverses their prior commitment to buy US produce.
|
On August 09 2019 23:18 KwarK wrote:
US farmers getting hit by one thing after another. Trump unilaterally resumes the trade war with an open declaration of new sanctions on Twitter, of all places, and China promptly reverses their prior commitment to buy US produce.
Trump is already taxing Chinese goods to subsidize US farmers. He will likely up his game even more.
Now Chinese agricultural imports are more expensive and US imports are banned in China. If people in US buy their own farmers' produce and people in China buy their own farmers' produce, there will be less carbon dioxide footprint from transportation across the ocean.
I wonder why the environmentalists aren't supporting trade wars 
|
|
|
On August 09 2019 23:34 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 23:18 KwarK wrote:
US farmers getting hit by one thing after another. Trump unilaterally resumes the trade war with an open declaration of new sanctions on Twitter, of all places, and China promptly reverses their prior commitment to buy US produce. Trump is already taxing Chinese goods to subsidize US farmers. He will likely up his game even more.Now Chinese agricultural imports are more expensive and US imports are banned in China. If people in US buy their own farmers' produce and people in China buy their own farmers' produce, there will be less carbon dioxide footprint from transportation across the ocean. I wonder why the environmentalists aren't supporting trade wars
are you talking about the tariffs? Because that's not how they work.
Is there some other tax I am not aware of?
|
On August 09 2019 23:34 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 23:18 KwarK wrote:
US farmers getting hit by one thing after another. Trump unilaterally resumes the trade war with an open declaration of new sanctions on Twitter, of all places, and China promptly reverses their prior commitment to buy US produce. Trump is already taxing Chinese goods to subsidize US farmers. He will likely up his game even more. Now Chinese agricultural imports are more expensive and US imports are banned in China. If people in US buy their own farmers' produce and people in China buy their own farmers' produce, there will be less carbon dioxide footprint from transportation across the ocean. I wonder why the environmentalists aren't supporting trade wars How many soybeans can you eat before you throw up?
They are sold to China because they are a surplus, not needed in the US itself.
And you know who pays those taxes on Chinese goods right? American citizens, not China. If you slap a 20% tarrif on something that something becomes 20% more expensive in stores. The consumer pays the tarrif, not the company shipping it to the US. (and if it won't sell at 20% more they just stop shipping it, as happened with American Soybeans in China. China's tarrifs mean no one wanted to buy American soybeans so farmers were stuck with harvests they had invested money in but couldn't sell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
