I am obviously not addressing whether it's true or saying the argument must be wrong. I'm pointing out there's some circular reasoning here that's unexamined in most online discussions about UBI.
I am pointing out there is an assumed and implied argument that 1) inequality is a problem and must be corrected, but 2) straight redistribution of some wealth with UBI will fail because-inflation/rents, but 3) we should have less inequality though even if we did that would put us in the similar position as with UBI where costs rebalance.
And at the end I ask, rhetorically but still, what's to be done. So here you also assume it's true without addressing it and offer no answer to how to address the gobbling up of the economic slack.
>I am pointing out there is an assumed and implied argument that 1) inequality is a problem and must be corrected, but 2) straight redistribution of some wealth with UBI will fail because-inflation/rents, but 3) we should have less inequality though even if we did that would put us in the similar position as with UBI where costs rebalance.
I wasn't making anything like that argument. I was saying that, if you don't address the dynamics that gobble up household economic slack, then a UBI won't produce the additional slack you're trying to produce. Three's nothing circular about that.
>And at the end I ask, rhetorically but still, what's to be done. So here you also assume it's true without addressing it and offer no answer to how to address the gobbling up of the economic slack.
In fact, the link I gave was from (the aptly named) landvaluetax.org and is from an organization that has one theory and solution for how land rents eat up slack and a solution.
And even if I didn't, it's still a valid point that the primary problem is "things that extract household slack", and needs to be address before any UBI is piled on.
Hey, you're right :) I was talking past you because I didn't realize you were the OP that prompted my thought. Also I was thinking about a more general trend in points and not yours specifically. You've got a great point about land too. I'm in Texas so I hadn't considered some places don't have a land tax because while it has it's challenges (disagreements between state and citizen on land value) it's kind of backwards not to have one.
I'm not saying the argument fails because there is a circular loop. I am saying there is something more to the system and we shouldn't drop consideration for UBI based on the argument that inflation will gobble up all of the increase because that argument holds true equally if we improve equality to everyone gets a wage increase.
Which really makes your point even more important. Particularly the one about land having the strongest growth pressure.
I am pointing out there is an assumed and implied argument that 1) inequality is a problem and must be corrected, but 2) straight redistribution of some wealth with UBI will fail because-inflation/rents, but 3) we should have less inequality though even if we did that would put us in the similar position as with UBI where costs rebalance.
And at the end I ask, rhetorically but still, what's to be done. So here you also assume it's true without addressing it and offer no answer to how to address the gobbling up of the economic slack.