I don't agree with his analysis. We already have a form of UBI in the form of interest from wealth. Only a certain class of society get access to it yet they don't stop working. Consider a family with 15 million in the bank earning 2% interest, that's 300 thousand a year. Do these people stop working or become lazy?
Furthermore, he assumes that the money must come from a progressive tax rather than a structural fix. What if we turned trickle down economics on its head. Create a minimum entry point into the market via our money expansion. All major currencies are fiat and now hold weight against each other. How about as we expand the money supply we do it from the bottom up.
Also Austrian economics has its faults too. Numerous times in history we have seen runs on the bank with a gold standard. It's not some magic fix. In fact, gold standard economies have been know for depreciation. Why would I want to buy a bunch of bananas on Monday if I can get an entire meal on Friday. With a growing population it is useful to have the monetary supply continuously grow. In addition, there are times extra liquidity can be very useful.
Finally, as we enter a new era of technology we have some serious thinking to do. Consider that the US manufacturing work force has decline yet the output has increased. So we are producing more with less people. ( http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/25/most-americans-unaware-that-as-u-s-manufacturing-jobs-have-disappeared-output-has-grown/ ) Looking at these trends suggests there is more to go around yet 15.1 percent of Americans were officially in poverty in 2010. This is an increase from 12.5 percent in 2007. Only recently have the started to go back down and that's with continuous stimulus.
Redistribution of wealth is needed to address the rapid changes from technology. I do believe OP is correct in that there should be strings attached to UBI: continued education, military service, social work or a free market jobs are a good place to start.
Certainly, I don't think a gold standard would work. Cryptos are the future.
Sure, the rich don't have to work, but they do, but not all of them. You often hear stories about bored rich kids getting into all kinds of trouble.
I don't understand what you mean by creating a minimum entry point.
I believe the system is too far corrupt, so, until it falls, nothing we do will make it better. UBI or otherwise. The tree is rotten and must fall.
I don't think money supply needs to grow constantly. In a true Free Market, the value of money would change to accommodate the need. Especially with cryptos, where you can go to 18 decimals places.
In a true Free Market without government intervention, prices would come down naturally as businesses, in order to compete with each other, would get better and more efficient at producing better/cheaper products. Especially after the initial startup and manufacturing costs are paid for.
US manufacturing has been exported to cheaper labor countries -- the costs of labor in the US are prohibitive and created by government regulation. In a truly free market, the best companies would compete for the best workers, and salaries would reflect that.
Production is rewarded, and lack of production penalized.
Certainly, automation will always be better at the menial tasks. Same thing happened in the Industrial revolution. And many jobs were eliminated, and you needed more education to get anywhere in the world. That's evolution.
I believe you get what you put your attention on, and if you reward people for not producing, you're going to find people stop trying, and the brightest minds will find other countries where their talents are rewarded.
UBI follows the model of Keynes. So far it's been a mess. What are the odds it'll be any different?
There already are examples of government paying for everything... in the US... in Venezuela.
The most successful people find a need and fill it. And that creates wealth for them.
Also the UBI math doesn't make any sense.
The government, through taxes, steals (at gunpoint) from those who produce and gives it to those who do not produce.
They also print money out of thin air and inflate the currency. Current real inflation is closer to 10% per year (and my food budget can attest to that). Another way they steal purchasing power from our dollars.
And now, they will print helicopter money, and give it to "the little people," and that will somehow magically not go like all preceding attempts to print too much money?
History doesn't look well for UBI. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really don't see the math.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Also, interest from an investment isn't UBI. Someone borrowed that money and paid back with interest after investing it. It's only through the "magic" of fractional reserve lending that money gets created out of thin air. Otherwise, it is primarily the products and then the services that have any value.
If you and I were in a vacuum and we printed a million dollars, that money would be worthless. But we could consume and trade food items back and forth, or I could train you how to farm or fish so you could be self-sustaining.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit