TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Calibrated Basic Income by Derek Van Gorder [pdf]

56 点作者 Suncho大约 2 个月前

10 条评论

jimnotgym大约 2 个月前
I&#x27;m interested in this as a faster intervention than QE. $10 given to a low income family will likely be spent that week. $10 of QE will just sit on somebodies balance sheet.<p>Understanding BI as a tool of monetary policy seems to remove the ideologically charged view we see when it is considered as part of the welfare state
评论 #43575713 未加载
评论 #43572161 未加载
评论 #43585680 未加载
notepad0x90大约 2 个月前
I really wish people would learn to keep emotion out of this topic. There is really one ultimate question here: &quot;Is this the best use of our tax dollars?&quot;. Not: &quot;Does this feel like the best use of our tax dollars?&quot;.<p>Show me how much UBI saves police departments, social welfare services, the health-care system,etc.. and how many new tax paying consumers it produces. Is it a reliable investment on people or is it a poor gamble? I&#x27;ve been hearing about this since before the 2016 election, there should be ample data on this, instead of speculation. And I have no problem with cities&#x2F;states re-attempting and retrying new approaches to UBI.<p>That said, are there any studies or experiments out there where instead of a blind UBI, people are put in a labor pool of some sort where they get guaranteed income but if they&#x27;re able-bodied they must make themselves available to perform jobs for the state or clients of the state? I&#x27;m thinking this should be the alternative to things like prison labor. Again, take the emotion and speculation out of it, what do we have left?
评论 #43567336 未加载
评论 #43567777 未加载
评论 #43566944 未加载
评论 #43575105 未加载
评论 #43567265 未加载
评论 #43567343 未加载
评论 #43567821 未加载
评论 #43567280 未加载
评论 #43566773 未加载
评论 #43568384 未加载
评论 #43567403 未加载
评论 #43567420 未加载
评论 #43568159 未加载
KolmogorovComp大约 2 个月前
&gt; UBI is first introduced at any arbitrarily low amount higher than $0. The fiscal authority then gradually increases the payout until the maximum-sustainable level of UBI spending is discovered<p>&gt; Notably, since this policy is proposed to be &#x27;funded&#x27; by a monetary policy contraction, it in theory requires no tax or consolidation of existing government programs to implement; nor does it necessarily imply a net increase in the overall money supply.&#x27;<p>What happen if this CBI maximum happen to be a very low amount? Too low to be an ‘income’, for example 10$.<p>I’m saying that because there has been periods where monetary policies have already been very tight [0] (recently following the subprime crash). According to my understanding of the paper, in the periods there would be no leeway to fund this CBI.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statista.com&#x2F;statistics&#x2F;1470953&#x2F;monthy-fed-funds-ecb-boe-interest-rates&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.statista.com&#x2F;statistics&#x2F;1470953&#x2F;monthy-fed-funds...</a>
评论 #43572456 未加载
评论 #43567776 未加载
评论 #43566955 未加载
mertbio大约 2 个月前
If people are paying a significant portion of their salaries, one-third or even half, towards rent, does it truly make sense to implement UBI? In my opinion, the answer is no. Instead, we should focus on establishing a Universal Basic Land: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mertbulan.com&#x2F;2025&#x2F;03&#x2F;02&#x2F;we-need-universal-basic-land-not-universal-basic-income&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mertbulan.com&#x2F;2025&#x2F;03&#x2F;02&#x2F;we-need-universal-basic-lan...</a>
评论 #43570622 未加载
veltas大约 2 个月前
The issue with the current system is it gives a lot of money and power to banks, and finance.<p>The issue with the proposed system, is that debt is actually a good thing for normal people. For example if you are young, productive, and come from a poor background, then you might buy a house with a mortgage. If debt is more expensive, then you are less likely -- and older people (and rich kids) are more likely -- to be able to afford these houses.<p>You might say that the current system is unfair, because wealthy people won&#x27;t need loans and can put their money to work exploiting poor people. But in a system where we redistribute wealth this way, the impact is harshest on the poorest people. The things that are limited in supply and high in demand will immediately go up in price. The things they wish they could buy, and plan long-term, will become unattainable. And I&#x27;ve not even gotten onto how this would affect productivity.<p>Everyone is focused on how the rich are getting richer. This is inevitable in liberal societies. The goal should instead be to stop the poor getting poorer, and I&#x27;m going to need some serious convincing that handing people a CBI, instead of providing debt, is going to actually benefit and not hurt them and the whole economy.
评论 #43567685 未加载
评论 #43566760 未加载
throw0101b大约 2 个月前
In Luke Martinelli published a paper about a (U)BI trilemma:<p>&gt; <i>As basic income (BI) has ascended the policy agenda, so proposals have come under increasing scrutiny for their affordability and adequacy for meeting need. One common objection to BI has been that it is impossible to design a scheme that simultaneously conforms to these two criteria. In this article, I develop a conceptual framework for analysing the trade-offs that afflict BI policy design. I suggest that while the idea of a policy dilemma between affordability and adequacy does indeed afflict &#x27;full&#x27; BI schemes, it is possible to design an affordable and adequate &#x27;partial&#x27; BI scheme. However, this comes at the cost of (at least partly) forfeiting some key advantages that motivate interest in BI in the first place, since these only arise as a consequence of the elimination of means testing and related conditionality from the welfare system. Thus, BI proponents face a three-way trade-off in policy design between affordability, adequacy, and securing the full advantages of BI as a radical simplification of existing welfare policy. The trilemma is illustrated with reference to original microsimulation evidence for the UK, which demonstrates that at most two of the three criteria can be achieved in a single scheme.</i><p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;researchportal.bath.ac.uk&#x2F;en&#x2F;publications&#x2F;a-basic-income-trilemma-affordability-adequacy-and-the-advantages" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;researchportal.bath.ac.uk&#x2F;en&#x2F;publications&#x2F;a-basic-in...</a><p>* PDF: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;purehost.bath.ac.uk&#x2F;ws&#x2F;portalfiles&#x2F;portal&#x2F;196619819&#x2F;A_basic_income_trilemma_PURE_.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;purehost.bath.ac.uk&#x2F;ws&#x2F;portalfiles&#x2F;portal&#x2F;196619819&#x2F;...</a>
6510大约 2 个月前
I suppose the question is if controlling the economy with a single lever for interest rate is a poor solution. The answer seems an obvious <i>yes</i>.<p>I&#x27;ve always thought a basic income should start with 10 bucks so that we can figure out the logistics of it. Have real world data on how hard it is to implement.
rspoerri大约 2 个月前
By subsidizing aspects such as schools, police and other govermental institutions a basic payout &#x2F; investions to the public is already in place. Expanding this to other basic rights would be reasonable and prevent a lot of social problems that will only heavily increase in the future. And im not talking about the country that currently abolishes all good reason and gambles with social security. Basic aspects such as shelter, food and personal security should be given as a basic right.
dwighttk大约 2 个月前
In Alaska you have UBI and it comes from the state selling oil… where does the money come from for pie-in the-sky <i>U</i>BI?
评论 #43568011 未加载
评论 #43568329 未加载
评论 #43568021 未加载
bsenftner大约 2 个月前
Every opinion on UBI is short sighted, and does not understand the macroeconomic poison that is UBI. Our economy, all economies, have lowered ethics players operating at the top of each economy. UBI institutionalizes these low ethics players, as well as institutionalizes the UBI recipients and forever casts their offspring into those economic roles. UBI is nothing less than the death of hope and the elimination of any economic ladder up and out of one&#x27;s birth situation. The only path is stagnant or down.
评论 #43567827 未加载
评论 #43567820 未加载