Common sense tells me that if you were to give everybody $1000 per month that the market would adjust and the prices on everything would increase to account for all this money that businesses know you'll have. That, at the end of the day, nothing would really change. Am I wrong on this assumption?
Also, would it be good or bad for the economy if most idiots went nigger rich and spent their $1000 a month on luxury cars and junk food?
Other urls found in this thread:
Pretty much. You have X amount of goods.
Tax some people $2000 more.
Give everyone $1000
Same amount of goods, just distributed differently. But now, less incentive to work and make more goods, cuz free money
duh
>Am I wrong on this assumption?
Yes.
that's what happens when you increase the minimum wage you absolute brainlet
>Am I wrong on this assumption?
Nope, it's completely accurate. It's worth understanding some basic economics to be able to debunk this stuff. The first major thing to understand is that value and money aren't the same thing. That money is a proxy for value, and for money to remain useful to people the value must remain relatively constant. You don't want the wages your boss pays you to be worth 1/2 as much the next day, that would be very bad for you because when you come to trade that money for other things of value like say food or clothes you want the value to remain about the same.
The relationship beween value and money is a dynamic one, money changes value depending on the sum total value in any given system, and the total amount of currency that has to represent that value. You can sort of think about this as how many dollars exist and how many products and services exist, and you kinda divide the 2 and that is roughly what decides the value of any one dollar.
If you just give a bunch of money to people who dont represent much value, then money stops representing value properly and the relationship between money and value has to change, the system has to re-balance such that money closer reflects the value of these people, and it does this essentially through inflation, the purchasing power of the dollar drops, and not just of all the dollars you're earning but of all the savings you have held in dollars.
Poor people don't want more money, what's the point in getting more money if those dollars are worth less when you get them? What poor people need is more VALUE, they need skills and experience that make them more valuable in the work place so they're paid more but the dollars they're paid are worth something.
You don't even know what a PCO is.
>hurr durr I took econ 101 and think I understand market forces
BASED. Math niggers unite.
Just like raising the minimum wage. Prices go up and the jew handing out shekels raises his to compensate.
Yes, $1000 would be the new $0. Literally worth nothing.
>1k =0
Sadly we're already there.
In fact it's not just minimum wage either, any attempt to force money to have different value through policy always fails because the market always re-balances this interference. So minimum wage doesn't work, that's why minimum wage has to go up every few years because all that value is inflated away. But it also doesn't work with redistribution through taxing people.
Most countries have a progressive tax system where you pay a greater percentage of tax the more you earn, but most businesses in those countries have a progressive wage system as well. When you're a newbie and you're earning £18,000 you might expect your next raise to be maybe £500-£1,000. But when you're a director on say £50,000 then your next raise is more likely to be £5,000-£10,000.
Businesses have to increase incentives for staff who are more productive or they leave, and employees don't care about what they're paid before tax, they care about their take home after tax and that's how raises are decided.
Redistributing money cannot work, in a relatively free economy all that happens is it all re-balances through market forces, normally inside a few years and you're right back where you started. All that offering money to people does is buy votes.
Do companies raise prices when taxes get cut?
Their margins increase so they gain in the end even if the sticker isn't raised. Do they CUT prices when they get a tax break? Oh fuck no.
If the tax cuts lower their bottom line and increase their profits then the tendency is to LOWER prices. Because most of the time these business operate in a competitive market, they're not in isolation and competing with another business means lower your prices to undercut them. Or sometimes that additional profit is invested into making the product better so maybe the price stays the same but the gambit is, we'll sell more if we offer a better product so do some market research and then some R&D and all that stuff to improve.
It's not so much prices will go up. Jewish landlords will know you are $1000 fun bucks richer and will raise your rent $1000 dollars.
>Poor people don't want more money,
The problem is they do. I completely agree that what's needed is more value, but the average person doesn't think this through thouroughly.
This is why people are freaking out so badly about Trump vs. China. They aren't interested in looking at any kind of long term plan.
The number of Americans who would qualify for the plan is, ballpark, around 210 million. At $12,000 a year that works out to be $2.5 trillion in spending, just on this one program. Social Security ($1.1 trillion), Medicare ($680 billion), and Medicaid ($420 billion) are all part of mandatory spending and don't change under Yang's proposal. Interest on the national debt ($500 billion) is also mandatory.
If you're counting, that puts us at $5.2 trillion just with Yang's UBI plan and the four largest mandatory spending costs, and it's already double the total mandatory spending costs outlined in the FY2020 budget. That's not including a single cent for the other mandatory programs (~$600 billion), defense, education, energy, science, infrastructure, agriculture, housing, etc. If discretionary spending were locked, you'd be looking at a total budget in the neighborhood of about $7.2 trillion. If you gutted discretionary spending by half (which would be cause for open, armed rebellion in most counties), you could get it to just over $6.5 trillion.
The notion that UBI will "pay for itself" is laughable and the idea that this will accomplish anything but completely sinking the US economy for the sake of gibs is ludicrous.
No nigger, the idiots EXPECT them to lower prices but the jews don't. They just say, well you have more free money so don't worry about it.
At most it will stall the inevitable price raise for the quarter.
Seriously, how old are you?
And illegal immigrants who aren't entitled to $1000 are squeezed out of the economy
Yeah I agree, I mean to say that what poor people ought to want is more value because then they'd have a better quality life. Giving them more money makes their lives a little bit better for a really short period of time and then it goes back to normal until the amount they're given is raised again, through revisions of how much a minimum or "living" wage ought to be.
Politicians offer this stuff because they know that poor people are really just stupid people, but their vote is still worth 1 vote so it doesn't matter. And buying that vote by offering them money is an easy way to get lots of votes. It's a serious problem because most people have a simple view of money, they dont understand that dynamic relationship between money and value unless they're either well educated or they're kinda older and have learned through experience or discussion with those who do. Young people don't get it AT ALL. And young people are also the most greedy so...huge problem.
No they really don't. They just don't want there to be such a huge difference between rich and poor. Throwing money at the rich assholes too keeps shit the same. The gap remains.
no
fucking
shit
only bugland idiots trying to get elected would try and push otherwise
>yet somehow people get social welfare and it works great.
by your retarded logic, taxes (the reverse of UBI) would reduce inflation, fuck off retard
>implying the dems wouldn't immediately say that they're entitled to it too
No, all of you are wrong
Think about it: if you owned a business, and you knew everyone was receiving an extra 1000 a month, would you raise all your prices by a lot? Of course not, because then people would just go to a business where the prices arent be raised. What you want are more customers, and you will get them if everyone has more to spend. You are simply incorrect if you think UBI will lead to mass inflation.
He’s got my vote. Fuck Trump.
Why does socialism work in Scandinavia?
Or is it because socialism is easier to micro manage in countries with low populations?
>be me, retailer
>every other retailer increases price by $1000
>undercut them
epic
This presumes all businesses wouldn't increase prices.
Scandinavia isnt socialist. They are capitalist with just a lot of welfare
But the one's that didn't would take all the business..........
>666
Satan has a point
by your own words you will get more customers. higher demand = higher prices. it's not inflation, it's just simple business decisions
Thats what these guys dont get. They seem to think all businesses would raise their prices in tandem. I dont think that is a realistic outcome when they are all still competing for customers.
That's not why businesses would raise prices.
The problem comes from where do you get this money from, well it comes from VAT is what Yang has claimed, a 10% flat fee on everything. So business now have to pay 10% VAT on all the raw materials and goods and services inside their supply chain and their outgoings rapidly increase. So they have to increase their prices such that they continue to make a profit.
That assumes everyone buys the same thing.
Came here to post this. Reminder Milton Friedman agreed with ubi
Give the $1000 only to people who are employed. Maybe it will motivate leeches to get a job...even a part time job. Obtain some self worth.
Taxes don't take the money out of the system. They are just used to pay for state projects and workers. Now burning money should reduce the inflation.
Only if everyone got a 1000. In reality it will most likely be less than half who would qualify so prices could go up by 50% of whatever 1000 will return.
That's a bit shortsighted. Prices would likely not increase because retail is really hurting so those that don't increase their prices would soak up the new retail money. Why is amazon and Walmart winning... they have the lowest prices.
The question is whether this will ultimatelty be paid by the consumer since the VAT tax is an extra tax on consumption. Amazon would likely pass this tax on to the consumer, but if they passed it all on then it might make it easier for mom and pop shops to compete which could have a positive effect in that it increases competition.
>Imagine shilling for a chicom tech millionaire who want's to bribe you with your own money.
That's some deep retardation sir.
If you want to give poor people that are actually trying a break, why not just get rid of income tax for anyone making under 30k a year?
A person working for minimum wage is getting less than what a lot of welfare and disability bums get after deductions.
Have you even thought about it for more than 20 seconds?
Products wouldn't change from costing 10$ to 1010$, are you retarded?
Yes, you're right
Used to game with this group of dudes,
came back 10 years later and they're all Yang supporting commies :(
Makes sense since they're all incels/weebs/oppressed minorities
How do retards fall for this shit? Doesn't everyone know that both Dems and Repubs are compromised at the top? Can't they remember Bernie flip flopping hardcore and supporting HRC in 2016?
Even if Yang somehow won, like Bill Hicks said they would just show him some footage of JFK and say alright, toe the fucking line
Homeless people don't stay homeless because they want to, they do because they can't even afford to work you retard.
this is the most intelligent post I have seen in months
Are YOU retarded? Of course a single product wouldn't increase by $1K (unlike college where once loans became "free money"), but everything else would increase somewhat.
Look up "Helicopter Money".
There are plenty of economists who do think it would actually work.
>Taiwanese
>Chicom
Brainlet
>Helicopter Money
yep, it works
?¿?
Why would it increase? It's the demand what really regulates the price. Do you even know basic economics?
And that's how the prices creep up. Oy, look at this deal goyim, only half as much as that guy! Nevermind that we raised the prices first. Coinkidink.
big secret of Yang-Bag.
any Gibs you already be getting is DEDUCTED from your monthly Bag.
PLEASE, PLEASE do this.
TRY to imagine the butt-hurt, confusion, and blind rage when your typical Negress or (whatever a Mexican that axes like a Nigger) finds out that unlike the rich White girls in college, she will NOT be getting a fucking cent, because her Public Housing is "valued at" $1200.
yes, your assumption is wrong. hope that answers your question.
We don't operate on a supply and demand structure with all the mass produces chink crap.
is rightful chinese clay
>there is no elasticity in the market
69 is right.
>implying everyone having more money wouldn't increase the demand of everything
Then you must be fucking retarded
Well yea, but free $1000 is better than 0.
Also based off how complicated the American economic system tied to internaltion system the answer would NO.
Prices would not adjust to automaticcally take $1000 just because you given a free $1000. Some prices for goods would increase, some would decrease and others would stay the same.
In principal, it would be per se on the person how to SPEND that $1000. But no, everything would not rise just to adjust just because everyone given free 1k. That's on the person itself on how to use it.
If support him if he was honest and said stupid people are unnecessary moving forward and his policy is to curb the proliferation of retards. Instead he wants to do the opposite and maximize moron output. Fuck Yang and fuck his plans to produce morons.
While the inflation argument is perfectly valid, the real issue is that you would have cause complete societal collapse within a few years when people started working less and less, forcing the productive people to shoulder a greater and greater share of the burden until you get a vicious cycle going and you have Jamestown Colony again where 75% of the population is not working and everyone is impoverished and starving.
emphasis, no everything would NOT rise because we're given $1000. It would be much more complicated than that , meaning, you're still receiving a benefit, IF YOU USE IT, toward your benefit.
Imagine the average idiot having $1k more in buying power to break havoc or throw at misguided political agendas like IMPEASHHH every month. What could go wrong?
international*
You write like someone pretending to be smarter than they really are.
>in principal
lmao you mean principle?
>per se
awkwardly used
Yea pretty much.
Still right tho.
But also wrong because I'm trying to sound intelligent.
Nm disregard comment
Tell me how long it would take for "the market" to raise the prices in a way that would undo $1000 a month gain for the average person?
Tell me why competition just suddenly disappears? Why every participant of "the market" would do the same thing?
Why would all consumers keep going to business that raised prices in response to the $1000 a month?
Why wouldn't some business gain more customers by keeping their prices the same? And why wouldn't some business lose profit, because their price increase isn't enough to make up for the customers they lost?
If that's too much for you just tell me why if burger king decided to raise prices, why can't mcdonald's put out an ad saying they are committed to keeping prices low?
No commie Im just not a fucking kike shill
OMG SHILL DRUMPFTARD INCEL MIGATURD!!
>free $1000 is better than 0.
There's no such thing as free money
If you very financially responsible, you as a person can hedge your $1000 so when it needs to be billed(however so), you would gain more than lose.
I'm assuming you know something more than making very vague "expression argument" beyond "nothing free" "taxes would rise" "earn it yourself" "that's not how it works" "you're just a commie" ect.
Actually the market is based on INFORMATION. Not really supply and demand. The supply of the $1000 is for a limited time. Also the $1000 comes from the GOVERNment! The Government will throw you in jail if you raise prices. I think there is a name for that... IMHO
>Well yea, but free $1000 is better than 0.
It's just not that simple. Because the "free part" is value that you gain, and that comes at the cost of devaluing the money in general through inflation. But it would be $1000 in addition to whatever else you earn, and when you spend money it's not as though the devaluation of money affects just the $1000 you get, it also effects all the rest of your earnings and savings. So if you've got say $2000 in the bank because you're saving for a car to travel to a better job then that you lose the spending power of that $2000. If you're also earning money before you get that $1000 then that money is also devalued, so maybe you have a job that pays $20,000 already, if that $20,000 is devalued then you're fucked.
Yea you'd be right. Giving whole population free 1k would cause problems.
I'm not going to argue how 1k to everyone going to cause some CRAZY ASS SHIT problems simply to continually argue hypothetical scenarios.
I really have no idea. We already give a shit ton of free-aid and economic funds(trillions free money) currently.....and now we're slowly getting into a recession (from what I'm reading).
So yea no idea but if you say so, I guess so. Don't really care either way, free 1k to me isn't end of the world for America or my personal finances.
>Common sense tells me that if you were to give everybody $1000 per month that the market would adjust and the prices on everything would increase to account for all this money that businesses know you'll have. That, at the end of the day, nothing would really change. Am I wrong on this assumption?
This would allow for new competitors to enter the market and provie the same product for less than the inflated price. In the end, the market would self balance to the actual cost of production and the UBI would still be a net gain.
>Also, would it be good or bad for the economy if most idiots went nigger rich and spent their $1000 a month on luxury cars and junk food?
good.
>Nope, it's completely accurate.
No, it isn't. see
Your scenario sounds to me like it wild drive wages through the roof. That would be terrible.
Being mentally unstable doesn't help either. Early onset Alzheimer's is something I'm still getting used to and I'm only 27. I've had Schizo my whole life, and didn't know it by the way, but memories not matching reality? Now that's a fucking disablity. Especially when it happens every couple of months to sometimes just a couple of weeks.
>go eat pills
Voices are nicer than anyone has ever been fuck your optics. And pills ain't going to bring back my 'lost' memories.
"Wages" don't mean anything if there's nothing to buy because no one is producing anything.
Again, we've tried this even on a teeny, tiny scale and it always ends in horrendous poverty and starvation.