20 ms·

Almost everyone here seems to be discussing the economic challenges of UBI, but so far I haven't seen much mention of the political challenges. UBI is a complet

Almost everyone here seems to be discussing the economic challenges of UBI, but so far I haven't seen much mention of the political challenges. UBI is a completely unworkable concept in the U.S.A and likely many European countries as well. American citizens will be literally shooting eachother in the streets before they accept such a massive wealth redistribution mechanism, and that resistance will be mostly made up of the masses that could benefit from it, to say nothing of the powerful that will leverage the full extent of their influence to prevent their gains from being redistributed.

jjawssd 10y ago
Americans do not trust that the government has their best interests in mind, ergo Americans do not want to have their money taken away from them to pay for government programs.
- delinka 10y ago
  And, as evidenced by the actions of our Republican and Democratic party legislators, by the NSA and FBI ... the US government does not have my best interests in mind.
  - huherto 10y ago
    The government doesn't have a single mind. Every agency has different goals and motivations. Sometimes they are even contradictory. We can choose where we want more government involvement and where we don't.
- kwhitefoot 10y ago
  Like roads, air traffic control, sewers, clean water, etc., etc.?
  - briantakita 10y ago
    Yes, these systems that are mismanaged by bureaucrats & politics. It's not like our water is safe & people who wish to manage water on their own property are prosecuted by the state.
  - jjawssd 10y ago
    You mean the roads which are crumbling (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/road-infrastructure/ http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/road-infrastructure/), congested ATCs (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/aviation/ http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/aviation/), and water systems with heavy metal contamination with our drinking water infrastructure nearing the end of its useful life (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/water-infrastructure/ http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/water-infrastructure...)?
- Koshkin 10y ago
  A government, while being a necessity, is not to be trusted. The Founding Fathers understood that, and they made it clear to others. A government is a mechanism that is prone to deterioration over time, and it takes a substantial effort to keep it in a shape in which it protects people's interests rather than its own. Also, from the historical prospective, governments are the ones who are responsible for most killings of people on a large scale. How, then, can an intelligent person trust a government?
  - chronial 10y ago
    > How, then, can an intelligent person trust a government? Because that's just the better option. Somebody is always going to gather a lot of power with a big organization. The choice you get is between an organization whose purpose is to serve the masses (democratic goverment) and organizations whose purpose is to serve very elites (corporations, organized crime). Regarding your specific point regarding killing people: I think you are oversimplifying here. With the opium wars and the subsequent flooding of china with opium, British trading companies probably already firmly hold the record for killing people on a large scale. For more recent examples, I would point towards the commercial part of the US Industrial-Military complex. But yes, the government is then frequently instrumentalized to do the actual killing. I would assume this to become harder the stronger and more democratic a government is.
nostrademons 10y ago
It's useful to think of what sort of institutions are required for social stability before you need them. It's semi-likely that Americans will be shooting each other in the streets anyway, and so when they get tired of it and are ready to say "Never again...let's fix the root problem so we never get to this point again", there are options whose consequences have been explored. Recall the history of labor unions in the U.S. The AFL-CIO was formed in 1886. The 1890s and early 1900s featured strikes where there actually was shooting in the streets, widespread rioting, bomb-throwing anarchists, and general pubic and social unrest. It took 2 world wars and a great depression before the U.S. got to the "golden age" of labor union capitalism that certain people want to recreate today. If you don't test out possible solutions on a small scale before the old social order disintegrates, you get things like the Communist Bloc, where revolutionaries overthrow the old system, but then install a new system that sounds good in theory but really doesn't work in practice.
thephyber 10y ago
I've heard convincing arguments[1] from economists that we should convert our existing "safety net" and "welfare" programs to simple UBI (aka BIG). The argument tends to circle around the fact that the existing programs dis-incentivize getting off disability or Section 8 because the recipient is penalized in a step-function way (as soon as they get a job, they may become ineligible or could be charged with a crime). A well crafted UBI such that it's an income tax rebate (not to be confused with tax credits or tax deductions) to replace the many smaller safety-net / welfare programs eliminates the disincentive for people to get off these specialized programs that already exists. While I don't think Americans are well informed enough to make a rational decision (and will likely be swayed by emotion), I think there are reasonable arguments for UBI / BIG. [1] http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/01/munger_on_the_b.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/01/munger_on_the_b....
- kazagistar 10y ago
  I worry that you just made it even more politically untenable. "You are taking away my retirement I earned and giving it to everyone?" "Don't touch my medicaid!" "They are trying to kill the soup kitchens; look at these children we feed." Or whatever. There is such aggressive fighting for scraps that no one wants to make a big-picture shift that might have unknown societal repercussions.
  - n_ 10y ago
    This. This is the biggest challenge to UBI becoming a serious mainstream topic in the United States IMHO. It takes me hours of conversation explaining UBI to any of my southern/conservative family members to get to a point where they at least acknowledge that it isn't just a fancy word for socialism... and even then they still don't like it. Granted, I'm their left coast liberal silicon valley nephew so they aren't really interested in anything I have to say anyway.. but maybe thats the point. To a lot of Americans it just sounds like free liberal hand outs, no matter how much data/math/science/economics go into it. Hopefully smarter people than I can figure out how to message UBI to that part of America.
- krrrh 10y ago
stenl 10y ago
Off-topic, but Americans literally are shooting each other in the streets. More americans have died in gun homicides than died in all wars since, and including WW2. Include suicides, and gun violence exceeds all US war deaths ever. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/...
- brianwawok 10y ago
  Some Americans in some areas. My experience has been if you do not get involved with buying or selling drugs, you will be pretty safe. Which I guess is the point of the war on drugs, but that hasn't worked out so well.
  - eon1 10y ago
    Hmm.. the point of it, or result of it?
old-gregg 10y ago
It's all about the packaging. Politicians are masters of selling any X positioned in a way masses accept it, most popular wrappers make use of keywords like "tax break", "children" or "patriot". The primary obstacle against UBI is that it removes the powerful mechanism of wealth extraction lobbyists frequently use: the tax breaks. For example, say you're healthcare lobbyist and you want to boost your business selling drug X, but patients who need X cannot afford the amount you want to charge. What do you do? Lower the price? No, you will lobby for making expenses on X tax-deductible. If you succeed, you will be forcefully taking money from people who don't need X, giving them to a person who needs X, who has no choice but give it to you. This has happened with healthcare, education, housing, etc. (and nobody is shooting anyone on the streets) UBI removes the need for tax breaks, reducing lobbyists' ability to direct consumer spending, and that's why it won't be implemented any time soon.
twblalock 10y ago
Eve if the American people were willing to accept UBI, it still wouldn't work the way proponents hope it will. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the US Congress actually passed a UBI bill that was simple, elegant, and did not have a bunch of complicated amendments tacked onto it. Let's say they passed a bill stipulating that every person in the United States would get a check from the government every month, and that every check would be for the same amount. Let's also assume that the bill replaces every other welfare program with UBI, like the libertarian proponents of UBI hope will happen. Even if that happened (and it certainly would not), it would only be a matter of time before it gets messed up. There are a lot of reasons the current system is the way it is. There are many reasons the voters would want some people to get more money than others under UBI, and many of them would be convincing. For example, should single mothers get more UBI money? What about cutting benefits for convicted felons? What about more UBI money for people in high-cost-of-living cities like New York and San Francisco? What about more UBI money as a form of affirmative action for certain racial groups? People will vote for some of those changes. We would therefore end up re-creating a lot of our current welfare programs within UBI, for the same reasons we created those programs in the first place. Tyler Cowen has written more persuasively on this topic here: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/what-are-some-of-the-biggest-problems-with-a-guaranteed-annual-income.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/wha... UBI proponents have a few questions to answer: how can we afford it, how will it work, and how can they prevent it from being turned back into our current welfare programs under a different name? And how can they prevent the voters from simply voting to give themselves more money, thereby bankrupting the government?
- swift 10y ago
  Are voters any less able to vote to give themselves more money now?
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Yes, far less able. Most voters aren't on welfare, and they aren't interested in increasing welfare payments. If every voter got money from the government, things would be very different.
eikenberry 10y ago
Along the same lines I don't see people considering the new power base this would provide the people who controlled it. Do you really think it would stay simple with no requirements or controls and corresponding government agencies to oversee it. That agency will be scary.
leepowers 10y ago
UBI is talked about, but is probably a long way off. But it's important to get the conversation started. We already have massive wealth redistribution in the U.S., in the form of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., which make up 70% of the federal budget. UBI isn't about spending more but spending differently.

jjawssd 10y ago

Americans do not trust that the government has their best interests in mind, ergo Americans do not want to have their money taken away from them to pay for government programs.

delinka 10y ago
And, as evidenced by the actions of our Republican and Democratic party legislators, by the NSA and FBI ... the US government does not have my best interests in mind.
- huherto 10y ago
  The government doesn't have a single mind. Every agency has different goals and motivations. Sometimes they are even contradictory. We can choose where we want more government involvement and where we don't.
kwhitefoot 10y ago
Like roads, air traffic control, sewers, clean water, etc., etc.?
- briantakita 10y ago
  Yes, these systems that are mismanaged by bureaucrats & politics. It's not like our water is safe & people who wish to manage water on their own property are prosecuted by the state.
- jjawssd 10y ago
  You mean the roads which are crumbling (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/road-infrastructure/ http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/road-infrastructure/), congested ATCs (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/aviation/ http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/aviation/), and water systems with heavy metal contamination with our drinking water infrastructure nearing the end of its useful life (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/water-infrastructure/ http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/water-infrastructure...)?
Koshkin 10y ago
A government, while being a necessity, is not to be trusted. The Founding Fathers understood that, and they made it clear to others. A government is a mechanism that is prone to deterioration over time, and it takes a substantial effort to keep it in a shape in which it protects people's interests rather than its own. Also, from the historical prospective, governments are the ones who are responsible for most killings of people on a large scale. How, then, can an intelligent person trust a government?
- chronial 10y ago
  > How, then, can an intelligent person trust a government? Because that's just the better option. Somebody is always going to gather a lot of power with a big organization. The choice you get is between an organization whose purpose is to serve the masses (democratic goverment) and organizations whose purpose is to serve very elites (corporations, organized crime). Regarding your specific point regarding killing people: I think you are oversimplifying here. With the opium wars and the subsequent flooding of china with opium, British trading companies probably already firmly hold the record for killing people on a large scale. For more recent examples, I would point towards the commercial part of the US Industrial-Military complex. But yes, the government is then frequently instrumentalized to do the actual killing. I would assume this to become harder the stronger and more democratic a government is.

nostrademons 10y ago

It's useful to think of what sort of institutions are required for social stability before you need them. It's semi-likely that Americans will be shooting each other in the streets anyway, and so when they get tired of it and are ready to say "Never again...let's fix the root problem so we never get to this point again", there are options whose consequences have been explored. Recall the history of labor unions in the U.S. The AFL-CIO was formed in 1886. The 1890s and early 1900s featured strikes where there actually was shooting in the streets, widespread rioting, bomb-throwing anarchists, and general pubic and social unrest. It took 2 world wars and a great depression before the U.S. got to the "golden age" of labor union capitalism that certain people want to recreate today. If you don't test out possible solutions on a small scale before the old social order disintegrates, you get things like the Communist Bloc, where revolutionaries overthrow the old system, but then install a new system that sounds good in theory but really doesn't work in practice.

thephyber 10y ago

I've heard convincing arguments[1] from economists that we should convert our existing "safety net" and "welfare" programs to simple UBI (aka BIG). The argument tends to circle around the fact that the existing programs dis-incentivize getting off disability or Section 8 because the recipient is penalized in a step-function way (as soon as they get a job, they may become ineligible or could be charged with a crime). A well crafted UBI such that it's an income tax rebate (not to be confused with tax credits or tax deductions) to replace the many smaller safety-net / welfare programs eliminates the disincentive for people to get off these specialized programs that already exists. While I don't think Americans are well informed enough to make a rational decision (and will likely be swayed by emotion), I think there are reasonable arguments for UBI / BIG. [1] http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/01/munger_on_the_b.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/01/munger_on_the_b....

kazagistar 10y ago
I worry that you just made it even more politically untenable. "You are taking away my retirement I earned and giving it to everyone?" "Don't touch my medicaid!" "They are trying to kill the soup kitchens; look at these children we feed." Or whatever. There is such aggressive fighting for scraps that no one wants to make a big-picture shift that might have unknown societal repercussions.
- n_ 10y ago
  This. This is the biggest challenge to UBI becoming a serious mainstream topic in the United States IMHO. It takes me hours of conversation explaining UBI to any of my southern/conservative family members to get to a point where they at least acknowledge that it isn't just a fancy word for socialism... and even then they still don't like it. Granted, I'm their left coast liberal silicon valley nephew so they aren't really interested in anything I have to say anyway.. but maybe thats the point. To a lot of Americans it just sounds like free liberal hand outs, no matter how much data/math/science/economics go into it. Hopefully smarter people than I can figure out how to message UBI to that part of America.
krrrh 10y ago

stenl 10y ago

Off-topic, but Americans literally are shooting each other in the streets. More americans have died in gun homicides than died in all wars since, and including WW2. Include suicides, and gun violence exceeds all US war deaths ever. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/ http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/...

brianwawok 10y ago
Some Americans in some areas. My experience has been if you do not get involved with buying or selling drugs, you will be pretty safe. Which I guess is the point of the war on drugs, but that hasn't worked out so well.
- eon1 10y ago
  Hmm.. the point of it, or result of it?

old-gregg 10y ago

It's all about the packaging. Politicians are masters of selling any X positioned in a way masses accept it, most popular wrappers make use of keywords like "tax break", "children" or "patriot". The primary obstacle against UBI is that it removes the powerful mechanism of wealth extraction lobbyists frequently use: the tax breaks. For example, say you're healthcare lobbyist and you want to boost your business selling drug X, but patients who need X cannot afford the amount you want to charge. What do you do? Lower the price? No, you will lobby for making expenses on X tax-deductible. If you succeed, you will be forcefully taking money from people who don't need X, giving them to a person who needs X, who has no choice but give it to you. This has happened with healthcare, education, housing, etc. (and nobody is shooting anyone on the streets) UBI removes the need for tax breaks, reducing lobbyists' ability to direct consumer spending, and that's why it won't be implemented any time soon.

twblalock 10y ago

Eve if the American people were willing to accept UBI, it still wouldn't work the way proponents hope it will. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the US Congress actually passed a UBI bill that was simple, elegant, and did not have a bunch of complicated amendments tacked onto it. Let's say they passed a bill stipulating that every person in the United States would get a check from the government every month, and that every check would be for the same amount. Let's also assume that the bill replaces every other welfare program with UBI, like the libertarian proponents of UBI hope will happen. Even if that happened (and it certainly would not), it would only be a matter of time before it gets messed up. There are a lot of reasons the current system is the way it is. There are many reasons the voters would want some people to get more money than others under UBI, and many of them would be convincing. For example, should single mothers get more UBI money? What about cutting benefits for convicted felons? What about more UBI money for people in high-cost-of-living cities like New York and San Francisco? What about more UBI money as a form of affirmative action for certain racial groups? People will vote for some of those changes. We would therefore end up re-creating a lot of our current welfare programs within UBI, for the same reasons we created those programs in the first place. Tyler Cowen has written more persuasively on this topic here: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/what-are-some-of-the-biggest-problems-with-a-guaranteed-annual-income.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/wha... UBI proponents have a few questions to answer: how can we afford it, how will it work, and how can they prevent it from being turned back into our current welfare programs under a different name? And how can they prevent the voters from simply voting to give themselves more money, thereby bankrupting the government?

swift 10y ago
Are voters any less able to vote to give themselves more money now?
- twblalock 10y ago
  Yes, far less able. Most voters aren't on welfare, and they aren't interested in increasing welfare payments. If every voter got money from the government, things would be very different.

eikenberry 10y ago

Along the same lines I don't see people considering the new power base this would provide the people who controlled it. Do you really think it would stay simple with no requirements or controls and corresponding government agencies to oversee it. That agency will be scary.

leepowers 10y ago

UBI is talked about, but is probably a long way off. But it's important to get the conversation started. We already have massive wealth redistribution in the U.S., in the form of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., which make up 70% of the federal budget. UBI isn't about spending more but spending differently.