Hacker News Reader

Comment by shkkmo | Hacker News Reader

The whole point of UBI is that markets are being manipulated as INDIRECTLY as possible. You aren't subsidizing people to not work (unemployment benefits), subsidizing people to work (minimum wage), subsidizing particular goods (housing, education loans) or inflating demand for a specific set of goods (food stamps).

You seem to be of the opinion that nothing can be done to eliminate poverty, so why even try?

View on HN

I disagree. It may not be targeted to an industry, but it is a colossal subsidy that will greatly affect markets in a lot of ways.

Plenty can be done to eliminate poverty. I'm confused why you would think large-scale involuntary wealth redistribution is the only way.

> it is a colossal subsidy that will greatly affect markets in a lot of ways

It is, by definition, not a subsidy since it does not target a subset of economic sectors.

> Plenty can be done to eliminate poverty.

Name one means of eliminating poverty without wealth re-distribution or subsidies. The only ones I know of involve sterilizing, deporting, killing or otherwise demographically elminating poor people.

It will absolutely subsidize the industries most likely to gain from poorer people having more money. The yacht and high-end watch industries will not benefit while housing, auto, and entertainment industries absolutely will. This is basic common sense.

Nobody's eliminated poverty yet, so it may be impossible. We do have ways of fighting it, though, which can (and does) include charitable giving (note: voluntary) and economic development of areas.

Just to point out this program is not involuntary. All the funds so far as I understand it, have been generated voluntarily.

Right--sorry. For clarity's sake, I was referring to actual UBI. For these studies (as far as I'm aware), it's voluntarily collected money from outside the area.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com