Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Bacchus]

I think everyone takes as given that UBI is inflationary, and that we are discussing it in real terms.

As for exchange rate effects, the traditional macro evolution would predict it as follows:

Tax driven re-allocation from savings to consumption -> increased interest rates and GDP -> increased attractiveness of domestic financial assets to foreign investors -> purchases of domestic currency by foreign investors -> currency appreciation -> loss of competitiveness of domestic producers -> reduction in exports -> return of GDP and interest rates to original levels

Basically, you eat into the rich people's saving, which get replaced by foreign investment, and you have an expansion of domestic demand, which is offset by a loss of foreign demand due to appreciated currency.

But macroeconomics is voodoo.

[ipecac]

Immigration also increases the demand for product due to there being more consumers in the population pool, which increases the demand for labor.

The demand of a single person does not create enough demand for one new job, especially with economies of scale.

I didn't say that it did. It's definitely not nothing, though.

If a 'replacement level' of jobs isn't going to be created, then you get both depressed wages and higher unemployment. I called out this part as standard boilerplate nonsense because people blithely say that 'well demand for labour will increase too', but they don't think through about whether it'll rise enough to compensate.

[ipecac]

Ipecac, 'go along with it' means vote for the party that advocates it.

Which doesn't mean that the voters need to be convinced about it. They could well be persuaded to vote for reasons, or the policy can be one of the standard policies that the voters didn't vote for, but 'deal with it'.

Yes, demerits are included with merits -- but I mean the merits of the policy, not of our dystopian daydreams.

Yes, eugenics used to be part of mainstream thought. Then the Second World War happened, and society as a whole became far more adverse to perversions of that kind and even, to a degree, to violence.

This is just plain naive.

Furthermore, we have seen an increasing regard for people who might have been ignored or held in contempt before -- in the first place along racial lines, now also for disability. Do American job ads not now all have a little notice at the bottom that the company supports diverse hiring and will make all reasonable accommodations for the disabled, or is that only a Canadian thing?

Possibly just a Canadian thing.

Society would have to reverse itself for the nightmare scenario you envision to become real. It could, but you can bet we would fight it, and the costs associated with holding ourselves captive to such fears could be immense.

I think you don't want to face facts, that's why you're trying to downplay the very real dangers. You know so very little compared to me on the issues surrounding this but you're trying to rubbish what I say because it disturbs the little bubble you live in.

Your contempt for liberal thought is not appreciated and again betrays ideological fanaticism.

What I said is a fact, so all you have in return is insults because again, you're not more knowledgeable and you're being defensive.

[ipecac]

This data on unintended pregnancies from the US is absolutely flabbergasting to a European: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default...teup10.pdf Is there a widespread taboo on pill and condoms that's not talked about? Do kids fail biology class on mass?

They've talked themselves into believing that one can have sex 'without responsibility', because there's 'essentially no chance of conception', or maybe because they've just don't think about it.

But more pertinent data would be the proportion of new kids that are born to single mothers in the last 50 years. As MJW brought up, it has only skyrocketed because of the massive amount of welfare available, government becomes the 'provider daddy'.

There is no question of relying on it, but the interpretation of policy is no less important than policy itself (something leftish wonks tend to forget). The effects of UBI that is socialized as a right and proper entitlement for everyone are going to be very different from the effects of a UBI that is socialized as a universal backstop that you should seek to get off as soon as possible, and you are kinda a dick if you don't. It's that dependency point ipecac raised -- people shouldn't think that it's OK to live off UBI, because it isn't, you are wasting your life if that's what you do. So yeah, UBI takes a little cultural maturity -- where the state is just seen as an ATM to be milked, the policy would be a disaster, not because it couldn't be afforded, but because it will be disabling and infantilizing, rather than enabling.

Yes to all of this. There's a nanny state, the well-known one, that overregulates what people can do, there's also a nanny state that infantilises the people by just handing them money or food, while enabling abandonment of adult responsibility.

Taking welfare should not be a permanent way of life for those who are not old and are capable of working. But the liberal wonk perspective seems to only have permanent welfare in mind. I don't know, is it a single-minded obsession with 'ending poverty' that does not regard the problems the solution creates? Or is it because of a very cold calculation that it's necessary to fund poor people's bread and circuses after foreigner labour supply hits their jobs and wages?

What do you have in mind, anyway? UBI money will derive partly from taxes on the middle class, who will be told not to make 'fraudulent' UBI claims themselves to get back the additional money taxed?

[ipecac]

If you can assume cultural maturity, all sorts of problems go away.

I think part of the point is that one should not want to increase cultural immaturity, especially with ill-thought out welfare schemes, because as you say it creates or worsens all sort of problems. This doesn't seem to be 'on the radar' for people on the left though.

This explains the much maligned view of the US right on welfare, more instinctive than articulated, which is that it'll increase irresponsibility and dependency so it's a bad thing in the long run. As the left don't have the cultural maturity in mind, they just miss it.

[MJW (ya that one)]

But more pertinent data would be the proportion of new kids that are born to single mothers in the last 50 years. As MJW brought up, it has only skyrocketed because of the massive amount of welfare available, government becomes the 'provider daddy'.

When did I say this? I really don't think about single mothers.

[ipecac]

My mistake, I meant Tasunke.

[ipecac]

Your contempt for liberal thought is not appreciated and again betrays ideological fanaticism. But a better riposte would be that not thinking about the health and welfare of the little guy is the standard feature of conservatives when they approach policy, which explains why the policies usually hurt people -- and why they are wrong by every standard of Christian morality.

This requires a stronger response than I gave, because there's something very wrong with it.

What are my views? I believe there's an artificial division that has been imposed between right- and left-wing thought, and approve of the fact that young conservatives are trying to integrate some traditionally left ideas in this age of realignment. I think there's something valuable on both sides.

What are your views? Conservative policies don't care about the little guy, 'are wrong by every standard of Christian morality'. You are the fanatic.

You yourself evince ideological fanaticism as well as contempt, but then project your own ideological blinkers onto me. Utterly ridiculous. It's not hypocrisy though, you're just massively unaware of your own biases because you're just a newbie at this sort of thing.

[ipecac]

2 Huinesoron

1) You are not supposed to live a comfortable, dignified life on UBI, the idea that it should cover things like education, transport, comfortable housing, etc. is beyond absurd. It seems that you see it as a tool to create an institutionalized underclass which would use UBI as a sole and permanent source of income.

Aren't they already aiming for a comfortable, dignified life for the institutionalized underclass with welfare and 'living' wage already? Or Bernie Sanders' 'guaranteed government job for all'?

Now they're not just talking about poverty, but also 'relative poverty'. As Huinesoron mentioned, "things like 'can take two weeks' holiday per year not with family'".

What UBI will be, in such a culture, is just another stream of money besides the existing ones for the institutionalized underclass.

[Huinesoron]

Some data on poverty in the UK, apropos various things, but specifically inspired by ipecac's mention of my mention of relative poverty. Data comes from the Households Below Average Income study (2016-17), which looks to have been conducted by the UK government (Conservative at the time, if that matters).

Relative Low Income is defined by a household income below 60% of the current median net disposable income, which I guess means 'actual available money after taxes'; they give this as £494/week, making the 60% mark £296/week.  This can be measured both before and after housing costs: before housing it's currently at 16%, after housing it's at 22% (and has been since 2002).

Worryingly, the rates for children are significantly higher: 19% before housing, and a whopping 30% after housing costs. The figures get even more concerning when you factor in whether their parents are working: 50% of children in workless families are in relatively low income situations, and that has spiked massively - it was less than 40% in 2013. (Perhaps even more concerning: 15% of children in families with at least one working adult are still in relative low income.)

Households where someone is disabled also have higher rates: 26% after housing costs, and that hasn't really gone down.

Across the longer term, households in relative low income was stable around 13% from the '60s to the '80s, then spiked to 25% after housing over the course of the '80s. It hasn't come down very much, just a few percent.

Absolute Low Income is the same calculation, but made respective to a baseline figure (they use the median income for 2010-11), adjusted for inflation. Pleasingly, this is consistently dropping: after housing costs, 19% of households are in absolute low income, compared to 24% in 2002-03. Real income is rising, for all but the poorest and very richest families.

(The figures for children are still higher, up at 26%, as are the figures for disabled people, 22%.)

In the long term, absolute low income is plummeting. Relative to the 2011 baseline, it's gone down from 85% in the '60s, and has only rarely increased at all. So that's good!

Material Deprivation is the concept I had tangled up with relative poverty. The study defines 'material deprivation and low income' as a) being below 70% median income, and b) scoring 25 or more out of 100 on the list of 21 goods and services they are unable to afford but would like. The figures are currently sitting at 11%, and don't seem to be changing; they're 'down' since the early 2000s, but that's because they changed the questions in 2011!

For reference, here's the list of questions. (They're all weighted differently, so these shouldn't be read as equivalent.)

Outdoor space or facilities nearby to play safely
Enough bedrooms for every child of 10 or over of a different sex to have their own bedroom
Celebrations on special occasions such as birthdays, Christmas or other religious festivals
Leisure equipment such as sports equipment or a bicycle
A family holiday away from home for at least one week a year
A hobby or leisure activity
Friends around for tea or a snack once a fortnight
Go on school trips
Toddler group/nursery/playgroup at least once a week
[Swimming at least once a month] - removed in 2011
Attends organised activity outside school each week - added in 2011
Fresh fruit and vegetables eaten by children every day - added in 2011
Warm winter coat for each child - added in 2011

Enough money to keep home in a decent state of decoration
A holiday away from home for at least one week a year, whilst not staying with relatives at their home
Household contents insurance
Regular savings of £10 a month or more for rainy days or retirement
Replace any worn out furniture
[Two pairs of all weather shoes for each adult] - removed in 2011
Replace or repair major electrical goods such as a refrigerator or a washing machine, when broken
A small amount of money to spend each week on yourself, not on your family
In winter, able to keep accommodation warm enough
[Have friends or family around for a drink or meal at least once a month] - removed in 2011
[A hobby or leisure activity] - removed in 2011
Keep up with bills and regular debt payments - added in 2011

At least one filling meal a day
Go out socially at least once a month
See friends or family at least once a month
Take a holiday away from home
Able to replace cooker if it broke down
Home kept in a good state of repair
Heating, electrics, plumbing and drains working
Have a damp-free home
Home kept adequately warm
Able to pay regular bills
Have a telephone to use, whenever needed
Have access to a car or taxi, whenever needed
Have hair done or cut regularly
Have a warm waterproof coat
Able to pay an unexpected expense of £200

Income Inequality, measured by something called the Gini coefficient, is bobbing at around 34% BHC, 38% AHC. These actually match the 2002 levels precisely. In the longer term, income inequality was much lower up until 1980, down around 26%; it increased over the '80s, and hasn't chanced since.

hS