No. That would be achievable through reallocation of funds, e.g. from tax revenue. If the quote is correct, that’s just increasing monetary mass, aka printing money. Which is Inflationary AF.
That being said, I find it hard to believe that a CEO in this day and age wouldn’t have at least this basic understanding of how the economy works. This being Musk, there’s no need to invent extra character flaws. The man has plenty to go around.
Its a cover. Saying populist ideas without any intention to support them or help them come about is just a way to hide his real actions under a veneer.
Well, the text says “you could actually get deflation because there will be so much abundance produced”. There is some reality where this is true, as increasing the monetary mass would do nothing if the economy (the amount of goods and services produces) increases proportionally. But I wouldn’t bet on a universal basic income increasing the country’s production.
Also, only the rich and upper-middle class would suffer from inflation. Poor people’s financial situation would still improve.
The printing money wouldn’t be enough. You’d also have to legislate what people are not allowed to do after the money printing begins (like rent hikes equal to the average household size * the ubi check).
The only way this makes sense, and I guarantee he’s not advocating for this, would be to print and distribute so much money to the lower and middle classes that the upper class wealth is diluted and inequality is reduced. But the havoc that would wreak outside of the US is something I can’t even speculate on.
The productive capacity of the accumulated capital owned by US billionaires exceeds $31k/person/year.
The “Net Worth” figure is deceptive, because it’s the exchange value and not the use value. Sitting on tens of millions of vacant real estate units, many of which are underwater on their purchase price, shows up as far less on an individual balance sheet than the material benefit of not being homeless accrues to a homeowner.
The productive capacity of the accumulated capital owned by US billionaires exceeds $31k/person/year.
If that was true then taking all their capital and distributing it would be more than $31k/person/year for each individual receiving their share of the 8.4 Trillion.
So it doesn’t change anything. You get $30k and yes that $30k is worth more because it can generate maybe $3k in investment income for you a year. It’s still only $30k.
I honestly don’t know what you are arguing about. If someone has $100 it is technically worth more than $100. If they give you that $100 you now have that $100 which is also technically worth more than $100. It’s the same $100 + unspecified future value either way.
If you argue the $8.4 trillion in net worth of Billionaires is worth more than the $8.4 T, then if that $8.4 was taken from them it is also worth more.
If someone has $100 it is technically worth more than $100.
If someone buys a house for $500k it’s worth $500k. But it’s also a place to live, which makes it invaluable to a person without a home.
If the value declines to $400k then the net value is -$100k. But, again, the house has value as a place to live that humans need. Being underwater on your home isn’t the same as being homeless. And owning a million homes that lose value is very different than being broke.
Use value and exchange value are different things. And saying you have $8.4T on paper means something very different than saying you control properties, equities, and IP that other people need, but can’t have, because you’re hoping to flip it for a profit.
Minimum wage in many US cities is $15/hr which is $30k/year.
Even at federal minimum wage of $7.50, that means not just taxing Billionaires at 100% but taking everything will give you 2 years of UBI before there is no money.
So why did you inflate it to nearly 3x that amount while arguing about how it can’t work because it’s too expensive? $1000/month is still a lot of money for people.
Because baseline food and shelter is much more expensive in many cities where 80% of the population lives. That’s why minimum wage is $30k in major cities.
But again, this isn’t a wage… people can still make extra money on top of UBI. The goal isn’t to make nobody ever work again. Why pretend you can’t do it because it doesn’t translate to fully automatic luxury gay space communism?
No. That would be achievable through reallocation of funds, e.g. from tax revenue. If the quote is correct, that’s just increasing monetary mass, aka printing money. Which is Inflationary AF.
That being said, I find it hard to believe that a CEO in this day and age wouldn’t have at least this basic understanding of how the economy works. This being Musk, there’s no need to invent extra character flaws. The man has plenty to go around.
A cynical view is that he does understand and is just shitposting and muddying the water around UBI
I find that quite plausible.
Being a CEO is an actual disease that causes measurable cognitive decline. These are literally the dumbest fucks on the planet.
Its a cover. Saying populist ideas without any intention to support them or help them come about is just a way to hide his real actions under a veneer.
Well, the text says “you could actually get deflation because there will be so much abundance produced”. There is some reality where this is true, as increasing the monetary mass would do nothing if the economy (the amount of goods and services produces) increases proportionally. But I wouldn’t bet on a universal basic income increasing the country’s production.
Also, only the rich and upper-middle class would suffer from inflation. Poor people’s financial situation would still improve.
The printing money wouldn’t be enough. You’d also have to legislate what people are not allowed to do after the money printing begins (like rent hikes equal to the average household size * the ubi check).
Which you already have to do, because there already is inflation. I don’t see how a UBI would change anything if the inflation stays the same.
The only way this makes sense, and I guarantee he’s not advocating for this, would be to print and distribute so much money to the lower and middle classes that the upper class wealth is diluted and inequality is reduced. But the havoc that would wreak outside of the US is something I can’t even speculate on.
But even that wouldn’t do a thing to them - their value isn’t stored in money, so any inflation would only hurt the people who’s value is.
How do you get UBI without issuing checks from the Treasury. There isn’t enough tax money that can be taken from Billionaires to sustain UBI.
Not just tax a percentage, but take every penny of every Billionaire in the US. Net worth of all US billionaires is 8.4 Trillion.
270 million US adults.
= 31k per person. Once.
That’s 31k one time. Then there is no money for next year.
The productive capacity of the accumulated capital owned by US billionaires exceeds $31k/person/year.
The “Net Worth” figure is deceptive, because it’s the exchange value and not the use value. Sitting on tens of millions of vacant real estate units, many of which are underwater on their purchase price, shows up as far less on an individual balance sheet than the material benefit of not being homeless accrues to a homeowner.
If that was true then taking all their capital and distributing it would be more than $31k/person/year for each individual receiving their share of the 8.4 Trillion.
Yup.
So it doesn’t change anything. You get $30k and yes that $30k is worth more because it can generate maybe $3k in investment income for you a year. It’s still only $30k.
It does, in fact, change things
I honestly don’t know what you are arguing about. If someone has $100 it is technically worth more than $100. If they give you that $100 you now have that $100 which is also technically worth more than $100. It’s the same $100 + unspecified future value either way.
If you argue the $8.4 trillion in net worth of Billionaires is worth more than the $8.4 T, then if that $8.4 was taken from them it is also worth more.
If someone buys a house for $500k it’s worth $500k. But it’s also a place to live, which makes it invaluable to a person without a home.
If the value declines to $400k then the net value is -$100k. But, again, the house has value as a place to live that humans need. Being underwater on your home isn’t the same as being homeless. And owning a million homes that lose value is very different than being broke.
Use value and exchange value are different things. And saying you have $8.4T on paper means something very different than saying you control properties, equities, and IP that other people need, but can’t have, because you’re hoping to flip it for a profit.
Nobody said it had to be over $2500/month?
Minimum wage in many US cities is $15/hr which is $30k/year.
Even at federal minimum wage of $7.50, that means not just taxing Billionaires at 100% but taking everything will give you 2 years of UBI before there is no money.
So? UBI isn’t a wage for work. It could be $300/month and that would still be a huge boon to struggling people.
The UBI baseline is supposed to be $12000 per year. The premise is it covers food and shelter.
So why did you inflate it to nearly 3x that amount while arguing about how it can’t work because it’s too expensive? $1000/month is still a lot of money for people.
Because baseline food and shelter is much more expensive in many cities where 80% of the population lives. That’s why minimum wage is $30k in major cities.
But again, this isn’t a wage… people can still make extra money on top of UBI. The goal isn’t to make nobody ever work again. Why pretend you can’t do it because it doesn’t translate to fully automatic luxury gay space communism?