this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
282 points (90.1% liked)
memes
17690 readers
1623 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Stagflation is recession + inflation. You can technically have less domestic/national work and be perfectly happy. UBI is automatically a huge jump in economic growth. Redistribution trickles back up to useful economic sectors. Having more work opportunities (there is more money to take from consumers) helps workers. The power to say no to perceived unfair work offers helps workers. Lower productivity through longer lunch breaks or higher pay does not harm workers even if it adds to inflation/production costs. Whether more production comes from abroad/immigrants/automation then that is deflation that is good for broader society/consumers while everyone who wants to work gets good work, and everyone is happy.
Very simply, wage growth higher than overall inflation is good for workers no matter how high the inflation is. It is good for attracting more workers to labour force as well. That's why I am so critical against neoliberal tunnel vision on just inflation and productivity.
It's a decent example. $1000/month extra income per household member supports $240000 extra debt per household member. If spending $240k on an addition results in greater than $1000/month rental value, then project is worthwhile for owners. If construction costs are outrageously unaffordable, while simultaneously living in a desirable market with access to restaurants, shopping, and job opportunities, then rents grow if everyone can afford more space and no one is doing construction. If spending $240k on a smaller addition results in $2000/month rent, and homeowner income has already grown from their "real work" then paying double for the work, also has the workers getting paid being able to afford double the rent. When other people don't want to work, anyone who does has tremendous opportunities to become very rich. UBI permits carpenters to become property developers, and run carpentry apprenticeship empires.
That is not how China works. Private enterprise is supported by abundance economy/infrastructure including robotics training/research. Local governments attract auto plants with investments. Job guarantees waste people's time. A job guarantee also suggests no possible cause for firing.
Cannibalistic hatred and competition among the slave class is certainly a proven oligarchist enrichment social structure promoting scarcity and concentrated wealth. Under UBI, the rich get richer too even with higher taxes. The reason for opposing UBI is that it redistributes power. Path to getting richer is making more product in a free and fair market instead of monopolizing oppressive power to protect from competition and short term slavery amplification through tax policy, pillaging of society through political minions intentionally collapsing society in order for the oligarchy to profit from the ashes.
Stagflation doesn't have to be a recession, it could just be stagnation. UBI would cause a recession though in the standard economic definition of high unemployment and lower productivity. Per wikipedia stagflation is caused by:
The latter explanation matches what UBI will do very well, industrial output will go down because less people are working and the money supply will increase as people will have more money to spend on things. In general I think you should read that Wikipedia page on stagflation, it shows the pitfalls of only focusing on juicing demand without thinking about supply.
UBI will not be a jump in economic growth, again per wikipedia:
There is no mechanism in UBI to increase production. The numbers may go up but thats just due to inflation, real output will remain the same or drop due to the increase in unemployment
Yes it is, yes China has private enterprises that are subsidized by the state but there are also a lot of state owned enterprises. The second largest EV manufacturer in the world is a state owned enterprise SAIC.
Is cleaning up the environment a waste of time?, is building high speed rail a waste of time? Is building new affordable housing a waste of time? You seem to think everything productive and worth doing is already captured by the market when it's not, there are tons of things that need to be done that the market ignores. The government can be productive if we allow it to, and productivity is literally the opposite of wasting time.
Yeah it does, you can still get fired for being bad at your job, it's just the government has to give you a new job.
UBI creates economic growth without growing the money supply. Instead, the velocity of money increases significantly. Also, the less people want to work (I disagree with this premise, and instead the more people are able to hold out until a good pay offer is made to them) the lower the interest rates go, as more imports mean more buying of US debt. GDP still counts the profit from imports, and economic health is about consumption (imports also mean you get something tangible in exchange for $) more than production. There will also be less police and healthcare needed when people are not desperate and overstressed. If the only number that matters is GDP, then we should double the cost of healthcare and insurance.
100% increase in economic health over 5 years is a natural result of UBI. 100% increase in consumer spending. It is unlikely that personal income (above UBI) will go down. This is the other way to measure GDP. Stock market definitely wouldn't go down, and wealth increases while not an official GDP measure, is a real/tangible economic health measure.
There is. It's very simple. You increase production because people are begging you to take their money. You are representing the false slavery based (supply side) economic model where if you give banksters and oligarchs all of the money, they will increase production just because they love you and have the money. It's an absurd lie to promote slavery. Production gets increased when sales are expected to increase. Never for any other reason. Money is always available because the banks always have all of it in some form.
More imports means currency devaluation/ inflation on the international market. This pushes interest rates up as people demand higher interest rates to counteract expected inflation. If I buy a bond at $500 and expect that $500 to be worth the equivalent of $400 in 5 years when it matures, I'll demand a higher interest rate to counteract that loss in real value. If you want to see an economy that reliant on imports look at Venezuela during its first oil booms and tell me that's a healthy economy.
That doesn't increase production. If I'm a farmer in Weimar Germany and some guy is begging me to take his wheelbarrow full of cash for a potato that's not going to make me produce more potatoes. That'll just make me doubt the worth of that wheelbarrow worth of cash and think about how hard it will be for me to try and get someone to take that wheelbarrow full of cash so I can get a new plow. Im not going to put in the extra effort to make more potatoes so i can fill my shed with this money that i have to beg people to take and is probably worthless. Money is only as good as what you can buy with it and if it's hard to buy stuff with it eg. Your begging people to take it, then it's not worth anything.
If you completely reject supply side economics, what would have been the solution to stagflation? Harold Wilson's government proved you couldn't just add more money and increase wages to get out of it. It only made it worse.
Interest rates are more complicated than that. For any amount of US $ in the world, if no one ever wants to invest in US because no one wants to do any work anymore, then all of the $ will chase US bonds and chase down interest rates. US is on verge of collapse now, and interest rates are falling. US was on verge in 2009, and absurd QE program brought rates down. Europe had negative rates not long ago.
Manipulating rates is fairly easy, and in general, people/$ take whatever rates they are told to.
UBI can be funded with just tax credits. No money printing. Even if wheelbarrows become the new trusted currency, UBI of 10 wheelbarrows per month will make you rich in wheelbarrows if you are the only one willing to grow potatoes. There is still 0 rationale for UBI to result in wheelbarrow economy.
Whether production costs are lowered through imports, immigration, or automation, local production doesn't matter. Local purchasing power matters. UBI increases purchasing power, and no political divisiveness over losing useless jobs. Apple being able to sell 3x the number of iphones is going to encourage them to open more apple stores, and pay what it takes to staff them.
You've decided to call a massive increase in wealth and freedom to be a technical stagflation problem.
Why would you buy US bonds if you don't want to invest in the US? People don't buy treasury bonds because they have excess USD and don't have anything else to do with it, they can always exchange it for local currency, which pushes down the value of USD. People buy US bonds because it's a reliable asset as they can usually count on inflation being low, the US government being stable and able to tax a highly productive economy to be able to pay the bond back. If any of those three things becomes relatively less true, ie. The euro now has more stable inflation and productivity, then the people will just exchange their excess USD for euro and buy euro bonds instead, or demand a higher interest rate relative to the EU bond to account for the increased risk.
Again why would I want to be rich in wheelbarrows of cash? Even if the government is smart and just starts minting million dollar bills to fix the space issue, it won't matter if I have to beg the guy making the plow to take it. I might as well not sell the potato and keep it, it'll keep it's value better and I'll have a better time convincing the plow maker that this potato, which they can eat, has value as opposed to this million dollar bill. Now that person with a million dollar bill can't even buy a potato, again they have lost purchasing power, even though they have millions of dollars.
Again money is only as good as what you can buy with it, being rich with money you can't buy anything with is about as useful as being rich in monopoly money.
US $ are never destroyed including when they are sent abroad. Holders of US $ must do something with them. US bonds is better than under mattress for financial institutions (which hold all US $ not in a briefcase or mattress) anyway. Exchanging for local currency gives counterparty the US$.
If you want meat or milk for your potatoes, that supplier may have enough potatoes, but can use wheelbarrows to get fruit. There is no reason to believe UBI leads to wheelbarrow economy.
USD are never destroyed, but if they don't come back to the US in the form of buying exports or US bonds then they just start piling up internationally, increasing the supply and decreasing the value. Yes buying US bonds is better then a mattress but EU bonds could be safer, so the bank would exchange there USD for euro and buy euro bonds. The more people exchange USD for euro the more the value of the dollar goes down as supply increases and demand decreases.
You are describing the benefits of money if it is effective, part of it being effective is it has to be a good store of value and other people accepting it. If the value is constantly going down due to inflation, it's less worth it to use money unless you plan on spending it immediately. Money also isn't good if you have to beg people to take it. Money so abundant that you have to beg people to take it is not good money.
People begging you to take there money doesn't incentivize production it just incentivizes raising your prices until they stop begging. If I can get more money producing less potatoes why would I produce more potatoes? So I can hoard this money that is losing value? I'd rather hoarding my potatoes and only sell a couple when I need money because the other farmer doesn't need more potatoes.
Could you explain how it doesn't. Because a modest UBI of $1,000 a month for every American would cost $4.08 trillion which is pretty close to the total revenue collected by the federal government of $4.12 trillion. Even if you massively cut defense spending you'd still have to nearly double taxes to cover that. Yeah you can shift more of the burden to the rich but there's only so much you can do before they just leave. So most likely UBI will require massively increasing the deficit if not just printing money.
UBI is just tax credits, paid by higher debits on others. The $12k/year figure is a net amount received/outlay only for those with no other income. Depending on tax adjustments, an other income figure of $60k to $100k could represent a crossover/breakeven point where at such income levels, it is a net 0 benefit. Those above that income level would pay more taxes than they receive. The higher the UBI, the less it costs, because the higher the UBI, the more programs become useless and should be terminated. But even at $12k, food stamps, other welfare can be eliminated, and clawbacks on SS. At $18k, unemployment insurance eliminate, housing assistance, and bigger clawbacks on SS. Education can be privatized, with public systems collectivized. Program cuts offset overall tax increases/costs. Police budgets can be significantly lowered. And UBI is a better safety net than all of the programs that are cut, in addition to being overall less government discretionary spending and net taxes collected to fund that spending. Carbon taxes can fund freedom dividends, and investment tax hikes are appropriate when investor class gets UBI too. With UBI, sales taxes are no longer "net regressive". Obviously, all programs designed for evil, are natural candidates for extermination, and UBI funding.
Absolutely no reason to increase deficits with UBI, no matter how high it starts or grows.
It doesn't matter if it's a tax credit or your writing checks, losing $ 4 trillion in revenue from tax cuts is equal to spending $ 4 trillion on UBI checks on the balance sheet.
So a UBI of $12k/year would effectively eliminate federal tax revenue, that means there is no money for any other social programs. You aren't just cutting food stamps, you're cutting everything and telling people they have to make do on $1,000 a month. Now, the government can not afford to pay the $1 trillion for Medicare alone, much less a universal Healthcare system. If that's not bad enough the elderly who on average are getting $2k/month for social security alone now have to make do on only $1k/month of UBI along with paying huge insurance premiums due to there age. Same could be said of disabled people who are also currently receiving on average $1.5k/month from social security and have there insurance covered by Medicaid. If you don't increase taxes or the deficit massively to keep those programs you're condemning the most vulnerable people to destitutuon.
People can't live off $1k/month without any other assistance, that's why social security is higher then that and it's supplemented with Medicare. That's today, if UBI goes in and devalues that $1k then it'll be impossible to live off of alone and the benefit you keep touting of being able to tell your boss to fuck off and quit safely goes away. Sure if I quit I might be able to afford eating rice and beans in a shoebox apartment, but I definitely can't afford health insurance or a car (as that's the only way to get around because public transit has been gutted) or anything else that would make my life worth living. I can't even go on a walk in the park because they were all privatized and sold to a members only country club.
As Lynsay Graham said about carbon tax and dividend, "if government doesn't keep it it's not a tax". Basic exemption is technically $3000-4000 per person lost tax revenue. It's not actually because it's made up elsewhere. It's also a subsidy primarily for the poor paid by higher taxes on the better off. Having $3000 UBI and no basic exemption doesn't change government budget one bit.
UBI reduces government budget and net tax collections required by cutting programs.
A tax funded healthcare system that is less expensive than what we have now is necessarily more affordable than what we have now. Your employer can replace your healthcare costs with a raise. Your tax bill is lower than your health insurance premiums, and the insurer will actually cover you when you need them.
40% clawback on SS benefits would mean the average gets more with UBI. Letting people choose between SS benefits and UBI (at +SS at 40% SS clawback) would make sure that no one get's less, and most get more to account for inflation. Only the poorest get much more. Your math certainly did not exclude all SS spending.
Great, you just realized working pays income. Some rich people work too, btw. You could quit to get additional training for better job, while eating rice and beans for a bit. Or just asnwer recruiter calls for better pay. You get the freedom to choose your life better when you don't starve as a result of choices. Structural oppressive slavery means less freedom. No need for mental gymnastics to justify how perfect everything is now.
Where ?
Standard deduction is $15,000, for that to mean $3,000 in return your effective tax rate from the feds would have to be 20% , you have to be making $100,000 to have that rate, you'd have to be making $300,000 for it to be $4,000. Median income is $40,000
Yes it does because all the people who don't make enough to get $3,000 from the standard deduction will now get it. Either way increasing that deduction by 4x to get a $12,000 UBI will definitely effect the government budget.
Yes but that doesn't make it free, again Medicare is atax funded system and costs $1 trillion just to insure elderly, if we insure everyone that will necessarily cost more
SS costs $1.5 trillion, with a 40% clawback would mean it costs $0.9 trillion, again a trillion we don't have because we cut revenues by 4 trillion. Even if you do your standard deduction math, which is off as I showed, were still losing 3 trillion in revenue. That leaves the 1 trillion either for a 40 % cut SS or Medicare, there is no scenario where an elderly person doesn't come out behind.
That's already true because of food stamps. There are also government run shelters for me to stay as well, that doesn't mean I'm not afraid of quiting and losing my current standard of living, which my boss can use to "enslave" me. Your argument is answered by any sort of social safety net. An affordable housing program and food stamps can provide the same sort of support, expanding unemployment insurance to cover quitting would give all the benfits you mentioned, while costing a lot less because your only giving benefits to those who need it and not everyone even if there very well off.
That used to be bottom tax bracket. Sorry for simplification. The point of it is that it is possible for US to screw poor harder by removing basic exemption and lowering other tax rates for same revenue. They could also turn basic exemption into a refundable tax credit which is equivalent to a UBI amount.
Removing private insurance, including their profits, from core medical coverage can significantly reduce health care costs. DGAF about private supplementary coverage, though it reasonable that it should be allowed, and further reduces core medical costs that taxpayers would fund. Very simply/obviously lower total healthcare costs saves totality of Americans money, and it is completely irrelevant what portion comes from private insurance or taxes. You're not to be taken seriously if you can't grasp this part and need to troll on this point.
I just cut $600B from budget and actual revenue raising "net taxes" or equivalent SS fund outlays. It's a big cut. Many more are possible
All of those are crap conditional programs that contribute to slavery and do nothing to give people dignity and freedom. Just pure oppressive evil under hierarchy that has total contempt for humans. It costs far more than UBI because fascist oppressive assholes need discretionary control over programs, instead of "free" tax credits and debits that escape their fascist demonic control over all of our lives. It costs everything to submit to demonic zionazi pig fucking warmongering scum given the discretion to replace programs with austerity for war. It gains everything to exterminate all of their influence and discretion.
Ok just answer me what you will cut then. If you're saying this will be balance sheet neutral and no new taxes will be raised then your going to need to make cuts to fund it. It'll cost $4 trillion, let's say part of that is existing deductions so bring it down to $3.5 trillion.
A large majority of the federal budget is defense(war) (~$1T), Medicare ($1T), social security ($1.5T), and medicaid ($0.9T). Food stamps are pocket change $0.1T. Even if you completely eliminated defense any sort of major new spending/tax cuts of this magnitude will require major cuts / elimination of those programs. This is why the Republicans went after Medicaid even though they knew it would be unpopular, there was nothing else to cut that would give them the money for there tax cuts.
Medicare / medicaid costs $2 trillion and you aren't getting out of that with universal Healthcare. Yes universal Healthcare would be cheaper for those currently paying into the system but the people on Medicare and Medicaid aren't paying into the system, it is supported by the tax revenues of working people.
How is it more difficult to cut UBI as opposed to other programs? If the fascists are in control of the government they can pass/repeal any law they want to further there war aims. Doesn't matter if it's food stamps or UBI. They can also purge you from the UBI roles just as well as they can food stamps for un-American activity or whatever. Ultimate power still lies with the state to tax and distribute funds, UBI won't change that.
If that's the case then we need to take away there actual power which lies in there control of capital / the means of production. After UBI the billionaires will still have there money which they can use to fuck up the planet and our democracy. Seriously you need to read some Marx, you understand class conflict and that increasing worker power is good but you fail to understand capitalist power and the ways we can actually take it away.
UBI of any amount always costs 0 at most. Any cuts to any programs means negative costs. This doesn't mean that no one's tax rates go up, but collectively, the discretionary government collects less from us, where UBI counts as a negative collection amount. UBI does permit getting rid of basic exemption without being regressive. That some investment income gets tax breaks now, like the basic exemption, can be calcuated as no tax break, but a cash cheque exactly equal to the tax break just for those who receive it. The optics of giving cash cheques just for the investor class would seem like bad optics compared to cheque amounts spread out to entire population/citizenry.
The guideline for program cuts is whether everyone, 90th percentile, or 80th percentile of program benefactors are better off with UBI instead, or with program adjustments, or program has ultra narrow oligarch benefits at great social/pluralist costs.
SS is close to UBI for seniors. Not only did 8 years of GOP threats to SS solvency not happen, latest tax bill gave a "tax free" boost to SS benefits. The prequel to our current political reality is the movie American History X. The core complaints are that lazy negroes get a larger share of social benefits. And Rodney King incident is also a a key historical marker. Everything was still right with America when the Rodney King verdict occurred. Our political timeline exists as a reaction to the George Floyd murder verdict. UBI is unassailable because there is no reason to hate it, and no one getting "undeserved" extra benefit. Demonic fanatical hatred supporting fascism comes from some plausible manipulation vector.
Rich people employing you to make useful stuff that makes you both richer than not having that opportunity, while again, making useful stuff that people want, is not the problem with free and fair markets. Rich people corrupting markets through political sponsorship/control is the problem. Democracy has never resulted in freedom. UBI is more important freedom. Instead of trolling concern over UBI getting cut, you should be worried that genuinely needed/useful road maintenance still gets budgeted. UBI prevent corruption through an obvious individual cash sacrifice for any corrupt proposal, but even useful programs face an uphill battle when you are taking cash away from everyone to accomplish it.
Marx, by advocating for labour supremacism, is not much different than con artists (Ayn Rand, OG) simping for Oligarchism. There is not a more deserving supremacist class to the wrong question of which class should that be.