LogFAQs > #886010889

The fact that it's being run by MSN makes it dubious then I read the connection to Vox, which makes it almost certainly bullshit.

A $1,000 cash handout to all adults would grow the economy by 12.56 percent after eight years, the study finds. Current Congressional Budget Office estimates put the GDP at $19.8 trillion. The cash handout would therefore increase the GDP by $2.48 trillion. (Vox first did this extrapolation in their coverage of the report, and Steinbaum confirmed the accuracy of the extrapolation to CNBC Make It by email.)

When a leftist propagandist like Vox runs leftist information, well....

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Honestly, at the very least it would knock property crime rates down into the dirt. That alone makes it worthwhile. Less victims, less bloat to the criminal justice system. I'm not against it in practice, as long as everybody gets the money and not just poor people.

No, it almost certainly wouldn't. For starters, we ALREADY give out generous entitlements which have done little to reduce crime especially since it gives more free time to people on the entitlements to commit crime. If they were holding down jobs like the rest of us, they would have less time to get into trouble.

BeerOnTap posted...

Instead of asking the government to give you your money back in the form of an entitlement program, doesn't it make more sense to advocate they stop taking it from you to begin with?

It's even worse since any giveback would be accompanied by raised taxes so workers would see little to none of that money back. In general, the problem with these plans is that the advocates stupidly believe that an extension cord plugged into itself can generate power. In reality, the thing needs to be plugged into an actual power source.

darkknight109 posted...

These estimates are based on a universal basic income paid for by increasing the federal deficit. As part of the study, the researchers also calculated the effect to the economy of paying for the cash handouts by increasing taxes. In that case, there were would be no net benefit to the economy, the report finds.

This is a pretty important part of the study and a good example of why its results don't mean very much.

I support a universal basic income, but not implemented like this.

It sorta goes without saying that there can't be a net benefit.

pionear posted...

Because really, do anyone really think having an extra $1000 a month would drastically change one's lifestyle? If anything, less stuff/goods would be wasted...

Actually no. For starters, if they had more money in their pockets, the amount of waste would increase. Consumerism and waste are practically tied at the hip. Second, it wouldn't be an "extra $1000 a month" for most people because sooner or later taxes would need to be increased to compensate. The producers of wealth would instead lose $1000 a month or more. Even if we don't actually fund it and just add it to the deficit, the taxes would need to increase to pay off the increasing interest on the deficit.

pionear posted...

You would be amazed how much Fast Food/Groceries/OverStocked Clothing gets thrown in the dumpster every day.

...you really don't understand how any of this works, do you? No matter what, you're going to have roughly the same amount of waste (by percentage) or, when people have more money, even worse because.

Plus most overstocked clothing doesn't get "thrown in dumpsters" (why would it?). It usually is bought by discount retailers who will clearance it until it sells.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash