Not just inflationary. I mean that the Basic Income inside this system, will seek out and destroy "actual income". It weakens actual income to the point of irrelevance over time, just like what is happening in any govt subsidized fields.
Simple inflation driven by growth is arguably a "good thing". But instead we get inflation driven by "free-money" driving out "earned-money", this is almost the worst kind.
People who don't need or qualify for BI, who makes money the hard way, will now need to compete with money from BI, or worse, this BI that is in this viral currency.
Yes, inflation is the symptom but not the result. Because people spending BI GS don't feel pain (they get it again next cycle, for free), it's the people who actually do the hard work to make non-BI USD that will find that there's less they can buy.
I'm not sure how useful it is to compare student loans to basic income...And they can only go toward college, so they cause market distortions that a basic income wouldn't cause.
That's a overly bold statement. Not all production can benefit from economy of scale unless we're willing to "factory-ize" everything -- and sometimes we're just.not.willing.to for qualitative reasons. This is the difference between things you can buy in dollar stores vs things that are hard to make cheaper.
Try making Child Care more "economy of scale" like; or surgery; or education; Or nursing.
If GD can only be used to buy food, or bread. These I can believe these could be made to benefit from economy of scale, but to solve "basic income needs" esp for service intensive things that tends to be "bid up in price" when there's more demand rather than just scale? I think we're back tot he BI vs earned-income competition problem.
Student loans have to be paid back.
Not entirely true. Between grants, govt loans, and govt-guaranteed loans. There are people who will not be able to pay back the loan+inflation rate (The fact that they might take their whole lives to pay the remaining amount isn't relevant). The delta essentially means the govt have given "free money" into the system. Although it won't be the full amount.
In that effect, it acts like a BI.
Even if you take into account govt debt... If you stretch out maturity to something really long, like 30 years. Inside the window of this 30 years, before govt debt matures, it still acts like free-money into the system, much like BI is.
And we can study the effects, which is no really just inflation. Back to my point above, colleges have shown that:
Simple inflation driven by growth of earnings and demand is arguably a "good thing". But instead we get inflation driven by "free-money" driving out "earned-money", this is almost the worst kind.
Basic income will certainly affect price levels in uneven and unpredictable ways. I can understand why you're concerned. The same is true of free trade. There are always going to be winners and losers. But, as far as the macroeconomy is concerned, it's the most efficient way of doing things.
I could make some very compelling arguments about why basic income wouldn't make child care, surgery, education, or nursing more expensive. Perhaps, though, we'd see inflation in the price of luxury goods in rural villages in India, where the amount of the basic income would be relatively huge. But by getting into specific examples, we'd be losing the forest for the trees.
Your distinction between "free money" and "earned money" is failing to resonate with me. Once the money is in a consumer's hand, does it matter how it got there?
People who don't need or qualify for BI, who makes money the hard way, will now need to compete with money from BI
This is an important point. Not everyone will receive the basic income at first. As we roll out the basic income, we should be careful about mitigating any resentment toward those who receive it. The basic income would eventually be something that everyone gets, but before then, this is a real concern.
Clearly, you feel very strongly about all of this. If you have any additional questions about Gresham Dollar, I'll be happy to address them.
Not just inflationary. I mean that the Basic Income inside this system, will seek out and destroy "actual income". It weakens actual income to the point of irrelevance over time, just like what is happening in any govt subsidized fields.
Simple inflation driven by growth is arguably a "good thing". But instead we get inflation driven by "free-money" driving out "earned-money", this is almost the worst kind.
People who don't need or qualify for BI, who makes money the hard way, will now need to compete with money from BI, or worse, this BI that is in this viral currency.
Yes, inflation is the symptom but not the result. Because people spending BI GS don't feel pain (they get it again next cycle, for free), it's the people who actually do the hard work to make non-BI USD that will find that there's less they can buy.
I'm not sure how useful it is to compare student loans to basic income...And they can only go toward college, so they cause market distortions that a basic income wouldn't cause.
That's a overly bold statement. Not all production can benefit from economy of scale unless we're willing to "factory-ize" everything -- and sometimes we're just.not.willing.to for qualitative reasons. This is the difference between things you can buy in dollar stores vs things that are hard to make cheaper.
Try making Child Care more "economy of scale" like; or surgery; or education; Or nursing.
If GD can only be used to buy food, or bread. These I can believe these could be made to benefit from economy of scale, but to solve "basic income needs" esp for service intensive things that tends to be "bid up in price" when there's more demand rather than just scale? I think we're back tot he BI vs earned-income competition problem.
Student loans have to be paid back.
Not entirely true. Between grants, govt loans, and govt-guaranteed loans. There are people who will not be able to pay back the loan+inflation rate (The fact that they might take their whole lives to pay the remaining amount isn't relevant). The delta essentially means the govt have given "free money" into the system. Although it won't be the full amount.
In that effect, it acts like a BI.
Even if you take into account govt debt... If you stretch out maturity to something really long, like 30 years. Inside the window of this 30 years, before govt debt matures, it still acts like free-money into the system, much like BI is.
And we can study the effects, which is no really just inflation. Back to my point above, colleges have shown that:
Simple inflation driven by growth of earnings and demand is arguably a "good thing". But instead we get inflation driven by "free-money" driving out "earned-money", this is almost the worst kind.