But then what is Rome? I claim that it is God, the Summum Bonum, the source and the destination of all that is. But not merely as a culmination.
Human knowing involves a great deal of analogy, and nowhere else is analogy more essential than knowledge of the Highest Principle and First and Greatest Cause; here the so-called analogia entis. Thus, through knowledge of what is created, we come to know, analogically, the Creator, the Logos. As the metaphysical principle goes, the effect resembles in some way its cause, and this resemblance is analogical. Otherwise, we would need to choose between univocity and equivocity: the first leads the pantheism, the second to deism. In the first, we are God. In the second, God has nothing to do with us. But in the analogia entis, God stands in an analogical relation with us.
The idea of UBI, to me at least, is a mind-blowing one. It’s a shame something like this doesn’t exist on a large scale already. I know I’m probably missing something important here, but can someone outline any good reasons, if any, that it hasn’t been implemented yet?
Exactly what qualifies for you may mean it does already exist on a large scale or doesn't.
Alaska's UBI program gave 1.3k this year, which I'm guessing many commenters here would say is too small to be a real UBI, but it is universal and has been going for almost 50 years
I wouldn't call the permanent fund a UBI. It's proceeds from the sale of oil, whereas every other UBI requires some taxation, wealth transfer, or cuts in spending elsewhere.
Because Alaska is unique, AFAIK the only state in America that sells something. Everything else is income redistribution. The money has to come from somewhere. It's a very fine line, I agree, but the permanent fund only exists because the state can generate that income from something other than increased taxes, redistribution, or reducing spending some place else.
It’s cost. Multiply population by the amount and you get a huge number. The math only works if you get rid of a lot of others social programs with vested interests.
There are about 250 million adults in the US. If we give each of them $1000 a month, that's 3 trillion dollars per year. For comparison, the US government collected 2.6 trillion dollars in federal income tax in 2022.
And then imagine that the 2.6 used to include things like hospitals.
Sorry buddy, you get the $1000 a month but you no longer get medical care or disability benefit or buses. It’s all gone. Don’t you feel better off now that everyone is equal? (The rich obviously still get to go to hospital)
My thoughts are there it's not a popular idea, politically. In a lot of countries, getting money "for free" is seen badly by the people who are "working their asses off for barely surviving", and politics push more the idea that "non working people are costly" and instead "we should find a way to make them work" and UBI is seen as something that would make people "lazy".
The closest thing we had to it - welfare and unemployment benefits without work requirements or onerous means testing - were dismantled on the basis of shoddy (read: nonexistent) research and amidst an atmosphere of racism and classism, and with the current status quo perpetuated by the perverse incentives of public-private "work search support" contracts. Any analysis of resistance to the implementation of UBI should consider this history. Some reporting on the matter:
We've known for a while now that the best approach is to just give people the money needed for them to improve their circumstances (whether that be capital for business or funding for training or other support services like therapy or housing).
Ultra progressive media outlet says UBI is great, comment posts progressive outlet sources, upvoted on a site with progressive users.
No, I’m not interested in playing that game.
I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just pointing out to others that the fanatics seriously think this is a known-quantity / settled science.
> ... think this is a known-quantity / settled science.
I don't think anyone thinks it is settled. Personally I don't know and I very much want to, but comments like yours do not illuminate in the least. Actual facts would be welcome
But that is derived from profits from the sale of Alaskan oil. It is not a wealth redistribution program, increased taxes, or reductions in spending elsewhere. Alaska is also a very costly place to live. It's also the only state that actually sells something and makes a profit which it can redistribute to its citizens. Maybe if America as a whole profited from the sale of its natural resources then it could, in theory, redistribute that and call it a UBI. Either way, to implement a UBI the money has to come from somewhere which at this moment means it has to be taken from someone/something else.
The point of a UBI is not to redistribute wealth. It's to provide a minimum standard of living for everyone more efficiently than means-tested programs do.
If you're going to provide a minimum standard of living to everyone, a UBI does this with minimal distortion of incentives.
> The point of a UBI is not to redistribute wealth.
Right, technically the point is to redistribute the productive capacity of that wealth so that everyone has access to a minimum amount of its production.
But is there a meaningful difference? For all intents and purposes, capturing a share of the production is equivalent to owning a share in the wealth.
It doesn’t depend on how it’s paid for. If I am a landlord and I know that my tenants now earn an additional $600/mo, and every other tenant in my market is also earning an additional $600/mo, I would be an idiot not to raise my rents by $600/mo, and so would every other landlord.
"Well, I'm a [store, café, bar, gym, etc] owner and I know that my customers now earn an additional $600/mo, and every other customer in my market is also earning an addition $600/mo, I would be an idiot not to raise my prices by $600/mo, and so would every other owner."
"Oh, also, I'm building a new set of apartments and I discovered that when I set the rent to today's price + $300/mo then suddenly everyone was interested since everyone else on the market now takes +$600/mo."
Yes, inflation is a real concern which should be discussed, but "duh, all the money will just go to X" is far too a simplistic argument.
Store, cafe, bar, gym owners will try to raise their prices, and they’ll succeed (obviously not everyone independently by the $UBI amount).
But then ya know what will happen? The store, cafe, bar, and gyms’ landlords will raise their rent accordingly and eat approximately all of the gains that came from their price increases.
Why on earth do you think rent is so expensive near high-productivity? The buildings aren’t better. The land itself isn’t higher quality. The landlords aren’t better. It’s more expensive because it can be due to the market’s productivity, and corollary ability to pay high prices.
True, instead of just the low-income earners dropping out now that they have an unconditional deposit in their bank every week, now you also have a significant number of middle and high income earners consciously choosing to earn less because of the crushingly high taxes.
Well, you have the UBI increasing incomes at the lower end of the economy, which does apply upward pressure on lower-cost rents. But on the other side, you'd be decreasing the income/wealth at the top, which applies downward pressure at the high end of the market. The ultimate effect is not a straightforward calculation. I think the total size of the money supply is probably the most significant factor, and that wouldn't change if the UBI is funded by taxes.
I'm talking about the effects of wealth redistribution vs. money supply expansion. Redistribution doesn't necessarily increase prices since the total amount of purchasing power in the market doesn't change. It's certainly not as simplistic as "rent gets increased in proportion to the amount of the UBI" as you're implying.
Taking into account redistribution, the story is even more bleak, not less. Lower income housing prices will rise faster than higher income housing prices.
Again, it’s not clear that they’d be able to charge more given that less purchasing power for high income earners would push real estate prices (and therefore rents) downward.
In the study you posted, it’s not possible to isolate the variable. Many things could have affected the (minor) changes in rents. Not a good analysis.
Minimum wage increases purchasing power for the employed workers, but also increases unemployment, which has the opposite effect on prices.
The decreased purchasing power at the high end 1) is a consequence of taxes, not UBI itself, and 2) wouldn’t push prices down for lower income housing writ large. At the absolute margins, a high-income earner who is being taxed into lower-income housing is increasing competition among tenants for the same low-income housing, which will increase those prices.
If you want to tax high-income people into lower-income housing then just increase their taxes. What does UBI have to do with any of that?
It’s not possible to “isolate the variable” in any economic study ever, so I suppose both of us will have to argue from conjecture. My conjecture, as a landlord, is that if incomes go up in my market, that is unambiguous signal that I can increase my prices. Your conjecture is “you won’t be able to,” but I already know I’m able to. That is how I’ve already set the price I charge.
The best possible news for me, an absentee landlord, is a big company with high salaries opening an office nearby. Same as every other landlord.
A distinction without a difference imo. My point is that how you pay for it is what determines the impact on prices, but I think we’re basically rehashing demand-side vs. supply-side economics at this point.
> I already know I’m able to
You don’t decide the market rate by yourself. And I don’t think you’re properly accounting for how UBI impacts this in aggregate.
No, how you pay for it doesn't change UBI's effect on pricing. UBI has exactly the effect I'm describing. Separately, a tax scheme may have a different, countervailing effect, regardless of whether or not it's related to UBI. That countervailing effect could arguably overcome UBI's positive pressure on prices, but it's a totally separate effect from a separate policy and even still your explanation of the mechanism looks totally incoherent.
Please explain how taxing high-income people into low-income housing doesn't increase the prices of traditionally low-income housing.
"No, how you pay for it doesn't change UBI's effect on pricing."
I'd disagree as I think it obviously does. I doubt any economist would agree with this statement.
You're saying I'm "incoherent", but from my perspective all you've done in this conversation is confidently assert your conclusions. You're clearly very certain of your beliefs, but that's not going to convince anyone (if you care about that at all). I'm willing to reconsider my views if someone makes a compelling argument, but I haven't found yours to be convincing fwiw.
I think any economist would be able to separate the policy in question (UBI, a stipend paid directly to people) from the funding of that policy (potentially a high marginal tax rate, potentially increase in money supply -- two options you yourself identified, but there are infinite more ways to do it).
All of the downward pressure on housing prices you have theorized are coming from (one of) the proposed funding methods, not UBI. UBI doesn't have to be funded in this way, so it should be self-evident that this pressure isn't coming from UBI itself. You would get the same (alleged) effect that you're mentioning if you don't do UBI at all and instead just more steeply increase marginal tax rates. You would not get that effect at all if you implement UBI but fund it by a method other than steep marginal tax rates. So the proposed effect is coming from the tax scheme, not from UBI.
I think you're clearly not willing to reconsider your views, which frankly I get since UBI should be a really great idea. And if it would work, I would fully support it (in fact I used to). But empirical evidence of similar policies getting baked into land rent is apparently outright dismissible, and there's apparently no need for evidence of your claim that higher marginal tax rates at the top end reduce rents at the low end?
Honestly I think you're being very pedantic about this. How it's paid for is a crucial aspect of UBI. It would literally be the largest and most expensive government program ever enacted and you don't think it makes any difference how those trillions of dollars are raised? Come on. There's no such thing as UBI independent of the funding for UBI and there are not "infinite" ways for a government to raise trillions of dollars. In the real world, there are two: taxes or the central bank.
I'm not actually convinced that UBI is a great idea. I lean towards supporting it but I also have reservations. The numbers involved are staggering and there would clearly be some major negative consequences. I think the benefits of unlocking so much human potential and defending against social instability created by mass AI job displacement probably outweigh those, but I'm open to counterarguments.
That said, your arguments here are just way too simplistic imo. They only work if you ignore or dismiss half the equation. Instead of addressing the argument that taxation has a very different impact on prices (including rents) than money supply expansion, you are playing word games to say "oh but that's not part of UBI".
I can see how this is opaque and totally inscrutable if one is inclined to just mix all the terms of the equation together, dismiss empirical evidence of specific components, and reflexively dismiss arguments for being "too simplistic."
Once again, I'm not ignoring or dismissing half the equation. I'm asking you to explain how the "tax" half works to yield the effect you're describing.
I did explain it dude. Taking trillions of dollars from the wealthiest would reduce real estate prices at the top of the market, offsetting (to some degree) inflation at the bottom of the market. It's not complicated. You're just hand-waving away this obvious implication of tax-funded UBI because it contradicts your argument.
Also, there is no empirical evidence supporting your argument. The one study you posted has zero statistical significance. Pretending otherwise is pseudo-science.
It’s not that great of a natural experiment given all the other dynamics of inflow/outflow from cities, money supply changes, and eviction moratoriums.
Rent is higher than pre-COVID basically everywhere and they continue to rise faster than inflation so I’m not sure what this “experiment” shows.
Rents are set by only two things: 1) the tenant markets’ ability to pay and 2) competition with other landlords.
If every single landlord knows with certainty (2) that every single tenant in their market has increased their ability to pay (1) by $1000/mo, then every landlord independently will come to the conclusion that they can raise rents by $1000/mo.
They know the tenants are able to sustain it, and they know other landlords know the same thing.
The landlords will still be in competition, anyone who breaks with the conventional wisdom will have an easier time getting tenants. It would probably raise prices, but the laws of supply and demand don’t just go away.
Huge amounts of the demand just moves $x up the price curve, but that doesn’t suddenly conjure supply into existence, so you have the same demand willing to pay higher prices across the same supply: that’s just higher prices. In HCOL areas the vast majority of rent prices stem from land rent, and that supply is not just less elastic than demand, it’s totally fixed.
Most insidiously: the demand that will move most aggressively up the price curve is lower income people seeking better lower/middle income housing. So those prices will move the fastest.
Can you link to some study that confirms it? This sounds far too simplistic to be true, especially for something as complex and unpredictable as the economy.
This says public investment will just increase aggregate land rents to at least the cost of that investment. UBI is effectively a gigantic “public investment” that is everywhere. It’ll get baked into land rents, which will then propagate into actual rents.
There's a huge difference between typical welfare programs and UBI, in that the fundamental principle of the latter is just handing over money with no strins attached and trusting people to (on average) use it efficiently and effectively.
Social Security and Medicare comes to mind (age tested of course, Medicaid if you are in some measure of poverty) in the US. Retirees receive a monthly check as long as they're alive (worst case, they spend through it too quick and go without between monthly pay dates), and they receive healthcare regardless of their ability to manage their finances.
I see a wide swath of the population strata in my travels, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that some benefits must remain universal and UBI alone (only the fiat, no other support) is insufficient, due to combinations of lack of education, unsophistication, and mental health challenges. We don't rely on people coughing up for police and fire protection on the spot, for example.
I think that's the real conversation: what must be universal (healthcare for sure, non market housing potentially [1]), and what do we fill in with direct fiat transfers on a monthly cadence (which provides for autonomy and choice in matters where discretionary spend is involved). Non market/"socialized" housing ensures a relief valve so these aggregate support mechanisms aren't simply soaked up by rent seekers (with the potential for a "benefit rent" price spiral). You cannot hold hostage what you cannot buy and extract returns from. Think in systems.
(i provide material support to and advocate for some folks very much on the margin as well as some elderly folks, so these ideas and optimal potential configurations are top of mind, strong opinions on the topic)
Depends on the country, here there is some bottom welfare tier that will support everyone who is not eligible for support by higher tiers or other means.
To me it is some combination of ridiculous, naive, and pointless.
I don't have a positive view of the Western welfare state, with its excesses, inefficiencies, and catastrophic effect on incentives especially for the poorer and more dysfunctional demographics.
And you want to fix this by making it unconditional? The few who need (and warrant) state financial support will get less than they need; the many rorting the system won't even have to lift a finger to do so; the many many low-income earners disillusioned with the state of Western economies and cultures will happily down tools the moment the first payment hits their account; people like you and I who probably have no need at all for it still get paid regardless.
These stories of Kenyan entrepreneurs changing their villages with a $500 lump sum are completely irrelevant. It's absurd to think this in any way represents the way it will mess with incentive structures in the West, and the cynic in me sees it as a very transparent appeal to doe-eyed progressive types desperate to fawn over darker-skinned people enjoying tiny successes. Or grasping for any "scientific" evidence that we should give them money just for being a lazy dropout. Or playing into their fantasy that they would be a productive master artist if not for the oppressive demands of the capitalist.
It's a con. It's silly. But it makes people like me look like meanies so people like you turn out in droves to vote for the "good guy" progressives who just want to give everyone free money.
I don’t know if it’s just me, but I’m terribly lost in the search for the right texts. Every time I come across a new book/resource, it compounds the confusion. I find myself incapable of sitting down with a book and working through it without switching to another book in-between. I’d be really happy to hear if anyone has found a solution to this unproductive but sticky habit.
I wonder if there will be a time when textbooks will be created in digital-first format, instead of being mere replicas of what print books are. It doesn’t have to be static text and images on A4 pages.
I went through them a long time ago. It’s not the most in-depth resource, but you will learn enough calculus for when you need to actually apply it or even just pass tests. Also learning math on KA is really fun, there’s something they just get right. I’d definitely recommend giving it a try.
If you don’t feel satisfied after going through the courses, you can always pick up a book afterwards to dig deeper.
> It's marked as Known Unknowns, but what is unknown?
The infinite digits of pi that we don't know. But we do know that they exist, so pi, or any other irrational number, will aptly be called a "known unknown."
> Virtually all numbers are irrational.
For every n irrational numbers you name, I can name n+1 rationals. There is no firm basis to the argument that there are somehow more irrational numbers than rational numbers.
Without wishing to defend it, the gotcha here is "numbers you name". Rational numbers are "named" by putting together a string of digits. That is not possible for the irrationals so the only ones we can name are a handful with alphabetic names. There are more sheep in a field than those.
Extend alphabetical names to alphabetical descriptions and you have a countable number of irrationals.
It's a bit suspicious that we can't name or describe any of the uncountable irrational numbers, isn't it? Not even a single example.
Cantor's proof is not constructive. It doesn't name an example. If you enumerated all irrationals based on the algorithm required to calculate them then the contradiction in Cantor's diagonalization proof just turns into a failure to terminate. But that suggests that there are fewer irrationals than integers, not more.
You're limiting the existence of real numbers to our (human) capability of mentioning them. To me, that seems a rather arbitrary limit. Did I understand you correctly? If so, why do you accept infinity in the first place?
It is a really well-written piece that resonates within me, but I am compelled to point out that not everything that the author speaks of is a lost cause. It would suit us better to stop brooding over it, and to focus instead on what can be done to alleviate the situation. Just to offer a few examples:
> When will we have time to sit down, alone or with our loved ones, and look through it all?
The For You page in the iOS Photos app is a good attempt at resolving this. Every now and then the app will notify you with an algorithmically curated album that somehow does very well at keeping out the random food-pics, sunsets, and unmemorable minutiae. This system has its flaws, but it is something. And it has the potential to be a lot better in the future.
> Will Youtube still be there in 50 years? Will Instagram and Dropbox?
Perhaps it is time initiatives like the Internet Archive and GitHub Archived Project were scaled up with better funding. Even for now a lot of cultural knowledge is there and it is safe. People in the distant future will have plenty to look back upon. There are archived copies of HN, Wikipedia, Reddit, and so on.
> If you're young today, your formative years depend on auto-deleted snapchat videos, short-lived memes, stories told in computer games likely unplayable in 30 years.
As someone still in their formative years in this era, I seem to have more mementos (both digital and physical) than my parents did at my age. The only difference seems to be that my photographs are digital and more numerous. Also, the games that my parents once played are unplayable now.
Could it be that everybody has the same experience of fading memories as they age, regardless of the era they were born in? I would think so. In that case it certainly isn't attributable to the change in lifestyle brought in by this century.
I agree with what you said about the Internet Archive and similar initiatives, hopefully they will do a reasonably good job at retaining important information in the future.
> Also, the games that my parents once played are unplayable now.
I don't understand this point, in my experience pretty much every game from the 70/80/90's is still playable with some kind of emulator, but many games from around 10-15 years ago are no longer playable because the servers went offline.
