That line of reasoning falls somewhere between the worst elements of Reaganomics and Keynesian economics. It’s wishful thinking about something somebody already supports.
OK, I admit that maybe I did pass on this lore too quickly. It was one bit I took away from a discussion about basic income grants some time ago. But I can’t find evidence for it online. The evidence I can find seems to argue against it (except the dubious Nigeria case) but then all evidence also includes assumptions about labour supply and demand that do not seem to hold in an age of machine mass production.
That seems like a lot of conclusions to be drawing about Gunnar_Zarncke’s thinking, on the basis of very slender evidence. Would you care to unpack your own reasoning a bit?
The first question you should ask is whether or not consumption should be stimulated. This “stimulation” concept is where Reagonomics and Keynesian economics collide—the idea that the macro economy’s ideal (efficient?) state is higher than what it currently is, and needs to be adjusted. It’s worth noting that profit is the difference between consumption and production—in a generalized sense, and also in the trivial sense of mere net flow of dollars. What does stimulated consumption do? What does profit mean, on a global scale?
The second question is whether consumption can be stimulated.
Those are very reasonable questions, but how do you get from asking those questions to concluding that Gunnar_Zarncke is engaging in reasoning “somewhere between the worst elements of Reaganomics and Keynesian economics” and in “wishful thinking”?
It’s true (as I understand it) that Reaganomics and Keynesian economics both tend to approve of “stimulus” to the economy. That seems like a quite different (and much weaker) claim than that approving of economic stimulus partakes of the worst of those two views of economics.
In case you didn’t gather, I consider the “stimulus” aspect (and the related ideas) to be the major problem with those two economic views. If the answer to the question of whether stimulus is a good idea is “No”—a question neither school of economics truly addresses, assuming the answer to be “Yes”—and both schools of economics fall apart.
Yes, I understand that. What I don’t understand is how you get from “Gunnar approves of economic stimulus and I don’t” to “Gunnar is engaging in wishful thinking”. Nor for that matter why you pick out Keynesian and Reaganite economics in particular, since so far as I can tell liking the idea of economic stimulus is pretty much universal. (Though clearly you don’t share it.)
Wishful thinking is (necessarily) a thing people do, not a properties of ideas themselves. But I take it what you mean is that when you wrote, in response to Gunnar’s comment, “That line of reasoning falls somewhere between the worst elements of Reaganomics and Keynesian economics. It’s wishful thinking about something somebody already supports.” you meant not that Gunnar in particular was engaging in wishful thinking, but that … some unspecified other people advocating UBI for the sake of economic stimulus are engaging in wishful thinking.
Fair enough. It might have been worth making it clearer, but of course hindsight is always 20⁄20.
It seems reasonable to me that the marginal spending of money given to those of low incomes will be higher than the marginal spending of money given to those of high incomes.
And if we mandated by law that all durable products be slightly less durable than they are now, more people would be employed replacing or repairing the damaged old ones, and demand for labor would rise, and wages would rise, and we could make products even less durable. There’s no limit to the prosperity we could achieve.
That value you’re trying to maximize? You might want to consider what it’s measuring, before you try to maximize it.
That line of reasoning falls somewhere between the worst elements of Reaganomics and Keynesian economics. It’s wishful thinking about something somebody already supports.
OK, I admit that maybe I did pass on this lore too quickly. It was one bit I took away from a discussion about basic income grants some time ago. But I can’t find evidence for it online. The evidence I can find seems to argue against it (except the dubious Nigeria case) but then all evidence also includes assumptions about labour supply and demand that do not seem to hold in an age of machine mass production.
That seems like a lot of conclusions to be drawing about Gunnar_Zarncke’s thinking, on the basis of very slender evidence. Would you care to unpack your own reasoning a bit?
The first question you should ask is whether or not consumption should be stimulated. This “stimulation” concept is where Reagonomics and Keynesian economics collide—the idea that the macro economy’s ideal (efficient?) state is higher than what it currently is, and needs to be adjusted. It’s worth noting that profit is the difference between consumption and production—in a generalized sense, and also in the trivial sense of mere net flow of dollars. What does stimulated consumption do? What does profit mean, on a global scale?
The second question is whether consumption can be stimulated.
Those are very reasonable questions, but how do you get from asking those questions to concluding that Gunnar_Zarncke is engaging in reasoning “somewhere between the worst elements of Reaganomics and Keynesian economics” and in “wishful thinking”?
It’s true (as I understand it) that Reaganomics and Keynesian economics both tend to approve of “stimulus” to the economy. That seems like a quite different (and much weaker) claim than that approving of economic stimulus partakes of the worst of those two views of economics.
In case you didn’t gather, I consider the “stimulus” aspect (and the related ideas) to be the major problem with those two economic views. If the answer to the question of whether stimulus is a good idea is “No”—a question neither school of economics truly addresses, assuming the answer to be “Yes”—and both schools of economics fall apart.
Yes, I understand that. What I don’t understand is how you get from “Gunnar approves of economic stimulus and I don’t” to “Gunnar is engaging in wishful thinking”. Nor for that matter why you pick out Keynesian and Reaganite economics in particular, since so far as I can tell liking the idea of economic stimulus is pretty much universal. (Though clearly you don’t share it.)
I don’t think Gunnar is doing either of those things, and didn’t when I wrote that. I said the idea exhibits those properties.
Wishful thinking is (necessarily) a thing people do, not a properties of ideas themselves. But I take it what you mean is that when you wrote, in response to Gunnar’s comment, “That line of reasoning falls somewhere between the worst elements of Reaganomics and Keynesian economics. It’s wishful thinking about something somebody already supports.” you meant not that Gunnar in particular was engaging in wishful thinking, but that … some unspecified other people advocating UBI for the sake of economic stimulus are engaging in wishful thinking.
Fair enough. It might have been worth making it clearer, but of course hindsight is always 20⁄20.
It seems reasonable to me that the marginal spending of money given to those of low incomes will be higher than the marginal spending of money given to those of high incomes.
And if we mandated by law that all durable products be slightly less durable than they are now, more people would be employed replacing or repairing the damaged old ones, and demand for labor would rise, and wages would rise, and we could make products even less durable. There’s no limit to the prosperity we could achieve.
That value you’re trying to maximize? You might want to consider what it’s measuring, before you try to maximize it.