I was a huge fan of Universal Basic Income (UBI) when Andrew Yang proposed it in the 2020 presidential election cycle. He wasn’t the first person to come up with the idea, but he was the highest-profile US politician to seriously propose implementing it.
Great writing and informative. Societies make big bets when faced with unusual circumstances. There are a number of very large bets that were made during the pandemic. It will be useful to see which ones pay off and which ones look back in the years to come. Putting all your chips on red on the roulette table is a rush. Big risk though.
Yours is my favorite Substack that is willing to ask readers to understand the implications of NPV :)
I tend to believe the unwinding of the supply chain and the emergence of the means to effiiciently target disease on the fly will be the big bets that change our world for the long-term. Since we've been experiencing Corona-configured viruses for decades now, I figure we will be readier next time around DESPITE government programs like PPP and FPUC.
The revisions to the supply chain are in progress. The winners and losers are an interesting bet to see play out. Apple was the most aggressive of all firms on Earth in betting on totalitarianism in China as a way to make cool stuff. I think analysts believe it will take them 15 years to unwind from being full partners with the PRC. Diversification of the supply chain will provide resiliency. Their #1 priority remains not becoming associated with totalitarianism in the meantime. I suppose Tesla's tight integration with the PRC is a similar big bet.
The COVID-19 dress rehearsal left about 25% of the world unvaccinated. A new virus that is better at killing us will test our world resolve in caring about humanity much more. I hope we do better next time.
Thanks, Mark! Yes, I'm not afraid of NPV, thank you for noticing and liking it! I think we're on the verge of biotech breakthroughs that could change the world immensely for the better. It doesn't feel that way because biotech progress has been fits-and-starts for decades, but if I look at the technology now available, and the knowledge we have, I think we're in the five minutes before dawn. It's a double-edged sword, but if we have adequate controls around the downsides and risky research paths, this one could turn out well.
An interesting article. It just goes to show how complicated an idea for the 'good' of people can be. To the extent it could become a constraint or even a millstone in future scenarios.
But then your piece here demonstrates the virtue of raising ideas for public scrutiny. Once out in the open, they give the opportunity for more thought, more ideas, good and bad, reasoned debate, and balanced argument. It seems, to me at least, innovation comes from open exploration, conversation, 'have you considered this' debates. Far better than later conspiracy or forsaking the future because of past misgivings.
A problem in my mind, which I am convinced was been had multiple times in the 18th, 19th, 20th, and now 21st century, if we make money by stripping away the jobs of 'working people' where will money come from to expand the economy? Or does it even matter, if a few can get massively rich today? Ahhh, yes, the later is the more pertinent issue for today's economies around the globe. Isn't it? But then this surely begs a question about the validity and long-term viability of current thinking on GDP, Tax, payment of the workforce, share capital, etc etc, etc.
Yes, an interesting yet incredibly complex and profound subject matter, again, very well articulated.
Second-order effects shape the world. I'm also a huge fan of open debate on all sorts of ideas, thank you for appreciating this approach and for your thoughtful comments that spark me to think of new ideas, too.
Huge unsolved dilemma re: what will replace jobs. I like to envision a world of part-time work of people's own choice to give purpose, more leisure than we have now, and dividends from our inventions, but as you say, how to convince the capitalist economy to include more people in its dividends and benefits?
I imagine capitalism worked spectacularly well in the early and middle days, when there were countless small firms competing. The more success flows to the successful firms, though, the less well it works for regular people. We need some adjustments to get back to a more dynamic landscape with more players, GDP is not a great metric of well-being, and I don't think anyone knows the answer yet. I love talking about it, though!
Thanks for raising this point! I personally don't think the transfers during COVID had a big impact on inflation - definitely some but not at the levels caused by supply chain problems.
I think the issue with inflation and UBI is that if everyone is given x$, then everyone has more money to bid up certain services - especially housing. Thus, for example, rents would increase by a significant proportion of the UBI transfer. We already observe this in the subsidized housing market - since mortgages in the US are subsidized, house prices are higher than fundamentals (rent flows). I think this is the issue with any money based universal system. Possibly a goods based one would be better, or a targeted benefits system.
Yes, everyone would have more money to bid up housing (and other goods/services) - and also, landlords and house sellers would know everyone has more money, so they would likely raise prices proactively too. Interesting thought on goods-based systems, I'd like to know more about that!
Very thoughtful and glad you did the math proving that it doesn’t make sense. The problem with any government program, esp the Covid bailout, is that Checks were being stolen out of mailboxes, money was being sent to people who didn’t need it— like my son— he used it to go snowboarding— I was pissed— and fraud fraud fraud! The millions and millions stolen from us, essentially. Which made it extra awful because there were people who truly needed the money.
Very thoughtful and glad you did the math proving that it doesn’t make sense. The problem with any government program, esp the Covid bailout, is that Checks were being stolen out of mailboxes, money was being sent to people who didn’t need it— like my son— he used it to go snowboarding— I was pissed— and fraud fraud fraud! The millions and millions stolen from us, essentially. Which made it extra awful because there were people who truly needed the money.
Great writing and informative. Societies make big bets when faced with unusual circumstances. There are a number of very large bets that were made during the pandemic. It will be useful to see which ones pay off and which ones look back in the years to come. Putting all your chips on red on the roulette table is a rush. Big risk though.
Yours is my favorite Substack that is willing to ask readers to understand the implications of NPV :)
I tend to believe the unwinding of the supply chain and the emergence of the means to effiiciently target disease on the fly will be the big bets that change our world for the long-term. Since we've been experiencing Corona-configured viruses for decades now, I figure we will be readier next time around DESPITE government programs like PPP and FPUC.
The revisions to the supply chain are in progress. The winners and losers are an interesting bet to see play out. Apple was the most aggressive of all firms on Earth in betting on totalitarianism in China as a way to make cool stuff. I think analysts believe it will take them 15 years to unwind from being full partners with the PRC. Diversification of the supply chain will provide resiliency. Their #1 priority remains not becoming associated with totalitarianism in the meantime. I suppose Tesla's tight integration with the PRC is a similar big bet.
The COVID-19 dress rehearsal left about 25% of the world unvaccinated. A new virus that is better at killing us will test our world resolve in caring about humanity much more. I hope we do better next time.
Thanks, Mark! Yes, I'm not afraid of NPV, thank you for noticing and liking it! I think we're on the verge of biotech breakthroughs that could change the world immensely for the better. It doesn't feel that way because biotech progress has been fits-and-starts for decades, but if I look at the technology now available, and the knowledge we have, I think we're in the five minutes before dawn. It's a double-edged sword, but if we have adequate controls around the downsides and risky research paths, this one could turn out well.
An interesting article. It just goes to show how complicated an idea for the 'good' of people can be. To the extent it could become a constraint or even a millstone in future scenarios.
But then your piece here demonstrates the virtue of raising ideas for public scrutiny. Once out in the open, they give the opportunity for more thought, more ideas, good and bad, reasoned debate, and balanced argument. It seems, to me at least, innovation comes from open exploration, conversation, 'have you considered this' debates. Far better than later conspiracy or forsaking the future because of past misgivings.
A problem in my mind, which I am convinced was been had multiple times in the 18th, 19th, 20th, and now 21st century, if we make money by stripping away the jobs of 'working people' where will money come from to expand the economy? Or does it even matter, if a few can get massively rich today? Ahhh, yes, the later is the more pertinent issue for today's economies around the globe. Isn't it? But then this surely begs a question about the validity and long-term viability of current thinking on GDP, Tax, payment of the workforce, share capital, etc etc, etc.
Yes, an interesting yet incredibly complex and profound subject matter, again, very well articulated.
Second-order effects shape the world. I'm also a huge fan of open debate on all sorts of ideas, thank you for appreciating this approach and for your thoughtful comments that spark me to think of new ideas, too.
Huge unsolved dilemma re: what will replace jobs. I like to envision a world of part-time work of people's own choice to give purpose, more leisure than we have now, and dividends from our inventions, but as you say, how to convince the capitalist economy to include more people in its dividends and benefits?
I imagine capitalism worked spectacularly well in the early and middle days, when there were countless small firms competing. The more success flows to the successful firms, though, the less well it works for regular people. We need some adjustments to get back to a more dynamic landscape with more players, GDP is not a great metric of well-being, and I don't think anyone knows the answer yet. I love talking about it, though!
Thanks for raising this point! I personally don't think the transfers during COVID had a big impact on inflation - definitely some but not at the levels caused by supply chain problems.
I think the issue with inflation and UBI is that if everyone is given x$, then everyone has more money to bid up certain services - especially housing. Thus, for example, rents would increase by a significant proportion of the UBI transfer. We already observe this in the subsidized housing market - since mortgages in the US are subsidized, house prices are higher than fundamentals (rent flows). I think this is the issue with any money based universal system. Possibly a goods based one would be better, or a targeted benefits system.
Yes, everyone would have more money to bid up housing (and other goods/services) - and also, landlords and house sellers would know everyone has more money, so they would likely raise prices proactively too. Interesting thought on goods-based systems, I'd like to know more about that!
Very thoughtful and glad you did the math proving that it doesn’t make sense. The problem with any government program, esp the Covid bailout, is that Checks were being stolen out of mailboxes, money was being sent to people who didn’t need it— like my son— he used it to go snowboarding— I was pissed— and fraud fraud fraud! The millions and millions stolen from us, essentially. Which made it extra awful because there were people who truly needed the money.
Very thoughtful and glad you did the math proving that it doesn’t make sense. The problem with any government program, esp the Covid bailout, is that Checks were being stolen out of mailboxes, money was being sent to people who didn’t need it— like my son— he used it to go snowboarding— I was pissed— and fraud fraud fraud! The millions and millions stolen from us, essentially. Which made it extra awful because there were people who truly needed the money.
Well written! I had no idea there was that much in benefits given during COVID.
Thanks, Renee! Yeah, from both administrations, it was an unprecedented flow of funding. Some was wasted, some well-used, but the total was gigantic.