Metrodomination
- Thread starter Hygro
- Start date
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,034
There is, however, another whole issue to this. In many modern nations, regardless of the proportions of rural vs. urban population, there's a very noticeable cultural divide (it takes different specific forms by nation and/or region, but it's usually there) between rural society and urban society. There is a tangible and discernable pride of "countryfolk" and their entrenched culture and viewpoint compared to "cityfolk," and a lot of long-standing, multi-generational rural denizens would, if only because of cultural pride and attachment, refuse to move to a big city on general principle unless their economic situation and prospects were absolutely bleak, even untenable.
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
An interesting (though perhaps not very signifcant) development in Europe is the TGV commuter. With the greater availability of high speed rail, permanent jams on the road, company headquarters moving back into the city center (close to a station) and low housing affordability inside the largest cities, some people have started to move to cities a bit further away that have good high speed connections to the urban core. You can live in a place like Tours, Ciudad Real and 's-Hertogenbosch and might get to the station just as fast as someone who has a long inner-city commute. And the train is a better place to work than the bus/car. Bonus points if you can work from home one day a week. You can live in a classical city center, with nature not too far away.
So in this sense, there's some trend for urbanization in a few smaller, highly connected spots instead of one big sprawling shapeless megapolis (the American way).
One could say that for the modern metropole, being close in space isn't as important as being close in time.
So in this sense, there's some trend for urbanization in a few smaller, highly connected spots instead of one big sprawling shapeless megapolis (the American way).
One could say that for the modern metropole, being close in space isn't as important as being close in time.
A UBI doesn't create economic productivity. It does many good things, but it also allows people to consume more than they produce very easily. UBI cannot really be done at anything other than a national scale, where outright currency depreciation will counteract the lack of real productivity.
The city that gives out a UBI, but to people who consume more than they produce, will be buying more from outside of the city than the city produces. Each turn of the economic cycle, it will get worse. The city's currency cannot depreciate to counter-act this, which means that the net money will flow out of the city, in the form of destroyed wealth inside the city.
The city that gives out a UBI, but to people who consume more than they produce, will be buying more from outside of the city than the city produces. Each turn of the economic cycle, it will get worse. The city's currency cannot depreciate to counter-act this, which means that the net money will flow out of the city, in the form of destroyed wealth inside the city.
Not necessarily. If UBI are paid from tax collections, those taxes could easily be collected on dollars imported into the city from outside its jurisdiction.
I see, sure. But that would require changing the nature of the city's taxation powers. Tariffs could work to reduce importing. I have a bit of trouble running the numbers using an external currency plus tariffs, actually. Especially given how much a city needs to import.
If we re talking about a city (Metro area, let's say) then all company and personal revenue that originates outside of that metro area is "imported". That revenue stream would include sales tax, hotel taxes, income taxes, etc. If I live in that city and earn my living by working for a company whose HQ is two states away, then my income is also "imported". When I spend money in town and it is taxed, then that tax is on imported income.
The goal is to have more imported income, not less. In the above situation, money from outside the metro area builds a strong service sector job base an increase the tax base for the city. The tax growth allows for UBI.
Yeah, any increases in productivity would happily feed into the UBI, and the imported money would fund the purchases made from outside the city as well. I get all that. My major concern was that a UBI allows people to 'live beyond their means', but they'd be using the money to purchase imports. Hygro was talking about how there would be a flooding in of low-productivity people, because of the free money. I just don't think it would work.
At a national level, especially with sovereignty, there is much less 'importing'. And so the UBI dollar will be spent purchasing things from outside the side. If production was insufficient, the currency would devalue as external goods were imported. With an advanced economy, a UBI could still be ruined with too much immigration, but it also is able to 'internalize' in order to compensate for inappropriate spending on imported goods.
I just hadn't run the model using tariffs to maintain the currency's utility when it's not a sovereign currency. Functionally, it's very similar to devaluing (since you need more dollars to buy the imported good), but I suspect it will shake out very differently from that.
BI is only useful for two things. First it can life people out of poverty and second it can replace income lost to automation or other reasons they can no longer work. Pnce someone gets the money, how they spend it doesn't matter. they just feed the economy like everyone else. How you get the funds for the UBI is the issue. As a retired person living in NM, my SS UBI comes from Washington and benefits the NM economy. As a US citizen, that money does not grow the US economy; it only supports the existing national "service sector". So as long as you are growing the national or local economy faster than the population, you can afford some level of UBI. Illegal Mexicans who come to the US to work in agriculture, generally improve the region's economy since they enable the sale of food to cities outside the region. When they work in service sector jobs that cannot be filled with locals, then they are contributing to the multiplier and keeping money from being spent outside the region, because the region cannot supply the service efficiently if at all. If I cannot find a good Mexican restaurant in Albuquerque, then I take my money to Santa Fe....
Here is a pretty clear example of a UBi based society that is failing its constituents. The Navajo nation has over 250,000 residents, but almost no service sector (restaurants, stores, auto repair, shopping, etc) on the reservation. All the residents must go off reservation to buy stuff and to work. The UBI provided by the tribe/US government to its members leaves the reservation and goes into the pockets of non Indian business owners. The tribe stays poor. Adding more tribal members only makes things worse. The first step in reducing Navajo poverty will be to build a service sector on the reservation. That way the government can collect taxes to provide more services and members can work on the reservation for other Indians. They can grow a "middle class". Once the service sector is established, the Navajo nation can work to attract non Navajo businesses on to tribal land to grow its economic based job sector. Then real growth can happen. Most cities already have a service sector economy so they can focus on the econmic based jobs that are necessary to support and grow it.
Narz
keeping it real
UBI city would become infested with homeless overnight. Would have to be national or nothing.
It will probably become necessary as more and more jobs become automated but it has to be gone about very carefully.
It will probably become necessary as more and more jobs become automated but it has to be gone about very carefully.
Lexicus
Deity
It does though. I keep telling you consumption drives investment...and you keep saying stuff like this...
It won't necessarily drive investment in the UBI-giving city though. Or even in the same country.
Lexicus
Deity
Yeah, you're right, but I thought that free trade was good because of Comparative Advantage, (you should read those words in the tone that, say, Superman would use to introduce himself) so our consumption driving investment in China makes the efficiency fairies happy as long as China can produce things more cheaply by flagrantly abusing human rights?
Point is, if there's unused capacity in the economy (and there is lots of unused capacity in the Western economies right now) then giving people money to spend can absolutely cause that slack to be picked up.
Point is, if there's unused capacity in the economy (and there is lots of unused capacity in the Western economies right now) then giving people money to spend can absolutely cause that slack to be picked up.
Sure, but work with me here, given the scenario. There's no doubt that the spending would create investment. But what's required is that the UBI create sufficient local investment in order to create net productivity growth. Hand people in a city money, and they will purchase goods and services that are created outside the city. Some of that money will be spent creating production, and a lot of it won't be. You have to look at the city as if it's an economic unit, and factor in the exports and imports.
You're literally watching this happen at a national scale. Hand American people money, and they buy stuff from overseas. It creates both employment and investment, but not locally. And then because of other political forces, the American currency doesn't depreciate sufficiently to compensate, and a few years later they've voted in a pseudo-fascist. The deleveraging was really too painful, even if it was somewhat successful.
This is basically what happened with Greece, where they were able to bring in cheap Euros and spend it as they wanted to, and then found out that they couldn't handle their discounted interest payments. Greek borrowing spurred investment, but not sufficiently in Greece. And they couldn't depreciate their currency either. Their deleveraging was horrid.
UBI really needs a national scale, and it needs control over the currency
No argument on the underlying logic. But what metric do you measure in your parentheses there?
Lexicus
Deity
The American people haven't been handed money in a long time, and plenty of other policy decisions were made that allowed Chinese imports to flood the country.
I don't like this analogy.
I don't disagree.
The world is multi-factorial, obviously. But 'people buy Chinese imports' is certainly part of the story. And there have been continued deficits for some time, so clearly some money is being spent and not being taxed. If you look at where the median spending is, I suspect it will heavily go to people with a reasonable propensity to consume (actually, I don't know, I just suspect)
It's why I included Greece, where the analogy is stronger. But I have to 'use' cheap money instead of free money in the analogy. I needed both an instance of free money AND cheap money. Not easy to find!
When you hand poor Americans free government cash on a one time basis, the money goes to food, cigarettes, alcohol, car payments, gasoline and gadgets.
Or, more likely, just dumped into the checking account and forgotten. It is a non event.
