It is worth a debatable idea. We should look at all the pros and cons before it is implemented. Inflation will have the biggest cons; the more money you bring in, the higher the inflation. I am not an economist, but it is straightforward. For example, in COVID-19, the developed world threw a lot of money at the people, which led to higher inflation. It spiralled up, and they are still struggling to manage its consequences. The developed world has explored this inflation in the developing world as well. In India, the government used subsidy systems to help the people during COVID-19 because the inflation was mild. That's a very interesting strategy to check and the best way to pass the benefits to the people who need it. The second concern is that it will change the baseline of earnings because of inflation, so we have to see whether people really get any benifits of this or not
I think India is already running a large scale UBI study, its just not fully universal as only women are getting X amount directly in their account in various different states, it would be interesting to see how people use this money in long term. What do you guys think?
An exact same study was done in the US after the great results of this study in some African coutry (Uganda or Nigeria or some othe place I forgot the name). In that African country people actually used the UBI to improve their roofs (earlier they didn't have pucca houses so the roof required repairs very often). But in the US the result was terrible, as in, on average, productivity dropped, people who earlier used to work 2-3 jobs stopped working (which is good, no one should go through that) but they didn't do much to upskill and some other stuff.
One thing I'd like to add is I don't think we should stop the PDS or the LPG subsidy or other such schemes. MGNREGA can be stopped but the others are essential. This is so because the example you guys gave of that lady buying to buffaloes and stuff, she was able to do that because she was certain about the food and gas she would get and this extra ₹200 per month was just that, extra. I see this as if this extra ₹200 gave them an opportunity, these people mostly work in the informal sector so they don't get loans, now if their food security is taken away, this won't be the same.
Actually if you look at the trend, poorer countries fertility rate is higher, that's because lack of education and people think by having more children, they'll be able to help them at work, etc. If we are helping the poor get out of poverty, automatically the fertility rate decreases. So even without ubi it happens anyway, but showing this as reason some people lobby for these schemes to not apply for them, keeping poor people poor which in turn keeps increasing population growth.
Sir big fan. I have been following since the past week and am intrested in communicating you through any means, please reply if you can, you have brought back the curiousity I lost in the world
16:06 I don't think it increased increased inflation at any reasonable amount, instead it do reverse, how? As you discussed that the villagers now spend more time to work with also high quality like business so it directly ramp supply side. now we have more produced in just 1.05 factor demand as 5% given as subsidy. If good new produce is increased more than 5% of GDP then it decreased inflation.
Historically people with money have been able to produce or patronise art and culture. Would UBI lead to an efflorescence of art & culture as people would have more time to pursue interests outside basic livelihood?
Thank you. My understanding of UBI was initially shaped by Thomas Piketty's insights. I read his book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" two years ago, where he suggests funding policies to address both income and wealth inequality (which was not considered in the last episode) through a tax on the ultra-rich's assets. This would act as a wealth tax, potentially less than 1% of their total wealth. Piketty observed that the ultra-rich, like affluent individuals in France or university endowments, often increase their wealth faster than the rate of inflation, thanks to diverse investments and effective wealth management. Moreover, he presented data indicating that the ultra-rich (the top 1%-5%) tend to pay fewer taxes (when considering both direct and indirect taxes relative to their total wealth) than the lower two quartiles, who disproportionately bear the burden of indirect taxes such as GST in relation to their income and total wealth.
Not sure about India, but this is what happens in US, there the ultra rich pay almost zero taxes. Some people claim it's the same in India but I'm not sure if it's true or they're just being too emotional.
@@rimadas1910 From Reliance Annual Reports, it appears that Mukesh Ambani does not take a salary. He must be paying taxes only on dividends, capital gains, and other income from his investments. The expenses of his company cover any facilities he receives as its chairman and managing director. Therefore, it is likely that he pays relatively low taxes, including indirect taxes, in relation to his wealth. Thomas Piketty has shown that even after living an extravagant lifestyle, the annual personal expenditures of the super-rich in France are not in the millions of dollars.
@@rimadas1910 Reliance Annul Reports show that Mr. Ambani doesn't receive a salary from Reliance. If this is the case, then his income is only in the form of dividend income, capital gain, and income on any other investments. I am assuming that the facilities provided to him as Chairman and MD are considered company expenses. If this is true, then my guess is that he is paying relatively less taxes, both direct and indirect, compared to his wealth. Just guess no data is available and I may be wrong.
Nicely covered. Can political parties do away with subsidies, which are vote attracting tool ? India should find a mix of food coupons(instead of ration) , manrega as optional and UBI as support.
So what I don't understand is how will more tomatoes, potatoes(food) or school seats(education) become available because everyone is given the basic income? So my assumption is the money sitting in the rich persons account doesn't compete for these goods, but as soon as it is distributed it will start competing for these goods and will drive up the prices(inflation)? Any flaw in this logic?
I don't think it increased increased inflation at any reasonable amount, instead it do reverse, how? As you discussed that the villagers now spend more time to work with also high quality like business so it directly ramp supply side. now we have more produced in just 1.05 factor demand as 5% given as subsidy. If good new produce is increased more than 5% of GDP then it decreased inflation.
The study example used in video compares UBI vs Non-UBI villages. But actual study should be UBI vs Subsidy. So for one village which is getting subsidy stop subsidy and give UBI and in other village give subsidy designed thought by experts. I think this idea that people know what is good for them is flawed and anyone who tries to counter it is met with personal attacks rather than argument. It's like oh so u think you are smarter than people , you think people are dumb? It's populist way which is used by politicians. I don't think people know what is better for them and they usually act on their basal desires.
Source for primary claim: 30-40% of deserved only get it You should put sources in description section. Probably ??? Show sources and talk data. You have no clue about how alcoholism disproportionately. Babu is replaced by DBT.
It is worth a debatable idea. We should look at all the pros and cons before it is implemented. Inflation will have the biggest cons; the more money you bring in, the higher the inflation. I am not an economist, but it is straightforward. For example, in COVID-19, the developed world threw a lot of money at the people, which led to higher inflation. It spiralled up, and they are still struggling to manage its consequences. The developed world has explored this inflation in the developing world as well. In India, the government used subsidy systems to help the people during COVID-19 because the inflation was mild. That's a very interesting strategy to check and the best way to pass the benefits to the people who need it. The second concern is that it will change the baseline of earnings because of inflation, so we have to see whether people really get any benifits of this or not
I think India is already running a large scale UBI study, its just not fully universal as only women are getting X amount directly in their account in various different states, it would be interesting to see how people use this money in long term. What do you guys think?
An exact same study was done in the US after the great results of this study in some African coutry (Uganda or Nigeria or some othe place I forgot the name). In that African country people actually used the UBI to improve their roofs (earlier they didn't have pucca houses so the roof required repairs very often). But in the US the result was terrible, as in, on average, productivity dropped, people who earlier used to work 2-3 jobs stopped working (which is good, no one should go through that) but they didn't do much to upskill and some other stuff.
One thing I'd like to add is I don't think we should stop the PDS or the LPG subsidy or other such schemes. MGNREGA can be stopped but the others are essential.
This is so because the example you guys gave of that lady buying to buffaloes and stuff, she was able to do that because she was certain about the food and gas she would get and this extra ₹200 per month was just that, extra.
I see this as if this extra ₹200 gave them an opportunity, these people mostly work in the informal sector so they don't get loans, now if their food security is taken away, this won't be the same.
If every individual gets money, families would try to have more children to get more benefits,so population would increase
India already overpopulated.
Actually if you look at the trend, poorer countries fertility rate is higher, that's because lack of education and people think by having more children, they'll be able to help them at work, etc. If we are helping the poor get out of poverty, automatically the fertility rate decreases. So even without ubi it happens anyway, but showing this as reason some people lobby for these schemes to not apply for them, keeping poor people poor which in turn keeps increasing population growth.
Sir big fan. I have been following since the past week and am intrested in communicating you through any means, please reply if you can, you have brought back the curiousity I lost in the world
Based on my research TBI works best for poverty alleviation. Targeted regions
Havent watched the video yet, but I believe that increasing industrial production is a better idea than free money
Increase in industrial output by automation with ai = more money to fat corporation's
16:06
I don't think it increased increased inflation at any reasonable amount, instead it do reverse, how?
As you discussed that the villagers now spend more time to work with also high quality like business so it directly ramp supply side.
now we have more produced in just 1.05 factor demand as 5% given as subsidy.
If good new produce is increased more than 5% of GDP then it decreased inflation.
Good point but I believe this supply side boost will be lagged so initially there will be inflation.
Please link all the sources in description
Historically people with money have been able to produce or patronise art and culture. Would UBI lead to an efflorescence of art & culture as people would have more time to pursue interests outside basic livelihood?
Interesting topic. Thanks for throwing light on this topic
Thank you. My understanding of UBI was initially shaped by Thomas Piketty's insights. I read his book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" two years ago, where he suggests funding policies to address both income and wealth inequality (which was not considered in the last episode) through a tax on the ultra-rich's assets. This would act as a wealth tax, potentially less than 1% of their total wealth. Piketty observed that the ultra-rich, like affluent individuals in France or university endowments, often increase their wealth faster than the rate of inflation, thanks to diverse investments and effective wealth management. Moreover, he presented data indicating that the ultra-rich (the top 1%-5%) tend to pay fewer taxes (when considering both direct and indirect taxes relative to their total wealth) than the lower two quartiles, who disproportionately bear the burden of indirect taxes such as GST in relation to their income and total wealth.
Not sure about India, but this is what happens in US, there the ultra rich pay almost zero taxes. Some people claim it's the same in India but I'm not sure if it's true or they're just being too emotional.
@@rimadas1910 From Reliance Annual Reports, it appears that Mukesh Ambani does not take a salary. He must be paying taxes only on dividends, capital gains, and other income from his investments. The expenses of his company cover any facilities he receives as its chairman and managing director. Therefore, it is likely that he pays relatively low taxes, including indirect taxes, in relation to his wealth. Thomas Piketty has shown that even after living an extravagant lifestyle, the annual personal expenditures of the super-rich in France are not in the millions of dollars.
@@rimadas1910 Reliance Annul Reports show that Mr. Ambani doesn't receive a salary from Reliance. If this is the case, then his income is only in the form of dividend income, capital gain, and income on any other investments. I am assuming that the facilities provided to him as Chairman and MD are considered company expenses. If this is true, then my guess is that he is paying relatively less taxes, both direct and indirect, compared to his wealth. Just guess no data is available and I may be wrong.
Nicely covered.
Can political parties do away with subsidies, which are vote attracting tool ?
India should find a mix of food coupons(instead of ration) , manrega as optional and UBI as support.
So what I don't understand is how will more tomatoes, potatoes(food) or school seats(education) become available because everyone is given the basic income?
So my assumption is the money sitting in the rich persons account doesn't compete for these goods, but as soon as it is distributed it will start competing for these goods and will drive up the prices(inflation)? Any flaw in this logic?
I don't think it increased increased inflation at any reasonable amount, instead it do reverse, how?
As you discussed that the villagers now spend more time to work with also high quality like business so it directly ramp supply side.
now we have more produced in just 1.05 factor demand as 5% given as subsidy.
If good new produce is increased more than 5% of GDP then it decreased inflation.
The study example used in video compares UBI vs Non-UBI villages. But actual study should be UBI vs Subsidy.
So for one village which is getting subsidy stop subsidy and give UBI and in other village give subsidy designed thought by experts.
I think this idea that people know what is good for them is flawed and anyone who tries to counter it is met with personal attacks rather than argument. It's like oh so u think you are smarter than people , you think people are dumb? It's populist way which is used by politicians.
I don't think people know what is better for them and they usually act on their basal desires.
🎉🎉
How is 7000 rupees arrived at ..
Source for primary claim: 30-40% of deserved only get it
You should put sources in description section.
Probably ??? Show sources and talk data.
You have no clue about how alcoholism disproportionately.
Babu is replaced by DBT.
Same
Thanks for these insights....hope someone from PMO govt of india subscribes to this channel...
It’s okay if people become lazy as long as they don’t harm.