Hi James.
I’ve been researching UBI since long before I ever heard of Yang, which was well before he announced his candidacy. There are many ways to implement UBI, and Yang’s is but one. See an economic analysis of several different options here.
In my experience, the ones selling a bill of goods regarding UBI are those in the FJG camp, the MMTers like Kelton who refuse to represent UBI fairly and instead choose to present and argue with some absurd version of UBI that nobody proposes. You are doing the same here and in your article, in much the same condescending and supremely self-confident tone I’ve grown accustomed to from many in your camp. God, why are we even in camps at all? I just wish people like you would actually read what I wrote and snap out of this bizarre either/or false choice mindset.
In any case, you are not really understanding UBI yet, either Yang’s specific version of it or the concept of UBI in general.
- Done right, it is a mechanism for redistribution of wealth
- It is not meant to exist in a vacuum, as an alternative for jobs programs, healthcare, or the labor market itself. That’s absurd. It doesn’t preclude other government efforts. It strengthens them. I’m not sure you read my piece carefully. It seems, instead, you just saw in the general concept an excuse to push your own writing in my comments.
- The Bernie piece was very simplified, by the way. If you want more detailed answers to your misconceptions and misrepresentations of UBI, feel free to read this, this, this, and this.
Please don’t come here seeking to correct me or enlighten me until you’ve actually read what I wrote, preferably without the preconceived notion that you know everything and that I must be wrong and naive, a gullible fool just mindlessly eating what I’m being fed. It’s quite insulting to me, and it doesn’t serve you well.