I'm not an expert, but I think the results where this has been tried were bureaucracy, waste and black markets.
A dense, tall building in SF could hold homes for a lot of residents at once.
>I don't have a license, does that mean I only get a bicycle instead of a car?
It means you get a car when you learn to drive, or else just take a bus.
> What about gas?
Electric vehicle
> What's "free utilities" - how much can I consume?
A set amount per month based on reasonable usage estimates.
> Can I trade the clothes for something else if I don't need as many?
You can do whatever you want with your stuff.
> If so, who decides for what and how much I can trade them for?
Between you and the person you trade with.
That's not the point. An apartment in a dense, tall building in SF will still cost more than an apartment in a dense, tall building almost anywhere else. Who gets to live in SF if too many people want to?
It means you get a car when you learn to drive, or else just take a bus.
So your UBI discriminates against people who can't drive, who are oftentimes the people most in need. Also, it promotes massive waste, since I'll ask for a car even if I don't need one - why not, if I don't gain anything by giving it up?
A set amount per month based on reasonable usage estimates.
Right, but "reasonable" will depend on geography (for heat/cooling), needs, etc, no? How many jobs will be required to calculate that for the 3000+ counties in the US?
You can do whatever you want with your stuff. Between you and the person you trade with.
So you're producing and distributing a bunch of clothes, cars, etc, which will then be sold to companies (for low prices, obviously, since everyone has them) which will export them to other countries. Nice corporate subsidy. The WTO might have something to say about your unfair competition practices.
A random lottery for high demand low supply places.
> So your UBI discriminates against people who can't drive, who are oftentimes the people most in need. Also, it promotes massive waste, since I'll ask for a car even if I don't need one - why not, if I don't gain anything by giving it up?
Nothing wrong with public transportation, people use it all the time and much easier than parking anyway. When you’re giving stuff away you always have to accept people wasting it. Just factor it in and move on.
> Right, but "reasonable" will depend on geography (for heat/cooling), needs, etc, no? How many jobs will be required to calculate that for the 3000+ counties in the US?
Of course. This will need very few jobs, it’s just basic data analysis based on historical usage. Very automated.
> So you're producing and distributing a bunch of clothes, cars, etc, which will then be sold to companies (for low prices, obviously, since everyone has them) which will export them to other countries. Nice corporate subsidy. The WTO might have something to say about your unfair competition practices.
Considering it’s the only basic car people can get I doubt they will just sell it off so easily. Government can always buy it back too, cheaper than making a new one. Plus regulation can easily block export of basic cars. Clothes don’t matter, people get a basic wardrobe with a few good durable pieces, not an endless closet.
So a bunch of people with no ties to SF will get a place for free that they'll sublet (and then live somewhere else). How does this not distort the market?
When you’re giving stuff away you always have to accept people wasting it.
So much for saving money with those economics of scale.
Considering it’s the only basic car people can get I doubt they will just sell it off so easily.
There's always a buyer if it's cheap enough. The State buys for $10000, the person sells for $500, then the distributor sells it Latin America or Africa for $2000.
Plus regulation can easily block export of basic cars.
Legal export, sure. Illegal, not really. And especially if the owner is complicit.
Because needs vary considerably by circumstance, and trying to address that with bureaucratic central planning rather than leveraging the market is brutally inefficient. And because a universal basic home, for instance, is hard to mix with outside income to get the home.you want. Same with universal basic food. Or a universal basic car.
(Though it's interesting if you combine this idea for setting basic benefits with the “why not force people to work a government chosen jov to get basic benefits” alternative to UBI often floated, you've gone a long way to reinventing Leninism.)
That being said, UBI advocates often see certain basic needs as efficient and desirable to provide directly in addition to UBI, most notably universal basic health insurance.
UBI gives people the ability to make the tradeoffs that work for them personally, rather than being stuck in a one-size-fits-all situation.
It will never work, UBI will inevitably raise prices of things so people will need more basic income to get what they want. That means having to either give out more UBI or have the program become irrelevant because it doesn’t keep up with standards of living.
A free house though is a free house. It does not become any less of a houses just because more people have houses. And you don’t have to give out more house to each person over time.
It seems to me that we need better systems for administration of free goods. These are problems we can solve, permanently.
What about houses that are damaged or destroyed? Will your "trivial" system repair or replace them? What if the occupant is responsible for the damage or destruction? What if this is the second or third such free home they've destroyed?
And how will people move? Can they move? Can people trade homes? Can they still buy and sell them? If a person sells their home will your system give them another one for free?
Do whatever you want with it, even destroy it. But you’re not getting another one. And if it’s damaged you need to repair it. Buy insurance if you can. If you can’t deal with it get a free condo or apartment instead not a SFH. If theres a big natural disaster and your home is affected apply for aid or perhaps a new home for these special cases.
You'll also get rid of all the public sector workers which represent a significant population cohort that is directly and personally invested preserving the rulling regime and also the status quo. Once you lose that, you destabilize a whole society.
Seems like this would accomplish the same goals of UBI, but with less risks and impact on the economy, and at some point you can benefit from economies of scale to provide these things at even lower cost. People would not need the financial discipline and restraint that comes with managing a basic income.