I am pointing out there is an assumed and implied argument that 1) inequality is a problem and must be corrected, but 2) straight redistribution of some wealth with UBI will fail because-inflation/rents, but 3) we should have less inequality though even if we did that would put us in the similar position as with UBI where costs rebalance.
And at the end I ask, rhetorically but still, what's to be done. So here you also assume it's true without addressing it and offer no answer to how to address the gobbling up of the economic slack.
I wasn't making anything like that argument. I was saying that, if you don't address the dynamics that gobble up household economic slack, then a UBI won't produce the additional slack you're trying to produce. Three's nothing circular about that.
>And at the end I ask, rhetorically but still, what's to be done. So here you also assume it's true without addressing it and offer no answer to how to address the gobbling up of the economic slack.
In fact, the link I gave was from (the aptly named) landvaluetax.org and is from an organization that has one theory and solution for how land rents eat up slack and a solution.
And even if I didn't, it's still a valid point that the primary problem is "things that extract household slack", and needs to be address before any UBI is piled on.
I'm not saying the argument fails because there is a circular loop. I am saying there is something more to the system and we shouldn't drop consideration for UBI based on the argument that inflation will gobble up all of the increase because that argument holds true equally if we improve equality to everyone gets a wage increase.
Which really makes your point even more important. Particularly the one about land having the strongest growth pressure.
They said nothing like that; that might be what you think, and I'd be glad to address that, but it doesn't help the discussion when you invent arguments that were never made and expect me to have already answered them.
Real estate, unlike cars or food, can't be brought on the market to rapidly respond to demand, and people don't keep raising bids to the point where they leave a certain amount of slack in their budget.
There are ways to get around this (like with faster building and scaling up of transportation infra) but it would need to be address before throwing on a UBI, which was my point.
>If you inverse your logic it means lowering wages provides cheaper rent.
Rents generally do decline when wages fall.
The point is that the UBI isn't going to fix things until you first fix the dynamic that's responsible for gobbling up all the economic slack, so that should be the priority.