Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tereza Coraggio's avatar

Often the term 'small gov't' really means a centralized weak gov't, not localized gov't with actual power over their own territory, assets and laws. Pardon me if you already answered this--I got distracted in the middle of reading so there was a break in between--which do you mean?

I hope you were counting me in those 60% of women economists for small gov't that you know. I think that you read my post on The Caret System where I compare the economic system I used for my kids to my economic model for small gov'ts. I think my household was very similar to yours (including the three girls if I'm remembering correctly). But I got stuck on what the consequences are when the rules of the benevolent dictator aren't followed. Physical force is frowned upon and psychological manipulation (I'm so disappointed in you) has limited utility, in my experience.

UBI might be compared to an allowance that every kid gets, along with free room & board, healthcare, education, transportation, energy & utilities. You can't very well take the latter seven away from your kids or make them earn them. So that extra for luxuries is something that I used as incentives (which matter!)

In the same way, a fair system would curb wealth monopoly and provide dividends (like UBI) that can only be spent freely after they're earned by providing those basics to each other. If everyone gets UBI, who provides the goods and services that UBI buys? Do those people get more stuff and better houses? Rather than looking at this as a consumer, I think an economist has to develop a plan for the production side because the money is worthless if no one's making or growing or doing.

Expand full comment
Incentives Matter's avatar

To add to my other comment, Arnold Klong discusses some very similar issues in his latest post in case you didn't see it: https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/government-does-not-stay-limited/comments

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts