The India specific studies that I mentioned in the article have reached similar conclusions, but you're right, more recent and larger India-specific studies would be good.
It was a joke on the usage of "men don't work". Obviously, welfare does not mean people don't work. People do for many reasons including, dignity, because they like to work etc.
"A payment of ₹3200 per year to all the women would cost just 1.1% of the GDP and can be fully funded by removing the middle-class subsidies."
Uh, that's not a UBI. The most important element of implementing Basic Income in India would be to avoid the usual Indian oversmartness of carving out special groups or exceptions. Only then will it be a true UBI, only then will it really work. Otherwise it will turn into another leaking dole which will inspire bitterness in those who don't get it.
My understanding is that the economists who came up with those proposals understood that full UBI might not be economically feasible, so suggested partial alternatives. As such, "all women" is not a very small carving out of a special group; it is half of the population and would benefit almost all families, and it would actually be replacing a whole bunch of special groups and exceptions that already exist right now.
A related topic to explore would be Modern Monetary Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory). To me, it 'feels' unscientific, violative of the laws of conservation, etc. But hey, it seems to have worked ever since the 2008 crisis, with all the quantitative easing since then by the major economies (USA, Japan, EU...).
If MMT really works, then basically the government would be able to finance deficits by printing currency, without fear of inflation or other negative consequences. And that might make UBI more feasible...
Of course it's possible that this introduces structural macro problems in the long run (which we haven't hit yet since 2008). But then, in the long run, we're all dead :)
Yes, MMT does sound very intriguing. It would be interesting to get perspectives of some real economists on the wisdom or lack of using MMT for financing UBI-like schemes.
Another question I have is this: if a one-time universal cash transfer is funded by printing money, and that leads to devaluation of the currency, does that achieve a transfer of money from the rich to the poor without technically taking any money from the rich (i.e. no new taxes)?
No it wouldn't. It would just cause inflation, for example, if you double the money supply, real estate, stocks, gold and wages would all double. The only thing that would stay the same is savings. Hence, the tax exists and is on the savings of the country. So the scheme would hit the people who have the highest percentage of their wealth in cash saving the hardest (i.e. the poor). That's one of the main reasons why wealth inequality increased considerably after 1972. When you remove the gold standard and let the government print as much as it likes, the poor are hit hard, while the rich are almost unaffected as the majority of their wealth exists as shares in their company. So while the middle class in USA is getting richer much faster than their productivity growth (as they own assets like real estate and stocks), the poor get poorer and do not rise despite the rise in productivity.
So assuming your goal is to reduce inequality, improve the lives of the poor and have real economic growth based on savings and investments, the solution would be returning to a gold standard, reducing government spending and stopping money printing.
I think the article makes the same points I made in the "The Real Problems" section: we don't know where the money will come from, and we don't know how they'll work in the long-term.
Hello! Did you see this study? https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/stocktons-basic-income-experiment-pays-off/618174/ Says much the same thing. https://www.npr.org/2021/03/04/973653719/california-program-giving-500-no-strings-attached-stipends-pays-off-study-finds. We need an India specific one though. And thought must be given to remove people's misconceptions like, free stuff means men don't work (though apparently, women do).
The India specific studies that I mentioned in the article have reached similar conclusions, but you're right, more recent and larger India-specific studies would be good.
What you mean by women do here?
It was a joke on the usage of "men don't work". Obviously, welfare does not mean people don't work. People do for many reasons including, dignity, because they like to work etc.
"A payment of ₹3200 per year to all the women would cost just 1.1% of the GDP and can be fully funded by removing the middle-class subsidies."
Uh, that's not a UBI. The most important element of implementing Basic Income in India would be to avoid the usual Indian oversmartness of carving out special groups or exceptions. Only then will it be a true UBI, only then will it really work. Otherwise it will turn into another leaking dole which will inspire bitterness in those who don't get it.
My understanding is that the economists who came up with those proposals understood that full UBI might not be economically feasible, so suggested partial alternatives. As such, "all women" is not a very small carving out of a special group; it is half of the population and would benefit almost all families, and it would actually be replacing a whole bunch of special groups and exceptions that already exist right now.
A related topic to explore would be Modern Monetary Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory). To me, it 'feels' unscientific, violative of the laws of conservation, etc. But hey, it seems to have worked ever since the 2008 crisis, with all the quantitative easing since then by the major economies (USA, Japan, EU...).
If MMT really works, then basically the government would be able to finance deficits by printing currency, without fear of inflation or other negative consequences. And that might make UBI more feasible...
Of course it's possible that this introduces structural macro problems in the long run (which we haven't hit yet since 2008). But then, in the long run, we're all dead :)
Yes, MMT does sound very intriguing. It would be interesting to get perspectives of some real economists on the wisdom or lack of using MMT for financing UBI-like schemes.
Another question I have is this: if a one-time universal cash transfer is funded by printing money, and that leads to devaluation of the currency, does that achieve a transfer of money from the rich to the poor without technically taking any money from the rich (i.e. no new taxes)?
No it wouldn't. It would just cause inflation, for example, if you double the money supply, real estate, stocks, gold and wages would all double. The only thing that would stay the same is savings. Hence, the tax exists and is on the savings of the country. So the scheme would hit the people who have the highest percentage of their wealth in cash saving the hardest (i.e. the poor). That's one of the main reasons why wealth inequality increased considerably after 1972. When you remove the gold standard and let the government print as much as it likes, the poor are hit hard, while the rich are almost unaffected as the majority of their wealth exists as shares in their company. So while the middle class in USA is getting richer much faster than their productivity growth (as they own assets like real estate and stocks), the poor get poorer and do not rise despite the rise in productivity.
So assuming your goal is to reduce inequality, improve the lives of the poor and have real economic growth based on savings and investments, the solution would be returning to a gold standard, reducing government spending and stopping money printing.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/06/universal-basic-income-public-realm-poverty-inequality
Thanks, Abhishek.
I think the article makes the same points I made in the "The Real Problems" section: we don't know where the money will come from, and we don't know how they'll work in the long-term.
👏🏼Really liked the ‘resource distribution justice’ reason for UBI. From that view, the status quo is pure exploitation.
Also addition i think: “UBI in India of approximately ₹7000 per year would cost”
7k per year per person?
Yes, 7k per year per person. See
https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2017-2018/es2016-17/echap09.pdf for details (it starts around page 188).