Body blows keep coming for UBI fans. $1k/month transfers had no effect on net worth or credit access. All the money was ploughed straight into consumption, recipients actually went more into debt. nber.org/papers/w32784
For reference: most spending categories rose by similar percents: UBI recipients did NOT necessarily prioritize immediate needs. In fact, they disproportionately gave their UBI away.
Now as an aside.
The average UBI recipient here got $35,000 in total transfers.
They spent $$11,000 of it on increased spending.
They reduce work by $12,000.
That accounts for $23,000.
So their net worth SHOULD have gone up by $12,000!'
Instead it fell $1,000.
????
Did they just.... light $13,000 on fire?
Is the income decline underestimated?
Is the spending increase underestimated?
Did they invest money in terrible assets?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The best historical analog for the US is not, in fact, the late Roman Empire.
It is the 18th century Qing Dynasty.
Interesting times may yet be ahead of us.
Society undefeated in war with an incredible reputation containing a massive share of world GDP and a huge leading advantage in technology and population originally ruled by a cadre of highly capable settler-militarist leaders ultimately brought down by the ability of technological upstarts abroad to bleed it of its wealth, hook its people on drugs, and exploit idiotic internal divisions to pick it apart. Plus a bunch of corruption, weird cults of personality, and just weird cults along the way.
I think on a basic level "America is the 18th century Qing Dynasty" is actually China's theory of the matter as well, but they're realizing that they actually are not quite the late 18th century British Empire. They're racing to get there but may not make it, and America is not quite as internally dysfunctional as the latter Qing.
I think it would be great to have the BLM+NFS produce a GIS map that shades out all the lands which are 1) outside the states of eligibility 2) covered under wilderness protection rules, 3) covered under ongoing rights rules, 4) not buildable, 5) excessively remote
But in practice, the reasons against this are: 1) The point of the nomination-and-consultation process is to leave discretion to states and localities! That's literally the point! DC deciding which lands are right for disposal would defeat the point of the policy! 2) Rule changes for federal lands are implemented routinely via statute, federal land sales do already occur (public purpose rules, etc), changes in land statuses do occur (upgrades of NPS lands, etc), and AFAIK none of these have ever been paired with an expectation that a Senator's office should hire an ArcGIS team to work up an interactive parcel-level map of half of the land area of the United States
It's actually plenty to just have the statute say what the rules are!
"Point at the map exactly what's for sale."
Nothing. Literally nothing. This law establishes zero acres for sale.
It mandates the BLM and NFS to find acreage which fits the rules stipulated.
Now, a totally fair critique is: "What if they can't find enough acreage to fit the rules stipulated?"
And I think that's definitely a weak point in the drafting! I hope they fix it in conference!
In practice I don't think it will be an issue.
Now, I am sure that as soon as BLM/NFS do nominate lands for sale, some enterprising ArcGIS wizard will work up a map, and doubtless there will be some bird or lizard or something on some of the land for people to get angry about. And that's fine! Then you can lobby your state/local government to push back!
The thing about the conservatives opposed to selling Federal lands (e.g. I noticed @L0m3z ), is that they clearly have not actually read @BasedMikeLee 's actual bill. Massive failure of literacy on the part of the based right.
So let's look at the bill!
First, what kind of land can be sold?
This turns out to be complicated. The answer is basically Bureau of Land Management Land or Forest Service Land (with exceptions). So what kind of land CANNOT be sold?
There's a few more items cut off here but you get the idea. If land has ANY kind of ecological or recreational protected status, it remains totally protected.
In the ensuing 5 years, I'm not sure 100% of the article is correct. The scale of historic under-reporting of police-related homicides was probably larger than I allowed for here.
But the basic thesis that police violence is escalating holds up in more recent data.
Here are CDC estimates of "deaths of legal intervention" exclusive of executions. These should overwhelmingly be deaths involving police officers, though I think they might include some deaths involving prisoners.
When I shared this data 5 years ago many commenters correctly suggested the pre-2000 data and especially 1960s/1970s data was probably under-reported by a considerable degree. I think that's a reasonable view.