Jeff Bezos spent $600 million on his wedding. I think that we as a society can afford to pay people enough that they don’t have to worry about starving.
The issue is stopping Jeff Bezos from saying, oh neat, everyone in the country is being paid a free $500 a month. How do we increase our prices to dip into that without people noticing?
Landlords are going to be a bigger problem in this regard than old Jeff is. Everyone is getting a free $500 every month? Well rent will be increasing by $600 soon. Market forces, you know. Naturally they’ll all collude together to make sure nobody is getting left behind or more importantly, undercutting the competition; and we know this will happen because this already happens without the UBI even being involved.
Good point, in The Netherlands they increased the amount of money you can borrow when buying a house from 100% to 102% of the property value so people had a better shot at buying a house. Later research showed basically the only parting benefiting from this were the banks, the biggest losers were the people that bought their first house because they had to compete with others who all had 2% (of the property value) more to offer.
If you want to switch a whole nation to UBI you’d probably want some market rules extra as well, to smooth over the transition period.
Why don’t we have fixed prices for absolute essentials right now? There no unmanageable reason any farmer should earn any less over it, and we don’t really want unchecked capitalism governing our prices of bread/milk/eggs/whatever your essentials are.
It will be though. That’s the problem. Capitalism allows efficient use of resources, but concentrates wealth at the top. A planned economy concentrates power in the decision makers, who fall to corruption.
No. Free markets do. Socialist societies don’t have to run on planned economies, they can just as well utilize free markets just like capitalism does. It’s a misunderstanding that I often encounter in these discussions, the media over the past decades has pushed to associate planned economic structures with socialism and it’s hard to disassociate these two now.
I don’t think free market and planned economy mix easily, a government has to be very clear on where the lines are. If you plan for example the amount of bread baked and the price bread is sold for, but you don’t regulate that for cookies you might find a lot of cookie bakers using subsidized bread instead of unsubsidized flour. Probably better examples out there, but you get my point.
I’m not sure if you’re getting my point. Socialism is NOT about free markets vs planned economies. One of the main tennets in socialism is about the ownership of the means of production being in the worker’s hands. Basically, democratic ownership of the company you work for. This does NOT mean that companies among themselves can not compete in an open market. It’s about bringing democratic values to the economic, not just the political realm.
On the contrary, you have many capitalistic examples today of companies in private hands that can maintain a (near) monopoly on specific industries while heavily relying on government contracts, i.e. planned budgets distributed by the government.
Don’t conflate the ownership of the means of production with the idea of a free market.
Now you explain how you define socialism I understand a lot better what you mean.
I think putting companies in the hands of employees rather than external shareholders would be a big improvement on our current systems. Having others be able to invest in a company (by getting shares in return) is great, but once they at one point sell these shares to someone who only wants profits and an increase in company valuation the employees get the shorter end of the stick (which eventually results in them having bad working conditions and low pay).
I think youre mixing up socialism with centralized control. Also, generally the means of production being owned by the workers means it is taken by the state on behalf of the workers, in practice.
Socialism can take on many forms. Just like there are many forms of democracy, autocracy, capitalism, etc. By itself, socialism does not imply centralized control. At all. In fact, the often stated goal of communist ideologies is the complete abolition of the state and self governance by the people in small communes, hence the name.
generally the means of production being owned by the workers means it is taken by the state on behalf of the workers
Yeah this has been the case in the past but it doesn’t have to be. The Soviet Union was, in my opinion, a terrible example of a democratic and socialist state.
To illustrate my point, a socialist company structure can simply distribute voting shares to the workers and thereby democratize it. If you don’t work there, you can’t have a say of what investments are made and how profits are distributed. No state or government involvement needed. No revolution needed.
Btw I’m not a hardcore socialist, I just think that there are many misconceptions about what socialism is and what it is not, which limits our understanding of what we can actually achieve when we want to get rid of the current, toxic system.
I wish there were another way, but I just don’t have that much faith in my fellow man to do the right thing if a decent anarchy took place. I suppose I prefer an economy where the power is concentrated on elected officials.
As long as those officials can be held accountable, or have extremely fixed terms, then maybe that’s a model that can function
The big thing about ubi is it does not require the bureaucracy around applying for it and further its there when you need it right away. Lose a job, reitire, become disabled ; you still have income coming in. You working a good job and you will be paying as much or more in taxes than its making you. One thing I encounter is folks who think this will be extra money for everyone but it really only become significant the less well you are doing. So if its iffy that your job can meet rent the ubi saves your bacon, you lookin to buy a vacation place and its not really doing much for you. In some ways it would be like social security for all.
no you always get it as that is where you get the bureaucracy savings. Its just paid for with usual progressive taxes so at some point you are paying as much taxes as you get and eventually more than you get same as taxes work now. If you lose your job though your taxes will be lower so the payments become important. You get rid of standard deductions and such because the ubi comes in as non taxable so you can start at 5% for any earnings and then like 10% at 10k and over and so on just like the progressive system works now. Its important that everyone gets it though because again no paperwork to get it when you need it. Its there when you need it and at higher levels it offsets your taxes basically.
I thought that was the argument, but wasn’t sure. I can only really repeat that this looks rational from the perspective of the individual, but from the perspective of the retailer, what’s stopping me from raising my prices for basic goods if I know that more people have disposable income?
So everyone gets a check regularly, no qualification needed except citizenship, but its just enough to get by. As you are more successful you end up paying more taxes than you get. So if you can’t work you have just enough to get by. If you make just enough to get by with work you will pay some in taxes but with the ubi you will likely be able to live a bit better and not be right on the line. If you made enough to be living that bit better you are likely paying close to as much in taxes as what you are getting in ubi. If you make enough at work to be doing pretty well you will be paying more in tax than what you get and that will continue the higher you go. Rather than having forms and qualification and taxes paying for folks to decide if you deserve help you just let the progressive tax system handle it.
Thanks. I can understand from the perspective of reducing bureaucracy and that through progressive taxation that richer folks benefit less from it, but I still don’t quite follow how this will not lead to inflation.
Imagine, I’m a food retailer. My goal is to make money, and I basically own the market. All of my customers plus some new ones suddenly have way more disposable income. Why wouldn’t I gouge my prices up?
I guess I’m still not getting it. If I’m being taxed more as a greedy corporation, isn’t that even more justification to jack up my prices on my customers who can afford a little more?
Why not do it anyway without ubi. They have no competition I assume given the scenario you give. People can’t shop somewhere else I assume under your scenario.
It can’t be the only policy. A universal right to a job and basic necessities makes the UBI a self-actualisation tool. Otherwise it goes to rent and food.
I buy a loaf of bread every week, you buy a loaf of bread every week. We get ubi. Do we buy 2 loaves of bread every week with the extra income? I hear this every once in a while and don’t understand what makes the price go up.
For housing I can see it, because so many are going without right now or renting and demand will climb with extra buying power. In my eyes that just means we need more built, and a higher price with proportionally less impact might encourage that building
As income inequality keeps climbing, the current system does much worse, with most of the buying power incentivising production of what only the wealthy can afford. Taking some of their buying power and giving purchasing agency to those who don’t have it would incentivise production of things they would want instead. Vote with your wallet but the vote is more fair
Well the baker, knowing that everyone has twice as much money, puts his prices up because he knows the market can bear it. That’s the way I reason it. Same with the landlord.
The only way I see that not happening is if the gov’t literally fixes the prices of certain goods, which is already half way to a planned economy.
Or the government itself enters the food/housing market and competes against private firms with cheaper alternatives, forcing the firms to reduce their prices.
Prices are set by supply and demand, not by sellers thinking the market can bear it. If a baker raises their prices then eaters can just go to a different baker.
If demand increases because fewer people are struggling AND supply can’t increase at the same rate then yes there could be price increases. But it’s because of the demand, not just because the sellers want it.
In the case of housing where supply can’t increase very quickly, yeah rents could go up a bit. So there needs to be plenty of new social housing built by the government alongside UBI, to supply enough to meet demand.
Some other inflationary effects could be counteracted by taxing the shit out of the rich.
UBI at nation-state scale wouldn’t happen in isolation, there would be various other policies happening at the same time.
UBI at nation-state scale wouldn’t happen in isolation, there would be various other policies happening at the same time.
Yeah I’m starting to see this.
Some other inflationary effects could be counteracted by taxing the shit out of the rich.
I’m also hoping for this
not just because the sellers want it.
Food retailers have all jacked up their prices in recent years without any hint of a food shortage. They just made the crocodile’s worst out of a dire situation and blamed it on inflation.
Well the baker, knowing that everyone has twice as much money, puts his prices up because he knows the market can bear it. That’s the way I reason it.
The good news is this simply doesn’t happen (in civilized modern countries).
People with more money don’t buy twice as much bread, they buy other things.
The bread maker is still competing with milk producers and video game makers and artists.
You can read about price elasticity for more details (and to not just take my word for it.)
Highly inelastic goods (water, transportation, eggs) are the most likely to have runaway price increases.
But civilized countries already have public options to supply these items at cost :public water, public transport, food stamps.
This means we already have the necessary buffers against any impact by UBI. Any provider of an inelastic good who raises their price too far loses business to the public option.
Schwinn and Ferrari will all see slightly more sales with UBI as a few people use their additional income to purchase a bicycle or a supercar, but the bus lines must still run to keep them honest.
The risk is minimal because we already know what public consumption of these goods looks like, when they’re free or heavily subsidized, in each civilized country.
I’m not saying people buy more bread, I’m saying the baker ups his prices for a single loaf and blames it on inflation.
The milk producer follows suit, citing the same reasons, as do the video game publishers. For evidence of this, look at the price gouging that all retailers did in recent years for absolutely no good justification.
But civilized countries already have public options to supply these items at cost :public water, public transport, food stamps.
This is the one saving factor I can see. Having some kind of free or subsidized alternative that industry simply cannot complete with, and forces them to reduce their prices. God I wish this was more prevalent.
Public water isn’t a thing in the UK. It looks like it is from the outside, but it’s all monopoly owned to the entity in your area.
In a better world where corporations would rather compete than collude, and where small business can thrive on little capital without being bullied out of the market by bigger players
So capitalism is broken, you say? Broken to the point of needing to be replaced, you say? With a system that gives power to the people instead of corporations, you say? You make a compelling argument.
I completely agree. I just don’t think dumping money at people which will be gobbled up immediately by price gouging food/shelter is the solution. Change the economy to a planned or resource-based one. Or add more competition to the market by having government provide cheap alternatives to food/shelter.
I don’t fully agree with whom you’re arguing with. But I will point out we’ve seen many markets and producers like eggs or rent - Colluding to raise prices in a similar manner.
Basically ration it. Citizen #1346733 each month is allowed:
two loaves of bread (any ingredient makeup as individuals have individual needs)
Standard Issue: house credit
Standard Issue: water credit
Standard Issue: electric credit
etc.
Standard Issue Credits are expected to cover the complete cost of the median citizen’s usage. Citizens can pool credits to afford larger houses, e.g., families of four would have 4x credits to spend.
This is extremely easy to implement with (evil, no good) blockchain, have government issue them, citizens spend them, merchants resell them back to government.
I agree with the socialism part, but I’m not picking up on the authoritarian overtones. I would want a system like this to be flexible to meet the basic living needs of each person and would view it as more of a stepping stone to a post-scarcity society.
These things already exist. Credit scores determine whether or not you can buy a house in certain neighborhoods. People are being deported for their political beliefs. The US has the largest prison population on the planet, both per capita and sheer numbers. When/if you do get out of prison, felonies stay with you the rest of your life, even for something ridiculous like marijuana possession.
You’re worried about a hypothetical when there’s the real thing right in front of you.
That’s where things like decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) and smart contracts could come into play. Maybe we could start implementing this without ever involving the government at all.
I understand how this works in small groups, the price of bread isn’t going to go up if only a few people are richer.
I do wonder how this works for everyone.
I’m all for a more equal society, but I’m just not sure about UBI having the desired effect
Jeff Bezos spent $600 million on his wedding. I think that we as a society can afford to pay people enough that they don’t have to worry about starving.
I completely agree
That’s not the issue though.
The issue is stopping Jeff Bezos from saying, oh neat, everyone in the country is being paid a free $500 a month. How do we increase our prices to dip into that without people noticing?
Landlords are going to be a bigger problem in this regard than old Jeff is. Everyone is getting a free $500 every month? Well rent will be increasing by $600 soon. Market forces, you know. Naturally they’ll all collude together to make sure nobody is getting left behind or more importantly, undercutting the competition; and we know this will happen because this already happens without the UBI even being involved.
Good point, in The Netherlands they increased the amount of money you can borrow when buying a house from 100% to 102% of the property value so people had a better shot at buying a house. Later research showed basically the only parting benefiting from this were the banks, the biggest losers were the people that bought their first house because they had to compete with others who all had 2% (of the property value) more to offer.
If you want to switch a whole nation to UBI you’d probably want some market rules extra as well, to smooth over the transition period.
Why don’t we have fixed prices for absolute essentials right now? There no unmanageable reason any farmer should earn any less over it, and we don’t really want unchecked capitalism governing our prices of bread/milk/eggs/whatever your essentials are.
Yeah, that’s kind of what I’m thinking – with the extra step of, why bother with UBI at all, and why not just go for a completely planned economy.
Yes, a bit like China, and no it doesn’t have to be so authoritarian.
It will be though. That’s the problem. Capitalism allows efficient use of resources, but concentrates wealth at the top. A planned economy concentrates power in the decision makers, who fall to corruption.
No. Free markets do. Socialist societies don’t have to run on planned economies, they can just as well utilize free markets just like capitalism does. It’s a misunderstanding that I often encounter in these discussions, the media over the past decades has pushed to associate planned economic structures with socialism and it’s hard to disassociate these two now.
I don’t think free market and planned economy mix easily, a government has to be very clear on where the lines are. If you plan for example the amount of bread baked and the price bread is sold for, but you don’t regulate that for cookies you might find a lot of cookie bakers using subsidized bread instead of unsubsidized flour. Probably better examples out there, but you get my point.
I’m not sure if you’re getting my point. Socialism is NOT about free markets vs planned economies. One of the main tennets in socialism is about the ownership of the means of production being in the worker’s hands. Basically, democratic ownership of the company you work for. This does NOT mean that companies among themselves can not compete in an open market. It’s about bringing democratic values to the economic, not just the political realm.
On the contrary, you have many capitalistic examples today of companies in private hands that can maintain a (near) monopoly on specific industries while heavily relying on government contracts, i.e. planned budgets distributed by the government.
Don’t conflate the ownership of the means of production with the idea of a free market.
Now you explain how you define socialism I understand a lot better what you mean.
I think putting companies in the hands of employees rather than external shareholders would be a big improvement on our current systems. Having others be able to invest in a company (by getting shares in return) is great, but once they at one point sell these shares to someone who only wants profits and an increase in company valuation the employees get the shorter end of the stick (which eventually results in them having bad working conditions and low pay).
I think youre mixing up socialism with centralized control. Also, generally the means of production being owned by the workers means it is taken by the state on behalf of the workers, in practice.
Socialism can take on many forms. Just like there are many forms of democracy, autocracy, capitalism, etc. By itself, socialism does not imply centralized control. At all. In fact, the often stated goal of communist ideologies is the complete abolition of the state and self governance by the people in small communes, hence the name.
Yeah this has been the case in the past but it doesn’t have to be. The Soviet Union was, in my opinion, a terrible example of a democratic and socialist state.
To illustrate my point, a socialist company structure can simply distribute voting shares to the workers and thereby democratize it. If you don’t work there, you can’t have a say of what investments are made and how profits are distributed. No state or government involvement needed. No revolution needed.
Btw I’m not a hardcore socialist, I just think that there are many misconceptions about what socialism is and what it is not, which limits our understanding of what we can actually achieve when we want to get rid of the current, toxic system.
I wish there were another way, but I just don’t have that much faith in my fellow man to do the right thing if a decent anarchy took place. I suppose I prefer an economy where the power is concentrated on elected officials.
As long as those officials can be held accountable, or have extremely fixed terms, then maybe that’s a model that can function
The big thing about ubi is it does not require the bureaucracy around applying for it and further its there when you need it right away. Lose a job, reitire, become disabled ; you still have income coming in. You working a good job and you will be paying as much or more in taxes than its making you. One thing I encounter is folks who think this will be extra money for everyone but it really only become significant the less well you are doing. So if its iffy that your job can meet rent the ubi saves your bacon, you lookin to buy a vacation place and its not really doing much for you. In some ways it would be like social security for all.
So that’s an implementation I can understand: you only qualify for it if you really need it, and the more you need it, the more you are subsidized.
If everyone gets the same lump sum regardless of income, that’s the part I hold issue with
no you always get it as that is where you get the bureaucracy savings. Its just paid for with usual progressive taxes so at some point you are paying as much taxes as you get and eventually more than you get same as taxes work now. If you lose your job though your taxes will be lower so the payments become important. You get rid of standard deductions and such because the ubi comes in as non taxable so you can start at 5% for any earnings and then like 10% at 10k and over and so on just like the progressive system works now. Its important that everyone gets it though because again no paperwork to get it when you need it. Its there when you need it and at higher levels it offsets your taxes basically.
I don’t understand a lot of what you wrote, sorry
Evryone has UBI they receive it for being breathing. It covers your basics. You want more for some luxury? Go work get more.
That’s the most boiled down version I can come up with.
I thought that was the argument, but wasn’t sure. I can only really repeat that this looks rational from the perspective of the individual, but from the perspective of the retailer, what’s stopping me from raising my prices for basic goods if I know that more people have disposable income?
Your competor who will undercut your high prices to get your customers.
I’d believe that if we hadn’t just witnessed all food retailers simultaneously jacking up their prices recently and blaming inflation for it.
So everyone gets a check regularly, no qualification needed except citizenship, but its just enough to get by. As you are more successful you end up paying more taxes than you get. So if you can’t work you have just enough to get by. If you make just enough to get by with work you will pay some in taxes but with the ubi you will likely be able to live a bit better and not be right on the line. If you made enough to be living that bit better you are likely paying close to as much in taxes as what you are getting in ubi. If you make enough at work to be doing pretty well you will be paying more in tax than what you get and that will continue the higher you go. Rather than having forms and qualification and taxes paying for folks to decide if you deserve help you just let the progressive tax system handle it.
Thanks. I can understand from the perspective of reducing bureaucracy and that through progressive taxation that richer folks benefit less from it, but I still don’t quite follow how this will not lead to inflation.
Imagine, I’m a food retailer. My goal is to make money, and I basically own the market. All of my customers plus some new ones suddenly have way more disposable income. Why wouldn’t I gouge my prices up?
It’s not really “way more”. They’re still only going to spend what they wanted to spend before.
The money also isn’t created out of thin air, it’s obtained through taxes on higher incomes and businesses.
I guess I’m still not getting it. If I’m being taxed more as a greedy corporation, isn’t that even more justification to jack up my prices on my customers who can afford a little more?
Why not do it anyway without ubi. They have no competition I assume given the scenario you give. People can’t shop somewhere else I assume under your scenario.
Well they have done it anyway, but reached an equilibrium where they all might start losing customers
It can’t be the only policy. A universal right to a job and basic necessities makes the UBI a self-actualisation tool. Otherwise it goes to rent and food.
But then you don’t need UBI with a Job Guarantee program with a strong social safety net / high enough unemployment benefit.
And those are counter cyclical by nature, so they are like an automatic fiscal stimulus in recessions, unlike UBI.
Right, that makes sense. Some kind of guarantee needs to be given that the bottom base won’t just be raised again.
I buy a loaf of bread every week, you buy a loaf of bread every week. We get ubi. Do we buy 2 loaves of bread every week with the extra income? I hear this every once in a while and don’t understand what makes the price go up.
For housing I can see it, because so many are going without right now or renting and demand will climb with extra buying power. In my eyes that just means we need more built, and a higher price with proportionally less impact might encourage that building
As income inequality keeps climbing, the current system does much worse, with most of the buying power incentivising production of what only the wealthy can afford. Taking some of their buying power and giving purchasing agency to those who don’t have it would incentivise production of things they would want instead. Vote with your wallet but the vote is more fair
Well the baker, knowing that everyone has twice as much money, puts his prices up because he knows the market can bear it. That’s the way I reason it. Same with the landlord.
The only way I see that not happening is if the gov’t literally fixes the prices of certain goods, which is already half way to a planned economy.
Or the government itself enters the food/housing market and competes against private firms with cheaper alternatives, forcing the firms to reduce their prices.
I wish we could have a society where rising prices just because you can was frowned upon by everyone
amen
Prices are set by supply and demand, not by sellers thinking the market can bear it. If a baker raises their prices then eaters can just go to a different baker.
If demand increases because fewer people are struggling AND supply can’t increase at the same rate then yes there could be price increases. But it’s because of the demand, not just because the sellers want it.
In the case of housing where supply can’t increase very quickly, yeah rents could go up a bit. So there needs to be plenty of new social housing built by the government alongside UBI, to supply enough to meet demand.
Some other inflationary effects could be counteracted by taxing the shit out of the rich.
UBI at nation-state scale wouldn’t happen in isolation, there would be various other policies happening at the same time.
Yeah I’m starting to see this.
I’m also hoping for this
Food retailers have all jacked up their prices in recent years without any hint of a food shortage. They just made the crocodile’s worst out of a dire situation and blamed it on inflation.
The good news is this simply doesn’t happen (in civilized modern countries).
People with more money don’t buy twice as much bread, they buy other things.
The bread maker is still competing with milk producers and video game makers and artists.
You can read about
price elasticityfor more details (and to not just take my word for it.)Highly inelastic goods (water, transportation, eggs) are the most likely to have runaway price increases.
But civilized countries already have public options to supply these items at cost :public water, public transport, food stamps.
This means we already have the necessary buffers against any impact by UBI. Any provider of an inelastic good who raises their price too far loses business to the public option.
Schwinn and Ferrari will all see slightly more sales with UBI as a few people use their additional income to purchase a bicycle or a supercar, but the bus lines must still run to keep them honest.
The risk is minimal because we already know what public consumption of these goods looks like, when they’re free or heavily subsidized, in each civilized country.
I’m not saying people buy more bread, I’m saying the baker ups his prices for a single loaf and blames it on inflation.
The milk producer follows suit, citing the same reasons, as do the video game publishers. For evidence of this, look at the price gouging that all retailers did in recent years for absolutely no good justification.
This is the one saving factor I can see. Having some kind of free or subsidized alternative that industry simply cannot complete with, and forces them to reduce their prices. God I wish this was more prevalent.
Public water isn’t a thing in the UK. It looks like it is from the outside, but it’s all monopoly owned to the entity in your area.
And then the next baker just has to offer their bread at lower prices to gain an advantage. Seems like the sacred free market would solve this.
In a better world where corporations would rather compete than collude, and where small business can thrive on little capital without being bullied out of the market by bigger players
So capitalism is broken, you say? Broken to the point of needing to be replaced, you say? With a system that gives power to the people instead of corporations, you say? You make a compelling argument.
I completely agree. I just don’t think dumping money at people which will be gobbled up immediately by price gouging food/shelter is the solution. Change the economy to a planned or resource-based one. Or add more competition to the market by having government provide cheap alternatives to food/shelter.
I don’t fully agree with whom you’re arguing with. But I will point out we’ve seen many markets and producers like eggs or rent - Colluding to raise prices in a similar manner.
Basically ration it. Citizen #1346733 each month is allowed:
Standard Issue Credits are expected to cover the complete cost of the median citizen’s usage. Citizens can pool credits to afford larger houses, e.g., families of four would have 4x credits to spend.
This is extremely easy to implement with (evil, no good) blockchain, have government issue them, citizens spend them, merchants resell them back to government.
Agreed, but sounds more like socialism with authoritarian overtones. I don’t see why we’d need UBI
I agree with the socialism part, but I’m not picking up on the authoritarian overtones. I would want a system like this to be flexible to meet the basic living needs of each person and would view it as more of a stepping stone to a post-scarcity society.
The whole social credit thing sounds like something that could easily be taken away depending on your political beliefs
These things already exist. Credit scores determine whether or not you can buy a house in certain neighborhoods. People are being deported for their political beliefs. The US has the largest prison population on the planet, both per capita and sheer numbers. When/if you do get out of prison, felonies stay with you the rest of your life, even for something ridiculous like marijuana possession.
You’re worried about a hypothetical when there’s the real thing right in front of you.
I agree largely, but we still live in a society where you don’t need to pass a credit score to get groceries.
How will removing that not be seen as authoritarian?
That’s where things like decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) and smart contracts could come into play. Maybe we could start implementing this without ever involving the government at all.
You don’t need anything. You observe problems and propose/ test solutions.
This was a test.
Feel fucking free to propose different solutions or spin up your own fucking tests.
Or… Keep being vaguely negative without any, ANY corresponding arguments
Fair: government provides cheaper alternatives to food retailers and housing, forcing said entities to push their prices down to compete.
No credit needed, no single source for food or shelter.
That’s my whole solution.