Letters they didn’t publish

To The Guardian:

April 22 2021

Sirs,

Many economists like the idea of a universal basic income because it increases the consumption possibilities of the people who receive it. Similarly, there is support for the universal provision of goods and services because it removes income as a constraint upon consumption. Professor Simon Lewis (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/22/earth-day-environmental-catastrophe-policy) then recommends both to reduce consumption.

Is there something in the water at UCL? Should we be staging an intervention? Or was the error in the publishing schedule and the first day of this month was missed?

Yours etc

Tim Worstall
Senior Fellow
Adam Smith Institute
23 Great Smith St
London SW1

2 thoughts on “Letters they didn’t publish”

  1. They didn’t publish it because the point is obvious. Putting the government in charge of the universal provision of goods and services is a proven and guaranteed way to reduce consumption, so Professor Lewis is right.

  2. And putting the government in charge of handing out money is equally proven to guarantee impecunity (cf. foodbanks).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *