If foreign expertise isn't used you just have a much smaller volume of production. This is the problem with you people, you see the world as a zero sum game. You rather the poor get poorer than the rich get richer.
If 75% of the profits are accruing to foreign nationals, the Indonesian economy probably doesn't get enough mass for progressive taxation and redistribution of those to poor people.
A UBI increases consumption and may reduce poverty via its redistributive effects, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the best tool for developing the overall productive capacity of an economy.
Whether an UBI funded via resource rents is the ideal policy for Indonesia depends on if you prioritise reducing inequality and poverty via wealth redistribution, or if you prioritise growing and diversifying Indonesia's economy. Whether you prioritize carving up the economic pie more equally and fairly, or if you prioritize growing the pie overall.
To be very clear, both are important goals, but when you're working with a limited and finite pool of resources in a given moment, you need to accept the realities that there will be limits to what you can achieve, and that you may have to accept certain trade-offs between differing objectives.
The Indonesian government's main macroeconomic priorities aren't just to redistribute wealth, they're also to boost productivity, spur economic diversification, and increase value-adding and move Indonesia up the global value chain. And to achieve these broad objectives, it has a limited and finite pool of resources, such as funding, which it can use.
There are opportunity costs in every decision the Indonesian government makes when it decides where to allocate funding and resources, in that a decision to allocate funding/resources towards one program, such as funding for a UBI, means that these same resources aren't available to be allocated towards other programs, such as funding for an infrastructure program.
The same money that's redistributed via a UBI could be used to build much needed infrastructure, or increase funding for secondary and tertiary education, or provide seed capital for new industries that may create good job opportunities and economic diversification for Indonesia.
It could be used for all manner of different policies, many of which would be far more likely to contribute to the economic productivity, diversification, and value-adding of the Indonesian economy than a UBI would.
So again, there isn't exactly a right or wrong answer to the question of if a UBI funded via resource rents should be introduced in Indonesia. It just depends on what priorities you believe Indonesia should focus on using the finite pool of resources it currently has.
If foreign expertise isn't used you just have a much smaller volume of production. This is the problem with you people, you see the world as a zero sum game. You rather the poor get poorer than the rich get richer.
Wouldn't most Indonesians been better off if the government just imposed a resource rent tax and gave everyone a ubi?
If 75% of the profits are accruing to foreign nationals, the Indonesian economy probably doesn't get enough mass for progressive taxation and redistribution of those to poor people.
Depends on the economic priorities.
A UBI increases consumption and may reduce poverty via its redistributive effects, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the best tool for developing the overall productive capacity of an economy.
Whether an UBI funded via resource rents is the ideal policy for Indonesia depends on if you prioritise reducing inequality and poverty via wealth redistribution, or if you prioritise growing and diversifying Indonesia's economy. Whether you prioritize carving up the economic pie more equally and fairly, or if you prioritize growing the pie overall.
To be very clear, both are important goals, but when you're working with a limited and finite pool of resources in a given moment, you need to accept the realities that there will be limits to what you can achieve, and that you may have to accept certain trade-offs between differing objectives.
The Indonesian government's main macroeconomic priorities aren't just to redistribute wealth, they're also to boost productivity, spur economic diversification, and increase value-adding and move Indonesia up the global value chain. And to achieve these broad objectives, it has a limited and finite pool of resources, such as funding, which it can use.
There are opportunity costs in every decision the Indonesian government makes when it decides where to allocate funding and resources, in that a decision to allocate funding/resources towards one program, such as funding for a UBI, means that these same resources aren't available to be allocated towards other programs, such as funding for an infrastructure program.
The same money that's redistributed via a UBI could be used to build much needed infrastructure, or increase funding for secondary and tertiary education, or provide seed capital for new industries that may create good job opportunities and economic diversification for Indonesia.
It could be used for all manner of different policies, many of which would be far more likely to contribute to the economic productivity, diversification, and value-adding of the Indonesian economy than a UBI would.
So again, there isn't exactly a right or wrong answer to the question of if a UBI funded via resource rents should be introduced in Indonesia. It just depends on what priorities you believe Indonesia should focus on using the finite pool of resources it currently has.