Respectfully you're really begging some questions here.
You first point is 'what if when we get basic income, it's not basic' Well. Then we didn't get basic income, did we? We got sub basic income, and we need to get basic income.
I don't mean to dismiss the point about the Oligarch who're creating this injustic are often the ones pushing for it, but for the most part this is problem that solves itself. If they don't distribute the resources fairly, then they don't reap the benefits of a consumer class. Again: begging the question.
I can't remember the name of the logic phenomenon, Occam's razor? but there's something along the lines of: The simplest explanation is often the best one. When the oligarchs realise that they're fueling a revolt, and say they want to create a society free from the depredations of unfettered capitalism, it's a fairly safe bet that they're serious.
I'm not going to say that costs are going to be fixed by UBI, although there's significant literature saying it will fix price problems like in school... but you're sounding like Milton Friedman here.
Labour's dying. Worker participation's falling as production rises. Although I admit this may come across as callous, it's illogical to say that labour is a concern; it's dead, Jim. Saying that we're going to have trouble with minimum wage and working conditions is like saying we're going to have trouble with spinning wheels and ox-carts when we hit industrialisation.
I don't mean to sound dismissive, you've got a lot of good points, but the entire purpose of basic income is emancipation from the workplace. If you're in the workplace you don't have UBI. It's one or the other, is there still labour, or do you have UBI?
The problems from Walmart and McDicks are that workers need the jobs, and can't negotiate with their employers hence. With UBI the people working don't need the job, and can stay at home instead, start a business (a business boosted by everyone having dosh), volunteer, help their neighbours etc. and create GDP in other ways. Again: if the workers can't negotiate with their employers b/c they need the job, then you don't really have UBI, so you can't blame it on UBI.
It's fair to say that this is all theory, considering UBI hasn't been used yet (on a large scale). You do make good points, thanks for the discussion. If you have any good articles relating to the matter would you mind sending them my way?
Hey sorry it's taken me so long to respond, I've been sick all week, Migraine, insomnia, and now the flu...
Anyways: I'm glad to see that you're open minded towards this idea, and not an ideologue. To be honest: I'm not really the 'article' type of person, I tend to go straight to the source, b/c I find writers tend to distort... everything. So I usually read economists and philosophers. A good run over of the main benefits and drawbacks, although rather superficial is this:
Also skimming over the wiki article, it represents all the arguments for it quite well... as well as the arguments against it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a blind follower of this idea. I think the theory's sound, even brilliant, but if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. The real life trials are so far working phenominally, but if at some point it proves unworkable, I'm not going to keep pushing it.
You're not wrong to think that it could be manipulated by the globalists, and you're not wrong to think that it could be manipulated by the banks. We need to get them in check too. But at the same time, there's almost no system that they can't corrupt so it's hardly an argument against UBI.
I may be a liberal, but I'm also a libertarian. I believe in small government. Check out the arguments for small government, the wiki article lists some. You're afraid of corruption, which isn't unwise, I don't think it's a problem, but UBI addresses it significantly. Since it flattens the benefits system it makes it way harder to misappropriate funds. The system is transparent to everyone, and no corporations can exploit it to anywhere near the degree that they exploit current welfare. Add onto this the fact that the current welfare system doesn't even help everyone. So it's a win win win.
One interesting thought is that mining fees from a blockchain that supports our banking system in the future could be automatically distributed to the public. I do now see UBI could have value, but the only issue is that its policy and functionality shouldn't be controlled by any group of people, it should just be a "dividend" if you will.
'...it should just be a "dividend" if you will.'
I just said the EXACT same thing on Youtube in the comments. Yes I entirely agree. Also on your first point too.
Yeah I think a dividend would work better than setting a predetermined amount based on a subjective view of a standard of living.
I'm open to that idea, although I was more thinking of small government most of the time. That is: bare means of living. Not like, struggling to survive, but the 'American dream' style of living.
But the idea of dividending societal progress could have some significant merit to it. But at the same time: I'm afraid of the risk that it could make globalism run amok. If you start cutting the people in on Empire, aren't you incentivising empire? I'm not convinced that that's the natural conclusion, but I believe in considering all risks.
Oh, and another thing to bear in mind: UBI isn't a leftwing policy, it's a right wing, libertarian policy from the Heritage foundation. The key goals of it are to minimise government, and to harness capitalism's inherent strengths/purpose.
I'd like to point out that what you said about being forced to participate in the market makes it not capitalism is false. You have to participate in the real life market, no man is an island, as it were.
Also I'm not saying there's no risk corruption in this system. I think there's far less than there is in the current capitalist and welfare systems, since UBI is designed to kill it, but we still must be vigilant.