Don't Let Universal Basic Income Become a Scam
While universal basic income will likely be a necessity in the new economic status quo, we shouldn't allow it to become a scam to mostly benefit the ultra-rich, oligarchs, and huge corporations
Let me know your thoughts!
My video is at DLive
UBI is and always will be a scam. It is impossible to implement it without hurting a group of people. It will either steal value from the rich, or hurt the poor through currency devaluation. It will foster a generation of helpless and brainless individuals. The freedom movement shouldn't be used to push a globalist/socialist hell.
Not sure I agree, but it certainly COULD hurt people if implemented incorrectly.
Based off of history, people trying to control economies with toggles and switches ends poorly. Look at the federal reserve. They don't tend to get things right, and those individuals went to harvard.
'It will either steal value from the rich'
No, the rich get the money back, and it grows the economy faster. It's giving to the rich.
'or hurt the poor through currency devaluation.'
That only happens when you print money, not when you distribute already existing money.
'globalist/socialist hell.'
It's capitalist. It's the purest expression of capitalism. What we have now is more socialist than UBI. Half the point of UBI is that it burns the welfare state to the ground.
UBI would be through the government and nothing else. essentially welfare. And no the rich don't get that money back. You're assuming that 100% of the currency would be spent back into the economy. Unless a ridiculous tax is placed on the middle class incentivizing them to spend all of their money (which would shove them down the class system even farther). About half of it would be syphoned off to pay the inefficient government employees' salaries. You can't constantly redistribute money with a scarce currency, it would have to be with fiat, so the currency would rapidly devalue. It's not capitalist unless its voluntary, which I don't see happening voluntarily.
'You're assuming that 100% of the currency would be spent back into the economy. '
It does. We have proven this.
'Unless a ridiculous tax is placed on the middle class incentivizing them to spend all of their money'
You mean like they do and did in the middle of the last century?
'About half of it would be syphoned off to pay the inefficient government employees' salaries.'
Well that's not UBI, so irrelevant. You can't say 'oh if we assume it's gonna fail it's gonna fail'.
'You can't constantly redistribute money with a scarce currency, it would have to be with fiat, so the currency would rapidly devalue.'
Okay, I'll bite: what are you basing this on?
'It's not capitalist unless its voluntary, which I don't see happening voluntarily.'
It's quite voluntary. No one's forcing you to do anything. If you don't like it, you can leave. Free market. Find another country that doesn't want to do this.
100% of the currency would eventually be spent back into the economy, but American spending and saving habits that are based so much on emotion would create instability in the economy like it always does. ergo, when people think times are bad, everyone hoards their money and times do become bad because of poor currency circulation.
Yes, the tax on the middle class that they are using now is the same idea. And does it work? no.
UBI WILL be used by governments there will not be a free market implementation. It will be paraded as though it is something designed by free and willing people, but governments will coopt it and turn it into a scam just like everything else. I get that in a perfect world it could be feasible, but not in the political system we have today. The gov is power hungry.
On the topic of scarce currency. If you look back in history of why the federal reserve was created along with a fiat air-backed currency, you'll hear people say "a gold back currency is to unstable" but the fact of the matter is that people just have unstable emotions when it comes to their money. Like I stated in the paragraph above, "when people think times are bad, everyone hoards their money and times do become bad because of poor currency circulation." So, the money wasn't unstable, but people were. When you have a scarce currency, you can't pull levers, redistribute, and "control" the economy like they attempt to today. Using a scarce currency with UBI gives the potential for hoarding. Scarce curency incentivizes to save, no cap currency incentivizes to spend. That's why you would have to use 'fiat' and why the money's purchasing power would eventually be destroyed, but much quicker than normal considering people are given the money without producing any value, making it much easier for them to let go of it through spending. Faster circulation = rapid inflation.
I get your theory that a free market COULD (and by the way I would welcome it in a free market) implement a sort of UBI, but do you really think we would be able to move forward with that without a government having control over it?
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.
Saved this for later. What do you think of the idea of a public job guarantee instead of a UBI @davidpakman?