When governments print money (create new money) to pay out a Universal Basic Income to everyone it causes what's called "Currency Debasement" and effectively steals purchasing power from all the pre-existing holders of that currency via inflation of that currency. In the SBI scenario it takes the future purchasing power of genuine content creators from the reward pool.
Alternatively governments could fund UBI via increased taxation which is a more direct theft of purchasing power - generally from productive members of society.
In more insane scenarios the workers are paying taxes just so the government can give it right back to them in the form of a UBI. It is typical government inserting itself where it doesn't need to be, nor belong.
I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful response, @buggedout. You make good points and the economic dynamics you point out are very real. I don't have a counter to the points you're making, but I would challenge you to reflect more on the fundamental dynamics of fiat currency and the impacts they produce in the modern economy.
I do want to make a distinction between UBI and BI. Where Universal Basic Income is a significant monthly outlay ($2,000/month), and a Basic Income is a scaling amount amount of guaranteed payments - which is what we have here on Hive.
There is an odd paradox in the finance world where that has given rise to the mantra of money is cheap. What does this mean? Well, with the right corporate structure, you can effectively access capital (cash) for free - see the zero/near-zero environment at global central banks. I believe there is a direct correlation to fiat currency and its lack of material asset backing that lends to the overvaluation of equities - creating market bubbles. How can we accurately price companies if the primary resource (fiat) we're using to determine market has no stable materiality. This dynamic explains why basic business fundamentals (profitability, revenue, assets, liabilities and growth potential) are largely secondary in the market. With gold no longer acting as the floor for our currency, we now have to factor in subjective dynamics to better understand currency prices - essentially requiring the USD to reflect the brand value of the United States.
Despite money being free to corporates, at the very same time, economic inequality is increasing at unprecedented rates. Could it be that this dynamic of cheap capital is the root cause of global inequity? I believe that the low growth economic environment is due to economic inequality. How do you expect individuals in the general public to reinvest their money in the economy and start businesses while more of their free cash flow is going towards basic needs. Despite unprecedented technological advancement, leading to the creation of modern marvels like the internet and mobile phones, general income has not kept pace with inflation over the past 30 years. This dynamic is a result of governance decisions made by executives and their boards, who mostly recognize employees as secondary to shareholders - which is known as stakeholder primacy. Most businesses exist to support the distribution of products and services, but the principle priority for any publicly traded company (the biggest companies) is returning value to shareholders - which has little relation to ensuring value for stakeholders.
At the end of the day, economic outlays (government welfare) are going to happen - be it to organizations or individuals, it can't be just one or the other, but there has to be a careful balance. While I do agree that there are potentially significant risks in the creation of a UBI program, I think inaction has a significantly worse outcome. Corporate welfare, cheap money, has been in existence for a while, and the intermediaries (banks) that stand in the way of individuals receiving the same benefits will have to face this reality - as this was the promise of Decentralized Finance.
A consistent UBI, distributed monthly, will create an economically attractive financial signal, allowing governments and economic research institutions view of a financial "heartbeart" - with which they can better understand and predict economic movements on a month basis. It effectively restores the "floor" of the economy by ensuring that economic activity shouldn't go below a certain percentage of monthly outlays.
As it relates to HIVE, I am in agreement with both you and @ctime that the existence of SBI creates the potential of more low quality content receiving a payment, but with the existence of curation teams, I trust that the upvote/downvote system will continue to function the way it is intended, ensuring that quality posts remains at the top. It's counter-intuitive for me to want to support spam, and I obviously want a healthy content ecosystem.
Also, congratulations, you're the first to receive one of the SBI sponsorships! You're welcome to downvote yourself if you feel consistent payments are unfair.
🥰
This is quite a wall of text. I'm not going to write an essay in response, but if you're interested in learning more about economics and the current situation have a read up about the Cantillon Effect
Basically what the US (and other central powers) are doing is throwing UBI type payments at the poor to pay them off, while they simultaneously execute massive bail-outs of the big banks, corporations and even municipal governments. This is classic smoke and mirrors stuff and it's the reason we have growing wealth inequality. Tip - It's going to get worse.
The ones who are really getting screwed are the middle class. The engine of the Western economies. Small businesses are getting destroyed.
Thank for for the recommendation, I'll give it a look.
I believe you and I share similar opinions. Bailouts are happening independent of the further welfare programs. Profits are privatized, losses are socialized.
At this point, the question is whether or not there is going to be a safety net or not.
Hi @circa,
I followed this dialogue with interest and want to contribute my thoughts.
Any form of business that goes beyond the existential into the luxurious is basically a job creation, so that people feel useful in this world and get the assurance that their work makes sense. In many cases, however, this sense is very thin.
This is not dramatic in principle, if we admit to ourselves that most of what we do is basically to pass the time. If I am not concerned with carrying water, planting and harvesting, then I am already on the next level of an existence which, if it were limited to planting and harvesting alone, would find its only meaning precisely in this and would shape its culture in such a way that it would make sense around these activities. We moderns no longer have this self-understanding. A difficult circumstance that throws us back on ourselves. To find a relaxed form of living with one another in such a sometimes rather artificial form of existence - job creation - is a difficulty that we encounter again and again.
There is nothing wrong with that if I am to fulfil my basic needs.
It is interesting to deal with this question for a longer period of time and to linger for a while asking myself why I actually want to do business beyond my basic needs. Isn't it enough that I have a good roof over my head and enough to eat? Why not?
What else do I need beyond my basic needs? My answer is that I also create culture, that I like to experience art, crafting, music, dance, storytelling and sports activities and being in nature as meaningful. But to turn it into a business? That's the current status quo, isn't it?
So you could look at it like this: the 1% rich must have a very strong interest in making it possible to continue doing business at all costs, because without the many businesses they would miss out on a considerable part of human desire.
A community of people who are completely focused on their basic needs alone are actually a threat for the big business makers in this world. If we just feed and shelter one another and that would be all of what business in terms of money provides for it would weaken big businesses when people do not charge each other for other forms of activities.
Thank you for sharing, @erh.germany. You make many good points.
I believe you captured it well here.
It is my worry, as an American, that our economic and commercial institutions in our country have lost sight these very vital activities through outsourcing and offshoring to the point that the everyday citizen doesn't understand how their basic needs are met - creating an complex and uncertain environment.
Our largest economic structures are built up around entertainment, technology, finance - which are relatively luxuries - but these tend to fall at the higher end of a pyramid, above and dependent on basic needs.
I believe the introduction of the (for profit) business model (and thus the underlying principles, standards, norms) actually degrades the output of culturally-oriented organizations. We should, as society, collectively agree that the organizations who support a strong social fabric should not be dependent on profit-making. I see blockchain ecosystems playing an essential role here by providing consistent access to capital without explicitly requiring the production of material goods.
Agreed. If society optimized the sharing economy well enough, we wouldn't need commerce.
There are no easy answers on the issue of profitmaking ... But privatizing hospitals and all facilities which provide for the care of people is not the way to go for a good mindset of citizens or communities.
I am sorry, I keep my answer short because I think we do agree in our world views.
Hello @buggedout,
Your arguments make sense if you consider "government" and "people" as separate systems. Governments can only redistribute through existing concepts financed by taxes and social security contributions. The whole thing is already a big and complex redistribution, no matter what concept or name is written on it.
There is currently no model that would be any different.
So it makes no difference what people say about governments, because this concept of external provision has been going on long before we were born.
All people who do not live in self-sufficiency units (pure agrarian societies) live under the conditions of money distribution, i.e. under the decisions that this money distribution system makes available. There is no other way. If you did not want to have redistribution, you would have to leave the system completely and live a completely self-sufficient life. This is impossible in modern societies.
Since there is already a basic income, but it only has a different name and is linked to certain conditions, the only reason for this is psychological. Not a financial one. Financing can always be achieved if one has the will.
You will never achieve a model by not taking something from you, that much should be clear. To what extent you feel that this is a theft committed against you is a subjective consideration. There are no unproductive people. Just the fact that you have to live and feed yourself, that you have to be mobile, that you need access to modern means of communication, you are already part of productivity, no matter whether you are still in gainful employment or not. Everyone MUST expend energy in order to stay alive, they must be able to feed themselves and move around to get at least the bare necessities. From this point of view, every person who is alive is already productive. If someone were not productive in this sense, he would be dead.
How do you personally want to live? What is your idea of living together?
If a government belongs there or not depends on if the country is a welfare state. The US is not, but many european countries are. For those countries, the simplicity of a UBI might actually save them money compared to the current situation, resulting in reduced taxes.