Seems to be the final play of the technocratic class to attempt to maintain legitimacy through the welfare card.
Failing that, we'll probably see full on slide into reactionary modernism.
I agree with this. If the planetary work machine ever finds itself prone on its back awaiting the final blow, I imagine it will raise its hands in front of its face and scream "basic income! basic income! mercy". It is the trump card they can always play if fascistic domination is rejected en masse. Though, if the population is angry and rabid enough to elicit that concession, they may be angry enough not to be satisfied with it as well.
I find the concept to much more conceivable and realistic than anarchism in our lifetime. I really don't see how modern society will be able to go much longer without some countries instituting some form of UBI.
I'd much rather not have the need for it, but so long as we have States and Capitalism, it's far and away the superior option within the system that we have in front of us.
For those that might be more interested, feel free to join us over at /r/BasicIncome
In agreement on all points here. At the very least, it'll give people the scratch they need to start creating alternative living situations that are generally less state- and capital-dependent.
However, I do believe that it may function merely as a form of subsidy to landlords, which leads me further to believe that a land lottery is probably in the long term interest of any such idea so that its purpose isn't undermined.
It seems to me to just be a slightly more modern version of your typical welfare state, which is superior to neoliberal capitalism but still not great. The problem I see is that the international mobility of capital has progressively undermined the tax base required for social democracy, meaning that it simply couldn't be funded.
I support it immensely, yet I am extremely torn.
On the one hand, a basic income would provide us all with the ability to live, which helps to alleviate general unhappiness, stress, health problems, etc ., and also help to lower things like crime.
On the other hand, it is capitalism itself that is to blame for most of these problems in the first place; all the wealth is headed to the upper class, and all the structural violence we see is simply symptomatic of that...
We would be supporting the state, and supporting the continued theft of the commons i.e.private property rights.
I see it like this: Right now we have two choices.
A ruling plutocracy with no social safety nets, or a ruling plutocracy WITH social safety nets.
I choose the later.
I would prefer no plutocracy at all, (hence no need for a B.I.) but as of right now, I don't see the forces that it would take to make that happen.
Sure, we get movements like Occupy that help to create class consciousness in the "we are the 99%," but as a sustained outright overthrow? I just dont see it.
Support for a basic income is the realist in me. Overthrow of the plutocrats, the idealist.
I think that it has the potential to level the playing field somewhat but only if implemented effectively and incorporating some kind of Land Value Tax.
/r/FairShare is relevant.
If used within a fiat currency then of course I think people deserve a basic income, their wealth is being robbed from them from the continual printing of worthless paper by the Fed anyway so they deserve compensation, but if the money is based on a commodity then I do not agree with basic income.
The value of money based on a commodity is based on the scarcity and demand for the commodity which means the more money there is, the less worth it has.
If all money is tied to a portion of a commodity then $1 = 1oz, but theres only so much gold then you will get to the point where the money created exceeds the commodity available thus causing $2 = 1oz because the money has to be tied to the commodity.
This of course still assumes the presence of a money that was standardized by the community rather than through competition.
If all of the commodity is owned by individuals then the money is directly tied to the available amount of the commodity by the issuing bank held for the individual. Which prevents money from being created out of thin air cough federal reserve cough
But if its the currency we use now which is fiat then yes, I certainly agree to have a basic income.
I was hoping someone would bring this up as it's a big problem with the concept of a fiat currency-based UBI. Central banks could virtually nullify it using inflationary monetary policy.
You can fix the level of the basic income against inflation.
This is sort of what i was thinking, if you have to have a fiat currency, give inflationary dollars to the people. However, I doubt you could print enough money to provide a useful basic income without your currency going to crap from inflation.
What people don't understand is that the whole of economics is centered around supply and demand and yet fiat currency is somehow unaffected by the most basic of principles that make up the system its used in, but then you'll see mainstream economics say inflation is good and caused by the Fed but somehow that inflation doesn't correlate to the money supply or perceived worth based on its availability or surplus.
Non-fiat currencies experience inflation and deflation, too. If half the population keeps the gold hoarded away in the bank, the the economy only sees and the assets being traded. This hoarding artificially chokes the supply of currency. A low level of inflation discourages holding on to currency.
What's actually important is the volume of exchanges. Most of what people make doesn't just sit around, but goes back into the economy as more purchases. It's only a drain on the economy if that money isn't then spent again, but most of it is. It is why minimum wage and UBI doesn't harm the job market. It's a multiplicative effect so the extra purchases made by the receivers of welfare actually stimulate the economy (sometimes over 2x the welfare spending).
The theory of monetary velocity is absolutely absurd.
If half the population keeps the gold hoarded away in the bank, the the economy only sees and the assets being traded. This hoarding artificially chokes the supply of currency. A low level of inflation discourages holding on to currency.
And what, prices are inflexible so no one will try to make things cheaper?
It's only a drain on the economy if that money isn't then spent again
No, its actually not just sitting somewhere in a bank doing nothing, its being used to give people loans to start new ventures and the people who have money in banks are then paid for their money in the form of interest.
It's a multiplicative effect so the extra purchases made by the receivers of welfare actually stimulate the economy (sometimes over 2x the welfare spending).
Some say that if you cut a rug in half and attach it to the bottom multiple times, you will get a bigger rug.
How is it absurd?
I think the better question is how is monetary velocity anything but absurd?
It relies on the broken window fallacy and its completely destructive to the economy.
Monetary velocity is simply a mathematical definition. It is found by integrating all the transactions of the economy for a specified duration. Your question should be "is such a definition useful?"
The broken window fallacy is a fallacy because the wealth lost by breaking the window is the same as the wealth gained by replacing the window and the result is stagnation. That isn't what increasing monetary velocity does. It doesn't destroy capital.
Just examine what happens when the money velocity is low. The rich cannot invest because their customers are too poor to afford their products. The poor cannot find jobs because the companies don't need to hire more workers due to low production. The result is that capital sits collecting dust in the hands of the capitalists.
It does destroy capital. Tell me how you could increase monetary velocity without costing money?
The rich cannot invest because their customers are too poor to afford their products.
Why are the customers poor?
Tell me how you could increase monetary velocity without costing money?
Not all investments are equal. Monetary velocity is increased by taxing the money that isn't being invested quickly and investing it into the working class so they actually have money to spend. When monetary velocity is decreasing, there is little incentive for the capitalists to invest because people aren't buying their products and are more likely to downsize, if anything.
Why are the customers poor?
Because, like I said, many of them are out of jobs. The vast majority of consumers are working class.
Basic income or no basic income. Either way, we're still fucked. Although, it would be cool being able to do things I want to do without having to kiss the ass of some boss to get money.
It's a first step towards something that could be beneficial to everyone, and anarchism too.
When people see that we produce enough to maintain a healthy lifestyle, without having to work +8h a day, I wouldn't be surprise that we'll see more anarchist appear.
Prefer it to the way welfare is currently distribute
Is force involved? Don't support it.
Seems preferable to the current welfare system
I oppose this and any other entitlement program that gives assistance to anyone other than the elderly or severely disabled. No one has the right to appropriate the product of my labor to fund the lifestyles of able-bodied people who refuse to work. This includes both capitalists and the generally lazy.
Unless, of course, the taxes to fund this program were levied exclusively against the owners of large corporations with massive profits. I would support that, but it would still lead to feelings of entitlement, which is a very ugly thing and not conducive to building socialism.
A place to challenge, debate, and discuss anarchism. All political beliefs are welcome! Post your debate challenge and see if any anarchists take you up on it.