still others attempt to introduce new feedback loops into the economy and restructure the polity of ownership [C].
I read that and this quote from John Maynard Whatshisname popped into my head:
“If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with bank-notes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal-mines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is.”
UBI’s are basically the same idea, I think, i.e. that a large part of the economy is based largely on arbitrary value, and the important thing is that money changes hands.
(Too tired to think about this any more right now. So many typos have I made.)
A discussion I listened to between 2 conservative economists arguing about UBI seemed to focus it’s financial and political viability on the fact that it would replace ALL the poverty programs and their bureaucracies. I personally am not well versed in this topic.
You forgot that convicted felons will have a lifetime forfeiture of all UBI funds. You know, because safety, or punishment, or deterence, or something. :-/
I’m inclined to think that universal basic income is basically the only non-terrible solution to technological trends. Tech generally means that you need fewer people to do the same work, and left to its own devices, wealth tends to accumulate, until the very rich have all the money and the poor have nothing left but need. I know that there’s a strong cultural attachment to working for money, but there’s just not enough useful work to do.
That’s the thing. It’s likely that there won’t be enough clamor for UBI from establishment Dems that can’t even get behind UHC. The GOP has spent far too long demonizing welfare so that they can financialize its provision, so Gracchus’ conception is probably the most likely type of UBI they would back. Progressive conceptions of UBI face a mountain to climb in regards to cost- we’re talking a multi-trillion dollar welfare state if UHC is realized as well. I agree with the others who’ve said that the downwards expansion of social security is the most feasible path, a la Medicare for all. It’s just gonna cost a shitton of money, and we live in a country where budgets are balanced by snatching pennies from food programs and senior citizens. I am not hopeful. It will take a pretty drastic recession/big jump in unemployment before there’s much movement on the needle. It might be too late by then, anyway.
I do think the dark horse in the room is Silicon Valley. Their conception is highly technocratic, essentially viewed as a means of pseudo full employment. Our consumption is still very much necessary to keep the slots spinning, that’s really what this all falls down to, anyway.
If everyone receives the same amount regardless of income or existing assets, it simply devalues the dollar. Everything gets more expensive because landlords and merchants know everyone’s got an extra $x per month to spend.
