canada-basic-income

STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Central Banking Conspiracy Now Involves Canadian ‘Basic Income’
By Daily Bell Staff - March 07, 2016

Canada plans to experiment with giving people unconditional free money … Finland and the Netherlands have already shown their interest in giving people a regular monthly allowance regardless of working status, and now Ontario, Canada is onboard. – Tech Insider

For years we’ve written how the “basic income” is statist propaganda expressed in monetary terms.

Love your state and the support it provides to you.

That’s the message from those who want a regnant state. Handing out “free” money expands the clout of governments enormously.

The same governments that killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century.

The same governments that malevolently incarcerate tens of starving millions in penitentiaries around the world.

The same governments that inflict ruinous business cycles via monopoly central banking and illegitimate taxation.

“Basic income” is evidently part of the larger plot. More on that in a minute. First, more from the article:

Ontario’s government announced in February that a pilot program will be coming to the Canadian province sometime later this year. The premise: send people monthly checks to cover living expenses such as food, transportation, clothing, and utilities — no questions asked.

The Tech Insider article states that Canada already has a highly socialized system when it comes to government benefits and that a rollout of a basic income plan might occur without dislocation or even much debate.

Right now Western states hand various benefits including welfare for “the poor.” But that has some level of stigma attached to it.

A basic income reduces that stigma if everyone gets paid, or most everyone, not just the “poor.”

The state then becomes a source of benevolence rather than an instrument of shame.

Is this immoral? One always needs to recall that the state is ultimately an expression of force. In great measure, whatever buttresses the power of the state reduces citizens’ quality of life.

Who authorizes the state to remove a portion of your wealth? “Lawmakers” elected by a minority? And why should these people have authority over you and your substance?

Beyond general questions of morality, there are specific issues we should note.

The idea of a living wage emerges at a time when the central bank economic model is failing badly. It was always a Ponzi scheme justified by Keynesian lies. But its ruinous unreality is increasingly obvious.

But central bankers are battling to keep their monopoly of force regarding money printing.

So the system is to be buttressed by cash confiscation and negative interest rates.

The third leg of the stool would be the basic income.

That’s right. A basic income, electronically provided, would set precedents for the delivery of other kinds of payments and make the implementation of a cashless society and negative interest rates a good deal easier.

Universal bank accounts would become mandatory. Uruguay, a leader in such things, has already demanded that its citizens receive their paychecks in bank accounts electronically and not in cash.

Cashlessness, of course, supports the utility of negative interest rates. So all three authoritarian processes work together.

This is a most radical program that reveals the desperation of the central banking elite.

What is evident after more than 50 years is that printing money CANNOT create prosperity, only expand asset bubbles in ways that are terribly destructing. Over and over boom gives way to bust destroying entrepreneurs, businesses and families.

The elites don’t care. They designed the system for this sort of outcome. And central bankers have aggressively and desperately debased currency to maintain their positions.

Now, at zero-bound, they can go no further without wholesale changes in how “money” is created and delivered.

Thus, these three interlocking elements: cashlessness, negative interest rates and a basic income.

Those who are backing the idea of a basic income believe it is merely a matter of fairness. After all, if large corporations and banks can receive free money, then why not the average person?

But this misses the point. Ask yourself, “Why now?” These three elements are all being implemented suddenly – and at the same time.

By tracking the elite propaganda – mainstream media memes – we can codify the invasiveness of these expanding strategies.

And please remember: Being aware of ways that elites manipulate the controlled media to produce desired results is part of being an educated 21st-century consumer.

The Internet allows us to analyze this sort of “directed history” and then protect ourselves using the knowledge we have gained.

What is emerging about the wholesale reconfiguration of money and its dissemination is breathtaking.

However, it is being implemented in such haste that the chances of any kind of smooth implementation are surely close to zero.

In fact, it goes against human nature in so many fundamental ways that we can’t see it working at all, or not in the long-term.

It is the last gasp of empire, not a providential methodology.

Stay alert and don’t “resign yourself” to the inevitable. Fight back. Don’t be fooled by the anti-poverty propaganda.

Remember hardly a single person was prosecuted under FDR’s gold-confiscation act though many did not surrender a single ounce of gold.

Conclusion: Retain your courage and your ability to exercise “human action” when confronting these anti-freedom strategies. Your wealth and your ability to create it should belong to you, not to politicians or central bankers, private or public.

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • dave jr

    Excellent DB. This three legged stool being proposed in parts is testimony to how much liberty has been lost. Slaves too, all throughout history have had their ‘basic needs’ met.

    • Capn_Mike

      Careful dave, look what happened to poor Walter Block. 🙂

    • Patrick Carré

      Bad analogy as slaves were forced to work.

      • dave jr

        Well, that would be the exact result of a basic income. If the money were to retain any value at all, it would have to be able to purchase something. It would have to be able to purchase productive efforts. But paying people not to work will cause shortages and price inflation. Eventually government will have to step in with wage and price controls and mandate a labor requirement…for the common good…to keep the living wage scheme running.

        And I won’t fantasize that machine automation will or can do all the work. The tools can not be commanded to get up and dance, but people can.

        And why just a basic income anyway, the stingy ba$tard$. Why can’t everyone be rich?

    • Thanks.

  • Samarami

    This article, as so often happens with me in my dotage, brings to the fore a “thing” that resides within me. For lack of an erudite psychiatric delimiter I’ll call it “overview” — the tendency for me to scrutinize far above and beyond the nuts and the bolts of the topic, or “issue”.

    But first a disclaimer — I’m involved with no “religion” — no “church” or incorporeal movement — into which I might attempt to convince or proselytize you. And I have no education or special source of knowledge that you don’t possess (probably in excess of mine).

    That said, how the world did “we” get ourselves into this predicament? Couldn’t “we” (and/or our ancestors) have seen it coming? Using quotes around “we”, as (obviously) I can’t speak for you or anybody else. To quote Jeff Berwick, “we” is the most dangerous word in town.

    To address this question; most of us have in our possession somewhere in the house a book, or parts of it, that is the all-time best-seller. It’s Hebrew. And, no matter your personal beliefs, there is an overriding theme in that book that should perhaps convince most of us claiming to be “libertarian”, that the book contains at least some veracity — insofar as it pertains to the topic at hand.

    It appears — at least according to the author(s) of this Hebrew book — that almost all human beings have within them a lust, or “need’, to be ruled. To have a king (or president, or prime-minister, or grand wizard). And that leads to a host of problems, not the least of which are outlined in the article.

    Our friend, Larken Rose, calls it the most dangerous superstition. I agree with Larken.

    Conclusion: Retain your courage and your ability
    to exercise “human action” when confronting these
    anti-freedom strategies. Your wealth and your ability to
    create it should belong to you, not to politicians
    or central bankers, private or public.

    Fully agree. And one more thing, my friends:

    Abstain from beans.

    Sam

    Sam

  • How do you square an analysis like this with the support for basic income by both Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek? They were two of the greatest free market voices of the 20th century. They helped create the neo-liberal orthodoxy which you spout on a daily basis here. So how do you see something as so dangerous that they both saw as a way of decreasing state bureaucracy and increasing freedom?

    Also, there has been a small universal basic income functioning in the libertarian state of Alaska since 1982. Is that dangerous too? Would you refuse to cash your annual dividend check were you a resident? Why not? It’s free money from the state. Ask any resident of Alaska if their dividend checks make them more free or less free. Ask any small business owner if they do worse every time their customers get dividend checks.

    Have you ever heard the phrase about cutting off your nose to spite your face? The reason Friedman and Hayek both supported basic income is that they saw it pragmatically for what it is, a way of reducing the control government has over our lives and our decisions, especially in markets. Markets with basic income are more free. A market where only 60% of people are able to provide price signals because 40% have no access to money, is not as effective a market as one where 100% have money to signal demand.

    A free market requires less regulation and everyone having some minimum of money greater than zero. Basic income is the tool for that. With basic income there is no more need for minimum wage laws. There’s also less need for protectionism and labor unions. You want to keep all those thing out of some stubborn misunderstanding of how markets best function? You want to fight the idea of basic income, and spit on the graves of Friedman and Hayek while simultaneously supporting their free market principles?

    Wake up and smell the hypocrisy. Some of us are sick and tired of government having so much control over our lives. Some of us are sick and tired of regulations and protectionism that makes markets less free. Basic income is the way to make markets more free, and to make us all more free. If you are anti-basic income, you are anti-free market, and I for one have a problem with that.

    • WalterFuques

      Scott:

      I’m curious whether you see any differences between the source of funds for Alaska’s dividend and the “government benefits” available in Canada?

      • For one, Friedman and Hayek both saw basic income as a superior means of using income tax. Why should it be funneled to government bureaucrat hands to decide what to do with it. That leads to corruption and expenditures like bridges to nowhere. The residents of Alaska actually see their dividends as predistribution, because the money is given directly to them instead of government.

        Secondly, nothing about basic income implies or necessitates income taxation. It can be funded in any way we choose it to be. Alaska funds theirs through sharing the dividends from the sovereign wealth fund grown each year by state oil revenue. Oil isn’t the only thing we can think of as a shared natural resource. The air is another. We could fund basic income by a revenue neutral carbon tax.

        We could also fund it with taxes on the unimproved value of land. That again is a shared resource, as the value of the land underneath the structures we build on them, not the structures themselves, is created by society as a whole.

        Basic income could be funded by value added taxes, financial transaction taxes, and even citizen seigniorage where we create new money in the hands of people instead of letting banks create all the money.

        All of this could reduce income taxes. In fact, depending on the combination we choose, and the details, especially with LVT, we could entirely eliminate income taxes.

        So again, I suggest pragmatism. Basic income can lower taxes and shrink government. It can boost small businesses and the economy as a whole. The details of how we go about it are up to us to decide, but being against the idea entirely is a vote for the status quo, and is absolutely anti-market and anti-freedom.

        The entire reason free markets work so well is that it trusts people to make the decisions that are best for them, and the result of that non-centralized action multiplied by billions is the market. Basic income further decentralizes markets by reducing decisions made by governments and letting citizens make those decisions for themselves instead.

        • The issue is building a “basic income” within the current authoritarian environment that includes monopoly central banking. It will merely reinforce everything that is bad.

          • Ah, but there you aren’t looking past the horizon. Right now there are many locked doors, doors we are effectively barred from opening let alone even unlocking. Basic income will unlock a great many of those doors by empowering the disempowered. How do you think the changes you want most can come about? Through a population of people thinking only about where they can come up with their next dollar to cover their most basic needs? Do you think people are free to care about anything else who are limited to looking only as far as the next day, or the next week, or the next month, instead of the next year, or the next decade?

            There are a great many changes citizens all over the world need to be empowered to make. People with their most basic needs covered are free to think about everything else. They are more free to discuss with each other the merits of central banking or decentralized banking. They are more free to create citizen initiatives and gather signatures to add to ballots to vote on. They are more able to be active as citizens, to demonstrate, to push their legislators, and to demand that there shall be no taxation without representation.

            If we are to be taxed, we must have the economic freedom to make our voices as heard as citizens and as consumers. Do not for a moment think that a nation full of citizens with basic income will be disempowered. The result of basic income is further decentralization. It is the opposite of centralization, and therefore the proper direction, as I know you well know.

          • You really believe that if the US federal government or the EU begin to provide a “basic income,” it will make people more free? Really? Or will it merely further enhance the power and prestige of these authoritarian systems? We believe the latter and are firmly convinced that such giveaways will buttress cashlessness and negative interest rate systems now being imposed. How are you going to gain freedom by empowering what is already oppressive?

          • Patrick Carré

            The means tested methods today are oppressive. How would empowering more people be oppressive? It would be quite the opposite.

          • How the heck can you “empower” people using today’s abusive and often aberrant government systems?

          • Again, tell me how residents of Alaska are less free.

            For that matter, tell me how those receiving Social Security checks are less free.

            Seniors are a very powerful constituency. They get what they want from government. According to you, they should be worse off than the rest of the population, because they greatly depend on their government provided Social Security checks. But is that the case?

            Please read for a closer look at this: http://www.scottsantens.com/wont-basic-income-give-too-much-power-to-whomever-distributes-it

          • “Seniors” managed to get along before Social Security, probably because they weren’t being taxed at high rates while having the value of their money inflated away by monopoly central banking. If your argument is that Seniors WANT high taxes and significant price inflation, we disagree.

          • Yeah, not so much. Social Security was implemented because of the high rates of poverty for seniors. Social Security drastically reduced poverty, and continues to reduce poverty for seniors. Are you now arguing you also wish to eliminate Social Security, one of the most popular programs ever implemented in US history?

            It’s entirely fair to have your own opinion, but you don’t get to have your own facts. If we eliminated Social Security, poverty for seniors would jump 40%. (http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/nov/12/social-welfare-programs-food-stamps-reduce-poverty-america)

            Also, in regards to price inflation, again look to Alaska. Immediately after implementing their annual dividend, the CPI in Alaska went from growing faster than the rest of the US to growing slower than the rest of the US. (See: https://medium.com/basic-income/evidence-and-more-evidence-of-the-effect-on-inflation-of-free-money-a3dcc2a9ea9e)

          • Social Security was passed in 1935 because of “high rates of poverty for seniors.” Really? Don’t you think that poverty was caused in large part by an abusive Federal Reserve system that came into power in 1913 and criminally and maliciously inflated US currency to dizzying heights during the Roaring 20s before dropping US citizens into an agonizing depression? The poverty you speak of was CAUSED by the US government and its Fed adjunct. As for the popularity of Social Security, let’s see how popular it is when the defaults begin.

          • esqualido

            How sustainable is the annual dvidend when oil drops from $100/bbl to $40?

          • Dolph Longedgreens

            Alaskans must also reside within Alaska for a minimum number of days per year before obtaining their handout. Why should the state dictate my travel options?

            The trend in government is to impose further regulations, stipulations, and bureaucrats upon the individual. With a basic income, I would expect the government to manage even more aspects of my life. A universal income would be a convenient justification.

          • Bruce C.

            Dependency is not freedom by definition, and that includes intellectual freedom. Here’s an article that explains how the entire monetary and financial system has intellectually enslaved everyone within the system: http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/weekend-edition-why-the-government-hates-gold

          • Thanks.

          • Dolph Longedgreens

            Exactly, the thread of weening will be ever present. It is easy to imagine a scenario where those who do not conform to whichever policies will be threatened to have their ‘basic income’ withheld.

          • esqualido

            The isue is believing you are entitled to a free lunch. There seems to be no work requirement. This stops working when no more free chefs can be found: they have left the state.

      • We’re not in favor of government redistribution generally within the context of current government power.

    • Friedman developed income tax withholding and Hayek was more socialist than libertarian at various points in his life. The idea that a “basic income” granted by Leviathan will make us more free is insane for the reasons enumerated in the article.

      • Explain how Alaska Leviathan giving free money to all Alaskans makes Alaskans less free.

        To the contrary, Alaskans are the only Americans to have a minimum income floor greater than zero. In 2015, that minimum income floor was around $2,100 per person. Go ahead and ask any Alaskan if they view themselves are more free or less free than Americans in the 49 other states.

        If you view Alaska as something different, that it’s an example of good Leviathan instead of bad Leviathan, then you must then ask why, and then not push against the idea of basic income itself, but instead push for the implementation of basic income that you feel can be considered good Leviathan.

        • Why is “Alaska” in the redistribution business to begin with? Why doesn’t “Alaska” redistribute the resources that generate the funds it gives away? Wouldn’t the free-market do a better job of redistribution and job creation than the Alaskan bureaucracy?

          • worldwide_webster

            So you think Alaska should mail jugs of raw crude to all its citizens, then? Surely that would make them much happier than sending them the profits from a shared resource, which they can then usefully invest in the economy.

          • No, the Alaskan government should stop skimming the profits and “redistributing” them so politicians can get reelected based on their mismanagement of a “shared” resource.

          • Alaska isn’t skimming the profits. Alaska and oil companies are agreeing via voluntary contract. It’s like if I wanted to drill for oil in your backyard. Would you just let me do that for free? Of course not. You’d ask for a percentage. Together we’d agree on that percentage. Maybe I’d say 10%, and you’d say 50%. Eventually we settle at 25% and shake hands. That’s a voluntary contract where we both win. I get access to your oil to get rich, and you get rich for doing nothing at all but being lucky to be sitting on top of a valuable natural resource.

            That’s what Alaska is doing. It’s not redistribution. It’s rent. Oil companies are paying rent to access the oil fields, and that money instead of being handed over to government to decide what to do with it, instead is given to individuals to decide for themselves.

          • Alaska is a non-entity. It doesn’t exist. It is a metaphor for a group of private and bureaucratic interests that have divvied up the profits from oil in the region while pacifying the rest of the population with minor redistribution programs. Why, as part of a constitutional republic, is “Alaska” renting oil fields in the first place. Why aren’t they privately owned?

          • Private corporations are also non-entities. So what? Everything there is, is just us organizing ourselves in various ways. What makes a country or a state something evil, but a corporation something good? It can’t be size, because there are companies that are bigger than some states and even some countries, but at least in democratic countries and states, everyone gets to vote. That’s not true in private corporations.

            Are you now arguing that states like Alaska shouldn’t exist either?

          • “Alaska” is certainly not voluntary. It is sustained by force and is impractical to change because of the vested interests that support it. It would be better from a free-market standpoint if people were able to live in voluntary associations rather than involuntary ones. One can argue, thanks to the Internet, that day is drawing a little nearer.

          • I don’t think you understand how the Alaska dividend works. It does what you think it doesn’t. Please look into it more closely. I think you will like the way it works.

            As an easy intro, here’s a video: https://youtu.be/hlxKZDzXhnM?t=38m17s

    • Dolph Longedgreens

      How can a government managed basic income be construed as free market?

  • Don Juan

    The MacDonald royal commission decades ago recommended a Guaranteed minimum annual income but it went nowhere at the time. The advantages are that it would allow for greatly reduced admin overhead as no more need for welfare, unemployment, Old Age Security etc etc. It is supportive of freedom because it is universal, no strings, and allows for more creativity as it frees up energy wasted in forced labour (for survival) in non creative jobs and unnecessary stress. Not ideal of course but much better than under the current system. After the coming ‘Reset’ we will have a real chance to create something better. Those who have the Gold will be in the power position to make a difference in that time. For more on why physical Gold http://thebitgoldrevolution.blogspot.ca/

  • Castle_Nut

    Here is another Libertarian viewpoint that supports the basic income guarantee from the Cato institute:
    The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Guarantee
    http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee

    • The idea of promoting a “basic income” created and implemented in modern times via the current US (or EU) Leviathan is risible. The US in particular, via its serial wars, has bombed and poisoned millions, even in the last few decades. Yet this same military-industrial complex is supposed to provide a vast, beneficial, government program for its own citizens? There was a reason why Rothbard quit Cato after it was taken over by the Koch Brothers.

  • Radio Jammor

    I don’t actually see any solid argument here against a basic income.

    You rail against the method of payment which, when it doesn’t exist yet, so is an assumption.

    Some of the text doesn’t even make sense.

    “A basic income reduces that stigma if everyone gets paid, or most everyone, not just the “poor.”

    The state then becomes a source of benevolence rather than an instrument of shame.

    Is this immoral? One always needs to recall that the state is ultimately an expression of force. In great measure, whatever buttresses the power of the state reduces citizens’ quality of life.”

    Had you not included that third paragraph, it would have made sense. But in that third paragraph, you ask if basic income is immoral, when I don’t even see it as remotely open to question that there is nothing wrong with it. You may as well ask if social security or income tax is immoral.

    As for the following two sentences, what is the relevance of your particular opinion on the nature of government, wherever it is, to basic income? Do most of us not live in democracies? Can we not vote for such policies, or not?

    Are we as individuals not more concerned about our abilities to not just exist, but to live full lives, and if in particular we do not work, or are on a small income otherwise, to have a system of guaranteed income – I repeat, a guaranteed income – that enables us to function and without the conditionality that out of work benefits currently tend to demand, which therefore frees the individual to make their own choices about how to spend not just their money, but their time.

    How is any of that reducing quality of life? That argument is just a nonsense.

    Printing money? There will be little or no need. This system essentially replaces what’s usually already there, for most, and what should be there for the rest. It is about changing the existing budget, not adding to it.

    Instead of people starving and becoming homeless because of issues surrounding the conditionality of benefits, basic income will take a load off the mind and keep people off the streets, whilst now homelessness is rising, wherever you are.

    Then factor in automation, AI robots and programs that will increasingly render existing jobs redundant by the million. Societies across the world, sooner rather than later, are going to have to address the fact that they cannot find work for everyone and are going to have to offer an unconditional basic income to those who are not working, because the work simply will not exist in sufficient capacity for everyone (and for some, it already doesn’t).

    The alternative will be mass starvation and civil disorder and the breakdown of society.

    That also answers your, “why now?” question. You however prefer the conspiracy theory and that it’s part of a vague trap to keep us under the thumb – when the reality is that this is going to be necessary in order to more peaceably move into the more highly automated AI society that is coming, whether you like it or not.

    “It is the last gasp of empire, not a providential methodology.”

    Wrong. Your views are the last gasp of the greedy elitism that favours those with over those without, based on the excuse that there is enough to go round, if you work hard enough. Well, that was never true, as that system was always loaded in favour of those ‘with’, but when it becomes obvious that there won’t be enough work to go around ever again, and therefore not enough money to live on, then people will demand change along the lines of a basic income.

    May as well get it ready now, rather than try and implement it later when the unemployment explosion occurs.

    • Q: I don’t actually see any solid argument here against a basic income. You rail against the method of payment which, when it doesn’t exist yet, so is an assumption.

      A: We are pointing out that providing everyone a basic income will immeasurably enhance the power and prestige of CURRENT governments (EU, US) and the military-industrial complexes that run them.

      —-

      Q: Some of the text doesn’t even make sense. Had you not included that third paragraph, it would have made sense. But in that third paragraph, you ask if basic income is immoral, when I don’t even see it as remotely open to question that there is nothing wrong with it. You may as well ask if social security or income tax is immoral.

      A: Millions and millions have died in the Middle East and Africa as a result of unnecessary Western wars in just the past decade. And around the world, in places like Kenya, Western political systems have been inflicted on cultures in ways that promote authoritarianism and starvation. Yet you want THIS system run by an increasingly merciless and obvious military-industrial complex to expand its giveaways. You want to expand its power. Instead of trying to eliminate the system or at least reduce it, you want milk it. That’s immoral, yes. And there are many in the libertarian community who would say the graduated income tax and social security are immoral in that they extract and redistribute funds under threat of force. And if you are young, you probably won’t get social security anyway. The federal government mismanages everything it touches.

      —-

      Q: As for the following two sentences, what is the relevance of your particular opinion on the nature of government, wherever it is, to basic income? Do most of us not live in democracies? Can we not vote for such policies, or not?

      A: You really believe that you live in a democracy and your vote counts? In the US, did you see any difference ultimately between George Bush and Barack Obama? The wars continue, taxes rise and poverty and joblessness climb. The West is run by military-oriented elites that persist regardless of which puppet is elected.

      —-

      Q: Are we as individuals not more concerned about our abilities to not just exist, but to live full lives, and if in particular we do not work, or are on a small income otherwise, to have a system of guaranteed income – I repeat, a guaranteed income – that enables us to function and without the conditionality that out of work benefits currently tend to demand, which therefore frees the individual to make their own choices about how to spend not just their money, but their time. How is any of that reducing quality of life? That argument is just a nonsense.

      A: Sorry, but you profoundly misinterpret what government is able to accomplish. Within years, a “guaranteed income” will be a laughable matter for most people no matter how it is implemented. There is nothing, not even collecting taxes, that modern governments do well. War is likely the only competence, if it can be called that.

      —-

      Q: Printing money? There will be little or no need. This system essentially replaces what’s usually already there, for most, and what should be there for the rest. It is about changing the existing budget, not adding to it.

      A: Apparently, you don’t understand the way modern central banking works or how money (debt currency) is created. We are absolutely sure that money printing will expand if basic incomes are granted in the West. You should spend your time trying to remove the system of monopoly central banking instead of further building up the prerogatives and power of elite warmongers.

      —-

      Q: Instead of people starving and becoming homeless because of issues surrounding the conditionality of benefits, basic income will take a load off the mind and keep people off the streets, whilst now homelessness is rising, wherever you are.

      A: It won’t do any such thing. It will be abused like any other government program and gradually the rich will receive most of the benefits and the poor will be increasingly deprived. This is the history of all such government programs in the modern era.
      —-

      Q: Then factor in automation, AI robots and programs that will increasingly render existing jobs redundant by the million. Societies across the world, sooner rather than later, are going to have to address the fact that they cannot find work for everyone and are going to have to offer an unconditional basic income to those who are not working, because the work simply will not exist in sufficient capacity for everyone (and for some, it already doesn’t).

      A: It is fashionable nonsense to assert that technological progress will remove sustenance. But this is not so. If you want to ensure that people are happy and well-fed, campaign to provide people the wherewithal to take “human action” to provide for themselves. Lower or remove taxes, get rid of monopoly central banking, reduce or eliminate intellectual property “rights” and do away with Supreme Court decisions that recognized corporations and persons and in other ways create an environment in which multinationals and other titanic corporate entities are encouraged to thrive. Thomas Jefferson and others were very wary of corporate power and tried to restrain it. In the modern era, their worst fears have been realized.

      —-

      Q: The alternative will be mass starvation and civil disorder and the breakdown of society.

      A: You want to further empower the current merciless system to ensure it doesn’t break down? Are you sure this is the best alternative?

      —-

      Q: That also answers your, “why now?” question. You however prefer the conspiracy theory and that it’s part of a vague trap to keep us under the thumb – when the reality is that this is going to be necessary in order to more peaceably move into the more highly automated AI society that is coming, whether you like it or not.

      A: You are not going to move more peaceably into a highly automated society by further empowering the current merciless regimes. They do not have your best interests in mind, no matter what you wish to think.

      —-

      Q: “It is the last gasp of empire, not a providential methodology.” Wrong. Your views are the last gasp of the greedy elitism that favours those with over those without, based on the excuse that there is enough to go round, if you work hard enough. Well, that was never true, as that system was always loaded in favour of those ‘with’, but when it becomes obvious that there won’t be enough work to go around ever again, and therefore not enough money to live on, then people will demand change along the lines of a basic income. May as well get it ready now, rather than try and implement it later when the unemployment explosion occurs.

      A: You are not going to gain a peaceable, fulfilling society by empowering the modern military-industrial complex and its intelligence agency adjuncts to hand out income. They don’t do the job now, why do you think that expanding their power will magically expand their collective competence? Almost everything in your rebuttal starts with the assumption that the current Western political systems are neutral ones that can be steered in directions the “people” prefer. In fact, as our article shows, the basic income is actually going to enhance modern-day authoritarianism. In other words, you believe you are confronting injustice but actually you are supporting and expanding the power of the very forces you believe you are combating. You need to read more books.

    • Bruce C.

      Money, or lack thereof, is never the real problem. Giving people money – ” a basic income” – (never mind the issue of where it is to come from) won’t solve any problems fundamentally, or long-term (and usually not even in the short-term.) All of the various social programs like the “war on poverty” and welfare itself literally fixes the condition and expands it.

      There is an old saying that when a “man” claims that a lack of money is his problem all the gods laugh.

      Providing a “basic income” may sound good but all it will do is shift the “zero point.” Over time all of the same dynamics and ratios will return. Jesus said, ‘There will always be the poor’ (or something like that.)

      The statist (or collectivist) mind takes it for granted that it’s okay to force others to follow the will of the majority or a strong-armed minority, or even just of another individual or tyrant. Obviously forcing each person to fund a basic income for all others is a logical conundrum. What if everyone on the planet decided to not earn anything and just live off their “basic income?” Where would that money come from if there is no surplus to extort? And what good would that money be? There would not be any goods or services to purchase because no one would be “working.”

      Here’s another conundrum: What amount should the basic income be, and why? Who or what is to decide that?

      I have a suggestion, and that may be the best way to resolve this whole issue. Rather than forcing those who disagree with the basic income concept to contribute to it (i.e., via taxation) why not let only those who believe in it contribute. That being the most democratic allows everyone to support or invest in that which one believes. If you and others like the idea of a basic income for all then you can be free to contribute to a fund or charity that would disperse it. The total amount of collections could be divided by the total population of the world and that would be the “just” amount that every person would get.

      • Nobleharbor

        Of course the money would come from somewhere…When you give up your Rights for a little security, you become a serf… a slave. Such a system introduced into human populations inevitably result in the lowest common denominator existence. By introducing the necessary changes gradually, you turn up the “heat” on the “Frog in the kettle” so slowly that it just doesn’t see it’s demise… until too late.
        Just look at all the “reasoning Pro basic income” supporters and you can predict just how much conditioning has already been applied. It is no real problem to predict that highly “progressive” States inhabitants are the most used to massive social distribution systems, or taxes.
        However being in forefront of the “Kettle dwelling Frogs” is hardly an enviable position. At some point the screaming will commence… It would be wise to note ahead of time just exactly where the cool spots are, assuming you really want to survive the experience.

        I really would hate to be someone’s lunch.

    • Dolph Longedgreens

      You evaluate the present scenario without examining the existing manipulations. Under a free market, the goods and services produced by automation would become so cheap that top-down authoritarian solutions such as a basic income would be unnecessary.

      Perhaps it would be better to examine how consumers have been robbed of the benefits of technological innovation, rather than demanding redress. A basic income only gives more power to the authoritarians who created the problem.

  • bionic mosquito

    A redistributionist scheme by another name – and because Hayek and Friedman support it (as do pseudo-libertarians today, like Zwolinski) we are supposed to bow in fealty.

    Friedman was a make-government-more-efficient priest, not a free-market advocate; Hayek, at best one can say he waffled over his life. Neither is a consistent advocate for libertarian theory or free markets – which makes them both more harmful to freedom than someone like Paul Krugman.

    Basic Income Guarantee – everyone owes everyone a basic income. How is that supposed to work? Talk about converting the entire population into both parasite and zombie at the same time.

    See Tom Woods’ interview with Matt Zwolinski on this topic. Tom very politely rips Matt and this con-game to shreds.

    http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-519-debatediscussion-should-libertarians-support-a-basic-income-guarantee/

    • Thanks for the link.

    • dave jr

      Parasitic zombies? Already happening I’m afraid.

  • Pándinus Nyuyo

    this article is paranoid, it is because of human action that basic income is being integrated, because of our demand, and because “our wealth and our ability to create it” doesnt work anymore, i want to be able to print my own money, I don´t care about the government, it´s a transition to us, little by little people having more power

    • Just so people understand where many comments in this thread are coming from, our article was linked via Reddit.com/r/basicincome and has been subject to many pro-basic income comments both there and here.

      Scott Santens who has commented extensively on this thread is the “moderator of the Reddit Basic Income community.” We thank him and his community for its participation in this debate even though we disagree with their points. Ultimately, were they to succeed, proponents of a basic income will create a profoundly more authoritarian and anti-freedom environment in the West and even throughout the world.

      • Pándinus Nyuyo

        I just can´t see it as anti-freedom, Im a musical composer, and I don´t want to have to work teaching with what they pay me, so I refuse to teach, and because my job simply is to create music, so Im not doing anything else that doesn´t have to do with that, I dont want to work a job that doesnt have to do with what i do, so basically Im just composing and creating, and if I can sell my work that would be a plus, plus I dont want to degenerate my work just to appeal to people and to sell more, so right now my plan is to gather up my things and move to a self-sufficient community until there is basic income, with that cash id feel free to do whatever, the way I see it is a government that serves us, right now Im not free, with basic income Id feel free to do more things. thank you for replying.

        • Good luck to you with your music and plans to move to a “self-sufficient” community. That’s an admirable exercise of human action. We’ll continue to disagree with you about the idea of implementing a “basic income” that would be supervised by today’s welfare/warfare nations-states.

          • Pándinus Nyuyo

            ok, disagree all you want.

          • Bruce C.

            Why does your desire to make music justify others having to support you?

          • Haywood Jablome

            Good reply. I was racking my brain trying to think of a way to respond to this idiocy, but realized it would be like wrestling with a pig.

            Some people work for a living, others vote for a living.

          • Pándinus Nyuyo

            I just want to work with what I do, and no one supports me, if you want to slave work and not do anything about it that´s your choice

        • Dolph Longedgreens

          Maybe you will find this interesting: https://mises.org/blog/electronic-music-and-market-test

          If you want to give up and quit trying to find a niche for yourself in a voluntary society that is your choice. But please don’t compel me to join with your authoritarian vision.

          I could think of any number of titles based upon my leisure interests. If I say that I’d rather be pursuing my favored activities, it hardly excuses me from my responsibilities.

          For me the solution is obvious. We live in an age of automation. If I want more free time, then I should automate the profitable and monotonous tasks I dislike. Honestly, I feel fortunate to live in an age where this is possible.

        • rahrog

          I am a painter, poet, husband, father, grandfather, AND work a FULL time job. You are a disgrace to artists everywhere. You don’t want self-sufficiency, you want someone to pay your way through life. You are not just a disgrace to artists, you are a disgrace to humanity.

          • Pándinus Nyuyo

            no

          • Pándinus Nyuyo

            I just want to work with what I do, and no one supports me, if you want to slave work and not do anything about it that´s your choice.

  • Jon Huniak

    The end is near woo hoo to this evil life Satan has us living in, the time is getting short for him, soon the Archangel Michael will throw the antichrist(satan) to the earth and he will have his 5 months then the second coming of Christ will come and clean up the devil’s mess….this is coming from a common sense Christian not a raving religious nut ball……read the Bible you will find the answers, satan put us in this predicament thousands of years ago, the devil is a very selfish…and it was in Gods plans to let us find our way back to God…..see being a Christian these days is deplorable and dangerous in a lot of peoples opinion, God is being kicked out of everything….God has a plan and it is going to plan….we just don’t know exactly when. the evidence is right out there in plane sight….the government wants to control us by giving us money electronically…which means we will all have to have an account. We are spied on all the time.People are all going to lose their jobs sooner or later after they start giving us money. The police forces are getting militarized before martial law takes us over and we will be forced into internment camps. The Russians and Chinese and some other countries militia have been training in Wainwright, Alberta, When the military starts doing military exercises in the country they are about to go to war with us then learn how to fight on our soil….so when they are practicing in our country….that sounds like they are going to go against citizens of Canada, they are doing it in the States as well, partial amounts of people have already have been chosen for death. Death to others later after they have finished with there tasks….ever wondered why the Target stores are still empty…..well I think they may house other military and or lock up the common citizen……ever heard of Bill C51 or Agenda 21 look them up. The Us has bought millions of rounds of hollow point bullets….why hmmmm………the elite want to control the world’s population at about 500,000,000,000….that’s what it says on the Georgia,s guidestones…..why are there plastic coffins being piled up in different states that will fit 3 bodies each…..I could go on and on….you do the research God Bless us all….I am ready!!

  • Danny B

    I see too narrow a focus here.

    Wealth, power, and crony capitalism fit together. So far in the 2016
    election, the richest 400 Americans have accounted for over a third of
    all campaign contributions. ” http://robertreich.org/post/139811651355

    “Do not worry. The richest .01% are getting a GREAT return on buying all those politicians.

    “The combined cost of these 10 corporate welfare programs is $1.539
    trillion per year. The three main programs needy families depend upon —
    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($17.3 billion), food stamps
    ($74 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($67.2 billion) — cost
    just $158.5 billion in total. This means we spend ten times as much on
    corporate welfare and handouts to the top 1 percent than we do on
    welfare for working families struggling to make ends meet.”

    http://usuncut.com/class-war/10-corporate-welfare-programs-that-will-make-your-blood-boil/

    There is no particular reason that a basic income has to come from taxes. Like Edison said, “any GOV that can create a bond, can create a buck.

    Super cheap transportation has brought us a global-mean price for both commodities and labor. Y’all can jawbone as much as you want. There are only TWO choices in the long run. Kill off everybody that doesn’t have a job niche OR support them. Google says that their new robot will end manual labor.

    Even the finance industry is expected to get cut in half; http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/the-robots-are-coming-for-wall-street.html?_r=0
    EVERYWHERE that core populations are crashing, the economy is crashing. They took all of our money and jobs. We quite having kids and spending
    money. They sent $ trillions to the bankers to loan to us. We can’t
    borrow. Consumption is crashing and, out of desperation, they want to
    send us free money. Our effective wages have crashed so, we stopped
    having kids. Free money won’t induce the productive, responsible people
    to have bigger families. Free money HAS induced the non-productive
    people to have kids.

    Retirement is gone. There are going to be many millions who will just starve to death. http://americawhatwentwrong.org/story/end-retirement/

    Financialization of everything has wiped our everybody; http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-federal-reserve-and-the-global-fracture/5508484

    The world needs few working people. China will be laying off as many as 50 million before long.

    Originally, SS kicked in at age 65 when the average life expectancy was 57. There were 17 people paying in for every person collecting. This has gotten completely skewed and there is no solution. Look at the financial rollover in the SS fund;

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/the-socialist-lie-that-we-have-had-always-a-growth-economy-since-roosevelt/

    • ” There are only TWO choices in the long run … ”

      The third solution, Danny B., would be to actually let a free-market operate.

      • Nobleharbor

        However if you are actually IN the “pot” already,there is only ONE burning question to an aware “Frog”…
        In, or Out.
        Really, that is all that matters.

      • Danny B

        I keep hearing, “free market”. That means nothing to me. We can’t undo automation. We can’t revert to an agrarian economy. 94 million Americans of working age, not employed. What can the “free market” do for them?
        I’m disappointed in the Bell / elves for not having a broad enough perception. The world HAS a free market for labor. The end result is going to be a free market for death.

  • Michael Schultz

    Basic income for everyone for doing what? – Nothing?
    Equal value for equal economic consideration in return?

    “There can be economy only where there is efficiency.” – Benjamin Disraeli

    It’s like raising the minimum wage, it causes prices to increase throughout the economy and we are back to where we started.
    Where’s is this generous money going to come from? Answer: DEBT

    This is uniform welfare, communism, or socialism. Take your pick.
    “Socialism is great! …until you run out of other people’s money!” – Margret Thatcher

  • Bruce C.

    This is another one of those questions that automatically gets cast as one size must fit all.

    Those of us who think a basic income makes sense and should be provided should contribute to a fund or charity that can distribute it. Why should those who don’t believe in it be required to contribute?

    The same analogy applies to healthcare. If “you” think peoples’ healthcare costs should be subsidized then knock your self out and subsidize them.

    That is one way the free market can solve these problems, and there are probably many others that I haven’t even conceived of. In a free market everyone’s liberties are respected, including the recipients of “welfare.”

    The problem is the institutionalization of things that involves force.

  • Haywood Jablome

    “Right now Western states hand various benefits including welfare for “the poor.” But that has some level of stigma attached to it.” Sorry, but I think the “shame” ship sailed long ago and has been replaced by the USS Entitlement. The EBT card looks just like a “real” debit card so people don’t even notice anymore. No, unfortunately I don’t think people have a problem with living off others anymore at all. It’s sad.

    • ImajWalker

      You seem to forget.. the ‘corrupt government’ that ‘owns’ you as a slave has been ‘using’ you since you were born. Your birth certificate is a ‘bond.’ They just don’t want you monetizing it. If you search the information under the Bank of Canada and how it’s laid out.. they make ‘millions’ off of you. Where else do you ‘think’ they get their money? Your signature allows them to borrow 9x more than what YOU borrowed.. Your mortgage, loans, credit cards are a gem for ‘them’.. YOU owe nothing.. they want you to keep ‘thinking’ that way.

      In reality.. ‘there is no money.’ Try going to a bank and asking for ‘real money.’ (gold back currency).. there is no such thing in Canada / USA.

      They simply take the computer.. type the figures in it and YOU have to pay back that amount plus interest.

      WE shouldn’t have to pay to live! Say it again.. how stupid are we?

      Oh.. try getting a ‘bank employee’ into a courtroom to ask him if he lent you money.. It will never happen. Because they didn’t! They send a lawyer in his place.

      I know.. I lost two fully paid houses… they passed judgement to the bank before I even arrived at the courthouse.

      Everyone has a worth.. ‘that’s’ what they are hiding.

      For Americans.. it’s not hidden anymore..

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoeFwwJOgb8

  • TG Molitor

    Excellent analysis! If Randolph Bourne were alive today he might say, “Basic income is the health of the State.”

  • ImajWalker

    What THEY don’t want you to know!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T5rIh3_vX0

  • Randy

    This one of the STUPIDEST ideas to ever come out of any government in recorded history! Creating even MORE electronic bookkeeping entries out of thin air than we already have is just going to cause the demise of the fractional reserve banking system… Hmmmm. Oopsie there! Sorry about that, my bad!! Let’s have that minimum living wage to start with for a few people, then let’s expand it to an AVERAGE wage for everybody, and before we know it, no one will have to have a job and there won’t be any jobs anyway, so we will all be free finally to sit around and contemplate our navel all day long!! YESSS!!! Bring it on!! We NEED those free handouts for everybody so the entire system will collapse and we will be able to start all over again with PM as our medium of exchange once more! Cloward and Plivens were 100% right, the way to bring down the evil and totally corrupted USG is to give it what it wants, more serfs, slaves, vassals and peons than it knows what to do with, and it will all fall apart.
    THEN, we can go to a strict merit based system of government, not rigged up popularity contests that masquerade as honest elections.

  • Danny B

    Once again, I have to complain about focus. The investment community seems to believe that they can survive even if the producing economy is belly-up. Kurzweil, et al have made it clear that employment in the traditional sense is soon to go away. How do you maintain consumption if employment and wages don’t exist? The demographic crash has made the ratio of producers to non-producers extremely lopsided. 51% of Americans rely on a check from GOV. Go ahead, yank all the checks. What happens to consumption,,, social order?

    The $1.5 trillion in corporate welfare is/was supposed to create jobs for Americans. It just didn’t work that way.

    In just a few years, social programs will devour all of GOV money. It is painfully obvious that social programs can’t be funded with debt. They have to be funded with freshly printed money. Take it or leave it.
    If you create debt for investment and growth, it can be repaid.
    If you create debt for consumption, it can’t be repaid in the long run.

    We are rapidly approaching the confluence of increasing social demands and shrinking national income. It will be funded or it won’t be funded. It can no longer be funded with debt.

    The many millions of retirees can’t very well rejoin the labor market. The many millions of unqualified or redundant workers have almost no job niches available. The free market offers them part-time work as a waitress.
    You can have a debt-supported safety net.
    You can have a fresh-money supported safety net.
    You can have no safety net.
    # 1 always leads to bankruptcy
    # 2 has possibilities
    # 3 requires the death of 60 million
    The problem is ; yanking support that has always been there.

  • The Job Guarantee: Delivering the benefits that Basic Income only promises

    http://pavlina-tcherneva.net/TchernevaBIGvsJG.pdf

    “The BIG proposal is a compassionate but paternalistic policy that does not ultimately

    deliver the jobs that those at the bottom of the economic ladder want. The JG proposal

    by contrast is based on several core considerations

    1) it acknowledges what people want and accommodates those needs;

    2) it designs a program that delivers greater macroeconomic stability, and

    3) it helps redefine the meaning and nature of work, helping transform the economy

    to a more just and humane system.

    ***

    Never has a JG proponent suggested that guaranteeing a bad job should be the

    objective of policy makers. Standing fundamentally misleads the reader by suggesting

    that the JG is akin to slavery, modern communism, or any other system predicated on

    forced labor. JG proponents have explicitly stated that the public sector job is not only

    voluntary (no one is ever forced to take it) but it is also designed to establish the

    minimum necessary conditions that would constitute a good job

    . These conditions would establish the minimum standard for pay, benefits, and working

    conditions that the private sector must match. Many JG advocates have argued th

    at the program should aim for a living wage that would then become the floor to

    wages in the private sector as well.

    ***

    The poor and the unemployed want to participate in mainstream society, by receiving wages

    and contributing to private market or community production. At the same time, those

    individuals feel the pressing need for mainstream society to recognize their care and

    community work as useful. The experience of poor women in Argentina demonstrates

    that the poor understand that income alone does not empower. Social mores dictate that

    genuine empowerment comes from earned income, not charitable contributions.

    ***

    A combined job/income guarantee proposal would offer a voluntary employment opportunity at a standardized

    (preferably living) wage-benefit-vacation package for those unemployed individuals who are ready, willing,

    and able to work and would be coupled with certain income guarantees that are not tied to labor market participation,

    such as universal child allow ance, old age income, and healthcare for all.”

    ***

    more on the Job Guarantee

    http://mmtincanada.jimdo.com/policy-issues/job-guarantee/

  • Green_Lightning

    Only an idiot could say empowering those who need money somehow attacks freedom.

  • bladerunner6978

    Well, when this virtual phoney-baloney banking/investment fraudulent system collapses, and millions of families are pushed into a corner with no jobs or food,…, then it’s either starve to death, or these families do what actions are necessary to survive, duh !?

    So, it would be far healthier for the 0.5 % uber-rich Corporatists to avoid the latter, at THEIR costs !
    In other words, it’s either we all work together so that science technology, … can help feed us ALL, or, it’s World Revolution. -Take your pick, aka zeitgeist really is the humanely correct way of thinking now.

  • DB: “Remember hardly a single person was prosecuted under FDR’s gold-confiscation act though many did not surrender a single ounce of gold.”

    Army General Douglas McArthur is notable for (and should receive more publicity because of) keeping HIS gold in his Philippine hotel safe before hiding it in Manilla Harbor in 1942 (long after the 1933 turn-it-in order) when the Japanese invaded.

loading