STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Give People a Universal Income to Keep Them Quiet While Global Government Grows
By Daily Bell Staff - August 08, 2016

Globalization and its New Discontents … Fifteen years ago, I wrote a little book, entitled Globalization and its Discontents, describing growing opposition in the developing world to globalizing reforms. It seemed a mystery: people in developing countries had been told that globalization would increase overall wellbeing. So why had so many people become so hostile to it? – Project Syndicate, Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz is concerned about why people are hostile to the idea of gigantic, impersonal and rapacious governments stealing from them while telling them what to do.

Governments don’t work on any level. But global government is worst of all. It will deliver ruin, mass incarceration and ultimately genocide.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But Stiglitz is a world famous economist, so he has better ideas.

More:

Now, globalization’s opponents in the emerging markets and developing countries have been joined by tens of millions in the advanced countries.

… Can the open global economy be saved from populist challengers – and from itself? … How can something that our political leaders – and many an economist – said would make everyone better off be so reviled?

Maybe because people don’t trust politicians and economists and increasingly see ways they cloak their own venal malevolence in the rhetoric of “universal good.”

The world is in a quasi-depression. The gradual diminishment of the global economy is only livened here and there by the West’s endless, serial wars now playing out mostly in the Middle East, but no doubt to be expanded over time.

For Stiglitz, the solution is not to decrease technocratic control so much has to increase the benefits associated with it.

The idea is that people see substantial benefits from technocratic authoritarianism, they will be more likely to accept it, or at least tolerate it.

And that apparently would make Stiglitz happy.

He mentions a book on this subject called Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization, by Branko Milanovic

[It] provides some vital insights, looking at the big winners and losers in terms of income over the two decades from 1988 to 2008. Among the big winners were the global 1%, the world’s plutocrats …

… The failure of globalization to deliver on the promises of mainstream politicians has surely undermined trust and confidence in the “establishment.”

He then mentions his own book, in which he conveniently advances a solution to the disparity he’s analyzed.

Now, as I point out in my recent book Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy, the rules of the game need to be changed again – and this must include measures to tame globalization.

The main message of Globalization and its Discontents was that the problem was not globalization, but how the process was being managed.

What’s the practical application of this? We can probably find it in a just-published UK Independent article, HERE:

Universal Basic Income: Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn considering backing radical reforms … “We have to think radically about how we bring about a more just and more equal society in Britain, how we develop policies that achieve that.”

You see? What could diminish antipathy and dissolve resistance more quickly than handing out a lot of money?

The Labor leader has spoken of his support for the measure, which would see every person in the UK given a minimum monthly financial sum.

The sum would be designed to give everyone a basic minimum standard of living including those who are out of work, with people who are working earning their salary in addition to the sum.

While once seen as a radical reform, the idea is gaining traction internationally and Norway and Ontario in Canada are to pilot schemes to test it.

We’ve spoken out against a universal basic income on numerous occasions, calling it immoral HERE and HERE in a profound way. It’s basically a bribe to ensure people won’t complain while those at the top continue to build their world empire.

Once such a corporatist, global environment is firmly in place with all the attendant authoritarian elements – a global central bank, a global judicial system, a global army and international policing – the mopping up can begin in earnest.

After all, as the Georgia Guidestones point out HERE, the carrying capacity for the earth is around 500 million.

The trick is to get from here to there. To make sure people are pacified while the foundation for the disasters-to-come are built securely around them.

Obviously, the globalists are aware of the push-back occurring, in large part because of what we have called the Internet Reformation.

More and more people are aware of what’s going on and that the worst trends of modernity are being extended internationally at a rapid clip.

Conclusion: But the internationalists have a solution for that. Give everybody money. Print it and hand it out. That will keep people quiet for as long as necessary.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • robertsgt40

    “Get your money for nothin get your chick’s for free” Dire Straits

    • SnakePlissken

      Lemme tell ya them guys ain’t dumb.

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      And after the US economy implodes for many of the same reasons that the Roman Empire did (currency debasement, statism, cronyism, etc.),

      “Good night ! Now it’s time to go home”. Not to swing with The Sultans, but to suffer penury and ruin.

  • Jo Jo

    I don’t agree. There are so many recources on our planet. They belong to everyone.
    Labour as organized by the elite is a matter of exploiting human beings (the earth and animals).

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      If “they belong to everyone”, they belong to no one.

      Please inform yourself about The Tragedy of the Commons.

  • stevor

    sure, make everybody a SLAVE while the Elites live in luxury. FEUDALISM!
    That will DESTROY CIVILIZATION! Why WORK if you’re just going to get cash like those “foolish” enough to have pride and really work?

    • aj54

      the workers would not be deprived of what they are earning now, and would probably make more, as more people would suddenly be able to afford their goods or services.

  • georgesilver

    The globalists may just have found the answer to 500 million capacity with Zika.
    Zika is virtually harmless to people. The clever boffin boys decided that the birth defect meme was just what they were looking for so enter the modified male mosquito that has a gene disruption that makes the female mosquito produce unviable offspring. Unfortunately for humans it looks as though the modified mosquitoes live long enough to infect humans with the same disruption.
    This is purely my theory but it’s funny that all of the birth defects are where the modified mosquitoes have been released.

    • mary

      Not sure you’re correct, however they are using this zika fakery to scare women out of having children. So the effect might be the same.

    • aj54

      the birth defects are also only where they have sprayed vast amounts of organophosphate insecticides, known to be teratogenic, and to reduce brain size by 15% after only three days exposure for maternal/fetus. In my own paranoid fantasy is it is the modified mosquitoes that are carriers of zika.

  • windsor1

    With Hillary, who is a proven psychopath, accomplished liar and scandal burdened leading in the polls, is testimony to the naivety and stupidity of the American population.
    The globalists put on a benevolent fact but this is only temporary. When they drop the shoe and that is a certainty American society will be driven back to the middle ages in terms of human rights and quality of life. The end game is not about elevating or improving mankind’s destiny. The ultimate objective of all global programs is malevolent but is couched in Orwellian dialect.
    – Global warming is a hoax. The word sustainability which sounds caring is all about subjugating your children to living in a 300 sq ft super compact apartment and travelling on public transportation.
    – Global warming and carbon taxes have nothing to do with cleaning up the environment. It will offshore all heavy carbon producers to friendlier shores where there are no pollution standards. You will get higher taxes, China and India will get more industrial production.
    – Free trade is not intended to benefit Americans. It benefits the elites who will benefit from offshore production to maximize profits. It means your job goes to China or Banglore India. Hillary officially denounces the TTP bill but before the campaign supported it. This will tear the heart out of industrial production in the USA.
    Globalization by its very nature implies efficiency brought about by consolidation of manufacture facilities in low labor cost jurisdictions where the constraints, litigation, environmental regulations and labor benefits are most favorable. There is a steady march towards robots, IT and automation that virtually guarantees that you days as a middle class income earner are coming to a close. All of this means a greatly reduced labor supply to produce goods demanded by the world. This spells no unions, no trade barriers, and a soon to be greatly reduced standard of living and of course no job.
    Globalists won’t tell you this and as long as Bubba has CNN, sports and beer and food stamps and unemployment benefits there is no need to know what the future holds. Americans think that globalists are stupid and are pre-disposed to see all their plans get derailed. Not at all; they are following the Fabian Socialist playbook; two steps forward and one step back but are always moving ahead with their draconian agenda.
    The globalists see that carrying so many people on benefit plans is unnecessary overhead that is transitional as they prepare suddenly spring the trap on dumbed down Americans who are overburdened with debt and are essentially financial slaves to the global elite.
    I still see a President Hillary who truly does not care for the American people. When she takes away the 2nd ammendment you better watch out because you will be on a roller coaster ride to hell. The public was duped by the first black president and will once again be duped by the first and last female president. Bubba will soon snap to attention but it will be too late.

  • Glenn Richard Williams

    That would be great, the government giving me paper money every month, that would allow me to buy more silver and gold. Give me my money!!!!

  • alaska3636

    The priesthood always provides the justification for power.

    I don’t know about other religions, but Christianity provides a framework for decentralized institutions, since only God is omnipotent. It is by the grace of God go we and it is hubris to ascertain His ultimate ends.

    Substitute God for Nature and we have the essential Deism of Jefferson which defined the natural rights of the Declaration.

    I’m not Christian, but I can judge merit where I see it. Technocracy denies the universal human experience of uncertainty and the need to hedge around the few undeniable principles that can be discovered. I believe that Tower of Babel is the metaphor.

    Unfortunately, Revelation is as arbitrary to me as technocracy; but, the power of tradition is in discovering the truth of human experience and old stories tend to be good stories for a reason. So I offer this mental tool for people: if you find yourself in a situation and it seems like a cliche, it probably is a cliche and the usual wisdom applies: technocracy is a tower destined to fall.

    • alaska3636

      From Armstrong:
      https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/public-sectors-devouering-the-private-sector/

      “Can we call the trend: the public sectors trend to swallow the private sector? In other words, governments desire to “assimilate” the individual? And by trying to do so burn everything including itself to ashes from which hopefully a phoenix (new better system) will rise?

      “…Unfortunately, yes. This is really how empires, nations, and city-states collapse.”

  • Gerold

    Guaranteed Income is deceptive because it works on a small scale. The government of Manitoba experimented with ‘Mincome’ in Dauphin, a small, isolated town in the late 1970’s. Progressives have since deemed it a great success.

    However, it is NOT scalable. It works on a small scale as long as outside funding is available to support it. It does not work on a large scale (national or global) because there is no ‘outside’ to fund it unless we can convince aliens from Mars to support it.

    As Margaret Thatcher said, “Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.”

  • Bruce C.

    I don’t think it’s going to happen.

    It’s not as easy as it sounds to just “print money” – or at least not as easy as it has been. Things haven’t worked out as they expected and now they really are running out of monetary bullets. A lot of debt monetization continues to be needed just to keep the fnancial system inflated, and additional money printing to provide a
    “minimum income” is going to be hard to do without creating a lot of indirect consequences.

    Look at it quantitatively. To provide, say, $20,000 per year to all adults in the US (about 200 million) would require $4 trillion. Not only does that sound like a lot, it would have to be repeated every year. I just think the financial markets would notice that. The CB’s coveted price inflation would definitely occur but in a totally chaotic way, and very quickly.

    Unless their schemes to devastate the world are almost good to go, providing “free cash” won’t buy them enough time to get them ready, so then why bother?

    It’s getting harder to be a globalist these days.

  • SnakePlissken

    The goal is to make everyone dependent on the government so that incompetent government bureaucrats will have absolute control over everyone’s lives.

    • mary

      …in order to continue siphoning the wealth created by the people to the powers that be behind the bureaucrats.

  • Richard Eastman

    Do we all agree that at present we have an all-borrowed money supply. We also have central banks and bonds. The central banks can buy the bonds or it can sell the bonds for cash. It is still an all-borrowed money supply and that means that the real economy consisting of the household, business and public good sectors which do all the borrowing will consistently be tending towards deflationary depression as the flow of loans those sectors receive from the international financial sector is always going to be less than the flow of principal plus compound interest that is paid back to the international financial sector. If all we have is the loaned money we cannot pay back principal of that same amount plus interest. Therefore there must be defaults and transfer of collateral assets to the creditors. THE SOLUTION IS A STOCK OF PERMANENT MONEY IN CIRCULATION. But who gets to create this money? Who gets to spend it? Who gets to regulate the quantity of it? Who benefits? Who is hurt?

    Forgetting Stiglitz for a minute, let’s take the pure populist solution. The money would originate as a thin-air ex nihilo autonomous non-debt free-and-clear dividend payment to each individual, that is, to the household sector. The money does not have to be paid back and the individual can spend it or save it or lend it as he sees fit. In one plan, American Populist Social Credit, all debt to international finance would be repudiated, and the entire money supply would be supplied in this way. The nation would end all deficit-financing of social goods and services and would fund everything by direct taxation — a small bill since the interest bite would be removed — both interest the government had to pay for funds to buy and the interest embedded in the price of what it buys (up to forty percent) The tax could be a simple excess wealth tax — not an income tax which punishes earning. Best a direct tax on all households — perhaps bracketed by wealth (to get back some of that ill-gotten gain from the old all-borrowed-money-supply system).

    This is the system that neither Joseph Stiglitz nor Gary North would like to see. Stiglitz wants a “guaranteed income” or a Friedman “negative income tax” — and Gary North wants no such “hand-out” of any kind, viewing such as theft and a violation of free-market principles. I disagree. I see money as not a good, not a commodity (gold is not money, when “monitized” gold is a device to constrain money creation.) The fact that money should not be an item exchanged in the market place as von Mises viewed it, giving it marginal utility against all other goods etc. — but money should be views as necessary infrastructure to a modern complex market economy. Money needs to be a public good. New money added to the system is inflationary and it benefits the “first spender” at the expense of later spenders. For this reason money is passed out to every player as it is in the parlor game Monopoly where each person begins the board game with a given amount of money which is supplemented by $200 each time the player passes a square called “Go.” Toy monopoly money is part of the infrastructure of the game — it is needed to play the game. Money is needed to get the American economy running — and if there is not enough of it the result will be that good things that people could have done for each other do not get done.

    Our economy is full of idle people, idle land, idle buildings, idle machines, idle plans, idle entrepreneurial ideas that can’t get realized — because we live in a nation without enough money to move all the people that could be moved with more money in the equation.

    Inflation is no way the problem. The Money Lords only allow inflation when the middle class has saved purchasing power that can be robbed. When the Money Lords hold all the IOUs and have gigantic cash balances the order of the day will be deflation and never inflation.

    Interest rates? Meaningless. Interest rates — real interest rates — today are very high, not low as people are told by ignorant economists and larceny-minded deceivers.

    In a boom from reflation of a previously depressed economy business thrives, orders are real because the economy is headed up — it is not mal-investment because the economy is being built to meet the demand and demand is increasing to meet the building economy — but booms are always killed intentionally — by margin calls in October 1929, and loan calls, and by the Fed simply allowing the M1 money supply (checking account money) to actually shrink in the quarters before the 2008 default crisis.

    And of course QE — the central bank buying bonds with cash — gives the money to the international speculators who have no intention of buying goods and services in American stores.

    Stiglitz in the final analysis is seeking to push a bogus product that will distract people from looking too hard at what the populists are calling for. Gary North is simply defending the old system where the guys with the gold have the power of a central bank all to themselves — choosing to put their gold certificates in banks to expand their reserves and therefor their lending, or to withdraw their gold, forcing the banks to call in loans to attain sufficient reserves — as the system worked before the Federal Reserve Act, before Roosevelt called in citizens gold (leaving us iwth the all-borrowed money system) and before Richard Nixon — an unsung savior of the middle class American economy in his time — closed the international gold window as well.

    I am for the American Populist Social Credit reform. I don’t think that gary Johnson is offering comes close to it.

    • An interesting and comprehensive summary. As libertarians, we disagree with your conclusions, believing the inevitable result of so much power residing in so few hands would be, after all, not prosperity but genocide.

      • aj54

        the power would reside in the hands of the individuals, not the central banks as now, who only give their fiat to commercial banks to lend out to people who can no longer borrow, thus the money sits on bank balance sheets, awaiting the real crash, so they can swoop in as vultures. It is what the private central banks have always done. See the Rothschild quote about puppets on thrones.

        a stock of permanent money in circulation can be gold and silver as our Constitution demanded, or greenbacks as Lincoln disbursed through Comptroller of the Currency at Treasury for real goods and services, or any combination thereof. Your bias for private central banks makes no sense. The world is in great condition under their control, isn’t it? One of the primary promises made in 1913 is that the Third Bank of the US (the Fed) would relieve the cycle of booms and busts. Repeat after me: bawahahahaha!!

        • Sometimes these feedback threads are discouraging. For 15 years, we’ve worked to reduce or remove central banking We have written literally thousands of articles on the subject. A cursory look would reveal our stance. And yet you manage to write, ” Your bias for private central banks makes no sense.” Find a single article of ours, please, wherein we have endorsed private, monopoly central banking. One. Just one..

          • aj54

            it is implied every time you publish an article repeating one of their memes, such as all those entitlement recipients on Social Security, on foodstamps, on disability, never in one of those articles is mentioned the corporate welfare of the warfare/security state. if you support one part of their empire, you are reinforcing all of it for them, and relieving them of that portion of the cost of the propaganda. George Carlin said decades ago they were coming for the Social Security. Think they will cut the corporate welfare too? So do central banks belong to a category with warfare? of course, as the banks have always supported or caused war. There are few libertarians among the hungry. The history of this nation includes Christian charity, should only churchgoers among the poor have sustenance? what do you propose to do with the poor and hungry? Why does the right wing seem to hate poor people? your words above, that social credit would cause genocide instead of relieving individuals; I think you should more fully explain this position. I think Ayn Rand was so popular among some because she specifically spoke against altruism, though she took advantage of it herself. Look up the economic miracle achieved after the Weimar, it was non-debt based fiat, tied to labor, issued directly by the government, not by the private banks. The private banks have caused depressions and panics under gold and silver too, by taking it out of circulation, and the hard money people rarely acknowledge this. An economy is made up of circulating money, and it matters not what that is. I happen to agree with the eternal time-chained value of gold and silver. But it will never exist under the current paradigm, whose small number of manipulators enjoy tremendous wealth, power and advantage. Whose beneficiaries will not go gently. Is not the real question what kind of a nation do you want to live in, and what would realistically maintain it? We once had a republic, but we failed to keep it.

          • You make all the arguments we have heard a thousand times during out 20 years commenting on these issues. You repeat the propaganda that the Federal Reserve is an entirely private bank when it is not, you promote government power as the antidote to social injustice and you are firm in your belief that if the government holds the monopoly rights to money, “the people” will somehow benefit. But they never do.

            The only solution is freedom, the more, the better. Giving government even more monetary power only makes things worse. Genocide does not occur in free societies. But it occurs all too often in the kinds of societies that the West has started to build. You seem partial to republican governance but indicate that it “failed.” That’s no reason to stop supporting it. Which we do. Every day.

    • Bruce C.

      “THE SOLUTION IS A STOCK OF PERMANENT MONEY IN CIRCULATION.”

      Isn’t that what a “pure” gold standard is? (i.e., that money is actual gold metal or digits/paper with a one-to-one correspondence with actual metal.)

      Furthermore, it’s really the banks (not so much the central banks) that create debt-based money now, however it is the debt itself that is phony. Creating currency out of thin air and then claiming that it is based on real assets is fraudulent. “Therefore there must be defaults and transfer of collateral assets…” Yes, but not necessarily to the creditors. Their only claim is that they spent money based upon an expectation that real money was to settle their fraudulence, so if that doesn’t happen then they cry foul.

    • Rastindian/FatShiva

      http://www.thedailybell.com/gold-silver/anthony-wile-dr-antal-fekete-blowing-up-modern-austrian-economics-in-a-good-way/

      Your conclusion of a solution to the debt problem of usa is in direct contradiction to the international workings these days of world businesses and the global economy, where layer upon layer of bureaucratic do’s and dont’s dictate the flow of hot money/ bonds around the world. I think it is republican in nature..
      Your understanding of the effect of such a system is spot on though in my opinion. Deflationary depression v/s Inflationary sell-out. Which top is negated by government bonds of all the countries together.
      Please see Antal Fekete in Google and here at the bell. Many discussions- Rastindian

    • aj54

      I couldn’t agree more. It is truly criminal that we have a generation of young people not developing working skills and building up the country and their own futures. But there is lots of money….sitting idle in the commercial banks, who were forced to take it to improve their balance sheets. There is no money at the consumer level, and 2/3 of our economy is supposed to be consumer driven. Do you actually see any way forward? alternatives require governmental acquiescence don’t they; how do we get there from here?

  • mary

    “… The failure of globalization to deliver on the promises of mainstream
    politicians has surely undermined trust and confidence in the ‘establishment.'”

    DO YA THINK??? Wow, master of the obvious. Why can’t i get paid the big bucks to write garbage like this all day.

    Another excellent article, DB.

  • rahrog

    I wonder how long it will be before people who are opposed to “a living wage” (whatever the hell that is) are branded as racists?

  • Praetor

    UBI! There goes Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. More money more problems more leisure time less life you have to live.

    Look at lottery winners, studies have been done. In the U.S study 85.5% of lottery winners continued to work, in Sweden 62% kept working and of those who quit working most went dead broke or simple went dead.

    Take the U.S. since the 50s richest nation on the world, that did not relate to more leisure it made people want to work more.

    Work is healthy and the free Keynesian leisure time equals death and a useless way of life.

    Lets face it, those mighty brains in control will do us all in, anyway they can. They figure give us enough leisure time we will all die of consumption!!!

  • Rastindian/FatShiva

    Global currency seems a definite go from the side of the UN and with bitcoin getting global acceptance soon we may see a basket of currency circa. G-18.
    A Socialist way of dealing with poverty is up in about a dozen or more countries already, the only moving piece that needs to be put in place is the total rejection of a keynesian-debt based system by the fed; for the adoption of a completely European model of looking at property and people.
    And yes it will keep people quiet,as with the internet already being organised either by free-will,market forces or force, the stream of information reaching the public (esp. in developed countries) would be restricted bringing one to the unknown/unknown window of Donald Rumsfeld’s explanation of military-industrial complex. Making the general population vulnerable to false news or memes.

  • Samarami

    Governments don’t work on any level.

    Amen

    • Jo Jo

      They do, for the big corporations and elite families.

      • Samarami

        Agree fully. I stand stand corrected.

        It appears that early conquerors such as Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan had insights that their forefathers (who merely raped the women, slaughtering all men, women and children — leaving their cadavers to rot in the burning sand) lacked. They recognized the proclivity of the vast majority of people to crave central political authority — kings (later designated Prime Ministers, Presidents, Grand Wizards, Senators, et al.) Those early warriors built vast empires on the basis of that tendency. All eventually fail, but are replaced by even more tyrannical wizards. By popular demand.

        Understanding that indwelling human nature (later labeled “Stockholm Syndrome” to make it appear that only a small number of hostages of a 1973 robbery in Sweden were subject to that eerie lust for security) is how psychopaths maintain successful businesses called “the state”, that consist of robbing the enslaved masses — who appear to love their travail.

        The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam

        • Jo Jo

          Well said.

          The economical/financial system is a game. Like a sport game. It has winners and losers.
          In order to prevent too much manupulation, cheating and misery, the games have rules. The governments take care of the rules and make sure that the masses can be used better and behave themselves, so the status quo is not in danger.

          The game is based on exploitation and parasitism.
          As the big corporations and elite families know best how to play the games (many rules work best for them), they are the (ultimate) winners.

      • BA

        this actually validates the original premise…libertarianidm removes this persistent actraction and resulting problem

  • Christan

    A Universal Income would only work if government is reduced because it’s no longer needed the universal income could be reduced until it’s gone. A reduction of government over time.

  • BA

    global carrying capacity at 500M is just a stupid meme, and shows a person’s ignorance and lack of ability to do basic research

    • Why don’t you enlighten us as to the research we haven’t done?

      • aj54

        I remember when the population of the earth was less than half what it is now, in the 1960s. The book The Population Bomb was a popular read; it predicted massive starvation by the 1980s due to inability to raise more crops. this has proven to be false. All the pictures of swollen bellies in Africa that have graced our leftisit magazines and perennial cries for monetary assistance have had more to do with politics than agronomy. I believe that the Bush W admin set back reproductive restraints in the third world to appease their fundamentalist followers who make no distinction between abortion in the first world for the sake of convenience, and birth control in the third world for the sake of sanity. Any such discussion is too lengthy for these comment sections.

      • BA

        start with “radical” farmers (aka intelligent, informed, innovative and conventional) like Joel Salatin, Gabe Brown, Jeff Lawton, go from there, otherwise keep drinking in the nonsense. If we can only support 05.B how did we get to 8B+ AND growing? this in itself invalidates the “500M capacity” meme.

        • Wait a minute. We are an eight-year-old libertarian publication with a free-market reputation. You think we’re ENDORSING the 500 million population argument? If you stop by here and read articles and comment, you ought to give us the courtesy of knowing what we stand for.

    • mikey2046

      “Global carrying capacity” of 500 million is ridiculous. I did the math a little while back, assuming a world population of seven billion. Assuming 2000 sq. ft. per person, we could theoretically house every four-person family in the world in single-family houses on 80 ft. x 100 ft. lots in just the states of California, Washington, Oregon, and Texas, leaving the rest of the world empty.

      The size of the world’s population is not the problem; unjust, unresponsive governments are.

  • aj54

    The fact is that we have massive structural unemployment, due to offshoring and technological changes. Shadowstats says real unemploment running 23%, as high as the Great Depression. The UBI would replace some existing programs like foodstamps and HUD housing and possibly even Social Security, these would be positive for private commerce IMHO. The worst thing about the proposal is that it be done within the confines of the current monetary paradigm. private central banking has not actually been a rousing success, and is designed to siphon all wealth to the top, and was designed by Hamilton (and his subsequent replacements) to control Congress through graft, a historical fact written of by Jefferson. Germany had a fiat system after the Weimar hyperinflation that was based on a set value of an hour of labor, it was government issued without debt, and used to pay for labor on their huge infrastructure projects. (very similar to our civil war greenbacks) Germany turned around in 3 years, had full employment, when the rest of the world was still in the throes of the Great Depression. We can’t even pass a modest proposal for an infrastructure bank, let alone roll out large numbers of shovel ready projects to dent the unemployment. Since 2/3rds of our economy is consumer based, where do you think the money will come from to create some velocity of money? People doing odd jobs? I have yet to see any realistic proposals from people who just want to philosophically oppose UBI; give us some workable ideas.

  • mudslide

    Whether this theory takes place or not isn’t so much a concern as the fact that it’s being discussed and debated….
    While not a new concept, there are many, many other real issues that need to be addressed.

    The LAST thing anyone needs is more govt.
    History says all it needs to about that….

  • NARF

    this is a really GREAT idea for the Elites to consider…you buy off and continue to dumb down a HUGE segment of the worlds population. By giving them the basics you get them to shut up and follow orders. They get to continue with their system of debt slavery!

loading