STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Government to Run Out-of-Control As Basic Income Expands in France
By Daily Bell Staff - October 24, 2016

France: Senate Report Marks Another Milestone for Basic income  … After months of hearings and discussions with experts, the French Senate released a report on Basic Income recommending pilot projects. –Basicincome.org

In Canada, a basic income project is being tried, and now France is ready to try such projects as well.

You can see a DB commentary on the Canadian program here, one that expanded at the time along with programs, reportedly, in Finland and the Netherlands.

The idea of a basic income, provided by the government, is an exceptionally disturbing one.

Central banking debases money and prosperity. And government inevitably empowers the most corrupt and in the long-term reduces opportunities for almost everyone else.

More:

The parliamentary commission on basic income was initiated in May under the proposal of Socialist MP Daniel Percheron. Under the ‘mission of information’ procedure of the French senate, MPs can form an ad-hoc committee to investigate specific topics and produce non-binding recommendations.

The 433 pages long report formally commits to the testing of a basic income in France, through three-year pilots involving up to 30,000 citizens.

The report also concludes that if the pilots showed successful results, the potential implementation of a nationwide basic income should meet the following criteria:

Be paid only to adult residents registered by fiscal authorities;

Be higher than the current minimum income scheme in France;

Be unconditional, although the money could be targeted to specific uses (in the form of vouchers);

Be financed by an important fiscal reform and partial replacement existing social benefits in a manner that favors the recipients.

Already, we can see controls being placed on potential payments. Once people come to depend on a “basic income,” they will be helpless to resist further control.

People are increasingly upset with monopoly central banks, which are basically debasement mechanisms operated by the most powerful and wealthy among us. Their removal is necessary if elites are not to further expand societal control via serial war and hyperinflation as they have in the past.

Unfortunately, if people see the connection between their own survival and central banks, criticism will necessarily lessen, along with activism to upend current monetary schemes.

No doubt, this is one reason the concept is being flogged with increasing power by Western bureaucracies that have the most to lose.

Instead of returning to free-markets and private money, those in charge of governmental processes are moving in the other direction. They obviously intend to expand all that is wrong with the current system in the hope that its pervasiveness will reduce criticism and heighten tolerance.

One can say plenty of nice things about a basic income but the reality is that governments invariably are not fair – and too often are merciless and even murderous. Those with the most clout will end up with the most money while those who are impoverished will get the least.

Conclusion: A government-initiated basic income will further entrench corruption and increase helplessness in the face of government intransigence, intrusion and exploitation. Divorcing income from the marketplace is a recipe for disaster.

 

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Glenn Richard Williams

    Basic income, I know I would be buying a lot of gold and silver with mine, waiting for the inevitable collapse of fiat based money.

    • Cynthia McKinney PhD

      Yeah, Russia took its worthless dollars and swapped them for gold!

      • Glenn Richard Williams

        I have been reading about that as well. Also other countries like China are doing the same. Can’t blame them, it’s too bad most people aren’t informed of the true nature of our currency and the slippery slope we are on. Most of my friends won’t heed my warning, I tell them to purchase some physical gold and silver when the inevitable happens. They think I’m a little crazy since I’ve been buying since 2004, I don’t know maybe I am. lol

        • robertsgt40

          Just a matter of time.

    • Dimitri Ledkovsky

      Your basic income vouchers will be limited to basic survival expenses, not luxuries, never mind Au and Ag.

      • Glenn Richard Williams

        How would they be able to tell what you spend them on, if in the form of a debit I will buy food and shelter with that, and gold and silver with the currency I save.

  • ThomasJK

    “Divorcing income from the marketplace is a recipe for disaster.”

    So…..having income connected to government is what would pass for a connection to reality? Are you kidding me? From where, pray tell, would governments get the ability to provide the income? Hmmmmm?

    Divorcing income from the marketplace is tantamount to disconnecting fiat money from any semblance of reality. We are not far from that condition as it is but there is still a remaining very weak connection of fiat currency to the constraints of reality even though the connection is so tentative as to be constantly strained. Regardless, the current condition is unsustainable and a system that “divorces income from the marketplace” would destroy itself, most likely by destroying the little that may remain of the viable marketplace. Governments may be able to establish limits but no way in hell will they be allowed to be permanently in control.

    The laws of nature are and will always be the primary prevailing laws.

  • Clayton Smith

    The political establishment is building the Prison Planet, one brick at a time. I encourage anyone reading this post to also read the book, “The Informed Heart,” by Bruno Bettelheim, in which is details the lessons he learned from his captivity in the Nazi concentration camps. In particular, he focused on the task we face, living in a highly complex bureaucratized society, in maintaining our personal autonomy. This is becoming ever more difficult and his reflection, although very depressing, can provide a clear blueprint to how the authorities can inflict control, how we unconsciously support their impositions, and some possible psychological remedies to sturdy our personality against these assaults.

    Horrible to note that the so-called, once upon a time libertarian, Charles Murray, has also endorsed such a scheme, as did Milton Freidman. Dark days lie ahead.

  • Cheyenne

    This really brought the book and movie Atlas Shrugged to mind.

  • Marcopolo

    An individual’s income, just like that of a business or an economy is dependent on production and productivity. The “price”/income of a role an individual has in production is a function of the market demand and skills required to perform that role at a level of competency. Improving one’s own productivity is a matter of developing experience and expertise either from performing the task for some period of time; educating themselves (or their employer does) on ways they can improve their productivity/output; or spending one’s time in learning another skill and changing roles to one that the market provides higher income/wages as it is viewed by the market as having more value in the chain of production.
    Income without performing any productive role in an economy would likely lead to economic decay.
    True, technology and other factors can and does automate certain roles in an economy and one may find themselves being “disengaged” from a productive role.
    One then needs to determine how to adapt to the change and become productive again, and therefore securing income.
    My point of view is, if required, for some SHORT period of time as the individual seeks or retrains themselves to acquire a role in the economy, the “state,” through taxation of those still producing provides some base level of support.
    This has to be limited, or, as the approach of this article implies, an economy will simply become a group of non productive “air breathers,” and demotivating.

    While an elite plan may be to simply provide a uniform income level for all in the economy except for themselves, thereby creating “slavery with benefits” and a docile, dependent populace, one only need to reflect on the USSR and the outcome of that ~70 year experiment, or the more current example of the immigration influx to France and the rest of the EU.
    Did the EU increase their economic output from the addition of new labor, or did the new labor simply come for the “free gifts,” and became a drag on the economy, which will further debase the currency for all to pay for the “free gifts”; or increase the taxes on those productive members of the economy until they too simply choose to become non productive.
    I do wonder how much stolen currency they spent on this masturbatory experiment. France no less…Wow. Are we in deep Sh!t or what????

  • philip

    philip, Read Hans Herman-Hoppe
    https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Theory%20of%20Socialism%20and%20Capitalism,%20A_4.pdf Socialism to fascism is what a basic income infests on to real capitalism. This is from the puppet government of France written about by Parisian Professor of EconomicsThomas Piketty (Keynesian) books on Capital and the Economics of Inequality; they are puerile economic propaganda and what we have to put up with in most universities today. Further France and PM Trudeau is pushing for CETA at a Canada-Eu summit which gives unilateral transfer of power from parliament to international bankers and transnational corporations. The Bank of Canada is another puppet! No wonder Clayton Smith’s describes us as the Prison Planet. Another poignant article from DB. Thank you Philip

  • Praetor

    Basic income. Ask social security recipients if a basic income is a good idea. Then ask them, would they rather have the money in hand that government stole from them. Basic income has been hear for some time. Now they will give every level strata of society a basic income and that will be you’re paycheck and you will have to go down and sign-up for that paycheck at the administration of basic income.

    The doomsday death cult told us they would do this along time ago!!!

  • apberusdisvet

    Totalitarian Time Table:

    1. Establish Federal Reserve
    2. Create the IRS as an enforcement agent to steal the product of labor
    3. Incrementally destroy the US Constitution
    4. Simultaneously introduce cultural marxism and fascist corporatism
    5. Introduce racial division, genocidal vaccines, geoengineering, fluoride in the water, and GMO food products to cull the population.
    6. Open all the borders
    7. Develop a total entitlement mentality and subservience to Government.

    Basic income is the final phase of Item 7.

  • Jim Johnson

    Folks need to know the postage to send them this will soon be worth more than the check.

  • luckylongshot

    Basic Income offers great potential for both good and bad. The good side is if it is part of a public banking system that sees the right to create money returned to the people and money that is not debt issued to the public as basic income. The major risk with this approach is that it needs to be done in a sustainable way. This means keeping a stable population and imposing a two child policy- as was done in China.
    The bad side is if basic income is tried within the current privately owned debt slavery financial system we have. It will bury countries in debt and inevitably lead to a complete collapse.
    However as we are already buried in debt and collapse is already guaranteed the opportunity to switch to a public banking system is coming . This has occurred historically in both the US and Germany- with great success in both cases as bankrupt economies were transformed into powerhouses in just a few years. If this was done together with the introduction of basic income, it would work. It is somewhat inevitable as the trend to robots doing work will mean many people have no income in future.

    • TheOneLaw

      What do you call “universal basic income” applied to agriculture ?
      FAMINE

      • luckylongshot

        Basic income cannot be applied to just agriculture. The essence of the concept is that it is applied to everyone living in a country. This means it replaces all social welfare and state funded retirement plans. What it does in economic terms is create demand. This means that farmers can be confident that the public can afford to buy what they produce. This leads to the opposite of famine.

        • TheOneLaw

          ” it is applied to everyone living in a country ”
          I think I will opt out of being someone being “applied to”,
          usually that refers to being on the wrong end of weapon.
          Governments have not worked out how to apply things without incarcerating or simply exterminating people.

    • Ronjar__

      If Basic Income is implemented as a money creation process it can replace the money creation by debt, and turn the power of money into the hands of people.

      • luckylongshot

        Exactly!! you’ve got it.

        • Ronjar__

          Instead of trickle-down, you would get a trickle-up economy,

  • rahrog

    It is time for a revolution. In America that means freeing the Spirit of the 1770’s.
    DECLARE INDEPENDENCE…SECEDE…SECEDE…SECEDE!!!

  • luckylongshot

    Your argument is one that I have run into fairly frequently. It is based on the assumption that hierarchies need to be done away with. Anarchists base their arguments on this asumption and it is supported by numerous philosophers. However making a theoretical claim is not as strong a position as actually doing research. My research has led me to conclude this theoretical claim is incorrect. I discovered organisations that demonstrated it was possible to make hierarchies work by focusing on how systemic power was applied. What I suggest you do is question your assumptions and rely on those that are supported by research rather than theory.

    • teapartydoc

      Yes. We need a hierarchy like they had in France in 1789. Worked perfectly fine. Until it didn’t.

      • luckylongshot

        When you want to drive, you need to get some lessons and follow the rules. The reason for this is that if you take the wheel with no clue there is a good chance you will kill someone. However in the last 3000 years if you want to take the wheel of a country, there are no lessons and no rules to follow- an insane situation as if you don’t know what you are doing you could kill millions- and human history has shown the carnage that occurred due to there being no rules of power.
        What anarchists say is that this carnage means that there should be no hierarchies. However I would argue it is premature to say this as to date no serious effort has been made to understand the rules of power. This oversight cannot be attributed to just human stupidity, it is also due to the deliberate suppression of the topic of systemic power by the elites, which as Foucault explains is a power holding strategy.
        However market forces are playing a role in exposing the rules of systemic power as organisations that try to learn these rules vastly outperform those that do not.
        Claiming that hierarchies never work is equivalent to arguing to banning driving because there was carnage when people drove with no rules to follow. In retrospecct it was obvious that rules were the answer to making driving safe, so why not do some research and apply some rules to using power in just the same way they are applied to driving?
        I have done research in this area and there are rules that can be identified.

        • But will the powerful observe “rules of power?”

          • luckylongshot

            Obviously they have not observed these rules- if they had the planet would be in much better shape. What I would argue is that since market forces support these rules then in time all organisations will observe the rules…I should explain a bit more.Here is a part of a recent article I wrote.
            The first rule of power was a view that the CEO must set a respectful culture. This is a view that is supported by respected research. Kotter and Heskett (1992) studied 207 of the world’s largest organisations over an 11 year period. They identified that the key factor that determined organisational performance was culture. In particular organisations with respectful cultures outperformed those that were not respectful by a huge margin:

            We found that cultures that emphasized all the key managerial constituencies (customers, stockholders and employees) outperformed firms that did not have those cultural traits by a huge margin. Over an 11 year period they grew their average stock prices by 901% versus 74% and grew their net incomes by 756% on average versus 1%. (Kotter and Heskett,1992, p.11).

            This was a surprising finding as one might have assumed that sector determined success- for example that energy companies made more profit than retailers- rather than that the key to success was a respectful culture. It also means that some of the rules of systemic power are going to be forced onto organisations whether they like it or not. If organisations that do not have respectful cultures do not increase profits, then in time all organisations will have respectful cultures.

    • Ernie Hopkins

      “making hierarchies work” is the theoretical philosophy concept. They have a 100% real world track record of failure. Horizontal based power structures, typically called anarchy based, as in lacking a vertical pyramid hierarchy, have been used quite successfully for thousands of years. It is only the development of central banking and fiat monopoly money in the last few centuries, which allowed for unlimited warfare, that the tribal horizontal societies have been losing.

      • luckylongshot

        You mix up a number of issues in your comment. The privately owned banking system is at the heart of what is causing humanities problems as it is little more than a criminal enterprise, using accounting fraud, counterfeiting and a ponzi scheme to transfer public wealth into the pockets of a small elite.
        However hierarchies are a different issue as they exist in animal populations and so are a natural way of organisation. The point I have been trying to make is that from my research what has emerged is that it is the way power is used within hierarchies rather than the hierarchy that is the problem. I will give you an example from something I have recently written-

        Hodson (2001), in his meta-analysis, found that to increase productivity organisations must learn to decentralise power:

        The longstanding tradition of unilateral management power must be replaced by bilateral systems of power in which the workers’ voices can be heard” (Hodson, 2001, p.269).

        The organisation had taken the concept of decentralising power and applied it in a way that seemed to be unique. Every employee was given as much control as possible over how they performed their jobs. Managers were not permitted to use hierarchical power over staff. The HR manager explains:
        The power was not based at all on people’s positions, like the operations manager would not have any more I guess perceived power than the mailroom assistant.
        What is particularly interesting about this quote is that it indicates that power dynamics can be changed in hierarchical organisations without actually breaking down the hierarchy. This is important because many theorists in this area have theorised that this is not possible. The entire anarchist movement seems to be based on an assumption that hierarchies are a problem. Foucault believed this as well and looked at how societies could operate without hierarchies (Pickett, 2005). Clegg, Courpasson and Phillips (2006) also view hierarchies as being a problem. They identify how relations of domination are invariably expressed hierarchically and suggest that hierarchies are not a particularly natural way of organisation. However what the quote suggests is a completely different approach- to ignore the hierarchy and simply focus on how power is applied within it. Furthermore this approach actually worked.

  • Steve

    Its basically a working dole….people will be trading their human independence and any rights thye have for being permenatly attached to the govt teat… this is just Communism by another name…but it was proposed by a Leftist so no surprises there.
    At what point do people develop some fire in their guts and actually throw off the creeping wet blanket of suffocating State control?

loading
Sign up now and join our exclusive international network for free-market thinkers
Privacy Assured: We will NEVER share your personal information.