I like to say that any bad idea is a bad idea in theory if you have useful theories.
The only possible argument I could have for UBI, though I would rename to UBT, is if instead of paying a whole living income you simply made sure that to the degree we have "targeted inflation" that the increased cash flow goes directly to the people instead of to major banks. Under the current process it doesn't even go to the government like many people think. If you have increased spending the needed money gets printed, handed to private banks, and then lent to the government from the banks. In a period where you have negative real interest rate (any time inflation is above the fed's interbank lending rate), you are giving the banks a loan with zero NPV cost and letting them convert it instantly into "high value" "high security" government debt. It's literally free money.
So if I were to make my strongest case for the other side, pro-ubi/ubt, (I guess I have the instincts of a lawyer because I like to argue the strongest case of each side), it would be that we are all taxed in a way by having a currency imposed on us. A lot of benefit comes to an organization for having the ability to print what everyone recognizes as being synonymous with value. This has had a cost on us. The banks own everything not because of accumulated interest like the marxists would argue, but because the money necessary to own everything indirectly the way the banks do was literally printed and handed to them. That is a cost on us that that has happened. It is also a cost on us in the form of loss in real earning growth. So then because having a currency imposed on you has a demonstrated cost on us, is it wrong that we ask for a small tribute to the people in exchange? A tribute for being allowed to operate money. A money that the people have been nice enought to recognize as money, when they could have selected any other thing.
But even then under the strongest argument I can muster it doesn't argue for a full income. Maybe $20 once a week. And not from the government because that would in theory come from taxes or be a future liability for other generations. If it were to come at all it would have to come directly from the fed.
Even with those arguments it is still not worth it because that's a gateway argument to CBDC, or would be argued that way, and that would give them all kinds of strings they would abuse immediately. The $20 a week or whatever I'm owed for having a rigged currency imposed on me isn't worth giving them even more power they don't deserve.
Seems clear there is no end to the simple and complex ways UBI can be exploited and twisted against its most generous good intentions. It's like a large cardboard airplane made by a child who rides it off a cliff.
UBI is a simplistic token distracting us from the endless evils of the shadow government perma-state.
It would be inauthentic to not argue the strongest cases from all sides. Sometimes time does not permit it.
We need a grass-roots way to generate wealth, like Bitcoin, but simpler - for small communities. Away from the Banksters. We also need to fight capital gains. We need to encourage creating/doing/growing/making again. Make making great again.
A couple years ago I had some ideas on a small community-oriented decentralized banking fusion tri-system that included open ledgers and different currency/banking ideas. I wish I'd actually started it on Projex.Wiki. Maybe it's time to start that outline, poke holes in it, patch it, poke it, patch it, poke it, and see if it could develop into anything of substance. Theory is one thing. Getting folks to employ it is another.
Ultimately we need to decentralize economics to actually be fair.
Log in
UBI, like Communism, is a neat idea. In theory.
Like everything touched by politics, it's a trap with hideous strings attached and will always become corrupted at every stage.
Fancies of fairness and convenience are especially enticing to those easily addicted or needing escape for whatever reasons - good, bad, or ugly.
I like to say that any bad idea is a bad idea in theory if you have useful theories.
The only possible argument I could have for UBI, though I would rename to UBT, is if instead of paying a whole living income you simply made sure that to the degree we have "targeted inflation" that the increased cash flow goes directly to the people instead of to major banks. Under the current process it doesn't even go to the government like many people think. If you have increased spending the needed money gets printed, handed to private banks, and then lent to the government from the banks. In a period where you have negative real interest rate (any time inflation is above the fed's interbank lending rate), you are giving the banks a loan with zero NPV cost and letting them convert it instantly into "high value" "high security" government debt. It's literally free money.
So if I were to make my strongest case for the other side, pro-ubi/ubt, (I guess I have the instincts of a lawyer because I like to argue the strongest case of each side), it would be that we are all taxed in a way by having a currency imposed on us. A lot of benefit comes to an organization for having the ability to print what everyone recognizes as being synonymous with value. This has had a cost on us. The banks own everything not because of accumulated interest like the marxists would argue, but because the money necessary to own everything indirectly the way the banks do was literally printed and handed to them. That is a cost on us that that has happened. It is also a cost on us in the form of loss in real earning growth. So then because having a currency imposed on you has a demonstrated cost on us, is it wrong that we ask for a small tribute to the people in exchange? A tribute for being allowed to operate money. A money that the people have been nice enought to recognize as money, when they could have selected any other thing.
But even then under the strongest argument I can muster it doesn't argue for a full income. Maybe $20 once a week. And not from the government because that would in theory come from taxes or be a future liability for other generations. If it were to come at all it would have to come directly from the fed.
Even with those arguments it is still not worth it because that's a gateway argument to CBDC, or would be argued that way, and that would give them all kinds of strings they would abuse immediately. The $20 a week or whatever I'm owed for having a rigged currency imposed on me isn't worth giving them even more power they don't deserve.
Insightful points, all.
Seems clear there is no end to the simple and complex ways UBI can be exploited and twisted against its most generous good intentions. It's like a large cardboard airplane made by a child who rides it off a cliff.
UBI is a simplistic token distracting us from the endless evils of the shadow government perma-state.
It would be inauthentic to not argue the strongest cases from all sides. Sometimes time does not permit it.
We need a grass-roots way to generate wealth, like Bitcoin, but simpler - for small communities. Away from the Banksters. We also need to fight capital gains. We need to encourage creating/doing/growing/making again. Make making great again.
A couple years ago I had some ideas on a small community-oriented decentralized banking fusion tri-system that included open ledgers and different currency/banking ideas. I wish I'd actually started it on Projex.Wiki. Maybe it's time to start that outline, poke holes in it, patch it, poke it, patch it, poke it, and see if it could develop into anything of substance. Theory is one thing. Getting folks to employ it is another.
Ultimately we need to decentralize economics to actually be fair.