A conversation about universal basic income, socialism, and capitalism
Bert Wolfe wrote:
Unfortunately, an improvement in America’s mental health will require a dramatic change in America’s socioeconomic and political reality from a toxic and socially destructive individualism to a new understanding that everyone does well in life when everyone does well in life.
In short, America requires a dramatic shift in its consciousness.
It has been remarked that all that is required to change America for the better is the development of the political will to do so.
Ah, but that it were all quite that simple.
Developing that political will requires a massive sea change in the consciousness and belief systems of the great mass of the American people as late stage multinational corporate capitalism is America’s secular religion, complete with its own holy literature, dogma, and liturgy.
I’m not expecting it short of a cataclysmic catastrophe in America, such as a war as all consuming, destructive, and grinding as the two World Wars were in Europe, and/or an economic collapse that makes the Great Depression of the 1930s look like boom times. The kind of cataclysmic event that absolutely shatters all former belief systems, faiths, and complacent certainties, leaving the former faithful believers totally unmoored, cast adrift, bereft, grieving, and seeking new wisdom and a new way.
Then, and only then, when late stage multinational corporate capitalism and the social and political systems it engenders and that support it prove to be “the God that failed” will America be ready for the change in political will that will transform the American economy and society.
What remains unknown, is will that change in American political outlook veer left towards social democracy or veer right towards a homegrown American fascism? If the experience of Europe during the 1930s, and of America under the Trump regime are any indication, America could take the disastrous road towards fascism. Preventing that will require all patriotic Americans of good will to join together to lead America into the bright future of social democracy and a secular version of “the beloved community” that works for all Americans.
Jesse Horstman wrote:
The left and the right are pursuing fascist agendas. Hopefully people reform the system before the system kills all of the would be reformers. We can't wait for the wheels to fall off. If we don't self organize and build a better alternative then we will all become enslaved in the aftermath of the next great war.
I like the premise of this one Bert, especially the first part.
Jesse Horstman Thinking you get fascism and authoritarian mixed up. Fascism is a right wing driven phenomenon. It is when money uses gov't to represent them to the exclusion of the people. All gov't forces are used to suppress the populace. Kinda like what is happening today in the US and many other places around the world.
Any gov't can become authoritarian - especially when they stop representing the will of the people. Left, right....anybody.
Jesse Horstman wrote:
I agree with your definitions, but I am not convinced that the left is only authoritarian. This whole right left spectrum is a false dichotomy. Let's move toward sustainable biodiversity with liberated markets which are humanized by security loans and forgivness vouchers distributed by diverse local governments universally and on the condition of unemployment respectively.
Dan Favarger wrote:
Never said the left is only authoritarian.
Thinking we also need to define positions - hence left/right and all the stops along the way that the human race has tried and failed at.
I'm of the mind the best way to move is towards a social based world. Thinking we've seen enough of "liberated markets" which is what got us into this mess in the first place. Humanized markets seem like a contradiction in terms. Perhaps I don't understand your point of view? We can only have one master. Those vying for first place are money and people. I think that money should serve people, not the other way around. In fact...down the road of evolution I can see a world with no money at all.
Perhaps you need to define "vouchers". The entire point of a UBI is that everyone gets it. This removes the stigma that is placed on 'poor people'.
Jesse Horstman wrote:
Wr probably won't agree about how liberalized the markets have been, but I share your opinion that people should take priority over money.
Although I was a proponent of UBI, I have realized that UBI is a trap because if the workers who fund it are the recipients then corrupt government actors and the powerful people who influence the government would corrupt the system and rather than empowering people it would actually have the opposite effect. More people would become impoverished if we undermine the independence of the worker by subsidizing their income. Workers in that situatiin would become vulnerable to manipulation and they would never receive as much in return as they pay so it doesn't actually make sense.
Universality of benefits is a goal to pursue so that those who are in need are not required to jump though hoops or prove their neediness. For that reason I am promoting the idea of a universal loan which is automatically issued. No one is required to spend the money of course. People who are working would be required to repay the loan, but the people who are unemployed, the young, the old, the disabled would receive a voucher of loan forgiveness.
I have written about it here.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/36845119
https://www.patreon.com/posts/67099066
https://www.patreon.com/posts/45616672
https://www.patreon.com/posts/47507850
https://www.patreon.com/posts/47609658
https://www.patreon.com/posts/47576101
https://www.patreon.com/posts/37422087
.
Dan Favarger wrote:
Ah...my friend you are sooo 'inside the box'. You've left a few boxes unchecked. Regardless if we get a UBI or not, AI and automation will displace us all anyway. When a critical amount of the population is out of work (through no fault of their own..it's just that technology has advanced past social adaptation) we will no longer be able to support mass production as we do today. In other words all the machinery that replaced us will have no function.
A UBI must be paid out, but it also must come from those that want to stay in business. The motivation is keeping prices down so UBI payments don't need to go up. We use the system of capitalism to actually curb growth. All the time the big sell is preserving capitalism - with social programs. It has to be so as the working class with pretty well cease to exist. And with it goes the elite industrialists.
A UBI is not a loan. it is your right as a human being and citizen. There is no stigma attached. This allows you to pursue other adventures like advancing sicence, writing, or just sitting on your couch and watching daytime TV. Studies have shown that people - for the most part - do not being useless. They need an outlet to concentrate on. I can vouch personally this is true.
The wealthy will simply have their UBI clawed back in taxes.
This is where we are, Jesse. We're on the cusp of almost free energy and working for pleasure, not because we have to eat. This is where technology is leading us.
Yes...it is a transition of humanity. Yes, capitalism as we understand it today will be dead. Yes, there are bugs in he system. I can think of one fly in the ointment - population control.
Jesse Horstman wrote:
Perhaps you will explain this comment about boxes in another way for me. I don't know what you mean.
As tech advances we will all need to work less to survive, but there will always be some activities which a person can do to provide value to others.
If mass production isn't valued that would probably be a good thing. What do you mean when you say the machinery that replaced us will have no function?
Prices could come down by technological advances or by a currency shortage. A UBI would not affect it on a macro scale.
The idea that prices should be kept down is odd to me. Most people are underpaid. As we collectively work to raise living standards there will be some temporary increases in prices. Those increases will not matter however as a wealthier population will be relatively better off. People with uninvested savings will not enjoy price inflation, but everyone who is currently in debt will love paying it off.
I'm not sure who is selling the preservation of capitalism. It's just a financing arrangement. When most people are poor, as is the case now, then capitalism can be predatory. If people are fairly compensated and a proper safety net exists for children and the unemployed then the need for capital lending will be reduced, but it will still have applications in the cooperative funding of large projects.
If an industrialist is providing value then I don't have any issue with them being compensated for it. I don't have an issue with anyone who becomes weathy honestly, but I do have a major issue with people who perpetuate systems which contribute to poverty.
UBI is not a loan. You're right. UBI is also a bad idea for the reasons already set forth. I have proposed an alternative that is like UBI for everyone except the people who are working (self employed or otherwise ). It should be distributed as a loan to all people because the worker could be unemployed tomorrow and they shouldn't need to know tow to the government to get the funding which is their right as a human being. It should already be in their possession. As you said there should be no stigma attached, and the unemployed could use the money as they see fit.
Clawing back UBI from the wealthy sounds strange. Is everyone supposed to be poor?Why even hand out somethibg if the goal is to claw it back? In practice we are saying the same thing because my proposal is to loan a security (or mobility) stipend to everyone and require the workers to repay their loans. I don't see it as an attack on workers since they will be earning more money by working anyway.
Yes, I agree that we are on the cusp of a more prosperous society.
You should check out my solarthermoelectric collector project.
Capitalism will be far less predatory when people stand together and demand proper compensation for childcare providers and everyone else. Markets will always exist.
Populations don't need external controls, but there will be various forms of governance that people tolerate for the sake of security and cooperative action. When people are elevated outof poverty there will be fewer security threats and less destructive competition.
The environment can sustain a larger population and there is good historical evidence suggesting that as we reduce poverty the reproduction rate will also reduce. The population is expected to increase and press against the limit of sustainability at 10-11 billion and then fall. If we address global poverty sooner then we can curb the growth sooner too.
Dan Favarger wrote:
You honour me with your thought out response. I don't agree with it all but appreciate it.
In the box...I suspect that as an American you cannot fathom any other system of production/distribution than capitalism. My entire point is...capitalism as we understand it today is going to die. It will either get more predatory and gov't will become more authoritarian or it's go more social with a UBI.
A loan is unemployment insurance. We already have that. That is there until you find another job. I am saying to you there will be no other jobs. More and more expect machinery to replace us. This is a paradigm shift. This is human social evolution.
The market will be changing drastically. All things you used to consider as a way to make money may not apply. The petro dollar will die. This is as big in itself as when the bronzee age died and the iron age was ushered almost over night. Fortunes will be made and lost. What was solid ground will then be a stranded asset.
Enter a the development of a cashless society. Consider all transactions does electronically or bartered. This is good and bad. Bad that the gov't knows that you went to garage sale. Good because extreme excesses will now be caught. Money laundering will be impossible.
In the end nobody has a problem with somebody making more money than another. It is the extremes we need to curb. Advanced capitalism speaks of extremes. We need more social political constructs to even the playing field. The rate of wealth disparity in the US exceeds that of pre-French revolution France. Duee to the nature of multinationals the rest of the world is not to far behind you.
Another reeason to considere more social politics is we need to abate climate change as best as we can. That involves stripping c02 from the air and oceans. Who will do that? There is no money in it - yet it needs to be done. Who will pay for the billion or so enviro-refugees the world will experience in the next 100 years or less?
Jesse Horstman wrote:
I appreciate you too and I hope we are listening to eachother because we have the same vision.
It will go more social if we are proactive and it can't be a UBI because that will actually make it more predatory and authoritarian. I'm serious about this. I also want a benefit for all people, but if anyone is working they must not be a benefitiary while they are working because workers must not be made reliant on government decisions.
We have inadequate unemployment insurance that people must apply for and it comes with conditions.
If there are no jobs then the current system doesn't make sense, but the system of automatic universal security loans would be identical to UBI if there are no workers because everyone would be unemployed and every loan would be forgiven.
Your vision of a world in which no person provides value for others doesn't sound realistic to me. Robots may do a lot, but as you also said, people will still create art and engage in research. Perhaps most people will enjoy fulfilling lives without working, but some people will decide to work for a few hours every week so they can buy something extra. Perhaps they want to buy a yacht or travel to a music festival. Maybe they have a vision of an even more prosperous society, so they find a way to fund it. Fundraising and project management are also forms of work.
The petro dollar will die, but we must be cautious because that ponzi scheme is enforced by a violent government with nuclear weapons. The USA has fooled the world with a mountain of lies and that whole belief system will fight to preserve their fantasy. They have murdered millions and they will murder more to preserve their status.
Why are we worried about monry laundering? A single tax on land solves the issue of government surveillance and interference in business and it also will be easier to collect. I know the common retorts, if you do the calculation you will discover that the tax will not be higher for homeowners and common people. It will of course be higher for farmers and other property managers with extensive tracts, but they will actually enjoy higher income as a side effect of managing a greater cashflow. This will liberate farmers from the predatory capitalist lending arrangements which most are now contracted to. The reality of land, is that everyone uses it and, as a part of the earth, everybody has some right to it.
The extreme that needs to be curbed is poverty. I agree. We need a better welfare system, a safety net for the young, the old, the disabled, and the unemployed. It should be automatic and without conditions and it will benefit everyone beacuse we are all children and most of us live to experience old age. It will especially benefit the workers because they will be empowered to strike without fear of starvation or homelessness. Who will work for a survival stipend when society provides that to the unemployed? Working will provide fair wages and with poverty (nearly) eradicated wealth disparity will cease to be a concern.
The changes we want must be global because the technology of transportation and communication is not going away. If some people are poor, eventually everyone will be poor. When everyone is living comfortably and enjoying proper compensation for the work they do then there will be less global trade and less associated pollution. It will happen because local production will become cheaper than foreign production plus transportation, and when production is local industrial waste will also become a greater concern. Today we ship our toxic waste to poorer nations. When there are no poorer nations the consumers will demand that there is no toxic waste because they won't allow it in their children's drinking water.
The refugees will actually pay for themselves, especially if we support them financially and ensure that their children get the opportunities to grow and develop their talents. We need to stop bombing cities and creating conditions which people must flee from, but the people who do move out of a bad situation into a better one are making life easier for everyone. It will be easier to help them they are near us and they will become productive participants in our economy. Having fled from a dangerous situation, the population pressures which contributed to the dangerous situation will also be partially alleviated.
Dan Favarger wrote:
Yes...I think you nailed it when you said extreme poverty needs to be curbed and then you went further to promote a better welfare system that is delivered automatically. That, my friend is UBI.
The reason is must be given to all is due to the fickle nature of politics. What's to say the next orange monkey that comes in won't remove this welfare or cut back? That is the nature of capitalism. Always remember that this capitalism you want to preserve is the only reason people died in Guatemala over bananas. Human life was traded so the United Fruit Company (now Chiquita) could prosper.
The laws of entropy demand that time cannot be turned back. And so it is with social distribution systems. They always must progress forward. The next stop on the track is either socialism (to protect the people) or fascism (to protect the wealthy). I really don't believe you will be able to convince the pathologically damaged to give up their wealth voluntarily.
As for work....when there is none...then what? Does the progression of AI and automation not lead us to a totally automated workforce? Why not? Machines never need time off. They rarely get sick and when they do they can fix themselves. They don't need unions. They can do any job we can, better. (yes...even poetry and visual arts - sadly) All in all they give a far more stable platform for industry. BUT....we must keep up with that technology with social advances as well.
All in all the entire concept of money is so we can have brakes on consumption. In a world where there in no scarcity everyone gets what they need. There is no cause for crimes against property except in cases of mental sickness. Imagine if you will "Psst...wanna buy a XXXX?" You already have one and have no need for it. Your security is ensured by the constitution of humanity. Crime offers little to be gained.
If you haven't seen this yet, you are in for a treat. Jacques Fresco - who has addressed the UN and been awarded by UN endorsed panels for advanced community living has come up with how mankind can achieve a utopia. This is real although the status quo laughs at it because they are in fact terrified it could catch on and eliminate their social superiority for the first time since we gave torque to the village shaman 10,000 years ago. There is an astronomical amount of material here to consume. If you enjoy social engineering like I do you should really enjoy this.
Jesse Horstman wrote:
I will check out the Venus Project. Scanning the essay titles it looks a lot like my own blog. Thanks for sharing.
Please hear me out, because we both believe an approximate earthly paradise is possible and we are both promoting a universal benefit, but you keep erroniously insisting that I am promoting a corrupt form of capitalism when I am not.
The criminal activities in Guatemala were not free market exchanges. The governments and other violent actors created that situation. Socialism, which is the real nature of every government, has frequently empowered governments to do terrible things, especially to outgroups and minorities.
Nonetheless, security is a prerequisite to generalized prosperity and the government is in the best position to redistribute wealth. We must strike a balance between minimalistic governace and socialistic bloat. I believe the balance is with a single tax and a single benefit and I don't see a reason for us to disagree on this.
What we do disagree about is if the workers who would ( currently) be funding the government should be allowed to keep the benefit. Computers have not yet replaced all workers, but when they do we both share the same goal. Until that time, I am warning you that a UBI program would be ruinous because if a portion of workers income comes from the government then people will begin to accept lower pay from employers. Rather than enabling unions it would actually undermine worker compensation. It would also encourage the government to force authoritarian dictates onto workers. Like you said, politicians are fickle. When a portion of every workers income is channelled through the government then the government has the leverage to impoverish people who do not comply.
It is foolish to give the government that leverage. Robots are not yet the source of all wealth and when they are we should hope that most people hold a stake in their productive activities. Workers of the future may all collaborate with artificial intelligence to create value. Be it a robot or a human, someone takes the wealth of the earth and delivers it to the market for consumption. We should only tax land, but the landowner will pass the burden to consumers and those workers who are transforming the earth into desirable products are the ultimate source of tax revenue. Imagine then, if the worker must support the young, the old, and the disabled with their taxes then the tax collected might be $2000, for example. If the workers also are going to each receive $1000 as a UBI benefit then the tax collected must be at least $3000, not to mention the government overhead. So the workers pay $3000 and get back $1000. It's pointless. The workers should not be allowed to keep the benefit because it gives the government financial leverage over the worker and the worker gets nothing in return.
Dan Favarger wrote:
Regardless of whether you recognize it or not, AI and automation is upon us today. Not only is it upon us, but technology breeds technology. Job loss will only increase. Marxist concepts like all wealth comes from workers will someday no longer apply. Automation will take care of much of that. I speak of that day. In order to even speak of that day we need to recognize the threat to traditional workforces.
The day will come when AI can pilot a vehicle better than us 'meaty' individuals. The day will come when human driven cars will not be allowed on public roads.
The event of gov't withdrawing a UBI for partisan leverage is a capitalist construct. Why would they do that? So others may gain. It would help so much if you could step outside your American conceptual borders and consider a world without the same greed as you all live within day to day. Many Americans believe that capitalism is the natural way of man and it has been around forever. This is not true. Capitalism is more or less 500 years old. Prior to that we had feudalism. And prior to that we had a more social community construct where the village pulled in one direction. Looking after your neighbour is actually hard wired into our psyche. It is the natural way of man. The greed we are mired in today is a man made situation based on the fear of insecurity.
My baking a UBI (or a GLI - guaranteed livable income) into the constitution it becomes far less susceptible to partisan meddling. In fact...the entire concept of partisan politics would disappear as there is nothing to gain from it. The only job is keeping the machine running and being proactive to changes in environment that may threaten security. There is no leverage to be had with a UBI.
Your arbitrary number of $3000 to deliver $1000 in UBI to citizens is not accepted although I do get what you're saying. Your claim is big gov't machines are inefficient. That is true today. There are departments that work against each other. Example....spending trillions on greening our methods, but yet granting oil drilling permits. These inconsistencies neede to be revisited. Large gov't is not bad. That is an American ideology based on supporting capitalism. Imagine gov't being your friend instead. In reality it has been proven that by paying out one benefit (if we can call it that) negates all the other offices and benefits that currently are in use. A UBI is more efficient and therefore costs in universal medicine, penal costs, psychiatric costs to society are greatly eliminated. You need to factor in the benefits as well.
Oh...you're going to enjoy the Venus Project, but only if you keep an oppen mind to the possibilities which are costed out.
Jesse Horstman wrote:
You have misunderstood me.
If you read my blog posts then you would know that I suport a benefit for the unemployed which is far in excess of $1000. Just picking a number, it would actually be more like $200,000, and it should be adjusted constantly to keep up with market changes.
Although I mentioned the inefficiency of government, the actual point I was making was that in a simplified example it might cost $2000 per worker to support the unemployed but it would cost $3000 per worker to support the unemployed and the workers. The only reason to take $1000 away and give it back is to empower the government to start making demands.
I'm glad that you can admit that governments are imperfect. I don't know why selfish politicians do evil things, but it has happened in every nation. That is reality, with or without capitalism.
I agree that everyone would benefit if we all help one another to succeed. I am also promoting a benefit for all people so that no one is required to work or labor for another. I agree that the single benefit can replace all of the other welfare benefits and that would be better than the current arrangement. I agree that fear of insecurity is holding people back and that the technology exists to create a post scarcity civilization.
When wealth is distributed to the young, the old, the disabled, and the unemployed then even the workers will become wealthier. It should not be a benefit for the workers because if the government turns toward evil then the workers who are independent will still be able to resist and fight for a return to good.
I understand that you anticipate a time when all people will be unemployed. That's fine, we both want automatic benefits for the unemployed. Until then, we should preserve and enhance the indepenence of working people because they are still the backbone of society.
There is a global culture of rape and abuse which will not magically disappear. It can be argued that one out of four people have perpetrated sexual violence upon others. I would like to believe we can trust everyone to do the right thing, but there are sociopaths who will infiltrate positions of power and they will use leverage to entertain their malevolent desires.
