Universal Basic Income: gaining traction

[Iamwhomiam]

Then my use of the phase was as I intended, that "you can never say too much about how important a point is because it's very important" that the development of a parallel economy is of the utmost importance to enable transitioning... But this I disagree with, "..rather than, can never say too little because it's not" because it is that important.

Thank you. I appreciate your clarifying that for me.

[KUAN]

'Shouldn't be understated' would've worked...

[minime]

And here I thought I was reading about Trump's time of hardship on his way to becoming a millionaire!

A great story about how easy it is to fool and take advantage of an ignorant member of the proletariat. We admire his shrewdness without pitying the peon and ignore his victim and her lose.

A lonely, suspicious old woman is duped into sharing a delicious meal made by a stranger, giving her a warm memory and a story to tell for the rest of her life. Dada, you terrorist.

No one I know or have read interprets the story as you have. What a twisted point of view. No wonder you're here.

Hee hee, for that last sentence minime. I get that a lot. There was no bias in what I wrote, though. I always try to examine situations from all perspectives, so I simply related another the story itself distracted from recognizing. As I earlier wrote, this time a bit differently, each individual benefited from the others dishonesty, the shrewder of the two clearly is the man, who gained a tale, a coin, shelter and a meal - and the memories. What's her gain compared with her lose? Has she another coin to replace the food he's eaten?

Therefore, fuck the capitalist profiteering pig.

You're clever, whom.

How's that working for you?

[Iamwhomiam]

Hasn't gotten me killed yet, minime. My honesty, that is. Probably comes from too many years of examining the fine print, I suppose.

Thank you, Kuan. I've only just learned and from an odd source, the movie Captain Fantastic, to not simply write "I found that interesting," but to expound on what I found interesting and why. (A very good movie, btw, and one that teaches there is no escaping our captive capitalistic economy for a single family trying to live outside the system.) The latter being thought to stimulate discussion while the former offers little to advance the discussion.

[Luther Blissett]

The worker's struggle and the gains they brought far pre-date World War II, and even the Industrial Revolution. The middle of the century only appears as a blip if you aren't measuring the aspects of modern life that are radically distinctive to human history. The progression of time used to crawl much slower, and this is not "the natural order of the world."

In many ways these radically new external forces hinder middle of the century progress, but I think what people are missing is the ways in which these external forces pave the way for radical progress. What are the ways in which the contemporary era is markedly different than any other time in human history? Democratization of information exchange and the ability to connect to most people in the world? Burgeoning automation? Even the negative unique conditions of modern life — the highest concentration of greenhouse gases in human history, living under history's single strongest and most technologically advanced military force, the most drastic inequality the world has ever seen, vast depletion of natural resources, etc. — these are all weaknesses of the ruling class and keys through which the people can promote progress.

Universal basic income is just one form of progress that could come out of the people rising up and banding together in a mass movement. It really is just one step on the way to the abolition of debt and, by extension, capitalism. It will demonstrate to the people of the world the entire fallacy of money.

There will never be a full employment society, only far less. So now what do we do about it? It doesn't seem as though it's a very smart idea to let the robots do all the work and to let a very small ruling class reap all the profits from the excess productivity and saved wages.

Let me be clear. I have nothing against universal income in the way you describe it, or in principle. My problem is with those in power, those who will control its distribution.

At first, I'm sure it will appear to work to our benefit, and it probably will. Kind of like the Internet. However, gradually, they will start to impose conditions and docking pay for failure to brush your teeth three times a day, failure to eat properly, failure to exercise, failure to get vaccinations, failure to turn out your lights, and so on. In other words, total control of every aspect of your life.

But, If it works out the way you describe...GREAT!

I mean I definitely think it's a very long shot, and if it were proposed to us tomorrow by today's hegemony, I'd feel much in the same way you do throughout this thread. I would only trust a people-powered version and would encourage others to be just as wary.

[Iamwhomiam]

However, the impacts from our changing climate will force change long before any effective alternative system can develop. I believe that is why a parallel economy, already underway in more than a few communities, will be a useful survivable economy in times to come.

But I believe my interpretation of a parallel economy is incorrect. I'm referring to a local currency and barter system, though I accept the traditional interpretation of being a black market economy will also exist in times to come.

But, please, no matter what will come to be, continue working to make our world a healthier place to live without fear of much other than natural geophysical phenomena, with ample food, water, warmth and shelter for with none left wanting.

[Luther Blissett]

Yeah very true. Always have to apply a reading of the climate crisis to any future analysis. Especially if Guy McPherson (via Jeff) is to be believed: that civilization won't survive past 2026.

[Luther Blissett]

That is to say that I like the idea of a parallel economy and have had conversations about organizing to make it happen locally.

[Iamwhomiam]

[Elvis]

Must keep an eye on these experiments in UBI; I didn't know about this one in Kenya...listening to BBC report coming up, you can download it at the BBC link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p062qw3c

Kenya's Basic Income Experiment

What happens if you give every adult in a village $22 a month, no strings attached, for 12 years? In rural Kenya, researchers are trying to find out. They're conducting the world's largest study of 'universal basic income' - giving 'free money' to nearly 200 villages, to see whether this could kick-start development and bring people out of poverty. The BBC's Africa correspondent Anne Soy visits western Kenya to meet some of the people involved in this giant economic experiment, and to find out what they make of this unexpected windfall in their lives. How will people spend the money? Will they try to start businesses, or stay in education longer? Or will people stop working, now they have a guaranteed income? What impact will this have on the villages? The BBC intends to return to the same village over the course of the study, to continue to monitor and assess the impact of this 'basic income', and to see what difference it makes to peoples' lives, the choices they make, and the dreams they hold.

31 March 2018
Available now

27 minutes

Presenter: Anne Soy
Producer: Becky Lipscombe


Download

Also I don't know anything about 'basicincome.org' but interesting—the Kenya effort is the work of a U.S. charity—note many valuable links at original (which I'll explore further, later):

http://basicincome.org/news/2017/11/usk ... xperiment/

US/KENYA: GiveDirectly Officially Launches UBI experiment


The US charity GiveDirectly has officially launched its trial of basic income in rural Kenya, and is now enrolling experimental participants.

The US$30 million experiment will be the largest trial of basic income to date, in terms of both size and duration. All residents of about 120 rural Kenyan villages, comprising more than 16,000 people in total, will receive some type of unconditional cash transfers during the experiment; some of these villages, moreover, will receive the universal basic income for twelve years.

It is also unique among current experiments in that it is designed as a randomized controlled trial in which the experimental units are villages rather than individuals. This means that, unlike the studies occurring in Finland, Ontario, the Netherlands, and elsewhere, the GiveDirectly experiment will be able to capture community-level effects of the basic income [*].

The experiment will include three treatment groups. In two groups, villages will receive a universal basic income of about US$23 per resident per month (roughly half of the average income in rural Kenya). In one group, comprising 80 villages, the payments will continue for two years; in the other, comprising 40 villages, the payments will continue for twelve years. In the third treatment group, all residents of each village will receive a single lump-sum payment equal in amount to the two-year basic income (i.e. about US$276). Another 100 rural Kenyan villages have been randomly assigned to a control group.

Chief Financial Officer Joe Huston announced the official launch in a blog post dated November 13, declaring, “It has begun! As I write, field officers in Bomet County, Kenya are beginning to enroll the first (post-pilot) households into the largest basic income initiative in history.”

The launch had been delayed from its originally anticipated date in September, due in part to political disruptions in Kenya surrounding a contested presidential election.

Since October 2016, GiveDirectly has been running a preliminary pilot in a single Kenyan village. All residents of this village (numbering 95 at the start of the pilot) were guaranteed a monthly unconditional cash payments, which will continue in this village for 12 years.

This preliminary study was conducted to help the researchers fine-tune the implementation of the full-scale experiment, and data collected from the pilot village will not be included in the analysis of the experiment. Because of the latter, GiveDirectly has decided to make data and information from pilot village available to the public (no data collected from the experiment itself will publicized until the trial has concluded). For example, the charity has published responses to a survey of participants and is now running a three-part series on “lessons drawn” from a year of observing the pilot village.



[*] In describing the experiment on its website, GiveDirectly suggests that it is interested mainly in individual-level (rather than community-level) effects of basic income, stating, “We will assess the impact of a basic income against a broad set of metrics, including: economic status (income, assets, standard of living); time use (work, education, leisure, community involvement); risk-taking (migrating, starting businesses); gender relations (especially female empowerment); aspirations and outlook on life.” This does not render the community-level effects irrelevant, however, since individual attitudes and behavior can be influenced by social multiplier effects.



Correction (Nov 17): An earlier version of this article stated that the experiment would include 200 villages in total (with 80 in the lump-sum payment treatment group), amounting to around 26,000 total recipients. This statement was based on out-of-date information, and has now been corrected. In fact, approximately 120 villages will be included in the study (totaling more than 16,000 recipients), with a reduction of the number of villages in the lump-sum treatment arm.

[Elvis]

I'm now against this shit.

A universal basic income would only widen the wealth gap, since the already-wealthy would multiply their UBI incomes by investment, while everyone else immediately consumes their UBI with no rise in net worth. There are nuances, of course, and don't get me wrong; the state must intervene in the economy, from start to end.


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

I better understand now how a national job guarantee provides the better solutions. Here's an Australian ABC oped featuring MMT economist Bill Mitchell:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-19/ ... fmredir=sm
Why a universal basic income is a poor substitute for a guaranteed job

Hey hippie—get a job need a job?

[minime]

Both?

[Grizzly]

^^^ Wurd!

[Iamwhomiam]

Two things could cause a guaranteed job program to go belly-up. One would be a sunset to the law, or its repeal. Another would be a revaluation of our currency, whereby a guaranteed job sheds its fiscal benefits and the worker becomes an indentured servant.

How are those who are unable to work to survive? Social support systems cannot be abandoned, as the need will only become greater over time.

Inflation, since 1966, has increased 690%

The robots are coming to replace "workers."

That's one hell of a way to ruin a party.

[minime]

All of these alternative systems--indeed, even the one in place--rise and fall on simple human compassion, in my opinion.