Introduction:
“We do economy as if we were not part of the world. And in a terrifying sense, we are not. But accepting this means to abandon all hope that capitalism might be reformed or some other kind of economy might step in instead.
Many try to envision means to supplant or expand capitalism in order to reduce its harmful effects. Besides discussions on growth, monetary systems, taxation, there is one on “Basic Income” or “General Living Income”. Trying to revamp capitalism with a guaranteed “income” that without claim or justification provides the essential needs for everybody struggles with conceptual problems of how even to describe the allocation and its systemic position. One problem is that the concepts used stem from full-fledged capitalism itself and enshrine their negative connotations. An other is that within the given economic system those means cannot but cushion the worst consequences. They do not seem to have the potential to “transform” the system as a whole.
We need an economic system that not only provides but equally rests on mutual welfare. The reasons for this are manifold, and it seems fit to start with some observations, to “beat the neighbouring bushes”, as Wilfried Sellars once famously said.”
Simsa0, “Towards an Economy of the World-Ingrained Self”, Simsa0’s WordPress, 13 March 2013.
Simsa’s conclusion in this article is that, “We need an economic system that not only provides but equally rests on mutual welfare.”
I am puzzled how one could call an unconditional Basic Income Guarantee (uBIG) anything but “mutual welfare”, for it is a program in which all citizens agree to insure that all have a decent income and are free from economic insecurity. And that’s not “mutual welfare”?
Unfortunately, it seems to me that Simsa has certain preconceptions about capitalism and the free market that mistake the corruption for the foundation of the system. It seems to me that uBIG is the only mechanism that can really end the corruption, by liberating each individual from the compulsion to work (slavery) but freeing them to choose the work of their choice (which could be the kind of “communal” work Simsa seems to desire, but does not coerce it).
I agree heartily with Simsa that the role and perception of work in society is the real nut to crack, but the Great Crash of 2008 seems to be opening minds at an incredible rate to a re-conception of work, its relation to automation, and to wealth. If we continue to permit the economic powers that be to demand that everyone work to earn a living, and then allow capital intensive technology to fashion robots to compete with human workers, there can be no doubt that there is no exit for capitalism. But implement uBIG, and capitalism once again can become the tremendous engine of progress which Bucky Fuller foresaw in _Grunch of Giants_, creating a planet of 6 billion billionaires. This of course isn’t a panacea, but it brings everyone into the economic game on a secure footing, and unleashes tremendous human potential now locked up in fear and scarcity of resources and opportunity.
As to the concern about “conceptual problems of how even to describe the allocation [of a basic income] and its systemic position”, I submit this link to one attempt I’ve made at solving the problem (with apologies for the musical introduction – you can also read the idea in show notes):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teQLrGB4ol8