According to this article from OpenDemocracy, the drive toward a basic income isn’t new. It’s a 100-year-old movement that has gotten stronger each time inequality has returned to the public discussion.
Originally published as: Karl Widerquist, “Basic Income’s Third Wave,” OpenDemocracy, October 18, 2017
Republished by Basic Income News as: Karl Widerquist, “Basic Income’s Third Wave,” Basic Income News, October 27, 2017
“Two additional proposals, called ‘quantitative easing for the people’ and ‘helicopter money’, are pushing central banks to stop giving money away to private banks and start giving it directly to every citizen. They believe their proposal would constitute a more equitable and effective economic stimulus programme. Although they do not use the term, distributing money directly to the people is essentially a temporary UBI.”
This is your treatment of money creation, after the extensive history lesson?
“Giving” money to private banks, (at near zero interest) is giving money to the people who own the banks… certain people…
..distributing the interest paid to create and maintain money directly to the people is a stable, sustainable, and far more valid structure.
Money, however created, is a claim on the labor of each, the property of each…
..neither government nor bank owns the labor of each, so creation of a claim without compensation is theft, and fraud…
..that interest is the rightful property of each, and that is the simple claim you refuse to address.. along with the question about why the full faith and credit of white people is more valuable…
Why?
Yes, I’m aware that people own banks and giving money to them is giving money to their owners, and that’s one reason I’d prefer it to go to every citizen. This is a short article that doesn’t go deeply into any of the topics it mentions in its effort to review 100 years of history in 2800 words . You seem angry about something, but you haven’t said anything I disagree with or that I’m unaware of.