The Journal of European Social Policy has published a JESP European Social Policy Blog article, ‘The Basic Income Debate: Keeping it Intelligent‘, by Malcolm Torry
During the past five years or so we have seen growing interest in the idea of a Basic Income (also known as a Citizen’s Income, a Citizen’s Basic Income, or a Universal Basic Income), that is, an unconditional income for every individual. Increasing income insecurity has clearly been one of the reasons for that increase in interest, so it is no surprise that during the coronavirus crisis, which has seen incomes become even less secure, we have seen an even larger increase in interest in Basic Income. ….
To read the article, click here.
So, you still disregard the demand for equal individual human inclusion in a globally standard process of money creation?
Because, intelligence?
Do we not need money to be a globally fungible trade medium, a fixed unit of cost for planning, stable store of value for saving, with global acceptance for maximum utility, and nothing else?
Is our current money any of those things?
Wouldn’t it be intelligent to design money with those characteristics?
And there’s the ignored ethics, and morality, violated with the current process of money creation. Where Wealth may borrow money into existence from Bank, buy sovereign debt for a profit, and have State force humanity to make the payments on that money for Wealth.
Since State doesn’t force humanity to make the payments on money for everyone, the process is inequitable. When looking closer, at where money is borrowed into existence from, we see the ethical and moral violation.
How is it not clear to anyone closely involved with Economics, that money is an option to purchase human labour? There’s nothing else to do with it, except for a human to purchase the produce of human labour from another human.
Since the money borrowed into existence is an option to purchase human labor, the interest paid on the loan is the option fees owed to the owners of human labour.
State licenses Central Bank to act as owner of human labour, in the global human labour futures market.
It isn’t moral or ethical for State to assert ownership of our labour, is it? Has State morally taken ownership of our labor from Kings? Or are we waiting to complete our emancipation?
To correct the inequity, All sovereign debt, money creation, shall be financed with equal quantum Shares of global fiat credit that may be claimed by each adult human being on the planet, held in trust with local deposit banks, administered by local fiduciaries and actuaries exclusively for secure sovereign investment at a fixed and sustainable rate, as part of an actual local social contract.
Can you intelligently dispute any assertion of fact or inference, or provide intelligent argument against adopting the simple rule of inclusion?
What objection can be voiced against including each human being on the planet equally in a globally standard process of money creation?
Why should such a reasonable and simple, stabilizing, rule, be disregarded, without intelligent consideration?
What aspect of intelligence compells refusal to consider the inevitable and most likely effects of adopting the simple rule, and establishing global, structural, human self ownership?
Still a mystery to me.
Might begin by trying to construct a moral and ethical justification for the current process of money creation? Failing that, try to observe a moral or ethical flaw in the rule?
I’m going to maintain that including each human being on the planet equally in a globally standard process of money creation, is the intelligent thing to do.
Thanks for all your lovely work, and continued kind indulgence,
Stephen
Whilst I agree with the gist of the comment by Malcolm Stilwell. my concern is that a basic income (as per Malcolm Torry’s criteria) must be tied to ecological realities. (taxes), and a recognition of the ecological threat. An immediate basic income is necessary so that lockdown has as little effect as possible on economic activity, but thereafter an unfettered basic income risks catapulting economic activity to environmentally damaging levels.
I would also comment that although the Spanish scheme is NOT a basic income, like the 1970s Minincome scheme in Manitoba it would have similar effects