by Josh Martin | Dec 17, 2014 | Research
[Josh Martin]
Hayward, Oldham, and Rosenbury write from St. Louis right after the ruling in the Michael Brown case that happened just a few miles away in Ferguson, Missouri. They argue that tackling racial tensions requires an understanding of the structural problems in the St. Louis metropolitan area and that one percent of the gross metropolitan product should be put toward three goals: excellent education, new conceptions of community via land use planning, and a “solidarity economy” that seeks to help those on the bottom. In this third goal, they mention the need for a guaranteed income for all that meets their basic needs. This could take the form of a basic income for all in the St. Louis metropolitan area.
Clarissa Hayward, Lynn Oldham, and Laura Rosenbury, “What now? Three ways to tackle structural injustice”, STL Today, 26 November 2014.
by Josh Martin | Dec 16, 2014 | Research
[Josh Martin]
This article scrutinizes the pro-banker approach the EU has taken in the aftermath of the recession and argues that we should be giving the money to the people instead. Jenkins discusses the QE practiced by the US and the EU and mourns its shortcomings. In contrast, Jenkins mentions the policy put forward by John Muellbauer to create “QE for the people” as a sort of basic income to the citizens instead of channeling the money to the banks.
Simon Jenkins, “We should cash-bomb the people – not the banks”, The Guardian, 26 November 2014.
Jean-Claude Juncker claimed the €21bn European fund would ‘entice private backers to invest ‘up to' 15 times the sum. Who will invest when there is no demand?' Photograph: Walter Geiersperger/Corbis (Source: The Guardian)
by Josh Martin | Dec 14, 2014 | Research
[Josh Martin]
This post discusses the libertarian debate over the basic income at the Cato Institute.
The Georgist News, “Social Media: Libertarians Battle Over a Citizen’s Dividend”, Georgist.com, 26 September 2014.
by Josh Martin | Dec 13, 2014 | Research
[Josh Martin]
Heydorn writes from the perspective of those enamored with the idea of a Social Credit proposal for a National Dividend. In this blog post he outlines the differences between such a dividend and a basic income. First, he acknowledges the structural differences. While a basic income is fixed at a level, the dividend would be fixed to productivity: no productivity, no dividend. Secondly, he claims that the purpose of the basic income is to achieve full employment, while the dividend is supposed to encourage leisure. Lastly, Heydorn says a basic income would be financed through currently in place means, but a dividend should be issued by a newly created National Credit Office. For these reasons M. Olver Heydorn argues that those in favor of the Social Credit should hesitate to support a basic income and should instead seek to convince basic income supporters to join them instead.
M. Oliver Heydorn, “The (Big!) Difference Between a ‘Basic Income’ and the National Dividend”, Socred.org, 30 October 2014.
by Josh Martin | Dec 12, 2014 | News
[Josh Martin]
Film production group Tree Media are trying to raise $675,000 for the production of a movie on the basic income they are titling Total Freedom. On their page on Indie Go Go, they outline reasons for creating a film on the basic income and cite many major thinkers who have supported the policy in the past. They also provide plenty of information explaining how they came up with the $675,000 number. The fundraising will continue until February, at which point they will begin production and hopefully finish the project by December 2015.
To view their fundraising page, click here.
Tree Media wants to create a film on the basic income. (Source: Indie Go Go)
