The people’s endowment

by Karl Widerquist | Aug 14, 2019 | Opinion, The Indepentarian

This article is an early version of a paper that was published as:

Karl Widerquist, “The people’s endowment.” In Axel Gosseries and Inigo Gonzalez (eds.) Institutions for Future Generations, Oxford University Press, pp. 312-330

The proposal

Governments should start to build up a permanent endowment of publicly held assets, both financial and physical, lease at least some of them out to private industry, and use the revenue for two purposes: half for government spending and the other half for a dividend in the form of an unconditional basic income for all people-in recognition of their shared ownership of their common resources and the sacrifice they make living in a world where others own the environment they live in.[1] The goal should be to keep the total value of the portfolio growing (taking into account the overall value of its income-generating and non-income-generating assets), so that each generation leaves the next with a more valuable endowment.

Many private institutions, such as universities and museums, have large and growing endowments. Why doesn’t the government have one? Simply, we have failed to take advantage of enormous opportunities to create one.

There are essentially three things we can do with shared resources. 1. We can hold them as a commons, such as parks, rivers, and nature reserves, keeping them basically in their natural setting for the use of all but the property of none. 2. We can use them for jointly for public enterprises such as a national health service or a transportation system. 3. We can privatize them.

The endowment model is not about what mix of these three uses we should choose. It is model of how and under what conditions we should privatize resources. The private sector could be large or small, but we should privatize resources only if it is better for current and future generations to do so, and when we do privatize resources, we do so for profit to be returned to the people. The upfront sale price has to justify privatization. The government can hold and manage resources when there is a particular reason to do so, such as an environmental need, an obvious common use, or a market failure. Otherwise, it should lease resources at market prices, leaving private agents free to decide how to use them. It doesn’t necessarily need to oversee business; it merely needs to manage the terms on which it leases resources to private entities.

This model is very different from contemporary capitalist or socialist models of property ownership. Under contemporary capitalism most resources are assumed to be privately owned, but few governments have any consistent model of how resources are privatized. Permanent titles are often granted on an ad hoc basis, sometimes to cronies, often at little or no charge. Our governments give resources to corporations free or far below market rates, and our corporations sell them back to us at full market rates, capturing not only the value they add in production but also the scarcity value of the resources they received as a gift with resource rents going almost entirely to wealthy private individuals and corporations.[2] Ad hoc privatization continually shrinks the pool of shared resources, ignores environmental concerns, and creates institutions that cause inequality to persist across generations.

Under the socialist model, many resources are held and managed by the state, but there is no obvious socialist theory of privatization. Mixed socialist states and welfare capitalist sates are usually as ad hoc in their privatization as more capitalistic states.

The endowment will increase both the revenue governments earn from private use of common assets and our ability to protect both privatized and non-privatized assets for future generations. The dividend is important not simply to relieve the effects of poverty, inequality, and economic uncertainty, but also to ensure that every single person in whose name the endowment is held actually benefits from it. The permanent nature of the fund is necessary to ensure that all people with a claim to the environment, including our descendants benefit from the decisions we make now.

Thinking like a family farmer

Although the endowment model is far from the way most governments manage the people’s resources, it is typical of the way most or all private owners manage their resources. Two comparisons illustrate the difference.

1 A family farm

Imagine a successful farmer who wants her farm to benefit her children and their descendants. She has many options, including selling the farm to put the money into a trust that will pay dividends to them, renting it out and splitting the rent among them, holding it as a joint venue that would provide produce for her descendants, creating a land conservancy to preserve it as a family park. Any mix of these strategies treats the farm as her family’s endowment.

Now consider an option the farmer would never take seriously: a corporation asks her to give the land to it for free with no strings attached. The corporation claims that this will benefit the farmer’s children because it will “create jobs.” If her children are good workers, they can get those jobs and take out loans to buy houses the corporation will build on the land. Of course, it will charge market rates for those houses and the land they’re on. Certainly the farmer would recognize that although this proposal might get her children wages for their labor, it gets them nothing for the legacy she would relinquish.

No family farmer-no private owner-would do such a thing. Yet, this is exactly what governments do with the most of the assets they control in their peoples’ names. They give them away at vastly below market costs with few if any conditions attached in the hopes that the people designated as owners will create jobs. By giving away resources, governments not only create inequality of wealth and income; they also cede unequal control of those resources. They thereby create entrenched interests that become powerful in the public decision-making process for generations.

2. University endowments

Many non-government institutions-such as museums, universities, NGOs, and wealthy families-have endowments made up both of financial assets they use to generate income and of physical assets used to further the institution’s mission directly (such as items on display at a museum, the buildings on a university campus, or a family home).[3] In many cases, universities’ financial portfolios grow as their campuses get larger and more elaborate. Harvard’s financial endowment is over $32 billion, having risen from $17 billion in 2001.[4] Its managers claim to have delivered an average annual return of more than 12% per year over the last 20 years.[5] Its real estate holdings have increased to include thousands of acres of land and hundreds buildings, some used directly by the university others leased out for income.[6]

Thomas Piketty presents a great deal of historical evidence that the returns to capital have tended to exceed the economic growth rate for most of the last two centuries.[7] If his findings are correct, any capital-holding institution (whether a family, a business, or a non-profit enterprise) can grow its endowment over time as long as it spends less than its returns each year.

In light of these examples, it seems strange that governments don’t already have large and growing endowments as their legacy from centuries of the privatization they have authorized. In the name of the people, they control more assets than any private institution, yet the commons tends to shrink in size and value every year to privatization and pollution, and governments seldom build up financial (or any other) assets in return for all it relinquished.[8] For the most part, governments have acted neither as good custodians of the environment nor as profit maximizing sellers of resources.

SWFs: a positive step but a limited example

There is one example of national and regional governments taking small, limited steps toward the endowment model by establishing financial endowments, called “sovereign wealth funds” (SWFs). An SWF is a pool of financial assets held by the government in the name of the people. Usually, SWFs are set up by resource-exporting polities in hopes of turning a temporary resource windfall into a permanent income. One SWF, the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) pays a regular dividend, called the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), to citizen-residents of Alaska. While the fund makes part of the temporary windfall permanent, the dividend ensures that every Alaskan, now and in the future, benefits from the state’s windfall.

SWFs provide an example of how governments can use endowments to benefit people, but they represent only a limited application of the wider endowment strategy, and their example might give people the impression that the possibilities of a resource endowment are more limited then they really are. [9] Right now, few resource-based industries pay the market value of the resources they appropriate; governments devote little of their resource revenue to SWFs; and only one of those SWF pays a dividend.

Alaska created the APF in 1974 and began paying out the PFD in 1982. Over the last 10 years (2004-2013), the dividend has averaged about $1,213 per year for every individual or about $4,853 for a family of four. Despite all those payouts, the APF is now worth more than $50 billion.[10] So far, the APF and PFD have been instrumental in helping Alaska avoid the resource curse, in which the people of many resource-exporting nations fail to benefit from their resource exports or in which those benefits prove temporary. If nothing else, all Alaskans have benefited in one direct way from Alaska’s oil. Very few resource-exporting regions can make that claim. For example, it is hard to say how or whether the poorest Mexicans and Nigerians have benefited from all the oil their nations have exported.[11]

The APF and PFD are financially sound. Alaska might choose to get rid of them someday, but as long as they are allowed to exist, they will provide benefits for all future Alaskans. Modern Pennsylvanians probably can’t say how or whether they’ve benefited from the Pennsylvania oil rush of the 1860s,[12] but future Alaskans will have one small tangible benefit.

Other SWFs are much larger than the APF. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia each have SWFs worth over $500 billion.[13] Norway’s SWF has $818 billion or about $161,000 for each person. It is primarily used to support the country’s pension system. [14] Norwegian pensions will be financed by the assets their government owns around the world for generations after their oil-exports have run out. The fund is now larger than the country’s national debt ($759 billion), so that by some counts, Norway has no net national debt.[15]

Not all SWFs are people’s endowments because they are held by authoritarian governments.[16] I use them only to demonstrate the possibility that public agents can build up endowments. I’m arguing that under a democratic government, the endowment is preferable. I have no statement whether authoritarianism with an endowment is better than authoritarianism without one.

The success of these SWFs ought to inspire imitation. If it is a good idea for Alaskans and Norwegians to be paid for their share of their country’s oil, it must also be a good thing for Namibians to be paid for their share in the country’s diamonds, for Jamaicans to be paid for their country’s beach resorts, for South Africans to be paid for the country’s gold, for the Swiss to be paid for their banking system, and so on around the world. However, because the SWF is a relatively new idea that has been tried only in limited circumstances, I’m worried that they will give people the impression that the endowment model is more limited than it is.

Four features of the endowment model

The endowment model has four features, or one could say, there are four tests to see whether a policy is following the endowment model. Governments fully employing the endowment model do the following things:

1. They charge market rates (profit-maximizing prices) for the resources they privatize.
2. They apply the model to all resources they privatize.
3. If they privatize nonrenewable resources they save and invest a sufficient amount of the revenue so that the future generations receive a fair share of the benefit.
4. They take sufficient account of the environmental, social, and political impact of privatization to ensure that whether they decide to privatize a resource, use it for a public enterprise, or leave it as part of the natural environment, the decision will fairly benefit all people of current and future generations.

The first goal applies to the price not the conditions of leases. An oil lease with environmental restrictions probably sells for less than one without. Maximizing revenue from a signal sale without regard to its impact on the environment would be a shortsighted effort to maximize the value of the endowment. The first goal simply means no gifts to businesses: once the authority sets the conditions of a lease, it charges what the market will bear for that lease.

The next two sections look at two examples of privatizations to see how resource-based SFWs get closer to the endowment model than most privatization efforts, but still fall far short of it.

1. U.S. broadcast spectrum policy

The broadcast spectrum is used by radio, television, cell phones, wireless internet, and so on-apparently with few direct environmental side effects. When you pay to access the broadcast spectrum, you pay partly for the company’s provision of service, but you also pay for the slice of the broadcast spectrum they control. Their slice has value because with currently available technology the spectrum is a scarce resource. The company didn’t create the broadcast spectrum. It didn’t invent it. It didn’t discover it. It controls the broadcast spectrum because the government gave it a lease. Although most governments nominally assert ownership of the broadcast spectrum,[17] in most cases, they charge little or nothing for leases to it.[18] The U.S. government, for example, gave away television-broadcasting rights largely in exchange for broadcasters’ promise to run occasional public service announcements.[19]

Of course, companies with broadcast spectrum leases spend money. It costs money running a business provide the cell phone networks, television, radio, wifi, or similar things, that is why business Accountants Brisbane, and ones similar, need to be incorporated in helping look over and manage financials. Businesses, big or small, encounter a number of costs they probably didn’t expect to be included in their budget. For example, as stated previously, networks and technology cost money. This could also be due to the hiring of Managed IT Melbourne services, or IT services wherever a company might be based, to give them assistance with running the technology side of things. They are equivalent to a young entrepreneur running a coffee house in a nice location where her wealthy grandmother pays the rent. Some of the money she makes is the return on her entrepreneurship, but all the value the flows form her location is a gift from grandma. The difference is huge. A 2003 study evaluated U.S. broadcast spectrum at $301 billion per year (more than one-eighth of government expenditure that year).[20] This does not include the value of that broadcasters add from their efforts and expenses. It’s the pure rental value of the spectrum-the gift from grandma government. The revenue forgone would be enough to provide a dividend of $1000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States every year from now on. Instead, from now on, this revenue will provide returns for the heirs of those who received the government’s gift of the broadcast spectrum.

Many other common assets are treated like the broadcast spectrum. The government created the internet; the community makes it valuable; but private companies capture most of the revenue it generates. The government lends money to banks at low interest rates, and they lend it out to the rest of us at higher rates. The U.S. government spends enormous sums to bail out banks and other institutions during financial crises, but does not usually leverage those moves into permanent ownership of banks or anything else.[21]

2. Alaskan Oil policy

Clearly, Alaska’s oil policy is closer to the endowment model than U.S. broadcast spectrum policy. Alaska have made money from resource privatization and taken steps to share part of that revenue with all current and future residents. But Alaska has fallen short of the endowment model in many ways. As mentioned above, the PFD is a small legacy, and barring a significant change, it is not likely to rise significantly.

The APF and PFD are small partly because Alaska receives a relatively small portion of the revenue from its oil exports. The state has received about one-third of the revenue generated by its oil exports. The other two-thirds have gone to private for-profit oil companies. Norway receives 78% of oil revenue, and still finds plenty of oil companies willing to drill.[22] Conditions are different in Norway than in Alaska, and it is not fair to could have done that well, but it is fair to say that Alaska could have raised a lot more money if it charged the market rate.

The other reason that the dividend will have a relatively small impact on future generations is that Alaska devotes only a small portion of its oil revenue to the fund. As of 2010, only 18.3% of the state’s oil revenue had been devoted to the APF.[23] One plan that was discussed in Alaska at the outset of the oil boom was to put all of the state’s oil revenue into an SWF and spend only the interest, gradually reducing other taxes as revenue from the fund made them unnecessary.[24] Had Alaska done so and had it received two-thirds instead of one-third of oil revenues, all else equal the fund would now be 10 times their current levels. The APF would be more than $500 billion.[25] If the state devoted half of the returns to the dividend and half to government spending, the dividend would be about $6,000 ($24,000 for a family of four) and the state would have $20 billion to spend each year-far exceeding the state’s budget of $12 billion in 2013.[26] Of course, all else would not have remained equal, and so it is not fair to say that this strategy would definitely have produced a fund this large, but it is fair to say that Alaska’s fund and dividend could be several times larger than they are now.

Instead, the state gave itself an enormous tax cut at the expense of future generations by eliminating the income tax in 1980. Lower taxes, of course, are a benefit to for many of the people, but as then governor, Jay Hammond argues, the benefit of eliminating the income tax was felt mostly by the wealthiest Alaskans.[27] Additionally, it might not have been best for Alaska to devote all of its oil revenue to the APF. The state badly needed improvements to its educational system and its infrastructure at the time. These are also part of the endowment we leave for future generations, and they can be a more important than any financial legacy.[28]

In effect, by eliminating the income tax, the current generation of Alaskans is spending a temporary revenue stream on themselves, depleting a resource forever but leaving a fiscal cliff for future generations when the oil runs low. Similarly, living in the Persian Gulf, I get the impression that most hydrocarbon exporting nations will leave neither sufficient physical infrastructure nor sufficient financial savings to sustain their current level of development after the boom. These decisions represent a serious failure of today’s leadership to be a good custodian of the people’s common inheritance.

Alaska has also failed to apply to the model to most of the rest of its environment. There are a few other resource taxes, but the model could be applied many more of the Alaskan economy, such as land value. Valuation of land is a critical element of real estate and many hire a land valuer to maximize property revenue. Probably the most significant way that Alaska differs from the endowment model is not in its failure to maximize revenue from the privatization of resources, but in its failure to take ownership of the environment as a system, and to protect it sufficiently. I’ll talk about environmental issues later in this chapter.

Applying the model more widely

The rest of this chapter will dispel the following potential misconceptions as it explain the benefits of wider applications of the model.

1. People might think that the financial fund is the endowment.

• Actually, our common resources are the endowment. The establishment of a financial fund is only one of many things we can do with it.

2. People might think that resource endowments are inherently small or only for nations experiencing a resource boom.

• Actually, the all nations have many extremely valuable common resources, most of them renewable.

3. People might think that getting revenue from resources naturally accompanies the irresponsible depletion of resources or degradation of the environment.

• Actually, a resource endowment provides a coherent mechanism for more responsibly managing resources for the benefit of future generations.

1. It’s not the fund: it’s the resources

SWFs are financial endowments, but our nonfinancial endowments-physical resources-are far more important. The act of creating an SWF is not the establishment of an endowment; it is the transformation of a physical endowment into a financial endowment. Physical assets don’t always have to be transformed into other forms to give people their highest value. As mentioned above, our parks, rivers, beaches, and public enterprises are parts of our endowment and they might already be in their highest value use.

The most important thing to learn from the resource-exporting polities is not that they have set up SWFs, but that they have stopped giving away resources for free and started demanding payment for at least some of the resources they privatize. Even the largest SWFs in the world represent a small and narrow model of the potential for a people’s endowment, because they are made up entirely of financial assets, and they are usually based entirely on revenue from one or two resources, which are generally not treated as part of a national endowment. The potential for all governments to build up SWFs is enormous and the potential for them to build up a common asset endowment beyond the financial SWF is even greater.

On average, from 1977 to 2010, 87% of the State of Alaska’s government revenue has come from oil taxes, fees, and royalties.[29] Several resource-exporting polities (such as Norway, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia) are also financing all or most their government spending from resource-revenue.[30] Citizens pay almost no taxes, and so are less defined by their role as taxpayers and more as owners of shared resources.

The most important thing we, the people, do by establishing the endowment is to assert ownership over our environment as a system. Currently, no one truly owns the environment. Individuals own parts of it, but no one manages or takes responsibility for the system as a whole. The obvious candidate is the government as representative of the people, but governments have not really asserted ownership. They regulate some uses of the environment here and there but not as part of a systemic plan to restore and maintain a healthy environment and the total value of the people’s portfolio.

To see the natural resource base as the people’s endowment is to see the natural resource base as our treasure. It has to be managed for the long-term benefit of the people-in every sense in which it benefits the people-and we have to consider future generations as owners of the environment as much as we are. We will bring them into existence, and so, any transformation of resources we do should be a net benefit to all of them as well as all those alive now.

2. All nations are resource rich: the Vermont example

This section argues we can apply this model to nations not usually recognized as resource-rich.

This chapter does not discuss international justice. It assumes we’re stuck with the nation state system and discusses what states can do. Perhaps someday international institutions will have the authority to employ some or all elements of the endowment model. If so, most of what I say here still applies, and our ability to address the ecosystem as a whole improves. I do not discuss the issue that some nations have more valuable resources than others, because it is not as pressing as how we use those resources. Difference in the size of the resource base explains why Yemen is less wealthy than Qatar but not why it is less wealthy than Singapore. The most important issues involving our resources are in how we use them, who we allow to own them, and how we allow them to cross borders. Better management of resources would not make all nations equally wealthy, but it would make the poorest and most unequal countries much better off.

The difference between what we usually think of as a resource-rich nation and what we think of as a resource-poor nation is that resource-rich nations are rich in the kinds of resources governments usually sell and resource-poor nations are rich in the kinds of resources governments usually give away. All nations have enormously valuable resources, most of which are being privatized without any compensation to the people for removing them from the commons. For example, bottled water is just as much a resource as oil, but many companies take it out of the ground (or out of the tap) at no charge, many paying no more taxes than non-resource-extracting companies located on similarly valuable real estate,[31] like another gift from grandma.

Another example is perhaps even more telling. The beach resort industry is-financially speaking-just as much a resource export as the oil industry. The beaches of many developing countries are dotted with-and sometimes dominated by-resorts. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, there are no beach-resort-real-estate dividends. Not only are taxes on resorts often low; sometimes governments offer corporate subsidies for their development. Taxes for them can be handled by small business accounting firms. Resorts in the developing world are often owned and patronized by people from developed countries, offering little more than a few jobs to the locals. This is exactly what the farmer in the original example would never do: closing off land that were once freely available; getting no revenue in exchange; sometimes paying people to take it away; sometimes for little more than the hope of employment.

How big is the potential for revenue from common assets? Gary Flomenhoft estimates the value of common assets in the “resource-poor” state of Vermont, including the following assets: air, wildlife and fish, public forests, groundwater, surface water, minerals, land value, wind, the broadcast spectrum, the internet, the financial system, and the monetary system. He finds the total rental value of these assets to be somewhere between 8.86 and 28.31% of Vermont’s GDP. The wide range exists because of the difficulty of estimating the outcome of auction markets that don’t yet exist.[32]

If Flomenhoft’s low estimate is representative of the United States as a whole, common assets produced $1.28 trillion of revenue per year. If the higher figure is representative, the amount of rent available is $4.10 trillion-28.31% of the $14.5-trillion GDP of the United States. If half of that ($2.05 trillion) were used for government spending, it could fund 82% of the US government budget. The other half could fund a dividend of $13,300 per person per year, or $54,200 for a family of four.[33]

According to Mark Blyth and Eric Lonergan, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the Federal Reserve already own assets in excess of 20% of their countries’ GDPs.[34] That alone would make a good start: something in the neighborhood of $300 billion in that United States.

In one sense, it doesn’t matter how much money there is in treating assets as the people’s endowment. Whether it raises a little or a lot, we owe it to ourselves and our descendants to start thinking about our resources as our endowment, rather than squandering it for the benefit of the politically connected. We need to stop thinking that businesses need or deserve the gift free resources just to induce them to provide services using those resources. If they can make money with otherwise common resources, they should pay the full market value for those resources.

3. Our responsibility to future generations

People are likely to ask two nearly opposite question about the idea of financial compensating future generations for what we do now. They could point to technology improvements and ask why we should we financially compensate future generations for anything when they will probably have far higher living standards than we do. They could point to environmental degradation and ask whether any amount of financial wealth can compensate future generations for the incredible damage we’re doing now.

A. Finance and future generations

The question of whether we should financially compensate future generations is closely tied to a question of whether it is even possible for one generation to financially compensation another. One might argue that we can’t financially compensate future generations, because they will have to produce all the goods they consume from the stock of natural resources, developed capital, and labor available at the time. Financial instruments are not resources; they are only claims on resources by one party against other parties living at the same time. Given this obvious fact, what does it mean to say that a financial endowment provides anything for future generations?

The key to the answer is that any generalization we make about future generations applies only to the average, not to everyone. The unequal world we live in is-financially speaking-nearly opposite of Lake Woebegone: most of our children are below average. We need to compensate all financially below-average citizens for granting claims resources that create financially above-average citizens.

We need to take responsibility not only for the physical environment but also for the institutional setting that we leave our descendants. The ad hoc privatization system our ancestors left us creates an institutional setting that guarantees inequality. If we don’t change, the wealthiest 1% of future generations will control most of the world’s resources, because ad hoc privatization assigns permanent ownership of resources to some and not others. The beneficiaries of privatization will pass on the benefits of those resources to future generations, giving them greater claim to the natural resources, capital, and labor available than other members of their generation.

Future generations could rectify economic inequality using the government’s power to tax and redistribute property that exists in their generation, but it is wrong of us to put them in the position where they have to do so and to create an institution setting making it so difficult for them to do so. Once a group obtains strong legal rights over specific resources, they gain both the motivation and the political power to protect that privilege. The income tax, the inheritance tax, and the capital gains tax all have powerful political enemies. The APF has no enemies. It’s just a pool of publicly owned funds with a long established history as public funds. Even though it is an equalizing mechanism just as much a redistributive income tax, no one feels inhibited by its existence. If it did not exist, some wealthy people would own those assets instead. Established history would tell them it was theirs. They would feel the pinch of any tax meant to have the same equalizing effect as the APF, and they have political to resist those taxes.

Thus, the goal of a shared financial endowment is to bolster the income and wealth of those who would otherwise be born with fewer claims on resources in compensation for the privatization that would otherwise result in default inequality. The financial endowment will give all the members of future generations some claim on the wealth accumulation our economy will do between now. The endowment gives future generation greater political and economic leverage to distribute their production in ways that recognize everyone as free and equal citizens. Although we cannot compensate a future generation as a whole, we can compensate the average person for the privileges we bestow on the people we name as owners of property. And for this, the financial portion of the endowment works very well.

B. How can we compensate for environmental degradation?

If we leave future generations an unhealthy environment, there is nothing we can do economically or technologically to compensate for it. The environment we leave our descendants is as much a part of our legacy as the capital and knowledge base we leave them. It is as much theirs as it is ours.

We have to pass on a healthy environment, but it’s unreasonable to think that no natural resources should ever be converted into consumption or investment goods. The environmental problem is not that we have made environmental tradeoffs. It is that we have avoided facing them for what they are. Even today environmental regulations tend not to be based on a careful examination of the costs involved. Some actions (such as chlorofluorocarbon emissions) are limited or prohibited; other actions (such as most green house gas emissions) are allowed freely,[35] as if anything not prohibited imposes no costs on others. Any use of natural resources involves environmental tradeoffs that affect all current and future people. Environmental accounting-the effort to make these tradeoffs explicit-is still in its infancy, and little, if any, public policy around the world incorporates realistic appraisal of environmental tradeoffs.[36] Within a strategy to protect a healthy environment, it is these tradeoffs we compensate for. Estimating future environmental costs of present use is extremely difficult, and until we have better understanding, we need to err on the side of caution.

The endowment is a powerful tool to help because charging for something discourages its use. A simple application of Adam Smith’s invisible hand theory[37] implies that users of resources will overexploit them unless they pay the environmental costs of their use. This is one reason for the rule that the purchase price of any resource has to justify its use. Once we tie government revenue to the value of the resource endowment, we give government an incentive to put a high value on the resource base.

One might think that if we start charging businesses for resources, we will start privatizing even more of our environment to make more money. I want to argue that the opposite is true. Throughout history, resources have typically been up for grabs or given away by governments to crony capitalists. In either case, people have incentive to exploit resources to extinction.[38] There was no dodo dividend. The assertion of ownership over common resources provides the following three mechanisms to reduce the overexploitation of resources.[39]

1. The endowment encourages the community think like an owner. A demand for payment asserts ownership, and ownership confers rights to control and manage.[40] When private companies own the environment, any government action to protect it is “interference” with the powers that naturally flow from ownership. Once we establish the people as owners of the environment, government as custodian, and private companies as the hired help, environmental protections naturally follow from the people’s ownership. If companies want to lease the people’s resources, they have to follow the people’s terms.

Ownership (whether public or private) is the solution to the tragedy of the commons. The term “tragedy of the commons” comes from theorized pastoralists who have an incentive to over-graze a common field that none of them owns.[41] One solution is to divide the field into private property, but another solution is to formalize collective ownership, establishing an authority to set rules of access.[42] Agribusiness firms do not have incentive overgraze their own fields or butcher their own herds to extinction; they do have incentive to overwhelm the common watershed with excessive cattle excrement, hormones, fertilizer, and other pollutants.[43] Establishing the people’s endowment creates an authority to say this is people’s watershed; these are the terms of access.

2. The endowment encourages the community to think like a monopolist, and to realize its price-setting power. This statement is less true of a resource like oil, which is sold a world market. But even the poorest countries have monopoly power over many valuable assets, including local real estate, the monetary system, and the broadcast spectrum. Monopolists don’t sell all they can at the lowest prices. They restrict supply to obtain higher prices. Once we realize the enormous monopoly power the community has over access to the environment, it doesn’t make sense for the people to unload their precious resources at bargain prices; it makes sense to hold them back to see how much money they can get.
3. The endowment encourages people to think not just like any monopolist, but like Johnny Carson. Who? In the late 1970s and ’80s, he was the highest-paid television entertainer in the world.[44] His command over a huge audience gave him monopoly power, which he used not just to demand more money but also to demand less work. His time was valuable. The wealthier he became from selling his time, the more time off he could afford. He restricted the supply of his time beyond the profit-maximizing point and enjoyed the non-market value of his resource.

Currently the community’s share of the revenue from privatization is so small that we don’t feel like we can afford to hold any more back. Once start making companies bid pay for what they take out of the commons, we can realize the power over our environment Johnny Carson asserted over his time.

Compare two strategies for a country managing its beaches. Under the current strategy, politically connected corporations obtain the beaches at far less than their market value. Most the beaches become private resorts inaccessible to many citizens. Under the John Carson strategy, the people raise the price above the revenue-maximizing level, holding back a large amount of beachfront property to retain for public use, but making a very high rate on beaches they do privatize. A few private resorts dot the beaches, but large areas remain for public or for wildlife.

Our environment-left alone and unexploited-is the most important part of our endowment. We can have fewer smoke stacks, fewer drain pipes, bigger parks, cleaner air, a healthier environment, and make a higher rate of return on the resources we do exploit. We will leave our descendants in a better position both financially and environmentally. We aren’t doing this now, partly because we don’t have enough democracy, but also because we’re not looking where the money is and not taking power over it.

Conclusion

This chapter has introduced the idea of a people’s endowment, in which we establish the precedent that the people as a whole own the environment and the resources within it. It has argued that this strategy will help create an institutional structure that more fairly shares the benefits of our economy with-and better protects the environment-for all people, living today and in the future.

The people’s endowment is better than the tax-as-you-go method of financing government expenditure because it alters the institutional structure toward greater equality and responsibility. Default ownership in the current system is highly unequal creating leverage for the wealthy to resist tax-as-you-go efforts to combat inequality. Once the endowment is established, a high level of equality becomes the default. Businesses have to add value and pay for the resources they hold to make money.

The chapter has argued that the endowment will better maintain the environment for future generations because it focuses our attention on the environmental tradeoffs we make daily and because it gives the community greater power to set environmental rules.

The chapter has not argued for any specific level of public and private sectors. It has simply argued for how we should go about privatization of resources. This strategy does not necessarily imply a larger government sector. We should choose the mix of public and private uses of resources based on what is better overall for present and future people. We should privatize resources only if our environmental endowment is made more valuable by doing so, and only if private actors are paying enough to make privatization profitable for the community.

Of course, we need to make sure that the terms of use are loose enough to give people flexibility in the projects they will pursue as individuals with the resources they obtain. Access to resources needs to be open to all people on the same basis without discrimination. And everyone has to have access to enough resources to afford the basics of life. But anyone who holds resources must pay back to the community, and that payback must be enough to make their ownership a benefit for everyone else-now and in the future.

Bibliography

73d-Congress-of-the-United-States. 1934. Communications Act of 1934. In Public Law No. 416, edited by 73d Congress of the United States: Legal Information Institute.

Alaska-Permanent-Fund-Corporation. Fund Market Value. Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, January 6, 2014 2014 [cited January 7, 2014. Available from https://www.apfc.org/home/Content/home/index.cfm.

Arsenault, Mark. 2009. “Harvard’s holdings extend presence across the region.” The Boston Globe, April 9, 2009.

Barnes, Peter. 2014. With Liberty and Dividends for All: How to Save Our Middle Class When Jobs Don’t Pay Enough. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Black, Brian. 2000. Petrolia: The Landscape of America’s First Oil Boom. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Blyth, Mark, and Eric Lonergan. 2014. “Print Less but Transfer More: Why Central Banks Should Give Money Directly to the People.” Foreign Affairs no. 93 (5).

Erickson, Gregg, and Cliff Groh. 2012. “How the APF and the PFD Operate: The Peculiar Mechanics of Alaska’s State Finances.” In Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its Suitability as a Model, edited by Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard, 41-48. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Feeny, David , Fikret Berkes, Bonnie J. McCay, and James M. Acheson. 1990. “The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-two years later.” Human Ecology no. 18 (1):1-19.

Flomenhoft, Gary. 2012. “Applying the Alaska model in a Resource-Poor State: the Example of Vermont.” In Exporting the Alaska Model: Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform around the World, edited by Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hammond, Jay. 1996. Tales of Alaska’s bush rat governor: Epicenter Press.

Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science no. 162 (3859):1243-1248.

Harvar-Management-Company. The Mission of Harvard Management Company. Harvard University 2014 [cited August 3, 2014. Available from https://www.hmc.harvard.edu/.

Hoffman, JS, and JB Wells. 1989. “Environmental regulations on chlorofluorocarbons.” International Journal of Thermophysics no. 10 (3):535-544.

Honoré, Tony. 1987. Making Law Bind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Institute, National Association of College and University Business Officers and Commonfund. 2003. All Institutions Ranked by Fiscal Year 2002 Market Value of Endowment Assets With Percent Change Between 2001 and 2002 Endowment Assets. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers and Commonfund Institute.

Institute, National Association of College and University Business Officers and Commonfund. 2014. U.S. and Canadian Institutions Listed by Fiscal Year 2013 Endowment Market Value and Change in Endowment Market Value from FY 2012 to FY 2013. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers and Commonfund Institute.

International-Monetary-Fund. 2010. IMF Country Report No. 10/62. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

International-Monetary-Fund. World Economic Outlook Database, April 2013. International Monetary Fund 2013 [cited August 20, 2014. Available from https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/weorept.aspx.

Mansfield, Becky, ed. 2008. Privatization: property and the remaking of nature-society relations. Oxford: Blackwell.

Martin, Paul S. 2005. Twilight of the Mammoths: Ice Age Extinctions and the Rewilding of America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Martin, Paul S., and R. G. Klein, eds. 1984. Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Mathews, Martin Reginald. 1997. “Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research: is there a silver jubilee to celebrate?” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal no. 10 (4):481-531.

McWhirter, Norris. 1982. Guinness Book of World Records, 1983. New York: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc.

Moss, Todd, ed. 2012. The Governor’s Solution: How Alaska’s Oil Dividend Could Work in Iraq and Other Oil-Rich Countries. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

Norges-Bank. Government Pension Fund Global Quarterly Report. NORGES BANK INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT 2014 [cited August 20, 2014.

Odum, Howard T. 1996. Environmental accounting. Oxford: Wiley.

Owen, David. 2008. “Chronicles of wasted time?: A personal reflection on the current state of, and future prospects for, social and environmental accounting research.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal no. 21 (2):240-267.

Permanent-Fund-Dividend-Division. Summary of Dividend Applications & Payments. Alaska Department of Revenue 2014 [cited August 3, 2014. Available from https://pfd.alaska.gov/DivisionInfo/SummaryApplicationsPayments.

Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Roberts, David L, and Andrew R Solow. 2003. “Flightless birds: when did the dodo become extinct?” Nature no. 426 (6964):245-245.

Rose, David A. 2008. Saving for the Future: My Life and the Alaska Permanent Fund. Kenmore, WA: Epicenter Press.

Sherman, Matthew. 2009. A short history of financial deregulation in the United States. Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Smith, Adam. 1976. The Wealth of Nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Original edition, 1776.

Snider, J. H. 2003. An Explanation of the Citizen’s Guide to the Airwaves. Washington, DC: New America Foundation.

Sovereign-Wealth-Fund-Institute. Sovereign Wealth Fund Rankings. Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute 2014 [cited January 7, 2014. Available from https://www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings/.

Tétreault, Mary Ann, Gwenn Okruhlik, and Andrzej Kapiszewski. 2011. Political change in the Arab Gulf States: stuck in transition: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Vallentyne, Peter, and Hillel Steiner. 2000. The Origins of Left-Libertarianism: An anthology of historical writings. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Vallentyne, Peter, and Hillel Steiner. 2000b. Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Palgrave.

Widerquist, Karl. 2012a. “Exporting the Alaska Model to Alaska: How Big Could the Permanent Fund Be if the State Really Tried? And Can a Larger Fund Insulate an Oil-Exporter from the End of the Boom?” In Exporting the Alaska Model: Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform Around the World, edited by Karl Widerquist and Michael W Howard, 169-180. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Widerquist, Karl. 2012b. “A Permanent Endowment for the United States.” In Exporting the Alaska Model: Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform Around the World, edited by Karl Widerquist and Michael W. Howard, 163-167. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Widerquist, Karl, and Michael W Howard. 2012a. “Lessons from the Alaska Model.” In Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its Suitability as Model, edited by Karl Widerquist and Michael W Howard, 221-227. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Widerquist, Karl, and Michael W. Howard, eds. 2012b. Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its Suitability as a Model. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Widerquist, Karl, and Michael W. Howard, eds. 2012c. Exporting the Alaska Model: Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform around the World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Williams, J. R., and R. W. Hann. 1978. Optimal Operation of Large Agricultural Watersheds with Water Quality Restraints. Vol. Technical Report No. 96. College Station, TX: Texas Water Resources Institute, Texas A & M University.

[1] Similar proposals include (Barnes 2014); (Blyth and Lonergan 2014); (Flomenhoft 2012); (Widerquist 2012b); (Widerquist 2012a) This proposal obviously takes inspiration from left-libertarian proposals such as (Vallentyne and Steiner 2000); (Vallentyne and Steiner 2000b) The main difference between this proposal and more standard left-libertarianism is the emphasis on the community’s monopoly power over its resources (explained below).

[2] (Mansfield 2008)

[3] These institutional endowments are not people’s endowments, because they are not set up to serve the interest of the people as a whole. Whose interest these endowments serve is an interesting issue, but off the topic of this chapter. I use them only as examples of how endowments can work.

[4] (Institute 2003); (Institute 2014)

[5] (Harvar-Management-Company 2014)

[6] (Arsenault 2009)

[7] (Piketty 2014)

[8] (Flomenhoft 2012); (Widerquist 2012b)

[9] (Widerquist and Howard 2012b); (Widerquist and Howard 2012c)

[10] (Alaska-Permanent-Fund-Corporation 2014); (Permanent-Fund-Dividend-Division 2014), averages are the author’s calculations from the table.

[11] For further arguments along these lines, see (Widerquist and Howard 2012b); (Widerquist and Howard 2012c)

[12] (Black 2000)

[13] (Sovereign-Wealth-Fund-Institute 2014)

[14] (Norges-Bank 2014)

[15] (International-Monetary-Fund 2013)

[16] (Tétreault, Okruhlik, and Kapiszewski 2011)

[17] In the United States for example, public ownership is asserted in (73d-Congress-of-the-United-States 1934), 301.

[18] (Flomenhoft 2012), 100.

[19] (Snider 2003), 12.

[20] (Snider 2003), 12.

[21] (Sherman 2009)

[22] (Flomenhoft 2012)

[23] (Erickson and Groh 2012)

[24] (Moss 2012), 76, 86 n18.

[25] Author’s calculations assuming a population of 700,000 and a real return rate of 4 percent.

[26] (Roberts and Solow 2003)

[27] (Hammond 1996)

[28] (Rose 2008)

[29] (Erickson and Groh 2012), Table 3.1, 43

[30] Qatar for example receives more than 70 percept of government revenue from hydrocarbons and another 10 percent from business taxes, much of which is directly or indirectly related to hydrocarbons. (International-Monetary-Fund 2010), table 13, p. 10.

[31] (Flomenhoft 2012), 96-98.

[32] (Flomenhoft 2012).

[33] (Widerquist 2012b)

[34] (Blyth and Lonergan 2014)

[35] (Hoffman and Wells 1989)

[36] (Odum 1996); (Mathews 1997); (Owen 2008)

[37] (Smith 1976)

[38] (Martin 2005); (Martin and Klein 1984) (Roberts and Solow 2003)

[39] Adapted from (Widerquist and Howard 2012a)

[40] The now-standard account of that we mean when we use the word “ownership” defines it as a bundle of 11 rights and duties (Honoré 1987), 161-192.

[41] (Hardin 1968)

[42] (Feeny et al. 1990)

[43] (Williams and Hann 1978)

[44] (McWhirter 1982)

Karl Widerquist’s list of Media Appearances

by Karl Widerquist | Jul 25, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian

On this page, I attempt to keep an updated list of media appearances, big or small; basic income related or not; audio, video, or text; starting with the most recent. It’s not exhaustive, but it’s extensive.

1. Interview by Enno Schmidt with Prof. Dr. Karl Widerquist on basic income issues. Enno Schmidt, Freiburg Institute for Basic Income Studies, Oct 1, 2021
2. UBI – How much should it be and how do we pay for it? Michael Baxter, Techopian Meets, September 19, 2021
   –Reposted as Universal basic income; what level should it be at how do we fund it? Michael Baxter, Techopian, September 19, 2021
3. Universal Basic Income and Property Rights. Interview of Karl Widerquist by Sam Barton. Talk of Today Podcast. YouTube, Aug 6, 2021
4. UBI and the Dignity of Work. By Techopian Team, Techopian, August 3, 2021
5. Why is Universal Basic Income a good idea? Techopian Meets YouTube Channel, July 14, 2021
6. The Prehistory of Private Property (video 49:00). By Karl Widerquist, Session 8: Why Private Property? II Conference, Centre de théorie politique, June 25, 2021
7. American workers are refusing to take bad jobs — and that’s good for everyone, economists say. By Matthew Rozsa, Salon.com, June 19, 2021
8. Economic and Ethical Arguments for Basic income (video 45:54). Session from the North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress. Speakers: Alex Howlett, Karl Widerquist. Moderator, Michael Howard, June 18, 2021
9. Lessons From Alaska (video 1:02:15). Presentation by Karl Widerquist followed by panel discussion with Cliff Groh, Michael Howard, and Bethany Anne Burum. Moderated by Alex Howlett. Boston Basic Income #156, June 16, 2021
10. Community & Technology (video 58:21). Panel Discussion with Stu Reid, Diana Blackwell, Enno Schmidt, Ruth Westcott, and Karl Widerquist. StreamingUniversity, June 16, 2021
11. My Yang Gang Diary (video 1:20:30). Juhl Media Documentary, June 15, 2021
12. Introduction to Indepentarianism (video 52:05). Karl Widerquist explaining his research to a class in Contemporary Political Thought. YouTube, recorded February 21, 2021, posted June 13, 2021
13. Essential California: A growing enthusiasm for basic income programs. By Jaclyn Cosgrove, The Los Angeles Times, June 4, 2021
14. A Critical Analysis of Basic Income Experiments: Presentation and Discussion of the Book (audio 1:15:17). By Karl Widerquist, Karl Widerquist YouTube Channel, recorded April 9, 2019 at Georgetown University-Qatar, posted May 27, 2021
15. The Case for Universal Basic Income in Six Minutes (video). By Karl Widerquist. YouTube, 24 May 2021
16. Unconditional Basic Income: Can we afford it? Seminar hosted by Catarina Neves, presentations by Karl Widerquist and Pedro Teixeira, discussion by Filipe Duarte and Susana Peralta. University of Minho and Nova School of Business and Economics Policy Knowledge Center, May 20, 2021
    –Reposted on YouTube (Video 2:07:16)
17. Dan Schneider Video Interview #312 (video). Interview of Karl Widerquist by Dan Schneider, Cosmoetica, YouTube, May 19, 2021
18. The Case for Five New States. By Karl Widerquist, OpenDemocracy, May 5, 2021
19. Why Private Property Conference – Final Roundtable (audio). With Karl Widerquist, Hillel Steiner, and Jean-Fabien Spitz. Recorded June 21, 2017, posted April 28, 2021 (Audio)
20. The Prehistory Of Private Property with Karl Widerquist. Interview by Austin Mackell, Fair Go – Australian Basic Income Discussion Group, April 7, 2021 (video, 1:32:40)
    –Basic Income, Social Justice, and the Power to Say NO. Posted May 2, 2021 (video excerpt, 3:24)
    –The “Mutual” Advantage of Private Property: Whose Reality? Posted May 9, 2021 (video excerpt, 7:57)
    –Basic Income: A *Realistic* Means of Production: Karl Widerquist answers the question, is giving people direct access to the land a reasonable alternative to Basic Income. Posted May 16, 2021 (video excerpt, 3:14)
    –The Imposition of the Property System: An Outline. Fair Go Australian Basic Income Discussion Group, posted May 23, 2021 (video excerpt 12:09)
    –Can Leftists Speak of Liberty? Fair Go Australian Basic Income Discussion Group, post May 30, 2021 (video excerpt 3:38)
21. Basic Income and Automation (video 1:20:42). Session at the 2019 NABIG Congress). USBIG—official YouTube Channel. Filmed June 16, 2019, posted March 31, 2021
22. A Global Look at Universal Basic Income with Karl Widerquist (audio 38:38). Interview by John Torpey for the International Horizons Podcast – Ralph Bunche Institute. March 29, 2021 (Audio with transcript)
    -Also available on YouTube (video 28:38)
23. Karl Widerquist: Top podcast episodes. Listen Notes, March 29, 2021
24. Coalition responds to Geingob’s Basic Income Grant claims. By Basic Income Grant (BIG) Coalition of Namibia, Namibian Economist, March 26, 2021What could Trump do to tank the economy out of vengeance? What Republicans have done for years. By Matthew Rozsa. Salon.com, November 28, 2020
25. There are economic reasons that Trump’s coup attempt won’t work, experts say. By Matthew Rozsa, Salon.com, November 16, 2020
    Preprinted by Alternet.org, November 17, 2020
26. Pourquoi je marche pour le Revenu de Base. By Karl Widerquist. Translation by Pierre Madden, Revenu de Base Villeray, November 8, 2020
    
    

    Pierre Madden, who translated and delivered the speech, “Pourquoi je marche pour le Revenu de Base”

27. Presidents presiding over recessions usually lose in a landslide. Why didn’t Trump? By Matthew Rozsa. Salon.com. November 5, 2020
    Reprinted by RawStory.com, November 7, 2020
28. Calls for Universal Basic Income increase as government support fails those most in need. By Jasmine Norden, the Canary, 2nd November 2020
29. Karl Widerquist and Mathew Schmid (video). An interview for UBI Discussions: N2K Kneed to Know by Tree Media, Conversations on Basic Income, posted October 2020
30. Boston Basic Income #122: Moral Framing (video). By Alex Howlett, Boston Basic Income, Oct 7, 2020
    Also available as a podcast
31. Karl Widerquist asks, “Who Should Own Property?” followed by the Basic Income Panel discussion with Caterine Lindman and Jessie Golem (video 1:52:18). By Climate Healers, September 20, 2020
    –Reposted on Karl Widerquist’s YouTube Channel, May 26, 2021
32. A Conversation with Income Movement Leaders. Hosted by Ching Juhl, with panelists: Michael Lewis, Diane Pagen, and Karl Widerquist. Streamed live on Sep 15, 2020
33. Universal basic income gains support during the pandemic. By Charlotte Gifford, World Finance, September 14, 2020
34. The US is experiencing a “K-shaped” economic recovery. Here’s what that means. By Matthew Rozsa, Salon.com, September 9, 2020
35. Boston Basic Income #116: Power to Say No (video). Panel discussion hosted by Alex Howlett, Boston Basic Income, YouTube, Aug. 26, 2020
    Also available as a podcast
36. Revisiting Universal Basic Income. By Avneet Singh, News Talk Florida, August 26, 2020
37. Could universal basic income work in the US? Economists look to a test case — in Alaska. Matthew Rozsa. Salon.com, August 23, 2020
38. Supporting People, the Environment, UBI (video interview). By Blair Walsingham (host) and Karl Widerquist (interviewee), Its Your Vote (Episode 6), Blair For Congress, YouTube, August 21, 2020
39. Capitalist Nursery Fables: The Tragedy of Private Property, and the Farce of Its Defense. By Kevin Carson, Center for a Stateless Society, August 19th, 2020
40. The surprising economic consequences of the coin shortage. By Matthew Rozsa, Salon.com, August 17, 2020
41. Basic income could virtually eliminate poverty in the United Kingdom at a cost of £67 billion per year. By Karl Widerquist, OpenDemocracy, 14 August 2020
    Reprinted by Basic Income Today, 25 August 2020
    Reprinted by Resilience, 4 September 2020
    Reprinted by BasicIncome.org, 5 September 2020
42. The Universal Basic Income Debate (video). By Petar Josic (host) and Marco Annunziata and Karl Widerquist (debators), Digi-Debates, Aug 13, 2020

43. Debunking the UBI Myths (video). By Jon Munitz, the Hill of Roses, August 11, 2020.
44. GU-Q’s study finds basic income could virtually eliminate poverty in UK. By the Peninsula: Qatar’s Daily Newspaper, 28 July, 2020
45. A Safety Net Trifecta: Universal Banking, Bonds, and Basic Income. By Aaron Price, Progressive Capitalism, Medium, Aug 3, 2020
46. Basic Income Could Virtually Eliminate Poverty in the UK at the Cost of 3.4% of the GDP, Says New Research From Georgetown University. By Al Bawaba Business, Al Bawaba, July 27th, 2020
47. An Analysis of a Basic Income Scheme Proposed for the UK. By Malcolm Torry, Basic Income News, BasicIncome.org, July 23, 2020
48. This is the moment for Universal Basic Income – here’s how it could work. By Paul Mason, the New Statesman, 22 July 2020
49. Workerism Must Die. By Austin G Mackell. Medium, July 21, 2020
50. Basic Income Guarantee: A Pilot in Hudson. By Dalvin Aboagye, The River: Hudson Valley News Room, July 2, 2020
51. Video: Beyond Return – On the transformational potential of UBI, By Andra Bria (host) with panelists Karl Widerquist, Astha Kapoor, and Eric Wycoff Rogers, Beyond Return, YouTube, June 27, 2020
52. Conversation with Karl Widerquist (video). By Larry Liu. Mr. Liu’s Opinion, June 24, 2020
    -Reposted as an audio podcast in two parts: Part 1, Part 2, By Larry Liu on Soundcloud, June 24, 2020
53. A Conversation with Karl Widerquist (video). By Ching Juhl (host). Juhl Media, YouTube, June 22, 2020
54. Basic Income Tea: #FutureOfWork: Business, but NOT as usual (video). By Antonis Triantafyllakis, Basic Income Tea – Sunday Webinars, Universal Basic Income-Europe, Sunday, 21 June, 2020
55. ‘The Prehistory of Private Property’: Karl Widerquist introduces his new book with Grant McCall (video). By Karl Widerquist, Worldwide 9th Meeting of UBI Advocates and UBI Networks, YouTube, Recorded June 9th, 2020. First broadcast: June 14th 2020
56. United States and Basic Income & Covid (video). Louise Haagh, Sarath Davala, and Jamie Cooke (hosts) in conversation with Karl Widerquist and Scott Santens, BIEN Conversations, June 5, 2020
57. Universal Basic Income Debate (video). Hosted by Jon Munitz, The Hill of Roses Podcast, May 27, 2020
    -Also available on YouTube (video 50:55)
58. The Power to Say No (an audio interview with Karl Widerquist 1:33:19). By Mila & Ken of the Unacceptable Podcast, May 16, 2020
    -Also available on YouTube (video 1:33:19)
59. With economic doom looming, maybe it’s time for a Universal Basic Income. By Seamus Allen, the Watchdog, May 11, 2020
60. A Guide to Universal Basic Income. By Oshan Jarow, Musing Mind, May 9, 2020
61. Universal Basic Income and the Capitalist Production of Consciousness. By Oshan Jarow. Music Mind, May 1, 2020
62. That Luck Matters More Than Talent: A Strong Rationale for UBI. By Richard Carrier, RichardCarrier.info, April 18, 2020
63. Universal Basic Income and the Coronavirus Crisis (video interview of Karl Widerquist). By Fabian Wendt, PPE in the Time of Pandemic series by the Philosophy, Politics and Economics program at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, April 17th, 2020
    -Reposted on YouTube as “Universal Basic Income” by UNC-Chapel Hill (audio 58:40)
    -Reposted on YouTube as “Universal Basic Income and the Coronavirus Crisis.” Karl Widerquist’s YouTube Channel (audio, 58:41)
64. “Private Property,” video lecture by Karl Widerquist, Boston Basic Income #98, Hosted by Alex Howlett, Apr 15, 2020
    
    

    The Sepctrum of Economic Freedom

65. YouTube Accidentally Permanently Terminated My Account. By Alex Howlett, Medium, April 11, 2020
66. Renta Básica Universal: un debate que trasciende la emergencia del coronavirus. By María Camila Hernández. France24, April 10, 2020
67. Pandemic crisis should not supplant need for action on climate. By Cathy Orlando, The Sudbury Star. April 7, 2020
68. How the Social Contract Maintains Societies. By a_kodama, Medium, April 13, 2020
69. Impacts of Covid 19 and UBI Discussion. By Ali Mutlu Köylüoğlu, YouTube, Mar 27, 2020
70. Could universal basic income save the world? By Stuart Watkins, MoneyWeek, 26 Mar 2020
71. America is in crisis. We need universal basic income now [The usual arguments against UBI don’t apply to the Emergency UBI]. By Karl Widerquist, the Guardian, 20 Mar 2020
72. How the Trump cash infusion would help millions of Americans: Interview with Karl Widerquist. By Annie Nova, CNBC, Mar 18 2020
73. Boston Basic Income #92: Karl Widerquist on UBI History (video). By Karl Widerquist (speaker) and Alex Howlett (host). Boston Basic Income, Mar 7, 2020
74. Borgerløn – the power to say no, Husligt Arbejde, YouTube, Mar 6, 2020 (a punk song based on the book, Freedom as the Power to Say No
    
    

    HUSLIGT ARBEJDE
    Borgerløn – the power to say no

75. Yang’s Freedom Dividend: What’s It Got to do with Freedom? Michael Lewis, USBIG.net, January 2020
76. People of Basic Income (video report on the Basic Income March, Oct. 26, 2019). By Derek Van Gorder, YouTube, December 9, 2019
77. Maine Wire: Is it feasible to provide a universal basic income in Maine? By Adam Crepeau, The Maine Wire, December 3, 2019
78. Universal Basic Income: the power to say ‘no’, for everyone. Cartoon video with text by Neil Howard and Karl Widerquist. Published by OpenDemocracy and YouTube. Dec 1, 2019.
    Reposted on Twitter [direct link] and Facebook [direct link]
79. Xiao: On Universal Basic Income. By Victoria H. Xiao, The Dartmouth Review, November 19, 2019
80. Elms College Humanities Lecture: “Freedom, Basic Income, and the Abolition of Poverty”. By Karl Widerquist, ElmsCollegeVideo, YouTube, posted November 18, 2019 (recorded October 28, 2019)
81. Karl Widerquist addresses the NOLA YangGang (three part video), Karl Widerquist YouTube Channel, recorded November 15, 2019, posted October 2019 in three parts:
    -Part 1: Why We Need a Basic Income: Widerquist talks with the New Orleans YangGang, Karl Widerquist YouTube Channel, Nov 15, 2019 (Video 9:25)
    -Part 2: The Right & Wrong Ways to Talk About Automation & UBI: Widerquist and the NOLA Yang Gang, Karl Widerquist YouTube Channel, Nov 15, 2019 (Video 15:28)
    -Part 3: Discussion Basic Income Over a Beer: Widerquist meets the New Orleans YangGang, Karl Widerquist YouTube Channel, Nov 15, 2019 (Video 34:56)
82. Karl Widerquist: The Basic Income Episode (audio 2:25:14). Interview by Oshan Jarow, the Musing Mind Podcast, November 11, 2019
    –Karl Widerquist: Growth or Degrowth? Nov 12, 2019 (Audio excerpt 3:32)
    –Karl Widerquist Comparing Basic Income & Negative Income Tax. Nov 12, 2019 (Audio excerpt 10:41)
    –Karl Widerquist: How Much Might Universal Basic Income Cost? Nov 12, 2019 (Audio excerpt 7:26)
    –Were pre-modern societies really any worse off than moderns? Nov 12, 2019 (Audio excerpt 8:28)
    –Basic income, or services? Why UBI doesn’t correct market failures. Nov 12, 2019 (Audio excerpt, 1:22)
83. Deceptively Simple: The Uselessness of Gross Cost in the Cost-Benefit Analysis of Universal Basic Income By Georg Arndt and Karl Widerquist, Maine Policy Review, November 2019
84. Universal Basic Income–For or Against? A Debate between Karl Widerquist and Oren Cass (full video: 1:26:12). Moderated by Charles Wheelen. October 30, 2019, The Rockefeller Center and the Political Economy Project of Dartmouth College
    –Opening remarks by Karl Widerquist (video excerpt 11:36), posted Dec 16, 2019
    
    

    Oren Cass & Karl Widerquist debate Universal Basic Income

85. We’ve Owed Each Other a Basic Income Since We Killed the Buffalo: 9-minute speech at the New York Basic Income March, October 26, 2019 (video). By Karl Widerquist, Filmed by Juhl Media. Posted October 29, 2019
    Also, translated into French: Pourquoi je marche pour le Revenu de Base. By Karl Widerquist. Translation by Pierre Madden, Revenu de Base Villeray, November 8, 2020
86. UBI March – NYC – October 26, 2019 (video). By Juhl Media. Posted October 28, 2019.
87. How Would You Spend a Universal Basic Income? We Asked Participants Around the World—and Their Answers Might Surprise You. By Eric J. Lyman, Fortune Magazine, October 16, 2019
88. Yang’s Wild Defense of Universal Basic Income. By Josh Martin, Purple State Proressie, September 26, 2019
89. End the Threat of Economic Destitution Now. By Karl Widerquist, Open Democracy, 17 September 2019
90. Universal basic income: a way through the storm? By Neil Howard, Open Democracy, 16 September 2019
91. Free is good, by Tom Hickey, Mike Normal Economics, September 6, 2019
92. The Pragmatic Case for Universal Basic Income. By Productivity Hub, the Productivity Hub, August 14, 2019
93. Conservatives in Philosophy: A Brief Rejoinder to Tristan Rogers, by Shelby T. Hanna, Quillette, July 12, 2019
94. The Future of Work: Universal Basic Income and the Philosophy of Freedom,” by Romany Williams, SSense, July 11, 2019
95. ‘Universal Basic Income Doesn’t Work’ Says Prime Example of Fake News, by Scott Santens, The Good Men Project, July 4, 2019
96. Bezwarunkowy Dochód Podstawowy: Ani lek, ani homeopatia [Unconditional basic income: Neither drug nor homeopathy], by Anatol Roettke, Interia Praca, June 24, 2019
97. Universal Basic Income: More affordable than at first glance. By Jessica Cychew, Re-envisioning the Economic Status Quo, June 23, 2019
98. Basic Income and Automation (video: 38:45 – 1:20:42). Karl Widerquist Panelist, Eighteenth North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress, Sunday June 16, 2019
99. Could universal basic income become a presidential campaign issue? By Ramin Skibba, Raminskibba.net (blog), 30 May 2019
100. Dan Schneider Video Interview #265: Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy. By Dan Schneider (host) interviewing Karl Widerquist, Cosmoetica, May 23, 2019
101. Universal Basic Income in the U.S. By Navneet Singh and Delsea Albanese, Econsult Solutions, April 5, 2019
102. Georgetown Announces Launch of New Publication on Universal Basic Income, by Albawaba, April 8, 2019
     -Republished as GU-Q to launch book by professor today by The Gulf Times, April 9, 2019
103. UBI is an idea with the potential to radically reshape society, by Daniel Herborn, CEO Magazine, April 1, 2019
104. ‘If We No Longer Force People to Work to Meet Their Basic Needs, Won’t They Stop Working?’ by Scott Santens, The Good Men Project, March 31, 2019
105. What happened to all the hype about Universal Basic Income? By Olivia Goldhill, Quartz, March 16, 2019
106. Book Review: Karl Widerquist, A Critical Analysis of Basic Income Experiments, by Malcolm Torry, Citizens Basic Income Trust, 15th March 2019
     
     

     Basic Income Quotes Made this picture fom my remarkst at the NABIG Congres, June 16, 2020

107. Universal Basic Income Would Be Cheaper Than Expected, Andrew Yang Explains, by Mike Brown, Inverse.com, March 8, 2019
108. FSU tackles poverty with solutions-based conference, by John Lystad, FSU News, March 3, 2019
109. The Power to Say No and American Social Policy (video), lecture with questions and answers by Karl Widerquist, delivered at Florida State University’s College of Social Work conference, “Poverty in America: Critical Perspectives on Causes, Effects and Possible Solutions,” March 1, 2019
110. Social Experiments 101: A Short Primer for UBI Observers by Michael Lewis, the USBIG Blog, USBIG.net, March 2019
111. Voces sobre la renta básica (II): ¿Está justificada? [Voices on basic income (II): Is it justified?] by Pablo Magaña, Revista Libertalia, February 28, 2019
     An English translation of the article is available at this link.
112. The Dan Schneider Video Interview #259: Universal Basic Income: Karl Widerquist, by Dan Schneider (host) interviewing Karl Widerquist, Cosmoetica, Feb 20, 2019
113. Basic income: The idea and Indian experiments, by Sarath Davala, the Financial Express, February 19, 2019
114. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Got Dragged For Suggesting People Who Are ‘Unwilling To Work’ Should Get Paid. Advocates Say That’s The Point, by Paul McLeod, BuzzFeed, February 15, 2019
115. Income for all, Editorial, the New Delhi Statesman, February 18, 2019
116. Basic Income Guarantee Will Be Key Issue for Andrew Yang in 2020 Elections, Mark Erickson, East Portland Blog, on February 13th, 2019
117. Finland’s basic income experiment finds cash boosted well-being but not employment [YouTube video], Kate Snow, NBC Nightly News (February 10, 2019)
     NBC News video: Finland’s basic income experiment finds cash boosted well-being but not employment
118. Crisis in Venezuela: Guest Karl Widerquist (video 3:56). NewsGrid, Al-Jazeera, (Reposted on Karl Widerquist’s YouTube Channel), broadcast live January 26, 2019
119. The Natural Condition of Mankind [Review Article] by Maeve McKeown, European Journal of Political Theory, November 24, 2018. Also available on acadamia.edu.
120. “Report: Basic Income disincentivizes work,” by Bethany Blankley, Watchdog.org, November 20, 2018
     -reprinted in Index-Journal, November 20, 2018
     -reprinted in the Washington Free Beacon, November 24, 2018
121. Freedom Needs Basic Income (video). Karl Widerquist (edited by UBIVisuals), Basic Income Visuals, YouTube.com, November 13, 2018
122. The Resources of the Earth Belong to Everyone. By Public Voice, Progress.org, November 11, 2018
123. Will the midterm results affect Trump’s foreign policy? (Video 24:30). Panel Discussion with Mohammed Jamjoom (host) and Karl Widerquist, Eli Clifton, and Rami G. Khouri (panelists), Inside Story, Al-Jazeera, 8 Nov 2018
     -Reposted on YouTube: “Will the midterm results affect Trump’s foreign policy? (Video)”
124. Basic Income: Favorite Argument (video 22 seconds). Karl Widerquist, Basic Income Visuals YouTube Channel, Oct 31, 2018
     -Reposted as Argument for basic income Karl Widerquist (video 42 seconds), Bi-Produktion YouTube Channel, May 20, 2019
125. One of the godfathers of Universal Basic Income, description of Karl Widerquist by presidential candidate, Andrew Yang, Oct 18, 2018.
126. Books by Karl Widerquist, by GoodReads.com, last accessed 2018
127. Closing Reflections, BIEN Congress 2018, by Annie Miller, Citizens Basic Income Scotland, September 5, 2018
128. Basinkomst – enligt Karl Widerquist, by Kommentarer, Basinkomstpartiet.org, 24 August 2018
129. Going Global, a short video by the India Network for Basic Income, hosted by Sarath Davala, August 15, 2018.
130. Why universal basic income costs far less than you think by Elizaveta Fouksman, the Conversation, August 14, 2018
     – Republished as, Universal basic income costs far less than you think, Quartz, August 15, 2018
     -Republished as, Here’s the true cost of the proposed ‘universal basic income’ that could lessen inequality, CNBC Africa, August 29, 2018
131. $500 of free taxpayer money each month — a solution or a problem by William Nardi, the Washington Examiner, July 31, 2018
132. One Question: Universal Basic Income. Edited by Cihan Aksan and Jon Bailes. The State of Nature Blog, 30th July 2018.
133. Universal basic income: money for nothing, by Lou Foglia, Beme News (CNN’s YouTube Channel), July 25, 2018. (Quotes Widerquist at 1:11).
134. “Universal Basic Income is capitalism where income doesn’t start at zero,” Quote/Photo of Karl Widerquist, by Andrew Yang, Twitter, July 20, 2018.
135. Barack Obama Voices Support for a Universal Basic Income, by Andrew Miller, The Trumpet July 19, 2018.
136. Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy (video), lecture by Karl Widerquist, at the University of Paris, June 18, 2018 (Language: English).
     -Also on YouTube, Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy (video)
137. Interview with Karl Widerquist (video), questions by Victor Mardellat and Télémaque Masson, Canal-U.TV (Paris), June 18, 2018. (Language: English).
     –Reposted on YouTube, Nov 29, 2020
138. Meet the economist who thinks basic income could be great for Louisiana, by Kat Stromquist, the Gambit (New Orleans), July 13, 2018.
139. What Countries Have Tried Universal Basic Income? by NowThis World, July 1, 2018.
140. Money for nothing: the truth about universal basic income, by Carrie Arnold, Nature, May 30, 2018.
141. We’re giving up on universal basic income before the evidence is in, by Olivia Goldhill, QUARTZ, May 29, 2018.
142. Could a Basic Income Plan End Poverty in Washington, D.C.?, by Robin Lloyd, Undark, May 10, 2018.
143. Universal basic income: U.S. support grows as Finland ends its trial, by Annie Nova, CNBC, May 1, 2018.
144. Basic Income: Better Than Welfare? (Interview of Karl Widerquist), by Adam Bearne, Scholar’s Mate PublicSquareNet YouTube Channel, May 1, 2018.
145. What Happens When Every Citizen Receives a Universal Basic Income, by Leigh Anderson, LifeHacker, April 18, 2018.
146. CIRS, Karl Widerquist CIRS Book Workshop, Center for International and Regional Studies, March 26, 2018
147. Is Universal Basic Income as Radical as You Think? By Alex Goik, Medium, March 20, 2018
148. Chad Hartman Interviews Karl Widerquist on Universal Basic Income (audio, 13:26), and (full show with interview beginning at 22:00 (audio, 35:35). By Chad Hartman on WCCO-AM
     –Reposted on YouTube, Karl Widerquist YouTube Channel (audio 13:26).
149. Common Misconceptions About The Universal Basic Income, by Isaiah Minter, 71Republic, March 22, 2018
150. Georgetown Professor Advocates Socialist Redistribution Despite Contrast to Research Data, by Danny Travers, Gureview.org, February 28, 2018
151. “Ist Wohlstand teilbar? Karl Widerquist sagt…” by Redaktion w:o, wallstreet-online.de, 27 February 2018
152. “More Americans now support a universal basic income,” by Annie Nova, CNBC, Mon, 26 Feb 2018
153. Basic income — now, in 20 years or never?, by Micgoat, Medium, February 1, 2018.
154. Less than 3 Percent of GDP Could End U.S., New Research Shows, by Georgetown University, Georgetown.edu, January 30, 2018
155. Al Jazeera interviews Karl Widerquist about wealth inequality (video 3:15), Al-Jazeera (reposted on Karl Widerquist’s YouTube Channel), originally broadcast live January 26, 2018.
156. Why we need a Universal Basic Income, by Karl Widerquist, Karl Widerquist’s YouTube Channel, January 7, 2018.
157. Karl Widerquist, Basic Income (audio interview). By Kieran Oberman (host). SoundCloud, 2017
158. Seminar With Karl Widerquist (group audio discussion). By Kieran Oberman (host). SoundCloud, 2017
159. Quebec’s new basic income plan has proponents dreaming big, others skeptical, by Benjamin Shingler, CBC News, December 12, 2017.
160. Your Call: Would a universal basic income build a new economic system?, by Laura Flynn and Renee Kemp, KALW, December 6, 2017. 
161. Capitalism Has a Problem. Is Free Money the Answer?, by Peter S. Goodman, The New York Times, November 15, 2017
     – Reprinted in The Seattle Times, 2017, When the economy doesn’t provide living-wage jobs, is free money the answer?.
162. GU-Q don questions beliefs about prehistory in new book, by Tribune News Network, Qatar Tribune, November 13, 2017.
163. Citizens Basic Income: An Idea Whose Time Has Come, by Maddy Halliday, Third Force News, October 24, 2017.
164. The BIG Misunderstanding About the Cost of Universal Basic Income, by Karl Widerquist, Progress.org, September 10, 2017
165. Why We Need a Universal Basic Income, by Keri Leigh Merritt, Billmoyers, September 15, 2017.
     – Reprinted in Common Dreams, Why We Need a Universal Basic Income, 2017.
166. How Much Basic Income Would Really Cost (audio interview of Karl Widerquist), by Jim Pugh, The Basic Income Podcast, September 13, 2017.
     -Reposted on Player FM, and ListenNotes.com, as How Much Basic Income Would Really Cost, January 9, 2019
     -Reposted as “How Much Basic Income Would Really Cost (video 26:27)” on YouTube, June 9, 2021
167. ADI Policy Forum – Part Two of Five – The Future of Work and Basic Income Options for Australia, talk by Karl Widerquist, Alfred Deakin Institute YouTube Channel, September 10, 2017.
     
     

     Karl Widerquist quoted by Andrew Yang

168. Would cash payments relieve job losses due to automation?, by Sarah Glazer, CQ Researcher, September 8, 2017.
169. Guaranteed paychecks? Advocates push universal basic income, by Associated Press, App, September 8, 2017.
170. ‘Something big has to change’: could Australia afford a universal basic income?, by Tim Dunlop, The Guardian, September 9, 2017.
171. Friday free form, by TDN, TDN, September 7, 2017.
172. Hawaii Considers A “Universal Basic Income” As Robots Seen Stealing Jobs, There’s Just One Catch…, by Tyler Durden, austrian.economicblogs.org, September 6, 2017.
173. Wary of robots taking jobs, Hawaii toys with guaranteed pay, by CBS News, CBS News, September 4, 2017.
174. “Why we need a Universal Basic Income (30-minute audeo lecture with one-hour Q&A),” Karl Widerquist, Sydney Ideas, Department of Political Economy and the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney, August 16, 2017. This audio was reporduced in two parts as:
     –Sydney Ideas: Lecture on Basic Income with Karl Widerquist (just the lecture), Karl Widerquist YouTube Channel (audio, 31:03)
     –Sydney Ideas: Q&A on UBI with Karl Widerquist, Karl Widerquist YouTube Channel (audio, 1:03:18)
175. Talking About Being Decent To Each Other – Paths To A UBI, by Tim Hollo, The Green Institute, August 19, 2017.
176. What If Government Just Gave Everyone Cash, No Strings Attached?, by Zach Patton, Governing, August 2017.
177. Basic Income as a Strategy to Promote the Georgist Movement, by Karl Widerquist, Progress, August 5, 2017.
178. Why universal basic income is gaining support, critics, by Kathleen Pender, San Francisco Chronicle, July 15, 2017. 
179. Jobber for Borgerlønn-reform i Norge [Working for Borgerlønn reform in Norway] (Interview of Karl Widerquist), by Elvind Kallevik, RAD102, July 11, 2017.
180. “Karl Widerquist: Rich Tell Poor What to Do,” by admin, Made of Money, June 25, 2017
181. Does this Canadian province have the solution to the world’s problem of unemployment?, by Charlie Young, Independent, July 8, 2017.
182. Финский (де)мотиватор: изменят ли 560 евро жизнь безработного? [Finnish (de-)motivator: will 560 euro change the life of the unemployed?], by Oleg Boldyrev, BBC News-Russia, July 3, 2017.
183. Interview Of Karl Widerquist by Oleg Boldyrev (audio 29:43), Karl Widerquist’s Research YouTube Channel, recorded July 2017, posted June 2021 (original interview conducted for Boldrev’s BBC article)
184. My own private basic income, by Karl Widerquist, OpenDemocracy, June 2, 2017.
     -Reprinted in Moon Magazine, 2017, “My own private basic income.
     -Audio version published by OpenDemocracy, read by Karl Miller, on Curio.io Souncloud channel, “My own private basic income,” November 2017.
     -Audio version, “My own private basic income,” is also available on YouTube.
185. Basic Income Could Empower Millions Of Indians, But India May Find Cost Too High, by Sherya Shah, IndiaSpend, June 24, 2017.
186. Should all Americans receive a guaranteed income?, by KHOU Staff, Magnify Money, June 20, 2017.
187. Universal basic income would pay everyone to improve quality of life, by Marisa Kendall, Lexington Herald-Leader, June 4, 2017.
188. The Long, Weird History of Basic Income – And Why It’s Back, by David Flyod, Investopedia, May 30, 2017.
189. How much does UBI cost? By Karl Widerquist, BasicIncome.org, May 21, 2017
     -Reprinted as How much does UBI cost? By Karl Widerquist, Nexusnewsfeed.com
     -Reprinted as How much does UBI cost? By Herbert Dupree, the Fertile Mind, Medium, May 26, 2017
     -Reprinted as How much does UBI cost? By Karl Widerquist, Progress.org, October 21, 2017
190. “Report says basic income may not reduce poverty, advocates firmly disagree,” by Joanne Lu, Humanosphere, 24 May 2017
191. Karl Widerquist steps down as BIEN’s Co-Chair to write Basic Income book for MIT Press, by Kate McFarland, basicincome.org. May 14, 2017.
192. The benefits of an unconditional basic income, by Kim Darrah, World Finance, May 11, 2017.
193. No Strings Attached: The Behavioral Effects of U.S. Unconditional Cash Transfer Programs [PowerPoint Presentation], by Ioana Marinescu, The Roosevelt Institute, May 11, 2017.
194. Tech giants Elon Musk, Sam Altman push universal basic income concept, by Marisa Kendall, Santa Cruz Sentinel, May 5, 2017.
195. Universal Basic Income Interview by Keith Brown, We Are Here [Podcast #006], April 28, 2017
196. “Basic Income,” by C3000 Economic & Political Affairs April 27, 2017.
197. SCOT TV Exclusive: Karl Widerquist on Universal Basic Income. UBI in Scotland, Part 2, by Scot TV, Scot TV YouTube Channel, April 4, 2017.
198. SCOT TV Exclusive: Karl Widerquist on Universal Basic Income. UBI in Scotland, Part 1, by Scot TV, Scot TV YouTube Channel, April 4, 2017.
199. “Free Money for All: Karl Widerquist’s Argument for Basic Income,” by Sabrina Ronco, Just World Institute, March 15, 2017
200. Universal Basic Income with Dr Karl Widerquist (audio1:04:42), by Sam Barton, Talk of Today, March 14, 2017.
     -Reposted as “Interview: Universal Basic Income with Dr Karl Widerquist (1:04:42),” interview by Sam Barton, Karl Widerquist’s Research YouTube Channel, June 2021
201. Hamon’s basic income would cost €35bn to the government, by gboccaccio, The French Report, March 13, 2017
202. Addressing the evidence deficit: how experimentation and microsimulation can inform the basic income debate, by Luke Martinelli, University of Bath Blogs, March 13, 2017. 
203. 13 MAART | WAT ALS WE EEN WERELDWIJD BASISINKOMEN INVOEREN VAN 100 EURO [MARCH 13TH WHAT IF WE INTRODUCE A WORLDWIDE BASIC INCOME OF 100 EUROS], by Mark Beekhuis, BNR, March 13, 2017
204. Georgetown Professors Questions Claims About Pre-History in New Book, by Georgetown University, Georgetown.edu, February 28, 2017
205. Universal basic income: Money for nothing or efficient equalizer?, by FriendsoftheFifthColumn, thefifthcolumnnews, February 19, 2017
206. Universal basic income: Money for nothing or efficient equalizer? By David Trilling, Journalist’s Resource, February 15, 2017
207. “Universal Basic Income: The cornerstone of a just society?” by Daniel Broadley, Humanity Hallows, January 31, 2017
208. Universal basic income could be tested in Fife within three years, by Cheryl Peebles, The Courier, January 30, 2017
209. Basic Income – An Idea Whose Time Has Come, by AlexRowley.org, Jan. 30, 2017
210. Karl Widerquist Georgetown Professor on Basic Income (video Interview), by Matt Orfalea, Matt Orfalea YouTube Channel, January 21, 2017
     Republished at Kar Widerquist’s YouTube Channel, Karl Widerquist gets Interviewed by Matt Oraflea on Universal Basic Income, January 21,  2018
211. GU-Q professor explores myths of prehistory in book, by The Peninsula, The Peninsula, January 8, 2017
212. What You Need to Know About the Massive Job Losses on the Horizon, by Thor Benson, ATTN, January 3, 2017
213. Why Finland is ahead of the US with guaranteed income, by Catherine Clifford, CNBC, January 3, 2017
214. Free Cash in Finland. Must Be Jobless., by Peter S. Goodman, The New York Times, December 17, 2016.
215. Elon Musk says robots will push us to a universal basic income—here’s how it would work, by Catherine Clifford, CNBC, November 18, 2016.
216. Al Jazeera interviews Karl Widerquist, previewing Trump-era U.S. politics, (part 2 of 2) (video 4:08). By Al Jazeera (reproduced on Karl Widerquist YouTube Channel), November 9, 2016.
217. Al Jazeera interviews Karl Widerquist previews Trump-era politics (part 1 of 2) (video 6:42). By Al-Jazeera (reposted on Karl Widerquist YouTube Channel), November 9, 2016
218. Al Jazeera interviews Karl Widerquist on election day: 3rd of 3 (video 4:45). By Al Jazeera, Karl Widerquist’s YouTube Channel, November 8, 2016.
219. Al Jazeera interviews Karl Widerquist on election day: 2nd of 3 (video 3:31). By Al Jazeera, Karl Widerquist’s YouTube Channel, November 8, 2016.
220. Al Jazeera interviews Karl Widerquist on election day: 1st of 3 (video 6:22). By Al Jazeera, Karl Widerquist’s YouTube Channel, November 8, 2016.
221. Al Jazeera Interviews Karl Widerquist on the U.S. Election 05 Nov 2016 (video 5:00). By Al Jazeera, Karl Widerquist’s YouTube Channel, November 6, 2016.
222. The Newsmakers: Is veganism eco-friendly and Poverty in the US (Interview of Karl Widerquist). By Imran Garda, The News Makers on TRT World YouTube Channel, November 3, 2016.
223. Al Jazeera interviews Karl Widerquist on the reopening of Clinton email Investigation. By Al Jazeera (reposted on Karl Widerquist YouTube Channel), October 31, 2016.
224. INTERVENCIÓN KARL WIDERQUIST EN EL ENCUENTRO “VIENE LA RENTA BÁSICA” [Speech by Karl Widerquist at conference titled “Basic Income is coming”], by Karl Widerquist, Solidarias YouTube Channel, October 16, 2016.
225. The Possibilities and Pitfalls of Basic Income Experiments (video lecture). By Karl Widerquist, Nordic Conference on Basic Income Pilots, September 23, 2016.
226. Tudi v Kanadi eksperiment z univerzalnim temeljnim dohodkom [In Canada, too, the Universal Income Generation], by Ekonomija, MLADINA, September 3, 2016.
227. (1/5) “A story to tell” When life is merciless / Creathon on basic income 2016, by Creathon, MFRB – Mouvement français pour un revenu de base (French Movement for Basic Income YouTube Channel), August 29, 2016.
228. World Social Forum 2016 / Basic Income, a Major Social Innovation for the 21st Century, talk by Karl Widerquist, MFRB – Mouvement français pour un revenu de base (French Movement for Basic Income YouTube Channel), August 27, 2016.
229. Karl Widerquist PhD, video interview and panel discussion. By Armando F Sanchez (host), Jenna van Draanen, Kate McFarland, and Andre Coelho (panelists), YouTube, August 10, 2016
230. “In the future, we could all get free money from the government — here’s when it might happen,” by Chris Weller, Business Insider, Aug. 11, 2016
231. Swiss Basic Income Vote Sparks Discussion Despite Failure to Pass, by Sputnik, Sputnik, July 6, 2016.
232. An Idiot’s Guide to Universal Basic Income (Interview of Karl Widerquist), by Alex King, Huck, June 10, 2016.
233. Would You Like Some Money, Just For Being A Person?, by Karen Pinchin, Good Magazine, June 7, 2016.
234. Your Call: Is it time for a guaranteed basic income? (Interview of Karl Widerquist), by Rose Aguilar, Your Call on KALW, June 6, 2016.
235. “Switzerland votes against state-provided basic income,” by Ralph Atkins and Gemma Tetlow, Financial Times, June 5, 2016.
236. What If Government Just Gave Poor People Cash? It’s Been Tried In Denver, by Sam Brasch, Colorado Public Radio, Jun 2, 2016
237. ‘Unconditional basic income is a response to the loss of freedom in our economy’ – Karl Widerquist (Interview of Karl Widerquist), by Radio Sputnik, soundcloud.com, 2016.
238. Ontario’s Basic Income Pilot Project is a Radical Approach by Katelyn Harrop, Vice Impact, May 11 2017
239. What Would Happen If We Just Gave People Money?, by Andrew Flowers, FiveThirtyEight, April 25, 2016.
240. Universal Basic Income (UBI): Theory and Praxis, by Patrick S. O’Donnell, Religious Left Law, April 15, 2016
241. Alaska’s annual dividend adds up for residents, by Rachel Waldholz, MARKETPLACE, March 16, 2016.
242. “PFD Cuts Could Mean Big Ripples in Alaska Economy,” Rachel Waldholz, Alaska Public Media, March 10, 2016
243. Canada Is About To Start Giving Away Free Money, by Shane Fero, HuffPost, March 9, 2016.
244. We talked to five experts about what it would take to actually institute Universal Basic Income, by Olivia Goldhill, Quartz, February 6, 2016
245. These Tech Wizards Want To Pay People For Doing Absolutely Nothing, by Shane Fero, HuffPost, January 29, 2016.
246. Time For A Guaranteed Basic Income?, by Tom Ashbrook, NPR’s On Point, January 14, 2016.
247. Alaska’s dividends help make us equal and protect our common wealth, by Charles Wolforth, Anchorage Daily News, January 11, 2016.
248. American Achieves First Crowdfunded Monthly Basic Income, by Scott Santens, scottsantens.com, December 14, 2015.
249. Even Big Banks Think Robot Automation Will Lead to Further Income Inequality, by Jack Smith IV, MIC, November 11, 2015.
250. “És ki fog dolgozni, ha bevezetik az alapjövedelmet Magyarországon?” by Ember Zoltán, 24.hu, November 21, 2015
251. Can Basic Income Bring About the Next Creative Renaissance?, by Jack Smith IV, MIC, September 18, 2015.
252. “Basic Income, the Most Radical Innovation in Minimum Wage,” by Jack Smith IV, Mic, Sep 4, 2015
253. Basic Income AMA Series: I’m Karl Widerquist, co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network and author of “Freedom as the Power to Say No,” AMA, by Karl Widerquist, Reddit r/IAmA, July 4, 2015.
254. What If Everybody Didn’t Have to Work to Get Paid?, by David R. Wheeler, The Atlantic, May 18, 2015.
255. “The most exciting proposal of the GOP presidential campaign so far,” by Dylan Matthews, Vox, Apr 2, 2015
256. Published in translation as, “Warum das Silicon Valley auf einmal fürs bedingungslose Grundeinkommen ist,” by von Nathan Schneider, March 3, 2015
257. Why the Tech Elite Is Getting Behind Universal Basic Income, by Nathan Schneider, Vice, January 6, 2015.
     -Published in translation as, “Warum das Silicon Valley auf einmal fürs bedingungslose Grundeinkommen ist,” by von Nathan Schneider, March 3, 2015
258. We don’t have freedom without basic income (video 2:53). Interview of Karl Widerquist by Enno Schmid, Basic Income Earth Network Channel, YouTube, recorded June 29, 2014, posted February 9, 2015
     -Reposted in edited from as We don’t have freedom without Basic Income (video 1:21), Basic Income Visuals YouTube Channel, Nov 13, 2018
259. What Can We Learn From A Town That Beat Poverty, by Lane Anderson, Deseret News, January 5, 2015.
260. “The Guaranteed Basic Income & the Libertarian Dilemma (w/ Karl Widerquist),” by Sam Seder, The Majority Report, 2015.
261. We’ve Actually Tried Negative Income Taxes, And They Seem To Work, by Ben Southwood, Adam Smith Institute, November 6, 2014.
262. ”Big Casino” og friheden som magten til at sige nej ( “Big Casino” and freedom as the power to say no), by AF Erik Christensen, MODKRAFT Magazine, September 26, 2014.
263. Money for nothing: Mincome experiment could pay dividends 40 years on, by Benjamin Shingler, Al Jazeera America, August 26, 2014.
264. “A guaranteed income for every American would eliminate poverty — and it wouldn’t destroy the economy,” by Dylan Matthews, Vox, Jul 23, 2014
265. Karl Widerquist at North American Basic Income Guarantee Conference, a talk by Karl Widerquist, Basic Income Canada Network YouTube Channel, July 15, 2014. 
266. Basic Income Heroes: Karl Widerquist Edition, by Karl Widerquist, SquareSpace.com, July 13, 2014.
267. Libertarianism: The Scientology of Politics (Discusses my article, “A Dilemma for Libertarianism”), The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder, June 6, 2014
268. Guaranteed Basic Income with Karl Widerquist (audio interview 59:48), by Jeremy Mendelson, Politicized Radio, January 30, 2014. (Host’s email: feedback@politicized.org)
269. $2750 a month for every adult, guaranteed? Switzerland’s considering it, by Marco Werman, PRI’s The World, October 14, 2013.
270. “Anti Wage-Slavery, Pro-Freedom Quotations Of The Week 981-983,” by Jack Saturday, blogspot.com, May 13, 2013.
271. “
272. The Alaska Model: a citizen’s income in practice by Karl Widerquist, Open Democracy, Apr 24, 2013
273. Commentary: Let’s change the way Alaska Permanent Fund pays dividends by Karl Widerquist, the Alaska Dispatch, December 5, 2012
274. Interesting times ahead for Alaska Permanent Fund, by Karl Widerquist, Anchorage Daily News, June 3, 2012.
275. How Alaska can avoid the third-stage resource curse, by Karl Widerquist, Anchorage Daily News, February 27, 2012.
276. Four-part video interview by Joerg Drescher (host), Basic Income Earth Network YouTube Channel, December 16, 2011
     Karl Widerquist on the current crises and Basic Income (video interview)
     Karl Widerquist on Basic Income as a human right (video interview)
     Karl Widerquist on the APF (video interview)
     Karl Widerquist on steps to implement Basic Income
277. Karl Widerquist on the Alaska Permanent Fund. By Joerg Drescher (host), Basic Income Earth Network YouTube Channel, Dec 14, 2011
278. Six Lessons from the Alaska Model: Karl Widerquist in Duesseldorf (video in four parts. Posted by Oliviatawiah, on DailyMotion.com, 30 September 2011
     –Part 1
     –Part 2
     –Part 3
     –Part 4
279. The Indepentarian (blog) and news postings, by Karl Widerquist, Basic Income News, 2011-present
280. A BIG Idea: A Minimum Income Guarantee. An Interview with Karl Widerquist. By Multinational Monitor, May-June 2009, Vol. 30 No. 3
281. Conference Report: The Eleventh BIEN Congress. By Karl Widerquist, Citizens Income Newsletter Issue 2, 2007
282. Review of The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee. By The Citizens Income Newsletter Issue 1, 2007
283. Review of The Ethics and Economics of the Basic Income Guarantee. By William M. Dugger. The Journal of Economic Issues 40, No. 4, December, pp. 1188-1190, 2006
284. John Maynard Keynes: Economic Possibilities of Our Grandchildren, by Karl Widerquist, Dissent Magazine, 2006
     – Available for free on Karl Widerquist’s Selected Works, 2006, The Economic Possibilities of Our Grandparents, a retrospective on John Maynard Keynes’s Economic Possibilities of Our Grandchildren
     – Also reprinted as  “Predicciones de Keynes: ‘Las posibilidades económicas de nuestros nietros’ Una visión restrospectiva” Ciudadanos: Critica Política y Propuesta Año 6, No. 10 El Futuro (Invierno de 2006). Traducido por José Villadeamigo (Not Available online)
285. Surfer’s delight. By Samuel Brittan. Citizen’s Income Newsletter, No. 2, 2005
286. Life, Liberty and a Little Bit of Cash. By Sean Butler, Dissent, Summer 2005
287. Lending a Lasting Hand. By David Glenn. The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 16, 2004“Widerquist Volunteers in New York,” The Dowagiac Daily News.Vol. 104, No. 175, October 11, 2001; reprinted: The Niles Daily Star Vol. 115, No. 150, October 11, 2001; and in The Cassopolis Vigilant Vol. 136, No. 42, October 18, 2001
288. The Basic Income Guarantee. By Karl Widerquist, Synthesis/Regeneration 26 (Greens.org), Fall 2001
289. Widerquist Volunteers in New York. By John Eby, the Dowagiac Daily News, October 11, 2001
     – Reprinted as, “Widerquist Volunteers in New York” by John Eby, the Niles Daily Star, October 11, 2001
     -Reprinted as, “Cass Grad’s New View of New York,” by John Eby, The Cassopolis Vigilant, October 19, 2001
290. Maybe the election will shame us into sharing our wealth, by Mark Satin, Radical Middle, November 2000
291. The Money-Making Ethic, by Karl Widerquist, Chronogram Magazine, 1999.
     -Reprinted in, Chronogram Magazine, January 1, 2019, as “From the Archive: The Money-Making Ethics“
     -Reprinted in Progress.org, 2018, as “The Money-Making Ethic”
292. Blaming The Worker, by Karl Widerquist, Chronogram Magazine, January 1998.
293. The Bass Player, by Karl Widerquist, Cake: The Nonmusic Music Magazine, February 1997.
294. Make Way For Other Toys, by Karl Widerquist,  Cake: The Nonmusic Music Magazine, 1996.
295. The Book is Dead, by Karl Widerquist, Cake: The Nonmusic Music Magazine, 1996.
296. Breaking Away to the Next Red Light, by Karl Widerquist, Cake: The Nonmusic Music Magazine, 1996.

(more…)