by Tyler Prochazka | Jan 8, 2017 | Opinion
While many basic income advocates concentrate on shifting government policy, some in the tech world are taking the fight into their own hands.
Cyrptocurrencies have the potential to dramatically disrupt the government system of fiat issued currency. When new money is created, some cryptocurrencies are planning to distribute the dividend as a basic income to its members. This is a very exciting time because cryptocurrencies are completely separate from the government and the more it becomes mainstream, the more people are investing in it. Many investors are looking to comprar bitcoin (BTC) for their long-term investments because they can only see the prices of the cryptocurrency to increase. Many are interested in investing in it, and instead of jumping straight in they are rightly researching some useful tips from xCoins and other online sites on how to invest in it properly, successfully and safely.
However, despite this positive potential outcome people are still nervous about doing it all digitally and with their money, luckily now there are VPNs that can be put in place here that can keep traders’ privacy safe and secure if they so choose to do it. It’s not just Bitcoin that’s making big waves in the crypto industry. Reading up online resources about investing in cryptocurrencies could be a good place to start. Someone looking to buy Bitcoin and Ethereum could also look up a few great review of crypto exchanges on the internet.
Duniter (formerly known as uCoin) is helping to push this monetary revolution. Duniter would evenly distribute all of the money created, potentially even on a daily basis, to add up to 10 percent growth each year.
One of the lead developers of Duniter, Gaël, said he was inspired by the basic income after the financial crisis in 2008, when he realized something was wrong with the global economic system.
“We needed a system that would let people create without having to prove to the institutions, be it the banks, or the state, that what they were doing was useful,” Gaël said.
The full interview can be found below:
1. What is your involvement in Duniter? What is your background?
My name is Gaël and I’m known as “inso” in the Duniter project. I am the Lead Developer of Sakia, a desktop client for Duniter networks.
I am an engineer in Software and Systems. I have been working as part of the Duniter team in my free time for 3 years. At the beginning, I was building the only client existing on Duniter network, so that advanced users could see and test it for real. I gave cgeek (the founder of Duniter) some feedback about his developments and the API (a set of functionality for the developers) of the Duniter network. Our goal at this moment is to help more developers to contribute to the project, by testing and working with us.
Apart from the technical stuff, I communicate about the project as much as I can on Twitter and diaspora (inso@framasphere.org). I translate our French articles into English on our blog. I try to explain what we are doing and why : what are the problems with modern money systems (debt-money, crypto-currencies, etc.) and what we are trying to fix by developing Duniter.
2. What inspired you to get involved in this project ?
I grew up with the Internet and I have always been passionate about the decentralized aspect of it.
When the 2008 financial crisis hit the planet, I suddenly realized that something was inherently wrong in modern economics. I discovered that if banks disappeared with their debts, the common money we were using would disappear with them. The banking system was too important — “Too Big To Fail”. At the same time, the Universal Basic Income was starting to become a real topic on the social networks. Automation was going to replace a lot of manual jobs really fast, what is called “Disruption” today. We needed a system that would let people create without having to prove to the institutions, be it the banks, or the state, that what they were doing was useful. Because if the society was not agile enough to adapt, social crisis were going to hit soon or later.
This is where I discovered the Relative Theory of Money (Here in French or here for a basic English translation). This theory describes a money which is issued by every individuals, using a symmetric distribution in space and time. It means it is decentralized and growing regularly. There is no one who has the power of money issuance on others. It understands the fact that nobody can definitively say what is valuable, and so it is respectful to what humans want to do with their own life.
A first crypto-currency project began, called Open-UDC. But it was complicated and I did not understood exactly how it would work. This is were cgeek forked Open-UDC by creating what was called by then uCoin, now Duniter. He used technologies I could understand, and it was based on concepts which were proven to work (Web of Trust, Blockchains), so I was willing to work with him.
3. What is the goal of Duniter ?
The Duniter project wants to create a Libre Money, as defined by the Relative Theory of Money. A Libre Money is issued as a Universal Dividend, which is a percentage of the existing monetary mass, shared to all the money members. For a Libre Money to issue a valuable Universal Dividend, it will need a lot of users. We would like the first Libre Money to be issued by 1 million to 10 million users. So Duniter has to be easy enough to use and secure enough to be trusted.
4. How does Duniter work ?
The Duniter network is decentralized. It is using a blockchain to synchronize the money state across its nodes. As opposed to Bitcoin, there is no power race in Duniter. In Bitcoin, because of the CPU race, the power is given to the ones who own the more computing power. In Duniter, it is democratic; because every user is identified as a unique human, they can write in the blockchain in turns. Simply put, each node is associated to a member of the money. When a member writes data in the blockchain, he has to wait before being able to write again. This is what ensures that the blockchain does not end in the hand of a few users, and that it does not burn too much energy.
To identify users, Duniter makes the choice of a self-regulated system by its own members. This is the Web of Trust. Each member can certify new users. When a user receives enough certifications and is not too far away from the existing members in the web of trust, he becomes a member.
For example, if I certified cgeek and that cgeek certifies you, your distance from me is two steps. This distance is checked with all the members of the Web of trust, and if it is below a given limit, let’s say four or five, you join the web of trust and start to issue your own Universal Dividend. Simple as that!
5. How much of a basic income does Duniter include for each member ?
Duniter issues around 10 percent of new money each year. This new money is shared to all the members. The rhythm can be faster: for example, we can issue every day 0.026 percent of new money, and at the end of the year, it will be a growth of 10 percent.
Ten percent is not a number chosen randomly. It respects the symmetry in time. If a new user join the Duniter network in 35 years, he will start to issue the Universal Dividend at the same speed as we did before. Ten percent is calibrated so that in half a human life, 40 years, you create the same share of the monetary mass as every members did before. One should not be privileged and create a bigger share of money during his life just because he joined Duniter earlier or later.
6. What are the reasons Duniter is utilizing a basic income and how did the team first get introduced to the basic income concept?
I think most of the team discovered Basic Income before reading about the Relative Theory of Money. One of the biggest debate within basic income community is “how much should we give to individuals?”
The Relative Theory of Money demonstrate that to consider individuals equals and free, a money has to be issued symmetrically between individuals, in space and time. It means that it has to be issued by a Basic Income called Universal Dividend.
Yoland Bresson (an early advocate and participant in the Basic Income Earth Network), who wrote the preface of the Relative Theory of Money, is the author of the theory of “Time-Value”. Interesting enough, both theories, applied to the euro-zone, result in almost the same Universal Basic Income amount.
Another interesting thing is the Theorem of equivalence between a Libre Money and a Universal Basic Income. This demonstration states that a Universal Dividend, based on money issuance, is strictly equivalent to a Universal Basic Income based on a tax with a lower issuance rate of money. Basically, issuing 10 percent of new money each year is strictly the same as issuing three percent of new money and taxing seven percent of every accounts. But the Occam’s razor principle states that the simpler a system is, the better. The Universal Dividend is really simple: no taxation is required, no administration is necessary to check for the redistribution. It is only about issuing new money. And it is strictly equivalent to a Universal Basic Income! You can analyze on the website of cuckooland how it works (in french).
7. How many members does Duniter currently have and what is the utilization rate? What have the trends been so far?
Our current testing money is issued at the rhythm of 10 percent per day. This is huge because we do not want this money to take any value: we are just using it to test Duniter network. This money currently has 200 members. This is pretty good for a test. We have seen a growing interest for Duniter recently. In France we are doing events every six months to work on Duniter and find new contributors. More and more people are coming each time, so this is really encouraging.
We will start a new test money at the beginning of January, called “GTest”, and then the first real money, calibrated at 10 percent growth a year, will be started. We expect a lot of people to register at this time. For the first time in history, we will be able to create our own Universal Basic Income without having to wait for governments and banks to understand its importance!
by Kate McFarland | Jan 6, 2017 | Opinion
One needn’t spend too much time examining the current state basic income movement to deduce that pilot projects are en vogue this year.
Finland’s two-year experiment–in which 2,000 randomly-selected unemployed people will receive an unconditional payment of €560 per month instead of the country’s standard unemployment benefits–was launched on January 1. Several Dutch municipalities are also planning experiments, expected to begin early in 2017, in which existing welfare benefits will be replaced by unconditional benefits for current claimants. Meanwhile in Canada, the government of Ontario is finalizing its plan for a pilot study of a minimum income guarantee (most likely in the form a negative income tax), also set to commence early in 2017, and Prince Edward Island is seeking federal support to run a pilot of its own. And, in Scotland, the councils of Fife and Glasgow are actively taking steps to develop basic income pilots.
In the private sector, some organizations are not waiting for government-run pilots, and have taken it upon themselves to instigate studies. Non-profit organizations like GiveDirectly, ReCivitas, Eight, and Cashrelief have launched, or will soon launch, pilot studies of unconditional cash transfers in poor villages in Kenya, Brazil, Uganda, and India (respectively). In the states, the Silicon Valley startup incubator Y Combinator has initiated a short-term pilot study in Oakland, intended to pave the way for a larger scale basic income experiment.
And this is not to attempt to enumerate all of the various individuals, political parties, unions, and advocacy groups who have issued calls for basic income pilots in their own countries, states, or municipalities. Indeed, it has become commonplace, it seems, for basic income supporters to demand pilot studies of basic income rather than, say, just to demand a basic income straight-out.
This wave of pilot projects–with more, most likely, on the horizon–should rightfully excite basic income supporters, as well as those who are merely “BI-curious”. No doubt these studies will provide many useful and interesting data on the effects of cash transfers. At the same time, however, I caution strongly against the fetishization of pilot studies. A pilot study in itself is never a final goal–such is the nature of a pilot–and such a study is neither sufficient nor (presumably) necessary to secure the implementation of basic income as a policy. Furthermore, significant dangers can arise from a narrow and myopic focus on the goal of running pilot studies.
The first problem is this: excessive attention to experimentation threatens to trigger the presupposition that the question of whether basic income should be adopted is a question subject to experimental evaluation. To be sure, even if one is antecedently convinced that a basic income should be adopted, there are many reasons for which one might run a pilot study. It could, for example, help to identify and resolve potential hitches in implementation. But, more commonly, pilot studies are framed as mechanisms for determining whether a basic income is desirable in the first place. Skeptics and supporters alike speak in terms of finding out whether basic income “works”. The experimental approach tend to invoke an instrumentalist view of basic income as policy: the policy should be adopted if, and only if, it is more effective than other candidate policies in achieving certain socially desirable outcomes.
I would contend that this instrumentalist view should be rejected. We can remain neutral on this point, however, and assert only that the debate surrounding the justification of a basic income is severely and artificially constrained by the implicit assumption that this justification rests on empirical grounds. (And, specifically, empirical grounds amenable to testing in a pilot study!) Consider, for example, the view that all individuals deserve a share of society’s collectively generated wealth, unconditionally, merely in virtue of being a member of that society. On this view, it would be entirely beside the point to run an experiment to determine whether a basic income is justified.
If individuals are owed an unconditional basic income simply as their right–whether as a share of a common inheritance, as a condition on individual freedom, or as a realization of a right to the means to survival–then asking whether basic income “works” has the flavor of a category mistake. It is a nonsensical question to ask. (Conversely, if we assume that the question does make sense, we implicitly rule out the position that a basic income is simply a basic right.)
At this point, perhaps, the activist might say, “I don’t need experimental evidence to pursue me that a basic income should be adopted. Policymakers, however, do–and basic income experiments are the best way to convince policymakers that basic income ‘works’ according to the their criteria.” But this maneuver, I believe, goes to far to countenance whatever criteria policymakers use to judge the “effectiveness” of basic income.
In many cases, the goals deemed valuable in status quo politics–increases in jobs, increases in consumption, increases in economic growth–can themselves be called into question (and, I would argue, ought to be). Yet these conventional goals are likely to guide researchers and policymakers in their selection of “success conditions” of basic income experiments. Finland’s experiment, for example, has been designed specifically to assess whether employment increases with the replacement of means-tested unemployment benefits by unconditional transfers.
Indeed, I believe that a main reason to agitate for a universal and unconditional basic income is to challenge conventional social and political values, such as (especially) the Protestant work ethic. To allow to those same conventional values to provide the metric of whether basic income “works” is to subvert this critical role of the movement.
In a worst case scenario, a pilot study could lead policymakers to categorically reject basic income on the grounds that the policy has been shown to be associated with politically undesirable outcomes, when there is reasonable dispute over whether these outcomes are genuinely undesirable. There is some historical precedent here: in the 1970s, experiments of the negative income tax were held in several US cities; however, they were widely dismissed as failures in light of reports that they showed the policy to be associated with a decrease in work hours and increase in divorce rates [1].
There is, to be sure, much to anticipate in basic income research in 2017. But our excitement and fascination at empirical studies mustn’t overshadow the basic normative question of what society should be like. It is only by keeping sight of this latter question that we can properly contextualize the demand for basic income (if any) and, in turn, the role that can be served by pilot studies (if any).
[1] See, e.g., Karl Widerquist, “A Failure to Communicate: What (If Anything) Can we Learn from the Negative Income Tax Experiments?” The Journal of Socio-Economics (2005).
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 sandeepachetan.com travel photography
This article was originally written for an editorial in USBIG Network NewsFlash, but posted here instead due to word length.
by Kate McFarland | Jan 6, 2017 | Research
The Green Institute, an Australian non-profit organization devoted to education and action concerning green politics, has published a collection of essays on the ideas of universal basic income (UBI) and a shorter working week (Can Less Work Be More Fair?, December 2016).
In the collection’s introduction, Executive Director Tim Hollo states that the Green Institute “remains agnostic” on whether a UBI is an “appropriate mechanism” to achieve a reduction in working hours with no reduction in pay or working conditions–a goal which the organization does unequivocally support. Hollo adds that, despite its agnosticism, the Green Institute “believe[s] a conversation on the idea [of UBI], in the context of the need to grapple with the inevitability of less and less paid work in an ever more unstable world, is vital to [Australia’s] politics.”
Following are overviews of the 10 essays in the report and their authors.
1. “Why work less?” by Tim Hollo and Chris Twomey, Policy Director of the Western Australian Council of Social Service (WACOSS) and Chair of the Green Institute.
Hollo and Twomey discuss four reasons for which societies should pursue policies aimed at the reduction of working hours: inequality and insecurity of work (e.g. the rise the of the gig economy and zero-hour contracts), the threat of the automation of many jobs, widespread overwork and the need for improved work/life balance, and environmental destruction caused by the “work-to-consume / work-to-produce-to-consume” cycle.
Additionally, the authors critique two pervasive social norms, which they believe should be challenged by the debate around debate surrounding UBI and shorter working hours: the ideas that “only paid work is a noble pursuit” and that “a punitive approach to welfare is necessary to force people into this noble pursuit” (p. 15).
Finally, they propose three alternative ideals to frame the policy debate: “the ideal of universalism; the realisation that, while work is good, less work can be better; and the approach of encouraging and enabling meaningful work in resilient communities, rather than the punitive attitude to welfare that is failing both workers and employers” (p. 19).
Hollo and Twomey stop short of endorsing UBI as the preferred means to achieve these ideals, and they are clear that UBI would not be a one-stop solution (if it is part of the solution at all). However, they maintain that–as long as it is framed in the terms they describe–UBI in an crucial policy to consider and debate.
2. “Towards an historical account of Universal Basic Income” by Elise Klein, Professor of Development Studies at the University of Melbourne.
In her contribution to the collection, Klein traces the history of discourse about UBI from its roots in the ideas of Thomas More, Marquis de Condorcet, and Thomas Paine. She also provides an overview of the contemporary state of basic income debate, both globally and in the Australian context.
Klein has previously defended universal basic income in essays such as “Securing Economic Rights: The Time Has Come” (2015).
3. “On shorter working hours” by Godfrey Moase, assistant general branch secretary at the National Union of Workers in Melbourne.
In his contribution, Moase traces the history of labor’s demand for shorter working hours and argues that we must “take up the struggle once again for a shorter working week” for the sake of economic security, quality of life, and ecological sustainability.
Moase has previously defended a basic income guarantee of $30,000 per year for all Australians; see, for example, his 2013 article published in The Guardian (“Why Australians deserve a universal minimum income“).
4. “Not Just a Basic Income” by Ben Spies-Butcher, Senior Lecturer at the Department of Sociology at Macquarie University.
The main objective of Spies-Butcher’s essay is to argue against a UBI as conceived as a replacement for the welfare state, concluding “UBI is part of the answer, but only if it builds on a broader project for social change” (p. 46).
Spies-Butcher has previously defended an Australian UBI (as a partial solution) in articles such as “Could a new ‘basic income’ protect Australia’s most vulnerable?” (October 2015, The Conversation) and, earlier in 2016, in a panel discussion on UBI hosted by the New South Wales Fabian Society (see his presentation).
5. “A Universal Basic Income: Economic considerations” by the political economist Frank Stilwell (Emeritus Professor at the University of Sydney).
After outlining several reasons for which UBI seems to a policy “whose time has come”, Stilwell raises the question of how a UBI could be funded in Australia, and describes some sources of uncertainty with respect to the policy’s economic effects. However, he concludes his essay by emphasizing that “these uncertainties are not a reason to eschew further investigation” and that the discussion surrounding UBI is important because it “directs our attention to the all-important questions of ends and means: ‘what sort of society do we want?’ and ‘how should we restructure our economy so that the desired social outcomes can be achieved?'” (p. 51).
Stilwell also defends basic income in a short radio interview with Hamish Macdonald (“Less work, more money: the argument for a universal basic income“), which was aired in response to the publication of the Green Institute report.
Harry Nilsson
6. “Goin’ where the weather suits my clothes” by Louise Tarrant, former National Secretary of United Voice.
Inspired by the 1969 Harry Nilsson hit “Everybody’s Talkin’“, Tarrant recounts several pivotal moments in the last 70 years of history of Western democracies, ultimately arguing that now is the time to recreate an effective democracy and new social compact. Tarrant discusses the threat of automation and the “over-valorization” of paid work as factors giving rising to this need. She finally describes how a new social compact might be formed around the ideas of less work and a UBI.
To hear more of Tarrant’s ideas about UBI, listen to her discussion of the policy’s pros and cons at the Fabian Society panel (in which she participated alongside Spies-Butcher).
7. “The emancipatory potential of a Universal Basic Income” by Clare Ozich, Executive Director of the Australian Institute of Employment Rights (AIER).
Drawing from the work of Guy Standing, Kathi Weeks, Paul Mason, and others, Ozich argues that the debate about UBI should be seen as a way to open discussion about “how we conceive of work and what value we place on what forms of work” (p. 71). She stresses that the emancipatory potential of UBI depends on the exact form of the UBI implemented; for example, a basic income set too low could merely act as a subsidy to low wages.
8. “Why a Universal Basic Income can address historic, gender and material inequities” by feminist advocate Eva Cox, currently Adjunct Professor at Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning at the University of Technology, Sydney.
Cox supports a basic income as a way to recognize the value the unpaid labor: “By liberating people from the need to earn their basic expenses through paid work, we can open up many possibilities of creating better functioning societies. By recognising the value of unpaid contributions already made and encouraging their expansion, there can be more gender equity, social wellbeing and validation of diversity of lifestyle choices” (p. 82).
After making a case for the need to recognize unpaid work, Cox briefly outlines a possible incremental approach to welfare reform in Australia.
Indigenous Australian Dancer, CC BY-SA 2.0 Naparazzi
9. “Basic income makes basic sense for remote Indigenous Australia” by Jon Altman, research professor at the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation at Deakin University in Melbourne and emeritus professor of the Australian National University in Canberra.
In his contribution, Altman reviews decades of findings concerning the effects of welfare programs on indigenous communities, especially the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme and the “work for the dole” Community Development Programme (CDP) that eventually replaced it. Although originally intended to provide wages for part-time employment, the CDEP came to administered a basic income in some regions, where it was popular and successful. Altman argues that the CDP is less effective (calling it “neo-paternalism … masquerading as a work-creation program that is destructive and deeply impoverishing already impoverished people”, p. 93), and that a (re-)introduction of basic income scheme would greatly improve the status of indigenous Australians.
Altman has argued for the same thesis–that a basic income would improve the position of indigenous Australians–in previous works, such as the book chapter “Basic Income for Remote Indigenous Australians: Prospects for a Livelihoods Approach in Neoliberal Times” (published in the 2016 edited collection Basic income in Australia and New Zealand).
10. “The environmental impacts of a UBI and a shorter working week” by Greg Marston, Professor at School of Social Science at The University of Queensland and a leader of BIEN’s Australian affiliate, Basic Income Guarantee Australia.
Marston, one of Australia’s most prominent basic income advocates, presents an ecological argument for basic income in his contribution to the Green Institute report. As Marston argues, “Transitioning to a low-carbon slow growth economy is not simply a matter of social policy prescription or new economic incentives, but of transforming whole patterns of social life in terms of employment, family, mobility, housing and leisure” (p. 97), and such transformations require that work be organized differently. Some companies might opt to create a virtual working environment (often through registered address use at Companies House offices), potentially allowing employees to work from home and promote flexible working. These days, working from home is becoming more and more of an option, and technology is advancing at a rate that makes it entirely possible. Many companies already have some form of av system in place in order to facilitate things like virtual meetings and conferences with both employees and clients alike, so there are communications solutions already out there for remote working. Naturally, without modern communication technology, none of this would be possible. Implementing a cloud contact centre may encourage more businesses to retain a positive outlook on remote working.
Marston’s argument is one that he has also presented in earlier articles, including “Unconditional Basic Income and transitioning to a low-carbon society” and “Greening the Australian Welfare State: Can Basic Income Play a Role?” (the latter is a chapter in the book Basic income in Australia and New Zealand, which he co-edited).
Additional Press
Gareth Hutchens, “Take basic income and short working week seriously, Greens think-tank urges“, The Guardian, December 8, 2016.
Cover Photo: Surfer at Australia’s Byron Bay, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Richard Rydge
by BIEN | Dec 31, 2016 | Bios & background Info, Opinion, Testimonies
(photo credit: Enno Schmidt)
Karl Widerquist (Co-Chair)
When I first attended a BIEN Congress in 1998, I’d already been a Basic Income supporter for 18 years, but it was exhilarating for me just to find out that there were enough dedicated Basic Income supporters to fill an auditorium. I was a young researcher looking to get noticed. I sent my proposal in months before the deadline. The leaders of BIEN, especially Robert van der Veen, made me feel that my work was notable. I’ve been involved ever since, and I’ve watched the Basic Income movement growth, slowly, barely noticeably until about 2010 or 2011, but very quickly since then. I don’t think BIEN should try to grab credit for the takeoff. We should all just be happy it’s happening and do what we can to build on it.
It’s exciting to see BIEN growing along with the movement. We now have affiliates all around the world, some of which have been instrumental in activism and research about Basic Income. Our news service has grown from a quarterly snail mail newsletter with a few dozen subscribers to a daily updated news website and an email newsletter with over 4,000 subscribers. We have moved from conferences every two-years to conferences every year. Our membership and interest just continues to grow.
At the end of 2016, the year in which BIEN celebrated the 30th anniversary of its birth, all Life Members were invited to reflect on their own personal journeys with the organization. See other contributions to the feature edition here.
Feature coordinator: Kate McFarland.
