by Andre Coelho | Sep 18, 2016 | Opinion
(image credit to: The Economist)
IMF’s (International Monetary Fund) Deputy Director for Capacity Development Andrew Berg, Research Department Senior Economist (at IMF) Luis-Felipe Zanna and Edward Buffie, a Professor of Economics at Indiana University Bloomington, just published an article articulating an analysis revolving around technological development and its implications on society, particularly regarding labor, capital and (in)equality. At the end of the article they refer to basic income as a possible solution, in order to redistribute the excess capital brought by the computerization of production.
But what do we have here? A miracle conversion of hard-core capitalist economists into soft-hearted left-wing liberals? Can we, after all, turn lead into gold? No, of course not. What we have here is textbook capitalist economy, with a new ingredient: basic income.
So their logic goes like this: We have inequality, but that is fine. Inequality is merely a result of market forces; we can live with that because we belong to that fortunate group of people who have not experienced poverty and cannot imagine experiencing poverty. But there are a couple of challenges with too much inequality: people revolt and cannot buy all these wonderful things corporate capitalism churns out daily. You see, this humanity thing has one big problem: it is full of humans. And humans, unlike machines, have two amazing features, which these brilliant economists have just discovered: they tend to fight back if pressed too much and cannot survive without their basic needs met.
The reason for this sudden, latent, realization has to do with the one thing all capitalists share: they are not entirely human. They hold this strange belief that there’s nothing wrong with trying to extract more water from the well than the amount that exists there. It is like writing a three-thousand-page essay and drawing this sole conclusion: 1+1=3.
But back to the logic. So, inequality is tolerable, but not too much. The solution? Give these poor people a basic income and, all of a sudden, they stop being such bad loser crying babies and resume buying enough stuff to maintain this completely absurd system of domination, privilege and exploitation. Shut them up, so we can keep doing our thing without distraction. Note that I have not, until now, said a single thing about robots, computers or automation. Because at bottom it has nothing to do with that. With robots or not, the capitalist mind just wants to extract wealth. How they do it is irrelevant, or relevant only to the extent as it is efficient in doing so.
What these enlightened IMF economists, and possibly other IMF officials do not realize is that basic income is a complete game changer. It will allow people to say “no”, to enjoy enough freedom to completely turn the capitalist system on its head. And these people will start doing much more bizarre things, like volunteering for causes close to their heart, or starting their own businesses (refusing to be slaves to some capitalist boss), and enjoying more leisure time, and time to care for family and friends (go figure out why). Living out their own lives, for a change.
I predict that, after basic income is implemented, in part following up these economists’ recommendations, capitalism will hardly resemble its own shadow in 10 to 20 years. Society will barely recognize itself, when looking back at today’s world. Mark my words.
More information at:
Andrew Berg, Edward F. Bufie and Luis-Felipe Zanna, “Robots, Growth, and Inequality”, Finance & Development, vol. 53 nº3, September 2016
by Kate McFarland | Sep 8, 2016 | News
Event Announcement: BIEN’s 30th Anniversary
An event commemorating the anniversary of BIEN’s founding will take place on Saturday, October 1 in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium–the location of BIEN’s first meeting 30 years ago.
The anniversary event has been organized by the Hoover Chair of Economic and Social Ethics at the Université Catholique de Louvain in collaboration with BIEN.
Participants in the conference that launched BIEN
About the Anniversary Event
The anniversary event will begin, after a short welcome, with tales of BIEN’s birth as related from several cofounders: Paul-Marie Boulanger, Annie Miller, Guy Standing, Claus Offe, and Robert van der Veen.
Two parallel sessions will take place in late morning: one on the history of basic income (featuring Pierre-Etienne Vandamme on “Voltaire before Paine”, Guido Erreygers on “Brussels 1848” and Walter Van Trier, BIEN’s first secretary, on the British interbellum period); the other on implementations of basic income (featuring Philippe Defeyt on an income-tax-funded basic income of EUR 600, David Rosseels on micro-taxes on electronic payments, and Karl Widerquist on sovereign funds).
In the afternoon sessions, Enno Schmidt, co-founder of the Swiss popular initiative on basic income, and University of Lucerne Research fellow Nenad Stojanovic will review lessons learned from the Swiss referendum campaign. Then, discussion will turn to basic income experiments of the past and future. Guy Standing will talk about his work on pilots in India. University of Tampere Research Fellow Jurgen De Wispelaere will discuss the upcoming experiment in Finland, and BIEN cofounder Alexander de Roo (now chair of the Dutch basic income network) will discuss those to come in The Netherlands.
Finally, the conference will examine where the movement is heading next, with talks from Louise Haagh (BIEN co-chair), Stanislas Jourdan (co-founder of UBI-Europe), Roland Duchatelet (former senator and founder of Vivant), and Yasmine Kherbache (member of Flemish Parliament and, previously, chief of cabinet of former Belgian Prime Minister Di Rupo).
The event will conclude with reflections from two co-founders of BIEN, Claus Offe and Gérard Roland. They will be joined by political philosopher Joshua Cohen (UC Berkeley) and sociologist Erik Olin Wright (University of Wisconsin – Madison).
The anniversary event follows a two-day conference Utopias for our Time, which marks the 500th anniversary of the publication of Thomas More’s Utopia. Some participants in the BIEN anniversary event will also be speaking at this preceding event. For instance, Erik Olin Wright is to deliver a keynote address on the theme of the future of democracy, and Wright and Philippe Van Parijs will contribute to a special session on the question “Should academics engage indulge in utopian thinking?”
For more information on both events, see the event page at Université Catholique de Louvain.
Prospective attendees can register online through September 20.
Scene from BIEN’s founding meeting
About BIEN’s Founding
In 1984, three young researchers linked to the Université Catholique de Louvain–Paul-Marie Boulanger, Philippe Defeyt and Philippe Van Parijs–formed a group called the “Collectif Charles Fourier” to explore what they had chosen to call “allocation universelle”.
First written documentation of the existence of BIEN
Two years later — fueled by the unexpected earnings from a essay contest, for an essay on the “allocation universelle” — the Collectif Charles Fourier organized a international conference to discuss the idea. The conference, which convened in Louvain-la-Neuve in September 1986, gathered 60 invited speakers from throughout Europe.
Its final session would mark the genesis of the Basic Income European Network. (The name, suggested by Guy Standing, was chosen in part for the “good pun” of its acronym.)
In 2004, BIEN decided to become an inter-continental organization, owing to an increase in interest from outside of Europe. Unable to part with the acronym, the group decided simply to brand itself with the name it has today.
Read more about the history of BIEN.
Basic Income News will be providing continuing coverage of BIEN’s anniversary event.
Stay tuned for videos, photographs, and remarks from the participants, as well as other comments and reflections from current members of BIEN’s Executive Committee.
Text reviewed by Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght.
Photographs and scanned document provided by Philippe Van Parijs.
by Tyler Prochazka | Aug 29, 2016 | Opinion
Gary Johnson recently told me he is “open” to the Universal Basic Income (UBI). Based on some of the comments on the story (calling me slanderous and Johnson a statist), you might think he just endorsed a socialist takeover of the government.
Understandably, there is hostility among many libertarians toward the idea of the Universal Basic Income. The UBI is not just a pragmatic step to eliminate government bureaucracy. In fact, it is a desirable policy outcome because it will likely help usher in a new era of free markets and civil society.
Much has been said on the pragmatic libertarian case for replacing the current social safety net with a UBI. Primarily, it eliminates government paternalism and enhances the efficiency of welfare delivery.
Moreover, a Universal Basic Income removes the poverty trap created by the loss of welfare benefits as individuals move out of poverty. This incentivizes recipients to remain in poverty to retain these benefits. A UBI has no such incentive and allows recipients to choose the course of action that actually provides the greatest real benefit.
Through the basic income, recipients are also fully in control with how to spend the money, eliminating welfare’s distortions on the marketplace.
Most libertarian UBI advocates take Milton Friedman’s view of the basic income, approving of it as a substitute given that government welfare already exists (and is unlikely to go away). Instead, libertarians should consider wholeheartedly endorsing the UBI as a way to expand free markets.
The last century has shown us that free markets and free trade have been the greatest source for prosperity and peace the world has ever seen. However, the free market consensus seems to be eroding at a frightening pace, even in the Western world.
Free market’s savior? The basic income.
If libertarians are being honest, free markets are the best source for lowering poverty, but they alone are not sufficient. For example, Hong Kong has the freest economy in the world, but also a good amount of debilitating poverty. While visiting McDonalds throughout Hong Kong, it was hard not to notice the McRefugees (as they are called in local media) that were sleeping at tables.
There is good evidence that conditions outside of one’s control, such as whether one’s parents are wealthy or married, have a substantial influence on one’s success.
Socialism is not the answer to the poor’s woes, as we saw with devastating consequences in the human trials of socialism in the Soviet Union, Mao’s China and still today in North Korea and Venezuela.
Instead, the answer is to open up the free market to everyone through the basic income.
Pilot programs have shown that the basic income increased entrepreneurial and market activity (among other positive social benefits, such as improved health). Individuals previously locked out of the free market can now be active participants. The understandable worry that people would stop working is not only overblown, but the opposite was actually shown to be true in Namibia, as business activity dramatically picked up.
The largest meta-analysis of cash-transfers ever further illustrated that the risk of reduced work is nil and in fact it has the potential to increase work hours and intensity. Some parents reduced work hours to care for their children, but this likely brings a positive long-term outcome to society.
Work brings dignity and the basic income does not eliminate the basic desire to contribute to society. When polled, most Americans say they would still work even with a financial windfall.
Basic income gives recipients free choice, unlocking the market’s full potential. People do remarkable things when given freedom and opportunity.
Additionally, poverty is one of the biggest factors when determining a child’s likelihood to succeed in education. Just giving parents money substantially improved their child’s educational outcomes and behavior. The same was shown under the basic income.
The basic income is not a pragmatic giveaway to socialists. It is precisely the opposite: it is the essential element for sustaining the durability and expansion of free markets.
Beyond opening up the market to new participants, it is likely that a basic income would allow society to reevaluate the necessity of a whole host of government policies.
Human beings are born with a natural inclination to be empathetic toward others. And there are individuals that are also inclined (perhaps hardwired) toward government solutions for society’s ills. No matter how effectively free markets lower poverty, there will always be calls for a government backstop.
As libertarians know, these calls for government “solutions” often do more harm than good and end up impeding the very forces that allow the free market to lift individuals out of poverty (e.g. the minimum wage).
As jobs are increasingly automated, it is especially crucial that libertarians guide political discourse toward a light-touch approach to resolve the disruption robots will cause in the marketplace. There needs to be a permanent method to alleviate the fears of the market place, rather than relying on the eternal vigilance of Congress to do the right thing.
A robust basic income would mute many of the calls for government intervention because it gives employees greater freedom to choose their employment situation, rather than being forced into employment by the threat of poverty.
The fears felt by those inclined toward government intervention would be lowered and libertarians would have a far more persuasive case to make for allowing individuals to shape the market instead of the government. Indeed, it would allow libertarians to push for removing many of the excesses of government intervention.
The Universal Basic Income is not just a pragmatic compromise to lower welfare bureaucracy. It is the essential prerequisite to usher in a new era of free markets. And libertarians would be well suited to be at the forefront of this movement.
by Kate McFarland | Aug 23, 2016 | News
The 16th “BIEN-nial” Congress of the Basic Income Earth Network was held at Sogang University in Seoul, South Korea from July 7-9, 2016. (For details, see the congress website and the then-live Reddit reports.)
Videos of many sessions of the congress are now available on YouTube, including the following:
Plenary Session I: Visible Basic Income (Chair: No-Wan Kwack, University of Seoul).
- Philippe Van Parijs (Université de Louvain): “Why Is Basic Income More Relevant Today Than Ever Before?”
- Jan Otto Andersson (Åbo Akademi University): “Does Basic Income Fit the Nordic Welfare States?”
Plenary Session II: Basic Income, Socialism and Emancipation (Chair: Seung Kyung Yoo, Institute for Political and Economic Alternatives).
- Zhiyuan Cui (Tsinghua University): “Basic Income as a Component of Liberal Socialism”
- Sarath Davala (India Network for Basic Income): “The Emancipatory Power of Basic Income: An Optimistic Note from Indian Experience”
Plenary Session III: Basic Income and Human Emancipation (Chair: Dongtaek Kim, Sogang University).
- Nam Hoon Kang (Hanshin University): “Artificial Intelligence and the Right to Universal Basic Income”
- David Casassas (Universitat de Barcelona): “Basic Income and Social Emancipation: A New Road to Socialism”
Plenary Session IV: Basic Income and Social Protection (Chair: Pablo Yanes Rizo, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe).
- Almaz Zelleke (NYU Shanghai): “Everyone a Capitalist: Basic Income and Redistribution”
- John Roberto Scott Andretta (Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social): “Basic Income and Social Protection in Mexico”
Plenary Session V: Basic Income and Grassroots Feminist Movement (Chair: Barb Jacobson, UBI Europe).
- Toru Yamamori (University of Doshisha): “What Can We Learn from a Grassroots Feminist UBI Movement?: Revisiting Keynes’s Prophecy”
Plenary Session VI: Basic Income and Politics of Democracy (Chair: Hyosang Ahn, Basic Income Korean Network).
- Katja Kipping (German MP): “Das Grundeinkommen – Eine Demokratiepauschale” (“Basic Income: A Generalization of Democracy”)
Affiliates Roundtable. At the time of the congress, BIEN had 29 international affiliates; presenters from 18 affiliates participated in the roundtable.
Reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Thanks, as always, to my supporters on Patreon
by Tyler Prochazka | Aug 3, 2016 | Opinion
As the US Presidential race heats up, most of the candidates have already made their opinions known regarding Universal Basic Income. Regardless, it is imperative that the United States fund new basic income pilot programs to test how a basic income would affect the current economy.
The United States experimented with a type of basic income in the 1960s and 70s, but it is time to collect new data. This is the first step toward implementing a full UBI in the United States.
Recent pilot programs throughout the world, such as in India, have given the basic income movement ammunition to push its message, showing improved educational, health and entrepreneurial outcomes. A pilot program in the United States would show policymakers that a basic income is far superior to our outdated bureaucratic safety net.
Sign this petition to ask all of the US presidential candidates to take a pledge to fund basic income pilot programs throughout the country.
