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 Andre Coelho | Aug 26, 2016 | Opinion
Safety is a crucial issue. Without a sense of security, we don’t think straight, we don’t connect as well, and we don’t align as well with our core values. If we are not secure, we don’t feel safe, and if we don’t feel safe, fear grows from within. And with that fear comes distrust, anxiety and stress. And all of those blur clear-sighted decisions.
Ultimately, there is no denying that security is a hot topic at the moment. With crime levels rising on a daily basis, there is a general sense of unease within society. That being said, it is important to remember that there are plenty of actions that you can take to improve your sense of security.
For example, if you are a home or business owner, then installing a security system is strongly recommended. Hidden cameras and alarms are both fantastic crime deterrents and can help you to feel safer in your home or at work. Above all, everyone deserves to feel in control, and security systems can provide peace of mind during times of crisis. To learn more about some of the most popular home security options out there, take a look at the Verisure website.
Anyway, within this short essay I aim to provide support for the following proposition: given a minimum level of safety, people will make better decisions. In particular, they will invest more in green technology for their businesses and homes, which is unaffordable to many at the moment.
Before going into any details, though, we should ask this question: what is it that people want, anyway? Do they want more holidays? iPhones? Well-paying jobs? Less crime? Better security? As it seems, at a deeper level, what they want most is none of that.
According to an international questionnaire, created and administered by the association Together, people want the following:
Economy
Guarantee of purchasing power and financial safety for all
Redistribution of wealth for greater equality
Promotion of exchanges and circulation of means without money
The end of rampant consumerism, especially when producers are suffering from underpaid work
The development of a deconcentrated and stable economic system
Use of technology for the well-being and comfort of all
Governance
Zero poverty, zero exclusion, and zero carbon
Affirmation and implementation of the principles of co-responsibility
Empowerment of all and development a relationship of trust, freedom, and equality, to remove laws, regulations and cameras that focus on the control of people
Encouraging and teaching co-responsibility
Supporting all people’s engagement in society, regardless of role
Democracy
Giving participatory and direct democracy a holistic place
Improving representative democracy and abolishing dictatorship
Bringing elected representatives closer to citizens
Developing an ethics of democracy
Learning co-construction of policy by involving different actors including crossing perspective, skills and abilities
Empowerment of policy makers, making sure that they keep the promises that they have made
Transparency in actions of the government
Firmness and impartiality in justice
Simplification of the administration and legislation, and improved logistical organization
Policies to support the population, particularly for providing access to essential needs; an enhanced social state.
The end of media trash-talk that enhances racism and insecurity
Environment
Changing our relationship with nature, plants and animals
Reducing population pressure
Ensuring a rapid energy transition. Using the information provided by a service like Builder And Engineer to help people make changes in their home to waste less energy such as opting for a newer, more efficient boiler.
Fight against waste
Fight against pollution
Production that is more natural and small-scale
Cleanliness in public places, thanks to co-responsibility
Space management
Maintaining and protecting biodiversity
Preserving and developing agricultural and food-production areas such as family or community gardens
Arranging space to make it user-friendly and to facilitate common life, multiculturalism, creativity and new ideas
Adapting public roads for all while reducing traffic and enhancing transportation safety
Making the city a pleasant common good
Time management
Increasing the time available to people and improving management of time
Increasing time available for the family
Promoting volunteering by enabling candidates to get community service and recognizing volunteer spaces
Society
Enhancement of opportunities to live together and learn about others
Eliminating and prohibiting all forms of discrimination and racism in all areas, including employment
Avoidance of all forms of violence, harassment and war, plus eradicate those related to physical integrity
Facilitate networking and communication of the organisations and individuals
Maintenance of ethical and respectful behaviour for the sake of democratic functioning
Changing behaviour to encourage living together and respecting each other
Development of a common culture, whatever our religion
Solidarity with excluded and/or vulnerable people so that all are made to feel accepted
Reception of migrants and refugees as well as the homeless
More care for the poor by taking an upstream strategy to combat poverty
More aid for the disabled, including children and those who are alone and poor
These results are derived from the application of a specific methodology, the Spiral Approach, which has been applied in over 20 countries, involving around 120,000 people1. While this might be a small sample of all humanity, it is big enough to be taken very seriously. If these results mean anything, I assume, it’s that people would prefer to invest more in technologies that would lower their environmental footprint on this planet–if only they could afford it. And affordability has indeed been a major issue in contemporary Portugal. As we can observe in Figure 1, people have been losing purchasing power consistently over the past few years, except for a tiny percentage of people. At the same time, as expected, inequality has also risen (Figure 2).
Figure 1 – Personal income savings in Portugal, percent of GDP
Figure 2 – Income inequality in Portugal (quotient between the 20 percent richest and 20 percent poorest average income)
This is, of course, also mirrored in the growing number of poor people living in Portugal (Figure 3). These people might get free lunches (yes, these apparently do exist) if they prove their poverty – that’s how it goes these days – but, needless to say, it’s much harder to get a solar panel or an electrical vehicle, for example, just for being poor. But if you’re interested in learning more about solar panels check out Sandbar Solar’s residential solar services. You might be surprised as to what you can learn from them about the ranges of services that are available. Solar panels can generate a lot of energy (which can then be sold) but if you want to learn more about this, check out Solar MN.
Figure 3 – Poverty risk rate in Portugal, percent (footnote 2)
The question is: would they (or most of us, for that matter) actually buy these things, if they could afford it? Any direct response is, of course, mere speculation, since it’s impossible to run an experiment given the present mode of things. But we might take a look at what people who can afford greener technologies are actually doing with their money. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show a couple of trends in investment in electric vehicles and photovoltaic panels in recent years.
Figure 4 – Solar and geothermal energy generation, in tonnes of oil equivalent (toe) in energy mix
Figure 5 – Number of electric vehicles sold in Portugal
A quick look at these charts clearly shows increasing trends in purchases of these items. In the case of photovoltaic panels, Figure 4 refers to energy output, but higher output is of course linked to increased solar panel installations. This has happened in the midst of the present day austerity-driven impoverishment of nations, of which the Portuguese society is a victim.
According to a 2012 inquiry / poll, housing and other property amount to 81 percent of all assets3 owned by the 25 percent poorest families, with motor vehicles accounting for 18 percent. This basically means these families own nothing else (or close to nothing). Meanwhile, the richest 10 percent of families own 71 percent of their assets in their own house and other property (30 percent in their own house), 25 percent in businesses and 2.2 percent in vehicles. It is also noteworthy that, according to the same inquiry / poll, 91 percent of all the richest 10 percent of families own vehicles and 20 percent own other valuables compared to 39 percent in vehicle ownership and 5 percent in other valuables for the 20 percent poorest families. These differences are also mirrored in the value structure of those assets: a typical rich family (from the top 10 percent) owns a median value of 17 300 € in motorized vehicles, while the poorest 20 percent own only a median value of 2000 €. In other valuables, the differences are even sharper, with the richest families owning a median of 17 500 €, while poorest own only 300 € (median). Finally, up to the 90 percent richest families, vehicles and other values stays at a median of 13 000 €, which is about 37 percent of the amount the richest 10 percent of families own in these items (median values).
What this means is that, apart from the 10 percent richest families, and maybe some of the 20 percent richest ones, no one can really afford to buy electric vehicles, which have an average cost at 33 400 € (with 7 year batteries), and photovoltaic panel systems (micro-scale systems start at 10 000 € per 4.6 kW package). Given this scenario, what could a basic income to give people the opportunity to purchase these low-carbon technologies and contribute to solve the climate crisis?
According to a basic income viability study for Portugal, a 435 €/month payment to every adult would generate income increases for everyone earning 1200 €/month or less, before taxes. However, that increase will only be truly significant (after taxes) for those earning nothing, or close to nothing. Of course, 435 €/month basic income will only allow for a person to care for basic needs, such as food and shelter–not electric cars or photovoltaic panels.
It would, however, mean more money in the hands of people who are nowadays consuming less than they ought to, given their basic needs. And this will lead to higher economic outputs, especially in local economies. That, in turn, will increase monetary circulation, and eventually enough accumulation that some families will be able to afford green technologies. Another possibility is that people will come together in condos, neighbour associations, cooperatives and such, and pool their basic incomes (or whatever extra amounts they can get, given the existence of basic income). This way, they can acquire this equipment through their shared resources and manage it cooperatively. Also, the prices of these products are getting lower. This is especially true for photovoltaic panels, the price of which has fallen as much as 75 percent since 2009, and is expected to continue falling. The forecast for electric vehicles prices is more uncertain; however, due to technological advancement and higher supply, it is expected that these prices will also drop in the next few years (Joana Balsa, 2013).
The relationship between basic income and increased purchases of low environmental impact technologies is not obvious, at least for the products discussed in this short analysis (photovoltaic panels and electric vehicles). However, I’ve hinted at some factors that may determine that rise, given the implementation of something like a basic income in Portugal. Of course options to reduce environmental impact is not limited to the purchasing of photovoltaic panels and electric vehicles. Many other possibilities are available, at much lower costs, such as replacing existing low efficient lamps for LED technology lamps, riding bicycles or even reducing the ingestion of meat (while eating more vegetables).
Notes:
1 – More information on the data gathering method and resulting platform can be obtained here (in French).
2 – percent of people living in poverty or in risk of poverty.
3 – Non-financial assets.
More information at:
In Portuguese:
Sónia Costa, Luísa Farinha, “Inquérito à situação financeira das famílias: metodologia e principais resultados [Inquiry into families financial situation: methodology and main results]“, Occasional paper 1, Banco de Portugal, 2012
Miguel Horta, “RBI financiado pelas pessoas [Basic income financed by the people]“, October 2015
NOCTULA, Consultores em ambiente, “Energias renováveis: a revolução do preço da energia solar [Renewable energies: the price revolution of solar energy]“, August 2015
Joana Balsa, “Avaliação do impacto da introdução de veículos elétricos na procura de combustíveis em Portugal [Impact evaluation of introducing electrical vehicles in the demand for fuels in Portugal]“, Masters Thesis, Coimbra University, September 2013
Fundação Manuel dos Santos, PORDATA – Base de dados Portugal Contemporâneo website
Sónia Peres Pinto, “Há cada vez mais carros elétricos em Portugal [Electric cars are increasing in Portugal]“, SOL Economia, May 19th 2016
Associação Utilizadores de veículos elétricos, “O Mercedes Plug-In C350e da Mercedes, foi o veículo elétrico mais vendido em junho de 2016 [Mercedes Plug-In C350e was the most sold eletric vehicle in June 2016]“, August 6th 2016
In English:
TOGETHER – territories of coresponsibility website
Statistics Portugal website
by Kate McFarland | Aug 16, 2016 | News
A new opinion poll by Canada’s Angus Reid Institute finds a majority of respondents in favor of guaranteed minimum income. However, a majority also believe that the policy is unaffordable and would not support an increase in taxes to fund it.
The Angus Reid Institute (ARI) conducted a poll of Canadians’ beliefs and attitudes about guaranteed annual income. The sample consisted of 1516 randomly-selected members of the Angus Reid Forum, a Canada-wide market research community. Individuals can sign up to join the Angus Reid Forum online, after which they are occasionally sent surveys on a wide array of topics.
The questionnaire asked respondents about guaranteed income, defined as follows:
Those who made less than the threshold through employment earnings would be paid the difference by the federal government, while those who made more than the threshold would receive no additional funding. This payment would typically replace most or all other forms of government assistance, such as welfare and employment insurance.
ARI asked respondents about their support for the policy at three different threshold levels (the sample was divided into thirds, each asked about a different value): $10,000, $20,000, and $30,000.
It was found that 57%, 65% and 67% of respondents supported the guaranteed minimum income at the three respective levels (that is, there was higher support for the more generous guaranteed incomes).
Survey respondents were also asked about their agreement or disagreement with the following statements:
- “A guaranteed income program would give Canadians greater economic freedom.” (66% agreed)
- “A guaranteed income program would be too expensive for Canada’s government to afford.” (59% agreed)
- “I would be willing to pay more in taxes in order to support some kind of guaranteed income.” (34% agreed)
- “Guaranteed income programs discourage people from working.” (63% agreed)
In addition to asking about guaranteed minimum income specifically, the poll inquired about some of the factors that have been cited to justify the need for such a policy. In particular, subjects were asked whether they believed that elimination of jobs due to new technologies is a serious concern (63% said they did) and whether they consider Canada’s current programs for low-income assistance to be effective (46% said that these programs were either “very” or “moderately” ineffective, compared to 36% judging them very or moderately effective).
It seems that, in general, members of Canada’s Angus Reid Forum support a guaranteed income, believe that it would enhance economic freedom, and are concerned about technological unemployment and inadequacies in the current Canadian welfare system. However, they show hesitation when it comes to paying for a guaranteed income: most doubt that Canada is currently able to afford it, and most are unwilling to pay more in taxes in order to provide more funds. To learn more about Canada’s taxation – look here.
The ARI has released comprehensive tables showing the breakdown of responses according to province, gender, age, education level, and household income.
It is worth mentioning that the “guaranteed income” described in the ARI questionnaire differs from a “basic income” as usually described. Notably, under a basic income, the same amount of payment is guaranteed to all, with no means test (although, most likely, higher levels of taxation would entail that individuals above a certain “threshold” would be net contributors rather than beneficiaries).
Plausibly, a different definition would affect survey results. The lack of means-testing has often been cited as a reason to predict that a basic income would not disincentivize work (in contrast to means-tested welfare programs). Thus, perhaps, people might be somewhat less inclined to think that a UBI would discourage work. On the other hand, opponents often emphasize the universality of basic income as a reason to believe that the policy would be prohibitively expensive; thus, UBI might seem (even) less affordable than a guaranteed income as described in this survey. Of course, until another poll is actually conducted, this all remains speculative.
Policies such as guaranteed minimum income and universal basic income are presently under serious discussion in Canada, with the provincial government of Ontario planning a pilot project.
REFERENCE
Shachi Kurl, “Basic Income? Basic unaffordable, say most Canadians”, Angus Reid Institute; August 11, 2016.
Andrew Russell, “Canadians support guaranteed income, but don’t want to pay for, think it will make us lazy: poll”, Global News; August 12, 2016.
Photo CC BY 2.0 Just a Prairie Boy.
Article reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan.
This basic income news made possible in part by Kate’s supporters on Patreon.
by Kate McFarland | Aug 14, 2016 | News, Testimonies
Juon Kim has been an organizer of Basic Income Youth Network in Korea since 2013. In March of this year, Juon ran for a proportionate candidate of Green Party Korea in the general election, representing the party’s UBI agenda. She’s currently a graduate student of cultural anthropology, and plans to write her MA thesis about basic income.
In this Basic Income Interview, Juon talks about how she came to learn about and support basic income, and why she is now an activist.
About 5 years ago, only a few people in Korea knew about basic income, including my friends. Since they were studying basic income, I became aware of it but was not attracted to it at first. But after reading two women’s books, I decided to live as a UBI advocate and joined the Basic Income Youth Network based in South Korea.
One book is Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own. “It is necessary for women to have five hundred pounds a year and a lock on the door if you are to write fiction or poetry.” It reminded me of basic income immediately. The other is Carole Pateman, a feminist political theorist saying that basic income could guarantee universal economic citizenship of women.
Juon at the 2016 BIEN Congress in Seoul
When I was young, I dreamt of becoming a human rights lawyer. Many discrepancies in the society seemed to have been caused by law which is a tool only for the powerful. I entered university envisioning that I would stand in the forefront of social changes with the law as the tool for justice. I was even thinking of branding law firm ideas to increase my chances of being someone’s first choice to defend them.
But the university that I encountered back in 2010 was no more than a ruin. The gravity of making ends meet pulled heavily against my attempted search for friends with whom I would find solutions to the social ills. No time could be wasted if it wasn’t for career preparation, no space was available without fees, and ultimately no freedom to plan my life as I wanted was granted.
Fortunately, there were great classes and friends in and out of the campus. There were those who were being forcefully evacuated from the very place of their livelihoods in their cities, those who are taking their lives in their hands just to reclaim their lost jobs, and those religious figures, LGBT activists, disability-rights activists, grass-root activists and youth activists who fought against state violence and its forced militarization of Gangjeong village in Jeju island and forced nuclearization of Miryang in Korea.
I saw how they tried and worked to rebuild hope in their own respective communities. We met in support, delight and equality. I experienced happiness rising from others even amidst poor material conditions.
In our encounters I realized something. All of us who were dreaming of a better life, one that’s better than now, were in fact fighting against ‘dual poverty’. They fought against poverty of their own and simultaneously poverty of the world.
What I endured was not different from what they endured. It was in this moment I was introduced to the idea of ‘basic income’. I strongly related to its philosophy that the rights to eat and live should be guaranteed just for the reason that I am a constituent of this society.
What if the activists I met who suffered from dual poverty had basic income? What if my colleagues, women, youth and young adults, farmers, artists and seniors had basic income? What happens when there appears this gift called basic income in the Korean society, whose severe income bipolarization and winner-takes-all structures in all corners render all untrustworthy toward each other?
I imagined an alternative made possible by the hope called basic income to those who give up their lives or terrorize others’ lives because there cannot be a better tomorrow. Then I joined basic income movement because I wanted to imagine all these possibilities as one.
The ‘human rights’ that used to be so nondescript when I wanted to be its lawyer took shape as an economic citizenship, basic income. Basic income as the fundamental right for all humans. I hope it becomes a common sense to all everywhere in the world in the nearest future.
Photos used by permission of Juon Kim. (Cover photo: Juon promotes basic income at International Women’s Day, dressed as a suffragette.)
Juon wishes to thank her friend Heehe for translation assistance.
Basic Income Interviews is a special recurring segment of Basic Income News, introduced in July 2016 by Jason Murphy and Kate McFarland. Through a series of short interviews, we aspire to display the diversity of support that basic income receives throughout the world.
Have your own thoughts to contribute? Want to see yourself in a future Basic Income Interview?
Visit our interview form.
