AUSTRALIA: Fabians Host Well-Attended Panel on UBI

AUSTRALIA: Fabians Host Well-Attended Panel on UBI

On September 9, the New South Wales Fabians hosted a discussion of universal basic income in Haymarket.

The event featured a lineup of three speakers. First, Ben Spies-Butcher (Department of Sociology at Macquarie University) argued that Australia should pursue a universal basic income as a way to provide individuals with more freedom and control over their own lives and work. Next, Peter Whiteford (Crawford School of Public Policy at Australian National University) outlined the cost of a UBI. Finally, Louise Tarrant (formerly of United Voice) laid out many of the pros and cons of the policy. The three individual speeches were followed by the question and answer session with the audience.

About 80 to 90 people attended the event, which had been widely publicized on social media. Lachlan Drummond, president of the NSW Fabians, states that this crowd was the largest that the group has seen at any of its events over the past three years.

Among the unexpected attendees were two Italian members of the Five Star movement, who video-recorded the entire event:

YouTube player

The NWS Fabians have also released an audio-recording of the event as a podcast.

Drummond explains that several factors prompted the NSW Fabians to organize and host the event. First, the Fabians were interested in opening discussion of UBI simply because it is a “big transformative economic idea” that is already being talked about by the British Labour Party and some think tanks in the UK, as well as by other groups in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere. Second, the group saw a gap in Australian political discussion surrounding UBI:

We’ve seen some far-left and even some right wing groups talking about it here in Australia but none on what we might call the “mainstream centre left”. We wanted to help push that debate along. We know there are people in both the Greens and the ALP [Australian Labor Party] who are keen on the idea, but as yet we hadn’t seen one event where everyone was all brought together to discuss it.

Third, Drummond notes that many members of the Fabians are personally undecided on the issue of UBI–and yet, previously, UBI had never been given a fair hearing at any NSW Fabians event. When previous guest speakers had broached the issue, their comments were negative and dismissive. Notably, at a March event on The Future of Work, Dr. Victor Quirk of the University of Newcastle spoke against UBI in favor of a return to full employment.

Not content with such a swift rejection of UBI, Drummond said that the NSW Fabianswanted to look at the policy in a systematic way–to go through the positives and negatives, to look at the numbers, and the political realities, and whether pilot studies have shown it to actually work”.

According to Drummond, the main goal of the event was to leave the audience better informed about the issues surrounding UBI–both moral and practical–and that, by this measure, the event was a “big success”:

I think when you see a big progressive idea like this, it can be easy to jump on it and say it’s a great idea without knowing the arguments and practicalities (or even some potential alternatives).

Ben Spies-Butcher was great on the moral arguments, and how it should interact with other parts of the welfare system. Peter Whiteford gave us some useful numbers on how much it would cost and what pilot studies had actually discovered. Louise Tarrant was also very clear headed on the positives and negatives, both practical, economic and political.

We also had great impromptu contributions from Eva Cox on shorter working hours, and Luke Whitington who rebutted the argument about inflation by stating we are currently in a deflationary environment, and by outlining some creative and progressive ways it could be paid for. The audience was really engaged and asked great questions.

Luke Whitington, Deputy Chair of the NSW Labor Party Economic Policy Committee, found it “well-organized” but believes that all three features speakers overlooked one of the most important reasons to support UBI:

None of the speakers talked about deflation, either in relation to the specific term of falling prices, nor in relation to the more general term for a long term low growth period, as exemplified by Japan since the 90s and the world in the 30s, and in milder form, advanced economies since the 70s, compounded and accelerating now with financialisation and automation. That none of the panel speakers raised the necessity of basic income as a counter deflationary mechanism was a pity, especially as Yanis Varoufakis’ speech on the topic has been on YouTube for a number of months. They did, however, inform the audience on a wide range of ethical and economic issues that a BI would affect.

As Drummond pointed out, though, Whitington was eventually able to broach the issue of deflation himself, in response to issues raised by Tarrant. On Whitington’s view, based on his experience as an organizer in the Labor Party, the most politically viable approach to a UBI in Australia is to promote the policy as a counter-deflationary measure and to support its financing through a sovereign wealth fund. This, he notes, was not stressed by the pro-UBI speakers at the NSW Fabians event.

In Australia it would be much more difficult to argue that unemployment benefits be paid without any activity or eligibility tests (which Spies Butcher correctly pointed out would immediately improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people currently stuck in the welfare ‘safety’ net), than to set up a fund that collected mineral or other revenue and distributed it equally to all citizens as a dividend.

Douglas Maclaine-Cross, who has previously worked with Whitington to promote UBI, also attended the event. Maclaine-Cross was struck by the apparent level of agreement: “Generally nobody seemed to object to the policy [UBI]; on the contrary it seemed that most people were very keen on it”:

[P]eople generally agreed that it could be afforded though it would of course mean raising more revenue. The estimates and suggested amounts involved a more generous payment than I was thinking of, which I took as a positive sign. …

From the floor there was a plea on commercial grounds from a libertarian. There were a few very positive and inspiring comments. I heard the word utopia mentioned a few times. There seemed to be a consensus from the audience that growing inequality was a very real problem and needed to be addressed somehow. So perhaps it was a case of preaching to the choir. However having made the case to people from a broad spectrum of politics myself, there is a chance for bipartisan support; so I have very high hopes for the policy in Australia.

FRANCE: Prime Minister Pledges Again to Open the Debate on Basic Income

FRANCE: Prime Minister Pledges Again to Open the Debate on Basic Income

Twice in a week, the French socialist Prime Minister raised the topic of basic income, pledging to open up the discussion on how to modernize the country’s welfare system.

Updated on 26/10 after Nicolas Sarkozy’s statement on basic income.

For a second time this week and third time this year Manuel Valls, the French Prime minister, mentioned basic income as a possible way forward.

In a statement on his Facebook page, the minister said: “We need to open up new paths. Here is one: a universal income, a single benefit, open to all starting from 18, replacing a dozen existing benefits. The government will engage a dialogue with all stakeholders in order to build a flexible, simple and therefore more efficient solution for all individual situations. I think this debate should be opened. In order to go further! To reinforce our social model!”

“We know how much complexity increases inequality. Having access to a minimal income should not be an obstacle race,” Valls also said earlier this week at a ceremony in remembrance of Michel Rocard, a prominent figure of French Left and spiritual father of the RMI, the first minimum income scheme implemented in France in 1988.

Back in April, Valls made strong commitments to modernize and simplify the welfare system in France. This happened after the Government published a report outlining bold recommendations to simplify and modernize France’s welfare system. Although the report doesn’t endorse basic income, it provides an in-depth analysis of the idea, and offers ambitious policy proposals that could pave the ways towards UBI. In particular, it proposes to extend the eligibility criteria of the current minimum income scheme to people from 18 to 25 years old, to make benefit payments automatic, and to partly individualize the benefits.

At the time, Valls committed the government to look into the proposals and speed up the implementations of the proposed measures.

Ambiguous statements

However, the Prime Minister has always been ambiguous in defining “basic income”. Speaking of a “universal income” in an earlier confused statement this year, he made it clear that he believed that such a system should be means-tested. According to him, universal income should not be “paid to everyone including those who have sufficient income – it would be too costly and meaningless – but a targeted grant to all of those who really need it.”

Race to the elections

With the French general elections in the horizon (May 2017) and the primaries campaign hitting the media everyday, French politicians are quickly joining the basic income camp, especially on the Left.

Already several candidates have publicly supported basic income in the context of their Party primaries. In the Greens, all candidates support the measure (Karima Delli, Yannick Jadot, Michèle Rivasi, Cécile Duflot). In the Socialist Party, Benoît Hamon recently announced his strong support for the idea. Emmanuel Macron, who recently left his post as Minister of the Economy to focus on his electoral campaign also said he is interested in the idea.

Among the conservatives, MP Frédéric Lefebvre has become a vocal UBI supporter and was intending to run as candidate for the Party’s primaries, but he did not collect enough sponsors. In the meantime, former President Nicolas Sarkozy who is trying to make is political come-back and run the election again said he is against UBI. However he is in favor of a single benefit scheme which would be a move towards UBI. ” I want those who live on the welfare state to be obliged to accept a job, a training or to do volunteering for the community” Sarkozy explained.

Other socialist candidates including Jean-Luc Bennahmias, Arnaud Montebourg and Marie-Noëlle Lienemann are also known to be sympathetic to the idea but have not made committing statements so far.

Behind the growing fear of the rise of the Far-right’s Front National, chances have never been so high for France to seriously look into the the possibility to adopt a basic income, or at least to implement paving stones towards it.


Picture: CC Parti Socialiste

What do we have here? IMF economists defending basic income?

What do we have here? IMF economists defending basic income?

(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

QUEBEC, CANADA: Liberal Party’s Ideas Forum to address Minimum Income

QUEBEC, CANADA: Liberal Party’s Ideas Forum to address Minimum Income

The fourth Forum des Idées Pour le Québec (“Forum for Ideas for Québec”) will take place at Champlain College from September 23 through 25. It will focus on social policies–including a special session devoted to the idea of a guaranteed minimum income (GMI) for Canada and Québec.

Organized by the provincial Liberal Party, Parti libéral du Québec, the Forum des Idées Pour le Québec is an annual nonpartisan gathering, featuring lectures and panel discussions on major social and political issues facing the province.

Philippe Couillard CC BY-SA 3.0 Asclepias

Philippe Couillard CC BY-SA 3.0 Asclepias

The head of the provincial government, Premier Philippe Couillard, will be present for the event. Couillard has made a promotional video for the event, which highlights its attention to the GMI.

The session on GMI, which is scheduled for September 24, will feature four highly prominent basic income researchers and advocates:

  • Yannick Vanderborght, Professor at Université de Louvain and Université de Bruxelles, associate editor of Basic Income Studies and founding editor of Basic Income News.
  • Jurgen de Wispelaere, a visiting researcher at the University of Tampere who has worked on the design of Finland’s basic income experiment and written extensively on basic income.

This session will be chaired by Jean-Marie Bézard, vice-president of the Forum Scientific committee and Director of Plénitudes, Prospective & Management.

Other issues to be addressed include poverty, inequality, pay equity, and coordinating social interventions across a territory.

Visit the event page for more information. Registration is limited, and typically sells out weeks before the event.

Two public discussions of guaranteed minimum income and universal basic income will take place in Québec in the following week (September 27 and 28).


Reviewed by Jenna van Draanen

Québec flag photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Mathieu Thouvenin

Thanks also to my supporters on Patreon 

UNITED STATES: U.S. Congress Discusses Artificial Intelligence, Robots, and Basic Income

UNITED STATES: U.S. Congress Discusses Artificial Intelligence, Robots, and Basic Income
Co-written by Jenna van Draanen and Dave Clegg

At the end of May 2016, the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress and Senate held a two-hour hearing entitled “The Transformative Impact of Robots and Automation,” which featured several expert speakers: Andrew McAfee, MIT research scientist, and co-author of The Second Machine Age; Adam Keiper editor of the New Atlantis and Fellow of the Washington based Ethics and Public Policy Center; and Dr. Harry Holzer economist and co-founder and director of Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy at Georgetown University.

While there is not much discussion of basic income at the hearing (most of the talk is about the implications and impact of automation and robots on the workplace), participants briefly bring up basic income as a possible social support for loss of jobs due to technological automation.

Mr. Keiper speaks to the BI briefly as an option, but he is most concerned about the loss of jobs because he sees jobs as “a source of structure, meaning, friendship and fulfillment.” A panel speaker, Mr. Lee, brings up a concern about the risk of subsidizing “non-work.” Dr. Holzer, admits that something like a BI might be needed but was worried that it would overburden the tax system.

To see the hearing and find further information, check out:

Joint Economic Committee, “U.S. Congress Discusses AI, Automation, Robotics and Basic Income.” Singularity Lectures, Youtube, May 28, 2016.

Or the JEC website: https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-calendar?ID=BB1C3FD8-9FD1-46BA-917C-E5B3C585F1CC

Matt Orfalea, “Basic Income discussed among US Senators at “The Transformative Impact of Robots and Automation” Hearing” Medium.com, June 7, 2016.