by Guest Contributor | Oct 31, 2018 | Opinion
The Past – from Ancestral Economy to Capitalism
Tribal groups, in which all men and women on Earth have lived since humanity emerged, have functioned through cooperation and solidarity among their members in tasks such as obtaining and distributing food, building shelters, and family dwellings or taking care of community assets; tasks that today we would call ‘economic’. In fact, over hundreds of thousands of years of human presence on Earth the whole economy was cooperative and supportive. And at the time it was sustainable. About 6,000 years ago things began to change when the first sophisticated civilizations arose and put into practice a variety of new forms of economic organization; from the range of traditional systems based on agriculture or trade to, subsequently, feudalism, mercantilism and everything else after that. Today, however, all the economic diversity that existed over those 6,000 years is virtually nullified, and an (almost) unique model has once again consolidated. It is called capitalism, and it has been going on for about 200 years.
Ancestral economies were based on solidarity and cooperation among people, on a harmony between them and nature and on an orientation towards the mere satisfaction of their needs. Capitalism is characterized by competition among peers, by the predation of the Earth and by an orientation of its agents aiming at unlimited material accumulation. Both modes are hegemonic, each in its own time, but that is about as much as these modes have in common.
Can, like its ancestral homologous form, the present ‘state of the art’ in economic organization – capitalism – last for hundreds of thousands of years? It does not seem possible, given the condition in which it left the planet and humans, after only 200 years. Earth’s soils, rivers, oceans, and atmosphere are now filled with the poisons left over from our economic activity; the climate is changing, the elements unsettled and life as we know it may be doomed, if we do not make deep and rapid changes. As for us humans, materialistic as we have become, we too often forget who we really are and can do: our nature as creators; our ability to generate art, mathematics or philosophy; our potential for freedom, for choosing paths, for changing ourselves and the world as we decide, and the lack of any natural bound between us and what we can achieve or be. By forgetting so much, we reduce ourselves to economic roles, going now so far as to even discuss whether artificial intelligence and robots will make us pointless and expendable one day. The culprit is our current economic culture and system.
However, despite its pitfalls, an important merit can be attributed to capitalism: with the demand for accumulation and profit, it has given us machinery, techniques, and knowledge that can now allow us to access the resources necessary for the material comfort of all. This is only a possibility though since these machines, techniques, and knowledge only provide the capacity, not the guarantee of its use.
Our collective future is unforeseeable. It will be the result of an infinity of both conscious choices and involuntary actions, taken by billions of individuals and groups, in a chaotic general movement that no one can control or anticipate. And yet, it can be felt that capitalism would make no sense in human history unless it was fated to eventually free us from the shackles of material scarcity. Hence, the great economic question of our time must be: how to accomplish the potential that capitalism offers us? The simple ‘progress’, as currently evolving, does not seem to be the way. Reality shows us, everywhere, that the mere growth of the present economy, without any change or innovation in its logic and processes, will never free us. Neither will the strengthening of the so-called welfare state, in its traditional, bureaucratic, expensive and life-controlling form. It can do no more than mitigate poverty, but at a high cost in dignity to its beneficiaries, and a cost in humanity to all the others. The more unnecessary this becomes the more intolerable it gets.
Each one of us, rich or poor, directly or indirectly is suffering from the lack of a process which guarantees the essentials for all. Clearly, this is no longer a problem of production capacity, but one of economic organization. The satisfaction of the basic needs of all people is not inherent to capitalism, nor has it ever been added to it. However, without such process, we will not rid ourselves from the specter of material poverty, and therefore from this never-enough culture in which we find ourselves in. Mainly reduced to producers and consumers, we are exhausting the energy that could alternatively be spent in higher occupations which our potential allows and claims for us.
And yet, we can immediately introduce such process of guaranteeing the essentials for all: let us recover from our ancestral economic way its core element of solidarity among people.
A Future – the UBI-AA
Solidarity among people is the essential idea behind the alternative resource distribution model here described: the Unconditional Basic Income of All for All, or ‘UBI-AA’.
UBI-AA is a revenue redistribution process, generically designed to operate monthly, providing automatic and unconditional transfers among citizens, from those who have higher incomes to those with lower or no income at all. Built, supported and leveraged by them alone, the process will invite participants to take responsibility and engage in their communities, which will reinforce these.
It works in two stages:
1) As it is acquired, each member of the community discounts to a common fund – a ‘UBI Fund’ – a proportion of their income, at a single and universal rate;
2) At the end of each month, the Fund’s accumulated total is equally and unconditionally distributed among all members of the same community.
This simple process, which demands the same effort from all participants while offering them the same benefit, treats everyone equally. It turns those who, at each moment in time, have above-average incomes into net payers to the UBI Fund, and those who have below-average incomes into net receivers. Thus, the process operates a joint distribution among participants of part of their individual incomes. In addition to reducing inequalities, this solidarity among peers creates an unconditional guarantee of income for all, that is, an Unconditional Basic Income.
It follows from the UBI-AA process that the loss of available income by some will be the gain of others. Importantly, for the scheme to be accepted by the former and really useful to the latter, the losses involved should be moderate and the gains significant. This should not, however, lead to a devaluation in the possibilities of the mutability of all individual positions. As time goes by and while exercising the options which the process itself opens to participants, individual situations of income ‘winners’ or ‘losers’ should always be seen as circumstantial.
To achieve its intended effects, the implementation of the UBI-AA should be accompanied by the release of its participants from the burden of personal income tax. Such tax relief will compensate them for the contributory effort required by the UBI-AA process. However, for those above a certain level of income, such compensation may turn out to be merely partial.
Once the personal income tax is abolished, the moderation of losses for citizens with above-average incomes and, simultaneously, the material significance of gains to those with under-average incomes, will be possible if the rate of contributions to the UBI Fund is set at an optimal level, balancing the two outcomes.
A more complete description of the UBI-AA process, as well as a simulation of the financial effects it would have produced, both in individual citizen spheres and in the State budget, hypothesizing it in force in Portugal in 2012, can be reached here.
UBI-AA differs from most current traditional redistributive processes because it is unconditional. It also differs from most unconditional alternative processes since it is a construct of common citizens, instead of a government, a central bank or any other ‘power’ policy. We see it as a humane alternative to organizing the economy on its distributive side. Operating through the income distribution process described above, it will favor the rehabilitation of values such as solidarity and voluntary cooperation among people, and the creation of an unconditional guarantee of income for all will be a corollary.
We cherish the hope that this may contribute to the flourishing of a new and less materialistic culture. Who knows, if making everybody’s access to essential material resources as simple as breathing, will not end up instilling in people the same attitude towards those resources – money and the things it buys – as the one we have towards the air we breathe: no matter how valuable it may be to us, we do not quarrel with each other for it; we only use it in the quantities we need; accumulating it does not even occur to us. Such a cultural shift would certainly be a great human civilizational progress and a much-needed step towards a reconciliation between us and our environment.
Miguel Horta
André Coelho
by Harry Curzon | Oct 4, 2018 | Research
A new research study carried out by Jeff Hemsley, Martha Garcia”Murillo and Ian P. MacInnes investigates how social media affects the discussion and spread of policy and ideas with a case study focus on the topic of Universal Basic Income (UBI).
The researchers argue that social media provides an important space for analysis, with Twitter, in particular, being dominated by policy advocates and policy issues. The study thus uses UBI discussion as a case study to determine how policy issues disseminate on social media, rather than focusing on the details of UBI. Social media (more on that below) has taken over across the globe, with many ways that individuals and businesses can connect to help with a myriad of issues. Because of this reliance, there is now adaptable technology used for these websites from Instagram automation to Twitter management so businesses are able to be in every place ‘at once’.
The researchers used keyword collection on Twitter’s application programming interfaces (API) to identify tweets containing any of 23 specific terms related to UBI, dating from July 25th to December 12th of 2016. Within the captured time frame, Twitter users posted a total of 157,000 tweets related to UBI, at an average of 1,127 messages per day. The authors conclude that because the data collection of tweets related to UBI did not break the Twitter rate limit API, it can be inferred that discussion of the topic at the given period was not significantly numerous.
The researchers then reviewed these tweets using content analysis methods to code UBI-related tweets as informative or emotionally resonant, and to examine whether this affected users’ perceptions of UBI. They conclude that, in the UBI discussion space, “interesting” tweets are more likely to be shared, but tweets that have a more emotionally resonant message are far more likely to draw a greater number of new users into the online discussion about UBI. This is often known as one’s “presence” or the ability for their Twitter messages to be seen and spread to other uses. To that end many Twitter users use growth services to increase their presence (see this Tweepi site review for more information on growth services) and that may also explain how UBI messages have been so widespread on Twitter. Social media platforms are all similar in the way that emotional posts, perhaps made on Instagram, are the most viewed and shared. They could also use an Instagram bot, or several bots, to help boost the posts exposure on the audience’s newsfeeds. Often, users of these platforms try to spread messages that help them to gain followers and viewers to their profiles so they can have more people looking at the important messages they want to put out into the world. If you’re looking to do the same with your posts, The Small Business Blog is just one of the websites social media influencers go to in order to find ways to turn their important messages into popular posts. The spread of this influence may warrant further study but for now, the researchers are focussing on how Twitter itself spreads messages.
Because tweets coded as “interesting” are often seen and posted by users already within a “UBI positive echo chamber,” whereas “emotionally resonant” tweets trigger emotional responses which can “activate existing users and can bring users into the discussion space who may participate again in the future.”
For policy issues like UBI to produce further discussion and influence greater numbers of users on social media, the academics conclude that “policy advocates likely need both emotional messages that resonate with people as well as informative messages that are resources for the community.”
For more information:
Jeff Hemsley, Martha Garcia”Murillo and Ian P. MacInnes, “Tweets That Resonate: Information Flows and the Growth of Twitter’s Universal Basic Income Discussion Space,” Policy & Internet, 15 July 2018.
Picture Credit: Financial services and Social media
by Andre Coelho | Sep 25, 2018 | News
On September 15th 2018, Donut-D-Day brought together various Dutch organizations and citizens committed to integrated systemic reforms to fight climate change, socioeconomic inequality, and unstable financial systems. The organizers used Kate Raworth‘s model of Doughnut Economics to imagine possible approaches that would balance the need for minimum standards of living for all people (the social foundation), within the environmental limits of the Earth. This day was intended to be the first encounter of longer series of meetings, aiming to connect people working on themes that are strongly linked and to facilitate their integration and collaboration.
Kate Raworth was present through a prerecorded video presentation in which she emphasized how we are currently overshooting the donut on both sides, with poverty and hunger in the center of the donut, and climate change and environmental destruction on the outside of the donut. In order to eliminate human deprivation while staying within planetary boundaries, she argues we need economies that are distributive and regenerative by design. Sources of wealth creation, particularly housing & land, energy generation, enterprise ownership, money creation, and info & technology, will need to be pre-distributed. Simultaneously, we will need to work within the cycles of the living world toward a circular or cyclical economy, investing in renewables, recognizing the potentials of waste, creating systems of repair and share, and pushing for open source standards, resources, and data. She invited people to join the discussion groups on these topics on her website.
The second presenter was Harold Boven, an economist and co-initiator of the plan Courageously Forward by the Young Democrats, which is a financially covered plan for basic income that would end all poverty in the Netherlands. Harold presented data from a Dutch study (CPB, 2016) that could not find any positive results of the 6.5 billion euros invested in activating employment policy to get unemployed people into jobs. He emphasized that basic income would not lead to inflation because it is fiscally financed and does not require the introduction of extra money. According to him, a basic income of €1200/month per single adult and €300/month per child, adding €600/month per adult when sharing a household. He presented a financing mechanism to cover the 164 billion euros annual cost for such a policy, which would come from the elimination of existing welfare programs (134 billion), the introduction of lightly progressive property taxes (14 billion), environmental and energy taxes for companies (14 billion), and inheritance taxes (2 billion). Disability payments would remain untouched. Apart from the usual advantages attributed to basic income, Harold added that it is a response to the failure to the current system and dissatisfaction with the political establishment, while presenting an alternative for emerging populism.
Anne Knol, from Environmental Defense, shared her insights on what she learned about the incredible complexities of interconnections between environmental and social problems. Anne estimated that science guides about 5% of debates, while emotion, lobby, and the interests of political parties guide the rest. She argued that campaign leaders need to present appealing stories that can compete with the story of capitalism and the widely spread and accepted idea that the market should be allowed to run its course. Anne reminded the audience about the donut economics, and to the dangers of overdoing policy on the environmental front, and then affecting people on the bottom of the income scale. On the other hand, there is the fear that if people’s standards of living are risen, that could lead to more environmental excesses. Hence the need to work on both “sides” of the donut simultaneously, ensuring a just distribution of both the costs and the benefits of environmental policies.
Herman Wijffels (Wikipedia)
The last main speaker of the day was Klaas van Egmond, professor of Geosciences at the University of Utrecht, co-initiator of the Sustainable Finance Lab, and board member of the NatureCollege. He discussed the problems in the current configuration of our financial system and the reforms necessary to break with the types of practices that led to the 2008 financial crisis and that will result in more problems in the future in they remain unchecked. Klaas explained that, in a healthy society, the main goal is the expression and implementation of values, as supported by the economy, in turn supported by the financial system. Klaas proposed that clear boundaries between the public and the private must be reinstalled, banks must not be bailed out and cannot have the power to create money. The community misses out on 40-50 billion euros per year due to money creation by private banks. This could instead be used to fund basic income and a smooth transition to sustainability. These measures would break with the cycle of growth and collapse, lead to a stable economy, and allow for complete elimination of government debts.
The day was wrapped up by Herman Wijffels, co-chair of Worldconnectors and until last October professor of sustainability and social change at the University of Utrecht. He emphasized that our current system is socially and economically dysfunctional and has been bought by capital. According to him, we are facing the end of material growth due to the exhaustion of natural resources and are on a journey through the desert to find a new promised land. Wiiffels spoke about a new type of society, with a fairer distribution of wealth, while putting the planet first. Basic income and financial reform would be key elements in the transformation of the capitalist system. In addition, he said that we need to acknowledge that masculine values are no longer appropriate for the 21st century and we should embrace feminine values, which would mean a greater care for life, connections with the Earth and all people on it.
More information at:
Donut-D-Day was live streaming on Facebook (in Dutch)
Article written by Karin Berkhoudt, reviewed by André Coelho.
by Andrew Sanchez | Sep 14, 2018 | News
In her recent work Give People Money: How a Universal Basic Income Would End Poverty, Revolutionize Work, and Remake the World (W.H. Allen), Atlantic writer Annie Lowrey offers a new account of the universal basic income (UBI) rooted in her experience as a global observer of geopolitics, economics, and social policy.
Lowrey approaches UBI as a potential tool to redress a variety of issues, including inequality, poverty, and technological unemployment, which have become increasingly divisive in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and the recent boom in AI research. By viewing human action rather than impartial circumstance as the primary driver of socio-political change, Lowrey concludes that UBI represents an “ethos” of universality, unconditionality, and inclusion as much as any concrete policy proposal.
In the opening chapter, Lowrey explores the relationship between basic income, work, and technological unemployment. After sketching the twinned histories of human advancement and the fear of technological unemployment, she examines why current innovations in AI might be qualitatively different from earlier achievements and why these differences may in fact lead to widespread joblessness. Lowrey notes that certain Silicon Valley luminaries, whose own endeavours threaten the livelihood of many low-skilled workers, have promoted the UBI as a necessary social policy for a jobless future.
Despite calls by technologists for a UBI as a “social vaccine for the 21st Century,” Lowrey ultimately considers discussion of basic income in relation to future joblessness as premature. Although she grants that basic income could operate as an important vehicle of state provision in the future, Lowrey prefers to consider the UBI’s potential to address current social and economic problems.
These problems range from a labour market with stagnant wage growth in Houston to chronic poverty on the shores of Lake Victoria to the challenges of welfare reform in rural India. In each case, Lowrey unpacks how political choices, bureaucratic structures, and personal circumstance converge to prevent certain people from meeting their basic needs.
Through carefully examining different political, geographic, and economic contexts, Lowrey can assess the benefits and drawbacks of basic income proposals in a variety of contemporary settings. This approach accepts that any form of UBI would affect different communities and individuals in unique and perhaps unpredictable ways.
Give People Money distinguishes itself from other works on the topic through its commitment to personal narrative and Lowrey’s own experience with the people who stand to benefit from basic income proposals. Although she examines the ethical and economic justifications of UBI, her primary focus lies in the human story and the way she came to view UBI as an ethos of transformative social change. Give People Money ultimately advocates for UBI not by advancing specific policy initiatives, but by presenting basic income as an impetus to radically reconsider what humans owe one another and how the earth’s bounty ought to be shared.
by Guest Contributor | Aug 24, 2018 | News
In an article published on medium, with the title “How Not to Bungle the Revolution”, Conrad Shaw, who is working at the Bootstraps project, a docu-series following the stories of 21 Americans receiving an unconditional income supplement for two years, explores the evolution of the discourse surrounding universal basic income (UBI) in relation to the Federal Job Guarantee.
Shaw addresses progressives, warning them that the Federal Job Guarantee (JG), an idea presented as an alternative to Basic Income, is actually misguided.Answering some common questions about UBI, he tries to demonstrate that what makes JG a more appealing solution is mostly appearance. This appearence is given by the perception that it would let people gain purpose from their job, wouldn’t make the government as huge as UBI would, wouldn’t subsidize bad jobs, wouldn’t create inflation, wouldn’t give money also to the wealthy and, mostly, that it is more politically feasible.
Shaw examines the former statements, explaining how UBI isn’t a free handout of money, because it’s a redistribution of what it has been gained through the use of common resources, how it doesn’t subsidize bad jobs, but gives contractual strength to employees. In Shaw’s words: “UBI is like an individual strike fund for every worker.” According to Shaw, it wouldn’t boost unemployment, because, among other reasons, it is within human nature “to grow, to live comfortably, to have new experiences, and to thrive. Nobody wants to stare at a wall in a crappy apartment for 80 years, eating cheap grocery food, just because it’s possible.”
Even if UBI is also directed toward the rich, he continues, it actually acts as a mean of redistribution from the income top to the bottom, and whilst JG would make people dependent from the government, UBI is a mean to make bureaucracy extremely leaner. A FG, on the other hand, would mean a great deal of increase in bureaucracy, and most importantly, leave a lot of open questions about the actual possibility of matching skills with jobs.
Shaw gives particular attention to the subject of political feasibility. JC, he says, may sound as more feasible, but it the mere continuation of an existing paradigm, since it hasn’t the innovative strength of UBI. It must not be proposed as an alternative to UBI, because it lacks its transformative power and wouldn’t bring the same degree of change. However, there is nothing forbidding their combination. UBI nonetheless needs to be the first step, the foundation of safety on which to build, to which later on possibly add the job guarantee, as their combination would not lead to additional costs, because they partially overlap, but would allow for the leveraging of the benefits.
He predicts that given the growth of the movement supporting UBI, it will be one of the main themes at the elections in 2020, and as more trials are completed and the problem of automation becomes clearer every day, the discourse supporting UBI will only gain momentum. Given that, he recommends not to compromise, as accepting a FG in lieu of a UBI would wreak that momentum.
More information at:
Conrad Shaw, “How Not to Bungle the Revolution”, Medium, June 12th2018
