by Guest Contributor | Jan 16, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: John Boik
For many good reasons, the concept of a basic national income is enjoying a surge of interest within academia, civil society, and political sectors. I am proposing a program that, in theory, is a mutually supportive cousin of basic income. Unlike typical basic income programs, this system is implemented at the local (e.g., community or city) level by non-governmental entities. Moreover, it can be implemented in parallel with more traditional basic income programs to help achieve expanded goals.
John Boik
Before describing it, I pose a question: What is the purpose of an economic system? As analogy, the purpose of a tractor is to pull or push farm equipment. Tractors are designed to meet user requirements, and the optimality of a particular design can be assessed by how well it does so relative to alternative designs. What are the user-requirements of an economic system? It is an uncommon question, but if we can answer it with clarity we would be in a better position both to assess alternative designs and monitor progress.
In a recent paper I argue that relative optimality of an economic or governance system is a measure of its capacity to help communities solve problems and organize activities to elevate collective wellbeing. Collective wellbeing refers to social and environmental flourishing, both local and global. Problem solving is the proximal aspect of relative optimality, and elevated wellbeing of the distal aspect, or result, of good problem solving.
Viewed this way, existing economic and governance systems are suboptimal relative to need. Indeed, they might be incapable of addressing today’s complex problems (climate change, pollution, and inequality, for example). In the paper, I call on the science and technology sectors, and the academic community, to play a pivotal role in developing and testing new, more effective systems. Further, I suggest that the prudent approach to do so is at the local level. Once simulations and other preliminary work are completed, new designs can undergo scientific field testing via community-based volunteer clubs. This approach will allow testing by relatively small groups, at relatively low cost and risk, in co-existence with existing systems, and without legislative action.
A prototype for this approach — and a cousin to basic income — is the Local Economic Direct Democracy Association (LEDDA) framework, now in early stage development. This bi-currency system uses money (both a local digital currency and national currency) as a bone fide voting tool in a type of direct economic democracy. An interactive model of currency flows in an idealized system is available at the Principled Societies Project website.
A published agent-based model reveals similarities and differences to basic income proposals. Once a LEDDA has matured, participants receive a very high and equal income (the equivalent to about $110,000 per family, the 90th percentile of US family income). Employees receive income in the form of wages, but any member who is not employed or not in the workforce unconditionally receives this income as well, from the novel crowd-based financial system. Members also use the LEDDA financial system to fund the types of jobs that they desire and deem useful.
John Boik, PhD
Founder, Principled Societies Project
@JohnBoik
About the author:
John Boik received a BS in civil engineering from the University of Colorado, Boulder; a master’s degree in acupuncture and Oriental medicine from Oregon College of Oriental Medicine, Portland, Oregon; and a PhD in biomedical sciences from the University of Texas, Health Sciences Center, Houston. He completed postdoctoral work at Stanford University, in the Department of Statistics. He is the author of Economic Direct Democracy and other books and papers, and founder of the Principled Societies Project.
by Tyler Prochazka | Dec 21, 2016 | Opinion
With the emergence of cryptocurrencies (digital money) as an alternative to traditional cash, there has been
discussion about how new currencies can be used to implement a Universal Basic Income.
Some crytopcurrency startups, such as
uCoin (now Duniter), automatically distribute a basic income dividend to all of its verified members, thereby slightly growing the monetary base but in an egalitarian way.
Author Duke Johnson said because they rely on internet and electricity, these digital currencies are not easy enough for mainstream adoption and as of now are not “appropriate for UBI.”
Johnson has a slightly different system in mind for a currency: Creator Currency Octaves. He has
written about how a Universal Basic Income of a “complementary currency” can “protect a currency from pitfalls of hyper-inflation” and has said it would also “put a real price on everything.”
He explains the complementary currency would be enough to cover basic necessities, but would also expire.
“Those who join a Creator Collective could accept active or expired Basic Bucks as rewards (and of course dollars/euros/gold/whatever) but depending on the level of their work and their individual Creator Octave, they would be able to exchange Basic Bucks for dollars at an elevated level, say 1.5x or even 4 dollars for 1 Basic Buck,” Johnson said.
“This would put both a supply and demand onto Basic Bucks into any system, without negatively altering the primary currency, and still providing incentive for people to work for collective projects and do great innovative or artistic work.”
For Johnson, the push for this new system is about making a fairer society.
“I want to participate in a fair system, where children don’t starve, and I’d like to see poverty eliminated in my lifetime,” Johnson said.
The full interview with Duke Johnson can be found below:
1. You said in “CurrentSea X-Change” that “A function of UBI would put a real price on what everything”. What did you mean by this, and how would basic income accomplish that?
For UBI, I feel financial freedom is true independence, and of course, with freedom, that which UBI could provide, people will be free to follow their passion instead of a paycheck.
When I mention that this system could put a real price on what everything is truly worth, including time, I’m speaking to the affect that manufactured scarcity places upon economics, where the current central banking system has far too much influence on what things cost, as opposed to what they should cost. One example, in the USA, the average price of a house in the 1970s cost ~8k hours of minimum wage work. Today, the average price is ~45k hours of min wage work. Therefore, a generation ago, life was affordable, but today low income people can typically only get by with debt and/or government assistance.
2. How would a basic income challenge our current economic system and expose its “flaws”?
If people didn’t have to work for housing/food/utilities, would they still be willing work a 40-50 hour/week job to afford, say, a new car every 2 years? If not, the car companies would likely lower their prices. Similarly, people would be in a better position to refuse jobs they dislike, therefore the cost of all labor would balance upon what people deem fair compensation, as opposed to what they’re forced to accept due to desperation in the current system.
Some other flaws UBI could expose in the current systems are the problems with disproportionate “making vs taking.” Today, Wall St. investors typically don’t actually make anything, except everything more expensive. If Creative Currency Octaves came into play, the people being rewarded would be the artistic creators and developers within a collective, as opposed to people making millions and billions from interest/dividends/ownership.
3. What is the appeal of implementing universal basic income?
Poverty elimination is the best reason to introduce UBI, and when people don’t have to work to support a family, that reduces stress from a population, which in turn could free people from the chains of debt servitude. I also argue that placing property ownership back into the people’s hands and away from institutions, would have a major balancing affect on communities in a positive way.
4. What is your view of cryptocurrencies as a way to distribute basic income?
As far as crypto-currencies go, I’m in favor of new ways to transfer money online that are secure and takes power away from central banks, however BlockChains rely on electricity and a functioning internet connection, which is a potential downfall. When people can buy lunch on the go as easily with BlockChain as with cash, then there will be a monetary revolution. Ultimately, mainstream money transfer is all about ease, which is why cash is king and credit/debit cards are more prevalent today. Of course it takes millions/billions of investment and decades to implement what visa/mastercard/debit cards have achieved in safe payment solutions, but again cash is the simplest for everyday purchases. BlockChain may become easier for large transactions than card/bank services, and of course cash can’t be transferred online, so I think BlockChain will prove it’s worth to the masses in the near future, though I don’t think it’s appropriate for UBI, unless as an option to be offered instead of, say, a monthly reloaded debit card.
5. What appeals to you about basic income and how did you get interested in the movement?
In conclusion, my efforts are focused on UBI through generating awareness of the system I’ve put forth- Creator Currency Octaves and a UBI of a complementary currency- that both protects the primary currencies and provides an incentive for workers/creators to innovate and still participate in the economy.
In my view, this system:
1) negates all arguments against Basic Income
2) can’t be claimed as unfair, because it works for all citizens
3) is the best way to introduce UBI into an existing monetary system
4) balances economic power away from profit-above-all institutions and towards a creative, innovating, and artistically eager populous
5) can eliminate poverty
It’s my goal to help create a future where college grads follow their passion as opposed to a paycheck, artists actualize their dream projects without a producer limiting their creativity, and people power trumps the power of financial desperation leveled upon communities like an economic weapon. I want to live in a city where parents don’t have to explain to their kids why people are homeless starving on the street in an era of exceeding abundance. I don’t want to enable those who inherit wealth to exploit those who have unmet basic needs. Ultimately, I want to participate in a fair system, where children don’t starve, and I’d like to see poverty eliminated in my lifetime.
