You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Hawaii is Now the 1st State to Pass Legislation to Study Full Basic Income
All great points. If you read @dan's post, he described his system on having a "savings" type of system where you can only withdraw the interest.
As the economy grows more productive, everyone’s ability to consume grows proportional to their ownership of the means of production. If a drought causes food production to decline, then everyone will receive less interest due to the drop in production.
But you're right, because similar to what Dan said, everyone would have to adopt the system.
Thank you for the great comment.
Thanks for recommending Dan's article. I actually was on his writings on bytemaster and have read much of his thoughts. He makes some compelling arguments for upgrades to our present dominant economic system. However, I would like to propose they are all predicated (as all economic theory is) that there is solely a financial capital "Cost of living"
His statement below:
I live in Bali. Where the vast majority of people would be considered "unskilled" in most western economics terms. Yet, if there were a massive global economic collapse most Balinese wouldn't even know it happened. Why? Because the majority of peoples basic needs are met out side of the economic system.
That is my point, I believe we have to evolve past such fragile easily manipulated human-systems and meet our needs based off natures-systems. I grow my own food, I subsidize with the economic system but I'm nearly to the point where I would be able to survive off the food I grow.
If our systems are so fragile that millions of deaths would occur if they were to be disrupted we are better attaching ourselves to less fragile systems. I for one am more prone to pick a system that has been tried and tested for billions of years opposed to one a couple centuries old.
Also, there is another major flaw in most economic thought, including his. That is the assumption that Humans are the sole creators.
Humans don't cause food to grow. Nature does. Humans have designed systems to interact with this process. But ultimately nature can and could again provide abundance with minimal interaction (see permaculture-biodynamic agriculture-One Straw Revolution). This paired with natural building (earthships-superadobe-hempcrete-strawbalehomes, etc). People can and HAVE met their basic needs with minimal interaction or dependence on our economic system... SO, to assert that it is our human systems that bring value, is merely yet another example of the hubris of man.
Now, that's not to say I don't offer human-designed systems to better relate to our natural systems. As I do.
Yes, I agree it's not perfect but it's a step in a possible right direction. Let's hope we can eventually find a solution. I enjoy reading your comments about this :)