Basic Income must be global or it will fail.
The Wall Street Journal recently published an article arguing for a basic income. Since this is a topic that is very relevant giving the ever growing unemployment rate, I thought I would address it.
Let me summarize Charles Murray’s proposal:
- Everyone over 21 years old receives $13,000 per year
- $3000 per year must be spent on insurance
- It should replace all welfare, social security, food stamps, etc.
In a previous article I wrote on the Basics of Basic Income I stated that I thought it would be much better than what we have today, but still fundamentally flawed.
Since then I wrote an article about the Economics of the Future where I explored a structural problem with economy where the value of unskilled labor falls below the cost of living.
The concept of a Basic Income is a proposed solution. I would like to revisit whether or not a Basic Income is a viable solution to our structural economic problems. But first, I would like to offer a revisit the nature of the structural problems.
Structural Problems with the Economy
Imagine for a moment that someone invents a replicator that allows them to build anything by converting energy into matter. Today’s 3D printers and fully automated factories are just early versions of technology that is moving toward fully general purpose manufacturing. Now imagine for a second that operating these replicators requires an advanced degree in math, science, physics, chemistry and software engineering. Without all of the above knowledge you would be unable to participate in the part of the economy that utilizes this replicator technology.
The technology is so competitive and capital intensive that no one is able to compete. Any product you could manufacture can be done cheaper via the replicator. Technology has advanced to a point where just 1 million people are able to produce and deliver all of the products that are currently produced by billions of people.
Normally an economy with a monopoly on the means of production would see a revolution that would free the people by redistributing the resources. In this case, the monopoly is based on intelligence and scale, neither of which can be redistributed/divided without making everyone poorer.
This may be an extreme example, but it illustrates a simple concept that is in effect on a small scale today. It will only grow bigger as technology advances.
Basic Income is a Revolution
People are starting to realize that an increasing percentage of the population is unable to offer the economy enough value to cover their cost of living. Many people are no longer competitive in the market. Given a choice between widespread poverty and extreme concentration of wealth or a basic income extracted from the wealthy, many prefer to see the adoption of Basic Income.
The trend toward outsourcing is really the market’s way of telling us that the supply of unskilled labor able to participate in the economy is growing (due to advances in communication and transportation). The value of unskilled labor is falling. The only unskilled people who remain competitive are those willing to work for next to nothing.
Simplifying Government
Today’s economy is largely driven by government spending (at all levels). Total spending is currently $6.7 trillion dollars per year. All told this accounts for 41% of GDP. Beyond the government spending, is the cost of compliance with government regulations. There are millions of accountants who specialize in nothing but tax law. Companies spend billions of dollars every year just to comply with the edicts.
If all of this government spending were redirected toward a Basic Income, then every man, woman, and child in the United States could receive $21,000 per year. In other words, the government spends enough every year to guarantee every family in america an income that is larger than the current median household income.
Given this level of spending, one could argue that we already have a “basic income” funded by the government for the vast majority of the population. The only difference is that it is extremely inefficient and unequal due to central planning and special interests.
A basic income could replace almost all government. Why would we need complex tax codes when the majority of the population is receiving income rather than paying taxes? Why should we tax income at all when we can simply print the money necessary?
Why would we need to have “public schools” when parents receive a basic income sufficient to pay for private schools? Why would we need child support enforcement when every child qualifies for basic income. Why would we need so many “consumer protection” laws when consumers have enough free time and money to look out for themselves? Why would we need so many prisons when fewer people are desperate enough to commit a crime? Why would we be worried about terrorists when we no longer meddle in other people's business?
In effect, every “free” government service we have today could be replaced with a “paid” service and the people could choose whether or not to use their basic income to pay for that service. Imagine putting the government budget directly in the hands of the people who “vote” by spending it on what they need and value. The “free market” could then serve the people rather than special interests who control government spending.
Why is an American Life worth more?
The moral argument for a basic income implies that all lives deserve a minimum standard of living. The question becomes why should this only apply to Americans? Is your neighbor more deserving than a child in Africa?
The answer usually boils down to “we don’t have enough money to support the whole world at the rates able to maintain a minimum standard of living in the U.S.” If the concept cannot scale globally, then perhaps we should ask ourselves how it could work in the U.S. Why is the US both more costly to live in and rich at the same time? Why doesn’t our ‘standard of living’ make us poor by draining our resources?
The answer is our currency. The U.S. Dollar is our largest export and has given those closest to the creation of new dollars an incredible amount of wealth for next to nothing. Every dollar created is spent in the US first and gradually finds its way overseas. This has given americans an unprecedented advantage over every other country. In effect, we have been getting something for nothing ever since the end of WW II. Dollars are plentiful here, so prices are higher.
Implementing a Basic Income is only viable while the United States is able to print the world's reserve currency. International free market competition will continue to lower the value of unskilled labor as the means of production shifts to countries willing to work. The means of production is all that backs the U.S. dollar. After implementing a basic income no one in the U.S. will be willing to work at rates competitive with overseas workers. We would be supporting ourselves on the backs of our currency.
Eventually our currency would fall until our basic income is worthless.
Conclusion
Any approach to basic income that isn’t global in nature will find the market responds with currency devaluation. A global basic income would be perceived as “below poverty level” to americans.
One way or another, the global standard of living will normalize and the markets will redistribute wealth to those who are producing and away from those who are consuming.
You can't just spend all of it on basic income. There are still necessary expenses like defense, justice, basic infrastructure, the institutions to make government run in the first place, and of course interest on the debt. Those don't just become unnecessary because everyone has a decent basic income. Crime and violence would still exist.
Let's say you replace Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all education spending, and all other forms of welfare, from federal, state, and local levels. That would get you approximately 3.6 trillion dollars out of the 6.7 trillion dollars in total government spending per year. The population of the US is approximately 322 million, so if you were to just divide by that number you would get $11,180 per year per capita. That is right around the 2016 US federal poverty threshold of $11,880 for a 1-person household. For larger households, the threshold appears to increase by $4,140 per person.
Given the federal poverty guidelines for federal poverty thresholds as a function of household size (and the reasonable assumption that households larger than 2 can be thought to mostly consist of children for the extra members), I think we can use a better distribution than just giving equal amounts to every man, woman, and child. If you just look at spending on K-12 ($642.6 billion) divided over people aged 5-18, you get a number of approximately $11,000 per year per student. So given the additional yearly amount of $4,140 per person (presumably child) needed to maintain the poverty level threshold in a multi-person household, I think it would be fair to say that each child aged 5 or older would need to actually be allocated at least $15,140 per year for families to not get reduced levels of welfare service for a child's basic well-being (including essential education) compared to that which is currently received today. Personally, I think it makes more sense to just fund the K-12 budget separately (not via basic income) as is done today. That way irresponsible parents are not tempted to skim off the money allocated for their kid by providing them a cheaper and less effectual education. A voucher system can also alternatively be implemented to allow some free market competition in the education space, but the vouchers would only be valid for schools that meet the minimum standards of education to again avoid abuse (either intentional abuse by bad parents or more likely unintentional abuse by careless parents being fooled by predatory "schools").
So, with $650 billion allocated to the K-12 system (or optionally vouchers for competiting K-12 schools), that leaves $2.95 trillion for the basic income. Each child (up to age 18) could be given $5,000 per year by this basic income for food, clothing, and other basic needs (or rather this amount would be given to their parents or legal guardians). That would take away nearly $400 billion dollars from the $2.95 trillion basic income budget. For the remaining population of 244 million adults, the remaining basic income budget could be divided equally giving each adult $10,450 per year. This would be 93% of the federal povery threshold for a 1-person household. However, for a 2-adult household, it would be 136% the corresponding federal povery threshold. And even for a 1 adult and 1 child household, it would still be right at the corresponding federal poverty threshold.
Now this isn't my preferred distribution strategy. I think one way of further improving it (still within the constraint of not raising overall government spending) is to allocate some of the budget to mandatory single-payer health insurance. I think there are serious free market failures/inefficiencies when it comes to essential healthcare. Free markets work best when the consumer can reasonably be expected to take their time making their health care choices and can even choose the option of getting no service without serious repercussions to their health. Cosmetic plastic surgery is a probably one of the best examples where the free market works well in the medical services industry. But when services aren't anywhere near luxuries but are critical life-or-death essential services, I think the free market works poorly compared to some alternatives. And I don't see the point in giving people money only to then require them to spend it on a limited set of insurance options anyway (which is what Charles Murray seems to prefer). It seems more efficient to just provide a single payer health insurance system for some minimum standard of care we expect everyone to have. Forcing it into a single system also means that there is better bargaining power to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to bring costs down. People would still be free, and likely encouraged, to shop around for supplementary private insurance to get a level of care beyond the basic required minimum.
So my current thoughts are that $650 billion dollars be allocated towards the basic single-payer health insurance system. Going by the OECD average health care expenditure per capita (which is less than half what we spend in the US by the way), a total amount of approximately $1 trillion dollars would need to be spent on health care in the US. So the difference of $350 billion (assuming the US was able to bring its health care costs down to OECD levels) could be made up for by private insurance and private payments for health care expenditures going beyond the minimum level provided by the public single-payer system. So with the single-payer system paid for, that would now leave $2.3 trillion dollars for the basic income. This time I would say to allocate $4,140 per child (same as the increase in federal poverty threshold per each additional person), which would leave approximately $1.977 trillion dollars to be divided equally by each adult. So that means each child would receive $4,140 per year and each adult would receive approximately $8,100 per year. This is right at the federal poverty threshold for a household consisting of 2 adults and 0 or more children. A household consisting of 1 adult would be at 68% of the federal poverty threshold, but a single person should be living with roommates anyway if they have no other source of income to support themselves.
Now regarding your comments on the problems with basic income due to globalization. First, the basic income shouldn't be paid for by printing money, but through taxation. That said there are still legitimate concerns with: lack of revenue due to movement of productive work to places with lower taxes; overspending on basic income relative to revenue due to immigration of welfare seekers; and producing enough value to the rest of the world to maintain a balance of trade with other countries (to maintain the value of the currency).
Regarding the risk that movement of people in and out of jurisdictions would cause a breakdown in the basic income system (net outflow of productive people and net inflow of unproductive people), I think this is not too serious of a problem. There are business advantages to getting access to the US consumers which can be used as the carrot to get companies to comply with taxes wherever they reside in the world. And many wealthy people (like the owners of these companies) will prefer to live in the US (and thus have to pay taxes) for a multitude of reasons assuming the tax rates don't rise to be outrageously higher compared to that of the rest of the highly-developed world. And as the math above shows, there isn't a need for a radical increase in overall tax rates compared to what they are now to support some minimum level of basic income that can be quite useful. Also, if other developed countries also adopt basic income, then they can slowly increase the basic income amount through higher taxes (assuming it hasn't reached the point where any harm to productivity outweighs the benefits) without creating a situation where one of them becomes a tax haven for the rich to move into. And again, even if a country decided to break away from the rest and go that route, there are ways (e.g. tariffs) the other countries can still extract wealth from the citizens of that tax haven country by restricting their access to their markets.
Abuse of the basic income system by immigration into the country purely for the easy welfare can be taken care of by having an initial multi-year period where their percentage of basic income pay slowly grows from 0% to 100% as the immigrant adds value to the system by earning an income and paying taxes. This can coincide with the probationary period for an immigrant becoming a full citizen. If they never work and thus never pay taxes their percentage would remain at 0% and so they wouldn't get any basic income. This way people serious about immigrating to the US to work hard and earn a better life would find it profitable to make the heavy initial investment (of their sweat from hard work if not capital) necessary to do so. These types of people would be unlikely to just stop working and live only off near-poverty-level basic incomes once they have satisfied their basic tax payment requirements to earn the full 100%, especially when continuing to work as they had for years would allow them to maintain (and in fact exceed) the higher-than-poverty lifestyle they would have gotten used to by then.
And now finally the trade balance issue. Globalization obviously means that corporations will move work to a place where it is cheaper to buy (all else, e.g. quality of work, being equal). This is a good thing for the poor of the world, because it will slowly raise their standard of living and allow their economy to develop. What about the relatively rich (by global standards) whose jobs are being taken away? First, wealth redistribution through taxes and basic income means that the poor of a country at least do not need to starve or suffer in abject poverty due to globalization. As long as the overall group (the nation) is generating enough resources, all members of the group can get the basic necessities needed to survive. And the US is generating a lot of value. Particularly, a lot of the added value of its exported goods come from the intellectual property created here. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. Something needs to eventually be done about the trade deficit though. Second, the basic income reduces the amount of surplus income a worker needs to earn to have a good standard of living. That means they can work at a much lower wage (there would be no more minimum wages under basic income) than they would have to in order to maintain the same standard of living in a system without basic income, which allows them to more effectively compete with the rest of the world.
Eventually, we would want all nations of the world to have developed economies and they would all likely need to implement some form of basic income to support their citizens that are made obsolete by advancing technology and automation. But trying to get everyone in the world to agree to something is pretty difficult to do. So the only realistic way forward seems to be for individual nations to gradually start experimenting with basic income. And for the reasons I stated above, I do think this is possible for developed nations to do that without requiring all other nations in the world to join them immediately.
This was a sweet article. Great discussion.
Yes, it should be paid for with taxation to avoid massive (but at least expected) inflation.
I’m trying to imagine what it would be like to be a business owner. Say you owned a grocery in this utopia. You still receive the basic income and you have this job to keep these grocery stores open. Which I guess you like doing since you’re doing it. You get income but there is an automatic tax from every transaction from customers
(percent tax)=sqrt((income this month)/(50,000)) if the rule that we voted was business owners couldn’t make more than 50,000 a month
OR it could be done with inflation
if there was a currency that goods were priced in SEPARATE from money people earned, used, and spent. The ratio between these two currencies would be smoothly changing and automatically adjusted as more money was created to use for the basic income. You could hold the pricing currency or other assets after earning money. Could be done on bitshares blockchain perhaps. This would also mean the basic income would always be increasing. Could it be a perfect tax?
How about labour economics and the tax curve on labour? How would it influence behavior and happiness?
I think I have to read your other articles.
Very good thoughts in the beginning, and I wanted to agree completely until near the end. But then there's an error in your thinking:
That's wrong. When you receive a basic income, you can afford to work for way less than the minimum wages. The amount people receive can be directly substracted from employment cost. In the end american companies could finally afford american workers again!
The only jobs affected are those that already don't pay enough for a living right now. We have a lot of those in Germany, and government pays the rest until you have what you'd get when you didn't work at all. 30% of welfare receipients here are in that category! So even today people work "for nothing". When your basic needs are covered even a dollar an hour makes some more at the end of the month, that's enough to motivate.
"That's wrong. When you receive a basic income, you can afford to work for way less than the minimum wages."
I see what you're saying and I'm sure that's true to an extent. However if you're making 1300 a month already and someone tries to get you to work 40 hours a week for another 500 a month, I think you'll find plenty of people who'd be perfectly fine with the original 1300. There ought to still be some reasonable minimum wages. How you define what's reasonable is always going to be debatable
No doubt. But is that bad? We have those in today's welfare systems already. And it's a minority. The majority is trying to find a way to get more. We have mandatory jobs that pay 1€/h for welfare recipients here in Germany. While some do complain about that "wage", most are happy that they got something to do and appreciate the 200€/month they have more. I'm opposed to those measure, but only because government forces people to do them. (Great jobs, really. One I attended in Hamburg in my twens consisted of two groups. One drilled holes in a wall, the other filled them and painted the wall. Next day we switched. Another one was a 2-week seminar on how to write job applications, with role-playing-games and glueing spaghetti onto pieces of paper.)
And there's still those working for less or the same. This group has been growing steadily here, we'll have to see how the new minimum wage influences that number, I guess most in that group are on part-time for one or another reason anyway.
Minimum wages have side effects on higher qualified jobs though (now that guy gets the same as I do? I demand a raise!).
A basic income would level the field for all of them, and allow employers to pay for what the work is worth instead of what the worker needs to survive.
Interesting perspective. I disagree with the idea that employers pay their employees based on what their work is worth. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the point you were trying to make, but the productivity of american workers has tripled in the last 30 years, yet the employee has benefited almost nothing from that. Our work has certainly become more valuable. It has more to do with supply and demand, which is the whole purpose of requiring a minimum wage . Its only a matter of time before automation floods the supply side of the job market, driving wages down, which has nothing to do with the utility they provide to their employer.
But as you mentioned, is it such a bad thing, as long as we are guaranteed basic income? I think it certainly could be if it causes the wealth gap to continue to explode at the rate that it currently. Human beings strive for purpose, I think most people do indeed want to work, but it is pretty demoralizing if you don't even get a small fraction of the fruits of your labor
While there are a lot of good-guy employers which care about the situation of their employees, the big businesses dominate the markets and force those wages.
But why do employees accept them? Only because they're forced to. You're not free to value your own work, take what you're offered or be a dirty welfare sucker.
While a basic income doesn't solve this by itself, it offers a great possibility to change the mindset of the workers. When they're not just working to feed their kids and pay the state, they could have a chance to start fulfilling their own dreams. That's when people become their best anyway. It could even result in an entrepeneurial spirit which makes it hard to find regular employees unless you pay them very well.
Quite possible, yes. Many people may not be too excited to take huge pay cuts, just due to the cognitive biases at play which make it look like a loss or downgrade of their value - even if they come out at the end with the same amounts.
And of course, you'll have people on either ends of the spectrum, with no clearcut, predictable responses from all people. Some may refuse to work for less than minimum wage out of principle - though some will continue to work just because they enjoy being of service in their jobs.
i wanted to reply here, no idea how i ended up below :D
I believe in the urge to create in everyone. If it got lost on the way, having time off the stress of being poor can help to bring it back to its full potential. Money isn't the primary factor to do something.
If a company doesn't find someone for what they offer that's their problem. You'll kind of have an automated minimum wage - the amount needed for someone to accept doing the work. Nobody would need to work for a lower amount, because their basic needs are covered.
Good arguments. Like. Let the discourse begin!
I still agree with the headline and see issues with local solutions.
My preferred concept would also eliminate all taxes except a VAT of about 50%, the same as the current total tax rate but a lot easier to handle (besides other advantages over the current tax system). But borders are too permeable for that to simply work when the neighboring countries don't cooperate.
One other factor to consider is the decreasing number of jobs that will even exist for humans, with the increase in automation with technological improvements, robotics, and AI. More & more jobs will become obsolete, both in America and abroad.
I have to think about this more, but just want to at least start with some thoughts. I think the advancements of technology vastly improve the general welfare of everyone. It's not absolutely necessary to participate in the modern economy and any group, community, and even individual can live in autarky or various levels of it. Just think about the Amish. They'll still be around when we're flying around in saucers. If there were such a replicator any supply creates demand and if the demand is not sufficient and there is nothing the humans can provide there will be less of a supply. If a monopoly has the potential to provide someone a lifetimes's worth of food/shelter with technology and there is not enough demand or if it's too expensive in relation to what people can provide for it the monopoly would have to lower the price or not produce it all. With the advent of 3D printers and customized manufacturing I think there is going to be an abundance of variety and local 'flavors' of all types of goods. For example we'll have cars and vehicles of all shapes and sizes instead of these mass-produced vehicles we have today. We'll have a spread of wealth instead of a concentration. The counter trend in mass-produced food is local, organic, and sustainable food and there will be increased premiums in those. Decentralization in money/banking (blockchain), energy (solar), entertainment (VR), manufacturing (3D printed homes & vehicles) allows everyone to become sustainable more quickly. It seems technology is a great equalizer more than a divider, and free market economics should create balance. Even if we had or did not want access to any of these advanced technologies we can still harness the knowledge online and learn how to live a more sustainable/simple life. Mankind will have more choice. There will be a transition period with disruptive technologies, but social institutions take time to adapt. The newspaper industry took over a decade to transform and adapt in the Internet age instead of being eliminated outright. Government institutions are the hardest to change. Why do we still have public education? Give children internet access, a laptop, and just a bit of parental guidance and you're done. Kids learn more online than in schools. Anyways I digress. I'll think about this more, but I think the whole of mankind well be better off without any of these government mechanisms although I do agree for practical reasons and because of the general public's perceptions of government having a basic income may be a necessary evil. Taxation is theft though. For those in the free market making money, I think it may be a good idea to create a privatized basic income to disintermediate government's role and reduce forced taxation.
Imo the main problem with taxation is that they grab half of it as soon as you get it yourself.
The most common proposal for a universal basic income in Germany is promoted by Götz Werner, founder and co-owner of one of Germany's biggest drugstore chains.
It suggests to remove all taxes except VAT, which totally makes sense to me. Taxing income is silly because it disincentivizes work in the first place. Taxing consumption is a lot more natural as that's the point where you get something of real value. You value your income based on the prices of your needs, so after getting used to the slightly higher prices it wouldn't feel bad any more. If there would even be an increase. All the taxes are factored into the prices anyway - even your income tax, because it is added to your net-wage by the employer.
The United States has a lot of land and natural resources which can be auctioned. A land value tax, and nature resources like oil, can be used to produce a basic income for Americans. The United States also has a lot of intellectual property for people who believe in that. It works for Saudi Arabia in the form of a Sovereign Wealth Fund. It works for Alaska as the Alaska Permanent Fund.
Libertarians in my opinion are making a critical error by ceding basic income to socialists. The result will be a rise of socialism sooner or later as it will only be socialists offering any solution at all while libertarians tell truck drivers to accept imminent death by poverty? It seems not wise if you're libertarian and work in AI to not get behind some form of basic income even if it's a libertarian version. Who will those truck drivers eventually blame? I mean right now it might be immigrants but eventually who is going to be blamed for this?
The Alaska Permanent Fund runs like a corporation, it gets profit from oil resources not taxes. It takes those profits and invests in stocks and real assets. Saudi Arabia has a Sovereign Wealth Fund which does something similar and their citizens don't have taxes (or they are very very low). If it can work for Saudi Arabia why can't it work for the USA?
References
I go even further, libertarians screaming "socialism" all the time missed the point. We have to redistribute somehow, because the current system is screwed to the bones. Only then a liberal society of free individuals is possible.
Don't believe that distribution is the problem? 1/3 of all US corporate wealth is in the hands of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Cisco and 2 or 3 others. One sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface belongs to the Queen of England!
Marx predicted states to automatically dissolve in the final phase. Imo that'd result exactly in what libertarians want, only that they also want to skip the path to get there. But fighting small changes doesn't help with reaching the bigger goal.
Does the Sun give us energy for free, or do we owe something in return? (ask the Aztec priest as he tears another beating heart out to offer up on a golden plate to the Sun).
From whence this "basic income" and what will recipients owe in return? Their freedom of choice, thought, movement, religion, speech? And to receive this "basic income", what privacy must the recipient give up? Eventually all privacy, if I can correctly think it through.
I guess we will all eventually face the decision as to which we value more, liberty or life (as in "give me liberty or give me death").
The Grand Inquisitor
"The Inquisitor frames his denunciation of Jesus around the three questions that Satan asked Jesus during the temptation of Christ in the desert. These three are the temptation to turn stones into bread, the temptation to cast Himself from the Temple and be saved by the angels, and the temptation to rule over all the kingdoms of the world. The Inquisitor states that Jesus rejected these three temptations in favor of freedom, but the Inquisitor thinks that Jesus has misjudged human nature. He does not believe that the vast majority of humanity can handle the freedom which Jesus has given them. The Inquisitor thus implies that Jesus, in giving humans freedom to choose, has excluded the majority of humanity from redemption and doomed it to suffer."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Inquisitor
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
moral arguments can be so poetic.
A true free market would be more likely to create a basic income, through innovation and technology we will be able to spread value around in a fairer manner, a bit like what steemit is doing.
Money is great for psychopaths and tyrants to use to gain power, control their slaves, and keep track of their slaves. I gave it up a few years ago and have never felt more rich in my life. I was able to give it up by learning how to meet my own needs directly and sustainably. I know how to collect and filter water, how to find and build shelter, how to build transportation, all from natural materials or using garbage that was created by civilization. I'm disabled and in a country where collaboration is nearly impossible due to so many being enslaved by their property but I'm surviving and making slow forward progress on a few projects. If I was 100% healthy, and lived somewhere where people still remembered community, our ideas would be going viral.
Knowledge that enables one to directly and sustainably meet their own survival needs is what I call a basic income. Any government/association based fiat distribution scheme will only empower tyrants and psychopaths, no matter how well intentioned, because those that don't care about the rules in man made systems will always rise to the top of them.
Basic income implies a worldwide man made control system to distribute and balance things so nothing good will come of it. I can't believe that this is so basic, yet so difficult for some to understand.
There is no solution for the masses of "humanity". Evolve or die. We are in over reach population wise. There will be a die-off.
Prepare accordingly.
Watch: This Lady Completely Loses Control After Her EBT Food Stamps Card Is Declined
Intresting indeed !