What would a legitimate basic income buy?
There are about 8 billion acres of land that can be used to grow crops. There are about 36 billion acres of land on the earth and there are about 7 billion people on earth. This means that each individual would receive a little over 1 acre of farmland and about 4 acres of other land if we were to divide it up today. One acre of farmland, if worked properly, can produce enough each year to feed a person.
At this density, land doesn’t just produce food on its own, so simply giving every man, woman, and child an acre of land will not feed them. The reality of the situation is that one acre of land plus a person with the knowledge and skill to work it can feed one person.
Fortunately the earth is full of bountiful other resources that also have value. These include the oceans which produce ample food to complement the farm land. It also includes oil and coal which magnify the amount of work a man can complete.
If we hit the reset button on property rights and allocated the earth's resources equally among all people through the issuance of 1 share per day per person, then the value of each share would be more than enough to sustain someone for a day. That is until market forces respond.
Trust Fund Paradox
What happens when a rich man dies and leaves his children with a huge trust fund? With all of their needs met and most of their wants covered, these individuals are often incapable of doing real work or starting real businesses. The vast majority will simply flounder as they consume their inheritance.
It is difficult to know the value of something you never had to earn. Without knowing the value of something, it is easy to squander resources.
Today’s world is much more valuable than the world 10,000 years ago due to the enhancements made by entrepreneurial individuals working hard and producing more than they consume. The root motivation for these entrepreneurial individuals is often survival. Without the threat of poverty, starvation, and/or death entrepreneurs are left with all carrot and no stick.
A world where all people inherit the earth would create a trust-fund society. Large swaths of the population would opt to produce nothing. It would be like being born into the Garden of Eden. Most people would simply pick the fruit and spend their time doing what ever fancied them (probably reproduce!)
Collapse of Productivity & New Equilibrium
Under this model the number of people willing to work a factory job or do hard labor in a field would collapse. The cost of labor would increase until it was well in excess of the daily inheritance. After all, if you received $1000 per day for life would you work any job that didn’t significantly increase your daily standard of living?
With this collapse in productivity you would see a corresponding collapse in the purchasing power of the daily inheritance. This collapse would continue until a new equilibrium was found where working hard to produce something could make a meaningful impact in your standard of living.
To put things in perspective, if no one worked at all and everyone attempted to live off of the their inheritance, then the earth would revert back to hunter-gather society and everyone would die of starvation. Long before this extreme was reached, the fall in the purchasing power of the daily income would motivate people to start producing again.
Equilibrium
The socialists among us believe they can control the economy and guarantee everyone a minimum standard of living. They believe this can be done without changing the economic incentives required to produce that standard of living. There is a feedback loop in play here.
Suppose you started out with the idea of giving everyone $1000 per day. Prices would change very quickly in response to this change in supply / demand. Eventually, $1000 per day would leave someone almost as poor (in purchasing power) as they started.
If you attempt to index the payouts to price inflation, then the ultimate result would be hyperinflation. The currency would become worthless.
Conclusion
In yesterday’s article I outlined a moral justification for a basic income defined as 1 share per day per person. I did not specify the purchasing power of that share, because that must fluctuate with supply and demand. The value of 1 share will fall until there is sufficient incentive for mankind to collectively start producing. No one knows what level that would be, but one thing is certain 1 share wouldn’t become worthless. We also know that attempting to live on this 1 share wouldn’t be pleasant to the vast majority either.
This conclusion means the socialists will not be happy because “no one should have to live on just 1 share per day” and the free market capitalists will also not be happy because “no one should get something for nothing”.
Rules for Implementing Basic Income
For any basic income system to be moral and viable then it must adhere to some very simple rules. The nominal rate of pay cannot change over time and the currency it is paid in must be free from any other meaningful sources of monetary inflation. Price inflation / deflation will then naturally establish the fair purchasing power of the basic income.
My approach to basic income is not based upon a desired outcome, but instead derived from first principles of property rights. The actual outcome is the natural result of applying fair principles for allocating the earths resources in a voluntary / non-violent manner.
As society moves to increasing levels of automation, the number of people required to actually work would fall. This would increase the value of 1 share without requiring additional labor. As the value of 1 share increases to a comfortable level (due to automation), the population will grow. This growth will increase the shares created each day until the value of 1 share falls again.
Those who are against this basic income because it is too high would deny their fellow man their natural inheritance and those who think it is too low would steal from one man to fund another. It is only in this “market balance” that all resources are fairly allocated.
Your last two articles just revolutionized the way I see the world once more.
Your feedback is worth more than an rewards Steemit could pay.
"Too much thinking creates and re –in forces the ‘me’ - person or ego – identity."
Really though, could there be a more harmful statement?
It's essentially saying "Don't think too much, you might become someone of importance and start to think highly of yourself"
The ego is not harmful. It is the essential thing that is "you". It shouldn't be silenced, but properly utilized, and as far as it's possible, reflect on its position, outlook and past behaviours.
Sometimes we need to be silent to do these things, but that doesn't mean that you stop "thinking" or that you stop using your brain.
Proper meditation is meant to induce clearity, not death. It is meant to enable, rather than disable you.
=)
So why not upvote?
I voted now. I came back here to vote and saw your comment.
I did vote only with 1% and I'm thinking about making those kind of votes on post I recognized as important but who might not necessarily need more $ or who don't accept monetary reward.
It's tricky because I wouldn't want other place for this post other than all the way up to the top of today's post. This is so because I feel like this post deserve more visibility than any other post made today and that I feel everyone would gain from understanding this post. So I'm thinking I might be voting with 100% power in similar situation in the future taking in consideration post's visibility and other factors.
Now all thing reconsidered, I feel like, as time pass, it will be made clear that everyone will gain from making sure to read what big Steem shareholders are publishing so visibility might not be such an issue. We'll see.
Steem is so full of dynamics I am not habituated to. I'm learning everyday.
I was replying to @dantheman. I didn't understand why he said someone's opinion is valuable but he didn't upvote.
Haha! Funny misunderstanding! Maybe the fact that I hadn't even cared to upvote my comment before he made his. My answer to your question even though it wasn't address to me still stands.
I would call this share "Fairness" cos that's what it is, and I believe it would have huge potential to become the world's currency as it rectifies the fraudulent allocation of the world's resources as took place till now. It is about giving people back their natural entitlement to this Planet and its resources.
"Basic Income" is something else, it is guaranteeing a minimum amount for survival. it could become a token (the BIC you mentioned in another thread) pegged to a necessities basket on the "Fairness" platform, but would be a political decision (hopefully taken by decentralized governance)
Tangential to the discussion, but based on the first couple of paragraphs - The agricultural model of feeding one person per acre is based on big industrial ag, not regenerative or even sustainable systems. It's a system that strips the land of nutrients for profit.
The arable lands of the world could easily support 20 billion people, if managed even halfway decently. A family of four can provide enough food for themselves on 1/10 of an acre, plus have enough left over to barter and pay additional bills. And once the system is in place, the labor is constant, but fairly light. This wouldn't include large livestock, such as cattle, obviously. But small goats, ducks, chickens, rabbits, quail, etc., could all be included on a small scale.
More OT
This is central to the discussion, simply based on the human factor in the equation. IMO, the whole concept of attempting to provide for "each according to their basic need" without them producing anything of value (other than perhaps CO2), defeats both the individual and the culture.
Exactly! This is why I believe the market equilibrium of basic income would leave someone well below the poverty line.
The question of whether or not a Basic Income should be implemented hinges upon each individual's subjective estimation of where the equilibrium point would be. Would 1 share be worth $1 or $50 per day?
In my opinion, implementing a currency system in this manner would be worth doing because it would be close enough to "fixed supply" to get all of the desired benefits of a stable currency, it wouldn't be debt based, and it wouldn't transfer wealth unfairly. In aggregate it would also prevent concentration of wealth. So even if everyone only got $1 per day it would still be worth doing.
We have a real life example of this in Zimbabwe... Productive commercial farms were seized and their owners dispossessed. The land was then given to "war veterans" to appease them and buy their vote for the incumbent geriatric "Bob" Mugabe to continue his "elected dictatorship" and presidency for life.
In a short couple of years Zimbabwe went from Africa's "breadbasket" to the "basket-case" of Africa.
Many now migrate to SA just to stop from starving, I have employed many of them...
University graduates working in farmlands at minimum wage just to have something to send back to their starving families back home... they then send physical cash back home because back home, due to hyperinflation, the local currency totally collapsed.
Zim then switched to the USD but because there are no USD's available citizens resort to trust and IOU's to transact. The rich have splendid bank account balances but can do nothing with it as there is no liquidity to draw out cash.
Now many more people have land, the economy has collapsed and very few have food... one more drought and Zimbabwe becomes Ethiopa... dependent on international food aid, when they have some of the most fertile soil in the world but the newly possessed have no knowledge of how to make it work on anything more than a subsistence level and even that is done poorly.
Just wanted to add...
Also - this would depend on the growing methods. Vertical/hydroponic (even aquaponic) growing could reduce the necessary space and resources to achieve the same or better output/quality. A properly managed greenhouse can extend growing seasons as well.
Right. There are a lot of factors, such as climate, latitude, water availability, etc. If you really go vertically, all sorts of game-changers are on the table. I was just speaking basically, at ground level or maybe with some elevated beds. With what you're describing, the sky literally is the limit, even on a postage stamp lot.
just FYI if agriculture is involved you can also go upwards, with astounding effects. (indoor farming)
And even when not, using greenhouses can double or triple production per area even on currently high-intensity farming.
Resteemed and tweeted @dantheman !
pardon my noob question - what does "resteemed" mean?
It means they shared this blog with their followers on Steemit.
you click on the backway going arrow and the post is shown your followers as it would be yours.
Know Retweet? Same.
Ah, thanks!
Its simular to retweeting on twitter . When resteemed you are essentially showing everyone that follows you what you resteemed
I've been thinking that the best way to implement basic income in a country would be to redistribute certain percentage of it's GDP to citizens. Only thing that needs to be decided is the percentage, otherwise it's just an algorithm that can run on a bank server. Money is collected as tax and automatically paid as basic income.
Benefit is that it's really simple. No need for complicated bureaucracy.
But how to implement that in a blockchain system? Redistribute certain percentage of the market cap to individuals?
Trust Fund Paradoxon:
As "The millionaire next door" has shown, people who worked hard for their money are way more frugal then those who have inherited it. That also applies to the children of those hard workers.
However, regardless of those circumstances most of the people today, especially in the USA, are consumer suckas. They may work hard to get the 6-figure, but they also spend hard.
The most important point in deciding if a child will be frugal is - surprise! - the leading and example of their parents.
But those frugal parents have a problem - our earth destroying consumption society. Funnily that is the same that would keep the producing going on if you introduce the UBI.
That would also prevent a sudden collapse of production. (60% of people say they would work the same or only slightly less hours if they had an UBI)
It would also make sure, I think, that there is a (mostly) sufficient equlilibrium. (A few people always need more, like old folks with Alzheimer).
Talking about Alzheimer: About half of the work done is NOT payed. That mostly applies to much needed social reproduction work (reproduction here does not mean children but e.g. caring for the Alzheimer people). Havin an UBI would increase the affordability (time and money, really interchangable here, if you have to work, you have no time) for such work, especially in the care sector. That on the other hand would save a lot of money (one care place costs about 3-4 times of an UBI and has only bad service because of not enough people, and then even those few are badly paid, especially compared to the work they do)
And then there is of course automatisation. It is the easiest to see in the farming sector: 200 years back 3/4 were working on producing food (german numbers), today its about 3/4 of an %!
Other productions have also increased tenfold or more per head.
The computerisation and the robotisation will do this for other parts of workforce too. It should be possible, even with current technology, to make an automated waste collection truck for example.
100 Years back Keynes predicted that the people would only work 15-20 hours per week.
You laugh?
Well, he didnt predict computers and TVs and other expensive items that add a few hours. Or expensive cars that every family member has. He also didnt predict that house sizes would triple in the US in those 100 years. That are his flaws.
But it is perfectly possible to live on the sizes of 100 years back, with modern improvements (like heating), with just 15 hours of work a week.
In the US, once you paid for your house, you can easily live on 20K a year for... no, not one person, but 3 people. And you can easily get a perfect house for ten times this.
IIRC 15 hour work weeks was standard in the Feudal system, interestingly.
huh? maybe 15 hours workday, but not week.
But of course you just cant compare feudal times with today.
our current situation is a derivative of fuedalism. The workdays were more leisurely. People work ore because industrial revolution brought about some dehumanizing qualities to modern life despite the individualist values of the enlightenment becoming recognized. We live in an increasingly dehumanizing culture despite rights. We live to work, which is non-humanistic way of life. There's no reason for it to be this way aside from it's the shitstorm that's evolved. By values comparison, the work life of modern time is like the torture of medieval times
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/08/29/why-a-medieval-peasant-got-more-vacation-time-than-you/
I think most people forgot that already half of us live on an Basic Income. Children from their parents, jobless from social security, old people from whatever source is giving them money.
Think about it. The only step is to increase it to the other half and then to make it unconditional.
Exactly! Remove the politics from it.
If I understand what you say, civil liability is more than clear, I have no job today, more than what I generate on the internet, but in my house there is no lack of food. This point is clear.
Sorry to mix things up, when I blame the policy I mean that the producer who works the land does not have credit help and price tracking, to improve his field and maintain the peonada, there is no incentive to till the land. Today the field producer receives $ 1.50 Argentine pesos for each kilo produced of tomatoes and the price of sales to the public are $ 30 or $ 35 pesos, I understand, freight costs, base and all hidden expenses, these things are the That the producer discourages, they kill themselves working and others make America, it happens with the animals, the cereals, the flour.with all the red, not to speak with a bad harvest or the storm of the nature, the great loss for the producer .
To reestablish the work of the field, there is no incentive for campesinos to return to the countryside, to earn more money by doing tourism in the countryside or by renting for sport hunting, where I hold my government responsible for state politics, land is the basis of A country, it is of public knowledge that my country is wrong. It is not only the field is clear, there is corruption, the outgoing government possesses half in its power parents with their cronies.
Excellent post as always sir,@dantheman congratulations, thanks for sharing
In my province of Corrientes there are millions of hectares of abandoned land, the villagers migrated from the countryside leaving to the city to work, this happens due to lack of policies and economic aid of the government of my country, this is not of now. As a child I worked the land, tobacco, maize, cassava, potatoes, sweet potatoes, and all kinds of vegetables and fruits, I left my native house at the age of 14 and left for Buenos Aires Capital Federal, today I am 48 years old , See how many years ago this problem.
The problem is worse than that, the worst thing is that there are children who die from malnutrition, with so much fertile land to plant, by this I mean that it is not only a problem of the government, it is a problem of education, not wanting to work, To till the ground for the food of thy people.
I am from a humble family, I lived in a street situation, I wanted to educate myself and to get ahead, my country has so much land to feed the world.
Unfortunately, it will not change if investment policies, export policies, education, instilling love of work, social responsibility do not change.
We have Lands, we own the biggest aquifer of fresh water, the reserves of waters in the glaciers. My country in 50 years would have to abstain the world with food and be a global power in supply, measures that change the ways of seeing things and govern for the prosperity of the country and its people.
This is false. Back in 1850 people thought that the industrial revolution would make many things obsolete. For example people who's business was around horses thought they would starve when faced with the steam engine and trains. They couldn't imagine that the new technology would bring exponentially more jobs and additional opportunities that they could have never imagined.
Same thing applied today. Many people in most of the world have the very basics which is shelter and food. The problem is that we have it in excess and so other needs are created like healthcare services due to immobility, obesity or even old age because of advancements in medical technology. The market always surprises us because our needs evolve in an unimaginable way. For example basic needs today involve talking through a piece of glass and plastic that transmits electrical signals that somehow satisfy our need for socialisation. If you have said that to Manslow when he was creating his pyramid he would have called you crazy.(This is also why Manslow's pyramid is mostly bullshit).
Automation will change nothing. If anything it will increase needs in other means of employment. New businesses that we can't even fathom will emerge. Eventually the laws of nature will create the same market forces as we seen today. The problem is not the economic system but our human nature. The more we move towards a less-human, more mechanical entity that moves towards immortality the more ideas of balance will apply
I would say that your assessment is half true. Once we manage to invent the Star Trek replicator and teleporter powered by renewable energy with no moving parts then clearly the need for additional production would change. Now obviously this is sci-fi, but all automation moves us one step closer to this outcome.
Nothing in life is black and white. There is a continuum. Supply and demand are always at work and that is the heart of my message.
Who is to say that "exploration" of star systems won't be a new currency itself? Abundance in the domain of self sufficiency will create more needs elsewhere. This is self evident from human history.
When everyone has food, shelter, and healthcare covered, then nobody will care to compare themselves to others in respect to these aspects. People always compare themselves with those who have more, and there is always people who have more. (check out today what society's problem is. the "wealth gap". We compare ourselves with the billionaires, not the Somalis.)
The laws of physics apply to us as with everything else in the universe. They create entropy. This is how some end up with more and others with less. Balance is impossible. I don't see how this can be applied in the real world, heck even in theory.
Life is the opposite of entropy. The laws of physics are not actually "laws", but simply best known description for how the world works.
I don't know what "problem" you think cannot be solved is. My stated problem is, "how to divide the world's resources fairly". That is a problem that can be solved for certain definition of "fair" being all men created equal receiving equal opportunity and equal inheritance of the natural resources of the universe.
You have identified a separate problem which is that even if everything was "mathematically fair", people may not perceive things to be fair. That is a truly intractable issue.
Entropy is a matter of perspective. Life for us living things, is not entropic but in the grander scale of things, considering the universe is a few billion years old, it is very much entropic. One can see the dessolate star systems and call them "ordered" and characterise us as "chaotic" since we are the exception to the rule.
Check human history. Any age. The gap in wealth widens as specialisation and industries grow. The reason for this correlation is because the more industries we create the more menial positions we need. The more menial positions we need to cover the less CEO's we need. This is how 1% ends up owning almost everything on the planet. Heck even in feudalism the percentage was more around 10%. In Ancient Egypt the gap between the slaves and the citizens was much smaller. Same applies with ancient Greece.
What is fair for me might not be for you. This is again because of entropy. People grow in different environments, different cultures, have different histories, customs. We cannot possibly come together by means of agreeing with something as generic as "fair".
Nonetheless, we live better lives today compared to any time in human history. The gap actually helps people since we all grow richer and even taste the upper strata once in a while.
Equally as important (and dangerous) is a) who is the arbiter of what is fair and b) who decides who is the arbiter of this fairness?
Basic survival requires food, water and shelter. Beyond that, it is necessarily subjective because there will always be perspective influencing what someone deserves and what others think someone deserves.
Apart from protecting people from starvation, thirst, disease and freezing/burning to death, I'm not sure how a system could be implemented without an opt-in charity component.
That's a good argument for why people will keep creating despite being comfortable survival wise. as it's always been . I'm not sure global/universal basic income is possible or even desireable, actually the incoherence of it is easy to see, when dividing shares, who has the right to bring more share-holders into the world? How many per person?
The only solutions are nationalistic or even fascist by modern standards.
you confuse needs with wants.
Anyway, the increase in production has always outpaced the loss of jobs, so we can easily "loss" jobs for people not working at all and still improve material standard of living (which is arguable more bad then good).
And I am not even talking about bankers who complain that when their non-producing job of shoveling money from A to B and to C in 0,2 seconds does pay them less then half a million of bonuses.
Needs and wants are actually very close together. What is a need for you in the western world is not necessarily for someone else across the African Savanna.
as for the rest that you said, I don't undestand what you are trying to say
Its an answer to kyriacos who wrote:
Back in 1850 people thought that the industrial revolution would make many things obsolete. They couldn't imagine that the new technology would bring exponentially more jobs and additional opportunities that they could have never imagined.
-- and a lot of that additional jobs and production has moved into wants.
Wants and needs are close together, but fairly easy to decide which is which.
Having a heated, dry house is a need. Having triple the space of the people 100 years ago is a want.
Having (preferably quality) food is a need, going out to let someone cook for you is a want.
Having a phone today is often a need. Having a 600$ iPhone instead of a 30$ cheapo is a want.
Having an 30 inch TV is maybe a need (and that is very debatable, that TV is a need), but having a 60+ inch with 300 channels cable is a want, and a very stupid too.
In most cases you can recognize wants as "having MORE" of the same.
"Automation will change nothing. If anything it will increase needs in other means of employment."
The question then is if these other means of employment require the same skills, smartness, knowledge and numbers as the "old" jobs, and if people are willing to pay for their being done by a human. After all, the goal of automation at the moment isn't freeing people of unpleasant jobs to make them happier and pursue other callings, but making unskilled labour, and even skilled labour if at all possible, obsolete.
I just wonder if the minimum skill level required to get or do any job isn't rising. If that is so, new opportunities aren't enough to stop excluding a growing number of people.
we are always goign to have unpleasant jobs. what was an unpleasant job in the 1750's was a dream job a century earlier.
Since you first posted this UBI token idea, I saw a parallel with SteemPower. Is my assumption correct? I am making a post about this...
SP is an investment vehicle, apart from the voting power it has, that was the intent to keep it in for 2 years, and the "interest"/"dividends"/inflation that is given to such an investment.
I see these ideas as an extension of your original vision with SteemPower as part of Steem, and taking this goal more global to implement it as part of the evolving future we progress towards.
Thanks for sharing how you see things developing and proposing viable solutions to make a better world.