RE: Hawaii is Now the 1st State to Pass Legislation to Study Full Basic Income
Several thoughts:
1: Testing UBI with 'target groups' will not demonstrate the full potential of UBI, UBI only works if EVERYONE gets it, you know if it's universal... I believe it will be very difficult to pull any relevant data from 'target groups'.
UBI creates dependence on the state. Thus giving the state (or UBI issuing body) more control. If these institutions are centralized they don't take into account local needs and pressures.
I believe 'consumption without production isn't such a bad thing. We live in a world of overcapacity, we produce way more than we need. This is the premise behind planned obsolescence. Especially with automation coming our way. Think of how many jobs out there that, yes earn income, but actually don't create any tangible value at all.
I love the idea of sharing the wealth. That is the abundance provided by our world. Tax use of the commons (for those who chose to use it) and evenly distribute this out to the local population affected by the commons use. Do this on every scale.
If people want to consume without production. So be it. What do you think usury is? It's producing money without adding any real tangible value to the world; which is the base of our current economic system. SO, we are already in a paradigm where the uber-wealthy(majority of resources) consume without producing.
I like the way you think, Followed.
Thank you :) looking forward to more discussion!
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.
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 :)