Elon Musk's Universal Basic Income Trap Is Looming. Anarcho-Capitalism In Favor Of Basic Income!

Anything coming to an end has a meaning... it was NOT valid as a theory.

Truth is something that does NOT change and NEVER  influenced by moral relativism. Truth is INvariable. So why is an anarcho-capitalist like Hayek in favor of some form of basic income? Read on! 

Steems will be used to fund our advertising campaign against *universal basic income* and promote a futuristic money-free society. Competition is for cavemen who don't understand Objective Reality. We need a social framework based on experiences as opposed to wealth accumulation, which is an illusion. 

www.earthcustodians.net (we have a forum too by the way)

 Universal Basic Income And Programmable Cashless Servitude

 Various  groups of people have a good reason for preferring cash. Would it be  from the mother seeking extra non-taxable income to feed her kids  because she doesn’t earn enough or is already on welfare; the small  business that doesn’t generate enough revenues to hire legally, to teens  who like to earn petty cash to enjoy more financial freedom from their  parents, etc… well, there are plenty of reasons as why most would prefer  cash over a bank card.  In  the practical sense that is another story: it will also affect people’s  willingness to work at low costs. There is no incentive, for example,  if you mow your neighbor’s lawn for say 10 dollars or euros, which  become all of a sudden taxable. Or let’s imagine that you run errands  for somebody else, what will show on your bank account statement, unless  that somebody gave you her or his bank card. And sure, we can bet there  will be a possibility to avoid taxation on the 5 dollars or euros  received as a donation between pals but everything will have to be  reported in your yearly tax return. Many could start having headache in  the near future as soon as they realize that their privacy is gone for  good when they will have to justify every penny spent. These are just  simple scenarios but they give an idea as how quickly the issues could  become a lot more complex. We might assume that the 30% of westerners  who participated in that survey have most likely a direct deposit as  income but it is kind of reasonable to assume that 50% of the population  remain opposed to the new model today. Though minds will change when  permanent joblessness starts taking hold. Unfortunately, reactions  always come way too late and generally cannot reverse the situation  without causing even more shock waves to the system.  

Let’s now consider the following: Faced  with a period of systemic slow economic growth it is not hard to  imagine that the state could adopt a version of BI that aims to  subsidize low-wage work. Indeed, in places like the United States this  is the defacto situation with Walmart workers surviving only by  accessing food stamps. A modest BI, of say $10,000 (which would not be  enough to empower workers to stay out of the labour market for long),  would essentially be a top-up of wages for low-wage employers. It would  be a weapon for employers to keep wages low, as they could argue there  is no need to pay workers more because of BI. In this scenario why would  employers not just pay the minimum wage if there was a BI top up? (see  link at the bottom) 

That’s the whole truth in one paragraph.  Rightfully, we cannot forget about our global financial crisis which  has been brewing since the early 2000 and came back to haunt us in 2008,  erasing more than $30 trillion globally,  and prompted world banks to  flood the markets with their quantitative easing ideology. They are  still at it. From the tech to the housing bubbles, markets have been  awash with digital money in order to prevent the end of the world as we  know it. The threat has not gone away. Far to the contrary.  Here is what says Hayek. a free-market theorist: 

The  assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor  below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for  himself, appears not only to be wholly legitimate protection against a  risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which  the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the  particular small group into which he was born (55).*  

Moreover  the two excerpts above speak of ‘income supplement’, they do not even  address any full unemployment issues as a consequence of automation and  robotics. Socialism and capitalism regard Universal Basic Income almost  the same way, but what it does also mean is that the economic theorists  perfectly know that the markets are destined to fail and breeding a poor  class – and both look at the government to fix this.  

MORE/TRAILER

(trailer is being improved, thank you for your patience)

http://www.earthcustodians.net/blog/2017/04/30/programmable-cashless-servitude/