UCA News: Why Pope Francis is pushing for a Universal Basic Income (UBI).

[MaximGun]

The concept is that those owning the giant robot factories like Amazon and Google will fund all of this.

Like the movie Soyent Green.

Well with 500,000,000 people left on the planet, its more affordable for them and it will be regurgitated from the taxes imposed on the peoples purchases, utilities, carbon taxes etc.

With 500,000,000 people left I would have thought their revenues and profits would be lower.  They would sell half of what they are selling now.  So I am not sure how affordable it is.  Unless they target only the relatively unproductive people in the third world.

Personally I think globalism will fail to ever leave the runway.  Look at the problems the freemasons are having just trying to run Europe.  They want to do that on a global scale?  It will be a complete mess.

[ralfy]

I'm not arguing $20 a day, but barely $90 per month to be precise. Less than $3 per day, for the 20% poorest in my particular country. We shouldn't rely too much on the UN imo and a one-size-fits-all solution is bad. Let countries be free to do what they deem best for their people.

I appreciate some of the concerns from the others, about whether the UN or other globalist organizations will use this to impose socialist dictatorships that rob us of our freedom and private property etc, but I think there's no danger of that in Gandhi's proposal. Gandhi is very freedom-loving and a humanitarian and I have no doubts that he will never impose any kind of freedom-restricting dictatorship in India.

Each country should decide on its own. Since the US was brought up, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_social_welfare_spending , the US is very high on the list already in Total Net Social Spending, and per capita social spending. India doesn't even appear in the list of the first 35 odd countries. It even may be the case that the US should reduce some social spending, I am not sure about that. But I and many other Indians feel India could do more. Some may wish to implement full-UBI and propose possible ways to do it. I think Q-UBI, for 20% people only, would work well in India.

6000 Rs, less than 90$ a month, is still a very small amount, objectively speaking. I don't believe it would take away the incentive to work, but it may help villagers etc better fund their children's education, and increase their potential to work. So there are different challenges here than in the west. The Church does great work to help the poor here in India, but cannot take care of everything. I think there is a Christian case for a basic income to be given to the poorest sections of society, so no one falls below a bare minimum line. With Rs. 6,000, you could buy very little. Farmers etc would still need to sell provisions to make a living. But instead of having almost nothing post-expenses, if they earn, say, Rs. 10000 on their own, they may have more than almost nothing for themselves and their children. Rent itself would be Rs. 10,000 in most places and maybe Rs 5,000 in a few. So they have very little left over in the end.

There has to be growth in the economy no doubt, and Church and private charitable initiatives, to end poverty, but a Q-UBI could help too.

The $20 daily figure isn't a UBI proposal but the amount needed to maintain daily costs for basic needs.

The basic needs mentioned by the UN isn't a "globalist" imposition but what's needed in order to maintain optimal health.

[ralfy]

With 500,000,000 people left I would have thought their revenues and profits would be lower.  They would sell half of what they are selling now.  So I am not sure how affordable it is.  Unless they target only the relatively unproductive people in the third world.

Personally I think globalism will fail to ever leave the runway.  Look at the problems the freemasons are having just trying to run Europe.  They want to do that on a global scale?  It will be a complete mess.

Most don't know this, but the very presence of this forum is dependent on globalization. Even the parts found in devices used to access it involve businesses in multiple countries spanning extensive supply chains.

[King Wenceslas]

UBI with no labor, investment, and goods to back up the money. It will only end up in tears like with Germany back in the early 1920's.

[Innocent Smith]

UBI with no labor, investment, and goods to back up the money. It will only end up in tears like with Germany back in the early 1920's.

Yes, but with U.B.I., folks will have income in which to make donations to the Church before Frank has to sell some Michelangelos to cover the debt they are running up at his hotel in Vatican City. 

Vatican low on reserves to cover deficit, seeking donations

[Xavier]

I can only speak for my own country. I want both growth in the economy, and a corresponding distribution of some of the increased fruits of production, to the poorest sections of society. I'm more than willing, as are many millions of my fellow countrymen, Indians, to bear a little increased monetary burden, if necessary, in order to do so. Each nation and its people will have to make informed collective decisions. There is both a Christian and humanitarian case to be made for Q-UBI, in my opinion, so we should consider the religious and moral aspect of it too. Finally, we should remember many currently existing welfare schemes could be ended if Q-UBI was implemented.

"The Union Budget for 2020 will be presented soon. Instituting a social dividend of at least Rs 1000 per month for the 40% poorest families in our country would be a huge step forward toward almost eliminating poverty. GST collection for January alone would almost pay for it [40% of 25 Crore Households in India*1000=10,000 Crore p.m=1.2 lakh Crore per annum. GST collection was 1.15 lakh Crore. It is certainly do-able] ...

A reminder of how high the stakes are, if we really care for others, and love our people: "If India wants to become a $5-trillion economy, it requires a single-minded focus. Too much negative energy is being generated on issues like Kashmir, the CAA-NRC. We are at a 5 per cent growth rate and we have to climb up to 8 per cent if we want to achieve the goal. And these are not just numbers: a 1 per cent increase in economic growth brings 15 lakh jobs, with each job creating three indirect jobs, which each in turn supports five people. So, 1 per cent growth brings happiness to three crore people." https://www.indiancatholicmatters.org/a-catholic-perspective-how-india-can-make-it-to-a-gdp-10-trillion-economy-by-2030/ 3 Crore is the Indian way of saying 30 million people.

[ralfy]

Capitalist systems may be driven by greed (i.e., maximization of profits) but ultimately rely on more consumers who just happen to be laborers in the same system, which means the opposite of maximization of profits due to higher labor costs. The latter may be mitigated by automation, but because robots aren't consumers then the same systems will still be relying on laborers to consume. And if automation leads to increased production, then consumers will have to be relied upon to buy even more, as more profits can't be realized unless there are more sales, and more sales if only there's more consumption. But that means higher labor costs, and if that can't be raised further, more borrowing (e.g., layaway plans and loans to buy houses, cars, appliances, etc.), which banks (also part of the system) need anyway because they can only earn more by lending more.

All these were clearly seen a century ago when people like Ford, who will the help of Taylor and others, developed assembly lines and other innovations. They led to higher production but sales were not high enough because laborers were still paid poorly and thus couldn't afford to buy what they manufactured. So laborers were paid more, given job security, and banks lent them more because of higher pay and security, and that led to higher sales. In short, capitalists increased labor costs, and later automation, in order to increase sales further.

That's why consumer spending started, and then spread to other countries.

With that, a UBI or similar should have a similar effect, as the money received from such will be spent on goods and services sold by the same businesses. And the sacrifices will be small because the gap between rich and poor has been growing for the past 200 years, to the point that the 2,000 richest people in the world have more wealth than over 4.6 billion. And the wealth of the richest can grow up by 30 pct per annum simply through financial speculation.

What's the catch? All of the wealth talked about so far involves literally numbers in hard drives. The actual wealth of the world, i.e., material resources and energy, are still dependent on a biosphere that's physical and limited. The system described above requires not only continuous but increasing growth.

So, what happens when, as U.S. professional wrestlers used to put it, an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

[Innocent Smith]

Capitalist systems may be driven by greed (i.e., maximization of profits) but ultimately rely on more consumers who just happen to be laborers in the same system, which means the opposite of maximization of profits due to higher labor costs. The latter may be mitigated by automation, but because robots aren't consumers then the same systems will still be relying on laborers to consume. And if automation leads to increased production, then consumers will have to be relied upon to buy even more, as more profits can't be realized unless there are more sales, and more sales if only there's more consumption. But that means higher labor costs, and if that can't be raised further, more borrowing (e.g., layaway plans and loans to buy houses, cars, appliances, etc.), which banks (also part of the system) need anyway because they can only earn more by lending more.

All these were clearly seen a century ago when people like Ford, who will the help of Taylor and others, developed assembly lines and other innovations. They led to higher production but sales were not high enough because laborers were still paid poorly and thus couldn't afford to buy what they manufactured. So laborers were paid more, given job security, and banks lent them more because of higher pay and security, and that led to higher sales. In short, capitalists increased labor costs, and later automation, in order to increase sales further.

That's why consumer spending started, and then spread to other countries.

With that, a UBI or similar should have a similar effect, as the money received from such will be spent on goods and services sold by the same businesses. And the sacrifices will be small because the gap between rich and poor has been growing for the past 200 years, to the point that the 2,000 richest people in the world have more wealth than over 4.6 billion. And the wealth of the richest can grow up by 30 pct per annum simply through financial speculation.

What's the catch? All of the wealth talked about so far involves literally numbers in hard drives. The actual wealth of the world, i.e., material resources and energy, are still dependent on a biosphere that's physical and limited. The system described above requires not only continuous but increasing growth.

So, what happens when, as U.S. professional wrestlers used to put it, an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

To put it in an even simpler way consider food and how it is sold and portions at restaurants and fast food joints.  When I started my job at a McDonalds in 1977 a small, what they term regular size, coke was 12 oz.  Then the medium became a regularl while I was still there I believe.  Within 5 years of my start date a regular Coke was 22 oz. maybe even 24 oz. Same thing happened with fries and sandwiches and their numbered meals. 

Why?  Because they have to feed people more in order to keep up with growth.  Even a great business that generates tons of cash like McDonalds can't stay afloat without giving people the means to become obese. 

The whole setup is sick. 

[james03]

With regards to India, it will have massive problems as long as it is trapped in the fatalist demon worship of hindoo-ism.  No redistribution scheme can help it.  Conversion to the One True Church of Christ is the only thing that will save it.  The fruits will be honesty and charity.  Same can be said of countries trapped in the devil worship of the moslem.

[james03]

On MMT and The People's Dividend, if you follow their reasoning, then during a down market like COVID, the government has to dip in people's bank accounts and remove money.  If it doesn't, then MMT is arbitrary.  Furthermore you have to explain to me why some drug addict fat sow of 4 kids from 6 dads should be getting my money.

[james03]

On UBI, IF you canceled all welfare and medicaid, and fired all the government workers caught up in that scheme, and everyone got the same amount, I would prefer that over the present system.  However, it is still marxist, based on "to each according to his need".  You also have to establish how government has the authority to point guns at people, rob them of their things, and give to others.  Redistribution is theft.  But, per intellectual honesty, I agree that UBI for everyone is preferable to welfare schemes.  Only problem is that the producers will ask for higher wages and you'll be back to where we are.

[james03]

The solution is based on the Iron Law: In order to consume, you must first produce; which comes from ontology.

If we look at two improvements that Trump did, deregulation and a tariff on China, we see the result.  Unemployment dropped to effectively zero, and the group that saw the largest percent increase in wages was the bottom 20%.  If you want to bring the economy more in balance with regards to wealth distribution (and it is severely out of balance), then you would do the following:
1.  A flat import duty.
2.  Slash Federal regulations and leave it up to the States.
3.  Eliminate corporate taxes and pay for it via increased tariffs.
4.  Balance the U.S. Federal budget.
5.  Eliminate the Fed and replace it with the Greenback which grows at a statutory permanent rate of 1%.
6.  Outlaw usury.  You will find that most billionaires made their money from usury.  Note stock buy backs paid for by corporate debt is usury.
7.  Eliminate Social Security and replace it with a Chilean plan whereby people become owners of capital.
8.  Reform the labor unions so that labor unions become honest and more wide spread.
9.  Eliminate all taxes except a sales tax and the import duty.
10.  Eliminate all Federal welfare schemes and leave relief of the poor to the Church.

This is all an interesting discussion, but the US and Europe will explode in my lifetime.  I predicted a $30 Trillion Fed debt by 2024 on my podcast with the assumption Trump would win.  We will be at $30 Trillion this year.  I predicted gasoline will be back to $4/gal during Biden's first term.  It is fast approaching $3/gal already.  There is no fixing what is coming.  Leftism always fails because it is a violation of the Iron Law.

[james03]

Globalism failed because of wage disparities.  The slaving country wins out.  I went over this on my podcast on free trade.  Wealth is created by capital formation and capital accumulation.  An excavator operator is worth more when he uses an excavator to dig a trench vs. using a pick and shovel.

So with Globalism, the slaving country (China) accumulates all of the capital and the consumer country accumulates debt held by China.  China then purchases the most choice real estate in the consumer country (see California and Vancouver), the choice farm land, and whatever remaining factories in the consumer country.  The slaving country also uses its wealth to buy out the government in the consumer country.  Over time, the citizens of the consuming country become slave workers for China.

[ralfy]

To put it in an even simpler way consider food and how it is sold and portions at restaurants and fast food joints.  When I started my job at a McDonalds in 1977 a small, what they term regular size, coke was 12 oz.  Then the medium became a regularl while I was still there I believe.  Within 5 years of my start date a regular Coke was 22 oz. maybe even 24 oz. Same thing happened with fries and sandwiches and their numbered meals. 

Why?  Because they have to feed people more in order to keep up with growth.  Even a great business that generates tons of cash like McDonalds can't stay afloat without giving people the means to become obese. 

The whole setup is sick.

Check out the book McDonaldization of Society. It explains that fast food joints make a lot of money, and much more than people realize. That's because they create the illusion of value while giving the opposite.

For example, french fries have a markup of around 200 pct, and soda around 800 pct. That's because all sorts of fillers and other things are added, and sodas made available with the carbonated water separate from the other ingredients. Purchased in bulk, they can be had for a fraction of the price.

The same goes for many other businesses, from jeans and sports shoes to tours to even sports entertainment like basketball: the actual value of the good or service purchased is many times higher than its actual worth.

For example, it's not surprising if sports shoes are marked up by around 400 pct. That is, around a fourth of the price goes to making the pair (with a few cents given to laborers), the second fourth to research (to make shoes with "new" and "improved" features so that buyers will buy another pair even if they don't need to do so), and half to marketing. The same can be seen in many other things, from Hollywood movies to smart phones.

[ralfy]

Globalism failed because of wage disparities.  The slaving country wins out.  I went over this on my podcast on free trade.  Wealth is created by capital formation and capital accumulation.  An excavator operator is worth more when he uses an excavator to dig a trench vs. using a pick and shovel.

So with Globalism, the slaving country (China) accumulates all of the capital and the consumer country accumulates debt held by China.  China then purchases the most choice real estate in the consumer country (see California and Vancouver), the choice farm land, and whatever remaining factories in the consumer country.  The slaving country also uses its wealth to buy out the government in the consumer country.  Over time, the citizens of the consuming country become slave workers for China.

It's more like the U.S. being the manufacturing center of the world (before that, many were working in farms, and then moved to cities to work in factories), and as its wages go up its businesses start outsourcing to other countries, starting with Mexico and others to China, and more from factories now move to service industries. And what happened to the U.S. will also happen to other countries, which is why according to one source 60 pct of manufacturing in China might now involve assembly of components outsourced to other countries, and more Chinese workers now want to work in service industries than in factories (before that, they came from farms). In time, those countries will experience the same.