I recently watched Zeitgeist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist_%28film_series%29#Synopsis_2 At least for the documentary's first half offers a very good and accessible indictment of the global monetary system and capitalism (as its practiced).
-------- Original Message -------- From: Zenaan Harkness <[email protected]> Apparently from: [email protected] To: Jim <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Would you work if you didn’t have to? Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:33:40 +0000 > Hi Jim, I remember suggesting this to M about 5 or 6 years ago. I have > not looked into the economics of it (i.e. how Australia's national > budget could make it work) and so it was heartwarming, or at least > very interesting to me, to read the article you forwarded which had a > few (small) examples in the last century where this has been trialed - > and that in at least one example, inflation went down, not up, quite > contrary to "normal economist" expectations! > > Very, very interesting. What this tells us, is that "the abundance > community" (or rather nation), can indeed work - and with robotics and > automation being spearheaded heavily this year by Japan we may well > need such a new economic model for nations in general. The fact that > it has been shown it works in at least a couple examples, is generally > great news of course. > > I experience in the "free software"/"libre computing" community - > Debian GNU/Linux, RedHat/Fedora and more, and from me-as-programmer > experience, it is a world of abundance - hackers (the good ones - i.e. > those who do stuff to benefit the community) essentially have an > abundance of the raw material or tools of trade - i.e. all you need is > a computer and away you go, you can write whatever program you think > people might enjoy using - since electricity to run your computer is > close to free - add a few solar cells and it is free. > > So in truth all the "information worker" needs to manifest their > creativity (besides their computer) is food and shelter - same for > musicians and certain other creative artists etc. > > And since the marginal cost (incremental cost) of duplicating a > (digital) song, or computer program, is very close to zero dollars > (just download it for a tiny bit of electricity expense), then when I > give my computer program to society as free/libre software, I am > causing an exponential benefit to society, since as many people as > have computers, can benefit from my creation. > > This is an "abundance economy" in action, and although I don't get > wealth in this situation where I give my computer program away, I get > credos/ ego satisfaction, recognition, esteem from my peers and or the > users of my program, and potentially a job doing something I really > enjoy (supporting users who benefit financially from my program, who > are willing to pay for some support, training, and or enhancements to > my computer program - this will normally just be the companies that > use my program - but RedHat demonstrates that it's possible to build a > billion-dollar company just supporting free software which is pretty > cool). > > As long as I can do a bit of travel, have food in my belly and a warm > couple of rooms to live in, I'm basically content and happy with life, > since it is my nature to be creative (with computers) and to give away > my creations. > > Regards, > Z > > > On 9/18/15, Jim <[email protected]> wrote: > > The idea of universal basic income will likely become a human rights issue > > implemented by many countries due to rising under employment and > > unemployment, caused by increased technology automation reducing the demand > > for many jobs requiring menial or repetitive labour. > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > Would you work if you didn’t have to? > > > > news.com.au > > Frank Chung > > September 17, 2015 > > > > > > IF YOU were paid $30,000 by the government every year without having to lift > > a finger, would you still try to find work? > > And if you did, would you settle for a menial job cleaning toilets, or would > > you demand something more glamorous? > > > > > > More importantly, if in the next, say, 20 years, those toilets are being > > cleaned by robots, shouldn’t those now out-of-work toilet cleaners have a > > right to that $30,000? > > > > These are the questions at the heart of the debate over unconditional basic > > income — an unconventional policy idea which argues every person should be > > paid a standard amount, regardless of whether they are working or not. > > > > Like the dole, it’s meant to make sure every person in society can meet > > basic living standards. But it differs, in that there is no work requirement > > or means test — meaning you could have a job and pocket the $30,000 cash on > > top of your wage, or not work at all and live off the $30,000 alone. > > > > Some conservatives like the idea because it would theoretically streamline > > and simplify complex systems of social security payments and subsidies, > > cutting down administrative costs. > > > > It’s already being trialled in the Netherlands with 300 residents of the > > town of Utrecht among a number of Dutch pilot sites, while the Indian > > government has also embraced the idea, and previous small-scale experiments > > have been hailed as great successes. > > > > A new lobby group has formed in the US, Basic Income Action, to coincide > > with the eighth International Basic Income Week, and the campaign to give > > every human being a basic minimum wage, no questions asked, appears to be > > picking up steam. > > > > The group, taking a cue from recent similar campaigns around gay marriage > > and marijuana legalisation, has launched a petition calling on US > > presidential candidates to support basic income. > > > > “Basic income is a remarkably powerful and timely idea, and Basic Income > > Action will be a great resource for longtime activists and people who are > > learning about this for the first time,” said Steven Shafarman, author of > > the upcoming book The Basic Income Imperative. > > > > It’s not a new idea, but with rising under- and unemployment, increasing > > cost of living and low to negative real wage growth — not to mention the > > growing automation of menial jobs — basic income has become a popular cause > > of the Left. > > > > Canadian author Naomi Klein recently released a manifesto which, along with > > universal childcare and an end to international trade deals, called for a > > universal basic income. > > > > Next year, Switzerland will hold a referendum on the issue after a petition > > gained more than 100,000 signatures, although the government has come out > > against the idea, urging its citizens to vote ‘no’. > > > > It’s an idea which appeals to both sides of the political spectrum. > > > > Classic liberal economists including Milton Friedman supported the idea in > > the form of a ‘reverse tax’, or a threshold under which, rather than the > > government taking your money, it pays you. > > > > Progressives, who often throw around terms like ‘wage slavery’ when > > discussing universal income, see it as a way of expanding the social safety > > net and elevating the human condition above the drudgery of performing > > soul-crushing jobs just to survive. > > > > The key question is whether people can be trusted not to sit around doing > > nothing. Conservatives naturally assume the worst of people, while > > progressives hope for the best. > > > > Arguments against the idea are generally that one, we can’t possibly afford > > it; and two, it would dampen labour market participation by removing > > incentive to work, putting greater tax pressure on those who do. > > > > A study conducted 40 years ago in the tiny Canadian farming town of Dauphin, > > Manitoba, found the payments actually had a “social multiplier effect”, and > > despite the fears of a dip in labour, people still had the incentive to work > > more hours rather than less. > > > > One big danger in implementing such a system, however, would be pressure > > from the welfare lobby to apply different loadings for various interest > > groups, undermining the generic distribution. > > > > Mikayla Novak, senior research fellow with free-market think-tank the > > Institute of Public Affairs, wrote in 2013 that while basic income was a > > seductive idea for people of “varied philosophical persuasions”, it could > > “risk ending up as another initiative in which good intentions do not align > > with desirable results”. > > > > Another common criticism of basic income is that it would lead to inflation > > — if everyone has more money, everything would cost more. > > > > Writing in Medium, basic income advocate Scott Santens provides two > > real-world examples where that proved not to be the case: Alaska in 1982, > > and Kuwait in 2011. In both cases, inflation actually decreased after the > > government introduced a partial basic income to citizens. > > > > Supporters argue that in general, since the income is provided by the > > government through existing, not printed money, the inflationary effects > > should be minimal. > > > > He told Motherboard the momentum which was lost in the 1970s was coming back > > and, due to advances in technology, was “here to stay”. > > > > “Step one to all of this is growing the conversation for basic income to a > > critical mass and connecting the people who believe it needs to happen,” he > > said. “And that’s what BIA is for, to grow and connect, and to win.” > > > > http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/would-you-work-if-you-didnt-have-to/story-fnu2pycd-1227531288369 > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >
