There's a meme in them thar economic hills, and it's a doozian, this "Keynsian"
economic blinker:
Unlimited growth.
The foundation of "unlimited economic growth" is of course a bone thrown to the
usurists, and when they're in control, they need the odd bone to chew on or
they get fearful they might be exposed to the masses.
And so unfortunately we get odd conjunctions such as "While the idea of a UBI
sounds good in theory, as discussed previously, they fail to work in reality
... UBI Won’t Increase Economic Growth"...
.. which is of course founded on the false "need" for eternal economic growth
in the first place.
See here:
Universal Basic Income Is Not An Economic Savior
https://realinvestmentadvice.com/macroview-universal-basic-income-is-not-an-economic-savior/
https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/universal-basic-income-not-economic-savior
At the individual, the folly is seen easily e.g. if I eat 3 meals a day this
year, I am unlikely to eat 6 meals a day next year "to help the economy
increase food consumption/ economic growth in the food industry".
Yes I might eat out more often if my disposable income is presently low and
rises sufficiently next year, but it's a bit of a specious argument, an attempt
to put lipstick on a pig, as I can only eat so much food on a daily basis
before I get sick, and whilst eating more expensive might mean "healthier"
within some limited bound, arbitrarily paying say 10 times the amount for the
same meal is not economic growth of the food industry - it is actually
"financialisation".
In the endless search for the usurious pig's lipstick, financialisation has
been the "go to" color, deceiving most with its "economic growth", in fact just
a fraud of the first order, successfully masking over 100 years of currency
debasement we slave under, to the benefit of extremely few.
Which is fundamentally a natural if ridiculous result of a povvo minset i.e.
"poverty consciousness".
The fact is today that literally one single farmer in Australia, with the right
equipment and 100,000 hectares of broad acre, can feed Australia its entire
wheat needs (think large machinery, GPS and autonomous tractors).
So we live today in phenomenal abundance which is literally off the charts
amazing.
And the obvious question is "well what is everybody else going to do then?" and
the obvious "poverty consciousness" answer is "continue to slave to the
bankers, doing Soul crushing paper pushing".
So may be we need a new model .. one where we acknowledge our abundance, write
off most debts, and yes hand out a UBI:
- Some people will hoard like crazy little crack rats rubbing their paws
together, because that's just how they're wired.
- Others will "like, chill dude" and waste their lives away - and so be it,
it's ultimately up to the individual to improve his.elf or not, and to a lesser
degree up to his family to kick his butt. The lazy-arsed "survival" of the
fattest.
- And yet others of course will create Star Trek space ships - it's just how
we're wired.
Wisdom lies in cognising reality, our abundance if we don't destroy it all, and
perhaps some genuine education for humans who want it, and importantly leaving
them with their free will (shocking concept, I know…).
Sit back and let folks "be" already — we live with sufficient food for all, the
rest of life is a bonus.
And the UBI conclusion?
Another folly with standard ("modern", Keynsian) economic analysis is seen in
the statement (from the above article) "In 2019, 75% of all expenditures went
to social welfare and interest on the debt. Those payments required $3.3
Trillion of the $3.5 Trillion (or 95%) of the total revenue collected":
- "social welfare" may as well be an alias for UBI, so ignore that part
- and this fearful "interest payment on debt, and issuing of more debt" is a
furphy, simply a product of the illegal Federal Reserve banking system as many
well know
The point being, if you want to analyse the possible success of a UBI future,
saddling this future with "it must solve the known mathematical problem
inherent in the present albitrary and illegal system", may result in failure
before you even start.
Now, it probably won't result in failure, and the re-balancing inherent with
the addition of UBI, will likely at some point present to us all the
inescapable question "how much graft in the form of interest" ought the bankers
really make? And like unto it, "should we end the Fed?"
Yes of course we should end the Fed, but Monty and sons may not appreciate
that, and so we face "how to transition?" - at least a cold war against China
is less life ending than a hot war against our Russian brothers, so there's
that...
In the end yes, UBI may certainly look like "long term GDP reduces", but a big
part of that is actually de-financialisation as the wealth gap starts to
normalise a bit, especially if it's done properly and most new money is
injected at the bottom, rather than the majority being injected at the top.
And de-financialisation is hard to see or even acknowledge because "Keynsian
justification of usurious banking" actually requires "financialisation,
pretending to be economic growth" to hide the Fed's theft, sorry I mean to hide
the Fed's wealth transfer for as long as possible (until the system breaks)...
UBI in any form helps stabilise the system of financialisation.
So may be, I dunno, may be we could try a Corona bonus for a while?
Unlike the "problematic when in isolation" Nordic UBI experiment, this Corona
bonus is hopefully sufficiently broad-spectrum (including of most people in our
community) so they can do the numbers and thereby determine how to
de-financialize whilst maintaining overall stability.
Being an inherent conservative ("hey, I'm not 14 years old any more!"), this
"transition stability" is something to be grateful for...
