The PBS article gives the basis of the dividend as natural resources, which doesn't address automation.
The CFR proposal is for unelected central banks to make decisions as to which portions of the population are due dividends from assets owned by the central banks. OK, so I'll admit that it is theoretically possible for the central banks to end up owning everything as everything becomes automated -- perhaps even one world-wide central bank owning the entire planet's assets. In that situation a more rational "tax" base (dividends from a fully automated economy) is acquired at the expense of even the paltry representation of porkbarrel special interest public sector rent seeking. On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:38 AM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:20 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Martin Luther King, Jr. recommended Henry George's citizen's dividend. >> But that's the last thing he ever did. They killed him and I believe it >> was because of that recommendation as it would have eliminated the need for >> the welfare bureaucracy and would have replaced the entire civil rights >> paradigm founded on "protected groups" with a completely neutral "general >> welfare". >> >> The American Enterprise Institute scholar and prominent libertarian >> theoretician Charles Murray pretty much recommended the same thing recently >> in his book "In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State". He was >> roundly ignored by MLK's supposed supporters, libertarians and >> conservatives. >> >> The interests arrayed against this on all sides of the political divides >> are enormous: Basically, anyone that uses the word "populist" with a sneer. >> >> >> > The situation is improving. There are an increasing number of voices with > diverse political leanings, albeit still in the minority, who express > support for some sort of a universal "unearned" basic income. > > > Why you have the right to a $5K dividend from Uncle Sam > > http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/right-5k-dividend-uncle-sam/ > > <<Need-based benefits necessarily divide society into two camps, > higher-income payers and lower-income receivers. The former resent that > money is taken from them, while the latter resent being viewed as welfare > recipients. No one is happy with the arrangement. > Dividends from common wealth, by contrast, unite society by putting all > its members in the same boat. The income everyone receives is a right, not > a handout. This changes the story, the psychology and the politics.>> > > > > Even the Council on Foreign Relations Is Saying It: Time to Rain Money on > Main Street > > > http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25932-even-the-council-on-foreign-relations-is-saying-it-time-to-rain-money-on-main-street > > > <<The September/October issue of Foreign Affairs features an article by > Mark Blyth and Eric Lonergan titled “Print Less But Transfer More: Why > Central Banks Should Give Money Directly To The People.” It’s the sort of > thing normally heard only from money reformers and Social Credit > enthusiasts far from the mainstream. What’s going on?>> > > Harry > >
