Andrew Yang's Basic Unconditional Income

Good evening
Regarding unconditional income at $ 1,000 monthly, for every American (from birth to grave) proposed by Andrew Yang candidate for the 2020 Democratic primary
What is your position?
Thank you
Have a good evening

Hi, I like your energy here on the forum! :slight_smile: But please scope your posts a bit with a topic. If they’re too generic it might become a mix of subjects, where each is probably worth a topic of its own. What exactly would you like to discuss in this topic and how would you like to relate it to TZM? There are already several basic income posts here on the forum you could continue.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

This may be obvious in the physical world but not at all when abstract ideas or projects are being discussed.

This is a systems analytical perspective.
A distinction needs to be made between big issues and core issues.

Core issues are causal to symptomatic big issues …
Anyone interested in this train of thought? It has far reaching consequences…

One core issue had been ignored and closed here

Hi @janosabel, welcome to the forum! I’ve read your topic twice, but I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here or what you would like to discuss. Your topic title also doesn’t really help. Can you maybe edit and improve your initial post and guide the readers a bit more? It’s a bit of a guessing game now. If you want to learn more about the TZM train of thought then you can read more about it on this forum.

The topic that was closed was done automatically because the topic didn’t get a reply for 90 days. That automatic rule has been set now to 1 year in Lounge.

Tank you Kees, for giving me the chance to clarify my train of thought.

I will certainly go to the link you suggest and and read what is appropriate by the category “TZM train of thought”.

On reflection, I probably have taken the phrase too literally ignoring that it is a TZM train of thought.
But for just now allow me to meet the problem of obscurity head on:
Referring to the topic of Yang’s Basic Income proposal, it was a kind of shock that the community here sees it irrelevant to the achievement of Resource Based Economy as the basis of a future global civilisation.

I have been “following” the Movement for decades with a period of active participation in London in the 1990s.

It was just me who replied :wink: that doesn’t account for the whole movement :slight_smile:

Can you explain how it could bring us towards an RBE?

TZM didn’t exist in the 90s :wink:

Ok I may be confused about the decades (since donkeys years then(:- ). I got into TZM after watching a long video about the christianity story being a copy of ancient Eastern cosmologies.

UBI is a step change in social evolution because it can brake the pattern that had dominated human society since the advent of settled “civilisation”; that is, a ruling minority economically exploiting the ruled surplus-creating majority.

The scientific/industrial revolutions enabled society to create all wealth without relegating human beings to be mere factors of production.
Unconditional Basic Income frees every individual from economic bondage.
Thus an economically free majority will form the grass-roots creativity from which RBE and a new global civilisation will emerge.

Without UBI the majority of humankind remains locked into millennia old wage slavery.

Granted, UBI will not do everything but will make all problems easier to overcome. So it is a first-thing-first issue.

Got it! I personally think it will not solve much. Sure, it will briefly make life better. But as we’ve seen before, if people have more purchasing power, they buy more things. And if people buy more things it could raise the prices.

That may result in more resource depletion, waste and inflation. The UBI then always needs to adjust for that inflation. Meanwhile nothing has changed on a structural level. I don’t think we have the luxury of time to consider UBI. Also, when the next economic crisis hits, UBI is the first thing to get cancelled. And then the problems are worse.

What we could do however, is lower the cost of living by providing free solar panels, connected to a local grid and batteries. Basically making energy for free. Introducing an open access economy by providing cheap transportation on demand. Setup vertical farms for cheaper and healthier food. If the money for this is gone, the infrastructure is still there, people can still benefit. This will lower the cost of living and actually provide a path towards an RBE.

UBI is just a patch that doesn’t solve anything. But that’s my opinion of course :nerd_face:

1 Like

I agree, Kees. UBI would be like saying the solution to the monetary system is to print more money.

1 Like

I don’t think UBI should be used as an alternative or stepping stone as it puts price tags on people and makes people a cost. Also, who will pay for the UBI?

I think that access to resources based on the amount effort (avg. hours per day) you put in the system compared to the average might be feasible as a stepping stone, and it should count for everyone, politicians and rich people alike. I have difficulty seeing people working without incentive, maybe someone can enlighten me :slight_smile:.

Also, as we’re currently living in a “capitalist” society, how would we pay our way out of it? I mean, if we need a plot of land, it isn’t free, let alone construction, solar panels, etc. Etc.

1 Like

Indeed, that’s why I would rather support a Universal Basic Need Infrastructure :nerd_face: It provides more jobs, lowers the cost of living and makes us less dependent on monopoly companies, since this infrastructure provides our needs in a decentral and localized way. Making it cheaper, more efficient and less wasteful. In the end it may become so efficient, a pricetag becomes redundant. That’s the ultimate outcome.

Seems like we have 2 threads where we discuss UBI :slight_smile:

This just got in:

It’s in Dutch, but freel free to use a translation service. In a nutshell it’s about that nl needs to cut back costs. STAP and free childcare are being removed. STAP was a program where people could signup for a course and get a 1000 euro discount. Those programs are the first to leave now things start to look bleek. If this was the UBI, things would be worse. Because people may have rented/bought a place with the expectation of having that extra 1000 euro.

While if we used that money to install solar panels with local energy storage, that benefit would continue to benefit society. It would continue to make life cheaper and will pay itself back.

Sorry about all this.

Most importantly I said that I will be away for a few days but hope to resume the conversation about the significance of UBI strategy or lack of it in attaining a RBE society.

1 Like

Also take the urgency into account. We need to shift our economy towards a more sustainable one this decade if we want to limit the worst of climate change. UBI might’ve been great in the 90s, but now we need structural changes that promote sustainability. As a benefit they could make life more affordable. Thus it somewhat still is creating financial relief for those in need.

1 Like

Hello Kees,
As I said last time, I would like to continue our exchange about UBI’s relevance or lack of it.

…shift our economy towards a more sustainable one…
In this context UBI, since it supports only basic needs, it functions as a reward for, and enticement to, shifting to simple personal life styles.
It reduces demand for spurious employment just to secure cover even basic needs.

As to achieving structural change, the majority of people, now locked into wage slavery, would be freed to add to the pressure for those changes (this is one meaning of the socks first metaphor). Without such grass roots pressure, advocates of a RBE society will, I think, be a minority voice.

Does it? You get extra money, that doesn’t mean it will be used for basic needs. Most people in nl don’t need a UBI. And if they get 1000 euro extra per month (which is a number often used in experiments), then most will buy new gadgets, go on holiday or remodel their house.

During the pandemic we already got a small taste of that. People couldn’t spend their money in restaurants and bars anymore. Also holidays were mostly not possible. People were buying tons of stuff with the money they were saving. Which as a result caused inflation of goods because people could ask crazy prices, people will buy that stuff anyway. I suppose this will be the same in most developed countries.

So are we really in need of more consumption, waste, pollution and inflation? If the goal is covering basic needs, then my idea of a universal basic need infrastructure is the way forward. It lowers financial burdens and accelerates the transition to renewable energy and other sustainable infrastructure.

What would be the reason for change? Most people would be very comfortable getting 1000 euro extra per month and just play with their new gadgets and go on nice holidays. We need a value shift. That is not going to happen by giving people more money. If that was the case, then the wealthy people would be leading this transition. That doesn’t seem to be the case, check the topic title :nerd_face:

I think it’s a bit of wishful thinking. If the goal is a transition towards an RBE and help people financially, then let’s talk about subsidies for solar panels and store the energy in local power grids. Then the next step are vertical farms, next one maybe 3D printer centers and free research centers, etc.

Not quite sure how to proceed here. we obviously have differing perspectives.
I don’t know about nl but in Britain and America the proposed UBI is about getting people off the poverty line (half of Americans have no saving to meet minor emergencies).
I have time and energy to be active here because my basic state pension. Without that most of my concerns would revolve around making ends meet.

Universal basic income is part of the whole systems reform that TZM/VP/RBE implies, as I see things. This is what I had in mind in saying before Without such grass roots pressure, advocates of a RBE society will, I think, be a minority voice.

By the way, as a matter of information, do you share the view that part of the breakthrough is a money/exchange-less distribution system?

That’s also addressed with a universal basic need infrastructure, like I mentioned; free solar panels and neighborhood energy storage. Considering the energy prices of today, that could save hundreds of euros per month for people. Just handing out money to people won’t make them activists in my opinion, like I mentioned, then rich people would be activists. We need a value change. For that a different environment would help, one that’s more sustainable.

If we can transition towards something like that because it’s technically possible, then of course! But basic income isn’t that. You can basically see it as “quantitative easing”, it promotes consumption to boost the economy. More GDP means more pollution, greenhouse gases and waste. If we want to transition towards a sustainable economy, then we need to focus on just that.

But indeed, that’s just my view on it. I personally really don’t see UBI solve anything. It’s just a way to keep things as they are for a bit longer, delaying real and pressing solutions.

1 Like