TZM survey

1. Are you 18-years of age or older? (If no, end of interview)
Yes.

2. What drew you to The Zeitgeist Movement?

Sorry for the length of this answer but I feel this to be important.
I was drawn to the Zeitgeist Movement because I was going through a period in my life for about 2 years (2009/2010) where I was constantly watching lectures, interviews and listening to Podcasts on the topic of the 'Technological Singularity'. I had become excited and obsessed about the Singularity. But after learning a great deal about it, I began to realize that no one who talked about the Technological Singularity seemed to address the problem of economic inequality. Those who talked about the Singularity told of a time in the near future when technology would become so advanced that humans would be able to do unimaginable things such as augmenting our intelligence with computers, extending the lifespan of the individual, and even uploading consciousness into machines and living in virtual reality. These things were extremely exciting to me and clearly give humans godlike powers. But I began to realize that in the current system, these technologies would more than likely only be available to the wealthy. I also noticed that the vast majority of people who talked about these things were wealthy themselves and of privilege (either the so called "silicon valley tech-entrepreneurs or researchers at universities like Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc...) Therefore it seemed that these people were biased by their privilege to NOT see this issue of inequality as an dangerous problem. Therefore they were blinded to the concern that the Godlike powers of coming technological advancements would more than likely only widen the gap between the rich and the poor to such a degree that it could be almost as if humanity would separate into two species. Those who could afford the new enhancements and everyone else. I would definitely fall into the second class. This is what drew me to the Zeitgeist Movement:
The Zeitgeist Movement was the first group that I had heard which addressed both issues, the rapid technological progress on the horizon AND the need for every human on Earth to share in the benefits of this progress. That economic inequality MUST be dealt with, especially due to the exponential growth of technology.

3. How did you originally hear or become aware of TZM?

I was first told by a friend of mine in 2009 that I HAD TO watch this movie 'Zeitgeist' and that it would blow my mind. Several months later I ended up watching it and though it was pretty scary. It didn't really mean a lot to me at the time because I had heard conspiracy theories before and it seemed to offer no solution. But in 2011 or so I happened to see a TED Talk titled "Robots Will Steal Your Job, But That's OK" by Federico Pistono. During the talk Federico mentioned that he was part of the Zeitgeist Movement. He talked about how the need for people to work was becoming obsolete due to computers and automation. He also talked about how EVERYONE on the planet should be taken care of. He said "The goal of the future should be full unemployment, so we can play". This seemed so important and radical that I instantly knew I MUST do everything I can to learn about this Zeitgeist Movement!

4. How long have you been a member of TZM?

I contacted and joined directly after seeing the "Robots Will Steal Your Job But That's OK" TED Talk in 2011 or 2012.

5. What are the key concepts of TZM?

SOME of the key concepts of The Zeitgeist Movement are:
(a) There is now possible through the use of science and technology the ability to take care of every human on the planet at a high standard of living without the need for money, jobs, barter or trade.
(b) Thing which are usually called corruption, greed and even 'conspiracy' are actually the unfolding of our economic system. This system (money) mandates things like inequality, competition and scarcity. These are inherent components to the money system rather than isolated flaws.
(c) It is not 'human nature' to be greedy, competitive, aggressive or violent. It is rather our nature to adjust to our environment. In our case, this means the 'social' environment. Since we live in an economic system which demands us to be competitive, aggressive, etc... than these are the behaviors which we see. They are not fixed behaviors and if we can create a system which promotes other traits like collaboration, intelligence, compassion, etc.. than these are the behaviors which we will see.
(d) Our money system, government and the "labor for income" have become obsolete and are now creating environmental destruction, violence and a social-health crisis.
(e) We must transition from our current monetary system to a "Resource Based Economy" in which all of the worlds resources are declared the property of every human on the planet. Decisions are to be made using the scientific method rather than by markets or opinions.

6. Why do you think social awareness groups are becoming more prevalent?

I think that the availability of information due to things like the internet is having a major effect. I also think that the common person is feeling more free to think for themselves and break away from the grip of tradition. I also think that people are becoming disillusioned with old institutions or ideologies such as 'the work ethic', patriotism, religion, capitalism, 'respect for authority' and many other limiting social norms.

7. What, to you, are the most important issues being addressed by TZM?

I think the most important issues addressed by TZM are Economic inequality and the nature of money. I also think it is important that TZM takes a root-cause and structural view as to the problems in our world instead of dealing with only symptoms or seeing problems as only 'corruption' as most other political/economic groups tend to. The word 'radical' means literally 'to go to the root'.

8. Do these issues contrast issues in your local culture or region?

Not sure I understand the question but....
Locally, as in most, if not all of American cities, people tend to be fully indoctrinated into the capitalist way of thinking, not to mention fully controlled by consumerism. In a way, this belief in money and work is a powerful religion in itself. I see this belief everywhere in my local community, although it is probably no worse here than anywhere else in the USA. Even those in my community who think of themselves as extremely progressive, some of them being activists, do not question this issue of inequality of money, but rather the look to symptoms and minor surface reforms. This is what I notice locally.

9. Is there one deep-rooted issue that all other issues stem from?

I would have to say it would be the money system and the artificial-scarcity it creates and uses to perpetuate itself. Although there may be some deeper issue going on in the way people think which causes them to reject new ideas or fall prey to 'group-think'.

10. Are the issues in question systematic or random in your opinion?

Definitely systemic.

11. What are the goals or hopes of accomplishments, according to you, of TZM?

The main goal of TZM is to change the "zeitgeist", or the dominant value system of our culture. Currently people believe that money is real, there is not enough to go around, people are naturally competitive, you must work in order to earn your right to live, etc.... This is the current "zeitgeist", as this is the dominant belief system of capitalism, competition and scarcity. Therefore TZM seeks to change this dominant belief system to that of abundance, collaboration and the ethics possible in a Resource Based Economy.

12. How does being a member of TZM affect you, or has it?

I think it has effected me because it has given clarity and focus to ideas I have had for much of my life but never seen validated. It has also helped to be a part of a group to know that other people are concerned about the same issues as me, rather than being alone in it.

 13. TZM classifies itself as a “leaderless movement.” How is this possible for building and organizing a global movement?

Murry Bookchin, author of "Post Scarcity Anarchism" talked of the importance of any revolution to have the same form as the world it wishes to create. In this way, I think it is important for TZM to be decentralized and non-hierarchical because the Resource Based Economy will be decentralized and non-hierarchical. Many people have tried to peg Peter Joseph as the leader and get him to "tell us what to do". He has repeatedly rejected this. People have a very hard time in this society realizing that we are all allowed to participate, rather than being spectators, waiting for "them" to change things or do this or that.

14. What are the lessons that can be learned from past movements to improve the end result of TZM?

There is much to be learned from the cultural revolution known as 'the 1960's. Although, under-recognized, I think a large amount of the degree to which people in today's society feel empowered to think for themselves and push against the status quo can be attributed to the movements of the 1960's. One of the main things that TZM can learn from those movements is... people's desire to be part of something that not only contains information and logic but also play. If you think about why people were drawn to the 'hippie' movement - it contained things like dancing, music, art, human-sensuality and exploration of consciousness. These things attracted were included in a life-style that attracted people to other revolutionary political ideas which they may not have been attracted to by themselves. This is also something that Occupy had going for it. It offered a sort of life-style, although temporary, which was effective in inspiring people to rally behind the more dry political ideas behind it. Occupy also was able to accomplish some amazing things in it's short life. One of which was to create a massive decentralized movement which spread across the globe in an incredibly short period of time. Another amazing accomplishment of Occupy was that it was able to inject a simple but important meme into the zeitgeist or dominant intellectual and cultural spirit of the current age. This was "we are the 99%" which signifies the structural wealth inequality built within capitalism. Until that time, this issue of vast wealth inequality had not been addressed by mainstream media or been in any way a household phrase.

15. How does it differ from those of the past?

TZM differs from movements of the past, in that it does not deal with individual symptoms but instead focuses on the root cause. It also empowers individuals to join without the need for them to be approved of by any hierarchical structure. TZM is unique also because it does not seek to gain power as a political party but rather to change the consciousness of all people. It does not dictate what members should or shouldn't do but rather supplies a train-of-thought which they can utilize to the best of their individual talents.

16. Did you watch The Zeitgeist films or Culture in Decline?

I've watched all three films, all episodes of Culture in Decline and I've listened to all 190 podcast episodes. I have also read "The Zeitgeist Movement Defined" and Peter Joseph's new book "The New Human Rights Movement". I also try to catch every lecture and interview as they come online.

17. If so, what did you take away from them?

I have learned about the train-of-thought of the movement. As well as a pretty clear understanding about what it might be like in a resource based economy. I would also add that I've gotten a profound understanding of the phenomenons of structural violence and more importantly the subject of 'human nature'. The movies, books, podcasts and etc. also have led me to read many books by other authors about topics like - anarchism, socialism, capitalism, economic, history, anthropology, technology, politics, science and so on and so forth...

18. Have you attended the annual TZM event?

Due to financial limitations, I have unfortunately been unable to go to any TZM events however in 2014 our chapter participated locally by having our own Zday event. Also, we have monthly TZM meetings here in Tucson.

19. If so, what did you take away from that experience?

At our local Zday event, I learned that I need more practice with public speaking.

20. Can misconceptions between different cultures have an impact on TZM?

Ideally, all cultures must be transcended because they are obsolete. We are one human family. The conclusions that TZM leads to, I feel are universal, addressing the needs that all humans have regardless of their culture. Cultures tend to solidify obsolete traditional beliefs. This is really what holds us back as a species. Hopefully, there is a way to break through this indoctrination. I have seen evidence of it. For example, if you go to the Facebook discussion group called, "Zeitgeist Arabic", you will see thousands of long comments and passionate discussions all written in Arabic by people from various countries. This is very hopeful because modern Arab culture tends to be one of the most change-resistant, tradition-laden ideological landscapes on the planet. The Arab world literally produces less patents, scientific innovation and books translated from other languages than anywhere else. So to see that there are people within that culture that crave progress and change via The Zeitgeist Movement, is extremely hopeful.

21. How would you explain TZM to someone “on the outside,” or unfamiliar with the organization?

How I describe would be dependent on the context but in general I'd say...
TZM is a group that seeks to spread awareness about our need to move away from a monetary system and towards a resource-based-economy. And hopefully this could be the start of a long conversation, if the person was interested to learn more. For example... about what a resource-based-economy is? what's wrong with the monetary system? and etc...

22. How do you feel about this interview?

 I enjoyed answering these questions. They seemed thoughtful and relevant. There were two questions that I thought were a little vague or hard for me to answer personally. #8 and #12 Those two questions could have been a little more specific but on the whole questions were very thought provoking. Doing this survey has also helped me to solidify some of my thinking on these issues and the movement and the train-of-thought.

23. Is there a question or concept you believe I have overlooked or wished I touched upon?

You might have asked "In what ways do you personally participate in the movement?"  Though, as I've already said, I think you're questions were great. Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or ideas.

Some hats

This page has some hats that I like.

https://www.banggood.com/search/hats-men.html

23

23

response to universal basic serfdom take 2

UNIVERSAL BASIC SERFDOM


Posted on 6th November 2016 by Colin R. Turner






https://freeworlder.com/blog/2016/11/06/universal-basic-serfdom/


I would start by asking the question: Does basic income look like 'serfdom' IN COMPARISON to the system we have now, or does it only look like serfdom in comparison to an RBE? This is an important question because it establishes the issue of whether UBI is an improvement from the current situation but just not good enough, or if instead it is a step backwards and thus away from the goal of an RBE.

and there is this one to research:
Universal Basic Income Is a Neoliberal Plot To Make You Poorer

http://www.furtherfield.org/features/articles/universal-basic-income-neoliberal-plot-make-you-poorer

car

                                                                           

goal 1=1,500
completed

or

goal 2=2,000
completed

or

goal 3=50,000
1/20th completed

4.22.17=0.
6.24.17=500.
7.1.17=  575.
8.1.17=  800.
9.1.17=  500.
10.1.17=800.
11.1.17=1100.
12.1.17=2000.
2.1.18=  2500.
3.1.18=  2283.

Quotes from The New Human Rights Movement

I will be going back through Peter Joseph's book "The New Human Rights Movement" and posting quotes from it. It may take some time but I think it is important

."The Single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
-George Bernard Shaw- p. xiii

"Modern poverty is actually not an inevitable byproduct of humans' sharing a planet that is supposedly deficient in resources. Rather, poverty today is a systemic consequence native to our current economic mode. In other words, its existence is artificial and contrived, not natural." p. xix


"Poverty is simply a negative externality of the market economy, just as industrial pollution often is. However, while poverty is certainly an effect of the social system, it can also be separated as a cause. In modern sociological research, poverty is frequently referenced as a starting point, or prediction, that leads to a spectrum of sociological problems. These include premature mortality, violence, social destabilization, epidemic disease, crime, suicide, mental illness, domestic abuse, and many other public-health concerns."  p. xix

Quasi-Basic Income experiment in Finland

This is a good article about the Finland experiment because it shows that it is not a "Universal-Basic-Income" experiment. The only word here that even applies (besides 'Income' is "guaranteed" and even that is not really accurate because it is temporary (2 years). It is not "Universal" because not everyone gets it. It is not "Basic" because it is not enough to cover basic needs. It is designed specifically as an experiment to see if existing unemployment benefits and a few other programs can be replaced. That seems fine but it should not be confused with a Universal Basic Income experiment.

Finland's guaranteed basic income is working to tackle poverty
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-05-06/finlands-guaranteed-basic-income-working-tackle-poverty

I think in a way it is a good step. At the same time it may be a step in the wrong direction if the data collected from this experiment turns out to be in some ways negative and then is incorrectly attached to the Universal Basic Income idea. Here is why I think it may be negative:

In the USA it has long been a stereo-type that people on welfare are 'lazy', depressed and undermotivated to better their lives. This is mainly because welfare is usually such a small amount that people are actually not free to take risks or become inspired to follow their passions. The stereo-type of welfare recipients in the USA is of a couch potatoe in a small apartment or trailer, drinking and eating potatoe chips while watching TV all day or doing drugs. This stereo-type is what many people picture when they hear about the idea of UBI. This stereo-type like most, has some basis in reality. So why then does the welfare system many times cause this problem?

I know from experience what can happen when a person has only a tiny amount to live off of which is only enough to NOT STARVE, but to do nothing beyond that. It causes a kind of depression and hopelessness. Not being able to go out and do things, not being able to buy materials for inspiring projects or to pursue higher things like education or travel... basically, not having options other than eating beans and rice and staying home to save money.... this kind of lifestyle in my opinion is against the concept of basic income and the freedom and innovation that it could make possible for those who are currently inhibited by poverty and inequality.

To me it is ironic because these intellectuals of privilege tend to say over and over that "if you give people enough money to be comfortable then you get rid of their incentive to reach for more". But I think for many people this is the exact opposite of what actually happens. People NEED a certain level of comfort in order to feel the safety and confidence to strive for more. There are always exceptions of the starving person in poverty who used their destitution as a motivation to try EXTRA hard and not let it get them down. But I think these people are the exception rather than the rule, and will inevitably corrupt the data of this quasi-UBI.

I would also want to honestly ask those in positions of privilege who seem to think that 'poverty and struggle gives you incentive'..... the typical entreprenuer type.
Were you actually under constant threat of eviction and flat broke and with little or no food when you started that new business idea? That successful new venture? Or were you in a sort of positions of having the most basic things taken care of from your own savings, or help from well-to-do family and friends? Did you have a car so that you could go mett with people you needed to meet with for your project? Etc...

Once again, there are exceptions, but they are not the rule. The rule is that poverty and not having enough generally makes people depressed and crates a cycle of poverty. I though this was what the Basic Income idea was meant to address and I cannot see how it can do so in reality if it is trying to keep people "hungry" in the name of incentive.

The real solution here would be to use scientific studies to figure out which is it. Is it that struggle keeps people down or that it creates incentive? I know that the OPINION of most wealthy people is the latter, even though most of them have never experienced poverty themselves. But what does behavioral sciences say? Luckily, there is a lot of information on this topic and it points to the fact that people do better when they have their needs met. I would only hope that these experiments could be scientific rather than political and designed based on the findings of science rather than the opinions of the wealthy and intellectual who think this incentive thing.

My Review of Utopia by Thomas More

I found Thomas More's Utopia very interesting for several reasons. Firstly, most of his critiques of England at the time are still relevant today in their criticisms of property, the treatment of the poor and working class, the parasitical nature of the rich and ruling class and the ineffectiveness of using severe punishments as a means to stop crime. This is Illustrated in the two statements that I particularly liked: "no penalty on Earth will stop people from stealing, if its their only way of getting food."
And: "Instead of inflicting these horrible punishments, it would be far more to the point to provide everyone with some means of livelihood, so that nobody's under the frightful necessity of becoming first a thief and then a corpse."
The book is written in a style where More is having a conversation with a fictional character who is telling him about the political, economic and social system of the fictional land 'Utopia'. To me, this seems like a sort of loophole in which More was able to question his real life England and somehow get away with it (although maybe that didn't actually work, since he was later hanged for his ideas) I think it was also as a way perhaps for him to speak more from his conscience which probably contradicted his religious beliefs and actions.
While some of his ideas about the social system in Utopia seem like they might be progress even for our time, most of them are actually barbaric, fascist, totalitarian and inhumane by our standards. I think that there is a valuable lesson to be learned here and that is that More's vision of a perfect world is limited and corrupted by the brutality, ignorance and injustice of his own real life society. We should learn from this and use it to help us humbly admit that even our most utopian dreams in the present are corrupted by the influences of the system which produces us, such as capitalism, an imperialist government and other forms of hierarchy that we may even be blind to, unable to see them because we are so used to them. We can only hope that future generations will look back at us and our ideas of a perfect society, with disgust and sympathy for our ignorance.
 One example of More's flawed idea of Utopia was that this place was supposedly a place where the social system worked so well that everyone was happy and freely chose to follow its just laws. And yet he repeatedly names slavery as the punishment for crime after crime. Supposedly everyone loves to work, and yet there is a large slave class which supports the society through their labor, doing things that or too hard or dirty for 'respectable' citizens.  The society is also riddled with a complex system of family and community hierarchy in which no one is really equal, especially not the women. This shows the flaws of a mind which is the product of the 16th century environment. If people are so 'free', happy and in agreement as to the rationality of their social system, then why would that system need to enforce its many laws with threat of lifetime slavery? Why would this system depend on slaves for its productive work? Why would there need to be a stratified social system where everyone has to obey their 'betters' and women must submit to the whims of the husbands? These things are actually proof of a failed social system, I would argue. More had another interesting contradiction in Utopia. He claimed that in Utopia, there is no money and that everyone shares equally in the products of society, but this idea was obviously so extremely revolutionary at the time that his mind seemed incapable of conceiving it even when trying because he also goes on to say how even the poor are treated well in this situation of moneyless, communistic equality. So I wonder... if there is no money and everyone shares equally in the fruits of society, then how can there even be 'poor' people (never mind the slaves) who are treated well?
I actually did like the book and would recommend reading it for exactly the reasons I mentioned: it is a valuable although perhaps unintentional warning to all those of us who dream of a better world. That warning is that we are product of our culture, our socio-economic environment. Even our most egalitarian and Utopian dreams are products of a corrupt and unjust system. It is arrogant to think otherwise. We can only work towards a better world than we have, and never a  Utopia.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A small amendment to my review is based on a slight misunderstanding that I had the feeling people might get when reading what I wrote. I am not so much saying that people shouldn't dream big and aim for Utopia, but rather that they should take warning from the example of people like More and realize how LIMITED their dreams may be, unavoidably influenced by their current system. We should all strive to reach even farther "out off the box".  This can only be done by first realizing that we are in one. A small example comes from something that a friend once said to me when I was telling him ideas about a world without money or war. He said "Oh God, if we could only get single-payer healthcare!!!" This to me was so sad to see someone's dreams so small and yet there is this kind of widespread tendency to limit our goals in an attempt to 'be realistic'. Has any innovation throughout history whether social, technological or artistic ever come from people limiting their dreams to be 'realistic'? No. They came from the very opposite. To reach farther than what was known or accepted at the time.

Daemon

A few years ago I heard a lecture from the Long Now Foundation where Daniel Suarez talked about internet bots. The lecture was incredibly interesting and inspired me to read his book. When I got the book from the Public library I was a little intimidated by its 600 pages but decided to try and read it before the due date. As soon as I began, the book flew by. I have never read anything so fast paced and easily flowing. It has a few gruesome scenes and plenty of action. I'm looking forward to reading the next book in the series and am excited to see where the story goes.

Here is the author's non-fiction lecture about internet bots and other technology...

http://longnow.org/seminars/02008/aug/08/daemon-bot-mediated-reality/

 The New Human Rights Movement looks at the root causes to our social and environmental problems. It does an impressive job of shedding light on the structural nature of these issues, cutting through what is usually seen as disconnected failures or political corruption. One of the main problems we face as activists or simply as people trying to make sense of our world is that we tend to focus on symptoms and face a never ending, futile fight of trying to combat injustice. Luckily there is a more radical and effective way to view things. Strangely enough as it may seem, this more effective perspective comes in the form of science rather than morality, public opinion or heartfelt good intentions. Science has been making observations and conclusions based on research and empirical evidence for some time now as to root causes and systemic flaws in our social and economic system.... but change is slow due to what can be called culture lag as well as the retarding effects of capitalist interests. Peter Joseph shows us these important informational findings of science in a relevant and eye opening way. He also lays out a refreshingly rational vision for our future both in general and in detail which is hopeful and yet based  on what I see to be solid logic. I honestly wish that everyone could read this book!

Basic Income and inflation, Rents

I have seen it claimed several times that Basic Income would just cause rents to go up or even prices in general and that this would simply cancel out the Basic Income.


Luckily Scott Santens has already dealt with this issue. Here I have copied his article.



https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7


article by: Scott Santens
article appearing on MEDIUM on Nov. 22, 2014



By far, the most common concern in regards to my first article on Medium about the idea of an unconditional basic income was that all prices would inevitably go up as a result, immediately reducing the value of each dollar and essentially creating a new zero. Let’s call it the “New Zero Argument” against basic income.


The New Zero Argument: Although a noble idea to give money to those in need, no one would actually be better off as a result of basic income due to everything costing more — especially rent — and therefore the policy idea is entirely pointless because the only thing it would attain is a new zero.


In economic terms, this concern is the fear of inflation or even hyperinflation, and it is possibly the most common reflex to the notion of just transferring more money to the lower and middle classes. So how grounded in reality is this concern?
Not Printing Money


Now that we know more about what gives money its value, and how we actually want a small amount of inflation, we need to understand that basic income is not the idea of printing $3 trillion new dollars every year and dropping it on everyone from helicopters.


(Although there are arguments to be made that to a lesser degree this could be done on a temporary and varying basis as economic stimulus according to perceived economic conditions as a kind of “quantitative easing for people” instead of banks)


The money for a basic income guarantee would be already existing money circulated through the economic system. It would not be new money, just money shifted from one location to another. This means that the value of each dollar has not changed. The dollar itself has only changed hands.


It is also important to note the observation that even when money supply is vastly expanded, the effects on prices need not be extreme. For example, the Fed’s quantitative easing added over four trillion new dollars to the U.S. money supply, and the results were not enough inflation, as defined by the Fed.


“But even with the trillions of dollars pumped into the economy, the Fed has been perpetually unable to get inflation up to the 2 percent level it aims for, except for the occasional brief period. There is good news in that predictions by many Fed critics that Q.E. would unleash vicious hyperinflation have come nowhere close to materializing. But neither has it been enough for the Fed to reach its self-imposed goal. In an economy trying to get out from under an overhang of debt, where excessive unemployment is the leading problem, too-low inflation can be deeply problematic and hold back growth. Q.E. has not been powerful enough to generate as much inflation as the Fed says it wants.”


So even though basic income would not be printing new money for everyone, even if it were, inflation would not be a guaranteed result.


With that understood, to then understand how much we should actually fear rising prices as a result of redistributing existing money from one place to another instead of printing new money requires some studying, but the short answer is that capitalism not only still exists with basic income, it is enhanced.


By enhanced, I mean there is growing evidence from where basic incomes have been actually tried that it increases entrepreneurship. We also have actual examples of partial basic incomes, that we can examine for inflationary evidence.


Aside from this evidence, we also need to understand how increased demand leading to higher prices isn’t as simple as we might think is is, and how when it comes to housing prices, in a future where everyone has basic incomes, we are likely to see some very interesting market adjustments. Meanwhile, fears involving unearned income and increased velocity require a closer examination.


Because of all the above that needs to be understood in order to more fully examine the question of basic income and inflation, I have split off the above information into four separate smaller articles. Let’s call them Exhibits, A, B, C, and D.


If you wish to learn more about each collection of evidence, just read the attached sub-article before moving on. Or you can just keep on reading.
A is for Alaska


In 1982, Alaska began providing a partial basic income annually to all its residents. Until the first dividend, Alaska had a higher rate of inflation than the rest of the United States. But ever since the dividend was introduced, Alaska has had a lower rate of inflation than the rest of the United States.


A partial basic income was also provided in Kuwait in 2011, when every citizen was given $4,000. Fears of increasing inflation were rampant, as Kuwait already had high inflation. Instead of bad inflation getting worse, it actually got better, decreasing from record highs to under 4 percent.


Elsewhere, where basic income experiments have been actually tried and studied, the result in each case is increased entrepreneurship. People use their basic incomes to invest in themselves and their futures, creating new businesses and helping to drive the economy beyond what would be possible without it. This means more people competing for basic income dollars, with better goods and services and lower costs.


All of this represents real evidence to counter any fear of inflation.
B is for Basics


To further inform inflationary fears on a more academic basis, it’s also important to understand the basic variability of supply and demand and how it applies to various goods and services.


Where demand already exists and supply is already paid for, demand is unlikely to change as basic income simply replaces one method of payment with another. E.g., replacing food stamps with basic income is unlikely to make people buy more milk. It just means people will likely buy the same amount of milk with cash instead of SNAP.


Where demand is actually increased, depending on the good or service, supply can also easily be increased, be increased with some investment in capacity, or not be increased. It is this third case where prices can rise, and points more to increases in prices for luxuries, and not basic goods and services.


All of this represents academic evidence to counter any fear of inflation.
Exhibit C:
C is for Creation


Rising rent is a particularly worrisome fear for many when first introduced to the idea of basic income. However, two very important things in particular need to be understood when it comes to housing.
There are five times more vacant homes than homeless people in the United States today. This represents a large unused supply that need only be made available. The reason many people are not living in these homes is because they were at one time but couldn’t afford to keep them. Basic income rectifies this and puts people back in homes.
Technology represents a major factor in future housing prices, especially a future where everyone has a basic income. Everyone will receive a monthly check to afford rent, and will want to spend as little of it as possible on rent. Meanwhile, owners will want to compete for this money with other owners. Those offering the lowest rents will win. One example of this would be Google deciding to create Google Homes and leasing them out to people for a fraction of what people are paying now. Another example would be super affordable WikiHouses.


For these two reasons in particular, in combination with the ability of everyone to truly live anywhere for the first time in history, a nationwide market for ultra-affordable housing will be created, and smart businesses will step into this space in hopes of dominating it.


All of this represents theoretical evidence to counter any fear of inflation.
Exhibit D:






D is for Depression


Two lesser known economic concerns among those who know of them, are possible differences in how we perceive the value of money depending on how it was received, and how quickly it is spent.


There is a popular conception that unearned income is perceived differently than earned income, and therefore spent more spuriously. Because people are considered more likely to spend money they didn’t earn, the fear is that people will pay more for goods and services with basic income, and therefore increase prices. This is a misconception though, and not backed by evidence, with the opposite observed in Alaska, where the dividend is treated virtually identically to earned income.


The frequency with which a single dollar is spent in the economy — known as the velocity of money — is another variable in the inflation equation. The faster the velocity, the higher inflation can get. However, velocity as measured by the entire money supply is currently lower now than ever in U.S. history. And as measured by the real money supply, it has been crashing since 2007.


We want higher velocity for a healthy economy, and the fear that unearned income has less value is unsupported.


All of this represents economic evidence to counter any fear of inflation.
The Inflation Bogeyman


Inflation is not the unmanageable danger it is made out to be. It is a complex equation involving multiple variables, and in the context of evaluating the idea of a universal basic income guarantee, because a basic income will be set at a basic level, there is even less to fear.


Because we have actual evidence, there is less to fear.


Because capitalism will be enhanced, there is less to fear.


Because technology will continue to advance and make goods like housing cheaper, there is less to fear.


Because our economic capacity is underutilized and underconsumption is systemic, there is less to fear.


There is however one real thing to fear…
Increased Wages and Salaries


Basic income could provide an upward force on wages through increased individual bargaining power and slightly decreased labor force participation rates, and businesses as a result of new higher labor costs could raise their prices so as to keep their profits unchanged.


This would mean that if you are currently earning $20,000 per year, you’d not only get an extra $12,000 per year in basic income, but also $10,000 in higher wages. Your new yearly income would be $42,000 and groceries might end up costing you an extra 1.4 percent per month.


Would you personally have a problem with earning an extra $22,000 and paying an extra $50 on groceries? Let’s assume you would, and that you also think it’s wrong the cost of food would go up for everyone else as well, including those with only $12,000 per year basic incomes, and therefore with tighter fixed budgets. There is one last final detail to understand.


Any basic income can and should be indexed to match or beat inflation.


Indexing Basic Income


Just as the minimum wage has eroded over time because of inflation and the political fight over ever raising it, a basic income should automatically rise each year to match inflation so that it doesn’t erode in the same way.


Better yet, instead of just indexing a basic income to CPI, it could even be indexed to something like productivity, so that the gains of society continue to accrue more widely for everyone, instead of only the few.(Because wages and salaries certainly aren’t rising with productivity and haven’t for decades.)


The result of this would be a basic income that always increases faster than inflation, so that each and every year, we would be able to buy a greater amount of goods and services than the year before.


It cannot be stressed enough that this ability is especially important to enable in advance of the decades ahead of us as software and hardware continue to decrease the need for human labor, and as a result, decreases availability of ever decreasing incomes derived from human labor.
So why again was I ever worried about inflation?


Good question.


article by: Scott Santens
article appearing on MEDIUM on Nov. 22, 2014

Cop Car Blocking a Downtown Intersection painting

"Cop Car Blocking Downtown Intersection on a Saturday Night"
Oil on Masonite, 16" x 24"
by Neil A. Collins, 2017.

Urban 12 by 12

"Urban 12 by 12" 
by Neil A. Collins
Oil on masonite, 12" x 12"
2017.

Portrait of Pia with face paint

Untitled painting,
Oil on Masonite, 12" x 24"
by Neil A. Collins, 2017. — with Pia Alicia-Pilar Mogollon.

My response to "Universal Basic Serfdom"

This article came out in 2016 claiming that UBI was not a path towards an RBE or a money free world.




http://freeworlder.com/blog/2016/11/06/universal-basic-serfdom/




Here is my response:


I have read the article and while the author makes some interesting points, I disagree with many of the conclusions. I disagree based on both my own experience and upon information I have read from supporters of UBI.


First point was....
"I’ve yet to hear any credible argument that free money somehow helps you get away from money"
There are many projects such as solar, getting more education, expanding my small aquaponic system, etc... which I would like to pursue but am unable to do so because do not have ANY cash. I barely have enough money to eat and many times have to go to the food bank so I won't starve. If I had a basic income I would be spending my money and time to become self sufficient from the monetary system in the ways I mentioned. Not to mention that I have a strong desire to help others through giving food to homeless people, etc... but that is not possible without money, or any other way to get food.
Basically, I do what I can right now, which without funds is close to nothing.

Another reason this can lead to a money free world is that currently, in this system we live in, HUMAN LIFE IS WORTH NOTHING. Sure, people will talk talk talk about how people's lives matter but in reality it simply isn't the case. A basic income would be one of the first times in history where a person would be recognized as having a fundamental right to exist and even with a little dignity. That actually is a major step towards an RBE. As it stands now, you have the right to exist... IF. If you have a job, if you have a helping family, if you have a trust fund, if you have an inheritence, IF you have a disability which you can get the government to recognize. Currently you have a right to exist IF, IF, IF. If not? You can fucking starve.

Another point by the author is:
"We can’t make an Open Economy happen unless we ‘visionaries’ have the support of the masses. It needs everyone to jump on board for it to work, in the same way money works: it’s a common agreement. Getting those masses on board will be a hell of a lot easier when they are themselves feeling the pinch of the market system (as they are now). However, if we keep plying them with money’s sugary pacifier to stop their minds ‘wandering’, then that will put paid to those ideas for maybe another hundred years or so. (Time we don’t actually have at current environmental / population trends)"

I understand the logic of this but I really do not believe it is in any way acceptable to advocate the suffering and starvation of millions (if we are talking about the USA) and billions worldwide just so they will "feel the squeeze" and get it. This is a horrendous stance to take if a solution is available to avoid such suffering and starvation. Perhaps starvation is some kind of theoretical idea to the author and not a very real threat which he has experienced? I don't know enough to claim that about him but I would never want to punish the 'masses' into waking up in this way. The current system does enough of that already and it hasn't really helped a whole lot. It sounds like some strange twist of Malthusian paternalism to me.

But nevermind the moral cruelty of this point of view, the more important question is would it work? I really don't think so. Currently many people in the lower and middle classes spend much of their time working and are too busy and worn out to take much interest in thinking about changing society or researching ideas to do so. As automation continues to eat up the job market, the stress and competitive instinct will continue to strengthen. After all, this system thrives on competition and is based on scarcity. As people are forced to compete with each other to unheard of levels in the very near future they will more than likely just ;hunker down' on the very behaviors which we want to move away from. Some of those behaviors are competition rather than collaboration, further uneducated and narrow-minded assessments of what causes societal problems and so on.

If people had a basic income they would not need to cling so tightly to the competitive, scarcity based behaviors and ways of thinking which capitalism creates. People would have the ability to learn and entertain ideas which they did not previously have the time to investigate. I will also add that a large amount of the desire for mind numbing entertainment which is seen especially in the working class comes from the need to escape from the reality of struggle and the long hours spent doing things to survive. I am speaking from personal experience.

Then he says:
"As my good friend Rafi succinctly put it; “how does more money get you to no money?”
Simple enough but the fact is it is a different kind of money. Money in which you need to spend a large portion of your time working an order to get is very different than money which is supplied to you based on the fact that you are human and have certain requirements such as food, shelter, transportation, etc...
I am against money more than most people you will meet if you ask honestly the questions of what is money and what is wrong with money then it becomes clear that money given to everyone so that they can live (basic income) is almost not money at all. It certainly wouldn't come with the servitude, competition and mindless drudgery which many of us experience with current 'money'. These differences are actually significant in the way they make people behave.

I could continue but I doubt anyone will read this to begin with.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9/11/2019

I agree, this gung-ho mentality seems anti-productive to the goal of an RBE. About 2 or 3 years back the Money Free Party was putting out articles and videos about the need for the masses to suffer in order to "Wake them up" to the RBE ideas. One of the most popular articles was called "Universal Basic Serfdom" and talks of this need for the masses and the poor to "Feel the pinch". Fun little way for advocating the starvation, deprivation and likely deaths of millions of people who happen to be on the very bottom, in the most vulnerable position of our society. As Pia Alicia-Pilar Mogollon pointed out to me, this process of capitalism "collapsing" will affect the poor the most, as the well off, the capitalists have resources to avoid the worst consequences of their own actions. Aside from that fact, it needs to be recognized that part of the darkness of capitalism, one of its worst strengths is that it is thriving most when it is in a state of "collapse". That be how it rolls. Capitalism thrives upon desperation, chaos, conflict and problems to be fixed. The more problems, ailments and discord capitalism is able to create the better it is able to subvert people into its own ideology.

I know that Peter Joseph is not the sole spokesperson for RBE advocates but I do admire his view of the need for a transition. In his book "The New Human Rights Movement" he mentions UBI as one of the steps of transition.

Luckily this Gung-ho,"RBE Now or nothing else" way of thinking is not shared by all RBE advocates.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So much more should be said on this. Colin Turner himself halfway recognizes the fact that human behavior is a product of the social environment, which is the core realization that mandates an RBE in the first place. The mainstream is still busy believing that "Human Nature" is greedy, selfish, competitive, aggressive, violent and so on... that there is nothing to be done but lock people up who offend and hope for the best, try to grab what you can for yourself and your family, don't help anyone because it will make them lazy and they will take advantage. This is the mainstream current "Zeitgeist" and it is also at the core of justifications for capitalism.


The RBE train of thought, whether it be TVP or TZM or other is the new realization of human behavior being a result of the environment, as I have already been talking about. But this is an important point, the most important. It is a point which Colin knows because he, like the rest of us know that a sane society, a compassionate, intelligent society, an RBE will create humans accordingly, that are creative, compassionate, intelligent, collaborative, etc...


So if one believes this, then how can they not see the reverse??? That further scarcity and further desperation will only cause people to hunker down deeper into the "me first" competitive ignorance? More and worse hatred of "immigrants, patriotic fervor, dogmas, people taking refuge in religious fantasies and cults, shooting and violence, liberals talking of harsher gun restrictions as a cure-all, and far worse leaders than Trump. This is what "the peasants" feeling the pinch has in store for us if the "collapse" of capitalism (with its increased suffering for the poor) is cheered on as the only transition plan.


By this logic:
Run out and burn down food banks, lobby to abolish foodstamps and housing assistance! Let the poor really suffer!! Then they will magically become enlightened to the RBE train of thought even quicker! And those of us with trust funds or paradise like properties in New Zealand can emerge from the ashes to enjoy our utopia, the earth washed clean by the blood of the "peasants". Their sacrifice will be remembered and we will sing songs of their sorrows during our feasts that celebrate our new world!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------
9/12/2019

You talk about what is the likely condition for people to "arrive to the conclusion that society doesn't need money to function?"

Was Peter Joseph living in a state of starvation and desperation when he became convinced of RBE concepts?

Was Jaques Fresco living in a state of starvation and desperation when he came up with the RBE concept?

Was Federico Pistono living in a state of starvation and desperation when he joined TZM and began advocating for the RBE?

Was Charles Eisenstein living in a state of starvation and desperation when he became convinced of a money free world and "Sacred Economics"?

Were P. J. Proudhon or Peter Kropotkin living in a state of starvation and desperation when they became convinced of the need for an Anarcho-Communist society that has no money, private property, war or inequality, hierarchy or government?