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.