What is next from the egalitarian socialists? A guaranteed income is becoming the new catch concept that is a desired destination for the limousine liberals. If you ask the tax payer, It's time for America to embrace guaranteed income, their first response will be how do you pay for such a benefit? Intuitively they know they will most likely not be included
in the scheme and when the obligation burden befalls on those dreaded 1%, you just know that class warfare is doing well on
the two-hundredth birthday of Karl Marx. Based upon a recent SF gate poll, Majority of Millennials now favor universal basic income. Amazing the level of economic insanity that comes out of the asylums
of higher learning.
From the Foundation
of Economic Education, Peter St. Onge explains Why Universal Basic Income Is a Pipe Dream.
how expensive would this be? To get an idea of scale, in the US today we have about 260 million adults and 65 million under-18’s,
so this would cost something like $3.6 trillion per year. That would take roughly doubling the current federal budget, and
note that we already borrow $500 billion today (closer to a trillion dollars) of what the feds spend. So to cover
a UBI you’d have to double the federal take and still borrow a trillion dollars to cover it.
$3.6 trillion is a lot of money, and people don’t
end up very rich — right at the poverty line. So why do it? There are three common arguments: first, that UBI would
make people more entrepreneurial. Second that UBI can replace our current welfare system. And third is more of a fear, that
robots will take all the jobs."
this scale of public expenditures must come from the extent of the electroshock therapy that harms the brain functions of
cell phone radiofrequency radiation. Well, some intellectuals have not gone completely mad and admit that who defines the
rules and administers the distribution will shape the outcome.
For a viewpoint from an editor at Jacobin magazine, Alyssa Battistoni writes The False Promise of Universal Basic Income.
income is therefore often posited as a post-ideological solution suited to a new era of politics: the odd confluence of interest
from the left and right tends to be read as a sign that political positions should be eschewed in favor of rational compromise.
But UBI’s cross-ideological appeal is the bug, not the feature. Because basic income is politically ambiguous, it also
has the potential to act as a Trojan horse for the left or right: left critics fret that it will serve as a vehicle for dissolving
the remains of the welfare state, while proponents herald it as the “capitalist road to communism.” The version
of basic income we get will depend, more than policies with a clearer ideological valence, on the political forces that shape
Another account more cynical
and melodramatic comes from the popular reformist Chris Hedges who presents his argument in Common Dreams, The Oligarchs’ ‘Guaranteed Basic Income’ Scam.
oligarchs do not propose structural change. They do not want businesses and the marketplace regulated. They do not support
labor unions. They will not pay a living wage to their bonded labor in the developing world or the American workers in their
warehouses and shipping centers or driving their delivery vehicles. They have no intention of establishing free college education,
universal government health or adequate pensions. They seek, rather, a mechanism to continue to exploit desperate workers
earning subsistence wages and whom they can hire and fire at will. The hellish factories and sweatshops in China and the developing
world where workers earn less than a dollar an hour will continue to churn out the oligarchs’ products and swell their
obscene wealth. America will continue to be transformed into a deindustrialized wasteland. The architects of our neofeudalism
call on the government to pay a guaranteed basic income so they can continue to feed upon us like swarms of longnose lancetfish,
which devour others in their own species."
Wow, what a squeamish and reserved assessment from Mr. Hedges who is never ambiguous as to what he really thinks.
Well, an opinion item, by Ian Goldin in one of those oligarch flagship publications, the Financial Times offers their Five reasons why universal basic income is a bad idea.
· First, UBI is financially
irresponsible. Universal means everyone gets it. Even in the richest societies, if UBI was set at a level to provide a modest
but decent standard of living it would be unaffordable and lead to ballooning deficits.
Second, UBI will lead to higher inequality and poverty. It typically aims to replace existing unemployment
and other benefits with a simple universal grant.
UBI will undermine social cohesion. Individuals gain not only income, but meaning, status, skills, networks and friendships
· Fourth, UBI
undermines incentives to participate. Stronger safety nets are vital. No decent society should tolerate dire poverty or starvation.
· Fifth, UBI offers a panacea to corporate and
political leaders, postponing a discussion about the future of jobs.
Universal Guaranteed Income is a total repudiation of Merchantry principles. The difference between being financially independent or deriving your subsistence income from the government
is diametrically opposed. The pathetic attraction by so many gullible and wide-eyed true believers allow incremental financial
capitulation of succeeding generations to forego their Inherent Autonomy. A guaranteed income is not the way to economic security. It is a formula for dependency and subjugation.
Economic illiteracy is the hallmark of the American education
system. Building on this mental incapacity of the public, the monetary elites herd the sheeple into the pen of a
sham promise. Common sense is discarded for the allure of something for nothing. The loss of constructing a better future
is sacrificed because of the sloth culture that accepts that government benefits addiction is a right. Each successive stage
of enthusiasm for more assistance proves the lack of character in the Millennial generation. James Hall - May 9, 2018