universal basic income versus universal basic services

[Lark]

Universal Basic Income is the idea that everyone should be paid an income, it is sometimes called a citizens wage or a social dividend, although sometimes the labels are applied depending on different ways of paying for it.

The idea of UBI is that it is an income, in theory your occupation is separate from your subsistence, possibly even your earnings. Supplement your UBI with earnings, business revenue, or simply invest your time in some other useful way, care taking, child rearing, home making, whatever.

There is another idea, an alternative idea, called Universal Basic Services, instead of providing income credit, vouchers or just plain money to citizens there would be services provided free of charge at the point of service.

I have heard some people talk about a sort of hybridization of these two different ideas, which I think, sure, its possible, I can conceive of how it would work but I tend to think of them as alternatives one to the other.

UBI could allow for a change in the sphere of government as a direct provider of goods and services, permit the emergence of a more pluralist economy. Whereas a UBS involves more direct provision, not less. The role of government (central or decentralized) planning, or other monopoly structure, is markedly different in each model. The role of consumer and consumerism is different in each too.

Of the two which do you think is a good or bad idea and why? Maybe you think both are a bad idea, that's cool too, come tell us about it.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I mean, I'd prefer a UBI to UBS, but I'm not against the government subsidizing certain things like healthcare, and the transportation and energy sectors.

I would prefer a smaller government, though not in the same sense as what a lot of conservatives and right wingers mean when they throw that buzz term around.

 

[Lark]

I mean, I'd prefer a UBI to UBS, but I'm not against the government subsidizing certain things like healthcare, and the transportation and energy sectors.

That's the sort of hybridization I've heard people talk about as they've thought people cant be depended upon to pay for those things, even if they had a subsistence income which should cover it.

In Charles Murray's version of the UBI a portion of it is deducted at source from all recipients to pay for health insurance. I'm not sure how much there is left of it afterwards, it could mean that it covers health and travel to and from work and not much else. There are differences between UBI supporters of how generous it should be and why.

The version I support could involve a notarized alert as to your national insurance (as with paychecks in the UK and the National Health Service, direct provision, for the most part) but I also think a system like the French one (private provided, public funded through reimbursement of expenses post-treatment) or even a completely private/plural health provision which people choose insurance from a variety of sources (the UK has private health insurance, also private provision too but in a lot of instances its not the way to get best value for money personally) or even services from a variety of sources.

I am skeptical, because of the information problems, moral hazard in supply etc., about whether the market could active optimal distributions when it comes to medicine and health services. However, in theory a UBI would correct some of the failings in purchasing power and consumer sovereignty (though health inequalities would still exist). I also think any supportable system is going to try and strike a much better balance between personal responsibility and paternalism than the status quo does.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I'm not an economist, but would tend to lean towards UBS for what is needed in society for basic human rights like medical care, certain levels of education, and some food and shelter resources to address poverty and homelessness.

I think people feel their best and most empowered when they are earning income from their skills and efforts. There is an element of healthy human pride that comes from that dynamic. I don't think there is a healthy human pride in being able to pay for basic medicine. When someone is poor and cannot afford basic medical care it is very dehumanizing.

The relationship of income to basic standard of living seems to always be in flux as well, and the baseline is that people need enough income to survive and not die of poverty related issues. Having services available to keep people from dying of poverty seems easier to monitor and track than X amount of money and then to figure out how it relates to human need. Some people need more medical care than others, and so that is complicated by everyone getting the same income. I think the services creates a more even playing field for survival.

 

[Virtual ghost]

By these definitions I seem to live in UBS heavy system, so I would prefer that it stays like that.
Especially since UBI to me looks as degrading from the current system. Since UBI has a very little say in the terms of price control, what is actually absolutely crucial part of the whole story. Plus it is more likely to give people the money that they don't really need. Also it has a little say on how they will spend it (what can lead into waste since people are stupid or whatever). While UBS is simply tax money paying the actual basic service that someone actually needs on the spot. What basically protects children and similar vulnerable people better because they generally can't really handle their money. Therefore it is better that they have guarantees than that they just get cash.

 

[ceecee]

USB.

 

[Falcarius]

Falcarius is not sure why it is an either/or situation; why not both?


They are fundamentally trying to achieve different things; 'universal basic services' are to achieve improved access to things what people dinosaurs see as essential rights - such as policing, courts, housing, education, health - while the 'universal income' is to to provide a minimum standard of living but does not attempt at ensuring somebody has access to what is commonly seen as fundamental rights of things like housing, justice, education, and so on.

‘Universal Basic Services’ is not really 'universal' access therefore is no alternative to basic income as people dinosaurs still live perpetual world of poverty as is the fact in every capitalist society today. For example, take housing in developed countries such as the US has about 500,000 of those people dinosaur without homes, and of those about 300,000 are provided a place of shelter and the other 200,000 are left to sleep in doorways and under bridges. This is nothing unique for the US as it happen in every developed country be it Germany, UK, Japan, or any other system with ‘Universal Basic Services’ as they are targeted schemes which are means tested and have poverty traps. This is clearly not universal by the dictionary definition of the word 'universal' nor is it really attempted to be so either since it is always on a 'needs basis'.

Universal income without universal basic services, seems like wacko fantasy Libertarian politics where they use it as a excuse to get rid of the state in the name of freedom while not actually empowering one to have freedom.

 

[Vendrah]

Universal Basic Income is the idea that everyone should be paid an income, it is sometimes called a citizens wage or a social dividend, although sometimes the labels are applied depending on different ways of paying for it.

The idea of UBI is that it is an income, in theory your occupation is separate from your subsistence, possibly even your earnings. Supplement your UBI with earnings, business revenue, or simply invest your time in some other useful way, care taking, child rearing, home making, whatever.

There is another idea, an alternative idea, called Universal Basic Services, instead of providing income credit, vouchers or just plain money to citizens there would be services provided free of charge at the point of service.

I have heard some people talk about a sort of hybridization of these two different ideas, which I think, sure, its possible, I can conceive of how it would work but I tend to think of them as alternatives one to the other.

UBI could allow for a change in the sphere of government as a direct provider of goods and services, permit the emergence of a more pluralist economy. Whereas a UBS involves more direct provision, not less. The role of government (central or decentralized) planning, or other monopoly structure, is markedly different in each model. The role of consumer and consumerism is different in each too.

Of the two which do you think is a good or bad idea and why? Maybe you think both are a bad idea, that's cool too, come tell us about it.

I actually had thought of something more interesting into hybridizing this: UBI with some UBS obligation. I mean, you receive a UBI income if you do are willing to work on the UBS for a day or two (something not too much to the point of obstructing real work) or the possibility of being "hired" to the UBS system and no longer receive UBI, unless you stop working on the UBS. THis would make things more sustainable.. And more fair too: It introduces the notion that people receiving UBI should contribute to UBS, either by taxes or by doing some service, so the UBS and the person relationship would be of mutual benefit.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

One of the benefits of a UBI I think is that we could phase out a lot of services like welfare programs which are lofty and costly to keep running.

 

[Virtual ghost]

One of the benefits of a UBI I think is that we could phase out a lot of services like welfare programs which are lofty and costly to keep running.

And jet UBI is one of the most expensive programs you can imagine, especially if you don't want to print money in mass. Plus it says pretty much nothing about the prices, that are basically key part of the equation. What means that UBI can easily just turn into pure throwing of money on the problems.



I don't want UBI since that indirectly indicates privatization of service, since the flow of money and decisions are private. While I get cheap services exactly since this isn't really a market in the terms of basic services. Therefore I am not paying sales experts, advertising experts, since it is the same for everyone that requires much much less administrators, I don't have to pay all kind of shareholders, the cleaning lady that clean all of their offices, the utility bills for all those offices, the lawyers get much smaller share of the cake ... etc. Therefore I get meds for 0$ in direct payments or just a few $. What is because we fundamentally try to reject various market based ideologies. While UBI simply tries to salvage them without trying to solve the main problem in the foundation (which is large extra profit).

 

[Lark]

One of the benefits of a UBI I think is that we could phase out a lot of services like welfare programs which are lofty and costly to keep running.

I also like the idea of simplifying and universalizing benefits, so everyone receives something similar and you do not have a kind of engineered conflict between claimants of one kind and another for career politicians benefit like I've seen in the UK (irony being that politicians are handsomely paid from the same public purse as benefits claimants).

It depresses me when I hear pensioners attack disability claimants and they in turn attack job seekers and single people attacking child benefits claimants.

Some of the best writing questioning the sustainability of welfare regimes I've read was in Politico, questioning welfare regimes and diversity. Most of the regimes date from a time in which everyone benefiting from them was much the same.

So, public opposition to sex change surgery, special/expensive medications for male homosexuals and, conversely, objections to paying for "breeders" children, would not have been thought of at the genesis of most welfare regimes. Diversity vs Universality per se is a separate discussion point, the reason I mention it though is because it is much, much less difficult to design a universal basic income, ie transfer of revenue/income, than it actually is to design universal basic services.

When I think of universal basic services, those are pretty basic, and definitely universal, like law, security, fire fighting, disease control, but I know that how I would conceive of that could be open to being attacked as biased or discriminatory. With UBI I dont see anyone as being deprived as they have means at their disposal, however, they need to decide their priorities, make decisions about what they need and how to supply it, since they have the means themselves to do so.

I dont worry much about anyone's ideas about entitlement, as I think there's lots of varieties that get a pass while only one or two are constantly demonized. However, high or low, the sort which carries this idea of "someone, somewhere, oughta..." is the worst.

 

[Lark]

And jet UBI is one of the most expensive programs you can imagine, especially if you don't want to print money in mass. Plus it says pretty much nothing about the prices, that are basically key part of the equation. What means that UBI can easily just turn into pure throwing of money on the problems.



I don't want UBI since that indirectly indicates privatization of service, since the flow of money and decisions are private. While I get cheap services exactly since this isn't really a market in the terms of basic services. Therefore I am not paying sales experts, advertising experts, since it is the same for everyone that requires much much less administrators, I don't have to pay all kind of shareholders, the cleaning lady that clean all of their offices, the utility bills for all those offices, the lawyers get much smaller share of the cake ... etc. Therefore I get meds for 0$ in direct payments or just a few $. What is because we fundamentally try to reject various market based ideologies. While UBI simply tries to salvage them without trying to solve the main problem in the foundation (which is large extra profit).

Well, if its a universal payment there's a definite saving from the ability to phase out means tested benefits, the administration costs of benefits, the complexity associated with diversified benefits, like one person receives pensions, another job seekers, another child benefit, another disability etc. instead of all receiving the same, single payment.

There will be people who receive it who in theory "dont need it" but I also think the value of a universal service out weighs those costs, no matter how a means based service is designed it eventually ends in "poor services for poor people", as people decide they dont want to pay for them, as "what do they get?", and find increasingly inventive ways of avoiding doing so.

You are right that it can, theoretically, indicate privatization of service. Its possible. Although, that is already happening quite a bit irregardless of ability to pay. The rationale is often that consumer sovereignty and purchasing power will prompt providers in a lawful marketplace to respond. That assumes an equal, or at least fair, sovereignty and purchasing power that's not there. It could be different if it where.

I do agree with you about the hidden costs of private business, those are good examples you use. I know of some equivocal costs in public services, since I work for one, which I think are unique to public services, at least I hope. Which are shockingly wasteful.

As to individuals being wasteful themselves, that's definitely a concern. Consumerism does not teach consequentialism, personal responsibility, that type of thing very well. Also there's already fraud, swindles, a myriad number of ways that small time predators in communities seek to target benefits claimants and the vulnerable. I dont know whether those things would expand or contract, its probably going to depend on more than the design of a UBI scheme itself.

I actually like the idea of private solutions being open finally to socialists or uncapitalist or anticapitalist firms in the economy. It would perhaps mean that gains or reforms or changes wouldnt disappear with changes in who holds office.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I also like the idea of simplifying and universalizing benefits, so everyone receives something similar and you do not have a kind of engineered conflict between claimants of one kind and another for career politicians benefit like I've seen in the UK (irony being that politicians are handsomely paid from the same public purse as benefits claimants).

It depresses me when I hear pensioners attack disability claimants and they in turn attack job seekers and single people attacking child benefits claimants.

Some of the best writing questioning the sustainability of welfare regimes I've read was in Politico, questioning welfare regimes and diversity. Most of the regimes date from a time in which everyone benefiting from them was much the same.

So, public opposition to sex change surgery, special/expensive medications for male homosexuals and, conversely, objections to paying for "breeders" children, would not have been thought of at the genesis of most welfare regimes. Diversity vs Universality per se is a separate discussion point, the reason I mention it though is because it is much, much less difficult to design a universal basic income, ie transfer of revenue/income, than it actually is to design universal basic services.

When I think of universal basic services, those are pretty basic, and definitely universal, like law, security, fire fighting, disease control, but I know that how I would conceive of that could be open to being attacked as biased or discriminatory. With UBI I dont see anyone as being deprived as they have means at their disposal, however, they need to decide their priorities, make decisions about what they need and how to supply it, since they have the means themselves to do so.

I dont worry much about anyone's ideas about entitlement, as I think there's lots of varieties that get a pass while only one or two are constantly demonized. However, high or low, the sort which carries this idea of "someone, somewhere, oughta..." is the worst.

Couldn’t have said it better

 

[Virtual ghost]

I also like the idea of simplifying and universalizing benefits, so everyone receives something similar and you do not have a kind of engineered conflict between claimants of one kind and another for career politicians benefit like I've seen in the UK (irony being that politicians are handsomely paid from the same public purse as benefits claimants).

It depresses me when I hear pensioners attack disability claimants and they in turn attack job seekers and single people attacking child benefits claimants.

Some of the best writing questioning the sustainability of welfare regimes I've read was in Politico, questioning welfare regimes and diversity. Most of the regimes date from a time in which everyone benefiting from them was much the same.

So, public opposition to sex change surgery, special/expensive medications for male homosexuals and, conversely, objections to paying for "breeders" children, would not have been thought of at the genesis of most welfare regimes. Diversity vs Universality per se is a separate discussion point, the reason I mention it though is because it is much, much less difficult to design a universal basic income, ie transfer of revenue/income, than it actually is to design universal basic services.

When I think of universal basic services, those are pretty basic, and definitely universal, like law, security, fire fighting, disease control, but I know that how I would conceive of that could be open to being attacked as biased or discriminatory. With UBI I dont see anyone as being deprived as they have means at their disposal, however, they need to decide their priorities, make decisions about what they need and how to supply it, since they have the means themselves to do so.

I dont worry much about anyone's ideas about entitlement, as I think there's lots of varieties that get a pass while only one or two are constantly demonized. However, high or low, the sort which carries this idea of "someone, somewhere, oughta..." is the worst.

Yes, it is much easier to design UBI but that doesn't make it better on the long run. Especially since extra cash will probably rise prices, plus it is questionable how will you finance UBI without mass tax rise, printing money or large cuts in some other parts of the government. For me the only real solution is rolling back some of the modern individualism and have more compact system that truly covers the basics for reasonable amounts of money. I mean if there will not be this kind of consolidation the East wins almost surely on the long run, since they have more consolidated game plan and therefore they have bigger punch and take less damage. For this I don't have to look further than around me as the countries around are turning to Russian and Chinese vaccines (since the western private companies failed in supply). Not to mention that the sausage that was today my lunch was made by the company that is taken over by Russian public company. What is because financial individualism and pure nonsense are creating power vacuum that "someone" can easily fill. This isn't pretty thing to say but I am not sure that you guys really have a choice if you want your boat to keep floating.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well, if its a universal payment there's a definite saving from the ability to phase out means tested benefits, the administration costs of benefits, the complexity associated with diversified benefits, like one person receives pensions, another job seekers, another child benefit, another disability etc. instead of all receiving the same, single payment.

There will be people who receive it who in theory "dont need it" but I also think the value of a universal service out weighs those costs, no matter how a means based service is designed it eventually ends in "poor services for poor people", as people decide they dont want to pay for them, as "what do they get?", and find increasingly inventive ways of avoiding doing so.

You are right that it can, theoretically, indicate privatization of service. Its possible. Although, that is already happening quite a bit irregardless of ability to pay. The rationale is often that consumer sovereignty and purchasing power will prompt providers in a lawful marketplace to respond. That assumes an equal, or at least fair, sovereignty and purchasing power that's not there. It could be different if it where.

I do agree with you about the hidden costs of private business, those are good examples you use. I know of some equivocal costs in public services, since I work for one, which I think are unique to public services, at least I hope. Which are shockingly wasteful.

As to individuals being wasteful themselves, that's definitely a concern. Consumerism does not teach consequentialism, personal responsibility, that type of thing very well. Also there's already fraud, swindles, a myriad number of ways that small time predators in communities seek to target benefits claimants and the vulnerable. I dont know whether those things would expand or contract, its probably going to depend on more than the design of a UBI scheme itself.

I actually like the idea of private solutions being open finally to socialists or uncapitalist or anticapitalist firms in the economy. It would perhaps mean that gains or reforms or changes wouldnt disappear with changes in who holds office.

It is true that public sector in providing basics can be wasteful but at the same time this can be said about private sector as well. However if public one works well it doesn't need to involve all kinds of market based jobs that are just sucking out money that should go into providing basic services. Which are vital since the economy can't really work properly if systems like healthcare don't work properly or cover everyone.



On the other hand UBI is basically attempt to establish welfare system in fully market based economy. Since the whole point is that people can buy from private companies or regular basis. In other words if the government is giving you money for healthcare and that is provided by public means that basically means that the government simply gave the money to itself in the end. So in that case you may as well have it as some kind of UBS. It simplifies things and makes sure that the money is actually spent on that. What reduces money waste for sure, especially if you can manage to cut out market based jobs that are only rising costs. Since the genuine public sector doesn't really need those. Plus there is the problem of cost, for example UBI gives you 1500$ a month and then you go to the doctor for covid or cancer and end as those people have to pay hundreds of thousands for that treatment. Therefore you are again out of money and you probably wouldn't have for kindergarten and similar basics (since you will be paying a huge loan with interest). Plus in this case systems like fire department can start to charge things, since their funding ended in your UBI. While the basic problem from the start are bloated costs instead of actual money flow or "privilege". However that cost comes mostly from middle men and leeches, not privilege. Therefore just throwing money on the problem through UBI is unlikely to change the core problem.



I know that I am biased towards public sector but I think I have a point.

 

[Lark]

Yes, it is much easier to design UBI but that doesn't make it better on the long run. Especially since extra cash will probably rise prices, plus it is questionable how will you finance UBI without mass tax rise, printing money or large cuts in some other parts of the government. For me the only real solution is rolling back some of the modern individualism and have more compact system that truly covers the basics for reasonable amounts of money. I mean if there will not be this kind of consolidation the East wins almost surely on the long run, since they have more consolidated game plan and therefore they have bigger punch and take less damage. For this I don't have to look further than around me as the countries around are turning to Russian and Chinese vaccines (since the western private companies failed in supply). Not to mention that the sausage that was today my lunch was made by the company that is taken over by Russian public company. What is because financial individualism and pure nonsense are creating power vacuum that "someone" can easily fill. This isn't pretty thing to say but I am not sure that you guys really have a choice if you want your boat to keep floating.

Well the Russians and the Chinese have hollowed out the UK, it had nothing to do with China or Russia have superior or more competitive companies though or a better "leaner, meaner, fitter" welfare regime either.

The UK had fostered for a long time a very negative and corrupt political culture and now it is paying the price. It will get worse before it gets better but I dont see it as having anything to do with burgeoning alternatives proving superior when tested in the balance or anything. Although, what you have said about the vaccines is a good point, there has not nearly been the sort of coverage that I would expect in the news of either government or business performance throughout this pandemic. That too is a result of a sort of corruption and a sort of entropy.

Discussion about rolling back individualism requires clarification, I'm a fan of both socialism and individualism in their place and proportionately, if there exists anything worth calling individualism in the west any longer its not one which prioritizes personal responsibility for instance or one that takes the long view. Also, cultures of individualism or communitarianism, vice or virtue, are not quite the same thing as policies, economies or structures like UBI or UBS.

The point about prices is a good one, in some areas it works great to organize production and distribution of a quality product in the right quantity. In other areas, not so well. There's a couple of reasons for that. What I definitely have seen is the alternative as it operates in public services. Which is a kind of "in miniature" reproduction of some of the perversions/failings of central planning in the east. Without the signals of price as any indication of information required for planning all sorts of lies, deceptions, propaganda or simple "optimism" stands in for it and the results are awful. The results are like the North Korean "show towns" which were like film sets or facades. It doesnt matter if a service is objectively falling apart so long as reports on it all read well, so long as it "marches on paper", the board gets a rise and promotions or pensions are secure.

I dont have all the answers to those particular problems, I think something like participatory economics could help, although I've seen how data collection can add to the problem instead of be the hoped for solution. Although in part that was because those implementing it where not that well informed, not that interested to begin with and not that great in the role of managers (managerialism and management culture count for a lot, too much, especially in ANY sort of society that fosters servility among operational staff). That said, I do think UBI can empower individuals, give them choice like never before and a resurgence of personal responsibility, which is at least possible, could be a start.

Neo-liberal capitalism is failing, I dont think that the old conservative idea of elites or old money privilege saving the day, is going to serve any better. I dont even think that racism or any of the other cultural "survivals and revivals" like it will be any good either. Although, like I say, simply because your rival stumbles and falls doesnt mean you were a better athlete all along, you know?

 

[Lark]

It is true that public sector in providing basics can be wasteful but at the same time this can be said about private sector as well. However if public one works well it doesn't need to involve all kinds of market based jobs that are just sucking out money that should go into providing basic services. Which are vital since the economy can't really work properly if systems like healthcare don't work properly or cover everyone.



On the other hand UBI is basically attempt to establish welfare system in fully market based economy. Since the whole point is that people can buy from private companies or regular basis. In other words if the government is giving you money for healthcare and that is provided by public means that basically means that the government simply gave the money to itself in the end. So in that case you may as well have it as some kind of UBS. It simplifies things and makes sure that the money is actually spent on that. What reduces money waste for sure, especially if you can manage to cut out market based jobs that are only rising costs. Since the genuine public sector doesn't really need those. Plus there is the problem of cost, for example UBI gives you 1500$ a month and then you go to the doctor for covid or cancer and end as those people have to pay hundreds of thousands for that treatment. Therefore you are again out of money and you probably wouldn't have for kindergarten and similar basics (since you will be paying a huge loan with interest). Plus in this case systems like fire department can start to charge things, since their funding ended in your UBI. While the basic problem from the start are bloated costs instead of actual money flow or "privilege". However that cost comes mostly from middle men and leeches, not privilege. Therefore just throwing money on the problem through UBI is unlikely to change the core problem.



I know that I am biased towards public sector but I think I have a point.

I think you have a point too.

I should clarify, I think any economy is a mixed economy, there is no way of avoiding it. There will always be public owned firms and private ones, the balance of the mix toward one direction or the other is largely a matter of public/political choices or culture. It is not well understood or appreciated a lot of the time and I do think a lot of private vs public debates or discussion fail to see how similar the firms are. A lot of the time both receive a lot of public money, particularly were essential utilities or "too big to fail" are involved. Personally, I think a lot of the failed privatizations in the UK result in a single bad service being paid for two or three times, as consumer, as tax payer, as citizen, and that it a very, very bad deal. Similar things happen in the US with medicine/health and costs are way, way, way higher than anywhere else.

All those questions about the mix of the economy and whether "leeches" in a private firm or "apparatniks" in a public one are the greater waste/cost wouldnt go away if a UBI or UBS or some mixture of both were introduced.

I think there's more options with a UBI, to individuals, and its more likely to combat the sorts of servility that ruin any society. A UBS is kind of like a UBI only people get the income once they perform some job for the state first. All the same dilemmas exist as at present when they collect their income as earnings from somewhere, maybe state, maybe not. I think that the link between earnings/subsistence and income should be broken.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well the Russians and the Chinese have hollowed out the UK, it had nothing to do with China or Russia have superior or more competitive companies though or a better "leaner, meaner, fitter" welfare regime either.


The UK had fostered for a long time a very negative and corrupt political culture and now it is paying the price. It will get worse before it gets better but I dont see it as having anything to do with burgeoning alternatives proving superior when tested in the balance or anything. Although, what you have said about the vaccines is a good point, there has not nearly been the sort of coverage that I would expect in the news of either government or business performance throughout this pandemic. That too is a result of a sort of corruption and a sort of entropy.

Discussion about rolling back individualism requires clarification, I'm a fan of both socialism and individualism in their place and proportionately, if there exists anything worth calling individualism in the west any longer its not one which prioritizes personal responsibility for instance or one that takes the long view. Also, cultures of individualism or communitarianism, vice or virtue, are not quite the same thing as policies, economies or structures like UBI or UBS.

The point about prices is a good one, in some areas it works great to organize production and distribution of a quality product in the right quantity. In other areas, not so well. There's a couple of reasons for that. What I definitely have seen is the alternative as it operates in public services. Which is a kind of "in miniature" reproduction of some of the perversions/failings of central planning in the east. Without the signals of price as any indication of information required for planning all sorts of lies, deceptions, propaganda or simple "optimism" stands in for it and the results are awful. The results are like the North Korean "show towns" which were like film sets or facades. It doesnt matter if a service is objectively falling apart so long as reports on it all read well, so long as it "marches on paper", the board gets a rise and promotions or pensions are secure.

I dont have all the answers to those particular problems, I think something like participatory economics could help, although I've seen how data collection can add to the problem instead of be the hoped for solution. Although in part that was because those implementing it where not that well informed, not that interested to begin with and not that great in the role of managers (managerialism and management culture count for a lot, too much, especially in ANY sort of society that fosters servility among operational staff). That said, I do think UBI can empower individuals, give them choice like never before and a resurgence of personal responsibility, which is at least possible, could be a start.

Neo-liberal capitalism is failing, I dont think that the old conservative idea of elites or old money privilege saving the day, is going to serve any better. I dont even think that racism or any of the other cultural "survivals and revivals" like it will be any good either. Although, like I say, simply because your rival stumbles and falls doesnt mean you were a better athlete all along, you know?

The bolded wasn't really my claim/point, since the argument is more complex than that.
I was simply saying that well structured and affordable welfare system gives you certain direct economic boost that prevents many problems and damages in that dynamic. Especially since unaffordable system and therefore rising debt directly in directly crippling you in ability to resist or act globally. Plus there is propaganda factor, here we crashed the wall and the system so that we can have developed welfare system and generally normal life that the first world had. However since there is less and less of that in the first world that opens plenty of doors for various realignments back to the old ways. What then opens the can of worms that western people usually don't even want to look or think about. If someone thinks that the wall came down just so that the healthcare will be expensive and fully privatized and that we can have LGBT freedoms and immigrants they are evidently not paying attention. Therefore as soon as the Eastern EU realized that "it ain't gonna happen" the serious political problems started. What basically weakened the whole Western Europe even further.


Kinda similar is with various 3rd world countries. Do you want to align with the country that is over it's head in debt and structural chaos and grows 0.4% a year ? Or you want to side with the one what grows 8% and has much more concrete industry. Which produces goods that you may actually need. Especially since you will kinda be a colony in both cases, so that ship doesn't matter all that much. Welfare programs and "normal life" where basically the main thing why just about everyone wanted to move into the first world or support it. Since the idea was that this system will eventually come where you live. What as you know is the balloon the evidently popped. However that opened huge political vacuum that "someone" can easily fulfill. Therefore indirect economic and political damage from reducing welfare and various balances is huge for the west.

 

[cascadeco]

I don't feel knowledgeable enough on this subject to be able to add anything of merit, but I can say anecdotally that during my near-7-weeks of quarantine, I experienced in effect what it would be like to receive UBI, since I was lucky enough to still receive my paycheck while not working. I think my experience is also a relevant one because I don't make tons of money -- for many folks, my wage would probably equate to penny pinching and only being able to meet bare essentials and a little over. But imo this is the point/idea of UBI: basic survival needs met/able to be paid for, without having to stress about 'mere' survival -- during this time period, I was not doing my job, but was still able to pay for all of my essentials -- my food, my shelter, my electricity, my living items (which is the bucket I put toilet paper, cleaning supplies, etc into). The immense mental freedom I felt was amazing - and I was able to focus on and reprioritize things I actually gained value from and felt worthwhile.

I think UBI as a system would then allow almost everyone the freedom to do a job they really enjoyed -- it wouldn't matter if the job was $7/hr or a 250k salary; the point being, a lot of people might genuinely enjoy livelihoods that only pay $7/hr --- but in today's world, this isn't sustainable. Also, in today's world, the bulk of jobs may not even pay enough for survival, hence people working multiple jobs, trying to hustle, and so on --- only to become mentally unwell, physically unhealthy, etc. An unsustainable, destructive negative spiral down. UBI would allow for more freedom.

I think Iain Banks' Culture universe/novels are based on this concept, if I remember correctly. It's also not 'uncommon' per se in other sci fi futuristic stories.

Obviously current system/cultures aren't able to do this though. A lot of things would have to be changed fundamentally.

UBS -- I mean the same concept could apply, as in, with electricity, housing, etc covered [I think these days, internet access 'should be' free for all, given how essential to existence it has become for most people and jobs], the same result could be achieved, which is a removal of stress around merely surviving. I guess my initial thought with UBS would be the risk of poor quality/ shoddy housing, services, and so on. It would have to be developed so as to deliver high quality for everyone.

 

[Lark]

I don't feel knowledgeable enough on this subject to be able to add anything of merit, but I can say anecdotally that during my near-7-weeks of quarantine, I experienced in effect what it would be like to receive UBI, since I was lucky enough to still receive my paycheck while not working. I think my experience is also a relevant one because I don't make tons of money -- for many folks, my wage would probably equate to penny pinching and only being able to meet bare essentials and a little over. But imo this is the point/idea of UBI: basic survival needs met/able to be paid for, without having to stress about 'mere' survival -- during this time period, I was not doing my job, but was still able to pay for all of my essentials -- my food, my shelter, my electricity, my living items (which is the bucket I put toilet paper, cleaning supplies, etc into). The immense mental freedom I felt was amazing - and I was able to focus on and reprioritize things I actually gained value from and felt worthwhile.

I think UBI as a system would then allow almost everyone the freedom to do a job they really enjoyed -- it wouldn't matter if the job was $7/hr or a 250k salary; the point being, a lot of people might genuinely enjoy livelihoods that only pay $7/hr --- but in today's world, this isn't sustainable. Also, in today's world, the bulk of jobs may not even pay enough for survival, hence people working multiple jobs, trying to hustle, and so on --- only to become mentally unwell, physically unhealthy, etc. An unsustainable, destructive negative spiral down. UBI would allow for more freedom.

I think Iain Banks' Culture universe/novels are based on this concept, if I remember correctly. It's also not 'uncommon' per se in other sci fi futuristic stories.

Obviously current system/cultures aren't able to do this though. A lot of things would have to be changed fundamentally.

UBS -- I mean the same concept could apply, as in, with electricity, housing, etc covered [I think these days, internet access 'should be' free for all, given how essential to existence it has become for most people and jobs], the same result could be achieved, which is a removal of stress around merely surviving. I guess my initial thought with UBS would be the risk of poor quality/ shoddy housing, services, and so on. It would have to be developed so as to deliver high quality for everyone.

I did not know that about Ian M Banks, that's pretty cool, I only read about it once in an obscure, very bad, pulp sci fi book which was a very obvious dystopia of liberal values, it gets mentioned once, obviously derisory remarks and I read that bad, bad book for it!

yeah, I have read about UBS in terms of these depots which would stock food and drink and it would just be free at the point of distribution, not sure how it would work but I've heard that there are workplaces which had cafeterias that work that way.