Hi Stephen,

Well, there are a few things arising in your post: from a direct question to specific assertions of your own ideas. On the whole, let me start by saying that some form of income fixed across the whole of humanity is, well, great. I see something like that as the most hopeful evolutionary trend of Capitalism — where capitalism basically evolves out of itself and becomes a socialist enterprise that just happens to be very good at trade. What’s interesting is that human beings have always had some system of trade, but debt (in anything approaching the modern sense of the word in the field of “economics”) is something comparatively new. Still, people do seem to have an instinct at work which capitalist models exploit well. Finding a way to work with what works while shelving the rest (i.e. the ability of any dominant model to create dramatic class distinctions or surplus for surplus’s sake) must be the goal. Any philosophic concept we explore has to be based on the psychological and social principles inherent to our species as well as the moral ones which drive our work in improving those systems which govern us.

I think that the purpose of stories is primarily to drive interest and illuminate complexities — stories are a form of sharing and growth. Granted, they can also obfuscate a situation, but I don’t think we can outright discard them. It is very interesting that Nixon was interested in UBI — and that he spoke up for it (regardless of what his personal reasons for doing so were). It’s interesting that, during roughly the same time period, a large number of U.S. business leaders and economists believed that shorter working weeks and, perhaps, some form of UBI, would be necessary given the rise of automation in the industrial sectors (we’re now seeing automation extend far beyond the industrial, making it an even more pressing issue to concern ourselves with). While the story can be used to create support for my personal belief that UBI (in some form) should become a reality, it also points to the fact that other people in the past have considered the same things. It creates a point of reference and allows us to take into consideration how opinions shift over time — or even through the application of concentrated doubt at the right time.

Now, as for “money creation…” well, all our money is created. Money is nothing but a representation of an idea — it’s a borrowed bet on some future state, whether that future state is a good harvest or the profitability of a company like Tesla. The concept brought up in this comment is interesting because it suggests an almost “employee owned” concept to the system — basically, it promotes non-state-specific form of UBI, one which transcends all current geopolitical and economic systems and interests. To that, I say: huzzah! It’s a great idea, and something to work toward. I also don’t see it as being the practical first step.

Right now, we’re in the position of struggling to get the majority of people to accept even the most limited forms of social welfare. In my own state, we finally passed a rent control bill that will force landlords to stop gouging their tenants (as well as forcing out poorer tenants to make way for wealthy redevelopments). But, primarily, we still consider things from a top-down model. “If we build condos for wealthy people, that frees up space lower down in the market for the poors!” Except, of course, that’s not what happens in practice. The first step, as I see it, must be to normalize the concept of UBI and of social programs in general — only once such ideas are normalized will there be any chance of a non-competitive value system (a la Star Trek*) to ever become a reality. *Note: I see a Star Trek-esque future as something to strive for with pride, not as a put-down; we need to strive for that future.

In a certain sense, this has nothing to do with “mathematical certainty” and everything to do with entrenched ideas, patterns of behavior, and concepts of “value” and “worth.” Economists like to say that they are scientists when, in reality, they’re nothing of the sort. They are closer to limited philosophers — at their best they use mathematical models to create predictions, and yet those models frequently fail and — inevitably — have built-in holes. They more often than not merely exist to back up whatever specific ideological perspective is held by the economist in question.

The best thing that we can really do is adopt specific changes and study the long term outcome. With UBI, what we consistently see are dramatic increases in long term social stability and welfare. Granted, this is often because the receivers of the UBI are more capable of then interacting with their surrounding capitalistic systems… but we must consider if that is actually a bad thing. Again, we return to the concept I earlier mentioned of capitalistic evolution — by reducing the inequalities inherent in the capitalistic model, we might eventually reach a point where society itself develops to the point where the dangers of such a model become null and void — where the system phases itself out. That could, in part, be something along the lines of an individual “existence stipend” or some sort — though I don’t believe that such a system should actually be tied in any way to “work” (even as a concept) but should actually function independent of anything but the overwhelming belief in the innate importance of the individual (and the individual within the social group).

So, to provide a more solid answer: what we need are stepping stones, as well as a much larger framework from which to consider the problem; and, while it’s good to have specific thoughts and ideas about what might be done to rescue us from the detrimental systems we currently surround ourselves with, it is equally important to support those incremental lunges in the overall right direction.