Would an intelligently financed UBI be dangerous for the environment?

UBI may well be needed at some point in the future if automation replaces enough jobs.

That aside, staying in the present, isn't it more logical for one to figure out how "the system" works (whatever the current system might be) and work with that?

Rather than hoping that the government will send you money (wishing for a money tree) isn't it better to figure out who/want is rewarded under our system?

Think about the saying regarding giving a man a fish and you'll feed him for one day or teach him to fish and you'll feed him for life.

Capital is rewarded under our system. This doesn't just apply to the "rich". Buy a house and it will generally appreciate. Buy some stocks and given enough time that will generally appreciate. Some focus on the "rich" getting richer while the poor get poorer.

Buy real estate and stocks with whatever spare money you have and your net worth will go up and those who don't do that will probably not do nearly as well. Why talk about increasing taxes on people who do that and instead become one of those people?

Those who focus on "income inequality" or "wealth inequality" are being self-defeating for the most part. If they get their way all they do is drag everyone down rather than bringing anyone up.

If the government gives everyone 500/month, great. Don't rely on that or wait for that to happen. It's likely not to happen and it's more likely to improve your financial well being if you do something proactively yourself.

If your case, for example, if you want to make an extra 500/month it would be easy. Do most any job other than being a janitor and you would easily make that much more.

For other's who have higher paying jobs, maybe as high paying as they are likely to get considering their education and job skills, they can still make more money and improve their lifestyle/options by investing. Whether they have a lot or a little is almost beside the point.

Conversely, someone making a lot of money who doesn't invest is likely to have less choices in life. They can't leave their jobs, they can't retire early.

Why fight against the system when the system actually works and has brought more of the world out of poverty than any other system? With all of its faults, before the industrial revolution and then capitalism...most of the world was poor. That still is the norm.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

YES.......!!!!!

I personally am advocating beginning with the system just as it is......
I wrote something to my F....... Wall a few days ago that may assist in making what I have in mind somewhat more clear.......





It is very rare for me to remember a dream but the one I had this morning around five am has a meaning so obvious that I know I should write this down. It was about a four cord porter stuck in a swamp beside the lake where I grew up and I have driven equipment enough over the years to know that I had to get in the porter and drive it up to solid ground.

On one level the porter is the entire economy of Canada and I am advocating an Unconditional but taxable Income Supplement of five hundred dollars per month for life for all Canadians and legal residents. This will cost about eighteen billion dollars per month but the key is to finance it through the Bank of Canada as we did from 1938 to 1974 as explained by

Ms. Betty Krawczyk :
https://bettysearlyedition.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-pierre-trudeau-turned-us-into-debt.html

........... On another level the porter equals the metaphorical Bride of Messiah in Canada because if all thirty seven point six million Canadians will receive five hundred extra dollars per month through a loan through the Bank of Canada, their own Bank that all Canadian citizens in a sense own..... .then if this loan is FORGIVEN due to it going to all Canadians so as this eighteen billion per month turns over in the Canadian economy roughly three times it will be taxed back into the treasury and within months our deficit will begin to decrease by roughly eighteen billion dollars per month.

Soon Canada would be making progress against our national debt and within years we would be operating in the BLACK as opposed to the RED with zero national debt. This would set the stage for a MAXIMUM income tax rate of fifteen percent and the majority of Canadians would soon be paying essentially zero income tax.

This is how I worded this proposal a few months ago:
"Five hundred dollars per Canadian per month, can this work?
I am advocating the usage of the Bank of Canada that is owned by all Canadians to finance giving five hundred dollars per month to all thirty seven million Canadians.
It will of course mean much more to poorer Canadians than to millionaires........
but it could be surprising how many stay at home wives with cheap and stingy millionaire husbands who control the purse strings of the home may find this extra five hundred very helpful indeed.
I suspect that well over eighty percent of of Canadians will spend this money reasonably well and:
1. enrol their kids in more after school programs.....
2. begin to purchase a higher percentage of organic produce vs the cheap GMO stuff
3. purchase a newer car, SUV or half ton truck
4. do renovations to their homes
5. hire landscapers to do certain projects on their properties
6. pay down their debt loads, especially the higher interest ones
7. buy a new home rather than renting
8. buy a cottage outside the city so that they can get away for weekends
9. many will choose to move to rural Canada in order to escape relatively hectic city life
10. eat at nice restaurants more often
11. I also believe that a significant percentage of Canadian women who would have chosen to have an abortion under the present economic situation will CHOOSE to keep their babies as opposed to having an abortion!
I suspect that less than ten percent of Canadians will attempt to live off this five hundred dollars / month and simply use it to drink or smoke more."

P. M. Justin Trudeau for all of his many flaws has set up our nation for this proposal by responding to this COVID 19 pandemic in many ways that may well have been better for us Canadians than P. M. Andrew Scheer might well have done, (although I have to admit in the 2019 election I would have loved for Mr. Maxime Bernier or Mr. Andrew Scheer to have been elected Prime Minister). Credit should be given when it is due and our nation is perfectly set up to go into a whole new era where thirty seven million Canadians become a major force through how they choose to invest their Unconditional Income Supplement of five hundred dollars per month.

Once this has been accomplished in Canada, soon the USA, Israel, Australia, New Zealand and many other nations will follow our example. THE TRUTH ON THE HISTORY OF BANK OF CANADA POLICY CAN BRING US UP OUT OF THE SWAMP.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why not give each Canadian $100,00/month and then you can reduce the national debt even faster?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because if the loans of eighteen billion dollars per month are FORGIVEN after they are distributed to all thirty seven point six million owners of the Bank of Canada then.....
putting eighteen billion into the Canadian economy monthly due to this method... will actually reduce our deficit and our national debt even faster.

Yes this sounds strange.....

Economist John Hotson, Economist Harold Chorney and Economist Mario Seccarrecia gave me this impression through several of their articles.

Could I have misunderstood their major point????

It would not be the first time that I read an article and got the wrong impression.

 

If 500/month would do that why wouldn't 100,000/month be even better?

 

Because in order for this proposal to work... it has to be worded in a way that can be sold to thirty seven million Canadians......
( well..... actually about thirty percent of them) ........ which is what economist Milton Friedman seemed to have had in mind when he
put forward something somewhat along the line of this in an article in Playboy magazine that can sill be found online.

If this were to be adopted in Canada.....
this would revolutionize the way that investment in doing research is marketed to investors......
this would take about two to five million Canadians up into the "Investor Class"....... or so I would think at least?????

 

You are evading the point. If it works with 500/month it should work with 100,000/month. I sense that you don't think it would work with 100,000/month (and therefore it won't work with 500/month).

It's not able how it's worded...

 

No... I think that even the Andrew Yang proposal of 1000 / month was too high..... and would scare people.......
The psychology of people must be factored into any proposal.....
because the situation during the time of the Weimar Republic Inflation is common knowledge........

TWO criteria are needed to create a period of hyper-inflation:
1. print or create a lot of extra money
2. DECREASE PRODUCTIVITY!
BOTH criteria have been met since January of 2020.

 

We're talking about the national debt being reduced now and not inflation. Let's stick with one subject at a time.

 

You have some more homework to do my friend.........

What you have to do is COMPARE the longer term results of what Economist Harold Chorney, Economist John Hotson and Economist Mario Seccarreccia recommend VS...... COMPOUND INTEREST OVER TIME!!!!!?

INCREASING PRODUCTIVITY AND PRODUCTION ITSELF.....
faster than the increase in the supply of money in the economy.....
and you can create net deflation!

 

Yes, I'm quite aware of the inflation problem inherent in this. My point is that even putting that aside giving people money isn't going to pay off the debt.

 

This is a several part process:
1. The Bank of Canada needs to be used to create eighteen billion dollars per month in order to give five hundred per month to all Canadian citizens and legal residents.....

2. It would be necessary to forgive the loan..... due to it having been put into the hands of Canadian citizens..... which is theoretically possible... but.. I admit it... Canadians may not be ready to vote for this.... but they might.

3. That eighteen billion dollars added to the Canadian economy monthly needs to be taxable... so that it is taken back into the treasury after it turns over roughly three times in the economy......

4. Voila..... essentially interest free money is put into the economy..... turns over three times and boosts the economy... then it is essentially all taken back in taxes as it turns over three times.... and all of a sudden the books in Canada begin to move toward the Black..... vs being continually in the Red.

There are other complicating factors that could cause this extremely simple plan to NOT WORK.... one of them would the type of response that the Canadian province of Alberta got back from the federal government of Canada... .and from Big Business and the world banking community during the time of Premier Bible Bill Aberhard during the Great Depression era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Aberhart

Part number two above... is a critical part of the formula!!!!

Could this plan backfire and cause problems in the economy of Canada?

Yes... look at the response to the Worgly Austria local money experiment by the administration of FDR.

My point is that my plan has weaknesses........
it is not foolproof......
but it is worthy of further discussion and debate by experts and I am not an expert.

 

One of the key reasons why many of the working public are so adverse to a UBI is this "feeling" that it would demotivate people from seeking work and demotivate them from striving to retain employment once they got it.
Most of the people concerned I would guess are employers looking for cheap labor as the UBI would force minimum hourly rates upward as demand for the lower rate drops due to the reduction in desperation/need.
"A desperate workforce is a cheap workforce."
So in a sense the battle over the UBI is really between employers and workers.
thus the Greed factor once again raises it's ugly head.
...and of course the UBI has always been about Greed has it not. ( in all so many ways )

 

Exactly...... and I am convinced that here in Canada this would produce something of a Exodus out of urban Canada toward rural Canada......
which many wealthy people in the cities would not want to happen......
and many landowners in rural Canada might not want to see happen????

 

How does this plan pay off the Canadian national debt as opposed to potentially eventually paying off this particular debt?

 

In a way... it is because stopping the use of our own Bank of Canada back in 1974 was one of the worst decisions ever made by a Canadian Prime Minister in the last hundred years.

Stopping the use of our own Bank of Canada to create essentially interest free money going into the economy.......
has caused Compound Interest Over time owing to private banks........ by all levels of government.. to increase rapidly since 1974. (this is a Link)

Based on a message that I read on a forum several years ago......
the USA Federal Reserve seems to have been set up originally in a similar way to the original goals for the Bank of Canada.

Here is the writing... that if accurate....
implies that the USA Federal Reserve was originally intended to work much like the Bank of Canada did....
from 1938 to 1974.

 

As we've already discussed this isn't predominantly why the debt is increasing. Interest rates are low and profits from the Federal Reserve go back into the Treasury.

You're just beating a dead horse, again and again...

 

so ... make the following assumptions:
That the PM was smart enough to gain office.
That the PM had the long term fiscal interests of the nation at heart.
That the PM had the support of his party which no doubt included some pretty smart people.
and then ask your self why would he do such a dang stupid thing?
Then research to find the answer...

I think you will find that in the decade of the 70's the entire world was transitioning to a more inclusive and uniform international financial regime...
If I recall properly Australia went through similar with the floating of our currency around then...

Google Canadian currency float:

In 1950, after the Second World War, Canada became the first major country to adopt a floating exchange rate. In 1962, we went back to a fixed exchange rate only to float our currency again in 1970. In all, the Canadian dollar has floated for 42 out of the past 50 years​

I think you may find it was to minimize and prevent hyper inflationary pressures...and bring the economy into the real world...as Canadians became more reliant on imports and exports. (Globalization)

Sort of reinforces the notion of a "No Free Ride"

 

and interestingly enough, after 40 years since the money float of the 70's/80's we have exactly that "negative interest rates" deflation and the seemingly absurd situation/notion that banks have to pay people to borrow... lol.
but it did take 50 odd years to get there for Canada.
Right now, what is the cost of Canadian Government borrowings?
Eventually they may even have to reduce the amount of money in circulation to make up for all that excess printing (free money) they had been doing in the past...

 

lol indeed

why dont they ask china for interest free lending to build new industry
china can lend them US dollars at no interest and still make money