"People perceive national debt as a negative, Grey said. But instead, he argues, you can think of it as a savings account, because people are earning interest through the bonds that they hold."
It is a choice we make to issue Treasury securities $1 for $1 of federal spending that exceeds taxes. We don't have to do that, but it's popular because people like earning a US government guaranteed rate of interest.
The US issues USD. We choose to also issue securities that pay USD interest. Our 14th Amendment says we can't default on any of our promised payments. Just keep making the payments, and we may as well also issue a $1 trillion coin to demonstrate we don't have to issue securities.
People could fear inflation as a result of the new mismatch between untaxed spending and securities, but the Fed could also then just sell $1 trillion of the Treasury securities it's holding to meet the demand of those wanting Treasury securities.
If all this sounds silly, it's because our conception of what money is is itself silly, as is the conception most people hold of what the national "debt" is. There should be no "debt ceiling" which exists practically nowhere else.
This is good but I wish it also included how Medicare Part D doesn't even carry the same issue as the rest of Medicare because it was set up to use general revenue. It's the example that proves all that's required to "fix Social Security" is just a legislative change in wording.
If we decide to reduce Social Security payments in the future, that's a political choice. We certainly don't have to do that. We can keep making 100% of payments, and no we don't even have to lift the cap on payroll taxes. We can just spend the money.
It's really harmful how wide and how strong the myth-based belief is that the national "debt" is some big scary loan of some kind instead of being more like a savings account and how running a deficit is somehow bad regardless of what the spending is for.
At their annual meeting, the Southern African Quaker Community voted in support of the introduction of a universal basic income for all people legally in South Africa. Here they explain the reasons behind the resolution.
"The poverty-stricken masses have nothing going for them, see no hope for their future, and have nothing to lose. South Africa is a tinderbox that will catch fire if a match is thrown into it... South Africa may be considered a real-world example of where the world is going."
"In our view as Quakers, unconditional universality is pivotal. First, this emphasizes the equality and worth of all. Second, it avoids introducing a massive bureaucracy and associated procedures, often carried out by uncaring officials and involving lengthy waits."
Pre-pandemic, employment increased quite a bit in the basic income group, but the increase did not remain significant during the pandemic. It's possible that this and other non-significant results were due to unexpected attrition by the end of the experiment. (more on that later)
Income volatility was another measure that decreased significantly pre-pandemic, but did not remain significant, as did psychological distress. People in the basic income group moved from "likely to have a mental health disorder" to "likely to be well" in year one, pre-Covid.
Universal basic income? But where does the money come from? I hear that all the time. The better question to ask is how best to remove newly created UBI money from circulation? This simulation says it's a transaction tax, which is one of my own favorites.
If you want to mess with the settings of this simulation yourself, here's where it's located. Definitely try turning off the universal basic income and transaction tax toggle and watch society break as one person eventually ends up with all the money.
I think it's important to recognize that the flow of money in a free market is always upwards. It will always lead to concentration of money into fewer and fewer hands, destroying the market. There has to be a mechanism for money to come up at the bottom and vanish as it goes up.
Looking back at my ten years of basic income advocacy, here's one thing I thought would already be a thing but isn't: celebrity interest. Where are the people with millions of fans who have picked UBI to be their cause?
Sure the Pope is on board with UBI, but he doesn't retweet.
The single least effort thing you can do to support the basic income movement is to click the retweet button. A bit more effort but not much is writing your own tweet, or sharing a link on Twitter or anywhere really. If you want to help more, please make a point of at least that.
But yeah, where are the big influencers that can really help move the needle? So many celebrities with so many pet causes, and not one who has decided on basic income as their cause?
One huge A-list one reached out to me once and asked to schedule a call but it never happened.