The universal basic income or income: operating debate

[Ahmed]

To believe that this type of monetary technical device can provide the instrument of a new autonomy results only from a truncated analysis. As long as the categories specific to the system are not completely called into question, it is not "improved" monetary versions that will change anything.

[Obamot]

To complete: the more these currencies, supposedly "free" (their freedom only depends on their new dependence / s? Hmm!) Will develop, the more they will compete with each other (there are already not bad) and the less credible they will be. The "services" offered will lose their homogeneity and will not be universal. The community social mane will be undermined in its distribution and this will not change the basic problems of the current theoretical model.

I do not believe that these individual initiatives concocted ex nihilo are the solution (with a few rare exceptions like the Wir >> < which already exists since the second world war and which is convertible into Swiss franc, therefore nothing new ...) not ideal insofar as nothing replaces the deficient model, and as for this to work it is imperative d 'to reach a consensus with the interested parties (citizens) I do not see how it would be possible without going through the ballot box or the opposite by the revolution! ^^

[Ahmed]

I think that the attractiveness of these solutions lies in the alienation of our judgments, too contaminated by the ambient economism, and repressing our imagination.
A new currency, were it imposed by a "revolution" (?), Would not depart from the framework which constitutes the problem.

[Obamot]

Yes, the alienation was such that we did not detect certain "details" on which it was not necessary to give in for the world. Like these "interfaces" to national currencies (which are nonetheless comparable means of exchange), completely legal, and which have not passed through the legislator (or through the band through lobbying). "Financial instruments" which have indeed confiscated for short periods (the time to make profit with prohibitive interest rates and costs) therefore subtracts the currency from its initial mission - even if already fictitious for the highly indebted central banks - and there was no revolution: for example credit cards (but there are other cases, no need to draw a picture, like the racketeering of the public debt).

In short, monetary creation is a big piece! Certainly not within the reach of bisounours sliding carelessly with the thumb on their smartphones with a hamster IQ and who believe they are remaking the world by thinking that it is a new idea (without having the slightest idea of ​​what it is all about in the end. ) Yes, it is severe, but relatively to the level of incompetence I wonder if the return of the kick where I think, would not be beneficial ...

We should rethink the web as a road network, so that those who do not respect the code will occasionally take a wall ....

Because in the meantime, the fundamental question of changing the theoretical model remains, that of unconditional basic income as well: but we have not advanced an iota. Ah yes, on this last point we will vote in June in my corner, but faced with the lack of political mobilization, I fear a flop by a massive rejection of the people! (It is rare anyway that this kind of idea gets out of hand the first time!)

[Christophe]

Good sketch by François Bardet on the RBI (Unconditional Basic Income, Swiss name for basic income): http://www.rts.ch/play/tv/26-minutes/vi ... id=7739904

In Belgium, we could find equivalents of self-deprecation and outspoken level ... in France, not on ...

[Christophe]

Basic income is being talked about again:

Experimentation in Finland: https://www.rtbf.be/info/monde/detail_r ... id=9388240

Is universal income a new utopia? on France Inter: https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/le ... -aout-2016

[Christophe]

In the end, we always revolve almost around the same question: what will finance basic income?
The main arguments speak of an offset of current aid ... but very little of the background of the need for this income, let me explain ...

I have heard very little about the economic development of the working society through the evolution of technologies .... real or virtual ... so either we take into account the human in this new society, or not and we will (continue to) marginalize an increasingly large part of the population!

Example 1: A factory robot (heavy industry, automotive type) replaces how many employees and how much increases the hourly value added of the factory? Shouldn't part of this VA be used as compensation for "replaced"? This is logically what taxes and charges on companies should allow: but the "replaced" will always be marginalized because our society swears only by work ...

Example 2: Amazon (et cie) has contributed to the bankruptcy of how many small traders (virtual or real) therefore the destruction of how many jobs for how many jobs created (Amazon is already replacing order pickers with robots. .)?

Example 3: quite recently, Uber has just spoken of using automatic cars in the near future ... and hop again the destruction of human jobs by technology in perspective ...

There are hundreds of other examples!

In short overall technology (and it is advancing very quickly at the moment ...) destroys the need for human work and this has nothing to do with assistantship or laziness, but obviously politicians, experts and media have hard to explain to people ...

Basic income should therefore be seen more as a "technological compensation" income ... more than a survival income!

[Ahmed]

The idea of ​​"technological compensation" is a little contained in that of "survival", but you are right to insist on this point. In doing so, however, you make an interpretation error when you write:

A factory robot (heavy industry, automotive type) replaces how many employees and increases by how much the hourly added value of the factory?

Here we must carefully distinguish the overall process from the process phase, in other words a static vision from a dynamic vision. By increasing its productivity, a company creates an advantage over its competitors, since it can either sell as many goods at the market price with an increased profit (lower cost price), or sell many more goods at a unit price. lower, but a much higher total gain. Needless to say, it is the second option that rallies all the votes and this has the consequence that the value of the goods ultimately reflects (the other companies will either have to declare bankruptcy or adopt the same technology) as the amount of work automation, therefore, automation does not create abstract value beyond the amount of prior work it contains for its manufacture and maintenance ...
Does that seem clear to you?

[Janic]

Does that seem clear to you?

not too much! give a concrete example!

[Christophe]

automation does not create abstract value beyond the quantity of prior work it contains for its manufacture and maintenance ...
Does that seem clear to you?

Same, I have trouble with the concept of "abstract value" ... if you talk about added value, I do not agree with you, automation in product (and not just a little) .. .