May 4, 2020 - 5:55pm
Arguments for Universal Basic Income (UBI) are pretty much universal these days — but sadly remain quite basic.
Via The Guardian, here’s the latest from John Harris:
So, a familiar idea has once again returned: that of a universal basic income (or UBI), whereby all of us would be entitled to a regular payment from the state, enough to cover such basics as food and heating.
That, however, is what social security is for — supplemented, in this crisis, by emergency measures like the furlough scheme. Yes, there are problems with the speed and responsiveness of the benefits system, but are we going to get help to people any faster by setting up an entirely new payments architecture (which is what UBI entails)?
Harris is no fool and acknowledges some of the difficulties — not least the eye-watering cost of giving everyone enough free money to get by on. He also acknowledges that if we’re going to provide the whole population with unconditional support, then there are other, perhaps better, ways of doing it (universal basic services, for instance). Ultimately though, he resorts to a cop out — “if we are going to maximise our collective resilience, we should surely consider both.” Head. Desk. (If I still had a desk).
Harris reckons that because of “the government’s munificent response to the current crisis, radical spending plans are surely not the political taboo they once were.” But “munificent” (great word) does not mean limitless. It doesn’t matter how much money is borrowed — or gets magicked up by monetary means — it’s only as useful as the goods and services available to buy with it. With the pandemic still raging, whole swathes of the productive economy that provide that usefulness (whether in the public or private sectors) have shut down. Doing all the things necessary to get them restarted is the over-riding priority. Production is the primary basis of our “collective resilience” — everything else is secondary.
Of course, among those secondary things is ensuring there is sufficient means of consumption. If the latter falls short individually then people slip into poverty; if it falls short in aggregate then productive capacity is left idle.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThank you for this vey welcome riposte to the UBI fanatics. It really is the most immoral idea ever proposed. John Harris is a good guy who at least gets out there in his films and talks to people (unlike all the other metro-Guardianistas) but like all the others who did PPE (I think he did PPE) he doesn’t really know anything about anything.
Universal basic income has been tried and failed. Just ask Finland. Let it remain in that dustbin of bad ideas.
UBI is the Neo-Maxist SJW Femanazi CULT concept that stifles natural progress and actually damages those it says it protects from poverty.
Every SJW measure has meant at least a 25% less increase in equality as a result. We must purge education and government of these CULT fanatics.
You are inebriated by the exuberance of your own verbosity.
There has never been any UBI anywhere in the world, only UBI- like tests or tax returns. However, all of those pilots have shown significant improvements in the physical and mental health of the participants and a decrease of crime.
People tend to call UBI pilots ‘failed’ if they don’t make people work harder as they see UBI as dole for everyone and because they see people as mere workers. Which in its turn is very socialist .
The psychological effect of a permanent UBI may be it s greatest aspect. People who are assured that they will be getting their basic needs covered, are far more likely to contribute something to society in a healthy manner.
A UBI is also a great chance for start ups and artists, who are now often forced to demolish their ideas and work some boring 9to5 job.