In our continued coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Ralph welcomes James Zogby, co-founder and president of the Arab American Institute and author of "Palestinians: The Invisible Victims.” Then, no-nukes activist Harvey Wasserman joins to warn us about the dangerous condition of nuclear reactors across the country, including the threat of “embrittlement” at the California reactor in Diablo Canyon.
I'm posting below a link to a web site where people can read a statement about the horrific situation and "sign to support immediate de-escalation and ceasefire in Israel and occupied Palestine." This is sponsored by US Representative to Congress, Rashida Tliab, and I learned about this in an email from Justice Democrats.
Since 1947 uncritical support of Israel without reparations and compensation for lives lost during their warS, for lives lost, businesses stolen or destoyed, homes destroyed or land stolen by settlers or military in OCCUPIED foreign-mostly Jordan, Egypt-- territories; toward indigenous Palestinians has been a ethical, moral failure of the Cold War and onward. Yes, BOTH sides in these conflicts have engaged in terrorism and are at fault; and both should lay down all arms and attend UN sponsored peace talks that give BOTH sides defensible borders and access to trade and work and restoration to more normal lives. The main error was the 1920s oil oligarchs-USA and UK-- NOT adopting Lawrence of Arabia's plan for indigenous homelands for ALL populations in the post WWI Ottoman Empire's Levant lands. The whole world has been held captive to this greed mistake for over a century. The imposition of apartheid by the zionist Israelis proves they have NOT learned the real lessons of the WWII Holocaust. Only if two nations emerge from such peace talks OR a true Federation of Israel and Palestine as ONE nation state with full citizenship and property and voting rights for Arabs will this inhumanity stupidity ever have an end.
by “Hamas” Biden met simultaneously with both Zelensky & Netanyahu.
“It is possible” that this “Suicide Attack” was “Staged” so USA could use Isreal in Ukraine,
Iran, China & Africa .. especially to take over the BRIC Countries.
I say BLACKMAIL was involved so this clandestine confrontation would have an Arab~Face.
I say the Isreali’s need to demand equalization
for the homeland their Roots are in & they took care of for so many generations.
I believe the NATO FORCES wish to poision & bomb this living planet (that has no rites anymore) & use space stations to play shooting games at is from space (such as with their thermal devices & to eliminate all oxygen in closed areas as was done in Torah Bora.
Great show. Zogby is clear-headed, informative, and brave. One observation: I’m not satisfied with his answer to the question of why it took six hours for the Israeli military to respond.
Even if the military were completely “bogged down” in the West Bank, how long could it have taken for it to remove itself to the other side of this tiny country if it wanted to do so? It could not have been uninformed about the situation for that long, and there were also cryptic reports just after 10/7 that Egyptian intelligence told Israeli intelligence, and I believe Netanyahu himself, before 10/7 that something big was about to happen and that those warnings were ignored. The same pattern was present after 9/11: clear warnings ignored, inexplicably slow response time that, in my view, has never been adequately explained.
Zogby could at least have added that this must be investigated before coming to any confident conclusions about the reason(s) for this catastrophic fiasco.
"we really are in crisis mode on a number of fronts here. There are 94 commercial reactors left in the United States. They are instruments of global warming and mass suicide. They operate at 570 degrees Fahrenheit every day. I'd like someone to tell me how you cool the planet with a radioactive fire that burns at 570 degrees Fahrenheit. They also emit carbon, especially carbon 14, and a lot of carbon in the nuclear fuel cycle. But the bottom line is that all these old reactors are embrittled. Embrittlement is a process that occurs when a piece of metal is exposed for decades to heat, pressure and radiation, which all the internal components of nuclear power plants are subjected to. . . . Gavin Newsome was Lieutenant Governor at the time and he signed that deal. But last year he stabbed us in the back. And Ralph, we can never, ever trust Gavin Newsome for anything because he's now attempting to keep open these two reactors despite the fact that they're deeply flawed internally and surrounded by and literally a dozen earthquake faults."
I appreciate Zogby's condemning the attack on Oct 6th and not using the word "but" and I I will respond to James Zogby offer for his book.. Maybe after reading the book it will give me an answer to my question. How to you separate Hamas from the Palestinian people that live in the Gaza Strip?
The topic of this episode is very similar to Mr. Nader’s recent blog post. Most of what was said in the dialog between Mr. Nader and Mr. Zogby, along with what is in the blog post, is correct. That said, the same problem I pointed out last week with the previous RNRH episode is repeated in this week’s RNRH and in Mr. Nader’s blog post.
“Biden did come back with a bill for the American taxpayers – who for decades have been forced to pay for these Israeli wars.
…
That sum of money, to be authorized without any Congressional hearings or Congressional oversight, is greater than the combined annual budgets of the FDA, OSHA, NHTSA and the section of HHS, whose missions are to reduce the loss of hundreds of thousands of preventable American fatalities in the workplace, on the highways, and in the marketplace and the hospitals.”
The first sentence in the above quote is balderdash. There is not a taxpayer bill for funding the Israeli wars. Similarly, there will not be taxpayer bills if funding is expanded for FDA, OSHA, NHTSA, healthcare, or anything else. Tax returns, though completely necessary, are canceled money. They do not fund US federal government spending. This is not how government spending works when government is a currency issuer with a fiat currency and that is what we have with the US federal government.
Of course, there is a very high cost to the American public, and the global population as a whole, for the US’s support of genocide in the Middle East and other US foreign policy misadventures which have been mentioned in previous RNRH episodes. First is the culpability that our government is supporting genocide. Beyond that, there is a tremendous environmental cost to all of these military actions. We are contributing to the global refugee crisis which has only led to the rise of the likes of Trump across the west. Our foreign policy misadventures create significant domestic security risks for the US and for other countries including Israel. Our foreign policy misadventures leads to further cultural backwardness at home and certainly abroad. These are just some of the high humanitarian costs, rather than budgetary costs, of our actions. These are the costs Mr. Nader should have mentioned, not the piffle regarding ‘taxpayer money’.
On a related point, Mr. Wasserman made the connection between the nuclear arms industry and nuclear power. Given what I wrote above, the solution is simple: nationalize the military industry and right-size it to support only national defense. This would eliminate the nuclear arms industry and their need for corporate welfare-fueled expansion, via military misadventures, merely to please Wall Street. Naturally, full employment must also be funded to make this politically viable.
While I really do appreciate Mr. Nader’s efforts to accurately portray what is going on in the Middle East, Mr. Nader’s economic follies here, and elsewhere, severely tarnishes the credibility of Mr. Nader’s arguments. I hope Mr. Nader will put stubbornness aside and will do better in the future so that I can recommend these episodes to others without qualification.
Klassik, this is a bit difficult for me to understand, but could you be referring to ideas, such as those of Stephanie Kelton (I believe), who supports what I think is called Modern Monetary Theory (or such)? I believe this concerns a country's currency when it is a fiat currency. I believe that means a currency issued by the country itself for any expenditures within its own country only. She explains that a fiat currency can be issued in virtually unlimited amounts - but only as long as it is issued for expenditures within its own country, not when it needs to take into account any other currencies, such as debts it needs to repay in other currencies. This position is very attractive to people who want to spend on the public good instead of the current public destruction, since we could fund programs such as full employment for all, Medicare for All, etc. The reason she says "virtually" unlimited spending is not clear to me, but I think inflation could be triggered in certain situations, so there are some constraints on unlimited spending. This is a very complex idea that is hard to grasp, especially for people not familiar economics of any kind, except kitchen table economics in which money runs out at the end of the paycheck, and which some say does not apply to a fiat currency. I think Stephanie Kelton would be an interesting guest on the RNRH. However, to get the whole picture accurately, I would like it to be a conversation with economist Richard Wolff, who might or might not have a different view. He is extremely interesting, very clear, and he might reveal some of the difficulties with Modern Monetary Policy for our consideration. I'd love to hear these economic giants explain it clearly. Ralph Nader may be sharper than you give him credit for. I believe he and the RNRH team would show the critical expertise to help us out here.
Hi Nancy. I'd like to respond to the part of your post which stated this:
"...that means a currency issued by the country itself for any expenditures within its own country only. She explains that a fiat currency can be issued in virtually unlimited amounts - but only as long as it is issued for expenditures within its own country, not when it needs to take into account any other currencies, such as debts it needs to repay in other currencies."
The money spent into existence by a sovereign currency issuer (like the U.S. govt) goes beyond domestic spending. It's the very reason foreign holders of dollar currency exist. If e.g. the government were to buy a million computer chips from China for government use, they would pay in newly-issued dollars. There's an entire discussion to be had about how that occurs, though the money is usually held in the seller's account at the Federal Reserve. Most often these seller's convert this into treasury bonds to earn interest. That is the 'debt' you mentioned and the interest payments are in US dollars, which are issued for that purpose. The U.S. doesn't borrow foreign currency, receives no 'foreign aid' currency and has no 'foreign debts' of that kind. If it owes money to a foreign entity it is paid in dollars. Helped by the fact that it is the world's most desired currency.
The best things to keep in mind are this: that government can 'theoretically' issue as much money as it likes as spending, but the limits are natural: 1) whether or not there are goods/services available for sale (in that currency). 2) Whether taxation is properly functioning at a level to remove and cancel enough previous issue to allow the 'fiscal space' for spending. Which is the primary mechanism for inflation control. Which also includes, if necessary, reducing competing domestic/private spending power in order to create that space for government expenditure.
The problem of government spending in our economies isn't government financial constraints, but ideological and structural policy constraints. Direct spending to the public purpose is deliberately throttled to allow the majority of money issue to flow to private business interests. Initially on an economic view that this would generate wealth to filter into wider society (so-called 'trickle down'), but now a deep-rooted ideological position with no real thought behind it and where corporate interests have a large influence on national/international economic policy in their favour. So it reproduces itself, with governments convinced that the only way to create any economic activity to fulfil the public purpose starts with business interest. This is why we see 'Bidenomics' doing the usual neoliberal things like trying to 'increase private investment' for things which are public services. Yet at the same time funnelling money into their coffers as 'recompense'. What it boils down to is that the money really comes from government. They could spend it directly to buy goods/services, but instead go through the charade of 'business partnerships' and 'encouraging the private sector to invest'. It's a sham.
Nancy, yes, I am referring to Modern Monetary Theory. MMT is not very well understood by progressives, much less the general public, and so there are a lot of myths out there about it. Some of these are perpetuated by conservatives, but some are perpetuated by progressives who have a vague understanding about it. With that in mind, it is best to refer to MMT scholars such as Stephanie Kelton, L. Randall (Randy) Wray, Bill Mitchell, Warren Mosler, Fadhel Kaboub, Pavlina Tcherneva, and a few others. Kelton would make for a great guest on the RNRH. I think Wray would be an excellent guest as he’s testified before the House Budget Committee and seemingly had a big influence on the former chair of the House Budget Committee, John Yarmuth.
The general myth about the economy is that the national budget of a currency issuer, such as the US federal government, is similar to a budget of a currency user such as families, businesses, and local governments. Also, there is a general belief that increased national spending will lead to inflation. This was pushed by Milton Friedman’s many acolytes. However, that has been empirically proven false, but how many people know that? After all, many school macroeconomics textbooks still push this falsehood as being a truth!
I’m glad you mentioned full employment as labor economics is something very commonly ignored by modern progressives. Full employment is a vital part of MMT. Increased spending can lead to inflation, but increased spending can also be a buffer against inflation if policy is appropriate. An example of poor, inflationary policy would be something like a universal basic income which is pushed in certain economically uninformed progressive corners. On the other hand, a policy of a job guarantee is a buffer against inflation and it would probably be more politically viable than a UBI as well. Long story short, this shows why it is important to base policy on sound economic principles.
I know that some progressives have a distaste for economics. They consider it a ‘conservative’ subject. This is simply not true, economics is vitally important in curbing corporatism. Corporate interests do take economics seriously and if progressives do not counter their policies with economically sound policies, things will continue to be skewed towards corporatism. Many of the basic macroeconomic principles are not difficult to learn. I really hope the RNRH will take these matters more seriously because the RNRH is one of the most important progressive programs out there. It will be a real shame, and a waste, if the RNRH continues to use conservative economic language which promotes pro-corporate austerity economics. This is why I push Mr. Nader fairly hard on this subject.
Richard Wolff has some interesting insights and he could also provide some interesting commentary on the RNRH, but I really hope the RNRH staff takes the names I listed earlier, such as Kelton and Wray, seriously as they know how to speak to a general audience such as Wray speaking to Congress, as I mentioned earlier, or Kelton’s bestseller book. Wray, and possibly the others, could also discuss demilitarization within the economic framework already established by John Kenneth Galbraith.
These are good questions, Don. Ferdy offered a good response, but I’ll offer my response as well. I’ll start with the job guarantee. If the federal government wishes to pursue a policy of full employment, rather than the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) based paradigm government uses now which is based on Milton Friedman’s ideas of a ‘natural rate of unemployment’, full employment can be achieved by use of a federal job guarantee program. Unemployment people wanting to work will be guaranteed a livable wage doing work through the job guarantee program. Job guarantee jobs are not jobs which should be done by regularly employed people in the private and public sectors, but ones such assisting at non-profits. Not only do the job guarantee jobs help people maintain a livable wage, but they also keep/sharpen skills necessary to transfer back into regular employment in the private or public sectors. As we know, the private sector, and public sectors, tends to prefer to hire people who are already employed over the unemployed, all else being equal.
The job guarantee program provides a price stabilizing buffer stock for labor. When the private sector needs to hire, the price of hiring someone out of the job guarantee is known and stable and it does not lead to inflation-causing swings caused by typical stimulus (corporate welfare) approaches where government transfers money to the private sector and then hopes to create jobs for the unemployed via trickle-down methods. The job guarantee then also acts as an unofficial minimum wage as well as there would be no reason for someone to work a private sector job which pays below the livable wage of the job guarantee program.
As for universal basic income, let me present the example of low-income housing in a private housing paradigm where there is a limited supply of supple low-income housing. This is the reality we live in today in the US. If people are given a UBI, the private sector will just increase the prices based on the public’s increased ability to pay ‘thanks’ to the UBI. The UBI has not increased productivity either, so there are inflationary issues there on the supply side while UBI maintains demand, and nothing has been done to prepare people to transfer into private or public sector employment.
Furthermore, the biggest pushers of UBI are ones who wish to replace traditional means-tested benefits for a UBI. This is an austerity measure as the value of the UBI will not be equivalent to the value of the means-tested benefits for those who need it the most. In addition to the inflationary aspects of UBI, be wary of those who push it as they are probably pushing an austerity agenda and a generally conservative agenda.
This is a good comprehensive overview. Especially the point about who is pushing UBI as a 'low cost' replacement for the benefits/subsidy systems which exist precisely because of structural unemployment. The problem is unemployment and it isn't solved by what Friedman himself called 'helicopter money'.
The job guarantee seems to be a Rube Goldberg approach to providing a UBI.
As many non-profits are working to help people that are not making a living wage it seems there could be a shortage of non-profit need as the people they were serving would then be making a living wage.
Both a job guarantee and a UBI help level the playing field between workers and employers as people do not have to take a job if it doesn't pay a living wage.
But a job guarantee makes the employer to match or exceed a total living wage (20-25 dollars an hour?) and the job guarantee worker has to work the required hours (forty hours per week?) at the job guarantee job that may not be productive. A UBI recipient does not have to work so they are available to work in the private or public sector but could afford to work for less than a living wage as their basic living expenses are provided by the UBI so they would be working (forty hours a week) to improve their standard of living instead of having to work 60 hours a week just to survive.
There's nothing useful about working for less than a living wage. All that is doing is having government subsidising low wages. Which is essentially a person receiving welfare for being in a private sector job. The point of raising the wage floor is so that there don't have to be charities trying to fill the gap for people working and not making enough to live.
In discussions of JG there always seems to be an inbuilt assumption that such a job might be 'non-productive'. As if it is digging and filling holes. There is also no set policy of work hours. The policy is according whatever government instituting it sets up. If the wages are not artificially suppressed you don't need to work 40 hours a week, never mind 60!
“As many non-profits are working to help people that are not making a living wage it seems there could be a shortage of non-profit need as the people they were serving would then be making a living wage.”
The nature of non-profit work would have to change if government actually starts taking their priorities seriously such as providing universal healthcare, promoting full employment, and demilitarizing. As it is, non-profits are providing bandage fixes to problems which only government can fix (or prevent is the better term). There is still plenty of potential non-profit work which should be done so it is not like there will be a death of non-profit opportunities, but there will have to be an evolution in the nature of non-profit work.
There will be some non-profit organizations which will protest these changes, much like how some unions have protested universal healthcare as the union leadership thinks it makes the union less important, so that will be a political hurdle to overcome. It should be easy to overcome as non-profits would benefit from the job guarantee program.
“But a job guarantee makes the employer to match or exceed a total living wage (20-25 dollars an hour?) and the job guarantee worker has to work the required hours (forty hours per week?) at the job guarantee job that may not be productive.”
A job guarantee job is not intended to be a long-term job. It is a temporary job with the intention of helping facilitate the return of labor to regular employment in the private and public sectors. The job guarantee sets a price floor for labor and acts as an unofficial minimum wage. The job guarantee does not replace means-tested benefit programs as those should still be in place.
In case it wasn’t clear earlier, those working a job guarantee job would not be working another job along with the job guarantee job. It is a program for the unemployed looking to return to private/public sector employment. There is no reason for a job guarantee job holder to work 60 hours or anything similar to that.
“A UBI recipient does not have to work so they are available to work in the private or public sector but could afford to work for less than a living wage as their basic living expenses are provided by the UBI so they would be working (forty hours a week) to improve their standard of living instead of having to work 60 hours a week just to survive.”
This UBI circumstance is predicated on low-wage work which, as Ferdy points out, is corporate welfare as McDonald’s and company are allowed to hire employees for below livable wages and then the government subsidizes the employee's salaries (and McDonald's profits) to make things barely livable for labor. The whole idea is to avoid that type of corporate welfare and distortion of the labor market.
UBI is potentially inflationary because it is the issue of money with potentially no productive outcome. It might remain unspent and untaxed. Or it may just be spent in a way that creates no useful outcome. The issue is bigger than just personal spending use. The point tof a JG is multi-faceted: that it takes up unemployment where the private sector cannot/will not and also creates output for the public purpose. Plus offers a living wage to those employed. Who are then taxed as normal (according to income). This is a normal flow of issue and taxation. A UBI isn't doing any of this. It is running along the same principle of: issue money and then rely upon 'private initiative' which is little different than the problem we already have.
UBI is not the issue of money with no productive outcome.
It frees millions of people that need to work at sub-living wage jobs from not being able to provide for their basic needs without also having to jump through all the non-productive hoops required under means tested programs or a JG.
It will not remain unspent as it will be spent on basic needs that everyone has. Any unspent money would come from working so there is no need to worry how people spend or save that money.
A JG taking up employment the private sector cannot/will not is treating the symptom of a recurring problem that will result in a continuing losing battle of wages vs. inflation. The output for public purpose will not be for necessary public purposes as the necessary public purposes would need to be met without the JG workers as Klassic admitted.
With basic living expenses met by the UBI every wage becomes a living wage.
Both are potentially inflationary on implementation but the JG will continue to be inflationary as the battle between wages and inflation would continue.
The UBI would then be adjusted for inflation which would stabilize wages as wages would no longer have to be raised to keep up with inflation.
When combined with Medicare for All this will free up businesses to concentrate on their business with a stable cost for wages.
This is all very muddled. You can't complain about people having to work at 'sub-living wage jobs' then reject the standard mechanism for making jobs reach a living wage (alongside being the employer of last resort and wage setter). You're proposing the elimination of work as a 'solution' to badly-paid work, then claiming it doesn't lead to decreased public provision. It makes no sense.
You have the 'recurring problem' entirely the wrong way around. And actually seem not to understand how a monetary economy works (even though I outlined it in building block fashion). What you think Klassik 'admitted' is not what you think. I already told you that the standard mechanism for inflation reduction is taxation/reduction of purchasing power. That is how inflation is addressed... should it need to be, because what is now classed as 'inflation' is handicapped by ideological measuring and related spending contraction choices which compound the problem.
You are not considering the actual problems, but proposing what is effectively a non-productive transfer payment as a means to offset 'market forces'. Low pay is a result of business decisions to cut wages relative to profit margins. Not a knotty mathematical problem, or a force of nature, but a decision. The JG ends that by setting the wage below which no employer can fall if they want to employ someone. This is a secondary effect, because the primary purpose of a JG is maintaining a buffer stock of EMPLOYED people, rather than what happens currently under neoliberal theory of keeping an UNEMPLOYED buffer stock as an counter-inflationary tool. With the resulting disaster of wasted lives and productivity and the crumbling infrastructures you see around you.
In the final instance, you fail to appreciate the point that when a person's living expenses are met by guaranteed transfer payments in a situation where, in general, jobs are poorly paid and uncertain, many people can simply eschew work. This is completely counter to what economic activity to provide for the public purpose is for. The poorly paid nurses working long hours can offset a minor pay cut for a life of 8 hours sleep a night and time with children. Meanwhile hospitals are understaffed. If a large number of people throw up jobs, especially in societies where the dependency ratio is rising, that will undermine general prosperity.
The proposition that government spending fills the hole of poor wages in the private sector is 'corporate welfare'. It means McDonalds doesn't need to think about cutting into profits to pay proper wages because the government has their backs and makes up the difference. Or the people working there just say 'bye, I can live without this job now' and the place closes. Mcdonalds disappearing is unimportant, other things are much more important.
UBI promoters are disingenuous. Elevating the of social work, but characterising it as miserable imposition when it is performed under a JG for a living wage. Unless you can learn the normal mechanism for how a society provides for itself in a monetary economy situation this discussion is futile and unrealistic.
Although the details of this subject are above my head at the moment, everyone, I think we need to investigate how a UBI can be understood as workable policy and designed and developed as practical, material reality.
However, I strongly believe we need to focus on the main issue and not lose sight of it: a robust, substantial income is now a matter of necessity for the 99% in the USA without wealth, and a minimum wage income or anything close to that is insufficient and is a cruel joke. I believe that the income of all our people needs to be equalized, so no one is suffering, and so no one needs to work. Then work can be a choice about how to fullfull ones life.
As it is currently, We the People are feeling very worried and uncertain and anxious, and we have no peace of mind, and our choices are very limited.
Some of us cannot afford medicine or doctors or hospitals, and we have to cut our pills in half, and then we get very sick and die because we needed that medication to live, and now our famllies are grieving for us.
Some of us cannot afford to pay our mortgage or our rent, and we were put out in the streets, homeless, and now we are trying to survive without being assaulted or getting sick in the full force of outdoor weather, and we have no place to eat, or to relieve ourselves, or to lie down to rest or sleep and be safe, and we cannot cook without a home, and our health is going. Some of us out on the street have children to protect from danger. We are so vulnerable in being homeless with children that we feel constant worry.
Some of us are old, and we have only a small income, and it is all we can do to keep a roof over our heads. We may not be functioning as well as we wish we could now, and things have become more difficult. We are subject to more health difficulties, and we cannot always afford enough to eat or the medicine we need. We don't want to be a burden to our families, so we keep our troubles to ourselves, or perhaps we have no family left and have no one to help us. We are worried about how to survive as we age.
Some of us wonder what has happened. We were doing alright, and then we had that emergency, and we didn't have the money to cover it, and it has been downhill ever since. The medical bills piled up, and we could not pay them, and we had to go bankrupt. We were lucky to protect our home and car, but all we had left was claimed in the bankruptcy settlement, and now we are barely scraping by. We've lost everything we worked for, and it's shocking, and we're still paying off the debt. Now we still have medical bills, and we have no money to pay, and we cannot get needed treatment.
Some of us are in college trying to get an education that will enable us to earn enough to have a decent life, but with this mounting student debt, it is frightening how difficult that is going to be. We needed help with costs, but now we are wondering whether we will be trapped in this tremendous debt like some people we read about who are still paying off their student loans in their retirement. It is hard to have enough peace of mind to study.
Some of us are caring for ill parents we love and want to help. We may live in the area, or we may have relocated back to the area where we lived as a child, or we may be unable to relocate to help them because we have our own family in another state. We may be attempting to visit and manage things from a distance, or we may be considering how we could find a way to bring them to our area. We are feeling overwhelmed by the grief and by the immense responsibility of caring for people we love who are going to eventually die and leave us, and by the costs of their medical needs and by the complications of their incapacity to handle their own affairs. There are countless emergencies, and we are getting very exhausted, and there is no respite care we can afford.
Some of us have young children, and we need help raising them, but due to divorce, death, abandonment, or issues of abuse, we are a single parent. We work full time outside the home, and the conditions on the job are fast and difficult. We are tired all the time. We do not earn enough to support a family, and the money does not stretch far enough. We worry a lot about how to manage. Childcare is expensive, and often we cannot find it, so we are often in danger of losing the job we need, which is terrifying and preys on our mind. We are determined to keep our children, and it's very tough.
-----
We the People are the 99 percent who are not wealthy. There is so much daily suffering here in our country that is unnecessary. I believe we need economic stability and economic equality, so we have the financial means to enjoy peace of mind and the time and resources to pursue happiness.
I want a robust, substantial income stimulus for all people. I do not want it to depend on whether or not a person works. I do want it to be limited to people who are not already wealthy, so there would be a cut off point above which no stimulus would be received. This is not a minimum basic income. It is an income that provides a decent, comfortable life of dignity.
For people who are not wealthy and who thereby qualify for the stimulus, the stimulus amount would be the same for each person for each time period (such as a week or two), less any income they bring in. People would have the right at any time to end their other income and take the stimulus instead and vice versa. (Difficulties could arise in this case that would need ironing out.) The stimuous would be linked to a realistic way of calculating the real costs of living, so the stimulus would keep rising to offset cost increases. This would begin to balance historical excesses of wealth that have been transferred from the poor to the rich for the last decades.
I believe that work needs to be a choice, not a necessity, so people can keep their dignity and not be forced into miserable circumstances under the control of an employer who wants to force more and more work out of people who then need to scurry to meet inhuman computer deadlines and work without bathroom breaks for fear of losing their job. The bottom line of profit is ruining our country, our food supply, and our climate, and it is also destroying our people. This immoral system needs to be stopped.
We are coming into an age of Artificial Intelligence that will leave many people without opportunities to work, so we must re-think the nature of work itself. We must reconsider the vital importance of leisure and self-development and education and enjoyable personal hobbies. We must preserve the peace of mind to enjoy life without constant worry and fear.
If robots can indeed do human work to even the smallest extent, it will revolutionize the whole concept of work. We have a puritan ethic about the imperative of working that applies only to people who are struggling to survive. It is absurd that it is the very people who need leisure most who are most vehemently denied leisure.
I'm in favor of a Universal Income that brings everyone who is not wealthy to an equal income level, and relieves the hard burden of financial care and worry, and brings peace of mind to all our people. I want everyone to be able to work, if they want to work, at something they truly enjoy doing. We have so many talented people who would love to contrbute their talents usefully, but they have never had an opportunity for the leisure to develop them. A Universal Income will give everyone the opportunity to discover who they really are and to explore what they might like to do with their time and possibilities, if they want to.
This is just the beginning of the changes we need to create a good life for all of us.
"I think we need to investigate how a UBI can be understood as workable policy and designed and developed as practical, material reality. "
You know Nancy I don't think it's a good idea to even posit that. Klassik's post(s) above do a great job of outlining the dubious nature of UBI. It looks and feels good when people hear they will be given money to meet their financial needs, but it undermines the entire economy and allows big business to get off scot-free. It's not a coincidence that throughout history and more recently UBI has been most touted by the right and centre right. They want to further demolish social infrastructure and see UBI in the same way right-wingers see 'education vouchers'.
Many of your concerns are legitimate and they are problems which need to be addressed. An understanding of a proper macroeconomic framework is necessary to rectify these many issues as there is much which can be done via economic policy to ameliorate these listed societal failures.
The solution to the problems you describe is not the right-wing idea of a universal basic income, itself a close relative of Milton Friedman’s idea of the negative income tax. British Conservative Party member Juliet Rhys-Williams is also closely associated with those ideas and Richard Nixon even suggested policy based on the negative income tax (though Nixon did end the Bretton Woods system which makes this discussion possible, hooray for that)! The UBI might be associated with progressive politics today, but if the UBI is considered progressive, it is only because the definition of progressive has become completely corporatized. Klassik will not stand for such things.
Conversely, labor and work are historically left-wing concerns. Remember, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the human right to work. Empirical studies are clear on the benefits of work to one’s self-being, to one’s role in the community, and beneficial in family life as well. The fact that we have abusive labor laws and employers does not make labor a harmful thing, it only reinforces the notion that we need significant labor reform.
While you might hear corporatist politicians push universal basic income, what you won’t hear them push is what could be described as a ‘universal service guarantee’ which would include universal healthcare with an entirely reformed healthcare system which not only provides healthcare from a cost perspective, but also ensuring that all areas of the country have adequate medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacies, and everything else. This will require significant federal government spending and this will not happen with a UBI. A UBI does nothing but harm the adoption of a universal service guarantee since it is inflationary economic theory.
Work does not mean necessarily mean 40+ hours a week without childcare and heavy educational costs required just to become gainfully employed. Reforms there can be made via general labor reforms. It is necessary to think outside of McDonald’s/Amazon type conditions to see how productive work can flourish. I know there are some who believe adult children taking care of their elders should be considered employment. I know some who believe parents spending time to raise their children should be considered employment. I’m not fully ready to give those ideas the full Klassik seal of approval as we will have to evaluate the policies, but work like that is important work which needs to be done.
I have not even discussed demilitarization and environmental reforms based on a sound economic framework, but those are also completely feasible as well. A UBI won’t get us there though, I guarantee you that. We need to put those thoughts aside and get to work. Obviously, I mean that in more than one way.
“When a Man lies, he murders a part of the World.”
—(Paul Gerhardt, German Hymn Writer.)
“Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.”
—Marshall McLuhan, 1911- 1980.
I'm posting below a link to a web site where people can read a statement about the horrific situation and "sign to support immediate de-escalation and ceasefire in Israel and occupied Palestine." This is sponsored by US Representative to Congress, Rashida Tliab, and I learned about this in an email from Justice Democrats.
https://actionnetwork.org/forms/sign-to-support-immediate-de-escalation-and-ceasefire-in-israel-and-occupied-palestine/?source=group-justice-democrats&referrer=group-justice-democrats&redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.actblue.com%2Fdonate%2Fjdem-20231022%3Frefcode%3Dem20231022
Since 1947 uncritical support of Israel without reparations and compensation for lives lost during their warS, for lives lost, businesses stolen or destoyed, homes destroyed or land stolen by settlers or military in OCCUPIED foreign-mostly Jordan, Egypt-- territories; toward indigenous Palestinians has been a ethical, moral failure of the Cold War and onward. Yes, BOTH sides in these conflicts have engaged in terrorism and are at fault; and both should lay down all arms and attend UN sponsored peace talks that give BOTH sides defensible borders and access to trade and work and restoration to more normal lives. The main error was the 1920s oil oligarchs-USA and UK-- NOT adopting Lawrence of Arabia's plan for indigenous homelands for ALL populations in the post WWI Ottoman Empire's Levant lands. The whole world has been held captive to this greed mistake for over a century. The imposition of apartheid by the zionist Israelis proves they have NOT learned the real lessons of the WWII Holocaust. Only if two nations emerge from such peace talks OR a true Federation of Israel and Palestine as ONE nation state with full citizenship and property and voting rights for Arabs will this inhumanity stupidity ever have an end.
The weekend prior to the “Invasive Attack”
by “Hamas” Biden met simultaneously with both Zelensky & Netanyahu.
“It is possible” that this “Suicide Attack” was “Staged” so USA could use Isreal in Ukraine,
Iran, China & Africa .. especially to take over the BRIC Countries.
I say BLACKMAIL was involved so this clandestine confrontation would have an Arab~Face.
I say the Isreali’s need to demand equalization
for the homeland their Roots are in & they took care of for so many generations.
I believe the NATO FORCES wish to poision & bomb this living planet (that has no rites anymore) & use space stations to play shooting games at is from space (such as with their thermal devices & to eliminate all oxygen in closed areas as was done in Torah Bora.
Great show. Zogby is clear-headed, informative, and brave. One observation: I’m not satisfied with his answer to the question of why it took six hours for the Israeli military to respond.
Even if the military were completely “bogged down” in the West Bank, how long could it have taken for it to remove itself to the other side of this tiny country if it wanted to do so? It could not have been uninformed about the situation for that long, and there were also cryptic reports just after 10/7 that Egyptian intelligence told Israeli intelligence, and I believe Netanyahu himself, before 10/7 that something big was about to happen and that those warnings were ignored. The same pattern was present after 9/11: clear warnings ignored, inexplicably slow response time that, in my view, has never been adequately explained.
Zogby could at least have added that this must be investigated before coming to any confident conclusions about the reason(s) for this catastrophic fiasco.
Wasserman at 45:00 & 46:50 minutes in:
"we really are in crisis mode on a number of fronts here. There are 94 commercial reactors left in the United States. They are instruments of global warming and mass suicide. They operate at 570 degrees Fahrenheit every day. I'd like someone to tell me how you cool the planet with a radioactive fire that burns at 570 degrees Fahrenheit. They also emit carbon, especially carbon 14, and a lot of carbon in the nuclear fuel cycle. But the bottom line is that all these old reactors are embrittled. Embrittlement is a process that occurs when a piece of metal is exposed for decades to heat, pressure and radiation, which all the internal components of nuclear power plants are subjected to. . . . Gavin Newsome was Lieutenant Governor at the time and he signed that deal. But last year he stabbed us in the back. And Ralph, we can never, ever trust Gavin Newsome for anything because he's now attempting to keep open these two reactors despite the fact that they're deeply flawed internally and surrounded by and literally a dozen earthquake faults."
I appreciate Zogby's condemning the attack on Oct 6th and not using the word "but" and I I will respond to James Zogby offer for his book.. Maybe after reading the book it will give me an answer to my question. How to you separate Hamas from the Palestinian people that live in the Gaza Strip?
Sorry I meant Oct 7th
The topic of this episode is very similar to Mr. Nader’s recent blog post. Most of what was said in the dialog between Mr. Nader and Mr. Zogby, along with what is in the blog post, is correct. That said, the same problem I pointed out last week with the previous RNRH episode is repeated in this week’s RNRH and in Mr. Nader’s blog post.
To make things easier, I’ll quote from Mr. Nader’s blog post (https://nader.org/2023/10/20/biden-returns-empty-handed-except-for-a-huge-bill-for-the-american-taxpayers/):
“Biden did come back with a bill for the American taxpayers – who for decades have been forced to pay for these Israeli wars.
…
That sum of money, to be authorized without any Congressional hearings or Congressional oversight, is greater than the combined annual budgets of the FDA, OSHA, NHTSA and the section of HHS, whose missions are to reduce the loss of hundreds of thousands of preventable American fatalities in the workplace, on the highways, and in the marketplace and the hospitals.”
The first sentence in the above quote is balderdash. There is not a taxpayer bill for funding the Israeli wars. Similarly, there will not be taxpayer bills if funding is expanded for FDA, OSHA, NHTSA, healthcare, or anything else. Tax returns, though completely necessary, are canceled money. They do not fund US federal government spending. This is not how government spending works when government is a currency issuer with a fiat currency and that is what we have with the US federal government.
Of course, there is a very high cost to the American public, and the global population as a whole, for the US’s support of genocide in the Middle East and other US foreign policy misadventures which have been mentioned in previous RNRH episodes. First is the culpability that our government is supporting genocide. Beyond that, there is a tremendous environmental cost to all of these military actions. We are contributing to the global refugee crisis which has only led to the rise of the likes of Trump across the west. Our foreign policy misadventures create significant domestic security risks for the US and for other countries including Israel. Our foreign policy misadventures leads to further cultural backwardness at home and certainly abroad. These are just some of the high humanitarian costs, rather than budgetary costs, of our actions. These are the costs Mr. Nader should have mentioned, not the piffle regarding ‘taxpayer money’.
On a related point, Mr. Wasserman made the connection between the nuclear arms industry and nuclear power. Given what I wrote above, the solution is simple: nationalize the military industry and right-size it to support only national defense. This would eliminate the nuclear arms industry and their need for corporate welfare-fueled expansion, via military misadventures, merely to please Wall Street. Naturally, full employment must also be funded to make this politically viable.
While I really do appreciate Mr. Nader’s efforts to accurately portray what is going on in the Middle East, Mr. Nader’s economic follies here, and elsewhere, severely tarnishes the credibility of Mr. Nader’s arguments. I hope Mr. Nader will put stubbornness aside and will do better in the future so that I can recommend these episodes to others without qualification.
Klassik, this is a bit difficult for me to understand, but could you be referring to ideas, such as those of Stephanie Kelton (I believe), who supports what I think is called Modern Monetary Theory (or such)? I believe this concerns a country's currency when it is a fiat currency. I believe that means a currency issued by the country itself for any expenditures within its own country only. She explains that a fiat currency can be issued in virtually unlimited amounts - but only as long as it is issued for expenditures within its own country, not when it needs to take into account any other currencies, such as debts it needs to repay in other currencies. This position is very attractive to people who want to spend on the public good instead of the current public destruction, since we could fund programs such as full employment for all, Medicare for All, etc. The reason she says "virtually" unlimited spending is not clear to me, but I think inflation could be triggered in certain situations, so there are some constraints on unlimited spending. This is a very complex idea that is hard to grasp, especially for people not familiar economics of any kind, except kitchen table economics in which money runs out at the end of the paycheck, and which some say does not apply to a fiat currency. I think Stephanie Kelton would be an interesting guest on the RNRH. However, to get the whole picture accurately, I would like it to be a conversation with economist Richard Wolff, who might or might not have a different view. He is extremely interesting, very clear, and he might reveal some of the difficulties with Modern Monetary Policy for our consideration. I'd love to hear these economic giants explain it clearly. Ralph Nader may be sharper than you give him credit for. I believe he and the RNRH team would show the critical expertise to help us out here.
Hi Nancy. I'd like to respond to the part of your post which stated this:
"...that means a currency issued by the country itself for any expenditures within its own country only. She explains that a fiat currency can be issued in virtually unlimited amounts - but only as long as it is issued for expenditures within its own country, not when it needs to take into account any other currencies, such as debts it needs to repay in other currencies."
The money spent into existence by a sovereign currency issuer (like the U.S. govt) goes beyond domestic spending. It's the very reason foreign holders of dollar currency exist. If e.g. the government were to buy a million computer chips from China for government use, they would pay in newly-issued dollars. There's an entire discussion to be had about how that occurs, though the money is usually held in the seller's account at the Federal Reserve. Most often these seller's convert this into treasury bonds to earn interest. That is the 'debt' you mentioned and the interest payments are in US dollars, which are issued for that purpose. The U.S. doesn't borrow foreign currency, receives no 'foreign aid' currency and has no 'foreign debts' of that kind. If it owes money to a foreign entity it is paid in dollars. Helped by the fact that it is the world's most desired currency.
The best things to keep in mind are this: that government can 'theoretically' issue as much money as it likes as spending, but the limits are natural: 1) whether or not there are goods/services available for sale (in that currency). 2) Whether taxation is properly functioning at a level to remove and cancel enough previous issue to allow the 'fiscal space' for spending. Which is the primary mechanism for inflation control. Which also includes, if necessary, reducing competing domestic/private spending power in order to create that space for government expenditure.
The problem of government spending in our economies isn't government financial constraints, but ideological and structural policy constraints. Direct spending to the public purpose is deliberately throttled to allow the majority of money issue to flow to private business interests. Initially on an economic view that this would generate wealth to filter into wider society (so-called 'trickle down'), but now a deep-rooted ideological position with no real thought behind it and where corporate interests have a large influence on national/international economic policy in their favour. So it reproduces itself, with governments convinced that the only way to create any economic activity to fulfil the public purpose starts with business interest. This is why we see 'Bidenomics' doing the usual neoliberal things like trying to 'increase private investment' for things which are public services. Yet at the same time funnelling money into their coffers as 'recompense'. What it boils down to is that the money really comes from government. They could spend it directly to buy goods/services, but instead go through the charade of 'business partnerships' and 'encouraging the private sector to invest'. It's a sham.
It's pretty complicated but fascinating.
Nancy, yes, I am referring to Modern Monetary Theory. MMT is not very well understood by progressives, much less the general public, and so there are a lot of myths out there about it. Some of these are perpetuated by conservatives, but some are perpetuated by progressives who have a vague understanding about it. With that in mind, it is best to refer to MMT scholars such as Stephanie Kelton, L. Randall (Randy) Wray, Bill Mitchell, Warren Mosler, Fadhel Kaboub, Pavlina Tcherneva, and a few others. Kelton would make for a great guest on the RNRH. I think Wray would be an excellent guest as he’s testified before the House Budget Committee and seemingly had a big influence on the former chair of the House Budget Committee, John Yarmuth.
The general myth about the economy is that the national budget of a currency issuer, such as the US federal government, is similar to a budget of a currency user such as families, businesses, and local governments. Also, there is a general belief that increased national spending will lead to inflation. This was pushed by Milton Friedman’s many acolytes. However, that has been empirically proven false, but how many people know that? After all, many school macroeconomics textbooks still push this falsehood as being a truth!
I’m glad you mentioned full employment as labor economics is something very commonly ignored by modern progressives. Full employment is a vital part of MMT. Increased spending can lead to inflation, but increased spending can also be a buffer against inflation if policy is appropriate. An example of poor, inflationary policy would be something like a universal basic income which is pushed in certain economically uninformed progressive corners. On the other hand, a policy of a job guarantee is a buffer against inflation and it would probably be more politically viable than a UBI as well. Long story short, this shows why it is important to base policy on sound economic principles.
I know that some progressives have a distaste for economics. They consider it a ‘conservative’ subject. This is simply not true, economics is vitally important in curbing corporatism. Corporate interests do take economics seriously and if progressives do not counter their policies with economically sound policies, things will continue to be skewed towards corporatism. Many of the basic macroeconomic principles are not difficult to learn. I really hope the RNRH will take these matters more seriously because the RNRH is one of the most important progressive programs out there. It will be a real shame, and a waste, if the RNRH continues to use conservative economic language which promotes pro-corporate austerity economics. This is why I push Mr. Nader fairly hard on this subject.
Richard Wolff has some interesting insights and he could also provide some interesting commentary on the RNRH, but I really hope the RNRH staff takes the names I listed earlier, such as Kelton and Wray, seriously as they know how to speak to a general audience such as Wray speaking to Congress, as I mentioned earlier, or Kelton’s bestseller book. Wray, and possibly the others, could also discuss demilitarization within the economic framework already established by John Kenneth Galbraith.
How is a UBI an inflationary policy and what is a policy of a job guarantee and how is it a buffer against inflation?
These are good questions, Don. Ferdy offered a good response, but I’ll offer my response as well. I’ll start with the job guarantee. If the federal government wishes to pursue a policy of full employment, rather than the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) based paradigm government uses now which is based on Milton Friedman’s ideas of a ‘natural rate of unemployment’, full employment can be achieved by use of a federal job guarantee program. Unemployment people wanting to work will be guaranteed a livable wage doing work through the job guarantee program. Job guarantee jobs are not jobs which should be done by regularly employed people in the private and public sectors, but ones such assisting at non-profits. Not only do the job guarantee jobs help people maintain a livable wage, but they also keep/sharpen skills necessary to transfer back into regular employment in the private or public sectors. As we know, the private sector, and public sectors, tends to prefer to hire people who are already employed over the unemployed, all else being equal.
The job guarantee program provides a price stabilizing buffer stock for labor. When the private sector needs to hire, the price of hiring someone out of the job guarantee is known and stable and it does not lead to inflation-causing swings caused by typical stimulus (corporate welfare) approaches where government transfers money to the private sector and then hopes to create jobs for the unemployed via trickle-down methods. The job guarantee then also acts as an unofficial minimum wage as well as there would be no reason for someone to work a private sector job which pays below the livable wage of the job guarantee program.
As for universal basic income, let me present the example of low-income housing in a private housing paradigm where there is a limited supply of supple low-income housing. This is the reality we live in today in the US. If people are given a UBI, the private sector will just increase the prices based on the public’s increased ability to pay ‘thanks’ to the UBI. The UBI has not increased productivity either, so there are inflationary issues there on the supply side while UBI maintains demand, and nothing has been done to prepare people to transfer into private or public sector employment.
Furthermore, the biggest pushers of UBI are ones who wish to replace traditional means-tested benefits for a UBI. This is an austerity measure as the value of the UBI will not be equivalent to the value of the means-tested benefits for those who need it the most. In addition to the inflationary aspects of UBI, be wary of those who push it as they are probably pushing an austerity agenda and a generally conservative agenda.
This is a good comprehensive overview. Especially the point about who is pushing UBI as a 'low cost' replacement for the benefits/subsidy systems which exist precisely because of structural unemployment. The problem is unemployment and it isn't solved by what Friedman himself called 'helicopter money'.
The job guarantee seems to be a Rube Goldberg approach to providing a UBI.
As many non-profits are working to help people that are not making a living wage it seems there could be a shortage of non-profit need as the people they were serving would then be making a living wage.
Both a job guarantee and a UBI help level the playing field between workers and employers as people do not have to take a job if it doesn't pay a living wage.
But a job guarantee makes the employer to match or exceed a total living wage (20-25 dollars an hour?) and the job guarantee worker has to work the required hours (forty hours per week?) at the job guarantee job that may not be productive. A UBI recipient does not have to work so they are available to work in the private or public sector but could afford to work for less than a living wage as their basic living expenses are provided by the UBI so they would be working (forty hours a week) to improve their standard of living instead of having to work 60 hours a week just to survive.
There's nothing useful about working for less than a living wage. All that is doing is having government subsidising low wages. Which is essentially a person receiving welfare for being in a private sector job. The point of raising the wage floor is so that there don't have to be charities trying to fill the gap for people working and not making enough to live.
In discussions of JG there always seems to be an inbuilt assumption that such a job might be 'non-productive'. As if it is digging and filling holes. There is also no set policy of work hours. The policy is according whatever government instituting it sets up. If the wages are not artificially suppressed you don't need to work 40 hours a week, never mind 60!
Don,
“As many non-profits are working to help people that are not making a living wage it seems there could be a shortage of non-profit need as the people they were serving would then be making a living wage.”
The nature of non-profit work would have to change if government actually starts taking their priorities seriously such as providing universal healthcare, promoting full employment, and demilitarizing. As it is, non-profits are providing bandage fixes to problems which only government can fix (or prevent is the better term). There is still plenty of potential non-profit work which should be done so it is not like there will be a death of non-profit opportunities, but there will have to be an evolution in the nature of non-profit work.
There will be some non-profit organizations which will protest these changes, much like how some unions have protested universal healthcare as the union leadership thinks it makes the union less important, so that will be a political hurdle to overcome. It should be easy to overcome as non-profits would benefit from the job guarantee program.
“But a job guarantee makes the employer to match or exceed a total living wage (20-25 dollars an hour?) and the job guarantee worker has to work the required hours (forty hours per week?) at the job guarantee job that may not be productive.”
A job guarantee job is not intended to be a long-term job. It is a temporary job with the intention of helping facilitate the return of labor to regular employment in the private and public sectors. The job guarantee sets a price floor for labor and acts as an unofficial minimum wage. The job guarantee does not replace means-tested benefit programs as those should still be in place.
In case it wasn’t clear earlier, those working a job guarantee job would not be working another job along with the job guarantee job. It is a program for the unemployed looking to return to private/public sector employment. There is no reason for a job guarantee job holder to work 60 hours or anything similar to that.
“A UBI recipient does not have to work so they are available to work in the private or public sector but could afford to work for less than a living wage as their basic living expenses are provided by the UBI so they would be working (forty hours a week) to improve their standard of living instead of having to work 60 hours a week just to survive.”
This UBI circumstance is predicated on low-wage work which, as Ferdy points out, is corporate welfare as McDonald’s and company are allowed to hire employees for below livable wages and then the government subsidizes the employee's salaries (and McDonald's profits) to make things barely livable for labor. The whole idea is to avoid that type of corporate welfare and distortion of the labor market.
UBI is potentially inflationary because it is the issue of money with potentially no productive outcome. It might remain unspent and untaxed. Or it may just be spent in a way that creates no useful outcome. The issue is bigger than just personal spending use. The point tof a JG is multi-faceted: that it takes up unemployment where the private sector cannot/will not and also creates output for the public purpose. Plus offers a living wage to those employed. Who are then taxed as normal (according to income). This is a normal flow of issue and taxation. A UBI isn't doing any of this. It is running along the same principle of: issue money and then rely upon 'private initiative' which is little different than the problem we already have.
UBI is not the issue of money with no productive outcome.
It frees millions of people that need to work at sub-living wage jobs from not being able to provide for their basic needs without also having to jump through all the non-productive hoops required under means tested programs or a JG.
It will not remain unspent as it will be spent on basic needs that everyone has. Any unspent money would come from working so there is no need to worry how people spend or save that money.
A JG taking up employment the private sector cannot/will not is treating the symptom of a recurring problem that will result in a continuing losing battle of wages vs. inflation. The output for public purpose will not be for necessary public purposes as the necessary public purposes would need to be met without the JG workers as Klassic admitted.
With basic living expenses met by the UBI every wage becomes a living wage.
Both are potentially inflationary on implementation but the JG will continue to be inflationary as the battle between wages and inflation would continue.
The UBI would then be adjusted for inflation which would stabilize wages as wages would no longer have to be raised to keep up with inflation.
When combined with Medicare for All this will free up businesses to concentrate on their business with a stable cost for wages.
This is all very muddled. You can't complain about people having to work at 'sub-living wage jobs' then reject the standard mechanism for making jobs reach a living wage (alongside being the employer of last resort and wage setter). You're proposing the elimination of work as a 'solution' to badly-paid work, then claiming it doesn't lead to decreased public provision. It makes no sense.
You have the 'recurring problem' entirely the wrong way around. And actually seem not to understand how a monetary economy works (even though I outlined it in building block fashion). What you think Klassik 'admitted' is not what you think. I already told you that the standard mechanism for inflation reduction is taxation/reduction of purchasing power. That is how inflation is addressed... should it need to be, because what is now classed as 'inflation' is handicapped by ideological measuring and related spending contraction choices which compound the problem.
You are not considering the actual problems, but proposing what is effectively a non-productive transfer payment as a means to offset 'market forces'. Low pay is a result of business decisions to cut wages relative to profit margins. Not a knotty mathematical problem, or a force of nature, but a decision. The JG ends that by setting the wage below which no employer can fall if they want to employ someone. This is a secondary effect, because the primary purpose of a JG is maintaining a buffer stock of EMPLOYED people, rather than what happens currently under neoliberal theory of keeping an UNEMPLOYED buffer stock as an counter-inflationary tool. With the resulting disaster of wasted lives and productivity and the crumbling infrastructures you see around you.
In the final instance, you fail to appreciate the point that when a person's living expenses are met by guaranteed transfer payments in a situation where, in general, jobs are poorly paid and uncertain, many people can simply eschew work. This is completely counter to what economic activity to provide for the public purpose is for. The poorly paid nurses working long hours can offset a minor pay cut for a life of 8 hours sleep a night and time with children. Meanwhile hospitals are understaffed. If a large number of people throw up jobs, especially in societies where the dependency ratio is rising, that will undermine general prosperity.
The proposition that government spending fills the hole of poor wages in the private sector is 'corporate welfare'. It means McDonalds doesn't need to think about cutting into profits to pay proper wages because the government has their backs and makes up the difference. Or the people working there just say 'bye, I can live without this job now' and the place closes. Mcdonalds disappearing is unimportant, other things are much more important.
UBI promoters are disingenuous. Elevating the of social work, but characterising it as miserable imposition when it is performed under a JG for a living wage. Unless you can learn the normal mechanism for how a society provides for itself in a monetary economy situation this discussion is futile and unrealistic.
Although the details of this subject are above my head at the moment, everyone, I think we need to investigate how a UBI can be understood as workable policy and designed and developed as practical, material reality.
However, I strongly believe we need to focus on the main issue and not lose sight of it: a robust, substantial income is now a matter of necessity for the 99% in the USA without wealth, and a minimum wage income or anything close to that is insufficient and is a cruel joke. I believe that the income of all our people needs to be equalized, so no one is suffering, and so no one needs to work. Then work can be a choice about how to fullfull ones life.
As it is currently, We the People are feeling very worried and uncertain and anxious, and we have no peace of mind, and our choices are very limited.
Some of us cannot afford medicine or doctors or hospitals, and we have to cut our pills in half, and then we get very sick and die because we needed that medication to live, and now our famllies are grieving for us.
Some of us cannot afford to pay our mortgage or our rent, and we were put out in the streets, homeless, and now we are trying to survive without being assaulted or getting sick in the full force of outdoor weather, and we have no place to eat, or to relieve ourselves, or to lie down to rest or sleep and be safe, and we cannot cook without a home, and our health is going. Some of us out on the street have children to protect from danger. We are so vulnerable in being homeless with children that we feel constant worry.
Some of us are old, and we have only a small income, and it is all we can do to keep a roof over our heads. We may not be functioning as well as we wish we could now, and things have become more difficult. We are subject to more health difficulties, and we cannot always afford enough to eat or the medicine we need. We don't want to be a burden to our families, so we keep our troubles to ourselves, or perhaps we have no family left and have no one to help us. We are worried about how to survive as we age.
Some of us wonder what has happened. We were doing alright, and then we had that emergency, and we didn't have the money to cover it, and it has been downhill ever since. The medical bills piled up, and we could not pay them, and we had to go bankrupt. We were lucky to protect our home and car, but all we had left was claimed in the bankruptcy settlement, and now we are barely scraping by. We've lost everything we worked for, and it's shocking, and we're still paying off the debt. Now we still have medical bills, and we have no money to pay, and we cannot get needed treatment.
Some of us are in college trying to get an education that will enable us to earn enough to have a decent life, but with this mounting student debt, it is frightening how difficult that is going to be. We needed help with costs, but now we are wondering whether we will be trapped in this tremendous debt like some people we read about who are still paying off their student loans in their retirement. It is hard to have enough peace of mind to study.
Some of us are caring for ill parents we love and want to help. We may live in the area, or we may have relocated back to the area where we lived as a child, or we may be unable to relocate to help them because we have our own family in another state. We may be attempting to visit and manage things from a distance, or we may be considering how we could find a way to bring them to our area. We are feeling overwhelmed by the grief and by the immense responsibility of caring for people we love who are going to eventually die and leave us, and by the costs of their medical needs and by the complications of their incapacity to handle their own affairs. There are countless emergencies, and we are getting very exhausted, and there is no respite care we can afford.
Some of us have young children, and we need help raising them, but due to divorce, death, abandonment, or issues of abuse, we are a single parent. We work full time outside the home, and the conditions on the job are fast and difficult. We are tired all the time. We do not earn enough to support a family, and the money does not stretch far enough. We worry a lot about how to manage. Childcare is expensive, and often we cannot find it, so we are often in danger of losing the job we need, which is terrifying and preys on our mind. We are determined to keep our children, and it's very tough.
-----
We the People are the 99 percent who are not wealthy. There is so much daily suffering here in our country that is unnecessary. I believe we need economic stability and economic equality, so we have the financial means to enjoy peace of mind and the time and resources to pursue happiness.
I want a robust, substantial income stimulus for all people. I do not want it to depend on whether or not a person works. I do want it to be limited to people who are not already wealthy, so there would be a cut off point above which no stimulus would be received. This is not a minimum basic income. It is an income that provides a decent, comfortable life of dignity.
For people who are not wealthy and who thereby qualify for the stimulus, the stimulus amount would be the same for each person for each time period (such as a week or two), less any income they bring in. People would have the right at any time to end their other income and take the stimulus instead and vice versa. (Difficulties could arise in this case that would need ironing out.) The stimuous would be linked to a realistic way of calculating the real costs of living, so the stimulus would keep rising to offset cost increases. This would begin to balance historical excesses of wealth that have been transferred from the poor to the rich for the last decades.
I believe that work needs to be a choice, not a necessity, so people can keep their dignity and not be forced into miserable circumstances under the control of an employer who wants to force more and more work out of people who then need to scurry to meet inhuman computer deadlines and work without bathroom breaks for fear of losing their job. The bottom line of profit is ruining our country, our food supply, and our climate, and it is also destroying our people. This immoral system needs to be stopped.
We are coming into an age of Artificial Intelligence that will leave many people without opportunities to work, so we must re-think the nature of work itself. We must reconsider the vital importance of leisure and self-development and education and enjoyable personal hobbies. We must preserve the peace of mind to enjoy life without constant worry and fear.
If robots can indeed do human work to even the smallest extent, it will revolutionize the whole concept of work. We have a puritan ethic about the imperative of working that applies only to people who are struggling to survive. It is absurd that it is the very people who need leisure most who are most vehemently denied leisure.
I'm in favor of a Universal Income that brings everyone who is not wealthy to an equal income level, and relieves the hard burden of financial care and worry, and brings peace of mind to all our people. I want everyone to be able to work, if they want to work, at something they truly enjoy doing. We have so many talented people who would love to contrbute their talents usefully, but they have never had an opportunity for the leisure to develop them. A Universal Income will give everyone the opportunity to discover who they really are and to explore what they might like to do with their time and possibilities, if they want to.
This is just the beginning of the changes we need to create a good life for all of us.
"I think we need to investigate how a UBI can be understood as workable policy and designed and developed as practical, material reality. "
You know Nancy I don't think it's a good idea to even posit that. Klassik's post(s) above do a great job of outlining the dubious nature of UBI. It looks and feels good when people hear they will be given money to meet their financial needs, but it undermines the entire economy and allows big business to get off scot-free. It's not a coincidence that throughout history and more recently UBI has been most touted by the right and centre right. They want to further demolish social infrastructure and see UBI in the same way right-wingers see 'education vouchers'.
Nancy,
Many of your concerns are legitimate and they are problems which need to be addressed. An understanding of a proper macroeconomic framework is necessary to rectify these many issues as there is much which can be done via economic policy to ameliorate these listed societal failures.
The solution to the problems you describe is not the right-wing idea of a universal basic income, itself a close relative of Milton Friedman’s idea of the negative income tax. British Conservative Party member Juliet Rhys-Williams is also closely associated with those ideas and Richard Nixon even suggested policy based on the negative income tax (though Nixon did end the Bretton Woods system which makes this discussion possible, hooray for that)! The UBI might be associated with progressive politics today, but if the UBI is considered progressive, it is only because the definition of progressive has become completely corporatized. Klassik will not stand for such things.
Conversely, labor and work are historically left-wing concerns. Remember, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the human right to work. Empirical studies are clear on the benefits of work to one’s self-being, to one’s role in the community, and beneficial in family life as well. The fact that we have abusive labor laws and employers does not make labor a harmful thing, it only reinforces the notion that we need significant labor reform.
While you might hear corporatist politicians push universal basic income, what you won’t hear them push is what could be described as a ‘universal service guarantee’ which would include universal healthcare with an entirely reformed healthcare system which not only provides healthcare from a cost perspective, but also ensuring that all areas of the country have adequate medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacies, and everything else. This will require significant federal government spending and this will not happen with a UBI. A UBI does nothing but harm the adoption of a universal service guarantee since it is inflationary economic theory.
Work does not mean necessarily mean 40+ hours a week without childcare and heavy educational costs required just to become gainfully employed. Reforms there can be made via general labor reforms. It is necessary to think outside of McDonald’s/Amazon type conditions to see how productive work can flourish. I know there are some who believe adult children taking care of their elders should be considered employment. I know some who believe parents spending time to raise their children should be considered employment. I’m not fully ready to give those ideas the full Klassik seal of approval as we will have to evaluate the policies, but work like that is important work which needs to be done.
I have not even discussed demilitarization and environmental reforms based on a sound economic framework, but those are also completely feasible as well. A UBI won’t get us there though, I guarantee you that. We need to put those thoughts aside and get to work. Obviously, I mean that in more than one way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnAe5fSPFto
Pete Seeger, Dar Williams, David Bernz & Rivertown Kids sing Solartopia
Thank you. It took me back, and I enjoyed hearing it, and I hope it can take us forward.
Writer & Poet Mona Damluji:
When I say Palestine, I bear witness to the atrocities of history.
When I say Palestine, I believe another world is possible.
When I say Palestine, I remember how all the keys worn around their necks,
once fit snugly in the palm of their hands as they arrived Home.
When I say Palestine, I see beautiful people healing tree roots torn from the Land.
When I say Palestine, I know right from wrong.
When I say Palestine, I stand proudly on the shoulders of giants and dig my heel into the eye of the monster.
When I say Palestine, I mean Falastin and not occupied territories.
When I say Palestine, I dream of wide open spaces where Life is thriving.
When I say Palestine, I hear the cries of the grassroots, the unstoppable, the victors of this moral battleground.
You can’t make me say conflict, when I mean occupation.
You can’t make me say clash, when I mean they dropped bombs that flattened a city block.
You can’t make me say both sides. You can’t make me say it’s complicated.
You can’t make me say endless cycle of Violence.
When I say, I see how this ends, I mean Peace.
When I say, I see how this ends, I mean Justice.
When I say, I see how this ends, I mean PALESTINE..