Not a Basic income but a Substantial Income

A corollary of the old scam of: you work and work a lot so we don’t work and have no risk of working is…
you never have enough so you continue following orders.

This is the reason why a basic income is not sufficient (a clue is its usually a right side supply side suggestion) and the income must be substantial and secure enough to free everyone from the bs of I have more money than you so I get to tell you what to do.

But gee, if everyone was Building mansions and flying around in their private jets wouldn’t that be a terrible environmental disaster?

That is of course assuming that there would magically be people (or robots) to build them, since everyone would be so rich they didn’t need to swing a hammer or drive a truck… But we have already been over that and over that.

It’s all ridiculous scifi stuff.

Money isn’t really worth anything. It is just an abstraction of how much power you have to get stuff done. If you give everyone money, you don’t give them the power to get more stuff done, you just blow up your abstraction…

1 Like

And you free them from chasing after the abatraction. BF Fuller saw a planet full of billionaires living in perfect ecology. I just see making work completely voluntary. We fire the the whole class of people who have been converting unnecessary coercion into conspicious luxury.

Yes, you can stop chasing the abstraction, but you still won’t have anything real.

Its putting the semantics cart before the reality horse.

It doesn’t matter what people “Saw” They where mostly just dreaming. Just like you… Useless science fiction BS not grounded at all in reality.

Guys I could swear you two were involved in this same discussion about a year ago!

But yes, I have to agree with Reighley, imagine what would happen if 2 billion peasants got air conditioners. That can’t be allowed to happen!
I say let them develop in a sustainable way, that is, tax the crap out of them and let them have expensive energy so that we in the West make some money from our investment in “clean” Ponzi businesses and at the same time keep paying less for the good stuff because they won’t be able to afford it for a while (as long as the scam is working.)

1 Like

But @jreighley the realist capitalist sympathizer has spoken. All concerns can be dismissed as sci fi propaganda dreamers who are hopelessly out of touch.

@jreighly, must we exploit them? Would it necessarily wreck our economy to try to work around some resources and rare minerals.

Who? The resources? Yes, That is what “substantial income” means. You get to have the things that you want. That means people have to pull stuff out of the ground, topple trees, Smelt metals to build sportscars, Kill lots of animals to put in your freezer, etc etc etc… If everyone where rich, but nobody got to have stuff, then they aren’t really rich. You seem irked about the rich people pillaging the planet, but then you want to make even more of them? It is all senseless…

I try to ignore Warren most of the time. Same stupid arguement every time. All fantasy, no reality. I could waste ages on that. As a result this forum isn’t a very pleasant place – I just make my self scarce… Its a bummer that most newcomers see his BS all over these boards, and see no angry replies – Because this crap doesn’t really come anywhere near reflecting the opinions of the vast majority of the community, but absolutely nobody has the energy or time for it.

Its close to the SAFE founder’s opinion. You might want to think about that.

As for exploitation. If we need Indium from some place in Africa, maybe we don’t need it.

Buckminster Fuller was one of the greatest ecologists that’s lived so far and a very clear calculator of
risk and cost and quite ahead of his time on science and vision. He literally said 6 billion billionaires living in perfect ecology without worry of heat pollution etc. I am only talking about making work as voluntary as it is for the average billionaire for the average person. We don’t no damn shoe shiners anymore. F. the plantation. .

Yes, I know who he was. I have built a tensegrity sphere, Have you? All of his houses have leaky roofs…

I dunno. There are plenty of liberals in the SAFE community, but all of them show some semblence of having jobs and experiencing the real world in tangible ways. You just seem to have read a lot of books and spout constant BS that is way out of the realm of reality.

Nobody responds to your posts for good reason.

Apparently you respond to them for good reason.

I’ll try a response to this topic once again. I got shot down hard last time but it is simply too important of a topic to leave to the central authorities.

We can debate whether a basic income is needed or not but I’d rather discuss a possible implementation if I could. The rapid approach of technological unemployment from automation costs dipping below human labor is a provable justification to all who care and follow logic but the implementation can’t seem to get air time anywhere. I believe there to be a method which satisfies all parties while doing more good than any other program humanity has produced.

In the current fiat money system, the game is rigged so hard as to hide all the big scams in plain sight. Most people don’t comprehend inflation of the money supply, debt-based money creation or the shift to rent-seeking as a way of making money simply by having it. All these lead to the rich getting richer just because they’re rich. The result is accelerating inequality with no checks and balances left against it. In a world where abundance is near, support for the old scarcity game only prolongs the transition and makes it brutal. A single change in any crypto-currency could completely turn this around but in doing so, it would hyper-promote that currency and I feel only a ‘good’ one should receive such support. This is why I only promote this on either Bitcoin or Safecoin, because I believe in them (for different reasons).

By adding an autonomous transaction fee of 1% to all transactions and sending to a dividend fund, that fund could be dispersed to every validated human equally each day. All parts of this process would be automatic with no human control over it. This is a new digital form of basic income which solves all of the social problems that government proposals will fail at. It is truly universal, meaning it crosses age and geographical borders equally. By being market driven (no guarantee of how much moves each day), it starts tiny and grows only as the membership grows. Initially, just a few cent’s worth per day per person would help the most poor in the world a lot. But as they signed up and began spending, daily transaction volume would rise, boosting the fund and the dividend. This makes it attractive to groups a little more wealthy (say 10 cent’s worth/day/person). As even more are enticed to join for this ‘free money’, more commerce is attracted to sell thingies to those people and it grows even more, attracting significantly more investment from the fiat side into Safecoin businesses. In short, it helps the poorest of the world and grows to help ever-higher wealth people in a self supporting way.

As such, it will enhance the membership of the entire MaidSafe network which I believe to be a bigger benefit to society. (Don’t have to tell this group, I would guess.)

But here’s the cool parts. In attempting to validate that there’s only one account qualifying for each human, I’ve come up with a way to do that while helping global health advancement in a still decentralized manner. We could require a DNA scanner to create the account and two more ‘accepted’ scanners to validate it. In this way, the identities of 3 different scanners is needed so faking the scanner hardware is harder (or impossible if done well??). The result would then be an unnamed unique DNA genome sitting in public which medical researchers could use to find statistical information on. Perhaps some simple demographics could be included with much caution so as to not be able to identify the person. However, metadata tags can be added by the researchers as they find that this genome carries a certain trait. However, with every re-scan by the human, they can see what tags their genome has had added to it. This is of great benefit to them but that’s off topic too far for here.

These scanners are currently $1,000 each now but with massive incentive, this could fall to $10 so each scan could become a simple cost of doing business for some. The benefit would be that taking part in creating an account would pay one tenth of a day’s dividend to the scanner for signing each of them up. This is now a large market similar to mining is today in BTC. Many people will become scan farmers which will further drive membership adoption. And by doing all this, millions of anonymous DNA genomes will be available for researchers to work with for their research.

Initially, however, the fund begins growing before scans can be done. This pot will be dispersed equally to all accounts with a $100?? limit/person/day. So those first people will basically get a full income for free and the scanners will too if they signed up at least 10 people each day. But before this can begin, there needs to be some consensus on how to standardize the conversion from DNA info to secure account ID. If this takes a month, the pot will grow for that long, having no withdrawals but if it takes 6 months, the pot will be 6 times as big. This means that after the standardization is complete and people begin creating these accounts, this initial fund bubble will last longer and longer before deflating into its normal daily size. That’s lots of $100 dividends given out before this happens so lots of people will chase this money. When it finally does, there will be many more members and much higher daily transaction volume, creating 1% of that amount as the total daily dividend pool.

Currently, in the fiat money world, there are transaction costs for just about all money moves. Some are visible and others hidden but they’re there and people pay them as simply part of doing business. This proposal would remove the ‘free’ aspect of money transactions in the crypto it is implemented in but even in Bitcoin, transaction costs are rising via market forces alone. The difference is it would effectively replace the corrupt welfare systems around the world with a 100% efficient one. Every nano-money unit would go only to the daily dividend.

Also as automation systems begin to perform bot-to-bot transactions with the IoT or even with micro-payments from content sharing, these transactions would be included as well. This means that as automation optimizes jobs out of existence, society is not left without a survival path.

By being completely inside a decentralized system (like Bitcoin, or Safecoin), it cannot be manipulated or stopped by any govenment. But by being in Safecoin, it forces those who just want the dividend to join the already useful and socially helpful MaidSafe network. And if people join and see how useful it is and see how many others use it, they will eventually use it themselves.

I can’t stress this enough though. Automation is removing jobs at a very rapid pace. Many current estimates suggest half of current jobs will be gone in 15 years but it only takes a few % more to cause social unrest. In fact, many countries are experiencing it already even if some people attribute it to other causes. But all this is not happening equally across all locations or all industries. As such, some form of welfare, increased unemployment, negative income tax, social aid will need to increase. Government versions of these and all basic income proposals by national governments, states or even small communities WILL introduce waste and corruption as people attempt to game those systems (from the top or the bottom). The only way to avoid this global chaos is to do it well and privately, before they do it the wrong way.

Thoughts?

1 Like

@dirvine what do you think of @researchguys proposal in the preceding post?


I personally like it! Might need a proceedure to sort out monozygotic twins. I take your point but might need another word besides “private” in some quaters and in some contexts. What could be more public than our collective survival and avoiding a rapid decent into a " war of all against all" in a tech enhanced extinction over a mere broken pie slicer. For those in the ranks of wealth who already feel unable to make an honest contribution this will be like convincing them they can breath underwater, but necessary.

Twins… Yes. That’s a potential hazard unless fingerprints or something else was included. But that gets too convoluted to qualify as a “simple yet elegant” solution.

And You’re correct that “private” needs context. My use of it was to differentiate away from central authority based government programs.

The problem with the wealthy is that much of their income is realized from leveraging multiple transactions into more total profit by adding many small profits. If we consider high frequency trading as the ultimate example, they profit 0.001% per transaction but do so thousands of times per second. This becomes 1% or 10% per day of total profit taken out of the productive parts of society.

However, with this proposed system, such activities would cost 1,000 times as much as they profited so no one would be doing them in the crypto. Similarly, many hedge funds, derivatives and other games would also no longer be profitable. It even serves to quiet the volatility from arbitrage and futures speculation. What this means in the end is that likely only the productive economy (1 ‘earn’ transaction and 1 ‘spend’ transaction) would migrate to this system. That leaves this system stable while undermining the stability of the world’s fiat systems.

1 Like

Understood, not elegant o rnecessarily optimal for stsrt on cost. Monozygotics will always have different finger prints even if seemingly identical otherwise. There are cases where their same DNA produces results so different as to seem/appear unrelated- i.e, basil, psych profile, test scores, personality, diopters, actual facial structure, allergies, and its pushing it but maybe even blood type if memory serves. Intersection with MPD may be another challenge to the blue print idea, but I agee add a finger print, heart print and maybe some AI with a broader em spectrum type scan and unique ID seems quite plausible- but expense elegance is a real issue. I saw some analysis that showed you only have to go back 16 generations to make any persons DNA from available snippets. There is also the new problem of tech that can rappidly and now globally swap out genes, a total gene or complete DNA swap might be feasible in the future.

Well, not to get too far off the original topic but I have also been informed that if somehow a sample of the cells could be included, then the medical researchers could actually look for things like ailments, antibodies and more. This would be vastly more helpful than the already helpful Genome database.

Either way, the verification issue seems easily solved. And if so, what do you think of the social benefits of placing a floor on inequality with a mechanism to steadily move it slowly upwards? Many people suggest that all the world’s problems stem from lack of discretionary income which translates to power in the social, market and political forms.

1 Like

Well I couldn’t agree more and think the result and quite possibly the means are likely not just sufficient but also necessary.