Before watching this lecture, I didn’t know what Universal Basic Income (Dividend) meant. It was interesting to learn about how this relates to the economy and even helps it positively. I liked how the UBD plan is aimed at helping Libertarian, Conservatism, Progressivism, and Communism in the United States, even though they are all very different belief systems. There would be no negative effects on any of these with this plan. Socialism, on the other hand, does not benefit from this plan. Overall, this plan helps support many different communities around the United States, in which anyone can benefit with little cash payments, regardless of their work status or other qualifications.
Libertarianism, Conservatism, Progressivism, and Communism all can benefit from UBD in many different ways. The first is that UBD leads to positive job growth and better-educated citizens. One example of this is the Alaska Permanent Fund. Since this is not Socialism, the oil production is under private control. Through this fund, incomes are distributed throughout Alaska which leads to more job opportunities and more Alaskan citizens educated on their state’s economy. This guarantee of income with this established fund allows more people to take their work seriously, protects low wages, and protects people from the lack of job security. It also allows employees to learn and grow in their fields, increasing automation in the workplace. One example that does exhibit Socialism is in the Venezuelan oil production economy. The government took control of all of the oil reserves, production, and companies which has caused fewer people to outside invest, losing people’s jobs and annual income. We can see how Socialism causes economies to struggle whenever they have unlimited possibilities with the resources they possess. Whenever the “Socialist Miracle” article was mentioned, it shocked me. Calling it a “Socialist” act whenever it is not and does not possess any characteristics of Socialism makes me think that people don’t know the true definition of Socialism and how it operates.
I also agree with the statement made by Professor Trost that stated, “...an avenue for freedom for people to walk away from poor circumstances.” As well as the quote from Vernon Howard, “Our freedom can be measured by the number of things we can walk away from.” I do believe that UBD allows people who live in dangerous areas to get out and make a living on their own. By giving them resources in job hunting and having a safety net for them to support their families in rough communities. UBD would be able to reduce poverty and income equality and improve physical and mental health for communities all around the country, especially communities in troubled areas in inner cities. This gives people increased individual freedom. They would then have the freedom to walk away from their current harmful circumstances and have a better life for themselves and their families. The only problem/question I would have is, would work motivation go down since regardless of how much people work or how hard they are working, they are receiving income? Most people still want to work, but there will be a slight population that will lose their incentive to work.
I do believe that it would be a costly investment, but I like the idea of Trost’s non-negotiables to keep the cost consistent. I do believe that governments when given too much power, can manipulate rules and regulations that can change the way the rule was originally enforced. I think you have to be stern with the way you propose new regulations to the government and have strict regulations behind them, especially when it relates to money and the economy. The government would be constitutionally limited in terms of picking winners and losers through subsidies and unfettered expansion (strict limits on taxation). In all honesty, governments might no longer need to protect the companies that are “too big to fail” and industries with regulations like “free trade” agreements. It can be easy for the government to overrule certain policies if they see that it doesn’t benefit them in the way they should, but the non-negotiables are best to mitigate this.
Lastly, is there a common ground to satisfy multiple goals from both sides of the argument? I think it would be hard but something to consider. I also do think it is all about perspective. With the population example, it could be seen as a positive or negative for cities. I believe that regardless of your political beliefs, this is something that could benefit everyone. Yes, there are negatives, but I feel like the positives outweigh the negatives. Overall, I like this idea and I feel like it would benefit the United States economically and socially.
