Debunking Inequality Media on Universal Basic Income (UBI)

Universal Basic Income or (UBI) is becoming an increasingly popular idea. However, regardless of what one calls it, a UBI is still a form of wealth redistribution and retains the key problem of Socialism. In this video, I respond to a defense of UBI put out by inequality media.

To become a patron and help me keep producing more, better quality videos:

If you'd like to make a one time donation through PayPal:

Start your own Minds account:

Original Video:

Boston Dynamics Robotics Footage:

South Park Footage:

"White People Renovating Houses." South Park. Comedy Central. 13 September 2017. Television.

All content owned by Comedy Central. No copyright infringement is intended.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for -fair use- for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

HARASSMENT NOTICE
It is not my intention to cause the original video creator to receive any kind of harassment or abuse. While I do use sarcasm and satire, my intention is to provide a counter argument to claims they have made. While I have no control over the feedback you choose to provide, I ask that you avoid any forms of harassment or abuse.

Academic Sources:

Freedman, D. H. (2016). Basic Income: A Sellout of the American Dream. MIT Technology Review. 119(4), 48-53.

Schneider, H. (2017). Universal Basic Income—Empty Dreams of Paradise. Intereconomics/Review of European Economic Policy, 52(2), 83-87.

Sowell, T. (2014). Basic Economics. New York: Basic Books.

To follow me elsewhere:

[irlserver]

Just as a libertarian I've noticed I get further with people arguing the practical angle over the moral angle myself. If someone doesn't share the values of liberty and property - they don't really care about wealth redistribution. That is kinda their goal after all.

Keep up the good work!

[das]

Ok, I'm against ancap, but you made some good points about UBI not being perfect. Anyway, I'm very sceptic of the idea.

[jeffbaum]

There musst be an global agenda for this shit, or something. In Germany there is a similar discussion about the BgB (Bedingungsloses income).

[cadaver_on_autopilot]

I swear, it's always the old Loonies that say these batshit ideas because they KNOW they won't be around to see everyone suffer, but they sure as hell are gonna try and implement them.

[Srpnte]

3:30
You are kinda right, yes there would still be a demand of people for building, programming and repairing the robots but do you think everyone would be qualified to this kind of work or that there would be enough jobs for everyone?

No, only a portion of the population would probably be qualified for due of their specific education while everyone would be kinda fuck and i don't think that there would be enough jobs for even 1/4 of USA (as the current Automation is reducing more jobs than creating new ones).

And then what we do when even those jobs would be automated too (since is possible to create robots capable to programming other robots)?

4:10
Yes, Total Automation is not something that is going to happen anytime soon, but with the current speed of technologic innovation, i doubt that we would need to wait thousands or hundreds of years before having a World like WALL•E.

Probably more like several decades or a little more than a century, at that point having something like the Universal Basic Income would be simply necessary for make the current type of economy we had work.

[dboykrank]

To be fair, UBI is better than Social Security, as people should not be paid 6 figures to merely exist, although I have better ideas for pension alternatives than either.

[ancapikitty]

Awesome. Well presented, and clearly explained. The older man needs to rethink what he advocates for.

[davidpidge]

12:38 Why would prices rise due to increased demand? Increased demand lowers prices as businesses compete for trade and products become cheaper to produce for larger markets.

[jonnzomcgonnzo]

It's more about looking at the ridiculous stats of graphs for finance, manufacturing, technology and seeing a breaking point of where the old systems just won't be able to cope. Historic data just can't be relied on for thr upcoming decades.
Regarding what you say that ubi experiments that may produce false results, it may also produce closer to real results too.
Personally, I think your thoughts are too ingrained of how the current world system works rather then how world system could work completely differently. Even in this current world system, different countries have way better social policies then usa for the benefit of everyone rather then a massive income inequality like the usa

[obijuan]

UBI is not socialism. And UBI is not welfare. UBI was discussed by people like Milton Friedman, Thomas Payne. Using old paradigms cannot be used in a world where constant unemployment could be over 10 or 20% or higher. And it was not entrepreneurial work that shrank the cell phone it was Government funded research. I don’t think the person who made this video understands the power of artificial intelligence, or the fact that manufacturing has dropped from 25% to 8% of all jobs. Amazon is closing malls which is where people went to work when manufacturing crashed. it true that tech has created more job but it has also created the greatest income inequality in American history.
Ted Cruz? Really he quoted Ted Cruz? I’m outta here.

[keithlindseyjr]

I hear a couple of arguments against UBI here.

First, that since robots aren't going to take our jobs, UBI isn't necessary. I agree that robots aren't going to eliminate human jobs. Automation is good, but it comes with two serious side effects that UBI helps mitigate. Automation causes human workers to move from productive work to arbitrary work, which reduces the ability of people to find meaning in their jobs(which leads to opioid crises and huge suicide rates etc). UBI helps decouple a person's self-identity from their job, which keeps people from being depressed all the time. Automation also tends to knock out the middle class (replacement jobs are either low wage or high wage) which makes climbing the ladder impossible for the lower class. Both of these effectively make the poor economic dead weight. UBI creates an environment where technology can continue to automate, and everyone can potentially participate and profit if they're driven. This will let us re-harness all that currently wasted human potential (which is what generates wealth in a capitalist economy).

Second argument I heard was that UBI will cause inflation so it cancels itself out. UBI may cause prices to increase in the short term, but as prices increase, supply will follow. The market will find new equilibrium, not spiral into unbounded inflation. If suppliers try to charge more just because they think people will pay more, market competition will punish them.

There is also an argument that the UBI removes incentive to work. It's true that 'not dying' is a strong incentive, but it's not the only one. We already pay to keep people who aren't working alive, and our current means tested social safety net provides a much stronger disincentive to work than UBI does. If you're on welfare and you get a job, the government reduces your benefit, causing extreme marginal effective tax rates. UBI removes those penalties, causing the poor to have a net increased incentive to work. The disincentive to work for the rich due to higher taxes is a moot point if you institute a VAT (which would help curb the inflationary effect) instead of jacking up income taxes. I think your argument works better as an argument against income tax, and I couldn't agree more about that.

During your hypothetical at the end, you mention Schneiders argument that UBI will make people demand higher wages for unappealing jobs. If you don't like that scenario, then I guess I have more faith in free markets than you or Dr. Schneider. What you are suggesting is that employers currently enjoy a "I provide my employees life" premium in the salary negotiation, and that you object to removing that premium. Assuming you derive your assumption about the sanctity of property rights from a Lockian Homesteading angle, how do you justify employers having that particular advantage?

On the highest level, I'm genuinely curious to know if you think UBI is worse than our current American situation, and if so, why?

[GreenSamurai]

I felt like responding so I will start at the beginning.

"A UBI than is simply another idea that finds its routes in the value of Karl Marx and other forms of socialists."

Basic income in the US can be traced back to Thomas Paine one of the founding fathers of the US and he died nine years before Karl Marx was born. So to say that Karl Marx is the route of the concept is a lie.

"Before we begin let's go over some basic economic realities, which never change regardless of what economic system we have, or what technologies are invented."

Sounds to me that you are trying to redefine the conversation before it even begins.

How many economists would agree with your assertions that will fallow? Would he agree with your assertions?

Better yet, why should I trust anything you are going to say? You have already lied once.

But let me go to one part specifically. "or what technologies are invented."

Do you have omniscience? Do you know what every technological advancement will be in human history?

If you say yes, you are crazy. If you say no, that statement is false.

"First, the very thing that makes economics necessary is scarcity."

Wrong, quick analogy. I have five apples and you have five oranges. I have a scarcity of oranges and you have a scarcity of apples. But you don't want apples and I don't want oranges. Is there an economy? No, because there is no trade.

So the very thing that makes economics necessary is not scarcity but the desire for a trade. If you want my apples and or I want your oranges an economic transaction is created. Not by scarcity but by trade.

"The garden of Eden was a system for the production of the goods and services, but it was not an economy because everything was available in unlimited abundance. Without scarcity, there is no need to economize - and there for no economy."

You use this quote to prove that economics is based on scarcity? That's funny because I use the same quote to claim that the field of economics is more like a religion than a science. I mean the arrogance of some economists. How can he know what the Garden of Eden was like? Was he there? Or does he think he has omniscience just like you?

[Barskor]

Old Rome started with a basic income of corn then ground corn then bread and wine then adding pork and vinegar and so on.

[AndrewCavallo]

Why would I pay one dollar to you for just two cents in return, especially since I can get the two cents even if I do not pay.

[clairtrek]

But if scarcity was such an issue why are products deliberately made to need replacing every few years, we have some scarcity but much is manufactured, also, I agree work is necessary if for many social reasons including mental health, but not 8 hours a day. Also the idea that humans will become lazy morons if given far more Leisure time is just fear talking, and work ethic, and a culture of contribution, a culture of learning and a culture of creativity can be taught, that is all that is needed to give incentive and motivate people to do their bit to keep society going, and we are all capable of living a decent standard of life, we are not rats, if all we are are rats, and some must rise above by pissing on others, I ask, what the duck is the fucking point, if we aren’t here striving for some moral an ethical improvement, if we are just here to find a way to be the pisser and not the pissed on, then you are certainly no better than a rat, and good luck to you. Cheers for your ideas

[jfitz]

Your entire debunk about automation is garbage. Robots will be able to repair and fix themselves and each other. We will not need "labor" to do much in the future. You're kids will understand this one day. Wish you understood it now...

[MrDXRamirez]

This is so stupid.
The human body is a tool it will always find work to do.
I have no objection to robots performing the menial tasks humans do now.

[AgrippaTheMighty]

A bunch of straw man arguments, lol. Where to start with your nonsense? First, for someone who profess to believe in capitalism, you don't believe in Return on Capital. Second, trickle down economics never worked nor will they ever work. And finally, technological trends show that by 2030, not only all driving jobs will be gone but the fossil fuel industry will be gone as well. An EV engine has 20 parts and no transmission vs 2000+ parts from an ICE vehicle. Do you truly think there will be as many mechanics repairing EVs as there have been for the ICE industry? You're kidding, right? If not UBI, what do you propose we do?? And BTW, although historically new kind of jobs have replaced obsolete jobs, can you guarantee that AI won't reach human level soon enough?