“UBI” is 𝑆𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑙 𖥐𖦪𖠢𖢧𖥣ꛘ𖥕ꚶ𖨚 by Design

... even after reading some stuff

Just getting this “out here” in preface to a much needed article on MMT counterfactual history, actual history, and “Austerity writ Large” and all Its evils — which are for worse than you can possibly imagine (unless you can imagine a realist style “utopia,” in which case your imagination is better than mine and so you may dimly comprehend the scale of the atrocities of austerity).

• If you say “tax the rich” to offset a massive living income level UBI, then I say you are a 𖥐𖦪𖠢𖢧𖥣ꛘ, because it is far more efficient and reduces massive compliance costs if government just lowers the tax liabilities on the lowest income strata. The same overall effect occurs — the poorest benefit the most. But now without utterly dreadfully wasteful tax compliance costs. Tax liabilities drive the base demand for the currency — the component of demand that is not raw false psychology or money fetish.

• The Job Guarantee (MMT leftist style) is always predicated upon the workers getting to choose whatever the heck they want to do in the local community. It is a fair system, manifest justice, since the governemtn damaged us in the first place, by design. UBI is a thoroughly 𖥐𖦪𖠢𖢧𖥣ꛘ𖥕ꚶ𖨚 way to reverse that damage, and never fully reverses the damage. I insinuate people desiring a UBI in parallel to a J G have no clue about the purpose of governemtn. I agree government is also 𖥐𖦪𖠢𖢧𖥣ꛘ𖥕ꚶ𖨚, so we should not want corvée labour or a corrupted J G either, if it is wage-slavery it is not a “JG”. MMT leftists must claim a stake on the langugae meanings here. A 𖥐𖦪𖠢𖢧𖥣ꛘ𖥕ꚶ𖨚 public job offer is not a JG, ok!!! Definitionally.

• In other words, the JG is progressive policy through-and-through, and that is apparent when the size of the JG pool is naturally N≈0. It should be N≈0 in a decent society. Nevertheless, the JG policy must remain in place. It is the only logical reversal of a policy mistake. (Government issued more tax liabilities than governemtn was prepared to hire. ($ terms of course.))

• There is a policy far better than even a Job Guarantee. It is Le Salaire à Vie. Just because it is Maple Leaf Frenchie does not make it a bad policy.

Wait.. What?

This should tell you more than just the fact techno-fascists support “UBI”. Here is Bill Mitchell on an old RealProgressives podcast fall-out,

“Upon the release of the podcast, Twitter went a bit wild with some people claiming MMT was advocating the abandonment of capitalism, and, that, finally, we had blown our cover – that it was now obvious that MMT was a political agenda.”

I totally agree. (Though I think those Xwitterrati doth protest too much.) The Anti-UBI job guarantee policy does undermine capitalism. Call me an anti-capitalist why don’t you! 🤣 But note, the J G supports markets! The Labour Market. The JG flattens the labour market playing field. No other policy can, outside something better like Le Salaire à Vie. If you disagree, then you need to do some learning. Come back to me in the comments once you have learned. I do not want to read any more of that bollocks about UBI “in parallel with a JG.” It makes me ill.

it should be enough to tell you how bad the discourse is when even headline MMT’ers like Kelton and Tcherneva concede: “Some form of UBI might be a good thing…”. No! What they are talking about is a Basic Income Guarantee. That is completely different to a UBI. You know, in the macro it is no difference, but in mesoeconomics it makes a huge friggin difference. Who the payments go to matters, like life vs death sometimes. Like entrenching Inequality versus flattening socioeconomic to be more fair and just. B.I.G. is nothing like U.B.I., they are “night and day.” One good, one “evil” (less good).

Never, ever, concede on principle if you desire justice. The government is not giving us justice, it is our job to demand it from them, since they portend to be an authority legitimated by some semblance of a democracy. It is only a mere semblance if we do not demand justice. If you are yourself fair-minded I think you should learn a bit and realize a UBI is not a demand for justice, it is caving in to austerity narratives and “neoliberal realism,” aka. Andrew Yangism, or worse, Peter Thielism. Stop caving in I beg you.

Among other unpalatable truths for the techno-fascists, Bill asserts that implementing a UBI to deal with unemployment and poverty would be capitulating to the neoliberal claim that government is helpless in the face of unemployment — as if people seeking tax credits (governemtn scorepoints) but cannot find them (aka. unemployment) is a natural phenomenon.

Check out some of the Xwitter aftermath here.

The case was made, and Bill was not even starting up. So why am I still writing these sorts of articles? Well, is it not because people still remain who are more 𖥐𖦪𖠢𖢧𖥣ꛘ𖥕ꚶ𖨚 than others? Yes. Good people too, nice people. We need to continually 𝕕ℯ𝙘🅡𝘦𝙩🅸🄽𝗶𝙯𝗲 ourselves, everyone. It’s a life-long process. Really, part of what makes life worth living. (To faintly echo Neil Postman.)

Le Salaire à Vie

I do not write about and boost the Le Salaire à Vie all that much because it is quixotic. MMT activism is already too quixotic for me to handle by the day.¹ Unlike a J G — which enjoys massive “bipartisan” support right this very day, the Le Salaire à Vie would probably, in all honesty, require a thoroughly left-wing regime, as in dictatorship of the Proletariat level “regime.” Non-authoritarian authoritarians.

What is the meaning of such John Archibald Wheelerisms? Well, for this one you all know it, since Neoliberalism is also non-authoritarian authoritarianism. Namely, you are all psyched into believing your tax payments fund the tax credit issuer. Cannot get more willing compliance austerity if you gamer coded it up in high res graphics.

Le Salaire à Vie. is the flip side of neoliberalism, direct anti-neoliberalism, and can have “socialist” characteristics or “free market” characteristics, as long as by “free” we mean”for all” (we all have roughly the same purchasing power) not just for people who already have a lot of money. Only a government monopolist can ensure this, markets cannot (increasing returns effects).

This does not mean “government is good”. Obviously. It means we have hard work ahead to force our government to be good, starting with making them our governments, not the oligarch’s.

1. Some days banging my head against seemingly intractable mathematics puzzles in theoretical physics has to be a retreat. By comparison with MMT activism this bruising of the inner cranium it is positively orgasmic.