'Some powerful billionaire entrepreneurs are keen on the idea of universal basic income, recognising that job insecurity is inescapable in an age of increasing automation.
Among them are Tesla and Space X CEO Elon Musk, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Virgin Group boss Richard Branson'.
The REAL LEFT social progressive economic policy for wage and REAL free market economy is to STOP MOVING FORWARD SMART CITIES ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID -----which of course those dastardly 5% to the 1 %global banking pols and players will not do. We don't want total automation----it is NOT 99% SUSTAINABILITY ----it cannot be maintained by natural resources available here on EARTH ---and it NEEDLESSLY kills all avenues of employment for US 99% and our 99% of new immigrant citizens.
So, the ONLY PEOPLE supporting BASIC INCOME are those OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS and their 5% freemason/Greeks with a goal of killing 99% of US WE THE PEOPLE.
BASIC INCOME HAS ALWAYS BEEN FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY TIED TO BRINGING OUR US AND EUROPEAN 99% OF FIRST WORLD DEVELOPED NATIONS DOWN TO THIRD WORLD DARK AGES ENSLAVEMENT.
Who's selling BASIC INCOME as a COMMON GOOD? Fake ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT global banking 'populist leaders' tied to OUR REVOLUTION---the UNITED NATIONS 5% players pretending to be helping the poor.
Being open-minded about universal basic income
Submitted by Ugo Gentilini On Fri, 01/06/2017
co-authors: Ruslan Yemtsov
In a world riddled with complexity, the simplicity of universal basic income grants (BIGs) is alluring: just give everyone cash. Excerpts of such radical concepts have been put in practice across the globe, with the launch of a pilot in Kenya, results from India, a coalition in Namibia, an experiment in Finland, a pilot in the Unites States, a referendum in Switzerland, and the redistribution of dividends from natural resources in Alaska and elsewhere.
In high-income countries (HICs), the main rationale for BIGs is related to automation, artificial intelligence, stagnant real wages, and the rise of the ‘precariat’. While the alarm bells that ‘the machines are taking over’ have rung for centuries, advances in robotics may keep slicing labor-capital ratios in large-scale industries and a variety of services. Machines, the argument goes, can take the jobs, but should not take the incomes: the job uncertainty that engulfs large swaths of society should be matched by a welfare policy that protects the masses, not only ‘the poor’. Hence, BIGs emerge as a straightforward option for the digital era – one seemingly backed by Silicon Valley and trade unions alike.
In developing countries, conversations are of a different nature. Most social protection systems in middle-income countries (MICs) are still relatively new, and have yet to undergo the centuries of societal struggles and bargains that cemented welfare regimes in advanced economies. But investments in social protection in MICs seem to occur at comparatively earlier levels of development. For example, mid-19th century poverty levels in the UK and the United States resemble those in India today, sans an equivalent of NREGA or similar rights-based programs – and certainly no biometric Aadhar platforms to help deliver assistance. A BIG in a MIC might still be a long shot, but not that far off from a historical perspective. Iran, for instance, even implemented a variant of BIGs, which rapidly eroded due to inflation and eventually scaled-back for fiscal constraints.
In low-income countries (LICs), social protection systems are truly at their infancy, and have only recently replaced decades of international humanitarian approaches. Here only one-tenth of those living in the poorest quintile is covered by social assistance. Limited finance is no small reason for such performance: pervasive informality and low government revenues (often below 15 percent of GDP) hinder domestic resource mobilization for, among other things, social spending. For example, the budget of a European hospital is almost nine times greater than a LIC’s average spending for the whole social protection sector (i.e., $200 million). A sudden introduction of BIGs in a LIC may be closer to moon-shooting than leap-frogging.
Moreover, there are disputes over the definition and measurement of poverty in contexts where virtually ‘everybody is poor’; targeted approaches have helped reduce the inefficiencies of old-fashioned subsidy programs (which pursued objectives similar to those of a BIG), but there is a lively debate on the trade-offs and methods of targeting (e.g., see here and here); also, the political economy of redistribution has been largely underexplored.
A unifying constraint in countries across the income spectrum is red tape. Social assistance is underpinned by processes of targeting, application, eligibility verification, registration, recertification, and monitoring – with a vast set of programs sometimes having their own individual processes. These are often introduced for good reasons – such as prioritizing the most vulnerable – but at times complexity and opportunity costs may stifle assistance instead of enhancing it. BIGs may not waive some of those functions, especially in the early phases of introduction (e.g., identification, registration, and recertification); but no doubt the bureaucratic burden would be lessened overall, coming as relief for the bandwidth of poor people.
Importantly, BIGs are a melting pot with many variants leading to dramatically different schemes depending on how they are conceived and designed. For example, arguments have been made that less bureaucracy and more predictability may play in favor of increased work efforts, not less. But ultimately, much of the discussion around labor incentives – as well as sustainability – may boil down to the size and objectives of assistance: should BIGs be large enough to meet basic standards of living as the Suisse? Or should they replace most of the current public programs, thus becoming a kind of voucher, to shop for assistance of choice? Or should they provide a more modest amount of cash, which substitutes for some similar transfer program but that is still provided alongside other public interventions?
These questions should not be addressed in isolation, but organically. Because of their foundational nature, BIGs offer a clean slate to revisit system-wide issues: this means, among others, considering BIGs within an optimal composition of social assistance and insurance (e.g., BIGs are similar to social pensions for seniors, although extended to those above 18 years of age); connecting the discussion to the flexibility and formality of labor markets; and anchoring the narrative to the financing and tax discourse (e.g., Friedman’s version of a BIG was indeed a negative income tax).
Over the next two years, we have a great opportunity to unpack the rationale, contexts, and analytical and practical implications of BIGs as an option on a policymakers’ social assistance menu. As the Safety Nets Global Solutions Group in the World Bank, we are excited to contribute to this agenda, and look forward to collaborating and engaging with all those interested in the matter.
The WORLD BANK/IMF---UNITED NATIONS OLD WORLD global 1% will do anything to MOVE FORWARD this march to totalitarianism including creating all kinds of FAKE DATA surrounding the successes or failures of BASIC INCOME. Here in US REAL left social progressives KNOW a far-right wing Bush global banking 1% neo-conservative SARAH PALIN----meets far-right wing global banking 1% Clinton neo-liberal CALIFORNIA have NO good intentions for US 99% WE THE PEOPLE.....neither will produce any social benefit structure intending to help US 99% as they are driven to third world DARK AGES poverty. The sole goal of BASIC INCOME is to end all those SOCIAL SERVICES---SOCIAL PROGRAMS ---SOCIAL BENEFIT safety net programs that allowed our US citizens to maintain a first world quality of life. They will install some form of BASIC INCOME telling our US and global 99% immigrant citizens this will be a benefit---and in only the few decades it takes to build US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE global corporate campuses and global factories BASIC INCOME will disappear.
We need our 99% US young adults and 99% of global new immigrant citizens having not experienced our US FDR PUBLIC SAFETY NET structures when they were HIGHLY FUNCTIONAL serving the needs of citizens left unemployed or struggling with disease vectors covered while they were able to return to what was then a THRIVING REAL FREE MARKET DOMESTIC ECONOMY......what these citizens have witnessed these few decades of ROBBER BARON CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA is complete dysfunction of these social safety net programs, services, benefits by filling them with massive frauds, government corruption led by GLOBAL BANKING 5% FREEMASON/GREEKS.
THE GOAL IS ENDING ALL FIRST WORLD DEVELOPED NATION SOCIAL SAFETY NETS ALLOWING FOR QUALITY OF LIFE WITH NO INTENTIONS OF HAVING BASIC INCOME AT ALL.
Here is the latest global banking 5% player telling us BASIC INCOME is all about left communist socialism. It's not about far-right wing, authoritarian, militaristic, extreme wealth extreme poverty LIBERTARIAN MARXISM....GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS PLANTATION SOCIALISM.
Sarah Palin Shocked Over California City’s Universal Basic Income, Which Is Based on Alaska’s Model
By Ryan Sit On 4/3/18 at 9:53 AM
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was called out on Twitter after she expressed shock over a California city's universal basic income experiment—an initiative based on Alaska's model that guarantees income floor for its residents.
"Are you kidding me?" Palin tweeted early Monday along with a link to a right-wing blog that denounced the income initiative in Stockton, California, as a "socialist" concept.
The blog post on AmericaNewsCentral.com criticized Stockton's plan to provide a small number of low-income residents with a $500 stipend per month.
"Socialist ideas seem to be on the rise in the country, everything from attacking gun rights to some embracing [Vermont Senator] Bernie Sanders and single payer healthcare," the blog post read. "Now, some are pushing for the concept of universal basic income and one city is even trying it out."
And here is that FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT global banking 5 %player Clinton/Obama neo-liberal PRETENDING to be fighting SARAH PALIN when they are both working for team OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS-----BOTH having the goal of killing US 99% and global 99% of new immigrants.
This is what national media has done these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-----played the media game of pretending policies are left social progressive when they are far-right wing global banking extreme wealth extreme poverty.
'STOCKTON — Mayor Michael Tubbs'
Below we see STOCKTON----that CA SILICON VALLEY captured mid-size US city deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE----allowed to PRETEND he is helping the Stockton poor by pushing WORLD BANK/UNITED NATIONS ONE WORLD for only the global 1%.
Supporters defend income project after jab by Sarah Palin
By Roger Phillips
Record Staff Writer
Posted Apr 2, 2018 at 7:12 PM Updated Apr 2, 2018 at 7:12
PMSTOCKTON — Mayor Michael Tubbs woke up Monday to find he had been cyber-assailed by Sarah Palin, a former Alaska governor and an unsuccessful Republican vice presidential candidate as Sen. John McCain’s running mate in 2008.
At 3:20 a.m. Monday, 54-year-old Palin tweeted, “You’ve got to be kidding,” along with a link to a post by a writer on the blog americannewscentral.com.
You’ve got to be kidding...https://t.co/UoJq0Mmwu1
— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA)April 2, 2018
Palin’s tweet used the post to take issue with Tubbs’ introduction late last year of a universal basic income experiment in Stockton, a project still in the development stage. The blogger wrote that universal basic income programs are part of a “socialist” drift that is “on the rise” in the United States. The post added that Democrats “have jumped the shark and have gone so far left there may be no saving them.”
When leaders of the under-development “Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration,” or SEED program, learned of Palin’s post, they tweeted back to her: “Thank you, Alaska for helping to inform our approach!”
Thank you, Alaska for helping to inform our approach!https://t.co/p34x3JrRAp
— SEED (@stocktondemo)April 2, 2018
A second tweet, this one by Tubbs, took a sly jab at Palin, pointing out that the Stockton program is “actually modeled after the Alaska Permanent Fund” and asking Palin, “Are you familiar with it?”
Actually modeled after the Alaska Permanent Fund. Are you familiar with it?https://t.co/RM33oa1w9S
— Michael Tubbs (@MichaelDTubbs)April 2, 2018
The Alaska Permanent Fund established a basic guaranteed income for all of the state’s residents in 1982 under then-Gov. Jay Hammond, a Republican. Alaska’s program is paid for with oil revenues, according to Forbes magazine. The vastly smaller SEED will serve a tiny number of Stockton residents and has been established with philanthropic dollars.
The blog post linked to by Palin includes a quote from one of Tubbs’ loudest local critics, Kathleen Gapusan, a regular attendee of city council meetings.
“It has repercussions they haven’t even discussed yet,” Gapusan told the blog, referring to the basic income program. “And the major one is that (you) don’t have to work. There is no incentive to look for work.”
Proponents of Stockton’s SEED program say recipients — perhaps 50 of them — could include those who have been unable to make ends meet for years, as well as formerly middle class families whose quality of life has diminished in an age when the cost of living keeps increasing but salaries often do not.
Tubbs expanded on his assessment of the program’s critics in a phone interview late Monday afternoon.
“It’s all based on misinformation and lies,” he said. “I felt it was important to clear the air, especially because the (Stockton) basic-income project was partly inspired by the Alaska (program). ... I think critiques and questions are good if they’re informed by facts.”
Tubbs said if he spoke to Palin, he would “set the record straight” and tell her, “Well actually governor, this is a program you utilized as governor.”
Here is BLOOMBERG media owned by one of the top GLOBAL BANKING ROBBER BARON 5% players made a billionaire during these few decades of fleecing US Treasury and our 99% US WE THE PEOPLE wealth of hundred trillion dollars in wealth moving it to OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS. Bloomberg is saying BASIC INCOME will be the next BIG THING. Of course BALTIMORE is BLOOMBERG FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE #2 NORTH AMERICA----so we can be sure BASIC INCOME will be pushed by global banking 5% pols and players here as well.
The goal of BASIC INCOME is to end the concept of people receiving WAGES---PAYCHECKS ----tying this monthly stipend from global banking to a government payment structure. As more and more and more US citizens are left unemployed and impoverished----as those 5% to the 1% freemason/Greeks being made WHIRLING DERVISHES bounce off stage and under the bus----becoming the same unemployed extremely impoverished US 99% WE THE PEOPLE-----this BASIC INCOME REPLACING WAGE will fall from being close to first world developed nation quality of life-----that is why we are seeing figures like $1000---2,000 A MONTH =====when no time soon that monthly payment will become $100-200 a month---and no time later there will be no money involved in working on global corporate campuses and in global factories.
This is what our global 99% labor pool citizens from overseas third world nations have been facing these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA in the global slave trading distribution system. Now global banking 1% is bringing this to US and are happy to throw 99% US WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens into this global slave trade structure.
BUT THOSE OLD WORLD GLOBAL BANKING FAKE RELIGIOUS FREEMASON LEADERS ARE SAYING THIS IS COMMON GOOD!
A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing
Experiments on a social policy are suddenly taking place all over the world.
May 2, 2016, 8:00 AM EDT
Now and then a worthy economic proposal comes along that seems as politically unattainable as it is sensible. Then, on closer inspection, you see that it's more than a policy-wonk's fantasy. And you wonder whether it could actually prevail.
This may be happening with the concept of a universal basic income. The notion that government should guarantee every citizen an annual stipend of, say, $10,000 -- no strings attached, no questions asked -- is being studied by politicians, economists and policy experts worldwide.
Think of it as Social Security for all. In the social democracies of Europe, Canada and South America, experiments are planned or underway. In the U.S., it's still little more than a concept -- one that appears to have more conservative backers than liberal ones.
Bernie Sanders says he's "sympathetic" to the theory behind a universal basic income but stops well short of advocating it. Hillary Clinton seems even less enthusiastic. By contrast, conservative economists, politicians and think-tank scholars are not as hesitant. Marco Rubio, for example, proposed the beginnings of a basic income in his 2015 tax plan.
The rest of the world is taking the lead.
Switzerland will hold a June 5 referendum on whether to give every adult citizen 2,500 Swiss francs (about $2,600) a month. Ontario, Canada, will conduct an experiment with a basic income later this year. The city of Utrecht in the Netherlands is conducting a pilot program, and Finland is planning a two-year trial. A British proposal is gathering interest. In May, a nonprofit group will start giving 6,000 Kenyans a guaranteed income for at least a decade and follow the results.
Basic-income proposals come in many varieties, and have myriad rationales.
Some progressives see it as the ultimate expression of what a developed economy can achieve: a way to lessen poverty and inequality, and ease the pain of job loss and economic stagnation. But in the U.S., many liberals see it as naive and a distraction from more practical priorities, such as a $15 minimum wage and paid family leave.
For conservatives, the attraction is smaller government. Dozens of social-welfare programs now costing U.S. taxpayers about $1 trillion a year could be folded into a basic-income program, they argue.
With no eligibility criteria or enforcement needed, administrative costs would be bare-bones. Waste, fraud and abuse would be greatly reduced, the argument goes, if not close to zero.
In the 1960s, a basic income was part of the mainstream political discussion. President Richard Nixon even proposed an income floor, based on ideas developed by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a domestic-policy adviser. The proposal died in part because of liberal opposition to a work requirement and obstruction by a well-organized welfare lobby, Moynihan would later write.
The earned-income tax credit, a form of basic income, took its place, but only to supplement the earnings of the working poor. The tax credit was first proposed in 1962 by conservative economist Milton Friedman. One of his aims was to end the "earnings cliff," in which government aid disappears once income exceeds a cap. Such a limit discourages recipients from working, a consequence that keeps them poor and dependent.
The tax credit is still around and widely considered an effective anti-poverty program, but the earnings-cliff issue has only gotten worse: The U.S. now has 80-plus low-income programs, each with its own eligibility rules and earnings caps.
The idea of a universal basic income is enjoying a renaissance today, not only in Washington think tanks but in Silicon Valley, as my Bloomberg View colleague, Justin Fox, has written. Y Combinator, a venture-capital firm, is launching a five-year research project, for example. The goal is to give a randomly selected group of people a monthly check to see if they sit around and play video games or create economic value.
Why does Silicon Valley care? It can see the role of technology in accelerating job losses in the U.S. Two Oxford University professors wrote recently that about 47 percent of U.S. jobs are at risk of being replaced by automation. If that happens, the economy would shrink, and fewer and fewer people would be able to buy the goods that Silicon Valley creates.
THOSE CRAZY OXFORD OLD WORLD IVY LEAGUE GUYS THINK US WE THE PEOPLE BELIEVE ONLY 47% OF US CITIZENS BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS WILL BE LOSING OUR JOBS.
The fear that people with a guaranteed basic income would become slackers may be unfounded. One economist who studied trials conducted in the 1970s in Canada found the opposite: Recipients were healthier and finished high school at higher rates. Adults with full-time jobs worked the same number of hours with one exception: Women took off more time after having a baby, an utterly reasonable outcome.
Yes, the costs of guaranteeing 322 million Americans $10,000 a year would be prohibitive -- a whopping $3.2 trillion a year.
But by excluding 45 million retirees who already receive a basic income through Social Security, the cost falls to $2.7 trillion. And if the benefit is phased out for households earning more than $100,000 (that would be 20 percent of the U.S.'s 115 million households, or about 70 million people, assuming three to a household), the cost declines to about $2 trillion. You could confine the program to adults and shrink the price tag even more, possibly to as low as $1.5 trillion.
Now we're getting close to the $1 trillion cost of all those unemployment checks, tax credits, food stamps, housing vouchers and a myriad other means-tested benefits that a basic income could supplant.
Here is where liberals start to get queasy. They don't like that a basic income would replace the safety net, even when assured that some programs, including education, job training and entitlements like Medicare, would be maintained.
OH, REALLY????? YOU MEAN UNITED NATIONS MEDICARE FOR ALL SINGLE PAYER THAT IS NOT IS MEDICARE BUT THIRD WORLD PREVENTATIVE CARE ONLY?
They worry that the civil servants who now run programs would be laid off. And they fear that a basic income would, in the end, be less than what many people get when all the federal government's cash and social-service programs are combined.
Those are valid concerns. But as other countries test the idea and seek improvements in their social-welfare systems, will it make sense for the U.S. to maintain an expensive crazy-quilt of programs, many of which have not lifted people out of poverty and dependence? A Social-Security-for-all approach might not seem like such a fantasy after all.
The wage scale created in overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES like CHINA---TAIWAN are indeed the wage and workplace conditions MOVING FORWARD in US and EUROPEAN NATIONS. We have discussed in detail how these Chinese global corporations JUKE STATS on wages----from double-book entries to simply lying about how much these 99% Chinese workers earn---about the existence of FORCED LABOR CAMPS whether called REHABILITATION CAMPS or CRIMINAL PRISON LABOR. So, China has NO intention of changing these global banking NEO-LIBERAL, NAKED CAPITALIST, LAISSEZ-FAIRE OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS economic structures in their FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
Yet, here we see WORLD BANK/UNITED NATIONS BASIC INCOME policies MOVING FORWARD pretending China is becoming DEMOCRATIC-------socially progressive.
THE GOALS OF MOVING FORWARD IS ONE WORLD DIGITAL CURRENCY WHERE 99% OF US AND GLOBAL CITIZENS WILL NEVER SEE MONEY---THEY WILL NOT SEE WAGES AND INCOME----IT WILL SIMPLY BE $3-6 A DAY----$200-400 A MONTH FOR WHITE COLLAR PROFESSIONALS----AND ALL THAT 'WAGE' WILL BE CLAWED BACK TO PAY FOR GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS SOCIALISM----
You know---all that food, housing, corporate schools needed for corporate plantation enslavement.
That's funny----we have watched for several decades how 99% of CHINESE fought ---protested against GREAT LEAP FORWARD ----NATIONAL POLITBURO-----now being made to look like FAKE DEMOCRACY.
Selling the idea BASIC INCOME is common good coming from WESTERN NATIONS to China rather than the fact that BASIC INCOME is coming from CHINA taking WESTERN NATIONS to third world DARK AGES global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS enslavement.
Can you imagine where our United States economy and quality of life would be if CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA had not been allowed to sack our nation----if those dastardly global banking 5% freemason/Greek pols and players actually sat around a table discussing PUBLIC POLICY FOR THE 99% WE THE PEOPLE COMMON GOOD. All that energy placed into being DASTARDLY.
REMEMBER, THE INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION ---ILO----IS A UNITED NATIONS/WORLD BANK NGO WORKING FOR GLOBAL BANKING---NOT 99% US OR GLOBAL WORKERS.
CHINA: UNDP holds basic income roundtable in Beijing
October 30, 2017 Tyler Prochazka News, News & Events In a sign of the major progress Universal Basic Income (UBI) has made in Asia, the United Nations Development Program in Beijing hosted a roundtable discussion on basic income last week. Professors from China’s most influential universities spoke at the roundtable about the potential for a basic income pilot program in China.
Patrick Haverman is the UNDP Deputy Country Director for China. Haverman said he wants to work with academia and government to determine if basic income experiments in different areas of China are feasible.
“With the Sustainable Development Goals firmly focused on the need to ‘leave no one behind’, careful consideration of a wide variety of responses will be essential,” Haverman said during his opening remarks. ”It is very important that we can foster collaborative discussions around potential options to address poverty and inequality into the future, and the role of UBI should not be overlooked.”
The roundtable also discussed the benefits and likely challenges of implementing a Universal Basic Income in China. A large topic was how UBI could improve on the dibao system, which is China’s means-tested unconditional cash transfer program. Dibao currently has issues with targeting the subsidies toward people in poverty, which many participants at the roundtable noted UBI’s universality could potentially alleviate.
Shi Li, a professor at Beijing Normal University, said Chinese people in poverty receive the dibao because of poor targeting. In his research, Li and other researchers found that nearly 88 percent of poor residents in China do not receive dibao stipends. Remarkably, administrative costs of means-testing were three times more than the actual transferred amount.
The large size and economic disparities across the mainland mean it may be difficult to implement a national UBI that is not adjusted based on residence, others noted.
The event was co-hosted by the International Labour Organization, which presented on the potential disruption of automation on employment during the roundtable. Haverman said an advantage in China is that smartphone penetration is high and many businesses now accept digital payments. This means it may be most efficient to send basic incomes to digital wallets.
“Almost everyone has a phone, so if we find a pilot zone I think we should take a look at it,” Haverman said.
Furui Cheng an associate professor at China University of Political Science and Law’s Business School, said the China Basic Income/Social Dividend Research Network is working with UNDP to plan the next steps for a pilot program in China.
Cheng said they are looking to work with local governments and raise money from technology companies.
“Basic income is the probable alternative for the future global social security system, which is facing unprecedent challenges now,” Cheng said.
“We shall learn the experiences of global existing basic income experiments as much as possible, and we welcome any suggestions from any supporters,” she said.
Zhiyuan Cui, a professor at Tsinghua University, has written how China could emulate the Alaska Permanent Fund to implement UBI. Cui explained that Jay Hammond, the Alaskan governor who created the Permanent Fund, said he often felt “closer to Beijing than Washington DC.”
SARAH PALIN AND GLOBAL BANKING 1% CHINA DO HAVE THAT SAME FAR-RIGHT WING EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY NAKED CAPITALISM ETHOS.
Yang Tuan of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said the size of China means it would be a good place “to come up with many types of experiments” for basic income.Tuan, who supported the implementation of dibao when she was working for China’s social security system, said the economic dynamics of China have changed since dibao started.
“(In the past) I have been against western mechanisms of social security,” she said. “But today I think the context of China is different.”
According to Haverman, the UNDP is planning to release up to three more working papers, addressing topics such as financing UBI in China, as well as its effect on work hours.
OH, REALLY?????? The United Nations/World Bank GLOBAL CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY is about leaving no one behind? That's funny because here in US we see our 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens having already been left behind with global billionaires like MUSK, ZUCKERBERG, BRANSON working hard to make sure SMART CITIES does exactly that.
UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY IS THE OPPOSITE OF 99% WE THE PEOPLE SUSTAINABILITY.
“With the Sustainable Development Goals firmly focused on the need to ‘leave no one behind’
Here is that global banking 1% CNN media outlet telling us things are BOOMING----THE ECONOMY AND STOCK MARKET IS SOARING-----the ROARING 20S creating the GREAT DEPRESSION this time with no RECOVERY from that economic crash GREAT DEPRESSION.
Danielle Wiener-Bronner quite the 5% global banking player.
Our global labor pool 99% new immigrants need to understand how these policies are sold as common good by people working for FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY----and will simply be facing the same wage and work conditions as existed these few decades in overseas third world FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
Time to take the United States back to being a SOVEREIGN NATION by getting EISENHOWER'S MITRE CORPORATION tied to foreign sovereignty MALTA out of out US FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL government.
Richard Branson: Universal basic income is coming
by Danielle Wiener-Bronner @dwbronner February 15, 2018: 2:04 PM ET
Richard Branson believes government should give everyone a paycheck, whether they have a job or not."I think that's really important," he told CNN's Christine Romans in an interview. "It will come about one day."
The concept is called universal basic income. It guarantees every person a minimum income regardless of age, wealth, job status, hometown or family size. Some countries are already experimenting with it.
Branson is one of many business leaders who have voiced support.
During a commencement address at Harvard last year, Facebook (FB) CEO Mark Zuckerberg said, "We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas."
For Branson, guaranteed basic income is a way to protect people who may one day lose their jobs to artificial intelligence.
His sentiments echo those of SpaceX and Tesla (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk, who told CNBC last year that a universal basic income could be an outcome of automation.
Proponents of the plan say the aim is to give workers greater financial security as concerns rise about machines taking away jobs, in addition to alleviating income inequality.
Critics say the idea has good intentions, but doesn't solve bigger problems related to poor wage growth. They also say it challenges the notion that you need to work to earn money.
Branson recommended that cities start experimenting with a universal basic income.
Canada and Finland give guaranteed income to people who were either recently on unemployment benefits or are low income. Other countries have rejected the idea altogether. In 2016, Switzerland shot down a referendum to provide citizens with a basic income.
ISN'T THAT SIMPLY CALLED 'UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS'?