Only UBI Will Do

It concerns me that the drive for the critically needed Universal Basic Income is confused and confounded by appeals to 'Basic Income' without the essential 'Universal' aspect that makes it universal. 

As debates around economic policies intensify, it is crucial to distinguish between genuine Universal Basic Income (UBI) and other forms of basic income that fall short of addressing the fundamental issues. The following letter to the NDP, who recently advocated for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income (GLBI), underscores why only UBI can effectively provide the security and equality we need in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. If it does not say "Universal," it is not UBI. Below is my letter to Leah Gazan of the NDP, which is followed by an analysis of why a truly universal approach is essential for our future. If you find yourself moved to add your voice, her site is here: https://www.leahgazan.ca/, and her email for this issue is: [email protected]

Letter sent to Leah Gazan

Dear Leah,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to share my thoughts on Bill C-223, the National Framework for a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Act. While I appreciate the NDP’s efforts to address poverty and economic inequality, I believe the proposed Guaranteed Livable Basic Income (GLBI) falls short of what is truly needed.

Concerns with GLBI

The concept of "Basic Income" is already part of our current system, albeit flawed and inefficient. The fundamental issue with means-tested programs is that they inherently exclude people. By design, means testing filters out individuals who, for various reasons, do not meet the criteria. This approach often leaves those in need without support and creates a labyrinth of bureaucracy that is costly to administer and maintain.

The Case for Universal Basic Income (UBI)

What Canada needs is a Universal Basic Income (UBI) – an income that every Canadian receives. This ensures several critical outcomes:

1. Inclusivity: Every individual who needs support receives it without the barriers of means testing.
2. Efficiency: Those who do not need the income will have it clawed back through the existing tax system, making the net fiscal impact manageable.
3. Cost-Effective Administration: UBI can be implemented with minimal administrative overhead, leveraging our existing tax infrastructure and recent innovations in direct deposit systems, as evidenced by the CERB program.

Implementation and Cultural Shift

UBI is not complicated legislation. It can be rolled out rapidly, with initial payments beginning shortly after the bill’s passage. Long-term implementation will involve adjustments in tax brackets, cooperation with provincial and territorial governments, and consideration of withholding mechanisms.

However, UBI alone is not a panacea. It must be complemented by Universal Basic Services (UBS) to cover extraordinary costs for people with disabilities, healthcare, and access to public utilities. Implementing UBI and UBS requires a cultural shift. With the rapid advancement of AI and automation, many jobs will be lost, and the traditional notion that people must "earn their way" will become increasingly untenable. UBI should be seen as a "prosperity dividend," reflecting our shared ownership of the nation’s wealth.

The Problem with GLBI

The current push for GLBI risks diverting energy and resources from the goal of implementing a true UBI. This initiative may create a sense of complacency, leading to statements like:

• "We are working on the GBI, so there is no need for UBI."
• "We passed the GBI, so the problem is solved."

Legislation tweaking our existing social safety nets can be easily overturned, and the guarantees of GLBI could be undermined by future policies. In contrast, UBI, once established, would be challenging to dismantle as it benefits everyone, making it politically resilient.

Conclusion

A genuine UBI will provide a lasting solution to poverty and economic insecurity, ensuring that all Canadians can share in the country’s prosperity. I urge the NDP to reconsider its focus and advocate for a truly universal and inclusive basic income system.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Bob Trower

Only UBI Will Do – If It's Not Universal, It's Not UBI

The concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI) has garnered increasing attention as a potential solution to growing economic inequality and the impending challenges posed by AI and automation. However, not all proposals that claim to offer a "basic income" meet the criteria needed to genuinely address these issues. Here’s why only a truly universal approach will suffice:

1. Inclusivity and Simplicity

The core of UBI lies in its universality. Every individual, regardless of their financial situation, receives a fixed income. This approach ensures that:

• Everyone Who Needs It Gets It: Means testing and conditional income supports are complex and often fail to reach those in need. UBI eliminates these barriers, guaranteeing support for all.
• Natural Clawback: Higher-income individuals will effectively return their UBI through the tax system, ensuring that the wealth distribution is equitable without the need for complex administrative processes.
• Minimal Administrative Costs: A universal approach drastically reduces the costs associated with administering and monitoring eligibility for various welfare programs.

2. Economic Security in an Automated Future

With AI and automation set to transform the workforce, UBI provides a safety net that allows individuals to adapt without the immediate pressure of financial instability. As jobs evolve or disappear, UBI can ensure:

• Stability During Transition: People can upskill or transition to new roles without the fear of losing their livelihood.
• Encouragement of Entrepreneurship: Financial security can foster innovation, as individuals are more likely to take entrepreneurial risks when their basic needs are guaranteed.

3. Reframing Entitlements to Wealth and Power

Our current economic system is rooted in outdated notions of ownership and entitlement, which can become dangerously concentrated in a rapidly automating world. UBI represents a shift towards recognizing that:

• Wealth Should Be Shared: In a society where automation generates most wealth, it is imperative to distribute this wealth more equitably.
• Preventing Concentration of Power: Without intervention, AI and automation could lead to extreme wealth concentration. UBI helps mitigate this risk by ensuring a baseline of economic power for all citizens.

4. Practical Implementation and the Road Ahead

A realistic phase-in plan over 60 months, starting with $300 per month and increasing by 2.5% monthly, can help manage the transition:

• Gradual Implementation: Starting with modest payments and scaling up allows for adjustments and minimizes the initial fiscal impact.
• Administrative Adjustments: Simplifying and automating government services can free up resources to support UBI, while retraining civil servants to manage more complex tasks.
• Employment Opportunities: Even with UBI, people can and will seek employment to supplement their income, fostering a dynamic and resilient economy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the idea of a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income (GLBI) might seem appealing, it does not address the fundamental issues that UBI aims to solve. Only a universal, unconditional income can provide the economic security and fairness needed in our rapidly changing world. As we move forward, it is essential to focus our efforts on implementing a genuine UBI that ensures no one is left behind.

By advocating for a truly universal approach, we can create a fairer, more secure future for all Canadians, regardless of the economic challenges that lie ahead.

No Longer Even Pretending

Those in power cheat. It was ever thus. But in the past, they at least pretended that they did not. These days, they have become entitled and emboldened to the point that they celebrate their corrupt behavior. 

With the excuse of supply chain disruption and inflation, and under the current environment of "regulatory capture", vendors have cheerfully begun to price gouge even more than their already outrageous cash grabs. We have become so used to vendor corrupted entities like the CRTC, Canada Competition Bureau, and other regulatory bodies that we no longer fight it. The gang-members running things cheerfully go about managing their corrupt operations, largely in the open. It's business as usual. 

For me, this all hits home recently with three examples where I should have been able to expect some protection from the CRTC (mobile price gouging), the CPSO (physician misbehavior), and the Competition Bureau (crazy price-fixing).  The one that triggered this: I could use a replacement of a failing part in my furnace that for now just makes an annoying noise, but the service guy who was just here tells me it will fail. When I asked how much it would cost to replace he chuckled and said "a lot -- we'll send you a quote". In a reasonable marketplace this is a part that might be a hundred bucks at Canadian Tire. I will try to update when I get a price, but one assembly I saw at the manufacturer's site costs thousands of dollars for the part alone. Update: price: about $1607+$150+228.41 tax=$1985.41

Historical collusion like the early 20th-century light bulb manufacturers' pricing conspiracy mirrors today's practices, where companies, ostensibly within legal bounds, manipulate market prices. Consider the Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policy openly published by Bradley Corp. (https://www.bradleycorp.com/map) and others—this isn’t about competition; it's about control. Such policies, while technically legal, carry the whiff of old-school price fixing, demonstrating that the powerful often do not even pretend to play fair. As we encounter bafflingly high prices for simple items like furnace parts, it's clear: the game is rigged.

Once upon a time we bought things like appliances with an expectation that they would be reliable, maintainable and likely outlive us. These days, vendors create things that require ongoing payment through things like outrageously ongoing 'supplies' and expensive replacement parts, or even just ongoing subscriptions for the right to use what has already been purchased. This state of affairs is punitive, wasteful, and only beneficial to a few people none of us even like. 

It's out of scope for this post, but fixing the issues raised here require us all to set our differences aside and get politically active.

Below is a snippet of my conversation with ChatGPT about the legality of this obvious price-fixing. 

User

How can a Minimum Advertised Price policy be legal?

ChatGPT

A Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policy is legal primarily because it is considered a unilateral action by manufacturers or suppliers to set the lowest prices that retailers can advertise for their products. It does not set the actual sale price—customers may still purchase products at lower prices, but these prices cannot be advertised.

The legality of MAP policies stems from their compliance with antitrust laws under certain conditions. They must be structured and enforced in a way that does not lead to price fixing or restrain trade in an anti-competitive manner. For instance, a manufacturer can suggest retail prices but cannot conspire with retailers or other manufacturers to set prices, as that could be considered illegal price fixing.

U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court, have judged the legality of these policies under the rule of reason, assessing whether they promote or harm competition. MAP policies are often defended on grounds that they allow small retailers to compete with larger ones by protecting margins, encouraging service quality, and facilitating fair competition based on factors other than price.

However, these policies are scrutinized and can be challenged if they are used in ways that seem to restrain trade unreasonably or lead to anti-competitive practices. The key is ensuring they are implemented in a way that is justifiable from a competition standpoint.

Top Twenty Logical Fallacies

Consider how often public discourse is influenced by numerous logical fallacies. We are bombarded with so much propaganda that it dulls our ability to notice logical inconsistencies. Faulty arguments have become so common and are repeated so frequently that some people mistake these flawed patterns for sound reasoning. 

Here's a list of the top twenty fallacious arguments and a simple illustrative example for each:

Ad Hominem (Attack the Person): Attacking the character or attributes of the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. Example: "You can't believe Alice's argument on climate change because she isn't a scientist."

Ad Ignorantiam (Argument from Ignorance): Asserting that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. Example: "There's no evidence that ghosts don't exist, therefore they must be real."

Ad Populum (Appeal to Common Belief): Arguing that a claim must be true merely because a significant number of people believe it. Example: "Many people believe in astrology, therefore it must be true."

Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority): Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an expert on the facts relevant to the argument. Example: "My professor said that this political theory is true, so it must be."

Ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity): Attempting to induce pity to sway opponents. Example: "You must agree that my late nights at the office demonstrate I deserve a raise."

Ad Baculum (Appeal to Fear): Creating support for an idea by instilling fear in those considering an argument. Example: "If you don't support the policies of the party, you'll be considered a traitor."

Ad Novitatem (Appeal to Novelty): A fallacy of assuming that something newer is automatically better or superior. Example: "This new model of phone must be better because it just came out."

Ad Antiquitatem (Appeal to Tradition): Arguing that a practice or policy is good or acceptable simply because it's traditional. Example: "We should continue to do it this way because we've always done it this way."

Circulus in Demonstrando (Begging the Question): When an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. Example: "God must exist because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because God wrote it."

Non Sequitur: An argument in which the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises. Example: "She's wearing red shoes. She must be a fun person."

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (Post Hoc): Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Example: "I started doing better at school when I started wearing new shoes. Therefore, the new shoes caused my improved grades."

Straw Man: Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack. Example: "He thinks we should manage resources better, which means he wants to put thousands of companies out of business."

False Dilemma (False Dichotomy): Presenting two opposing options as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist. Example: "You're either with us, or against us."

Slippery Slope: Arguing that a relatively small first step will lead to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact. Example: "If we allow students to redo their assignments to improve grades, next they'll want to retake entire courses."

Hasty Generalization: Making a rushed conclusion without considering all of the variables. Example: "Three of my friends bought this phone and had problems, so this model must be bad."

Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant or secondary subject and thereby diverting attention from the main subject. Example: "Why worry about surveillance when there are so many people suffering from poverty?"

Ad Fidentia (Appeal to Flattery): Using flattery to win an argument or to distract from a lack of evidence. Example: "As a smart voter, I'm sure you can see why this policy makes perfect sense."

Ad Invidia (Appeal to Spite): Making an argument through spite or prejudice towards a group to which the opponent belongs. Example: "We should not listen to his argument because he's a part of the corporate world."

Tu Quoque (Personal Inconsistency): Answering criticism with criticism, or turning the argument back on the accuser. Example: "How can you argue your point about diet when you eat fast food all the time?"

Ad Ridiculum (Appeal to Ridicule): Mocking an argument rather than providing evidence against it. Example: "Are you really suggesting we should invest in wind farms? Might as well go back to sailing ships!"

Visualization

For an article about the top twenty fallacies, you could imagine a visually engaging and thought-provoking image that encapsulates the concept of logical fallacies. Here’s a description for such an image:

The central focus is a large, ornate, ancient-looking book opened on a pedestal. The book's pages are filled with symbolic illustrations representing different fallacies. Each page of the book shows a unique, vibrant, and slightly whimsical depiction of a fallacy. For instance:

Ad Hominem: A cartoonish figure pointing an accusatory finger at a mirror.

Ad Populum: A large crowd where each individual is a clone of the next.

Straw Man: A scarecrow dressed in a suit, standing in a field, with real people debating it.

Slippery Slope: A small figure sliding down a literal slippery slope that gets steeper and darker.

False Dilemma: A road splitting into only two paths, both leading to perilous destinations.

Above the book floats a classic balance scale, unbalanced, symbolizing the imbalance that fallacies bring to reasoning. The background is a library with shelves filled with more ancient books, suggesting the long history and persistence of these fallacies in human discourse. Soft beams of light filter through a window, illuminating the scene and giving a sense of enlightenment and discovery.

[The above produced the graphic used in this post]