Finland Ends Its Experiment with Universal Basic Income

By Daniel J. Mitchell

I’m conflicted.

I’ve repeatedly expressed skepticism about the idea of governments providing a “basic income” because I fear the work ethic will (further) erode if people automatically receive a substantial chunk of money.

Moreover, I also fear that a basic income will lead to an ever-expanding burden of government spending, particularly once net beneficiaries figure out they can vote themselves more money.

Given these concerns, I should be happy about this report from the New York Times.

For more than a year, Finland has been testing the proposition that the best way to lift economic fortunes may be the simplest: Hand out money without rules or restrictions on how people use it. The experiment with so-called universal basic income has captured global attention… Now, the experiment is ending. The Finnish government has opted not to continue financing it past this year, a reflection of public discomfort with the idea of dispensing government largess free of requirements that its recipients seek work. …the Finnish government’s decision to halt the experiment at the end of 2018 highlights a challenge to basic income’s very conception. Many people in Finland—and in other lands—chafe at the idea of handing out cash without requiring that people work. …Finland’s goals have been modest and pragmatic. The government hoped that basic income would send more people into the job market to revive a weak economy. …The basic income trial, which started at the beginning of 2017 and will continue until the end of this year, has given monthly stipends of 560 euros ($685) to a random sample of 2,000 unemployed people aged 25 to 58. Recipients have been free to do as they wished… The Finnish government was keen to see what people would do under such circumstances. The data is expected to be released next year, giving academics a chance to analyze what has come of the experiment.

The reason I’m conflicted is that the current welfare state—both in the United States and other developed nations—is bad for both taxpayers and poor people.

So I like the idea of experimentation. There has to be a better way of alleviating genuine suffering without trapping poor people in dependency or punishing taxpayers.

Indeed, one of my arguments for radical decentralization in America is that states will try different approaches and we’ll have a much better chance of learning what works and what doesn’t.

And maybe we’ll learn that there are some benefits of providing a basic income. But, as reported by the U.K.-based Guardian, it’s unclear whether the Finnish experiment lasted long enough or was comprehensive enough to teach us anything.

The scheme—aimed primarily at seeing whether a guaranteed income might incentivise people to take up paid work by smoothing out gaps in the welfare system …it was hoped it would shed light on policy issues such as whether an unconditional payment might reduce anxiety among recipients and allow the government to simplify a complex social security system… Olli Kangas, an expert involved in the trial, told the Finnish public broadcaster YLE: “Two years is too short a period to be able to draw extensive conclusions from such a big experiment. We should have had extra time and more money to achieve reliable results.”

I will be interested to see whether researchers generate any conclusions when they look at the two years of data from the Finnish experiment.

That being said, there already has been some research that underscores my concerns.

The OECD is not my favorite international bureaucracy, but its recent survey on Finland included some sobering estimates on the cost of a nationwide basic income.

In a basic income scenario, a lump-sum benefit replaces a number of existing benefits, financed by increasing income taxation by nearly 30% or around 4% of GDP. …the basic income requires significant increases to income taxation. …Financing a basic income at a meaningful level thus would require considerable additional tax revenue, and heavier taxation of income would at least partially undo any improvement in work incentives.

And in a report on basic income last year, the OECD poured more cold water on the idea.

…large tax-revenue changes are needed to finance a BI at meaningful levels, and tax reforms would therefore need to be an integral part of budget-neutral BI proposals. …abolishing tax-free allowances and making BI taxable means that everybody would pay income tax on the BI, and on all their other income. Tax burdens would go up for most people as a result, further increasing tax-to-GDP ratios that are currently already at a record-high in the OECD area. …There are also major concerns about unintended consequences of a BI. An especially prominent one is that unconditional income support would reduce the necessity for paid work.

Indeed, it’s difficult to see how work incentives aren’t adversely affected. Why go through the hassle of being employed when you can sit at home and play computer games all day?

P.S. Given the option of voting on a basic income in 2016, Swiss voters overwhelmingly rejected the notion.

P.P.S. Former Vice President Joe Biden actually agrees with me about one of the downsides of basic income.

Reprinted from International Liberty and sourced from FEE.org

Tech Moguls Concerned about Massive Job Loss From Automation Recommend Universal Basic Income (UBI) — Some Plan for “Doomsday”

By B.N. Frank

Many of us have loved ones who are victims of Age Discrimination.  Some have been forced out and replaced with younger employees.  Some never find work again.  This has been going on for decades.

Automation has also contributed to job loss.  According to many sources, including the Progressive Populist, this is going to get much worse.  That’s why tech inventors have proposed a Universal Basic Income (UBI):

Driverless cars! IBM Watson! News-writing robots! Amazon Go! The future is here, friends, and it apparently excludes humans. People are preparing for the next mass extinction—an evaporation, if you will—not of humans, polar bears or other creatures, but of jobs.

How will people earn enough money to support themselves and their families when all the jobs are taken by robots?

And how to keep from pointing the proverbial finger at the overlords of Silicon Valley?

According to the article, UBI has been discussed in the U.S. before – even in the late 1960s by then President Nixon and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  The amount most agreed upon is $1,000 a month.

Tech moguls recommend that everyone receives UBI – not just the unemployed.

How thoughtful.  But isn’t that Communism?

And will it work?  Maybe not.  Finland just called it quits on their 2-year UBI program:

With high-profile champions such as Richard Branson, Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, backing the idea of governments giving non-working people money (from working people) to do nothing – what could go wrong?

Well, two years after enthusiastically beginning its experiment with a universal basic income – in which people are paid an unconditional salary by the state instead of benefits – Finland is abandoning the project as government enthusiasm wanes and additional funding requests are rejected.

It’s still unlikely that this will stop tech moguls from recommending UBI.  According to the Progressive Populist, it seems to benefit them the most:

The true beauty of UBI, though, lies in its capitalist welfare: Tech giants keep profits high, while the government pays people not to work or to continue to work for ever-lower wages in a gig economy.

It’s a check to keep the masses, well, in check.

Indeed – the masses need to be kept in check so when most of us lose our jobs, we all don’t go completely ballistic and set the country on fire – perhaps with flamethrowers purchased from none other than Elon Musk. Coincidentally Elon announced he was selling these flamethrowers while large sections of California were on fire.  Stay classy, Elon.

Tech guru and investor, Sam Altman, on UBI:

1. …perhaps 90% of people receiving UBI would “go smoke pot and play video games,


2. …if 10% of people go create new products and services and new wealth, that’s still a huge net win.

A huge net win?  Tell that to all the parents who hoped their kids would be able to grow up, move out, get jobs, and support themselves instead of having few options other than to “go smoke pot and play video games” until they die.  Tell that to everyone who doesn’t like smoking pot, playing video games, has a mortgage to pay, and family members to feed.

Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg referred to UBI as “cushion” that would “enable everyone to try new ideas that could change the world.”

Spare me.  It may possible for some people to change the world on $1000/month.  But it’s not possible for MOST people to change the world on $1000/month. 

It’s not even possible for most people to live healthy lives on $1000/month. 

The article reports that “The data say it’s a great idea.”

Their data is always going to say they have great ideas until they are forced to admit their data was wrong.  Ask Mark Zuckerberg about that..

Tech inventors have also told us kids needed tech in schools to be best prepared for the future.  Then they’ve sent their kids to private low-tech schools and limited how much they allow them to use tech in their homes.

“Digital Addiction” hasn’t yet been declared an epidemic even though it seems to be affecting a large portion of Americans.  Former Facebook president, Sean Parker, recently stated:

… the social networking site exploits human psychological vulnerabilities through a validation feedback loop that gets people to constantly post to get even more likes and comments. It’s exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology…The inventors, creators — it’s me, it’s Mark [Zuckerberg], it’s Kevin Systrom on Instagram, it’s all of these people — understood this consciously. And we did it anyway…God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.

Research says it’s not good for anybody’s brains.

Another former Facebook executive, Chamath Palihapitiya, stated he doesn’t use it anymore since he “innately didn’t want to get programmed.”

In regard to his own kids “they’re not allowed to use this shit.”

Most of us don’t think about how all these devices come with guidelines and warnings.  There are reasons other than “Digital Addiction.”  But the marketing is so slick that we all take for granted that everything is safe.  Warnings have been popping up all along but they are quickly overshadowed by more marketing and legal speak.

No “safe” level of cell phone or wireless WiFi radiation has yet to be scientifically determined for children or pregnant women but that hasn’t stopped tech companies from marketing personal devices to everyone under the sun from cradle to grave.

Research has that proven that exposure to these devices can worsen pre-existing conditions even if it didn’t cause them. It has proven it is harmful to pets, nature, and wildlife.

The Tech Industry – also referred to as “Big Tech” and “Big Wireless” – seems to have been writing its own regulations and guidelines for 20+ years.  They must own our elected officials, otherwise they wouldn’t keep promoting and passing new state and federal laws that harm us in pretty much all ways possible.

For example, the “Race for 5G”and “Smart Cities” may sound really cool until you realize that elected officials are allowing tech companies to install small cell towers pretty much everywhere including in front of homes.  Research has already proven that this is harmful.  Even Dr. Oz has weighed in.

On September 13, 2017, 180 scientists and doctors demanded a moratorium on the installation of 5G small cell tower infrastructure because of health concerns.

This doesn’t seem to matter.

“The Race for 5G” has been identified as a “bailout” of the Telecom Industry. These small cell towers will reduce property value.  They violate our right to privacy.

Tech moguls also insist that automating everything is safer and cheaper.  Sometimes they say it’s even better for the environment.  Nope. Nope. Nope.

1. There have been many issues identified already with automated vehicles.


2. There have been many issues identified already with automated utility “Smart” Meters.


3. There have been many issues already identified with the Internet of Things (IoT).

Tax dollars keep getting wasted on all of this.  It’s contributing to E-Waste.

It’s possible that tech moguls are also recommending UBI to give them time to prepare for the proverbial shit to hit the fan.

According to 2017 New Yorker magazine article, “Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich”: 

1. Some of the wealthiest people in America—in Silicon Valley, New York, and beyond—are getting ready for the crackup of civilization.


2. … in recent years survivalism has expanded to more affluent quarters, taking root in Silicon Valley and New York City, among technology executives, hedge-fund managers, and others in their economic cohort.


3. In private Facebook groups, wealthy survivalists swap tips on gas masks, bunkers, and locations safe from the effects of climate change.


4. Quote from one survivalist: “I keep a helicopter gassed up all the time, and I have an underground bunker with an air-filtration system.” He said that his preparations probably put him at the “extreme” end among his peers. But he added, “A lot of my friends do the guns and the motorcycles and the gold coins. That’s not too rare anymore.”

I feel sick.

Also according to a survivalist:

…there is a deliberate move by the people in Congress to dumb America down.

They don’t want people to be smart to see what’s going on in politics.

Has Congress ever really wanted people to be smart to see what’s going on?

According to the Progressive Populist article, tech moguls are saying that massive job elimination is inevitable.  

Global business leaders Richard Branson and Elon Musk say a UBI will become a necessity as tech replaces jobs. “…can help people struggling just to survive and allow them to get on their feet, be entrepreneurial and be more creative.”

Elon Musk told CNBC that “… due to automation” he isn’t “sure what else one would do.”

Don’t you worry, Elon.  Sam Altman said 90% of the unemployed will be smoking pot and playing video games.

Of course, Elon Musk has other worries, too.  He had them even before he started selling flamethrowers.  According to Stephen Colbert on 10/11/2017:

Elon Musk thinks Artificial Intelligence will cause World War 3.

Recently Musk also tweeted, “If you’re not concerned about AI safety, you should be.  Vastly more risk than North Korea” right above a poster that says, “In the end, the machines will win.”

And back in July, Musk issued this warning about AI: “I think people should be really concerned about it.  I keep sounding the alarm bell but people keep seeing robots going down the street killing people, like they don’t know how to react.”

Colbert explains that Elon’s comment set off a feud with Mark Zuckerberg.

Mark stated that Elon’s comments were “pretty irresponsible.”  Elon responded by stating that Mark’s knowledge of AI “was limited.”

We all know now A LOT about Mark’s “limited” knowledge.

Regardless, these are some of the people who are right now deciding the future of the world.

Recently comedian, Bill Maher said that every generation could be called the “What Were You Thinking?” generation.

So what are we thinking?  And are we going to do anything about this besides maybe firing up a bong?

The Path The US Is On Is Unsustainable, Which Will INEVITABLY Lead To Social Disorder

Anyone paying even a mediocre amount of attention to what’s going in the United States is aware that the country is on a path that is unsustainable.  That unsustainability will inevitably lead to social disorder that could have the US looking a lot like Venezuela.

Joe Joseph from The Daily Sheeple says that this social disorder will be the result of widening wealth gaps because the status quo will continue. There will be no changes in the input or feedback loops of society.

Since the corportate mainstream media is basically a haven for well-educated hoity-toity individuals…I’ll give you just a example…Anderson Cooper. A lot of people don’t know that he’s the son of Gloria Vanderbilt. Everybody knows the Vanderbilt money, right? They [the mainstream media] are basically these well-educated people with some family wealth, upper-middle class social circles, and the media coverage of the slow drip of financial anxiety is sparse. Why? They’re making money. They don’t care. They’re not gonna ‘upset the apple cart.’ And why should they?

It’s sort of amazing that the US hasn’t already exploded in class warfare, says Joseph. “Because the fuse is lit.”

They’ve got these fixes like universal basic income that are embraced by the likes of Zuck at Facebook…They don’t offer a real stake in the nation’s productive capital. As a result, they are just band-aids on a sucking chest wound. That’s a great analogy by Charles Hugh Smith. 

The solution, for most, is to give the power to the state to fix it.  But they can’t, and they won’t.

Our problems are now, of course, exhasperated by markets and centralized power. They aren’t fixed by the state. They can’t be because the state’s owned by the markets. [And the state is literally centralized power]

I’ve always said that the root cause of the problem is money. I mean, we can go back and we can look at [how to change it]…let’s not forget that in everything we do, people will always find a ‘workaround’. So, somehow, someway, you gotta take that workaround away. You can impose legislation, you can try prohibition, it doesn’t matter what it is, money, my friends, is the root of all this evil.

And Joseph is not wrong. When looking at a scandal or a problem, if everyday Americans simply asked themselves “who will profit from this?” the answers would appear. This goes for everything, from the flu epidemic (the vaccine manufacturers are profiting) to the Uranium One deal (Hillary Clinton profited.)  It isn’t that hard to discern the fact that the state is profiting.  Look at how much politicians are worth compared to yourself, and then ask yourself, “have I profited from electing any politician?”  That answer is a resounding ‘no.’

The economy can turn on a dime and we have set ourselves up for epic failure. This isn’t a ‘kick the can down the road’ scenario anymore. This is a serious…this problem has to be fixed and fixed fast. Because if it doesn’t, I fear what’s happening in Venezuela could very easily happen in America.

Be prepared but don’t live in fear.

Universal Basic Income: Visionary or Wishful Thinking?

By Susan Boskey

Universal Basic Income, also known as UBI, social credit and Basic Income Guarantee, is not a new concept. However, it is being looked at newly by the State of Hawaii as a solution to how AI (artificial intelligence) is likely to take over many of their jobs.

Having lived in Hawaii, I understand why the concern there may be greater than for other places. My experience showed me that the income disparity between wealthy mainlanders who bumped-up real estate prices in Hawaii, and everyone else who had to work for a living, was crazy severe. To survive a cost-of-live higher than the San Francisco Bay area at minimum-wage levels, I observed that most locals had to work more than one job just to survive. Today, I imagine this disparity is even greater.

UBI is a dividend-type proposal similar to the one in Alaska since 1982 via the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation distributing an annual share of oil revenues to each resident of the state (including children in the family). In 2007, the amount to each resident was $3,269 and in 2016, only $1022.

Former Democratic Congressman, Dennis Kucinich, a proponent of this economic strategy for every American, not just Alaskans, said after former Treasury secretary Henry Paulson announced the 2007 $700 billion bank bailout:

“Since the bailout will cost each and every American about $2,300, tomorrow I will offer legislation to create a United States Mutual Trust Fund, which will take control of $700 billion in stock assets, at market value and not higher, convert those assets to shares, and distribute $2,300 worth of shares to new individual savings accounts in the name of each and every American.”

According to another UPI proponent, Richard C. Cook, former Treasury employee and author of the book, We Hold These Truths, (for which I wrote the forward) one of UBI’s most recent sources is Scottish Major C.H. Douglas. In 1918 he was an industrial engineer who authored the book, Economic Democracy, which addressed the gap of purchasing power for the average person, and therefore the need for government-distributed dividends.

Cook, in a Global Research article, discusses “Credit as a Public Utility: The Key to Monetary Reform,” asserting that social credit “should be treated as a public utility, like water, electricity, and clean air.”

A citizens’ dividend could work wonders in rebuilding the economy from the bottom up, including small business and local agriculture. To assure that dividends are spent for necessities, they could be issued initially as tax-free food, fuel, and housing vouchers from a government recovery account not dependent on taxation or borrowing. Rather the backing for the vouchers would be the productive potential of the economy. This way new economic production could be generated without bank loans. The vouchers, when spent, could be funneled into a network of community savings banks that would re-lend the money at zero percent interest. (Richard C. Cook, “How to Save the U.S. Economy,” Global Research)

At the time, in 2007, when Richard Cook asked me to write the forward to We Hold These Truths, the social credit concept sounded good to me: a practical solution to the purchasing-power gap Americans had continued to suffer in the early to middle 2000s. That said, in 2017 I am no longer a fan of social credit having had the time to look into it more deeply.

Would this government strategy create economic justice providing a spiritual basis for the economy as Cook and others suggest? Or would it simply be the next step towards larger government and its increased control over matters of our personal lives? And how exactly would social credit affect the national debt? The UBI, in my view, is short-sighted; it would enhance, not end, the grip financial elites already have on Central Banking, a system destined to underwrite a world government with a world currency.

Frederick Hayek in his 1960 book, The Constitution of Liberty, predicted that egalitarian redistribution would end up only as a new approach of the “old aims of socialism.”

Visionary? No. Short-sighted wishful thinking? Yes.

Susan Boskey is author of the book, The Quality Life Plan®: 7 Steps to Uncommon Financial Security. After exposing the bottom-line of why more and more families need credit each month just to make ends meet, Susan provides game-changing practical strategies, tactics and templates to help you create a life of greater ease. You can reverse the downward trend of credit and debt while learning how to establish a long-term, debt-free lifestyle; a life that allows you to build both financial wealth and the wealth of well-being midst the challenges of today. To learn more or to purchase the book, please visit her website at http://TheQualityLifePlan.com 

Image Credit: AFP

What’s Wrong With The Robot Tax?

By Vin Armani

In this video, Vin Armani talks about the approaching agenda of taxing robots as if they’re the same as labor because they replace jobs. How many jobs did Quickbooks kill? Should business owners still pay payroll taxes as if they still had a bookkeeper? All it does is tax the entrepreneur for deploying tools.

Watch the full broadcast here

Vin Armani is the host of The Vin Armani Show on Activist Post, author of Self Ownership, agorist entrepreneur, and co-founder of Counter Markets. Follow Vin on Twitter and subscribe on YouTube. Get the weekly podcast on iTunes or Stitcher. Vin is available for interviews at email – Vin (at) VinArmani.com.

We Already Have a Universal Basic Income

[image: www.inquisitr.com]

By: Laurence M. Vance, lewrockwell.com | 

Harvard dropout and Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg recently gave the commencement address at Harvard. In his speech he proposed a “universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas.”

But Zuckerberg is not alone.

First it was Milton Friedman, then it was Charles Murray, and then it was Matt Zwolinski. Now it is Michael Tanner and Jesse Walker. Why are some libertarians even talking about a universal basic income or a guaranteed minimum income? Why are some libertarians trying to be efficiency experts for the welfare state?

We already have a universal basic income. It is called welfare.

There are in the United States about eighty means-tested welfare programs. These are programs that limit benefits or payments based on the beneficiary’s income and/or assets. There are also welfare programs that most Americans have never heard of. And there are other welfare programs that most Americans don’t consider to be welfare programs.

Welfare is welfare, no matter what it is called and no matter what people think about.

The elderly have Social Security and Medicare.

The elderly poor also have access to the Elderly Nutrition Program and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP).

The disabled have Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and are also eligible for Social Security and Medicare.

The poor have Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP [formerly known as food stamps]), section 8 housing vouchers, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), subsidized phone service, community health centers, public housing, and family planning programs.

Hungry children have school breakfast and lunch programs.

Low-income taxpayers have refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), and the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC).

The unemployed have free federal job training programs.

Those who get laid off from their jobs have unemployment compensation.

Low-income pregnant women and new mothers have Healthy Start and Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

Low-income students have Pell Grants and all students have access to federal student loans.

Farmers have farm subsidies.

Refugees have assistance programs.

Homeowners have low-cost federal flood insurance.

All parents can send their children to public schools at no cost.

Let’s take a closer look at just one of the above welfare programs: the EITC.

Unlike regular tax credits, refundable tax credits are a form of welfare. A regular tax credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the amount of income tax owed. Tax credits may reduce the tax owed to zero, but if there is no taxable income to begin with, then no credit can be taken. A refundable tax credit is treated as a payment from the taxpayer like federal income tax withheld or estimated tax payments. If the tax credit “payment” is more than the tax owed after the regular tax credits are applied, then the “taxpayer” receives a refund of the money he never actually paid in. The money is simply taken from real taxpayers and transferred to him.

According to the IRS:

The Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC or EIC, is a benefit for working people with low to moderate income. To qualify, you must meet certain requirements and file a tax return, even if you do not owe any tax or are not required to file. EITC reduces the amount of tax you owe and may give you a refund.

For the tax year 2016, the maximum EITC amounts are:

$6,269 with three or more qualifying children

$5,572 with two qualifying children

$3,373 with one qualifying child

$506 with no qualifying children

To qualify for the EITC, if one is single, earned income and adjusted gross income (AGI) must each be less than $14,880 (no children), $39,296 (1 child), $44,648 (2 children), or $47,955 (3 or more children). For married taxpayers, the amounts are $20,430 (no children), $44,846 (1 child), $50,198 (2 children), $53,505 (3 or more children).

If one has three children, the sweet spot to receive the maximum EITC is achieved when one has income of at least $13,900 but less than $18,200 (single) or $23,750 (married). And don’t think that people receiving the EITC don’t have some idea of this.

Americans who receive the EITC get another added benefit as well. According to page 58 of the IRS’s 1040 instructions for 2016:

Any refund you receive as a result of taking the EIC can’t be counted as income when determining if you or anyone else is eligible for benefits or assistance, or how much you or anyone else can receive, under any  federal  program or under any state or local program  financed in whole or in part with federal funds. These programs include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income  (SSI), and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps). In addition, when determining eligibility, the refund can’t be counted as a resource for at least 12 months after you receive it. Check with your local benefit coordinator to find out if your refund will affect your benefits.

The problem with a guaranteed minimum income, like the problem with welfare in general, is that it is the government that is the guarantor. But before the government can give, it must first take from productive members of society. This is what makes all welfare immoral.

Libertarians who talk in any way about a universal basic income should make the immorality of welfare the central theme, not an afterthought.

Welfare doesn’t need to be reformed, improved, changed, replaced, fixed, saved, revamped, simplified, trimmed, or made more effective or efficient. It doesn’t need to have more stringent enrollment requirements, it doesn’t need drug testing for recipients, it doesn’t need stronger work requirements, and it doesn’t need time limits. It needs to be completely eliminated in its entirety, and all the government bureaucrats that administer welfare programs be laid off, not reassigned. The welfare state doesn’t need libertarian efficiency experts. It needs to be destroyed root and branch.

---

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom; War, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism; War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy; King James, His Bible, and Its Translators, and many other books. His newest book is Gun Control and the Second Amendment. Visit his website.

Training Our Replacements: “Bionic Barrista Will Terminate Millions Of Jobs”

This article was written by Tyler Durden and originally published at Zero Hedge.

Editor’s Comment: The coming age of automation will threaten every existing job in this country. There are two directions it could go – new levels of human ingenuity and adaption; or a new wave of government dependency wherein nearly everyone relies upon government or privately-sponsored “universal living wages” in order to survive. Without a purpose or gainful employment, the vine of creativity, learning, and progress could wither.

How will millions of truckers laid off by driverless transportation and delivery cope? Or waitresses outsourced by tablets and iphone orders? Or baristas when coffee is served by machine, and attitude is no longer a premium service? How many offices and industries will keep their human forces? What exactly will humans be better at than robots? What happens to individual sovereignty, and individual rights then?

Meet The “Bionic Barrista” Whose Mission Is To Terminate Millions Of Minimum Wage Jobs

by Tyler Durden

Tired of your barista giving you attitude, spitting in your coffee if you only mention Trump, or misspelling your name on your morning cup of joe? Surely a robot could do better. Well, we are about to find out, because on Monday, Cafe X opened its very first robotic cafe in San Francisco’s Metreon shopping center Digital Trends reports. Promising “precision crafted specialty coffee in seconds, the way the roaster intended,” Cafe X thinks that anything a human can do, its machines can do better. Or rather just one machine.

Nicknamed Gordon, after a Cafe X employee, this robot mans, or robots, two standard professional coffee machines in order to serve up espressos and lattes. In the San Francisco location, customers can grab a cup of coffee with beans from AKA Coffee, Verve Coffee Roasters, or Peet’s. While the coffee itself may not make Cafe X stand out from the competition, the startup hopes that the robot’s efficiency and utility will.

And it surely will, because while its name may be Gordon, its title is the “bionic barrista” and its primary mission is to terminate millions of minimum wage jobs around the globe, boosting the bottom line for major coffee chains everywhere, whose growth has plateaued and who are desperate to cut on overhead costs. Already the average Cafe X coffee costs more than 10%, or 40 cents less than a similar drink at Starbucks. With greater scale the price will only drop.

While offering clear savings for the business, there will be some tradeoffs – introducing automation and robotics into food service will reduce costs and increase efficiency at the expense of customization and a “human touch.” Some companies – and clients – may prefer a personal experience to an efficient one, or a customized product. The company behind Gordon, however, disagrees: “There’s a lot of work that goes into great coffee. The Cafe X system is designed for humans and robots to collaborate,” Cafe X explains on its websites. “Smart robotics and machine learning working autonomously allows our operations team to focus on sourcing and using fresh ingredients, maintaining extremely high hygiene standards, and ensuring a great customer experience with every single interaction.”  According to Cafe X, a great customer experience involves efficiency and replicability. “By being automated, we guarantee every cup of coffee you are served from a Cafe X machine is how the roaster intended you to enjoy their coffee,” Cafe X CEO Henry Hu told CNET.

For clients, the efficiency improvements and passed-through cost savings will likely more than offset any loss of a “human touch” – you can order your cup of coffee ahead of time with the Cafe X mobile app and even schedule a pickup time, if you want. Thanks to the robot’s artificial intelligence software, your pre-orders are taken into consideration alongside walk-in orders to ensure that no one is waiting for too long. And with a single robot capable of making 100 to 120 cups of coffee in an hour, you likely won’t be waiting long at all.

And since bionic barristas not only do not expect a weekly paycheck, but need no healthcare of benefits, the choice for Howard Schultz’ replacement is clear. Oh, and to those 10,000 refugees who had hoped to get a job at Starbucks, our condolences.

Watch “Gordon” in action here:

This article was written by Tyler Durden and originally published at Zero Hedge.

Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.

Please Spread The Word And Share This Post

After the Crash: “What Does the Future Hold For Average People? Feudalism.”

This article was written by Daisy Luther and originally published at DaisyLuther.com.

Editor’s Comment: It is difficult to say exactly how, or when, the next collapse will be triggered, but of course all the conditions are ripe for it.

What can be certain is that the technocrats intent on controlling the future are already engineering the post-collapse society. Many of the Davos elite have been pushing “universal basic income” for all countries across the globe, and are leading people not only into a digital grid where cash is banned, but also into a society where private property and ownership are outlawed.

They are designing a future in which you must borrow or rent everything you need from corporations or the government, if you are allowed to have them at all.

You Realize The Universal Basic Income Is Feudalism, Right?

by Daisy Luther

What does the future hold for average people?

Feudalism.

And they’ll welcome it with open arms, convinced that they are embracing a smart, fair system that eliminates poverty. The greed, entitlement, and lack of ambition that seems inherent in many people today will have them slipping on the yoke of servitude willingly.

Here’s what I mean.

Have you ever been around people who say things like,

“I can’t afford it, but I deserve it…”

“Having [fill in the blank with a material object] is a basic right…”

“Losing that right is okay with me because it’s for the greater good.”

But the thing is, what we “deserve” is the right to pursue our dreams freely.

• We deserve what we earn.


• We deserve to be secure in our life, liberty, and property.


• We deserve the freedom to go about our lives and decisions as long as we aren’t harming the life, liberty, and property of others.

No one owes us anything other than that.

But quite a few people are ready to give up their freedom so that someone else can take care of them.

A lot of people disagree with that list of rights.

They feel like they deserve a living just for drawing breath. As Gawker’s headline reads, “A Universal Basic Income Is the Utopia We Deserve.”

The idea of a universal basic income for all citizens has been catching on all over the world. Is it too crazy to believe in? We spoke to the author of a new book on the ins, outs, and utopian dreams of making basic income a reality.The basic income movement got a significant boost this week when the charity GiveDirectly announced that it will be pursuing a ten-year, $30 million pilot project giving a select group of Kenyan villagers a basic income and studying its effects. As an anti-poverty solution, universal basic income appeals to impoverished people in Africa, relatively well-off Scandinavians, and Americans automated out of their jobs alike.

Sure, money for nothing sounds great on the surface.

But what would the real result of a Universal Basic Income be?

Feudalism. Serfdom. Enslavement.

UBI would fast track us back to the feudalism of the Middle Ages. Sure, we’d be living in slick, modern micro-efficiencies instead of shacks. We’d have some kind of modern job instead of raising sheep for the lord of the manor.

But, in the end, we wouldn’t actually own anything because private property would be abolished for all but the ruling class. We’d no longer have the ability to get ahead in life. Our courses would be set for us and veering off of those courses would be harshly discouraged.

People will be completely dependent on the government and ruling class for every necessity: food, shelter, water, clothing. What better way to assert control than to make compliance necessary for survival?

(If you’re like me and a life of serfdom is not the future you want, you have to take your independence into your hands. Go here for a bundle of self-reliance downloads, absolutely free, to help you do just that.)

Here’s a quick glimpse at peasant life in the Middle Ages, for comparison’s sake.

The period of history from the 5th to the 15th century was known as the Middle Ages.  During this time, the law of the land in Europe was the “feudal system.”  This system was the manner in which the upper 10% (the nobility) controlled the lower 90% (the serfs or peasants).

It is estimated that just over 90% of the population of Europe were peasants.  Most peasants were basically slaves. They were provided with a small shelter on an inferior piece of land and the “protection” of the noble in charge of that area. In return, they worked for the estate, farming the land with no recompense, paying taxes and having no control over their lives.  Some peasants were “free” and had small businesses: blacksmiths, carpenters, bakers, etc.  They paid for the protection of the “Lord” with money, goods, and services.

Peasants had few rights.  They could be taxed at any time, were obligated to use (and pay for) services of the manor like mills or large ovens, and had to request permission for marriages, change of locations or educating their children.

Each year, the peasant was required to give the best part of his harvest to the lord of the manor. The peasants were not allowed to own things that made their lives easier, like oxen or horses, for example. A peasant did not own the land on which he lived and was therefore obligated to live where he was told, grow what he was told, and farm in the manner in which he was told. They were not allowed to hunt on the lord’s land – poaching was an offense punishable by death.  They were not permitted to cut trees for firewood but forced to gather fallen branches to stay warm.  A peasant was not allowed to have real, effective weapons – those were reserved for the armies of the nobility, to keep the peasants in line and immediately quell any quest for dignity and independence.

Most of the peasants seemed content with the arrangement because they received security and safety from the Lord.  He was obligated to protect them from marauders and barbarians and provide enough land for subsistence. (Learn more about feudalism here.)

People will be trapped into servitude because they feel entitled to a lifestyle.

Over the past years, the education has drummed a sense of entitlement into students. And now, world leaders are counting on using that feeling of entitlement to march society willingly right into a tiny gilded cage.

The World Economic Forum is held yearly in Davos, Switzerland. It is at this meeting where a couple thousand of the world’s top economic and political leaders meet to plot our future.

If you think I’m crazy for the comparison between UBI and serfdom, wait until you see this year’s vision for our future.

Ida Auken, a Danish politician who is a contributor to the World Economic Forum, doesn’t believe we should own things. She doesn’t stop at personal possessions, though. She believes we should eschew privacy in our homes, that cash is unnecessary, and that even our thoughts and dreams are not really ours. You can read about her idea of a perfect future in an article for the Annual Meeting of the Global Futures Council titled “Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.”

In her article, Auken idealizes feudalism, and the kinds of people who believe they “deserve” certain entitlements, like the UBI will welcome this loss of individuality and freedom with open arms.

Watch the video below. I couldn’t make this up if I tried.

For more information about a futuristic feudal society, watch the documentary Obsolete, available for free with an Amazon Prime membership.

---

This article was written by Daisy Luther and originally published at DaisyLuther.com.

Daisy is a coffee-swigging, gun-toting, homeschooling blogger who writes about current events, preparedness, frugality, and the pursuit of liberty on her websites, The Organic Prepper and DaisyLuther.com, where this article first appeared. She is the author of 4 books and the co-founder of Preppers University, where she teaches intensive preparedness courses in a live online classroom setting. You can follow her on Facebook, Pinterest,  and Twitter.

You Realize The Universal Basic Income Is Feudalism, Right?

By Daisy Luther

What does the future hold for average people?

Feudalism.

And they’ll welcome it with open arms, convinced that they are embracing a smart, fair system that eliminates poverty. The greed, entitlement, and lack of ambition that seems inherent in many people today will have them slipping on the yoke of servitude willingly.

Here’s what I mean.

Have you ever been around people who say things like,

“I can’t afford it, but I deserve it…”

“Having [fill in the blank with a material object] is a basic right…”

“Losing that right is okay with me because it’s for the greater good.”

But the thing is, what we “deserve” is the right to pursue our dreams freely.

• We deserve what we earn.


• We deserve to be secure in our life, liberty, and property.


• We deserve the freedom to go about our lives and decisions as long as we aren’t harming the life, liberty, and property of others.

No one owes us anything other than that.

But quite a few people are ready to give up their freedom so that someone else can take care of them.

A lot of people disagree with that list of rights.

They feel like they deserve a living just for drawing breath. As Gawker’s headline reads, “A Universal Basic Income Is the Utopia We Deserve.”

The idea of a universal basic income for all citizens has been catching on all over the world. Is it too crazy to believe in? We spoke to the author of a new book on the ins, outs, and utopian dreams of making basic income a reality.

The basic income movement got a significant boost this week when the charity GiveDirectly announced that it will be pursuing a ten-year, $30 million pilot project giving a select group of Kenyan villagers a basic income and studying its effects. As an anti-poverty solution, universal basic income appeals to impoverished people in Africa, relatively well-off Scandinavians, and Americans automated out of their jobs alike.

Sure, money for nothing sounds great on the surface.

But what would the real result of a Universal Basic Income be?

Feudalism. Serfdom. Enslavement.

UBI would fast track us back to the feudalism of the Middle Ages. Sure, we’d be living in slick, modern micro-efficiencies instead of shacks. We’d have some kind of modern job instead of raising sheep for the lord of the manor.

But, in the end, we wouldn’t actually own anything because private property would be abolished for all but the ruling class. We’d no longer have the ability to get ahead in life. Our courses would be set for us and veering off of those courses would be harshly discouraged.

People will be completely dependent on the government and ruling class for every necessity: food, shelter, water, clothing. What better way to assert control than to make compliance necessary for survival?

(If you’re like me and a life of serfdom is not the future you want, you have to take your independence into your hands. Go here for a bundle of self-reliance downloads, absolutely free, to help you do just that.)

Here’s a quick glimpse at peasant life in the Middle Ages, for comparison’s sake.

The period of history from the 5th to the 15th century was known as the Middle Ages.  During this time, the law of the land in Europe was the “feudal system.”  This system was the manner in which the upper 10% (the nobility) controlled the lower 90% (the serfs or peasants).

It is estimated that just over 90% of the population of Europe were peasants.  Most peasants were basically slaves. They were provided with a small shelter on an inferior piece of land and the “protection” of the noble in charge of that area. In return, they worked for the estate, farming the land with no recompense, paying taxes and having no control over their lives.  Some peasants were “free” and had small businesses: blacksmiths, carpenters, bakers, etc.  They paid for the protection of the “Lord” with money, goods, and services.

Peasants had few rights.  They could be taxed at any time, were obligated to use (and pay for) services of the manor like mills or large ovens, and had to request permission for marriages, change of locations or educating their children.

Each year, the peasant was required to give the best part of his harvest to the lord of the manor. The peasants were not allowed to own things that made their lives easier, like oxen or horses, for example. A peasant did not own the land on which he lived and was therefore obligated to live where he was told, grow what he was told, and farm in the manner in which he was told. They were not allowed to hunt on the lord’s land – poaching was an offense punishable by death.  They were not permitted to cut trees for firewood but forced to gather fallen branches to stay warm.  A peasant was not allowed to have real, effective weapons – those were reserved for the armies of the nobility, to keep the peasants in line and immediately quell any quest for dignity and independence.

Most of the peasants seemed content with the arrangement because they received security and safety from the Lord.  He was obligated to protect them from marauders and barbarians and provide enough land for subsistence. (Learn more about feudalism here.)

People will be trapped into servitude because they feel entitled to a lifestyle.

Over the past years, the education has drummed a sense of entitlement into students. And now, world leaders are counting on using that feeling of entitlement to march society willingly right into a tiny gilded cage.

The World Economic Forum is held yearly in Davos, Switzerland. It is at this meeting where a couple thousand of the world’s top economic and political leaders meet to plot our future.

If you think I’m crazy for the comparison between UBI and serfdom, wait until you see this year’s vision for our future.

Ida Auken, a Danish politician who is a contributor to the World Economic Forum, doesn’t believe we should own things. She doesn’t stop at personal possessions, though. She believes we should eschew privacy in our homes, that cash is unnecessary, and that even our thoughts and dreams are not really ours. You can read about her idea of a perfect future in an article for the Annual Meeting of the Global Futures Council titled “Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.”

How to Disappear Off the Grid Completely (Ad)

In her article, Auken idealizes feudalism, and the kinds of people who believe they “deserve” certain entitlements, like the UBI will welcome this loss of individuality and freedom with open arms.

Watch the video below. I couldn’t make this up if I tried.

For more information about a futuristic feudal society, watch the documentary Obsolete, available for free with an Amazon Prime membership.

Daisy is a coffee-swigging, gun-toting, homeschooling blogger who writes about current events, preparedness, frugality, and the pursuit of liberty on her websites, The Organic Prepper and DaisyLuther.com, where this article first appeared. She is the author of 4 books and the co-founder of Preppers University, where she teaches intensive preparedness courses in a live online classroom setting. You can follow her on Facebook, Pinterest,  and Twitter.

Image Credit