UBI and "economic expansion" - Keynsian madness - usury exponent implosion

[Zenaan Harkness]

There's a meme in them thar economic hills, and it's a doozian, this "Keynsian" economic blinker:

      Unlimited growth.

The foundation of "unlimited economic growth" is of course a bone thrown to the usurists, and when they're in control, they need the odd bone to chew on or they get fearful they might be exposed to the masses.

And so unfortunately we get odd conjunctions such as "While the idea of a UBI sounds good in theory, as discussed previously, they fail to work in reality ... UBI Won’t Increase Economic Growth"...

.. which is of course founded on the false "need" for eternal economic growth in the first place.

See here:

   Universal Basic Income Is Not An Economic Savior
   https://realinvestmentadvice.com/macroview-universal-basic-income-is-not-an-economic-savior/
   https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/universal-basic-income-not-economic-savior


At the individual, the folly is seen easily e.g. if I eat 3 meals a day this year, I am unlikely to eat 6 meals a day next year "to help the economy increase food consumption/ economic growth in the food industry".

Yes I might eat out more often if my disposable income is presently low and rises sufficiently next year, but it's a bit of a specious argument, an attempt to put lipstick on a pig, as I can only eat so much food on a daily basis before I get sick, and whilst eating more expensive might mean "healthier" within some limited bound, arbitrarily paying say 10 times the amount for the same meal is not economic growth of the food industry - it is actually "financialisation".

In the endless search for the usurious pig's lipstick, financialisation has been the "go to" color, deceiving most with its "economic growth", in fact just a fraud of the first order, successfully masking over 100 years of currency debasement we slave under, to the benefit of extremely few.

Which is fundamentally a natural if ridiculous result of a povvo minset i.e. "poverty consciousness".


The fact is today that literally one single farmer in Australia, with the right equipment and 100,000 hectares of broad acre, can feed Australia its entire wheat needs (think large machinery, GPS and autonomous tractors).

So we live today in phenomenal abundance which is literally off the charts amazing.

And the obvious question is "well what is everybody else going to do then?" and the obvious "poverty consciousness" answer is "continue to slave to the bankers, doing Soul crushing paper pushing".


So may be we need a new model .. one where we acknowledge our abundance, write off most debts, and yes hand out a UBI:

 - Some people will hoard like crazy little crack rats rubbing their paws together, because that's just how they're wired.

 - Others will "like, chill dude" and waste their lives away - and so be it, it's ultimately up to the individual to improve his.elf or not, and to a lesser degree up to his family to kick his butt.  The lazy-arsed "survival" of the fattest.

 - And yet others of course will create Star Trek space ships - it's just how we're wired.

Wisdom lies in cognising reality, our abundance if we don't destroy it all, and perhaps some genuine education for humans who want it, and importantly leaving them with their free will (shocking concept, I know…).

Sit back and let folks "be" already — we live with sufficient food for all, the rest of life is a bonus.


And the UBI conclusion?

Another folly with standard ("modern", Keynsian) economic analysis is seen in the statement (from the above article) "In 2019, 75% of all expenditures went to social welfare and interest on the debt. Those payments required $3.3 Trillion of the $3.5 Trillion (or 95%) of the total revenue collected":

 - "social welfare" may as well be an alias for UBI, so ignore that part

 - and this fearful "interest payment on debt, and issuing of more debt" is a furphy, simply a product of the illegal Federal Reserve banking system as many well know

The point being, if you want to analyse the possible success of a UBI future, saddling this future with "it must solve the known mathematical problem inherent in the present albitrary and illegal system", may result in failure before you even start.

Now, it probably won't result in failure, and the re-balancing inherent with the addition of UBI, will likely at some point present to us all the inescapable question "how much graft in the form of interest" ought the bankers really make?  And like unto it, "should we end the Fed?"

Yes of course we should end the Fed, but Monty and sons may not appreciate that, and so we face "how to transition?" - at least a cold war against China is less life ending than a hot war against our Russian brothers, so there's that...


In the end yes, UBI may certainly look like "long term GDP reduces", but a big part of that is actually de-financialisation as the wealth gap starts to normalise a bit, especially if it's done properly and most new money is injected at the bottom, rather than the majority being injected at the top.

And de-financialisation is hard to see or even acknowledge because "Keynsian justification of usurious banking" actually requires "financialisation, pretending to be economic growth" to hide the Fed's theft, sorry I mean to hide the Fed's wealth transfer for as long as possible (until the system breaks)...


UBI in any form helps stabilise the system of financialisation.

So may be, I dunno, may be we could try a Corona bonus for a while?

Unlike the "problematic when in isolation" Nordic UBI experiment, this Corona bonus is hopefully sufficiently broad-spectrum (including of most people in our community) so they can do the numbers and thereby determine how to de-financialize whilst maintaining overall stability.

Being an inherent conservative ("hey, I'm not 14 years old any more!"), this "transition stability" is something to be grateful for...