Dacia Iluministă

The Basic Income (UBI) Antithesis by “HighWeirdness” the contrary case:

The Basic Income proposal makes some good points, but also offers a number of suggestions that do not appear to be sufficiently analysed in terms of long-term viability and sustainability.

The goal of Basic Income is to end poverty and that is certainly a worthwhile and necessary goal. In order to make this goal a reality, I think it is imperative that any proposal designed to meet this goal be vetted rigorously in order to ascertain any potential negative outcomes, unintended consequences or unsustainable features so that any such problems may be resolved before attempting to implement the program.

Should such a program have to be brought to a halt because of a lack of sufficient funding or because it has generated too many undesirable outcomes, such an ending could well create far more havoc on society than our existing poverty issues.

As the thesis states that the removal of poverty via the Basic Income would also cause all “negative phenomena caused by it” to cease to exist, we need to remain aware of the fact that there is not always a straight-line correlation between poverty and all the ills of society. Last fall, statistics showed that 15% of Americans were at the poverty level, yet the violent crime rates as reported by the FBI for the same measured period were actually dropping and have been throughout three last three years, a period that roughly overlaps the recession. From this, we can see that the lack of money is not the only cause of crime, as if poverty had a direct causal effect on crime, the crime rates should have been on the increase. Though the removal of poverty may well alleviate a large amount of the incentive for crime, we cannot afford to believe that it will serve as a cure-all. We’ll come back to this in a bit.

The thesis suggests that the Basic Income should be paid to individuals (except for criminals in prison) not households, but then muddies that definition by suggesting that “minimum income limits” would be applied to “different family configurations” or under certain cases, such as having dependents while a student or while working in a low-paid job. If, as stated, ALL INDIVIDUALS are paid a Basic Income benefit, then the amount being paid into any particular household would be the number of individuals in the house multiplied by the amount of the Basic Income. If there is some difference between a child and an adult in the benefits offered in this program, that difference needs to be very clearly explained, as, under the current thesis, it is not clear. Unfortunately, by providing a net increase to the household’s Basic Income for each child in that household, whether as a dependent of an adult or as an individual, the unintended consequence could well be to essentially encourage having additional children brought into the world under less than optimal situations.

If a person is not employed and is dependent upon the State for subsistence, do we really want to create a situation that could encourage that person to create another life that will also need the assistance of the State to survive? Perhaps it would better to seek alternate homes for these children born to non-working parents. I realize that such an option would be repugnant to many, but so too is the thought of another generation being raised by parents who are not sufficiently motivated to attempt to support themselves prior to starting a family. If society as a whole were made up of nothing but truly enlightened individuals then nobody would consciously choose to have children until such time as they could support them fully, both emotionally and financially, but we’re a long way from that point. To believe that some people would not take advantage of this particular “strategy” of having more children to increase the household’s income is naive. How long could the State reasonably support a potentially ever-expanding base of benefit recipients?

The Basic Income as proposed would provide benefits as follows:

Jobless person = Gets basic income.

Person with a job = Gets basic income + the salary from his job.

Student = Gets basic income + “student bonus”.

Pensioner = Gets basic income + pension.

Non-workers could also receive bonuses for various volunteer or community activities. Essentially, this breaks recipients into four groups, which we’ll look at further later. For the moment, let’s just note that only one of the four groups is working.

Which brings us to funding for the program. The thesis first suggests a selection of ‘normal’ funding methods, with which I have no real problem, other than the wealth tax which is not explained. It then goes on to suggest that “when all banks and corporations are nationalized, their revenues will go to the state…” Whether full nationalization is truly a viable way to run an economy is best left for another discussion, but one point should be made in this regard. When a company is nationalized, the burden of the wages of its employee’s shifts to the state and any potential income tax revenue from those employees merely washes against the higher expense of their wage. If a particular company is not operating steadily at a profit, the overall operations of the company will result in a net loss and an increased demand on the coffers of the State.

The next method of funding offered up is that of “Money Creation”. There are some very real problems in this section of the thesis that may indicate a lack of understanding of some basics of economics and banking. The thesis makes the following statement: “Just pause for a moment, think about how the banking system actually works, and you’ll soon realize that all money is created out of thin air. You see, when banks give loans to the people, the loan money is literally created out of nothing. When you spend that loan money, it eventually returns to the bank(s) as ‘real money’, making them and their owners richer. This process is called ‘economic growth’.” Even though many banks may be poorly run today and their regulation not what it should be, banks are still required to maintain certain financial standards in order to continue operation. They are required to maintain a balance in their account at the Central Bank, a portion of which is required reserves.

The reserve rate is set at a particular percentage of the deposit accounts of the bank and must be maintained in order for the bank to remain solvent. A bank’s reserves are the total of the money it holds in its vaults and the funds in its Central Bank account. All checks drawn on a bank are paid through its Central Bank account, so that account must always maintain a balance high enough to cover both in clearing checks as well as the required reserves.

The reality of modern banking is that banks create and destroy debt not money. When a customer makes a cash deposit of $100 into a bank, that $100 cash is an asset and is offset by the liability of the $100 deposit in the customer’s name. The money held in the checking account is a debt now owed to the customer who can return at any time and ask to have that debt paid by collecting his $100. When a loan is made by bank for $1000, the $1000 in cash is given to the customer, the bank’s asset balance is reduced by $1000 and its loan receivable increased by $1000. The money creation aspect of this transaction is simply that the physical paper asset was transformed on the books of the bank to a receivable in the form of the loan. When the loan is repaid by the customer, the bank’s asset account increases by $1000 and the loan receivable decreases by $1000, thus destroying the debt. In terms of the actual money supply, that is, the currency actually in circulation plus the demand deposits at banks, it increases when the loan is made and decreases when it is paid. There is no thin air in the process at all, merely a transformation of the asset form. Since the reserves must remain above the set percentage of the bank’s total demand deposits, the bank is strictly limited in the amount of lending they can actually do. When a large loan is made, it may reduce significantly the amount of subsequent lending that can be done, since the funds to make the loan are pulled from the bank’s account at the Central Bank.

The thesis makes a suggestion that “economic growth causes more work and more debt to the people and more money to the rich”, which seems to be deduced from the earlier statement that economic growth happens as a result of creating money out of thin air by making loans. It would be more correct to say that economic growth creates more debt to the businesses that are growing, a decrease in the reserves of the banks involved, and little to no effect on anyone else, other than any potential new hires by the growing company. Provided the loan for the economic growth does not default, the bank will only receive income in the form of the interest paid on the loan, as the repayment of the principal merely replaces the reserves that were used at the time that the loan was granted.

“But what if the banks would actually give real money to the people instead of loans? Would it really make any difference from an economical viewpoint”, suggests the writer. What, indeed? Well, let’s see, instant receivership for the banks for starters as their reserves are decimated. Since the writer seems to feel that the money is just created out of thin air, perhaps we could just hand out balloons to everyone with dollar signs written on them. Or maybe, we should just ask the Mints to print a whole bunch of bills and we can all look forward to enjoying economic freedom Zimbabwe-style.

OK, then, back to reality.

If the revenues to support this program are to come from the public, there must be a sufficient labor pool at work to generate those revenues, either through a tax base or through the sales of products and services. Because the Basic Income model does not require anything beyond citizenship, it essentially ‘rewards’ those who do nothing at all, a situation that could ultimately undermine the viability of the program. The proponents of the plan have stressed that all citizens should have the right to work only as they choose without any necessity for service of any kind. Such a program was attempted for three years in Canada during the 1970’s and though it did not instantly create a huge class of ‘couch potatoes’, there was a loss of work effort of 1% for males and 3% for females over the three years that the program ran. Over time, I feel that this nearly inevitable erosion of the work force will create an unsustainable position. Some of the proponents of the plan seem to feel that non-workers would not abuse the system and that everyone would want to contribute to the system because they are treated so much better. I find this rather naive – as we know from Plato, a perfect society does not guarantee perfect citizens.

Since I feel we must take human nature into account, I’ll draw a bit on the Steal vs. Split debate that has been presented elsewhere, updated to reflect the Basic Income program.

Let’s say that we have an initiative to provide some basic services to all members of a community of 1000 members for a period of time. Let the amount needed to provide these services be $10000. Let the value of the benefit to each member be set at $100. Each member is given the option of either providing $10 (through their work or service) to the initiative or to not contribute.

Here are the possible outcomes and the net to the participants in terms of benefits minus cost equals net position:

I work and 999 others also work: 100 – 10 = 90
I don’t work, but 999 others do: 100 – 0 = 100

Hopefully, this should make it obvious why many would choose not to work – their self-interest will dictate that they stand to gain the most if they do nothing. The worker, on the other hand, stands to only gain $90. Faced with this reality, he may soon choose to not work, as that way, he gets more net benefit.

If we add in the provision that nobody gets a benefit if the initiative is not fully funded, two additional outcomes emerge:

I work but any number of others don’t: 0 – 10 = -10
I don’t work and any number of others don’t work: 0 – 0 = 0

Adding these two outcomes to the scenario makes it clear then that the non-worker would get either $100 or nothing at all, leaving him, at worst, where he started, but the worker would end up with either $90 or $10 in the hole, thus facing a potential loss if he works.

To optimize the system, therefore, it is necessary that everyone works, as that way there is equally shared cost and benefit for all, with losses to no one.

Eventually, many pages later, the thesis says: “In short, in a basic income society the people will want to make sure that it stays intact. They know that if they don’t contribute enough, it’s all over, and the old system based on slavery will return.” So, apparently, there is some acknowledgement that the system must generate enough revenue to support itself, tacit as it may be.

We mentioned poverty’s relationship to crime earlier, but let’s take a closer look now. The thesis states that the cessation of poverty would result in a significantly lower crime rate. To reiterate my earlier statement regarding the crime rate and poverty, despite increasing poverty levels over the past several years, the crime rates, as reported by the FBI, have been decreasing for the last three years in a row. So, while we can probably all agree that poverty and crime have a relationship of some sort, it is not completely clear what that relationship is, so we can’t really assume that eliminating poverty will significantly lower crime rates as well. It is likely that there would be a reduction of some sort, particularly in the area of property crime. Roughly half of all violent crimes are perpetrated by persons known to the victim and though the offenders are more likely to come from impoverished homes, the fact that the offenders performing these crimes appear at all income levels means that poverty alone is not the only factor.

Gang formation is largely driven by poverty, but is also by boredom and peer pressure, so removing poverty is only part of the answer; we also need to work on the other factors at the same time. The thesis has stipulated that criminals in prison would not be eligible to receive the Basic Income, stating that this would be a strong incentive for potential criminals to resist criminal activity for fear of losing their Basic Income benefits. I would hope that the loss of their personal freedom would be enough of a deterrent to crime, but since all their basic needs would be met under either case, it might be well worth the effort to make prison life even less desirable.

We next look at the situation of the homeless. In most cases, freedom from poverty would probably get most of the homeless off the streets, assuming that it was economic lack that drove them to live on the streets. At this point, the writer mentions that someone who had a big house and lost their job might not be able to pay their rent and suggests that a form of “social security aid” (note to US readers, this is not Social Security as we understand it) could be provided to help this poor soul stay in his over-priced house. The writer states that this form of aid would still exist in the Basic Income plan, but Basic Income would replace ordinary income support programs. I’ll get back to this type of scenario later.

Further on in the proposal, the writer suggests that alcoholism and drug use would be lessened, along with prostitution. While I can agree that prostitution would most likely be lessened, alcohol and drug use could be a very different matter. Alcoholism and drug abuse are not respecters of any type of societal class and recovery rooms are filled with people from all walks of life and all income levels. Removal of poverty could well reduce the perceived attraction of going into business as a drug dealer, but its effect on the addicted population cannot be as readily assessed. In the case of a full-blown alcoholic, it could well simply act to further enable their self-destructive behaviour.

The next section talks about the idea of the Basic Income allowing people to take on low-paid, reduced hours jobs that they would not have considered without having Basic Income, stating that this would ultimate cause employers to create better, more meaningful jobs because the ability of people to only have to work if they wanted to would mean that nobody would ever want to do those unappealing jobs. Bad jobs would just go away, apparently, dying of neglect. Much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, there are certain types of work that will need to be done to maintain society and the vast majority of them will probably never appeal to anyone as being ‘meaningful’ in any way, but the fact remains, those types of work will still need to be done.

The thesis discusses the idea that the program will increase psychological well-being. While it is certainly true that the stress issues related to lack of money would largely be removed, the writer also suggests that the root of depression lies in poverty, caused by “lack of security, lack of self-esteem, stress, and so on.” If these ‘causes’ only occurred in impoverished households, then rich downtown psych docs would have gone broke years ago, instead of having their waiting rooms filled with depressed people well above the poverty level.

One of the major complaints I have about this proposed program is its overly idealistic position on human nature. One of its basic, though unstated, tenets appear to be that everyone will be happy because they all have at least their basic needs met. There is no effort made to discuss how the working people might feel about the non-workers, but I feel that to think that there would be no resentment there is simply naive.

All of the four groups of recipients mentioned earlier get the same basic income (if they can stay out of prison), but the guy who works gets the added pleasure of watching the three other groups not work. He probably wouldn’t mind students having their needs covered but that added bonus paid just for being a student might irk him a bit. And if that pension is anything other than retirement savings generated by the pensioner’s own prior income that could be rather annoying as well. But that poor guy who lost his job and gets extra support so he can stay in his house will probably send the poor worker around the bend, because he will probably have a real hard time seeing that as anything other than a reward for failure. How could that sort of behaviour ever be justified in a merit-based society? What makes him so special that he gets to stay in his over-priced house instead of simply finding more affordable housing?

One of the main criticisms of this program has been that it encourages idleness as it requires no duty or service of any kind in order to receive the benefits. The writer answers this criticism with his story about the Good Baron and the Bad Baron and suggests that all would choose to serve the Good Baron because he is generous and good. Here’s part of the story that I find particularly interesting: “Would you feel motivated to serve him, knowing how generous and good he is? Or would you rather start abusing him by becoming a freeloader? Which option feels more “right”? If you had any self-respect, you would choose to serve him. Doing otherwise would mean that you’re just a lazy bum. You would of course be allowed to become a freeloader, but how long could your conscience take it? All the other employees most likely decided to serve the lord too, so you would immediately stand out from the crowd, should you choose to just ‘hang around’. Therefore most likely you too would decide to serve your benefactor.”

The reason I found this passage interesting is because, for the first time, the writer seems to be acknowledging that the non-worker is, in fact, a freeloader. All rational beings would of course choose to work for the Good Baron rather than taking advantage of him, because at the end of the day they do actually have a bit of fear hanging over their head – they know that if enough people do not contribute to the effort, the wonderful benefits will stop. Boom! But, wait a minute, isn’t that a bit of stress again, having to wonder if at some point the whole system might come crashing down because there might not be enough folks helping to keep the system afloat? The writer is apparently convinced that even though there will always be freeloaders, that’s ok in the writer’s view because they will only ever be a minority. Considering that many members of our current society view those that they consider freeloaders in a very dim light and harbour resentment toward them for getting what they feel is a ‘free ride’, why deliberately create a system that allows freeloading to be an option at all?

There are several very easy ways the freeloader option could be removed from the start. Either a set number of service hours of some sort could be set as a requirement, or a time limit for the benefits could be set after which point they would be lessened unless the person begins some type of service. No doubt there are many ways to structure the plan in such a way as to eliminate the parasitic freeloader aspect – the above are merely suggestions as a starting point for further discussion. As was demonstrated very clearly in the Split vs. Steal debate, it is patently obvious that parasites can and will destroy the community we seek to build, and if we deliberately build a system that does not prevent that behaviour, we are essentially condoning it. What is permitted is promoted.

I would regard it as part of the responsibility of the community (or state or whatever the governing body behind the basic income) to make sufficient opportunities available for all members to be able to provide some level of service back to the community as a civic duty. The ideas incorporated into the Basic Income seem to promote that all work must be stimulating and freely chosen, but there are clearly some types of work that need to be done, no matter how much they may lack stimulating aspects or appeal. Do I relish the time I spend spreading cow manure on my garden? Hardly, but I certainly do enjoy the results of my labour’s outcome! If all work is supposedly motivating to us, who’s going to clean out the clogged sewer drains? Why not determine what those really unappealing jobs are and have everyone take turns doing them? Not just the otherwise non-working people, but everyone, the doctors, the lawyers, the philosophers, the musicians, etc. No one should be above getting their hands dirty for the benefit of all.

From my own experience, I know that there is an immense amount of self-worth and self-esteem that comes from building competencies through our own work efforts and from setting and reaching goals. Having grown up on a small homestead where our efforts were focused on living as independently as possible, my brother and I were given many, many opportunities to learn new skills. Those opportunities were not necessarily by choice, in that we did not always get to pick and choose which jobs to do. We knew that they all had to be done and so they were accepted without complaint. We had a very stimulating environment above and beyond our responsibilities helping to run the homestead, though – my mother was a classical pianist and my father an engineer with a profound love for mathematics and philosophy – and we thrived under their tutelage. We had wonderful meals from the foods we grew ourselves and dinner table conversations ranged across an amazing variety of topics, as might be expected from a family of Rationals. We were given opportunities to give our input into any number of projects and to see them to fruition through our own efforts.

To give an example, I was ten years old when we decided as a family to build an in-ground pool in the backyard. As the engineer, Dad drew up the plans and provided guidance and supervision, but I and my brother (13 at the time) did the bulk of the work, including laying the block walls for the sides. It took several weeks as our progress had to be carefully monitored, and I won’t deny that it was hard work at times, but the satisfaction at the end was well worth every bit of our effort. I’m sure that there are some who would be horrified at the thought of a pair of kids doing such physical labour, but I can think of few more satisfying experiences in my life.

Realistically, since my father was well paid for his work as an engineer, he could have simply hired people to do any number of the major renovation projects that we undertook as kids, but he knew that it would be beneficial for us to know how to do things for ourselves. No, we didn’t usually have much choice about the work, but there is no doubting the benefit I have gained from being ‘forced’ to gain those competencies. Had my parents not given us the opportunity to share in the work of our home, they would not have had the time or energy to provide us with the stimulating environment that we experienced. As kids, my brother and I did as we were asked because we understood clearly that our efforts were necessary in order for us to continue to enjoy the benefits of our lifestyle. Should not a citizen’s relationship to the State be regarded in a similar fashion?

To illustrate a bit further, we could say that the State is to its citizens what parents are to their children, given that both the State and parents are charged with the well-being of the citizens and children, respectively. Would any sane person (who wishes to remain so) let their children do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted? As a parent of a young child, would you allow that child to choose only the foods they liked to eat, would you require that they eat everything you choose for them and put on their plate, or figure out a position somewhere between these two extremes? As a teenager, would you let them stay out as long as they wanted or would you set a limit? Parenting theory over the years has run the gamut between the purely authoritarian and the purely permissive, and therapists make good money treating the personality problems resulting from either extreme. Somewhere in between the two lies a synthesis resulting in a viable process, if we but allow ourselves to consider it.

A family is a microcosmic society and, ideally, provides an environment that encourages the development of healthy human beings. The family unit provides a training ground for learning about the interactions between its various members in that small inner world in preparation for interaction within the larger outer world of society as a whole. An overly authoritative parenting strategy could very easily produce offspring that are frozen in fear and despair or openly rebellious, while an overly permissive structure might well produce hedonists continually in search of their own gratification. In many families, children are given certain minor jobs to do to help around the house, with these chores generally evolving into more advanced responsibilities as they get older. In most households, failure to do the chores requested results in a negative outcome of some sort, in many cases a removal of a privilege. Children thus learn that cooperating in the work of the household produces favourable consequences, while not completing their duties in the household generates unfavourable outcomes. As parents, we are expected to provide for our children the basic necessities, keep them in good health, encourage their education and help them to develop into functioning members of society. In return, parents generally ask that their children respect their authority and perform minor duties pertaining to the household, with greater cooperation within the household generally producing a more enriching environment. When the children are carrying some of the responsibility for household duties, the parents have more time and energy to invest in providing more enjoyable and/or stimulating activities for the family.

At the higher level, the State and its citizens, a similar type of relationship might be expected to exist. Just as parents can expect their children to help out with household duties in return for the care they provide, should not the State have a right to expect certain duties or services to be performed by its citizens?

Toward the end of the thesis is a long discussion about the many types of jobs in our current markets and the absurdity of most of them, going on to point out that advanced technology will at some point eliminate the vast majority of jobs. It is stated, however, that the mass unemployment is not a problem, since then everyone will have more time to do all the things they really want and spend time with family and friends, suggesting that’s what “creates real well-being, rather than working your life away”. The writer then suggests that everyone will have a new job called citizen and, of course, get paid just for being a citizen. At that point, I have to wonder where the revenue will be coming from to pay all those parasites, er, citizens.

At a deeper level, what happens to the person who gets to do whatever they want whenever they want? The recent article entitled A New World Order included the following extremely important ideas that address that very question:

“In Freud’s tripartite model of the human psyche involving the id, the ego and the superego, we see the rudiments of a dialectical system. The id, obsessed with its own pleasure and selfish drives, demands instant gratification of any of its desires, no matter how socially unacceptable. If we call this the thesis then it is opposed by the antithesis of the superego, which is concerned with morality, community, altruism, conscience, the rules of society, parental prohibitions etc. The ego, the pragmatic, rational agent that obeys the reality principle provides a synthesis of the conflicting demands of the id and superego.

In childhood and early adulthood, the ego may not be too good at its job, but as life experience and knowledge grows, it gets dialectically better and better. Unfortunately, in the West, we live in an irrational society devoted to instant gratification, so the ego is much more attuned to the id rather than offering a proper balance between id and superego. If we could build into society healthy, functioning dialectical institutions, we could transform the world.” If we create a society or State that readily allows the citizens to follow their own desires at all times, never requiring anything in return, will those citizens truly develop into actualized beings or will they perhaps continue to allow their egos to remain tied too tightly to their id? If the healthy person is one who has learned to balance the opposing urges of the id and superego, thus continually utilizing the dialectic process, does a program that appears to strongly encourage the id over the superego really work in the best interest of the individual?

The thesis states that the Basic Income is fully compatible with meritocracy, claiming no privileges of any kind, but if we recall, it also offered a bonus just to students and a bail out to a guy living beyond his means. These both appear to be rewards that are not based on better performance at all, and in the case of the rent bailout, it is just the opposite.

The thesis writer believes that meritocracy could fail if it “starts to overemphasize merit and talent, rendering all those without these qualities as second-class citizens”. I can only say in response that meritocracy is not a pass-fail system, but rather a system that allows each person to find their own highest attainment. There is no shame in being less than first in a particular field or endeavor – it is simply that the other person had more skills suited for that particular event. Each of us has our set of skills and talents, though many have not yet found them, but I would suggest that it is the dialectic process that remains the best possible tool for reveal those hidden gems of our own worth.

A life without challenging aspects is one that may quickly stagnate for lack of change, as it is the consideration of the opposing view and the integration of the two that spurs advancement to the next level. If we accept that our governing body should be operating in the best interests of its citizens, we must ask ourselves if those programs that we seek to create are to the ultimate benefit of the society they serve. And if the society we seek to create is to flourish, it is imperative that we look at not just its duty to us as citizens, but also our duties to it in return – the relationship cannot be just a one-way street. As a form of social contract, the relationship between the citizen and the state should be mutually beneficial if it is to survive. The eradication of poverty is a very worthy goal and I certainly agree that it is one that we must meet, but we also need to make sure that our program is one will can endure and truly work for the benefit of all. I am not against the idea of a Basic Income program per se, but rather would implement it as part of a social contract, with both sides upholding their side of the agreement by performing their duties to the other. It’s simple and fair, mutually beneficial to all parties, eliminates the potential for parasitic behaviour by spreading the responsibility for at least a minimum contribution of effort equally, and allows for appropriate action to be taken if the terms of the contract are broken.

Our Comments:

We thank our two contributors for their well-argued cases and all of their hard work.

Before we provide our own analysis of this important issue, we need to clear up a few misunderstandings. The thesis states: “when all banks and corporations are nationalized”. That, of course, describes a socialist policy, not a meritocratic one. The system we advocate may be called public or social capitalism. Its central idea is that rather than capital being concentrated in the hands of a tiny number of super rich, it is relatively evenly distributed across society. Profits do not go exclusively to the privileged elite but instead to everyone – or at least everyone who’s willing to work hard.

The banking system will be under public control but will nevertheless have capitalist features. Competition is one of the essential drivers of capitalism, and meritocracy will seek to identify the optimal ways of harnessing competition (in current capitalism there’s some healthy competition but also a great deal of wasteful competition and inefficient replication). The new banking system will be based on a large number of competing banks, all of which will have the opportunity to adopt different banking strategies. No bank will be allowed to be “too big to fail”, but each bank will have significant autonomy and the employees of the more successful banks will make more money than those of the less successful. Similarly, the corporations of present-day capitalism – where the ownership class earn inordinate amounts of money – will no longer exist. Corporate ownership, like capital, will be much more evenly distributed.

We have said all along that the system we advocate is a synthesis of socialist and capitalist elements, and it should absolutely never be characterised as purely socialist. No socialist would recognise our system as belonging to their ideology. We are essentially capitalists who assert that the State should dictate to private capital rather than private capital to the State.

In the UK, the banking leviathan HSBC has threatened to relocate its headquarters from London to Hong Kong because it disapproves of what it sees as anti-banking measures being taken by the government. It is utterly unacceptable for any private institution to blackmail the State and demand preferential treatment. Our version of capitalism would kill off arrogant institutions like HSBC and replace them with capitalist institutions that owe their existence and loyalty to the State rather to the paradigm of “stateless Globalism”.

Contemporary capitalist multinational corporations have become extra-national i.e. they operate beyond the reach of any State. This means that the OWO – the super-rich elite – can tell States all over the world what to do. This cannot be tolerated. Groups of private individuals cannot be allowed to favour their particular will over the General Will of the people. Our “State” version of capitalism reins in capitalism and re-establishes who’s in charge – the People, not small, privileged elites. Public capitalism recognises its obligations to the State. It does not immediately relocate to another part of the world if it fails to get its own way. Public capitalism is about ensuring that the citizens own the means of production. So, if American citizens are the owners of their own companies, they won’t be relocating to Mexico or China any time soon, will they?

A rich capitalist couldn’t care less in what nation he chooses to locate his sweatshop factories. He simply wants to maximise his profits and screw everyone else. He has no commitment to his fellow citizens whatsoever. We seek to eliminate that kind of international capitalism and replace it with national capitalism, based on a nation’s capital residing with its people and not with an itinerant elite who have no national loyalty. German capital should remain in Germany, British in Britain, American in America, Finnish in Finland, and so on. We don’t want any international playboys moving their money around at will to maximise their personal profits regardless of the interests of their home nations.

Our project is about reforming capitalism by removing the bulk of the capital and power from a tiny elite and redistributing it amongst the people. To do so, we need to introduce socialist elements, but these are simply to allow the State to regain control of the economy from private individuals, not to start nationalizing everything in sight and creating huge, inefficient, uncompetitive State monopolies and bureaucracies that ignore markets. Given that we support all of the essential features of capitalism other than that private individuals should dictate to the State (as they do in contemporary capitalism), no one could validly accuse us of being socialists.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild said, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws.” What he ought to have said was: “Give me control of a nation’s money and I will make her laws.” In other words, the people with the money are the power behind the throne: the secret lawmakers who make the world dance to their tune. But why do people let them? It’s not as if stopping them is hard – you simply prevent private individuals from controlling the banks, hence the money. You put the banks and the economy under the control of elected, accountable officials. What could be easier? We are the advocates of the truest form of capitalism – the version that operates according to the General Will of the people and not the particular will of the elite. Public capitalism is the only acceptable form of capitalism.

“In other walks of life, people can take pride in their world without expecting to earn huge salaries. They feel good about themselves because of what they do, not what they are paid. And they take satisfaction from contributing to the public good as well as their employers’ profits. None of that applies in banking, which has been reduced to a narrow calculus of profit and bonus. It is this blinkered view of the world that has made bankers unable to understand why they have to change. They live in a parallel, self-perpetuating universe in which they meet very few people outside their tiny circle. They work so hard that they rarely have time to socialise, and, when they do, it is with other stratospherically rich bankers and lawyers. Their views all reinforce each other’s. And the few outsiders they do encounter, they tend to disdain – usually because they have less money. Bankers are used to getting their own way, because they can wield a chequebook, and collectively, because of the importance of their sector to the economy.” — Mary Ann Sieghart, The Independent We cannot allow the elite to dictate to us. We will dictate to them. If they don’t like it, they can leave, but they will then be declared enemies of the State and never allowed back in. They will become pariahs. That’s exactly what they deserve and they have brought it on themselves.

******

The thesis also states that people in luxury homes who fall on hard times should have their rent or mortgage paid for them by the State. Well, the State certainly isn’t in the business of subsiding luxury lifestyles. Citizens must cut their cloth appropriately.

******

The thesis provides the parable of the benevolent lord and evil baron. It commits the error of putting “good and evil” on equal terms. There have been benevolent employers before – people like Robert Owen in Britain in the 19th century – but they manifestly failed to overcome the prevailing system. Why? Because if there are 19 wicked barons to one benevolent lord then the latter doesn’t have a prayer. The evil cartel can put him out of business one way or another. How do you imagine the Old World Order came to power in the first place? Robert Owen bought a chain of textile mills called “New Lanark”, near Glasgow. He created a village for his workers and provided a school, healthcare, childcare and so on. His employees loved him. He wanted his workers to receive all their needs as part of their working conditions, very much in the manner of the benevolent lord described in the thesis. Although he has been described as one of the founding fathers of socialism, he was really just a conscientious capitalist. As soon as he died, his worker communes collapsed. No one else supported his model. The benevolent lords always lose to the more numerous evil barons. The only way to beat the barons is to make it impossible for them to exist, by taking control of the levers of wealth.

******

The thesis states: “Quite frankly, the masses don’t want to study the teachings of Nietzsche or Hegel or hear scientific theories about the nature of the universe. Instead, they want money. Money is their prime motivator, so we should concentrate our efforts on it. Imagine huge crowds holding up signs with the red M-logo in them and shouting time after time: “We want money! We want money!” What an exciting vision! And it can be transformed into a reality. It has been truthfully said that the people can be bought, so let’s buy them.” This is in danger of being the most cynical and mercenary statement ever made. The super-rich have traditionally bought the people in one way or another. Now, our response is supposedly to offer money on a much wider scale than ever before.

WE WANT MONEY! WE WANT MONEY! That sounds like the slogan of Wall Street, not of any movement connected with meritocracy and the spiritual improvement of humanity. Instead of creating a society where people DO want to study Nietzsche, Hegel and science, we are simply to bribe the masses like the cheapest hustlers.

It is not our ambition to pander to what is lowest in people. There are plenty of others happy to do that. We are the party of excellence, of quality, of a higher type of humanity. Our cause is utterly lost if we reject the highest culture – as represented by the likes of Nietzsche, Hegel and science – and spend our time dumbing down to the lowest common denominator.

It’s true that the masses couldn’t care less about the truth of their lives, the world and the cosmos. It’s true that many people would rather shop, watch TV and gossip about celebrities than contemplate the fundamental nature of existence. It’s true that the masses are sheeple, not people.

Nevertheless, it is not our place to join them in their desperate race for the bottom. We are ascending to the top. We are not in freefall in the bottomless abyss of consumerism and celebrity culture. We are the people of the summits, of the highest heights. We are those who seek to see further than ever before. We look to the stars and beyond. And we look inside. Because there we will find God.

If you do not have values then you have nothing. If we have to resort to distributing money to the masses to gain their support – if that is the sum and substance of our vision – then what’s the point?

We will appeal to the highest aspirations of people, not their basest instincts. We seek to make all people into Gods, no matter how retarded, deluded and dumb they may be at the moment. We will transform their consciousness. When we are finished, it won’t be Hegel and Nietzsche who are unknown amongst the masses, but the vacuous celebrities.

There will come a day when statues of Hegel and Nietzsche are in the centre of every town and city, and there will be no celebrities and no super-rich. In that sign we shall triumph, or victory is not worth achieving.
__________

6/8