We heard several people disagreeing with UBI and we had the same opinion about it – and still have actually in this “for profit” environment. But please notice that we say “interest-free and no new loan issuance” in our latest video clip reposted at the bottom of this page.
Remember that Lincoln completely turned around the economy heavily indebted by issuing an interest-free currency (and was even killed for that). BUT to remove all competition forever (which is the goal) UBI can help while deflating the economy (otherwise we’d get shocks to the system) and of course DECREASING UBI accordingly as the economy becomes more and more debt-free – until it reaches a “no growth flat line” – then the shift towards a money-free system can be operated smoothly.
The major problem for most people is the idea too get rid of the financial system overnight and dealing with the ensuing chaos.
The One Small Town Project can even take longer than “10 years of steady degrowth” to come through on a larger scale.
However, we do not see The Venus Project working on a transition that much at all. As for Zeitgeist even if Peter Joseph’s InterReflections (Private Screening Premiere | Jan. 26th 2020 in LA) generates as much success as “Moving Forward”, we still have to find a way to the exits without causing a global stampede
Now, this said, we feel like we still have (at least) a couple of years to go before a forced hard landing – so it is worth trying to get the word out in the meantime.
Of course, our “10 year time frame prediction” relies on a vast majority accepting to degrow fast enough and pushing for a full-fledged recycling industry so that prices also go down, it is all about education of course and as always. But it is doable. In the worse case scenario, it could go up to a generation.
Even Harvard economists are “forced” to catch up now, and you will see soon Degrowth becoming self-evident!
We wished economists had said this 50 years ago though. When economy merges with science social equilibrium is achieved and maintained. The Harvard article does not approach the “circular economic model” and this means that its “growth parameters” are completely biased but it’s interesting that protecting nature is gaining attention in the field.
Harvard economist: Protecting Boundary Waters will be better for the economy than mining (AUG 2018)
Professor James H. Stock and PhD student Jacob Bradt studied the positives and negatives of the U.S. Forest Service’s proposal to withdraw 234,000 acres of federal land in northern Minnesota from consideration for future mining projects.
But the Harvard economists found that while the state of Minnesota and the Iron Range would see an economic benefit in the short-term from mining investment, it would be better in the long term to protect the forest and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
“Over time, the economic benefits of mining would be outweighed by the negative impact of mining on the recreational industry and on in-migration.”
Their study found that if the forest was protected, there would be 4,500 more jobs and up to $900 million more in personal income created over 20 years, compared to if the mining went ahead.
“We examined 72 different income scenarios that represent a range of growth parameters consistent with historical data, previous studies of the region, and the academic literature. All the scenarios show the boom-bust cycle of employment and income. In 69 of the 72 income scenarios we consider, the net present value of income under withdrawal [ie. protecting the land] exceeds that under no-withdrawal, in many cases by a large margin.”
Money-Free Society Almost Here Now!