only if you put on the same blinders that the author does, and ignore things such as:
- no mention whatsoever of any existential threats e.g. climate change. full faith and credit in Mr. Market to get us out of that rut, i guess
- some definitions of "efficient" involve avoiding policies in one country (say worker and environmental protections) by moving to other countries where those same protections don't apply. so efficient seems to also mean unlawful, to some extent
- we'll trust these UBI recipients to "do the right thing" and goose up the economy immediately, instead of say, investing in infrastructure (education, health, science) that we know is a far better investment in the long term future of the country (but can't really be done by a couple grand per month, more like... i dunno... a government thing)
By making sure each person has their minimum needs met, one can then have a better chance at having support for solving big problems that require government which requires popular support.
There are schemes for UBI which don't actually cost much more than we are spending. It can just be reallocation with more clawback in taxes. If one wants to.
Its the opposite of truth. Which isn't a lie its just saying the opposite of facts.
The fact is less people suffer every year, the economy in the west had its biggest expansion every, and there more fruit especially in america than ever.
Every single thing we know about redistribution of wealth does the exact thing he said. Where is his proof.
Not to mention the fact that you believe giving more money to someone who is addicted to alcohol or drugs will be better instead of worse. The only thing you've given them is money money to buy alcohol and drugs with no extra motivation or responsibility so they'd stop doing those things.
Well, you are labelling a prime example of what Marx calls “bourgeois socialism” as Communism 2.0, so you clearly don't understand Communism. Which you'd really understand better by reading a slim volume on the topic like the Communist Manifesto, and not thick volumes centered on critique of capitalism like Das Kapital, which is more about the problem (on which Communists generally agree with other crítics of capitalism) and not narrowly focussed on the solution (on which they differ.)
I actually liked his critiques at the time and I think capitalism should be constantly kept in check through government. (such that they balance each other out)
My unsubstantiated opinion would be that Marx probably would of changed his mind at some point about making it some sort of collectivist movement.
The UBI is also basically the welfare system most countries have without the expense and pain of trying to find the "cheaters" (See Australia's RoboDebt).
Its still capitalism and you still benefit from seeking a higher paying job but once most jobs have been automated it lets people easily train for better jobs without having to constantly report back to some defective government department and randomly getting their payments cut off.
> The UBI is also basically the welfare system most countries have without the expense and pain of trying to find the "cheaters" (See Australia's RoboDebt).
Basically.
> Its still capitalism
No, the modern welfare state is not capitalism, it's a socialist reaction to capitalism. Now, you can argue that it's “bourgeois socialism” that tends to reinforce the class relations of capitalism and which inevitably reverts to capitalism, as Marx—before it actually became the thing that completely displaced old-school capitalism in the developed world—did. But it's not, itself, capitalism. And the longer it is the dominant system of the developed world without a wholesale reversion to unmitigated capitalism, the harder to pure form of the Marxian charge against bourgeois socialism is to defend.
