Let’s be very wary of Big Tech and Governments forming Big Brother Joint Ventures

Marietje Schaake holds that “regulators should be able to assess all sectors for harms done to democracy, using specified skill sets… Empowering them to probe, investigate, discover and assess companies’ respect for democratic principles would ensure broader and more explicit accountability” “Weakened democracy is another harm caused by Big Tech”, October 15.

That sounds very reasonable but it behooves us citizen to know that about the worst thing that could happen to our democracies, is the formation of Big Brother Joint Ventures between Big Tech and politician/government bureaucracy.

In the same vein, on October 13 Chris Giles in “Rich nations draft blueprint for $100bn revolution in corporate tax” reported on the large appetite that exists when it comes to taxing “the likes of Google and Amazon”. Sir, do we really want to see the taxman having financial incentives in the exploitation of our personal data? We do not.

Now, if all advertising revenues generated by exploiting such data was shared 50-50 with us who supply the data, for instance by means of helping to fund an unconditional universal basic income, that would much better align the incentives of all participants.

But Sir, this does not mean I see no role for regulators when it comes to Big Tech. On the top of my mind I can list:

That they help guarantee we’re always receiving messages from parties that we can easily and accurately identify.

That they help us to be targeted as precisely as possible, so that our scarce attention span is not wasted in irrelevant/useless advertising/information.

That they do their utmost to keep out all those redistribution or polarization profiteers who, with their messages of hate and envy, destroy our societies.

Sir, one last question. If an author can get a copyright for a book, should we not be able to get a copyright on our preferences, that which we include in our book of life?

PS. Sir, since soon I’ve written you 3.000 letters on the topic of the incredibly mistaken bank regulations that cause so much societal harm, you must understand that the whole topic of regulations makes me nervous. 

@PerKurowski

The coronavirus will unleash a horrific Minsky moment in our bubbled-up debt overextended economies

Sir, I refer to Martin Wolf’s “The virus is an economic emergency too” March 18. 

Indeed, more than a week ago I tweeted: “The world is prepared somewhat for the expected, but not enough for the unexpected. That’s why, worldwide, coronavirus will cause larger number of deaths because of its economic consequences, than because of its health implications”.

And for years I have also tweeted, “The current fake-boom, put on steroids by huge central bank liquidity injections, low interest rates, and Basel Committee’s pro-cyclical risk weighted bank capital requirements, will end in a horrific Minsky moment bust, equally put on steroids.”

Sir, bank capital requirements used to be a percentage of all assets, something which to some extent covered both EXPECTED and UNEXPECTED risks. But currently Basel Committee’s risk weighted bank capital requirements, those that operate over the silly low 3% leverage ratio, are solely BASED ON EXPECTED credit risks. So even if Wolf can write “The pandemic was not unexpected”, for banks and its regulators it sure was completely, 100%, unexpected. And all the banks will now soon stand there completely naked.

And what help can banks be expected to give entrepreneurs and SMEs when they are required to hold much more capital when lending to these, than when holding “safe” sovereign debts and residential mortgages? Will banks be able to raise the needed 8% in capital or will regulators lower that requirement?

Wolf writes, again, “Long-term government debt is so cheap”. Sir, when will Wolf dare think about what those rates would be, for instance in Italy, if its banks needed to hold the same amount of capital against loans to their government than against loans to their Italian entrepreneurs?

“Governments can just send everybody a cheque”. Yes, a perfect moment to build up an unconditional universal basic income scheme; but it needs to be well funded, not with public debts expected to be repaid by our grandchildren. Possible sources are high carbon taxes, something which would align the incentives in the fights against climate change and inequality; another possibility is to tax those advertising revenues generated by exploiting our personal data.

PS. As to USA it should immediately eliminate of all health sector discrimination in price, access or quality, between the insured and the uninsured.

PS. As to education all professors and administrative personal should have their salaries reduced, something which should be compensated by participating somewhat in their students’ future income streams.

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-basel-committee-for-banking.html

@PerKurowski

The battle between capital and labour may be surpassed by the battle between the working class and the not working class.

Rana Foroohar announces, “The age of wealth distribution is coming and will have major investment consequences”, “The age of wealth accumulation is over” August 5.

Indeed, but two questions stand out. 

First, for wealth to be redistributed some assets of the wealthy must be sold and, since precisely because of that there might be less interest among other to acquire those assets, the value of these could fall… with unexpected consequences. Here’s an example, what is best for New York City keeping property taxes and property values at current values, or increasing the taxes running the risk that property values fall and wealthy property owners run away somewhere else?

The second question is who is going to redistribute? Will a mechanism like an unconditional universal basic income be used, or will the usual redistribution profiteers be in charge of it?

Foroohar also announces, “Another battle will be between capital and labour.” That battle will always be present but, in these times when robots and AI seem to threaten jobs, the real battle could end up being between the working class and the not working class.

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2012/04/we-need-worthy-and-decent-unemployments.html

@PerKurowski

Should the tax on robots be high or low?

Sir, John Thornhill writes that Carl Benedikt Frey’s “The Technology Trap” informs us that “the number of robots in the US increased by 50 per cent between 2008 and 2016, each of them replacing about 3.3 jobs” “The return of the Luddites” July 13, 2019.

Those who are so replaced must surely have been generating some non-wage labour costs, like social security, that robots don’t. Therefore I frequently pose a question that, with the exception of some Swedes, no one wants to give me a definite answer to. It is:

Should we tax robots low so they work for us humans, or high so that we humans remain competitive for the jobs?

In an Op-Ed from 2014 titled “We need decent and worthy unemployments” I wrote: “The power of a nation, and the productivity of its economy, which so far has depended primarily on the quality of its employees may, in the future, also depend on the quality of its unemployed, as a minimum in the sense of these not interrupting those working.”

And over the years I have become convinced that in a universal basic income, large enough to help us out of bed to reach up to what is available, and low enough to keep us from staying in bed, lies our best chances to find the basic social stability we need to avoid societal breakdown,.

The financing of that UBI could include that those who exploit data on us citizens shared with us part of their ad revenues, a high carbon tax, and perhaps taxing robots and AI (though I do not know with how much)

PS. I case you wonder why some Swedes answered the question that has primarily to do with the existence in Swedish of the magical word “lagom”, meaning something like not too much not too little but just right. J

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2017/02/here-some-disorderly-lose-cannon.html

@PerKurowski

So if the taxman/(Big Brother) is now to get a share of the revenues some Big Tech obtain exploiting our personal data… who is going to defend us citizens?

Sir, you deem “The ability of some of the world’s most profitable companies to escape paying fair levels of tax…unfair both to other businesses which do not trade internationally and to governments, which lose substantial revenue” “France leads the way on taxing tech more fairly”, July 12.

It might be unfair to us taxpaying citizens but “unfair to the government”, what on earth do you mean with that? That sounds like something statist redistribution profiteers could predicate but, frankly, the government has no natural right to any income.

And since Big Techs like Facebook and Google obtain most of their revenues by exploiting us citizens’ personal data, then if there were some real search for fairness, a tax on ad revenues from such exploitation should better be returned directly to us, perhaps by helping to fund a universal basic income.

But what ‘s the worst with these taxes is that now effectively governments will be partners with these companies in the exploitation of our data. With such incentives do you really believe our interest will be duly defended? We, who are afraid of what all our data could feed with information a Big Brother government, must now recoil in horror from that we will also be suffering an even richer and more powerful Big Brother.

PS. Sir, it is not the first time I have warned you about this.

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2018/03/our-need-to-concern-ourselves-about-use.html

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2019/05/i-have-some-ideas-about-what-could.html

@PerKurowski

Should we tax robots low so they work for us humans, or high so that we humans remain competitive?

Rana Foroohar references “a recent report into the US labour market conducted by the McKinsey Global Institute found that… the biggest reason for the declining labour share, according to the study, is that supercycles in areas such as commodities and real estate have made those sectors, which favour capital over labour, a larger part of the overall economy”, “The silver lining for labour markets”, July 1.

“Do we have a supercycles that favour capital over labour”? At least with respect to real estate, especially houses, the “supercycle” we have is caused by bank regulators much favoring credit to what’s perceived as safe over credit to what’s perceived as risky, without one iota of importance assigned to the need of allocating credit efficiently to the real economy.

Then Foroohar refers to the problem: “shifting labour market dynamics will sharpen the political divides that already exist. Many “left behind” cities are home to more Hispanics and African Americans. Job categories that will be automated fastest are entry-level positions typically done by the young. Meanwhile, the over-50s are at the highest risk of job loss from declining skills”. As “The solution” Foroohar writes; “shift policy to support human capital investment, just as we do other types of capital investment”

Sir, unfortunately it is so much more complicated than that. Just the problems with student debts we currently hear about, evidences that we might not really know about how “to support human capital investments”.

Before social order breaks down, we need to start considering the need to generate decent and worthy unemployments, creating an unconditional universal basic income that serves somehow as a floor and decide what to do with AI and robots. Should we tax these low enough so that they do as much jobs as possible for us humans, or should we tax them high enough for us humans to remain competitive for the jobs they do?

PS. On “a mere 25 cities and regions could account for 60 per cent of US job growth by 2030”, may I venture those cities will not include those with the largest unfunded social benefit plans.

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2007/01/should-not-higher-education-be-more-of.html

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2012/04/we-need-worthy-and-decent-unemployments.html

http://myubi.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-universal-basic-income.html

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2017/02/here-some-disorderly-lose-cannon.html

@PerKurowski

A Universal Basic Income deserves to be implemented fast but carefully, little by little.

Sir, Lex writes:“Either the Universal Basic Income (UBI) has to be unrealistically low or the tax rate to finance it is unacceptably high. Suppose the US provided its 327m inhabitants with $10,000 a year. That would be less than the 2018 official poverty threshold of $13,064. But it would cost 96 per cent of this year’s federal tax take.”“{Universal basic income: } money for nothing” May 20.

Let’s face it, the UBI, being an unconditional payment, eats into the franchise value of the redistribution profiteers, and so there are many out there wanting it never to be launched or, if it is, to be unsustainable. The usual way to sabotage it, is precisely arguing that if it is too small it does not solve anything, or if it is too large, it is fiscally unsustainable.

In my mind UBI, the basing building block for the decent and worthy unemployments we need before social order starts to break down, and therefore such an immensely valuable social experiment, deserves to start small, but fast, and grow, slowly, to where the future will and can take it. 

The tricks for a successful launch of a Universal Basic Income are:

1. That it helps all to get out of bed but that it never is so big so as to allow anyone to stay in bed. In other words that it is a stepping stool that helps everyone to reach up to whatever there is in the real economy.

2. That it starts small enough and grows little by little so as to guarantee its absolute revenue sustainability. It should never be an UBI for the current generation paid by future generations.

3. That its revenue sources should as much as possible be aligned with other social interests, like a carbon tax that helps fight climate change; or sources aligned with the new times, like taxes on robots, intellectual property and exploitation of citizens’ data.

Sir, the UBI should have as little as possible to do with government and politics, that because it should foremost be as a citizen to citizen’s affair.

PS. In countries blessed with high natural resource revenues, these should feed a much larger UBI, but that is because of the importance of reducing the concentration, in the hands of a centralized government, of income that does not come from taxes paid by citizens.

@PerKurowski

Imposing a marginal minuscule cost per web-ad-message could perhaps help level the playing field for the boring truths against the much more fun fake news.

Sir, Tim Harford expresses it clearly when he writes, “Fake news itself does not pose an existential threat either to democracy or the free press. What does pose such a threat is a draconian response from governments.” “There is no need to panic about fake news” January 5.

Indeed but Basic Skepticism 101 courses are still much needed. I have for decades objected to that draconian response from regulators that states: “We will make your banks safer with risk weighted capital requirements”, which they based on the loony idea that what’s perceived as risky is more dangerous to our bank systems than what is perceived as safe. 

Of course that is as fake as a regulation can be. Not only does it distort the allocation of credit to the real economy but it also puts bank crises on steroids. As for now, that only guarantees especially large crisis, because of especially large exposures, to what is especially perceived as safe, against especially little capital.

Hartford also worries about “that there is far too little transparency over political advertising in the digital age: we don’t know who is paying for what message to be shown to whom”. I agree but one important cause for that is that there is no marginal cost to be paid by those spreading news and ads on the web.

If every ad messaging on the web forced the messenger to pay a minuscule amount per message, then we would be more carefully targeted, meaning wasting less of our limited attention span, and it would be less easy for fake-more-fun-news messengers to compete with “real” not-as-fun-news outfits, if there now is such a thing.

PS. If those revenues help fund an unconditional universal basic income, then it would be even better. 

@PerKurowski

Let us issue shares fed with some results of our economy to all of us, and then worship these.

Sir, Rana Foroohar asking “At what point does bad corporate behavior become willful malfeasance?” writes, “Facebook is the natural culmination of 40 years of business worshipping at the altar of shareholder value.” “Facebook puts growth over governance” December 25.

Really? If all the incredible developments around Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft and similar, results from “worshipping at the altar of shareholder value” then perhaps we should issue a share to each citizens that feeds on a substantial part of profits, like those of Facebook, or taxes, like carbon taxes, and have us all worshipping these shares, instead of trusting the acts of genius politicians or bureaucrats with agendas of their own. 

Those shares, which would pay out an equal unconditional societal dividend to all of us, is by the way what a Universal Basic Income is all about. 

Of course, as usually comes with new developments, there are new and serious problems, and data privacy is one of them. Foroohar asks “ Have we reached one of those watersheds when US and European authorities are going to step up and do something about it? Let us beware, there’s no guarantee that would not be even worse. 

Foroohar says she is reminded of “bank executives who had no understanding of the risks built into their balance sheets until markets started to blow up during the 2008 financial crisis” 

I am though more reminded of regulators who allowed banks to leverage over 60 times their equity with what rated as AAA could be very dangerous to our bank system, and less that 8.3 times with what rated below BB- bankers do not like to touch with a ten feet pole. I am reminded of regulators who assigned a risk weight of 0% to the sovereign of Greece, and thereby doomed that nation to its tragedy.

@PerKurowski

The prime element of a Universal Basic Income is its unconditionality, and that’s why redistribution profiteers hate it the most

Sir, John Dizard titles“Sorry, but the world is not yet ready for universal basic income” October 11, but then he writes an article exposing exactly why we need a Universal Basic Income. Clearly he has not understood the real implications of UBI’s most important principle that of its unconditionality; never to be paid out because you are something different, like in jail.

I came to Universal Basic Income by means of my long fight for having all Venezuela’s net oil revenues shared out equally among all Venezuelans. That would have saved my homeland from its current tragedy. Instead those revenues fell into the hands of odious, besserwisser, corrupt redistribution profiteers… who paid it out generously to themselves and their friends… and with especially bad cheese to the rest of Venezuela.

“UBI…cannot be done within the bounds of the existing social contract in advanced countries.” Absolutely, as long as we allow redistribution profiteers to define those bounds.

Those redistribution profiteers who, circling their wagons in order to defend the value of their franchises, convinced Dizard of that “big tax rises and reductions in other benefits would be needed, even for a modest basic income”. Their most usual tool is using very high figures for that basic income. There is absolutely nothing that would stop advanced countries from beginning by paying out some US$ 200 per month to all its citizens. That would help oil the economy much more than a tax cut.

We urgently need something to help create decent and worthy unemployments in time, before all social order breaks down… and redistribution populists like Hugo Chavez and pals take over. 

@PerKurowski

A Universal Basic Income could turn many marginal jobs into decent employments.

Sir, Sarah O’Connor writes: “One of the defining economic challenges for today’s policymakers is how to make service sector jobs more decent, with better pay, security training and opportunity for progression”, “Payday lender’s demise will not free workers from the labour trap” September 5.

I do not agree. Few years ago I wrote that before our policymakers invest (waste) scarce resources trying to guess were the markets are going and create jobs, we need to build the floor and create decent and worthy unemployments. 

“Better pays” raises the bar, something that could even kill jobs. A Universal Basic Income, that could start at a very low and absolutely sustainable level, could help many to reach up, more decently, to whatever jobs were available.

That would allow employment to be much more “the answer to financial distress, not the cause of it.”

@PerKurowski

We need to rethink productivity data, in light of so many “working hours” spent consuming distractions.

Sir, referencing Chris Giles’ and Gavin Jackson’s “Surge in low-value jobs magnifies UK productivity problem” of August 13, I believe that whenstating “increases in low-wage jobs in bars, social work and warehouses have served to hold back UK productivity growth” it hints at sort of causation that might not really be there.

I say so because we have entered a new era that requires redefining entirely the ways we measure productivity. 

Some months ago, in Bank of England’s “bankunderground” blog, we read a post by Dan Nixon titled “Is the economy suffering from the crisis of attention?”. It said, “With the rise of smartphones in particular, the amount of stimuli competing for our attention throughout the day has exploded... we are more distracted than ever as a result of the battle for our attention. One study, for example, finds that we are distracted nearly 50% of the time.”

Nixon, answering the question posed in the title wrote, “The most obvious place to look would be in productivity growth, which has been persistently weak across advanced economies over the past decade.”

But, what if instead of being recorded as distractions during working hours, these were to be recorded as a private consumption that reduces the effective working hours? Would that not increase GDP and reduce working hours, and thereby point instead to a dramatic increase in productivity?

In the same vein, would then not real-salaries, instead of stagnating, have been increasing a lot?

And what about our employment and unemployment data if the time used to consume distractions during working hours would not be counted as work? 

Sir, it behooves us to make certain how we measure the economy gets updated to reflect underlying realities. 

Perhaps then we are able to understand better the growing need for worthy and decent unemployments.

Perhaps then we are able to better understand the need for a Universal Basic Income, not as to allow some to stay in bed, but to allow everyone a better opportunity to reach up to whatever gainful employments might be left, like those “low-wage jobs” that it behooves us all, not to consider as “low value jobs”

@PerKurowski

Trade tariffs revenues should at least try to compensate those hurt the most.

Sir, John Authers writes of the facts of life that give “Free trade the strange ability to convince everyone, rich or poor, that they have lost by it”, “Nafta’s losers always drown out its winners” August 10.

Tariffs are used to supplant market decisions. Sometimes it could be good, like for instance when making sure your “Arsenal Of Democracy” is fabricated on homeland, but most often it is bad, only helping to enrich those capitalizing on crony statism.

Whatever, in any case there should be much more transparency on who are then going to decide, instead of the market, on the use of all revenues provided by the tariffs.

I argue this because, if for instance 100% of those tariff revenues went to finance a Universal Basic Income, then at least those most hurt would be partially compensated… and the redistribution profiteers would think less favorably of these tariffs.

@PerKurowski

A Universal Basic Income is a prime free market oriented “instrument of national togetherness”

Sir, Janan Ganesh writes about how the fact that “America has a large, complex and redistributive state…with some public assent”, has moved the floor for many traditional republicans, and has favored Trump”, “The end of the Republican free-market ticket”, August 2.

If you are a democrat or a republican who do not belong to the establishment, and who do not like the idea of having to court bureaucrats for any assistance that might be needed more and more, how do you deal with that?

As a Venezuelan, nauseated from seeing how its government has handled centralized oil revenues, I pray for all citizens to be in their own hands, using the free markets to decide what to do, than for them to be in the hands of odious redistribution profiteers. And so I do favor a Universal Basic Income.

And I believe an UBI could also signify a very important unifying bridge sorely needed in a world with so much polarization.

Of course since redistribution profiteering or the exploitation of crony statism exist in all political camps, we should expect all its enemies to circle their wagons and do what they can to stop UBI from reducing the value of their franchise. One of their first lines of defense, is helping to push an UBI into promising way too much, so that it clearly become fiscally unsustainable. Another one is arguing that would exacerbate social laziness.

I have no idea where long-term a UBI would lead us, but I wish we could start with one small enough to help everyone to get out of bed, but not so large so as to allow anyone to stay in bed. Around the corner, or probably in many ways even here, we will need decent and worthy unemployments, and UBI must surely be part of the toolbox for that. 

As a UBI does in fact represent a Societal Dividend, it should appeal to both those who want more free markets and those who focus more on social responsibilities. That sounds very much like an instrument for the centre-left-right to embrace the free market and “the state as an instrument of national togetherness”.

http://myubi.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-universal-basic-income.html

@PerKurowski

More important than giving millenials affordable housing, is to help them afford houses. C'est pas la même chose.

Sarah O’Connor writes, “Home ownership rates for young people have been declining for decades as house prices have detached from incomes.” “It’s time for millennials to fight for our rights” July 25.

Not really so! It is the price of homes that have become detached from the price of houses, as these have turned into investment havens.

Access to credit in preferential terms (like generating for the banks low capital requirements) and the support O’Connor mentions of “Bank of England [with low] interest rates and quantitative easing [tried] to shore up the economy, in part by propping up house prices” has made houses “safe” investments in a turbulent world.

When O’Connor mentions, “Loosening credit standards to help more millennials buy homes would be one method” my answer would be in the form of the following riddle:

How much easy financing has now to be provided to house buyers, only in order to finance the easy finance provided all house buyers previously? 

O’ Connor recommends “It would be better to build more houses in areas of high demand, including more social housing” and to “take measures to boost productivity so incomes rise”.

The first is indeed a sensible recommendation, for all times, but the second requires among other to stop favoring with the risk weighted capital requirements for banks the access of credit for the safer present (consumption - houses) which means de facto disfavoring that of the “riskier” future (production - entrepreneurs).

Let me be clear much more important than helping to give the young access to affordable housing, is to help them to afford houses; which of course c'est pas la même chose.

What I most miss though in O’Connor’s article is a reference to a Universal Basic Income. If the society is not able to generate decent and worthy unemployments, then increasing social conflicts will prove to be the greatest menace to the millennials (and to us oldies too)

@PerKurowski

Those who sell us a universal basic income as a total solution, could just be wanting for it to fail

Sir, I refer to Tim Harford’s “Basic income or basic jobs?” June 29. The theme has become more fashionable because of robots and artificial intelligence, but the lack of jobs is not a new concern.

In 2003 in an Op-ed I wrote: “There’s a hint of all coming to a standstill in the theory about how globalization will optimize the world economy, by ensuring that merchandise will always be produced at the lowest marginal cost. What good does it do us to have products where the cost of the labor component gets smaller by the minute, if workers can’t buy the very products they produce?”

I ended that in jest with “Friends, let’s give one another jobs, scratching each other’s backs—paying each other good salaries of course.”

In 2012, while I was still not censored in Venezuela, in another Op-Ed titled “We need decent and worthy unemployments” I began it with: “What politician does not speak up for the need to create decent and well paid jobs for young people? But, if that's not possible, and the economy is not able to deliver that on its own ... What on earth do we do?”

In search of the answer I there asked: “Which is better: educating for a source of employment likely to be absent and therefore only create frustration, or educate for unemployment, and suddenly perhaps reaching, when on that route, the pleasant surprise of some jobs?”

Therefore Sir, in the choice between a basic income and a basic job, I clearly go for the first. The waste that could result, especially in uncertain times like these to develop guaranteed jobs, would surely be too big.

But that does not mean I consider that a Universal Basic Income either can or should be designed to satisfy all needs. For the time being it should just be a tool to help people get out of bed and reach up to whatever job opportunities might be around.

How much? Start with little. For instance, if there are pressures to increase the minimum wage $3 per hour then, for a fulltime 160 hour per month that signify $480. So why not start a UBI at that level and let time tell us where it can go? The additional demand that could be generated will, at existing salary levels, generate many jobs too.

What I most fret though are the redistribution profiteers. Concerned with seeing the value of their franchise erode, they might sell UBI’s promises excessively, both in amounts and purpose, so as to make the whole idea of a social dividend collapse, in order for them to get back in the saddle again. It behooves us all to stop them.

@PerKurowski

We need worthy and decent unemployments

Sir, I refer to Martin Wolf’s “Work in the age of intelligent machines” June 27.

In 2012 (while I was still not censored in Venezuela) I wrote an Op-Ed titled “We need worthy and decent unemployments”. In it I held “The power of a nation, and the productivity of its economy, which so far has depended primarily on the quality of its employees may, in the future, also depend on the quality of its unemployed, as a minimum in the sense of these not interrupting those working.”

That is the reason why I am absolutely sure our societies have to start urgently, even if from a very low level, to implement an unconditional universal basic income (UBI).

And referring also to Sarah O’Connor’s “Minimum wage laws still fall short for those on the bottom” June 27, let me point out that while minimum wages raises the bar for the creation of jobs, UBI is a stepping stool that allows you to reach up to the mostly low paying jobs of the gig economy. 

PS. You want to increase the minimum wage $2 per hour? Better pay $2x40x4 $320 in universal basic income to all.

@PerKurowski

Will the many “General Data Protection Regulation” profiteers help or stand in the way of a better future for our grandchildren?

Sir, Richard Waters writes that “Europe’s new online privacy regime is a gravy train for lawyers and consultants, and it has kept IT departments and compliance officers working late for months [and] it is likely to take an onslaught…from privacy activists” “Brussels forces online reckoning by setting high bar on privacy” May 25.

That raises a question: Will that mean a better future for my grandchildren, or will it just extract value from what has been developed, making what’s to be developed more distant and expensive?

Waters also writes: “One Silicon Valley figure argues: if users were able to capitalise the future value of personal data like this that they will throw off over a lifetime, it would turn out to be one of their most valuable assets”. I have argued a similat the thing with letters sent to FT… but I have also indicated the possibility that all the web and social media added monetary value, could be used to fund a Universal Basic Income, a sort of Human Heritage Dividend.

Personally, scared of some “Big Brother Is Watching You” joint ventures between data gatherers and goverments coming into fruition, I prefer allowing development to run its full course to see where it takes us. 

Sir, I just do not feel sure enough about taking development limiting decisions on behalf of my grandchildren. Do you? 

https://teawithft.blogspot.se/2015/09/ad-blockers-do-not-allow-any.html

PS. If social media is to be fined, then have all the fines help to fund Universal Basic Income schemes. What we absolutely do not need, is to have social media (ambulance) chasers, redistribution profiteers, like a European Commission, or similar, capturing these.

@PerKurowski

Profits obtained under the protection of an IPR should be taxed higher than when obtained competing naked.

Sir, Martin Wolf discusses the vital topic of how intellectual property rights could, simultaneously, be agents that help promote the ideas and inventions needed for a better future, and an obstacle to competition. “Let knowledge spread around the world” April 25.

I have also grappled with this issue and although it might surely not be the only option, for a long time I have thought that placing a special tax on profits obtained under the coverage of an IPR, could help to bring forward that moment when sharing out freely the rights, instead of exploiting these up to the tilt, would make more business sense.

Also what justice is it in that those who have to compete completely naked in the market, should be taxed at the same rate as those who the society defends by defending their IPRs?

By the way, that special tax on IPR profits should go to partially fund, by means of a Universal Basic Income what could be considered as a Human Heritage Dividend.

@PerKurowski

A Universal Basic Income has much more to do with being able to say, “Yes, here I come!” than with a freedom to say, “No, I prefer to stay in bed”.

I refer to Tim Harford’s conversation with Rutger Bregman on the subject of a basic income, while bouldering. “Rutger Bregman: ‘Basic income is all about the freedom to say no’” March 20.

Sir, look at Venezuela. Believe me when I say that 40% of the poorest of my homeland received less than 15% of what they should have received the last fifteen years, had our net oil revenues just been shared out equally among all Venezuelans. And then you might beguine to understand my deep resentment with any redistribution profiteers. To bypass this kind of profiteers, in abundance all over the world, is in itself a reason more than enough to justify a Universal Basic Income.

That said, in 2012, before I was censored in Venezuela, and based on the lack of jobs I had begun visualizing in 2003, I also wrote an Op-Ed titled “We need decent and worthy unemployments”. That de facto calls out for a UBI, before it is too late and our social structures break down in favor of the many aspiring Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro of this world.

But Bregman argues: “OK, so basic income is all about the freedom to say no. That’s a privilege for the rich right now. With a basic income, you can say no to a job you don’t want to do. You can say no to a city in which you no longer want to live. You can say no to an employer who harasses you at work . . . that’s what real freedom looks like.”

And there I have to say no! That sounds to me like a spoiled brat’s view about what a basic income should mean. Such a Universal Basic Income becomes, almost by definition, financially unsustainable. I argue instead for a UBI that provides you with an assistance to get out of bed in order to reach up to whatever the spreading Gig economy has to offer you; but not so large so as to allow you to stay in bed, because that will sure make others refuse to pay for what the UBI might take.

Sir, every time I hear someone offering more than what a UBI can sustainably offer, I feel I we could be in the presence of a redistribution profiteer out to sabotage it, all in order to defend the value of his franchise.

PS. The article has that “A basic income [could be handed out] through the tax system as a negative income tax.” Not so. A tax credit that you start losing the minute you step out of bed to work, is not an unconditional Universal Basic Income.

PS. When Rutger Bregman opines “What’s the biggest injustice in the world right now? It’s pretty easy to see. It’s borders: apartheid on a global scale.” I would have asked. If there are no borders, how much in UBI do you think your homeland would accept to pay to any immigrant?

http://myubi.blogspot.com/2017/01/my-universal-basic-income.html

@PerKurowski