#ubi — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #ubi, aggregated by home.social.
-
Just read "Green City Wars" by Adrian Tchaikovsky and thought it was a fun romp. A hard-boiled detective novel set amongst the augmented critters that keep a near-future solarpunk city running behind the scenes. Maybe like if Redwall was solarpunk?
-
Just read "Green City Wars" by Adrian Tchaikovsky and thought it was a fun romp. A hard-boiled detective novel set amongst the augmented critters that keep a near-future solarpunk city running behind the scenes. Maybe like if Redwall was solarpunk?
-
Just read "Green City Wars" by Adrian Tchaikovsky and thought it was a fun romp. A hard-boiled detective novel set amongst the augmented critters that keep a near-future solarpunk city running behind the scenes. Maybe like if Redwall was solarpunk?
-
Just read "Green City Wars" by Adrian Tchaikovsky and thought it was a fun romp. A hard-boiled detective novel set amongst the augmented critters that keep a near-future solarpunk city running behind the scenes. Maybe like if Redwall was solarpunk?
-
Just read "Green City Wars" by Adrian Tchaikovsky and thought it was a fun romp. A hard-boiled detective novel set amongst the augmented critters that keep a near-future solarpunk city running behind the scenes. Maybe like if Redwall was solarpunk?
-
Expectations
In my previous post I presented a discussion concerning the potential of treasuries-backed stablecoins to balance out QT by increasing liquidity as well as the need to carefully manage their inflationary impact, expressed scepticism about bitcoin as a dollar hedge, shared ideas regarding UBI in the context of inflation, and commented on the now long passed change in U.K. leadership:
Ironing out creases it left behind is the motivation behind this post.
First is a matter of conceptual integrity related to the discussion of stablecoins. Following it will be a couple of foundational takeaways on UBI.
For the post to come full circle I will expound on the economic narrative and the risks to the U.S. economy and the markets. I had spoken out as a bear, which might have surprised given that I haven’t provided an outlook update this year. I will answer what made me bearish in the first place and whether there is anything that could make me change my mind. In the end I will put things in perspective.
I will break down the narrative along critical dimensions I believe span our course and economic space: AI & technology, energy prices, inflation & Fed policy, MAGA economics and trends in markets together with both their effects on economic potential.
To start, speaking about stablecoins as offsetting QT, a concluding paragraph I presented left me dumbfounded when I revisited it. It’s as follows:
“Should tokenised payments come to dominate the real economy, cet. par. a good amount of currency will be released from use. By definition we find that a proportion of the already existent dollars in turn shifts into the residual component of the money supply, where it latently supports the prices of financial assets – ranging from debt to bitcoin. A sudden increase in latent deposits in fact pressures <i>lending</i> rates down. (But a bank lending below the funds rate would soon need to borrow reserves in order to make inter-bank payments.) If the result is that spreads compress and lending volume increases, if only to fund tokenisation, the banks will have found a seemingly endless supply of deposits and, we would expect, aggregate demand shifted up.
We find a currency increased in offer but has lost utility and short term government debt that gained it.”
Before I provide arguments that will align the discussion with rational expectations, I offer my apologies for while the tale makes sense in the context of the theory I have so far been developing, it sounds completely incoherent outside of its context, showing that the theory is off. The reasoning I had presented was reckless and I failed to give the matter the appropriate level of attention. The result was the conclusion was biased and misguiding.
Our pursuit is the truth, and I’m sorry I failed it for a moment. If you’re still with me, it must be for the distance we covered on our journey of discovery. Drawing a clear picture of reality is the goal of science. The problem was I presented fiction instead. If on this blog we find a pattern of errors and error corrections, this doesn’t upset me unless these can be characterised as lapses in judgement – and this one is the second such mistake I noted in a brief time.
In the context of theory the paragraph makes sense because there we’ve strictly delimited the three aggregates we find construe the entirety of the money supply: effective and financial markets liquidity, and the liquid savings of the private sector. This then enables us to find the aggregate volume of funds that can be lent, by separating circulating from idle funds and claiming only the latter can be used for this purpose. It’s this claim that of course is incorrect. But, we see that the release of currency from use directly leads to the stated conclusions, for as while the currency is not withdrawn as a deposit (and to the additional assumption the deposits backing stablecoins can be treated as ordinary, lendable deposits instead of being locked up). The spreads between the funds rate and the lending rates would compress and money creation accelerate, with the other effects to follow.
The Fed is keen to appear resolved to bring inflation in line with the two percent goal, now as at the time of my previous post in hand. To visit the conclusions that followed the paragraph above: do I still believe the stablecoin universe counter-balances any of the Fed’s disinflationary efforts “in a good way?” While I saw the hypothetical interest pass-through under the Clarity Act as a positive because it brings this universe directly in scope of the Fed’s rate policy that would balance against the easing of financial conditions this same universe would entail, the current understanding this would not be allowed leading to a treatment of the stablecoins as digital cash and the universe as limited to a competing settlements and rewards network leads me to answer in the positive, but, while I do feel like now we are discussing nuances and if only in this tone, I must note my preference regarding the exclusion of interest from the set of potential rewards is unchanged – conversely the stablecoin balances need to be settled as deposits before they come under the effect of Fed’s policy and this extra step makes the policy that much less effective, as well as rates more volatile, while making the customers more probable to bear costs, if only by being nudged the wrong way. The more the effective money supply expands (in the degree backed by T-bills as put forth in the previous post), the more the funds rate needs to increase to limit inflation, which would otherwise be mitigated by the interest pass-through. Though, the recipients of cash used to purchase the so-backed stablecoins, having delivered the T-Bills to back them, of course don’t need to spend or actively invest this cash. Instead, they can use it to purchase financial instruments such as stocks or crypto (via “rails”). Overall, the creation of the stablecoin universe will add an impulse sustaining growth by adding paths towards spending and investing with unique characteristics. On the other hand, how effective it will prove remains to be seen. Nonetheless, there is a chance this new way of payment adds to the mix that successfully moves us pass needing to inhabit a world in which “the perception of a crisis” is necessary for maintaining a degree of economic well-being, but unfortunately just now I can not begin to quantify it. What I can do is join the ranks of stablecoin supporters, if only reluctantly, and express hope that the legislature will be successfully passed, containing positive provisions.
Concluding the discussion and with the expectation of tightening in response to the inflationary impulse, here paraphrasing, I as well stated: “Flatteners would again seem like free money.” This proved to be in a manner of a perfect contrarian because the 2s30s since steepened by 25bps, or approximately 30%, due to yields rising on the long end of the curve. There’s now a “credibility and supply premium” embedded. This sounds like a choice of words of someone who’s truly looked for an optimal market strategy. The more imminent problem is inflation, rather than growth. The time to prefer flatteners has not yet arrived, but too perhaps expecting those to be profitable is to expect the future will be just like the past.
Where did working through the above misunderstanding leave our expectations of the deposit rate the banks pay?
Let’s denote with ω the rate the banks pay on sight deposits of funds already in active use which we count towards effective liquidity. Should these funds shift to stablecoin issuers, for sake of simplicity and as we have above, we can assume these same issuers would deposit the funds back to the banks. I.e. if they were to instead purchase any of the other assets that the Genius Act allows for to back the stablecoins our assumption extends to their sellers, or their sellers sellers, etc. We will visit the case should any of them chose to withdraw funds from the banking system subsequently. But, in both these cases it’s reasonable to in addition assume that the value of ω the market had previously settled on will shift to meet changed market conditions. I will denote this by adding a spread, k, that will be positive/negative if deposits have become more expensive/cheaper for the banks. This will depend on whether the deposit has gained/lost either duration (i.e. term), stability or both. Any individual bank will have to quote a value of k sufficient to attract stablecoin issuer balances matching the volume of deposits the customers shifted to the issuers on aggregate. Here, of course, the funds that the issuer deposits in some part back the circulating quantity of the stablecoin they issued. The only thing that seems apparent is that k will vary based on the deal-making acumen of the individual market participants. For the payment networks, the answer revolves around their utility. If the quality of service provided is greater, they can charge for it by paying customers a lower rate, or if this isn’t permissible under forthcoming law then the overall monetary value of provided benefits must be limited by the total amount of interest collected. The quality of service can not be less so that the customer can receive greater interest or rewards because that might require banks to pay a spread beyond any commercially viable value. For the banking system as a whole, in my opinion, the answer most likely is a positive value of k. The reason is that the stablecoin networks now perform a service that was previously provided solely by the banks. But, again, k will be bounded by the viability for the bank to take a deposit at that rate and I would assume this range to be thin. If this turns out correct, the banks can recoup their profitability by scaling back expenses associated with providing payment services that have been left unused, although due to the effects of scale this adjustment should be relatively small. Escaping the bounds of tight rigour for the moment I will answer: What else the banks can do? -Raise the rate they charge on loans. We got brand new payment networks – and we have to pay for them. As noted, if we were to find deposits flushed out of the banking system into the vaults of stablecoin issuers who may decide to use them to launch their own banks, I believe the Fed would respond by launching Bank Term Funding Program II and we would see the FRS balance sheet spike, diluting everyone’s dollars.
Now for the touches on UBI.
Foremost, if through a combination of a flattening of the distribution of investments and progressive profit/corporate income taxation we arrive at a more modular economy, in which companies are smaller than at present, then we should find competition is more horizontal than vertical and, since trade between the so smaller companies needs to adhere to a contract of what to deliver, as the offering needs to be defined and understood, the horizontal competition will accelerate progress by means of increased transparency of problems that need solving while, hypothetically, the intervention leads to an increase of the aggregate amount of profit in the economy through increases of demand and productivity.
Further, regarding Pareto optimality I find that availability of scattered resources which would be claimed implies the economy is not Pareto optimal. If it were, surely the original resource owners would maintain their claims or there wouldn’t be anyone willing to accept the claims. There is a share of the economy that is sustained by picking up on freebies, which is a form of redistribution that if removed would lead to a diminution of activity. E.g. while there certainly is skill and effort involved in obtaining them, tips may represent one such transfer. On the other hand, if resources are completely scarce this does not directly imply that the economy is Pareto optimal, because we are still left to look for a permutation in the distribution of wealth associated with the greatest economic output. It’s doubtful whether we can claim that the forces of free market competition channel the economy to converge on maximal output. Even if this is the case, of course, the process of convergence takes time to settle in a position near enough its apex. Ensuring this occurs has become the goal of politics, while directing society to accomplish any consequential goal appears an increasingly abstract possibility. But, don’t let me rant. With again a measure of laxity, for as while the positive factors associated with it (in the context of broader change) such as increases in demand, competitiveness and efficiency outweigh the losses to some caused by redistribution and possible negative effects on the balance of trade, we can claim UBI would be Pareto neutral in that it wouldn’t make anyone worse-off while at the same time leading society closer to the optimal state.
We’ve thus reached the part of this text pertaining to my outlook.
I shall start by considering a thing that I was wrong on: bank earnings, and corporate earnings in general, which have continued to grow past expectations. The S&P 500 earnings growth rate y/y is 50%! That’s on a 15% increase in revenue. Clearly, revenue scales with the product of inflation and real growth. Also, the profits are driven in part by appreciation of the corporates venture capital investments. We affirm that the share of GDP attributable to the S&P 500 continuously grows. However, together with inequality and government debt the issue is structural rather than acute. The technical issues that we run into are ones of inflation and the banks CET1 ratios, as we find credit supporting the prevalent trends. Hence, to base bearishness on the ground of the lack in sustainability of the rise in profits is wrong if we don’t expect these two indicators to deteriorate. Of note, following the banks record earnings their capital ratios stood approximately unchanged. On the other hand, the AI investment comes with expected returns and so far GDP growth hasn’t come anywhere near close to suggesting profitability for anyone but the infrastructure providers. Could it ever because the gains are qualitative – leading to a more refined product being offered – without a clear idea the costs can be passed on to the customer? Burning more tokens to offer more highly differentiated products doesn’t sound like a recipe for a continued increase in profitability. True, on the back of the trend U.S. industrial production reached a four year peak but a question is how broad based it is beyond? As well, contrary to MAGA fiscal hawkishness the cost of interest paid on federal debt is rising. I remain sceptical the trends will resolve favourably with current policies in place but recognise there may be some more time before… the beginning of the end. While a negative outcome is not apparent or obvious, the markets will continue pricing for perfection. AI driven lay-offs beyond the tech sector would support profitability but undermine consumer spending as a foundation of the economy. What would make me change my mind foremost is a pick-up in GDP and a decline in inflation, trailed by a consolidation of the U.S. fiscal condition.
For a more theoretical discussion of this same aspect, it’s undoubtable that a continued rise in profits as a share in GDP, unless supported by a favourable shift in the balance of trade, construes a transfer of wealth and as such its recipients need to increase their spending and/or active investment for this rise itself not to lead to a decline in activity. We recognise the essence of “trickle-down economics.” Could it be that it works? Well, the red flag is the high profitability being contingent on a large government deficit. The profits drive costs and both necessitate the deficit and are used to fund it. But we can say that it’s better for the government to issue debt than to tax, because bonds in hand are the first step for investors in their search for new opportunities. We note the process can be inflationary1. Bonds are purchased with capital that otherwise would go towards the governments tax income – in what would be a growth and inflation neutral change. It’s the subsequent leverage that skews these outcomes. Thus in conclusion, these economics work just the same as government infrastructure spending2: for as while inflation is subdued and the health of public finances is deemed appropriate by lenders. Regarding the latter, as we have learned from the example of the Great Financial Crisis and subsequent Trump tax cuts, the monetisation of large volumes of government debt doesn’t lead directly to inflation because the so-created base money remains idle but instead the tax cuts that drive investment. However, bubbles in financial markets can and do translate into real demand and, by equal reasoning, raise prices. The continuance of bubbles either raises wage expectations or necessitates a bifurcation of society into the affluent and the less fortunate.
Despite inflation being somewhat elevated on average during the Clinton years, their salient characteristic was that it appeared tamed, well within control of the U.S. central bank and the fiscal framework that was constructed to address budget sustainability concerns – and this was somewhat mirrored during the Obama presidency. With the above discussion in mind, and considering the affect of tariffs as well as both the reduced disinflationary headroom further imports may bring (since of offshore development) and the global geopolitical situation necessitating increased defence expenditures, my opinion carried across from the previous post is that at present inflation is again a structural issue – one that will be difficult for the central bank to resolve without inducing a downturn. While in the Clinton years the investment boom was a consequence of a solid economy, at present it’s a prerequisite.
Understanding the full intricacies of the global energy markets is beyond the best of my understanding. In other words, I’m not sure I understand why were the OPEC countries insistent on increasing production before the Iran conflict, and had accordingly expected energy disinflation to wane as oil bottomed in a band centred on $60 per barrel. With the conflict seemingly unresolved and strategic oil stockpiles close to nearing depletion, the potential is for the world to suffer an oil shock. The markets are fully ignoring this possibility. The rise in oil prices has to a good degree fuelled the rise in profits of oil companies, which we interpret in the context of the above discussion: absent a further rise in the price of oil, the increased profitability of the oil sector will add to our emphasis while the contribution to earnings growth will cease. Should the conflict resolve, an oil glut may ensue and significantly embolden a disinflationary impulse. In addition, betting on a fall in oil prices may seem like a sure thing and this “steepness” support financial markets. The limit of this trend would depend on economic resilience of the producers as well as the prospects of green energy.
To circle back to earnings – specifically, bank earnings – I previously expected trading profits to stop spiking as markets stabilise at a higher level, but now I can draw a slightly more nuanced explanation. Given that trading volume is a product of price and quantity we would expect that as prices surge volumes would decline or stagnate but this has not occurred. If anything, I attribute the continued inflow of money into the markets to leverage. As the market was leaping higher, it wasn’t that it had a trap door built into it as much as it was building one in. Perhaps now it’s nearly there? If everyone has the same position, the network effect becomes a prisoners dilemma and all that’s needed is a catalyst, or in absence of one a mere cessation of the up-trend because the markets are a source of income many depend to draw on. No matter how much this might make me sound like a broken clock, a rational market would weigh the risks correctly and remain bound by gravity. Our market has instead found itself bubbling on expectation of constant double digit profit growth and propelled by Trump puts after seemingly having formed tops: the first time after Tariffs Day and the second after the Iran war ceasefire. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. It may be better we never find out we were fooled in the first place. Year end estimates are for S&P to reach 8,000 that amid the economic resilience to the war and the impression profits will continue rising seem realistic enough. The principal risks are that oil may run out or bond yields may spike, together with anything raising doubts about the prospects of AI or the adverse effects of MAGA economic policy catching up. Same as above, it’s GDP growth to dispel these ideas in addition to a de-escalation of geopolitical tension. We can add a durable resolution of the “affordability crisis” as something that would calm concerns. If the rally is to continue sooner or later it will need new buyers.
Despite growing increasingly one-sided, the markets can’t begin to see beyond the idea of their own virtue. This virtue is not to be questioned but taken as a given and the Warsh Fed will seek ways for it to permeate and perturb their own processes. Traders “look at the same things, read the same reports” the Fed does and it’s sophistry to expect wildly different conclusions. Fit, well parametrised trading strategies should entail expectations that monetary policy can only modulate. Removing forward guidance, making the strategists model the path of expected policy instead of relying on its projection will replace a fixed variable with an estimate. The result will be that instead of the markets pricing a range of outcomes within a given policy path they will price across likely policy paths. With the price being the only output, it’s very difficult if not impossible to discern the bias the models entail towards any of the paths.
A high uncertainty of expectations should contract trading volumes. While bets are settled and made as the data driving the macro thesis evolves a higher variability of the data would increase volumes to the degree not countered by uncertainty it would introduce. Low cost idiosyncratic wagers that do not require active rebalancing sound like the most cost effective trading strategy. The prices here serve as indication of risks the market sees.
Besides the shift in its communication strategy, the Fed will focus on itself through the work of the task forces. I welcome any attempt at self improvement. However, combining the two vectors do we meet a Fed that is ineffectual? A Fed that has lost the markets confidence? Calling this an “inflation credibility shock” I think narrows the point. It’s the institutions general credibility that may come into question. Warsh is of course right to say the “rising rates are doing the Fed’s work” (which I might have very slightly paraphrased), but how about stating that “markets are learning to play the ball not the referee?” Credit spreads widening and mortgage rates rising is the natural market response to a continued high demand for investment funds. These are a measure of demand for money within a band of a policy rate, like our theory explained. It’s the market conditions that have changed not the market response function. Not too long ago I believe I wrote that credit tops first ahead of equities. Yields rising on the long end of the curve while the near end remains supported together with equities is an expression of seemingly contradicting investor preferences: that the AI boom will work out and that inflation will remain elevated. In contrast, we could state bonds are starting to question the long term viability of the U.S. economy together with projections embedded in Miran’s fantasy budget, while the equities market is forming a retail driven top. 150bps represent “solid growth” and “impressive resilience?” If and when AI flops, will treasuries rally and the dollar remain firm?
More work needs to be done than is already done by the markets, the rising rates. The width of the spread between the short and long ends of the curve is in fact limited and a measure of the saturation of the market with money, i.e. the demand for it. Essentially, the wider the spread the more money is in demand. But also as rates remain comparably low, indeed inflation expectations shoot up and this lifts yields. If we expect the spread to compress and spot rates to go up we might still want to buy duration. But, this we can only safely do at the peaks of AI spending growth expectations and concerns for US fiscal sustainability under MAGA. In my opinion, bond prices have not come anywhere near the levels that would reflect these two prevalent factors driving the long end. I expect these topics will become relevant after the midterms and contingent on the economy’s performance during the winter heating season.
Through various index funds most of the world has bought into the hype of the American AI economy. Sam Altman boasts we are in the singularity, that AI will surpass human intelligence. I ranted not too long ago about technology and my sentiment that software products today together with the channels they are delivered through are at best second grade is little changed. Where there is cheap manufacturing to doubtful qualify, there is just such software. Who in the world buys all that!? And since I also ranted about the assumption I included in my reasoning here above, namely that of increased product differentiation without, beyond inflation, a clear idea of how the cost will be passed on to the consumer, I will keep this paragraph focused on the point that follows. An LLM (or more concisely a generative AI model) trained with visibility or to awareness of a set of entities, properties and relations can narrate and comprehend along the expectations of their combinations; but – can it navigate those permutations not encountered in training? My intuition is that it can’t and this is by design. Having been trained to output the most probable continuation conditional on a given context, the result will be that the output reflects all relations encountered in training but completely omits those that were not. Put simply, generative AI models are “blind” to concepts they are not trained on. Try training one using a dataset of descriptions of colour images that do not reference colours and then probe it to realise its descriptions are missing a fundamental concept, and to propose what it might be. If it passes that test I would stand convinced. In comparison, I believe that having to reason about novel relations the human mind will traverse and mine episodic memory to try and refine the concepts so they match the recollection of reality. We draw the characterisations we depend on from experience. The memories they are based on are rich beyond the insights immediately available to our rational minds. The process is somewhat fudged but nonetheless encloses the nature of intelligence – being that we can propose a model for a novelty, come up with some pieces that move in a way that results in reality as we are aware of it. My claim is that without a further breakthrough present day AI is not sufficient to independently learn representations of reality that it can successfully operationalise. Generative AI is not trained to classify and organise patterns, but instead to mimic those our language already captures. While this mimicry is exceptionally precise and while leveraging compute gen-AI can exceed human ability at inference, it is mimicry nonetheless. If the singularity is near, this is so because these other breakthroughs are. As-is generative AI can meaningfully amplify our abilities in scope of the already encountered, the patterns we know are complete and fit for their purpose. the lack of transparency and the at times blatant misdirection fill me with dread.
I saved a brief mention of bitcoin for last. The Clarity Act does not favour it since it explicitly allows only on-chain staking awards associated with proof of stake cryptocurrencies like Ethereum. Also, Strategy is selling. The future is bleak and bitcoin may turn out to be one of those projects that made it into wide adoption but not to mainstream. With this in mind, I have a January 2027 price target: $19,200. Ba’al told me. This comes with the realisation that, after all, a component of bitcoin price in fact is market risk, in addition to the inverse thereof (OTM calls and short CDS).
In perspective, the markets need to remain supported if the economy were not to slow due to a negative wealth effect. The support is built in through a continued passive inflow of pension savings into index funds from investors world-wide as well as the fact that the path of least resistance for money managers is up. Gen-AI will change how we interact with computers and take its place as the successor of user interfaces. It will increase productivity by delivering practical solutions directly to the point where the problem is posed. Over-reliance can be expensive, though. Uber must be mentioned, of course. On the one hand we can ask an AI agent to personalise emails, on the other this could be templated in software. The cost difference is many orders of magnitude. The AI companies have tremendous income potential, but the key will be to bring down the cost. The use of AI will be rationed to applications most effective in this regard. With chip manufacturing reaching the lower limit of transistor size and model development itself reaching the limit of diminishing returns, it’s questionable whether AI can deliver. And this again underlies the notion that AI consumers will need to dig into their pockets for the privilege. The scenario will unfold over a multi-year period and there is potential for any negative realisation to rattle markets. A risk is that by AI drawing all the focus, technology actually stagnates. There is an elevated degree of uncertainty that can be expected along with optimism regarding a new technology. This pushes up long rates, which are held down by expectation of a slow-down should the funds rate rise. In turn, our views on inflation and AI determine our outlook.
The positive is that the world appears to be treading very carefully and the confluence of developments yields us time to find favourable paths. But, we need to see progress.
Carry on.
- Like Keynes would reason, assuming money velocity does not decline, in so far as bonds construe collateral for new loans that fund output which in some part displaces or replaces already equivalent output having occurred in the previous time period, this process is inflationary. If we build a data centre with new money and the next year the same, output is the constant of the one data centre but our money supply has increased to the scale of both’s cost. MV=PO. Effective liquidity has increased ahead of output. In actuality, this is then mitigated both by de-leveraging as some of the cost goes to repay existing loans, i.e. the money supply increases less than the full amount of the loan, and as the money velocity declines because people decide to hold the excess currency as their liquid savings, i.e. idle deposits. ↩︎
- Where these differ is, of course, the degree of inequality they create and the manner in which they do. ↩︎
-
"The original question, can they be trusted with money, was always pointing in the wrong direction. The real question is whether they are allowed to be ordinary" https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/please-pass-smoked-salmon-adam-bennett-ot9ze/ < Brilliant post from Adam Bennett from Project Change that references Wales' UBI pilot with care leavers #ubi #BasicIncome #SocialJustice
-
"The original question, can they be trusted with money, was always pointing in the wrong direction. The real question is whether they are allowed to be ordinary" https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/please-pass-smoked-salmon-adam-bennett-ot9ze/ < Brilliant post from Adam Bennett from Project Change that references Wales' UBI pilot with care leavers #ubi #BasicIncome #SocialJustice
-
"The original question, can they be trusted with money, was always pointing in the wrong direction. The real question is whether they are allowed to be ordinary" https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/please-pass-smoked-salmon-adam-bennett-ot9ze/ < Brilliant post from Adam Bennett from Project Change that references Wales' UBI pilot with care leavers #ubi #BasicIncome #SocialJustice
-
"The original question, can they be trusted with money, was always pointing in the wrong direction. The real question is whether they are allowed to be ordinary" https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/please-pass-smoked-salmon-adam-bennett-ot9ze/ < Brilliant post from Adam Bennett from Project Change that references Wales' UBI pilot with care leavers #ubi #BasicIncome #SocialJustice
-
"The original question, can they be trusted with money, was always pointing in the wrong direction. The real question is whether they are allowed to be ordinary" https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/please-pass-smoked-salmon-adam-bennett-ot9ze/ < Brilliant post from Adam Bennett from Project Change that references Wales' UBI pilot with care leavers #ubi #BasicIncome #SocialJustice
-
Renta básica universal e incondicional ya, sisplau. #UBI
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:uibpzwvimy42g57nzqdazloo/post/3mspoholrts2v -
RE: https://mastodon.social/@blogdiva/117068662756870681
whitestodon needs to read MLK’s #FreedomBudget before opining about #UBI
“A Freedom Budget for All Americans” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/02/a-freedom-budget-for-all-americans-annotated/557024/
then read his “Where Do We Go From Here?”
the King family proved the #fbi was behind his assassination. i believe this UBI project is why he was assassinated.
why?
it was for ALL americans, not just Black people.
capitalists depend on racism to cleave the working classes. ending poverty would end their racist gravy train.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@blogdiva/117068662756870681
whitestodon needs to read MLK’s #FreedomBudget before opining about #UBI
“A Freedom Budget for All Americans” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/02/a-freedom-budget-for-all-americans-annotated/557024/
then read his “Where Do We Go From Here?”
the King family proved the #fbi was behind his assassination. i believe this UBI project is why he was assassinated.
why?
it was for ALL americans, not just Black people.
capitalists depend on racism to cleave the working classes. ending poverty would end their racist gravy train.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@blogdiva/117068662756870681
whitestodon needs to read MLK’s #FreedomBudget before opining about #UBI
“A Freedom Budget for All Americans” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/02/a-freedom-budget-for-all-americans-annotated/557024/
then read his “Where Do We Go From Here?”
the King family proved the #fbi was behind his assassination. i believe this UBI project is why he was assassinated.
why?
it was for ALL americans, not just Black people.
capitalists depend on racism to cleave the working classes. ending poverty would end their racist gravy train.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@blogdiva/117068662756870681
whitestodon needs to read MLK’s #FreedomBudget before opining about #UBI
“A Freedom Budget for All Americans” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/02/a-freedom-budget-for-all-americans-annotated/557024/
then read his “Where Do We Go From Here?”
the King family proved the #fbi was behind his assassination. i believe this UBI project is why he was assassinated.
why?
it was for ALL americans, not just Black people.
capitalists depend on racism to cleave the working classes. ending poverty would end their racist gravy train.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@blogdiva/117068662756870681
whitestodon needs to read MLK’s #FreedomBudget before opining about #UBI
“A Freedom Budget for All Americans” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/02/a-freedom-budget-for-all-americans-annotated/557024/
then read his “Where Do We Go From Here?”
the King family proved the #fbi was behind his assassination. i believe this UBI project is why he was assassinated.
why?
it was for ALL americans, not just Black people.
capitalists depend on racism to cleave the working classes. ending poverty would end their racist gravy train.
-
Great to see @[email protected] add an AI dividend to his platform!
"If they are going to use our human ingenuity, if they're going to use our collective intellectual property, then we want our royalty checks," Talarico said. #UBI
archive.ph/N8y1S -
Great to see @[email protected] add an AI dividend to his platform!
"If they are going to use our human ingenuity, if they're going to use our collective intellectual property, then we want our royalty checks," Talarico said. #UBI
archive.ph/N8y1S -
Great to see @[email protected] add an AI dividend to his platform!
"If they are going to use our human ingenuity, if they're going to use our collective intellectual property, then we want our royalty checks," Talarico said. #UBI
archive.ph/N8y1S -
Great to see @[email protected] add an AI dividend to his platform!
"If they are going to use our human ingenuity, if they're going to use our collective intellectual property, then we want our royalty checks," Talarico said. #UBI
archive.ph/N8y1S -
Great to see @[email protected] add an AI dividend to his platform!
"If they are going to use our human ingenuity, if they're going to use our collective intellectual property, then we want our royalty checks," Talarico said. #UBI
archive.ph/N8y1S -
AI replacing knowledge work breaks the historical pattern. Every past automation wave created new jobs. This one might just create new income sources instead. by @susanfourtane.bsky.social
https://onlys.ky/universal-basic-income/?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fresh
-
AI replacing knowledge work breaks the historical pattern. Every past automation wave created new jobs. This one might just create new income sources instead. by @susanfourtane.bsky.social
https://onlys.ky/universal-basic-income/?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fresh
-
AI replacing knowledge work breaks the historical pattern. Every past automation wave created new jobs. This one might just create new income sources instead. by @susanfourtane.bsky.social
https://onlys.ky/universal-basic-income/?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fresh
-
AI replacing knowledge work breaks the historical pattern. Every past automation wave created new jobs. This one might just create new income sources instead. by @susanfourtane.bsky.social
https://onlys.ky/universal-basic-income/?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fresh
-
AI replacing knowledge work breaks the historical pattern. Every past automation wave created new jobs. This one might just create new income sources instead. by @susanfourtane.bsky.social
https://onlys.ky/universal-basic-income/?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fresh
-
Think of all the little fixers and makers that could live decently if we had #UBI. Imagine all of the #bikes #typewriters #computers #shovels #vehicles and more that could be maintained or created. The country and the world would be better for it
-
Think of all the little fixers and makers that could live decently if we had #UBI. Imagine all of the #bikes #typewriters #computers #shovels #vehicles and more that could be maintained or created. The country and the world would be better for it
-
Think of all the little fixers and makers that could live decently if we had #UBI. Imagine all of the #bikes #typewriters #computers #shovels #vehicles and more that could be maintained or created. The country and the world would be better for it
-
Think of all the little fixers and makers that could live decently if we had #UBI. Imagine all of the #bikes #typewriters #computers #shovels #vehicles and more that could be maintained or created. The country and the world would be better for it
-
Think of all the little fixers and makers that could live decently if we had #UBI. Imagine all of the #bikes #typewriters #computers #shovels #vehicles and more that could be maintained or created. The country and the world would be better for it
-
🥳 It's official:
The #UBI signature collection will start on 1st January 2027 🥳
Sign up on our website to get a one off notification when it opens - no spam, no nonsense, just pure and simple #UniversalBasicIncome
More information to follow on 1st September in our next community event. See you there 🙂
#UBI4ME #UnviersalBasicInvestment #Equality #Economy #Taxtherich #policy #EuropeanCommission #EuropeancitizenInitiative
-
🥳 It's official:
The #UBI signature collection will start on 1st January 2027 🥳
Sign up on our website to get a one off notification when it opens - no spam, no nonsense, just pure and simple #UniversalBasicIncome
More information to follow on 1st September in our next community event. See you there 🙂
#UBI4ME #UnviersalBasicInvestment #Equality #Economy #Taxtherich #policy #EuropeanCommission #EuropeancitizenInitiative
-
🥳 It's official:
The #UBI signature collection will start on 1st January 2027 🥳
Sign up on our website to get a one off notification when it opens - no spam, no nonsense, just pure and simple #UniversalBasicIncome
More information to follow on 1st September in our next community event. See you there 🙂
#UBI4ME #UnviersalBasicInvestment #Equality #Economy #Taxtherich #policy #EuropeanCommission #EuropeancitizenInitiative
-
🥳 It's official:
The #UBI signature collection will start on 1st January 2027 🥳
Sign up on our website to get a one off notification when it opens - no spam, no nonsense, just pure and simple #UniversalBasicIncome
More information to follow on 1st September in our next community event. See you there 🙂
#UBI4ME #UnviersalBasicInvestment #Equality #Economy #Taxtherich #policy #EuropeanCommission #EuropeancitizenInitiative
-
🥳 It's official:
The #UBI signature collection will start on 1st January 2027 🥳
Sign up on our website to get a one off notification when it opens - no spam, no nonsense, just pure and simple #UniversalBasicIncome
More information to follow on 1st September in our next community event. See you there 🙂
#UBI4ME #UnviersalBasicInvestment #Equality #Economy #Taxtherich #policy #EuropeanCommission #EuropeancitizenInitiative
-
Der virtuelle BGE-Stammtisch.
Jeden Mittwoch*, so auch heute, ab 20:00 Uhr, in BigBlueButton:
https://meet.4m2.net/b/soz-9jp-4uf-mzgDer wöchentliche BGE-Stammtisch, Plauschen, Kontakte, Diskussionen – nicht nur zum BGE.
#bge #bedingungslos #grundeinkommen #ubi #ebi #SozialerAktivismus
-
Der virtuelle BGE-Stammtisch.
Jeden Mittwoch*, so auch heute, ab 20:00 Uhr, in BigBlueButton:
https://meet.4m2.net/b/soz-9jp-4uf-mzgDer wöchentliche BGE-Stammtisch, Plauschen, Kontakte, Diskussionen – nicht nur zum BGE.
#bge #bedingungslos #grundeinkommen #ubi #ebi #SozialerAktivismus
-
For those who look to support or oppose candidates based on their stance on #UBI, the Michigan election today is interesting in how both El-Sayed and Stevens seem open to UBI. El-Sayed actually has it on his Senate platform page while Stevens backed monthly non-means-tested $1,000/mo checks in 2020.
-
For those who look to support or oppose candidates based on their stance on #UBI, the Michigan election today is interesting in how both El-Sayed and Stevens seem open to UBI. El-Sayed actually has it on his Senate platform page while Stevens backed monthly non-means-tested $1,000/mo checks in 2020.
-
For those who look to support or oppose candidates based on their stance on #UBI, the Michigan election today is interesting in how both El-Sayed and Stevens seem open to UBI. El-Sayed actually has it on his Senate platform page while Stevens backed monthly non-means-tested $1,000/mo checks in 2020.
-
For those who look to support or oppose candidates based on their stance on #UBI, the Michigan election today is interesting in how both El-Sayed and Stevens seem open to UBI. El-Sayed actually has it on his Senate platform page while Stevens backed monthly non-means-tested $1,000/mo checks in 2020.
-
That’s it, I’m moving to Ireland
-
That’s it, I’m moving to Ireland
-
That’s it, I’m moving to Ireland
-
That’s it, I’m moving to Ireland
-
That’s it, I’m moving to Ireland
-
Join us in less than an hour to talk about how to introduce a #BasicUniversalIncome 🥳
You can use this link: https://meet.jit.si/UBI4ME_Community_Event_August_2026
What will you do with your first UBI? What will you do with the 100th UBI “transfer”cheque”?
Tell us what you think.
#UBI #UniversalBasicInvestment #Work #Policy #Retirement #History #Taxtherich #Equality
-
Join us in less than an hour to talk about how to introduce a #BasicUniversalIncome 🥳
You can use this link: https://meet.jit.si/UBI4ME_Community_Event_August_2026
What will you do with your first UBI? What will you do with the 100th UBI “transfer”cheque”?
Tell us what you think.
#UBI #UniversalBasicInvestment #Work #Policy #Retirement #History #Taxtherich #Equality
-
Join us in less than an hour to talk about how to introduce a #BasicUniversalIncome 🥳
You can use this link: https://meet.jit.si/UBI4ME_Community_Event_August_2026
What will you do with your first UBI? What will you do with the 100th UBI “transfer”cheque”?
Tell us what you think.
#UBI #UniversalBasicInvestment #Work #Policy #Retirement #History #Taxtherich #Equality
-
Join us in less than an hour to talk about how to introduce a #BasicUniversalIncome 🥳
You can use this link: https://meet.jit.si/UBI4ME_Community_Event_August_2026
What will you do with your first UBI? What will you do with the 100th UBI “transfer”cheque”?
Tell us what you think.
#UBI #UniversalBasicInvestment #Work #Policy #Retirement #History #Taxtherich #Equality
-
Join us in less than an hour to talk about how to introduce a #BasicUniversalIncome 🥳
You can use this link: https://meet.jit.si/UBI4ME_Community_Event_August_2026
What will you do with your first UBI? What will you do with the 100th UBI “transfer”cheque”?
Tell us what you think.
#UBI #UniversalBasicInvestment #Work #Policy #Retirement #History #Taxtherich #Equality
-
"The decade’s deepest human-development insight was simple. Money can change more than purchasing power. It can change time, liquidity, bargaining, privacy, mobility, the ability to repair a roof before the rain, and the freedom to make an ordinary purchase without asking permission." #UBI
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:ppqdw3kddbtwh3oioczzqs4h/post/3msagvyqqx42v -
"The decade’s deepest human-development insight was simple. Money can change more than purchasing power. It can change time, liquidity, bargaining, privacy, mobility, the ability to repair a roof before the rain, and the freedom to make an ordinary purchase without asking permission." #UBI
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:ppqdw3kddbtwh3oioczzqs4h/post/3msagvyqqx42v
