Basic income UBI is not about wealth redistribution

Generally, when discussing UBI, most will focus on the serious wealth gap caused by capitalism, emphasizing that UBI conforms to the principle of fairness and justice; by issuing UBI, wealth can be redistributed, which is indeed the very important spirit of UBI. One of the basic discourses of UBI is the common ownership of the earth's resources. The benefits obtained from the use of common resources should not only belong to individuals, but should be shared by all human beings. This is a major basis for the "reasonableness" of implementing UBI. But can UBI really solve this fairness problem? How much UBI is fair? Is it reasonable for humans to own natural resources? If the discussion of UBI only revolves around "fairness", it is easy to fall into the melee of fair value discussions, making it difficult to be accepted and supported. In fact, the reason why UBI has been hotly discussed in recent years is not mainly to solve the issue of fairness, but to solve the problem that in the future, a large number of human beings will be replaced by machines, and a large number of unemployed people will cause a major social and economic crisis. A large number of unemployed people will not only cause social unrest, but the contraction of consumption is very likely to cause economic depression, triggering an avalanche-like economic recession. This is also an important reason why countries have used monetary easing policies in large numbers to maintain sufficient economic activities when the new crown epidemic hit in the past two years.

However, the current monetary easing policy cannot really solve the problem of recession of economic activities. It only prevents the flow of funds of some enterprises from facing difficulties and reduces the risk of failure. However, the direct effect is inflation, and most of the excess funds flow to the stock market. And real estate, the formation of the current real economic recession, but the stock market and the real estate market have repeatedly hit new highs. After monetary easing, many people are still facing difficulties in life, and the government still needs a lot of relief programs to help the people; the result of the money distribution has further worsened inflation, and the reduction in manufacturing has led to rising prices. This is the current predicament of capitalism.

What if instead of monetary easing (aka low interest rates), a simple basic income? Although some enterprises may be affected, but with the protection of basic income, even if they lose their jobs, they will not fall into desperation; because they still have basic consumption power, consumption for basic needs of life is still maintained, and unnecessary excessive consumption can be appropriately reduced. Consumption should not be affected in any way. In this way, industries with poor physical fitness can be properly eliminated and the development of good enterprises can be promoted. There is no increase in the money supply caused by low interest rates that can ease inflationary pressures. More importantly, "UBI allows everyone to continue to participate in economic activities." Monetary easing is actually just allowing the rich to participate in economic activities.

The demand for manpower in future production is no longer a problem, but consumption is an important issue; only by allowing as many people as possible to maintain appropriate consumption can the economic system be maintained stably. In the long run, the implementation of UBI can sustain the consumption of basic needs and reduce unnecessary consumption, thereby reducing the consumption of the earth's resources and leading to a healthier economic system.

Therefore, I believe that the focus of promoting UBI should not only emphasize the issue of "fairness", but should first start from the perspective of "avoiding the collapse of the economic system in the future", which is also the direction that can achieve the greatest consensus of all.