Podcasts about Basic Income Earth Network

Mr. Shafarman has been a universal basic income (UBI) proponent since the 1980s. He is the program director of Basic Income Action and a member of Basic Income Earth Network, two non-profits dedicated to promoting the implementation of UBI. He is also the author of several books: Basic Income Imperative, Our Future, We the People, and many more, all of which focus on the benefits of UBI. Steve earned his bachelor's degree in Philosophy, Psychology, and Human Development from Colby College.Together, we discussed the specifics of how UBI would need to be implemented, the success of the Bolsa Familia program in Brazil compared to UBI, and how UBI can act as a backstop against poverty.To check out more of our content, including our research and policy tools, visit our website: https://www.hgsss.org/

Questions, suggestions, or feedback? Send us a message!Our guest this week is Guy Standing, who is a British labour economist. He is professor of Development Studies at SOAS and co-founder of BIEN, the Basic Income Earth Network.He is best known as a long-standing and prominent advocate of Basic Income, but he is also responsible for redefining and revitalizing the term ‘precariat'.Guy has written extensively about capitalism and labour market policy. Among his many books are Basic income: and how we can make it happen, A plunder of the commons, a manifesto for sharing public wealth, The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Does Not Pay, The Blue Commons: Rescuing the Economy of the Sea.We talk about:A brief history of capitalismRentier capitalismThe emergence of a precariatPlutocracy and TrumpWill AI liberate us after allThe dignity of a basic income for everyoneRealisation and execution of basic income pilotsLet's debate!Web: www.whereshallwemeet.xyzTwitter: @whrshallwemeetInstagram: @whrshallwemeet

Hilde Latour is vice voorzitter van Basic Income Earth Network. Maar ook zij is tegen de macht van overheden en banken. Is er een andere optie voor basis inkomen mogelijk? Met haar bespreek ik dit in deze aflevering van Staat's Schuld.Link Basic Income Earth Network ( BIEN )https://www.basicincome.org---Deze video is geproduceerd door Café Weltschmerz. Café Weltschmerz gelooft in de kracht van het gesprek en zendt interviews uit over actuele maatschappelijke thema's. Wij bieden een hoogwaardig alternatief voor de mainstream media. Café Weltschmerz is onafhankelijk en niet verbonden aan politieke, religieuze of commerciële partijen.Waardeer je onze video's? Help ons in de strijd naar een eerlijker Nederland, vrij van censuur en Steun Café Weltschmerz en word Stamgast!https://www.cafeweltschmerz.nl/maandelijks-doneren/Wil je meer video's bekijken en op de hoogte blijven via onze nieuwsbrief? Ga dan naar: https://www.cafeweltschmerz.nl/videos/Wil je op de hoogte worden gebracht van onze nieuwe video's? Klik hierboven dan op Abonneren!

Amina Alaoui Soulimani is a doctoral research fellow at HUMA, the Institute for Humanities in Africa. Amina holds an MSc in Social Anthropology from the London School of Economics. Her current anthropological doctoral work at the University of Cape Town focuses on the ethics of care, AI, and the future hospital in Morocco.Gabriela Cabaña is a Ph.D. candidate at the LSE anthropology department. Gabriela is a transdisciplinary scholar originally trained in Sociology in Chile but also draws from political ecology and feminist theoretical perspectives. She is interested in the interplay between energy, bureaucracy, value, and degrowth. Her ethnographic work focuses on energy transitions in southern Chile. Gabriela is part of Centro de Análisis Socioambiental (Centre of Social-Environmental Analysis); Red Chilena de Ingreso Básico (Chilean network of Basic Income) and the Basic Income Earth Network. This is a special episode, a Love letter to David Graeber. Gabriela was taught a course by David at LSE, while Amina got to know him as a thesis supervisor there. Through the lived experiences of Amina and Gabriela, we are exploring David's contribution andlegacy in action. What has stuck with them from the conversations they had with David and the academic interactions he created? Gabriela and Amina share beautiful examples from their individual encounters with David as an academic lead and a fellow human. Finally, we ask how to make someone like David possible in academia again and more?At the end, they share their favourite readings. Listen to this conversation about a personal anthropological touch and the inheritance of David Graeber. Social Media:Amina: https://twitter.com/AminaSoulimaniGabriela: https://twitter.com/gabi_cabana Mentioned in PodcastFragments of an Anarchist Anthropology by David GraeberThe Utopia of Rules by DavidGraeber

Emma is joined by listener duo - and world record holders - Fay and Emma who ran 106 marathons in 106 consecutive days. Enduring a gruelling 2,777 miles of running, the pair hope to inspire people to be active while you can, focusing on what the body can do – not what it looks like! The killing of 9 year old Olivia Pratt-Korbel in Liverpool has shocked the city and the country. Listener Bobby wanted us to discuss women being killed in shootings. Jenny Kirkham, content editor for the Liverpool Echo, joined Emma Barnett. Listener Ruth Griffin got in touch to say “Please please get someone on to talk about Universal Basic Income!" Trials have been undertaken in Wales, Kenya and Finland, and Ruth asks…"why aren't we pushing this to be introduced?" Professor Guy Standing is founder and co-President of the Basic Income Earth Network, an NGO promoting basic income as a right, Guy is joined by Ruth Kelly, a fomer Labour MP and Minister and now Senior Fellow at the Policy Exchange Think Tank. We've all heard of Florence Nightingale, but have you heard of Rufaida Al-Asalmiya? Born 2,000 years before her, Rufaida was known for her work in promoting hygiene practices in invasive procedures, she was the first documented user of mobile care units in conflict zones. Listener Sofiya, who herself is a registered nurse and Muslim only just heard about Rufaida a few weeks ago. Sofiya joins Emma alongside writer Dr Shamaila Anwar. As part of listener week Coral from London wants to know why widowhood is not talked about more - is it taboo? She's joined by Sue from Norwich who has experiences and wisdom to share. Presenter: Emma Barnett Producer: Emma Pearce

Professor Greg Marston (pictured) from the University of Queensland is the co-chair of the 2022 Basic Income Earth Network three-day congress coming up at the university's St Lucia campus on September 26-28. A host of information can be found on the congress website - BIEN 2022 Congress. Professor Marston has urged those from beyond academia to come along to the congress and hear about what the basic income offers in a time of crisis and transformation. Enjoy "Music for a Warming World". --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/robert-mclean/message

On this episode in our Policy Forum Pod mini-series on work, author and researcher Guy Standing joins Sharon Bessell and Arnagretta Hunter to discuss changing class structures and the universal basic income.Do policymakers need to stop worshipping the ‘false god' of economic growth? Are changes in the world of work leading to disenfranchisement and the creation of a new underclass? And what are the prospects of a universal basic income being introduced in a number of countries in the coming years? On this episode of Policy Forum Pod, Professor Guy Standing joins Professor Sharon Bessell and Dr Arnagretta Hunter for the fourth instalment in our mini-series on work.Guy Standing is a Professorial Research Associate at SOAS University of London and a founding member and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network, a non-governmental organisation that promotes a basic income for all.Sharon Bessell is Professor of Public Policy and Director of Gender Equity and Diversity at ANU Crawford School of Public Policy.Arnagretta Hunter is a cardiologist, physician, and a Senior Clinical Lecturer for ANU Medical School.Policy Forum Pod is available on Acast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Subscribe on Android or wherever you get your podcasts. We'd love to hear your feedback for this podcast series! Send in your questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes to podcast@policyforum.net. You can also Tweet us @APPSPolicyForum or join us on the Facebook group. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode I am once again joined by philosopher and economist Prof. Karl Widerquist, professor of philosophy at Georgetown University in Qatar. He was co-founder of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network, the first Basic Income network in the United States, and was also co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network from 2008-2017.He's recently coauthored a several of books, two of which served as the basis of our discussion. These are The Prehistory of Private Property which debunks three false claims commonly accepted by contemporary political philosophers regarding property systems, and the book Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy which explores how philosophers use and perpetuate myths about prehistory. While there's barely any mention of universal basic income in these texts, the conclusions that lead from them can be seen to be strongly support a social program like UBI.LinksKarl on TwitterKarl's WebsitePrehistory of Private PropertyPrehistoric Myths in Modern Political PhilosophyIndependence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No (Exploring the Basic Income Guarantee)Support & ShownotesPodcast shownotesRate it on Apple PodcastsSubscribe on YouTubeBy me a coffeeFollow Sam on TwitterSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/talk-of-today/donations

Global crises cause big changes and reveal deep structural weaknesses.  In this special interview series from the RSA its chief executive, Matthew Taylor, puts a range of practitioners on the spot - from scholars to business leaders, politicians to journalists - by asking for one big idea to help build effective bridges to our new future.Guy Standing is a Professorial Research Associate at SOAS University of London and a founding member and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network. HIs latest book is The Corruption of Capitalism. A Tempo & Talker production for the RSA.  In this time of global change, strong communities and initiatives that bring people together are more invaluable than ever before. The RSA Fellowship is a global network of problem solvers. We invite you to join our community today to stay connected, inspired and motivated in the months ahead. You can learn more about the Fellowship or start an application by clicking here.

Armoede en de menselijke maat Pim Giel, documentairemaker en zorgexpert, interviewt Hilde Latour. Hilde Latour is actief in de nationale en internationale basisinkomen-beweging. Zij zit in het bestuur van vereniging Basisinkomen Nederland, is vice voorzitter van Basic Income Earth Network en voorzitter van Mission Possible 2030. Hilde praat over armoede, het is een schande en dit is totaal niet nodig. Maar de armoede-industrie is vele malen groter en kost meer dan dat het armoede probleem zelf kan worden opgelost. De armoede is het afgelopen jaar schrikbarend toegenomen door de wereldwijde lockdowns. Een oplossing kan heel simpel zijn: Een basisinkomen, wereldwijd, onvoorwaardelijk dus voor iedereen. Toegang voor iedereen tot eten, drinken en onderdak. Je lost meteen honger en ongelijkheid op. Dit kan gemakkelijk verschillende positieve effecten hebben op verschillende vlakken en armoede verhelpen. Het begint bij de eerste SDG, de Sustainable Development Goals van de Verenigde Naties, de SDG 1, de 'armoede resolutie'. SDG 1 is de armoede resolutie: geen armoede in de wereld. Meer weten over het basisinkomen? Kijk op: http://basicincome.com/ https://missionpossible2030.com/ Deze video is geproduceerd door Café Weltschmerz. Café Weltschmerz gelooft in de kracht van het gesprek en zendt interviews uit over actuele maatschappelijke thema's. Wij bieden een hoogwaardig alternatief voor de mainstream media. Café Weltschmerz is onafhankelijk en niet verbonden aan politieke, religieuze of commerciële partijen. Waardeer je onze video's? Help ons een in de strijd naar een eerlijker Nederland, vrij van censuur en Steun Café Weltschmerz. https://steun.cafeweltschmerz.nl/ Wil je onze nieuwsbrief ontvangen in je mailbox? https://cafeweltschmerz.nl/nieuwsbrief/ Wil je op de hoogte worden gebracht van onze nieuwe video's? Klik hierboven dan op Abonneren!

On the third episode in our special mini-series on the wellbeing economy, Arnagretta Hunter and Sharon Bessell are joined by Guy Standing, economist and author of The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class.With more and more people being forced into insecure work, many are calling for a more lasting solution for precariousness. One often-suggested solution is a ‘universal basic income’, so what might be the benefits of this concept? What policy settings might be needed to make such a scheme successful? And how do political systems that are so focused on jobs and economic growth create space for change? On this episode - the third in our special mini-series on the wellbeing economy - renowned economist Dr Guy Standing joins Professor Sharon Bessell and Dr Arnagretta Hunter to discuss work, basic income, and how some of the economic structures developed in the last century may no longer be in our best interests.If you or anyone you know needs help, you can contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 [http://www.lifeline.org.au/] and Beyond Blue on 1300 22 46 36 [https://www.beyondblue.org.au/].Guy Standing is a Professorial Research Associate at SOAS University of London and a founding member and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network, a non-governmental organisation that promotes a basic income for all.Sharon Bessell is Professor of Public Policy and Director of Gender Equity and Diversity at Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University (ANU).Arnagretta Hunter is a cardiologist, physician, and a Senior Clinical Lecturer for ANU Medical School.Policy Forum Pod is available on Acast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Subscribe on Android or wherever you get your podcasts. We’d love to hear your feedback for this podcast series! Send in your questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes to podcast@policyforum.net. You can also Tweet us @APPSPolicyForum or join us on the Facebook group. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Join Jim as he talks to Guy Standing, a British professor of Development Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network. Guy discusses his research, the economical learnings we can take from the coronavirus pandemic and the impact it may have on future political and economical structures.

In this latest episode we talk with Professor Guy Standing, who has been at the forefront of Basic Income research for 30 years, running pilots all over the world. We discuss his original concept of “The Precariat”, a new class that might be familiar to many listeners, the moral case for a basic income and its fans in US politics and Silicon Valley, and his vision of a future of a new left built upon enlightenment principles. Links!Guy Standing: https://www.guystanding.com/Basic Income Earth Network: https://basicincome.org/The Precariat: https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-precariat-9781849664561/Plunder of the Commons: https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/308/308407/plunder-of-the-commons/9780141990620.html  

JFK sits down with author of "Our Future: The Basic Income Plan for Peace, Justice, Liberty, Democracy, and Personal Dignity" Steven Shafarman is the program director of Basic Income Action, www.basicincomeaction.org, a new nonprofit group in Washington D.C., and a life member of the Basic Income Earth Network, www.basicincome.org

This week we talk to Guy Standing, Professor of Development Studies at SOAS, founding member and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network and author of Battling Eight Giants: Basic Income Now.The idea of a universal basic or guaranteed income has been advocated for centuries. Thinkers from Tom Paine in the 1790s to social reformers in the 1890s argued that it was the duty of the state to ensure a minimum income for all citizens. With inequality, climate change and automation the need for such a policy was evident before the coronavirus crisis, but one effect of the pandemic, which has left huge numbers of people economically insecure, has been that the idea now has political legs. We'll be chatting to Guy, one of the worlds leading experts in basic income, about the transformative effects of a basic income on individuals and communities, how it can ensure a better future for all and why it must constitute part of a post-coronavirus settlement. "It's Bloody Complicated" is recorded every Tuesday at 6pm GMT. Become a Compass Member to join our live recordings and bring your questions to our guests: https://action.compassonline.org.uk/podcastSupport the show (https://www.compassonline.org.uk/podcast/)

In this episode of Dig Deeper, host Ashwin Nair looks at the Basic Income debate in two countries: India and Canada. Dr Sarath Davala, the Vice-President of Basic Income Earth Network and Coordinator of the India Network for Basic Income and Sheila Regehr, Chairperson of Basic Income Canada Network join our host to provide some expert analysis. Before diving into these discussions, Ashwin examines the increasing relevance of a basic income in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic with Matthew Green, the New Democratic Member of Parliament for Hamilton-Centre and former Hamilton City Councillor for Ward 3.

In the fourth episode of the Universal Basic Income (UBI) series, we explore the question: Why would you oppose UBI? We look at the flaws of the automation argument, UBI's enormous cost, how UBI would affect work, and other potential problems.Please 'Subscribe' and leave a 5-star review. Thank you!***References:‘Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-Hour Workweek’, Rutger Bregman, 2016, The Correspondent.‘Basic Income: A Guide for the Open-Minded’, Guy Standing, 2017, Yale University Press, New Haven and London.‘In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State’, Charles Murray, 2006, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington DC.‘Capitalism and Freedom’, Milton Friedman (with the assistance of Rose D. Friedman), 1962, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Basic Income Earth Network website.Intelligence Squared Debate: ‘The Universal Basic Income Is the Safety Net of the Future.’The Joe Rogan Experience, ‘Episode #1309 - Naval Ravikant’.Yang 2020 website.‘What billionaires and business titans say about cash handouts in 2017’, Catherine Clifford, CNBC.‘Universal Basic Income, In Perspective’, David R. Henderson, Hoover Institution.‘No Strings Attached: The Behavioural Effects of U.S. Unconditional Cash Transfer Programs’, Roosevelt Institute.United States Bureau of Labor Statistics website.Parliament of Australia website.‘Does Andrew Yang’s Freedom Dividend Proposal Add Up?’, Kyle Pomerleau, Tax Foundation.‘Andrew Yang’s Math Doesn’t Add Up on Universal Basic Income’, Jacob Dowell, Foundation for Economic Education.***Music: Julian AngelatosArtwork: Nerpa Mate

In the second episode of the Universal Basic Income (UBI) series, we explore the progressive arguments for UBI, such as a solution for homelessness and artificial intelligence (AI), freedom, social justice, re-defining the meaning of work, and the mysterious link to Communism.Please 'Subscribe' and leave a 5-star review. Thank you!***References:‘Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-Hour Workweek’, Rutger Bregman, 2016, The Correspondent.‘Basic Income: A Guide for the Open-Minded’, Guy Standing, 2017, Yale University Press, New Haven and London.‘Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy’, Philippe Van Parijs & Yannick Vanderborght, 2017, Harvard University Press.‘Raising the Floor: How a Universal Basic Income Can Renew Our Economy and Rebuild the American Dream’, Andrew Stern & Lee Kravistz, 2016, Public Affairs.Basic Income Earth Network website.Making Sense with Sam Harris Podcast, ‘Episode #130 – Universal Basic Income’.Intelligence Squared Debate: ‘The Universal Basic Income Is the Safety Net of the Future.’World Economic Forum: ‘A Basic Income for All: Dream or Delusion?’The Joe Rogan Experience, ‘Episode #1309 - Naval Ravikant’.Yang 2020 website.Tedx Talks, ‘Basic Income: Utopia or Solution?’, Guy Standing. H3 Podcast, ‘Andrew Yang – H3 Podcast #132.’‘Free Money Is Not So Funny Anymore: Confessions of a (Former) Skeptic of Basic Income. Gleb Tsipursky, Salon.United States Bureau of Labor Statistics website.‘A Capitalist Road to Communism’, Robert van der Veen and Philippe Van Parijs, 1986, Theory and Society.***Music: Julian AngelatosArtwork: Nerpa Mate

This is the first episode in a four-part series on Universal Basic Income (UBI). We explore the meaning of UBI, its history, and the experiments conducted on UBI around the world.Please 'Subscribe' and leave a 5-star review. Thank you!***References:‘Utopia’, Thomas More, 1516, republished by Planet eBook.‘On Assistance to the Poor’, Juan Luis Vives, 1526, republished by University of Toronto Press.‘Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-Hour Workweek’, Rutger Bregman, 2016, The Correspondent.‘Basic Income: A Guide for the Open-Minded’, Guy Standing, 2017, Yale University Press, New Haven and London.‘Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy’, Philippe Van Parijs & Yannick Vanderborght, 2017, Harvard University Press.Basic Income Earth Network website.World Economic Forum: ‘A Basic Income for All: Dream or Delusion?’Yang 2020 website.Tedx Talks, ‘Basic Income: Utopia or Solution?’, Guy Standing.‘MLK Advocates for Guaranteed Income at Stanford (1967)’.LibertyPen, ‘Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax’.‘Primer on Universal Basic Income’, Ray Dalio, Linkedin.‘Switzerland’s Voters Reject Basic Income Plan’, BBC.‘A Guaranteed Income: Why the Swiss Said No’, The Local.‘The Amazing True Socialist Miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fund’, Dylan Matthews, Vox.‘No Strings Attached: The Behavioural Effects of U.S. Unconditional Cash Transfer Programs’, Roosevelt Institute.***Music: Julian AngelatosArtwork: Nerpa Mate

Full show notes coming soon.New York Times, "Would You Write a Cookbook for Next to Nothing" by Priya KrishnaMusic in today's episode:"Bad Flower," Bisou"If I Had Money, I Would Have Money," The Basic Income Earth Network See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Larry Cohen is the founder of Build The Floor, an organization dedicated to advocating for universal basic income (UBI) around the country. He also is a founding member both the Humanity Forward Super PAC and the Economic Security Project. Today we talk to Larry about UBI, his trip to the Basic Income Earth Network conference in India and his support for the Yang Campaign. You can find out more about Larry and Build The Floor at https://buildthefloor.org/ and you can support Larry and the Yang Campaign by visiting https://www.humanityfwd.org/ Enjoy!

Activists from across the spectrum of Universal Basic Income in New York to talk about the upcoming Basic Income March, www.BasicIncomeMarch.com Diane Pagen of Basic Income Action https://twitter.com/diane_pagen Basic Income Action is an organization with chapters across the United States. Our mission is to win a basic income for all by educating and organizing people to take action. We envision a world where basic economic security is guaranteed, and everyone has enough money to live with dignity. We envision a society that is truly committed to the American ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — with a government that provides everyone with the basic income we need to ensure these rights. We aim to extend and advance the successful efforts of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network, USBIG, which was founded in December 1999. We also work closely with the Basic Income Earth Network, BIEN. David Andersson https://twitter.com/davidandersson From the NY Office of Pressenza Pressenza is a space open to the expression of the social base. We endorse a universalist humanist perspective and actively promote cooperation agreements and partnerships with other agencies, as well as reciprocal links with portals, platforms, news and communications media of specific communities and cultures. Pressenza is part of an extensive network of new media that achieves global reach for local proposals while they are supplied information with the material provided by the agency. Pressenza consists of volunteers with extensive experience in communication, social activism, cultural and academic fields. The agency is independent from any economic interest, the basic condition for its autonomy. We are columnists, reporters, photographers, graphic designers, videographers and translators on five continents who contribute our professional work without financial compensation. Maria Teresa of Urban Justice Center's https://twitter.com/safetynetujc The Safety Net Project advocates for safe and secure housing and fundamental resources like food and cash assistance for underserved and marginalized communities in New York City. We combine legal services, policy advocacy, new media campaigns, and community organizing to advance the movement for economic justice.

If you believe the reports in the media this week, Finland’s flirtation with a basic guaranteed income is to come to an end. I spoke to Karl Widerquist from the Basic Income Earth Network to understand the idea behind a basic income and to discover what, if anything, went wrong in Finland.

In this chat, always possible chief exec Richard Freeman, talks to Professor Guy Standing about the fallout of globalism and the rise of the precariat - the new social class defined by its insecurity - as well as the idea of a basic universal income, once mocked for being an unworkable socialist pipe-dream but now fast becoming a mainstream social policy idea. Richard and Guy discuss whether we are entering a post-capitalist economics, and if the fact that wealth is created by owning things rather than making things means what we have can never truly be described as free market. They discuss Guy's 30-year campaign for a basic universal income and why something for which he was previously derided is now being taken very seriously across the world. But this controversial policy - challenged by thinkers and politicians on both the left and right surely has massive risks - is this not an incentive for worklessness, to spend money on more insecurity and for landlords to exploit these new sources of payments? Dr Guy Standing is one of the world's leading social economists, working on issues of distributive justice, social security and citizenship for over 40 years. He is Professor of Development Studies at the School of African & Oriental Studies at the University of London and the co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network. His most well-known books include The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Does Not Pay and 2017's Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen.

What would you say to the idea of Universal Basic Income (UBI) where you receive a monthly cash handout from the government at the beginning of each month unconditionally? Might it help a majority of individuals attain a reasonable standard of living or is it too farfetched of an idea? In today's episode, I talk with Otto Lehto from Finland, a Phd candidate in political economy at King's College London, and former chairman of the Finnish branch of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) about this radical idea. Among many things, we discuss Finland's efforts in introducing UBI into mainstream political discussion, its philosophical underpinnings, and whether or not UBI will turn everyone into couch potatoes. While at the start of my conversation I had my doubts about the merits of UBI by itself, Otto has managed to sway my perspectives. Where many hard line libertarians might see UBI as an overreach of the state, Otto reminds us that it should not been in isolation but rather as competing with the current system of means-tested welfare. Viewing the issue from this lens, UBI can be a means of breaking down the monopoly of welfare services that the state currently has, adding choice and the ability for individuals to participate in the free market. Throughout this episode, I discuss the following issues: - Why UBI is a practical necessity in today's economy - How UBI has placed itself within mainstream politics in Finland - What the organization Basic Income Earth Network, or BIEN does - Otto's philosophical arguments for a limited welfare state - How UBI is especially suited for playing the role of welfare in a limited state - What empirical data has to say about work disincentives of UBI - Comparing the optimistic vs. pessimistic views on the social effects of UBI ** - Which system of UBI (complete replacement or complementary) is politically feasible - The reasoning behind Otto's wide ranging interests, and the link between philosophy, the humanities, and liberty. Again, much thanks to Otto for being such a wonderful guest on the show. If you wish to find out more about Otto Lehto, you can do so at his website www.ottolehto.com If you wish to learn more about UBI, you can do so at www.basicincome.org --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/economicalricepodcast/message

Here at Informed Choice Radio, we're not afraid to examine the big ideas. And few ideas are bigger than the concept of a universal basic income.  Professor Guy Standing is a founder member and honorary co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network. This is a non-governmental organisation that promotes a basic income for all.        Basic Income is a regular cash transfer from the state, received by all individual citizens. It is an acknowledgement that everyone plays a part in generating the wealth currently enjoyed only by a few.  Political parties across the world are now adopting it as official policy and the idea generates headlines every day.  Guy Standing has been at the forefront of thought about Basic Income for the past thirty years. His recent work has concerned the emerging precariat class and the need to move towards unconditional basic income and deliberative democracy. Guy's new book is Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen.  In the book he covers in authoritative detail the impact of basic income on the economy, poverty, work and labour; he dissects and disproves the standard arguments against Basic Income; explains what we can learn from pilots across the world and illustrates exactly why a Basic Income has now become such an urgent necessity. Welcome to Basic Income & How We Can Make It Happen, with Professor Guy Standing, in episode 216 of Informed Choice Radio.   Get answers to your personal finance questions Do you have a personal finance or investing question for Martin? Email martin@icfp.co.uk or ask on Twitter @martinbamford. You can call our dedicated podcast voicemail line on 020 8144 2745 with your question or visit www.icradio.co.uk/voicemail to leave an online voice message.  

Social scientists, technologists, and politicians from across the political spectrum think they have a potential solution to the unemployment that automation and artificial intelligence are expected to create. It's called a universal basic income. And it involves getting the state to pay a fixed sum to all of its citizens, whether or not they have a job. The Canadian province of Ontario has become the latest to announce a trial - for 4,000 households. We hear from Finland where a basic income pilot project is already underway. And Manuela Saragosa talks to Guy Standing, co- founder and co-president of the Basic Income Earth Network - who is advising a number of pilot projects around the world.(Picture: Five pound sterling note, London 2017. Credit: DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/Getty Images)

Universal Basic Income - an answer to our automated future and the beginning of a utopian future? An idea backed by people on both sides of the political spectrum, technologists and futurists, a basic income may not just be philosophically appealing, it may be necessary. Today's conversation is with Dr Karl Widerquist, a political philosopher and economist at Georgetown University, SFQ Qatar. He is co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network and an author of numerous books, including 'Independence, Propertylessness and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No. In our conversation, we cover: - Philosophy of freedom as an argument for a universal basic income - What is a UBI and how could it be administered - Some of the economics behind it For more information on what is discussed in the podcast, head to the links below! talkoftoday.com/podcast University Profile: explore.georgetown.edu/people/kpw6/ Selected works: works.bepress.com/widerquist/ 'Independence, Propertylessness and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No: www.goodreads.com/book/show/160338…and-basic-income basicincome.org Support this podcastSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/talk-of-today/donations

En este episodio nuestro invitado es Daniel Raventós, profesor en la Facultad de Economía y Empresa de la Universidad de Barcelona y presidente de la Red Renta Básica, sección española de la Basic Income Earth Network. Hablamos con él de la renta básica universal, una asignación monetaria incondicional que recibiría cualquier persona en un Estado por el mero hecho de ser ciudadano o residente acreditado, independientemente de que trabaje o no, y con la que ya se está experimentando en lugares como Finlandia, Holanda, India o Namibia. Una propuesta que, cuando menos, merece ser tenida en cuenta, en un mundo del trabajo que tiende a la polarización y a la automatización de más empleos.  Más sobre este podcast en http://podcast.futurodeltrabajo.com

What follows is an edited transcript of my conversation with Otto Lehto. Petersen: You're listening to Economics Detective Radio. My guest today is Otto Lehto of King's College London. He is formerly the chair of Finland's Basic Income Network. Otto, welcome to Economics Detective Radio. Lehto: Oh it's my pleasure to be here. Petersen: So our topic for today is the basic income guarantee. Otto, you approach this idea from the perspective of political philosophy, so let's start by discussing that. How about we start by talking about two of the major figures in political philosophy: John Rawls and Robert Nozick. What do each of them have to say about the welfare state and where do your views diverge from theirs? Lehto: That is a good point to start indeed, although it is I think a bit lamentable that we have to start from those two figures because they have dominated the discussion so much during the last 50 years. In fact, it's very hard to have a conversation outside the boundaries set by those two figures, but they're both geniuses. They set the stage for the discussion, certainly in philosophy but also in public policy in many respects. So, let's start with John Rawls. John Rawls really was a towering figure in Harvard, really starting from the 60's and throughout the 70's. He wrote this book, A Theory of Justice, which is considered one of the really truly great books in political philosophy that revolutionized the way we think about these subjects. But the short version of his theory, which is very influential even up to this day, is that people in societies should look at the framework of living with each other as a cooperative game where we all try to sort of not only maximize our own position but also to make the whole game fair for everybody. And so he called his theory Justice as Fairness, where people are entitled to a certain respect and autonomy, certain liberties as members of the democratic community where they can pursue their own ends. But they're also entitled to a redistributive scheme if they happen to be among the worst-off people in the society. They are entitled to redistributive transfers. This framework sounds very familiar and indeed it should because it reflects the social democratic reality in which most Western societies operate. And even in later years he said that actually his philosophy, even though it starts from first principles and proceeds from there, is actually meant to be a philosophical justification of the intuitions that people in Western democracies---liberal democracies---have. So, you combine liberal ideas of individual freedom with these notions of the welfare state and so on. So that was the foundation of Rawls' system. So that's Rawls' system but Nozick came along and he found a place for himself in the same institution, that is Harvard, and he wrote a critique---a respectful critique---but a very thorough and deep critique of Rawls' theory. And he ended up justifying a minimal state that libertarians are very fond of. And he effectively said that no, people should just be seen as individuals who have some fundamental rights---he calls them side constrains---that people have a certain respect that they are owed by other people and it is very wrong for people to violate their personal boundaries and this includes the State. The state has actually no right to violate the sort of inviolable right to property rights that individuals have. So every form of taxation, that features very prominently even in Rawls' system, is theft. So, that is of course a very prominent theme in libertarianism. So his book---which by the way is really brilliant philosophically, it's not only just a standard justification of libertarianism but it's actually one of the great books in philosophy because it's so rich and powerful and full of interesting ideas and strange examples and brilliant footnotes and all that---but that lay down the other side. And so the debate in intellectual philosophy and history in the last 50 years or so has been largely dominated by these two figures: Rawls' Theory of Justice on the one hand, a justification of social democracy with a liberal bent, and then on the other hand Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia, which is a justification of libertarian taxation-is-theft ideology. So that is the framework in which we find ourselves. Petersen: So there are these two competing extremes. You quote John Tomasi's critique of both of them. Would you like to summarize that for me? Lehto: Yes. John Tomasi wrote a wonderful book in 2012 called Free Market Fairness where he actually tries to combine these two perspectives. And he says that actually there's a whole tradition that we're forgetting here when we focus only on these two---as you put it, they are both at extremes---although at least for Rawls himself, he's often considered a centrist. But in many ways, he represents this kind of---from a perspective that Tomasi points out---the perspective of classical liberalism even though the Rawlsian center-left position, he's actually seen going fundamentally wrong in many ways, even though that is the unquestionable framework in which people today operate. And I should say, when I say that Rawls and Nozick laid a framework, it's not as if there is 50% on one side and 50% on the other side. Perhaps in politics, like the left-wing and right-wing ideologies have maybe about 50% on each side depending on the circumstances. But in philosophy certainly, Rawls has been the one that dominated the discussion and there are actually very few Nozickians around. But Tomasi points out that even with this seemingly very credible and too wonderful system that Rawls lays out, there is very little attention paid to issues like individual freedom especially in the domain of economy. And the lack of respect for people's freedom of choices in economic matters is actually a major shortcoming in Rawls' system. And this is exactly what Tomasi points out and from the perspective of classical liberalism which he raises to the standard of something that we should actually take more seriously than we have today. He points out that actually economic liberty is something we should insert back into the conversation in a serious way without however on the other side falling down the assumption that Nozick makes---and a lot of libertarians make---that the only justification for all economic liberty necessarily leads to a justification for the night watchman state or the minimal state of libertarianism where there is no role for government to provide public services and all that. And so this false dichotomy that Rawls and Nozick have put out has sort of made it difficult for people like myself and Tomasi and Matt Zwolinsky and people who consider themselves followers of the legacy of classical liberalism to lay out the more complicated, but I think more interesting, case for a system where robust economic liberties are combined with certain welfare state elements. Certain elements of taking seriously the power of the state to actually increase the real opportunities of people rather than just being a system of theft as Nozick calls it. Petersen: So that's where something like the basic income guarantee comes in. Can you summarize what that is and how is that different from the welfare states most countries currently have? Lehto: Right. Basic income guarantee, first of all, is defined as a regular payment to all citizens or residents of a political community that is given uniformly to all citizens. All people get the same amount and people get it without bureaucratic discretion. So it is given automatically or almost automatically to all people either in the form of a direct cash transfer to their bank account or in the form of a tax break system as in the form of negative income tax which is actually a form of basic income. So this system is supposed to, and it is a way, to replace the bureaucratic complexity and the nightmarish disrespect for human autonomy and human freedom that lies in the center of the current welfare state system in my opinion and certainly in the opinion of Tomasi and other people who I'm referring to. So the basic income guarantee is superior to the current system and it differs from the current system in the sense that it actually operates under the principle that we shouldn't use the state to guarantee specific favors to specific people, we shouldn't use the state as a one-upmanship mechanism whereby one group of recipients carries for the favor of bureaucracies, tries to---and in a way infiltrate---the mechanisms of the state to redistribute money and resources to themselves or to groups that they favor against the interests and desires of other groups because this leads to a spiral of negative-sum game in the political economy. And I think welfare states today in this sense have become victim to this overzealous one-upmanship of special interest group politics and basic income is a way to overcome this problem. Petersen: So the basic income guarantee, is it really a break from business as usual? It seems like it's a marginal improvement on the system we have now, but I guess you're suggesting that the system we have now encourages a lot of rent seeking, it has a lot of payments to different groups, it's needlessly complex. I could list some other problems with it. There are the so-called welfare cliffs where poor people face implicit marginal tax rates sometimes of a thousand percent, or some absurdly high amount because their benefits are clawed back when they earn a little more income. So there seems like there's a good economic justification for basic income. Is your work focused on the classical liberal philosophical justification for having a hands-off welfare state? Lehto: Yes, in a way. The fundamental debate is truly between these two perspectives of whether it's a pragmatic justification for reform towards a slightly saner and slightly more useful and purposeful and beneficial system, or on the other hand, is it a requirement of justice that we have something like a basic income guarantee. And I think that really the truth is somewhere in between. First of all, I think it certainly is a pragmatic improvement over the current system but I should point out already at this point that when I'm advocating for basic income I'm not advocating for basic income without demanding widespread reforms in other areas of life in the welfare state. I am indeed calling for massive restructuring of many of the mechanisms of the welfare state partially just to accommodate for the fact that we are taking basic income as the policy paradigm that we're trying to implement. Because if we take that as the policy paradigm, then we necessarily must reform the existing bureaucracies, tax system just to accommodate for the fact that we are taking this new system into effect. In addition to this, I think that the whole framework of regulations, the whole framework of massive interventions into the economy, into the private life of citizens have to be addressed as serious violations of the capacity of the welfare state to truly increase the welfare of its people. Because my opinion is that the welfare state has failed because it has failed to address the proper means to achieve its own ends that it claims to have. Use of improper means to achieve its ends is the reason why the welfare state is failing so miserably everywhere in the world today. That it's claiming to be for the welfare of its citizens, but if you look at it in terms of its overall effect in many ways it fails. Petersen: So, when I think of the policies that I'd like to see replaced by a basic income guarantee they're not just strictly welfare transfers. There's a theorem in economics called the Atkinson-Stiglitz theorem. It says that when you have an optimally designed progressive income tax scheme, basic income with a progressive income tax would be something like that, then it doesn't make sense to have additional programs designed to redistribute. And some of the programs that I think are basically focused on redistribution are things like protecting taxi drivers from competition from companies like Uber and Lyft, or a lot of the interventions into medicine are designed to make sure that people who get sick don't also become poor. And of course, if you had something like a basic income, every taxi driver could lose his job, he wouldn't fall below that minimum level. And so could at least in principle---if we were going to make sort of an ideal political bargain---a basic income guarantee would come with a lot of free market reforms ideally. Is that basically a big part of the reason why so many libertarians---such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek---have supported versions of a basic income? Lehto: Well yes indeed, it has the feature of being compatible with a total abolition of the rest of the welfare state, or major portions of the welfare state. And in fact people like Charles Murray have recently proposed exactly that, a replacement of the welfare state by the means of a basic income given to all citizens as the second-best option to a complete free-market society. And people like Hayek and Friedman were also of the opinion that the majority of those transfers could be replaced. So the thing with money is that money is a universal means of exchange and the uses of money and the need for money are as varied as people and situations. And when we think of basic income we don't think of it in terms of being for a particular purpose or for particular people or for particular circumstances unlike the current measures. And so it has the virtue---and perhaps the vice depending on your point of view---of being this universal situation, a neutral ground. And so indeed we can come up with hundreds of scenarios where a basic income could be useful for people. Obviously, some of those are covered by the current redistributive schemes within which by the way I would include things like farm subsidies, many forms of corporate welfare and so on. So basic income has the virtue and vice of being neutral as regards purposes and situations. The only thing really is that if you don't have any other sources of income then you will get a basic income without having to beg for it from anybody either in the government or in the world of charity for example. So, yes indeed, people who are forced out of work to circumstances---whatever those circumstances happen to be---are able to survive, the people who are forced out of the labor market entirely for a reason---one reason or another---people who have temporary or permanent conditions that affect their capacity to find work will be covered up to this level, and people who perhaps want to take some time off to take care of their family, people who want to take some time off to study, to plan ahead, to perhaps think about starting a new company, they have some ideas but they don't have the means of funding yet, that allows people to focus on doing what they think is best for them at the moment. So it has almost an infinity of purposes precisely because there is an infinity of human beings and human desires that in a pure realistic society will have to be taken into account. And a welfare state that tries to measure what people truly need, or what circumstances need to be taken care of, fails precisely because it can never count the infinity of the variety of ways in which people end up in need of money in society. Petersen: So before this welfare state that we currently have---the welfare state as it currently exists largely is a creation of the 20th century. But in the 19th century and early 20th century a lot of what you had was mutual aid societies and things like that. And I think a hard core maybe a Rothbardian libertarian who maybe still cares a lot about the poorest among us might say, why have a basic income? If we just had nothing there would still be the civil society and we could create something like a mutual aid society. Are there advantages of---is there reason to do this through the state, I guess is my question. Lehto: As a very wide-going and deep-reaching utilitarian, for me it's all about checking what robustness criteria institutions might have, and what institutional arrangements we could come up with and seeing how they perform in the real world rather than in the realm of ideal theory. And we have some evidence of places where mutual aid societies worked and we have some evidence of places where forms of welfare state that are highly bureaucratic and oppressive and paternalistic have operated and both of those have several features that I think we can wish to want to get rid of. So I think that if we look at societies where mutual aid societies were the sole means for people to survive I think they actually did a relatively good job in many cases but I think they failed to provide the sort of guarantee of security that I think a good society would wish to provide for people. That is, if we rely on the means of mutual aid societies you will get perhaps even a superior alternative to many forms of welfare state in the long run and I'm completely open to the idea that free markets can provide a very robust system of welfare. And actually that to me is one of the reasons why I consider myself a libertarian defender of a welfare state because I think that the libertarian part comes from actually understanding that markets are a good way of producing welfare and the opportunities available for markets and other forms of voluntary transfer, including mutual aid societies, are a way of providing a wide framework of security and services and other forms of protection. But I think that they provide a patchwork which leaves a lot of people outside in a number of circumstances. And I think this fact that they have a lot of holes in the way into the system, they have a lot of uncertainty about guaranteed income and lot of uncertainty about who gets covered, who is seen as being worthy of being helped, who is seen as being worthy of being protected by a benevolent charity and so on, means that we need to have a system of making sure that people don't---perhaps out of no fault of their own---fall through the cracks of the free market system and the same goes for the welfare state. I think they actually are surprisingly similar the welfare state and the free market utopia, they both provide this patchwork framework where some people are protected, some people are not, there's a lot of uncertainty about who gets what, who gets protected, and who doesn't. And so actually in both systems, people fall through the cracks and this is exactly the reason why I think basic income guarantee can be a superior alternative to either of those. But again we have to see what happens when we actually implement basic income, there could be a lot of unintended consequences. So we need to take those into account as well but at least on the side of theory, I think the idea of guaranteeing basic income, I think it's both desirable and practicable because we know how to do it technocratically and theoretically. I mean there's nothing so difficult with guaranteeing basic income via bank transfer to all citizens for example. Petersen: So one virtue of the basic income guarantee is that it seems to be actually politically feasible within our current system and it has got some interest in recent years. We mentioned at the start of the episode that you were part of the effort to bring a basic income to Finland so could you tell me about the political situation there? I've heard that they're looking at bringing in a basic income guarantee. Lehto: Yes, indeed. And here I'm being brutally pragmatic. Finland is not going to turn into any sort of libertarian utopia that I would wish for and certainly there are elements of paternalism there that are not going to go away. We still regulate the sale of alcohol in a very, I think, outrageous fashion for example and there are a lot of elements in the system that probably will keep us on the level of adult children for a long time. But as far as the welfare system is concerned, there is considerable consensus now that something like basic income would be a desirable reform. And this is seen by the majority of the population and by more than 50% of the M.P.'s in the parliament, basically from all parties with of course different proportions in different parties. But yes indeed the center-right government is actually going with the basic income pilot experiment starting next year. It's I think a well-planned pilot. They have a lot of experts because we believe in experts in this country and in Finland the sort of reliance on experts is both good and bad in many ways. It always seems to suggest that there is a group of people who can define the perfect system but in this case I think they've done a pretty good job with planning this two-year pilot. We shall see what happens. It's certainly not ideal and the government is already bungling with some of its promises and how it is going to be organized. But the basic premise for people who may not have an understanding or an idea in their mind of what this actually means, it means that basic income in the Finnish context would be the guarantee of something on the order of 500 to 600 to perhaps 800 Euros per month per person. And this would replace the various forms of unemployment benefits, sick leave benefits, student benefits and various other forms of benefits and Finland obviously has a lot of those already in place. And the complexity of the bureaucracy is such that even the experts who run it are surprisingly candid about their ignorance, about the complexities and mutual dependencies of the various benefit structures so that it's a maze that not even the experts can navigate, let alone regular ordinary people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the system. So a lot of people don't know how to apply for help, a lot of people don't know what benefits they're entitled to, and there's a long delay in getting the results of one's application for particular benefits---months, sometimes even the years. And a lot of people fall through the cracks in that fashion that I mentioned earlier. And so I think we've come to the point almost by necessity, where this system is seen almost universally by all as in need of reform and basic income happens to be the form of this reform that is most universally seen as the one we should pursue even though of course there are still people who are very skeptical of it in many ways. But yes, indeed they're planning this experiment where they're giving something like 500 Euros to a few thousand people across Finland. It's a very small experiment, but there are people who will call for its expansion I'm sure in the years to come. That will be definitely a very interesting experiment to see how that goes. Petersen: It seems like with the current system being so complex, it's almost like a part-time job just to collect benefits. You need to build expertise and you need to fill out the right forms and it takes a lot of your time and in many ways that makes it something that competes with the labor market for your time and your efforts and your human capital development. Seems like a basic income would be a good way to get people back into the labor market simply by virtue of freeing up their time to pursue something else. Do you see the political movement towards basic income making progress in other countries as well? Lehto: So yes experiments are undergoing in a number of countries. In addition to these, Netherlands, Canada and U.S. experiments and the Finnish case of obviously which I'm most familiar with, there is a very interesting experiment going to start in a few years in East Africa organized by the charity Give Directly who are already advocates of this idea of giving cash transfers to people. They have been doing that for a number of years now with quite good results according to many independent researchers. They've been giving cash transfers directly to people and they've shown great results. So they are actually expanding this idea and organizing again a privately funded experiment that they planned around for ten years, I think, or at least a number of years in East Africa. And this should be quite interesting to see how the basic income experiments in rich countries and poor countries compare and perhaps they can help both in different ways, because obviously countries where welfare states exist are quite different from places where they don't. So any help or any form of monetary transfer will help people in African countries proportionally more than they do in rich countries, but I think both situations and both contexts can certainly benefit from direct cash transfers and basic income. Petersen: Give Directly is a charity that I support and I really like what they're doing. I especially like how they take such a quantitative approach. There are so many charities that just start with "wouldn't it be nice if people in this village had this thing?" And then they bring it to them and they don't really stop to say can we measure, were we cost effective in improving their lives? Did we do a good job? Could something else of equivalent cost have made them better off? Give Directly is doing a great thing by bringing a lot of this sort of quantitative approach to charitable giving and I'll have a link at the show notes page to Give Directly if you want to contribute, if any of the listeners want to contribute, I highly recommend it. Lehto: Absolutely. For a little bit, just to say about the reasons why cash transfers are so great. By the way, I should say that there are perhaps a few charities that are even more helpful in certain contexts. For example, direct malaria helping efforts, efforts to eradicate diseases perhaps, have an even higher rate of efficiency but those are pretty much the only ones that are more effective than giving people cash. And the reason why giving people cash is very good is that first of all, they stimulate markets where they don't exist and where markets do exist they operate in a way that maximizes the preferences and satisfaction of the people concerned. They operate as a way of giving people welfare in the most efficient way possible. And the theoretical foundations of these can be found for example in neoclassical economics, of course, where the superiority of cash transfers have been posited for example in the Chicago School since George Stigler and Milton Friedman and others. There's a wonderful paper by Brennan and Walsh on the desirability of cash transfers over in-kind transfers from a game theoretical Pareto perspective. So that's also quite interesting how the theory also matches the empirical research here. And just again to go back to the very foundation of the welfare state. I think that's been the biggest mistake of the welfare states today that they fail to take into account how welfare truly fundamentally is the satisfaction of the desired ends and needs of the people themselves as they themselves see them. It shouldn't be the satisfaction of some criteria of goodness that the state bureaucrats measure and determine. It really should be ultimately up to the people themselves what they value, what they pursue, and what needs they see themselves as having and thus giving money to them is the best way to make sure that they actually get to satisfy those preferences which they have rather than those preferences which some bureaucrats think that they should have. Petersen: If I may ask one final question. Some supporters of the basic income guarantee have suggested that we could do it as a swap. We get rid of our current costly welfare system and bring in the basic income guarantee and often you'll hear the suggestion that this could be revenue neutral. Is that a realistic possibility? Lehto: It is a realistic possibility in cases where quite extensive welfare states already exist. And obviously it depends on the level of basic income and I'm actually in favor of starting low where that is the most politically feasible option. But I'm also quite a quite supportive of the idea of starting high where that is politically feasible. So in countries like the welfare state in Canada and many other places. Starting from the level of where the current welfare state benefits are it is compatible with the goal of making it neutral as far as the effect on state budget is concerned. Although I think that it will be very hard to make it completely neutral in that regard. I think it will by necessity always cost something. But what it will cost is heavily overblown in many estimations because many people simply do not understand how to calculate the costs and they simply add up some figures of everybody gets this amount of money and multiply that by the number of people and voila you get the proposed cost of this program. But that's obviously nonsense that they don't understand what they're talking about. And they really should have a look at the actual models because in all models what happens is you reform the tax system at the same time which means that for most people, middle-class and upper-class people---or middle income and upper-income people, to be more politically correct---the income that they get from basic income actually is a zero sum addition because actually, they ended up paying their basic income back in the form of taxes that I've been raised to match accordingly the need for basic income funding. So, even if there is no criteria that you don't give basic income to people above a certain range of income, nonetheless those people in the upper brackets will end up paying back their basic income due to the taxes that have been raised. But the taxes that are raised do not have to impose unbearable burdens on those people either, because again for most people it is just a nominal transfer of funds and it's withdrawn from their bank accounts at the same time. Petersen: So are there websites, books? What can you recommend to people interested in this topic? What should they read? Lehto: Well I think for those who are philosophically minded, I certainly recommend reading the classics of the libertarian welfare state stuff. Things like Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom where the negative income tax fee is featured. Friedrich Hayek's Constitution of Liberty is a great book and it also features a defense of guaranteed minimum income. And more recently John Tomasi's Free Market Fairness, and I would recommend people to read the blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians they have been advocating for basic income but also debating it. And also proposing this similar thing that I'm doing which is trying to combine Rawls' and Nozick's intuitions into something like a new coherent whole. And just follow the news, read up on the models, follow up on what the governments and many of these countries---Finland, Netherlands, Canada---are doing. And go to basic income networks website. Just Google basic income earth network. B.I.E.N it's called---Basic Income Earth Network---and you will find more about basic income. Petersen: My guest today has been Otto Lehto. Otto thanks for being part of Economics Detective Radio. Lehto: My pleasure. It's been fun.  

It is an idea that has been around for hundreds of years - to give everyone in society a regular chunk of money that is enough to guarantee them a minimum survivable standard of living. Often called Universal or Unconditional Basic Income, the idea has supporters on both right and left. It was cast back into the spotlight this year when the Swiss held a referendum on whether to introduce it. Pilot schemes to test the idea are cropping up everywhere from Finland to the Netherlands to the US and Kenya. One reason it is gathering such momentum is concern over new technologies eliminating many low-end jobs. Last week the founder of Tesla Motors, Elon Musk said the impact of automation on the job market meant that some form of Universal Basic Income would become inevitable. But not everyone agrees a Basic Income is inevitable, or even desirable, and for those who do support the idea, there is disagreement over almost every aspect of how it should be implemented. To what extent could it replace the Welfare State? Would it incentivise people to work? Can people be trusted to spend the money wisely? And how could it be funded? The BBC's Ed Butler is joined by a panel of four - professor Louise Haagh, reader of Politics at the University of York and the co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network; Michael Tanner, senior fellow of the CATO Institute in Washington DC; Michael Faye, co-founder of Give Directly, which is piloting its own Universal Income project in Kenya; and professor Ian Gough of the Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics. (Photo: Giant campaign poster in Plainpalais Place, Geneva, 2016 saying: What would you do if your income was taken care of? Credit: AFP/ Fabrice Coffrini/Getty Images)

What would you do if your income were taken care of? In this Policy Forum Pod, four leading experts discuss the idea of a basic income - how it works, what it could do, and what it could mean for the future of the welfare state. In conversation with Policy Forum Editor Martyn Pearce are Professor Guy Standing, Dr Charles Murray, Professor Peter Whiteford, and Professor Olli Kangas. Guy Standing is an economist at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London. He is the author of a number of well-known books including 'The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class'. He is also co-founder and current President of the Basic Income Earth Network - an organisation with thousands of members around the world (http://www.basicincome.org/). Charles Murray is the WH Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC. Dr Murray is one of the world's leading social policy researchers and the author of a number of best-selling books, including The Bell Curve, which controversially looked at the role of IQ in shaping America's class structure. Peter Whiteford is the Director of the Social Policy Institute at the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy and a leading figure in the structure, design, and cost of welfare, particularly in Australia. Olli Kangas is leading the research group planning a major basic income experiment in Finland. You can read more about that here: http://www.basicincome.org/news/2015/12/finland-basic-income-experiment-what-we-know/ This episode was produced and presented by Martyn Pearce. Peter Whiteford was the Executive Producer. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

With a Basic Income all members of society are entitled to a set amount of income paid by the government, after reaching a certain age. With the rise of unemployment in EU, is an expansion of Basic Income a good way to handle the ongoing crisis? In Norway there already exists a form of Basic Income in effect. All members of society receive a pension once they reach a certain age. Is it possible to expand this principle to encompass members of a younger age? The Bergen Student Society wants to explore the idea of Basic Income as an alternative to the current welfare state and debate the costs and effects it could bring to society. One of the founding members and co-president of «Basic Income Earth Network», Guy Standing, will explain the idea of basic income. He will be joined by Alf-Erling Risa, professor of economics at UiB.