Does Trump Support Universal Income?

I am mindful that when the fascistic, oligarch takeover crumbles and those who supported it realise the only greatness oligarchs sought was their own, we will have the opportunity to redefine what progress means. In the wake of fascism, remarkable social endeavours have room to be realised.

It happened in the 1940s after fascism was defeated in Europe. Shortly after, the United Nations was born. While it has not yet realised its potential, it represents the willingness of countries to work together to achieve a more prosperous civilisation. Around the same time, it became illegal for one country to invade another. War crimes such as targeting civilians became formally unlawful under international law.

The post-fascism awakening also led to a global surge to provide universal healthcare and social security. Over the proceeding decades, all high-income countries (except the U.S., sadly) developed universal healthcare systems. Labour laws improved. Maternity pay came into existence. And within two decades, segregation was outlawed.

Fascism showed us what we don’t want, and by doing so, showed us what we do want. The same will apply this time round. I suggest we prepare and think big.

So, to the issue of Universal Income.

Trump’s recent folly with cryptocurrency highlights (beyond his primary motivation of greed) the fantasyland that much of economics is based on. Indeed, it is fair to say that of all the systems created by humankind, the economic one is the one based more on human imagination than any other. The mere fact Trump was to become president led to the creation of almost $30b, pretty much out of thin air. This inherent weakness of the economic system - its vulnerability to mood and imagination -, highlights starkly that the economic system is very much a human domain, at our will, capable of creative solutions.

Trump has also revealed the true cause of inflation. It is not wage growth. It is the growth of profit and the cost of consumer products. Things are more expensive, partly because of supply issues (and now tariffs), and partly because governments the world over are failing to regulate the greed of big business. This has led some to speculate that stagnation is around the corner. This, I am led to understand, is when wages are not growing to meet the escalating cost of products.

So, the problem (beyond the greed and ecological crisis) for both everyday people and the economic markets is the lack of wage growth. Enter Universal Income!

Universal Income is, as it sounds, a payment made to everyone regardless of means. There are a number of varying proposals, whereby the rate paid changes based on age, marital status, and employment. Generally, though, the idea we need to get our heads around is that everyone gets a basic level of money that can provide (or nearly provide) the basics of life - food, shelter, and basic healthcare.

A number of pilots have been successfully completed, and many more are underway (even 25 cities in the hypercapitalist U.S. are partaking). There is the very real prospect that it may be a source of actual sustainable growth for a country - the question being asked at the governmental level is whether or not the implementation of a universal income will provide a competitive edge over other countries in a tight economic market. So far, the results look very promising, hence the expansion of pilot projects.

Canada is running quite an extensive pilot, which gives around $16,000 per year to participants. In the U.K. there are a number of pilot programs which are even more generous with around £1600 (almost $2,000) per month. Of those that have completed the projects already, they report improved employment rates (or at least no negative effects on employment), and, as one would expect, substantive improvements in quality of life, health metrics, educational achievements, and such like.

It sounds fanciful. Almost as fanciful as creating an imaginary token, attaching an arbitrary value to it, and watching it accumulate billions of dollars out of nothing at all.

It sounds radical too. But it really isn’t. For the majority of human existence, poverty didn’t really exist - certainly not as a substantial component or class of society. It was only following dominance by the ruler classes that poverty really came into existence, and certainly this was the first time poverty was accepted as a normal part of organised society.

The main objections to Universal Income (or some variation thereof) will likely come from those whose wealth has been built from cheap labour (salaries are likely to increase), or from those who prey on the fluctuations of stock markets.

Likely, if all citizens had a basic level of income, crime would fall, productivity would increase, society would be more unified, and markets would be more stable. Of course, such a basic income would not be enough to get a car or an iPhone or provide anywhere enough to fund a holiday. If one wanted such things (as most people would) then they would also seek employment over and above the Universal Income - as the pilot studies have shown.

Removing the fear of poverty and destitution would likely radically change society, much like universal healthcare did previously. Imagine (for my U.S. readers) suddenly having no fear at all about the costs of healthcare. Now apply such relief to living itself. The change to the mood and attitude of society could be dramatic, and just what we need in the wake of fascism and oligarch rule.

I am, of course, not an economist. Indeed, I don’t think you need to be to engage in the possibility of radical reform to the economic system. Perhaps the illusion that the economic system is so delicately balanced that if we change one thing it may lead to collapse is part of the problem. Either it is that delicate, in which case it needs to be radically overhauled, or the illusion of it being too complicated for the electorate to engage exists as a means of maintaining a system that is geared towards a minority.

Anyway, there are decent economists out there, who think big without compromising their morals. Do share your recommendations for who in the economics world is worthwhile following.

My wider point: change is coming, so think big.

Photo by Alexander Mils on Unsplash

Interactive dashboard for exploring global universal income projects. https://ubidata.io

https://basicincome.org/news/2024/09/ubidata-data-for-basic-income-research-and-policy/

Universal basic income of £1,600 a month to be trialled in two places in England. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/04/universal-basic-income-of-1600-pounds-a-month-to-be-trialled-in-england

https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-basic-income-pilot

U.S. model, with projected growth in economy. https://2020.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/