
The pope just proposed a universal basic income - sdegutis
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/04/12/pope-just-proposed-universal-basic-income-united-states-ready-it
======
zeckalpha
Ahem:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum)

> The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in
> need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources
> of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance
> of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly
> belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected
> by the government.

This isn’t new!

~~~
gen220
An interesting bit of trivia, but this idea is _very_ old, and geographically
close to the Pope (though the practice predates state sponsored Christianity).

In antiquity, the Roman Empire practiced a flavor of UBI, in that the city of
Rome provided free wheat (later, bread) to its poorer citizens. This was no
trivial matter, as importing and distributing (to 200k citizens, at its
zenith) were complicated and expensive. This was a stable arrangement for
centuries. After the loss of North Africa, the wheat stopped flowing so
regularly, and it grew increasingly expensive to support this benefit, but
giving it up was politically impossible. Rome collapsed, and the experiment
ended.

Across the world, Lao Tzu said the wise lead by emptying hearts and filling
bellies. There’s also some famous saying “Civilization is always four square
meals away from collapse”.

What can we learn from this? UBI makes sense when times are good, when there
is surplus and trade. But it’s very hard to revoke what a people are used to
receiving for free. It might be more efficient to teach a human to fish, than
to feed him fish “for free” every day.

~~~
johnp314
Rome needed continual conquests to fund this benefit for its citizens.
Margaret Thatcher said it well for governments that try to do this,
"eventually you run out of other people's money."

~~~
boardwaalk
Rome was also before the industrial revolution turned farming into a 1% of the
population thing.

Whether we're before or after the point every human could be supported such
they are happy and healthy, with more or less organization and/or equality, I
don't know.

But I think it's a tremendous error to think that that point can not exist (is
technologically and societally infeasible on a planet we'd recognize).

------
dredmorbius
Some years back, after hearing from often unlikely sources "I like this pope",
I did some ... very nonscientific ... research into the papacy and references
to the poor or poverty, based on Wikipedia entries, going back about 200
years.

Even heavily discounting Wikipedia's extreme recency bias, Pope Francis's
focus on the poor and on economic injustice seems utterly remarkable.

[https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/258gq1/francis...](https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/258gq1/francis_the_papacy_the_poor_and_social_justice/)

------
travisgriggs
Very naive question here. I am not an economist. I'm all for normalizing
distances between haves and have nots. But why is this solution to give money?
Why not universal basic housing, universal basic food, universal basic
internet, etc? It seems odd to propose equalization of needs with something
that is so ethereal and arbitrary and easily games as money.

If the goal is normalization, why not just wage caps instead of minimum wages?

~~~
papermachete
Well said, you can't buy smartphones and videogames with food coupons.

~~~
qqqwerty
The money spent on smartphones and videogames results in revenue for companies
and paychecks for employees. So yeah, some people are going to spend their UBI
irresponsibly. But that spending directly and immediately stimulates the
economy.

In contrast, we currently are dumping vast amounts of money onto corporations,
banks, and investors to try prop up the economy. That money just ends up
bidding up stocks, bonds, and real estate prices. The stimulative impact is
minimal, and mostly results in inflating asset prices.

~~~
papermachete
Broken window fallacy. If one has money for vieogames, one has money for basic
needs and needs no UBI.

------
sdegutis
The article talks about UBI meaning getting money "just for being alive". But
in the actual source[1], Pope Francis says:

> This may be the time to consider a universal basic wage which would
> acknowledge and dignify the noble, essential tasks you carry out. It would
> ensure and concretely achieve the ideal, at once so human and so Christian,
> of no worker without rights.

This is talking about a dignified, minimum living wage for doing the essential
jobs humanity needs.

[1] [https://movimientospopulares.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/04/...](https://movimientospopulares.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.06-Social-Mov.-Easter-ENG.pdf)

~~~
ntnsndr
Article author here. I don't get the sense that he's just talking about a
living wage for marginal workers. That is a longstanding demand from the
church, but the language here is different. To speak of "universal" and
"basic" here is a clear nod to UBI of some sort, as are the references
throughout to care work and activist work, which are never going to earn a
wage in the labor market.

+1 on the point about hedging against technocratic solutions, however. He
expands on that language a lot in Laudato Si. I should have highlighted that
in the article. Unlike many Silicon Valley UBI advocates, he does not see this
as a simple, algorithmic fix, but his emphasis is on the way it could help
bring about cultural change, transforming what kind of work we value and
orienting the economy toward a recognition of universal human dignity.

Will check back to chat more. Fun to see this show up in my HN feed!

~~~
droithomme
His link to the actual letter of the Pope is very clear that he refers to
laborers and wages and a Universal Basic Wage, not a Universal Basic Income
given to all, including the idle. His criticism of your article is on point
and warranted. Your response is not adequate, you merely restate your case
that he has disproven using original documents.

It's possible that the Pope also supports UBI for the idle. His letter here
does not support that claim though.

~~~
sdegutis
> It's possible that the Pope also supports UBI for the idle.

For the sick or those who otherwise can't work despite being willing to, sure.
For those who willingly don't work, no. The Bible is super clear about this:
"if a man does not work, let him not eat."

------
ARandomerDude
"Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the
richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money
rather than with the money of poor believers?"

\- Martin Luther

------
amelius
Perhaps if companies actually paid taxes we could afford something like UBI
...

~~~
gerdesj
My little company pays Corporation tax at 19% and obviously we hand on VAT at
the relevant rate. We also do PAYE as needed etc.

What's your problem and how may I assist your UBI dream?

~~~
tialaramex
We have good news for you. You know that bigger rival company, who somehow
make a similar product, and charge more for it, yet somehow don't pay any
Corporation tax? Maybe they're paying interest on a "debt" to a company with a
suspiciously similar name located somewhere sunny that seems to arbitrarily
set the interest on the debt to exactly what might otherwise be their annual
profit, resulting in zero tax... or they have to "license" their brand name
from a company that somehow only owns that brand name, and only employs one
accountant and a secretary in a tiny principality in Europe?

We'd like them to be on a level playing field with you. We can't guarantee
this'll mean you win, but maybe them paying the same taxes you do (which will
make a huge difference to the affordability of projects like UBI) would help
you.

~~~
jfnixon
You are going against the entire human history of governments and taxation.
Governments use tax incentives to (charitably) encourage desired behavior and
(pragmatically) reward supporters. A clean tax code without these deductions
takes significant power away from the government. It is extremely unlikely to
every happen.

------
Avshalom
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology#Towards_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology#Towards_reconciliation_under_Pope_Francis)

------
hotz
I value my freedom above any form of UBI. It just smells too much of 1984 to
me.

~~~
mcphage
I’d love to hear you detail what you see the connection between these two
things is.

~~~
tehfink
There's some recent SF touching on the subject; e.g.: "Proposition 23" by Efe
Tobunko. Basically, the populace becomes dependent on such governmental
support, and the threat of its withdrawal is used to stifle dissent and ensure
conformity.

------
reedwolf
Wouldn't market prices reflect that everyone is now starting off on n amount
of money?

Also, you're going quickly run into many of the problems current
redistribution programs face. One of the big ones is how to deal with people
that spend money irresponsibly.

~~~
karatestomp
Not much except for certain things (notably, land & housing among them) unless
markets don’t actually work to increase supply in the presence of higher
demand like they’re supposed to.

Probably we’d need Georgist policies or similar to keep all the money from
just going to landlords, yes.

------
e2le
What's the difference between UBI and a dividend?

~~~
jfnixon
A dividend isn't guaranteed. A dividend depends on the success of the
underlying company. A dividend isn't a right. Just off the top of my head.

------
hprotagonist
_Laborem Execrens_ (1981) is another descendant encyclical of _Rerum Novarum_.
It’s excellent reading.

John Paul II knew a lot about the failings of socialism and capitalism both,
and oh boy was he interested in a yet more excellent way.

[http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/encyclicals/do...](http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html)

------
mjfl
Would those in the USA accept a tax where all income above $10,000 / year
(around the global mean) was taken to enable global redistribution?

~~~
mrfusion
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that. It would probably just be another tax
for high earners?

~~~
mjfl
my point is that all citizens of US are high earners from a global
perspective. Taxing USA-standard "high earners" wouldn't generate nearly
enough funds for a global UBI (it probably wouldn't for a USA UBI either).

~~~
mrfusion
True but I think he meant each country does it’s own ubi.

~~~
mjfl
He thinks places in Africa like the Congo should stay the same because there's
no one rich there? No. That wouldn't make sense.

------
eucryphia
Incentives matter, abolish minimum wages, pay it as negative income tax to an
employer, you still have to work for it. Wealthy kids a smart enough to look
after themselves.

~~~
philbarr
Fine, I'll employ myself.

