Basic income or Universal Basic Income (UBI), is now becoming popular among those seriously looking at the future. Especially since Andrew Yang’s presidential candidacy. Some realize the world is changing. They realize coming economic disruption must be mitigated. Automation, plant efficiency, and Artificial Intelligence puts many income-earning opportunities at risk.
California entrepreneurs and wealthy investors are right now testing UBI in their state. This has been widely reported. There are other trials that have happened or are underway in other countries. Most famously, Facebook founder Mark Zukerberg recently voiced his adamant support for UBI. He even went so far as to say people like him should pay for it.
That’s a pretty ringing endorsement.
Interestingly, a large number of people thought UBI would never get to this point. A point where people are taking it seriously. Others felt exactly the opposite.
The same is true for Copiosis: there will be a time in the future where people as headline grabbing as Zukerberg will make identical statements about our innovation. So while we’re eagerly anticipating that future event, let’s take a look at the differences between UBI and Copiosis.
UBI and Copiosis have some things in common. But they’re very different. For one, they’re both transitional strategies. Both strive to free people from problems caused by flagging capitalism. Both give people basic needs in some way. That’s about where the similarities end.
Basic income seems eminently practical. Afterall, all you’re doing is giving people free money, then allowing recipients to spend it any way they want.
To my knowledge, there is no UBI follow-on strategy for fundamentally changing the status quo. People are still in debt, we still face our major risks and challenges, and the change we do get through basic income still has to be paid for by someone, either through a tax or other wealth transfer process.
Copiosis on the other hand is a full-blown fundamental change transition strategy.
Instead of giving people money, its framework allows people to simply get the things that money would otherwise buy. Unlike basic income, Copiosis eliminates all debt. It frees physical assets (machines, buildings, equipment) so they can be used in ways that have a net benefit to people and the planet.
It also stimulates increased innovation by making capital goods freely available.
Basic income can stimulate innovation and allow people to follow their passions too.
But only if people make the right choices with the money they get. There are no incentives in the Basic Income strategy to encourage people to do that though.
In Copiosis, since there is no money, and there are strong incentives to follow one’s passions, everyone on the planet, over time, becomes an innovation center. All passions cause innovation.
Finally, once implemented, Copiosis leaves humanity free to choose. No longer needing to earn a living, no longer needing to pay for things that enhance one’s ability to thrive, we find ourselves in a society unlike anything we’ve had before. And all of this costs nobody a dime.
Check out this table I created comparing the two ideas (right). Detail behind this table can be found by clicking here. I’d be interested in your opinion on the matter.