Editor's Note: This article comes fromDecentralized financial community (ID: China_DeFi)。

Editor's Note: This article comes from

Decentralized financial community (ID: China_DeFi)

• EOS founder BM published this article a few days ago on October 30, 2020, discussing the differences between Universal Earned Income (UEI), Universal Basic Income (UBI), and Universal Resource Inheritance (URI), expressing the overall concern for the election Dissatisfaction with the behavior of stealing concepts in China - because UBI sounds like it has a tendency to eat free food, so replacing it with a better-sounding UEI is a political strategy. But does this kind of universal income need to be obtained through "earning"? Or can you get something for nothing? is an interesting point.

• In contrast, BM's previous two articles on UBI and URI are more valuable:

The core point of BM's "The basics of Basic Income" published in January 2015: Everyone should get a minimum income and get the living standard of the "middle class" in the first world. UBI could replace existing welfare and social security programs, but what would underpin UBI? If the U.S. government pays everyone a basic income of $1,000 a month, the overall cost is $3.8 trillion—more than federal taxes, so federal taxes cannot support UBI. "Inflation" is the process of redistribution of wealth from the rich to the new, which seems ideal as a source of funding for UBI. However, BM denied this point of view through the argument, and proposed that if the inflation rate is used instead of taxes to pay UBI, then the high inflation rate will cause the rich to not want to own it at all, then there will be only sellers and no buyers, leading to blockchain The concept of "basic income" will never be realized.

In "Allocating the Unearned Resources of the Universe" published on November 12, 2016, BM conceived the URI mechanism: everyone on the earth will issue the same amount of money, and all resources on the earth will be auctioned. Who wants to Whoever burns the majority of their shares wins the auction, in which case assets are allocated to the individual who values ​​them the most. If you change from burning to distributing the auction proceeds to others, you can create an economic mechanism with a fixed currency supply, and it can be bought and sold by people. Voluntary transactions transfer assets to those who use them most advantageously, ultimately increasing total global wealth in the process.

The inference in BM's UBI article is more dependent on the figure of US$1,000 per capita, but the difference brought about by this figure in different countries and regions is too large, so looking at it now, BM's logic deserves attention, but the conclusion should be more open.

The mechanism envisioned by BM in the URI article is very similar to the solution that CirclesUBI is currently needing - the injection of assets is required. However, based on the design and thinking of UBI.city, I think that assets should not only be earth resources, or physical online and offline transactions advocated by CirclesUBI founder Martin. In fact, they should be more widely inclusive, such as virtual financial assets, etc. For things with investment value and use value, it is up to UBI holders to choose whether they want to obtain such resources, and there should be more possibilities for obtaining resources besides burning or dividing infrared.

We are witnessing the death of language as words are misused in ways that contradict their meanings. Communication requires both sides of the discussion to agree on the meaning of words. We can all understand that speaking Spanish to a Russian is unlikely to result in effective communication. Both parties know that this message is not getting through, and they can act on it. But what happens if two people use the same word but assign different meanings to it? Usually, the result is unintentional miscommunication, but in the hands of politicians, the deliberate misuse and destruction of language is a weapon of mass deception.

Communication takes longer when people don't know what words mean. When people disagree about the meaning of a word, it can perfectly divert the larger discussion into a debate about what is "proper" definition. Not only do people lose the ability to communicate, they also lose the ability to think clearly. Words are the handle of thought, and if words are confused, so is thought. Corrupting language for political ends is like using atomic bombs for military ends. Collateral damage and radiation take decades to recover and render the lands you seek to conquer uninhabitable.

With that background, let's look at an example of this abuse of language.

secondary title

Universal

• Dictionary definition of Universal Earned Income (UEI)

Earned

• Historically, Google is usually good at providing a definition of a word. That said, the publishers of our dictionaries and encyclopedias are increasingly changing the "dictionary" meanings of words to suit political agendas. When they do, the real meaning doesn't actually change, but it brings ruin to the word in its ambiguity. At the very least, we have reason to expect people to use words consistently and without contradictions. So without further delay, anyone who knows English can understand what universal income means:

• Universal: The effect of what all people or things do in the world or in a particular group, applicable to all situations.

• Especially money received regularly, work or return on investment.

Income

• A reward due to an action or achievement.

A due (money) return for labor or services.

• Especially money received regularly, work or return on investment.

• How does the narrative in mainstream third-party presidential campaigns compare?

An equal number of UEIs will be provided to each American each month.

UEI ensures that all Americans have their basic needs met as members of the U.S. political and economic system.

UEI (Universal Earned Income) is of course universal and applies to everyone. Since the IRS expects nearly all income to be accounted for for tax purposes, UEI is income in a broad sense only. The IRS also recognizes the distinction between income and gifts. But what about the word "earn"? What acts, achievements, labor or services must be provided by the individual to earn this income? According to the description, nothing needs to be done. This is a "Universal" grant.

How much does the grant cost? Enough for "basic" needs. It's a reinterpretation of Universal Basic Income, using not-so-honest language to appeal to people who think they need to earn their income. The deceitful name appeals to both taxpayers and dole recipients. Few people like to think of themselves as "freelancers." It's much easier to accept other people's money if you already believe that you "earned" it for it. Nobody likes giving money away, but everyone thinks it's just to compensate the person who "earned" the money. The corruption of language is most successful when people are willing accomplices in their own deception.

I can't identify any difference between universal "earned" income and universal basic income other than literally. This fact is further supported by the website describing UEI:

Here they drop the word "earned" and claim that those who support UBI are supporting UEI. If these are really two separate concepts, it would be disingenuous to assume UBI support is evidence of UEI support. It would also be insincere to rename UBI to UEI if they really are the same concept.

I asked this presidential candidate about UBI and actively "corrected" its use of the term UEI. Although I consider this presidential candidate a friend, and I sincerely consider him a good friend, I think everyone must hold others accountable for the pollution of language, especially for political purposes. I hope his campaign makes a case for the term "earned" and how clearly UEI differs from the well-known concept of UBI, or changes their language to show that they really mean UBI.

secondary title