Where Equilibrium Comes From
The idea of an Equilibrium Economy emerges from centuries of observing cycles of boom and bust, inflation and collapse. Traditional economies based on gold or silver had stability, but little flexibility. Modern fiat economies have flexibility, but at the cost of chronic instability — endless inflation, debt spirals, and speculative bubbles.
The equilibrium system draws on both lessons. It takes the discipline of scarcity from commodity money (you can’t just print gold), but marries it to the flexibility of fiat (the ability to adjust supply when real needs demand it). By linking money creation directly to population growth and real productivity, equilibrium preserves value without choking development.
The core principle: money should mirror reality, not distort it.
If production rises, the money supply rises.
If population grows, the money supply grows.
If nothing changes, money holds steady, and its value gently increases as technology makes production more efficient.
This is the essence of its deflationary capacity. Instead of inflation eating away at wages and savings, gentle deflation strengthens the currency over time. A loaf of bread doesn’t double in price every generation; it may actually become cheaper as farming and logistics improve. Saving becomes rewarding. Debt shrinks in importance. The treadmill slows down.
---
The Role of EBI in the Equilibrium System
Within this structure sits the Equilibrium Basic Income (EBI) — the human cornerstone of the model.
Unlike universal basic income (UBI), which hands the same amount to every person regardless of need, EBI recognizes the realities of the labour market:
Employment is a lottery. There are always fewer jobs than job-seekers, by design.
The elderly and disabled cannot compete on the same footing.
The wealthy and securely employed do not need extra support.
EBI is therefore selective, but not punitive. It flows automatically to:
The unemployed, so they are not punished for being excluded from the labour lottery.
The elderly, whose working years are past, but whose dignity must be preserved.
The disabled, who deserve a stronger floor of security.
By excluding the already wealthy and employed, EBI concentrates resources where they matter most — without bureaucracy, stigma, or perverse incentives.
---
How EBI Works in Practice
Funding comes from the same pillars that stabilize the equilibrium system:
Citizen Dividends (from 51% public ownership in utilities and resources).
Land and resource rents (capturing unearned gains for the public purse).
Modest consumption levies, excluding essentials.
Scale is modest, because money is strong. EBI does not chase inflation; it anchors dignity.
Labour relations shift. Employers cannot weaponize unemployment to drive wages down. A job must be attractive enough to compete with the security of EBI.
Social effects ripple outward. Families are free to live on one income if they choose. Children grow up in households where survival is not a daily fight. Work becomes a pursuit of contribution, not desperation.
---
EBI as a Cultural Reset
EBI is not charity. It is not welfare. It is the recognition that in a deflationary, stable economy, everyone must share in the gains of stability.
Just as public stakes in utilities ensure cheap water and power for all, EBI ensures a human baseline:
Nobody falls into destitution.
Nobody is forced to work for starvation wages.
Dignity is guaranteed, not begged for.
---
If Not Called “Equilibrium Economy”
If another name were chosen, it would need to capture the balance, the deflationary strength, and the dignity at its heart. Some alternatives:
The Balance Economy – simple, plain, human.
The Dignity Economy – centres the human purpose.
The Strong Money System – highlights the monetary foundation.
The Steady-State Economy – used in ecological economics, though more about zero-growth.
The Foundation Economy – stresses stability and essential services.
The Anchor Economy – suggests security, stability, and grounding.
Of these, Equilibrium Economy is the strongest because it frames the project not as utopia or austerity, but as balance: between money and value, between private wealth and public stake, between work and dignity.
***
Good question — this is a core debate around Universal Basic Income (UBI). The reason UBIs are usually designed to be universal (given to everyone, regardless of income or work status) rather than targeted only at unemployed or poor people comes down to several social, political, and economic factors:
---
1. Simplicity and Administration
A universal payment avoids complex means-testing (checking who qualifies based on income, wealth, job status, etc.).
Means-testing creates big bureaucracies, higher admin costs, and risks of mistakes, fraud, or people slipping through the cracks.
A flat payment to everyone is efficient, automatic, and less intrusive.
---
2. Stigma-Free
Welfare or unemployment benefits often carry stigma — recipients may be seen as “lazy” or “failures.”
A universal payment is neutral: everyone gets it, so there’s no shame or labeling.
This helps social cohesion and normalizes the idea that everyone has a right to a basic floor of security.
---
3. Incentives and Work
If only the unemployed get payments, people may avoid work (or underreport income) to qualify.
A universal payment avoids the “welfare trap” — where working more means losing benefits.
With UBI, you can take a job, start a business, or work part-time without losing your safety net.
---
4. Political Durability
Programs targeted only at the poor are politically fragile — they can be cut when the majority doesn’t benefit.
A universal payment builds broader support across classes, making it harder for governments to dismantle.
It’s similar to how universal healthcare or pensions are more politically resilient than targeted welfare.
---
5. Acknowledges Everyone’s Contribution
UBI recognizes that all members of society contribute — not just through formal work, but also unpaid care, volunteering, or creative pursuits.
By giving it to everyone, it affirms a sense of shared citizenship rather than dividing between “deserving” and “undeserving” groups.
---
6. Economic Stability
Universality ensures a consistent flow of money into the economy, boosting demand.
Even wealthy recipients will circulate some of their UBI back through spending or investing.
Targeted payments can miss parts of the population that need liquidity but don’t qualify.
---
👉 In short: UBI is designed to be universal to avoid bureaucracy, stigma, and perverse incentives, while building political support and reinforcing the idea of shared rights.
***
Perfect — if you’re going to discuss UBI, you’ll want the criticisms of universality too. Here are the main ones that often come up:
---
1. “Why give money to the rich?”
Critics argue it’s wasteful to give basic income to millionaires who don’t need it.
A targeted system (only for poor/unemployed) seems more “fair” on the surface.
They say universality blunts the redistributive effect, since the wealthy still get a payout.
---
2. Cost and Tax Burden
Because it’s given to everyone, the gross cost of UBI is massive compared to a targeted safety net.
Critics worry that either taxes would have to rise steeply, or other services (healthcare, education, infrastructure) would be cut.
This is one of the strongest criticisms: universality looks simple, but the funding can be politically explosive.
---
3. Inefficiency Compared to Targeted Aid
Some argue that limited public resources should be focused on those most in need (the unemployed, disabled, working poor).
Universal payments “spread too thin” and might mean smaller benefits overall, not enough to lift anyone out of poverty.
---
4. Risk of Inflation
Critics say pumping money into everyone’s hands might push up prices (especially in housing and essentials), eroding the benefit.
If wealthy people get it too, they might just bid up assets instead of circulating it back into the economy.
---
5. Work Disincentives
Although supporters argue UBI avoids welfare traps, critics say unconditional money could reduce motivation to work for some.
Even if universality helps avoid bureaucracy, opponents fear a culture shift toward dependency if everyone expects a “free check.”
---
6. Political Feasibility
Universality may sound elegant, but governments may find it impossible to implement without huge resistance from taxpayers, businesses, or fiscal conservatives.
It risks being seen as utopian, which could discredit the whole idea compared to more modest, targeted reforms.
---
7. Equity Across Regions
In a universal scheme, everyone gets the same amount — but cost of living varies drastically between rural vs. urban areas.
Critics argue this could be unfair: someone in a city might still struggle, while someone rural might have a surplus.
---
👉 So the heart of the criticism is this:
Universality makes UBI simple and stigma-free, but also massively expensive, potentially inefficient, and politically hard to sustain.
***
I see exactly where you’re coming from — what you’re describing isn’t really UBI (universal basic income) at all, but a targeted guaranteed income system. Instead of “everyone gets the same,” your model is:
✅ Support for the unemployed who can’t find work (because jobs are limited and it’s not their fault).
✅ Extra support (“a leg up”) for people with disabilities and the elderly.
❌ No payments for the wealthy or those already earning enough through employment.
That’s closer to what some economists call:
Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) – a floor below which no one falls.
Social Dividend – a payment only for those who aren’t benefiting from the market system.
Or even Targeted Basic Income (TBI) – not universal, but still unconditional once you qualify.
---
Why you’d prefer this system
1. Fairness – It feels wrong to hand money to people who don’t need it.
2. Budget efficiency – By excluding the wealthy/employed, more resources can be focused on those genuinely struggling.
3. Acknowledges structural unemployment – You’re recognizing that “the unemployed” aren’t all lazy, but a tool in the system (used to discipline wages and keep inflation low).
4. Less inflationary risk – If the dollar is stronger under a deflationary or low-inflation economy, you don’t need to print as much money to keep people afloat.
---
What to call it instead of UBI - these are just examples
Some fitting names could be:
Guaranteed Dignity Payment (GDP) – focuses on human dignity.
National Livelihood Guarantee (NLG) – emphasizes that no one falls through the cracks.
Conditional Basic Support (CBS) – not universal, but guaranteed if you qualify.
Targeted Basic Income (TBI) – the most literal.
Or even something blunt like Fair Income Guarantee (FIG).
---
The key distinction
UBI = Universal (everyone, rich or poor, working or not).
Your system = Selective (only those who genuinely need it, without stigma, and acknowledging the structural limits of work).
No comments:
Post a Comment