UBI – online resources


The idea of Universal Basic Income is re-emerging on the global political landscape as a response to a range of concerns including increasing disparity, automation, etc… at this time it is important for members of civil society to respond to the structure and principles that UBI should abide by in order for it to fulfill its potential for equitable redistribution and cultural change.

Below are some links to whet your whistle on the what’s, how’s and why’s of UBI.

This is a basic summary list of the key resources now online. The list is by no means exhaustive (there are thousands of published papers, articles and reports) but provides a good introduction to some of the key areas being investigated by specialists around the world. (Edit: New links provided by others following original posting can be found along with all links at the end of this article).



This list has been put together with the assistance of Nithya Iyer, fellow double agent at AgencyAgency in Melbourne, Australia. I am in the process of writing an article on Artists and the UBI: the creative case for a freed future and will be holding discussion groups and fora investigating the necessity for artists (ask me for a definition of who fits into this fabulously nebulous term, hint-hint – my definition is not market driven and hence very open!) to lead in the design and implementation of the future economy.



Our results are very clear: enacting a UBI and paying for it by increasing the federal debt would be expansionary, because it would increase aggregate demand. When the policy is first enacted, economic growth is higher than in the baseline as the economy converges to a larger size. Within eight years of enactment, growth returns to the same rate as in the baseline, with output at a permanently higher level.

Full Roosevelt report: http://rooseveltinstitute.org/modeling-macroeconomic-effects-ubi/
Report summary: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/30/16220134/universal-basic-income-roosevelt-institute-economic-growth

Further Left (run to paradise)

Entitlement to a substantial universal grant will simultaneously push up the wage rate for unattractive, unrewarding work (which no one is now forced to accept in order to survive) and bring down the average wage rate for attractive, intrinsically rewarding work (because fundamental needs are covered anyway, people can now accept a high-quality job paid far below the guaranteed income level). Consequently, the capitalist logic of profit will, much more than previously, foster technical innovation and organizational change that improve the quality of work and thereby reduce the drudgery required per unit of product.

If you extrapolate this trend forward, you reach a situation where all wage labor is gradually eliminated. Undesirable work is fully automated, as employers feel increasing pressure to automate because labor is no longer too cheap. Meanwhile, the wage for desirable work eventually falls to zero, because people are both willing to do it for free, and able to do so due to the existence of a basic income to supply their essential needs. As Gorz puts it in a later work, certain activities “may be partially repatriated into the sphere of autonomous activities and reduce the demand for these things to be provided by external services, whether public or commercial.

http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Capitalist_Road_to_Communism R. van der Veen and P van Parijs, ‘A capitalist road to communism’, Theory and Society, 15(5), 1986, p. 636

Centre (this is good for capitalism)

Countering “The New Zero”,  that UBI will cause inflation argument. Please excuse the horrendous narrator voice in the inflation-deflation video. The write of this article is also one convenor of the subreddit r/BasicIncome and has written copius articles on the subject for medium and other online spaces.

The money for a basic income guarantee would be already existing money circulated through the economic system. It would not be new money, just money shifted from one location to another. This means that the value of each dollar has not changed. The dollar itself has only changed hands.

It is also important to note the observation that even when money supply is vastly expanded, the effects on prices need not be extreme. For example, the Fed’s quantitative easing added over four trillion new dollars to the U.S. money supply, and the results were not enough inflation, as defined by the Fed.

View at Medium.com

Centrel-left (a social market economy perspective)

The UBI completely replaces today’s social insurance systems. At first glance, this may appear to be a dismantling of social rights and claims. On closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that such a judgement is based on a fallacy.

Using Germany as an example, the country’s current social insurance schemes are neither efficient, nor do they achieve their socio-political objectives with the required precision. Redistribution is a public good and therefore a (normative) political goal that should be financed by taxes. Insurance is a mathematical calculation. It would therefore be sufficient to ensure that insurance works efficiently and to concentrate on the efficient allocation and management of risks (and not to overload the capacities of insurance with redistribution issues). Fairness and goals of justice should be approached with specific instruments for redistribution – not with insurance. The negative income tax aspect of a UBI completely fulfils this basic requirement of the social market economy concept.

The UBI replaces the activating, controlling and thus paternalistic social policy of indirect aid with unconditional direct cash payments. However, this also explains why social bureaucracy and trade unions might oppose a UBI. They would lose influence and power in this new construction of the welfare state. The minimum wage would be replaced by a state-guaranteed minimum income, and the state would no longer have to worry about job creation or unemployment. Active public labour policies would become superfluous, which would save administrative costs.

Direct aid is more economically sensible and socially just than indirect actions, which are always associated with leakage in the form of bureaucracy and false incentives. Indirect interventions in the labour, education, health, insurance or housing markets are comparatively more expensive, imprecise and unjust.”


Australia (WTF, oh my it is so radical, probs not viable)

This comprehensive article overviews the argument from many angles and is imperative reading when discussing the issue especially in Australia.

While commentators often remark that UBI has support from both the left and the right, there is no single reform package based around a UBI that has such broad support. The current debate is more about vision and values than about concrete policy.




There are a million and one articles about neoliberal dysfunctions and the mechanisms of UBI. These are a few:

Yanis Varoufakis’ describes the moral case very clearly in this video. A very good retort against the concern of people being lost without work-identity supplied by the market or the state (end of video). Later, he articulates how he thinks it could be paid for (and justified economically: “the dividend concept” in this article:

Solid article
covering the idea basics and some financial modelling:

This rightwing pedigree makes many on the left suspicious of UBI, and former union head Tim Lyons speaks for many when he says he is “deeply unconvinced by the push for a universal basic income.

What the left fear, not without some justification, is that instead of UBI being used as a supplement to other forms of service provision, it would be used to replace them. Citizens would then be forced to use their UBI to buy health, education and pension services from private providers. This sort of rightwing UBI would simply be a transfer of public wealth to private businesses, a further marketisation of democratic society.

Of course, a UBI needn’t work that way, but such concerns mean the design and implementation of a scheme – the politics – are as important as the economics.

Another argument against incremental implementation was raised in discussion of trials of UBI, such as the one currently under way in Finland. Karl Widerquist, former co-chair of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), the world’s biggest advocacy group for a UBI, told the workshop that such trials were a “bad choice”.
He said the universal and unconditional aspects of a UBI are difficult to replicate at the level of a trial and that looking at how it works for a thousand people would be different to what would happen if everyone had it. He drew the comparison with the herd effects of immunisation, adding “you need everyone involved to gain the benefits and see the results”.


In Inventing The Future (Book),  Srinicek and Williams argue:

for UBI but link it to three other demands: collectively controlled automation, a reduction in the working week, and a diminution of the work ethic. Williams and Srnicek believe that without these other provisions, UBI could essentially act as an excuse to get rid of the welfare state.


Why unions should get behind UBI (a very important argument, only touched on in this book promotion interview with an ex union boss (USA):


For any of this to deliver on its promise, we have to want it to. We have to think systemically. We must recognize the social, economic, and spiritual dimensions of the polymorphous crises we currently face and commit to responding accordingly.

This will require embracing an idea that some may find counterintuitive: localization. We will not retreat back to the pre-globalization days, but we have to bring economics back to a more human and local level. We have to reinvigorate local communities. We have to stimulate and grow the informal economy upon which most of us rely in our daily lives: the caring and sharing that we automatically do with each other but which has no recognized value in the current economic paradigm because it doesn’t register as profit or loss.

When we talk about the possibility of environmentally responsible post-capitalism, this is the type of future we can envision. It won’t be anything like we have seen before. Falling back on dogmas like socialism or communism as our only off-the-shelf alternatives is entirely too reductive for our purposes, and undersells our potential as ingeniously inventive creatures. The digital renaissance is already giving some shape to the future. Our job is to help midwife it into full existence, before some less equitable, less safe alternative snatches it away from us. Our survival could very well depend on it.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40482312/can-basic-income-plus-the-blockchain-build-a-new-economic-system. Circles is a strong initiative, as is Mannacoin.

Futurist, Vinay Gupta
on how blockchain tech can be used to test the effectiveness of UBI:  https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoUBI/comments/3suiid/vinay_gupta_on_ethereum_for_basic_income_best/

Entrepeneur, Federico Pistono
on UBI plus a push for crypto as distributor and a strong lean towards ensuring some sort of land reform goes with it, ie. locking rental increases so they don’t just rise with the amount people are receiving in their digi wallet monthly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2aBKnr3Ep4


The feminist argument for UBI is as vocal as those against it. This is not my field but it is important see how the issue can divide, especially on the left (like most progressive issues).

Here is the issue in a nutsack, in an article by Judith Shulevitz from the NY Times:

I’d argue that this view of motherhood gets it exactly backward. Actually, it’s society that’s getting a free ride on women’s unrewarded contributions to the perpetuation of the human race. As Marx might have said had he deemed women’s work worth including in his labor theory of value (he didn’t), “reproductive labor” (as feminists call the creation and upkeep of families and homes) is the basis of the accumulation of human capital. I say it’s time for something like reparations. It’s an odd kind of reparations, you may object, that goes to fathers as well as mothers, the unattached as well as those with family responsibilities. But entertain this radical proposition: The universal basic income is a necessary condition for a just society, for it recognizes the fact that most of us — men, women, parents and nonparents — do a great deal of unpaid work to sustain the general well-being. If we’re not raising children, then we may be going to school, or volunteering around the neighborhood.  Politically, the U.B.I. looks a lot more plausible than a subsidy aimed only at mothers, because, as Social Security and Medicare make clear, policies have more staying power when perceived as general entitlements rather than free cash for free riders. Critics on the right would dismiss a mothers’ annuity as a handout to welfare queens. Critics on the left might see it as enshrining traditional gender norms. A universal basic income would sidestep both of these objections. I do not want to create the impression that feminists dominate this debate. On the contrary: They’re an overlooked part of a much larger conversation that has been going on for centuries.

A small resource of articles and discussion covering UBI and feminism from Basic Income Earth Network, the portal for all advocates of UBI.


And finally, I found this fab comment on an article from Overland Journal:Picture1.png

I am aware that most of my links are from people outside Australia but this is not concern to me. UBI, like all other humanitarian policies, needs to be gifted to all. By all I hold to a cosmopolitical view of a borderless world. If capital can flow freely through globalised trade so should people be given inalienable rights to be citizens of the cosmos wherever they may physically be presiding at any given time. I may spend most of my time in Australia and having been birthed here I hold a passport, but I do not feel obliged to politicize for a nation built on stolen land AND that imprisons others who want to enter it. In my opinion Universal Basic Income must be universal – that means everywhere, and for everyone.

Here is a link to a performance lecture I presented on this and intersecting issues. From November 2017: https://apublicspacecraft.com/2018/01/16/humans-are-horses/



ALL LINKS. CONTINUOUSLY BEING UPDATED.If you would like to add a link to this list please place in a comment or  email to: apublicspacecraft@gmail.com







Greens announce UBI… finally

“With the radical way that the nature of work is changing, along with increasing inequality, our current social security system is outdated. It can’t properly support those experiencing underemployment, insecure work and uncertain hours. A modern, flexible and responsive safety net would increase their resilience and enable them to make a greater contribution to our community and economy. That’s why we need a Universal Basic Income. We need a UBI that ensures everyone has access to an adequate level of income, as well as access to universal social services, health, education and housing. A UBI is a bold move towards equality. It epitomises a government which looks after its citizens, in contrast to the old parties, who say “look out for yourselves”. It’s about an increased role for government in our rapidly changing world.” Richard Di Natale, April 4, 2018.  https://greens.org.au/npc

Finally, a major party is putting Universal Basic Income on the agenda. This is future world policy people. Get behind it, help shape the moral need for it and its method of distribution before it is diluted and corrupted by the other major parties, financial institutions and neo-liberal hedge-money elites.

The Pirate Party put forward a UBI at the last election. It is about time the Greens got on board. The difference in how these two parties would see UBI distributed is actually quite divergent (libertarian vs government-led). However, their reasoning for wanting to implement this scheme is similar – reducing inequality, and maximizing social reformation, and the good life. Ultimately we don’t want the scheme developed or implemented by any other party – it will not be universal or unconditional, it will not promote freed time, it will not reduce inequality! We need to get on the front foot and speak to its need, and why it is important to future culture.

Many groups will have their say on this issue, which makes it critical for us to make our voices heard. What is equitable? How can we ensure this does not end up another profit-driven system? Or be dismissed as another soft bleeding heart policy? How do we get to a life-centric society through economic redistribution via Universal Basic Income? How will block-chain technology aide in its design and distribution? How will it affect your life and practice?

Of all the modern types of human, Artists should be leading this conversation. Creative, critical, caring, collaborative, inspired, imaginative, empowered people, working on their own and together to transform paradigms and create new worlds – this is what a Universal Basic Income should inspire in populations. It is what artists do, and often without money, or through a minimal or less then minimal wage: the dole, a scholarship, a grant, a commission, a bar job. We work, we keep busy, we are professional, we are amateur, we are innovators. We are not neo-liberal subjects. We are agents of cultural change and the public imaginary, and we can help people transition from a world of work-slavery to spaces of free creativity, criticality, and community development.

What do you think?
How can you help shape and drive the case for UBI?

I am currently co-writing an article and organizing discussion groups addressing artists and Universal Basic Income (also called Unconditional Basic Dividend). If you would like to get involved or hear more please get in touch with me via email: apublicspacecraft@gmail.com with the subject: Artists for UBI!

Re-gendering Blade Runner 2049

as I watch it… (spoiler alert!)…


“You newer models are happy scraping the shit… Because you’ve never seen a miracle.” Word.

When watching Blade Runner 2049 do yourself a favour and replace all male characters for female.
Yes, start Ryanna Gossling (Kay) battling with Sappho Morton, after she defeats that brutish replicant see Ryanna checking in with her line manager, Lt Josh , who will be given 30 seconds of dialogue, maybe a little more later.
Ryanna finds a football or some other cliched representation of a man, maybe a knife, a dildo, left on the soil next to a tree.

Keep this going for the rest of the film. When you think, ‘but women wouldn’t do’… check your head, these fuckers are replicants, bio-engineered by some genius rich industrialist mofa, they can do most anything.

Whenever you hear an authoritarian voice remember she is spoken by a woman.

And yes, when you hear a ‘japanese like’ advertising voice it will be a man’s. Otherwise, plooose stop the cliche!

Keep it up, that verbally aggressive overweight person on the stairwell, a man. The tattooed menacer as Ryanna walks into her home, a woman, staring Ryanna down, menacingly, with menace.

… oh my I can’t believe they have a euro woman’s voice as his ‘hal’. Ok. the virtual wife is now a virtual euro husband, and they are both listening to nina simone, fuck frank sinatra.

Now that Robot husband is in active wear let him bliss out in his man dress and bun, as Ryanna strokes him and says: “honey, you can go anywhere in the world”.


Back to the atmos.
We are obviously in asiatopa europa usaopa. In this world the ambient advertisers are always seductive men, large faces or bums, legs on screens attracting us into the red ghost light of always night. Sorry I poetically digress. RAINS.

Look how open (supple) the virtual male robot is when Ryanna touches his face in the night: “i am so happy with you” robot says. Man he is so submissive. Wait he needs to pause as Ryanna’s line manager has left a voice message. OK, turn off the robot lover. Fade to naught.

Now, remember when Ryanna found a dildo football on the soil and made us all think there was ALSO a man buried in the dirt in the farm where the first replicant was killed? Well, I think we have a match! There was a man in there after all, oh lucky there was such a clear symbol of man there on the dirt waiting for Ryanna to find it. Whoops!, he died in childbirth, uh oh is our flip folding?

Aah good, line manager helps us out by explaining to us it is not possible that she is pregnant because she is a replicant ! Good, so it is possible that she is a he!
Ok, back to the conceit.

The tough talking line manager is getting scrupulous with Ryanna (Kay),

Josh: “kill the baby”,
Kay: “it has a soul”
Josh: “deal with it. you’ve done well enough without one”

When you get to the very-yellow rip off of the-boulevard-of broken-dreams-style guide, remember this is two women talking to each other. Then the seductive voice comes over and we get our first sexy leg pose, yummy man’s knees, saying “pleasure models” whilst sipping tea.

As the next moment of history is told, womensplaining is clear and the archivist talks of her dad crying over lost baby pictures. Oh, poor dad.

I am going to take a break now and keep watching with all these reversals in mind and get back to this tap tap later in the film…

… oh good, break in the break… we have now met the super powered architect of what seems to be the new corporation… and look, now she is about to slice open a naked man, in a highly sexual voice, and don’t forget to kiss him after your pierce his womb, aah there you go, make a nice slice into that very abused naked man, now slumping to an early death on the ground…

aah look a giant naked ballerino, in full tights dancing in the middle of the road, so titilating, such poise!… ah look prostitutes, men dressed skimpily, approaching Ryanna, looking to seduce information out of our heroine: “want to buy a man a cigarette?”

Ok. I think her line manager should stay being a woman. Better rapport between the two that way.

OMG 55.52… they have swapped the genders! oh, only for a moment, and it was just an overlay of the virtual husband and the replicant here… sorry a furphy.

Still watching? Ryanna’s just put her hand in a beehive and her line manager has just been killed by the mean other psycho boss guy.

Ok. I must say I gave up my attempt to rewrite the whole film via reversing gender roles. But I did watch it that way and it was quite a stimulating experience.

My version in summary:
It was a much better moment when Ryanna held the psycho boss guy down under the water to his death; and when the prostitute dude and the robot dude became one to become her ultimate fantasy fuck it felt ok.

Even though Director Villeneuve stated this film is NOT about the future, it is about now, and now women are not treated very well, he still made decisions. He and the other guy Riddles and the other guys that made the film. They could have chosen to reverse the leads, to make the saviour a woman, and not the prize, (ultimately the daughter of the other hero), they can make those choices now, as well as in the future.

Reality is what make together, even more so when it comes to fantasy, to hollywood, to footballdildos, to what might be. Go on, give it a go. Reverse the roles, watch it again with this in mind. It is actually a pretty good movie, especially when I was told it was all a metaphor for the fear men have over the one thing they cannot do – create life.

Humans Are Horses

I Corpi Diversi (The Diverse Bodies). Private Home. 2017.

Performance lecture delivered by ‘Io”, on November 6th 2017 in Melbourne, Australia. Originally heard by two audiences simultaneously; one group meandering through the Darebin parklands, via headphones, and the other inside a house overlooking the Darebin creek, live with the artist.

IMG_7522Above: Io prepares for the lecture after transforming from art object.

Below: Io delivers lecture watched on by a live audience who are being watched by a drone.reading

Artists don’t have to be

The two audiences came together at the end of the lecture, to witness a ceremony at the creek.


During the lecture a masculine self of the artist appeared mid way, entering the room from the balcony, dressed in full military regalia. Played by a female artist friend, the masculine self exited through the front door after ambling over and around the audience.
In the video installation room, the masculine figure had been half disrobed from a version of himself played in a previous artwork (“EU”). On another video screen a repetitious rendition of a choreographed flag desecration danced in heels could be seen. This choreography is an interpretation of an action performed on the US, French and British flags during the Pan Arabic Games in 1993, as ordered by Colonel Gaddafi. The connection of Libya and the geo-political affect of Gaddafi’s death to this body of work will be written at another time.


The creek ceremony saw the artist entering the Darebin creek, still dressed as “Io”, their feminine self. Attaching to a piece of rope the artist moved upstream and as they did so a drenched, double flagged corpse of the masculine military figure was pulled out of the water. It collapsed again as the artist released tension and slowly made their way up the embankment to a warm bath of water.