Category Archives: Basic Income Guarantee

It is quite a tense atmosphere inside the White House, as President Donald Trump gears up to spend his last few days of presidency, amid the blow of his historical second impeachment. A report published by CNN reveals insider news that Trump is spending most of his time buried in worries of legal and financial repercussions he might face once his presidency ends.

As he considers getting a Presidential pardon for himself, he continues to be alienated by his aides and fellow Republicans and now according to CNN, he has made clear to aides in separate conversations that mere mention of President Richard Nixon, the last president to resign, was banned.

Richard Nixon, who was the last US President in history to resign from office, is still criticized by Americans for his outrageous policies. In the past few weeks, especially since Trumps speech incited the violent Capitol attack, Trump has drawn endless comparisons with the former president.

Recently, talks were also rife about whether Trump deserves a Presidential pardon just like Nixon was pardoned by his successor Ford. A casual conversation between Trump and his officials about the possibility of his resignation, just like Nixon, reportedly irked Trump. It led to an expletive-laden outburst towards an adviser. Ultimately, Trump barred everyone in his office to utter the name of Nixon again.

As this news went viral, the Internet decided to bring out their best comparisons between President Trump and Nixon.Director James Gunn, a vociferous critic of POTUS remarked that "Trump is living in a dreamworld where he thinks a comparison to Nixon is a negative thing for him. Nixon was a crook, but he wasn't an idiot, didn't pretend to be a billionaire, wasn't siphoning money for own personal gain, & he actually showed up to work sometimes." Journalist Brian J Karem commented, "I have no problem asking Trump about Richard Nixon. I just don't think I'll get the opportunity. Say what you will about Nixon - He never actually got impeached. Trump managed to pull that off twice."

Political commentator John Fugelsang kept it simple. "Trump is like a less attractiveless healthyless honestless productiveless moralless popularNixon"

Nixon's resigning before impeachment is being cited again and again. One user tweeted, "Richard Nixon will no longer be regarded as the worst & most crooked President in History!! That honor now clearly goes to #DonaldTrump!! Plus, Nixon listened to decent Republicans like Barry Goldwater and resigned before he was formally Impeached!!"

"Apparently trump doesn't like being compared to Nixon. Well sir, eat shit. You're 10x worse than Nixon ever was, and you will go down in American history as a festering boil upon our nation. I wish you the absolute worst in life donnie, and I hope you rot in prison you traitor." said a fuming Internet user.

Trump is living in a dreamworld where he thinks a comparison to Nixon is a negative thing for him. Nixon was a crook, but he wasn't an idiot, he didn't pretend to be a billionaire, he wasn't siphoning money for his own personal gain, & he actually showed up to work sometimes. https://t.co/A9XADafLqV

I have no problem asking Trump about Richard Nixon. I just don't think I'll get the opportunity.Say what you will about Nixon - He never actually got impeached. Trump managed to pull that off twice. https://t.co/kiOFNb5S36

Richard Nixon will no longer be regarded as the worst & most crooked President in History!! That honor now clearly goes to #DonaldTrump!! Plus, Nixon listened to decent Republicans like Barry Goldwater and resigned before he was formally Impeached!!

Apparently trump doesn't like being compared to Nixon. Well sir, eat shit. You're 10x worse than Nixon ever was, and you will go down in American history as a festering boil upon our nation.

I wish you the absolute worst in life donnie, and I hope you rot in prison you traitor. https://t.co/T4M3Lodafz

Another said: "Nixon had enough shame to resign. The comparison to Trump should be is Trump 10x worse or 100x worse or... " Another user reminded that Nixon proposed basic income guarantee for families while Trump did nothing of sorts. "Nixon proposed a basic income guarantee for families that passed the House twice. Trump has never said anything about a basic income guarantee, instead separated families, and got impeached twice.That's a few key differences between the two of them."

Nixon had enough shame to resign. The comparison to Trump should be is Trump 10x worse or 100x worse or...

Nixon proposed a basic income guarantee for families that passed the House twice.

Trump has never said anything about a basic income guarantee, instead separated families, and got impeached twice.

That's a few key differences between the two of them.https://t.co/yCKp5HLGn3

Journalist Jake Tapper joined in."To be fair the comparisons arent quite accurate: 1) Nixon was never actually impeached; Trump was impeached twice 2) Nixon was re-elected 3) Nixons mood swings were at least partly because he was drinking Im sorry I meant to be fair to Nixon". Lawyer Jill Wine-Banks tweeted, "Biden shld not pardon Trump: 1. he has suffered no consequences for years of wrongdoing all his life except financial 2. he is not remorseful 3. his crimes are more pervasive & dangerous than Nixon's Unless he pleads guilty to Senate, is barred forever from public office again.."

To be fair the comparisons arent quite accurate:

1) Nixon was never actually impeached; Trump was impeached twice 2) Nixon was re-elected 3) Nixons mood swings were at least partly because he was drinking

Im sorry I meant to be fair to Nixon https://t.co/T0QCLvmmyh

Biden shld not pardon Trump:1. he has suffered no consequences for years of wrongdoing all his life except financial2. he is not remorseful3. his crimes are more pervasive & dangerous than Nixon'sUnless he pleads guilty to Senate, is barred forever from public office again.. https://t.co/8PRri8PUr3

Though everyone is considering Trump as worse, one user posted a 'reminder' that Nixon was responsible for murdering many people."Richard nixon murdered a lot of people and absolutely none of you need to praise him 'in comparison to Trump' thanks"

richard nixon murdered a lot of people and absolutely none of you need to praise him 'in comparison to Trump' thanks

These remarks were made by the Internet and individual organizations, MEAWW does not support these claims being made on the Internet.

Original post:

Donald Trump and Richard Nixon: 10 comparisons the Internet made to show POTUS is '10X worse' - MEAWW

The concept of a universal basic income has already been suggested for arts workers hit by the pandemic, but what if there was a constant security and safety net for all, a payment always delivered to all citizens with no strings attached?

The idea was first floated by Thomas More in Utopia in 1516, is now being advocated by Pope Francis and President Michael D Higgins and is being considered by governments across the world. The basic income guarantee is frequently referred to as universal basic income (UBI).

UBI is a periodic payment paid at regular intervals as a cash payment without conditions, allowing those who receive it to decide what to spend it on. It is paid individually without a means test and is unconditional without a requirement to work or demonstrate a willingness to work.

In Ireland, the Green Party fought for a trial run for UBI to be included in the Programme for Government, and there is to be one at some stage over the next five years.

Among its most ardent supporters is Green Party Dublin Central TD Neasa Hourigan, co-author of the partys policy. The Green Party proposes a system of UBI in Ireland for all citizens in 2024, pending a successful trial. She envisages that the trial in Ireland will take between 18 and 20 months to plan and that the trial itself would run for two to three years.

A basic provision of economic resources would address poverty and economic inequality even though it doesnt promise to eradicate either, Hourigan says. She says that in Ireland we already recognise payments like these child benefit and state pension but UBI would close the gap between the two.

I am particularly wedded to UBI because it would have the greatest uplift for people on the margins of existing social welfare bands. The lowest income families should already be within the support network but those in part-time employment often find themselves just outside State help. UBI would address that and be particularly important for women and those who care.

The Greens are not alone in supporting UBI. It also has advocates in Fianna Fil such as Willie ODea, while outside government the Social Democrats have also expressed interest. The Department of Social Protection has said that the Low Pay Commission will examine UBI in due course.

It has been tested elsewhere. The longest trial run for UBI in the world is in Alaska. Since 1982, the state has been giving every woman, man, and child between $1,000 to $2,000 per year. A 2016 study by the University of Alaska found it reduced poverty up to 20 per cent.

In Finland, a two-year UBI study in 2017 and 2018 saw 2,000 unemployed Finns receive the payments of 560, with no obligation to seek a job and no reduction in payment if they accepted one. Participants reported greater feelings of autonomy, financial security, and confidence in the future, although it did not make them any more likely to find work.

[UBI is] a big idea but a transformative idea, in the way bringing in an old-age pension would have been seen as radical more than 100 years ago, says Bobby Lambert, joint co-ordinator of Basic Income Ireland, a campaign group for UBI in Ireland.

Lambert would rather the Irish trial did not focus on a group like the unemployed and rather a more general group of people, preferably a geographical area. To pay every resident in Ireland the basic income would cost an estimated 6.5 billion per annum.

Some taxes suggested to raise for money for UBI in the Green Party policy include pension funds, site value tax, speculative transaction tax and stamp duty for property trades that are not the principal private residence.

UBI would be given to each recipient from birth or point of residency, from cradle to grave, with the amount given to those under 26 years of age varied depending on wages in a similar way to how social welfare exists today with a set rate given to all adults over 26. Children under 18-years-old would receive 32.31 per week, according to the Green Party plan, with 112.70 for 18 to 21-year-olds, 157.80 for 21 to 25-year-olds and 203 for adults over 26 years old.

UBI is not without its critics. Laura Bambrick, the head of social policy and employment affairs at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, finds the idea of replacing existing welfare safety nets concerning. The money needed to pay adequate UBI, she says, would be better spent on reforming social protection systems and building better quality public services.

Our welfare system is complex precisely because the root causes of poverty are complex, Bambrick says. A one-size-fits-all payment will hurt those with the greatest risk of poverty.

She believes that no UBI payment would work as well as an average European welfare system for the most vulnerable people. And she contends that providing welfare top-ups on top of UBI, as advocated by some proponents of this system, would end up being far too costly. [It] would make for a uniquely Irish UBI, and I look forward to seeing their maths. Hourigan says that the difference between the current welfare rates and UBI will be made up by further State payments.

Welfare and efficient use of resources also concerns Ian Goldin, Professor of Globalisation and Development at Oxford University, who has spoken against UBI in the past.

He says that if you gave everyone half the minimum wage in Ireland, it would be bigger than the budget of all social welfare. He points out that UBI is favoured by tech billionaires and right-wing libertarians as well as left-wing progressives, and it may be used by the rich to normalise the automation of employment and abolish existing welfare supports.

Its giving everyone a low amount of money and we will give unemployed people less than they need and unnecessarily so. That is not the answer to either poverty inequality or the future of work.

Goldin also takes issue at the universality of UBI, saying it is a waste of needed funds to give the income to the wealthy. He says that societal safety nets and raising the wage of low-paid and vulnerable workers through the current system would be a more worthy use of resources.

The other issue frequently brought up by critics of UBI is the danger that an unconditional payment would disincentivise work, even though the trials done so far suggest that payments have little effect on employment.

Danny McCoy,chief executive of the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (Ibec), says UBI would undermine our current active labour market policies which would result in labour supply challenges and could diminish overall labour cost competitiveness in the economy.

He says that Ibec remains open to debate on the merits of UBI and research that indicates it could be positive for entrepreneurship. On that point, Lambert highlights a UBI project in Namibia, which found it helped local business as they had the financial security to work on business ideas.

Hourigan says that Covid-19 has changed the discussion and been valuable to the UBI debate. There has always been a real resistance to the idea that our current tax system and economic models could support such a payment. The Covid-19 crisis has refocused the minds of many towards the well-being of communities.

UBI is not going to solve the housing crisis, says Lambert. But it is part of a general investment for a better and fairer society.

Read the rest here:

Basic income for all: Has the Covid crisis given us a new economic model? - The Irish Times

Christine Jardine, a Scottish politician who represents Edinburgh in the UK parliament, was not a fan of universal basic income before the pandemic hit.

It was regarded in some quarters as a kind of socialist idea, said Jardine, a member of the centrist Liberal Democrats party.

But not long after the government shut schools, shops, restaurants and pubs in March with little warning, she started to reconsider her position.

Covid-19 has been [a] game changer, Jardine said. It has meant that weve seen the suggestion of a universal basic income in a completely different light. In her view, the idea sending cash regularly to all residents, no strings attached now looks more pragmatic than outlandish.

She isnt the only one to change her mind. As the economic crisis sparked by the coronavirus drags on, support in Europe is growing for progressive policies once seen as pipe dreams of the political left.

Group of economists calls for stimulus checks until economy recovers

In Germany, millions of people applied to join a study of universal basic income that will provide participants with 1,200 ($1,423) a month, while in the United Kingdom, more than 100 lawmakers including Jardine are pushing the government to start similar trials.

Austria, meanwhile, has launched a first-of-its-kind pilot program that will guarantee paying jobs to residents struggling with sustained unemployment in Marienthal, a long-suffering former industrial town about 40 miles southwest of Vienna.

Whether the spike in popularity and research will translate into a wave of action is an open question. But some, like Jardine, see reason for optimism.

Throughout history, times of crisis have produced large changes in the role government plays in our lives. Out of the Great Depression came former President Franklin Delano Roosevelts plan to distribute social security checks in the United States, for example, while the foundations of universal health care in Britain were laid during World War II.

Experts see the coronavirus pandemic as a world-changing event that could result in a similar tectonic shift.

Big political changes generally do follow big upheaval events, said Daniel Nettle, a behavioral scientist at Newcastle University.

Universal basic income, in its purest form, means giving money to everyone, regardless of how much they earn, so they can have greater freedom to move between jobs, train for new positions, provide care or engage in creative pursuits. Interest in the concept has risen in recent years, driven by concerns that automation and the climate crisis would lead to a mass displacement of workers.

Job insecurity caused by the pandemic, however, appears to have generated new levels of support for the policy. One study conducted by Oxford University in March found that 71% of Europeans now favor the introduction of a universal basic income.

For an idea that has often been dismissed as wildly unrealistic and utopian, this is a remarkable figure, researchers Timothy Garton Ash and Antonia Zimmermann wrote in their report.

It probably helps that the pandemic has helped normalize cash transfers from the government, said Nettle, who has also conducted his own polling. According to data compiled by economists at UBS, nearly 39 million people in the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain and Italy were being paid by governments to work part time, or not at all, as of early May.

Though the numbers have come down, millions are still receiving this kind of support, and a fresh wave of restrictions in Europe has triggered an extension of benefits. The United Kingdom, for example, has extended its furlough program which pays as much as 80% of lost wages, up to 2,500 ($3,321) a month through March.

The rapid blow to the economy dealt by the pandemic has also left policymakers scrambling for quick solutions, said Yannick Vanderborght, a professor at Universit Saint-Louis in Brussels, who specializes in universal basic income. The broad distribution of aid therefore has greater appeal, since it can theoretically be rolled out faster than more targeted measures.

The problem is we need urgent economic support for large groups of workers, Vanderborght said.

As enthusiasm grows for such policies, researchers are taking new steps to study their effectiveness.

The trial of universal basic income in Germany run by the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin (DIW) in partnership with the nonprofit Mein Grundeinkommen is now sorting through millions of applicants. Financed by roughly 150,000 private donors, experimenters aim to begin distributing money to 120 individuals starting in spring 2021.

The study will last for three years. It will also track 1,380 people who do not receive the extra cash as a point of comparison.

Participants will be asked to complete regular questionnaires during the study. Questions will range from how many hours theyre working to inquiries about mental wellbeing, values and trust in institutions, according to Jrgen Schupp, a senior DIW research fellow who is managing the project. Those who receive 1,200 each month will be asked to disclose how theyre using the money.

Unlike an experiment conducted in Finland between 2017 and 2018, which targeted people who were unemployed, the German project is looking to distribute cash to a representative sample of the population regardless of employment status.

Theres no guarantee, of course, that the study will show that universal basic income has broad benefits, even though its generated significant attention from supporters of the concept.

We want to convert this engagement into basic scientific knowledge, Schupp said.

The job guarantee pilot in Austria, meanwhile, kicked off in October. It will also last for three years.

The program, which is funded by a regional division of Austrias public employment service, aims to provide paid, long-term jobs to roughly 150 residents of Marienthal the subject of a seminal study on the effects of long-term unemployment in the 1930s who have been unemployed for at least a year. Those who opt in will enroll in a two-month training course before starting a job that matches their skillset, from gardening to child care or home renovations.

The primary goal is to provide social inclusion, meaning and a source of income to the participants, said University of Oxford professor Maximilian Kasy, who co-designed the study. Participants will also be asked to fill out regular assessments on their daily routine, personal health and involvement in the local community.

Sven Hergovich, managing director of the employment service, started pitching a job guarantee program for Marienthal before the pandemic hit. But the employment crisis sparked by Covid-19 has made it even more crucial, he said.

It is time to find new ways [to fight] long-term unemployment, Hergovich said.

As researchers gather data from the pilot programs, political momentum for overhauling social safety nets is building.

In September, the UK Liberal Democrats Jardines party voted to make universal basic income a part of their platform, joining members of the left-wing Labour Party in calling for trials. A petition demanding that Germany implement a universal basic income was debated by a committee of national lawmakers late last month.

But experts note that the loose coalition of universal basic income supporters still contains major divisions.

Theres huge dissent, for example, on whether such programs should stem from deficit spending or higher taxes on the wealthy, as well as whether payments should only go to those in need which would mean they wouldnt be truly universal.

Jardine, for example, thinks universal basic income should replace the current UK welfare system, while also providing people such as caretakers and gig economy workers with regular infusions of cash. But she isnt convinced that payments should be made to those above a certain income threshold.

When you have to turn it from an interest to a program, you start to see some inconsistencies, said Tim Vlandas, a University of Oxford professor of comparative social policy.

And such ideas still have plenty of opponents. The Conservative government under Boris Johnson in the United Kingdom maintains that universal basic income would be too expensive and reduce incentives to work, while failing to reach those who most need help. Chancellor Angela Merkels coalition government has also expressed concerns it could lead to a decline in employment.

Critics also raise fears about the broader economic ramifications of such policies. Some worry, for example, that providing a universal basic income could lead to a spike in inflation.

Jardine, for her part, acknowledges the uphill battle in convincing colleagues that universal basic income is the way forward. But in her view, the pandemic presents an opportunity.

Governments do change and they change their minds, she said.

Read the original post:

Universal basic income has time come for it? Debate intensifies in pandemic - WRAL Tech Wire

Scary Mommy and BergmanGroup/Getty

Weve been having this conversation for years, the discussion about why we need universal basic income (UBI) in the United States. While many of us are still waiting to receive stimulus checks and millions of people remain out of work and filing for unemployment, we need universal basic income now.

Other countries have done thisprovided a monthly income check for all their citizens. Germany is piloting it this week amid the pandemic (because, duh, a pandemic is exactly the time that families are stretched thin and need this extra boost). We can look at other countries as a guidenot only for universal basic income but to understand how they are handling the pandemicand adopt some of the ways they are investing in their people.

Can you imagine if our country and its leaders would come together and guarantee that all of us have a basic life safety net no matter what shitstorm is thrown at us?

The idea behind universal basic income (or UBI) is that the government provides a specific amount of money every month to its citizens, keeping people out of poverty, in hopes that they will also remain employed and contributing members of society.

In Germany, over 120 people will receive $1,420 a month for the next three years, which is just above Germanys poverty level and the government will be studying how this affects their citizens. The study will then compare the 1,380 people who did not receive a monthly payment. In Germanys case, 140,000 private donations have funded the study conducted by the German Institute for Economic Research which will study the work, lives, and emotional well-being of participants to determine if basic income has had a significant impact on their lives.

But we dont need to go all the way to Germany to understand that universal basic income can work: just look at Alaska. Through their Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, the government provides $1,000 or more a month to their citizens and has been since the inception of the fund in 1982, keeping them above the poverty level.

Alaska seems to be doing things right.For example, 40 percent of respondents say the yearly dividends have made a great deal or quite a bit of difference in their lives over the past five years, while only 20 percent say it has made no difference, explains Salon. Interestingly, Alaskans were also asked about how the dividend affects work incentives and willingness to work: 55 percent report no effect, 21 percent a positive effect, and 16 percent a negative effect. Thus, the majority of Alaskans report that the dividend has little to no effect on work.

If we take a step back and look at our government, theCARES Act was a temporary (rather unsuccessful and broken) fix to a much greater problem Americans are drowning and the economic wave we are all riding out together is drowning us.

The need for a universal basic income plan is more than a bandaid solution, like a stimulus relief act is. UBI would give Americans something to depend on month after month income they know is coming to feed their kids, put gas in their cars to go to work, and provide other necessities. The CARES Act is an attempt to support the economy by giving Americans money they will use to spend on things: vacations, home improvements, clothes, toys, and more while the UBI will give stability to families in need.

As of July, the United States Department of Labor reported that 1.8 million Americans filed for unemployment, which means that 10.2% of Americans are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, food on the table, and maintain some sort of livelihood.

We cannot wait for another pandemic or the bubonic plague to land here with no plan in place for feeding families, keeping people in their jobs, and their homes. We need universal basic income sooner rather than later. We need a president who gets it and wants to make economic equality a thing. We need a president in the White House who does not just care about how many tweets can be pushed out (from the toilet) into the social media stratosphere each day.

We need a president and government who see poverty as a problem, who recognize that being out of work means not being able to provide for ones basic needs and that solutions are out there, if only we would take initiative, and do the right thing.

See the article here:

We Need Universal Basic Income And We Need It Now - Scary Mommy

The last quarter century, which saw major economic crises every few years, should be seen more as a crash of the discipline of economics than anything else. The future we see around us tells us that global socio- political-economic realities have changed, but economists are still wringing their hands in despair over the impending demise of free trade and the rise of protectionist policies. But protectionism isnt a problem, it is a desperate remedy that accountable politicians have been eager to grasp, while unaccountable economic experts offer no better solution than the endless printing of money. Economists no longer seem to understand the complex realities engulfing us.

In a world where cheap capital-financed technology is adding more to gross domestic product (GDP) than almost any other factor of production, we have to internalize some observable truths: One, human skills will always be trumped by machines. This implies that jobs depend on making human skills compatible with what machines and computers already do much better. Two, skill demand will be extremely polarized, with high demand for super-skills, and low demand for middle skills, and reasonably high demand for easily learnable skills. This is the essence of our jobs crisis, and the solutions dont lie in lowering taxes or providing cheap money to zombie firms. Three, all the material things needed for human survival already exist in abundance. It is only their distribution that is the problem. Four, large parts of the real output of goods and services are moving into the non-monetizable part of the economy, and hence disappear from GDP. The proverbial homemaker economy, where real services are provided without showing up in GDP numbers, is now spreading beyond gender-based distribution of paid and unpaid work.

The last point can easily be demonstrated in the world of media, where there is an organized sector with an advertising-driven business model. But this model is under attack from millions of free" publications and blogs that individuals and non-profit micro-companies produce. According to one estimate, there are now more than 500 million blogs that produce more than two million posts daily. Very little of this free output is showing up in GDP. Most large media houses have also become partial non-profit organizations, as they make much of their money from activities beyond their core business.

These observed facts point us in one direction: that the new global economy will rapidly polarize between a market economy dominated by firms that produce goods and services efficiently, and a non-market economy that needs to exist so as to find work" and distribute incomes or goods and services, almost like non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The market economy is reliant on the expansion of non-state services financed by profits or wealth generated within. In the years ahead, we will probably see a dramatic expansion of the non-market economy, something that free-traders and globalizers dont seem to see as factors in their economic forecasts.

Today, many governments focus on make-work (like our rural employment guarantee scheme) and income-distribution schemes unrelated to work, from a universal basic income to cash payouts of the kind the Narendra Modi government is now making to farmers and female Jan Dhan account holders. Some of these are camouflaged as loans, which may soon go bad and need writeoffs and waivers. If we are asking corporates to compulsorily allot 2% of net profits to social activities, again this is a free income or services scheme. Zombie firms that exist only because of cheap liquidity are also non-profits kept alive for social and political reasons. The market economy may come to depend on the rapid expansion of such non-government and zombie firms.

This means non-profits will be crucial for social cohesion and harmony. As a corollary, governments need to make this sector more efficient and vibrant, and as deserving of deregulation as the mainstream corporate sector.

The number of non-profits is rising dramatically because of a huge unmet demand for public goods and services. A Central Bureau of Investigation survey in 2015 found there were more than 3.1 million registered NGOs. The current number could be around 3.5 million. We have one NGO for every 400 citizens. Most of them may be poorly run, with some even created for shady purposes like money-laundering and vote-buying. Since many NGOs exist only to achieve single goalspreventing pollution or saving wildlifetheir activities could get in the way of profitable economic processes. Despite the apparent legitimacy of anti-pollution concerns, the short-term outcomes can be economically negativeas the closure of a Sterlite plant in Tamil Nadu shows.

However, there is little doubt that the non-profit sector plays a huge role in the economy. It needs better regulation, enlightened leadership and greater professionalisation to deliver healthy social and economic outcomes when the market economy is failing to do its job. The NGO-ization of economies is irreversible. We should focus on making them more responsible and productive, and less obstructive.

R. Jagannathan is editorial director, Swarajya magazine

Subscribe to newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Read more:

Prepare for the irreversible rise of non-profit activity everywhere - Livemint

You can catch coronavirus twice and the illness's effects on patients and the economymay last years. Meanwhile U.S. stocks hit an all-time high on treatment hopes. And China's big banks are on a hiring spree. Here are some of the things people in markets are talking about today.

A man was infected with the coronavirus for a second time after recovering from an initial bout in April, in what scientists said was the first case showing that re-infection may occur within a few months.The 33-year-olds second infection was detected via airport screening on his return to Hong Kong from Europe this month. Among those who survive the illness, there isan expanding population of so-called long-haulers left with debilitating conditions long after "recovery." Its now known that SARS-CoV-2 will leave a portion of the more than 23 million people its infected with a litany of physical, cognitive and psychological impairments, like scarred lungs, post-viral fatigue and chronicheart damage. Whats still emerging is the extent to which the enduring disability will weigh on health systems and the labor force. That burden may continue the pandemics economic legacy for generations, adding to its unprecedented global cost predicted to reach as much$35.3 trillionthrough 2025. Here's how Bloomberg is tracking the virus.

Asianstockslooked poised for modest gains after U.S. equities rose to a record high on virus treatmentoptimism. Treasuries retreated, and futurespointed higher in Japan and Australia, but slipped in Hong Kong. The S&P 500 notched another all-time high as optimism mounted that the virus wouldnt hamper growth. Exxon Mobil, Pfizer and Raytheon were kicked out of the Dow Jones Industrial Average as part of the stock benchmarks biggestreshufflingin seven years, actions that will boost the influence of technology companies that have dominated the 2020 stock market. The Nasdaq Compositeclosed at a record for a second consecutive session, and the dollar strengthened. Elsewhere, oil rallied and gasoline surged to a five-month high and gold traded below $1,950 an ounce.

Chinas mega banks are ramping up their recruitment of fresh graduates as a record number enter the labor market,boosting employment even as lenders deal with plunging earnings and ballooning bad debt. The four biggest state banks kicked off their autumn campus hiring this month, instead of in November as in previous years.China Construction Bank plans to add 16,000 graduates this year, up from 13,000 last year, while Bank of China will increase its hiring by 15% to more than 10,000, according to their advertisements. This is in direct response to the governments call to protect jobs, saidTang Jianwei, a Shanghai-based analyst atBank of Communicationss research institute. Even though the big banks are facing pressure on their own earnings, they still need people to develop the business. Also its important for them to assume social responsibility.

TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance are suing the Trump administration to challenge a ban on the fast-growing video app,bringing a geopolitical fight over technology and trade into a U.S. courtroom.Trump says TikTok is a security risk for user data. The company said the presidents decision was made for political reasons, is unconstitutional and violates rights to due process.While thebandoesnt take effect for weeks, it has escalated tensions between the world's largest economies. On Aug. 14, Trump ordered ByteDance to sell its U.S. assets and said the U.S. should receive a cut of the proceeds.MicrosoftandOraclehave already shown interest, which argues TikTok poses no security threat.

The rebound in Asia's best performing stock market since Marchis just getting started, according to money managers. Pakistans central bank has been among the most aggressive globally in cutting interest rates this year. That's reduced the double-digit returns from fixed income and bolstered the bullish case for equities. If rates remain at these levels for some time, they will continue to drive the market,saidAyub Khuhro, chief investment officer at Faysal Asset Management, whose assets have tripled to 35 billion rupees ($210 million) in the past year.Pakistans KSE-100 Index is up 36% from the end of March. A slowdown in the rate of new infections coupled with measures to boost an economy that shrank for the first time in seven decades prompted the Dubai-based FIM Partners in July to make Pakistan its biggest exposure after the Philippines.

This is whats caught our eye over the past 24 hours:

I find Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) fascinating and frustrating at the same time. It's a very interesting debate about the nature of money, but it leads us to the place we're arguably already in. MMT suggests that because the state has a monopoly on printing money the only limitation on debt issuance is inflation. The suggestion is that governments can borrow a lot more in order to fund social programs of all kinds so long as it doesn't spark price increases. In other words the limitation on debt issuance is grounded in politics, rather than the illusion of a "limited fiscal budget."

But politics is and always has been the problem. It's pretty difficult to take a look at U.S. national debt currently estimated at $26 trillionand conclude that budgets have really been a binding constraint. The binding constraint is what U.S. politicians are willing to stomach and historically that process has been mired in bipartisanship.

Bloomberg

Anyway, the limitations of MMT have been on my mind quite a lot lately as we ponder how the Covid-19 crisis and various policy responses are affecting the economy. As I've written in this space before, the crisis is leading to incredibly inequitable consequences for individuals but it's also benefiting the largest companies with the biggest monopoly power over labor. In other words, the balance of power is tilting even further towards capital and away from people. Where does MMT come into this? There's a perception that the theory can rectify that imbalance if the government uses its extra fiscal headroom to enact things like universal basic income or some sort of jobs guarantee. But what if the problem could be solved a lot more simply, or at least, a lot less divisively?

Christopher Mims at the Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece out describing all the ways our current economic system has favored capital over labor especially through tax rates that have encouraged capital investment over the hiring of humans. It begs the question of whether a more politically palatable option might be to overhaul the corporate tax rates rather than enact sweeping programs that can easily be portrayed as "socialist."As the coronavirus crisis exacerbates the dominance of capital over labor, it seems likely that taxes will be a first step in rectifying that imbalance.

You can follow Tracy Alloway on Twitter at@tracyalloway.

See original here:

Five Things You Need to Know to Start Your Day - Bloomberg

The effectiveness of the CERB as an emergency income support has led many people to wonder whether it is time to consider a more permanent solution, such as a basic income guarantee, the report said.

Among other things, the committee also made recommendations for restructuring CERB as a declining benefit, based on income, and improving access to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS).

While the committee lauded the governments response to the pandemic including federal financial support programs, such as CERB and CEWS, noting that these likely prevented a more severe economic crash it also said that the government has used extraordinary powers to introduce these measures.

On March 24, Parliament passed legislation that granted the government greater spending power and exempted it from requiring Parliaments approval to expand its borrowing.

The report noted that the threat of Covid-19 shows no sign of abating in the near term, and, as a result, it recommended a return to traditional parliamentary procedures for government spending.

Parliament has a fundamental role in reviewing and approving government spending, the report said.

The committee also recommended that the government provide quarterly financial updates throughout the crisis, so that policymakers, lawmakers and Canadians have accurate information about the countrys financial health.

While the government and public service acted with commendable speed in implementing crucial financial supports, public and parliamentary scrutiny of spending measures will be crucial for Canadas economic recovery, said Senator Percy Mockler, chair of the committee, in a statement.

Looking ahead, the committee said that it will focus on recovery strategies when it resumes meeting in the fall and make recommendations for building a fairer and more sustainable economy.

We hope that our study will lead to improved programs and services that will see all Canadians share in the economic recovery. We look forward to laying out a vision for this recovery when we continue our study, said Senator David Richards.

The rest is here:

In the wake of Covid-19, time to consider basic income: Senate report - Investment Executive

Contact tracing on a new case of COVID-19 announced on P.E.I. Sunday has uncovered a new case, a man in his 40s who is a health-care worker at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Charlottetown.

The man was tested Sunday and results came back positive Sunday evening.

The testing station for COVID-19 is back up and running again at Confederation Bridge, after complaints from truckers.

A second round of tests at Whisperwood Villa have all come back negative.

Many small businesses are now asking employees to wear a mask while at work.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown what can be possible with regard to a basic income guarantee on P.E.I.

The Downtown Farmers' Market returned to Charlottetown with COVID-19 precautions in place.

Health PEI told employees in an email earlier this week thatall staff who come in contact with patients and who aren't able to physically distance must now wear medical masks.

See the article here:

COVID-19 on P.E.I.: What's happening Monday, July 13 - CBC.ca

Prince Edward Island has one new COVID-19 case,an essential worker in his 30s who travelled internationally recently. He has been self-isolating since his arrival on P.E.I., says Dr. Heather Morrison. This case is not related to the twomost recent cases, she said at her regular Tuesdaybriefing.

Contact tracing and testing is underway on the previousnew case of COVID-19, a man in his 40s who is a health-care worker in the emergency department at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Charlottetown. More than 200 staff and patientshave been identified for testing.

About 20 people gathered in Charlottetown to draw attention to the struggle of seniors in P.E.I.'s long-term care facilities throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Small businesses are making adjustments asmask recommendations change, setting protocols for employees, seeking suppliers, and even offering discounts to mask-wearing customers.

P.E.I. Premier Dennis King says he is comfortable with Islanders travelling around Atlantic Canada and vice versa, but he is not seriously considering expanding beyond that yet.

Fishermen on P.E.I. are hoping the lobster industry will be better in the fall than it was in the spring.

P.E.I.'s tourism industry lost more than $27 million in direct earnings with the cancellation of the cruise ship season this year,the CEO of Port Charlottetown estimates.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown what can be possible with regard to a basic income guarantee on P.E.I., says the chair of the legislative committee on poverty.

Health PEI told employees in an email earlier this week thatall staff who come in contact with patients and who aren't able to physically distance must now wear medical masks.

Read more here:

COVID-19 on P.E.I.: What's happening Tuesday, July 14 - CBC.ca

Humans should not be exploited as disposable resources and commodities. Coronavirus shows why we must democratize work globally and collectively strengthen workers rights and working conditions.

There are wide global variations in country responses to COVID-19, both in public health responses, and mitigating economic damage (protecting jobs, incomes, and safety standards). It is significant that the number of deaths and economic damage are highest in countries with right-wing populist governments like Brazil, India, UK, and US, who responded slowly due to COVID denial.

Some are more equal than others in the global economy. COVID-19 has starkly revealed global inequalities in workers rights and working conditions. Inequalities are most acute in less developed countries in the Global South compared to wealthier countries in the Global North.

Workers in weakly regulated informal economies in the Global South are most likely to suffer from poor working conditions, unemployment, exploitation, gender and race discrimination, child labour, and exposure to health and safety hazards, as indicated by the International Labour Organization (ILO). Migrant workers, especially, are most vulnerable to exploitation as disposable commodities.

Countries like India have very weak workers' rights, notably in the unregulated informal economy. India's Modi government has faced accusations of using COVID-19 to exploit millions of workers. Some of Indias largest states have suspended labour laws to restart the economy. Trade unions claim changes to working hours, minimum wages, and health and safety regulations weaken workers' rights at a time when resistance is difficult.

In the Arabian Gulf states, low-income migrant workers are most exposed to poor working conditions in the pandemic. In Brazil, the right-wing populist Bolsanaro government response to COVID-19 has been widely criticised, with people exposed to safety risks, and unemployment and poverty increasing.

Moreover, there are also substantial differences in workers rights and intersectional inequalities (class, gender, race) between and within countries in the generally wealthier Global North.

Workers in the United States have few employment rights, and most employers do not recognise trade unions. It is quite easy for employers to hire and fire workers, with very weak job and income protections. We are seeing this with COVID-19. Lots of US employers across different sectors are laying off workers, and unemployment has risen rapidly. Many laid-off workers are only receiving unemployment payments. Race inequalities are widespread.

Participants in a recent poll in the US ranked stronger workers rights as the top priority. Three out of four Americans said they would support workers having the right to engage in collective bargaining for salary increases, health benefits, paid sick leave, and worker safety. Indeed, grassroots trade union organising activity has increased in the US in response to COVID-19 related health and safety risks, and to demand better working conditions, job security and a real living wage.

Europe generally evidences stronger collective workers rights compared to the US, especially in Northern Europe. Many European countries are more strongly unionised than the US, albeit with significant variations between Western and Eastern Europe.

There are notable differences in labour market policy responses to COVID-19 between the US and Europe.Many European countries have responded by introducing Job Retention Schemes (JRS) to prevent redundancies, which have been negotiated with trade unions and employer groups. Furloughed workers are paid up to 80-90% of their wages while the schemes last. Germanys short-time working scheme (Kurzarbeit) is the most famous exemplar.

The problem would be if such job preservation schemes are withdrawn too abruptly, and mass redundancies proliferate.In the UK, some employers have announced mass redundancies, like British Airways, despite using the JR scheme and receiving loans. BA unions also claim that BA plans to terminate employees contracts and rehire them on new contracts with worse pay and conditions. This comes across as opportunism.

Variation in work and employment responses to COVID-19 are evident elsewhere around the world. Many Asian countries had to face the pandemic earlier than elsewhere, and South Korea is among the most successful responses. New Zealand is also portrayed as very successful.

COVID-19 and the climate crisis are shining a spotlight on the need to rethink the future global politics of work at a time when the world also faces into an economic slump. The current system of continuous global capital accumulation (neo-liberalism, free-market capitalism), accentuating unequal distribution of perpetual economic growth, is broken. Consumer capitalism, as currently configured, is destroying the planet and causing widespread human suffering among the poorest populations. It is unsustainable.

A new global politics of work is required. There needs to be international coordinated responses and redistribution of resources to improve labour protection standards in the Global South.

The ILO should be politically supported to play a stronger regulatory role in spearheading a more emancipatory and democratic global future of work. The ILOs constitutional endorsement of decent work, stipulating upon its formation in 1919 that labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or article of commerce, should be heeded by politicians worldwide.

Unfortunately, the political will does not seem to exist currently in a world where many countries have retreated from global multilateralism to individualist protectionist nationalism. Such a beggar thy neighbour approach is especially damaging in the current existential crisis.

This does not mean we cannot present what could be done and contest the battle of ideas. Workers rights should be strengthened globally, especially collective trade union rights. There is a need to outlaw extreme precarious working conditions in global supply chains, so workers are not disposable commodities. There should be a Global Living Wage and a World Basic Income, both tailored to local circumstances.

There have been calls for a new social contract underpinning fundamental labour and human welfare rights worldwide. This could prioritise socially essential key workers in foundational economy activities (such as health and social care, housing, transport, food production and distribution, community and green projects), that keep society functioning and support human life.

This could be supported by state Job Guarantee schemes. The JG idea has gained popularity in the US, but versions have been implemented in countries like Argentina, India and South Africa.

Above all, a global Green New Deal is necessary to create new green jobs, combat climate crisis, and shift economic activity away from unsustainable extractive capitalism that continually plunders scarce planetary resources. For example, green jobs could be created through global reforestation schemes, which would also benefit the environment and eco-tourism.

I am part of a community of thousands of work and employment scholars collectively calling for democratizing work and useful employment for all. A pandemic and environmental crisis require urgent international collective mobilisation and solidarity to champion the many and not the few, and preserve life on this planet.

Read this article:

COVID illuminates global inequalities in workers' rights and working conditions - University of Birmingham