Crisis- 2038

by Gerald Huff

  “Well, what are all those government workers going to do?” asked Dylan.

  “They’ll certainly be impacted by this. In the short term, we’ll need lots of social workers to help the new basic income recipients adjust to managing money. But in the long run, those government employees will have to find other productive work, just like everyone else. Of course, they’ll have the basic income grant, too.”

  “You realize, of course, that the public employee unions will fight this tooth and nail?” said Emily. “As interesting as this proposal is, I don’t see how any Democrat could support it. They would get eviscerated.”

  “Well,” said Esteban. “Who are they going to support instead? If, and this is a huge ‘if,’ there was bipartisan support for a program like this, what could the unions really do?”

  “You’re talking about unions, but I’ve got a whole other set of problems with this,” said Rebecca. “First, if you give people money, they could just blow it on drugs and alcohol or gambling. What then? Second, I just can’t get past the point that if you give people free money, you’re creating a huge disincentive to work. We need people working to grow the economy.”

  “On the second issue,” replied Harry, “isn’t that really the whole point? We’ve got people who can’t find meaningful work due to automation. We want to free people like Daryl from scrounging for jobs. If he loves making apps and wants to be an entrepreneur, he can continue to do that and not worry about starving. Or perhaps he wants to get involved in his community, mentoring young people.

  “The economy is going to grow if people have money to spend and if companies compete by innovating, which they can do only if they have customers. And, of course, if people do work, they don’t lose the basic income grant. Which means there’s a huge incentive to work, versus today’s social welfare programs, which penalize work.

  “As for your first point, I believe that almost everyone, given a sense of dignity and opportunity, will want to contribute. Rather than a paternalistic welfare system that dictates every part of their lives, a basic income grant is liberating. Will there be some people who sit around and drink? Sure, but so what? They already do that today. And they weren’t going to be productive employees anyway. Imagine running a business and knowing that every employee was there because they really wanted to be there, not just because they had to pay the rent and put food on the table.”

  “But it’s different if they’re doing drugs with taxpayer money,” insisted Rebecca. “I’m not going to pay for some drug addict to shoot up!”

  “How is it different,” asked Esteban, “than you or me going to a store and buying something, and that store paying an employee who does drugs?”

  “It’s a hundred and eighty degrees different,” Rebecca said.

  “Really? We talked this morning about money circulating in the economy. Money is money. Your money is circulating in the economy and paying salaries for many people, some of whom are doing drugs. So, you’re already paying people who do drugs. Are you going to stop spending your money to avoid any of it going to someone who might take drugs?”

  Rebecca’s mouth opened, but she said nothing.

  Zach helped her out. “Well, it’s different if the government takes my money and gives it to those people. When I shop, it’s voluntary. The government is using its power to take my money against my will.”

  “The government represents the will of the people,” said Emily sharply. “Or, at least, it’s supposed to. I suppose these days it more represents the wealthy and corporations. But, Zack, you support some functions of government, like military spending and bank bailouts. Do you think any of that money eventually gets to someone who does drugs? Of course it does.”

  Michele interceded. “Is the issue of people doing drugs really the show-stopper in this proposal? What do you all think?”

  “I don’t think so,” said Esteban. “I think it’s going to be the idea of most people getting something for nothing and some people getting something they don’t need. People are OK with social systems when they feel everyone contributes to them, like social security. You pay in while you work, then you get help when you retire.”

  Dylan disagreed. “I think the whole thing is a show-stopper. You’re not going to get the left to agree to eliminate all social welfare programs. Period.”

  “I’m not so sure,” said Emily. “If the basic income involves the right amount of money, you’d essentially eliminate poverty and give tens of millions of disadvantaged people, and thousands of impoverished communities, a foundation on which to build their lives. It’s a progressive home run if you ask me.”

  “I’m still stuck on the size of the program,” said Zach. “I don’t see how you get the right to agree to such massive tax increases and redistribution.”

  “When companies spend money on salaries, is that redistribution?” asked Harry.

  “No, of course not,” replied Zach.

  “We had a system that worked for a long time because people bought things from companies and companies paid their employees, which enabled them to be consumers. That’s the circular flow of money we talked about. Social security is a system that enabled older people who couldn’t earn salaries anymore to still be consumers and live in dignity. What about the disability system? Same thing. People unable to earn an income are supported so they can live and participate in the economy. When you acknowledge that fewer and fewer people can contribute productively in the face of automation, you rapidly expand the number of people that need that dignity and support to live and continue to drive the economy.

  “Imagine,” Harry continued, “that tomorrow there’s a huge technological breakthrough and a Silicon Valley company creates a humanoid robot with an advanced AI that can be trained to replace eighty percent of all workers at a third of their salary. Every business would rush to buy them. The hundreds of employees and wealthy shareholders of that company would get unimaginably rich. But there would hardly be anyone left in the economy to buy the output of those companies.

  “We need a way to continue to circulate money in the economy when salaries don’t work anymore. I agree, it feels different when it goes through this entity called the government. But the end purpose is the same. Don’t call it taxation and redistribution. Call it a new kind of money circulation system.”

  “Maybe it doesn’t have to be the government,” suggested Rebecca.

  “What do you mean?” asked Emily.

  “Well, this may sound strange, but people will get hung up on the money going to the government. Suppose you set up a non-profit operating entity that took in all these funds and distributed them?”

  “Hmm,” said Esteban, nodding. “Like a special bank of some kind.”

  “Right,” said Rebecca. “A Citizen’s Bank. It exists for the sole purpose of circulating money back to citizens.”

  “But how does it get the money?” asked Zach. “Only the government can take it away from people and businesses through taxes.”

  “Interesting, Rebecca. There’s another related idea,” said Harry. “It’s called negative interest. Basically, the theory is that money sitting in high-value bank accounts is not circulating. So you charge a negative interest rate on that money and send it into the Citizen’s Bank to be re-circulated into the economy. You can view this as a simple computer program that runs every day, or even every hour, and calculates the negative interest on all non-circulating funds. It transfers that interest to the Citizen’s Bank, and then into hundreds of millions of bank accounts. This could be a function of an independent organization, sort of like the Federal Reserve.”

  “Whoa, hold on there,” said Zach. “That sounds like out-and-out theft. You’re stealing money right out of my bank account.”

  “I agree,” said Esteban. “What about people just getting loans instead? I’m sure banks and wealthy people will loan the money out, instead of you just taking it.”

  “You can’t give loans t
o people with no income to pay back the principal and interest,” said Dylan. “They end up in a debt spiral, owing more and more money. Anyway, getting loans for everyday consumption is a terrible idea. It’s the first thing they teach you in personal finance.”

  “Wouldn’t people just hide their money to avoid the negative interest rate?” asked Emily. “Or move it to another country? Or into some crypto-currency that’s encrypted and untraceable?”

  “Yes, those are all risks that would need to be considered,” acknowledged Harry. “Look, negative interest is just one approach to keeping money circulating. There are others. There’s the gross margin tax on businesses, which I mentioned. You can imagine property taxes on financial assets. After all, why should only middle-class homeowners have an annual tax on their biggest asset?

  “Some economists suggest granting everyone shares in all U.S. companies, so they get a stream of dividends from them,” continued Harry. “Others focus on financial transaction taxes—did you know that quadrillions of dollars of transactions are cleared every year in the U.S.? Other people think companies should compensate people directly for the use of data about them and their activities. There’s even another suggestion that the government set up a venture capital fund and distribute proceeds from the investment returns.

  “The most important thing is the mindset change. We need to focus on two things: first, to continue to drive innovation and progress, we need money in everyone’s hands. Second, we need to invest in decreasing the amount of money people need.”

  “What do you mean by the second part?” asked Esteban.

  “I think I get it,” said Emily. “We want to drive the size of the basic income down over time by making the essentials of life cheaper and cheaper. Energy, food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, connectivity.”

  “Exactly,” said Harry. “Part of the universal basic income grand bargain is that the government and private industry invest in lowering the basic income over time. Not increasing it, the way most government programs work. Instead of slashing R&D budgets the way we have been, we’d be increasing technology grants to universities and companies. They’d work on coming up with innovations in energy production and distribution, and advanced health care systems that dramatically reduce the cost of treating chronic diseases.

  “I also agree that we should be cutting regulations in those sectors of the economy that suffer the lowest productivity growth, like health care. We need to unleash our innovators to tackle costs in those areas, not shackle them with tons of red tape.”

  “Harry!” snorted Dylan. “Now you’re sounding exactly like them! Those regulations save lives. You think the free market or for-profit companies give a damn about people’s lives?”

  “My God,” said Rebecca before Harry could respond. “This is such a massive change.”

  “I agree,” said Zach. “Basic income exists in some Scandinavian countries. Nothing this revolutionary has ever been tried before in a country as diverse and large and the United States. Think of the risks.”

  “I disagree,” said Emily. “The risk is in doing nothing. We’ve faced crises like this before and the country responded. We invented public education in response to industrialization. We instituted rules in the face of worker exploitation and dangerous work environments and unsafe products. We created the WPA to get out of the depression and the G.I. Bill to invest in our people after World War Two. We used technology to clean up smog and pollution, which choked our cities and fouled our rivers. We passed Medicare for All to give everyone a chance to get regular medical care. We’ve been slowly responding to the climate crisis by converting to clean energy sources, although I admit that’s been a huge struggle. But we’ve faced big problems before and come up with big solutions.”

  “But I can’t even begin to imagine what this bill would look like,” said Zach. “It would be a thousand pages long!” exclaimed Zach.

  Michele allowed herself a tiny smile. A critical milestone had been reached. Someone in the group had shifted from the abstract debate into thinking concretely about legislation.

  “Senators,” she said, “perhaps we can take a moment to reflect on the journey you’ve taken. When you arrived this morning, barely able to speak to each other, there was not a single solution offered by either side that had a chance of success. This afternoon you’ve focused on the things you agree on and engaged in serious problem solving. Yes, it is revolutionary. Yes, it will be difficult. And yes, the chances for getting it through Congress are small. But what you have done here is important. And don’t forget you have an ally in this fight.”

  For a moment the senators looked at each other. Then Emily said, “Sara.”

  “Yes,” Michele said. “Sara. She’s capturing the imagination of young people around the country and around the world. There’s a hunger growing for real solutions. You may be able to take advantage of that hunger and harness that energy.”

  Dylan stood up and pushed back his chair. “With all due respect, Ms. Rodriguez, my dear colleagues, I’m afraid I can’t remain part of a group that’s contemplating the worst mistake in the history of this country.”

  Michele said firmly, “Senator Cipriani, I urge you to reconsider. I’ve been through this process many times. At the beginning, the changes always look too radical and risky. But you’ve written important legislation before, like the criminal justice reform bills a few years ago, where the devil was in the details. In that case, the initial reaction from the right was, No way; you’re turning the country over to criminals. But you worked with them to see that important protections and safeguards were built into the reforms. You convinced them that their fears were unfounded, and you were able to argue that they had the opportunity to reverse a huge social injustice. Will you at least give your colleagues the opportunity to convince you that they can address your concerns? There’s no guarantee they’ll succeed, and you can always withdraw later. But right now, they need your voice at the table.”

  Rather than force him to back down and lose face, Michele turned slightly and spoke to the rest of the group. “Here’s what I suggest. Let’s break for today and reconvene in a few weeks. Senator, you can take some time to consider whether you want to continue. I’ll send out encrypted notes from this session. Review the discussion, and next time, all of you bring your best ideas for implementation, legislation, and political strategy. And let me know if you think it makes sense broaden the circle to include one or two policy aides.”

  As the senators nodded their assent, Michele smiled. In the course of thirty seconds, she had converted a potential desertion disaster into momentum for another meeting.

  Let’s see a robot do that, she said to herself.

  CHAPTER THIRTY-TWO

  HOLOCONFERENCE - NOVEMBER 20

  “Let’s get started,” said the man known as Ellul, who appeared and sounded like a middle-aged white man but was in reality Tuan Pham, the thirty-eight-year-old Navy officer of Vietnamese descent who had founded LKC. All of the members had been able to join the holoconference, which was protected with 5K qubit encryption technology. All of them used camo features to disguise their true appearances and voices.

  “Our first set of attacks on RezMat and the electrical grid seem to be generating the kind of response we were hoping for,” said Ellul. “More authoritarian posturing from government and some grassroots activity from like-minded activists. Unless anyone objects, I suggest we continue with this phase of planned operations.” He paused for a moment but none of the members raised a concern. “Very well, any other reports for today?”

  “Speaking of grassroots activity,” said Pam, known to the group as Geneva. “I have come across the LA SuperNova hackers on the dark web.”

  “Who are they?” asked Artemis, in real life economist Kimani Richards, appearing somewhat Lord of the Rings Elvish today in a gossamer white dress and a forest background.

  “Jacob and Melissa, ex-welder and freelance eng
ineer. They seem legit and quite capable. They engineered the approach to blocking the kiosk doors and put together a team to help hit two hundred kiosks all in one night.”

  “They used their real names?” asked ex-Delta Forces operative Peter Cook, aka Othello. His camo made him appear like Sylvester Stallone in Rambo.

  “Yes,” answered Pam. “They’re just civilians. But I’m thinking we should recruit them.”

  “Recruit them for what?” asked Zerzan, who had chosen a digital avatar of an ungendered Japanese anime character.

  “An operation in the LA area,” said Pam.

  “No fucking way,” said Othello immediately. “We are not getting civilians involved in operations.”

  “I understand, Othello,” said Pam. “But this movement won’t go far without ordinary citizens getting involved. I think we need to broaden the base.”

  “Geneva,” he said, using Pam’s alias, “you can have your citizens engaging politically, in omnipresence, that’s fine with me,” said Othello. “But operationally? Worse than useless. They’ll fuck up the whole plan.”

  “Don’t you think they’re likely to get caught?” asked Artemis.

  “They may indeed,” said Pam. “But that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.”

  “What the fuck?” said Othello.

  “Think about it. ‘Hard working blue-collar guy gets replaced by robots and strikes back’. Tons of media coverage. Omnipresence goes crazy. Instead of a shadowy organization no one can visualize, there are names and faces of ordinary people. There are millions of potential Jacobs and Melissas out there. We need to free them from society’s norms, give them an example they can relate to. Historically terrorism has been defined as some other trying to bring down the established order. If we can make it seem more homegrown, more like McVeigh, but not anti-government, that would encourage people.”