UBI is polarizing because it challenges traditional views on work, welfare, fiscal policy, and economic priorities. Its broad implications make it a highly contested and emotionally charged topic within economic discourse. Mixed results from pilot programs and experiments worldwide contribute to the debate. Some find positive effects on well-being and employment, while others see limited or uncertain benefits, leading to divergent opinions on feasibility and effectiveness. UBI Kwan Hong Tan intersects with broader ideological debates—viewed by some as a progressive measure to promote social justice, and by others as a form of welfare dependency or a disincentive to personal responsibility. These ideological differences fuel polarized opinions.

Supporters argue that UBI can reduce poverty, provide economic security, and promote entrepreneurship by removing the fear of income loss. Critics, however, contend that guaranteed income might disincentivize work, potentially leading to reduced labor participation and productivity.

__________

Appendix

_________

Citizen's dividend is a proposed policy based upon the Georgist principle that the natural world is the common property of all people. It is proposed that all citizens receive regular payments (dividends) from revenue raised by leasing or taxing the monopoly of valuable land and other natural resources.

This concept is a form of universal basic income (UBI), where the citizen's dividend depends upon the value of natural resources or what could be titled as common goods like location values, seignorage, the electromagnetic spectrum, the industrial use of air (CO2 production), etc.

Several philosophers and economists connect left-libertarian ideas with support for UBI. Of these, the most closely related theory to Georgism calls for a citizen's dividend—that is, a UBI equal to the monetary rental value of natural resources and socially created wealth.

The U.S. state of Alaska dispenses a form of citizen's dividend in its Permanent Fund dividend, which holds investments initially seeded by the state's revenue from mineral resources, particularly petroleum. In 2005, every eligible Alaskan resident (including children) received a check for $845.76. Over the 24-year history of the fund, it has paid out a total of $24,775.45 to every resident.Some believe this dividend as the reason why Alaska has one of the lowest rates of inequality and relatively low levels of poverty compared to other US states.A 2018 paper found that the Alaska Permanent Fund "dividend had no effect on employment, and increased part-time work by 1.8 percentage points (17 percent)... our results suggest that a universal and permanent cash transfer does not significantly decrease aggregate employment.

Stephen I. Ternyik Thank you for this comprehensive and well-structured reflection on the polarizing nature of UBI, Stephen. I agree that much of the division stems from how UBI disrupts entrenched assumptions about labor, merit, and state responsibility. The ideological fault lines, ranging from libertarian to progressive, naturally shape perceptions of what UBI represents: either as an emancipatory tool for human potential or as a threat to work ethic and fiscal discipline.

The example of the citizen's dividend, particularly Alaska’s Permanent Fund, offers an instructive case. It illustrates how a form of UBI, when tied to the shared value of common resources, can be both politically viable and economically impactful without eroding work incentives. The fact that employment remained stable while part-time participation rose suggests a shift not away from productivity, but toward flexibility, possibly enabling caregiving, education, or entrepreneurship.

What’s compelling is how such models embed collective ownership into economic policy, asserting that the wealth derived from natural or social capital rightly belongs to all. This echoes Georgist and left-libertarian views that seek to balance individual freedom with equitable access to foundational resources.

While scalability and funding remain legitimate concerns, the broader conversation seems less about technical feasibility and more about the kind of society we want to build. UBI—especially in the form of citizen's dividends—asks us to reimagine dignity, work, and value beyond traditional economic metrics. And that’s precisely why it generates such passionate debate.

The great economic growth paradox is unveiled, from a sustainable point of view. Whenever r (rent) exceeds g (growth), the socio-economic system reaches the stage (p>g) of cyclical crisis; this Sisyphean economic result is caused today by the static interplay of 3 monopolies (1=land value; 2=money/credit creation; 3=taxation). The loss of systems dynamic efficiency, in terms of productivity, is characterized by the flow of liquidity into assets; as fiat money has no natural ratio, this economic practice of wealth concentration leads to a decrease of systems energy efficiency and eco-logical destabilization.

Ternyik, Stephen I., Valuation, Calculation, Transformation (May 3, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2774203 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2774203

That could be of interest to you Kwan Hong Tan

Also: DOI:

• 10.13140/2.1.4779.9362

Stephen I. Ternyik This definitely perked me up after a long day of lecturing. Thank you for this deep and provocative analysis, Stephen. The paradox you highlighted, where rent (r) persistently exceeds growth (g), resonates strongly with Piketty’s observations on capital accumulation and inequality, but your framing through the lens of systemic inefficiency and ecological destabilization adds a crucial dimension often overlooked in mainstream discourse.

The triad of monopolies—land, money/credit creation, and taxation—effectively locks the system into extractive dynamics, reinforcing wealth concentration rather than productive reinvestment. When liquidity chases finite assets instead of productive innovation, we don't just face a financial imbalance—we encounter a thermodynamic inefficiency where energy, resources, and labor are misallocated or trapped.

Your point about fiat money lacking a natural ratio is especially poignant. Without tethering to ecological or energy-based limits, capital can inflate detached from physical reality, ultimately undermining both economic resilience and ecological stability.

In this light, perhaps the challenge isn't just to adjust growth models, but to restructure the foundational incentives—rethinking how we define value, allocate land and credit, and design fiscal systems that restore dynamism while respecting planetary boundaries.

Would love to explore further how alternative economic models, like the Georgist land value taxation or monetary reform, might offer a more sustainable trajectory.

Sustainable Monetary Agency

We may like it or not, ours is a monetary civilization, since ~ 5000years. The last 250 years saw the rise of the monetary productioneconomy, with the latest consequence that all human needs are nowreduced to the need for money. This technical ’simplification’ of eco-nomic complexity comes with a high price, concerning the physicalsustainability of the human-nature-capital interplay. Money (m) hasbecome physical access to all types of energy (e), drives the temporal (t) length (l) of economic production (p) cycles and determinesthe ’speed’ of the human economy. The cybernetic wave circuit reads:m/quantizes/e=e/quantizes/t=t/quantizes/p. Every economic wavelength (l) is quantitatively proportional to the liquidity frequency (f);the greater the monetary volume (x) in a wave, the higher is f (l=f(x/r); r (reserve requirement) is the decisive factor in this equation.The temporal (t) acceleration of p (e.g. machine operating time, logistics)is a result of x in demand for e (p=t (x/e); every customerpayment finalizes p. As a result, the economic behavior of gradualmonetary excess increases the exponential need for energy and causesthe temporal acceleration of economic wave cycles (crises). Only an ef-ficient monetary technique of narrow reserve banking can lead to moreeconomic systems sustainability.

(PDF) Geonomics in 1 Lesson/3 Key Observations. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308916607_Geonomics_in_1_Lesson3_Key_Observations

Am in agreement with your Kwan Hong Tan observation that land, value and money are the keys to build better economic models.

__________

The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.

JvNeumann

Stephen I. Ternyik Very interesting! Thanks for sharing, will be reading your work before coming back.

Stephen I. Ternyik Thank you for this deeply thought-provoking reflection on the cybernetic structure of our monetary civilization, Stephen. Your analysis compellingly links monetary dynamics to temporal and energetic acceleration in the economy—a connection often overlooked in mainstream economic discourse. The idea that monetary excess leads to temporal compression and energy intensification, culminating in systemic crises, echoes the pressing need for rethinking our production logic.

I agree fully that narrow reserve banking—or any reform that imposes stricter monetary discipline—could serve as a critical lever for restoring sustainability within economic cycles. Your wave-frequency interpretation elegantly visualizes the feedback loops between money, time, and production.

Also, thank you for aligning with my position that land, value, and money must be re-integrated into our economic frameworks. Without this triad being critically re-evaluated, any attempt at long-term sustainability risks being reactive rather than transformative. Geonomics offers a powerful lens, and your contribution adds much-needed systemic depth to the discussion. Let’s keep building toward models that prioritize resilience over speed and equity over abstraction.