Could the biggest domestic policy change of President Trump’s second term be a shift to universal basic income? And would the rest of the world follow suit?

Listen to the article…

or an AI discussion on the content of the article (made by Google’s NotebookLM)

This is a very interesting question because President Trump was known in his first term as an outspoken critic of socialism and conservatives are known as traditional opponents of tax-funded income transfer programs because conservatives have sought to minimize government power, encourage work and entrepreneurship, and reduce citizen dependence on government handouts. At the same time, however, it was while President Trump was in office that the US government passed trillions of dollars in stimulus packages, including $1,200 in direct payments to citizens in response to the economic shutdown triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Covid-19 crisis triggered initial trials of universal basic income in many countries. But could the world move towards a permanent basic income, following the example of the US government under the leadership of Republican President Trump?

Content

The Fourth Industrial Revolution

I started writing about the idea of a universal basic income around 2019. I became interested in the topic after listening to the ideas of then Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who advocated the introduction of a universal basic income in the US as a response to the mass unemployment that the fourth industrial revolution, i.e. the increasing automation of jobs brought about by the development of artificial intelligence and robotics, would lead society into. I wrote in my blog in August 2019:

Andrew Yang is already garnering popularity among many conservatives and Trump voters because his rhetoric does not demonize half of the American people as “racists, misogynists, and homophobes,” as Hillary Clinton did in 2016, and as many other Democratic candidates still do. Even his campaign slogan is borrowed from Trump’s “America First” phrase and changed to “People First.” On the hats of his supporters reads not MAGA but MATH, because he appeals to cold mathematical facts. On August 11, he wrote on Twitter: “I have done MATH, immigrants are not stealing our jobs; it is automation. Instead of blaming immigrants, let’s give our citizens the means to thrive in the 4th industrial revolution.” While I am not suggesting that Yang will necessarily be the candidate to stand up to Trump and defeat him in next year’s presidential election, it is very possible that he – or someone with a similar electoral platform – will win the 2024 presidential election. The masses often wake up to such problems only after automation has already displaced millions from the workforce.

Universal basic income

What then is the right solution to a crisis of this magnitude? Andrew Yang’s answer is universal basic income, which was already subjected to a limited trial in Finland in 2017. This would basically be an updated version of the current welfare state model. The idea is to provide a basic income sufficient for living and housing for every citizen of the country, whether they are in or out of work, without any conditions. Yang’s election platform proposes a monthly income of US$1,000 (€895) for every US citizen over the age of 18. Many billionaires, including Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX (who just announced on Twitter his support for Yang for president) and Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, have already endorsed this idea. A universal basic income would be a fully economically feasible solution, as robots and automation will make labour more efficient and productive.

A few days later I wrote in another blog:

The “fourth industrial revolution,” which began in the 2010s, is likely to lead to the implementation of universal basic income across all industrialized nations. The cashless society foretold in the Book of Revelation, where “no one could buy or sell except one who has the mark,” will be part of this new economic system in which all service sectors are automated and replaced by self-service checkouts and robots. In a society where the use of cash has completely ceased, cashiers will no longer have any role.

The Orwellian Nightmare or a restored Paradise?

With the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in November 2020, I continued this same theme again in my article Is the corona pandemic crisis driving Western society towards universal basic income and the mark of the beast? It should now be pointed out that while I associate this development with the cashless Mark of the Beast society of Revelation 13, I am not claiming that basic income itself is the Mark of the Beast. In fact, I have treated the basic income as more positive than negative over the last five years. I have also associated it with biblical prophecies of the messianic age, when Paradise will be restored to the earth and thus no longer “by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, until you return to the ground” (Genesis 3:19). Paradise was not, however, a place where Adam and Eve lounged all day idly in the shade of the apple tree, waiting for a ripe apple to fall into their hands when picking it would have been too much trouble for them.

Without meaningful work, a person often loses the sense of purpose in their life and falls into existential anxiety. This was well depicted in the Netflix sci-fi movie Passengers, where a man wakes up from cryostasis during an interstellar journey 90 years before the other passengers. On the spaceship, the man had plenty of delicious food, alcohol, luxury suites, entertainment for his free time, and the opportunity to converse with human-like robots, but ultimately he sank into despair and contemplated ending his own life because his only purpose was to wait for his death on a vast spaceship where he could do nothing useful and be connected to another self-aware, sentient human being. In Paradise, Adam perhaps experienced something similar before God created Eve for him (this relates to the film’s plot, but I won’t reveal more).

In Paradise, a person found joy not only in connection to their Creator and in sharing the pleasures of Paradise with another person but also in having meaningful work. God assigned Adam the task of cultivating and guarding the land and naming all the animals (Genesis 2:15, 19), making him the first farmer, conservationist, and biologist in history. Similarly, we can consider that a future society where overweight people sit alone at home watching Netflix while the government pays for their living and robots bring them more unhealthy food, is not the Paradise we would want to see realized. The greatest challenge is to create a society where robots do all the routine, monotonous, or heavy and dangerous jobs, but where people still have a range of intellectual and creative jobs, or work that is done not out of necessity but for the spiritual rewards that work provides.

In September 2023, I wrote an article titled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Elon Musk confirmed just the Bible prophecy about biblical millenarianism. I referred to a panel discussion between Netanyahu and Musk where they discussed, among other things, the future risks and opportunities related to the development of artificial intelligence. The content of the discussion was like a biblical utopia:

– Netanyahu: Elon, when I asked you this question in one of our late night chats, what are we going to do when people don’t have jobs and we give them money, you said “what’s wrong with living in Paradise?”.

– Musk: This question is in a way related to our concept of heaven. I don’t think you need to work in heaven… The very positive scenario of AI is in many ways a description of heaven, in the sense that nobody needs to work anymore. I wouldn’t necessarily even call it universal basic income but universal high income. I will now describe the best possible scenario. I am not saying that this would come true. There are a series of possibilities from a very negative to a very positive scenario. And the latter sounds basically like heaven. You can always get what you want, you don’t have to work for it, you have no obligations, any disease can be cured…

Advocates of market liberalism as advocates for UBI.

It is interesting to note that Elon Musk, who has been advocating for universal basic income or its necessity for years, and who supported Andrew Yang for president in 2019, is today a close friend and advisor of President Trump, whose opinions are also respected by a right-wing advocate of market liberalism like Benjamin Netanyahu. And this is not some Marxist conspiracy, as Musk himself is also a strong advocate of market liberalism, opposing excessive government interference in the economy through excessive taxation and economic regulation. This is why Trump appointed him to head the temporary DOGE agency, which aims to cut annual government spending by up to two trillion dollars. The project is expected to be completed by the US 250th anniversary in July 2026.

Musk’s role model for this project is the new hero of the American right, Argentina’s President Javier Milei, whose anti-socialist speech at the World Economic Forum can be found here. At first glance, cutting government spending and instituting a universal basic income where the government would pay all adult citizens a thousand dollars a month (or more) may seem like contradictory goals. How can you cut government expenses if you are distributing more money to citizens? However, it has been suggested that a basic income could actually be cheaper for the government than the current welfare system because, while the welfare system provides funds to far fewer people than a basic income would, welfare is expensive due to its bureaucracy and complexity, which also involves costs for the “paper pushers” in various government agencies who calculate who is eligible for support and who is not.

For this reason, one of the most influential economists of market liberalism, Milton Friedman, supported a system similar to basic income called a negative income tax instead of social security. The difference in the model advocated by Friedman was that money would not be given to all citizens, but only to those whose income falls below a certain threshold (regardless of whether they are unemployed or employed). After all, what sense does it make to pay a citizen whose income exceeds 10,000 dollars a month, one might ask. However, the argument for universal basic income is that it would not label people in the same way as social security or to a lesser extent negative income tax. No one would have to experience shame or receive the “welfare queen” label if all citizens received the same guaranteed income from the government.

It would remove the distinction between “earners” and “non-earners” and at the same time it would provide a better incentive for employment, because the amount of basic security would not decrease according to the more you earn from your own work. This is often the problem with current social security systems, which can keep people in an over-generational cycle of poverty. It would also reduce the sense of injustice created by social security whereby the government ‘steals’ working citizens’ earnings through taxation and redistributes it to non-earners. If everyone received the same amount of money from the government, then everyone wins.

The Case for negative income tax proposed by Milton Friedman.

Does UBI increase dependence on government?

I asked ChatGPT whether universal basic income could be argued to reduce citizens’ dependence on government rather than increase it, to which it responded as follows:

Yes, basic income can legitimately be argued to reduce citizens’ dependence on government, if you look at its effects relative to traditional social security systems. This may sound contradictory at first hearing, as basic income is a direct transfer of money from government to citizens. However, in certain contexts, basic income can increase individual freedom and reduce dependence on government-regulated programmes.

1. How would a basic income reduce dependence on government?

a) Less bureaucracy and administrative oversight

Basic income is universal and unconditional, and access to it does not depend on income, labour market status or life situation. This means:
No need for complex eligibility criteria such as income or asset limits.
No administrative need to examine individuals’ personal data or assess their eligibility for benefits.
No reliance by citizens on complex application processes or government assessments of their “needs.”
.

b) Remove incentive traps

Basic income is paid to everyone, including those who earn an income from work. This means that:

Working does not lead to a loss of social benefits, as in many existing systems.

Citizens are not dependent on avoiding work to maintain their benefits.

.

c) More individual choice

Basic income gives citizens economic security, allowing them to make free decisions about their lives:

They can choose where and how to live without fear that the government may withdraw their support.

This is particularly important for victims of domestic violence, for example, who may now be dependent on spousal or government support.

Individuals can take risks, such as becoming entrepreneurs, because basic income provides a safety net.

d) Reduce dependence on complex programs

Current social security systems may require citizens to apply for various benefits (e.g., unemployment compensation, food stamp assistance, housing support). Each of these programs:

Is tied to complex rules and processes.

Creates dependence on a system that can be slow or unreliable.

Basic income would unify and simplify these benefits, reducing citizens’ dependence on the complexity of the system.

2. Difference with the current social security system

Capacity system: creating dependency

Traditional social security systems, such as unemployment benefits and food stamps, create dependency because they:
Rely on an individual’s life situation, which must be constantly proven and reported.
Can prevent people from working or earning additional income, as benefits are reduced or withdrawn as income rises.
Conditionality, which means that citizens can lose their benefits if they do not comply with certain rules (e.g. job search criteria).

Income: reducing dependency.

Basic income gives every citizen the same amount of money, regardless of their life situation. This:

Removes the need to control what citizens do with their money.

Gives individuals more freedom to make decisions without fear of losing benefits.

Reduces the role of the state as a regulator of private life.

So the point now is that social security is conditional, while UBI would be unconditional. If, after being released from prison, you are granted parole, are you then more dependent and less free than someone who lives in absolute freedom? Or if a lender gives you a loan of 10,000 dollars that must be repaid with interest by the agreed deadline, are you more dependent on them than on a donor who gives you the same amount of money without any requirement for repayment? The fear, of course, is that in the hands of a totalitarian government, UBI could gradually become conditional, and people would lose it unless they “bowed to the emperor.” Something like this is foretold in Revelation chapter 13, which states that the Beast 666 “causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.”

The Economic Collapse as a Trigger for UBI?

I’m not claiming that Elon Musk’s current goal is to update the U.S. social security system to a universal basic income. Musk may see this as a long-term solution to the development of automation and artificial intelligence, which will displace many jobs, for example, in the transportation sector with the advent of self-driving cars and trucks (Tesla, Musk’s own company, is also leading this development into self-driving transportation). However, it is possible that some national or international crisis could accelerate this development. I also asked this question to ChatGPT, which responded:

Yes, a serious national or international crisis, such as a economic collapse, could well accelerate the introduction of schemes like basic income and make them more politically acceptable, even among conservatives. This can be seen to have happened, for example, during the Covid 19 pandemic, when the US government distributed direct cash subsidies to citizens to prevent economic collapse.

How can a crisis change attitudes?

Increasing economic insecurity:

Crises such as the Great Depression (1929) or the pandemic reveal the structural weaknesses of society and make it clear that many people cannot survive without outside help.

In the 1920s, this manifested itself in mass unemployment, forcing governments around the world to introduce recovery packages and direct cash subsidies.

Conservative attitudes are changing due to practical necessity:

Conservatives, who traditionally oppose large-scale social programmes, may see direct cash support as a useful way to maintain economic stability and prevent social unrest in times of crisis.

During the Covid 19 pandemic, the US government (led by President Trump) approved trillions of dollars in stimulus packages, including $1,200 in direct payments to citizens. This shows that even a conservative government can adopt radical measures in times of crisis.

The attractiveness of income support in times of crisis:

Income support offers a simple and direct way to help citizens in times of crisis, which can be more effective than expanding or administering complex social security programmes.

The crisis can also highlight the role of basic income in stabilising the economy: when people have money in hand, they can maintain their consumption, preventing a total collapse of the economy.

But unlike during the pandemic, this second crisis could lead to a permanent mechanism where all adult citizens would be paid a fixed monthly income for the rest of their lives. Such a crisis may well be imminent, as Brandon Biggs, who predicted months ago that Donald Trump would be assassinated, that a bullet would hit his ear, and that he would win the November election, also predicted in the same context that globalists would plan to crash the US economy, which would bring Trump to his knees in the White House and ask God for wisdom to solve the crisis. And maybe God will advise him in that situation to implement universal basic income. Who knows?

Of course, many conservatives may believe that plans like universal basic income are satanic projects driven by globalists. Similarly, many conservatives today might argue that social security and the welfare state was a project driven by Marxists and fascists to justify the current bureaucratic big-government state apparatus, which has destroyed nuclear family communities and eroded the influence of the church in society. The criticism of conservatives in general has not been that society should not care for the poor, the sick and the needy, but that this role traditionally belonged to the Christian church and family communities.

The Conservative Christian origins of the welfare state.

However, this view ignores two essential historical background factors: 1) the welfare state itself did not deprive the church of this role but industrialisation and urbanisation did, and 2) the Christian churches and the right-wing conservatives of the 19th century themselves supported the creation of a social security and welfare state because it was seen as the only way to prevent Marxist revolutions in reaction to the social crisis brought about by the industrial revolution. Again, I give the floor to artificial intelligence:

An examination of the historical context shows that social security and related reforms were initially to a significant extent driven by conservatives, Christians and especially churches in late 19th and early 20th century Europe. This may seem contradictory from today’s perspective, where social security is often criticised precisely by right-wing and conservative voices.

Bismarck and the Origins of Modern Social Security in Germany

Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898), the Chancellor of the German Empire, who was himself a conservative Lutheran and monarchist, laid the foundation of the modern social security system in the 1870s and 1880s. His administration implemented several reforms in social legislation, which later became a model for other countries.

Key Social Security Reforms in Bismarck’s Germany:

Sickness Insurance (1883):

Provided employees with sickness benefits and access to healthcare.

Accident Insurance (1884):

Compensated employees for costs arising from accidents.

Old-age pension and invalidity insurance (1889):

The first modern system of pensions and disability insurance.

Why did Bismarck drive social security?

To counter the influence of the socialists:

In the 19th century, socialist and labour movements rose up to demand rights and economic equality. Bismarck believed that social security could reduce the support for these movements and keep society stable.

Christian social responsibility:

Bismarck was a conservative Christian who saw concern for the welfare of the poor and disadvantaged as a duty. He also saw social security as a means of strengthening Christian values in society.

The impact of churches:

The Catholic and Lutheran churches emphasised social responsibility, and their humanitarian ethos influenced conservative politicians to support the establishment of social security.

The Christian social movement in Europe.

Bismarck’s social security system was not unique. At the same time, elsewhere in Europe, Christian social movements were pushing for workers’ rights and poverty reduction:

The Catholic Church and social education:

Pope Leo XIII’s circular letter Rerum Novarum (1891) introduced the Church’s view of the rights of the working class and social justice.

The circular stressed that workers should have the right to fair wages, improved working conditions and social security.

Lutheran churches:

The Lutheran tradition emphasised Christian responsibility for one’s neighbour, which led to many diaconal projects such as care for the poor and nursing.

In the German context, the Lutheran Church strongly supported the role of the state in solving social problems.

Christian Democratic movements:

In many European countries, such as the Netherlands and Belgium, Christian Democratic parties emerged as a counterweight to socialism and capitalism. Their aim was to create societies that combined economic efficiency with social justice.

Other examples of conservative Christian support for social security

in the UK:

William Wilberforce and other Christian reformers campaigned to improve working-class conditions and reduce poverty. This laid the foundations for later reforms of social legislation, such as the Poor Laws.

In the United States:

The Social Gospel movement of the early 20th century combined Christian values with demands for social justice. Many conservative churches supported workers’ rights and social security.

Why was social security initially associated with conservative thinking?

To maintain the stability of society:

Conservatives wanted to prevent revolutionary movements by providing an adequate safety net for the poor to prevent social unrest.

Christian values:

Social security was seen as a way to promote love of neighbour and care for the weaker members of society.

Cooperation between church and state:

Conservatives and churches often supported the role of the state in solving social problems, seeing the state as an authority established by God.

How is this different from today?

Right-wing and conservative attitudes changed in the 20th century:

Social security gradually merged with left-wing policies as labour movements began to push for its expansion. For many modern conservatives, social security represents the expansion of the state at the expense of individual freedom.

In the United States: In the second half of the 20th century, Republicans and many conservative Christians adopted more libertarian views that emphasised individual responsibility and opposed the excessive role of the “paternal” state.

Conclusion

Social security and basic welfare were originally projects supported by many conservative Christians, especially in Germany and elsewhere in Europe in the late 19th century. These schemes were motivated by the need to maintain stability, Christian love of one’s fellow man and the desire to counter revolutionary movements. Today, attitudes towards social security are more polarised, but the historical background shows that conservative and Christian values played a key role in the emergence of the modern social security system.

You can find our full discussion here, but I’ll quote one more response from ChatGPT that sheds some light on the issue:

Current critiques of social security systems often ignore the historical origins and social needs that gave rise to these systems. Social security was not an ideologically neutral or purely ‘left-wing’ project, but a conservative and pragmatic response to the social upheavals caused by the industrialisation and urbanisation of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Social protection in response to the challenges of modern society

The impact of industrialisation and urbanisation:

Change in the nature of work: Before industrialisation, most people lived in rural areas and worked on family farms, where economic security depended on the continuity of the family community. Industrialisation disrupted this structure:

People moved to cities for factory work, which was often precarious and dangerous.

When family communities broke up, traditional safety nets that could help in the event of illness, unemployment or old age no longer existed.

Poverty and Inequality: Industrialization created large disparities in wealth and made poverty more visible with the growth of cities. This created political pressure to solve the problem.

New situation:

Churches and family communities could no longer meet the need for social security on their own. The rapid growth of cities, the hardships of the working class, and the distribution of social responsibility created a need for the expansion of the role of the state.

Modern, complex society required a systematic approach to social issues that were previously addressed in a decentralized manner.

Social security would prevent the rise of the Marxist revolution

The rise of socialist and Marxist movements:

The downside of industrialisation was working class poverty, insecurity and lack of rights. This created a fertile ground for the rise of socialist and Marxist movements.

Socialist ideologies offered alternatives to capitalism, including the possibility of revolutionary change. Marx’s writings, for example, inspired workers’ movements across Europe in the late 19th century.

The conservative role of social security:

The development of social security was partly a conservative and pragmatic response to working-class discontent:

The German model: Otto von Bismarck created the modern social security system partly to counter the support of German socialists. His idea was that a prosperous working class would be more loyal to the state and would not support radical movements.

Britain and France: In many European countries, social security and workers’ rights were compromises that prevented the rise of radical revolution.

Maintaining social peace:

Social security offered a way to channel working class discontent through reform rather than revolution.

Conservative and Christian politicians understood that social stability was the key to economic and social success.

Is it realistic to return to the time before welfare states?

The idea that churches, families and local communities could today completely replace the social security system is not realistic for the following reasons:

The pre-industrial society no longer exists:

Urbanisation: Most people now live in cities, and local communities no longer have the same capacity to provide assistance as in rural communities.

Family change: Families are smaller and less geographically bound. Relatives often live in different cities or countries, reducing their ability to act as a social safety net.

The complexity of social problems:

In modern society, poverty, health problems and inequalities are complex problems that require systematic and centralised solutions. Churches and local communities can complement, but not replace, the role of the state.

The scale of the state and the economy:

The modern state and its economic system are enormously complex. The social security system is now deeply integrated into the economy, and replacing it with voluntary support alone would cause widespread economic disruption.

What do contemporary critics miss?

Historical context:

Social security was a response to concrete social problems that churches and family communities could not solve alone. Modern critics forget that social security systems prevented more serious crises, such as revolutions.

The role of conservatives and Christians:

Social security has its roots in conservative and Christian thinking. This role is often overlooked in the current debate, which treats social security exclusively as a ‘left-wing’ phenomenon.

The need to adapt to modern society:

Existing social protection systems are not perfect, but they are a response to the structures of modern society and the global economy. A return to the pre-industrial model would not reflect today’s realities.

Conclusion

Social security systems emerged in response to the social upheaval caused by industrialisation and urbanisation. They effectively countered the rise of Marxist revolutionary movements and created social stability. In today’s globalised and complex society, the idea that we could return to the social security maintained by churches and family communities is unrealistic. Instead, it is important to recognise that social security can continue to complement community and voluntary support networks, but not replace them.

Conclusion

I agree with many contemporary conservatives that the current welfare state has numerous problems, which became apparent especially in the liberal globalized world order of the 2010s with open borders, as millions of refugees from poor countries flowed into Europe, burdening the social security system and creating cultural and political tensions that manifested in political upheavals such as Brexit in the UK, the election of Trump, and the rise of right-wing populism in Europe. While right-wing populist parties did not oppose the welfare state itself, they saw it as incompatible with the multicultural, pluralistic, open-border Europe supported by the left-green parties of Europe.

The political climate and social issues of the 19th century were completely different from today’s global problems. However, a common theme is that solutions were sought in both eras in response to the social issues brought about by the first and second industrial revolutions, and today we seek solutions to the problems posed by globalization and the fourth industrial revolution. During Bismarck’s time, the welfare state was proposed as a solution, which may have prevented the spread of Marxist revolutions to the West.

Today, solutions being proposed include universal basic income as a replacement and updating of social security. Perhaps current welfare states have indeed reached their limits. Maybe universal basic income could also prevent the emergence of new revolutions that automation of jobs today may provoke. If Elon Musk and President Trump lead the United States into this historical upheaval, will the rest of the world follow suit? Or will the rest of the world follow in the wake of a global anti-human revolution led by the Antichrist, as proclaimed by Charles III in his book Harmony?

This is a call to revolution. The Earth is under threat. It cannot cope with all that we demand of it. It is losing its balance and we humans are causing this to happen. ‘Revolution’ is a strong word and I use it deliberately… We cannot make the equation balance, unless we seriously address how we stabilize and even reduce the human population of the world…

it surely has to be asked whether it is not time we came to a view that balances the traditional attitude to the sacred nature of life on the one hand with, on the other, those teachings within each of the sacred traditions that urge humankind to keep within the limits of Nature’s benevolence and bounty. This is a question that could never have been imagined in the days when the sacred texts of each of the religions were first written down.

Behind the revolution, proclaimed by Charles III, lies a cold Malthusian economics, expressed by the late Finnish ecofascist Pentti Linkola in the following words: “How can anyone see so irrationally as to think that a human life has the same value and morality regardless of its number? It is obvious to me that with the birth of every new child, the value of every person in the world diminishes slightly.” When society spirals into chaos and economic freefall, why shouldn’t we just start dropping heads? After all, it is the simplest solution to regain “balance.” If there are five people on a deserted island, but there is only enough food for three, the simplest solution to this imbalance of supply and demand is to tie the other two up and throw them into the sea.

A more humane way would be to cooperate and develop better tools for fishing to meet the nutritional needs of all five people. Elon Musk has often noted that the true battle for the future of humanity is not between the left and the right, but between those who advocate for reducing the human population and extinction – like Charles III – and those who advocate for the growth of the human race and the development of civilization and its expansion into the stars. In the late 1700s, we witnessed two different revolutions: the Christian American Revolution and the anti-Christian French Revolution. Perhaps in the 2020s, we will also see two different revolutions: the Christian pro-human revolution led by President Trump and the anti-Christian anti-human revolution led by Charles III.