We have to seriously consider a universal basic income — Reich

Former Clinton administration Labour Secretary Robert Reich on The Nation

Who’s right about Labour's minimum basic income proposal?

Morgan: “An idea that’s time has come”
17%
Farrar: “Fantasy land stuff”
44%
Stephens: “Worth looking at in principle”
39%
Total votes: 289

Declining incomes, widening inequality and job insecurity mean one day we will have to seriously consider a universal basic income, says Robert Reich, the labour secretary in Bill Clinton's cabinet.

He compaires Donald Trump to fascist leaders, saying he is a politician in the tradition of Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler.

“I do feel it’s important for decent people in America and around the world to stand up to this demagoguery," he says.

The TPP is an investment deal not a trade deal, he says “an agreement created by and for global corporations." But he concedes it does some good for countries such as Vietnam and Peru.

Time Magazine once voted Robert Reich as one of the most influential US cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century.

Now based at the University of California, he doesn’t shy away from controversy, attacking the US Supreme Court, international trade deals and the Republican establishment.

And despite being friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton, he is openly backing Bernie Sanders.

RAW DATA: The Nation transcript: Patrick Gower talks to former Clinton administration Labour Secretary Robert Reich

Watch the interview here

When Patrick Gower sat down with Robert Reich, he started by asking him about Donald Trump and why the race for America’s top job has become so ugly.

Robert Reich: I think that Donald Trump is diminishing and endangering the presidency and the entire political process by inciting violence, by turning people against one another, by using hateful rhetoric and by lying repeatedly about almost everything. You know, the fact that somebody like that can make it this far must cause people in other nations to wonder what in the world has happened to the United States, to American democracy? Let me at least assure people that only 24% of Americans are registered Republicans and Donald Trump has captured, at least up to date, only about 30% of those 24%. So in other words, fewer than 8% of Americans are actively supporting Donald Trump. This is not the face of America.

Patrick Gower: Now, you have recently compared him to a fascist. You’ve compared him to Mussolini, to Stalin, even to Hitler. A very big call. You stand by that, comparing Donald Trump to Hitler?

I think it’s perfectly appropriate to compare Donald Trump to some of the fascists of the 1930s and ‘40s in the sense of the techniques they used – the big lie, the pitting certain people against others, the scapegoating of racial and ethnic minorities, the danger that they pose. And I think the analogy is particularly important, because we know what happened as a result of Mussolini and Franco and Hitler and Stalin. We know the danger was effectuated. It really hurt millions and millions of people. Now, I don’t think Donald Trump and I hope Donald Trump is never in a position to do that, but someone in this tradition has absolutely no business being the primary major candidate of a major party in the United States.

You stand by comparing Donald Trump to Hitler?

Well, I stand by comparing him to the fascists. I don’t know that it’s fair to compare him to one particular fascist. I think Hitler is probably a monster on his own. But I do think that it is important to see Donald Trump as part of a tradition of a politician who has caused enormous destruction in the world.

What has given rise to this surge by Donald Trump? What’s beneath it?

Indeed, what’s given rise to in a very different dimension the phenomenon of Bernie Sanders is the anger and frustration that so many Americans feel about working so hard and getting nowhere. And the overwhelming – it’s really more than a suspicion – sense that they have that the game is rigged in favour of people at the top – big corporations, the billionaires, Wall Street. And so that’s fodder for demagogues on the right. It’s also the stuff of—

Is he a demagogue as well? He’s a demagogue? Donald Trump is a demagogue?

Donald Trump is a demagogue.

 Okay, carry on.

I think that that kind of anger and frustration can also have a positive side, because it can move people to reform, to effective action. I think Bernie Sanders, for example, is talking about a political revolution that would get big money out of politics and rescue American democracy. I think that’s terribly important.

Is Donald Trump dangerous, not just for America but for the rest of the world?

I do feel it’s important for decent people in America and around the world to stand up to this demagoguery. I think it’s important not to permit the things that have been said.

So Hillary Clinton, you’ve known her since she was 19 years old. You worked for Bill Clinton in his cabinet for many years. Do you endorse her to become president?

I think Hillary Clinton, who, as you’ve said, I’ve known since she was 19 and worked very closely with her, would make an excellent president of the political system the United States now has.

So you’re saying she’s the best person for the system, but does that mean she’s the best person for president in your mind?

Well, I’ve also said that I think Bernie Sanders is the best candidate to change that political system into one that America needs, getting big money out of politics, making democracy work better.

So you actually think Bernie Sanders would be a better president?

For the economy we need and for the politics we need, I think he would be. That’s why I endorsed him.

Changing now to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, something you know a lot about, something you actually really dislike. You hate the TPP, don’t you? Why is that?

I think the Trans-Pacific Partnership is not a trade deal. I think it’s an investment deal. It protects international investors, which is okay on its face, but it also would negate many future health and safety and environmental and other regulations that governments put in place to protect their people. New Zealand, for example, probably would not be able to protect New Zealand property from the encroachment of wealthy foreigners. A democracy is about protecting a set of people, health, safety, environment, public welfare. The Trans-Pacific Partnership would make it much more difficult for governments to protect their people and for that reason, I’m opposed.

But what about in countries like Vietnam, like Peru, where they will get access to rights that they haven’t had before, such as a minimum wage and things like that? Surely the TPP is good in that respect?

While I approve of the TPP’s labour and environmental provisions,  I think that the dangers that the TPP poses to the ability of any government to protect its people in terms of their health, their safety, their environment and public welfare overwhelms those advantages.

So you think that it protects the corporates, it protects—?

I think the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, is essentially an agreement created by and for global corporations to protect their interests, to advance their interests. In the provisions of the TPP that would override national health, safety, environment regulations and provisions for a nation’s public’s welfare, I think that it’s a bad deal.

And now changing to the future of work, which is what you’re out in New Zealand for, what is the future of work? How is it going to change?

The trends are all toward three specific growing problems. It doesn’t mean that we have to invariably live with them and that they are necessarily our future, but we have to deal with them and reverse them – number one, staggered or declining incomes adjusted for inflation for most people, number two, widening inequality with not only the lower half doing less well but people at the very top doing far better, and number three, massive insecurity about what one will be paid or even if one will have a job tomorrow or next week or next month.

And you view as a solution to that the universal basic income, which is a universal payment to everyone, everyone in the country. Everyone in New Zealand would get a basic payment, for instance?

No, I don’t think that politically a universal basic income could sell right now, and I don’t think it’s necessary right at the moment. There are still a lot of jobs, people with a wage supplement, such as you have for lower-wage jobs here in New Zealand, can get by, and the combination with that wage supplement and the minimum wage I think are probably the right and correct steps. Investments in education, job training, vocational and technical education are also important. But we will get to a point, all our societies, where technology is displacing so many jobs, not just menial jobs but also professional jobs, that we’re going to have to take seriously the notion of a universal basic income.

Now, Robert Reich, thank you very much for time, but before you go, a prediction – who will be president of the United States by the end of this year?

Bernie Sanders.

Thank you very much for your time. It’s a good place to leave it.

 

Thank you.

Tune into NBR Radio’s Sunday Business with Andrew Patterson on Sunday morning, for analysis and feature-length interviews.


10 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about MyNBR Tags

Post Comment

10 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

What a lot of lefty rubbish. Welfare as a way of life. So whos going to work and provide the taxes?
What a quick way to poverty. But of course we are nearly there. Twenty years on Working for Families, plus Paid Parental Leave and then twenty years on Superannuation. Thats about $700,000 of someone elses money

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Some people work 3 jobs, some people dont work at all. Some save, build a nice home on their efforts and invest. Others live at the pokies, smoke non-stop, drink and do drugs.
What a stupid word inequality means. What it really describes is the way to the bottom for everyone.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

You two, stop having a cry about sh*t you don't understand.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Income: The flow of cash or cash-equivalents received from production of value i.e. worthwhile goods, services and investment.

Redistribution of Income: Taxing those who produce value and redistributing to those who do not produce.

What the public hears and sees: We will give you $200 per week.
What the public does not see: The mathematical reality - it costs the government and taxpayers $3 for every $1 it redistributes. It will cost taxpayers $600 to give away $200.

Who pays: Since not everyone has an income, and the superrich pay little tax, it will cost the middle class who pay most tax a lot more than that to fund it. The middle class, consisting of Mum’s and Dad’s with families, working everyday jobs and/or running small businesses that pay 75% of tax in this country.

Morality: Those that advocate redistribution of wealth and/or promote it are either in highly paid government jobs (already part of the redistribution gravy train) or stand to benefit from the redistribution (want to get on the gravy train).

A financial Ponzi scheme: The heart of any Ponzi scheme is the generation of present time wealth created by continually getting people to buy into or invest in your lie of ‘easy or free wealth’. Ponzi scheme operators hope that scheme will stay intact until either they, the operator, have skipped the country, or that they, the operator, have lived out their life. They don’t care about future fallout, debt, or victims, as they will not be around to see it or be held accountable. And because they lack conscience and empathy, the last things Ponzi scheme operators care about are their victims.

A political Ponzi scheme: Many public officials and left leaning politicians are no better than Ponzi scheme operators, and don’t really care about the next generation, debt or victims. All they care about are present time financial, political, or rise to power. They tell others they care, and may even believe it themselves, because they are in denial of the truth and the future cost of such schemes.

Most promise handouts when the true cost of such handouts will be borne by future generations long after they (the left leaning politicians and officials) have lived out their life or someone else has come to power and inherited the financial mess. They will believe their own socialist lies, excessive spending, and control with as much conviction as a Nigerian scam victim who believes that they are just one more payment away from receiving the $500m from that Nigerian prince.

Tyranny: People remember Hitler as a fascist dictator but his rise to popularity and power was on socialist ideals. No dictator has ever risen to power promising to enslave its own people. The promise of handouts, equality, and an end to inequality, are the common components of a political Ponzi scam that allows tyranny to gain power.

History: No civilisation in the recorded history of mankind has ever survived extensive redistribution of wealth. No matter how well meaning the idealists, it always results in financial collapse and the rise of fascist tyranny.

I am not a fan of Donald Trump, however it is ironic that Robert Reich labels Donald Trump as a fascist in the making, when it is Robert's ideals of redistribution of wealth which sow the seeds of society’s collapse and making tyranny more possible.

Do you want New Zealand to grow by protecting the freedom of the individual and the resultant material wealth and spiritual well-being, or do you want to aid the descent into the black hole of poverty and tyranny through re-distribution of wealth?

Reply
Share
  • 1
  • 0

>"...when it is Robert's ideals of redistribution of wealth which sow the seeds of society’s collapse and making tyranny more possible."

Yeah...that sounds like Scandanavia to me :-|

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

I agree with Reich re TPPA, and disagree with him about the likelihood that Sanders will be the next president, or that Mrs Clinton would be an "excellent president within the existing political system."

Here's how introduce a Universal Basic Income in New Zealand. Raise the VAT to 35%. Credit the ACC levy against VAT liabilities. The tax base for the VAT would include the proceeds from the sale of any business assets, and be net of the purchase cost of any new assets. Pay every legal resident of New Zealand a basic income of $100/week. Tax the wages of local authorities, and all benefits, at 35%. Some fiddling of benefit levels may be required. Reduce the pay of central govt. public servants by 35%. The only persons filing a tax return would be the self-employed, and those with foreign income. Now abolish the taxes on incomes and company profits.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 1

Also - increase taxes on purchases of land by non-citizens.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

What would you like to bet that Professor Reich has spent his working life with his nose in the taxpayer trough?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

What's Trump's 'big lie'? He's not pitting people against racial minorities - he's against illegal immigrants - not Mexicans. He wants to review immigration rules for Muslims - not ban them or export them. Why is protecting your national sovereignty and the people of your nation a bad thing? I applaud Trump for raising these issues - he's brave for doing so in the face of such Leftist BS. Reich mentions the big lie - how about facing the 'ugly truth'?

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

There are enormous opportunities for expanding employment in NZ in the tourism, hospitality and general pleasure leisure sector. The distance and scenic beauty makes New Zealand the ideal place for many to conduct their affairs and self discovery as far as possible from their friends and family. While the interests of tourists is usually in the geography and geology many particularly say Americans, Dutch and Germans are bitterly disappointed by the lack of sophitication of the clubs and bars here. In Auckland the interesting bars have lost their licenses at a rapid rate and the attempt of the Wellington to return closing hour to 5am was rejected by the Government and courts on the paternalistic basis that the ruling of the public interest by the narrowly focused police and social medicine doctors overruled the national interest and the modern right to happiness , pleasure and company of the opposite sex. The problem is building and running modern hotels retires people to be selected and rejected for apprenticeship and on beauty and charm. In the modern world National voters are likely to be the ones rejected. Generally those under 30are pretty enough for people to like and give employment to. Over 30 many are jaded and burnt out and better mentioned off.So a universal one rate GMI of 200 dollars age 19-30 and 400 dollars 31+.

Reply
Share
  • 0
  • 0

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot

Forex

Sym Price Change
USD 0.6972 0.0000 0.00%
AUD 0.9140 0.0000 0.00%
EUR 0.5947 0.0000 0.00%
GBP 0.5244 0.0000 0.00%
HKD 5.4587 0.0000 0.00%
JPY 78.6130 0.0000 0.00%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1257.5 2.370 2017-12-15T00:
Oil Brent 62.6 -0.070 2017-12-15T00:
Oil Nymex 57.3 0.310 2017-12-15T00:
Silver Index 16.0 0.129 2017-12-15T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NASDAQ 6871.6 6945.8 6856.5 1.17%
DJI 24585.7 24688.6 24508.7 0.58%