Hi Stef and thanks ever so much for adding your thoughts and those links.
There are many options, of course, for the naming of a Basic Income system. ‘Citizen’s Dividend’ is a rather appealing option.
The trouble with the term, ‘Guaranteed Income,’ is that it is sometimes used for means-tested systems which aim to supplement people’s incomes and boost them up to a guaranteed minimum level — and they’re not Basic Income systems at all.
Yes, Basic Income could be more generous than just providing for essentials. At the point of its introduction, however, it may only be enough for essentials. And then, when the system is accepted, we can have a discussion about whether it should be more generous.
Having watched your TEDx talk, I applaud your intentions and you are entirely right that we should be prepared to re-evaluate our money system and ask whether a better alternative is available.
And your Pokemon point is a very good one! :)
However (here it comes — and please bear in mind I’m trying to be helpful, not dismissive), there’s a suggestion that you may be operating on the basis of a key misconception about ‘interest’ that you share with many of the numerous other individuals who believe we should have a new money system.
“But how are we supposed to pay for that interest if money is created by banks through loans?” — you ask?
You borrow $100 from a bank, but you must pay them $110 back. “But where is the extra $10 supposed to come from?” people ask, as if this situation is bound to cause some sort of shortage of money.
But this query is all based on a misunderstanding. The extra $10 can be paid out of the same $100 that was ‘created’ when the loan was first made. And if you don’t understand how, that’s because you’re not an economist.
It’s great to have ‘outsiders’ taking an interest in Economics, but they should put their ideas to an economist, to check they’re not basing them on misunderstandings about Economics.
If you’d like further assistance, please feel free to ask. :)