so, what's my take on this?

living on the boundary of the empire may make us sometimes forget what the drawbacks of being behind the limes actually are, and perhaps lull us into a false sense of equivalency with conditions within the empire itself. we are so close to the heart of the empire, and we enjoy so many privileges as a result of it, but we are not within it's borders and there are ramifications of this.

the united states is not historically unique in it's ability to create money at will, this privilege has been enjoyed by other hegemonic states, but it is a rare and powerful privilege that satellite states like canada do not have, in the current financial system. nobody can or will tell the united states how much money to create, or what to do with it. canada, however, is subject to severe levels of discipline through the ratings agency system if it creates money at too great a rate, and these levels of discipline can be quite degrading - we're talking about forced market liberalization of government services, in order to raise equity for the interest payments.

i am an advocate of canadian sovereignty, and because of that, i need to clearly state that canada would be wise to avoid giving these international (but american dominated) bodies like the imf too much of an excuse to involve themselves in our public financing. we want these people to stay far away.

so, i realize that the question of correctly balancing the federal canadian debt load with our ability to generate revenue and our ability to pay down interest, both of which are suffering very badly right now, is in truth of great importance in maintaining our public infrastructure, in the long run.

stated simply: if we fuck up our debt-to-gdp ratio too badly on this, the imf is going to swoop in and privatize everything, which is game over for the country.

this doesn't mean i'm not an advocate of mmt, or that i think deficits actually matter in any serious macroeconomic way. i'm not buying into any of the neo-liberal arguments around this. at all. i'm just pointing out the severity of the disciplinary process. you can disagree with your master intellectually, while realizing the severity of the consequences for disobeying orders.

further, i don't want to make it seem like we should be pushing austerity at this point. being aware of where the limits are means realizing that the country does have a lot of space to play with, and isn't in risk of going bankrupt any time soon.

the reality is that the idea of sending large monthly checks to everybody in a time when revenue is low to non-existent is one that needs to be very carefully analyzed in terms of where it would leave our debt-to-gdp ratio, and because we are a satellite of the empire, we need to abide by the rules in place for satellite states, rather than the rules in place for the empire itself.

for that reason, i would support an immediate ubi in the united states, even as i call for careful budgeting in canada.

i'm not discounting the possibility that the ubi may emerge as the most effective method. one argument that i've seen david graeber promote repeatedly is that the government will actually save money by getting rid of the costly bureaucracy around needs-testing; i don't want to make guesses or reason through this, i want to see somebody actually do the math, and i don't have access to the stats, myself. this is a claim, and it may be true in specific contexts, but i'll let the experts tell me - how much is it costing to administer the program, and are there cost savings attached to administering the program, rather than handing out universal checks?

one of the arguments i've heard directly from the government is that some workers could be getting closer to $4,000/month under the emergency benefit, so moving to a flat benefit would lead to them getting less money, which could be catastrophic if they, for example, have children, or rent that is close to or higher than $2,000/month. the marxist in me wants to ensure that these people get what they need, and, in this case, it would be more than the amount being floated around; a ubi, in context, would have to be closer to $5,000/month to be implementable, and then there's little question that there are cost-savings in running the bureaucracy.

a more pertinent question may be whether a ubi-like payment may be the more efficient way to reach people that don't qualify, in addition to the programs that have been set up. if they just gave everybody below some poverty line ($20,000?) a $2000/month monthly check for however long this lasts, that may be more cost-effective than setting up additional programs, and the total payout may be manageable in the broader context. some people might get a little more than they need, but these will be people with very little, to begin with.

what i want them to do is actually find the right numbers and do the right calculations and see what the correct deductions are.

but, if they do this, please realize that the most likely outcome is an additional bursary program in addition to the existing payout schemes, and not something to replace it - it's not just the poor that are getting hit, it's also people with mortgages and salaried jobs, and they can't pay their bills on $2000.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-what-if-cras-emergency-response-benefit-amid-pandemic-is-a-mistake/