UBI and Copiosis: A comparison

Basic income or Universal Basic Income (UBI), is now becoming popular among those seriously looking at the future. They are realizing the world is changing. They realize we need something to mitigate disruption forecasted when automation, plant efficiency, and Artificial Intelligence make obsolete millions of jobs.

California entrepreneurs and wealthy investors are right now testing UBI in their state. This has been widely reported. There are other trials that have happened or are underway in other countries. Most famously, Facebook founder Mark Zukerberg recently voiced his adamant support for UBI. He even went so far as to say people like him should pay for it.

That’s a pretty ringing endorsement.

What’s interesting to note is a large number of people thought UBI would never get to this point, where people are taking it seriously. Others felt exactly the opposite. The same is true for Copiosis: there will be a time in the future where people as luminous as Zukerberg will make identical statements about our innovation. So while we’re eagerly anticipating that future event, let’s take a look at the differences between UBI and Copiosis.


UBI and Copiosis have some things in common. But they’re very different. For one, they’re both transitional strategies. Both strive to free people from problems caused by flagging capitalism. Both allow people to obtain their basic needs in some way. But that’s about where the similarities end.

Basic income seems eminently practical too. Afterall, all you’re doing is giving people free money, then allowing recipients to spend it any way they want.

To my knowledge, there is no UBI follow-on strategy for fundamentally changing the status quo. People are still in debt, we still face our major risks and challenges, and the change we do get through basic income still has to be paid for by someone, either through a tax or other wealth transfer process.

Copiosis on the other hand is a full-blown fundamental change transition strategy.

Instead of giving people money, its framework allows people to simply get the things that money would otherwise buy. Unlike basic income, Copiosis eliminates all debt. It frees physical assets so they can be used in ways that have a net benefit to people and the planet.

It also stimulates increased innovation by making capital goods freely available.

Basic income can stimulate innovation and allow people to follow their passions too. But only if people make the right choices with the money they get. There are no incentives in the Basic Income strategy to encourage people to do that though.

In Copiosis, since there is no money, and there are strong incentives to follow one’s passions, everyone on the planet, over time, becomes an innovation center.

Finally, in the end Copiosis, once implemented, leaves humanity free to choose.

No longer needing to earn a living, no longer needing to pay for things that enhance one’s ability to thrive,

We find ourselves in a society unlike anything we’ve had before.And all of this costs no one a dime.

Check out this table I created comparing the two ideas (right). Detail behind this table can be found by clicking here. I’d be interested in your opinion on the matter.

Screen Shot 2017-08-15 at 14.07.33 PM

How Copiosis Compares to Universal Basic Income


Originally published at Copiosis.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.