Abstract This paper compares and contrasts the basic income proposal with the alternative policy proposal of the state acting as employer of last resort. Two versions of the UBI proposal are distinguished: one is hard to differentiate from expanded welfare state provision. Van Parijs’s proposal is radical enough to qualify as major egalitarian revision to capitalism. However, while it removes from a capitalist class the power to determine the terms on which others labour, it leaves this class in place and able to exert other powers that distort the macro-economy. These include pecuniary emulation, demand pull inflation, and political resistance to full employment so that the rentier class does not have to contend with entrepreneurs *and* the working class over the distribution of the productive surplus. The state as employer of last resort proposal addresses these deeper issues while also claiming that inflationary pressure will undermine the UBI alternative.

中文翻译：

---

充分就业、无条件基本收入和凯恩斯主义对食利者资本主义的批判

摘要 本文将基本收入提案与国家作为最后雇主的替代政策提案进行了比较和对比。UBI 提案有两个版本：一个版本很难与扩大的福利国家条款区分开来。Van Parijs 的提议足够激进，足以成为对资本主义的重大平等主义修正。然而，虽然它剥夺了资产阶级决定其他人劳动条件的权力，但它保留了这个阶级并能够行使扭曲宏观经济的其他权力。这些包括金钱竞争、需求拉动式通货膨胀以及对充分就业的政治抵制，以便食利者阶级不必在生产剩余的分配问题上与企业家*和*工人阶级竞争。