Have you Ever been Swept Off Your Feet?

In both cases – whether the bubble was inflated with positive or negative energy – the participants in the bubble are being swept away further and further away from actual physical reality and start to see everything either ‘extremely negatively’ or ‘extremely positively’ – neither experience is grounded in reality – because the physical is neither positive or negative – it just is what it is.

And Then You Crash – Meconomics

In this little series, we’ve been investigating the phenomenon of inflation, how we in our daily lives participate in ‘inflating our reality’ and so, how we are on a personal level participating in the same principles/dynamics that we see playing out on a bigger scale when it comes to inflation, speculative bubbles and financial market crashes.

Welcoming New Life with Living Income Guaranteed

Comfort, security and nurturing are all things we wish are present when a baby comes into this world. Yet, these conditions are not a reality for many babies, as parents themselves like these things in their lives. In Pietermaritzburg, the capital of KwaZulu Natal province in South Africa, 3 to 5 babies are…

Humanity Washed Ashore

This was an excerpt of just one of the stories about the boy. Over the last few days, dozens have been written and published on various major news sites. What is more striking than the content of the posts, is the comments that are left on these articles. What is humanity’s response to such images, to such news?

Voting Fun – What does it Feel Like to Have a Say?

Now – before such increased direct political participation is a reality – let’s do a little test to see what it feels like. So – here are some mock-questions where you’re asked to give your input. Imagine that this relates to your direct reality (eg. your town) – and your answer has a weight that influences the outcome of the decision. Of course, in reality…

28 July 2012

Day 57: Measuring the Performance of the Economy – Part 3

I commit myself to expose how the current economic system within the world has lost all connection to the physical world and is only interested itself as an entity where human beings, animals, plants, Earth – are all placed into the service of the Economy for the sake of a few benefiting from the current system

I commit myself to the establishment of an economic system which is in support of Life instead of being a parasitic entity as what is currently exists as

I commit myself to the establishment of a world economic system which is sustainable and support all Life by taking into consideration all equally, and not just those with money

I commit myself to the establishment of a world economic system which is rooted in reality, and does not just go about distributing and producing stuff with no regard of consequence and actual physical capability of planet Earth, nature, animals and humans

I commit myself to establish a world economic system which caters for All Life Equally – so that this resource distribution leading to those with money and skipping those without can stop

I commit myself to expose the ridiculousness of our current economic systems objectives as they in no way have any connection to physical reality but are only concerned with the Egos of man as those who identify themselves with the current economic system and benefit from it – where it’s all about who can produce the most stuff with no regard for consequence and the billions of people suffering

I commit myself to the establishment of Common Sense, Best for All macroeconomic Objectives – such as ensuring that the economic system provides for everyone’s basic needs, and uses the Earth’s resources in a responsible, sustainable way

I commit myself to expose the wicked nature of man which is reflected within the attitude of conventional economists as their words clearly show that they have no regard for any other life form but themselves

I commit myself to a world economic system where people do not have to work to earn a living, but where people will be supported unconditionally from Birth to Death

I commit myself to a New World Order where work/labour becomes a point of self-responsibility where we see / realise that certain things need to be done in order for everyone to be taken care of, and so do our part in ensuring the wellbeing of the whole, where each dedicate a few years of their lives to play their part – and where afterwards work/labour becomes a point of expression where you take on a position because you enjoy doing so, not because your life depends on it

I commit myself to expose the nature of our current economic system as a ruthless, brutal, heartless system which only cares for itself and if you do not meet the criteria to ‘play’ its game, you are spitted out and left to fend for yourself – where this current economic system is here by our own acceptance and allowance, and where we can just as well design and implement an economic system of Real Love as unconditionally giving and receiving where no-one is left behind

I commit myself to expose how our current economic system and the economists who defend it have no interest whatsoever in the equitable distribution of income and hide behind petty excuses and justifications as to why they will not discuss this point and bring about change, because apparently they do not have the authority to comment on this and so all they can do is ‘leave it be’ and do what they do as economists which is protect the system

I commit myself to an Equal Money System where an Economic System of Equality will be implemented, which caters for all life, in a sustainable, responsible way – ensuring the well being of All Life Now and in the Future 

27 July 2012

Day 56: Measuring the Performance of the Economy – Part 2

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to value objectives within macroeconomics in terms of evaluating the performance of the economy – which is no way are related to the wellbeing of Life on Earth, but only concerned with the self-preservation of the current economic system

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a world economic system where Life on Earth is placed in the service of the Economic Machine of Greed and Unsustainability – instead of a world economic system which serves Life on Earth

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have completely missed the point of economics – where I accepted and allowed myself to believe in - and support a system of Hope where few win and the majority lose, where Hope is the only thing keeping the system standing as the majority hope to one day be in a position of the few – while obviously this is not mathematically possible, as the lifestyle of the few is only possible if they remain few – and within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to have created and economic system which actually looks at all the points in the world which require support within sustenance and then unconditionally direct the flow of resources towards all points which require sustenance/support without any form of discrimination which is in fact what the Equal Money System is designed to do

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to value ‘economic growth’ as a macroeconomic objective, and where this objective is valued above all other objectives as the Holy Grail of Success – without seeing and realising that the desire for economic growth is just another way of saying ‘more..More.. MORE, I WANT MORE!!!’, as a spoilt child throwing a tantrum for not getting what it wants – while in the meantime half the world perishes in poverty and starvation and get to be ignored while we economists stare at economic growth like a moth being attracted to a flame - ever hypnotised, never considering the consequences of one’s actions

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to value “how much more stuff has been produced” as the primary marcoeconomic objective

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the news today which I can see/hear/read about daily – clearly indicate that there are much more important objectives to consider as the suffering and madness is undeniable, yet I will value ‘producing stuff’ more over ‘making sure everyone’s living a comfortable life’

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have mindfucked myself into believing that ‘producing stuff’ equals ‘making a better world’

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to justify within myself my evil actions of limited self-interest with the thought that ‘eventually all the stuff/wealth will trickle down to the poor and then they will also be better off!’

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to be honest with myself as I know that ‘it will trickle down to the less fortunate’ is a big fat lie – but as long as there are enough of us portraying it to be the truth and teaching it to our children, we can maintain the lie and keep avoiding self-responsibility – and if we put it into pretty sophisticated words in textbooks then it almost sounds true too!

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a world economic system where there can never be full employment – and then at the same time create the system in such a way that everyone is dependent on employment to earn their living, and so not everyone can live

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that we can just as easily create a system where people don’t have to depend on employment to be able to sustain themselves and where we scale down our industries of entertainment which are only here to benefit the minority – so that there are less jobs to be done and so not everyone has to work all the time for the sake of profit and economic growth – and so we will have more time available to actually live and enjoy ourselves

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to value only those things which relate to the preservation of the current economic system – and so there are no real goals , as all we are doing is timelooping on the same point, which is our current economic system which is Not Best for All

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to place ‘equitable distribution of income’ as one of the objectives of marcoeconomics, but it is really just to appease people, where we pretend that we are giving inequality attention – while we don’t, and then justify our non-consideration on the base that it is a ‘normative’/’subjective’ issue – and that it is not the economist’s place to say anything about this issue, as they are not politicians or sociologists – which is a real easy way out of not taking responsibility – and within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that our very economic system as what it currently exists as, is ONLY based on the subjectiveness and normativity – as it is a VALUE SYSTEM which currently only values the HAPPINESS OF A FEW – and so when economists say that they rather do not comment on such a ‘controversial issue’ as ‘unequal income distribution’ – it’s really just the same as saying I LIKE THIS INEQUALITY JUST THE WAY IT IS

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that it is not about being a ‘politician’ or a ‘sociologist’ or whatever other qualification – as the only thing you require to comment on the current status of inequality within the world is YOU as a HUMAN BEING and the realisation that OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, which are JUST LIKE YOU, are mostly in positions which you would NOT WANT to be in – and within that you either decide to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT or NOT – and as we have seen, the mainstream economists have decided to NOT do ANYTHING about it as they value their own Life as more valuable than others

26 July 2012

Day 55: Measuring the Performance of the Economy: Macroeconomic Objectives

Within the next few blogs we’ll be looking at how economists currently measure the performance of the economy, and by what criteria they are measuring it by. In this blog we’ll be discussing the macroeconomic objectives. These objectives also give a nice indication of what it is that is being valued within the area of economics.

There are about 5 objectives which are regularly listed when looking at macroeconomic objectives:

1)    Economic growth
2)    Full employment
3)    Price stability
4)    Balance of payments stability ( / external stability)
5)    Equitable distribution of income

1.     Economic Growth

Economic growth is considered to be the most important criterion, and is the one criterion which will be given the most weight when evaluating and comparing economies.

Economic growth sounds like a very big concept, but it really just refers to an increase in the total production of goods and services from one period to the next – usually one year.

So this is quite a ‘vague’ and ‘undefined’ goal – as all it stipulates is that there must be some sort of increase in the total production of goods and services – no matter what these goods or services are, or whether they are beneficial to the whole of society or not. A conventional economist might tell you that the goods and services produced will obviously be that which is required to be produced for the good of society, as what is produced and how much is dependent on supply and demand. And so – if someone were to produce something which is of “no value”, no-one would demand it and the person would soon be going out of business – and within this manner the economy eliminates any and all apparently unnecessary goods and services, and justifies what and the quantities which are being produced: it’s demanded! If people are willing to spend money on it, it means they value it, if they value it, it means it brings them happiness --- so, if we produce what is demanded then we are increasing everyone’s happiness and being a good person!

But now obviously, since the majority of the wealth (= money votes) lies in the hands of the minority, then we are really just producing/providing/catering for a handful of people, and only producing/creating things which they think are important, and so all the needs and wants of the remaining majority aren’t catered for because they do not form part of the ‘demand’. And then we go and measure the ‘performance’ of the economy in terms of how much ‘stuff’ is produced – and the more the better. Measuring the performance of the economy this way, gives you no indication whatsoever in terms of how the whole of society is faring – isn’t that what real performance should be about?

2.     Full Employment

Ideally, a country wants all its factors of productions, and in particular ‘labour’ to be fully employed. In practice however, there’s always unemployment. The main concern with high unemployment rates are political and social stability – as high unemployment might disrupt social and political cohesion which then affects the economy as well. Can’t let that happen! These are considered the ‘social costs’ of unemployment. Personal material and psychological suffering is only a personal cost, and is obviously not that big of a deal – otherwise the economy would not be standing on the principles of supply and demand and the starting point of self-interest.

Full employment should really not be such a ‘major deal’ – the only reason why we are making employment so important is because we’ve accepted and allowed ourselves to create a system which requires you to earn your living. And so, if you do not have a job, you are unable to support yourself, and you are rejected by the system. We then have people working multiple jobs getting barely any sleep just to get by, while others live a life of extravagance, having other people employed to do all the work while they do nothing at all. So you see, there are two extreme polarities – and we can easily balance this out so we can have a world where we do not have to work all the time for the majority of our lives. We will then not have full employment, but it wouldn’t be necessary either. Because you’d for instance go to school while you’re still very young, then you work for a few years – and then after that, it’s up to you whether you want to work or do something else. Doesn’t that sound nice?

3.     Price Stability

Price stability as an objective refers to keeping inflation as low as possible. So prices will still change according to the interaction with supply and demand. To check the movement of prices, the Consumer Price Index is used – which will be explained at a later stage. Inflation is unwanted for distributional, economic and socio-political reason, which we’ll explain when we get to inflation (but simply put, inflation is harmful to the economic status quo – as it creates unrest and the system stops working the way it should be, where those who are supposed to lose now win and vice versa).

4.     Balance of Payments

This concept of ‘Balance of Payments’ refers to the money going in and out of a particular country – within the movement of imports and exports, over a particular amount of time. The Balance of Payments is usually calculated every quarter and every calendar year. In theory, the Balance of Payments should be zero, meaning that what goes out (‘debits’) is balanced by what comes in (‘credits’). In practice however, this barely happens – and so the Balance of Payments can be used so show whether there is a surplus or a deficit and from which area in the economy these unbalances are coming from.

Now we actually get to a worthwhile objective, and then this objective is something economists do not like to discuss because it involves subjective/normative issues – and so they rather not say anything about it, expect that it is ‘controversial’ and then move on to the next topic. Very sad.

When looking at the distribution of income, there’s no mention about ‘everyone deserves access to basic resources’ or things like that, no, no – instead they look at how ‘income inequality’ is a means of stimulating saving and investment which apparently would eventually also benefit the poor (but I mean, if you just give everyone a basic income, then you don’t have poor people in the first place – I mean, it’s really that simple). But then they say, on the other side, inequitable distribution of income, can lead to feelings of injustice and unfairness, which may stir up unrest and then affect the structure and development of the economy. So here you have a ‘pro’ and a ‘contra’ for income equality/inequality – but what is fascinating, is that in each of these statements, it is always the interest of the ‘economy’ as some holy spirit/entity which gets to take center stage, where the preserving of the ‘economy’ is the number one priority – and all the unfairness and suffering is secondary. But what is the point of keeping an economy alive which is not Best for All?

The only reason we currently have middle-class, is so they can be the ‘buffer’ between the rich and the poor which keep everything stable and prevent any ‘unrest’ and ‘instability’ for the sake of the Preservation of the Economy. This concept does way back, all the way to Aristotle who saw just the same.

But this basically implies that, if we as humanity could have gone without the middle-class and have an even wider separation between the rich and the poor without it causing ‘unrest’ – we would have done so.

25 July 2012

Day 54: Government Intervention - Part 3

I commit myself to expose that any type of intervention within the current economic system completely useless – since we are changing some of the variables in the equation but the equation is still rooted within the same principle – as the principle of self-interest and gain – and whatever changes we implement within the system, will be rendered useless throughout time as self-interest will always prevail – as this is how we set up our system

I commit myself to show that the problem with economics is the very root, as the starting point of economics and the specific character role which has been assigned to humanity – where the starting point is to distribute limited resources in such a way as to attempt and satisfy unlimited wants of humans – where money is the deciding factor as to who gets to satisfy their wants/needs and who doesn’t – and where the human has taken on the role of the self-interested character who is allowed to do whatever it takes in the name of profit

I commit myself to expose that an economic system with the above equation and variables as its starting point can only result in disaster as it is based on unsustainable goals and the reckless/unreliable/irresponsible nature of the human being – having left out all and any consideration regarding any other beings but itself

I commit myself to expose that any action concerning change within the system for the betterment of Life on Earth is not in fact altruistic – as any change within the system is rendered useless by the overpowering authority which has been given to self-interest and the pursuit of happiness and so the only altruistic act, the only act of unconditional love would be the abolishment of the current world system and replace it with a system which is Best for All Life as the Equal Money System which Values Life, that which is real as the physical reality over Mind Delusions as Money

I commit myself to show that standing / support a cause which does not cause the replacement of the current world system is useless and will most likely only bring more suffering as the workings of the current world system as the reflection of the mind is not understood

I commit myself to the education of the human being so all may see/realise/understand how this reality actually operates as it is merely reflecting / mimicking the workings of the Mind

I commit myself to expose that we cannot sustain our current world system as it was not designed with sustainability in Mind and thus the best thing we can do is release ourselves from the current world system as it is a parasite sucking the Life out of Planet Earth and all the living beings as plants, animals and humans – and so I commit myself to remove the parasite and replace it with a system of Support as the Equal Money System where NONE are left behind

I commit myself to the redefinition of economics – where the starting point of economics is no longer that of the limited anthropocentric view of life, but a starting point of Biocentrism* where Life is put as the centre cause and where the Human no longer plays the role of Self-Interested Agent looking out to satisfy his own desires, but is placed in a position of Stewardship*/Custodianship – here to support other Life forms as itself within an Equal and One consideration and respect

*Biocentrism: Biocentrism states that nature does not exist simply to be used or consumed by humans, but that humans are simply one species amongst many,[4] and that because we are part of an ecosystem, any actions which negatively affect the living systems of which we are a part, adversely affect us as well,[4][5] whether or not we maintain a biocentric worldview.[4] Biocentrists believe that all species have inherent value, and that humans are not "superior" in a moral or ethical sense

*Stewardship is an ethic that embodies responsible planning and management of resources.

24 July 2012

Day 53: Government Intervention - Part 2

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that if we just edit or adjust a few things within our current economic system that things will get better

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that we can try and change/manipulate whatever we want – but as long as we do not change the starting point of our current economic system as justified self-interest – we’ll simply play the same game under a different picture

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that there is a solution within the system – not seeing and realising that the system is the problem – and within that I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to fear losing / giving up the current economic system because I fear losing / giving up my self interest

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to rather want and go change bits and pieces here and there to make things more ‘equitable’ for those less fortunate – but never take on the system as a whole because I secretly want to hold on to the problem as self-interest because I do not want to give up my hopes and dreams of wealth and living a care free life while others slave away their existence to make my care free life possible

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself advocate particular points such as for instance ‘minimum wage’ and ‘banning child labour’ – without taking into consideration what the consequences/effects/results would be of such actions as I have failed to investigate this reality for real

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a political system where leaders and decision makers are placed in positions of power based on a popularity contest which is based on money – as whoever gets the must funding for their campaign will win the contest – where we end up with leaders who were not trained to be leaders and which lack the skill and understanding of how the world actually operates – and then end up implementing policies to “do good” but end up doing “bad” within not having investigate the nature and dynamics of the current world system

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that there is no solution possible within the system – as it will only create side-effects / consequences which result in a world worse off instead of better off – since we’ve accepted and allowed self-interest to be the guiding principle for all our actions and within that we’ve accepted and justified abuse – so as long as we safeguard and protect self-interest – it will always be the dominating variable in any equation which will overpower and determine the outcome

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that no ‘altruism’, ‘goodness’ or ‘love’ can exist as long as we live in and accept the current world system, as it can only result in more evil, hate and self interest

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to admit that which I know needs to be done – which is the implementation of an Equal Money System so all may finally be equal in accessibility of life sustaining resources

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that we cannot go on like this forever – so we might as well stop now, as it has to be done sooner or later – and the sooner the better

23 July 2012

Day 52: Government Intervention

In this section we will have a look at the outflows and consequences which manifest when the government intervenes in the economy. The economic model is designed to ‘stand on its own’, where the forces of supply and demand ought to rule and regulate the market without anyone exerting any form of control or manipulation. It is designed to balance itself out.

However, due to the free market principle – some people are excluded from being able to access (basic) resources because of insufficient financial means. The government might find it necessary to intervene in the economy to allow for more people to be able to access these goods and services.

Price Ceiling
A ‘price ceiling’ is a legal upper limit on the price of a good or service. Once this price ceiling is imposed by the government; it becomes illegal for suppliers to sell the particular good or service at a higher rate than the set ceiling price. This is done to protect consumers from conditions that could possibly make basic commodities inaccessible.

Let us now have a look at the ‘ripple effect’ that comes about when a price ceiling is imposed.
We know that consumers like low prices and that suppliers enjoy high prices. Within the free market an equilibrium price is reached [See Day 49: Resource Distribution: Supply & Demand for a refresher on 'equilibrium price] where both demand and supply meet each other. For a price ceiling to be effective [a maximum price], the government has to set the ceiling below the equilibrium price. If for instance, the equilibrium price of bread is set at $3 a loaf – the government would set a price ceiling at let’s say $1,50 a loaf – to make the bread accessible for a wider range of people. This will initially make the consumer temporarily pleased as he or she can now buy bread or buy more bread with his or her available funds. Though, as we have seen before, the interest of the supplier lies at the opposite side of the equation. The supplier is now not making as much money as he could have been making at the equilibrium price, and considers being at loss with the new price rate. Producing the same amount of bread loaves at the new price is not (as) profitable anymore and the supplier starts producing less. The bread will still be available at $1,50 a loaf – but less bread will be offered. In the end, we have the exact same problem as before the price ceiling was imposed: some will be able to buy bread, and others won’t. The price ceiling has as a side-effect created a shortage in supply and no actual solution has been put in place.

Price Floor

A ‘price floor’ on the other hand, is an imposed minimum price that may be charged for a particular good or service. It becomes illegal to sell the particular good or service at a lower rate than the set floor price. Price floors are imposed by the government to prevent prices from being too low. The most common known price floor is the minimum wage for labour. Price floors are also often used in the agricultural sector in an attempt to protect farmers.

As you can guess, a price floor is not without consequence.

What happens when the price of a product or service increases? Potential buyers are more likely to refrain from buying the product or service as it is considered to be less lucrative to buy the product or service at the floor price. The quantity demanded of the particular good or service decreases.

On the other hand, there will be in an increase of supply, as more people are willing to supply this particular good or service since they can get more money for than at the equilibrium price – for the exact same amount.

If we now have to translate this into a real life practical example such as the minimum-wage, we get the following scenario:

Because of the increased in price for labour, companies are less likely to hire as many people as they would have done at the equilibrium price – because it became more expensive to do so.
Thus some people will be able to get jobs and have a minimum wage that they can live off. But at the same time there will now be people who will not be able to get a job at all, due to the decrease in available job positions. There is a surplus in supply.  In the end the people who were supposed to benefit from the government intervention, are the ones who are worse off in the long run.

Another example of the inefficiency of price floors within our current economic system plays out within the agricultural sector. To provide farmers with a decent income (and thus to keep them motivated to produce food for consumption), the government can introduce a price floor on certain types of food. The farmer will start producing and supplying more of that particular food, as he or she knows that a greater profit is being made. At the same time, a lesser quantity is being demanded as the particular food just became more expensive in the eye of the consumer. A surplus of food is thus created. This can cause massive amount of food to go to waste or lead governments to dump the surplus of food in other countries, which disrupts the local market there – where the farmers there end up not being able to sell their produce as they have been bombarded with cheap surplus food / food-aid from overseas.

Often politicians themselves are not even aware of the side-effects / consequences of making such decisions -- as they are playing a popularity game and are only concerned with doing that which 'looks good' and have no background in economics, or where they will know what the actual effect of their decisions is, but still do it anyway, as the voters are fooled within believing that the politician is being 'altruistic', while nothing really changes.

This again highlights that there is no solution possible within the system – since self-interest is at the base point of everything – and so no matter how you try and ‘manipulate’ the game – self-interest will always bite you in the ass and get what it wants. If you try and change some of the rules, self-interest will simply adapt and do what self-interest does = only care about self, and others will still be hurt in the process. And so no matter what you do, you’ll still end up with a broken system, because the very foundation, the very starting point is unsound. Whatever move you make to “try and make things better” will simply be matched by a counter movement which keeps the entire game / construct in place. 

This dynamic is important to keep in mind, as some people will for instance advocate ‘minimum wage’ without seeing/realizing what the consequences/side-effects are. This doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t have a basic income – it just means that it won’t work in our current system.

That’s why we cannot just ‘edit’ or ‘adjust’ the system – we have to completely and irrevocably replace it with a whole new value system – a value system as the Equal Money System which values Life over all, and works for the whole of Earth and its inhabitants.

22 July 2012

Day 51: Resource Distribution - Part 3

I commit myself to expose the true nature of supply and demand -- where a demand is only a demand if a person has the financial means to back up their want/need -- and where again no distinction is being made between want or need -- the system doesn't care whether you're dealing with a want or a need -- if you don't have the money you're not part of the game

I commit myself to expose that our current nature inherently prefers people with money over people with no money and that the system will thus never work for everyone as there is no equality existent currently within the distribution of money all over the world -- it can thus only further widen the inequality gap

I commit myself to expose the dubious nature of economics -- where economics is dubbed the 'science of scarcity' -- while all the while not being interested at all in the responsible management of these 'scarce' resources -- because if you have money, you can get what you want -- no matter how this will impact negatively upon others

I commit myself to expose that economics being fucked up is no secret -- it is right there all laid out in the textbooks, there are no conspiracies who are behind the fucked-up-ness within our world -- the answer has always been right infront of our eyes but we've been too blind to see it/question it -- which only reflects back to us who we really are and what we have accepted and allowed ourselves to be and so allowed it to be manifested within this world as an extension of ourselves

I commit myself to the uniting of divided interests into one interest as that which is Best for All Life -- where all play a role as giver and receiver within the realisation of the responsibility each one has to take on and live to make this place a world which is Best for All

I commit myself to expose the fake sense of 'equality' our current economic system presents -- where the concept of equilibrium sounds nice, and where the math adds up = the amount supplied equals the amount demanded -- it sounds so perfect so it must be right -- without seeing/realising that the equation had to be rigged for it to work out, and is thus not a real point of equilibrium, as it only wants to play equilibrium with those who have money

I commit myself to the responsible management of resources, where we actually look and investigate what is here, how we can use it, how long will it last -- how many beings are there, what are their needs, how can we get the resources they need to them --- where the system will not distribute to those with money and skip those without -- but will give to Life for the sake of Life, where all have a right to the resources to sustain themselves just because they are Here, not because they first have earn it

I commit myself to the establishment of an Equal Money Economic System, the first Economic System which cares about all Life and cares about the resources Earth has provided, managing them responsibly and with sustainability in mind at all times

21 July 2012

Day 50: Resource Distribution - Part 2

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created an economic system which relies on the principle on ‘Supply and Demand’ to distribute resources to beings – where I / we’ve accepted and allowed ‘demand’ to only count if and when a person has money to back up there want/need – and within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to make a distinction between wants and needs – where it doesn’t matter what one wants/needs as long as they have the money to back up what they want/need, I don’t care about what it is they want/need

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created and agreed upon an economic system which favours beings with money over beings with no money – where we / I have accepted and allowed ourselves to place value within money over Life and within that create disastrous consequence as that which has Real Value as Life, as the Physical is now completely disregarded in the name of Money

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that since no-one has ever been equal in terms of money – a system such as the one we have now which works within the principle of supply and demand and where demand is only validated through having the financial means to back up you want/need, with not everyone having money/having access to equal money – can and will only result in the deepening of inequality and this misery within this world

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to actually read that which is being taught within economics textbooks – where I will simply read the theory of supply and demand and go “okay so that’s how it works” without ever questioning or looking at what is being implied within the theories – and within that accept and allow the current condition of the world as inequality resulting in suffering for the majority to continue to exist

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a division between those who supply and those who consume – where each are standing at opposite self-interest sides – instead of seeing and realising that everyone is part of this world and thus should form part of both creating as giving and ‘consuming’ as receiving – and so both groups self-interest ought to be aligned to what is Best for All as each play their part within the Body of Existence

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created an economic system where wants are valued over needs within having defined the starting point of economy as using resources to satisfy human wants – and within that I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created an economic system where not everyone wants and needs can be satisfied because of the reality that we cannot satisfy unlimited wants through limited means – and so I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a system of supply and demand in an attempt to ‘scale down’ the amount of people who ‘demand’ a particular good/service – and within that make it appear as if the market is ‘satisfied’ – as through the equilibrium principle the amount supplied will equal the amount demand which sounds so nice – where an illusion of ‘equality’ is created without seeing/realising that this is not real equality as a whole bunch of beings had to be taken out of the equation for the system to work – and those are the beings who end up living in slums/townships fending for their lives

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to place the responsibility of what needs to be produced and to whom it must go within a system of supply and demand – where producers will solely consider what is demanded and supply accordingly without ever stopping for a moment and asking themselves whether this is really best for all

Day 49: Resource Distribution: Supply & Demand

As seen in ‘Day 40: What is Economics?’, economics essentially deals with three questions: what should be produced, how should it be produced, who gets to consume what is produced.

Within Supply and Demand – we’ll be looking at how our current economic system decided to answer some of these questions.

Not all wants and needs are considered to be demands in the world of economy. Your need or want will only be interpreted as an actual demand once you have the purchasing power to acquire the goods and services to satisfy your particular want or need.

This practically implies that you can ‘want’ and ‘need’ all you want – if you do not have the financial means to acquire these resources, then you will not get them. This is obviously very problematic and a very well – stupid – way to set up an economic system. It does in no way whatsoever consider everyone but only those who have money. If everyone at some point had been given an equal amount of money – it might have worked out for a little while, but even that never happened. So the decision to work with demand in terms of wanting/needing something and having the money to back up this want/need – is very deliberate, since we’ve never at any point in history have been ‘equal’ in terms of purchasing power and so the decision to only consider/distribute towards those who have money, implies a very specific preference of people with money over people with no money. Problem!

So currently, the economic system is set up to provide only to those with Money – and so within an Equal Money System, to be able to provide for all – we’ll simply provide everyone with money so EVERYONE can be included and be ‘represented’ within the system through having money available.

The interaction and relationship between supply and demand illustrates how prices are determined and is one of the most fundamental concepts to the free market economy.

As mentioned in previous posts, resources such as goods and services are scarce. They are available in limited quantities only. By setting a price on goods and services you are ‘scaling down’ the scope of people who can afford or demand the good or service.

Prices are determined by looking both at how much people are willing to pay for a particular good and how much suppliers are willing to supply at any given price – and so as these two come together and cross – a price has been determined (this will become clearer later).

The amount of people who are able to purchase the product is thus controlled through the price.
For instance, everyone might want bread to eat – but suppliers are not interested in supplying everyone with bread for free because that would not make them any money, and so instead of producing a lot of bread, a limited amount is produced which is not enough for everyone – and so people start “competing” to get themselves a loaf of bread, which is done basically as a form of ‘bidding’ and so for instance the price will be set at $1 a loaf – and all the people who do not have this money are then ‘eliminated’ from the equation and now only those with money will be able to get bread. And so the illusion is created that everyone who wants bread gets bread and everyone is happy – while it is only this way because everyone who did not have the means to get the bread has been eliminated through the principle of ‘demand’.

This is how the forces of supply and demand attempt to come to a point of equilibrium. This equilibrium price per unit comes about where the quantity demanded by consumers will equal the quantity supplied by producers (more on this later).

The Law of Demand states that:  with all other factors remaining equal – the higher the price of a good, the fewer people will demand that particular good. In other words: when the price goes up, the demand goes down. The ‘reasoning’ behind this, is that humans are compelled to want to obtain everything as cheap as possible – this is considered to be in their best interest.

Let us illustrate the Law of Demand with the use of a graph:

In the above graph, A, B and C are point on the demand curve (D). At point A (highest price), a certain amount Q1 is demanded (lowest quantity). As the dot moves from A to point B, to point C: the price decreases, and the quantity demanded increases.

The Law of Supply states that: as the price of a good or service increases, the quantity produced and supplied will increase. The logic applied here is that a producer will increase his production and supply of a good or service when prices increase, because the producer wants to use this as an opportunity to obtain greater revenue.

 As you can see in the above chart, the quantity supplied will increase as price increases. Both the person who demand and the person supplying are following their own self-interest – which as an effect has them going in opposite directions: As prices rise, demand will become less but supply will become more – there is a constant polarity pull in play.

(Note that these quantities are always in relation to a particular time frame, where a particular amount is demanded per day / week / month / year , etc.)

There is always a certain time-lapse present between a change in demand and a change in supply. This sometimes causes unfortunate outcomes. If one year for instance, the demand for a particular product such as ‘cooling fans’ has been fairly low due to unusual cold weather circumstances – the supplier might feel the need to respond to this decrease in demand by decreasing fan production – because he is not getting all of his stock sold. If in the next couple of months a sudden heat wave occurs then the demand will change instantly but there will be a shortage of fans until the supplier has had the time to respond to this change in demand. This dynamic of producing more and less in relation to demand can sometimes we quite problematic when we are dealing with for instance crops. Crops are seasonal, sometimes annual and thus the time-lapses taking place are greater in proportion. If the farmer notes a particular demand for corn at point X in time, he will plant and plan according to that demand. But by the time his crop is ready for harvesting, the demand will already have changed overtime and his current obtained supply will no longer match the new current demand. If this happens on a big scale, the consequences grow in the same proportion (and if this crop is all you’ve got – which is a situation many poor famers currently find themselves in – and if you don’t get your crop sold because of a change in demand, and had put everything into this crop = then you’re in big shit).

If we now combine both the supply and the demand curve into one graph, we can indicate where the point of ‘equilibrium’ would be:

Where the supply and demand curve meet, is the point of equilibrium. In this instance it is represented by point B through which both curves cross.

In theory, the price for the particular good concerning would thus be set at the price P2 with a quantity supplied of Q2.

The same way as prices are calculated for products, wages and salaries are calculated for jobs. Their ‘value’ is equated in terms of scarcity and availability.

Note though that this is only a ‘perfect theoretical model’ and that in reality a lot more factors influence the determination of prices. Even though reality will not follow this exact scheme, it gives you an idea of what type of ‘reasoning’ the economic world follows – which will assist in the future understanding of discussions pertaining economic issues.

Note: The economic world acknowledges that this is a somewhat unfair and flawed system - and that not everyone having equal access to all resources is just an “inconvenient fact of life”. The current system is justified by claiming that we would be worse off with any other alternative. This is true to a certain extent, as there is no solution or improvement possible within the framework of the system itself (which will become clearer as we progress through the various blogs). That is why the Equal Money System is not just a re-alignment of our current monetary and economic system – but a complete and total replacement. -- it will thus not be governed by the same rules and forces as our current system. We have been so conditioned to think “inside the box” that it is hard to fathom and envision an Equal Money System. We easily make the mistake of relating Equal Money concepts back to what we already know as the current system we live in (= “the box”). This ‘drawback’ influences how we perceive and interpret the concepts we hear or read about as we are placing them in an incorrect context. It is thus important to ‘step back’ for a moment when processing information on the Equal Money System and allow yourself to fully grasp what is actually said and not what you *think* is being said.

Excess Supply [price is too high]

If the price of a product is set too high there will be an excess of supply for that particular good or service – and the price setting will be labelled as ‘inefficient’.

Producers want to produce a lot of a good or service in the hope to increase their profits – while the consumer will find the product or service less and less appealing and will purchase it in lesser quantities because the price is seen as too high. Eventually the supplier will be forced to lower his price in an attempt to sell all of his product or services. When the price is lowered to a point where all products and services are consumed – equilibrium is reached. The market is perceived as saturated. Any price above the equilibrium price will leave an excess of supply.

Excess Demand
[price is too low]

If the price of a good or service is set below the equilibrium level – an excess of demand will be created. There is a greater quantity demanded of the particular good or service than there is available. When this happens, the price of the good or service will be increased until equilibrium is reached – to lower the level of competition.

This whole Supply and Demand model just re-emphasizes how we are allowing conflicting self-interest to rule the world – instead of aligning our separate individual self-interests to One interest as what is Best for All Life – and within that eliminate the need for all these various models and interaction models to tell us what to do according within the respect and honour of everyone’s separate little mind reality bubble and within that not provide basic necessities for everyone.

The next point to be discussed (after Self Forgiveness and Commitment Statements) will be how the government will try and intervene to make things more equitable and how it works out just the opposite.