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…

27 February 2013

Day 197: Equal Money Capitalism - Freedom or Control?

For context, read the full discussion of this communication on Quora: http://www.quora.com/Equal-Money-System-1/What-is-the-Equal-Money-System/answer/Marlen-Vargas-Del-Razo?__ac__=1#comment1799680

So you would deny free movement of labor? In regards to #2, it seems you deride work for profit, and instead imply that there would be a central plan for determing what jobs there would be, and who would do them. If you deny an economy to make free market decisions on what to produce and for whom, what would happen to technological advances, which rely on capital and risk and return? Why would one work hard at their job if they are guaranteed income? If profit is so derised in your system, how do you suggest people will find the initiative to work hard and achieve, if they won't be rewarded for that extra work?

Most of all, how would you address the economic calculation problem, with the elimination of profit-based industrial organization?

This reads a lot like communism, whether you want it to or not. What if people don't want to work in the jobs you would "create" or emphasize? What if everyone wants to continue to work at for-profit companies to make more money? Do you at some point start "forcing" them to reconsider?

“So you would deny free movement of labor? “


There will still be a free movement of labor in terms that individuals are able to choose what career/direction they wish to commit themselves to. So no, we do not deny free movement of labour - in fact the movement of labour will be greatly enhanced as there will be less barriers in place that keep people from pursuing what they want to engage themselves in life.

“In regards to #2, it seems you deride work for profit, and instead imply that there would be a central plan for determing what jobs there would be, and who would do them.”

The Government will only intervene when the Market requires assistance in creating employment and ensuring that basic goods and services are produced for everyone. As such there is no 'central planning' -- the Government will only intervene when required.

“If you deny an economy to make free market decisions on what to produce and for whom, what would happen to technological advances, which rely on capital and risk and return?”

The assumption that technological advances rely on capital, risk and profit returns is an incorrect one. We can see this even in the simple things like Open Source Software -- look at for instance Linux and Ubuntu, many Operating Systems today are based on this technology which was not profit driven. When the profit motive is removed and funding is provided, technological advancement is dependent on people's passion and motivation. Within this consider also that funding will not be tied to profit and thus there will be larger space for technological innovation which has previously been ignored 'because there's no money in it'.
You can read more on this point here:
Day 152: Linux proves Profit Motive does not Provide the Best Result

“ Why would one work hard at their job if they are guaranteed income? If profit is so derised in your system, how do you suggest people will find the initiative to work hard and achieve, if they won't be rewarded for that extra work?”

One would engage themselves in their job from a starting point of self-enjoyment and integrity. Many people today to not engage or commit themselves because the job they do is merely done from a starting point of survival and having limited options available. One will have to motivate oneself and assume one's responsibility to the betterment of society as a whole. Within having a real choice for the first time people will choose the jobs that truly interest and stimulate them which in itself will aid in the engagement, commitment and quality of the task done. It’s time to realise that we can move beyond being puppets who only move when our strings (=money) get pulled and realise that we can live and contribute simply from a point of self-respect and dignity – both for ourselves and others.

“Most of all, how would you address the economic calculation problem, with the elimination of profit-based industrial organization?”

There will still be a Market Mechanism in place within Equal Money Capitalism -- we're merely replacing the variables that drive supply and demand to support Life instead of profit. On this topic you can read the following blogs:

Day 173: Supply, Demand, Business and Scarcity in Equal Money Capitalism
Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism
Day 196: Market Mechanisms and Equal Money

“This reads a lot like communism, whether you want it to or not. What if people don't want to work in the jobs you would "create" or emphasize? What if everyone wants to continue to work at for-profit companies to make more money? Do you at some point start "forcing" them to reconsider?"

The implementation of an Equal Money Capitalism system already implies a shift in values -- away from profit and consumerism to Life and responsibility. This implementation requires to go through the normal political processes and thus would be implemented through consent --  which means there would be consent on the basic principles and values.

Wanting more money than you would need is merely an indication of greed which is a form of mental disorder and would have to be addressed through a process of psychological facilitation and correction. You will receive everything you need to live a comfortable Life -- anything more would compromise others for the sake of one's own desires and is unacceptable. As such there will be no 'for profit companies' in the sense of pursuing indefinite growth in the name of greed -- it will thus not be an option to be considered. In terms of 'wanting more money' you can read the following blog:

Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism

Linux absolutely does not prove that profit motive does not provide the best return. You are taking an exception to the rule, and trying to draw a new conclusion. Open-sourcing does not require large amounts of capital or risk, so it is a poor comparison. For every "Linux" you show, I can point towards the airline industry, the automotive industry, the computing industry, the biotech industry, the healthcare industry, etc; all industries that would not exist if there was no capital and return/risk economic calculation for investors.

Of course you'll be able to, for every Linux, point at a huge amount of companies/industries that grew within the profit-motive principle - because we live in a capitalistic system. At the moment, people are being motivated through profit, so that is how the point moves at the moment. However - the assumption is always made that it is impossible to do without the profit motive - and to refute such assumptions, it is sufficient to have one example that proves that it can be done otherwise. From there, it is a matter of identifying the conditions of the environment within which growth and innovation would be best supported.

"Wanting more money than you would need is merely an indication of greed which is a form of mental disorder and would have to be addressed through a process of psychological facilitation and correction. "

Ah, this tells me all I need to know about this "equal money capitalism".

You have to understand that the current capitalistic system has been designed to 'manage', 'manipulate' and 'control' the self-interested nature of the human being. So, capitalism recognises that human nature at the moment is faulty. However, instead of actually supporting individuals to move beyond such self-interested attitudes and behaviors, capitalism takes advantage of it by pushing people's buttons so that most slave away and some can live a God's life. So - EMC recognises the same problems within human behavior and attitudes - however, instead of manipulating people and trying to control them, we suggest to actually address those issues, resolving them and thus empowering each one. Now tell me - which of these approaches would you say is mind control?
Enhanced by Zemanta

26 February 2013

Day 196: Market Mechanisms and Equal Money

This blog is in response to a comment made on the ‘Logistcs’ Goal on the EM Homepage:
http://equalmoney.org/goals/15-logistics  
http://equalmoney.org/goals/15-logistics

Goal: Logistics

In the Equal Money System, the Banking System Infrastructure will become the Logistical System that manages and Allocates resources and goods to Each Individual in the World on an Equal Basis. And your bank card will become your Life Card, which you will swipe every time you Draw Goods and Services from the Global Life Support System. The Logistical System will make sure that each person receives their just dues and at the same time will prevent abuse and exploitation. Each person will have access to the Global System to review the current Status of Available Resources and to vote on effective distribution and allocation – and to place preference selections and make suggestions.


Comment:

"I do believe this market-absent socialism has already been proven impractical and inefficient. Especially when coupled with a form of direct-democracy type resource management such a system would surely be impossible, if not impossible then at least impractical and doomed to fail. A market mechanism, even a socialist one, is necessary, and will allow for efficiency. Command and Control, especially decentralized command and control, is a doom driven system. You need to include some form of market mechanism in order to make this successful.



Response:

There will still be a Market Mechanism in place within both Equal Money Capitalism and Equal Money. The Market Mechanism in place within Equal Money will merely replace the variables that the drive Supply and Demand in a way that actually benefits Human Life and the Planet as a whole. The Market Mechanism will thus be an holistic / ecological one – where the conditions which require to be in place to ensure a life of Dignity will signal/drive the Demand and in the Economy and whereby Supply will respond accordingly within taking into consideration Earth’s capacity to provide resources. This implies that in terms of resource distribution the priority will be placed on Needs over wants – and once needs are taken care of we look at what else is available to provide for people’s wants within the principle of sustainability and prevention of consequence (eg. where the providing for wants does not come at the expense of another).

It is then not so much a ‘Market-Force’ driving the Economy but a ‘Life-Force’ within placing Life as the principal point to be honoured.

For more information, please read:

Day 171: Life-Force and Expression in Equal Money Capitalism
Day 173: Supply, Demand, Business and Scarcity in Equal Money Capitalism
Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism
Day 180: The Word 'Capitalism' in 'Equal Money Capitalism'
Day 184: The Relationship between Ecology and Economics in Equal Money Capitalism

Enhanced by Zemanta

23 February 2013

Day 195: Moneyless Societies and Equal Money Capitalism



















This blog is in response to a comment made on one of our previous blog posts.
We will be focusing on the bold segment from this comment made on: Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward

The idea of equal contribution, equal share, equal this and equal that is probably doomed to failure form the beginning because it will require consent as to what an equal contribution really is. This is impossible to determine and thus causes conflict. Victor Schauberger develops a different viewpoint based on his observations of nature. Nature always produces abundantly so there is always enough for all. This idea is always adopted in the Venus Project. Taking these considerations into account, I believe it is possible to set up an "economic" system where all is indeed free and freely shared by all.


We are not questioning ours and nature’s ability to produce and provide for everyone. Even now in our world where many do not have access to basic resources to sustain themselves, there IS an abundance present. The problem lies not in the presence of abundance – but how this abundance is directed and distributed. Currently the majority of the resource are being directed and distributed to a select few which is problematic for those who are then denied those resources. Even if one decide to run a ‘resource based economy’


So even if you throw away the concept of money and work with a ‘resource based society’ – you will still require a system of distribution to ensure that everyone receives the resources they require to live a dignified life. Making a jump from a money-based society to a money-less society is a big one. That is why within both Equal Money Capitalism and Equal Money we still use ‘money’ – but where money is reduced to only having a numerical/accounting function to track, monitor, distribute and account for the production and distribution of resources. Money is then not any longer about ‘who wants what’ and ‘who can afford what’ – but a tool to monitor the flow of services and goods to ensure everyone access to the resources they require whilst simultaneously ensuring that resource are being used at a rate that is sustainable. So from this sense ‘money’ won’t be ‘money’ anymore as how we know it today – but will only be used as a tool of measure for practical purposes. We term it ‘money’ because it’s a point that everyone deals with in everyday life, everything revolves around money – simply removing money out of the equation will be too big of an adjustment to adapt to – but in essence, it’s just ‘numbers’.


Also realise that we are not saying that a moneyless society is impossible – but that it is merely impossible at this stage. We first require an interim stage of multiple stages to get to a point where we do not require an additional tool to manage and distribute resources responsibly. That is why we first look at what is here and what people believe has value – as money – and use that as tool to bring about equality through equalizing money. Once everyone realise that it was never about money but the value of Life and we have managed to integrate responsibility and respect for Life in our every day and every way living – then we can decide to remove money from the equation, but in the end whether you have money present as a tool in your system or not = it does not matter, because the outcome will still be the same as Equality for All.
Enhanced by Zemanta

21 February 2013

Day 194: Who Owns the Moon?


"The quest for rare earths vital to some of modern life's most indispensable technologies may see mining robots jet to the stars within decades, a world-first conference in Australia was told on Wednesday.

Yttrium, Lanthanum and the other 15 minerals which make up the group of elements known as rare earths are crucial to everything from wind turbines and hybrid cars to cruise missiles and the ubiquitous smartphone.

As technology advances, so too does demand for the elements which, although relatively abundant, require laborious and waste-intensive processing to be freed from surrounding rock.

They are a precious commodity - so precious scientists are now looking beyond Earth's reaches for new supplies, with moon and asteroid mining becoming a lucrative prospect, according to researchers and tech firms gathered in Sydney for the world's first formal "Off-Earth Mining Forum".

"It's about joining the dots," explained conference convenor Andrew Dempster from the Australian Centre for Space Engineering.

"I think we've got to the point where people are saying 'yeah, I think we can do this'."

A cross-section of the space and mining industry's top minds have gathered to swap ideas about the latest advances in space and mining technology, from Rio Tinto and Sandvik to Nasa and Japan's space agency Jaxa."

As though it is not enough that we're submitting the Earth to a slow and painful death by mining resources without regard or understanding of the relationship between the parts that make up our planet and the consequences of drilling about - we, as the human race, now feel that we should no longer limit our destructive forces to just the planet that we live on and that gives life to us, but that we should bestow the universe with the same kindness.




We like to pretend that we're so knowledgeable and that we 'have everything under control' - but consider that we don't even understand our own minds and where our own thoughts come from - we're really clueless and arrogant fools claiming to be Gods. Now that is dangerous stuff.


You can read the remainder of the article I quoted above, but the following is really the punch-line:

"Space drilling also throws up the question: Who owns the moon's resources?"

Of course this is the question we're concerned with: who will get rich from this? Never mind that we're going to start picking away at pieces of the universe - something we barely understand to begin with, let alone understand how it balances itself and what role each part plays.



Still - the question is intriguing: Does someone own the Moon? We've all heard of celebrities having bought a piece of land on the moon - who did they buy it from? Are those property claims legit? Here's a part of an article that will shed some light on the issue:

"Under international law, a previously undiscovered island in international waters could be subject to ownership claims of whoever sets foot there first (given that there were no locals).

The one overruling factor to the standard above is Article 6 of the 1967 U.N Outer Space Treaty (the Outer Space Treaty), which specifies that space, as well as lunar bodies, including the moon is no single state’s property. The international community thus accepts joint responsibility for space, lunar bodies and the moon.

One cautionary comment though; treaties aren’t worth the paper they are written on, if the country that signs it doesn’t ratify the treaty in its own legislation.

This means that any country that develops a space programme, which is not part of the Outer Space Treaty, or did not ratify it in legislation, can technically claim the moon by populating it.

Enter Dennis Hope, the most cunning of estate agents the world has ever seen, and the person that claimed the Moon for himself, actually selling one acre stands on it.

Hope established the Lunar Embassy as a body to sell these properties after he filed for ownership in 1980, although the international community aswell as the U.S government always denied he had the right to do so.

Various other companies and individuals attempted, and to this very day still attempt, to find ways to lay private claim to the Moon.

Thus far, Hope and all the other individuals failed miserably in their endeavours... although most of them got to be on TV at some point!

The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the Moon Treaty) renders all celestial bodies to the international community, and effectively replaces the Outer Space Treaty.

The big downside to this is the fact that none of the space faring nations ratified the treaty into legislation, and all indications are that they won’t do so.

This means that the space race is very much alive, as the Moon Treaty basically states that celestial bodies, even though occupied by a specific country, should be developed for the interests of the ‘international community’ i.e, the world.

The only reason you wouldn’t ratify this treaty is if you plan to occupy celestial territories for own gain, bringing us back to square one in terms of ownership of the Moon."
So, while we're having billions starve - there's people and governments concerned with who will end up occupying the moon. Instead of just ratifying the agreement already - and have the issue over and done with, everyone takes part in game theory strategizing, waiting out to see what others will do to not end up being the losers in a game we shouldn't be playing to begin with. We have no business on the moon. And instead of worrying where we'll get the resources to keep producing cell phones at the same rate - we should rather look at how we can stop poverty. So - instead of thinking 'we're ready to start space-mining' - rather realize that: 'we're ready to end world poverty, world hunger and all violations of basic human rights.' Because we are ready - we have the technology to do it - we have the ability to do it - all that's lacking is our will.

When will we get our heads out of our asses and start dealing with reality? Stop chasing adventures and experiences - and make your life count - by being one of the people who stood up for All Life. Wipe the shit out of your eyes and start reading, start educating yourself - investigate the Equal Money Capitalism proposal and how easy it would be to make this world worthwhile for everyone.

Sources:

http://www.news24.com/Technology/News/Space-likely-for-rare-earths-search-20130220

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Who-owns-the-Moon-20120731

Enhanced by Zemanta

17 February 2013

Day 193: Is Equal Money Capitalism Doomed to Fail?

This blog is in response to a comment made on one of our Previous blogs:
Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward

The idea of equal contribution, equal share, equal this and equal that is probably doomed to failure form the beginning because it will require consent as to what an equal contribution really is. This is impossible to determine and thus causes conflict. Victor Schauberger develops a different viewpoint based on his observations of nature. Nature always produces abundantly so there is always enough for all. This idea is always adopted in the Venus Project. Taking these considerations into account, I believe it is possible to set up an "economic" system where all is indeed free and freely shared by all. - Axel


With regards to your comment I would like to draw your attention to the following Response which has been made to a similar comment on the Equal Money Goals on the Equal Money website Homepage :


The comment:
I do not like this Goal and Suggest Rather the Following…
"Who determines the "Best Possible Life for all on Earth"?" December 03, 2012 16:25


Our Response:
We live in a physical reality which works through particular laws of nature. 'What is Best' is thus never determined from someone's personal view or opinion - but derived from how things practically function and operate within this world.




Therefore, meaning of 'Best Possible Life for All on Earth' will be determined by each one through democratic means, where input must be backed up by scientific evidence and must take place within the framework of Constitutional Equality.

The same principle applies when looking at ‘what is equal’. When we say ‘providing for all equally’, we do not mean ‘providing for everyone the same’. On an individual level everyone still has different requirements in terms of tending to one’s needs – and thus the support one require will vary from person to person to reach an equal level of living standard. Within this, some will get more, other’s will receive less – depending on one’s individual situation – but the outcome remains the same in terms of having one’s basic needs taken care of and having everything in place to live a dignified Life. Determining what is required for each one to live at this level will require investigation and individual assessment which will take time and effort – but is not impossible.

Taking this into consideration, equality is not doomed to fail. In terms of ‘consent’ – all that is required to be agreed upon is that all are of equal value as Life within this world, and that one agrees that all ought to receive the support necessary to live a dignified life. In terms of determining the ‘necessary means’ for each, this will be mostly a scientific undertaking and not based on personal opinions. Conflict can then only arise when there is a point where someone does not understand why another or self receives or gives in a particular way and perceives a point of injustice/inequality to be existent. Herein, the scientific procedures/evidence would be put forward to indicate the extent to which someone receives/gives. Unless one can provide scientific evidence/proof that shows otherwise – one would have to re-align oneself according to the information put forward or go through a correctional process as insistence that something is ‘not fair’ while the evidence shows that it is equal, would indicate a form of mental disharmony within the person which requires addressing. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

15 February 2013

Day 192: Demand and Flexibility in Equal Money Capitalism

This blog-post is a reply to a comment on the blog Day 172: Retirement and Holidays within Equal Money Capitalism.

What if the products or services of a company won't sell anymore, the demand ends or decreases, when a person is retired? It would affect employees too but they can change jobs.

When a company is unable to cover its cost and pay out its wages, they will receive additional funding from a Fund to which the profits go of companies who make a profit that is larger than required to cover their costs and wages. When such redistribution is required, an intervention takes place where know-how is transferred from effective companies to those who struggle to cover their costs.

When demand simply decreases or ceases to exist, the company can partially or completely re-invent itself in terms of seeing how it can use its experience, expertise and infrastructure towards providing different services and goods in the economy. If such re-direction causes momentary fluctuations in the flow of income, government steps in to provide support for the time being.
Enhanced by Zemanta