Day 233: Can LIG provide us the punch to beat the recession?

Whenever the point of policies in relation recessions opens up in economy textbooks, we look at expansionary and monetary policies to help stimulate the economy. Within this government spending, taxation and interest rates play a major role. Here, we are pulling strings from a giant tapestry, hoping that a pull here and there will have an effect way down, on the other side of the tapestry, somewhere down the line… (if we allow enough time to pass by of course).

Yet, we can stimulate the economy a lot more effectively by boosting the aggregate demand in the economy, through the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed
.
By granting everyone who does not have access to a stable income with a grant that allows them to live a decent life, we generate a greater level of disposable income. Those who were previously surviving and saving – now transfer more money towards spending and consumption.

As disposable income goes up, demand goes up, spending goes up and the wheels of the economy are greased up: economic activity goes up and economic growth is being promoted! As people want more things, more people need to be employed and the unemployment rate goes down. People get their needs taken care of, suppliers and producers are able to sell their things and jobs are being created.
As the economic capital grows, the social capital improves as well. As people’s living standards rise, people become more effective and efficient in their activities.

Implementing a Basic Income Grant System, is a win-win situation.

Check out the following blogs for more information:

Living Income and Nationalized Resources

Living Income Can Save Capitalism

Living Income and Minimum Wage

Living Income Guaranteed and the Nationalization of Banks

Living Income Guaranteed and Pensions

Read More

Day 230: The Principle of Need and the Principle of Equality are One

  
For context, also read:
Day 228: False Dilemma: Abuse or be Abused – Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 6
Day 226: Deserving Life or Death - Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 5
Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts
Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice
Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
Day 218: Justice and Human Rights

The question of who should get what has been answered by (most prominently) communists and socialists as: In accordance to people’s needs.

What is a Need?

When one researches this topic, it is fascinating to see how much fuss is being made on the concept and definition of ‘need’ – where it is claimed to be a vague and a ‘notoriously difficult to define’ concept. This is most fascinating, since ‘need’ is one of the most straightforward words that exists – and so, making it seem that it is not clear what need is, is merely trying to find fault so that one has an excuse to discard the principle altogether.

So, let’s humor everyone by showing what need is. When one lacks something that is causing harm to one’s well-being – then that something is a need. Herein – well-being is understood from a holistic perspective as including physical, social and psychological well-being. Why such a holistic perspective? Because all three dimensions of well-being influence each other. If one’s diet is inadequate, one will suffer on a physical level, but it will also affect one’s psychological well-being, since our psychological well-being is intertwined with the physical through chemical relationships. When we manifest psychologically imbalanced behavior, our roles and position in relation to others will be influenced, in turn affecting our social well-being.

Traditionally, the word ‘need’ has been approached to only consider the physical dimension – where well-being is not the goal, but survival is – where, as long as one has a basic minimum requirements to sustain oneself – such as clothing, shelter, food and water – one’s needs are met.

More recently the word ‘need’ has been expanded upon through making a distinction between ‘basic’ and ‘non-basic’ needs – where basic needs include the traditional meaning of the word as one’s most essential survival requirements and non-basic needs include things like education and healthcare.

Which definition of the word ‘need’ is valid and appropriate depends on our aspirations as living beings on this planet. Are we here to survive or are we here to live a life worth living? Considering the history of mankind and how much effort was put into researching and devising ways to enhance the quality of human life on Earth – it is safe to say that we as a race do not merely aspire to surviving and making it to the next day – we would all like to enjoy ourselves, fulfill ourselves, and make something of ourselves and our lives. Therefore, to only consider need in relation to survival is inadequate and a holistic perspective of need is appropriate.

To say, then, that the principle of need cannot be a basis for the distribution of goods because the word ‘need’ is not definable, is unacceptable.

The Principle of Need and the Principle of Equality

As discussed in Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts, the principles of justice include
- The principle of merit and desert
- The principle of need
- The principle of equality

Each one of these are regarded as different principles. However – in clearly defining what a ‘need’ is – we see that the principle of need and the principle of equality are one and the same. Because – if everyone is provided with all they require to live a life of well-being – then it stands equal to distributing goods in a way to provide each one with an equal quality of life – a life where each one’s well being is effectively looked after.

However, this is not how the principle of need and principle of equality are interpreted in academic thought. Distribution according to the principle of need has been interpreted in two ways.

In communist thought, the principle of ‘from each according to his ability to each according to his needs’ is put forward. Herein, what a ‘need’ is can be defined on an individual level – where each one ‘decides’ what one’s needs are.

According to the socialist tradition, some form of authority should define what ‘need’ is at a particular time. Their idea is that – once everyone’s needs are met – further distribution can occur on the principle of merit and desert. This view is in line with the popular ‘Basic Income Grant’ proposals

Both views are problematic.

I decide what my need is

When we rely on each one to decide what their needs are – we open the door for abuse. The temptation becomes too big to define a need beyond a need, entering the arena of pure desires and wants.

We have defined need in terms of anything one requires to live a life of physical, psychological and social well-being. Those are obviously things everyone would want. We can in fact ask the question: “What more could one want?” And it is exactly within this – the ‘more’ – that we are dealing with desires and wants. Desires and wants are things that – if given to one being, would deprive another being of one of their needs, and thus, cause harm. Desires can also typically not be given to all equally. Being famous is a desire, being better off than one’s neighbor is a desire, having power over another is a desire.

Within this scenario we cannot ensure social justice – because if we allow individuals to manipulate the system through including desires and wants in their ‘needs basket’, then harm would take place in respect of others’ psychological, social and physical well-being, and thus – defying the goal of ensuring each one with their needs.

The Basic Income Grant proposal

The basic income proposal is a nice attempt towards eliminating the dangers of the principle of merit and desert as discussed in the previous blog-posts – and so, we can say ‘a step in the right direction’. However – in the long run it is not sustainable. The combination of applying the principle of need and the principle of merit/desert, manifests inequality, where, for some, one’s needs is what one will be provided with, while others will be able to indulge in desires as well. We end up in the same position as when each one decides what their needs are – where the need of some will inevitably be sacrificed, in order to satisfy others with the desires they apparently ‘deserve’.

We continue this discussion in the next blog of this series.

Related articles

• Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts
• Day 226: Deserving Life or Death - Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 5
• Day 315: How many Human Rights Can You Afford?
• 367. Children's Human Rights | Equal Money
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• 366. Health Care is a Human Right | Equal Money
• Day 229: Can Equality only be Achieved through Inequality? | Equality and Human Rights - Part 7
• 359. Equal Life Rights
• The Equal Life Foundation - Bill of Rights
• 365. Labor is a Human Right |Equal Money

Read More

Day 79: Monetary Policy - Part 2

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to think that it is normal that banks are able to lend out money they don't have and, on top of that, charge an interest fee - which means that, when the bank wants to collect money owed to it - it will receive funds from various different individuals plus interest - and as such sucking all the funds towards itself, out of people's wallets.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to think that the story of the money supply is really as simple as it is as how it is presented in economic textbooks - while, in actual fact - money doesn't just 'get created'. Because when a loan is given and some positive number is written in a person's account - at the same time a negative number is created: as debt - and thus, even though it seems that money was created, it did not, because the debt must be paid - and the debt must be paid to those who created the money out of thin air: the banks.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to see and realise that the apparent 'generosity' of banks in 'wanting to help you out' with buying a new house or a new car, is attached to a day of reckoning, where outstanding funds are collected and if the moneys can't be paid - the bank will take everything you own and you are left with nothing - and herein there is no mercy or generosity - only the actual reality of the situation: Greed.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to question a world where each one apparently has the right to a decent life, but where, if one is unfortunate or has made a bad decision in life - one can end up in a situation where one's house, car and all valuable assets are taken away, becaues the bank is trying to mitigate its losses and what that means to you is really irrelevant as you are just one little player in their big money-making scheme.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise the absolute abhorrence of the nature of the human race if we think it is okay and acceptable and normal that wealth and money come before each one's basic human rights - and where we don't even stop to think what it means if banks have the ability to take away people's houses just because a person doesn't have enough money - instead of realising: who the fuck cares how much money a person has - each person needs a house to live in - as a human being, it is a simple common sensical point to take care of one another and make sure each one has a fucking roof over there head - who the fuck are we if we can't even fulfil such a simple, basic point?

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to define a person's worth according to the number in their bank accounts, instead of realising that a number is just that: a number - it doesn't even refer to anything real, it is just a digital picture - instead of realising the value of the person as a physical human being and treating each person as such - an equal - because we all breathe, we all shit, we all eat, we all piss - and therefore no-one can say that they are better than another from a physical stand-point - we are all the same - and therefore, any value system must consider our actual physical reality and recognise the equality of reality - instead of entertaining the inequalities of all the fictional parts that we perceive to form part of reality, such as money, opinions, thoughts, beliefs, etc. - because if our value system only considers fiction, then we disregard the physical reality - and this can be measured in fact, as we see the status of the physical world deteriorating each day, with more species going extict, with more air and water being polluted, with more land becoming unarable, with weatherconditions increasingly becoming more erratic, with natural habitats being destroyed each day.

Read More

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 

Read More

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

Read More

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.

Read More

Day 41: What is Economics – Part 2

See Day 40: What is Economics? For context

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that ‘economics’ is synonymous with ‘capitalism’

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that economics has got to do with three basic question: what should be produced, how should it be produced and who gets to consume what is produced – and thus any system answering these questions can be considered as being ‘economics’ – and thus economics is not only limited to capitalism as the current world system which is in place

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed and agreed upon the definition of economics as that which deals with how limited resources are used to satisfy human wants and the choices/sacrifices we have to make in order to attain this goal

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to ever question the definition of economics – where the main goal is to satisfy human wants, which are assumed to be unlimited – with the use of limited resource – and which is thus in essence impossible, yet we will allow this to be the basis of our economic system, and thus it is no surprise that we currently live in an unbalanced world where every day we move one step closer to our own self-destruction

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to question the implied value judgment involved when being faced with economics, as the definition of economics --- where the focus lies on human wants, instead of human needs and within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise the self-interested nature of this definition within only looking at what humans want/need – and not consider everything and everyone on this Physical Plane as the Earth, the Animal and the Plant Kingdom

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise, that the only reason that there is a trade-off for everything within economics – is because we are dealing with unlimited wants vs limited available resources – which can never be achieved in a balanced manner – and thus choices as sacrifices need to be made in order to make the system work – while we could have avoided all this unnecessary trouble if we’d only value Life as Sustenance and thus Limited Basic Needs over Unlimited Wants and Desires

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that any economic system based on the current definition of economics as ‘unlimited wants vs. limited resources – what choices do we make?’ – is doomed to fail, as it is faulty by design. And within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the only way we are going to make any economic system work, is through redefining economics itself and eradicate this inherent flaw – and bring about an Economic System which is balanced and sustainable within its very definition and starting point

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that all the suffering in the world which is brought about as a result of our current economic system is in fact deliberate – within having agreed upon the definition of economics where we value Human Wants over Human Needs – and thus we have manifested a World of Greed where sacrifices/choices need to be made every day to keep the wheel of money running – and where this sacrifice has resulted in half the population of Earth living in poverty, the extinction and suffering of animals and disregard for the Plant world, where we hack and burn at will -- for the sake of attempting to satisfy the Unlimited Wants of a Few – and all this done deliberately and with permission through never ever having questioned the very definition of economics and through not having questioned the Nature and Character of Humanity within having made such decisions within drawing up such definitions – as if anyone would have done this, it would have been clear: We are Evil – which is the only way and reason an Economic System of Evil would exist within this World

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the only Real Value on Earth is Life – and within that, tending to basic needs is what is valuable, as this is tending to the Physical which is Always here – while tending to Wants and Desires is a waste of time, as they come and go and inevitably End at Death

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to protect and defend the current economic system in the face of poverty and starvation by only pointing out to one part the definition of economics – as the scarcity of resources – where we’ll say “But there’s simply not enough!” – while conveniently leaving out that there is not enough and will never be enough in terms of satisfying our Wants an Desires – while there is plenty to satisfy everyone’s Basic Needs! And within that I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to Lie about the reality of the World within protecting and valuing my own Wants and Desires over the Needs of Others

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to be a Criminal within the Face of Life

Read More

Day 19 - Starvation is Murder - Part 2: Feedback

This blog is a response to a comment made on "Day 17: Starvation is Murder".

Thanks for a really interesting article and really highlights how possible it could be to eradicate poverty and the suffering that comes with it. I wonder if it would be useful to highlight which are public and private expenditures as public expenditure can be directed from one thing to another with policy and the amount stays the same as it come from a fixed source eg. tax. Whereas private expenditure is often individual and variable, for example if everyone stopped buying cosmetics everyone in the cosmetics and attached industries would lose there jobs, stop paying tax, take up welfare/services and so there would not necessarily be the same amount of money left to transfer to other more important things. Anyway I would be really interested to hear your thought on this

It would make a difference in terms of where the money comes from -- public or private expenditure -- as you pointed out. Though, within this blog I merely touched upon one of the many aspects within our current economic system which reveals the values we as a society place upon certain outcomes or goods -- which when reflecting upon it, are quite irrational from a broader perspective when looking at the current state of the world, and the abhorrent conditions many find themselves within.

When looking at the issue from a different angle, it does not really matter where the money comes from (public or private), as the essential point is that we are living in an economic system with distorted values. The expenditures listed, reflect the dynamics between supply and demand which is one of the base fundamental systems in our economy. The problem already starts right there, where a person's demand is necessarily linked with their ability to pay for the goods/services wanted or needed (and the fact that there's no differentiating between a 'want' or a 'need' in itself is also problematic). This results in skewed supply and demand curves which determine how much and at what price particular goods and services should be provided -- as they only answer to the demand/wants/needs of those who have money and does not reflect the needs/wants from the whole population in question. This would then (partially) explain the expenditure figures. If everyone's wants and needs were taken as a valid demand, no matter what the state is of a person's income -- these figures would be quite different and the various industries, sectors and markets involved would then restructure themselves according to these new sets of values.   

This in itself is however not a complete solution, as now obviously those with low income / no income still dont have the means of accessing the goods and services they need/want. For this a system ought to be in place, where the Basic Income Grant is a cool first point of implementation, to provide those people with a disposable income. Such a system would however still not be a permanent solution, as there are still so many other points in place in our current economic system which would ultimately render this change ineffective -- yet it's a good start to begin with.

The solution that I propose is that of the Equal Money System, which is a more broader encompassing perspective/solution to our current economic system (than for instance the BIG porposal). You can read up about it here: www.equalmoney.org and feel free to join the forum @ www.equalmoney.org/forum for discussion.

Read More

Day 14: Did God Fail First-Year Economics?

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to ask myself the question of how the current economic system is compatible with a belief in a God.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that if God created the world and has a divine plan - then he didn't do his homework very well because anyone having studied economics for even just a year can see that the very principles upon which the current capitalistic system is founded, will create massive suffering, pain, disease, poverty, hunger and death if implemented in economics.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise the basic common sense that a system of competition will always create winners and losers, but because everyone is so deluded into thinking and believing that they will be the winners, because mom and dad said that we're so special, and so we don't care about what it means to be a loser.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to believe in a God who plays an economic game where all players must compete with each other and where those who lose must pay with their life.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that if a God exists that is omnipotent, then surely he would make sure that all goods and services are distributed in such a way that everyone is supported in their livelihood and that people aren't enslaved to a system to which they owe most of their years of life in terms of owing the system their labour and only when their debt has been paid, are they allowed to 'live freely' as they are old and retire - and that if an omnipotent God does indeed exist while allowing such abuse, then surely he is an evil fucker.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise that the only reason I would justify the belief in a good God that allows humanity to dig its own grave while pulling the Earth, the animals and plants with it - is that if a God exists that allows all of this, then surely it's okay to abuse - therefore the belief in God is a point of self-manipulation where we abdicate responsibility for what we're allowing - because 'hey, God says it's fine - that means I can just sit back and relax'.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to put my trust and faith in an economic system that will apparently - while based on principles of self-interested individuals competing which each other to satisfy their own wants, needs and desires - miraculously bring about a world that is truly best for all.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to deceive the poor by making them believe that the God of the capitalistic system will save them - all they need to do is submit to the one God entirely and completely - obey his commands and if they are truly faithful servants, they will be allowed into the Heaven of wealth.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to sacrifice the poor on the Altar of the God of the Capitalistic System to keep God satisfied and willing to provide for my standards of living.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to participate in the race of the human race, trying to be the fastest, the smartest, the best, the most devious, the most vicious, in order to be the winner and end up at the top, so that God may notice me and so that I can be one of the chosen ones - blessed by God's love and almighty power.

I forgive myself for accepting and allowing myself to be proud of my children as I introduce them into the religion of Money by having them walk through all the ceremonial rituals of saving money, buying toys and sweets, getting a bank account, getting a degree, getting a job and getting a loan to buy a house or a car.

I forgive myself for not accepting and allowing myself to realise the similarity of religion and economics in that both seem to be 'so much more' and 'so much above me', where I just nod and agree while not understanding a word of what seems to be a completely different language.

I commit myself to taking responsibility for the world and what we have accepted and allowed to be done unto it in creating and participating in the capitalistic system - and stop justifying all the suffering and pain in the world through hiding behind a God or a Higher Power.

I commit myself to the designing and implementing of an Equal Money System that is founded upon principles of Equality and achieving outcomes that are Best for All - eradicating any need for competition, so that we can move passed animosity and actually get to know our neighbour.

I commit myself to the ending of slavery through ending the capitalistic system of lifelong servitude where one is immediately born in debt and has to pay off their debt through labour to in so doing 'earn their living' - instead of recognising each one's right to live from birth.

I commit myself to the empowerment of the poor through first implementing a Basic Income Grant system and from there an Equal Money System.

I commit myself to pierce through the veil of economic traditions, rituals and spectacles to see what is really going on behind the scenes and what price we're paying to uphold our ignorant bliss.

I commit myself to familiarising myself with the vocabulary of economics so that I am able to stand equal and one to economists and, in that, empower myself to see when economists, politicians, academics and corporations attempt to deceive me through speaking nonsense in an unfamiliar language.

Read More