Can we Live Simply Ever After?

When you tear down everything that makes life a burden, when you strip away everything that complicates life and sucks the joy out of it – there’s not ‘much’ left. Much from the perspective of: you can go without many things. Many things in our world currently make our life ‘fuller’ but not necessarily more ‘fulfilled’ – BIG difference. Have a look at what we have made ‘life’ to be – human life is super-complicated – it is true, we’ve made a terrific mess.

In the past 7 years, I’ve set out to discover what a person needs to be ‘happy’ – happy from the perspective of ‘not being in wanting’, where you have everything you need and there is nothing you are missing out on – your life is complete. Turns out – there’s not that much a person needs to have to be fulfilled, really. The more you remove the clutter, the clearer you see your relationship with yourself – which is the key to your own happiness.

If we had a blank slate – it would be easy to provide everyone with that which is needed, because it really is rather simplistic. The challenge is not in seeing what needs to be achieved – the challenge lies within creating the solution from where we are now. How to move from complexity to simplicity? Are we ready to live in simplicity, to simply live? Are we ready to let go of the clutter that we’ve given so much value to?

Have you ever watched those survival type TV shows where people have to survive on the bare minimum in the wild? Most of them will come out of such experiences with a new perspective on what’s really important in life and how most of the stuff we do and participate in, really doesn’t add value or support life /living in any way. And yet – how many of them actually follow through on implementing these fresh perspectives in the form of huge life changes? I daresay very few. Most of them will revert back to old habits, because everything in and of ‘human civilization’ is pushing each one to conform to the status quo. It seems to be the same with world change – everyone actually knows what does and doesn’t make us happy and fulfilled, and yet – there seems to be this fear of missing out and losing out if we were to change the status quo – because we’re all apparently so happy with how things are today. To be honest, I’m not sure what humanity has left to lose, so much of what could make us ‘great’ as a species – honor, dignity, care, compassion – seems to have been lost a long time ago. We cannot look at the state of the world today and make claim to any of these qualities.

And yet, I have no doubt that we could, that we can, that the potential exists – for us to be that species – that species that lives in harmony with itself and its environment, that species that knows what is truly important and doesn’t participate in things that will only create harm, tension and discord. It will require us to change our definition of ‘happiness’ – and to realize that living simply doesn’t mean living in poverty, or that living *with* riches means to live a rich life. It will require us to realize that letting go is not the same as losing out...

So, humanity – are you ready to live simply ever after?

Read More

Corruption – Broken at the Core – Pt2

This post is a continuation to

Corruption - Broken at the Core

I ended off the previous post with:

“So if we want to understand how ‘those guys’ can be corrupt and how to change it – all we really need to do is ask ourselves: why am I corrupt? What makes me choose self-interest over what is best for everyone? What do you think? What do you see?”

You will probably be able to relate to a sort of ‘instinct’ within you to protect ‘me’ from ‘everyone else’. We tend to place our self-interest before the interest of all because we assume that another will take part of our share, will take what belongs to us or even chip away parts of us for their own purpose. If you have a look, that which stands at the center of this instinct is our relationship with giving and receiving. We don’t trust that we will receive what we need, so we won’t give to others what they need, rather hoard it all, because otherwise we may find ourselves lacking.

In a world where there is actually enough food for everyone, enough resources to support everyone – why does every single human being experience the threat of imminent lack, so much so that in almost every decision and action the principle of self-interest will override the principle of the common good? If there is enough for everyone, then why do we feel there isn’t or may not be somewhere in the near or distant future? Because our access to the resources that are here, is defined by the most godless (or shall I say ‘the most human’) of creations we have ever seen: an unfair money system. It doesn’t matter if there is enough if your access to it is not guaranteed.

The very foundation of our relationship with giving and receiving has been compromised through our acceptance of a system where money is not guaranteed and so access to what each one needs is not guaranteed. I mean – think about it: the very resources that each one needs to survive are not accessible to everyone. And this is something everyone grows up with – our very lives are dependent on whether there is money or not. Our very lives are dependent on whether we receive a big enough share of the resources. When we are never really certain that we will continue to receive our basic human necessities, is it surprising that self-preservation has become our primary drive? Not only when it comes to money and getting food on the table – but in every single aspect of our lives. Because EVERYTHING in life in some way involves the need to give and receive. When our relationship with those two words is tainted, twisted and compromised, we’re truly broken at our core – inhibited to live life to the fullest, unable to rise to our fullest potential as humanity.

The proposal of a Living Income Guaranteed is then about a lot more than simply making sure everyone has enough money. It’s about rehabilitating our understanding of what it means to give and receive, it’s about laying down the chains we have imposed on ourselves, that have driven us to a version of human life that is scarcely worth remembering. If ever the human race is erased and a new species comes to inhabit the Earth and finds records of human society – they would describe us as the most despicable race that has ever lived, not even able to share and live in peace with each other, let alone with the other beings that dwell on this planet – because that is the only legacy we have ever created and perpetuated. The Living Guaranteed Proposal is a second chance, a shot at redemption – we’ve only ever proven what it means to live in fear and self-interest. Why not prove what it means to live with care, compassion, consideration and respect for each other? It starts with a living income guaranteed.

Read More

Tomorrowland – Would you get a Pin?

Just saw the Disney movie ‘Tomorrowland’. The following passage is quite interesting and worth looking at:

“Let’s imagine… if you’d glimpse the future, you are frightened by what you saw, what would you do with that information? You’d go to who? Politicians? Captains of industry? And how would you convince them? With data? With Facts? Good luck. The only facts they won’t challenge are the ones that keep the wheels greased and the dollars rolling in. But what if there was a way of skipping the middle man and putting the critical news directly into everyone’s head? The probability of wide-spread annihilation kept going up. The only way to stop it, was to show it. To scare people straight, because what reasonable human being wouldn’t be galvanized by the potential destruction of everything they’ve ever known or loved? To save civilization, I would show its collapse.

But how do you think this vision was received? How do you think people responded to the prospect of imminent doom? They gobbled it up like a chocolate éclair. They didn’t fear their demise, they repackaged it. It could be enjoyed as video-games as TV-shows, books, movies, the entire world whole-heartedly embraced the apocalypse and sprinted towards it with gleeful abandon.

Meanwhile, your Earth was crumbling all around you. You’ve got simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation – explain that one. Bees and butterflies start to disappear the glaciers melt, algae blooms all around you, the coalmine canaries are dropping dead and you won’t take the hint.

In every moment, there is the possibility of a better future, but you people won’t believe it. And because you won’t believe it, you won’t do what is necessary to make it a reality. So, you dwell on this so terrible future, you resign yourselves to it for one reason: Because that future doesn’t ask anything of you today.

So, yes, we saw the iceberg, we warned the Titanic, but you all just steered for it anyway, full steam ahead. Why? Because you want to sink. You gave up. And that’s not the monitor’s fault – that’s yours.”

It still puzzles me why the character speaking these words was portrayed as the villain – wasn’t he right on the money? Isn’t that exactly what is happening today? Some say the movie is about imagination, about feeding positive thoughts rather than negative thoughts – but it’s not really. The movie has one simple message: Are we giving up when seeing the world we’ve created with all its unintended ‘ooopsy’ consequences – or are we going to realize that if we want a different future, we have to actually create it. Positive thoughts or feelings won’t do. It is actions that are needed, our behavior that needs to change, our demands that need to change – from destruction to construction.

So ask yourself: what do I DO each day to create a different world?

Read More

When Life No Longer Needs to be Paid For

At the moment life is not free – we have to pay for it. Buying groceries, paying rent or paying off the loan you needed to take out to buy your house, paying for medical support, paying for water and electricity – all of the life-supporting essentials cost money. So, in essence, you pay to continue living every day another day.

Now – what would happen when everyone received at least a Living Income – and if working – would receive at least double? Yes – you would still need to pay for everything to have your living essentials, but… the money to pay for it would be given to you, a security. It would practically mean that life is free – no longer a commodity to be paid for and even a luxury for some – life would be yours to live!

So – what would you do with your life? What would I do with my life?

The first thing that comes to mind is that anything I have to offer in terms of education – whether it is about personal empowerment or practical skills – I would put out there for free – for as many as possible to be able to benefit from it. At the moment – so many educators charge fees for their courses, for their knowledge and their know-how – which is of course how they make a living – but imagine now information and knowledge being able to spread so much easier to so many more – either because they can afford to share it for free or because the courses that are charged for can be paid for by so many more. Anyone with an interest, a goal they want to achieve would be able to do so with the help of the world’s knowledge at their disposal.

Would I work less? I don’t know, hey – perhaps a little, take more time for reading, gardening and dancing classes – but working from the perspective of creating something or contributing to something that helps others – that is very fulfilling for me. And even – let’s say I take out some time from work to just focus entirely on dancing – something I have very little time for at the moment – because I want to see to what extent I can develop my dancing. Well – I would do that, but then afterwards, I’d want to share it with others – so I’d become a dance teacher – not because I have to, but because it’s fulfilling to help others in getting better at what they love doing.

Oh – here’s one: I would feel a lot better about anyone providing a service – whether it’s a doctor, a lawyer or the tech support guy of my cellphone provider – because I know the only reason they’re doing it is because they want to. And when you do something because you want to, you’re going to do it well. That opens an interesting point, because it means the level of trust between people in society is going to increase - imagine feeling like you’re in good hands ALL THE TIME.

This may sound like the description of a utopian dream society – but is it really? Or is it only that we don’t realize to what extent our current economic structure affects our inner well-being, our physical health, our personal relationships and our daily interactions with others? In very low and depressed moments we may ask ourselves ‘what is the meaning of life?’ – I suggest we rather implement a Living Income Guaranteed and find out: What does it mean to live life?

Read More

How is War Still a Thing?

If you look at human history and all the progress we’ve made, the technology, the infrastructure, the institutions, the various ways of communicating over enormous distances – instantaneously -  traveling into space, creating music, art – it’s pretty impressive. And yet – with all of this apparent evolution and progress, it’s hard to be optimistic about humanity’s history and legacy, because: there’s still this one huge nasty atrocity we keep doing, over and over again… we keep on waging wars.

This is the 21st century and war is still a thing we do – every day. It hasn’t been erased yet – we haven’t yet come to the day in time where we can say ‘wars – that’s a thing from the past – we remember it to make sure never to do it again’ – because it’s not, it’s part of our present and it looks like, part of our future too.

I’ve had many moments where I look at the news and get frustrated, horrified and mind-blown at the stupidity of war, the destruction, the senselessness – wanting to scream at those apparently ‘leading nations’ – WTF are you doing???

But is it that surprising really?

I mean – how can we expect continuous mutual cooperation, problem solving and conflict-prevention on an international and global level if that’s something we’re not living up to ourselves? Conflict PREVENTION – yes, you read that right – because for world peace to be the ‘new thing’ – we need to not only be able to master the art of conflict resolution, but also need to learn to prevent conflict, rather than waiting for conflict to manifest and then trying to ‘do something about it’. Conflict is nothing more than the manifestation and revealing of misalignments that were already present.

It is easy to blame politicians and diplomats for sucking at what they do – but in the context of ‘as above, so below’ – we’re all playing our part here – how often do we go into arguments with those around us, openly or behind their backs in the form of gossip and backchat? How often do we wait for ‘shit to hit the fan’ before we actually look at problems that we actually knew were there but conveniently chose to ignore? And when there is conflict, how often do we focus on solutions instead of sticking with our own self-interest, walking away or just wanting to ‘win’ the argument, regardless of the cost?

That is our responsibility on a purely personal level – but how about the following: if we are so frustrated with our leaders making bad decisions? Why are we still leaving these decisions up to them? Do citizens demand referendums before going to war? Do citizens get a say in any way about how their military gets used and who their soldiers will go to kill and terrorize next? Do citizens demand a say? How can we as children be taught about the horrors of world wars and then grow up to be adults who stand by and do absolutely nothing but focus on our own personal happiness and fulfillment, doing our best to look away and pretend it’s got nothing to do with us? Or how about this – why haven’t we yet demanded global demilitarization to instead redirect all the funds that go into wars and military development towards securing a basic income for everyone? Because – yes, let’s not forget – poverty is also still a thing.

So – let’s use that creative human brain that we must possess to be able to create things like cars, the internet, art and space shuttles to find and promote solutions, to get a say, to end things that shouldn’t be things anymore.

Join us in the Living Income movement – read the proposal – make your own blog and start sharing solutions, join a political party that has the provision of basic human rights on their agenda, or create one if there isn’t one, find out how you can participate in political decision making in your area, make your voice count.

Read More

Parenting and a Living Income Guaranteed

How does the lack of parental economic support affect our societies? How would Parenting change in a society where our basic needs are guaranteed as a Human Right? What effects will securing the livelihood of mothers and fathers bring to our society at large? What needs to change in society and economics to make parenting a successful and satisfying part of our lives and those of our children?

Join us in our discussion with Equal Life Foundation’s very own Leila Zamora Moreno & Gian Robberts, sharing their perspectives and experiences thus far in relation to parenting and how we can change the ways it is lived to build a world that is best for all.
You are welcome to place comments and questions for Leila & Gian in the comment section of this video.

Hosted by: Marlen Vargas Del Razo

Read More

The Humpty-Dumpty Effect - Meconomics

This post is a continuation to:

Meconomics: I need my Wants and Want my Needs to be Satisfied
Meconomics: Wants and Needs in your Daily Living
Meconomics: Do you Spend your Money Objectively or Subjectively?
Meconomics: Can you Buy Happiness?

In the previous post we started looking at why and how it is that we can experience certain wants as a ‘need’ or a ‘must have’, where we looked at the role of expectations:

“Realistic expectations of fulfilling a want stand in direct relation to the actual properties and functions of your want. If you like the taste of coffee, then you will enjoy drinking that cup of coffee and coffee has the characteristic and property of keeping you awake and more focused for a little while – those expectations stand in direct relation to your want, which is coffee. Acceptance however, is not directly related to a smartphone – it’s not within its power to give that to you. When you buy a smartphone, what you will get is a smartphone – acceptance is not really part of the package.

It is when we have such unrealistic expectations of fulfilling a particular want – that the experience of ‘want’ can be experienced as a ‘need’ or a ‘must have’.”

There’s many things we feel we are lacking, not on a physical level, but on a… let’s call it ‘beingness-level’ – be it acceptance, freedom, passion, intimacy, happiness, etc. Those are things we cannot buy and that we cannot even get from something or someone else – they cannot be ‘acquired’ or ‘given to us’. They are things we have to give to ourselves and that we inherently feel ‘should already be part of ourselves’. So, when we feel we are lacking them, it’s like we’re not complete as a being, as a person. If you add to that a shiny new smartphone that you wrongfully believe will give you, for instance, ‘acceptance’ – you have the perfect recipe for a very strong urge and desire to go out and get that smartphone.

Most of the time we take our desires for granted – “I feel I want it, therefore I want it”, lol – when actually, it’s not, for instance, the smartphone you really want, but the smartphone is representing ‘acceptance’ to you. So – on a conscious level, all you’ll feel and be aware of, is a strong urge to get that smartphone, where you probably don’t really understand why the urge is so strong and maybe you will give yourself reasons by summing up the specs and telling yourself how good of a phone it is, but the underlying reason is missed. You might even try to tell yourself you don’t need the smartphone, and give yourself all the rational reasons why you should and can wait – but damn, that urge is still there – it just doesn’t go away – and what’s more, it’s building!

I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but when positive energetic experiences, like desire, are very strong and keep building and are not ‘moving out’ – it can become quite uncomfortable. There are sayings like ‘I love you so much it hurts’ – well it’s kind of like that. No matter if the original experience was ‘positive’ – like desire or love – if it just keeps building inside you and you don’t know how to give it direction – it becomes uncomfortable, sometimes even feels like emotional ‘torture’. And it’s there that the want will start feeling like a need – because pain and discomfort is how needs make themselves known.

In the end – the reason why we can mistake a want for a need is because we’re not really aware of ourselves and we accept any impulse or experience at face value. Somehow we don’t know or forget that we actually have the ability to look at a want and go: okay, what are my expectations here? Are they realistic? If they are not realistic, we can look at what it is we expect to ‘gain’ from our purchase (say freedom, acceptance, etc) that we should actually be giving to ourselves – then how do I give that to myself? How do I create that in my life? Once you see how this works, and start applying this reasoning – you’ll see you can direct your wants and your inner experiences quite easily. So long as you ‘remain in the dark’, you’re powerless and at the mercy of what your experiences dictate and you can become quite a dysfunctional human being. Take the example of addictions, what are they but an extreme form of the confusion between wants and needs?

I started this series to investigate the cornerstone of economic theory: the economic problem of satisfying ‘unlimited wants and needs’ in a world with limited resources. To determine whose wants and needs will be satisfied, purchasing power is used as the criterion. I zoomed in on the fact that ‘wants and needs’ are treated as one concept with the same characteristics, when actually needs are limited and so we could at least start with satisfying everyone’s needs and then afterwards design a system that determines whose wants will be satisfied. Since the concepts ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ are used in such a sloppy way in economic theory, I wondered if the same is true on a personal level – applying the principle ‘as above, so below’.

So what is the conclusion? Lol – I think it’s clear those two little words ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ can create quite a bit of havoc in our personal life if the distinction isn’t clear and we don’t look further than the tip of our nose. It’s no wonder we have failed to eradicate poverty so far. And yet, maybe that is all that is required – or at least it is a start – to clearly define the words ‘want’ and ‘need’ for yourself and begin to approach ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ appropriately in your own life. It is one way to start taking responsibility for the ineptitude with which we’ve been attempting to confront global economic problems. If we can address wants and needs effectively in our own life, then we can do the same on a large scale – first making sure everyone’s needs are met and then we can start looking at how to satisfy desires.

A political and economic proposal was designed with this purpose in mind – the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal by the Equal Life Foundation. Please share and create awareness on this proposal, because it simply is not acceptable that millions suffer just because two words are not clearly defined in our dictionary.

Read More

Top Economist says: “Universal Basic Income is Not Affordable”

This is an article by Paul De Grauwe translated from Dutch.

You can find the original article here: http://www.demorgen.be/opinie/een-universeel-basisinkomen-kan-nooit-van-de-grond-komen-a2166604/25mXp2/

A Universal Basic Income Will Never Happen

Top economist Paul De Grauwe, professor at the London School of Economics, writes weekly about people, the world, the economy.
30 December 2014

The idea to provide everyone with a basic income exerts a strong intellectual appeal towards both the left and right side of the political spectrum. The appeal for left is that a universal basic income that is sufficiently high can ban poverty. For the right, a universal basic income is popular because it will remove the unemployment trap. In the current system of unemployment benefits, the unemployed lose their benefits upon finding a job. That discourages the search for a job. This shortcoming disappears with a universal basic income. Because in that system, the unemployed retain their basic income after finding a job.

Affordability

With such broad support you would expect that the universal basic income is already a reality. But that is obviously not the case. And that has everything to do with its affordability. Due to the fact that in such a system everyone, both rich and poor, working and non-working, receive the same basic income, the government requires to organize a massive money stream.

A numerical example: Suppose that the universal basic income is 1000 EUR per month (which is not that much if it is intended to ban poverty entirely) and that the basic income is given to all adult Belgians. This would mean that government expenses would increase by 100 billion, or 25 percent of GDP.

The universal basic income of course makes it possible to save on large portions of social security. Unemployment benefits and benefits for illness can be scratched; we could also save on pensions. But an important part of social security is not dropped. For instance, health care, child support and the portion of pensions above 1000 EUR remain.

Andreas Tirez from the think-tank Liberales has done an interesting exercise on the subject. He came to the conclusion that after deducing the savings on social security that would become possible through the basic income, there is still a shortage of about 35 billion EUR. That is about 9% of GDP.

It then also means that, after the introduction of the basic income, tax revenue would have to increase by 35 billion. The total tax burden that now represents about 51% of GDP, will need to increase to 60% of GDP.

Weakening work incentives

One can argue over these numbers. Do they overestimate or underestimate the costs of a universal basic income? The reality will not be far off in my opinion.

A universal basic income that has the ambition to ban poverty from the world, is then immensely expensive. That doesn’t need to surprise you. To give the poor (a minority in society) a basic income, you have to also provide a basic income to the large majority that doesn’t need it. This leads to new problems. The working majority receives a basic income that stands loose from labor efforts, but will have to pay extra taxes (and not a small amount) on their labor incomes. And that is the best way to weaken work incentives.

Conclusion: The only realistic system is one where the basic income is limited to those who need it. A universal basic income will never happen.

Read More

Ending the Vicious Cycle of Economic Inequality with Living Income Guaranteed

“Rising economic inequality was a major driver of the financial crisis. With the OECD recently debunking ‘trickle-down’ economics, our new report sets out the links between inequality, the growth in scale and influence of the financial sector, and the dangers for financial stability.”

“Privatisation and the doctrine of maximising value for shareholders have increased the amount of economic activity focused on extracting the largest possible short-term profit. These trends are referred to collectively as ‘financialisation’.”

“This diagram lays out the seven indicators of economic instability, each fuelled by rising inequality and increasing financial sector activity:



Our report describes how these indicators laid the path for the 2008 crash, and threaten to do the same again:

1. Increasing inequality depresses demand since consumption levels depend more on the wages of those at the lower end of the income scale, than the profits of the wealthy
2. In the face of stagnating wages, households rely increasingly on debt to maintain their lifestyles with rising asset prices, especially in residential housing, worsening this.
3. Financial liberalisation allows money to flood into countries with trade deficits, such as the USA and the UK, providing the funds for debt-led consumption.
4. Snowballing wealth at the top increases risky financial speculation.

Inequality doesn’t bring growth, it brings economic instability

In recent years there has been a marked slowing of growth across the world’s wealthiest economies, with none returning to the growth trends experienced before the crisis. Many have begun to speculate that this stagnation could, in fact, be a permanent development – meaning that wealthy economies are fundamentally unable to create enough demand to keep growing.
The mainstream political consensus has for decades now suggested that inequality is a price worth paying for economic growth. But new research from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows definitively that this inequality/growth trade-off is false – adding to a growing body of research showing that inequality actually prevents economies from growing. This points to a fundamental structural flaw in the economy: if the proceeds of growth are not shared, the pie stops growing.

The pursuit of higher returns for the already wealthy within this dwindling pie cannot persist forever. With wealth refusing year on year to trickle down, debt has been used to plug the wage-consumption gap for the rest. The signals are showing quite plainly that this pursuit of growth, via inequality, is ineffective and unsustainable.”

The New Economic Foundation suggests both reversing the trend of liberalizing the financial market and at the same time implementing efforts to reduce inequality. The implementation of the Living Income Guaranteed proposal will see poverty eradicated  and ensure a limit to inequality where, at the very least, everyone will have an income sufficient to lead a dignified life – herein effectively stopping the currently allowed trend of unrestrained inequality where the wealth of a small elite is paid for by the lives of many. Concurrently, financial markets will be restrained by limiting the need for excessive debt and the move towards citizen shareholding of human rights and basic resource companies – where those profits are utilized for the funding of a Living Income Guaranteed – flowing back into the goods and service market – and no longer the currency in a financial monopoly game. Unfettered inequality and an unrestricted financial market are unsustainable – the solution is here – please read and share the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal to redefine our economy and manifest the values and ideals of humanity, dignity and justice – in fact.




About the New Economic Foundation:

NEF is the UK's leading think tank promoting social, economic and environmental justice. Our purpose is to bring about a Great Transition – to transform the economy so that it works for people and the planet.

The UK and most of the world's economies are increasingly unsustainable, unfair and unstable. It is not even making us any happier – many of the richest countries in the world do not have the highest wellbeing.
http://www.neweconomics.org

Read More

Set Your Priorities Straight

“So, since Ukraine is nonetheless now gearing up, with American taxpayers’ money, to replace its weapons-supply that was used-up or destroyed in the war to-date, and also to build an immense new military graveyard for a planned 250,000 corpses of Ukrainian soldiers in the next and future rounds of invasions against the rebelling region in Ukraine’s (former) southeast, the IMF is basically quitting continued financing of that ethnic-cleansing campaign against the residents in that region. The EU has already quit funding it, other than a token half-billion-euro donation delivered on December 10th. Only the U.S. remains committed to funding it, by donating whatever weapons and military guidance are deemed necessary in order to conquer, and/or to expel, the pro-Russian residents in Ukraine’s former southeast. 98% of the U.S. House voted for it, and so did 100% of the U.S. Senate. At least 67% of the U.S. public are against it.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-taxpayers-now-alone-in-financing-ukraines-ethnic-cleansing-campaign-imf-says-ukraine-fails-to-meet-conditions-of-17-billion-loan/5419885

The question that comes up is: How is that possible? How does that work?

When the majority of the population does not support the funding of a foreign war – how is it possible that those ‘representing the people’ vote in a totally different direction?

And what is more – why is this not hitting the headlines? While everyone’s focus is on Ferguson, whether or not Putin is becoming the new Stalin and the apparent ‘shock’ at torture practices  – the American elite goes about deciding what to do with taxpayers’ money without anyone even noticing that it stands squarely against the wishes of US citizens.

According to PovertyUSA, 46.2 million Americans live in poverty in the USA – that is 1 in 6 – and 1 in 7 American households were food insecure last year. Why oh why would you consider funding a foreign war – when at home, people are in desperate need of support?

Many justifications are put forward for military spending – but do they hold up?

Creating security for your citizens starts with guaranteeing personal financial security. Reviving the economy starts with ensuring effective flow in the domestic economy by reducing inequality and ensuring everyone is enabled to be an active and empowered participant in the economy. Building world peace starts with eradicating crime at home by making sure no one has a reason to destroy another’s life out of spite, because they are lacking. Democratization starts with recognizing the wishes of your people at home and acting according to those wishes – increase direct political decision making and build in mandatory budget referendums.

The real threats to civilization – the real wars that are being fought are not wars between countries, are not wars between people of different religion and different race. The real war is the war against against poverty – the fight to survive.

A Living Income Guaranteed would be a better use of funds currently allocated to military operations – if you really want to achieve the goals mentioned above – then start by implementing a Living Income Guaranteed – you have no right to meddle in foreign affairs when you allow your own people to live in destitution.




Visit/read:
http://livingincome.me
http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/
https://www.youtube.com/user/LivingIncome
https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/117690749220880074672
http://www.twitter.com/LivingIncome

Read More

Who is more Fiscally Responsible – Citizens or Elected Politicians?

In the blog-series ‘Democratization – Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG’ I briefly discussed an argument against direct democracy (placing authority directly in the hands of citizens rather than elected politicians) that dates from the time of Plato – the argument being that citizens would make ‘bad decisions’ and don’t possess the necessary intelligence, knowledge and skills required in political decision-making.

I came across the following information when browsing through the comments on a blog regarding the implementation of a Basic Income in Switzerland:

"Switzerland is an interesting laboratory for direct democracy.

I dimly recall a very interesting study by (I believe) University of Zurich (maybe 20 years old).

They analyzed for each of the 26 Swiss cantons (=states): (1) influence of direct democracy on canton politics (which varies by canton. Some cantons don’t have all that much direct democracy. Others such as Appenzell-Innerrhoden don’t even have a parliament because EVERY single law is passed directly by the people). (2) fiscal situation of the state.

The highly fascinating result was this:

the stronger the people can directly influence public spending and taxes, the healthier the canton’s budgets (!!). The people tended NOT to spend more than they had. Rather, the professional politicians (or the canton’s that gave elected officials greater power) tended to be more fiscally irresponsible."

Naturally, my interest was peaked and I went to search for studies about this topic. And, yes, you guessed it – I found the material supporting these claims. I think we can all agree that when states spend beyond their means – we have a case of bad political decision-making. According to the logic of the argument that it would be dangerous to have citizens directly participate in politics, we would expect citizens’ involvement within budgeting decisions to exacerbate fiscal irresponsibility. And yet – here we have an example that not only shows that citizens wouldn’t make matters worse – but that citizens would do better than elected politicians when it comes to balancing the budget.

If at any point it is relevant to ask the citizens for their direct input on a particular topic to increase democratic practices, it would be: how should we spend public funds? Voting a person into office is one thing – but it is the budget that really determines political policy for the coming year. Mandatory budget referendums should be a minimum requirement for any regime to qualify as a democracy, really. When the extent of your political participation is to vote someone into office – then all you have is ‘hope’ that the people in power will use public funds responsibly and for the purposes that you expect them to. Mandatory budget referendums would create a point of direct accountability towards the citizenry that once politicians are in power, they are indeed acting out their mandate on behalf of the people. It would immediately reduce corruption and prevent budgetary deficiencies down the line, where one is suddenly told that the retirement age has to increase and austerity measures are being implemented because there are insufficient public funds and one only then starts wondering ‘well, where did all the money go?’. 

The fiscal problems most countries are experiencing today could have been prevented. It is now a time of walking through consequence that has already been created and yes, it is worthwhile looking for solutions to address current problems head-on – but it is most important to prevent the same scenario from taking place again. In Dutch there is a saying ‘a donkey doesn’t bump his head on the same rock twice’ – seems like humanity can learn a thing or two from donkeys since we have this tendency of not even looking at what it is we bumped our heads on and why – but simply try to put some ice on the wound. However much we may be upset with governments and politicians – we are the ones who gave them the power to do what they did. The consequence that is here is as much ours as theirs – and rightfully so. If anything – let us at least learn from our mistakes – otherwise all the troubles we’re going through will really be for naught. Let us at least enshrine solutions within the constitution and develop new political practices that we can pass on to the next generations, because surely, part of the consequence we are experiencing is due to continuing traditions from previous generations, but that doesn't prevent us from rising to the occasion and creating new traditions to shape a better future.

Read More

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 3 – Tools of Intervention

This post is a continuation to the blog-posts:

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 1
Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 2 – Sustainability vs Full Employment

Please read them first for context.




Example 2

‘The government has two kinds of policy at its disposal to correct market failures: fiscal policy and monetary policy – not using these policies means letting the free market dictate economic conditions.’

Most economists have come to accept that the free market is the ideal way of conducting economic activity – let market forces dictate prices and output and don’t try to control these forces, because they eventually create the best outcome for everyone. Most economists, however, have also come to accept that there are certain situations in which intervention is called for – to correct market failures and inefficiencies. Looking at only the national economy – the ways in which intervention happens, apart from declaring laws that set standards, minimum or maximum requirements, quotas, etc. – fall under the categories of either fiscal policy or monetary policy.

Fiscal policy refers to those policies that have to do with tax collection and government spending. In overly simplistic terms: if the government sees it is needed to increase output and income/employment – it can implement expansionary fiscal policy through reducing taxation and/or increasing government spending.

Monetary policy refers to those policies that have to do with the rate at which money is released into the economy. Here the government has no authority, it is the central bank in each country that influence interest rates to either contract or expand the economy.

Both kinds of policies, when used to achieve a certain goal, always have certain drawbacks in other areas. In other words, the usefulness of their application is always limited by the nature of the free market principles – where their use becomes a careful balancing of adjustments here and there to ‘kind of’ have ‘some’ movement in a certain desirable direction.

Problems such as poverty, deprivation, insufficient incomes and job insecurity, to name but a few, cannot be tackled directly from within this economic paradigm – to do so with the use of fiscal and monetary policies would in most countries require substantial interventions – and create substantial drawbacks, crippling the economy in other areas, and over time, undoing its own efforts. So – what can we do? This is just how it is, right? This is just the nature of economics, right? ‘Sorry for those fellas struggling to survive, but there’s really not that much we can do for you. Sure, in theory you have certain basic human rights, but looks like it’s just not gonna happen.’ In brutal terms, that is the attitude that has been adopted when it comes to our economies and the intertwined question of human rights.

At the Equal Life Foundation, we take the guaranteeing of human rights very seriously – in our view, they are not optional and they should not be seen as variables that are dependent on the grace of market forces that may or may not grant these rights at some points in time. Seeing that the conventional paradigm and available policies lack the capacity to ensure these rights, it became clear that it was necessary to step outside of this paradigm and dare to look for alternative measures that CAN guarantee human rights, yet won’t result in the crippling and destabilizing of the whole of the economy.

Providing a Living Income to those who are unemployed or retired through the profits of companies that are considered human rights companies and national resources companies is exactly such a measure. It’s not a fiscal policy, because it is not funded through taxation and it’s not a monetary policy, because it is not funded through printing more money. Fascinatingly – if a measure is none of those two – and it’s not purely free market… ‘well… well… then… it has to be communistic!’ Lol. Yet, it’s not communistic, because the economy will still operate according to free market principles, there will be no centralization of ownership – there will be decentralization – and the role for government would become smaller than it is now.

For more information about Living Income Guaranteed,
Read our Proposal
Watch our Hangouts
Read our Blogs

Read More

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 2 - Sustainability vs Full employment

In my previous blog, I discussed what false dilemmas are, how they are used in our everyday life, how easily we get swayed by false dilemmas and what the consequences are of their use. I also discussed how one is able to broaden one’s view of a situation, taking a step back so one has a more accurate view of the whole picture when faced with false dilemmas.  I gave 4 examples of false dilemmas dominating discussions on very real problems that require direction and solutions. Within this blog I’ll take each example and show how the Living Income proposal steps outside of these false dilemmas and offers real win-win solutions.

Example 1

‘If we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels for a better environment, we will lose thousands of jobs in the energy-sector. So – which do we choose: preventing unemployment or fighting climate change?’

At Naomi Klein’s launch for her new book ‘This changes everything’, Naomi presented the same dilemma to Estela Vasquez, Executive VP at SEIU (United Healthcare Workers East), asking her to comment on the tension that has been existing between climate change and labor union activists – her reply was as follows: “We actually can fight for good jobs, for jobs that deal with the question of having clean energy, renewable energy, to have transportation that is accessible to all, (…) jobs can be created in retro-feeding buildings, in creating new forms of energy, in creating transportation that is clean, in creating a new society, where the determining factor is not profit, but the determining factor is the well-being of every living thing on Earth, not just human beings.”

She further mentioned that the interests at stake with climate change and pollution are heartfelt by the same people whose jobs may be insecure – what does it matter, for instance, if one secures a good job with good working conditions, if one’s child develops asthma from playing in the garden, breathing compromised air? There shouldn’t be a choice between one or the other – because both factors are, in different ways, affecting individuals’ well-being.

With a Living Income Guaranteed in place, one will always have a security net available when it comes to job losses or threat of losing one’s job – where it can be recognized that loss of employment is not an infringement on basic human rights, because one’s rights are fundamentally guaranteed through the receiving of a Living Income. When fear of unemployment is removed – flexibility is created in making a transition towards creating different jobs, jobs that are more beneficial to the community at large. The most common excuse from corporations that have not been mitigating the social costs they have helped to create, has been that: ‘we provide employment, and if you don’t want us here, we will find cheaper employment elsewhere’. Such threats become void when jobs no longer stand equal to lifelines. Such threats have created a burden on society at large in having to compromise the future for the present – but now we are walking into that compromised future. When we are faced with points such as climate change – creativity and innovation play a key-role – it is a time that calls for human potential to freely move – a potential that remains shackled as long as human rights are linked to jobs, where eventually the employer and the availability of alternative employment, determine what one can and cannot do in life, what forms of society we can and cannot aspire to, what solutions we can or a cannot bring into manifestation. A Living Income Guaranteed allows us to stop the cycles of the past and allows us to, instead, start addressing the problems we’ve created as well as ensuring that we do not make the same mistakes again.

Of course, it’s not sufficient for human creativity and inspiration to move freely – ideas must be able to become a reality and businesses concerned with sustainable and renewable energy sources, for instance, must be given a chance to establish themselves in the market. Here we’re looking at economic power-plays where companies engaged with power-production from fossil fuels have established themselves as pillars within an economy around which everything else turns. Having considerable economic influence, the practice of compromising the opportunity for firms based on renewable energy to establish themselves in that same market is common practice. Within the Living Income Guaranteed proposal, we suggest that the citizens of a country become the owners of companies within that country that produce power – hence – allowing the activities of these companies to be directly accountable to every citizen – and as such – having to keep all citizens’ interests at heart. This changes the economic dynamic in such a way that the entire power producing industry and the role established companies play within it – can be considered within the context of what would be best for all the citizens involved.





http://livingincome.me/ 

http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/

Read More

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 1

One of the ways in which we limit our ability to address problems and steer ourselves towards solutions without entering into an endless debate, is through our acceptance of false dilemmas at face value.

What is a false dilemma?

"A false dilemma arises when we allow ourselves to be convinced that we have to choose between two and only two mutually exclusive options, when that is untrue. Generally, when this rhetorical strategy is used, one of the options is unacceptable and repulsive, while the other is the one the manipulator wants us to choose. Whoever succumbs to this trap has thus made a choice that is forced, and as such, of little value. . . . Here are a few examples of common false dilemmas:

•    Either medicine can explain how Ms. X was cured, or it is a miracle. Medicine can't explain how she was cured. Therefore it is a miracle.
•    If we don't reduce public spending, our economy will collapse.
•    America: Love it or leave it.
•    The universe could not have been created from nothing, so it must have been created by an intelligent life force.”

(Normand Baillargeon, A Short Course in Intellectual Self-Defense. Seven Stories Press, 2008)

It seems easy enough to spot false dilemmas and yet, they seem to dominate the discussions about some of the most important issues we require solutions for. Have a look:

Example 1

‘If we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels for a better environment, we will lose thousands of jobs in the energy-sector. So – which do we choose: preventing unemployment or fighting climate change?’

Example 2

‘The government has two kinds of policy at its disposal to correct market failures: fiscal policy and monetary policy – not using these policies means letting the free market dictate economic conditions.’

Example 3

‘If we don’t maintain our military forces and curtail individual freedoms, terrorists will have free reign and come to destroy our beloved country.’

Example 4

‘We’ve created a society with an abundance of choices and so freedom to choose. Producing so many varieties of the same product places pressure on the environment, but reducing it would mean to give up the freedom we’ve gained.’

Do you start seeing to what extent false dilemma’s – the ‘either/or’ presentation of options – is thoroughly ingrained in media, in politics, in every day life discussions?

On the one hand false dilemmas are used to manipulate those presented with the false dilemma to choose the option that the presenter of the dilemma wishes – but on the other hand – it also encourages stagnation and paralysis. Because what happens, is: you have groups who have an interest within the one option, or who support the one option – and you have groups who have an interest within the second option, or who support the second option. And now there is a back-and-forth quibbling, to put it plainly, about which option to choose, about which group ‘loses’ and which group ‘wins’. Of course, no one wants to lose, or be the one to sacrifice their interests for the other group’s or the other goal – so everyone is fighting, but in the meantime, you maintain the status quo, because there is no movement, there is no common solution – there is just a debate, a discussion, an argument, when what is really needed is direction and action.

We tend to so blindly accept information the way it is presented to us – without critically thinking for ourselves and seeing if there are no alternatives. No, instead we immediately position ourselves on one or the other side of the dilemma and feel good about ourselves for ‘taking in a position’. But what does it matter to take in a position, if that position is not going to lead to a solution, but simply perpetuates a back-and-forth dynamic that can only lead to losing? Either ‘our group’ wins over the other, then the others lose out, or the other group wins and then ‘our group’ loses out – or no solution is reached and everyone keeps quibbling, then everyone loses out, because nothing gets directed – or both groups go into a ‘compromise’ and don’t really take on either issue, but just do ‘ a little bit’ on both fronts to please everyone – which seems like a ‘win-win’ solution – but it actually isn’t – because everyone is compromising.

The first thing to do is to take a step back and allow yourself to see the bigger picture. Because – what is presented with a false dilemma? You’re presented with a zoomed-in picture that shows two doors, two options. Now, instead of trying to break your brains over figuring out which of the doors represents the lesser of two evils – take a step back – zoom out the picture and suddenly more becomes visible within the frame – there might be a third door that had not been mentioned or there might be a pathway going around the wall that the doors are in, making every door entirely irrelevant.

In my next post, I’ll go over each of the examples and show how the Living Income proposal steps outside these false dilemmas and offers real win-win solutions.

Read More

Common Concerns about the Implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed

The following is a Q&A discussion from the Living Income Guaranteed Facebook page.

Do we have equal education, ambition, and iq? should the cashier and server make the same as the entrepreneur with more risk and skin in the game? If you want more pay, find a profession in high demand. Also, if positioning the government to raise minimum wage rates only creates a market distortion inducing hyperinflation, increasing the rate of automated points of sales, job elimination, and pricing some smaller companies completely out of markets. i find it hard to believe that the people on this page can't see through a socialist ideology for the disaster that it is.

Hi - it's not within the Living Income Guaranteed proposal to give each one equal wages, regardless of skill, profession or education. However, it is within the Human Rights Declaration to provide each one with certain rights - which requires a minimum living income. Wouldn't you say it is hypocritical to promise or guarantee these rights and then refrain from providing the means through which these rights find their expression - which in our world, is money? In terms of the inflation argument - please check out the hangout we did on that topic:

A living income is not a right. It's a right to persue, it. How can someone be provided something equal, or to a hyper -standard of their personal production? If a living is "guaranteed ", what is the motivation of the indevidual to continue to be a productive member of society? Where is this guarantee coming from, if the incentive to work is gone? Will farmers farm if they are guaranteed a living even if they dount? Will truckers get up at 3am and drive? Will doctors continue to practice?
The truth is, this utopian, society you are promoting sounds like roses and rainbows but the facts are, you are pushing the same socialist ideology that has been failing for hundreds of years.
I hope you never see the day your agenda is a reality. I hope you never have to explain why you have to stand in line for the only meal of the day. I think you should be studying the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union, or for that matter, Rome. Noone can guarantee you a living, it's a fact. The people who say they they can, are only going to make those promises until they realize, that giving you that guarantee, means taking from someone else who WORKS for it. It's called slavery. What some see as greed and unfair, I call success.
Asking your government to guarantee your living, is in turn relinquishing your liberty to them. If you want to know your rights, read the constitution. There are no guarantees in life. If you want freedom and peace, and your rights? You have to work and fight for them. And that means taking personal responsibility for your actions and wellbeeing. If you want someone to guarantee you the the things that sustain your life and you are over the age of 18, you are completely delusional.

Hi - I hear your concerns regarding the Living Income Guaranteed proposal as they have been brought up before. If we lived in a world where jobs and opportunities for success were readily available to all - then, yes, we can suppose that it is ever person's choice to live in poverty and there might be reason to leave someone to their own vices. However, that is not the world we live in today. Not everyone grows up in the same environment that supports them with the skills to enter the job-market. Not everyone has access to decent education and even with having a degree and the will to work, youth unemployment is a growing phenomenon, because there are no jobs available. For a different perspective, I suggest you read the blog 'Redemption and the Right to a Living Income' as it is directly pertinent to the point you raised here. Placing that absolute 'rule' or 'principle' that only those who can make a decent living within the economic system rightly deserve it is problematic when you consider the world we live in, because it can not simply be argued that those in poverty choose to be there and/or that they are unwilling to change their living conditions.

In terms of work incentives, we looked at this point as well. If staying at home still provides you with your basic living necessities, would there be a reason to work? One point here I would like to bring up is that pilot projects for a basic income have all shown that work efforts are not reduced when a basic income is provided. So, there is reason to believe that our fears are just that - fears. But do we want to take that risk? We'd rather not. Therefore, within the Living Income Guaranteed proposal, we suggest that the minimum wage be double the Living Income. That means that those with a job can definitely afford more luxurious lifestyles than those living with just the basic requirements - which therefore provides an incentive to take up employment.

In terms of your argument of taking from someone else who worked for their income to provide another with a living income, I suggest you read the Living Income Proposal itself again as we suggest a way of financing the Living Income Guaranteed that does not require means such as income tax which ensures that no one pays for anyone else's Living Income.

That guaranteeing a Living Income stands equal to, or is a slippery slope towards communism is quite a leap. Consider that communism was characterized by central planning and the centralization of ownership of resources. We propose instead that capitalism remains the way in which economic activities are conducted and we support the decentralization of power with minimal government - less government in fact than a welfare state implies. Herein, we agree with Libertarians such as Matt Zwolinski who recently wrote an informative and insightful article titled 'The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Guarantee'.

The constitutions and the values and principles that we've been upholding are products of the past - where once upon a time, they were considered useful and an improvement over what was here before. However, if you look at the abuse that has been allowed in the name of these values and principles, it becomes clear that we have to formulate new principles for our global society to live by. We simply cannot continue as we are. If not for those in need - then out of self-interest - because in the battle where each person is fighting for their rights - we are disregarding the planet we live on and some day, we will all have to pay the price - unless we change what we're doing. That doesn't mean we have to implement a utopian society of equality - but would it be so outrageous if each person was given the bare necessities to survive?

Read More

Pollution Inequality and Living Income Guaranteed

One of the reasons pollution has been able to become such a huge problem is that those creating the pollution are usually not the ones suffering its consequences. Let’s take the classical fictional example of a paper factory using a nearby river in which to dump its waste-material. The river-current drags these materials away from the paper factory and to a nearby town that uses the river water for drinking purposes. The paper factory might use the same river for drinking water for its employees or production processes, but it will use the water a bit higher up the river, at a point where the water is still clean. So – even though the factory is producing the waste material, dumping it in the river and so contaminating the quality of the water – it is not the factory itself/those working at the factory who feel and experience the consequences of polluting the river to get rid of its waste. Since the factory doesn’t feel the harm in what it’s doing, it won’t change what it’s doing, unless there are complaints from the villagers who DO experience the consequences of the river pollution and take action so that solutions can be implemented.

Now – a study was done by James K. Boyce, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, where he investigated the ‘distribution’ of air pollution. Most people have heard about distribution of income and wealth and how unequal it is. But what about air pollution – is everyone suffering to the same extent or are certain groups/categories of people more exposed – and why?

In an interview with the professor the following was discussed:

LP: Do patterns of inequality differ across the country? How can a person of color or a poor person avoid air pollution?

JKB: Avoiding industrial air pollution is difficult, particularly if you're poor or a member of a racial or ethnic minority. That’s partly because of housing prices. It’s partly because of discrimination in housing and mortgage markets — the phenomenon of red-lining. And it’s also partly because of the tendency for firms to site polluting facilities in relatively low-income and relatively high-minority communities because they expect less political pushback.

Hmmm, that last statement is quite interesting, isn’t it? In the example of our paper factory we were giving the factory ‘the benefit of the doubt’ in saying that – they probably didn’t realize what they were doing within polluting the water of the river, because they weren’t experiencing the consequences of the polluted water. But this statement clearly shows that – polluting firms are not only aware that they are polluting, they are aware that it has negative consequences for others – and yet, so long as they think they can ‘get away with it’, they’ll still do it. And when can they get away with it? When those experiencing the negative outflows are unlikely to speak up or take action to hold the firm accountable.

Or maybe it doesn’t mean that at all. Perhaps – let us entertain this notion for a moment – perhaps people of color or poor people are less likely to initiate political push back because they just don’t mind the air pollution. Maybe they are the enlightened ones who realize that air pollution is really not a big deal and therefore simply don’t want to make a fuss when it isn’t necessary.

But then you get to the following part of the interview:

LP: What are some of the most concerning economic effects of industrial air pollution on communities?

JKB: Air pollution has adverse effects on people’s health, and that means that they have to spend more on healthcare and they miss more days of work, either because they themselves are too ill to go to work or because their kids are sick and they have to stay home and take care of them. It also has adverse effects on property values, which vary with the levels of air pollution in the community.

On top of those outcome effects, it also impacts equality of opportunity, particularly for children. Because communities that are heavily burdened with air pollution tend to have higher incidence and greater severity of childhood asthma, the kids miss more days of school, and partly because they’re missing school and perhaps partly because of the neurological impacts of air pollution on their young and developing cognitive function, there is an adverse effect on school performance.

If you believe, as I think most Americans believe, that every kid deserves an equal chance, that equality of opportunity for children is dear to our society for reasons of both equity and efficiency, then the impacts of disproportionate pollution burdens on the children in some communities – the fact that the playing field is tilted against them through no fault of their own – is a troubling feature of our environmental landscape.

That settles it then – air pollution is definitely a problem that impacts the lives of those who are most exposed to it in a harmful way. So, it’s highly unlikely that they don’t mind – it must be that there is a problem in their ability to voice themselves and push for solutions that would improve their standard of living. And that makes total sense. As we have argued before – political participation is currently a luxury that can only be afforded by those who have the money and the time to firstly educate themselves on what procedures are available to them to organize themselves, formulate complaints and propose solutions – and secondly, walk these procedures and taking action.

With the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed, companies would no longer have the ability to get away with excessive air pollution in low-income or minority community areas. No matter how much one currently struggles to get by income-wise and no matter if one belongs to a ‘minority community’ – each one’s economic situation would be secured and therefore, each one’s political influence is guaranteed as well. Herein, we could make an end to the cycle of impairing opportunities of those who already have a harder time to make the best of the opportunities they do have. Because once one is caught up in the struggle to survive, one has no bargaining power – one becomes the equivalent of a ‘slave’ within a system where one’s long term benefits are sacrificed for the short term goals of having enough money to put food on the table and pay the bills. And this is known by the bullies of the world who will ensure that the consequences they create are carried mostly by those who don’t have the luxury to put a stop to it.

So, is a Living Income Guaranteed ‘bad news’ for firms? No – not at all. The philosophy of the free market is based on the premise that off-setting individual interests can create the best outcome for everyone. Of course, interests that are not voiced have no power to off-set anything at all – which is precisely what we’re witnessing in the world today. A Living Income Guaranteed would ensure that all interests are considered and play a role within the creation of an optimal outcome. Air pollution is a great example herein, because what is air pollution – it is a way in which the natural equilibrium is disturbed, which, as we are all too aware of, is having consequences on the larger natural systems that the air forms a part of. In essence, it is a form of poisoning the planet, the planet we all share. We can try for a while to keep the effects of pollution isolated so that most, or at least the more affluent, in society don’t have to worry about it. But the planet is an interconnected system and eventually – as we’re noticing with global warming – the effects will reach everyone. So – implementing a Living Income Guaranteed is not only a matter of empowering those without means or voice to make a decent living for themselves in this world – it is a vital step to ensure that we create optimal outcomes for everyone, that cannot be achieved if not everyone is part of the discussion.




http://livingincome.me
http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/
https://www.youtube.com/user/LivingIncome
https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/117690749220880074672
http://www.twitter.com/LivingIncome

Read More