Day 238: Advertisement vs Rational Informed Decision-Making

One of the premises of the argument for Capitalism as the most Effective means of distributing goods and resources is that consumers make rational and informed decisions. In such a system, every person's purchasing decision is a vote that is cast - where, the amount of purchases shows what the demand is for a certain product. Spending patterns then are supposed to show what people want and expect to be supplied with. Herein, the logic goes that between two products of the same price but of different quality - consumers will buy the better-quality product and in so-doing, will signal to the market that inferior quality goods are not wanted, according to which the supply then is supposed to adjust.

As such - the economy is supposed to be demand driven - where it is the consumers who vote on what should be done with the resources the Earth provides.

HOWEVER - we have developed a very lucrative business - which is the marketing industry, for which tons of research has been done - actual scientific research - to determine how to convince and persuade people that they want or need something that they actually don't. The advertising factor has reversed the production-relationship from demand-determined to supply-determined. For instance - I don't have cable, so I never watch advertisement. When I buy products, I have to actually test the product and from experience, determine whether the product is effective or not and accordingly, I adjust my spending patterns - so that I spend money on that which is actually supportive and worthwhile. Yesterday I was sitting in a waiting area and there was a TV playing. I saw a bunch of commercials, one of which was about a product that I myself had tested. The product was an 'instant soup' powder and the entire focus of the propaganda was to make the viewer believe that there are actual, real ingredients in this power - as in real vegetables, real meat and what have you. And - if I had been sitting at home, watching this commercial over and over - I have to sadly say that I may have been swayed by the information presented, and that I would have bought the product in the perception that 'there is real food in this powder - it said so on TV'. However, I happened to have tested this product before seeing this commercial and my experience showed that my body reacted adversely to it - in a way that it doesn't react to 'real soup'. Herein showing - that: No - this powder is not equivalent to 'real food'.

See - what advertisement does is brainwash viewers to such an extent that the memory of the picture of the commercial that has been seen over and over - overrides one's own actual physical experience - even to the extent that we don't even pay attention to the actual physical experience - because our memory is already 'telling us' what we are supposed to be believing about the product. Advertisement shapes our opinion of a product to the point where we can't distinguish between what's real and what's make-belief.

Herein - obviously - there is no rational decision-making. I could clearly see that if I were to be exposed to advertisement over and over - I may actually be influenced by it when I go through the shops - even if it is just because of familiarity - feeling like I 'know' this product - just because I've been exposed to the brand-name and logo over and over.

And so - advertisement is the way in which consumers have been robbed of their vote. It doesn't matter whether there is an actual demand for a product. Random products that have no life-supporting value and that have the lifespan of a few weeks, are continuously being produced - and it doesn't matter if there was no market for it - because the demand will simply be CREATED through advertisement. So - what we see today is an economy that is run by suppliers, profit-makers and NOT by consumers. Resources are wasted on the production of crap and consumers by the crap because they are too brainwashed to know better.

As such - we don't live in a capitalistic system in the true sense of the words, and any argument raised raised in the context of capitalistic theory is a scam - because we are not adhering to one of the basic principle of capitalism - which is that every individual needs to have the ability to make rational and informed decisions. As such - this ability requires to be protected if we want to truly live in a system that is sustainable and allocates resources most effectively.

Herein - I would suggest to either abolish advertising entirely - so that consumers are obliged to actually test the product for themselves, and based on real physical observation and experience, can influence the production-side of the market through changing spending patterns - OR - that advertisement becomes purely informative - listing the facts in terms of ingredients/materials utilized and the basic purpose of the product. No smiling people, no bright and colorful sparks, no music, no symbolism, no lies.

This would go a long way in preventing the wastage of resources that would now no longer be able to be used in the production of products that no-one actually wants or needs, relieving much of the pressure we have placed on our environment. Furthermore - together with the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed - individuals will gain back their freedom - equipped with both money and rational decision-making - individuals will truly be empowered in the ability to determine what is valuable and what is not - and as such, capitalism can in fact be used to enhance and enforce democratic principles through economic means.

Related articles

• Day 227: The Myth of Conscious Buying
• Day 251: Living Income Guaranteed and Market Mechanics

Read More

Day 234: Living Income to Cure the World of Crime

One of the objections that has been raised against implementing a Living Income Guaranteed to ensure that every person is secured with the means to support themselves - is that: one would be rewarding individuals without them doing any effort to create a better life for themselves - and so - implicitly, one is rewarding laziness.

This objection obviously does not consider the reality of the economic system we currently live in - where, motivation and one's best efforts are simply not enough to 'make it', let alone make a decent living for oneself and one's family. Those perceptions come from When the economy is in such a state as it is now - then, regardless of one's best intentions and efforts, one can remain stuck in a life of poverty and deprivation, simply because there are no sufficient jobs through which to earn money. Or, one could get a different degree to be able to have access to a particular job market - but this also implies that one requires to already have some sort of income to fund the studies. One can also not start one's own business, because that requires a starting capital.

So - what options are left? What are we encouraging when we say to a person with no means to support themselves that they are on their own and that they must devise their own way to make a living? Well - we are basically suggesting that they should become criminals. That is the one option they have available. And when the economy worsens and less jobs are created, more turn to crime - and when crime increases the economy suffers even more because no-one wants to invest in a country where the law is not enforced, because then there is no guarantee that the investors' interests will be looked after from a legal standpoint.

No - motivation is certainly not enough to make a decent living for oneself. But there is one thing - and if one possesses this one thing - a world of opportunity and possibility suddenly stretches out before one's feet. And that one thing is: MONEY. It only takes money to be able to feed oneself. It only takes money to be able to clothe oneself. It only takes money to be able to educate oneself. It only takes money to make the difference between disgrace and dignity.

Capitalism is a system of incentives and the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed for all those who find themselves without a job - would be the perfect way to discourage crime - or otherwise, to stop encouraging criminal behavior. Because it is easy to say that those with nothing must just do some effort to improve their lives - but if we'd be in their shoes - having to provide not only for oneself, but a family too - with no support system to fall back on - what would you do? Would you sit at home watching your family suffer, or would you do whatever you can - even if it means stealing and robbing and conning - or making a deal with the 'wrong kind of people' where you get dragged into situations you never thought you would find yourself in - but what choice is there, there are mouths to feed, bills and rent to pay. How can we even call such people criminals? Wouldn't it be criminal to in those instances obey the law and not take one's responsibility within taking care of those around us? Then - isn't it criminal to allow a system where individuals are placed in a position where they have no means to adequately support their families within the boundaries of the law?

We're the criminals here because we make laws and follow economic rules without any consideration of what the reality, consequences and implications of these decisions entail.

We are the people and in any democracy - it is the people who are supposed to rule. And if that is not happening - then that is not the fault of those in power or of the corporations or anyone else's - but OURS - THE PEOPLE. Any democratic dispensation places the responsibility of what is allowed to happen in a country squarely on each and every single citizen's shoulders. So - be a citizen and take your responsibility - become politically involved so that you can stop the REAL crime that is being allowed. To create a crime-free and peaceful society - you're going to have to do something - and that is one simple thing: To give to another what you would want to receive if you were in their shoes. And this can at the moment practically be done through the implementation of Living Income. It is a workable proposal. It is a dignified proposal.

So - join the political party in your country that supports a Living Income or form your own - the time to act is here, nagging is just a waste of your breath.

Related articles

• Day 418: Basic Income Can Save Capitalism
• Day 420: Basic Income and Minimum Wage
• Day 422: Basic Income Grant and Pensions
• Day 421: Basic Income Grant and the Nationalization of Banks
• Day 233: Can BIG provide us the punch to beat the recession?
• Day 417: Basic Income and Nationalized Resources
• Day 230: The Principle of Need and the Principle of Equality are One
• Day 305: Life - A Title on the Stock Market
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• Day 415: Bailouts Are No Solution

Read More

Day 232: Putting Economic Theory into Practice with Living Income Guaranteed

Living Income Guaranteed as the Capitalist’s Answer to a Healthy and Wealthy Economy

Any economist is familiar with Keynes and the Keynesian economic model of a demand-driven economy. Keynes understood that money requires to move for an economy to thrive, in the same way that blood must flow for a body to be healthy.

An economy can be broken down into three basic flows: Spending, production and income – spending requires to happen for companies to be able to produce goods – the production of these goods then provides income to the employees of the companies that produced them. There is thus an undeniable link between spending and income. When too few people have adequate income, or when income is too low – too little is spent, too little is produced – and income reduces even more.

The ideal way to ensure spending is therefore to secure everyone with an Income.

Furthermore – capitalism can only work if Equal Opportunity of Participation exists. Unless Equal Opportunity exists, capitalism becomes a system of exclusion and deprivation – because Capitalism only ensures efficient production and distribution of resources for those with an income. Therefore – to prevent Capitalism from becoming a weapon, but instead, an actual management system as how it was intended to be – each individual should have a guaranteed income.

Furthermore – an economy will not only thrive through money movement, BIG pilot projects have shown that more children attend school, and thus, one will have a more qualified labor force in the future – increasing the intellectual capital in an economy.

A Guaranteed Living Income is a Human Right

Regardless of the economic arguments, guaranteed income is a basic human right. To speak of Basic Human Rights without securing the means through which to benefit from these rights, is useless.

The Equal Life Foundation therefore suggest that the Living Income one receives should be sufficient to be able to enjoy one’s Basic Human Rights, and thus, large enough for individuals and families to live a decent human life – meaning: one can live off a Living Income Guaranteed with dignity. This implies the ability to pay for one’s basic needs such as electricity, water, food and clothing – but also extends to the means to participate in our current society and thus includes things such as a car, a phone/cell phone and internet access.

Social Dividends

To fund a Living Income Guaranteed – a system of social dividends is ideal. In every country there are those goods and services that are vital for the basic well-being of the citizens of that country. Examples are basic resources such as water, electricity, raw materials, transportation and media. Such goods and services do not belong in private hands – but belong to each individual of the nation. Therefore – every citizen should be a shareholder of every company involved in the production of such goods and services.

This is not a new idea – as early as 1935, G.D.H. Cole, wrote the following:

“How will ... incomes be distributed? There are two possible ways - payments for work done, and 'doles', or, to give them a less coloured name, 'social dividends'. I believe the system of distribution will be a combination of these two, but a very different combination from that which now exists. ... There will remain, broadly, two sources of income - work and citizenship. Incomes will be distributed partly as rewards for work, and partly as direct payments from the State to every citizen as 'social dividends' - a recognition of each citizen's claim as a consumer to share in the common heritage of productive power.” (Cole 1935, pp. 234-235)

The dividends one receives from the profits of these nationally owned companies then form the Living Income Guaranteed. With each one being a shareholder, each one immediately also has an equal say in the activities of such companies – which is an application of direct democracy in the areas of life that are most important, which again solidifies and protects each one’s Basic Human Rights.

Incentive to Work

The inevitable question then comes up: If everyone receives an income that covers one’s needs – who will be willing to work?

This is where the Equal Life Foundation suggests an interesting solution. To provide incentive – the minimum wage should be double the Living Income. This means that anyone who has a job can not only fulfill one’s needs, but can enhance one’s quality of life through acquiring luxury items that would not be available on a Living Income budget. One can then afford a bigger house, a larger family, a second car, a bigger garden, more exotic and fulfilling holiday destinations, subscriptions to sports clubs and other leisure organizations, and so on and so forth.

Consequentially - as soon as one has a job – and thus, receives a wage that is at least double the income one would have earned from social dividends – one’s right to the Living Income Guaranteed falls away – simply because one doesn’t require it anymore. The social dividends system then functions as a National Insurance system – combining unemployment fund, life insurance and retirement funds all in one – where, one receives a pay-out based on the applicability to one’ situation.

Also read:

Living Income and Nationalized Resources
Living Income Can Save Capitalism
Living Income and Minimum Wage

Day 415: Bailouts Are No Solution

Sources:

COLE, G.D.H. 1935. Principles of Economic Planning. London: Macmillan & Co., 1935.

Related articles

• Day 418: Basic Income Can Save Capitalism
• Day 417: Basic Income and Nationalized Resources
• Day 415: Bailouts Are No Solution
• Day 230: The Principle of Need and the Principle of Equality are One
• 367. Children's Human Rights | Equal Money
• 365. Labor is a Human Right |Equal Money
• 362. Water is a Human Right | Equal Money
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• 366. Health Care is a Human Right | Equal Money
• Day 308: Foolishly Trusting 'The Invisible Hand's' Benevolence

Read More

Day 216: Children Seduced to Spend Real Money on Games

"A schoolboy has unwittingly racked up a £2,000 credit card bill playing an online game on his grandfather’s iPad.

Six-year-old Will Smith was innocently playing the popular children’s video game Tiny Monsters until his grandfather Barry Slatter, 55, was contacted by the fraud squad.

The family was unaware of little Will’s huge spending spree until his grandmother tried to use the credit card at Tesco, only to have it declined."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205555/Schoolboy-massive-credit-card-playing-iPad-Tiny-Monsters-app.html#ixzz2RDDz9inE

"A 12-year-old boy accidentally ran up a £1,500 bill while playing Xbox Live - leaving his cash-strapped dad with no choice but to pick up the tab.

Sam Ghera's son Nik thought he was using up game points every time he 'improved' his characters while playing Call of Duty and Fifa.

However, with each click he was actually purchasing an online currency - which was draining money from his dad's account."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2171930/X-Box-Live-Boy-playing-Call-Duty-Fifa-ran-1-150-bill.html#ixzz2RDEEp7N7

More and more children's video games provide the option to buy additional features or short-cuts in the games with real money. Many of these games work with virtual currency as part of the game, but then switch to ask for real money for certain purchases. No need to say that children have a tendency to mix up imagination with reality. The difference between the two is simply not very obvious to them. Especially, when we're looking at Gaming Apps on touchscreen devices - where the characters of the game can actually be touched and moved by their finger. So - to expect a child to understand the difference between virtual money and real money - where real money is nothing more than numbers on a screen in the first place - is quite far-reaching.

So, what is the deal with these games where it is extremely easy for children to make real purchases on their parents' account? Are they trying to trick children to purchases they don't realize they're making - having children give money to a company - money which isn't even theirs? Having children doing the stealing for the company? Or is it about molding children to become the future generation of consumers? Where they learn to spend virtual money in a game and find that it is so easy - but then, as soon as real money comes in the picture, the parents deny them the right to buy what they want with real money. Then the child holds a grudge and they promise themselves that as soon as they have their own money, of which they can decide how they want to spend it - that they will always buy whatever they want to buy - creating the perfectly manipulable consumer. Because then, all that needs to be done is to spark a desire - and there you have it, an eager buyer.

Here is another example:

"Facebook has been accused of creating ‘tomorrow’s generation of problem gamblers’ by rolling out real money casino games.

Under a lucrative deal with online gaming company 888, the social networking giant will offer Las Vegas-style slot machines and games such as roulette and blackjack.

The move heralds a major expansion of its gambling sites.

Gamers will be able to place up to £500 on bets using a credit or debit card with promises of jackpots worth tens of thousands of pounds.

These will only be available in the UK, where gaming laws are more relaxed than in the US. Both Facebook and 888 insist they have safeguards to prevent minors from accessing the games.

These include checking the credit card details used against both their Facebook profile and the electoral register.

But there is nothing to stop children logging on to parents’ accounts and using card details already stored on the family computer. Already, Facebook users as young as 13 can use virtual slot machines on the website to win ‘credits’ – which have no monetary value.

But as soon as they turn 18, millions of children who use the social networking site will be bombarded with adverts for real money gambling games.

Facebook has three million UK users aged between 13 and 17. But a further one million are thought to be under 13 and pretending to be older.

Any of these could already be playing the ‘free’ slot and bingo games – which critics say form gambling habits because they simulate the thrill of hitting the jackpot.

More than a million people are already signed up to play 888’s free bingo game Bingo Island – although not all of these are UK based. They have to pay for online credits to play, but cannot win any real money back.
Concern: Critics worry users, including children using parents credit card details, will get hooked on the casino-style games

Yesterday 888 launched its first real money bingo application, with promises to roll out casino games. Critics fear many will be attracted to the new games to try to win money back, after experiencing the unrealistic odds offered on the free versions.

‘You win virtually every time you play one of the free games,’ said Mark Griffiths, professor of gambling studies at Nottingham Trent University.

‘Research has shown again and again that one of the biggest factors in developing problem gambling is playing free games online first. These children and teenagers today are the problem gamblers of tomorrow.’

He warned the deal with 888 could cause ‘the floodgates to open’ as gambling companies dive into the social media frenzy to make money. It is thought Facebook will take a 30 per cent cut of all bets placed.

In August, Facebook launched its first ‘real money’ gambling game with Bingo Friendzy, which offers bingo and slot machines. But the deal, done with Gamesys Group, is relatively small compared with the potential influx of gambling giants who could queue up to join Facebook if the venture proves to be profitable.

Itai Frieberger, chief operating officer of 888, said: ‘Our Facebook play for fun offerings have found a significant audience, and we are very excited by the opportunity real money gaming on Facebook provides.’ He said the company would prevent users who are under 18 on Facebook from even seeing the games.

A spokesman for Facebook said Bingo Friendzy players are subject to ‘strict account acceptance controls verifying their identity, and that they are over 18 and located in the UK.’ Gambling will not be promoted to Facebook members registered as under 18, it added.

Any of these could already be playing the ‘free’ slot and bingo games – which critics say form gambling habits because they simulate the thrill of hitting the jackpot."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247087/Fury-Facebook-online-casinos-Social-network-tempting-young-gamble-new-betting-games.html#ixzz2RDWYaO3H

If capitalism, as it says, is all about the freedom of the individual and about making your own choices - then how come an army of consumer-addicts is being created?

Related articles

• 342.Monetary System in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 282: Is Economics a Dangerous Cult?
• 338. What is Equal Money Capitalism?
• Day 283: The Fear of leaving behind Knowledge and Information
• 354. Self Governance in Equal Money
• Day 298: There is Too-Much Love in this World
• Day 357: Genetically Modified Facial Features for Beauty - the Future of Patents
• 353. The Best Regime is Equal Money
• 347. How to Become the Change in this World? Equal Money
• 352. The Solutions to Human Nature with Equal Money

Read More

Day 209: Health Care or Disease Care?

Please watch the following documentary for additional information:
Escape Fire: The Fight to Rescue American Healthcare

In the US 75% of healthcare costs go towards patients suffering from preventable diseases. Instead of focussing on prevention within educating people on lifestyle and what consequences come along with what lifestyle – the healthcare system only bothers with dealing with the aftermath.

A person suffering from diabetes, who as a result has heart problems – will be filled with stents each time there’s a heart problem. Only symptoms are alleviated and the problem remains. This method of treatment is of course very good for the pockets of the medical industry. The patient is not getting better, he’s also not really dying and he keeps on coming back. The very point that the cause and origin of so many people’s preventable chronic disease is not even discussed is questionable to say the least. This clearly shows a lack of integrity and care as it becomes obvious that an actual solution is not was is being sought after – but merely the management of the disease.

In Equal Money Capitalism, we reverse everything. Instead of tending to Consequence we focus on Prevention. Education will have a primary role within Health Care, within making people aware of how they can best support themselves and their bodies so each one can live at optimum capacity. People who pursue a career in medicine will be those who truly have a passion for the practice and really want to take care of people (read Day 188: Simple Solutions in Equal Money Capitalism on how this is made possible).

Changing our approach to health care will not only save us tremendous costs in monetary terms – but will also save on a lot of harm as the result of overtreatment and limited symptomatic relief. Consider also that a lot of patients only go to the doctor and are on prescribed drugs because they are overworked and cannot cope with the pressure of the demanding system that we have today. In such cases – medicine is not the solution, but a change in lifestyle – which is exactly what Equal Money Capitalism is all about.

Related articles

• Day 202: Nightmare Bacteria on the Rise
• Day 335: Democracy and Capitalism are the Redistribution of Wealth - (Part One)
• Day 206: Will Equal Money Bring about a Utopia?
• Day 285: Alcohol, Drugs and Demon Possession (Part Two)
• Day 196: Market Mechanisms and Equal Money
• Day 204: Bring your Own Cup and Help Save the Planet!

Read More