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

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

Meconomics: Fear of Missing Out and Opportunity Cost – Part 2

This blog-post is a continuation to:
"Meconomics": ME-Economics
Meconomics: Fear of Missing Out and Opportunity Cost


Read the above posts first for context.

In the previous post I had a look at the concept of opportunity cost and how we ‘make use’ of this concept in our language and daily living, or in other words – how the concept of opportunity cost is embedded in our psychological make-up and how it plays a role specifically when we make decisions. We saw that opportunity cost involves a dimension of a sense of ownership towards ‘the road not taken’ – where it then feels that we are ‘losing’ that option when we choose something else. We also looked at the role imagination plays within the creation of this sense of ownership.

So now, let’s have a look at an example of opportunity cost in economics and then take our understanding of the psychological origin of the concept – as how it exists within ourselves – to re-assess the ‘place’ of opportunity cost in economic situations.

Let’s take the example of interest:

“Interest is compensation to the lender, for a) risk of principal loss, called credit risk; and b) forgoing other investments that could have been made with the loaned asset. These forgone investments are known as the opportunity cost. Instead of the lender using the assets directly, they are advanced to the borrower. The borrower then enjoys the benefit of using the assets ahead of the effort required to pay for them, while the lender enjoys the benefit of the fee paid by the borrower for the privilege. In economics, interest is considered the price of credit.”

So, part of why you pay interest on a loan is to compensate the lender for the opportunity cost they incur by borrowing you the funds. The lender’s opportunity cost stems from the idea that he/she could have invested the funds and would have made a profit through investments. When reading this information for the first time it might intuitively sound like ‘it makes sense’ – because as we have seen in the previous post, we can all relate to the experience of opportunity cost. But does it really make sense?

When you’re struggling to decide which shoes to buy and end up choosing one pair over another and you experience a sense of ‘loss’ towards the pair you didn’t buy (your opportunity cost) – who compensates you in monetary terms for that opportunity cost? Do you ask the shopkeeper for a discount as compensation for your opportunity cost, because you could have bought the other pair? You don’t. And in this example we see that it clearly wouldn’t make sense to either.

We understand that when buying something and we have to decide between two options where only one can be taken – that making a decision involves letting go of the other one – it’s simply part of the nature of decision making. Even though we for a moment imagined owning both pairs, we do ‘come back to reality’ so to speak and see that we can only own one and that the other ones are not ours and stay at the shop.

So – why is it any different with lending money? A lender might imagine making a profitable investment on the one hand and lending the money on the other hand. But when it is time to decide – the road not taken is simply that: the road not taken. Once the lender decides to lend the money, it means he didn’t decide to make an investment and so that means he doesn’t get to make a profit either. That was the decision made and the lender could simply take responsibility for their decisions instead of ‘making a financial claim’ to the profits they could have made. Because remember – it’s not because the lender ‘could have made a profit by investing’ that the lender would have. What if, had the lender not borrowed the funds, he instead used the funds to make a really bad investment and lost all his money? That would be equally possible. Should a borrower then be paid a fee of gratitude because the loan potentially prevented the lender from losing his money through a bad investment? Lol – that somehow doesn’t happen.

So – we can ask ourselves why it is okay for a lender to make a ‘real claim’ (meaning: it is expressed in monetary terms, that means someone pays it, that means it has actual consequences on their purchasing power and living arrangements) on a cost that is based in imagination – but in other situations we can’t? Another way to place that question is: why do we allow it? Why have we never questioned it? Is it because we secretly WOULD LIKE TO be compensated for our imaginary losses? Because we secretly WOULD LIKE TO have it both ways without taking responsibility for our decisions?

It opens up even more questions as we look at: how could we do it differently? What other lending and borrowing models could we create? What would be their foundation? Or will we simply keep it as it is and allow such a significant point to be founded on a ‘glitch’ of our own logic?

This topic was also discussed in a Google Hangout – so for more information – check out:

Read More

Day 244: Transforming Currency into Money with Living Income Guaranteed

In the video "Hidden Secrets Of Money - Ep1 'Currency Vs Money'" Mike Maloney and others present one of the problems we are facing in our current economic system and that is - how the value of our currency is able to change over time - where it can both appreciate and depreciate - but throughout history it has mainly depreciated until it becomes worthless and then a new currency is introduced. The video explains the problem, but it doesn't offer a real solution - which I will be discussing in this blog.

Now - when I said 'the value of our currency is able to change over time' - with 'our currency' I am not referring to a specific currency such as Dollar or Euro or Rand - I am referring to fiat currency. For those who are not aware of the history of our currencies: paper bills were introduced as IOUs - a piece of paper stating that: I owe you 5 gold coins, for instance. Say that you deposited 5 gold coins at the bank. The bank would then write you a claim check that specifies that with that piece of paper, you can at a later time come and claim those 5 gold coins back. Now - over time what started happening, is that when people would go to the market place and wanted to buy something for 7 gold coins, but they only had 2 on them - they would go: "You know, I only have 2 gold coins on me, but I've got 5 at the bank, how about I give you the 2 gold coins plus the claim check for the 5 gold coins at the bank, and then you can just go and claim them." And from there, the ball started rolling and less and less people went to actually collect gold at the bank and started simply trading with the paper claims - which is what we currently know as paper bills. From there, it didn't take long before banks would just start printing money that was no longer 'backed up' by any gold at the bank. From this point onwards - we started trading with fiat currency - a currency that is not limited by the resources that is 'backing up' the value of the currency.

Why does that matter? It matters from the perspective that the amount of gold in the world is limited and therefore, the value of gold stays round about the same over time. What determines the value of gold? It's determined by how much of it is in circulation, and thus - by consequence, how much we are able to buy with it. So - let's take an example of a little village where 10 people live and there are in total 10 gold bars in circulation in this mini-economy. These 10 people have certain goods they want to buy and each a certain amount of gold that they are willing to spend on it. This determines the demand for the goods in the village. The suppliers balance their costs with profits - where they know that if they charge a high price, there will be less villagers able to buy the product, and if they charge a lower price it will become harder to make a profit and eventually even difficult to cover their costs. So - balancing demand and supply - a price for the goods is determined. Now - let's say that suddenly - instead of 10 bars of gold, there are 20 bars of gold - what will happen to the prices? They will go up because the demand goes up. Herein - understand that demand means: people want it and they can pay for it. So - when there is more money - it doesn't mean that people suddenly want more of something - it means they always wanted that amount, but they couldn't demand it because they didn't have the money to demand it. So - with demand increasing - the suppliers will realize that they can now charge a higher price - and so the prices of the goods in the village go up. What has happened to the value of gold? The value of gold decreased, because with the same amount of gold, people are now able to buy less of the goods - because the price went up.

So - with currency initially being backed up by gold - it limited how much money was in circulation - and so, it kept the value of money stable - because it was tied to the amount of gold that was available in the world. Gold is not something we can create - we can melt gold down and change the form but we cannot make new gold. So - the amount of gold we have in the world today is the same amount of gold that we had centuries ago. With fiat currency, however, reserve banks are able to simply print more paper money, increase the money supply - and in turn prices increase and the value of the money depreciates.

So far the reasoning of the economists seems sound - however, it is not - because they are misusing the term 'inflation'.

When they discuss inflation they assume that it means: the prices of all goods and services in an economy go up as a result of an increase in the money supply - and therefore, money becomes worth less and people can buy less and less stuff.

But what is not considered is the following: with inflation - the price of literally EVERYTHING in the economy goes up - and that includes the price of labor. So - from that perspective - if the prices of 'stuff' doubles, it's not a problem, because your wage would have doubled as well. And so - technically - yes - the nominal value of money depreciates - but the real value remains the same: you can buy less with one dollar, but you can still buy the same amount with your wage.

So - this reveals a problem in our current economic system - and how it is deviating from how things should be done. Let's take again the example of a village where there are 10 people and there are 100 dollars in circulation. If the money supply suddenly increases to 200 dollars, suppliers will up their price because the demand increased. Now - this higher price has to also increase the wages of those who work for the suppliers - and when their wage increase, they will have no problem paying the higher price. The wage of the workers would go up simply because they will demand a higher wage through their labor unions because otherwise they cannot pay the higher prices. But instead - what's been happening: the suppliers keep the wages of the laborers the same or only give them a slight increase - and instead: just make a lot more profit. And have a look - that's exactly what's been happening in the world. Why? Because when laborers demand higher wages - what do the bosses say? Well - if you don't want to work for that wage - I let you go and I will find someone worse off than you and have them do the work. That is why we have so many companies that closed down in Europe and America that moved to China and the third world in general - because they could profit from people being worse off there than in their country, that were willing to work for much lower wages.

And this is why within Living Income Guaranteed - we suggest that prices be determined according to the value that was put into it - which includes your labor. And valuing labor means: your workers must have a wage that allows them a certain lifestyle. This should be enshrined in the Constitution as a Human Right - otherwise one creates cycles of abuse where some win and most lose. And so - if all prices in the economy go up because of an increase in the money supply - your wages will have to increase simultaneously - otherwise you're committing a crime against life.

Herein, then - it doesn't matter whether you have fiat currency or not - becaue the real value of the currency remains the same. In the video they explain how the difference between currency and money is that money is a store of value - its value remains the same over time - and with currency this is not part of the definition. So - with making this one adjustment to the economic system, so that it would function how it is intended to function - we would be able to say that our fiat currency is in fact money - because the real value of the currency remains the same over time.

Is it a solution to step away from fiat currency and go back to silver and gold? No! Why not? Exactly because the amount of gold and silver in the world is limited - it doesn't change. But what does change? The amount of people in your economy. So - if you take  again the village of 10 people with 10 gold bars and let's say each owns one gold bar, but now they all make babies and suddenly there are 20 villagers and still the same 10 gold bars - you obviously have a problem - because now each villagers (assuming an egalitarian society) only owns half a gold bar. And yes - the value of gold remains the same: you can still buy the same amount of stuff with one gold bar before there were babies as you can after there were babies - but not everyone has a gold bar anymore - so the standards of living goes down anyway as you can suddenly buy less stuff.

So - to have your money supply absolutely the same over time, regardless of a change in population, is also counterproductive. When it comes to money creation - it should be calculated according to two points:
- available resources
- population

Furthermore - which is quite fascinating - in the video the economists point to history and how throughout history every fiat currency reverted back to zero - and therefore we should use gold/silver instead. But they ignore the fact that throughout history people have always also gone back to fiat currency - simply because it is much more convenient to carry around paper or a plastic card with a chip than a bunch of gold bars. I mean - making gold/silver the currency would eventually lead to history repeating itself, just because it's not practical to transport gold for transactions.

Therefore - instead of telling people to invest in gold and silver because currency will become worthless - and then at least you have something to trade with - rather correct the problem with fiat currency so that it works for everyone.

We continue in the next blog with our discussion on money and currencies where we'll have a look at the nonsense of having currencies with different values.

Related articles

• Day 251: Living Income Guaranteed and Market Mechanics
• Day 252: The Rich Be Cursed, The Rich Be Blessed
• Day 247: Only in a Broken System does Misery equal Profit
• Day 226: Living Income Guaranteed will Prevent Destruction of Homes
• Day 339: Why the CommonWealth was Never the Common Good

Read More

Day 240: A Bank for the People

We have an interesting point being taught in economy books - which is that an increase in investment spending has an expansionary effect on the economy - because money is invested in certain products and therefore, people are being paid or jobs being created, which means an increase in income, which means more consumption spending and so a multiplier effect sets in - because, in turn, consumption spending increases income, which increases consumption spending, where of course the increase each time becomes smaller and smaller and eventually 'dies out'. However, on the flip side - what is not spoken about in the text books, is how, at the same time as a multiplier effect is in progress - there is also a growing debt - because interest rates cause a debt to increase over time as well. And this debt, which is eventually a multiple of the initial loan, must be repaid, and so money again disappears from the economy, causing the economy to shrink.

So, within Living Income Guaranteed, we suggest banking will still be relevant from the perspective of big capital investments such as housing or cars. In some countries, we see a rising trend of loans being taken out, not for such big capital expenditure, but for day-to-day living costs, such as food and clothing. Such points will stop within Living Income Guaranteed, because one will be guaranteed to have an income that is sufficient to provide oneself with these basic necessities.

So - when it comes to loans, banks will herein make money through asking for a once-off fee rather than an interest rate - where this fee must cover labor costs and a profit markup - where the fee is reasonable from the perspective of what is required for banking to be profitable without creating a monopoly on money. And of course loans must only be undertaken if the capacity exists for the debt to be repaid.

The creation of money through fractional reserve banking would have to be revised and a way of money-creation be devised so that it stands in relation to supporting the rate at which the economy is growing - which must take into account population growth as well as available resources.

So - herein, banking becomes an actual life-support system where big investments can be paid over time and where it will increase and support the value of the citizen in terms of their life. And thus, the banking system becomes a means to truly supports economic growth as well as the growth in value of a citizen's life.

Related articles

• Money for Nothing: Switzerland Eyes a Basic Income Guarantee
• Switzerland's Proposal to Pay People
• Day 251: Living Income Guaranteed and Market Mechanics
• Day 226: Living Income Guaranteed will Prevent Destruction of Homes

Read More

Day 169: Equal Living within Equal Money Capitalism

Note: The EMC is an entirely new project that was started a week ago or so. We’re at the moment in the phase where we are brainstorming by answering questions. It’s a messy process – but an effective one to get all the relevant points addressed. So – also note that points will evolve and change as we go as we are not setting things in stone, but on a journey towards designing the EMC. The principles upon which EMC is based are laid out in the previous blog-posts. From those principles, we work our way towards what life in EMC would practically be like and how the system will function from an economic perspective.

 

Debt Forgiveness

Q: If all debt is relieved, won’t there all of a sudden be a large group with no jobs all at once”

A: Those who may find themselves in a position of unemployment as the result of Complete Debt Forgiveness will either be integrated into other companies - or government will provide them with new jobs. Preferably, these types of outflows would have to be considered before implementation to ensure smooth transitioning from one system to the next – and would thus have to be calculated and planned prior to full implementation.

Countries

Q: Will people be able to choose in which countries they will live?

A: Yes – though in the end, every location will be supported and equipped equally in terms of infrastructure to ensure an equal standard of living in every location / country. This in itself will minimize the amount of migration as migration currently is mostly based on economic reasons.

 

What happens with Deficits / Surpluses?

Q: Since a person’s income is dependent on the profit from products being purchased, if the products are not purchased enough to give them sufficient income, do they get supported from compassion department, while it gets sorted out?

A: Yes, those companies that are very successful and sell more than they require paying out everyone with the same income will transfer their funds into a centralized bank. The bank will then utilise these surpluses to momentarily subsidize those companies who are running a deficit. The fact that they are running a deficit may indicate a point of ineffectiveness within those companies which may be corrected. When deficits are identified - someone will be sent to intervene and evaluate the situation. The company with deficit will receive training from similar companies who have proven to be effective and successful, so they may learn from their methods and techniques and become equally effective.
 

Bottom-Up Democracy

Q: So this will be a top-down system like today's?

A: No - because the top is the bottom - direct democracy means that the people rule. Equal Money Capitalism’s political process will be the same as the process outlined within the Equal Money System – which is a form of Direct Participation. You can read more about the Political Nature of both Equal Money Systems here.
 

Payments for Non-Products?

Q: How do people earn an income from jobs that don't produce a product that is purchased, or will everyone need to do a job that produces something to be bought? or does compensation also happen as paid from the government not just consumers purchasing products?

A: Yes - any value that is added - whether to a product or not - will be compensated. So - for government services - you simply do your hours and receive an equal income like everyone else. Whenever you purchase a product or a service – you are always paying for the labour involved, as such there is no difference when paying for a product versus paying for a service.

Related articles

• Day 167: Harmony and Equilibrium within Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism
• The Future of Integrity with Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 164: Equal Money Capitalism - Preparing the Road for Change

Note: The EMC is an entirely new project that was started 3 days ago. We’re at the moment in the phase where we are brainstorming by answering questions. It’s a messy process – but an effective one to get all the relevant points addressed. So – also note that points will evolve and change as we go as we are not setting things in stone, but on a journey towards designing the EMC. The principles upon which EMC is based are laid out in the previous blog-post. From those principles, we work our way towards what life in EMC would practically be like and how the system will function from an economic perspective.

CHILDREN

When a child is born, the parents' company/companies will allocate an equal profit share for the child - which will be added to the parent's profit share. Every parent will have a company - because everyone will be employed.

UNEMPLOYMENT / FULL EMPLOYMENT

If unemployment exists - the government must step in to create jobs where possible - because employment is a basic human right.

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

The government will still play a role to provide everyone with their basic human rights such as healthcare, education, housing, sanitation, roads, employment etc. So - the government will fund these points through taxes. The only tax that will exist are the value-added tax on products - this will be part of the labelling of products - where it'll show the percentage of the price that goes to tax and for what the tax will be used. There will be no need for an income tax to redistribute income in a fair way - because income will be distributed fairly from the get-go.

WILL VAT GENERATE ENOUGH INCOME TO PAY FOR ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE: SANITATION, CLEAN WATER ETC?

VAT will be added to each product in a way to make sure there is enough within the common pool of money - which is the tax - to ensure all the basic rights can be provided. Also consider that with all military expenditure falling away - there will actually be quite a substantial amount of money available to governments with which to fund these projects.

DEBT

In terms of debt - whether it will be erased at the moment of implementation of EMC: all debt will be forgiven - it was not real to start with in any case.

MENIAL TASKS

All the jobs that no-one will want to do will disappear - the same point to the EMS applies- technology will have to be developed to replace those points - like self-cleaning toilets and stuff like that - it already exists.  All jobs of slavery that one wouldn't do if it weren't for the need to survive will go *poof*.

Initially, some jobs which are not nice will still have to be done, as the specific production processes to create particular technology/machinery has not yet been adjusted during this transition period. So for a moment, those jobs will still have to be done until the transition is complete - this will become part of the compassion department because you are doing it for the betterment of everyone. These type of jobs can be rotational in nature.

ROLE   OF EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM WITHIN EQUAL MONEY SYSTEM

EMC is a transition to EMS - though it can still be seen - once an EMC is in place, whether it is desired/necessary to transition to EMS. In the end - the result is what matters, and this is always Equality and a Life Worth Living.

ABUSE

Abuse is psychological disorders as it harms innocents and we will prevent harm in every way possible, corruption will be very difficult in EMC. Remember the profit share motive is not one that allows boundless profits--it allows equal profits based on a life value.

OVERSIGHT IN EMC

Within EMC the principle will be that everything is to work in harmony with each other. Therefore - dependent on which level a point of disharmony occurs, it will be addressed accordingly. If there is a worker within a company that is not acting in a way that is best for the company as a whole - this point will be addressed by a tribunal within the company. If it is an entire company that is behaving in a disharmonious way - it will be addressed by government departments.

PRICING

Pricing on products will no longer be based on expensive or cheap-- or making profit --but rather sustainable pricing that ensures enough money in circulation to make the system function effectively.

Profit is not to be understood in the same way as it is now. At the moment - profit is what is left after wages have been paid and production costs are covered. Within EMC - there will be no wages - your profit will be your wage. So - every time a product is scanned when it is bought - the computer sees what percentage of the price is allocated to whom - and immediately the money-allocation happens accordingly. So - there's no need to wait a year to calculate profits - it will be immediate.

Related articles

• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 259: Give Happiness, Get Happiness
• Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward

Read More

Day 143: The Neo-Apartheid Era

In the past, Apartheid meant the segregation between people according to the colour of their skin.
Currently, many may still mistake the current inequalities in the world as being the result of an 'Apartheid' mentality - but the truth is that we are currently dealing with a whole new form of Apartheid: Neo-Apartheid.

Neo-Apartheid, is the division of people -- not based on skin colour or race -- but based on what you have or do not have as: MONEY.

In South Africa, many claim 'Apartheid' is still roaming, and that the major inequalities present are the result of division based on race. It's really a division based on money: you have those with money, and you have those without money (or very little). It just happens to coincide, that many black people are poor and thus disadvantages -- but the colour of one's skin is not the foundational point, money is, and this is what the Neo-Apartheid is all about.

In the past, for building you had two doors: Whites and Non-Whites -- and based on your skin colour you would have a particular access to resources. Now, we work with a different system of segregation: Money. You want food? This is the price-tag: You have money = you have food. You don't have money = you don't get food. Our current Money System, does not care about the colour of your skin, your gender, your age, where you're from -- all it wants to know is: do you have money?

The peculiar thing with Neo-Apartheid as the Money Division Scam -- is that no-one seems to notice that it exists. We don't seem to think that it is strange, that we go to the shop and see a homeless person in a shaggy box, begging for food or money. We don't ask: "How come that I am able to go into this shop, and get myself food, because I have a card with digital money on it -- and this person who does not have a card with digital money on it, or paper with numbers on -- for some reason does not get to go inside and buy food? Why is that?".

No instead, we try not to look the person in the eye, shush the children that are with us shopping, telling them not to look or interact with the person -- like he has some freaking disease -- and just walk into the shop stone-cold. And then once you're in the shop with all the bright lights and sparkly colours you can relax, you're safe -- that person cannot come through the sliding doors, he does not belong here.

I mean: what the fuck.

If money is our ticket to basically everything in this world, then how come some have it and others don't? And how come some have A LOT of it, while others don't?

This Neo-Apartheid phenomenon, is not an isolated incident that is typical for only a few countries -- this is a World Wide phenomenon taking place!

Let’s have a look at the Lorenz curve of the world – but first, let me explain what a Lorenz curve is:

The Lorenz curve is a graphical method of depicting inequality within a particular area and thus concerning a particular group of people.
You have your vertical and horizontal axis, where the vertical axis represents cumulative income in percentage, and the horizontal axis represents cumulative percentage of people/households, like this:

Then, there is a straight diagonal line in the graph – which represents the point of ‘perfect equality’: the first 10% of the people receive 10% of all income, the first 20% receive 20% of all income and so forth. This line is our point of reference and is always included in the graph:

Then, another curve is drawn, and the ‘deeper’ the other curve is compared to the straight line = the more inequality, as income is more disproportionally distributed. The closer the second curve is to the straight line – the closer it is to being equal.

Here’s a few curves to get an idea of what I’m talking about:

So here you can see the curves become more curved – indicating more inequality.

Now let’s look at the Lorenz curve of the WORLD


Woooaaaah!! That is like practically bordering on the point of Perfect Inequality (and there is no curve more unequal than this one for any part of the world -- this is it) ! That means, that currently, in our Neo-Apartheid Era --- the majority of the people have to do with very little, while a few hog all the wealth. So, we can see that the most prominent inequality currently, is not a race thing, it’s a money thing – and right now, money is distributed disproportionally over the whole of the population and no-one seems to think that this is a strange thing. It’s almost like this must be the graph for some really bad, poor country, where criminals run everything and are so corrupt that nothing is left for the people… This can’t be the graph for the WORLD??

But it is, which means, the world IS run by criminals and we are in a pretty messy situation right now where so many people are living a life of misery because we as humanity have lost all common sense reasoning capability and have surrendered ourselves to fear, where we will never question authority, and never do anything that is ‘out of line’ – just nodding our heads while we’re being robbed blind.

It’s time to wake up to reality, and see that what we have created is so disturbing that it just cannot get more disturbing than what we’re at now. Wake up, the world does not have to be this way, we don’t have to live in fear – check out www.EqualMoney.org -- let’s stop Neo-Apartheid.

Read More

Day 121: Euro Crisis and Old Grudges

Germany has taken lead as part of the Eurozone to push Greece's austerity measures.

The German Chancellor Angela Merkel went to visit Greece to talk to the Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras on the status of the Greek economy.

Demonstrations and protests emerged, where some of the demonstrators were even bearing swastika flags to show their discontent at Germany being the one pushing the austerity measures. Points like Greece never having waived their claim at reparations from Germany opened up, and the Nazi occupation from 41 to 44.

So now here's all these people getting angry, and basically blaming Germany for the hardship they are in because of the war and never having received reparations costs.

But if you look at history, all wars were always economic in nature -- where somewhere someone wanted to have advantage over another -- like say Germany wanting to become a superpower, and then losing and then getting punished really bad for, so bad that they got angry and started a new war.

There's always been someone wanting more than another, always someone wanting to be within a 'win' situation -- where they fear losing their money so bad, that they make moves which are destructive for the whole of the world economy -- and yet throughout history, the same mistakes happen over and over again.

Most of the time, the reasons for war aren't even 'rational' in it's starting point (on that note, can war ever be rational?) -- where countries merely fear or interpret another countries economic performance in a particular way where they then go and make assumptions and want to go to war -- or where they feel like they are being treated unfairly and want payback, etc. In essence, these countries as 'personas' on their own, act exactly like human beings, where they are completely ruled by emotion and lack all common sense in the world.

I mean, all they are doing right now is trying to save each one's individual ass, without any consideration of what would be Best for All -- where the EU's pretty comfortable saying "Good Riddance!" to Greece, and anyone else who seems to be in a trouble.

Countries are being ruled by people who are just as impulsive as any other person on the street, but this has massive consequence since you're not just dealing with two human beings or a small group of human beings, but entire countries with millions of people who have to suffer the consequence of decisions based on emotion rather than common sense and what is Best for All.



If we are going to continue making political and economic decisions based on the past and personal grudges, we're never going to get anywhere because we're just going to try and get back at each other. It's time to realise that we are all just people, on the same planet, sharing the same space -- we might as well make the best out of it for EVERYONE.

Euro crisis opens old wounds for Greece, Germany, By Oliver Joy, for CNN, October 19, 2012 - http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/19/business/euro-crisis-greece-germany/index.html?hpt=hp_bn6

Related articles

• Day 101: True Care Knows no Compromise
• Day 104: We have to Protect our Freedom!
• Day 143: Birthing ourselves as life, as a partnership
• Day 121: Europe Not Impressed with EU Nobel Peace Prize
• Euro crisis opens old wounds for Greece,Germany

Read More

Day 110: Evilution - Neocolonialism

This blog is a continuation to:
Day 98: The Unholy Trinity
Day 99: Money Votes
Day 102: Liberalism
Day 103: Abstract Equality
Day 104: We have to Protect our Freedom!
Day 105: Human Liberties
Day 106: Structural Adjustment
Day 107: Getting Reality to conform to an Illusion
Day 108: Virtual Democracies
Day 109: Politics as a Double-Faced Game

Let’s have a look at why many countries who are under Structural Adjustment Programs, came to turn to international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank.

Most of these Third World Countries had been previously colonised by the West.
During this time, the colonised countries’ existence was only relevant to the Colonising country in so far that it could use it for resource extraction or trade benefits. During the colonial rule, a lot of changes took place in terms of the colonies’ infrastructures. Infrastructures were built in relation to the country’s function, and like we just mentioned, this function was to serve the colonising country.

So any and all infrastructures built in these countries, were built to direct the flow of resources towards the West. Most of the time, these infrastructures were focused on only a few goods, like cocoa, tobacco, coffee.

So what happened after independence?

During the colonial rule, all these countries were submerged into the international economic/money system – they were now part of the game. When the colonial rulers left, they had no choice but to continue playing the game – the ties were already too much ingrained. So now they had to come up with a plan to be able to continue to play the game. Unfortunately, the only infrastructures in place in these countries in terms of international trade, were those to serve the West. So even though the colonial rulers left – these colonised countries still continued to play the exact same role after colonisation. Considering that there were many of these countries, and many of them focused/specialised on the same goods/crops – they were now competing with each other to get their goods sold to the West, which forced them to lower their prices as much as possible just to get their stuff sold.

Previously during the colonial rule, the occupiers would finance much of the country’s development that would further trade. Now that they had left, these third world countries were left with nothing. The only thing they could do to ‘kickstart’ their economies = was to borrow money.

Every since then, many of these countries went into Debt and have so far not been able to repay it.

The loans they get now, are conditional as seen in Day 98 and Day 106 – where not only these countries are at the mercy of the West economically – but now also have to conform politically. So in essence, nothing has really changed. Just through money, a new form of ‘indirect’ colonialism replaced the older ‘direct’ colonialism – but countries are still being exploited.

Look at it simplistically:

The West comes and colonises Third World Countries. They take their resource and built stuff which only serves the West. Then they go away and leave the Third World Countries alone, and let them plunge into massive Debt just for the sake of survival. But the only reason why they had to go into Debt, was because of the actions of the West.

I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense!

We call ourselves ‘civilised’ and ‘evolved’ – but we’ve really not changed at all, we’ve just gotten better at covering up what we do and make it sound more acceptable – while it is totally NOT.

Read More

Day 107: Getting Reality to Conform to an Illusion

This Blog is a continuation to:
Day 98: The Unholy Trinity
Day 99: Money Votes
Day 102: Liberalism
Day 103: Abstract Equality
Day 104: We have to Protect our Freedoms
Day 105: Human Liberties
Day 106: Structural Adjustment
 

 I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created an opinion as an ideology where apparently ‘freedom’ stands central and where ‘equality’ is valued – yet this ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ is nowhere to be found/seen – as my opinion/ideology only values particular resources such as money, skills and talent – where these are not equally distributed among the population and so this result in inequality and lack of freedom as one can only do so much in this world when one is limited by money

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that this ideology is only an opinion I have created in my mind – where my values work for me, where I was lucky to have been born in an environment where money and skill was made available to me through having been born in a family with money and thus having had access to education – and where I have taken this point and made it universal, where if I can do it, anyone can do – and so if one does not make a ‘success’ out of themselves, the reason for this must lie in the character of the person as them being ‘lazy’ – without ever stopping for a moment and seeing/realising that not everyone is born into an environment where money and education is available – and so what works for me might not (and most of the time, will not) work for others

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have taken my opinion which I did not practically test out / challenge in physical reality and turned it into a grand-scale opinion as ideology – and then used money as a way to enforce this ideology on others – where if others want to have money to help themselves they must comply to my ideology and so they go and comply to my ideology which has no relationship to how things actually physically, practically work in this world – but since they see no other way of getting money, they will place themselves in this precarious situation as no choice is left

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that if my ideology/opinion works for me – it should work for everyone – without actually investigating whether it is so – where I then go and impose my opinion which is a made-up illusion, unto reality and try to get reality which is real to conform to my opinion which is an illusion – which then obviously only results in the abuse of reality in the attempt to change/mould it into something which it cannot be – where millions of people pay the consequence, since my opinion as ideology is being imposed on entire countries and their population

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that my opinion/ideology only works if you have money –and thus if one goes and impose this opinion on an environment which lacks money: the consequences are disastrous


I commit myself to show that our current economic system as values is merely based on ideology as opinion and is not rooted in actual physical practicality

I commit myself to show that traditional economists are not interested in providing actual solutions which work for everyone but are only interested in preserving their opinion as illusion and trying to impose this on reality and try to get reality to conform to an illusion which is practically impossible

I commit myself to show the importance of dealing and sorting out one’s opinions as when these opinions turn into ideologies which get enforced/imposed on a massive scale the results/consequences are disastrous and completely unnecessary

I commit myself to show that our current economic system is based on opinion and does not consider what it actually means to support Life on Earth and so I commit myself to the abolishment of our current economic system so we can make way for a New Economic System rooted in Physical Reality instead of opinion so we may finally have an Economic System of support in place

I commit myself to show that if opinions are left unchallenged, the consequences can be deadly

I commit myself to show that unless the human as human nature change – we will remain in fucked-upness – as the nature/reality of opinion on a personal scale has not yet been properly investigated/challenged but instead been protected and defended in the name of “freedom” – and where this unchallenged point manifests in a bigger scale as an ideology which is left unquestioned and has disastrous consequence but yet no-one will speak up in the name of “freedumb”

Related articles

• Day 103: Abstract Equality
• Day 139: The Rapture and True Activism
• Day 137: FREE Choice and True Activism
• Day 96: Individual Above Group?
• Day 146: Synchronicity and Natural Selection

Read More