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 231: Will Equality Destroy Society? |Equality and Human Rights – Part 8

Also in this Series:
Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
Day 221: Are Humans Equal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 2
Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction – Equality and Human Rights – Part 3
Day 225: Equality and Disinformation – Equality and Human Rights – Part 5
Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 6
Day 229: Can Equality only be Achieved through Inequality? | Equality and Human Rights – Part 7




Within this blog and the next one we will be looking at two statements with regards to the perception of the necessity of inequality within society and the world:

Statement 01:

Some inequalities are surely also necessary for the maintenance and functioning of a social order. For example, complex, modern, industrialised societies are characterized by a division of labour, many different functions and roles and a range of differing skills, which are necessary for the existence of such societies.

Statement 02:

Equality would have to be imposed again by government by redistributing income from the productive to the less productive. If this strategy continued, the productive would eventually lose the incentive to produce more than they required for their immediate needs, and ultimately there would be nothing to redistribute. All would eventually be equal in poverty.

Here we are looking at economic justifications for the existence of inequality, where it is no longer a matter of whether we should promote equality or not – but where inequality requires to be protected as an important drive force in society which ‘holds everything together’. Equality is no more a moral ideal, but a threat which requires to be fended off at all cost.

Within this blog, we will work with Statement 01.

Here the author expresses the belief that inequality is necessary for the functioning of a social order, especially in the case of modern, industrialized societies which are characterized by features such as the division of labour, distinction in functions and roles, etc. Most, if not all societies are now marked by these type of ‘order’, even a global level where some countries are subordinate/superior to others in their position due to the nature of their relationships among one another.

Obviously, when you have a society which in its very essence and fabric is based on the notion of inequality – which permeates every element within the structure of society as the ruling principle by which society lives – then OBVIOUSLY the elimination of Inequality and pursuit of Equality will demolish the order and functioning of the day, when that very order is the representation of Inequality. All that means, is that we have to come up with a new order, a new structure – and this time base it on the principle of Equality, where the principle of Equality determines the structure of society and permeates every element in every possible way. Society will still exist, people will still exist – all we are changing and re-defining are the Relationships within Society to take on a New Form. Thus, the destruction of that particular order is not necessarily a ‘bad thing’ which we should all fear. It is simply a matter of breaking down a dysfunctional system and rebuilding a system based on Equality as the Respect for all Life.

This also doesn’t mean that we have to go through/walk through an Apocalyptic / End of Days type of scenario where everything is literally being destroyed to ground zero as the infrastructures that are already here before we can ‘rebuild’ society. That would just be a waste of energy, time and resources. When we speak of the destruction and resurrection of society, we are not talking about tearing down buildings and looting towns and whatever other images may come to mind when ‘the destruction of society’ is mentioned. The actual physical structures are not the problems and are in fact very useful for future usage and their physical destruction would only be to everyone’s detriment. 

The point which requires to be addressed is the order and the relationships we’ve accepted and allowed ourselves to live. This will not happen overnight and will have to be a gradual implementation/transformation we all have to walk and adjust to. We thus do not promote any kind of Revolution or other means if implementing change which is physically destructive and violent. The Equal Money System / Equal Money Capitalism will follow the Political Route to be voted into power as a collective decision and agreement.

For more on this subject, please consult the following material:

343. How are We Going to Change the System to Equal Money? 
 How on Earth will an Equal Money System be Implemented?  
How can we practically go about implementing an Equal Money System?
  How do we Transition to an Equal Money System? 
 Day 351: Desteni, Equal Money, Zeitgeist and Occupy Wall Street  
How to implement Equal Money? The starting point of community.

Related articles

• Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights - Part 4
• Day 229: Can Equality only be Achieved through Inequality? | Equality and Human Rights - Part 7
• Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 6
• Day 230: The Principle of Need and the Principle of Equality are One
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 367: Investigating Human Rights
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 226: Deserving Life or Death - Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 5
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2

Read More

Day 229: Can Equality only be Achieved through Inequality? | Equality and Human Rights – Part 7

Within the next blogs to follow within the Equality and Human Rights Series, we will be working our way through some selected quotes/statements with regards to Equality and Inequality.

These statements are either direct quotes or summarizations of lengthy statements which have been summarized for the sake of brevity from the book ‘Political Ideas’ compiled by S.L. Kant.

Within this blog we will be looking at the following statement, which mostly consists of a quote by Robert Nozick, who was an American political philosopher and strong proponent of the minimal-state:

There are two ways of providing equality of opportunity, namely “by directly worsening the situations of those more favored with opportunity, or by improving the situation of those less well-favored. The latter requires the use of resources, and so it too involves worsening the situation of some: those from whom holdings are taken in order to improve the situation of others”

The first point which requires to be clarified, is that in political and philosophical discourse a distinction is made between various ‘kinds’ or ‘types’ of equality.
Examples of this are:


- Legal Equality
- Political Equality
- Social Equality
- Equality of Opportunity
- Economic Equality

Within the context of Equal Money and the Equal Life Foundation, we only focus on one ‘kind’ of Equality, which is Equality as Life:

The First Fundamental Human Right that the Equal Life Foundation Promotes and Underwrites is that: Every Individual, Every Human Being has an Equal Life Right. That means: the Life You Have is Equal in Each One at the Point of Birth. That which Separates Man from Man is What Happens After-Birth once your Education starts for instance or your Environment Influences you, your Parents Influence you or the System Influences you - then You Start becoming a Separate Individual and are Taught Not to Respect the First Point that Makes your Existence Possible, which is Life. Life - that is the One Thing that is the Same. You cannot say: “One Person Has More Life than Another Person” – that Life, as a Life Force, is the Same in Each One and thus is the First Fundamental Right.

Day 362: Human Rights and the Equal Life Foundation

The Equal Life Foundation recognizes the Equal Right to Life as the first Inherent and Inalienable Right of Every Human Being endowed with the Breath of Life and Herewith Declares that an Equal Life Right Shall Include for all Living Men, Women and Children

The Equal Life Foundation – Bill of Rights

The point that every human shares, the point that all Living Beings share – is that they are alive. We are all Equally, living, breathing, beings – Here – on this Planet. So whether you are a person with the characteristics to make a philosopher or a person with the characteristics to make a baker – the fact still stands that you are a human and you are alive. This stands indeterminate of the variety of characteristics we share among ourselves that make us ‘different’. So even though we are ‘different’, we can, and are still, equal: in Life – and should treat each other accordingly.

Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights – Part 2

Thus, as we have seen in the previous blog Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 6, the only Equality which is relevant is that which is directly linked and connect to the support of Life, and the Inequalities which are relevant are those that hamper/diminish Life.

We will thus ignored the first part of the statement in terms of the statement referring to ‘Equality of Opportunity’ and we will take this as Equality in general.

So, within this statement a distinction is made between two particular groups, the ‘more favoured of opportunity’(Group A) and ‘those less favoured’ (Group B). The assumption is made that, in order to come to Equality, we have two options available:

1. Group A needs to be disadvantaged in order to be ‘level’ with Group B
2. Group B requires advancement in order to be ‘level’ with Group A

The writer states that, no matter which course we take – we end up ‘abusing’ Group A, because we either directly ‘disadvantage them’ or indirectly disadvantage them by ‘taking resource from them’ to provide support for Group B.

There are several points which require to be addressed with regards to the implications of this statement:

1. Narrow Definition of Equality: Equality as Sameness
2. False/Irrelevant Dilemma
3. Ideas and Values concerning Intervention (Interpretation of Inequality)

Narrow Definition of Equality: Equality as Sameness

This issue has been discussed in Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights – Part 4, where it was said that:

Those who come from a more liberal point of view, tend to use the word Equality and Inequality, synonymously with ‘the same’ and ‘different’ respectively. Thus, whenever something is different – the argument is made that it is ‘unequal’. When something is ‘exactly the same’ – it is supposedly equal (Which explains where ludicrous statements such as ‘if you want to make people equal you will have to genetically disable the more able’ come from).

This leaves us on the one hand, with a very ‘black and white’ view on Equality -- Where two beings or more are equal only, if and when they are the same in every respect – and on the other hand a very broad view on that which is Unequal, where any two or more beings are ‘unequal’ the moment any form of ‘difference’ is exhibited. As we all know, there are many things that can be ‘different’ and thus it is easy to argue that something is ‘unequal’ when one places one’s definition of ‘Unequal’ equivalent to ‘Different’.

This is applicable to the particular statement we are discussing today, as the writer takes on a very limited view on Equality as Sameness where apparently to be ‘Equal’, those who are ‘more favoured’ require to be ‘unfavoured’ in some way or another to be just as ‘disadvantaged’ as everyone else. So if you would broadly split up humanity into for instance people who have complete physical functioning and those who were either born or through events ended up with some form of physical dysfunction or handicap – we would have to disable all those who are physically completely functional so that everyone can be dysfunctional / handicapped and thus ‘be the same’. In terms of Equality as Life, this is of course complete nonsense because this ‘Equality as Sameness’ as ‘Everyone being just as Dysfunctional/Disabled’ has got nothing to do with Supporting and Honouring Life and is thus not Real Equality. In fact, from an Equality as Life Perspective, this would constitute a Human Rights Violation because we are unnecessarily limiting Life for the sake of a Perverted Idea of Equality as Sameness.

False/Irrelevant Dilemma

The writer puts forward a False Dilemma within giving us an ‘either/or’ option to be able to achieve Equality. This Dilemma falls away instantaneously when we recalibrate our definition of Equality to that of Equality as Life. This is because the Dilemma stems from the narrow definition of Equality within looking and analyzing the situation from a purely homogenous perspective, where the writer’s conception of Equality as Sameness can only be achieved by either adding or extracting the variable which makes us heterogeneous/different, and as such this ‘dilemma’ is not Relevant to Equality as Life as these additions or extractions are not in function of the support of Life on Earth, and does have nothing to do with Actual Equality.

Ideas and Values concerning Intervention (Interpretation of Inequality)

This point relates to the author’s perception of outcome within intervening within the current allocation and distributive system of resources. Since physical resources are relevant to the support of Life on Earth, their allocation and distribution is relevant to the discussion of Equality. Within our current world system and established ‘way of life’ – resources are distributed through a system of merit and discrimination, where one needs to ‘pay up’ and ‘deserve’ resources before one’s Life is secured. Life Security is not a given, and made a variable/function of one’s ‘favorability’ -- to use the writer’s words – which can broadly be interpreted as one’s productive capacity (skills, talents, education) and productive background (social and economic).

Not all Life is nurtured and supported, where some beings are being allocated resources excessive of their actual physical needs and requirements – and where others are being allocated resources deficient of their physical needs and requirements, inhibiting their ability to sustain themselves as Life.

The writer is concerned that the distribution of resources in order to achieve Equality will result in a form of ‘diminishment’ and ‘worsening’ of one’s situation – which is often what is meant within saying that ‘Equality can only be achieved through Inequality’ – where the ‘taking of resources’ which are or could have been ‘someone else’s’, is a form of violation of a person’s integrity and value which is seen as an unacceptable sacrifice. In terms of the ‘concern’ factor as a ‘fear of abuse’, it is suggested to read the following Justice and Human Rights Series blog: Day 228: False Dilemma: Abuse or be Abused – Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 6, which explains how the fear aspect can easily be eliminated once we understand how we are able to work together and yet eliminate abuse.

Again, because the writer is coming from a view on Equality as Sameness, any change/alteration made to be an ‘inequality’, and thus by virtue of it being an ‘act of inequality’, would invalidate the very end of Equality (meaning, it is unacceptable to achieve Equality if it has to be done through Inequality).

Here, we simply again recalibrate our definition of Inequality to that of Inequality in Respect to Life, where Inequalities are only relevant/matter in so far that they hamper and reduce one’s ability to Live a Life of Quality. As such, any movement and distribution of resources towards the insurance and security of a Life of Quality for All on Earth, cannot possibly be deemed to be an act of ‘inequality’ as one’s ability to Live a Life of Quality is not being diminished in any way whatsoever, but merely being extended to everyone else on the Planet as well. Any movement of resources which would result in a lack or diminishment in one’s ability to Live a Life of Quality would be in violation of one’s Right to Life and would have to be immediately rectified.

Related articles

• Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights - Part 4
• Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 6
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• 359. Equal Life Rights

Read More

Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 6

Continuing from:
Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
Day 221: Are Humans Equal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 2
Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction – Equality and Human Rights – Part 3
Day 225: Equality and Disinformation – Equality and Human Rights – Part 5

In the previous blog we discussed the problems that ensue when a word has not been clearly defined, and how one ought to agree upon a singular definition and thus use a particular word consistently with its agreed upon meaning, to be able to have a meaningful discussion (which so far hasn’t happened in the history of the concept of Equality).

We also saw that the ‘Great Divide’ on the subject of Equality has mostly been of an illusionary nature, exactly because of the lack of agreement on a definition of Equality. How can we say that there is a disagreement on a singular issue, when both parties mean completely different things with ‘the one issue’?

All of this came forth as we were looking at one of the arguments/justifications (Equal starting point/Equal Treatment leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother) as to why we should not enforce/promote Equality within society, as we had to investigate in which sense ‘equal’ and ‘unequal’ was used in the sentence.

Within this blog we will be looking at ‘what is equal’ and ‘what is unequal’ within using the definition of Equality as Life – where Humans are Equal by virtue of being Alive and being Animated by the same Life Force.

So, we have ‘Life’ as our starting point, as within this rests our Equality. Yet this this Life is not self-sustaining and particular conditions require to be in place for Life to thrive. We can then say, that any situation/circumstance which hampers the ability of Life to thrive, is one that is unequal or is a situation/circumstance within which inequality exists.

When we look at the statement ‘Equal starting point/Equal Treatment leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother ‘ from this perspective, we can clearly see that it does not make any sense, because having Life as one’s starting point cannot have the diminishment of Life as an outcome/end. And promoting Life as a value/principle cannot have the diminishment of Life as an outcome. So when statements are made about ‘what is equal’ and ‘what is unequal’ – we have to investigate/look at each point terms of measuring its relation to Life: does it enhance or does it reduce Life?

When we look at Equality and Unequal/Inequality from this perspective – a lot of the statements/justifications as to why Equality should not be pursued ‘fall away’, as the logic behind the statement becomes inconsistent. Here we can for instance look at the statement that to ‘be equal’ means to ‘genetically disable the able’. Such actions obviously do not enhance Life and thus does not promote Equality among human beings as each one enjoying an Equal Life Experience. When we speak of Equality and Inequality, we are thus bound to keep ourselves to subjects and topics which directly affect human beings’ Living Standard and Quality of Life. This does not mean ‘Equal Treatment’ in the sense of the distorted definition of ‘giving each one the Same Treatment’ – but to treat one Another Equally as to support and assist another to the utmost of our ability so that one can enjoy the Best Quality of Life Possible. Here we have to be clear that ‘the same’ and ‘equal’ – are two different, separate concepts. Different people have different needs – and thus depending on how much support and assistance one requires to reach a Standard of Living that is Optimal – one will receive ‘less’ or ‘more’ to attain this Level – but yet the Outcome is Equal – as Life is each time respected and supported to the greatest extent possible. When one is born with a particular disadvantage which leads a particular individual to experiencing their Life as being obstructed – then the necessary steps require to be taken to remedy this point to the utmost of our ability, to ensure that this person despite their ‘born disadvantage’ may still experience a Life of Quality, as the Life we would have wanted for ourselves would we have been in the same position. Failure to address such impediments to a Thriving Life, would be termed an ‘Inequality’ and would thus be a Problem which requires to be Corrected.

Within the next blog we will look at some more points/statements anti-egalitarians come up with in an attempt to refute the promotion of Equality within society – and how these arguments lose all validity once the factors and variables are intricately linked and connected to Life and the support thereof, as how we explained it in this blog.

Related articles

• Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights - Part 4
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 363: Basic Human Rights and Crime (Part One)
• Day 389: Humans Rights with Children and Health Care

Read More