Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts

When Aristotle discussed the concept of Justice - he spoke of remedial or corrective justice, which specified how to punish offenders of the law, but he also spoke of distributive justice, where he asked how much each one should get of what, or: how should resources be justly distributed? Aristotle's concept of distributive justice is what is currently known under the term 'social justice'. It is thus not a 'new' concept, but one that has been occupying the minds of people since the ancient period.

We'll have a look at three principles that are often put forward as a basis for 'just' distribution of resources:
1. The principle of merit and desert
2. The principle of need
3. The principle of equality

The principle of merit and desert states that people should be treated according to what they deserve. Material rewards should only be handed out to the deserving. When someone receives something they didn't deserve or when someone doesn't receive something they DO deserve, an injustice occurred in this view.

The question that arises here, of course is: What constitutes a merit?

Is the fact that someone is more talented a basis on which to provide them with more material wealth? Does the person deserve this or is a person's talent merely a matter of luck or chance, and so - not part of one's merit? But then, what about those people who have a talent that they developed themselves through hard work, something they did not have a natural disposition towards, but a skill they developed until they became talented in it? And then - how to distinguish between natural endowments and merits?

Or does merit have to do not so much with how much one contributes by virtue of one's talents, but based on how much effort a person puts in. Here - two people who are equally productive may not be rewarded the same way, because for one it was a struggle while for the other it was a breeze. So - then, the reward-system of distribution based on deserts would create incentive for individuals to place themselvs in positions of struggle just so they could 'earn more'. But is that the kind of life you would encourage for individuals? And - if each one acts accordingly, by choosing a profession or a task they struggle at most - will this really produce the best results for society as a whole?

According to liberalists, the free market is the best system to evaluate merit and desert, where prices and wages determine what a person's contribution is worth to others in society. Yet - herein is not considered that most successful businessmen or businesswomen are not so because of 'merit' or 'desert', but because of privileged backgrounds, because of heritage, because of luck and because of socio-economic access to opportunities. And a classic example I like to use is: who deserves the highest pay: the mineworker who physically works every day or the CEO of the mining company whose most strenuous effort is to place a signature here and there? What is often argued is that the CEO has an investment to lose, and therefore is putting more on the line - but then the counterargument is of course: is the mineworker not putting his life on the line and is the CEO's investment worth as much as his own life?

Liberalists like to pretend that the free market models are perfect for assessing the merit of individuals in how much they contribute to society, but they are actually merely using these models to justify why such huge inequality exists - where they can say: 'Well, you're worse off because that's what you deserve'. And then difficult-sounding jargon is used and graphs are presented that apparently prove their point - but the truth of the matter is: the free market system is not based within merit - it is merely based within competition - and herein, the system does not consider who works harder or who deserves more - it does not make such value judgments - it simply balances opposing forces and then ends up somewhere in between.

Others of a more socialist orientation propose a planned economy, where a person's merit is directly measured by a public institution, such as a government. However, the problem still remains in objectively stipulating the conditions under which we are now speaking of merit and whether such merit-based system will provide the most favorable resutlts.

Psychologically speaking, deserts are linked to a person's expectations. If a person expects to receive high material rewards and then does not receive them, a perception of unjust deprivation will arise, whereas - if a person has adjusted its expectations to previous patterns and as such, does not expect much, may not feel as though they are being deprived of what they deserve - simply because the expectation pattern is different. However, does that mean that the one person is really being deprived and the other not? Is there an objective way of establishing just reward versus unjust deprivation or are these concepts too much influenced through relative perception?

Related articles

• Day 315: How many Human Rights Can You Afford?
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 218: Justice and Human Rights
• Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• 367. Children's Human Rights | Equal Money
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• 359. Equal Life Rights

Read More

Day 103: Abstract Equality

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a system that values Equality only in thought

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a system that promotes Equality to gain a sense of acceptance and promote an image of goodwill – while at the same time only upholding this principle in one’s mind within stating that everyone is equal but yet at the same time removing self from taking any practical steps to move this ‘Abstract Equality’ to ‘Concrete Equality’

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a system of manipulation that tricks people into believing that Equality is important and that everyone is considered Equal – simply for the sake of having the word ‘Equality’ attached to one’s specific ideology as it promotes a positive energy and is good PR for one’s ideology campaign

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see the manipulation within the current system as being two-faced – where the system promotes equality and inequality at the same time – where equality is upheld and valued in only an abstract sense and inequality is upheld and valued in the concrete sense which can clearly be seen in the inequality in resource access people have today

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created the perfect trap where one can have each hand in a different cookie jar – where the one hand is in the inequality cookie jar and the other in the equality cookie jar – where one states that equality is important and at the same time state that not everyone is equal in terms of talents, skills, education, drive – and then use this as a justification as to why inequality is inevitable – without ever for a moment stopping and looking at how we can adjust reality so that even though people are not equal we can still treat and create a system of support that will assist and support all to become the best version of themselves

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a system where Equality is apparently valued within saying that this Equality is only abstract, meaning that it is something we value but will not act upon which is really just another way of saying that it is not valued – otherwise the necessary steps would have been taken to practically manifest abstract equality into concreteness

I commit myself to show that we have been sold a lie where all those promoting ‘Equality’ are only interested in equality as ‘thought’ where one can ‘think’ inside oneself that another is equal yet not act upon it / make it a physical reality and so we have all been conned to believe that people actually care about Equality while all the while all that’s been cared about is creating a false image to justify inequality

I commit myself to show that Equality has been abused within only been taken into consideration in an ‘abstract’ form which only exists/resides in the realm of the mind and has no actual practical, physical implication – where equality has been reduced to a mere thought, a prayer that has lost all meaning in this world

I commit myself to show that the way inequality has been justified is unacceptable since we accepted and allowed ourselves to recognize inequality yet failed to do anything about it, and rather abuse/exploit this opportunity to make the best out of it for ourselves only while those who are clearly disadvantages – and most by chance only – are left to fend for themselves and we tell ourselves at night that “it’s just inevitable ” to be able to sleep and not stay awake from guilt and shame

I commit myself to show that the only “ideology” which truly values Equality is the Equal Money System which actually cares to move Abstract Equality into Concrete Equality and to no more allow ridiculous excuses/justifications as why we allow inequality in this world

 Related articles

• Day 88: Capitalism vs Socialism?
• Day 102: Liberalism
• Day 145: Labor and Slavery
• Day 127: TRUE ACTIVIST Greed of Happiness
• Day 149: ACCUMULATION SECRETS of WEALTH
• Day 103: Passion for Economics

Read More

Day 98: The Unholy Trinity

The World Banks, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trading Organization (WTO) – together they form the ‘Unholy Trinity’.
Together these three organizations form a vast and extensive set-up that enforces a neo-liberal economic ideology through conditional lending and foreign aid

The World Trade Organisation

At the end of World War II, it was proposed that a global economic organisation ought to be established. This organisation – the International Trade Organisation (ITO) – would have the task of establishing rules relating to world trade, business practices and international investment.
Through opposition of the United States though, the ITO never came into being.

Later on, some twenty-three countries entered negotiations in relation to tariff reductions. These negotiations led to tariff reductions affecting roughly one-fifth of world trade. Among the tariff reduction negotiations, other agreements were reached on rules of trade. These agreements become known as the ‘General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade’, also known as ‘GATT’.
Through the establishment of the GATT, trade barriers were gradually brought down and world trade started growing. Throughout the years, non-tariff trade related barriers started demanding more and more attention as the tariff subject was becoming of lesser importance. It was decided that a new organization should be set up to replace the GATT. This organization is now known as the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The WTO carried over its key principles from GATT: non-discrimination and national treatment.
These two principles are integrated in the overall mission of the WTO, which encompasses the promotion of fair competition, insurance of market access, encouragement of economic development and economic reform.

The World Bank & the International Monetary Fund

Besides the WTO, two other global organisations were set up after the events of World War II: the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
To avoid re-experiencing a complete collapse of economic relations which had followed the First World War, discussions were held between countries regarding the shape of post-war international economic order.
The end result of their regular discussions was the formation of a framework of what would become the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank).


The function of the IMF is to provide its members loans under different programmes (short, medium and long-term). Each member country is charged with a particular quota for their membership which is in proportion with their economic power. The same way, will the voting power of a country within the IMF and World Bank depend on their economic wealth. As a result, the United States holds for instance 20% of all votes – while 43 African countries together hold less than 5%.


The IMF’s most prominent role is to intervene, on request, whenever a country is experiencing a crisis in its international payments. The price countries pay for a loan is an agreement by the borrowing country to make fundamental changes to its economy (which generally means making amendments to the government and its relation to the free market) – to prevent the reoccurrence of the same problem. These requirements are known as “IMF conditionality” or “structural adjustment policies”.


Originally the World Bank was known as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). The name clearly indicates that the main purpose for creating the organisation was to assist with the reconstruction of countries that had been badly affected by World War II. As time went by the countries affected became more stable, it was suggested that undeveloped countries could benefit from capital investment to speed up the development process. In the meantime the IBRD has become one of five subgroups within the World Bank. Each group has a different focus – though all groups are related towards the development of poor countries, and only developing countries are allowed to borrow from the World Bank (unlike the IMF).

Related articles

• Day 91: International Trade Policy
• Day 90: The Foreign Sector
• Day 92: I Have to take care of MY People
• Day 78: Monetary Policy - Part 1
• Day 98: Humanity is ONE BODY, ONE LIFE

Read More

Day 94: How is Money Created?

Also read Day 71: The Money Supply for additional Context

When someone takes out a loan from the bank, we believe (and most of the time have been taught) that this money is money that has been entrusted to them by depositors. This is not what happens in reality. The money that is received as a loan is actually created by the bank. This money does not come from what people have deposited and it also does not come from the banks own revenue. It is created from the borrower’s promise to repay.

When you sign a loan agreement, you agree to pay back the bank the amount borrowed, plus interest. You also agree that in the event that you are unable to pay back your loan, the bank has the right to confiscate your car, your house or whatever asset that was pledged as surety. The only thing of real value that is involved in a loan transaction, are the assets one has pledged to the bank in the event one fails to pay back the loan. (This loan agreement now carries value. The promise that sometime in the future you will pay off your loan means that at some point in the future, the bank will have this money. And even though the bank does not have the money now, it will use this loan agreement as if it is worth the amount of money owed – and use/spend it as such.)

Once the loan agreement has been signed, the bank is allowed to summon into reality the amount of the loan and just insert it into the borrower’s account.

The concept of lending out more money than you actually have stored is called “fractional reserve banking”.
This concept emerged during the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe. Halfway through the 17th century, as a consequence of the civil war, goldsmiths were making less money with their traditional way of doing business as forging objects out of gold and silver. As a way to survive, they started accepting other people their precious metals and keep it safe for them in their vaults at a particular fee. The goldsmith would then issue a receipt for the deposit made to the depositor. These receipts started circulating as a form of money, functioning as a representation of the actual physical precious metals that were stored in the vaults. As time went on, the goldsmiths realised that not all of the depositors would use their receipts to claim their gold and silver at the same time. The goldsmiths would thus be able to lend out more money as receipts than what he actually had in stock, and nobody would notice. Fractional reserve banking was born.

Fractional reserve banking is where only a fraction of bank deposits are backed by actual cash that is present and available for withdrawal. This system started with the goldsmiths and is currently still being applied in most countries all over the globe.

When the people realised what the goldsmiths were up to, it was already too late. Their money making mechanism had become a vital and essential part to the expansion of European commerce. So instead of banning fractional reserve banking, the government decided to regulate it instead.

Over the years, the fraction of gold backing the debt money has gradually declined to zero. Presently, paper or digital money can only be redeemed for another piece of paper or digital money.

In the past, the amount of money that was in circulation was limited and in accordance to whatever physical commodity was used and valued as money (e.g. gold, silver). For there to be more money, there had to be more of the particular commodity (e.g. more gold and silver).

Nowadays, money is created as debt. Using the fractional reserve banking method, new money is created through issuing loans. The only limit to the money supply is the total level of debt.

The most common ratio by which money is created is 9 to 1. Where for each actual dollar the bank has, it can bring 9 more “fictional” dollars into being. If this ‘new money’ then circulates between individuals and banks, even more ‘new’ money can be created from the previously ‘new money’.

This practically implies that money can only come into being through debt, and that essentially money is debt.
This has the even more disturbing implication that without debt, there will be no money.

Let use some simply mathematics to illustrate this point.
We start with zero ( 0 ) amount of money.

Now we want to take out a loan of let’s say, 500 dollars.

By taking out a loan of (+) 500 dollars, we are creating debt for the amount of (-) 500 dollars.

If we now pay off our loan, the money count will simply go back to zero, as the equation has been balanced out again. And the money is gone. We are thus completely dependent on debt for the existence and circulation of money! If everyone in the world would pay off their debts -- which sounds like a ‘good thing’ and considered by most to be a form of ‘improvement’ -- then there will be no more money!

“This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the Commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are, absolutely, without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is.”

 -       -   Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Georgia

But now, as you may have noticed, we have not yet addressed the point of paying back interest.

Banks will borrow you the principle amount of your loan, but where does the money come from to pay off the additional interest? The only way borrowers can pay the additional interest is by using money from the overall money supply in circulation. But now as we’ve just seen, most of this money has been created through debt which also has to be paid back with more than that which was created/borrowed.

We are faced with a situation where many (if not everyone) has to pay back both the original amount borrowed - plus interest - using money from the overall money supply. But this overall money supply consists of only the sum of all the principle amounts borrowed. It is thus impossible for everyone to pay back the original / principle amount and pay back the additional interest (unless the interest that is being paid to the banks gets spend immediately so others can use it to pay off their interest as well). Unless a vast amount of extra money is created to pay off the interest, a high level of foreclosure will be prominent in society. For a society to function at an effective level, foreclosure rates require to stay low. To be able to achieve this, more and more money needs to be created (= more and more debt), just to be able to meet the plea for money to be able to pay off the previous debt. We are literally taking out loans just to pay off our previous loans. This results in to a never-ending cycle of going into more debt to be able to pay off previous debts. The only thing that keeps the system going is the time lag between money being created and the loans being paid off over time. If this time lag was not in place, the whole system would collapse instantaneously.

It is an unsustainable system that eats itself up from the inside out.

 

Related articles

• Day 71: The Money Supply - Part 1
• Day 72: The Money Supply - Part 2
• Day 78: Monetary Policy - Part 1
• Day 79: Monetary Policy - Part 2
• Day 73: The Money Supply - Part 3
• Day 75: The Demand for Money - Part 1
• Day 84: Fiscal Policy and the Budget
• Day 68: The Functions of Money - Part 2
• Day 80: Monetary Policy - Part 3
• Day 70: Feedback on Inflation and Purpose of This Blog

Read More

Day 77: The Demand for Money - Part 3

I commit myself to establish a world economic system whereby the Demand for money is equalized among all Living Beings -- where one has the right to Money based on Life

I commit myself to expose that Economics is not scary at all, as all it is, is a bad joke using foreign terms -- which in itself are also jokes -- as this economic system we currently live in and as, is not real -- as it values illusion over reality and is willing to sacrifice what is real as the lives of plants, animals, humans and the planet to chase an unsustainable dream

I commit myself to the development and establishment of a Down to Earth Economic System -- which deals with REAL ISSUES such as PEOPLE STARVING

I commit myself to the establishment of an Economic System which can be taught in school since it won't be a failure as it actually achieves to eliminate poverty, starvation and War -- as this is the only honourable type of economic system worth teaching as passing on to our children

I commit myself to expose that our current Economic System is a complete failure and should, just because of that, be withdrawn from being taught until we have a proper Economic System in place which we can be proud of

 I commit myself to show that our current economic system only cares about humans as far as the thickness of their wallet goes and will forsaken everyone else

I commit myself to show that our current economic system is completely inadequate and that we do not have to put up with its inadequacy

I commit myself to the establishment of an Equal Money System so all may be Equal Participants within the Economy -- as it should be since the Economy affects each and everyone of us


Cast your Vote @ EqualMoney.org !

Related articles

• Day 76: The Demand for Money - Part 2
• Day 57: Measuring the Performance of the Economy - Part 3
• Day 73: The Money Supply - Part 3
• Day 47: The Economic Problem - Part 2
• Day 63: The Consumer Price Index - Part 3
• Day 42: What is Economics - Part 3

Read More