Pollution Inequality and Living Income Guaranteed

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

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

In an interview with the professor the following was discussed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

Read More

Day 201: The Power of 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +... in Equal Money Capitalism

The following post was shared on my Facebook page with the title "Never Underestimate the Power of 'One' ":

Lone Indian Man Plants 1,360 Acre Forest single-handedly!!

Please Read, Like, Tag and share!! :)

A little over 30 years ago, a teenager named Jadav “Molai” Payeng began burying seeds along a barren sandbar near his birthplace in northern India’s Assam region to grow a refuge for wildlife. Not long after, he decided to dedicate his life to this endeavor, so he moved to the site where he could work full-time creating a lush new forest ecosystem. Incredibly, the spot today hosts a sprawling 1,360 acre of jungle that Payeng planted single-handedly.

It all started way back in 1979 when floods washed a large number of snakes ashore on the sandbar. One day, after the waters had receded, Payeng , only 16 then, found the place dotted with the dead reptiles. That was the turning point of his life.

“The snakes died in the heat, without any tree cover. I sat down and wept over their lifeless forms. It was carnage. I alerted the forest department and asked them if they could grow trees there. They said nothing would grow there. Instead, they asked me to try growing bamboo. It was painful, but I did it. There was nobody to help me. Nobody was interested,” says Payeng, now 47.

While it’s taken years for Payeng’s remarkable dedication to planting to receive some well-deserved recognition internationally, it didn’t take long for wildlife in the region to benefit from the manufactured forest. Demonstrating a keen understanding of ecological balance, Payeng even transplanted ants to his burgeoning ecosystem to bolster its natural harmony. Soon the shadeless sandbar was transformed into a self-functioning environment where a menagerie of creatures could dwell. The forest, called the Molai woods, now serves as a safe haven for numerous birds, deers, rhinos, tigers, and elephants — species increasingly at risk from habitat loss elsewhere.

Despite the conspicuousness of Payeng’s project, Forestry officials in the region first learned of this new forest in 2008 — and since then they’ve come to recognize his efforts as truly remarkable, but perhaps not enough.

“We’re amazed at Payeng,” says Assistant Conservator of Forests, Gunin Saikia. “He has been at it for 30 years. Had he been in any other country, he would have been made a hero.”

There are so many areas which used to provide habitats for countless animal species that have been destroyed and mostly - due to human intervention - sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. And here is one man who decided to dedicated years of time towards rectifying one stretch of land - again providing habitats and support to a bunch of plants and animals as an effective new eco-system had been created - where, previously, nothing grew.

Witin Equal Money Capitalism, each company will have an Environmental Department to firstly prevent and rectify human-created problems in our natural environment - and secondly, to provide additional support to nature in times of, for instance, drought. This answers one of the frequently asked questions in relation to how to achieve Full Employment in a way that no meaningless jobs are created. There is so much to be done when it comes to supporting the world that supports us - that there is definitely no lack of meaningless jobs to be done. Secondly - imagine - when one man dedicates 30 years of his life towards one area - he created a jungle that now houses rhinos, elephants and even tigers! Then, consider - the actual change we can manifest if each company dedicates an entire department towards enviromental support.

We have heard many doomsday stories and yes, the situation is terrible and is deteriorating fast. However, if we pull our socks up and organise our society in a way that supports life - we can actually mitigate and correct much of the damage that has been done in a relatively short timespan.

If we wait on Capitalism and governments within a capitalistic dispensation to devise the exact incentives that may perhaps motivate people to go and change their behavior in a way that we don't destroy the enviroment, we'll still be busy for a very long time - instead of just taking the direct approach by recognising the problems and collectively taking responsibility - not waiting to try to establish 'who is responsible for which specific problem' - that is So irrelevant. Imagine you're reading a history book about a civilisation on a different planet - and just as with us, one species started slowly but surely destroying the planet that gave life to every life form on it - and that, they were too late to correct the problems because the civilisation was too busy trying to establish who should do what in terms of who is to blame for what - and where most people felt they were innocent because they never meant to do any harm - and so, the planet kept bleeding dry and eventually died as well as all life on the planet. Now - wouldn't you think: "Obviously they all died - they should've just dealt with the problems already" - I mean, it's common sense. No one reading such a history book would be concerned with who exactly caused what problem - but readers would instead be anxious to see when the civilisation was actually going to DO SOMETHING.

So - we face the same 'choice' - to simply put our heads towards paving a road that leads to an actual future or to just keep wandering into the abyss. It's really up to us. If you agree - please share this blog on your Facebook, Twitter and other social network sites. We have the time to create a better future, but we don't have the time to ignore the fact that it actually needs to be CREATED.

Related articles

• Day 184: The Relationship between Ecology and Economics in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 200: Collapse of Global Civilization Inevitable?
• Day 185: Students feel fee squeeze
• Day 196: Market Mechanisms and Equal Money
• Day 197: Equal Money Capitalism - Freedom or Control?
• Day 171: Life-Force and Expression in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 183: The Myth of No Alternative and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 180: The Word 'Capitalism' in 'Equal Money Capitalism'
• Day 195: Moneyless Societies and Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 188: Simple Solutions in Equal Money Capitalism

This blog post is in relation to a comment placed on one of our previous blog-posts - you can check out the full comment at http://economistjourneytolife.blogspot.com/2013/02/day-186-invisible-hand-is-invisible.html#.URaxbvJBnTo.

"We can’t have equal pay because of the variable levels of experience, skill, and education. People should earn what they deserve, based on their education and skills."

The problem within remunerating individuals based on their level of experience, skill and education is that we're judging certain levels of experience, skill and education as good and others as bad. Herein, take the example of paying a technician more than a doctor - both are equally valuable contributions to society, yet we'll pay the one more because of a higher education level. In creating such divisions, you're giving people incentives in terms of what jobs to do based on money - where people will become lawyers and doctors and engineers because there's money in it - and not necessarily because that's what they would really love to do. And obviously, when you're passionate about your job, you'll push yourself to be great at it - not because of someone else's expectation, but because of one's own self-integrity. And a doctor who actually cares about his patients will be a better doctor than one who did it because he could and it would give him a nice personal life.

Also consider that not everyone has the same capacities. Some are naturally skilled in managerial tasks, others are really good with their hands - but again, both are equally valuable - so we can't remunerate one person more than another based on skill either.

In terms of level of experience - each one requires the time to grow in their profession, but that doesn't mean that we don't require the same amount of financial support in the meantime.

For more perspective on this point - please read one of our previous posts: Day 181: Applied Equality in Equal Money Capitalism

"However, if we reduced the over inflated costs of crappy products, removed the fees for electronic services that don’t need manual labor, and diverted 50% of our national defense budget back into improving our infrastructure and economy. We would see new jobs, more tax income for the cause, and a happier, more productive community and labor force."

What we suggest in terms of pricing is to have prices determined through only considering the people who were involved in the production process. From a previous blog:

"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.

So - understand - that within EMC - you only ever pay for added value - added value is the value you add to a resource through labour - that - and then of course your tax. So - you're not paying for your resources. When value is given by a person - the person receives in return through profit. When resources are used by companies - they must give back as much as they can. So if a company uses wood within their production process, there will be a department within the company that plants trees. The same with using water - if clean water is taken - the dirty water after the production process is complete, must be purified and go back to the Earth. So - resources won't be owned - it will be a matter of take what you need and give back as you received."

And:

"It makes no sense to claim that one can 'own' a part of nature or the Earth - as physical resources - outside of oneself. Why? Because the Earth and nature were here long before us and they will remain here after we are gone - so how can we say that any of it is 'ours' - it's not ours."

To pay for resources, would imply giving money to the owner of the resource. But with the Earth being the owner, it makes to sense to give money to the Earth, because it means nothing to the Earth - money is only relevant in a human society. So - rather - we 'pay back' the Earth through supporting it in a physical manner. Each company will have an Environmental Department that is in charge of giving back what was received from the Earth insofar as this is possible.

Prices will thus be determined only considering that with the sales of the product, each one involved in the production process, ends up with an equal wage and this wage must be adequate to be able to live a meaningful life- which is a mathematical equation that can be worked out for each product and for each company. On these prices, taxes will be raised as government will still play a role within providing each one with their basic rights.

One of these basic rights will be employment. As you say - with technology able to replace menial tasks, we'll be able to create jobs where they are necessary - tasks that require to be done but aren't. The environmental departments of companies is one example. When unemployment is seen to arise - government requires to identify where further jobs can be created - or, another option is to reduce working hours or lower the pension age.

And yes - the role and magnitude of the defense forces must be reconsidered. If an EMC were implemented world-wide, they will likely no more exist as most wars are waged over economic reasons. When everyone is equally taken care of - there is no need to traumatize another country with physical violence to get it to comply to one's wishes.

"Unfortunately because people are elected into government based on their popularity. The politicians and powers that be are paid more than the average home, even though they have no special skills or experience. This leads to commerce and community decisions being made based entirely on the personal expectations, desires, and motives of the elected and now privileged group. With hardly any control from the people who elected them. Once they get there, they play a game of give and take with the community so they can keep their positions as long as they can. Serving in congress or the senate should be thought of as a privilege, there pay should be limited to that of an average household, to insure that they remain concerned for the welfare and health of the majority which they are still part of. In humanities quest for material items, fame, and fortune."

Totally agree. For politics, we suggest direct democracy where politicians are in essence merely administrators and not decision-makers and yes, where their wages are equal to those of everyone else. For more info on this, read: www.equalmoney.org/wiki/Politics

"We seem to have forgotten about the value of checks and balances. Anytime a system is out of balance, it is doomed to eventually fall apart and fail. Thus the proper individual course, is always one that leads to beneficial results for the community. Which then logically leads us to the success of our entire society. As it sits now, life is great if your above or near the fulcrum of our economy. But it can be grand or desperate depending on where you are on the arms, and that in itself is a sign of inequality and unbalance."

Yep, totally agree!

Related articles

• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 167: Harmony and Equilibrium within Equal Money Capitalism
• The Future of Integrity with Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 259: Give Happiness, Get Happiness
• 293. Services in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 185: Students feel fee squeeze
• Day 169: Equal Living within Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 128: What Is Nature Worth To Us?

Check out this slide-show: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/01/world/gallery/eco-sols-text-nature-economics/index.html

What they're trying to do is to put a price on various parts of the Natural world - like the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, Thailand's mangrove, Colombia's rainforests, etc.

The idea is to put a monetary value on these natural 'assets' to prove to people that it will be more expensive to destroy them than to preserve them.

The problem is in the way the price-tags are assigned. They are assigned in terms of what direct costs these ecological systems prevent to be unleashed on the economy and in terms of what people think and believe to be valuable/important. For instance - how much do they value having nice green views, or the idea that somewhere far away some tiger is being protected?

So - the value of nature is only measured in terms of human interests. Intrinsically - the value of an animal's natural habitat is - to him/her - priceless. He/she needs it to survive and without it, well - the animal dies. There's no money you can give the animal that will make the animal say "oh okay, if you give me so many million then you can destroy my habitat."

And, further, can we even put a price on Nature. Let's take the rainforest - without it, the oxygen levels on Earth would rapidly deteriorate to nothing. Now - let's ask: what would it cost to restore the oxygen levels to the optimal ones? We cannot 'make' oxygen - there's no money in the world that would allow us to do the job the rainforest does as well as it does it. Without oxygen, there will be no life on Earth - how much do we value all life on Earth in money-terms? Can we? People think it's impossible to place a price on how much their child is worth - one human life - are we seriously thinking we can put a price on something as important as the rainforest, which is responsible for ALL life on Earth?

We've got some serious re-considerations to do if this is how we decide to take care of the Earth - by putting a price on it's apparent value and then, accordingly, either protect it or destroy it. Who are we kidding? We will not make it without nature, we will not make it without the animal kingdom - we will die - it's really that simple. We are not independent of nature - we are a part of it and we are affected by it. It's time we realise that the only way we'll save ourselves is through taking responsibility for the damage we've done and doing what we can to correct it.

In an Equal Money System, the only Value will be Life - not Human Life - LIFE itself - that which humans don't even understand yet. Accordingly, no animal or plant will be treated with less respect and reverence than the human - and so, we will find our place in the world again - among those who have supported us for millenia, while we have done nothing but attempted to destroy them in return.

Read More