Immigration and Tolerance

“Change often measures our tolerance for folk different from ourselves. Can we accept their languages, their customs, their garments, and their foods into our own lives? If we can, then we form bonds, bonds that make wars less likely. If we cannot, if we believe that we must do things as we have always done them, then we must either fight to remain as we are, or die.”
-“That’s cheery.”
-“It’s true.”
― Robin Hobb, Golden Fool

This is a quote from a fiction book and yet so applicable to the events we are facing today as millions are being displaced, migrating to create a life in a foreign country with foreign customs, foreign languages and foreign views of the world.

Though, I don’t think ‘tolerance’ is the right word to use. See, tolerance is when you judge something as wrong or unacceptable but will not act upon it. Tolerance doesn’t involve openness, it doesn’t involve questioning your own views in light of someone else’s. Tolerance doesn’t allow for expansion from learning and sharing, it can only ever remain a tolerating of something that you’d rather wish wasn’t there.

Tolerance is more a suppression than anything else – it will culminate to a boiling point and, sometime somewhere, you’ll find a reason to take out your frustrations on those that are so different to you and you will justify it and say ‘I have been tolerant for a very long time, but enough is enough’ and you’ll try to either get rid of them or try to make them comply to YOUR way of living.

If tolerance is how we approach change, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

So, I’d say – don’t be tolerant of people different to you – rather be open, approach them as one human being approaching another human being and allow yourself to see the world through their eyes.

Who knows, they might not be so different from you after all and, who knows, you might get to know a different side of yourself.

It's easy to stick to what you know and to think that 'your ways' are the standard for 'normality'. But we live in a world with different peoples, different histories, different views, different beliefs and different cultures. If all claim that their own lifestyle is the 'norm' - how will we see that the very fact that there are such great differences shows exactly that there is no such thing as 'the norm' or 'normality'. 

Within the principle of 'investigate all things and keep what is good' - imagine who we would be as humanity - how we would live - what we would create. It would be quite amazing because we'd have gotten to know those who are different from us and with each encounter an exchange would have taken place of that which each saw was good in the other that they had not yet considered or tried to do for themselves. Just for a moment... Imagine...

That potential exists for us - you could see it just now. We can create it, starting by changing our attitude in our own lives.

Change brings opportunity - let's not waste opportunity on tolerance.

Read More

Solitary Confinement – The Horrors of our ‘Correctional’ System

Even though international governing bodies have condemned the use of solitary confinement since the 1990s, it is still a common practice in many prisons all over the United States. Currently, an estimated total of 80,000 to 100,000 men, women and children are isolated in closed cells for 22-24 hours a day – for periods stretching from days, weeks, months and even years.

Reasons to place a prisoner in solitary confinement are not restricted to serious violations – talking back to a guard or being caught with contraband are often reason enough to be ‘put into lockdown’ or ‘thrown in the shoe’. Did anyone say ‘Milgram’?

There is a reason international governing bodies condemn the practice: because it basically amounts to torture. The physical and psychological effects are horrifying. Mentally sane inmates often come out of solitary confinement with serious psychological disorders, violent behavior and suicidal tendencies. For those who were already suffering from mental illness, being confined to isolation only exacerbates their conditions.

Is this the purpose of our prison system? To break people, to strip them of their sanity or push them further into misery? Does that benefit the prisoners? Does it benefit society when a prisoner has served his sentence and has to re-enter society as a less functional being than he was before incarceration? No matter the crime they have committed – if we sanction the use of torture – are we not criminals all the same?

We make a big fuss over the CIA’s torturing practices, but don’t realize torture is happening on a daily basis to thousands of people in our so called ‘correctional facilities’ and ‘judicial system’.

The Living Income Guaranteed Proposal is based on the principle that all should be able to live a life of dignity. All… that includes prisoners. When we treat people like worthless pieces of s*** - what is going to happen? Is it going to heal them? Will they find peace? Will they repent for past transgressions? Or will it make them into that which we treat them as?

In other words – if we want to be able to continue calling prisons ‘correctional facilities’ – we better reinvent them and do an entire overhaul of the prison system. Archaic ideas of justice need to be thrown out the window and central should stand the fostering of understanding and the correction of harmful behaviors. If not – let’s be frank and call them ‘torture facilities’ – but how can we ever hope to live with any shred of dignity if we stand for that?

Join the discussion on Living Income Guaranteed – take the world in your hands and ask yourself: What needs to happen for all to live a life of dignity? What needs to change? Changing what is here starts with formulating solutions. Do you have any ideas? Let’s hear it!

Read More

Meconomics: Fear of Missing Out and Opportunity Cost

When you study economics, you get introduced to a concept called ‘opportunity cost’. The definition of ‘opportunity cost’ is:

“The cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. Put another way, the benefits you could have received by taking an alternative action.”

For instance: “The opportunity cost of going to college is the money you would have earned if you worked instead.”

So – say that if you are choosing between two pairs of shoes in a shop – the opportunity cost of buying the one pair is the other pair of shoes that you did not buy but could have bought instead. This concept comes up very often in economics, where it is said that opportunity cost is what sets accounting apart from economics – because in economics, the opportunity cost is included in the cost of, for instance, running a business or making an investment.

Now – I had never considered the concept of opportunity costs within daily decision making. It was only once I had become familiar with the concept in my economics studies that I noticed how we actually include opportunity cost within decision making in our every day lives. Let’s look at some examples, starting with going back to the shoes.

Say that there are two pairs of shoes that each look really appealing – where you actually don’t want to choose between the two and if you had the money – you’d buy them both – but you don’t have enough for both, you only have enough for one pair. So – you have to choose – because in the end you reckon it’s better to come out with one nice pair of shoes than with none at all. So, you make up your mind and buy one pair – and, you know, these shoes are comfortable and nice looking, so you’re quite satisfied with your purchase. BUT – in the back of your mind – there is that other pair of shoes – the ones you didn’t buy and there’s this sense of being unsettled, because – what if you didn’t buy the ‘right shoes’? What if you would have ended up being happier or more satisfied with the other pair – now you’ll never know. That experience of feeling unsettled or uncertain, like a bad taste that kind of spoils your satisfaction with the shoes you bought – that is the opportunity cost of buying the shoes you have.

And it’s interesting – because you went in with no new shoes – and you came out with a new pair of shoes – but somehow it feels like you also ‘lost something’ – as though you had to ‘give up’ the other pair of shoes, because they ‘could have potentially been yours’. What we don’t realize is that: they were never actually ours. Rationally speaking, we couldn’t have lost them, because we never owned them. So – where does that sense of loss come from?

If you slow yourself down when deciding to buy shoes – you’ll notice that something plays a significant role in that department and that is: Imagination. As you decide on which shoes to buy – you’re imagining wearing them/owning them. You imagine wearing them to specific events, you imagine what others will say about the shoes while wearing them, you imagine how they will fit with your clothes and outfits. So – within your imagination, you ‘act as though’ the shoes ARE YOURS ALREADY. Then, when you step out of your imagination and have to now, in physical reality, decide which shoes to buy, it feels like you have to ‘give up one pair’ – because even though it was only in your imagination that the shoes were yours, you created in those fleeting moments of imagination/projection an actual emotional relationship of ownership with both pairs of shoes.

Let’s look at another example:

Have you ever heard someone (or yourself) say the following in relation to a potential partner that they are hesitant to go into a relationship with/commit themselves to, because: “What if he/she is not ‘the one’?” And “What if, as I commit to this person, I miss out on meeting my perfect partner?” Without going into a discussion about whether ‘the one’ or ‘a perfect partner’ or ‘a soulmate’ exists – if you look at the logic that is used in these instances: it revolves around opportunity cost – the fear of ‘missing out’ on all the things you can’t do because you’re committing to one option. In looking at these statements – it’s interesting to see that there is again a component of imagination – because, you only concretely have one potential partner in front of you – one real live person – but in your imagination there exists so many other ‘potential options’ or ‘one specific other perfect person’ that you might not have met yet. And – instead of making a decision about the one real live person standing in front of us and deciding whether or not to be in a relationship with them or commit to them – we allow ‘imaginary people’ to enter into the equation. And many times a relationship opportunity is passed up on, because of that notion of ‘what if he/she is not the one’ or ‘what if a better opportunity comes along and I miss it?’

There are many more examples, here are some common phrases that refer to opportunity cost:

“You can’t have it both ways”
“I could have done something else with my time, you know”
“I invested so much effort in this project and for what?”

In having defined the concept of opportunity cost and had a look at how we use this concept in daily decision making, we will continue in the next blog by looking at the consequences of this logic in our economy.







Other blogs in this series:
"Meconomics": ME-Economics

Read More

Who is more Fiscally Responsible – Citizens or Elected Politicians?

In the blog-series ‘Democratization – Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG’ I briefly discussed an argument against direct democracy (placing authority directly in the hands of citizens rather than elected politicians) that dates from the time of Plato – the argument being that citizens would make ‘bad decisions’ and don’t possess the necessary intelligence, knowledge and skills required in political decision-making.

I came across the following information when browsing through the comments on a blog regarding the implementation of a Basic Income in Switzerland:

"Switzerland is an interesting laboratory for direct democracy.

I dimly recall a very interesting study by (I believe) University of Zurich (maybe 20 years old).

They analyzed for each of the 26 Swiss cantons (=states): (1) influence of direct democracy on canton politics (which varies by canton. Some cantons don’t have all that much direct democracy. Others such as Appenzell-Innerrhoden don’t even have a parliament because EVERY single law is passed directly by the people). (2) fiscal situation of the state.

The highly fascinating result was this:

the stronger the people can directly influence public spending and taxes, the healthier the canton’s budgets (!!). The people tended NOT to spend more than they had. Rather, the professional politicians (or the canton’s that gave elected officials greater power) tended to be more fiscally irresponsible."

Naturally, my interest was peaked and I went to search for studies about this topic. And, yes, you guessed it – I found the material supporting these claims. I think we can all agree that when states spend beyond their means – we have a case of bad political decision-making. According to the logic of the argument that it would be dangerous to have citizens directly participate in politics, we would expect citizens’ involvement within budgeting decisions to exacerbate fiscal irresponsibility. And yet – here we have an example that not only shows that citizens wouldn’t make matters worse – but that citizens would do better than elected politicians when it comes to balancing the budget.

If at any point it is relevant to ask the citizens for their direct input on a particular topic to increase democratic practices, it would be: how should we spend public funds? Voting a person into office is one thing – but it is the budget that really determines political policy for the coming year. Mandatory budget referendums should be a minimum requirement for any regime to qualify as a democracy, really. When the extent of your political participation is to vote someone into office – then all you have is ‘hope’ that the people in power will use public funds responsibly and for the purposes that you expect them to. Mandatory budget referendums would create a point of direct accountability towards the citizenry that once politicians are in power, they are indeed acting out their mandate on behalf of the people. It would immediately reduce corruption and prevent budgetary deficiencies down the line, where one is suddenly told that the retirement age has to increase and austerity measures are being implemented because there are insufficient public funds and one only then starts wondering ‘well, where did all the money go?’. 

The fiscal problems most countries are experiencing today could have been prevented. It is now a time of walking through consequence that has already been created and yes, it is worthwhile looking for solutions to address current problems head-on – but it is most important to prevent the same scenario from taking place again. In Dutch there is a saying ‘a donkey doesn’t bump his head on the same rock twice’ – seems like humanity can learn a thing or two from donkeys since we have this tendency of not even looking at what it is we bumped our heads on and why – but simply try to put some ice on the wound. However much we may be upset with governments and politicians – we are the ones who gave them the power to do what they did. The consequence that is here is as much ours as theirs – and rightfully so. If anything – let us at least learn from our mistakes – otherwise all the troubles we’re going through will really be for naught. Let us at least enshrine solutions within the constitution and develop new political practices that we can pass on to the next generations, because surely, part of the consequence we are experiencing is due to continuing traditions from previous generations, but that doesn't prevent us from rising to the occasion and creating new traditions to shape a better future.

Read More

Living Income Guaranteed and Taxation - From Redistribution to Contribution

‘The re-set’ is a UK-based movement consisting of several proposals to effect ‘a constitutional re-set to re-store fair principles, accountability, community led governance and ethics. Ensuring peoplecare, earthcare and fairshare for the benefit of all’. You can  check out their website here: www.thereset.org. An overview of the proposals is presented here: http://www.thereset.org/proposals.php.

In this blog the focus is the Proposal on the abolition of Taxes. The re-set proposes to abolish the current tax system and replace it with ‘TEAL’ – Total Economic Activity Levy:

“TEAL is very much a ‘pay as you go’ tax. Every time money is withdrawn or paid into a bank account, a tiny percentage of money from each transaction will speedily find its way into the treasury. Even people without bank accounts will contribute, because whenever a pack of cigarettes or a loaf of bread is purchased, the seller (say a shop) will be paid, and when the shop pays into his bank TEAL will be collected, and if you sell your labour (i.e. you have a job) TEAL will be paid by your employer and collected by your bank.”

This principle is the same one we propose under the Living Income Guaranteed proposal. Within such a system, the focus changes from ‘redistribution’ to plain ‘contribution’.  It’s not about trying to equalize incomes and moving it from the rich to the poor – but a matter of: if you make more use of the economic system, you proportionally contribute more to sustain it. One likes to believe that one’s wealth is derived from merit alone – but it simply isn’t. There is an entire economic system in place that enables a successful person to be successful. There are those who have gone before you, who have shared their know-how with you, there are those who have an income to buy your goods or services, an income they earned through participation in the economic system, there is physical infrastructure like roads and railway systems that enable all economic activity. If the economic system was self-sustaining and never required any financial input in order to maintain it or correct its inherent weaknesses, then we could say the economic system is a free one. Obviously, that is not the case. The ‘pay as you go’ tax is therefore a reasonable method of collecting the funds to be re-invested within the economic system that each one depends on.

If a basic income or living income is provided through non-tax funding – then the ‘pay as you go’ tax or ‘TEAL’ should be sufficient to mobilize the funds needed for other government expenditures, which we suggest would be quite limited if the economy in itself is largely corrected and empowered through the integration of the Living Income or Basic Income – then other taxes can indeed be abolished.

Read More

Day 263: Campus Education vs. E-learning - My Verdict

With a rising amount of online tertiary courses being developed and made available, a debate has started about whether online education can guarantee the same quality tertiary education that a student would receive when attending a campus college. (See: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/can-online-courses-replace-campus-education/)

Anant Agarwal - the CEO of edX, a joint partnership between MIT and Harvard University that offers free online learning - sees the benefits of recording lectures and then making them available to a large amount of students. He says: "Of 155,000 students that took the course, about 5 percent passed the course and earned a certificate. So that was about 7,200. That is a big number. If I were to teach on campus twice a year, both in the spring and fall semesters, I would have to teach for about 40 years before I could teach 7,200 students."

On the other side of the table,  you have arguments such as the one formulated by Shyam Sharma from Stony Brook University: "In our discipline, the objective of students learning is not to basically learn the content of the discipline, but instead to use the content as a context to engage in intellectual discussions, to develop their positions, intellectual positions, to debate and argue and develop critical thinking skills. And that oftentimes requires the expertise and guidance and mentoring and close connection, one-on-one support to the students."

Having had the 'pleasure' of receiving tertiary education in a classroom on a campus as well as through online courses, with some subjects being the same, let me share my perspective.

Comparing the content-material of the subjects I took both at the campus college and through the online course - I can say it was largely the same. So, from that perspective, the 'quality' of the online course was no different than that of the campus college. Differences were mainly due to the fact that I attended the campus college in Europe and the online education in Africa, so case-studies and examples were local and therefore quite different. Considering that the core content was the same, which did I prefer? If I have to choose between sitting in a classroom with hundreds of other students where the professor is standing at the bottom with a microphone, or comfortably sitting at home and going through the material at my own pace, I have to say the latter is my preference. Video lectures can be paused and re-winded so a student can make sure he/she hears all the information. This luxury doesn't exist in a classroom, where one can get distracted by other students, or simply miss information as one is splitting one's concentration between hearing what the professor is sharing and writing it down simultaneously.

To attend classes I had to either travel from my home town to the campus each day, spending time and money to be able to sit in the class room, where most of the time I had to hear the professor repeat what was already explained in the textbooks - or I needed to rent a room on campus/close to the campus to not waste the time traveling between home and campus - but this obviously came at the extra cost of paying rent. It was the fact that 'the professor might share information that is not already covered in my books' that required me to attend, in order to make sure I had all the material necessary to prepare myself for assignments and exams. I didn't find that for the subjects that I took in both scenarios - which were largely theoretical - that I gained anything from sitting in the class room - the amount of students that attended the course were plentiful, not really allowing for any one-on-one support in any case. For some subjects I was sitting in a room with a thousand other students. Rather then, make one lecture that can be used by many universities - and professors can add their own insights, examples, exercises and notes to provide their personal touch. This was exactly the format that was used in my online education.

Now, there were subjects I attended on the campus college that were very different in nature from the ones I attended online, where the focus of the subjects was to develop practical skills such as working in teams, making presentations, going out in the field, interviewing people, etc. For such subjects where you require to produce and present a project through team-work, there are benefits to physically sitting in the same room and having a personal relationship with your co-students. It is in these instances that I would say it is worthwhile having an actual campus with professors assisting students to develop these skills.

When it comes to 'developing critical thinking skills' as an argument for class-attendance - I have to disagree. Critical thinking should be a focus in primary and secondary education. If a person is supported from an early age to develop a clear vocabulary and to develop common sense, then whether one is at home going through material or sitting in a class room - one can view the material in a critical manner either way. Online platforms such as forums can be utilized for students to exchange views on subject material as well. I personally engaged critically with all the material I was presented with throughout my online education, of which the Economist's Journey to Life blog is a clear testimony.

So, I believe that campus college education has been romanticized and been given more credit than it actually deserves. A large part of college and university courses can be provided online. This would reduce the cost of the education and make it accessible to a larger audience. Why have professors - experts in a certain field - spend their time every year giving the same lectures over and over again - when they could record it once and then make it available to students to watch at home? Surely, humanity would benefit if professors were able to dedicate a larger portion of their time on research and developing solutions to current problems? Reducing the cost of tertiary education, more students could afford it and avoid the trap of student loan debts. Some degrees can then be followed online entirely, whereas for others a mix would be optimal, to have some subjects/courses online and have classes in education centers/on campuses for practical skill development.

Read More

Day 262: Democratization - Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG - Pt3

This blog-post is a continuation of the blogs

Day 260: Democratization - Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG - Pt1
Day 261: Democratization - Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG - Pt2

where we've been investigating what exactly stands in our way from living the principle of Democracy in its true form - with government of the people, by the people and for the people. Herein we identified two crucial factors that require to be addressed in order to bridge the gap between the people and government, being:

1. Education
2. Ownership of Economic Influence

The point of Education was discussed in the previous blog, where it became clear that for individuals to develop political capital in order to become effective participants in direct democratic decision making, we require to invest in the people through a Living Income Guaranteed.

Within this blog we look at the second problem:

Ownership of Economic Influence

In the first part of this blog-series we stated that:

"Instead of politics being a one-party system - in the sense that only one party is involved: the people - we are working with a three-party system - there is the people, there is the elected government officials and there is those with the financial means that participate in rent-seeking to influence policy to their own advantage, regardless of public opinion."

Most are aware of the role of lobbyists in politics - but here some points of clarification:

"A lobbyist is an activist who seeks to persuade members of the government (like members of Congress) to enact legislation that would benefit their group."

"The highest paid lobbyists know that they can charge top dollar for their services because they can offer their clients access and influence at the highest levels of government. Not surprisingly, these firms' client lists are a "Who's Who" of the corporate scene; hiring these firms is simply beyond the reach of most organizations and special interests."

Those who can afford to hire the best lobbyists are able to affect change at the highest levels of government. This shows a simple equation: more economic power equals more political power. One can ask if lobbying shouldn't be made illegal - it definitely sounds fishy - but it is justified under the principle that anyone can make the government aware of their interests and ask to consider them in policy making. Some people are obviously better at this than others - and as with anything in a capitalist society - if there is a demand for services of a particular skill, the private sector will start to supply it according to the rules of the private sector. So - it seems that we will just have to compromise on the original principle - which is not meant to discriminate against who is able to/can afford to lobby the government - if we at the same time wish to retain a capitalistic free market system.

However, the Living Income Guaranteed proposal implicitly formulates a solution to this conundrum. The proposal suggests that every citizen of a country become shareholder of human rights companies (such as water provision, electricity, telecommunications, media) and natural resource companies (eg. mining companies) in their country, under the principle that such points should never be owned by  private persons as they should operate in the benefit of the whole of society. Such an adjustment would change the economic landscape from a political perspective quite drastically - whereas previously all huge corporations that can affect change through lobbying at the highest levels were owned by the elite in society - many big corporations would now be owned by the people and would become a source of effective economic influence and a vehicle for political participation on a level that simply did not exist before.

For a political dispensation to become democratically correct - we require to not only level the political but also the economic playing field because policy is determined as much by government as by the economic elite. So for those who have given up on democracy in the true meaning of the word: a Living Income Guaranteed would put an end to the compromised political systems of representation we have today.

There is one more objection to direct democracy that is still being raised - though in today's world it is so laughable I almost forgot to mention it. But here it is anyways: 'Direct democracy is not possible because it would just be too expensive and too difficult to get all the citizens in one place to rule the country.' In a world with the technology we have today - it is silly to still think of 'coming together' as a physical event. Facebook proves that it is possible to daily vote on issues - we're already doing it by the simple click of the mouse: 'Like'. So all that requires to be done is use the technology that has been developed and create online platforms for political participation.

So - there we have it: Education, Ownership of Economic Influence and Technology - all three points no longer an obstacle with the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed. Will we come up with more excuses - or will we realize that for the first time in the history of man we have the privilege of living in the day and age that the means and ability for implementing and practicing real democracy are available? Since everyone seems to agree that democracy is the best form of government, we at the Equal Life Foundation say: Put your money where your mouth is! It is not enough to call oneself a democrat or to support democracy 'in principle' - it requires investment in the people and an adjustment in ownership of economic influence - it requires us to ACT. Money makes the world go 'round and politics is herein no exception.

Read More

Day 261: Democratization - Put your Money where your Mouth is with LIG - Pt2

I ended off the previous blog with the following:

"Within allowing such a representative system of politics, we have created a 'gap' between demos and kratia - between the people and the government - where we can in fact no longer say that it is the people who are ruling, as it is the elected government officials in the executive and legislative branches of government that are ruling - and this excludes most citizens. This gap has allowed for secrecy and rent-seeking. Instead of politics being a one-party system - in the sense that only one party is involved: the people - we are working with a three-party system - there is the people, there is the elected government officials and there is those with the financial means that participate in rent-seeking to influence policy to their own advantage, regardless of public opinion.

In order to bridge the gap between the people and the government, two specific problems require to be addressed:

1. Education
2. Ownership of economic influence"

Let's start with discussing the first problem.

Education

In principle, everyone seems to agree that the people should rule together - there is an undeniable sense of moral rightness within this - society should together lay down the laws by which it will organize itself and together give direction to their shared environment through public policy - simply because - we are all, individually yet together, a part of a certain society and there is no acceptable justification to exclude any free citizen from this process. In practice, however, Plato's argument still holds strong. "The people are too easily swayed by emotion"; "the people cannot see the bigger picture"; "the people don't have sufficient knowledge and understanding of politics, economics, ecology, law, you name it". There is of course truth in this argument - however, it is not one that cannot be overcome.

Plato lived in the 4th and 5th century BC - so that's about 25 centuries ago - and still, we have not seriously attempted to overcome this problem in order to uplift our political system to the principle it morally requires to ascribe to. What have we been doing for these 25 centuries? Is it so hard to find a way to empower individuals so that they may be capable of critical thinking that in the last 25 centuries we didn't manage to come up with one? Or is it just that we haven't actually tried and rather gave up before having started because it is more convenient that way, at least for those individuals that currently do have the capacity of influencing decision making.

So - let's create a profile of the 'type' of citizen that would have the intellectual capacity of participating in political life.

We can imagine such a person:
- Having a rich vocabulary that enables him/her to participate in discussions in the political arena; big and difficult words are not seen as big and difficult for this person, they are words with a meaning
- Being relatively emotionally stable in that emotions/feelings do not play a decisive role in this person's decision making process
- Being interested in and informed in terms of current affairs

The points listed above refer to a person having political capital. So - what makes one person have political capital and another person not? How can such capital be developed and how can we facilitate the development of political capital within individuals in order to eradicate the education-problem standing in the way of manifesting a real democracy?

Which is one of the main variables that determines the richness of one's vocabulary?

SES.

'SES' is something you'll often see in sociological and psychological scientific research, because it determines almost Everything about a person's development, and place in society. 'SES' stands for socioeconomic status and formally refers to the income, job and education level of the parents. "Fifty years of research has revealed the sad truth that the children of lower-income, less-educated parents typically enter school with poorer language skills than their more privileged counterparts. By some measures, 5-year-old children of lower socioeconomic status score more than two years behind on standardized language development tests by the time they enter school."

Now - which is one of the main variables that determines emotional intelligence?

SES!

According to research: "High socioeconomic [students] are found to be more responsible, better able to make intelligent decisions using a healthy balance of emotions and reason, better able to focus on task at hand and pay attention. They have more control over their feelings as compared to low socioeconomic status students."

Starting to see a pattern here...

What makes a person interested in current affairs in such a way that they actually read the news and keep abreast of developments in the region/nation/world?

That question refers back to the first point of vocabulary; one of the main reason why people don't watch the news is because they don't understand the vocabulary involved, which brings us back to SES.
Secondly - many individuals do not understand the importance of watching the news in terms of how it affects them or do not see how them being informed about problems would increase the likelihood for the problem to be solved. This is a cultural point that is largely created through the very representative system of democracy we have today - where individual citizens simply do not see how their voice, how their views would make any difference. It is someone else's responsibility to come up with a solution, so why even bother getting informed? So - this particular problem that is preventing the development of political capital is the very political system in place today and can thus not be seen as a reason or argument for not changing it.

Political capital, like any form of capital, requires investment to grow and develop. Seeing that socioeconomic status is one of the main determining factors of the development of such political capital within individuals - and seeing that this political capital is a necessity to enable people to rule their country in terms of the principle of democracy we all seem to agree is best for everyone - it becomes clear that the 'problem' of education is not insurmountable - it only requires us to do a simple thing: Invest in the people!

And this is exactly what an implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed would do: ensure that each one has a dignified income, in other words - ensuring there are no more individuals with 'low' socioeconomic status in society. In seeing to what extent one's socioeconomic status affects one's abilities, one's opportunities, one's power to affect change, why would we allow anyone to have a 'low' socioeconomic status? We surely wouldn't wish it on ourselves or our own children - instead, we (would) want to give them the best possible nurturing grounds - and so - this courtesy, we should extend to all in society.

Anyone who calls themselves a Democrat but allows a representative system of democracy is a hypocrite, if they do not at the same time support a proposal such as the Living Income Guaranteed that would solve the conundrum of allowing the people to rule directly when currently individuals may not have sufficient political capital to do so. It is not acceptable to make such an assertion and then leave it at that - compromising for centuries on a principle that can be lived for real through a simple correction in how we value Life and substantiate it through real action.

To be continued.



Sources:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/september/toddler-language-gap-091213.html
http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/ns1103/017_16199ns1103_114_119.pdf

Read More

Day 254: Only for the Brave: Living Income Guaranteed and the End of Warfare

Q: Within my studies I touched upon international relations and there is a point I learned about which I see could be a concern regarding the point of the redirection of military budgets.

The point is similar to a point in the animal kingdom where the majority of decisions/disagreement/tension is resolved not through actual violent interaction, but rather through intimidation with large size, vicious displays etc... where one animal simply submits within self-preservation.

The USA has a large capacity for such intimidation which can be seen as preventing attacks from its smaller and less capable 'enemies' due to the fact that the US can annihilate them and they do not have the means to prevent this or retaliate in any substantial way. If the USA redirected the military budget, many could look at this as a form of weakening/weakness placing the USA in a more vulnerable position to be attacked due to its lessened ability to intimidate others or defend itself.

A: The offense-defense game in international political affairs is played by creating a continuous process of intimidation through potential military interventions by the world’s hegemons/ world powers upon nations that represent an obstacle to their expansionist greed. This is how ‘pseudo enemies’ are deliberately created to give continuation to a warfare industry that enables profit to be made upon these constant calls for the necessity to intervene in the name of peace and democracy in other countries or defend themselves from 'potential terrorist attacks' which is mostly a fabrication of such threat to keep the military industry in place.

  This continuous provocation forces the nations ‘under the mire’ to arm themselves as well to have the means for defense. This ever present tension between nations is what creates the belief that each nation should always be ready and prepared to go to war, when in fact wars only represent the interests of a few that benefit from it, since war is always implying death and destruction using the public’s opinion as manufactured consent to support it in the name of fighting against terrorism and national defense; other reasons include fighting certain nations that do not comply to the views of imperialist-powers and so represent  an obstacle to their own imperial position. However throughout history we’ve witnessed how wars are justified consent to commit crimes against humanity including the use of tax payer’s money to fund such destructive enterprises.

 For example, If the USA redirected their military budget to fund a Living Income Guaranteed,  those with common sense would not perceive it as a weakness, not intimidating and invading others  for the sole profit of few corporate elites, realizing that the nation is already having a weak economy due to most of the funds being directed for military purposes for the illegitimate benefit of a few, instead of strengthening the economy at home if such funds would support individual's financial security.

Q: I can see a point of fear wherein citizens might resist this point due to being seen as a militarily weak country vulnerable to being taken over, having resources taken or populations enslaved, much like the US and other countries have perpetrated in weaker countries in the form of such things as colonization in all its dimensions.

How can this fear be addressed?

Do you think that this is a real threat that could actually happen? If so, what do you suggest as a counter measure?
A: The fear of attack from outsiders is a propaganda-point in order to gain public support for wars that only have economic interests for few elites behind them. Instead of going to wars, the US and other power nations could focus on signing International treaties and create a sustainable global economy through implementing LIG in each nation, so that no wars are required to keep a non-sustainable economy at survival state. When the people of imperialist regimes grasp the real agenda behind the militarism and wars and do not participate in invasions and occupations, other countries no longer feel they have to protect themselves from the bullies/power nations of the world, the propensity for war will be significantly reduced.


For context:

Living Income Guaranteed - the Proposal: http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/

Living Income Guaranteed YouTube Channel - watch the hangouts: https://www.youtube.com/user/BIGuaranteed?feature=watch 

Living Income Guaranteed Website: http://livingincome.me

Read More

Day 253: Living Income Guaranteed and Means Testing

Q: What information will be gathered to determine whether a person can receive a Living Income Guaranteed?


A: This question pertains to another question, which is: who will receive a Living Income?

The purpose of LIG in its most basic form is to provide a Living Income to those individuals who are unemployed or retired. Similarly to how the system works in most countries today – if you are unemployed and want unemployment benefits you require to register yourself as unemployed. Therefore, those who are registered as unemployed will receive a LIG. Those who retire and wish ‘retirement benefits’ would also make it known that they are retiring – hence with LIG – those registered as retired will receive a Living Income.

If within a country it is seen that it is viable to extend LIG to a wider range of recipients, additional criteria can be specified, for instance: anyone who is a student, or even every child (where the funds would first be available to the parents and only at a certain age become available to the child) in order to replace child support grants. Within such a system, additional information will have to be available – and thus, a greater degree of information integration should be in place. In some countries information integration is already quite extensive and if the resources are available, it would be a viable option. Other countries will first require to grow their economy and information infrastructure in order to expand LIG to a wider range of recipients.

Another way of expanding LIG is to tailor the Living Income to individual needs. For instance, an unemployed person with a chronic medical condition that requires continuous treatment will have higher monthly expenses than a healthy unemployed person. Where possible, the Living Income received by those two individuals could be different in order to provide each one with a more equal living standard. Such individual tailoring will require even more information access as it requires a detailed overview of every person’s expenses. Whether such expansion of LIG takes place will depend on the will of the people: a more equitable distribution of LIG is possible, but it would require individuals to allow a greater degree of information transparency. In many countries the tax return system is already so detailed that such information sharing would not be seen as an issue. Of course – in order to not make LIG too expensive, it would again require a certain level of automatization and integration of information, interlinking the information that is available by various institutions through for instance an electronic identity card, a card with a chip that can be linked to bank accounts, etc. This would allow the LIG allocation system to run the relevant calculations and equations according to the information attached to each person’s ID. Instead of going through the tiring and costly process of completing forms, each one would for instance have an ID card reader at home, place the ID card into it and upload the information to the LIG allocation system. Again, where such technology is not yet being deployed, an online system that ties all the information of an individual together by ID number can be used.

One must remember that information sharing is generally resisted by individuals when it comes to income tax collection. The tendency exists to hide information in order to not be charged a higher tax rate. With LIG, we suggest no personal income tax be charged and information sharing would be done from the perspective of receiving benefits in the form of Living Income. As such, we don’t foresee great resistance towards this point. Also to remember that eligible citizens would have a RIGHT to a Living Income but not an obligation to claim this right. Hence, if a person declines the right to a Living Income, one would not share one’s information and this person will not be taken into account by the LIG allocation system.

Recipients of LIG are not required to show that they are actively looking for employment and there is no limit to the period of time that one is supported by LIG.

The question also involves a second question: How can it be verified that a person truly deserves a Living Income?

What would happen in a scenario where a person registers as unemployed in order to claim a Living Income when the person is in fact still employed and receiving an income at least double the Living Income? This pertains to information integrity and would be the responsibility of the institution that registers a person as unemployed. Measures can be taken to contact the previous employer in order to verify the person is indeed no longer employed and bank account transactions can be monitored. Another scenario is where a person is registered as unemployed and works ‘under the table’, where the combined income of LIG and the wage received enable a person to live a luxurious lifestyle. Such points will only effectively be eradicated once money is entirely digitized and no transactions can take place without there being a record of it in the system – which is a point that any country that implements LIG should work towards in order to minimize abuse of the system. One must remember however that employment in informal commerce is often motivated by the need to survive. With LIG, such motivations would fall away as one can live a dignified life through receiving a Living Income.


For more information on the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal - please read this Document and visit http://livingincome.me.

Read More

Day 252: The Rich Be Cursed, The Rich Be Blessed

This image of Harris Rosen has been circulating Facebook. I find it amusing to read the comments made under it. On the one hand society is angered by the rich for appropriating such huge amounts of money for themselves while others are struggling to make ends meet. Yet, when one of these rich people takes responsibility for one neighborhood, he is revered and blessed for doing 'God's work'. This creates quite a conundrum, because on the one side the rich are seen as the problem, as the cause of hardship of the poorer groups in society, but on the other side charity by the rich is seen as a miracle-solution, a divine intervention, that may save the world. The rich are cursed and the rich are blessed.

Truth is that it is indeed unacceptable that some may bathe in glory and riches, the world at their feet, if this disproportionate wealth is enabled by an economic system, which is the same system that can deny others a life of basic dignity. Even the most liberal philosophers tend to agree that liberty cannot be increased at the expense of others' opportunity to improve their well-being - yet due to the interconnectedness of our lives as a result of a shared economic system, it is undeniably what is happening.

At the same time one can see in the example of Harris Rosen that problems such as crime and structural poverty can be remedied through generosity, through giving, through sharing. But can we allow such charity to be dependent on the benevolence of the few rich who give a damn? Perhaps we have no choice, because one needs to have a lot of money to give away a residual amount one doesn't need for personal support. Of course, such a situation is unsustainable and implicitly allows the suffering of many as we submit to the whims of those who have the money to affect change. But is this the whole story?

In fact, each one of us has the power to affect change, because each one has the ability to vote for change. This vote of course does not mean much when the only available proposals are the ones who maintain the status quo. This is where the Living Income Guaranteed proposal intends to offer a solution. With Living Income Guaranteed, the rich can live by the principle of liberty, putting their talents to use to improve their own lifestyle and fulfill their dreams - while at the same time each one is guaranteed of a life of dignity with the opportunity to improve themselves and build themselves up to a similar position. With Living Income Guaranteed, charity would be institutionalized through the provision of a Living Wage to anyone who doesn't have the means to otherwise support themselves. Such a Living Wage can be funded through the profits of companies that form part of the national heritage. This means each citizen is owner of these companies, and in effect, each citizen takes part in charity. As such - we ensure that charity reaches every neighborhood and every family in need of it - and not the lucky few that happen to live in a neighborhood that some rich fellow 'fell in love with'.

The word 'charity' comes from the Latin word 'caritas', which can be translated as 'generous love' - or in other words, charity stands for: Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself - and as the word 'generous' shows: requires giving. As a principle - charity should then not be exclusive or temporary, but institutional; as an agreement by the people to do unto each other what we would like to be done unto.

With Living Income Guaranteed we would no longer curse the rich, because their enrichment is not done at the expense of the rest of society and we would no longer bless the rich, because we have empowered ourselves be the source of the greatest charity through enabling a Living Income.

For more information on the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal - please read this Document and visit http://livingincome.me.

Related articles

• What If Every Millionaire Were to Follow Harris Rosen's Lead?
• Day 252: The Rich Be Cursed, The Rich Be Blessed
• Day 227: The Myth of Conscious Buying
• Day 350: A Living Income Guaranteed will End Charity - for Real
• Day 228: Sorry I'm not Qualified to Understand That

Read More

Day 251: Living Income Guaranteed and Market Mechanics

This blog is in response to a comment made on Day 250: Economics Nobel Prize reduced to Laughingstock :
“Economics is about, or should be about, how to employ the available means in such a way that no want more urgently felt should remain satisfied because the means suitable for its attainment were employed - wasted - for the attainment of a want less urgently felt. This is what it means to economize: to allocate scarce resources to their most productive/urgent use. "Most urgent use" is determined by supply and demand as established on the free market. I agree with the criticism that empirical economics seem frivolous and misplaced. But I disagree with the conclusion of this article; the only way to make the world more wealthy is by increasing the ratio of capital to people through investment and savings. Wealth redistribution will only succeed in making us all equally poor. Well written piece, though, thank you for a thoughtful opinion.” - Matt Summers

“Economics is about, or should be about, how to employ the available means in such a way that no want more urgently felt should remain satisfied because the means suitable for its attainment were employed - wasted - for the attainment of a want less urgently felt. This is what it means to economize: to allocate scarce resources to their most productive/urgent use. "Most urgent use" is determined by supply and demand as established on the free market.”

The effectiveness of markets in being able to successfully allocate resources to ‘their most productive/urgent use’ is dependent on how effectively the market is able to capture supply and demand signals. Here, we currently have a problem as not everyone has an equal opportunity to access the field of the free market and cast their demand / signal their need. Access to the free market is restricted, and the only way to gain access is by having a ticket – where one’s ‘purchasing power’ is representative of such a ticket that will grant you access.

So long you do not have the money / financial means to back up your demands, your demands will fall on deaf ears and not be catered for. Alternatively, depending on the scope of purchasing power available to you, your demands may only be catered for partially, as you are unable to ‘validate’ or ‘redeem’ all of your needs into demands due to the size and scope of one’s purchasing power – and thus the free market will only pick up one those demands/needs that are backed up by purchasing power, while not registering others.
With not everyone’s demands in effect being picked up by the market, we get a distorted view and picture of what we believe is wanted/needed - and use this distorted picture as a map to allocate scarce resources. To actually be able to direct and allocate resources to their most productive and urgent use, we require a lot more information – information that is missing and not being received simply because not everyone has the capacity to validate their demands through purchasing power.

Whether we like it or not, we currently live in a world with huge levels of income inequality^[1] and thus purchasing power inequality – where there is an inverse relationship existent between the size of purchasing power and the amount of people who have purchasing power.
In terms of the mechanics of Supply and Demand, this structure gets translated into the market receiving a big amount of information about the demands of a few people, while receiving little to no information from the majority of the people who have smaller to no purchasing power.

Within providing a Living Income Guaranteed, the goal is not to ‘equalize’ the entire purchasing power structure – but merely to give those at the bottom / those who do not have access to the market mechanisms -- the chance to be heard and recognized within the market. Providing a Living Income Guaranteed effectively provides everyone with a base amount of purchasing power, so that at a minimum everyone can effectively signal their demands to be able to achieve a dignified living standard.

“Wealth redistribution will only succeed in making us all equally poor.”

Here I will assume that your statement is based on the same logic Nozick follows, where he perceives a problem in redistribution leading to disincentive for the productive members of the economy who would then produce less and less until they cover only their immediate needs and having no ‘surplus’ to redistribute.
In terms of the Living Income Guaranteed proposal, where we want to ensure that those who are unable to sustain themselves financially through providing them with a Living Income – we are not looking at a massive movement of redistribution. In terms of the capital and wealth that is available within the world, it only takes a small fraction^[2] being moved from top to bottom to give the majority of people the necessary ‘bump’ to be able to realize a dignified living standard for themselves.
There will thus still be a wide range of incomes, a wide range of competition and more than enough incentive to be innovative and keep producing.

A more drastic change will rather be seen within the market system within the mechanics of supply and demand being able to capture a lot more information about the needs and wants of people – which will provide society with more effective and accurate guidelines as to where resources should be allocated for their most productive/urgent use. The biggest change will be seen in the living standards of people and the actual realization of having everyone’s fundamental human rights secured.

Here, we can look for instance at the ‘ideal’ many people envisage when looking at the distribution of wealth in society. As you can see from the graph below, it still leaves plenty of incentive for those who are incentive driven to be productive and innovative – while at the same time allowing the bottom two quintiles to have sufficient wealth to live a dignified life (and to have any share of wealth at all for that matter! Since both the first and second quintile barely get registered on the ‘actual’/’current’ graph).

The Nozickian notion that redistribution will ‘leave us all equally poor’, is a very radical and extremist position, which takes on a very rigid and narrow view on human nature and values. It is assumed that we only care about ourselves and within this will go as far as compromising and sabotaging our own living standards just because we don’t want anyone else to reap benefits of ‘our work’ and ‘our effort’. There is no space for relating to one another and helping each other out – even when it comes down to something basic such as having everyone’s fundamental human rights covered. We suggest that humans are not the completely irrationally selfish beings Nozick assumes us to be, and that we are capable of compassion and can realize this compassion in the form of having everyone’s fundamental human rights secured.

“But I disagree with the conclusion of this article; the only way to make the world more wealthy is by increasing the ratio of capital to people through investment and savings.”

This statement is not necessarily true – as it assumes that we are currently experiencing a ‘lack’ in real capital and actual resources to effectively provide everyone with a proper living standard. The capital and the resources are already here – but through the market system operating at an inefficient level (due to our current supply and demand curves not capturing the full extent of demand as explained above), the capital/resources are not moving and not being directed towards those who need it most.

This is how we end up with scenarios of food dumping and having huge amounts of food destroyed and thrown away parallel to having high levels of hunger and starvation in the world. This is simply because our economic system is not sensitive and attuned to human needs and instead being irrationally driven by the profit motive. Economics and the market have become all about non-human elements as profit and numbers which have stopped serving the general human interest. By placing in a Living Income Guaranteed system, we are placing the human element back in the center of economics, allowing economics to be the life supporting instrument that it was destined to be. Economics and money are then here to support ourselves in living our life – and not the other way around where are lives are lived in the service of money and the economy, as how the majority of people’s lives are currently being lived.
It’s time to reverse the roles.
 
[1] See our blog on the World’s Lorenz Curve, which displays almost perfect inequality “Day 143: The Neo-Apartheid Era”
[2] See “World’s 100 richest could end global poverty 4 times over”, which is but one example of ‘how little it takes’ to make a ‘big difference’ for many

Related articles

• What is the Living Income Guaranteed?
• The Pope on Inequality and Unfettered Markets
• Day 251: Living Income Guaranteed and Market Mechanics
• Day 252: The Rich Be Cursed, The Rich Be Blessed
• Day 226: Living Income Guaranteed will Prevent Destruction of Homes

Related articles

Read More