Corruption – Broken at the Core – Pt2

This post is a continuation to

Corruption - Broken at the Core

I ended off the previous post with:

“So if we want to understand how ‘those guys’ can be corrupt and how to change it – all we really need to do is ask ourselves: why am I corrupt? What makes me choose self-interest over what is best for everyone? What do you think? What do you see?”

You will probably be able to relate to a sort of ‘instinct’ within you to protect ‘me’ from ‘everyone else’. We tend to place our self-interest before the interest of all because we assume that another will take part of our share, will take what belongs to us or even chip away parts of us for their own purpose. If you have a look, that which stands at the center of this instinct is our relationship with giving and receiving. We don’t trust that we will receive what we need, so we won’t give to others what they need, rather hoard it all, because otherwise we may find ourselves lacking.

In a world where there is actually enough food for everyone, enough resources to support everyone – why does every single human being experience the threat of imminent lack, so much so that in almost every decision and action the principle of self-interest will override the principle of the common good? If there is enough for everyone, then why do we feel there isn’t or may not be somewhere in the near or distant future? Because our access to the resources that are here, is defined by the most godless (or shall I say ‘the most human’) of creations we have ever seen: an unfair money system. It doesn’t matter if there is enough if your access to it is not guaranteed.

The very foundation of our relationship with giving and receiving has been compromised through our acceptance of a system where money is not guaranteed and so access to what each one needs is not guaranteed. I mean – think about it: the very resources that each one needs to survive are not accessible to everyone. And this is something everyone grows up with – our very lives are dependent on whether there is money or not. Our very lives are dependent on whether we receive a big enough share of the resources. When we are never really certain that we will continue to receive our basic human necessities, is it surprising that self-preservation has become our primary drive? Not only when it comes to money and getting food on the table – but in every single aspect of our lives. Because EVERYTHING in life in some way involves the need to give and receive. When our relationship with those two words is tainted, twisted and compromised, we’re truly broken at our core – inhibited to live life to the fullest, unable to rise to our fullest potential as humanity.

The proposal of a Living Income Guaranteed is then about a lot more than simply making sure everyone has enough money. It’s about rehabilitating our understanding of what it means to give and receive, it’s about laying down the chains we have imposed on ourselves, that have driven us to a version of human life that is scarcely worth remembering. If ever the human race is erased and a new species comes to inhabit the Earth and finds records of human society – they would describe us as the most despicable race that has ever lived, not even able to share and live in peace with each other, let alone with the other beings that dwell on this planet – because that is the only legacy we have ever created and perpetuated. The Living Guaranteed Proposal is a second chance, a shot at redemption – we’ve only ever proven what it means to live in fear and self-interest. Why not prove what it means to live with care, compassion, consideration and respect for each other? It starts with a living income guaranteed.

Read More

Corruption - Broken at the Core

In hearing the word ‘corruption’ we almost automatically think of politicians, business owner, corporations and MONEY – more specifically: putting money where it’s not supposed to go and using power in ways it’s not supposed to be used. We think of all those people ‘out there’ doing it and how angry it makes us, because with THEM being corrupt, it leaves less for the rest of us ‘poor victims’. ‘If only there would be no corruption’ – ‘everything would be so much better’ – ‘how could they’ – well, I assume you know your own thoughts on the matter… Of course if we wanted to just keep reproducing the same thought patterns, there would be no need for writing blogs, sooo… have you considered the following:

What is it about corruption that makes it corruption? What is the essence or the nature of corruption? It really boils down to: acting in self-interest when you should be acting in the interest of the whole. When corruption happens on a ‘big scale’ – eg: when there is a lot of money involved, this really pisses us off, I mean: how dare they!? But when corruption happens on a small scale – then, it’s just ‘life’, ‘human nature’ or ‘only normal’. Just ask yourself and answer honestly: how much of your time do you act in the interest of all and how much of your time do you act purely in your own self-interest? You’ll find that most of the time you’re not even considering how your actions and words might affect other people. Does corruption only apply when it is done by people who are explicitly within positions of so-called responsibility? Aren’t we all always in a position of responsibility simply by virtue of us being here and the fact that we don’t exist in isolation of other people, of nature and of the animal kingdom – even if that’s how we have split things up and categorized them neatly in our minds?

So if we want to understand how ‘those guys’ can be corrupt and how to change it – all we really need to do is ask ourselves: why am I corrupt? What makes me choose self-interest over what is best for everyone? What do you think? What do you see?

Let's continue this discussion in the next post – in the meantime: ponder over these questions and leave your answers in a comment.

Read More

Meconomics: Can you Buy Happiness?

This post is a continuation to:

Meconomics: I need my Wants and Want my Needs to be Satisfied
Meconomics: Wants and Needs in your Daily Living 
Meconomics: Do you Spend your Money Objectively or Subjectively?
 


I ended off my previous post with the following:

“So – we have looked at how wants can in a moment override a need – where we identified subjective experiences and time as important players – but we can look a bit further and ask: why does it sometimes feel like we ‘NEEEED’ the things that we ACTUALLY don’t need. Objectively speaking – they are wants, things you can go without – and yet, you can experience a sense of ‘urgency’ and ‘must have’ and ‘I need it’ towards that which you want. Now wants really start messing with your sense of priority, lol. It’s one thing to be clear on the fact that what you are enticed by in a moment is not something you truly need, but you want to indulge yourself anyway – it’s another to feel like you actually NEED it when you don’t.”

Let’s do an exercise: search for one of those moments in your memory – a moment where: you felt that you absolutely NEEDED to have something, where, if you look back at it now, you didn’t ACTUALLY really need it, but you wanted it so bad that it FELT like you needed it. Now zoom in to the actual experience of need and ask yourself the following: were you experiencing physical discomfort? Were you deprived of something on a physical level, which needed replenishing to ensure you remain functional in your body? Were you in physical danger?

You’ll see that the answers to those questions are ‘no’ – because the apparent ‘need’ was not experienced on a physical level – it was instead experienced on an ENERGETIC/ EMOTIONAL level – where we feel we are being emotionally tortured so long as we don’t go and buy whatever it is we’ve now fixated on wanting to get. If those are not actual, physical, genuine needs, then what are they?

Here we need to actually look at different types of wants or desires. And more specifically – how realistic our expectations are of fulfilling these wants and desires. See – you can want to have a cup of coffee, because you expect that for a moment you’ll really enjoy drinking that coffee and it might assist you being more focused and awake for a short period of time – and when actually having that coffee – that’s exactly what you’re experiencing and what happens. That would be a want with realistic expectations. A want with unrealistic expectations, would be for instance if you want to buy the newest smart-phone because you think your friends will accept you if you keep up with the latest tech trends. What you actually want here, or expect to gain – is acceptance – that is the underlying want you are looking to fulfil. Now smartphones can increasingly do very impressive stuff – but giving you acceptance in yourself and your life is a huge and unrealistic responsibility to place on any phone. Realistic expectations of fulfilling a want stand in direct relation to the actual properties and functions of your want. If you like the taste of coffee, then you will enjoy drinking that cup of coffee and coffee has the characteristic and property of keeping you awake and more focused for a little while – those expectations stand in direct relation to your want, which is coffee. Acceptance however, is not directly related to a smartphone – it’s not within its power to give that to you. When you buy a smartphone, what you will get is a smartphone – acceptance is not part of the package.

It is when we have such unrealistic expectations of fulfilling a particular want – that the experience of ‘want’ can be experienced as a ‘need’ or a ‘must have’. And this is known by the marketing industry and is deliberately used within advertising strategies. I watched a series the other day where one of the characters, who was a car salesman said: “I don’t sell cars, I sell freedom”. As an exercise for yourself, you can look at advertisement and try to see what unrealistic expectation they are trying to create within their viewers – and as a fun challenge within that: try to see how many products apparently will give you passionate sex, lol – advertisements of all kinds of products, from soft drinks, to cars, to perfumes – implicitly play on the desire and urge for sex to sell their products for them. 

So what is it about those wants where we have unrealistic expectations, that we would experience them as a ‘need’?

I’ll continue exploring this topic in my next post.

Read More

Day 244: Transforming Currency into Money with Living Income Guaranteed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles

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

Read More

Day 235: Living Income and Effective Markets

"... and it leads to mediocrity by furthering the emergence of a “mass culture” where the lowest tastes are catered for. Furthermore, it is contrary to human nature with its rich diversity. Why make equal that what was not equal in the first place?"

The above quote was made in relation to the promotion of Equality within society. Within the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed, we are promoting Equality within placing everyone in a position where one can participate in Life, economically, politically, socially and culturally.

By giving those who are unable or have yet to establish a stable income stream for themselves, a living income – we ensure that everyone is equipped to participate in society. This places everyone on a more ‘equal footing’, as everyone is able to take care of one’s basic needs and contribute to society.

By implementing a living income guaranteed, we will have a more accurate market system. As more demands are being validated through a living income providing everyone with money to ‘back up’ their demands – our demand curves will more accurately show and reflect the populations demand, consequently allowing supply to adjust to the actual demand levels of the consumers (as everyone is now being recognized as a consumer) and catering for that which is actually wanted by society. Previously (or currently), only those demands were recognized which were backed up by one’s purchasing power. This means that there’s an exclusive catering mechanism taking place for those who have money, by those who want even more money. From this, a mass culture emerged in terms of the arts like in the Music Industry, where mainstream music is all about what ‘most of the people who have money’ want to hear – where only the taste of money is being catered for as that which will be ‘most profitable’ – leading to Music Industry ignoring lots of areas of Music to explore as there is ‘no money in it’, which leaves us with a bland, monotonous, mediocre mainstream music industry. By extending economic participation to everyone, more people are able to ‘place their votes’ as their demands of what it is they want / would like to receive – and thus the music industry will receive a larger variety of signals of types of music to be explored and developed.

For more on the Music Industry and Living Income, read the following blog:Living Income and the Music Industry

Promoting equality such as equality in economic participation, does not lead to mediocrity and ‘mass culture’ – that, we already have and is the result of a profit based system, a system of discrimination. By implementing a Living Income Guaranteed, everyone is able to signal their demands to the market effectively. Only when we have a Living Income can our “human nature with its rich diversity” be captured and reflected in our society and economy and can we truly enjoy the variety and creativity that the Human has to offer.

Stand for a Living Income Guaranteed, Stand for a Better and more Effective Market System!

Related articles

• 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
• Day 265: Do you still have a job?
• Day 350: A Living Income Guaranteed will End Charity - for Real

Read More

Day 217: Who's Free Riding Who?

In economics you have the 'free-rider' phenomenon, a concept which if often brought forward in favour of capitalism.

The free rider concept refers to instances where someone enjoys the benefits of a product or service, without having paid for that particular good or service.

A classic example that is used in text books is where someone uses a form of public transportation such as a train, without having paid for a ticket, and is thus 'free riding'. The same goes when there is for example a project where there is collective action to reduce emissions as to increase air quality. Some may not want to participate/contribute and keep their emission levels the same while everyone else is lowering theirs, still resulting in better air quality for them, even though they did not contribute.

Now, within the context of economics, capitalism thinks to have the solution for the free rider problem, by trying to capitalize on as much as possible. If everything has a price, then everyone who uses whatever good or service, will pay.

Linked to this is also the whole 'but I worked so hard for this' and 'it's not fair that I have worked for this and that others besides me are benefiting from it, if they want it they should just work for it' mentality. This is the result from believing that our current society and economic system truly provide everyone with 'equal opportunity' -- while this is not the case.

When the Equal Money System is put forward, the 'free rider problem' gets hauled in to show how 'unfair' the system is, because everyone is provided for even though not everyone may be contributing (because they are unable to).

The problem with the free rider concept is that it is only ever brought up in the interest of holding on to one's money where "it's mine! And I worked for it!". Other forms of free riding are never brought up.

If everyone consumed as much as an average American, we would need 5 planet Earths. Put otherwise, it's a situation where 5% of the population consumes 20% of the Earth's resources. Isn't that free riding as well? You are then free riding because other people both now and in the future will bare the consequences of the unsustainable lifestyle someone else enjoys. Free riding doesn't only occur when someone is enjoying the benefits, but when someone is not taking part in resolving the consequences of the actions you are involved in.
People are being deprived of resources which are being directed towards unsustainable lifestyles – and so people are free riding on the lives of others and free riding on borrowed time from generations to come. Dumping waste into the ocean or poor countries with weak environmental regulations is free riding the Earth. The continuous postponement of coming to an actual agreement that is binding for everyone to reduce emissions and use of fossil fuels is free riding. Each time we wait with making crucial decisions which we KNOW will affect future generations is free riding. Just because ‘we won’t be here to face the music’, we don’t care = free riding.

We live in a polarized world of massive inequality – where some have more than they’ll ever need and other barely, and even don’t, get by on a day to day basis. Rich countries positions today are the result of free riding other countries in the past under forms such as colonisation and slavery. Without free riding, capitalism as it exists today would not have been possible.

Instead of moaning about people benefiting from your efforts, it would be better to spend one’s energy towards ensuring that we have a world that is Best for All to make sure that we can all live and live sustainably while ensuring the safety of life for future generations. This is the only form of free riding that is really a problem – as it has actual physical consequences on the life of others, while the free riding problems most people currently care about only hurts one’s self-interest and ego and does not really pose any real problems.

In an Equal Money System, we care about real free riding problems and will act according to the principle of Prevention is the Best Cure to minimize consequence as much as we are able to

Related articles

• Day 363: Basic Human Rights and Crime (Part One)
• 338. What is Equal Money Capitalism?
• Day 336: Democracy and Capitalism are the Redistribution of Wealth - (Part Two)
• 361. Food is a Human Right | Equal Money
• Day 359: Pricing and Labeling in Equal Money Capitalism Profit-Share (Part Two)
• 339. Value in Equal Money

Read More

Day 211: Labour Flexibility and Equal Money Capitalism

In Zimbabwe, the Reserve Bank has been laying off people as part of desperate cost-cutting measure. The employees that had been retrenched have not received their full retrenchment packages that they are supposed to get.

In the meantime, people are unemployed and are finding it hard to find a new job, with many resorting to work in the informal section. In Third World countries like Zimbabwe, entire families are often dependent on a single person’s income. This leaves many families suddenly without the necessary funds to pay for their medical aid, while kids are not going to school anymore since they can no longer afford to pay the school fees.

Some have gone as far as killing themselves as they succumbed to the stress of unemployment and no retrenchment package in sight.

In the light of all of this, one economist had the following perspective:

“The idea that people are deserving of compensation if their employers can no longer retain them has never been properly justified. The employees’ compensation for their labour was given to them as their wage every month while they were working. Why should compensation continue when their work is no longer needed?” Robertson told IPS.”

This is your typical ‘Free Martketeer’ opinion – where people are no longer considered as being living beings, but are reduced to mere commodities, which one should be able to hire and fire as one pleases. They also have a fancy word for it: “Labour Flexibility”.

Obviously a statement like this will only come from someone whose job is secure and will not find themselves being thrown around by the merciless tides of the labour market any time soon. The Corporation as an entity on its own has gained a superior status than living, breathing, human beings. The corporation is a dead thing – it’s merely an assembled structure. Yet, it’s the corporations who are in the position of ensuring life security to people, and when this is threatened there are consequences:

““The suffering of the retrenched workers is transferred to their families, children and spouses. Tension and stress grows, leading to unwarranted domestic disputes and eventual violence and abuse of children,” Bohwasi told IPS.”

Within Equal Money Capitalism, we get this.

That is why Labour Flexibility within Equal Money Capitalism will take on a whole new dimension. Instead of Labour Flexibility entailing the freedom of the corporation to hire and fire with no restrictions in place – Labour Flexibility will be a principle of understanding that one require to be Flexible with Labour, as it is clear that one will not always be able to occupy the same job position. This may be due to fluctuations in the needs and requirements of the population, the environment or technological innovation. Thus, within this flexibility, the corporation ensures that one can continue employment elsewhere (such as the compassion department), as the corporation understands and realizes that the only capital which matters is the Capital as Life as the employees who bring life into the corpus of the Corporation– and will thus tend to its Capital with the utmost care and respect.

To Read the full article on the Zimbabwe retrenchment disaster, go to: http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/zimbabwe-struggling-to-pay-laid-off-workers/

Related articles

• Day 192: Demand and Flexibility in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 197: Equal Money Capitalism - Freedom or Control?
• Day 335: Democracy and Capitalism are the Redistribution of Wealth - (Part One)
• Day 195: Moneyless Societies and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 206: Will Equal Money Bring about a Utopia?
• Day 341: "I am an Entrepreneur"

Read More

Day 207: Will Equal Money Bring about a Utopia?

It's interesting when the concept of Equal Money is introduced on discussion boards, on the one hand the Equal Money Team is blamed for being Utopian and on the other hand is being blamed of being fascist.

So - let's look at the Utopia point in this blog and in the next one look at the fascism point.

Will Equal Money Capitalism bring about a Utopia?

Introducing Equal Money will definitely change our society and solve many of the problems we have been struggling with for decades. Will it become a utopia, though?

You're still going to have to go to work. Your work environment will probably be different and you'll probably be doing something you actually like to do - and, hey, you might actually have a say in company policies. But, you're still going to have that alarm going off in the morning and you're going to have to show up for work every workday.

Pregnancies will still mess with your hormones, where you have to suddenly cry for no reason or have weird cravings or feel tired. Though, you'll have a qualified medical team to support you and so will your neighbor and every other woman.

Your house won't clean itself. You're still going to have to get your hands dirty to keep your household in order. Though, you'll have the comfort of knowing that it's the same for everyone else, since there will probably be no-one who wants to go clean up after another - so, cleaning will just be part of living in the physical world.

You'll still have to study and apply yourself in everything you do if you want to be effective in it. If you want to make something of yourself and your life, you'll have to work for it. And you might need to try out a whole range of different things to discover where you 'fit in'. Though, with Equal Money, everyone will have an equal opportunity to do this.

You'll still get sick - snotty nose, fever, diarrhea - those annoying physical conditions will still visit us from time to time. But you'll have your proper healthcare and a schooling system that is geared towards educating you to be informed about how to prevent as much illness as you can.

So, for those who are worried that Equal Money Capitalism is too much of a utopic idea - don't worry - life will still suck from time to time. But the main stress-point of worrying about money will be removed - which will make life so much more enjoyable.

It's not because we're showing a different way of living, a different way of organizing our society - a way that provides results that are best for all - that we're naive or utopic. It just means we haven't given up yet and that we are not interested in settling for anything less. Why should we settle for anything less? For some, Equal Money Capitalism might not bring about that much of a change at all - those that have a life of security will see it being continued. But for soooo many others, it would mean living a secure life for the first time. Does that make us evil? Does that make us stupid?

Did you know there's children in poor countries who think that there's something wrong with the world just for a moment, which makes it that they can't have food and a house to live in, that makes it that they have to work so that the family can make ends meet? And did you know they think that the people in rich countries are working every day to try to fix the problem so that they don't have to live like that anymore? I mean - let's do that - let's fix the problem.

Related articles

• Day 195: Moneyless Societies and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 181: Applied Equality in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 196: Market Mechanisms and Equal Money
• Day 183: The Myth of No Alternative and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 180: The Word 'Capitalism' in 'Equal Money Capitalism'
• Day 197: Equal Money Capitalism - Freedom or Control?
• Day 185: Students feel fee squeeze
• Day 193: Is Equal Money Capitalism Doomed to Fail?
• Day 186: The Invisible Hand is Invisible because it Doesn't Exist - Equal Money Capitalism and Providing Results that are Best for All
• Day 327: GLAMOUR

Read More

Day 204: Food Monopoly and Equal Money Capitalism

For full article, please read:
GMOs, again…
http://www.b-fair.net/?p=5605

1. No health safety testing

Genetically engineered (GE) foods have never been safety tested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), thanks to a 20-year-old policy that says it’s up to the biotech companies to determine the safety of genetically engineered (GE) foods. So while all other developed countries require safety testing for GE plants, the government agency in charge of protecting U.S. citizens lets biotech companies, who stand to make billions in profits from GE foods, conduct their own “voluntary safety consultations.”

2. No labeling

If the FDA isn’t going to test GE foods for safety, the least it could do is require labeling, so people can choose to avoid GMOs if they want. But so far, the FDA has rejected labeling under the controversial argument that GE foods are “substantially equivalent” to their non-genetically engineered counterparts.

 The U.S. and Canada stand alone as the only two industrialized countries yet to provide citizens the fundamental, democratic right to know what’s in the food they eat and feed their children.

The FDA’s refusal to support this basic right stands in direct defiance of the overwhelming will of the American people. The FDA has received over a million petitions from concerned citizens demanding that GMOs be labeled – the most received on any issue in the Agency’s history. The most recent poll shows that the overwhelming majority – 82 percent – of Americans want mandatory labeling laws. But our calls for transparency continue to fall on deaf ears.

Failure to label GMOs forces consumers to serve as test subjects for a massive GMO experiment, and makes it nearly impossible to trace health issues back to their source. It also prevents small farmers, the organics industry, and truly natural food producers from competing on an equal playing field.

5. Privatizing seeds

The FDA’s love affair with Monsanto has led to the privatization, and patenting, of the very source of life: seeds. Monsanto is allowed to sell its patented genetically engineered (GE) “Roundup Ready” soybean seeds, and other patented seeds, to farmers under a contract that prohibits the farmers from saving the next-generation seeds and replanting them. Farmers who buy Monsanto’s GE seeds are required to buy new seeds every year. Monsanto then sells the same farmers its proprietary pesticides, like Roundup, that can be sprayed in huge amounts on Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready crops, killing everything except the GE plants.

It’s a win-win for Monsanto. But everybody else loses.

In an Equal Money System, Food will be a Basic Human Right. Food will no longer be detrimentally linked to money, where money decides the availability and quality of food and transparency of information. Food will no longer be tool for Profit but a Source of Life.

Within being put central to Life -- the development and growth of food will be in a such a way to support one's Human Body and support the Equilibrium of Life on Earth.

Different ways will have to be considered in terms of what additional tools can be used as to minimize harmful effects of agriculture on the land, air and ocean -- a holistic view will have to be applied.

Foodstuffs such as seeds, will not be able to be owned by anyone other than the Earth. It comes from the Earth – it makes no sense to claim it as one’s own and to create a monopoly around it. As such, seeds will simply be available.

Food labeling will be transparent and clear - so everyone will know exactly what it is they are getting and what went into the production of the specific food.

Food security will be guaranteed. Food will fulfil its role as Life Support and will be able to be enjoyed to its fullest potential. Starvation and Famine will be eradicated and all people will have access to their specific nutritional requirements to live their life to its utmost potential.

 

Related articles

• Day 293: Predictable Futures and Markets Forced
• Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 181: Applied Equality in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 203: The Mockery of Democracy Continues - Dead People Voting in Zimbabwe
• Day 289: Alcohol is the Corporate Psychologist
• Day 195: Moneyless Societies and Equal Money Capitalism

Read More