The Humpty-Dumpty Effect - Meconomics

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?
Meconomics: Can you Buy Happiness?

In the previous post we started looking at why and how it is that we can experience certain wants as a ‘need’ or a ‘must have’, where we looked at the role of expectations:

“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 really 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’.”

There’s many things we feel we are lacking, not on a physical level, but on a… let’s call it ‘beingness-level’ – be it acceptance, freedom, passion, intimacy, happiness, etc. Those are things we cannot buy and that we cannot even get from something or someone else – they cannot be ‘acquired’ or ‘given to us’. They are things we have to give to ourselves and that we inherently feel ‘should already be part of ourselves’. So, when we feel we are lacking them, it’s like we’re not complete as a being, as a person. If you add to that a shiny new smartphone that you wrongfully believe will give you, for instance, ‘acceptance’ – you have the perfect recipe for a very strong urge and desire to go out and get that smartphone.

Most of the time we take our desires for granted – “I feel I want it, therefore I want it”, lol – when actually, it’s not, for instance, the smartphone you really want, but the smartphone is representing ‘acceptance’ to you. So – on a conscious level, all you’ll feel and be aware of, is a strong urge to get that smartphone, where you probably don’t really understand why the urge is so strong and maybe you will give yourself reasons by summing up the specs and telling yourself how good of a phone it is, but the underlying reason is missed. You might even try to tell yourself you don’t need the smartphone, and give yourself all the rational reasons why you should and can wait – but damn, that urge is still there – it just doesn’t go away – and what’s more, it’s building!

I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but when positive energetic experiences, like desire, are very strong and keep building and are not ‘moving out’ – it can become quite uncomfortable. There are sayings like ‘I love you so much it hurts’ – well it’s kind of like that. No matter if the original experience was ‘positive’ – like desire or love – if it just keeps building inside you and you don’t know how to give it direction – it becomes uncomfortable, sometimes even feels like emotional ‘torture’. And it’s there that the want will start feeling like a need – because pain and discomfort is how needs make themselves known.

In the end – the reason why we can mistake a want for a need is because we’re not really aware of ourselves and we accept any impulse or experience at face value. Somehow we don’t know or forget that we actually have the ability to look at a want and go: okay, what are my expectations here? Are they realistic? If they are not realistic, we can look at what it is we expect to ‘gain’ from our purchase (say freedom, acceptance, etc) that we should actually be giving to ourselves – then how do I give that to myself? How do I create that in my life? Once you see how this works, and start applying this reasoning – you’ll see you can direct your wants and your inner experiences quite easily. So long as you ‘remain in the dark’, you’re powerless and at the mercy of what your experiences dictate and you can become quite a dysfunctional human being. Take the example of addictions, what are they but an extreme form of the confusion between wants and needs?

I started this series to investigate the cornerstone of economic theory: the economic problem of satisfying ‘unlimited wants and needs’ in a world with limited resources. To determine whose wants and needs will be satisfied, purchasing power is used as the criterion. I zoomed in on the fact that ‘wants and needs’ are treated as one concept with the same characteristics, when actually needs are limited and so we could at least start with satisfying everyone’s needs and then afterwards design a system that determines whose wants will be satisfied. Since the concepts ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ are used in such a sloppy way in economic theory, I wondered if the same is true on a personal level – applying the principle ‘as above, so below’.

So what is the conclusion? Lol – I think it’s clear those two little words ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ can create quite a bit of havoc in our personal life if the distinction isn’t clear and we don’t look further than the tip of our nose. It’s no wonder we have failed to eradicate poverty so far. And yet, maybe that is all that is required – or at least it is a start – to clearly define the words ‘want’ and ‘need’ for yourself and begin to approach ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ appropriately in your own life. It is one way to start taking responsibility for the ineptitude with which we’ve been attempting to confront global economic problems. If we can address wants and needs effectively in our own life, then we can do the same on a large scale – first making sure everyone’s needs are met and then we can start looking at how to satisfy desires.

A political and economic proposal was designed with this purpose in mind – the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal by the Equal Life Foundation. Please share and create awareness on this proposal, because it simply is not acceptable that millions suffer just because two words are not clearly defined in our dictionary.

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

Meconomics: Do you Spend your Money Objectively or Subjectively?

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

In my previous post I started looking at how wants and needs are confused in our daily living. Needs would be the things you cannot go without and so, common sensically, they would be your priority when deciding what to spend your money on. Wants are things you can go without, but you would prefer not to. Often we lose sight of this distinction – where we will forget about or compromise on our needs to fulfil a want. Then we looked at the following:

“Most of the time, we don’t feel needs or are even aware of our needs, it is only when we lack our basic needs that we suddenly start being affected by them, first on a physical level – and if we see we can’t satisfy our needs, we’ll go into anxiety, stress and survival-mode. But when our needs are being met – they are ‘silent’ and go unnoticed, we feel they don’t really ‘add’ anything to our lives, because we have taken them for granted as just being a part of our daily living.

Desires on the other hand – do give us an energetic thrill or rush. We feel better thinking about our desires and fulfilling/satisfying them, we look forward to fulfilling them, they occupy our minds and lead us to daydreaming, they make us feel hopeful that we/our lives will be better once we satisfy them.”

We’ve been hardwired to lean towards positive experiences, so with the insight that we’ve given wants a positive connotation and needs a negative or neutral connotation – it is easy to see how we can experience wants as an overriding factor on a subjective level. Objectively – we can all quite easily understand that needs come before wants and that satisfying wants is secondary to satisfying needs – but on a subjective level – the level where energetic experiences, emotions and feelings determine what we value and think is important – the opposite is true: wants are more interesting, because they ‘give us’ more pleasant experiences than needs.

So – the problem doesn’t seem to be our rational understanding of needs and wants – but rather that our subjective experiences can in a moment cloud what is most important. A person can for instance make a budget plan, intending to have sufficient funds set aside to pay off bills throughout the month in consideration and understanding of the importance of doing so and the consequences of not doing so – and yet, can in a moment indulge in an enticing want, that ends up compromising the person's available funds at the end of the month. Because in that one moment – when the desire is experienced – the decision is influenced by the subjective experience that comes with fulfilling a want – objective rationality is denounced in the name of a feeling. Some might be able to relate to such moments more than others, as it will depend on your own relationship to your feelings and emotions  - to what extent you place value in them / to what extend you include momentary experiences in decision making.

Here we can also highlight another dimension that plays a role in deciding what to spend your money on – which is: time. Objectively – we know that if we don’t plan ahead to ensure we have enough funds to cover our needs – be it certain or uncertain ones (for instance, having savings for unexpected medical emergencies) – we will come to a point in time where we will not have enough and be in trouble. Yet – subjectively – short-term gratification can override long-term satisfaction – where we will be willing to ‘risk’ not having enough funds later on, to be able to indulge in a satisfying a want in the present moment. This often goes hand in hand with an idea that there is ‘time’ to figure things out and find another solution for the problem we are about to create later down the line – and also, unfortunately, often goes hand in hand with regret when we get to that later moment and realize: we got something we desired in that moment, but didn’t actually have alternatives/magical solutions to sort out/generate other funds to cover the need.

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 look at that dimension more closely in the next post.

Read More

Meconomics: Wants and Needs in your Daily Living

This blogpost is a continuous to:

Meconomics: I need my Wants and Want my Needs to be Satisfied

To gain context on 'Meconomics', read and watch:

"Meconomics": ME-Economics
[83] Introducing Meconomics

In my previous blog I wrote about the word ‘wants’ and the word ‘needs’ and how, in economic theory, the two words started merging together into ‘wants&needs’ – treating both words as though they have the same properties and characteristics – as well as how this new merged term was then used as a justification for ineffective distribution processes in our capitalistic economic model wherein some people’s needs are not being satisfied, whereas others can satisfy virtually all their wants and desires.

In this post we’re going to apply the principle ‘as above, so below’ – keeping in mind that the economic model is a human creation – built in the image and likeness of its creator – it is worthwhile finding out where within ourselves we confuse the terms ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ in our daily living.

Have you ever been in a situation where, you realize you need to pay a water or electricity bill, but realize you’re out of funds, because you bought something in the last few weeks that you really wanted, and kind of forgot to keep money aside for these essential expenses?

Or have you ever been in a situation where you learned about a new product or gadget, like a new playstation, iphone, cooking utensil – you name it – where you just couldn’t get it out of your mind and felt you ‘had to get it’ and would feel kind of restless until the moment you bought it?

Or have you ever postponed studying for an exam, and a few days before the exam date, suddenly realized you spent most of your time on entertainment, going out with friends, watching movies or partying?

How does that happen? How come we don’t prioritize our needs over our wants?

That is actually something you can answer for yourself, have a look:

How often do you get excited over the idea that you will continue to have electricity in your house?
How often are you exhilarated by merely thinking about eating your sandwich in the cafeteria during your lunch break?
How many of your days are filled thinking about the new plain dark blue socks you’re going to buy because most of your current ones are worn out – where you enter a daydream and feel so absolutely excited and fulfilled imagining buying those new socks?

For most of us – that doesn’t really happen. For most of us – our needs are ‘boring’. Fulfilling our needs forms part of the basic support that we have and give ourselves, but they don’t give us a ‘thrill’, they don’t make us ‘ecstatic’, they don’t even get us excited. A need is not something you ‘feel’ on an energetic level – they don’t make themselves known through a rush. Rather – a need will make itself known through physical discomfort: hunger shows you a need for food, painful feet shows you a need for new shoes, the discomfort of taking showers in ice cold water shows us the need to pay our electricity bill. Needs make themselves known through ‘negative’ physical experiences.

Most of the time, we don’t feel needs or are even aware of our needs, it is only when we lack our basic needs that we suddenly start being affected by them, first on a physical level – and if we see we can’t satisfy our needs, we’ll go into anxiety, stress and survival-mode. But when our needs are being met – they are ‘silent’ and go unnoticed, we feel they don’t really ‘add’ anything to our lives, because we have taken them for granted as just being a part of our daily living.

Desires on the other hand – do give us an energetic thrill or rush. We feel better thinking about our desires and fulfilling/satisfying them, we look forward to fulfilling them, they occupy our minds and lead us to daydreaming, they make us feel hopeful that we/our lives will be better once we satisfy them.

I’ll continue opening up this point in my next post – stay tuned…

Read More

Meconomics: I Want my Needs and Need my Wants to be Satisfied

The economic problem – the corner stone of economic theory – is defined as the satisfaction of unlimited wants and needs in a world with finite/limited physical resources. This implies that not all wants and needs can be satisfied, so the questions economic models attempt to answer are: How is it decided which wants and needs will be satisfied? How is it decided whose wants and needs will be satisfied? In our world today – the answer is: “those who can pay for the satisfaction of their wants and needs will see them satisfied, those who can’t pay for it – well, sorry, we have to draw the line somewhere”.

As I was reading about the economic problem for the first time – I found it fascinating that they used the words ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ in the same way and treated them as one term – like this: ‘wants&needs’ – lol. The difference between wants and needs was briefly explained, but then both words were thrown under the ‘wants&needs’ banner – as though ‘needs’ carry the same characteristics as ‘wants’ and ‘wants’ carry the same characteristics as ‘needs’. When you approach the economic problem by reading the words ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ as ‘wants&needs’ - then the world as it is today might make sense to you – then the economic problem might actually be a justification for the desolation and lack in which millions live. Perhaps that is how economists want us to read the words, so that we won’t hold them accountable for not yet having come up with a better solution.

‘Wants’ and ‘needs’, however, are two very different things. ‘Needs’ are things you NEED – that you cannot go without or you will be physically and emotionally compromised. ‘Wants’ are things you WANT – they go beyond what you ‘need’ – you can go without, but you would like or prefer to experience them or have them in your life. It is true to say that if you tally up all the individual wants of all the people on the planet – you will end up with ‘unlimited wants’. The same is not true for needs, however – there are certain things no human being can go without – say food, water, shelter, social interaction, medical support – where this is the same for every single person by virtue of them being ‘a human’ – and where for some, dependent on personal situations and circumstances, the list is expanded to include a few other things as well.

Considering that needs are limited – we may actually be able to satisfy the needs of all the human beings on the planet – and it is known that we can. So – instead of trying to work with ‘wants&needs’ where the task seems impossible and full of ‘sorry’s, we have to draw the line somewhere’ – we could start with the part that IS possible – satisfying everyone’s needs – and only then design an additional system or model that draws lines for ‘wants’. Our current model is one where some are able to satisfy all their needs and most of their wants, while others are not supported in their basic needs – which, you have to admit, is quite an insane situation. Part of why this is allowed is due to… ‘wants&needs’.

Now – this blog is part of my ‘Meconomics’ series – so you can already guess where I am taking this discussion next… For this situation to be as it is – with so few raising their voice and spurring into action to change the status quo – I started wondering how the same point exists within ourselves. The same point, meaning: do we in fact have a clear understanding of the difference between ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ inside ourselves and do we approach ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ appropriately in our own personal lives?

True story: Earlier as I was writing this blog and came to the section of clarifying the words ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ – I first took the easy route of simply looking up the words in the dictionary and copy/pasting the definitions in my blog. But! I couldn’t use those definitions, because they would have perpetuated the confusion between the words rather than clarifying the difference between them. Have a look:

If the dictionary uses the word ‘want’ to clarify the word ‘need’ and uses the word ‘need’ to clarify the word ‘want’ – we can be sure we’re on to something. Does this mean that wants simply imply needs and that needs imply wants – because the dictionary says so? No. Remember, dictionaries will reflect our own language usage – so if the word ‘want’ has been used over time to indicate a ‘need’ – then it becomes an ‘accepted use of the word’ and is reflected in the dictionary as such. In the same way, the word ‘need’ has been used to describe ‘wants’ – and so it has become ‘normal’. What the dictionary then shows is how we have confused the meanings of the words ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ for ourselves and started using the terms as synonyms.

In my next blog I will continue exploring how the ‘merging’ of the words ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ as ‘wants&needs’ affects and influences us on a personal level so that we can get a better understanding of the world as it exists today within the principle 'as above, so below'.

Read More

Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism

The Problem

The fundamental question which economics is built upon, is how to deal with limited means in conjunction with unlimited wants. It takes on the starting point that we live in a world of scarcity, of of finite resources – but that we also live in a world where humans have unlimited wants and needs, and thus inevitably not all wants and needs will be satisfied.

This is where the Pricing system within Economics comes from, where the price is determined through the interaction of supply and demand. Prices on products and services, are in the end an ‘elimination’ tool. Because we have only so many resources, and not everyone will be able to get them to satisfy their wants and needs – the pricing system works as a distribution system. If a loaf of bread is sold at $1 each – then this implies that everyone who has $1 and is willing to spend that one dollar on bread can do so. This also means that anyone who doesn’t have $1 dollar to spend on bread but wants and NEEDS bread to be able to survive = won’t be able to get bread.

So it seems that the distribution problem of ‘who gets what’ is solved – but this a more than ineffective solution, and is really unacceptable. 

Firstly, the problem starts already in the formulation of ‘the economic problem’. The problem lies in not making a distinction between wants and needs. It’s one thing to say that wants are unlimited and another to say that needs are unlimited. Sure, we can all make up unlimited wants, like wanting a cruise ship, a place, a few villas and a unicorn – but needs are not unlimited and can be clearly defined, such as say food, security, clothing, housing, medical care, participation, leisure, education, etc.

The second problem arises when we look at our current distribution system within the way things are priced. Everything is price based, so even if things are scarce and finite – if you have the money, you can still get your hands on ‘scarce resources’ even though others can’t. This implies that some can exploit the amount of money they have available to use as many resources as they like, while less and less is available for others, and where others may not even have the financial means to acquire what is left.  Our pricing system is then in fact, a system of blatant discrimination. We are no longer looking at how we can support ourselves living life on this Earth – but playing a game of ruthless and unfair competition causing some to live in abundance while others live on the brink of death.

The Solution

The solution is a simple one, we require to re-evaluate the ‘economic problem’ as we have accepted and allowed ourselves to define it. A distinction needs to be made between needs and wants, where needs come prior to wants at all times, as part of being a Basic Human Right.

Instead of having a distribution system based on discrimination, we require a distribution system of inclusion, and this inclusion is that of Life – where the Real Capital that has actual Real Value is recognized as Life.  This is how the Equal Money Capitalistic System will operate.  It’s a biocentric system, and this is reflected within the pricing of Goods and Services. Pricing will reflect the value that has been added through individuals’ contribution as labour. Within this, each participant, each contributor – will receive an Equal Profit-Share of the sale of the product/service.

From Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit:

WHAT IS PROFIT-SHARE?
Currently profit is the money a company makes after they have covered their costs, including paying out wages. In an EMC - profit comprises of all the added value that is placed on resources - which is your labour. Therefore - within the price, the percentage share must be included of each one that was part of the creation of the product in such a way that each one ends up with an equal share of the company's profits, so - there will be no need for wages - as the profit becomes your wage.

EQUALIZING WAGES – COOPERATION AMONG CORPORATIONS
If a company at any time makes more money than they need to provide each one with their equal share of the profit as well as covering their costs - those monies will go into a fund that is responsible for assisting companies that are not making sufficient to cover their costs and provide each one with their fair share. That way a balancing effect takes place so that all companies are not only cooperatives in how they cooperate internally - but all cooperate with each other as well.

Equal Money Capitalism will ensure a Dignified Life for everyone, as everyone will be in a position to acquire resources to support themselves to Live their Life, where needs are taken care of while still allowing for wants to be explored.

The Reward

Within Equal Money Capitalism, one will be birthed into a world where one’s life is secure. Currently, the main point of focus that pre-occupies people’s lives is that of money, which turns Life to being a strife, becoming about survival. When you have a child in Equal Money Capitalism, you do not have to worry about your child’s future and how you’re going to fund it with while trying to make ends meet. Your life and your child’s – your entire family’s Life = is guaranteed.

It is in essence a Life where Fear as being part of everyday Life is removed, and where one can truly live and explore – to really find out what it means to live here on Earth in an enjoyable, yet responsible way.

Related articles

• Human Sweatshops will END in Equal Money Capitalism - Day 275
• Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
• Day 171: Life-Force and Expression in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 173: Supply, Demand, Business and Scarcity in Equal Money Capitalism
• Equal Money: We want the Best Life for YOU. Do You?

Read More

Day 48: The Economic Problem - Part 3

I commit myself to expose the economic problems currently existent within the world -- and within that expose that the nature of these problems isn't absolute -- since we've created them as a side-effect/result/consequence from the decisions we've made collectively as a whole within valuing mind wants and desires over physical needs and sustainability

I commit myself to expose that any economic problem within the world is not inherent to the field of economics but inherent to the human race as the character of the world we've accepted and allowed ourselves to be and become -- and so by changing the character of the world we can change/correct the economic problems within the world as they are merely a reflection/extension of ourselves and what we value

I commit myself to expose the various different ways within which current traditional economics entertains itself with "metaphysical" dimensions instead of dealing with practical physical problems which are apparent within the world -- and within that I commit myself to the reformation of the current economic system of greed and unsustainabilty to an economic system which is aligned within the principle of what is Best for All Life, where irrelevant aspects of economics will be no more

I commit myself to expose that the very basis of current economics is flawed and unsound and so expose that everything which has been built upon this foundation is completely useless since it is doomed to fail from the start -- and within that I commit myself to a New Economic System as the Equal Money System which will have the soundest foundation of all: Life

I commit myself to expose that the current economic system/theory is not at all concerned with real problems but rather entertains itself with sophisticated, philosophical, intricate ideas about human wants and sacrifice to distract themselves from dealing and facing which needs to be dealt with as the billions suffering in a world of Plenty while the economists of the world go about their philosophical debates on human wants and desires while the poor their needs are being neglected

I commit myself to expose that any discussion pertaining resource distribution relating to human wants and desires is only a luxury point which we cannot currently afford and should not even bother to look at until all beings are equally taken care of within the physical aspects/needs which require to be met to at least live a life of sustainability

Read More

Day 47: The Economic Problem - Part 2

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created an economic system which causes problems – and then make these problems one of the basic principles of economics

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the ‘economic problem’ is not really a problem, and not even an economic one – but a human problem as we’ve designed the economic system in our image and likeness – and since we’ve decided that wants are more important than needs, and want to try and satisfy unlimited wants with limited resources – we are the cause of the problem as we decided that we’d rather have an unsustainable economic system which will only work out right for a few – than a sustainable economic system which works out for everyone

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the ‘economic problem’ has only surfaced because we are more interested in entertaining ourselves with the various ways in which we could satisfy our desires – where the problem arises because of the simplistic reality that we cannot have what we want all the time, because our wants are unrealistic – and so we trouble ourselves over what desire to satisfy and the ‘conflict’ involved within this – while this conflict is not relevant in any way whatsoever as what is Best for All Life is in no way being considered – and so from the point on where economics as established that wants are valued over needs, everything else built upon this point becomes entirely and utterly useless and irrelevant – since we’ve accepted an unsound foundation for our current economic system and so everything which follows from that foundation is flawed and will only spiral out into further unsustainability and the inevitable demise and end of the entire system itself

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created an economic system which entertains itself by looking at value through what has been apparently ‘sacrificed’ as those ‘wants’ which you decided not to satisfy for the sake of the desire you did satisfy – how is this relevant in any way whatsoever when 24 000 children die a day from poverty and starvation? What value does their sacrifice bring to this world?

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created an economic system which does not serve reality as it is more concerned with some metaphysical plane of satisfying wants and desires and the costs/sacrifices involved within satisfying or not satisfying particular desires and then deriving some form of value from that – while the physical aspect of reality is being ignored and neglected completely – where we end up with half the population living in misery because we thought that giving economics a primarily metaphysical dimension as being concerned with satisfying unlimited human wants was so much more exciting than having an economic theory / system which focuses on the physical reality and ensuring that everyone’s basic physical needs are taken care of

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that all economic problems in the world would be solved if we all aligned our wants and desires to what is Best for All --- as then we would not have to deal with competing choices and competing self-interests as there would only be One interest as that which is Best for All Life, and so we’d actually for the first time have an effective and efficient economic system

Read More

Day 46: The Economic Problem

Within the field of economics, no matter what issue or subject is being discussed – there is always some sort of trade-off involved. Since economics is defined within the context of unlimited wants with limited means/resources – choices require to be made. Within that, humans are studied in terms of how and what they choose among limited options to maximise their happiness.

Within economics, resources are categorised within three types:

1)    Natural Resources (land, minerals, fuel, animals, etc)
2)    Human Resources (labour)
3)    Man-made Resources (machines)

These are referred to as factors of production, as they are the inputs/means which are used within producing particular goods and services.

Note that money is not considered to be a resource, but a means of exchange with which you can purchase scarce resources.

Time is also considered a limited resource, as everyone only has 24 hours within a day – and so whether one is rich or poor – both will experience ‘scarcity’ from this perspective.

Since we only have so many available resources, to produce only so many goods and services – only so many wants can be satisfied and so we have to make choices.


-        When we use a particular resource towards the production of one thing, those same resources cannot go to the production of another thing (at least not at the same time).
-        When we decide to produce more of one good, there will be less for another good to be produced.
-        If we decide to watch a movie for an hour, we cannot use that same hour to go for a walk outside.

And so on…

This brings us to the concept of opportunity cost and the economic problem.

Let’s look at a few scenarios

You go to a shop with $10 in your pocket – you want some ice cream, chocolate, cigarettes and a drink. But you only have $10 (resources are limited) and so you have to make decisions about what you want to buy and what you won’t buy / “sacrifice”.

It’s the end of the week and you have the evening for yourself. You find yourself wanting to watch TV, go for a movie and go see some friends – but you can’t do this all at the same time, and so you have to choose what to do and what not to do.

The government has X amount of funds available to spend on new development programmes throughout the year. It wants to improve education, health facilities and employment opportunities. But since there is only X amount of money, the government will have to decide what to spend the funds on immediately and what will be postponed.
In all these cases, choices need to be made, where some wants will be satisfied and others will be left unsatisfied. In each one of the scenarios, decisions have to be made about what the person/group will opt for and thus sacrifice as well. From that perspective, there are always ‘costs’ involved, even though these may not always seem ‘obvious’.

There’s a particular phrase which is often used to point this out: “There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch” – meaning someone will always have to pay for something even if it is presented as ‘free’ -- the resources had to come from somewhere and those resources are now not able to be used for something else.

Although scarcity is considered to be an essential component of the economic problem (=we have to make choices), it really only becomes a problem when we have competing / conflicting goals. If you have only one goal, and only so many resources – there’s no real decision making involved, as you are not faced with allocating your scarce resources between competing alternatives.  So if you have one goal, you do not have an economic problem – but currently, as humanity we do not have a singular goal – and even within ourselves we are conflicted about the various different things we want all the time. So we only have to make choices / sacrifices when we are divided about what it is we want. Not being divided and having only one goal is considered to be ‘unrealistic’ within current economics, and thus it is assumed that there will always be an economic problem. So this practically implies that within an Equal Money System, there will be no economic problem – as there will be only One Goal as What is Best for All Life – and thus we won’t have to make choices as sacrifices as we only commit ourselves to what is Best for All Life and disregard anything less.

But since we’ve currently valued everyone’s self-interest as equally valuable, no matter how relevant or irrelevant this self-interest is = we have an economic problem. And this has been totally accepted, in fact it’s part of the basis of established economics. So now when economists look a ‘cost’, they do not only look at ‘cost’ in monetary terms (also referred to as ‘accounting costs’) – but also look at ‘implicit costs’, in the sense of what could have been done alternatively if resources would have been used differently.

Within that, opportunity cost specifically, refers to the next best alternative one forgoes for the option which was chosen. So if you have $50 and you want both a jacket and a shirt – and you decide to spend the money towards the jacket – the opportunity cost is the shirt as the next best thing you could have gotten. A cost for economists is what you had to ‘give up’ to ‘get it’. So now this whole new dimension is added where with every choice you make you are burdened with “what if” as “what you could have done” alternatively. But if what you only ever want to do is that which is Best for All, then you are never faced with ‘sacrifice’ or ‘burden’ – as there is only one way as that which is Best for All – and so there is no wondering necessary in terms of how things could have been differently, as any other scenario is simply not relevant as it wouldn’t have been what’s Best for All. We’ve complicated things so badly for ourselves within valuing wants over needs, individual self-interest over What’s Best for All --- and then all the various different choices and sacrifices which need to be made just so we can what we want…

Economics will be a very, very simplistic matter within an Equal Money System – lol.

The ‘Economic Problem’ is not really a problem – we created this problem but it doesn’t have to be a problem in fact. It’s only a problem because we’ve decided that we want to try and live up to something which cannot be lived up to = where we want to satisfy unlimited wants with limited means – and so it’s not really an Economic Problem, but a Human Nature Problem – as we rather want to hold on to something unachievable for all, in the hope that we will be one of the lucky ones that’ll get a piece of the pie – while the majority will have to live a life of sacrifice where not even their basic needs are tended to so that some may attempt to satisfy all their wants and desires.

Read More

Day 41: What is Economics – Part 2

See Day 40: What is Economics? For context

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that ‘economics’ is synonymous with ‘capitalism’

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that economics has got to do with three basic question: what should be produced, how should it be produced and who gets to consume what is produced – and thus any system answering these questions can be considered as being ‘economics’ – and thus economics is not only limited to capitalism as the current world system which is in place

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed and agreed upon the definition of economics as that which deals with how limited resources are used to satisfy human wants and the choices/sacrifices we have to make in order to attain this goal

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to ever question the definition of economics – where the main goal is to satisfy human wants, which are assumed to be unlimited – with the use of limited resource – and which is thus in essence impossible, yet we will allow this to be the basis of our economic system, and thus it is no surprise that we currently live in an unbalanced world where every day we move one step closer to our own self-destruction

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to question the implied value judgment involved when being faced with economics, as the definition of economics --- where the focus lies on human wants, instead of human needs and within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise the self-interested nature of this definition within only looking at what humans want/need – and not consider everything and everyone on this Physical Plane as the Earth, the Animal and the Plant Kingdom

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise, that the only reason that there is a trade-off for everything within economics – is because we are dealing with unlimited wants vs limited available resources – which can never be achieved in a balanced manner – and thus choices as sacrifices need to be made in order to make the system work – while we could have avoided all this unnecessary trouble if we’d only value Life as Sustenance and thus Limited Basic Needs over Unlimited Wants and Desires

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that any economic system based on the current definition of economics as ‘unlimited wants vs. limited resources – what choices do we make?’ – is doomed to fail, as it is faulty by design. And within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the only way we are going to make any economic system work, is through redefining economics itself and eradicate this inherent flaw – and bring about an Economic System which is balanced and sustainable within its very definition and starting point

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that all the suffering in the world which is brought about as a result of our current economic system is in fact deliberate – within having agreed upon the definition of economics where we value Human Wants over Human Needs – and thus we have manifested a World of Greed where sacrifices/choices need to be made every day to keep the wheel of money running – and where this sacrifice has resulted in half the population of Earth living in poverty, the extinction and suffering of animals and disregard for the Plant world, where we hack and burn at will -- for the sake of attempting to satisfy the Unlimited Wants of a Few – and all this done deliberately and with permission through never ever having questioned the very definition of economics and through not having questioned the Nature and Character of Humanity within having made such decisions within drawing up such definitions – as if anyone would have done this, it would have been clear: We are Evil – which is the only way and reason an Economic System of Evil would exist within this World

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the only Real Value on Earth is Life – and within that, tending to basic needs is what is valuable, as this is tending to the Physical which is Always here – while tending to Wants and Desires is a waste of time, as they come and go and inevitably End at Death

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to protect and defend the current economic system in the face of poverty and starvation by only pointing out to one part the definition of economics – as the scarcity of resources – where we’ll say “But there’s simply not enough!” – while conveniently leaving out that there is not enough and will never be enough in terms of satisfying our Wants an Desires – while there is plenty to satisfy everyone’s Basic Needs! And within that I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to Lie about the reality of the World within protecting and valuing my own Wants and Desires over the Needs of Others

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to be a Criminal within the Face of Life

Read More

Day 40: What is Economics?

Economics is about how a society decides to answer particular questions in relation to resource distribution – which can be brought down to the follow three:

1)    What should be produced by a society?
2)    How should it be produced?
3)    Who gets to consume what is produced?

Many hold the believe that economics is a ‘one way street’, where for instance ‘Capitalism’ is treated synonymous to ‘economics’, as the ‘only way’ that economics can ever be – while this is only one way of answering the above basic economic questions, and where the Equal Money System is another way of answering these three questions.

The above three questions are the basis of economics, and any form of economic system has to answer to these three questions. So whether you have an economic system based on complete government control or an economic system based on total individual control – the same questions are being dealt with, but in different ways.

Currently within the world there are several different types of economic systems, which economists like to present within a spectrum which runs from the one polarity of absolute government control to total individual control – where most of the economic systems currently lay in-between these two polarities.

Total Individual Control	What is produced, How and Who gets it is decided by individuals
Stage 2	Government deals with basics only such as police protection, enforcement of contracts, protecting property rights, national defense
Stage 3	Includes Stage 2 + additional services such as education, science, roads, fire protection
Stage 4	Stage 3 + additional programs such as health care and retirement
Stage 5	Stage 4 + state industries (steel, cars, agriculture), distribution of basic consumer goods (food, housing)
Stage 6	Stage 5 + government in charge of employment, housing, food, production, prices
Total Government Control	What is produces, How and Who gets decided by Government

However, as capitalism is the main overall system implemented within the world – students are mostly taught within the context of capitalism only – and since this is the system we are currently living in and as – this will be the system that we’ll walk through within these blogs.

So keep in mind that all the vocabulary points, concepts, views etc. which will be explained in this blog are specific to the current system in play, and may not necessarily be relevant to an Equal Money System. Yet we will still discuss these points as they form part of the current system, and the thought pattern of economists -- and thus form part in completing your understanding of how economics currently works and what requires to be corrected – both in how things are viewed and how things are structurally manifested according to these views.

Let’s have a look at some definitions which have been given to the term ‘Economics’, so we can establish the starting point of our current economic system.

“Economics is the study of how our scarce productive resources are used to satisfy human wants.” – George Leland Bach

“Economics is the study of how people allocate their limited resources to provide for their wants.” – Jack Harvey

“Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources to study unlimited human wants.” – Richard Lipsey

Within each one of these quotes we can derive the following components:

•    Scarcity of Resources
•    Human Wants
•    Choices

The current Economic Paradigm assumes an inherent conflict between “Scarcity of Resources” and “Human Wants” – which are often referred to as ‘unlimited’. Since we have only so many resources available – but unlimited wants to satisfy: we have to make certain choices – and something or someone will always have to be sacrificed (this is another re-occurring trend found within ‘trade-offs’ and ‘opportunity cost’).

So what’s fascinating to be observed from the statements of various people about “what is economics” – is that various value judgments* are implied, but which are never questioned or explained.

The component of ‘Human Wants’
This trend returns over and over again throughout current economic theory where precedence is being given to ‘human wants’ over ‘needs’.

The Anthropocentric View**
Another value judgment is implied, since the definitions of economics as the framework which encompasses the distribution of resources, only takes into consideration humans: what about the animals? plants? Earth itself?

Sacrifices Have to be Made
Since the definition of economics was agreed to be ‘unlimited wants vs limited resources’ – there is a value judgment implied, which we pointed out earlier as ‘wants over needs’ – and where this choice/preference inevitably leads to having to sacrifice since the definition as a mathematical equation is not balanced – which in itself reveals another value judgment, which is that sacrifices are acceptable – within the decision/agreement that wants ought to be placed over needs. Because if you have look at it, if the definition of economics had been around the lines of ‘the management of limited resources towards limited needs’ – then the point of conflict with which we are currently faced with as ‘unlimted’ vs ‘limited’ resulting in sacrifice – would not have existed!!

The starting point of current economic thought is completely self-contradictory:

Unlimited Wants + Limited Resources = Wants can never be satisfied

I mean, it’s simple math that this is an unsustainable goal – so why pursue it at all? It just doesn’t make any sense! So – the amount of suffering and destruction currently taking place on Earth, is really no surprise if one just consider this one statement, as the definition of economics – which is not only completely beside the point (in terms of wants over needs – humans over everything), but mathematically impossible to be sustained. Yet, this is what we’ve accepted and allowed to be lived within the World – and within this chase of obtaining and achieving the impossible (satisfying all our desires), we are driving millions into their grave, as the sacrifice we willingly give – as pointed out above. And for what? For wants and desires which are apparently worth more than basic needs?

This is completely unacceptable.

Yet no-one seems to question this point – thus economic thought is really just a reflection of our own thought as living beings, as our character as Human Beings, where we all collectively decided within ourselves that our personal desires and wants are to be prioritized over the tending of everyone’s basic needs with what we have, as available resources on Earth.

Isn’t that just plain…..evil?

* Value judgment:
a judgment assigning a value (as good or bad) to something

** Anthropocentric:
1 : considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe
2 : interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences

Read More