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 251: Living Income Guaranteed and Market Mechanics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles

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

Related articles

Read More

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 173: Supply, Demand, Business and Scarcity in Equal Money Capitalism

Also see the following blogs on more points within EMC:

Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward
Day 163: Equal Money Capitalism - Redefining Profit
Day 164: Equal Money Capitalism - Preparing the Road for Change
Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism
Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism
Day 167: Harmony and Equilibrium within Equal Money Capitalism
Day 168: The Future of Integrity with Equal Money Capitalism
Day 169: Equal Living within Equal Money Capitalism
Day 170: Companies and Industries in EMC
Day 171: LIfe-Force and Expression in Equal Money Capitalism
Day 172: Retirement and Holidays within Equal Money Capitalism

Supply and Demand

Pricing will not resemble a free market paradigm, so the interaction between supply and demand as it exists now will not determine anything. Supply will be according to your demand, that means your demand will not be based on price, your demand will be based on supplying yourself with a lifestyle that is worth living – so the demand will change. Because the demand will no longer be controlled by price, it will now more be controlled by the fact that you want to live an excellent lifestyle, that you want to change products – it is going to change what goods and services will be available. You’re not going to buy ‘inferior products’ that you buy because it’s cheap and made in China – but it’s not what you would have bought if you had more money.

Business to Business Interaction

Business to Business interaction is basically based on what a product manufactures requires to produce a product. Businesses won’t compete around products per se, because information around products will be shared and made available to be able to produce the best possible product. But some products you’ll be able to produce differently – different products from the perspective of what they look like, which may have an effect on preference – those type of variations will still exist.

Businesses and Communities

The placement and operation of businesses will be far more regional – simply because it’s an effective way to manage things rather than managing things on a national or transnational level.
With regional, we mean that all businesses will in a way be a community service, so it will be based in community environment and provide service for the community..

Scarcity and Pricing

There’s not going to be pricing control in terms of scarce resources, things are going to be available or they are not. It is controlled by its availability. If certain resources become unavailable, which is going to affect the products that are going to be available – then we will just have to take that into consideration. So for instance, if there is not enough fish in the sea, we will simply have to withhold from catching fish -- the supply / option of fish disappears off the menu until the fish supply is re-established.

Scarcity and Non-Renewable Resources

Non-Renewables will automatically be targeted to be reduced, and eventually phased out completely. Society should not be based on an non-renewable resource. We have other ways to do it.

Related articles

• Day 171: Life-Force and Expression in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 166: Corporate Social Responsibility in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 162: EQUAL MONEY CAPITALISM - The Way Forward
• Day 172: Retirement and Holidays within Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 92: I Have to take care of MY People

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created an economic system of competition between various nations -- where instead of looking at what resources are where and distributing/moving them in a way where all can have access to them -- we've divided the Earth and its resources into sections as all the various different countries -- where some countries have lots of resources and some don't -- and where this availability if resources is completely dependent on chance and so the fate of a country and their economic wellbeing will be dependent on chance as the available resources, where if you do not have resources that other countries want -- you will not be able to trade and not get what it is that you want/need


I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to present economics as the 'science of scarcity' -- without actually providing an actual solution/answer to scarcity and in fact act in a way which creates more scarcity unnecessarily -- where we have all these various different countries competing with one another in order to get the 'best deal' for themselves where a country will only care about 'their people' -- where each country will protect 'their economy' for 'their people' and within that creating additional firms / companies / industrial complexes to 'support their people' while a neighbouring country may already have these facilities which could easily cater for both countries -- but since our economy is designed as 'each one's on his own' -- this other country will have to go and spend our 'scarce resources' to built the exact same points of production just so it can provide for 'it's own people'



I forgive myself that I haven't accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that nobody can own the Earth's resources but Earth itself, and so it is in fact dishonest to assign the resources within the boundaries of one's country as 'one's own' -- and then use these resources as leverage against other countries to get what they want


I forgive myself that I haven't accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that our current economic system is completely unfair and does not give a damn about the well being of Life as humans, animals, plants on/and Earth -- as it only cares about competition and being able to get the 'best advantage' -- where just as one's individual economic/financial wellbeing is dependent on where you are born as in being born in a country/familly with money or not -- a country's fate and economic/financial status is dependent on whether or not there are resources within the country which can be used to trade and provide basic facillities, goods and services for everyone



I commit myself to show that there is no difference between the situation of countries and that of individuals -- where both's wellbeing is dependent on chance as resources/money which is completely random -- where some will have and some won't and where the economy fails to re-distribute resources/money equally -- and within that clearly revealing it's values as not caring about everyone -- where those who have will not care about those who don't and only care about accumulating 'more' regardless of consequence/impact on the lives of others



I commit myself to show that resources do not belong to anyone specifically as they are being unconditionally provided by the Earth and where we've accepted and allowed ourselves to abuse this within using the resources which lie within the boundaries of our countries as 'leverage' against other countries and even go as far as wage wars to get access to other people's/other countries' resources -- and within that I commit myself to show that the only reason one would have to wage war over resources is because we failed to distribute them equally and make sure that everyone is taken care off


I commit myself to show another way as the Equal Money System as a Global Solution to all of our economic problems both on a macro and micro scale -- where we no longer hog resources for the sake of leverage/power/greed within only caring about ourselves / 'our people' and exclude everyone else -- but where in an Equal Money System we work all-inclusive where everyone is considered, valued and taken care of equally on the premise of Life


I commit myself to the management and distribution of resources within responsibility and sustainability to cater for All Life within the principle of what is Best for All Life and Respect for the Earth and its unconditionality within providing Life Sustaining Resources -- giving this same Unconditionality back in respect and dignity

Read More

Day 87: Competition and Efficiency

This is a continuation to Day 81: The Role of Government in the Economy

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that ‘competition’ is the key to a well-functioning economy

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that ‘competition’ is the key innovation and creativity

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that within the design of competition there are always losers and winners – where from a group, only ‘one’ can make it and be successful where the remaining others of the group perish and lose everything within the competition race

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that competition is ‘efficient’ – where competition will allow only ‘the best’ to make it, and those are ‘not good enough’ to lose – and so ‘naturally’ allow ‘the best’ to prevail – without seeing and realising that currently within this world competition is an unfair game, as ‘who is the best’ is defined and dependent on how many resources one has available – where those with the most funds will win the game as they will be more able to support themselves in developing well-functioning goods/services – and so it is not a matter of ‘weeding out the competition’ as ‘those who aren’t good enough’ – but merely a selective process of ‘survival of the fittest’ as ‘survival of those with the most money’ – and so, the whole race/game wasn’t really a competition from the beginning, as the outcome was already pre-determined where he who has the most resource will be the Winner – and as such I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that competition within the economy and business environment is actually inefficient – as there can only be one winner (or at least very few), and where the rest spend their time and money investing in the *hope* that they might also win, while it is already pre-determined who will win and lose – and as such, there is not point to get everyone involved in a ‘race for the best’ – as we already know who’s going to win and dominate the market, as the one with the most money – and so there’s no point for all those other people to waste their time and money as they are not going to make it anyway, and as such competition is really just a waste of time and money for many – where we try to create the illusion that ‘everyone has an equal opportunity’ but where ‘only the best will make it’ – while there is no such thing currently as ‘equal opportunity’ as opportunity is linked to money and money is currently not equal

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that since the one with the most money will be most effective at creating / producing / innovating – we might as well assign the task of production to a singular firm and provide this firm with the resources/funds to make the best out of it – where people within a firm produce and create goods/services for the sake of perfection, creating the best product possible – and not for the sake of competition of ‘wanting to be the best’ from the starting point of ‘dominating the market’ and reaping massive profits – while others lose everything within the competition game where ‘Winner takes All’

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that efficiency and productivity can only take place within a ‘competitive environment’ – and within that I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that an environment of cooperation can be way more efficient – where our own human physical bodies are proof of this, as our human physical bodies are the most energy efficient machines in existence and are incomparable to any manmade machine – where our human physical body does not depend on competition, but one close cooperation where each part, each organ, each cell does its part and does this to the best of their ability – and where all cells receive equal amount of resources, if competition and the unequal distribution of resources would take place – our whole body will soon collapse as each part is dependent on each other’s cooperation – which is exactly what is happening to Earth as a Body – where we are not supplying equal amount of resources to all the parts of the body causing poverty, starvation, pollution – where even though the rich may momentarily be “well-off” – once the balance has gone out too far – they too will perish with the rest of us, as there will be no-one left to slave away their lives and supply them with the resources they want/need

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to believe that government and economy should be separated – without seeing and realising that in a world where the government is supposed to represent and serve the people – and where money is the main point controlling people’s lives – that you cannot do one without the other – and so the economy and government within serving to the people from the starting point of What is Best for All should not be separated but be One and cooperate / act as a single entity within ensuring that everyone’s needs are taken care of and where nobody has to be a loser for the illusion of competition as apparent “efficiency"

Read More

Day 51: Resource Distribution - Part 3

I commit myself to expose the true nature of supply and demand -- where a demand is only a demand if a person has the financial means to back up their want/need -- and where again no distinction is being made between want or need -- the system doesn't care whether you're dealing with a want or a need -- if you don't have the money you're not part of the game

I commit myself to expose that our current nature inherently prefers people with money over people with no money and that the system will thus never work for everyone as there is no equality existent currently within the distribution of money all over the world -- it can thus only further widen the inequality gap


I commit myself to expose the dubious nature of economics -- where economics is dubbed the 'science of scarcity' -- while all the while not being interested at all in the responsible management of these 'scarce' resources -- because if you have money, you can get what you want -- no matter how this will impact negatively upon others

I commit myself to expose that economics being fucked up is no secret -- it is right there all laid out in the textbooks, there are no conspiracies who are behind the fucked-up-ness within our world -- the answer has always been right infront of our eyes but we've been too blind to see it/question it -- which only reflects back to us who we really are and what we have accepted and allowed ourselves to be and so allowed it to be manifested within this world as an extension of ourselves


I commit myself to the uniting of divided interests into one interest as that which is Best for All Life -- where all play a role as giver and receiver within the realisation of the responsibility each one has to take on and live to make this place a world which is Best for All




I commit myself to expose the fake sense of 'equality' our current economic system presents -- where the concept of equilibrium sounds nice, and where the math adds up = the amount supplied equals the amount demanded -- it sounds so perfect so it must be right -- without seeing/realising that the equation had to be rigged for it to work out, and is thus not a real point of equilibrium, as it only wants to play equilibrium with those who have money




I commit myself to the responsible management of resources, where we actually look and investigate what is here, how we can use it, how long will it last -- how many beings are there, what are their needs, how can we get the resources they need to them --- where the system will not distribute to those with money and skip those without -- but will give to Life for the sake of Life, where all have a right to the resources to sustain themselves just because they are Here, not because they first have earn it

I commit myself to the establishment of an Equal Money Economic System, the first Economic System which cares about all Life and cares about the resources Earth has provided, managing them responsibly and with sustainability in mind at all times

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 42: What is Economics – Part 3

I commit myself to debunk all beliefs about economics as what people “think” it is about and what it is – so we can get on a common ground and develop an Economic System which is Best for All Life

I commit myself to show that economics is not just about ‘capitalism’ but about certain questions and choices we as a society have to make in relation to resources, their distribution and the principle which guides the direction of resources – where currently we have opted for an economic system of inequality which distributes according to money and human wants instead of an economic system of equality which distributes according to Life as the only Real Value

I commit myself to expose how our current definition of economics is unacceptable – and that it requires to be re-aligned / re-defined according to what is Best for All – and not just what’s Best for a Few

I commit myself to expose the Human Nature for what it is, which is reflected within the Nature of the Economic System which values wants and desires over Life – preferring unsustainability over sustainability at the cost of half the population in terms of Humans – and countless animal and plant lives

I commit myself to show that economics is not merely an ‘objective science’ but a value system which we decided upon which drives the money circulation within this world – and since it is based merely on values – we can decide what these values are and change them so they are aligned to the Principle of what is Best for All

I commit myself to show that our current economic system is unsustainable and will inevitably come to its end – the only question which remains is whether we will end it before it ends us

I commit myself to show that all the suffering in the world brought about through economics directly or indirectly is in fact deliberate – as the starting point as the definition of economics is specific within what is being valued – and since we currently do not value Life, this is reflected within our economic system which leads to millions suffering in the name of Desire

I commit myself to expose that the suffering as poverty and starvation within this world did not come about because of a lack in physical resources – but a lack in the will of Humans to take care of one another as Humans

I commit myself to the redefinition of economics where economics is about the practical consideration in terms of how many resources are available, and how many beings need to be taken care of – and distribute them accordingly within the principle of what is Best for All – where Needs are prioritized over Wants

I commit myself to an Equal Money system which is the Embodiment of What is Best for All Life as Living Principle in Application – where no-one will Suffer or Starve in a World of Plenty

Read More