Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 4 – Abundance of choice vs Sustainability

This post is a continuation to the blog-posts:

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 1
Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 2 – Sustainability vs Full Employment
Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 3 – Tools of Intervention

Please read them first for context.

Example 4

‘We’ve created a society with an abundance of choices and so freedom to choose. Producing so many varieties of the same product places pressure on the environment, but reducing it would mean to give up the freedom we’ve gained.’

We all like to have options and choices – being able to ‘choose for ourselves’ which product we buy – the one that suits our needs just a little better, the one that has the specific features we are looking for. When we are not satisfied with a particular service, we like knowing that there are alternative providers of the same service and that we are not stuck with the only service provider.

Choices and options give u a sense of freedom, a sense of self-determination. So, it would seem that the more options we have available to choose from, the more freedom we have, the happier we are. And so, it would also seem that with the amount of choices we enjoy in our western consumerist lifestyle, we must have reached a state of absolute freedom. But have we?

Barry Schwartz did an excellent TED Talk presentation about this very topic and I will quote some of the key points he brought up as a quick summary – for the full presentation, click here.

“The official dogma runs like this: if we are interested in maximizing the welfare of our citizens, the way to do that is to maximize individual freedom. The reason for this is both that freedom is in and of itself good, valuable, worthwhile, essential to being human. And because if people have freedom, then each of us can act on our own to do the things that will maximize our welfare, and no one has to decide on our behalf. The way to maximize freedom is to maximize choice. The more choice people have, the more freedom they have, and the more freedom they have, the more welfare they have. This, I think, is so deeply embedded in the water supply that it wouldn't occur to anyone to question it.”

“We all know what's good about it, so I'm going to talk about what's bad about it. All of this choice has two effects, two negative effects on people.”

“One effect, paradoxically, is that it produces paralysis, rather than liberation. With so many options to choose from, people find it very difficult to choose at all.”

“The second effect is that even if we manage to overcome the paralysis and make a choice, we end up less satisfied with the result of the choice than we would be if we had fewer options to choose from. And there are several reasons for this. One of them is that with a lot of different salad dressings to choose from, if you buy one, and it's not perfect […] it's easy to imagine that you could have made a different choice that would have been better. And what happens is this imagined alternative induces you to regret the decision you made, and this regret subtracts from the satisfaction you get out of the decision you made, even if it was a good decision. The more options there are, the easier it is to regret anything at all that is disappointing about the option that you chose.

Second, what economists call "opportunity costs." Dan Gilbert made a big point this morning of talking about how much the way in which we value things depends on what we compare them to. Well, when there are lots of alternatives to consider, it is easy to imagine the attractive features of alternatives that you reject, that make you less satisfied with the alternative that you've chosen.”

“Opportunity costs subtract from the satisfaction we get out of what we choose, even when what we choose is terrific. And the more options there are to consider, the more attractive features of these options are going to be reflected by us as opportunity costs.”

“Third: escalation of expectations. This hit me when I went to replace my jeans. I wear jeans almost all the time. And there was a time when jeans came in one flavor, and you bought them, and they fit like crap, and they were incredibly uncomfortable, and if you wore them long enough and washed them enough times, they started to feel OK. So I went to replace my jeans after years and years of wearing these old ones, and I said, you know, "I want a pair of jeans. Here's my size." And the shopkeeper said, "Do you want slim fit, easy fit, relaxed fit? You want button fly or zipper fly? You want stonewashed or acid-washed? Do you want them distressed? You want boot cut, you want tapered, blah blah blah ..." On and on he went. My jaw dropped, and after I recovered, I said, "I want the kind that used to be the only kind.
He had no idea what that was, so I spent an hour trying on all these damn jeans, and I walked out of the store -- truth! -- with the best-fitting jeans I had ever had. I did better. All this choice made it possible for me to do better. But I felt worse. Why? I wrote a whole book to try to explain this to myself.  The reason I felt worse is that, with all of these options available, my expectations about how good a pair of jeans should be went up. I had very low -- I had no particular expectations when they only came in one flavor. When they came in 100 flavors, damn it, one of them should've been perfect. And what I got was good, but it wasn't perfect. And so I compared what I got to what I expected, and what I got was disappointing in comparison to what I expected. Adding options to people's lives can't help but increase the expectations people have about how good those options will be. And what that's going to produce is less satisfaction with results, even when they're good results.”

“Finally, one consequence of buying a bad-fitting pair of jeans when there is only one kind to buy is that when you are dissatisfied, and you ask why, who's responsible, the answer is clear: the world is responsible. What could you do? When there are hundreds of different styles of jeans available, and you buy one that is disappointing, and you ask why, who's responsible? It is equally clear that the answer to the question is you. You could have done better. With a hundred different kinds of jeans on display, there is no excuse for failure. And so when people make decisions, and even though the results of the decisions are good, they feel disappointed about them; they blame themselves.
Clinical depression has exploded in the industrial world in the last generation. I believe a significant -- not the only, but a significant -- contributor to this explosion of depression, and also suicide, is that people have experiences that are disappointing because their standards are so high, and then when they have to explain these experiences to themselves, they think they're at fault.”

As with so many things in life, when we see something as beneficial, we have the tendency of overdoing it and pulling it to the extreme only to realize how that creates other adverse effects and we have to reign ourselves in a again. Sleep is good – it is a vital part of life and required for the body to rejuvenate – but sleep too much and you’re just wasting time. Chocolate is good, it is one of those substances that can give great pleasure – but eat too much of it and your face will be plagued with zits. With all such things – the key is to add the magic words ‘in moderation’: Sleep is good… in moderation. Chocolate is good… in moderation. Having choices is good… in moderation.

So, looking again at the original statement that we have to choose between either freedom through an abundance of choices – and sustainability in refraining from utilizing resources that no one actually needs – we can now clearly see that this is a very ‘black and white’ representation of the story, leaving out important considerations. In understanding that yes, some choice is better than no choice, but too much choice is worse than some choice – we are able to pursue both freedom and sustainability –they are not mutually exclusive.

To this end, we suggest in the Living Income Proposal that before new products and services are produced and made available on the market, it must first be proven that there exists an actual genuine demand for it: that it is something people are asking for – and not merely the same product or service of which there already exists a multitude of options to choose from, only to then create the demand through marketing and advertisement.

Read More

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 2 - Sustainability vs Full employment

In my previous blog, I discussed what false dilemmas are, how they are used in our everyday life, how easily we get swayed by false dilemmas and what the consequences are of their use. I also discussed how one is able to broaden one’s view of a situation, taking a step back so one has a more accurate view of the whole picture when faced with false dilemmas.  I gave 4 examples of false dilemmas dominating discussions on very real problems that require direction and solutions. Within this blog I’ll take each example and show how the Living Income proposal steps outside of these false dilemmas and offers real win-win solutions.

Example 1

‘If we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels for a better environment, we will lose thousands of jobs in the energy-sector. So – which do we choose: preventing unemployment or fighting climate change?’

At Naomi Klein’s launch for her new book ‘This changes everything’, Naomi presented the same dilemma to Estela Vasquez, Executive VP at SEIU (United Healthcare Workers East), asking her to comment on the tension that has been existing between climate change and labor union activists – her reply was as follows: “We actually can fight for good jobs, for jobs that deal with the question of having clean energy, renewable energy, to have transportation that is accessible to all, (…) jobs can be created in retro-feeding buildings, in creating new forms of energy, in creating transportation that is clean, in creating a new society, where the determining factor is not profit, but the determining factor is the well-being of every living thing on Earth, not just human beings.”

She further mentioned that the interests at stake with climate change and pollution are heartfelt by the same people whose jobs may be insecure – what does it matter, for instance, if one secures a good job with good working conditions, if one’s child develops asthma from playing in the garden, breathing compromised air? There shouldn’t be a choice between one or the other – because both factors are, in different ways, affecting individuals’ well-being.

With a Living Income Guaranteed in place, one will always have a security net available when it comes to job losses or threat of losing one’s job – where it can be recognized that loss of employment is not an infringement on basic human rights, because one’s rights are fundamentally guaranteed through the receiving of a Living Income. When fear of unemployment is removed – flexibility is created in making a transition towards creating different jobs, jobs that are more beneficial to the community at large. The most common excuse from corporations that have not been mitigating the social costs they have helped to create, has been that: ‘we provide employment, and if you don’t want us here, we will find cheaper employment elsewhere’. Such threats become void when jobs no longer stand equal to lifelines. Such threats have created a burden on society at large in having to compromise the future for the present – but now we are walking into that compromised future. When we are faced with points such as climate change – creativity and innovation play a key-role – it is a time that calls for human potential to freely move – a potential that remains shackled as long as human rights are linked to jobs, where eventually the employer and the availability of alternative employment, determine what one can and cannot do in life, what forms of society we can and cannot aspire to, what solutions we can or a cannot bring into manifestation. A Living Income Guaranteed allows us to stop the cycles of the past and allows us to, instead, start addressing the problems we’ve created as well as ensuring that we do not make the same mistakes again.

Of course, it’s not sufficient for human creativity and inspiration to move freely – ideas must be able to become a reality and businesses concerned with sustainable and renewable energy sources, for instance, must be given a chance to establish themselves in the market. Here we’re looking at economic power-plays where companies engaged with power-production from fossil fuels have established themselves as pillars within an economy around which everything else turns. Having considerable economic influence, the practice of compromising the opportunity for firms based on renewable energy to establish themselves in that same market is common practice. Within the Living Income Guaranteed proposal, we suggest that the citizens of a country become the owners of companies within that country that produce power – hence – allowing the activities of these companies to be directly accountable to every citizen – and as such – having to keep all citizens’ interests at heart. This changes the economic dynamic in such a way that the entire power producing industry and the role established companies play within it – can be considered within the context of what would be best for all the citizens involved.





http://livingincome.me/ 

http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/

Read More

Transcending False Dilemmas with Living Income Guaranteed – Part 1

One of the ways in which we limit our ability to address problems and steer ourselves towards solutions without entering into an endless debate, is through our acceptance of false dilemmas at face value.

What is a false dilemma?

"A false dilemma arises when we allow ourselves to be convinced that we have to choose between two and only two mutually exclusive options, when that is untrue. Generally, when this rhetorical strategy is used, one of the options is unacceptable and repulsive, while the other is the one the manipulator wants us to choose. Whoever succumbs to this trap has thus made a choice that is forced, and as such, of little value. . . . Here are a few examples of common false dilemmas:

•    Either medicine can explain how Ms. X was cured, or it is a miracle. Medicine can't explain how she was cured. Therefore it is a miracle.
•    If we don't reduce public spending, our economy will collapse.
•    America: Love it or leave it.
•    The universe could not have been created from nothing, so it must have been created by an intelligent life force.”

(Normand Baillargeon, A Short Course in Intellectual Self-Defense. Seven Stories Press, 2008)

It seems easy enough to spot false dilemmas and yet, they seem to dominate the discussions about some of the most important issues we require solutions for. Have a look:

Example 1

‘If we want to reduce the use of fossil fuels for a better environment, we will lose thousands of jobs in the energy-sector. So – which do we choose: preventing unemployment or fighting climate change?’

Example 2

‘The government has two kinds of policy at its disposal to correct market failures: fiscal policy and monetary policy – not using these policies means letting the free market dictate economic conditions.’

Example 3

‘If we don’t maintain our military forces and curtail individual freedoms, terrorists will have free reign and come to destroy our beloved country.’

Example 4

‘We’ve created a society with an abundance of choices and so freedom to choose. Producing so many varieties of the same product places pressure on the environment, but reducing it would mean to give up the freedom we’ve gained.’

Do you start seeing to what extent false dilemma’s – the ‘either/or’ presentation of options – is thoroughly ingrained in media, in politics, in every day life discussions?

On the one hand false dilemmas are used to manipulate those presented with the false dilemma to choose the option that the presenter of the dilemma wishes – but on the other hand – it also encourages stagnation and paralysis. Because what happens, is: you have groups who have an interest within the one option, or who support the one option – and you have groups who have an interest within the second option, or who support the second option. And now there is a back-and-forth quibbling, to put it plainly, about which option to choose, about which group ‘loses’ and which group ‘wins’. Of course, no one wants to lose, or be the one to sacrifice their interests for the other group’s or the other goal – so everyone is fighting, but in the meantime, you maintain the status quo, because there is no movement, there is no common solution – there is just a debate, a discussion, an argument, when what is really needed is direction and action.

We tend to so blindly accept information the way it is presented to us – without critically thinking for ourselves and seeing if there are no alternatives. No, instead we immediately position ourselves on one or the other side of the dilemma and feel good about ourselves for ‘taking in a position’. But what does it matter to take in a position, if that position is not going to lead to a solution, but simply perpetuates a back-and-forth dynamic that can only lead to losing? Either ‘our group’ wins over the other, then the others lose out, or the other group wins and then ‘our group’ loses out – or no solution is reached and everyone keeps quibbling, then everyone loses out, because nothing gets directed – or both groups go into a ‘compromise’ and don’t really take on either issue, but just do ‘ a little bit’ on both fronts to please everyone – which seems like a ‘win-win’ solution – but it actually isn’t – because everyone is compromising.

The first thing to do is to take a step back and allow yourself to see the bigger picture. Because – what is presented with a false dilemma? You’re presented with a zoomed-in picture that shows two doors, two options. Now, instead of trying to break your brains over figuring out which of the doors represents the lesser of two evils – take a step back – zoom out the picture and suddenly more becomes visible within the frame – there might be a third door that had not been mentioned or there might be a pathway going around the wall that the doors are in, making every door entirely irrelevant.

In my next post, I’ll go over each of the examples and show how the Living Income proposal steps outside these false dilemmas and offers real win-win solutions.

Read More

Pollution Inequality and Living Income Guaranteed

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

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

In an interview with the professor the following was discussed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

Read More

Day 258: Will Implementation of LIG put more Stress on the Ecosystem by Creating more Consumers?

Q: "When LIG is implemented and people, who were mostly outcasts, become able to fully participate in the system we can probably expect a huge increase in consumption putting more stress on the already suffering ecosystem of the planet. How can we deal with this effectively"




A: "This is why other structural changes form part of the LIG proposal.

1. That before a product is produced, market research must be done that establishes a genuine demand for such a product as the mentality is followed that when a product is produced, we can create the demand for it through advertising.

2. Advertisement should stand in relation to informing potential consumers about what the product is, how long it will last, what the materials used are, how the price is determined - appealing to a person's rational choice making capabilities, without using manipulation and persuasion tactics that appeal and attempt to influence a person's emotional state of mind.

3. Durable products (eg: something that you use several times, like a vacuum cleaner or a bed, a car, etc) require to be approved by the bureau of standards where they have to be able to show that they have made the product to last for as long as reasonably possible.


The purpose of all these measures is to counter the trend of living beyond our means - where we have been depleting the Earth's resources faster than we can replenish it through producing and selling goods that no one truly needs or wants, but are sold through manipulative means of convincing the consumer that they DO want and need this good, and through producing inferior goods that were made to break. So, LIG intends to align our ECOnomic system to our ECOlogical reality - which is an absolute must if we intend our children to inherit an Earth that is not damaged beyond repair. We are the custodians of Earth - whether this position is rightful or unrightfully claimed is beyond our time - we have placed ourselves as humanity in the position where we are the only ones who can make a change to the health of the planet we inhabit - and thus we have a responsibility to do so."

For more perspective, visit www.livingincome.me !

Read More

Day 253: Living Income Guaranteed and Means Testing

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Read More

Day 217: Who's Free Riding Who?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles

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

Read More

Day 157: Growing your Own Food and Equal Money

"You can't tell people they can't do something because that will motivate them further. So my hypothetical situation is this. You plans are in full swing and the majority of the planet is behind you but thousands of people don't like the system of ordering food at the touch of a button or swipe of a card and they gather in their city square and protest outside your building then more and more people join until there are endless seas of angry people outside your building that no longer want to be dependent on your system and instead would like to grow food themselves but in your fields that your system has acquired do you let them grow their own food or do you call the riot police to sweep these complainers off your front door. In addition to this I would say I don't want to be dependent on nothing but the earth for it has enough to provide for all without your idea of regulating it we need abundance in all reaches of the globe so we need only ourselves and our generosity. "

Any points of discontent with the organization of society, can be reported by each individual through their online Life Profile (see Politics Wiki page). Riots, marches, demonstrations and massive protests are only applicable in a system where the people are not being heard and where the system stands in opposition to the well-being of the population. Within an Equal Money System, each point of discontent will be addressed on an individual level - where you don't require thousands of people to stand together to make themselves heard. When addressing a point of discontent, which indicates a point of disharmony, it will be assessed whether the disharmony is a result of the organizational structure of society or whether there is a point of disharmony within the person, such as for instance a lack of understanding regarding particular policies and the research these policies are based upon.

Within your example of growing one's own food, there are several points to be considered. Firstly, any point that is made available to one person, must be made available to all people equally. Therefore, to allow one person to cultivate land for food production, implies allowing everyone to do the same. Within this, it must be considered whether it is Best for All to convert such massive amounts of land for agricultural process when this is not part of the Earth's natural expression and can have ramifications in terms of the harmonious balance that is required for the Earth's Life Support System to function effectively. Secondly, the desire for growing one's own food must be investigated. Meaning: does it stem from a lack of quality from the food that you are receiving? In this case, for each one to grow their own food is not necessarily the required solution - but instead one would require to upgrade and better the already existent food production processes. If the desire to grow one's own food stems from simply wanting to participate in such activities as growing food, then each one can on a voluntary basis participate in the already existent food production processes.

Currently, many resort to growing their own food as a coping mechanism because the profit motive compromises the quality of the available food. Without the ability to influence those processes directly, such a reaction is understandable, because there is no alternative. In a system of Equality wherein the well-being of each individual is safeguarded by the Constitution, one would not need to resort to coping mechanisms for the purpose of bettering the lives of only a few. Instead - each one will engage to find solutions that better the life of All. 

Related articles

• Day 154: The Application of Justice in an Equal Money System
• Day 150: Voting Responsibility and Tight-Knit Communities in an Equal Money System
• Day 151: Media, Law and Information Accessibility within an Equal Money System
• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 156: Honoring the Right to Life in an Equal Money System
• Day 155: Constitutional Equality as the Rule of Law

Read More

Day 76: The Demand for Money - Part 2

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to create an economic system which only cares about the small segment of the population that has wealth of receives an income

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created an economic theory which will only explore mechanisms and dynamics within the realm of those with money -- while leaving half the population out of the game just because they don't have money and are now apparently 'not good enough' to be considered within the economy game

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created an elitist economic system, which only cares about those who have money and the choices they make -- whilst leaving everyone else in the cold

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created an economic system and discipline which will only work with a fraction of the population -- while at the same time making it a 'global system' which affects EVERYONE -- without every seeing or realising how arrogant that is

I forgive myself that I haven't accepted and allowed myself to see and realise, that if I am going to be working with a Global economic system, that this economic system should encompass everyone on the globe -- not because they have money, but because they are here and just because of that they should be treated as equally valuable participants

I forgive myself that I haven't accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that imposing a system globally unto everyone's lives while not allowing everyone to participate equally is very, very nasty

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to preoccupy myself with theories about how the demand for money changes based upon the values of those who have money -- while not everyone has money and so not everyone can survive in this world -- which really makes my theory a stupid joke as it is incomplete, as not everyone has been considered

I forgive myself that I haven't accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that any economic system which fails to provide for everyone is a complete failure and should not be taught as it is completely inadequate and not worthy of being taught to our children -- as they will believe that this is the best we can do while we can do so much

Related articles

• Day 75: The Demand for Money - Part 1
• Day 118: #TRUEACTIVIST - Part 2
• Day 51: Resource Distribution - Part 3
• How Illusion became Reality
• I Finally Understand…
• Individual and Collective Global Responsibility

Read More

Day 69: The Functions of Money – Part 3

I commit myself to expose that Money is only a tool – and that we’ve currently accepted and allowed ourselves to use this tool in a way which does Not Serve Life and is Not Best For All – where Money is the tool which gives you access to Resources while at the same time have made it a ‘luxury’ which is not available for everyone – and where one has to ‘earn their money’ and ‘earn their living’ in a system which is not set up to provide money for everyone – and within that ensuring that not all beings born on the planet will have a life of sustenance

I commit myself to expose that how we currently use money is a scam, as money is a made up idea / creation of humans which is supposed to very closely linked to the ‘scarcity of resources’ – while the money which we currently use actually in no way represents the capacity of Earth or is managed in anyway whatsoever with the wellbeing of the planet and its people / animals / nature in mind – and so is just a fraud

I commit myself to expose that money backed up by gold or silver or money backed up by nothing is the same thing – as one is merely backing up one symbol representing ‘money’ with another symbol representing ‘money’ – where both are physical substances/manifestations to which we humans have attached a ‘special value’, where it is only valuable because everyone agrees that it is valuable – but that doesn’t make it valuable in fact – because as long as money is backed up by anything which has got no relation to Life and Sustainability we are just going to recreate the same system over and over again – as the money system will have no practical relationship with Life on Earth

I commit myself to expose that Money is not the Root of all Evil, and that a ‘moneyless’ society is not the Solution to the Problem, as Money is not the Problem but we Humans are – and thus we have to change the human as the human nature as our accepted and allowed value system where we value wants over needs and are okay with half of the members of our species living a life of misery if it means that some of us can do whatever the hell we want

I commit myself to expose that any money economy which uses money as a tool which gives people access to resources in order to sustain themselves, and then does not allow the system to work in a way so that all have access to the necessary money to get the resources they need – is evil – and those who accept and allow the system are equally evil – and such a system ought to be put to an end as it does not have the Best Interest of All Life at heart, but only the best interest of a few as those who have Money and such a discriminatory system is UNACCEPTABLE

I commit myself to show that Money works based on agreement, and that this agreement can be changed – and thus I commit myself to show that Money can be used in a different way as in the Equal Money System where all have access to money so all can have access to the resources they need – because Money is backed up by Life, and thus all get money by virtue of being Life and not because they had to go and “earn” it and prove that they are worthwhile to be kept a life by a Capitalist System that does not give a Shit about Life and who Lives and Who Dies as long as the creators of the Game and the Main players get their way

I commit myself to educate those who are willing to hear on how the Economic System and the Money System works, so all can realise what a SCAM it is, and that all the difficult and sophisticated sounding words and constructs are mostly just Band Aids for a System which is Doomed to Fail and within that educate / show that we can have a sustainable economy as the Equal Money System, which is PRO-LIFE and the first economic system which will distribute and manage resources responsibly while at the same time making sure that all constituents of the Earth are taking care off and that no-one is left behind -- which is what Economics was supposed to be about ALL ALONG

Read More

Day 68: The Functions of Money - Part 2

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created a money economy, where money has no practical relation to the physical reality and sustainability – as money can simply be printed or made up out of anything without anyone regulating whether the amount of money in circulation actually represents the capacity of the Earth – as all our economic system currently cares about is the ‘pursuit of happiness’ -- but this ‘pursuit of happiness’ is only available for a few, where a few will have access to the majority of the resources while everyone else is being deprived – where an elite is living a lifestyle of abundance which is unsustainable with no regard for present and future implication / consequence

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that the belief that money is only worth something when it is ‘backed up’ by ‘gold’ or ‘silver’ – is in fact false , as gold and silver are just material substances, like paper – which we’ve assigned particular values to, and so within backing up ‘paper money’ with ‘precious metal money’ is the same as backing up money with money – where we’re backing up one symbol representing money with another symbol representing money – which is the same as not backing up your money with anything

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that even if money was backed up by gold or silver – that this would make no change whatsoever to the current situation in the world and the enormous inequality gap we are faced with – as the problem is not the money but us humans and our distorted value system, as we only value our limited self-interest and care only about our ‘personal pursuit of happiness’, without ever considering the happiness and wellbeing of the whole, as the whole of society and all living beings involved – and thus as long as we do not sort out our values it doesn’t matter whether our money is backed up or not – we’ll still be on a straight track to our own self-destruction as our value system is unsustainable and as far removed from physical reality as can be

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to blame money as ‘the root of all evil’ – without seeing and realising that money is merely a tool, a concept to facilitate exchange and the allocation of resources – and the only real Evil is us humans, as we are responsible for the Equation through which money flows, which currently is seated within Inequality as the current Money Equation favours those who Have over those who Have Not – and so the suffering in the world as poverty, starvation and war is not the result of Money, as Money is merely a tool – but at the fault of those who wield the tool, which is us humans – and so the root of all Evil is us Humans as irresponsible wielders of a powerful tool, as Money is currently the tool which decides who lives and who dies

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to have created an economic reality which relies on money and where people rely on Money to survive, but where we’ve accepted and allowed money to be Unreliable through manifestations such as Inflation, where those who know less about money and how money works are at a disadvantage where their personal access to resources will decrease overtime if they rely on money only simply because they are unaware of how the system works

I forgive myself that I haven’t accepted and allowed myself to see and realise that money as it is now is not a ‘fixed reality’ – as money is based on agreement and this agreement can change, where we collectively can decide to have a money economy based on Life and Sustainability where money again is just a tool used to facilitate exchange and the allocation of resources but which flows through an Equality Equation ensuring that All are taking care of, as All are Equally Valuable as Life – and so the Equal Money System do not prefer one Life form or being over another – and will cater for everyone, ensuring a Life of Comfort and Freedom for ALL in Fact, Now and in the Future

Read More