Have you Ever been Swept Off Your Feet?

In both cases – whether the bubble was inflated with positive or negative energy – the participants in the bubble are being swept away further and further away from actual physical reality and start to see everything either ‘extremely negatively’ or ‘extremely positively’ – neither experience is grounded in reality – because the physical is neither positive or negative – it just is what it is.

And Then You Crash – Meconomics

In this little series, we’ve been investigating the phenomenon of inflation, how we in our daily lives participate in ‘inflating our reality’ and so, how we are on a personal level participating in the same principles/dynamics that we see playing out on a bigger scale when it comes to inflation, speculative bubbles and financial market crashes.

Welcoming New Life with Living Income Guaranteed

Comfort, security and nurturing are all things we wish are present when a baby comes into this world. Yet, these conditions are not a reality for many babies, as parents themselves like these things in their lives. In Pietermaritzburg, the capital of KwaZulu Natal province in South Africa, 3 to 5 babies are…

Humanity Washed Ashore

This was an excerpt of just one of the stories about the boy. Over the last few days, dozens have been written and published on various major news sites. What is more striking than the content of the posts, is the comments that are left on these articles. What is humanity’s response to such images, to such news?

Voting Fun – What does it Feel Like to Have a Say?

Now – before such increased direct political participation is a reality – let’s do a little test to see what it feels like. So – here are some mock-questions where you’re asked to give your input. Imagine that this relates to your direct reality (eg. your town) – and your answer has a weight that influences the outcome of the decision. Of course, in reality…

Showing posts with label profit motive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label profit motive. Show all posts

31 March 2013

Day 211: Labour Flexibility and Equal Money Capitalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Within Equal Money Capitalism, we get this.

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

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

27 February 2013

Day 197: Equal Money Capitalism - Freedom or Control?

For context, read the full discussion of this communication on Quora: http://www.quora.com/Equal-Money-System-1/What-is-the-Equal-Money-System/answer/Marlen-Vargas-Del-Razo?__ac__=1#comment1799680

So you would deny free movement of labor? In regards to #2, it seems you deride work for profit, and instead imply that there would be a central plan for determing what jobs there would be, and who would do them. If you deny an economy to make free market decisions on what to produce and for whom, what would happen to technological advances, which rely on capital and risk and return? Why would one work hard at their job if they are guaranteed income? If profit is so derised in your system, how do you suggest people will find the initiative to work hard and achieve, if they won't be rewarded for that extra work?

Most of all, how would you address the economic calculation problem, with the elimination of profit-based industrial organization?

This reads a lot like communism, whether you want it to or not. What if people don't want to work in the jobs you would "create" or emphasize? What if everyone wants to continue to work at for-profit companies to make more money? Do you at some point start "forcing" them to reconsider?

“So you would deny free movement of labor? “


There will still be a free movement of labor in terms that individuals are able to choose what career/direction they wish to commit themselves to. So no, we do not deny free movement of labour - in fact the movement of labour will be greatly enhanced as there will be less barriers in place that keep people from pursuing what they want to engage themselves in life.

“In regards to #2, it seems you deride work for profit, and instead imply that there would be a central plan for determing what jobs there would be, and who would do them.”

The Government will only intervene when the Market requires assistance in creating employment and ensuring that basic goods and services are produced for everyone. As such there is no 'central planning' -- the Government will only intervene when required.

“If you deny an economy to make free market decisions on what to produce and for whom, what would happen to technological advances, which rely on capital and risk and return?”

The assumption that technological advances rely on capital, risk and profit returns is an incorrect one. We can see this even in the simple things like Open Source Software -- look at for instance Linux and Ubuntu, many Operating Systems today are based on this technology which was not profit driven. When the profit motive is removed and funding is provided, technological advancement is dependent on people's passion and motivation. Within this consider also that funding will not be tied to profit and thus there will be larger space for technological innovation which has previously been ignored 'because there's no money in it'.
You can read more on this point here:
Day 152: Linux proves Profit Motive does not Provide the Best Result

“ Why would one work hard at their job if they are guaranteed income? If profit is so derised in your system, how do you suggest people will find the initiative to work hard and achieve, if they won't be rewarded for that extra work?”

One would engage themselves in their job from a starting point of self-enjoyment and integrity. Many people today to not engage or commit themselves because the job they do is merely done from a starting point of survival and having limited options available. One will have to motivate oneself and assume one's responsibility to the betterment of society as a whole. Within having a real choice for the first time people will choose the jobs that truly interest and stimulate them which in itself will aid in the engagement, commitment and quality of the task done. It’s time to realise that we can move beyond being puppets who only move when our strings (=money) get pulled and realise that we can live and contribute simply from a point of self-respect and dignity – both for ourselves and others.

“Most of all, how would you address the economic calculation problem, with the elimination of profit-based industrial organization?”

There will still be a Market Mechanism in place within Equal Money Capitalism -- we're merely replacing the variables that drive supply and demand to support Life instead of profit. On this topic you can read the following blogs:

Day 173: Supply, Demand, Business and Scarcity in Equal Money Capitalism
Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism
Day 196: Market Mechanisms and Equal Money

“This reads a lot like communism, whether you want it to or not. What if people don't want to work in the jobs you would "create" or emphasize? What if everyone wants to continue to work at for-profit companies to make more money? Do you at some point start "forcing" them to reconsider?"

The implementation of an Equal Money Capitalism system already implies a shift in values -- away from profit and consumerism to Life and responsibility. This implementation requires to go through the normal political processes and thus would be implemented through consent --  which means there would be consent on the basic principles and values.

Wanting more money than you would need is merely an indication of greed which is a form of mental disorder and would have to be addressed through a process of psychological facilitation and correction. You will receive everything you need to live a comfortable Life -- anything more would compromise others for the sake of one's own desires and is unacceptable. As such there will be no 'for profit companies' in the sense of pursuing indefinite growth in the name of greed -- it will thus not be an option to be considered. In terms of 'wanting more money' you can read the following blog:

Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism

Linux absolutely does not prove that profit motive does not provide the best return. You are taking an exception to the rule, and trying to draw a new conclusion. Open-sourcing does not require large amounts of capital or risk, so it is a poor comparison. For every "Linux" you show, I can point towards the airline industry, the automotive industry, the computing industry, the biotech industry, the healthcare industry, etc; all industries that would not exist if there was no capital and return/risk economic calculation for investors.

Of course you'll be able to, for every Linux, point at a huge amount of companies/industries that grew within the profit-motive principle - because we live in a capitalistic system. At the moment, people are being motivated through profit, so that is how the point moves at the moment. However - the assumption is always made that it is impossible to do without the profit motive - and to refute such assumptions, it is sufficient to have one example that proves that it can be done otherwise. From there, it is a matter of identifying the conditions of the environment within which growth and innovation would be best supported.

"Wanting more money than you would need is merely an indication of greed which is a form of mental disorder and would have to be addressed through a process of psychological facilitation and correction. "

Ah, this tells me all I need to know about this "equal money capitalism".

You have to understand that the current capitalistic system has been designed to 'manage', 'manipulate' and 'control' the self-interested nature of the human being. So, capitalism recognises that human nature at the moment is faulty. However, instead of actually supporting individuals to move beyond such self-interested attitudes and behaviors, capitalism takes advantage of it by pushing people's buttons so that most slave away and some can live a God's life. So - EMC recognises the same problems within human behavior and attitudes - however, instead of manipulating people and trying to control them, we suggest to actually address those issues, resolving them and thus empowering each one. Now tell me - which of these approaches would you say is mind control?
Enhanced by Zemanta

08 December 2012

Day 152: Linux proves Profit Motive does not Provide the Best Result

One of the main arguments that has been put forward in terms of why we have to hold on to a profit-based economic system, is that - apparently - people are not motivated to perform to the best of their ability if there is no form of monetary reward attached to it.

If that were the case, then who can explain the Linux phenomenon?

The Linux operating system and software are assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. It means that everyone who is capable and interested can be a part of designing the products and it can be freely used, modified and re-distributed by anyone.

It's done by volunteers for the betterment of everyone. So - then the question: does it produce good results? Well -the following should answer that question:

"The Linux kernel was originally developed as free kernel for Intel x86-based personal computers. It has since been ported to more computer hardware platforms than any other kernel. Linux based operating systems are the leading operating system type on servers and other big iron systems such as mainframe computers and supercomputers: more than 90% of today's 500 fastest supercomputers run some variant of Linux, including the 10 fastest. Linux also runs on embedded systems (devices where the operating system is typically built into the firmware and highly tailored to the system) such as mobile phones, tablet computers, network routers, televisions and video game consoles; the Android system in wide use on mobile devices is built on the Linux kernel."

The best computers on Earth run on some variant of Linux - that says something, right? I mean - computer technology is one of the main points we see as important in terms of 'advancements' in technology and most of these advancements are made by volunteers. That completely debunks the idea that you need to pay people and need an environment of competition for people to be creative and driven to achieve excellence.

Within the current system we've simply been brainwashed into believing that we shouldn't do anything unless we can get some type of monetary or material reward out of it. And you can prove to yourself that this is in fact brainwashing by looking back at your childhood - where you looked at what you wanted to be in the world - whether it was a farmer, a hair dresser, a doctor or a librarian - where you didn't factor in the point of money and wealth - because that didn't form part of your motivation. You simply looked at what you would enjoy doing and where you'd like to contribute and what you'd like to participate in. It's only when you got older that you started becoming lazy, because your passions were no longer considered and you were just expected to fall in line and 'get with the program'. In such a context, laziness is a form of giving up on yourself - because you see that the system does not really care about you and you see no way of changing that point - therefore, you become lethargic and decide to 'rebel' in a way - through only doing the bare minimum. And to get people to do the bare minimum - they bribe you with money - making it so that: if you don't do the bare minimum, you simply don't get money and you simply can't survive.

So - in changing the system from a worker-manufacturing system to a life-support system - these problems will mostly become irrelevant. For more perspective on this point, I suggest reading the Labour section on the Equal Money Wiki.

Enhanced by Zemanta