Citizenship Shareholding

What is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)? Part 2

Posted on Updated on

By Josh Richert

 

Continuing from the last blog , CSR is more of a global initiative that is being implemented, encouraged, and directed by various organizations as well as the UN to encourage corporate responsibility towards a common ‘good’.  One of those organizations is the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).  From their website:

“The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a leading organization in the sustainability field. GRI promotes the use of sustainability reporting as a way for organizations to become more sustainable and contribute to sustainable development.”

So, we have CSR which is a global initiative of corporate self-governance to encourage corporation to both regulate themselves and report on themselves in regards to changing and implementing business practices for the common good, such as making products that are environmentally friendly, avoiding slave and child labor, giving back to communities, etc.  In order to implement the CSR and encourage it worldwide, organizations like GRI have been created.  But there are other bodies in addition to GRI, such as the Integrated International Reporting Council.
The IIRC produced a
Discussion Paper in 2011 from which the feedback demonstrated overwhelming support for Integrated Reporting and endorsed the development of a global Framework. It also concluded that the primary audience of integrated reports is investors in order to aid their allocation of financial capital.

And then we also have the United Nations Global Impact, from there website:

“The UN Global Compact is a strategic policy initiative for businesses that are committed to aligning with ten universally accepted principles for human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption.
​The UN Global Compact and GRI signed an agreement in May 2010 to align their work in advancing corporate responsibility and transparency. As part of this agreement, GRI will develop guidance regarding the
Global Compact’s ten principles and integrate UNGC issue areas into the next iteration of its Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. The UNGC will adopt the GRI Guidelines as the recommended reporting framework for the more than 5800 businesses that have joined the world’s largest corporate responsibility platform.”

So, what I am getting at here is establishing the framework of what exactly CSR is, and from what I can see, CSR not a set of global laws, but a set of global initiatives for specifically international corporations to voluntarily adhere to (and arguably for their own good such as increasing market share and profitability due to increased consumer awareness of their ‘ethical and altruistic’ business practices) with the intent to improve living conditions for those living on this planet (a.k.a. the ‘common good’) through encouraging corporate responsibility to those living on this planet, of whom are commonly referred to as the ‘stakeholders.’ 

The guidelines, encouragement, and implementation for these standards are managed by various organizations, including GRI, UNGC, and IIRC, to name a few.  These organizations have created what is commonly referred to as ‘sustainability reports’ with specific guidelines and standards in specific categories such as human resources, environmental concerns, supply chain concerns (i.e. labor), philanthropy, volunteering, etc. wherein corporations are encouraged to report on each category based upon specific standards created by these organization.

But is this ‘global initiative’ of corporate ‘self-regulation’ for the common ‘good’ really effective?
Well, one interesting article from Nov 2012 found on the CSR-reporting website sheds some interesting light on that topic.  As a direct quote from the article:

banarra consistency

“Let me just repeat that so it’s clear:

Labor Indicators: 86% of companies claim they report and only 11% actually do.

Human Rights Indicators: 62% of companies claim they report and only 20% actually do.”

This research reveals a significant difference between claims made in GRI Sustainability Reporting and what actually gets reported (which was unpublished research as of November 17 2012 that was conducted by the Vienna Team in collaboration with Middlesex University London lead by Dr. Sepideh Parsa and Dr. Ian Roper); wherein we can see that the vast majority of corporations are reporting falsehoods, are reporting inaccurately, or claim to be reporting but are not even reporting at all.

Why so?  Well, I would venture that this would be expected for the following: Regardless of the motive, whether it be ultraistic or self-serving, for a corporation to self-regulate and comply with CSR reporting, the bottom line is that those with a controlling interest in these corporations, the shareholders, are looking for maximum returns on their investments which means that the corporations profit comes first, and that the consequences of the corporate actions come second.  Thus, if it is more profitable to ‘cheat’ on the CSR reporting then that is what will happen. Furthermore, if complying with CSR initiatives threatens the survival of corporations then that would be reason and justification for corporations to not allow any reporting (tell on itself in essence) that would undermine its ability to survive.  Another reason is that the shareholders are not stakeholders usually and thus are not really feeling the consequences of the corporate practices and thus it is easy to turn a blind eye and ignore the inconsistencies in the CSR reporting by the corporations they own.

 

So, what we are left here with is an interesting dynamic and that is: the corporations are left with finding the right balance between making their CSR reports – which of course is considered to be a competitive advantage – and also keeping profits up as much as possible in order to appease their shareholders and so ensure their survival and continued existence.  I mean, this is a real test of self-honesty even on an individual level in that, would you tell on yourself / disclose your secrets to another if that meant that it may imply that you would lose money, profits and make you less competitive?  So, that balancing point is where the company can be transparent and honest, yet still keep profits up within a satisfactory zone all at the same time.  Thus, this means for most companies that they are going to have fudge the numbers to make this work. This is just plain common sense.

 

csr

 

How can we change the system to ensure that corporations will report accurately and make significant changes to their practices that will benefit all / the stakeholders? 

Obviously there needs to be a change in the frame-work of the system because with the way the system is set-up now, there will be no true corporate responsibility taken by corporations as it really is not in their best interest, ultimately, as evidenced by the poor participation in reporting and making real changes thus far.  Thus, the framework of the economic system needs to be adjusted in a way that the corporations still work within self-interest / making profits but yet that self-interest will lead them to make real changes.  The economic system itself must change because the alternative to changing the system and attempting to police or enforce such a code of ethics would literally be impossible on a global scale within the realization that there just is not enough man-power, time, and ways and means to really be able to get inside the corporations and ensure their compliance.  Thus, the compliance must be considered essential to corporations, by corporations, for their survival – just as non-compliance is in essence essential to their survival now – and that will only be achieved by making some adjustments to the economic system.

Another point to consider, is that within the current economic structure, how can we even trust that CSR / eco-friendly / socially responsible measures taken by environmental groups and NGO’s are always working in our / the general populace / the stakeholders and the Earth’s best interest? 

There is strong evidence, if one spends any  time researching this point, that the CSR and Green concepts have been used to corner markets, drive commodity prices up, control resources and markets, and pass oppressive laws or push for potentially oppressive laws such as the ‘carbon tax’ scheme / meme.  It can be argued that this CSR movement has been used as a platform to create memes that the populace accepts as accurate and for their good to then lobby for ‘eco-friendly’ government policies that are really more like ‘Trojan Horses’ that when enforced actually play into the hand of those behind the scenes seeking profit and further oppressing the people.  There is strong evidence that the very corporations themselves use the environmental movement to control prices, markets, and resources.  The oil companies often times fund the very environmental movements that they appear to be in opposition to, as an example.

In sum, CSR and the related green movements are all well and needed, but within the current economic system structure, these initiative and movements are either ineffective or used to manipulate and control markets for the benefits of the shareholders and not the stakeholders.

Back to the question: how can we change our system to ensure that corporations will report accurately and actually make real changes upon themselves within a point of self-regulation?  The answer to this question is not simply in the details, yet it is simple within the point of considering how our economic system is currently structured.  So, there are a couple of points to consider here:

1.  LIG.  A Living Income Guaranteed needs to be initiated.  So, I ask the question: Who ultimately is in control of the corporations?  Answer: Those who buy their products and services, within the point that if corporations lose their customer base, they may cease to exist / go out of business.  So, ultimately, who is the corporation appeasing within all of its activities?  The customer. 

Even within the degree of fraud and manipulation in reporting and green movements today, the customer is ultimately in mind.  It’s like an abusive relationship.  If one party in relationship can ‘get away’ with it, they will, and they will continue to do, so long as the desired relationship stays intact.  However, once that relationship is threatened, the abuser will change his/her behavior in order to save the relationship, if possible.  And even if that change of behavior is within self-interest, the change will still be made in a way that will benefit all parties if the abused decides to no longer take the stance as the abused and force the abuser to change within that stance.

Thus, how do we get the people to take that stand? 

Right now, we as the people / the ‘stakeholders’, are not taking that stand that says ‘no you don’t.  You will not abuse the resources and the people for the sake of your own profit.’  And the primary reason is that most people only have enough money to meet basic survival needs as most people are existing in the bottom level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.   However, if people have enough money, they will move beyond survival and then start really looking at how to make themselves and this world a better place.

You see, right now, most people are only able to shop for things based upon price.  It may matter in the back of someone’s mind about all the abuses that were required to bring that product to market at that price, but if that is all one is able to afford and that is what one needs – that product will be bought regardless.  You see, corporations have us at our knees right now within the principle of ‘beggars cannot be choosers.’  The general populace simply does not have the money to truly vote with their money and thus corporations do not have to really answer to the consumer or the environment because either way, we are still buying from them.

Thus, a LIG will enable the populace to start voting with their money so long as we are able to structure it in a way that the LIG will lift people enough out of poverty to do so.  The LIG will create a new pool of money found in the common man zone, instead of only in the upper echelons where the shareholders of corporations primarily are.  The shareholders have so much money that they are disconnected with the realities on the ground and the abuses therein. Shareholders are concerned with increasing their wealth.  That is why they are shareholders in the first place.  Thus, an LIG will equalize that playing field in giving the common man voting rights with their money and thus lifting them up into a form of ‘shareholder’ as well as their existing status of stakeholder.

2.  Dare I say Nationalization?  Let’s call it: Converting Stakeholders (the common man) to Shareholders.  And let’s start with nationalization of essential resources and perhaps the energy sector.  Through nationalization, stakeholders will suddenly become shareholders of the resources that corporations use to bring energy, raw materials such as lumber, food, and water to market for consumption.  That means that wealthy hidden elite will not be in control behind the scenes in a way to increase their profits at the expense of us all.  That also means that people living within the borders of each country will suddenly have the wealth of these resources and thus will be able to sell or trade these natural resources to other countries or corporations. 
Once established, we can hold a democratic Internet voting system, in the form of a liquid democracy, accessible to the people / the citizens of certain geographic areas – to vote for how they would like the natural resources to be handled.

If this were to occur, then corporations would have to change their ways to conform to the laws of the land regarding these resources, because the owners of the resources, the people, will demand it; or these corporations would have to go somewhere else where these nationalizations have not occurred, YET.  Can anyone give me a good reason why ‘nationalization’ of the resources would be so demonized and how actually benefits from the demonization of the concept of nationalization?

 

3.  Increase Awareness: This is already happening in the CSR / Green movements.  This needs to continue and then be streamlined into a unified movement that is brought to everyone’s attention.  Thus, when people have the money through LIG and have ownership of the resources through Nationalization: they will make better decisions / votes as to how to manage them.

Within this public awareness that needs to be increased, as well as we need to de-polarize the movement and bring it into a practical point of consideration where we all as one see, realize, and understand the consequences and implications of our actions within the current state of affairs, within a fact-based platform.   As compared to where we are now, which has this CSR / ECO / Social awareness movement polarized between left and right / liberal vs. conservative, where the left embraces this movement and anything that comes with this movement, even the manipulated aspects of this movement that are contrived by certain groups to corner markets and drive up prices etc., and the right which rejects this movement in its entirety.

Thus within this polarization, all are consumed with the energy of right verses wrong and not are looking at the practical points that are right here in front of us.  I mean, we do have a garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean that is the size of the United States, don’t we?  Can’t we start discussions on these points without getting all polarized into groups based on right vs. wrong?  So, the depolarization of this movement needs to occur so that people can start looking at this practically, and within that we can start really creating solutions that can be implemented through laws or mandates or simply the influence carried out with the populace who now has money through LIG or part ownership of at least the natural resources.

Once this is in place, corporations will have no other choice but to make decisions that are best for all in their practices or else face the prospect of going extinct / out of business.  Let’s do this.

 

corporate-social-responsibility - LIG

 

Watch the LIG Hangout on

Check Out the Links for More Information on Living Income:

Advertisements

Sedition and Media under Living Income Guaranteed

Posted on Updated on

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the word sedition. Sedition is to cause harm or to undermine a government. A government is the citizens representing themselves, no matter what system is utilized at the end of the day, which is what the government represents: the citizens. Therefore, any action that is taken to undermine the wellbeing of the citizens in a country – for instance causing poverty or diminishing resources, causing harm to the citizens of a country = that would be sedition and that is how it should be approached.

Sedition certainly is not when one exposes abuse by your government representatives that they should be held accountable and what they do should be transparent and therefore, one needs to re-look at the word ‘sedition’ carefully.

The media as a medium with which the citizens communicate and educate themselves to be effective in supporting each other to have a country that is economically and financially effective. The media should thus be owned by the people of the country and never only by certain individuals. No policy should ever be allowed that damages the country because to do that, is to in fact act in a way that is detrimental to the wellbeing of the country and by definition would be – if we have lawyers with some common sense – the premise for treason. And that is why the police force will exist, that’s why the commercial units will exist is to investigate those that do damage the Economy and to the Human Rights of the people. That’s what police’s purpose actually is, the purpose of the police is not to protect the rights of the wealthy, is to protect the rights of the citizen, to ensure that there is nothing that is happening that will cause unemployment that will cause people to live on the streets – that’s a crime!


We have a very strange criminology, justice, economic, political and an education system. Now teachers cannot even work out the basic common sense of what it is that they are supposed to teach the children, because our curricula are not designed to support Human Rights.

We have no lawyers standing-up and doing something about it, we have no economists standing-up. Instead we have all kinds of presentations and proposals to bring about a better world without any clear understanding of how the system really functions, which must even place into question all our activists.

The propaganda of the media and all the systems that now manage the ideologies of the mind, are deliberately diving the human into the idea of ‘free choice’ and into the idea that apparently ‘you must have your own opinion.’ Opinion is never fact, study facts – don’t ever allow yourself to form an opinion, an opinion is never real: it is an illusion – facts are real.

We are currently existing under a form of a very strange capitalist democracy where we don’t have majority rule, we have minority rule. And this is done through propaganda where the actual scientific research, the actual considerations and common sense necessary to manage a country and ensure that its citizens are well cared for, are deliberately misdirected. This is why for instance, the media should belong to the citizens, because the media is the medium through which the education of the citizens of a country happens, to ensure that they act responsibly. As an example, to vote for minority rights that are going to cause starvation and poverty is not going to solve the problem. One should vote for Human Rights that ensure that there is an equitable distribution of value that ensures that everyone has a decent life.

We have to really question the quality of our leadership, the quality of our academics and our researchers, the quality of our media and the quality of our economists – they all seem to be deliberately creating a world of poverty, identifying ‘autonomous forces’ to be what determines prices, which is what creates a lack of understanding so that the majority of the population keeps on missing what’s really going on. The reality is that only a few are making and being protected by all the money, while the majority is lost in translation when it comes to understanding economic theories that lack practical and tangible common sense.

Within a Living Income Guaranteed System we suggest that this word sedition is what it truly means: anyone that undermines the wellbeing of the citizens to bring harm to people in general, causing them financial distress, causing the economy to not be balanced and effective to support the people, purely for the purpose of making profit = that is sedition and treason, and must be treated as such.

Equal Life Foundation

Basic Income Guaranteed and Sedition

Living Income Guaranteed and Commodity Pricing

Posted on Updated on

The theories about free market suggest that supply and demand determine the price and that apparently there is a ‘market force’ that is determining at the end of the day who will be wealthy and who will be poor. The odds – if you know from playing Monopoly – are that ‘he who has the money will be wealthy because they will get more’. This is happening very effectively with commodity pricing, because the future’s market and the establishment of pricing through this common oddity instead of common sense – for example, determining the price of food this way like in a giant casino – is certainly not a way for any competent government that represents citizens to enable feeding its people.

Take for instance food in a capitalistic world where labor is a capital and your food is a capital, and the seat of your government is a capital and the money you have is a capital: the creation of food and feeding one’s citizens and then making available the surplus in the open markets is the way it should function. Where the establishment of food prices is based on the labor input and the cost input and the historical growth in value through the accumulated effort of the human’s participation on Earth. These are the aspects that must be part of the pricing system to ensure that those people have no need for a Living Income, because there is sufficient profit for those involved in creating the food to make a decent living, to pay the farm laborers properly so that they can do their work with a loving heart and not because they are forced to do it because they have no other means to make a living.

Imagine! all the people that are into the ideas of ‘consciousness’ for instance, already have this inclination that ‘the hands that touch things have an influence on its constitution’. This would imply that if your food is produced by poor people desperate to make a living that are not getting enough money, constantly experiencing anger, anxiety and fear = that would be transferred to our food and because we accept that as ‘okay,’ we accept the consequence of this form of production as ‘okay’ and as such, we accept the consequence of placing this in our body as ‘okay’ without realizing and understanding how is it that within this we contribute and participate in creating more disease on Earth.

Within the commodities’ markets, food pricing and the giant casino, those that make profits do not care about this because they can create another health product to sell and place on the markets, continuing the cycle of supply and demand which results in forced labor and economic slavery.

With Living Income Guaranteed we suggest that we start looking at the real science, not only the genetic modification that is attempted to be controlled through patents and influencing the food supply to influence the palate of the population and have control over it and thus control over price. Price control in Living Income Guaranteed is not a matter of control, it’s a matter of common sense: if the labor part of the food production is not healthy = the food cannot be healthy as the investigation into water crystals by Masaru Emoto indicated – and then it cannot produce a healthy society because the pricing isn’t healthy, the capitalistic system isn’t healthy, there is not enough money moving and your debt will increase! And then, because you are creating the system through a form of conflict, the only way you can then save the system is through conflict. Capitalism throughout time has been proven to ‘need war’ to continue existing and regenerate the economy, to create jobs and to create money for a minority.

Commodity markets and open markets need a new definition where a country produces a particular commodity, it first supplies its own citizens and the surplus – which can be determined as to what is needed in the world, just as it is done with oil – can be sold to all the other countries that need a particular commodity so that they can have access to it on the open market at a price that does not cause poverty and starvation, but that enhances the global economy.

Labor has lost all capital value which means if your labor is worth nothing = you have no power with which to ensure your wellbeing financially, health-wise and in all ways of your own family – and then a country is not able to support its citizens through proper government. And here the capitalist, the wealthy person needs to understand the simplicity of the Living Income Guaranteed. If you have citizens that have more money to spend and you only have a system that focuses on competition based on pricing, will cause less money to flow. Therefore we propose that competition is based on value, technology and effectiveness.

If one competes on things that are genuinely valuable like a better warranty, better quality product or a unique and innovative product, it is a healthy use of competition that doesn’t cause harm: it enhances the product. But to compete based on price alone, claiming that global prices are going to be ‘good for the citizens’ while the quality of the products is dropping all the time indicates that there’s something really wrong in our reasoning! Because the evidence is very clear that this is not how reality works. The very fact that this is even allowed and not seen as treason because of the way it harms the citizen = that is even more revealing to what extent we are not yet aware of how we have caused our own crisis and demise.

How labor loses capital value with lower commodity pricing and that lower prices create job loss, unemployment and starvation, should be part of our common sensical understanding of the economy. Yet, do you see any of this in the news? Do our journalists actually even comprehend the fact that they are not actually reporting the root and cause of the problems we hear and read about every day? This is a massive problem when we fail to see how it is through our common acceptance of economic inequality that we then accept every single problem and consequential outflow that stems from failing to support every single individual to live in the best possible sustainable manner.

The facts are that if the labor that is put into the production of something like food is not compensated effectively in and through the price, and if the distribution is not compensated and all participants within the creation of the food process are not compensated properly = then we are creating poverty through producing food.

How have we created poverty? We have food at a lower price which means less tax = which means a weaker social service = which means there is not enough money to support all the citizens – this is why we end up with revolutions – Why would we do that deliberately, unless it is that we don’t even understand – after our so called evolution – that we are actually creating the problem with ideologies like a ‘free market forces’ and ‘supply and demand.’

Supply and demand is very simple, it should be based on: What is the supply? Is there enough food for everyone? Which means that the demand is how much we need, what’s the surplus and whether the profit made from it actually supports everyone that is involved in the production process to make a decent living – this is what supply and demand is in a practical civil way. The ways that are currently used are downright counterproductive and detrimental to our global economy.

If you can see within integrity and common sense the problem that we are presenting here, then support a solution that is real: educate yourself, step out of your self-interest and realize that we must work together as one within a democracy to bring about real change.

Equal Life Foundation Research Team

Basic Income Guaranteed and Commodity Pricing

Living Income and Lower Pricing

Posted on Updated on

Economic theory has proven throughout time to be ineffective to manage the resources to ensure that each individual is a beneficiary and effective participant within the sustainability of the world system. We suggest banishing economic theory to the category of conspiracy theory because the evidence of the last few decades shows very clearly that our economists conspire to create greater inequality to destroy the capacity of the economy to provide sufficient jobs within a system that can support the citizens of the world, yet the opposite happens wherein all production is kept in the hands of a few corporations. So far economists have been unable to come up with a solution that will work for the world, while those that benefit from the current applied economic conspiracy theories are becoming astoundingly wealthy and there seems to be no end to this.

We also have to look at cognitive disinformation here. Our psychology is also just based on theory that does not properly educate the people on how the mind functions, instead it actually uses the facets of the mind that causes addiction and control – like emotions, feelings and thoughts – to become the accepted ways of human existence, which are then used through advertising, media and Hollywood to condition the human to accept the current conditions on Earth and not question reality. Furthermore our education system and our education theories have reduced the capacity of the human to reason to such an extent that we have a complete dumbed down society with an inability to do basic math or to read and investigate words to understand their actual meaning. Instead, the ideology is created that one must make things sound great without conveying practical solutions and their application. It is a form of complete disassociated information transfer where the consumer system foundation relies on savings and getting products cheaper, because that is competition according to what economic theory suggests.

You should take a piece of paper and do some math: if you reduce price which implies that you are reducing the value of labor, you are also reducing income, which is what’s happened now for decades. The real income of the human has decreased, inflation has increased for certain things, some of the basic things have become cheaper and then there’s the enticement about savings.

This lower pricing mechanism exists when you have a machine taking over the human labor – which should be based on a capital and advancement of the human capacity and thus should value the human existence more; however, the opposite has happened. With reduced price, reduced income, unemployment increases yet it is recognized as economic efficiency, a capitalistic type of advancement. At the same time we have exchange rates, where certain countries have a high value currency and others a low value currency, which is then used to transfer resources between countries done under the disguise of corporations – which are owned by politicians – creating monopolies that cause extensive poverty. The fact is that this transfer of resources in theory should benefit all the citizens of a country.

Here we can have a look at our early Game Theory that was taught at home through games like Monopoly which has played a major role in becoming part of the accepted theory of how one should live on Earth. Causing the acceptance of just a few major property owners to exist in the world, and their property being not necessarily land or resources, but money – and because they have a lot = apparently the system is working for everyone! Which we all know is not at all so.

This lower price ideology has caused major problems such as the theory that ‘Living Income will increase prices’, which is apparently a ‘bad thing’. Obviously prices must increase, we have to create more money, we have to show the value of the human, otherwise capitalism cannot work. Human labor is capital and that capital should be increasing because the basic capacity and knowledge of the human race has been increasing and therefore, a greater value should be placed on it. Instead, the value is diminishing and through that, the level of inequality and the amount of people in the world that is living on the breadline (or should we say ‘dead-line’?) is increasing and is they have nothing else to do every single day but to spend their total time finding enough to just survive. Being occupied with survival also means that they cannot even challenge the current system, because they don’t have time to educate themselves and engineer solutions that can solve the problem. We also have come to accept that those that are in good positions and have enough resources and time to reason out the problem have seemingly lost the plot and are unable to apply simple basic principles like 1+1=2.

If we want to feed the world and we want to use a system like capitalism = we have to create enough money. We can create enough money by valuing the production sufficiently so that within the profit – or the gross profit of the product – there is sufficient money to make sure that everyone that is part of the production – even historically – earns enough money from it. That would increase the potential for everyone’s wealth, and if one does this properly: it’ll reduce inequality.

We cannot approach Living Income Guaranteed in this world by using the current accepted economic conspiracy theories or by valuing our current economists. We suggest acquiring basic education on how the world system operates through reading people like Noam Chomsky, and you’ll see what it means to have critical reasoning and what it means to be able to think for yourself. However understanding and realizing the reality of what he shares is not enough, we have to get involved in the political arena so that the problem we have with our education can be solved. This can be done within the understanding that if we don’t create solutions at a political level through common consent, we will all end up in a position where we have no power – and this is exactly what has happened. The citizen now in the world has got no political power because we have been influenced through the media by information without having the ability to discern between what is actual reality – that would result mathematically in what is best or all – and what is conspiracy theory that is based on creating a ‘feeling’ within us that controls our behavior and our voice, causing us to be and become in essence part of the problem.

For a capitalistic system to work and to create enough Living Income for everyone – meaning having enough to survive and to be able to have a basic life on Earth as in having our basic needs fulfilled – there needs to be sufficient money moving that is produced through the accumulated labor and time and input through time. This should have been growing for generations now and the world should have been a place of wealth, but instead seemingly deliberately but possibly astoundingly through a form of deliberate sabotage, instead of creating a growing economy existent as the result of accumulated labor, intelligence and research over time, we have been reducing our capacity to look after the citizens of the world, and continue to justify that in every way possible using theories and opinions instead of dealing with facts. Even our legal system deals with opinions, our psychology deals with opinions, our education deals with opinions, our politics deals with opinions – we don’t hear facts. Our media which should be a journal of reality: deals with opinions, not facts. It actually shapes opinions instead of acting in a way that ensures that this journey on Earth is worthwhile for every human. We do not have journalists with integrity, it is unfortunate – but this will come to an end because the situation is going to escalate exponentially.

Only thinking about the solution doesn’t make them tangible and practical in reality and as such, it is part of the problem of why the world’s economic system is collapsing. It’s time to change, time to get some basic education on how we can decide how economy works and give ourselves practical direction so that we can move on to a system where the Living Income of each human is Guaranteed.

Equal Life Foundation Research Team

Basic Income Guaranteed and Lower Pricing

Living Income Guaranteed and Oil

Posted on Updated on

Oil falls under the resource identity that is required by all as a national resource. Therefore the suggestion is that the total oil industry gets nationalized and oil becomes that which facilitates both the Living Income Guaranteed and the economic growth with the price kept stable so that the profit is sustainable to support the citizens of a country. The countries that don’t have access to oil or gas are supported through agreements that makes it possible for them to also facilitate a Living Income Guaranteed and for their economy to be stable, so that there is a stable international trade where people and countries can exchange goods for fair value. This implies that if one country produces more of a particular product than another, it is then distributed worldwide to be available for all citizens of the world, because the production of goods that is dependent on the Earth directly – like food and raw materials – should be able to be distributed in an effective way where the profit as such is directed towards supporting citizens specifically.

Capitalism in terms of where one will then come up with ingenuity to produce something extraordinary that people pay more for, should be based on enhancing the lifestyle on Earth, these are the products based on taking raw materials and creating something out of it. The point of some benefiting from raw materials just because they apparently ‘own the land’ throughout generations – which in all cases if one investigates it, it was always taken from someone that owned it before, and those were normally your natural people that lived in a particular area – is simply not acceptable because that has caused poverty and in fact, anything that is done in a way to limit the distribution of resources to the benefit of the citizens of a country is an act of treason against the nation and the citizens; because the government at the end of the day is that which represents the citizens and anything that is done to harm citizens = is there to harm government which is indirectly citizens and so is a form of treason – that is unacceptable.

Our definition of what is legitimate and what is criminal needs to be sorted out so that we can move forward in a stable world and stop all this abuse that takes place all in the name of control and profit.

There are simple solutions to these problems and there are easy and effective ways with which all people in the world can be supported in a very quick manner. The situation in the world is worsening extensively where businesses will get into trouble a lot quicker; there are big problems on the horizon and many can experience it first-hand. The global recession is going to deepen and get much worse, so action needs to be taken now and within a short few years, one can have a new system in place which only requires one thing from each human: a change of mind, a change of heart, to open your heart to also consider other people one and equal as yourself.

 

Equal Life Foundation Research Team

 

Basic Income Guaranteed and Oil

Living Income Guaranteed and Pensions

Posted on Updated on

Within a Living Income Guaranteed system the need for unemployment, insurance, benefits, pensions and life insurance no longer exists. The resources that are placed within the shareholding of the citizenry is what facilitates the Living Income Guaranteed and one qualifies for benefit from your shareholding when you are unemployed, when you are on pension or when you are in some way incapacitated and you cannot work – this implies that there is never a stage where one is without the necessary capital to actually sustain a living.

 

The industries that are currently profiting from all the misfortunes in a person’s life no longer need to exist because your Living Income Guaranteed facilitates all the points and ensures that no one is ever without capital when they’re unemployed or if you have been in an accident and you cannot work = you’ll still have an income; the same applies if you have a family and the bread owner dies, the family still has an income. All the points where insurance existed which has been the recipient where people has placed their money, has caused such major havoc in the world within the financial sector because this money then goes into the stock markets to mess with the world food prices and to come with the idea that apparently ‘there are ways to make money’ so it becomes part of the global market casino. The end of this casino is possible with Living Income Guaranteed, although other corporations will still probably want to benefit from it and have shareholding, that will still happen; but your shareholding will no longer be vested in major corporations or life insurance companies, it will be the individual that will invest through their bank – and the bank being one of their own businesses in which they have shares that will facilitate and manage the investment in the privately owned and financed corporations, so that the distribution of money and the management of the system becomes highly efficient.

 

All of this can be computerized with great simplicity as a mechanism that can be trusted once placed and tested. This is how we can reduce the problems coming from humans making mistakes, because with the machine and with software one can manage the distribution, the placement of investments a lot easier. So, a citizen can decide that they want to support a particular business and buy shares in it and then once there is a profit declared by that company, the citizen benefits from the profit through dividends – these dividends are tax free, because there is no personal tax and there is also no corporate tax – so one can use that to spend on luxury items and so, the cash flow of the economy increases, which means job creation increases which means there are more jobs available for people that want to earn a better living and not only exist with a Living Income Guaranteed, yet Living Income Guaranteed is sufficient to make a decent living.

 

Investigate economic solutions and support the Equal Life Foundation – we are here for you.

 

 

Equal Life Foundation Research Team

 

 

Basic Income Guaranteed and Pensions

Living Income and Minimum Wage

Posted on Updated on

One of the big concerns that people have is that “If everyone gets a living wage, who is going to do all the dirty work?” because nobody wants to do it. So, in a Living Income Guaranteed approach it’s going to be vital to change the ‘living wage’ or the Basic Minimum Wage and here it is suggested that it should be at least double the Living Income Guaranteed so that it is a motivation for people that would like to live a more extravagant or luxurious life to actually do the work – whether it is a janitor, a road worker, a gardener, a child-minder, whomsoever works – and thus does not depend on the Living Income Guaranteed, gets a minimum wage that is double the Living Income Guaranteed, that will ensure that there is motivation for people to do the labor and for those that would like to improve their lives, while the Living Income Guaranteed ensures that everybody has got enough to make a decent living.

 

The difference between the two would merely be a measure of luxury and therefore, businesses will have to consider that wage – which is obviously an input on production – must be equated within the price. And so, pricing will be based on ensuring that there are minimum wages and that people earn very good incomes. This will obviously increase again the amount of money that can be spent and so the economy will grow, the house market, the motor car markets… all the markets that are now in extreme trouble and where the trouble is increasing will all grow and life on Earth will be sustainable.

 

So, for you that are ready to approach these issues, look at how to implement it in your particular countries, translate these proposals into your language, do blogs about it and get involved in your political parties, see which ones are willing to embrace a Living Income Guaranteed and if they are not: start a political party, because the way forward is political.

 

Equal Life Foundation Research Team

 

Basic Income Guaranteed and Minimum Wage