Financial Independence

Mothers and a Living Income – Giving as We have Received

Posted on Updated on

by Kristina Salas 

Katrina Gilbert Paycheck to Paycheck Living Income Mothers Right

Today I watched the documentary called ‘Paycheck to Paycheck,’ about a single mother, my age, with three children. She lives in the South, works as a Certified Nursing Assistant, separated from her husband of almost 10 years, and gets a working wage of $9.49 an hour.

I was shocked to see the hourly wage of this woman, because from my perspective, her work is something that takes more education than I currently have, and yet I still make more an hour than her. And from my perspective, her work is much more valuable. She is caring for the elderly in a nursing home; feeding them, changing their bed sheets, changing their catheters, and most importantly, spending time with them when no one else does. She provides care in an environment that is the last place these elderly will end up, while when she is not working, she is caring for children and their environment; the first place these children are exposed to.
So she is directly dealing with the next generation, while simultaneously giving as much comfort she can while the previous generation slowly leaves.

And she is giving not even $10.00 an hour of compensation to support herself, and her three children.

This documentary exemplifies the major problem we have, not only in this country, but around the world. The people that have first hand control of forming and shaping our future, our children, are not being properly supported or valued in any way whatsoever. No one could possibly expect to live comfortably on $10 an hour, let alone raising three other humans on that wage.
This is a prime example of why a living income is an absolute necessity in our world, and a basic human right. The women who carry, birth and raise the children, the future of humanity, are not giving the proper support necessary that is required. She should have any and all resources available to ensure she is in a prime position – mentally and physically – to do the job she has in front of her, which is to create a space and environment that supports the potential of all children. Instead, with her working wage, she must live as an example that tells her children that life is hard, life is a struggle, you are not valued for the work you do, and ultimately you are alone to suffer the consequence of a system created and sustained by All of society.

No mother should be expected to work if children are brought into the picture, all mothers should have the CHOICE to not work, and still be giving a LIVING wage – don’t you think it would be of more value for the children, and so society as a whole, to have a full-time caretaker there who is not stretched so thin to the point where panic attacks keep them from working, where stress of making it to the next pay day is not distracting them from being able to provide the best care for the children; where a mother is not put into a position where she must tell her children to wait just a minute when they say they are hungry, simply because she needs a moment to sit down and breathe. Where she does not have to sacrifice her health and well being just because there is only enough to give more to her children.

Women, mothers specifically, is one group of people that would benefit form a Living Income, and from my perspective, should be an absolute basic right. The fact that this mother of three must work for $9.49 an hour to support herself and her family, without any support or assistance from the system in which she is working for, goes to show the lack of care we actually have for what we are bringing into this life, let alone the life that is already here.

A Living Income, proposed by the Equal Life Foundation, is a simple step we can take in rectifying this situation – where in giving a living wage to our Mothers we are living the statement of gratitude, and giving to THEM what they have given to US, which is Life. I would think this would be the first priority for anyone wanting to change our social and economic systems – to ensure that our Mothers and so our Children are being given the financial support required to flourish in this World – able to stand on a foundation that allows the true potential of all beings to be harnessed and to expand, after all – the children today are the people tomorrow that will be the ones assisting us when it’s our time to leave this world.

Investigate the Equal Life Foundation and the Living Income.

Bill of Rights Equal Life Foundation

 

For Further Information, Follow these Links:

There is Enough! Stopping the Cycle of Ignorance with LIG

Posted on Updated on

By Garbrielle Goodrow

foodwaste-blog


There is enough. This statement is crucial for the continuation of our species in the times ahead, where all we hear is that we do not have enough, not enough food, not enough money, not enough housing, but if one look behind who is in fact saying these statements, you will find the corporations who have a vested interest in us continuing to believe this and so live out this belief that there is not enough. The corporations who control now the resources, the private banks who control the money supply, and the governments that control our livelihoods all have a stake within making a lot of profit, while we continue to believe that ‘there is not enough.’ So we cannot accept and allow any longer this notion that there is not enough resources or food or money in this world, we have to educate ourselves on the reality of what is here and how to walk the path to understand and so live the statement that There IS enough!


We know that money is made out of thin air, there is no value inherently within the paper it’s made from, it’s simply a medium for commerce, and within this we the people give it meaning. So saying there is not enough money is a scapegoat for admitting to the fact that some want more than others, and will do what it takes to make this continue to happen as it is and has been a reality for most of our recorded history. All are responsible within this ignorance we have accepted and allowed where some go with nothing and some go with enough, we all live here and so accept this money system as it is now, so we all have to face the consequences and change the outcomes to be best for all. It’s on each one being a part of this change because nothing will change until we stand up within ourselves and change who we are from within to the without.

If we look at food for instance, here are some statistics about hunger and
also statics on the food waste in the United States:

  • Total number of children that die every year from hunger –
    1.5 million
  • Percent of world population considered to be starving –
    33%
  • Time between deaths of people who die from hunger –
    3.6 seconds
  • Each year, about 40 percent of all food in the United States goes uneaten. It’s just tossed out or left to rot. And that’s a fairly large waste of resources. All that freshwater and land, all that fertilizer and energy — for nothing. By one recent estimate, Americans are squandering the equivalent of $165 billion each year by rubbishing so much food.

So we have 33 percent of the world population that is considered starving and we have on the other extreme 40 percent of the food in America is thrown away due to not being processed effectively or not reaching the desired aesthetic picture the shoppers demand for. This seems like a sick joke we are playing on ourselves, I mean this doesn’t make any rational sense to allow such a play out of life and death to exist, but it does, it is happening every day.

What we fail to see or realize within the system we live in is that we are more and more interconnected and so dependent on each other to continue to exist. When we allow such a contrast of basic needs where some have a lot and many others have little to nothing, we have to stop and consider what we are in fact doing here. There has to be a point in each one’s life where we have to question the way things are. This is determined and will be determined by each one within themselves and so will determine their own lives and existence, but it’s suggested to find solutions for all human beings to be given the necessary basic rights that we all are given at birth, the conditions for a decent life.

The Equal Life Foundation of which I support and contribute to with research and funding, have proposed a Living Income Guarantee, They have set out the basic structure for a new way of life for everyone, where those that require it will be given a living income to be able to buy what is needed and be sustained in a dignified way through changing parts of the current system that is currently in place. This will be walked as we start to open up the relationships and pathways once there is more support and funding involved, but we are not there yet. We have to start from the ground up as we see, realize, and understand that starting from the top down will not change things as this is the way it’s always been, and there has been no significant change in human life in the last 2000 years. We as the people that can hear the message and see that the way forward is a way of walking the talk and living the solution as ourselves, can move to positions and solutions that will continue to propel this best for all principle forward and walk what is necessary in all avenues until it is eventually done. Never giving up, continuing to push forward, empowering ourselves and so others as we move forward.

We do have enough on this planet, so this is not the problem as the Earth has given all the resources/sustenance/common sense to walk the best for all principle for each one to equally benefit from this reality. If we start with a living income, to create a standard of living that gives all dignity then we can also start looking at how and through what means we can change the way we do things to create efficiency and sustainability, we can start the path of honoring life and not wasting and destroying it due to our own ignorance.

Support the Equal Life Foundation and the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal  to start and create the change that is needed to live the principle of ‘best for all life’, which will always be best for you.

 

Watch the Documentary: Dive!

LIG All Inclusive Support System

 

For Further Support, Please check out Links:

 

 

Photo credits:

Food Waste

Economist’s Journey To Life

Child Safety and Living Income Guaranteed

Posted on

As a new mother and while I was still in my pregnancy-phase, I spent a lot of time reading about all there is to know about babies. One of these topics is child safety.

By law one is not allowed to leave the hospital by car after you have given birth, unless you have the correct rear-facing baby car seat installed. I read all about the ‘why’s’ and ‘how’s’ and found myself being quite impressed with how they had taken physical science into consideration to make sure one would be traveling safely with one’s baby – because of course, we don’t want any babies to die!

But just as quickly as I found myself impressed with this legislation, the hypocrisy of such a legislation within having ‘child safety’ at its heart; hit me just as fast. At first glance, it gives the ruling structures of the day a caring glow, one that says “I care about your child’s safety and future”. Yet, this legislation is only relevant to the segment of the population that actually owns a car. In South Africa, a substantial segment of the population does not own a car, not because they’re environmentalists, but because they do not have the financial means to acquire one.

These women don’t leave the hospital by car, thoroughly checked by the nurse for a car seat. No, these women carry their babies for miles into rural areas or townships where child safety and well-being are problematic. Are these women asked: “Do you have the means necessary to provide adequate care to your baby?” What law, what legislation is looking after their well-being?

What significance does car seat legislation bear when basic considerations in society are missing towards the well-being and safety of children; and the ability of parents to provide this for them? This ability does not come forward from a mother’s love to her child, but from the mother’s financial capacity. This financial capacity is a necessity to enable the obtainment of those resources and services necessary to ensure a dignified life and upbringing for the child.

Thchild mortality unicefe importance of proper childcare is not a trivial matter – as the first years of a child’s life determine to the greatest extent that child’s future physical and mental well-being. These years cannot just receive a ‘do-over’ later and are difficult to remediate.

“The first five years are the most important in a child’s life. A number of critical physical, psychological, cognitive and emotional developmental milestones are rapidly achieved during this period. Indeed the first 1000 days- from pregnancy through a child’s second year of life have been identified as crucial. “Whether a child has experienced chronic nutritional deficiencies and frequent bouts of illness, early in life is best indicated by the infant’s growth, in length and the child’s growth in height. Day-to-day nutritional deficiencies over a period of time lead to diminished, or stunted growth. Once children are stunted, it is difficult for them to catch up in height later on …”*

It is apparent that to have the child’s best interest at heart, is to have proper support available from the beginning. How did car seat legislation come into being? It was noticed that a lot of children were dying in car accidents, which could have been prevented had they been seated differently. Still now, these legislations are updated from time to time according to the flow of information coming in regarding child mortality in car accidents and how they were seated.

So why have we not, after all this time, after witnessing over and over that countless people and children are living in less-than-adequate living conditions and the mortality rates connected to this – adjusted our legislation in such a way that these outcomes are minimized? Isn’t that the most logical step?

Are we not bound to address this issue the same way as we addressed the child safety during transport?

These deaths are preventable and as such it should be our duty to ensure that they are prevented.  We get outraged when we read stories about children dying in hospitals, because not all measures were taken to ensure the child’s well-being – negligence it’s called.

We should be outraged about this as well, because it is large-scale negligence.

Providing a Living Income Guaranteed is a logical move forward to address child mortality stemming from any form of lack which could have been prevented if the necessary means had been present in a household.
This is the most pro-active approach within which we as a society can promote child safety and well-being.

For more information visit:
http://livingincome.me

To read the Living Income Guaranteed proposal:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/182616757/The-Living-Income-Guaranteed-Proposal

prevcure

 

* http://db3sqepoi5n3s.cloudfront.net/files/docs/130305overview.pdf

What is the Living Income Guaranteed?

Posted on Updated on

Living Income Guaranteed is an economic and political mechanism to ensure the establishment of Fundamental Human Birth Rights of the public through allocating an allowance on a monthly basis to every eligible individual that is currently in a position of being unable to sustain themselves – and/or people in their custody – financially to a level that Human Dignity deserves and that currently lack such support due to reasons beyond their immediate control including – but not limited to – unemployment, lacking access to food, lacking access to housing, lacking access to healthcare, lacking access to education, physical disability, being retired or not old enough to have a job.

This is within the understanding that the existence of poverty and lack of education as the key to have a job and means to live is the result and outflow of the economic system’s malfunction, providing an unfair allocation of National Natural Resources, being unable to support every living individual with sufficient access to fundamental living necessities. The most immediate remedy is to eradicate poverty, through allocating/designating a monthly allowance to those that don’t have access to their fundamental living necessities, thereby empowering them to establish a dignified life, enabling each one to reach their potential, choose a career and contribute to the economy through their skill, labour and purchasing power.

Why is it called Living Income instead of Basic Income?

It is called ‘Living Income’ because it won’t only provide each one with the minimum required to survive, it implies sufficient allowance that is able to cover the fundamental expenses required for a dignified living Why? Because this will enable people to reach their creative potential, return to the job market, become independent from the Living Income and contribute to the progression of the economy.

This means that a Living Income Guaranteed should be provided to all individuals that are currently unable to participate in any economic activity due to the lack of jobs/education/health. However those that don’t participate in any economic activity but do have sufficient money to live due to, for example, family wealth, inheritance or any other regular income won’t qualify nor require the Living Income Guaranteed.

Why is Living Income Guaranteed Not Unconditional?

The reason why it is not given to all people unconditionally is because this would undermine the sustainability of an economic system that does require people to be motivated to educate themselves and work to enable the continuation and functionality of our societies.

That means that people that work won’t get the Living Income Guaranteed?

That’s right, however we Do propose that the Minimum Wage is Doubled (twice the Living Income Allowance), which means that there will be a series of reforms to take place first to make the Living Income Guaranteed a sufficient Allowance granted to cover fundamental living necessities, which is within the context of our current economy More than our current Minimum Wage standards.

This allowance should be sufficient for an individual to have dignified living conditions with guaranteed access to their fundamental human birth rights: Food, Water, Housing, Healthcare, Education, Clothing, Transportation, Public Services, etc.

Now to motivate people to work, the new minimum wage should be Double the Living Income Guaranteed in the most common economic activities which are at the moment associated with retail workers, waiters, cashiers, transportation workers, fast food industries, etc..

So, anyone that genuinely wants to have a top quality lifestyle will not conform to only getting the minimum as the Living Income, but continue educating themselves, developing further skills to make more money and have more financial solvency.

What’s in it for the corporations with implementing the Living Income Guaranteed model?

A broader consumer base. Those that previously had no money to live and as such were not economically active will suddenly become active participants in the economy which will ensure that profit is also broadened for corporations, realizing that if more buyers emerge, there will be more profit that can be used to better the working conditions, to diminish the compulsive production and instead adapt the prices to make things affordable, with great quality and providing a secure and harmonious working base, as well as proceeding to fund the automation of jobs that are currently deteriorating human health.

Workers will feel supported and cared for by their employers, which will result in individuals that no longer feel pressured and enforced to only be a profit-making machine, but will feel happy and content to realize that their work is being truly remunerated and that their time and contribution to the corporation is being valued as the life-time investment it actually is. A well remunerated individual will create a happier and fulfilled society that is no longer afraid of not having sufficient money to feed their family, it will be the beginning of a new era of quality work that dignifies the lives of human beings that genuinely desire to improve their lifestyles.

clip_image002

Why is the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed an immediate solution to the economic crisis?

More than a solution to a crisis, it should be understood as the way to guarantee that the Fundamental Human Rights to each individual are properly funded through allocating an Allowance as the access to the necessary things one requires to live in a dignified way – this is within the principle of Giving to others what we would like to receive, and if we want to live in a peaceful society, to have a happy and healthy living condition, we then must give access to this Allowance/Income as a living certainty that will eradicate the need to resort to crime, panhandling, homelessness, lacking education, health care that results in economical regression affecting every individual in society.

It is common sense that if we give an Allowance to every eligible individual to be well nourished, have proper living conditions with the fundamental necessary services, health care and leisure time, more educated beings will emerge from this when realizing that if one is given support as in getting an income to cover one’s living necessities, one learns how to give back to society too. This will be understood as a living principle that applies to every living being on Earth beyond any political, social, religious or ideological affiliation. We’re talking about physical living necessities that all human beings require to live in a dignified and sustainable way.

On top of this, many jobs are being replaced by the rise of the machine, which will require more restructuring processes in our economy to finally upgrade the premise of being able to ‘make a living by having a job’ because if jobs are currently not available to all – regardless of having college degrees and necessary skills to have one – then it is certain that a new understanding of our economy should be grasped as supportive mechanism for all individuals rather than a restrictive and coercive one.

In the past, long-term policies and treaties have attempted to benefit the working class over time, and it has proven to be inefficient for the tightening policies implemented by corporations as well as the economic outflows have deviated their effectiveness. This is how through a direct intervention to provide the Living Income as an Allowance and doubling of the minimum wage, we are directing the problem at the root, instead of expecting third party actors and policies to solve the situation throughout time.

Will the Living Income Guaranteed undermine competition and as such create economic stagnation in society?

Not at all, actually it’s the other way around. If we define competition as the ability achieve the best living condition in a society, by allocating Allowance to every eligible individual that previously had no access to it, we assure the activation of the economy and impulse people to work if they do want to have a greater economic solvency to cover other consumer desires for extra commodities that are not able to be paid for with the Living Income Guaranteed. Also, there is no limit to how much money you or corporations can make as long as their businesses do not interfere in any way with the nationalization of natural resources or fundamental public services – that is the condition. That means that the rules of a free market still apply and as such, the only constitutional and governmental management will be to supervise the implementation of the Living Income Guaranteed, as well as conducting the usual maintenance, management and provision of public goods and the justice department.

The more you prepare yourself, the better work you’ll have, the more benefits which means you will earn more money as well. Competition means bettering oneself to perform a certain activity the best way one can and this is an essential part of human nature  that has kept our societies remaining competitive, innovative and creative  at a local and global level.

You will also be able to truly have free choice on which work is best for you instead of engaging in working contracts based on need rather than preference or choice. This is the way to implement a real ethical environment at work too, where no more exploitation occurs since any job won’t be the result of a need to work in order to survive, but rather become a means and incentive to increase the quality of life. 

How will it be funded?

Through the nationalization of resources , banks and basic services which means that if, for example, your oil, gas, water, electricity, telecommunications ,transportation is defined as patrimony of the people, the profit that comes from the consumption/purchase of such goods and services should be sufficient to fund the Living Income Guaranteed for eligible individuals. This means there will be no need to have personal taxation but instead keep the VAT (Value Added Tax) as it is to continue funding the functions of the government – this is also within the consideration that as the purchasing power increases and consumer base broadens, the funds coming from VAT will also increase creating more solvency in governmental budget as well, which translates to higher quality public welfare.

Thus with the Living Income Guaranteed there is one thing that is of vital importance: no one in the system, no citizen will pay tax – all tax will be facilitated by either value added tax or sales tax or import duties. If you have a government system that is responsible because you have a system where each one is functioning effectively within the system, you do not need excessive tax; your tax is spent on things like roadwork, transport facilitation – all things that can be handled ‘in house’.

One of the things that can work quite effectively also in a country is to have a toll tax on the roads which are managed by the government and that keeps the roads in place, so according to the use that one has of a road = will be the amount of tax you pay, but there will be in this proposal no income tax, so nobody is going to pay for anyone’s Living Income Guaranteed, it’s coming from the resource companies which everybody in the country are participating in and your sales tax or your value added tax will be according to the amount of your participation within a particular system – this is a fair way of dealing with government tax collection.

This is how the distribution of wealth and profits is expanded onto those that would have no benefit from the commercialization of natural resources and basic services, and due to the constant consumption and requirement of these, it is ensured that the foundation of the Living Income Guaranteed will always remain sustainable and have sufficient funds to cover the beneficiaries’ expenses.

Another example is how through stopping allocating money to fund wars, the trillions of dollars that are spent in the warfare industry can be designated to revitalize the economy through funding the Living Income Guaranteed and supporting the health care, education, commerce, production industries and basic services that require to be improved at home.

Will Public Services also be Nationalized?

Health care, education, water, electricity, telecommunications, media, banks will also be nationalized. Each country will have to assess their available resources in order for the government to make sufficient profit to fund the Living Income Guaranteed.

How can we implement the Living Income Guaranteed?

Through a political proposal, through existing or new political parties that have this mechanism as their key card to gain the majority vote to have our Fundamental Human Rights guaranteed through the Living Income Guaranteed. This means that the right to a Living Income must be granted on a constitutional basis – this is a national-based system constituted at a political level and able to be voted on within a democratic process based on the principle of one man, one vote.

LIG Hong Kong

Investigate more at:

BIG Pilot Project Namibia: a Perspective

Posted on Updated on

Now, my perspective is probably going to be quite unique. I was born in Windhoek [Bernard Poolman] growing up in Okahandja, very close to Ontjivero where they did the BIG Pilot Project. Growing up in the community and with the culture and with a unique understanding of the dynamics there, allowed me to see how things really work – let me give my two cents of this project.
The project was based on giving a community a 100 Namibian dollars a month as a basic Income. Now, first point is to understand that Namibian dollars are not American dollars, it is very easy to mistake this point. so to give you at the current exchange rate an estimate, a 100 Namibian dollars = 10 American Dollars approximately, so it is certainly not a Living Income that is being given, it is not making any significant change, it does not impact the ‘dollar a day’ poverty bracket, it doesn’t even take the person over that. So from the perspective of what a Living Income should be, this is hardly a ‘Pilot Project,’ it’s more a feel-good project and certainly not something with which one can sway a government to implement a Living Income Project.
Next, Ontjivero is far out, there are no industries as such, there’s no employment as such, the only thing the people can do there is buy consumer stuff which are very basic survival stuffs, and obviously buy alcohol as that is the foundation of each of the smaller communities, because they have no entertainment, they have nothing else to do and it’s become part of the culture. It is the same culture that is being used by ‘the white man’ so to speak over centuries, keeping the locals busy with a very structured way of alcohol consumption – when they have money, the tendency is to get some more.

 

The products/ the goods that will come in and those that may start a little business to sell to the community will be buying this in the closest towns which is either Okahandja, but more probably Windhoek because your hyper stores are in Windhoek, Okahandja as a community is really very small – and the goods will be sold as prices that are highly inflated because the consumer base in Ontjivero is very small, so you have to make profit, you have to make quite a profit on every product sold. A 100 Dollars a person extra into the economic scenario will obviously bring a significant increase in spending power from the spending power they had before. So it will look like it is a ‘significant point,’ but one needs to look at what was there before this pittance was added to remind the people of how little they have.
So some will make some more money and there will be more food on the table because the staple foods being mealiemeel which is porridge made from corn, selling approximately at 80 rand (+- 8 us dollars or 6 euros) for a bag of 10 kilograms, which will feed a person, probably for about 10 days with 3 meals a day – obviously who cares that they are eating the same food 3 times a day, which in itself leads to malnutrition – nobody would ever do that in the western world, eating 3 same meals a day for a whole month, but that is what it boils down to, you can buy one staple food that will last for part of the month, and you have to eat the same food every day. And the fact that there is no electricity or running water or toilets or anything relevant to a normal town scenario – that means there are no costs for that, but there are also no benefits of this – would mean that a significant amount of time is spent in preparing food because the person would have to go into the veld to find wood for the fire, they’ll have to go and get water and then they have to cook the food on the fire. Now the pots they cook this food in are iron pots, an iron pot costs in the region of 300 Namibian Dollars, that’s without the transport to get it there – that is if you buy it in town (capital) and obviously the transport from Ontjivero to the closest town is quite expensive because it is a significant way to travel.
To give you an idea, I grew up in a small town where there was no entertainment. To get to the closest movie theatre, was 80 kilometers, to go and do shopping from the whole sellers – because you couldn’t find all the stuff in the small town – was 80 kilometers. So it is a significant point that must be planned well and that is quite costly to bring resources to the town.

Now there was some researcher from Germany writing a negative article about the pilot project and some of his observations only confirm the level of ignorance that exists within the so-called ‘researchers.’ One of his complaints was that the Namibian University was not involved in the research project. To involve a person – or several of them from that university in the project – will cost more than the total money that goes into the pilot project – that should be realized as the first point.

Secondly, the level of Education of the people in an area like that is so insignificant, their capacity so stunted as the current research shows that a person that grows up in poverty will be equal to a person that had a stroke, which would mean that their ability to answer questions – specially from a person not understanding the basic cultural language, even through an interpreter – is not going to get you relevant feedback, because you don’t understand the dynamics that exist within the survival pattern of the particular group of people.
And in Namibia, the basic language for instance there would be like Herero and Afrikaans, as English is not a major language, specially outside the cities to such a degree that when I came to South Africa in 1981, I failed my first year university because I couldn’t speak English, because English was not emphasized – although obviously under the auspices of the ‘United Nations’ and all the wonderful tools with which they pretend to stop poverty, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and stuff like that, the main language has been made English but there has been no significant input to bring about this change, specially where it’s outside the main centers.
So the person is not going to be able to understand the context of the questions and the interpretation of any form of research material will hardly be of any significant value.

Furthermore this researcher claimed that there were no empirical economists to overview the project, so now you want to add another part of the Empireconomists to this whole pile which will increase the cost even more, because this empire – you call them ‘empirical’ I call them ‘Empire-Economists’ because they justify the process of empire – these Empire Economists will cost even more for money that could have gone to the Basic Income Project will now be diverted to the few researches which – whether they’re black or white are in fact actually white, because those blacks that are significantly educated become like white people, because that’s how the brainwashing functions.
So, the research would not have been significant because the statistics used would be to justify why the project can’t work which is exactly what your major organizations like the World Bank and the IMF actually do. Their point is not to find a working model, their point is to justify the model they’re already using and therefore, they’ve already shut down the Basic Income Grant overall because there is no way at the level of the brainwashed Empireconomists where there is any form of understanding that there could be a better system that will involve for instance a Basic Income Grant.
Furthermore this researcher – I don’t know if one can call them ‘researchers’ if they are that ignorant, but let’s attempt to value this point – claimed that in all the years has been ‘no infrastructure development‘. Now tell me, in a community where a bag of mealiemeel is nearly the price of the 100 Namibian Dollar allowance, you want to tell me they have sufficient to buy bricks to do some improvement. Now to give you an idea of what the price is for a brick, the price for a brick before delivery and the delivery will double the price due to the distance – virtually where this is located, the bricks are 5 rand each which is 5 Namibian Dollar Each, which gives you 20 bricks if you take the Basic Income Grant allowance that was received by a person that can buy 20 bricks a month if they don’t eat bricks, they don’t buy food and they accumulate it, it will take them several years to have enough bricks to build an outside toilet, just to satisfy these dear researcher’s peculiar strange conclusion.
So I would not pay much attention to those that claim they are working at some University in some project, doing some form of research that apparently means that they care about what’s going on, they are just being paid with grants, grants that should have been focused on and pulled together for a Basic Income Grant. All these researchers will no longer exist in a Living Income Guaranteed project because there, people will do research because they really care, not because they need the money or they pretend to care. I would not give much attention to how this is all being viewed.


Overall, there would be some change, I mean having money to buy mealiemeel and to have some food where you have virtually no income in a community, certainly is a massive impact, but is it significant that it will actually make a permanent change to the cultural tradition and to the human nature in that area? No, it will not make any significant difference, it will not bring about significant change where the person can make a life changing decision because there is no possibility. This particular Pilot Project is more a project where one will have a look at how effective slavery can exist within the minimum income bracket of the poverty line as accepted. One can call the BIG Project rather a World Bank or an International Monetary Fund Project. Obviously it’s been funded by the church which is some of the significant influencers and supporters of things like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, because the church does not question the suffering and poverty, they in fact ensure that it exists.

So therefore the money that is there is really completely insignificant, the project is insignificant – obviously the people are grateful, they’ve got some ‘more food,’ food that otherwise would not have been there and due to the continuous process of globalization that is even affecting Namibia, there will be less food and less money in this type of communities. But if you guys can continue getting the money to this people, let me tell you: they really need it, it’ll buy them some mealiemeel, they will smile for you, you can take some snaps and publish it all over and tell the world how good you are because you are feeding the starving – they will make a living, they will survive, they will give you the photo opportunity and the public relations opportunity – but don’t fool yourself, your Pilot Project is insignificant and is of no real value. In fact, it only gives an actual overview of the nature of the current Basic Income Grant Project, that the people behind it don’t have a clue what it means to make a difference in a person’s life, it is actually disrespectful to do so little and to blow it out of proportion so much.


So it is important to realize that economics should not be based on statistics, it must be based on fact and another word for fact, the word for Economic Fact is Mathematics and for that you need correct data and then you can work out what is the real situation and what is best.

Now what I suggest to a researcher: if you want to have a model of establishing what would be acceptable in another person’s life: you start with your life and you assess what it takes to have your lifestyle. you do the mathematical data collection and then you start to remove stuff from your life to see at what level you reach the point where your lifestyle is no longer acceptable, and when you get to your threshold, then you have to live that for a significant period, like for instance in the BIG Pilot Project it’s being going on for several years so you have to live at this threshold for several years and then see if it is still acceptable.
From that perspective you can work out exactly what you would be willing to live with as a Living Income and thus, that is what you propose for everyone else because then you do onto others as you would like to be done onto and thus you give as you would like to receive, and so unless a researcher in economics follows the principle of assessing their own lifestyle and establishing what is acceptable or not within their own life – they have no way except a mathematical way to establish what is valid and what is not.
So at the moment we have no real data all around about establishing an Economic System in the world that is Best for All. The Living Income Guaranteed as we are proposing is coming with suggested data models, how to take data into account and how to adjust the structure of consumerism and thus improve capitalism to bring about a sustainable Basic Income for everyone that qualifies.
So investigate the Living Income Guaranteed – we really care and actually do research.

Google Live Hangouts on this Article:

BIG Pilot Project Namibia -  a Perspective

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 Guaranteed and Labor Unions

Posted on Updated on

In a democratic system where the citizens elect a management as government to look after their well being and their Human Rights, collective bargaining should not be ever necessary, neither should be the existence of labor unions. Labor is one of the capitals, one of the contributions of a citizen to their country to make it a better place for everyone. The fact that labor unions and collective bargaining is necessary to try and enforce the most basic Human Right as the right to dignity and financial economic stability of a citizen indicates that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system that is currently being accepted. A Living Income Guaranteed and a minimum wage are things that should be the basis of study of economics to ensure that the design of the economic system provides for this. Therefore, competition within the creation of products and basic necessities should be based on quality and effective support and not on driving down prices lower to create more unemployment and to destroy Fundamental Human Rights.

 

Labor unions should study the Living Income proposal and use their collective bargaining power to start working towards an economic solution that is effective for all the citizens in the country. Leaders that do not stand and deliver the basic necessities for all citizens and that do not protect the rights of the citizens as humans should not be elected that – this is the benefit we have with democracy. Democracy should not be a mockery as it is now; it should be the tool with which we ensure that our representation is in fact representing our Living Human Rights, not only yours individually but all the citizens of a country – that’s patriotism. A patriot will look after all people in the country, not their own pocket only.

 

We expect to have some labor unions that can actually function within the understanding of what is best for all citizens in a country to ensure that they recognize themselves as a political force that brings about change.

Equal Life Foundation Research

Basic Income Grant and Labor Unions