Human Creativity

Hidden Fees and the Presumption of Benefit

Posted on Updated on

by Joe Kou

It is time to have a look at some hard questions and begin to address some of the more important factors in relation to our current situation as humanity

This has been and I imagine will continue to be one of the hardest subjects I have taken upon to investigate, and it has taken quite a while to get to a place where things began to click. This blog is the “kickoff” to what will likely be a long series of blogs addressing not only the various hard questions that we often avoid asking, but will be directly taking on ONE very specific question that I believe is vital for all of us to begin asking and considering.

The question is this:

Ask harder questions LIGWHY and HOW is it that today as of this writing, we the human species possess the technological and logistical means to remove all poverty, end starvation, drastically reduce or in some cases eliminate crime and violent behavior, immediately begin to restore our full potential as human beings as well as restore to full expression and vitality our environment and ecosystem – but are NOT doing it? What is it that we are waiting for? Why are we holding back? What is the force that is keeping us from realizing self-sufficiency and real freedom and a better world for all if that is really what we say we want?

Let me provide some context before exploring the other dimensions of this question.

Right now, we already have existing technologies that can provide absolutely clean energy with zero reliance on wasteful consumption or dangerous consequences to the natural environment. This technology ALONE could set us on a course to being free of all dependency on non-renewable rare resources that have been the backbone and foundation for so many wars and conflicts throughout all of human history. It would enable us to sustain ourselves and not only keep our existing infrastructure, but begin to repurpose what is already established in ways that exponentially can improve the lives of all human beings. And when I mention “this technology”, I am not talking of only one device or one method. I am talking about MANY technologies that achieve the same effect – but will NOT be allowed to develop.

Right now, we already have the technologies to turn human and animal waste product into renewable sources of energy, or convert them into materials that can be completely reused instead of left as “waste product”. This technology ALONE could revolutionize the way we think of “waste” and set us on a path of creating easily maintained waste processing and recycling systems that can locally sustain entire communities. Again, not just one single device or technology but SEVERAL – which will not be allowed to develop.

Right now we can absolutely begin to correct what have been commonly believed to be hereditary conditions or genetic defects as well as prevent, cure, or in some cases eliminate certain diseases or illnesses and create real preventive health care systems that not only keep people healthy and vibrant, but can begin to ENHANCE and further support the expression and potential of living beings. Also, not speaking here of just one method or science or school of thought, but MANY – none of which will be allowed to develop.

Right now we have the necessary understanding of the human’s natural learning ability and the conditions that lead to an effectively developed human that that is not only highly intelligent and effective with processing information, but vastly more creative and expressive as well. Imagine a world in which a person’s natural learning ability were to be supported and enhanced instead of stifled and repressed to a point of total diminishment by the time a person reaches adult age. And yet, this will of course never be allowed.

These statements are NOT meant to provoke any thoughts of there being some “grand conspiracy” of shadowy figures constantly and continuously suppressing these kinds of revolutionary innovation. This is not about “They” doing something to “Us”. Because the real heart of the hard question is not why we haven’t been allowed to develop such things, but rather why we still accept a world system in which we apparently need “permission” and what our collective responsibility is and how this translates into our PERSONAL responsibility.

It is time to begin considering why so many revolutionary innovations have become shuttered or blocked or in some way kept from ever realizing the light of day, and here we have got to start looking BEYOND pointing fingers at shadowy elites or simply blaming our debt based monetary system and get to the nitty gritty details where we begin to see that each one of us have a deep responsibility to answer to in relation to how we ourselves are propagating and CREATING the very mess we blame our institutions for.

Not a comfortable pill to swallow – when we have to take things back to self-responsibility. But swallow we must if we ever intend realize our demands for a better world.

I will be addressing the deeper levels of the “Hidden Charge” that we as humanity have been paying into, and has been so deeply embedded into our living that this dimension is often completely missed – to the detriment of all.

Hidden Charges

I mentioned a very vital question that must be asked and considered – which is WHY and HOW is it that despite having all of the means, the technology, and the knowledge to STOP war, end poverty and starvation, immediately improve the health and vitality of all beings, and make this earth into a paradise for all were the focus can be on expression, exploration, compassion, and unconditional support – do we NOT implement these things? What is it that is really holding us back and what is the “unseen force” that is seemingly against us having this kind of paradise?

I will break this down into a more tangible dimension so that we can all be on the same page as we explore the root of this question and its deeper implications.

First let us realize that we are currently paralyzed. I mean this from the perspective that if you were to REALLY investigate this issue for yourself you would be able to see that unless something STIMULATES us, we do not move. Hence, we exist in a kind of paralysis unless and until we get a little jolt of energy or stimulation that says “Do this” or “Do that”. Rarely if ever, do we actually move or do something for no reason other than us having first made the decision to move or do something. So rarely does this happen that the majority of people would presume that if they never got a sensation or feeling or “inclination” to do something, then they would just basically be “dead” and wouldn’t do anything at all.

I bring this point up because it is relevant to understand how deeply ingrained our dependency on STIMULATION and how much of a blind spot this actually is when we are looking at ways to solve some of the critical issues humanity is now facing. If this is the first time you’ve been presented with this concept, take a moment and REALLY have a look for yourself and honestly investigate how many times you did something, said something, without there being any thoughts or emotions or imaginations or desires prompting you. Here’s a hint – if there was a “thought” or a picture in your mind of you doing something but YOU were not the one who decided to create that thought or deliberately create that specific picture in your own mind, then it was not YOU who made the decision, but rather a stimulation you accepted and went along with.

Now we have the understanding that human beings are almost entirely at this point functioning on some sort of stimulation whether it is positive OR negative – the point is that without the stimulation we presume that we have no “reason” to do something, and do not consider doing something as being reason enough.

Okay – so now that we have that point on the table – we need to ask what is the PRIMARY point of stimulation that exists in our current world system, that affects each and every single living being either positively or negatively? It is MONEY. So let’s really have a look at this because this is an absolutely vital point to understand before we go further.

In the current system of things, nothing “happens” without an energetic input. Think of a battery operated machine or device – if the energy isn’t there to power it, it will not function. It is not necessarily “dead” or “broken” – it just won’t do the things that it requires energy to do unless that energy is there.

Our world system – which includes the governments of the world, the various international agencies and institutions, the large trans-national corporations, everything that is part of what makes modern human societies “function”, and of course the economic and monetary systems – can all be seen as individual parts to a large battery powered machine. This machine requires massive amounts of energy – its batteries need extensive amounts of charge which quickly become depleted because, well, it is a HUGE machine with immensely intricate and interdependent moving parts – all of which need to keep functioning at least to a minimal degree or else the entire system can break down.

One might think that the main energy source for this world system machine is money – and that is a very very good answer because money is in fact the main “energy” that all beings are currently affected by in our world – but money is not energy itself – it is a transmitter of energy. Money is the method upon which energy is siphoned from resources and human labor, but it is not “money” that is powering the world system. For a long time I was convinced it was just money, but bear with me as I explain the deeper dimensions.

There is a kind of “energy” that we are all expending into the world system that is not just “money”. It is all of the hours we spend doing things that are NOT supportive to ourselves or others in order to get money to pay for our survival in this world.

Now here is where the magic happens so to speak. Take your average job in a first world country. A person will do this job for money and use that money to in turn buy their basic necessities and if there is any extra after they take care of their basic survival, they will either save it, invest it, or spend it on some form of luxury or entertainment. BUT – what does the “job” entail?

It does not matter what a person’s job is – because the “Hidden Fee” that is being extracted from them is the same no matter what a person does – as long as it is for money in the current system. This hidden fee is particularly nefarious in nature because it is not just about extracting money and resources from people already struggling with survival – but because of the excessive amount of waste and negative consequence on health and the environment that is created which only makes the “Hidden Fee” even higher each day.

So far I have been rather vague with describing and defining what exactly the hidden fee is but in the following blog I will go into detail of one example of how the Hidden Fee embeds itself so deeply that it goes unnoticed in our everyday lives.


Check out this LIG Google Hangout with Joe Kou and Marlen Vargas Del Razo on the
Living Income Guaranteed YouTube Channel

[65] Hidden Charges Exposed – Subscribe for regular updates and points to consider.

Check Out the Links for More Information on the Living Income Guaranteed 

Advertisements

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:

Living Income Guaranteed and the Rise of the Machine

Posted on Updated on

This will be an ongoing discussion wherein slowly but surely we will dissect the situation around the idea that the machine could be ‘the savior of mankind.’

Within this we have to first look at where we are with the machine as it exists now:

  • What is this machine?
  • What have we done with this machine?
  • How is this machine functioning in our current society?

Here let me give you a story…

About three years ago, one of the neighbors came and we were discussing things in general, he then mentioned an interesting event, a family member tendered for the engine block of one of the new Toyota models that were going to be produced. The specifications of the tender were that the block must last for a warranty period of five years. So in their diligence and commitment to get the tender, they engineered an engine block that would last 8 years. Obviously they were under the impression that if you produce something better than the specifications, your tender will probably receive a more positive view. Fascinatingly enough their tender was rejected, because it did not keep to the specification of a warranty of 5 years.

 

Now the engine block of a motorcar is engineered, produced and constructed by the machine, but who makes the machine that makes the engine block? That is the human and the human intent.
If we take this now to a broader view of many, many products that are available in stores, we’ll notice that many of them are produced by the machine. But regardless of being produced by the machine (which by the way ensures a greater level of perfection than when it is produced by the human) – in total disregard of this potential perfection, the human would design the machine to produce the goods to only last a limited period of time. This causes massive levels of consumption, placing massive pressure on resources and all in the name of creating a market flow which produces money and profit, which produces – according to our well-drilled brainwashed economists –a market economy that’s necessary to keep the world economy going.

 

And within this obviously, the competition that exists between the remaining few corporations in this game of monopoly, is to see ‘who can destroy who’ in price wars. It’s an economic war going on and at the end ‘only one shall remain’ – and the one that remains obviously will determine in the end the quality of the product produced. If the consumer has already been conditioned by the fact that nothing else is available but that which has a limited warranty, the corporation can keep producing the same product over and over again, knowing that it will fail within a particular period of time where the consumer will be addicted and adapted to have the product and thus must replace it by their own apparent ‘free choice’ — and so a market force is being created.

 

Is this really the purpose of ‘the Rise of the Machine’?
What is the machine replacing but the human labor point?
By replacing human labor what we have already seen is that many people lose their jobs and even those that remain employed, end up receiving lower incomes with only the few at the top receiving higher incomes. In this way it is ensured that those that do make the decisions, do not question the system; those that do not make the decisions have no choice, because otherwise they will have no job because of their diminished bargaining power in an economy with high unemployment.

So, a perfect slavery system exists – all in the name of the machine and the machine is blamed for it, instead of the human.

Certainly in a redesigned economy, the machine can play a significant role in perfecting the products available for the human race to use, perfecting the reduction of resources used in the production process, extending the life of the produced product as part of this perfection. Through this, allowing the human to benefit from their placement of the labor resource by ensuring that there is significant and enough Living income for each one to ensure that the product produced can be consumed but for mostly to ensure that the right to life is recognized as a human right, allowing the human to have more free time in which to develop their awareness to become more benevolent, less competitive and self-responsible. Those are the points which should be the outflow of the rise of the machine: a reduction in competition thus a reduction in conflict, a reduction in war and the development of quality production and sustainability, because the principles are understood as what is necessary to have an ecosystem that is effective and supportive in nourishing the human race as a whole. Unfortunately, this is yet to be considered.

You should watch the documentary

The Light Bulb Conspiracy to understand the nature of the problem: the problem is the human being, not the machine. The machine certainly can create and contribute to a society that brings vast levels of freedom to everyone and our society can develop a higher purpose for its existence. At the moment, we’re at the most basic part of our existence where there’s not even a Living Income, there’s not even a Living Income for everyone! While this could have been possible if this was introduced as the machine was rising but instead, those brutal enough to take advantage of the situation forced a play that caused a massive problem in the world, and now all the top people, the elite in the world has no idea how to practically solve the problem.

So the solution to the problem is not apparent, more radical steps are being considered. I would suggest that the real radical step is to realize that the mistake was made when labor was removed from the equation of the pricing of a product, and it was replaced by the labor of the machine, you cannot compare the two: the machine is actually an extension of human labor and therefore the human should be glorified through it, it found a better way to create more time. But now instead, those that do not fit into the economic model are forced to use all their time to find ways to survive – that is certainly not the way forward.

Investigate

Living Income Guaranteed, become part of the research. If your objective and your principle is like ours: to find a practical solution that is best for all that works for everyone and you can see that obviously that is the only way we will have a workable solution on earth, then join us. There is no way that an answer on Earth is going to come through an individual, it’s going to require a group, the group as humanity to work together, to bury the hatchet and to forgive each other and to move on and create a system that is best for all – there is no other solution possible. And to simply try and ‘find ways’ that do not involve an outcome that is best for all: is just a waste of time.

 

Equal Life Foundation Research Team

 

Living Income Guaranteed and the Rise of the Machine

Living Income Guaranteed and Business Transparency

Posted on Updated on

Within the Living Income Guaranteed with a capitalist approach, profit is one of its cornerstones; therefore it must be ensured. Another point that tends to waste extensive money is the point that new businesses are started which then fail.From that perspective it is a suggested that there – like you have with city planning – you have business planning where it is assessed what type of businesses the community can sustain that is possible within the money supply that exists, and that those businesses are then planned-out and offered to the citizen to take on with full support from the business planning section which should be part as a governmental function, a citizen support function ensuring that businesses do not fail.

This will save massive amounts of money which makes Living Income Guaranteed a very cheap solution to a situation where there is seemingly endless amounts of money ending up in either foreclosure and/or failure and/or abuse and/or maladministration. At this stage there are no actual figures being kept of all of this – we never get to know the real numbers of how much is actually wasted. But there is more wasted through business failure, maladministration, charity and foundation creation abuse due to the influence of the consumer than what is needed to bring about a Living Income Guaranteed.

You should ask yourself some questions:

  • Why are the no clear figures that inform the population of the administration of resources?
  • Why are there no figures kept of how much is actually lost through foreclosure?
  • How much is actually lost through businesses that are going bankrupt?
  • How much is actually lost through people losing their jobs at this stage, unable to participate in the system, unable for instance to pay tax or to buy stuff to increase the revenue streams?
  • How much is wasted by corrupt government officials?
  • How much is directed toward inappropriate placement of tenders?

These are massive amounts beyond belief; how much is happening because there’s no oversight and everybody participating in the system knows one thing: there are resources being stolen and there is maladministration and corruption, that’s why they don’t want transparency, it’s convenient.

In some countries like South Africa, there’s the prospect of placing in laws to ‘limit transparency,’ which is no different to saying ‘Let’s legalize corruption!’. So the integrity of the human within a Living Income Guaranteed system should be administrated through a system. We have the technology now to have systems in place that can support the human to the extent of creating a system that is trustworthy and that assists everyone effectively in the world. We have the expertise to do this, now we need the will to stop corruption and to stop abuse. This can be done by Guaranteeing a Basic Income, guaranteeing a minimum wage and guaranteeing profit because all these three foundational stones will actually guarantee the existence and expansion of Capitalism and bring about a high functioning and effective society with the use of technology to produce what will ensure proper usage of resources, technology and human creativity. This cannot happen without a sense of freedom and money does give a sense of freedom.

We have come to the conclusion that trying to establish a society without a way within which the human can express their freedom is simply not going to work. Freedom is in money, it translates as the ability to express yourself in a way where you feel empowered as well as having your Basic Human Rights recognized and dignified. Not having enough money is to disempower people and to force them into crime and as you’ve noticed, massive amounts of money are lost to crime. All these things will stop if we have in place a proper technological system which we can establish with great ease at this stage. We have the technology and the managerial mechanisms to do so. In a matter of a few years, the whole world will be an internet grid and we can make use of all these things to prevent crime and corruption.

Living Income Guaranteed is not only an opportunity to support yourself from an economic perspective in terms of ensuring everyone’s survival, but also from the economic perspective to have an equal opportunity to support yourself and your family, which is a Basic Human Right. This is the equal right we give to each other to potentially become wealthy individuals while ensuring all resources are made available for everyone equally.

Equal Life Research Team

Basic Income Guaranteed and Business Transparency

Living Income and the Music Industry

Posted on Updated on

The music industry is one of the industries that has suffered the most under the current format of consumerism and capitalism. We have a peculiar scenario that developed where more than 90% of popular music became popular with some underlying sexual innuendo within the context of the music.

It’s as if music became a form of pornography, and because pornography has become something that up to now has been apparently something protected by free speech, we also created this in our music. Within this we are destroying true creativity within our musical arts, where we end up only with popularized music that is deliberately promoted within the vile of consumerism: where there is nothing that drives it but profit, and obviously entertaining the consumer to remain in a positive mindset of hope looking for the fulfillment of pleasure. This certainly is not music.

We expect that within the Living Income Guaranteed, the musician will have sufficient income on a Living Income Guaranteed to be able to truly develop their music and to explore building an audience that appreciates the music they create. The same will happen with the other arts in terms of painting, films, theater, literature, etc. If one no longer needs to make the music simply for the purposes of survival and you have sufficient support to truly explore your skills, the appreciation of the listener of the music enthusiast will grow substantially and we will develop a culture within our higher appreciations that will bring us a whole new era in music. All of this is facilitated through a simple principle: once each one is taken care of in their basic needs to live a life of decency, their ability is set free to find a higher form of expression. This higher form of expression is truly what everyone claims ‘they’ve been looking for’ but never considered that one requires a Practical Economic Model to set free the creative human potential. It will take time, but inevitably we foresee that we will become much more appreciative of arts and music and much more critical of content, expecting a higher value from our fellow human as we no longer are biased through our need to ‘feel hope for the future’ through some form of positive innuendo that is underlying abuse through our sexual expressions that has come through our generations.

In a society where you have felt like you were not supported in any way and you really have nothing to lose because you’ve already lost everything = the choice to be irresponsible was accentuated. In a more balanced society, one where everyone is taken care of within a Living Income Guaranteed structure will develop self-responsibility and self-respect, because Living Income Guaranteed in itself would be a statement by every human towards their fellow human “I respect you as life” and that statement, that certainty that one is protected and supported: will start changing human nature. 

Equal Life Foundation Research

Basic Income Guaranteed and Music Industry

Related Post: Day 235: Living Income and Effective Markets

Living Income Can Save Capitalism

Posted on Updated on

This should be good news for the capitalists.

This proposal will have to become part of a political party’s manifesto and become part of their economic policy and they have to promote it within the context as presented to overcome the objections that are inherently glued to the view of the capitalist.

If you look at George Bush, David Cameron, Obama – they all have promoted the idea to ‘save capitalism’, that there is one thing everybody must do, they say: ‘spend more.’ But there’s a problem with what’s happening in the world there are fewer and fewer jobs which means people can spend less and less so all the economies are contracting because the money supply which at the end is dependent on the amount of people participating in the system with money is shrinking; the economic theory did not expand yet to consider proper solutions for the world. So the following is how one solves the problem.

In any given country you have citizens, they are citizens by birth and by birth they have a birth right towards citizenship in that country. We propose that that birth right should be including inclusive of the resources that are in that country – for instance, the mining resources and water resources, electricity, cellphones, telephones… all the points that are part of that country originally. But maybe it’ll be possible to only look at the resources that everybody requires and needs on a daily basis which are food, water, electricity and something like the cellphone, telephone and internet. These are things that are already in a country and they have intrinsic value. By utilizing these resources you have a situation where everyone in the country participates in contributing towards the total turnover of these particular resources.

If the price is set to be sufficient to accommodate sufficient profit for the shareholders – which in this case will be the citizens of the country – which then are distributed to all those citizens in the country that do not have enough income as a Living Income Guaranteed, it is possible to set up a system which will have a very interesting effect for all capitalists. This is because suddenly, all the people in the country will be able to spend money; this will mean the capitalists that will so to speak ‘lose income’ because if they already own any of these resources in the country their shares will be transferred through nationalization to the shareholders that should have owned it in the first place, which are the citizens. In other words, if you take away anything from the security of a state and the security of a state is to supply and support their citizens: you’re committing treason. So by taking these corporations and creating them as private entities, taking it away from the rights of the citizens, in fact treason has been committed and this is being done through public relations and cognitive disinformation, by control of the media. This is why we also suggest that the media should also be controlled by the citizens because the media in any particular country is always the voice of the citizens. And therefore, all of these corporations still run as corporations, the only difference is that the shareholding is in the hands of the citizens and it becomes a matter of national pride, and they are managed properly by people that are properly skilled that do so for the benefit of the country.

This can become extremely valuable resources in terms of stabilizing an economy and presenting and producing sufficient profit that at the moment as we know, ends up in the hands of a selective few elite to such an extent that their combined wealth can stop poverty in the whole world several times, which means there is already enough money created. Obviously what they’re doing is a fascinating thing, in many cases they’re reducing prices of products simply to outperform the competition which causes massive unemployment in the world, purely to make more money but is justified as saying that ‘by making things cheaper = we’re making it more affordable for everyone,’ but if a person does not have an income = they don’t have a level of affordability, there is just no way they can own it. So when one takes this model and you apply it and you have each citizen with a Living Income Guaranteed, the citizen now can spend money, this money will normally be spent at the normal corporations that now supply goods and services in all kinds of arenas, that will increase turnover, that would increase job creation and that would increase profits.

Now you’ll say “But if everybody gets a Living Income, who’s going to do the work?” very simple, the minimum wage should be double the Living Income so that the person is motivated to not use the Living Income Guaranteed but to go out and work because that will give them access to money to buy luxuries as well, because the Living Income Guaranteed will not be sufficient to buy ‘extreme luxuries,’ it will be to buy the basics that are necessary, to provide the education that is necessary, to have at least one motor vehicle to be able to have the transport that’s necessary.

Another suggestion within the Living Income Guaranteed proposal is that there is also a subsidy for homes which is sufficient to construct a reasonable home because that will not only benefit the banking industry, but it will also benefit the building industry and so it’ll again have a knock on effect in creating cash flow which then creates money supply, which creates an economy that is growing and a happy capitalist, because there will be many more opportunities than what exists now.

One of the things that should be considered is the standard of goods – there should be a minimum standard and each country should have a bureau of standards that specifically makes sure that the products made available to the citizens as a matter of their birth right and their citizen’s right to have goods that are of real value, that these products are going through stringent tests. This way we ensure the capitalists don’t just try and make profit but actually provide a proper service and a proper product which will reduce a lot of the unnecessary energy spending in the world where things are just made for the sake of enticing people to buy through advertising. Thus, advertising should be not based on cognitive disinformation or on placing people in an emotional state when they’re buying, it should be based on fact and there should be better regulation about advertising so that people are not psychologically manipulated, because that is simply not acceptable.

When you have a system where you have your basic job facilitation which includes from janitors, to road builders to any type of job where your minimum wage is double your Living Income, you will find that there will be enough workers to do the work because they’ll earn more, and those that work will have benefit because they will be able to buy better cars, bigger houses and they will thus have a better standing in the community which will motivate people to look for jobs and because lots more money is in circulation = new businesses will begin, which will again offer more jobs and thus create more opportunities for people to get a better income than just a Living Income Guaranteed.

The Living Income Guaranteed must be of such nature that it is sufficient for a person or a family to live a decent life, one worthy of their birth right as a citizen. Utilizing it this way, it becomes viable for the corporations to give up some of the things they control in favor of having a stable economy that provides a lot more money in circulation, which provides a lot more opportunities for profit. By doing this, one reduces various factors that have become extreme problems which are already being investigated by projects like the Big Project In Namibia: if everybody’s got a Living Income: crime reduces, violence reduces and people want to improve themselves because they are no longer desperate, they have moved from desperation to hope and they start to educate themselves better.

This is an all-around effective solution where one can ensure then that the most Living Human Rights as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is actually taken care of, the capitalists are kept happy, those that believe that ‘some are lazy and some are not’ are kept happy because they can now go and work and earn more money and leave the others with less money.


Essentially a Living Income Guaranteed is at this stage a viable solution for a world in extreme trouble. Bailouts won’t work, people that actually want to send money to bailouts should rather send it to educating people about the validity of a system that is a mixture between socialism and capitalism and that protects the citizenship of each person within a country. And then between the countries they can work out solutions for those countries that’s got less resources and develop them to also have a similar resource structure which provides sufficient income in house through the internal use of for instance cellphones, airtime, electricity, water, media, that sufficient profit is made out of that to facilitate the Living Income Guaranteed so that there is never any debt made for facilitating this.

This will also solve another problem that is going to become extensive in the next 20 years which is that all the pensions will be gone because it will replace the pension system, there will be no longer contributions to those pensions because a person will have a Living Income Guaranteed it will thus, instead of money being invested into corporations, the money will be in the hands of the citizen. The citizen will then use the money to decide what is best and where to invest it.

To all the people benefited with Living Income Guaranteed we suggest that that they save 10% of that money and invest it every month in the corporations, the other corporations that are not yet owned by the citizens and if all the citizens do that = very soon the citizens will own all the corporations and all the capitalists would have made their profit and will have a system where a person on a Living Income Guaranteed will earn enough from their shares in the corporations that they will get to a point where their income is higher than the Living Income Guaranteed and the moment that happens = they no longer are dependent on the Living Income Guaranteed and they move towards self-sufficiency.

Living Income Guaranteed will require certain rules. One of them being that one shouldn’t own more than one car – this means that if you have two cars = you have more money than you should have for a Living Income Guaranteed; and if you have a job and the job obviously always will be according to minimum wage which is double the Living Income Guaranteed= you no longer require the Living Income Guaranteed because you’re now in self-sufficiency and that position opens up for another person, because one of the things about this world is that there are always new people arriving that are going to need some help to get into the system.

All education within the system, within a country should be facilitated by the Living Income Guaranteed facilitation and because education is a calling and not a place of profit, all educators that are part of that should be placed on a Living Income Guaranteed and all education at university level, everything should be free to the citizens because it is a Human Right to educate each one and it is thus facilitated so that we have in the education system those that truly do it for a calling and that are not doing it for money, because they are doing it as a service to their fellow citizens.

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 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 income tax – or shall we say government tax collection.

To have this facilitated effectively, the control of it will be important which means the total system will have to be digitized. The payment of the Living Income Guaranteed will be via your bank card so it’ll be instantaneous and society will move towards a more ‘cashless society,’ but in a cashless society where one will have enough of what you need and nobody can take away your income because you are guaranteed this income unless you obviously have a job, which means you have double income.

In this proposal no matter what objection one could possibly have, there will be an answer, everybody will be satisfied. It’s a very simplistic solution that brings an end to the problems that are now in the world.

With the rise of the machine there’s going to be job-loss which means there’s going to be greater efficiency, which means there’s going to be less cost on input. So if there is job-loss = there is Living Income Guaranteed. The type of new businesses that will develop will be based on human ingenuity, the great word that the capitalists like to use.

So the capitalists – those that want to earn more in the system – can come up with great ideas to create new employment and so to uplift people to a higher level of income or double at least that the Living Income Guaranteed. So all desires, all hopes will be answered and in a way, the whole principle of the pursuit of happiness, the principle of each one being able to be in a world of opportunity instead of just a ‘land of opportunity’ of the US, it will be the whole world that will be a land of opportunity, a world of opportunity where you can be anything you want to be and the opportunities are endless.

Environmental policy will have to be strictly applied and wastage will have to be looked at and therefore the education system needs to be substantially upgraded. This is how each individual will be content and not worry about what others have, and instead work to earn a greater living if they truly want to.

So the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal for the world is a solution of equal opportunity. If you do not want to make use of that opportunity, you’ll have a Living Income Guaranteed – if you want to make use of that opportunity, at the very least you’ll have double the Living Income Guaranteed.

‘How much the Living Income Guaranteed will be’ is going to be worked out according to what is necessary for a person or a family to make a decent living. In this one will probably have to look at the one thing that needs to change which are currencies, there will have to be one world currency because the need for currencies will no longer exist, because that is only being used by the richer countries to steal resources from the poorer countries and that’s no longer necessary because there’s enough money to pay for it anyway. Therefore, we don’t need ‘exchange rates’ anymore, you can have your own money but it is equal. So if you have the euro = one dollar = one yen = one pound = one rand = one peso – that will make sure we have no more peasants.

It’s obviously the ultimate patriotic system you could ever come up with, be a patriot, be a BIG supporter and remember capitalists: here is your ultimate opportunity of making profit, you will never have had such a good opportunity before because now, your ability to come up with the ultimate product that entices the population to buy it is now at your feet.

Join LIG, be big hearted: it’s time.

Equal Life Foundation Research Team

Basic Income can Save Capitalism