Nationalization of Resources

Blame Welfare Recipients.. or Implement a Solution?

Posted on Updated on

By Kelly Posey 

food stamps complain welfare

 

Think People On Food Stamps Are Eating More Lobster Than You? Think Again

Stories of SNAP recipients using benefits to buy shellfish and junk food abound.
“I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT cards,” Rick Bratten, a Missouri Republican who this year proposed prohibiting SNAP recipients from buying seafood or steak, told the Washington Post. “When I can’t afford it on my pay, I don’t want people on the taxpayer’s dime to afford those kinds of foods either.”

In Maine and Wisconsin, lawmakers are pushing legislation to restrict SNAP benefits to foods deemed healthy. The Wisconsin State Assembly approved legislation this week to ban junk food and also “crab, lobster, shrimp, or any other shellfish.” The bill’s sponsor cited “anecdotal and perceived abuses.”


Frankly, I don’t know how someone could really afford to regularly eat lobster on food stamps. You don’t really get enough money to eat comfortably. I mean, sure, you could buy some lobster this week, and maybe go a bit hungry the next. But really, who cares? You can do that with your hard earned wages too if you want. But it really doesn’t matter.
For those who would be concerned that individuals on food stamps are eating more luxuriously than you can on work wages, look – the problem of you not being able to afford expensive food on your wages is not caused by someone on food stamps buying lobster. Therefore, the solution is not contained in trying to prevent those on food stamps from buying lobster or what have you. That would actually likely have more of a negative effect. It would take much more bureaucratic oversight to impose stricter limitations on what can be bought with food stamps, requiring more government work, paid by your taxes.

Wages are low because the economy is low because nobody has any money to spend into the economy. It’s a vicious cycle that just feeds itself and more and more we feel the squeeze. What boosts the economy is people having money to spend into the economy. At this point jobs can’t be counted on to provide enough income to individuals and that’s why we have a support system like food stamps. We have a lot of welfare programs in the U.S., taking up a lot of government resources because it is already divided into so many different programs to ensure that it’s spent on certain things. So much added bureaucracy and tax money going into a lot of double-work, essentially, filling out and processing applications for each different program.

This is why I support the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal, because it proposes to simplify and streamline the welfare process by providing a basic income to those who need it, to be used to cover all one’s primary needs. There doesn’t need to be multiple programs with multiple application processes and reporting processes and so on, when it can be done from one platform. And there doesn’t need to be restrictions on how/where it is spent. That can be up to the individual, as it is the best way for individuals to learn financial responsibility, by going through the consequences themselves, and studies have shown that when individuals are given the chance they do not generally make poor choices, as some would seem to imply or expect. Certainly deciding for individuals promotes dependency as it does not encourage or provide an opportunity for an individual to learn and develop self responsibility.

So let’s make sure that we focus on the real problem and therefore the real solution, and not get caught up in a form of blame game and ‘it’s not fair’ point, like ‘if I can’t have it then neither can they’ I mean, how does that help anything at all? Rather, look at how do we go about creating that which we would like, for everyone, and realize that things don’t have to be the way they are. We live in a world where there is plenty, we need to stop getting lost in blaming each other, and focus on bringing about the changes that will actually solve the problems we’re experiencing.

 

Investigate the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal

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:

Communism and the 1%

Posted on Updated on

By Barbara Stängl

Communism

Karl_MarxCommunism in its end stage is a classless and stateless society. This ideology has never in fact been implemented to the final stage, where the state as such would have ‘withered away’. The states ruled by communist political parties themselves rather define themselves as socialist states. Karl Marx has divided the working class from the capitalist class, in that it can be said that he too was a global player serving the system in that he adhered to propagating and intensifying already existing inequalities, same as Obama or Merkel, which is essential for any kind of ideology to work: divide & conquer. This holds true whether one is speaking of the system/ideology of democracy, totalitarianism, socialism, capitalism or communism. 

 

obama-divide-conquer-and-change

Communism was utilized by the Elite to further the chasm by way of placing it as a threat to democracy and ‘its values’ of free market, freedom of speech and a free media. What was stated to be a planned economy on the communist/socialist side was opposed to a market-based economy – both only paradigms, both not working for the majority, both not based on the principle of what is best for all. 

As mentioned above, and specifically in the example of the Soviet Union, there never was communism according to Marx’ definition nor a communism that in the actual sense of the word focused on the community, as all being equal and being given an equal opportunity to live life to its fullest potential. It was again a sort of dictatorship, where the subordinated beings had to do all the labor and the top 1% were able to profit, to have it all and live the ‘happy life’.

 

The problem was the economic focus on heavy industry at the expense of consumer goods, oftentimes resulting in shortages of vital products or even famine, and to cover up the mismanagement of the government in their 5-year plans, militarism and propaganda were used in a widespread manner. These means and measures of manipulation and suppression had been so obvious to the ‘democratic side’ of the iron curtain at the time of the Soviet Union, but there was also this strange inability or rather unwillingness to see the parallels in the capitalist system that we hold in such great esteem.


As a side note here, both the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Federal President of Germany Joachim Gauck had held close connections to the then GDR before coming to represent the German people through their respective positions or rather placements. Gauck is supposed to have been a resistance fighter in the GDR, but received a lot of privileges there that would not ordinarily have been awarded to resistance fighters. The same situation with Merkel who had the privilege of going to Moscow to study which is only granted to people who are loyal to the ‘Einheitspartei’. So the point I want to make here is that there’s something going on behind the scene we’re being shown of two opposing ideological systems, where one is a threat to the other, the idea being utilized to justify the channeling of vast amounts of money into military, armies and means of defense, which the CEOs, leading political and other string-pulling figures benefit from immensely.

 

workaholicSo, we’re being taken on quite a ride here. The solution is to educate people on how ideologies are being used within the power principle of ‘divide and conquer’ to brainwash and manipulate people to make do with the direst of living conditions with hard, tedious or repetitive labor and little pay or no job at all where the ideology of capitalism is lived or the opposite where one has to juggle 2-3 jobs concurrently on a daily basis to survive, because the pay one is given for one job does not suffice to get by on at all. People have to be told who benefits from the information that is being propagated, so one is able to see the intent behind the disinformation.

For one, panic and desperation can be avoided because one does not fall for incomplete and misleading information. One will not be misguided so easily and will learn to apply commonsense. Politics and the media are in the hands of the financing and private banking sector, that is to say the individuals behind it, and these have usurped politics and media to maintain the status quo that is serving them so well. This is the dimension of educating people, one step to be taken toward change.

 

team-buildingA fundamental model that is to be implemented, namely the platform presented within/as LIG, the Living Income Guaranteed, which suggests the nationalization of resources, where, however, the profit will be used to create social equality by providing a guaranteed living income for shelter, food, electricity, clean water, education and internet for voting and communication/a means of participating and getting vital information, local and global news for all. Provided with such a basis on a world scale one will be able to choose a living/an occupation according to one’s actual creative abilities and build a business to make more money that provides them with some luxury as well.

For those that are already working for a business firm or company there should be a minimum wage that is double the Living Income which means that if people get a Living Income of 15 dollars per hour, the minimum wage for work should be 30 dollars. This would create the incentive for people to educate themselves and take on more responsibility in the professional areas in the application of technological advancements and know-how on a highly skilled level.

 

The benefits are real equality on a lived basis, where there is happiness through being guaranteed a life in dignity, with real improvements in the job situations because money does not come from abusing the laborers and their workforce, but from the nationalization of the essential resourcing corporations. Education toward professional skills and access to internet for everyone will bring forth entrepreneurial endeavors and will eventually increase the overall power of acquisition which will support the entire society’s well-being. Education of how our mind works, together with a sound financial basis will also improve the relationships between individuals as greed and competition will decrease and one is more ready to meet one’s neighbor on an eye to eye level. Starvation will be a thing of the past and health issues will be able to be dealt with from an early onset because the financial means will be available to all, which means everybody gets an equal chance toward happiness and self-realization for real, which adds up to a lived statement of ‘true communism’ in the actual sense of the word, where each is treated as an equal part of the community of mankind on the principle of the common good being life – which is to be supported equally by all as one.

Investigate the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal and Join us for discussion.

 

Picture credits:
Divide and conquer
Karl Marx
MalcolmX
Team building
Juggling jobs

Yearly Salary “Raise”

Posted on Updated on

It sounds cool when the company sends you the letter about the raise in your salary yet when taking the inflation into account which is two times higher than the raise we then realize that our purchasing power has actually diminished. And that’s what has been happening for many many years now where the human labor is slowly but surely devalued.

It is a slow process where the change is not very noticeable ensuring that there is no reason in peoples minds to have any uprising and claim for their rights. Corporations keep doubling their profits while people that do the actual labor remain stuck in the mode of survival and constant fear to try and move for any change.

When I hear people having a conversation about the guys on top and how they exploit us a common statement keeps appearing in the end ” aaa it’s a useless fight”. That’s how deeply we have accepted our condition, because as far as we see it’s always been that way and always will be. You can try and go against the big guys and possibly win few percent increase in your salary or some little improvement in your working conditions but beyond that is a no go area, useless to even consider. So yeah the programming is surely deep where alternatives don’t ever enter the conversation in any way, only sometimes in a form of a joke.

 

I would like to bring, however, a new consideration, which is not actually new but is basically disregarded due to effective brainwashing which was pushed by those that fear and understand that this consideration does actually make sense and that if this idea would reach people without being filtered through the imposed filters of fear, majority would agree and most likely push for the realization of this idea.

 

 

Nationalization of Resources

Yes, it has been portrayed as something unholy where we have been made to prefer the free market to take care of things for us without realizing that free market only allowed a few to freely abuse all others. Government is bad, too much corruption and abuse, we keep reading daily in the newspapers and of course that is a problem because even there we have completely abdicated our responsibility to make any decisions or have any say in what happens with our daily affairs. Still in many ways government still works for the people while corporations are only interested in the well being of their shareholders.

Isn’t it strange that those shareholders are sitting somewhere far away from all the real processes that happen daily while common people work their assess off to keep the company running, yet they don’t have a share in this company, nope, they are no shareholders. They get only the tiniest piece of cake, it’s called a crumble which again, as I mentioned above, gets tinier with each passing year. How is this fair? How can this be allowed to continue unquestioned and ever even considered?

There is a need to start the process of bringing this awareness back into the minds of people by explaining through past examples about the benefits of having resources nationalized and how this can work for all people. What changes need to be done within governments in order to avoid any abuse and how to best allocate this huge increase in available resources that could really accomplish great things in bettering lives of all human beings of let’s say that specific country.

Suggestion is to start looking at our global initiative called Living Income Guaranteed which besides this suggestion has other crucial points, ideas which upon their realization would, through mathematical determination, bring enormous improvement in the quality of peoples lives. There is still much work to be done and the more of us join and participate the faster we can move and end the current accepted slavery once and for all.

 

higher salaries - living income guaranteed

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:

Living Income Guaranteed and the Nationalization of Banks

Posted on Updated on

Banking in fact is a resource that is required by all citizens equally. If we look at what are resources that should be nationalized, the minimum guideline is that they are all the resources that are equally required by all citizens – this implies water, electricity, roads, transport systems, media, banking, etc. All of the stuff that is necessary for each one to have a decent life, and banking falls within this category.

Banking in a way has become so technological that it is no longer a major job creator; it is simply a management of funds. Therefore, if we nationalize the banks within the approach that with minimum wage one no longer allows personal debt to accumulate – because we will forgive all debt – and the banks facilitate points like building houses and facilitate the placement of motorcars that are debt based on capital investments, which are good for the economic growth – then we are looking here at a very stable banking sector. The profits that come from a minimal interest rate will be distributed according to what is required to facilitate the Living Income Guaranteed in its totality in a particular country.

 

The point of importance to note with the Living Income Guaranteed proposal is that personal tax will be abolished, but taxation in terms of transactions – which is a use tax, a per sales tax and value added tax – those types of taxes would be fair because it would be based on how much one uses the system and those taxes specifically would be accumulated to pay for the functions of government.

To facilitate a society that will stop abusing each other, there is an interesting point that will have to be considered and that is to move away from cash money to total digital money, because with total digital money one will reduce the propensity to deal outside the system and as such to take part in criminal activities. This will also bring an end to the current issues with protests and social dissidence where the problem is being approached from the starting point of demanding others to make the necessary changes, without proposing any agenda that can lead to a feasible practical solution.

 

Within the Living Income Guaranteed system the excuse of some wanting to deal with cash because of ‘not wanting to pay tax’ will become irrelevant. It’ll bring stability for the system because those that do pay tax on their services or their products bought will contribute to the tax resource that that will be collected by the banking sector. And so the financial system for the country will be very stable and the budget will be according to available money; and when necessary, pricing or tax will be adjusted for extra money and the governments will not be allowed to borrow money, so that these exorbitant amounts of interests that even go towards ‘unidentifiable parties’ paid for by the labor of the citizens, can finally be stopped.

With the Living Income Guaranteed system: governmental debt and national debt won’t exist, there is no need for it. Proper accounting, proper planning will prevent this and it is suggested that in the basic Constitution it is placed that: a government cannot make debt. And ‘not being able to make debt’ will also mean that the government will have to spend money on issues that are genuinely relevant where things like war will come to an end and the education, healthcare and all sectors that are relevant to the citizen is what will be considered in the budgets.

Obviously when somebody disagrees with such practical reasonable solutions, one must investigate what criminal activities they are participating in that they want to protect, so that they can have ‘more money’ when it is not necessary because: there is and will be sufficient for all.

 

Equal Life Foundation Research Team

 

Basic Income Guaranteed and the Nationalization of Banks

Living Income and Nationalized Resources

Posted on Updated on

For the idea of Basic Income that is currently being proposed by various groups around the world to work, one needs to look at the whole point of resources within countries and the most effective way to bring about a source that will be able to provide the monetary resources for a Living Income for everyone – so that each one has got a basic level of dignity – would be to Nationalize all the Resources – whether it is mining or production within a country – to structure the products produced and the resources produced through a pricing structure that produces enough profit so that such money is specifically dedicated to pay a Living Income to everyone in the country.

This is how the shareholder becomes the citizen and therefore the citizen benefits from the shareholding and the Living Income becomes the way that the profit of the business is utilized to help everyone. Each one will be made aware of buying products from the very companies that are producing the income that will become the Living Income Guaranteed. In this way, the Living Income becomes possible, it is a form of socialism and it brings capitalism or the ownership principle of capitalism into a place where all citizens of the country become part of the basic capital, which is the basic resource that is then utilized for the benefit of all the citizens within the country.

This way the corporation = becomes government, the shareholder = the citizen, the profit = the Living Income Guaranteed and you have financially sustainable basic solution to create integrity and to bring about the end of poverty within a country. From that perspective one can then develop business structures of competition, but there are certain things that are not part of competition: the human should not compete with each other to the extent where poverty is caused or where people are driven to starvation, or where people do not have homes or food – that is not competition, that is brutality and is completely unacceptable.

So this whole idea that competition and market forces ‘will sort it out,’ the evidence is quite clear: it’s not going to happen. What needs to happen is a directive action politically by people to bring about economic change, nationalize the necessary resources, make the citizens the shareholders, pay them as shareholders a Living Income out of the profit, motivate them to buy from the products and the resources that are being nationalized because they are supporting their own business and that’s how we create a solution for Basic Income.

Some of the benefits of a Living Income Guaranteed through the way we propose would be that in essence it is a redistribution of money which allows an interesting thing to take place: more people having money to spend on the basic things that are required for a decent life, will cause actually some of the corporations to make more money. There’ll be more money in the money supply therefore there will be economic growth and consequently, employment will be created and so people will be able to step into better positions and the benefits of such a scenario would bring about a positive growth within the whole system.

Understand that without having the resources, the way to guarantee how one will get the money in the current system, a Basic Income is impossible and that the current limited resources due to the absolute controls of the corporations and the extremes of competition in terms of how that has limited the growth of the money supply and limited the amount of the people that can participate in the economy = that scenario is a problem and one needs to have a solution. The solution is that one expands capitalism through nationalization by making the citizens the shareholders and so, grow the economic benefit for everyone. This is specially in things like cellphone/telephone companies, electricity, water, all the things that are basic needs must be corporations that are run by government qualified people and the citizens/the shareholders, wherein the pricing must be such to generate enough profit to be able to pay a sustainable Living Income to everyone and within that, you’ll have a solution for the current problems and step-up eventually into a new system.

So let’s revisit: if one takes your basic resources like power, cellphones, telephones, water and one charges for them – because they’re required and consumed within a particular area or a country – according to a structure of profit to provide a Living Income Guaranteed from everyone to everybody, you have a stable income because you have a stable user and the user is able to pay and it is part of their basic way of existence. Mining and other type of natural resources are all in a similar position and they should belong to the citizens and no one else. From there we can bring equal dignity to all from birth to death – but for that, we require to provide a lot of education because currently the human beings do not challenge the elites that benefit from winning in this competition of capitalism.

Competition is good if one competes with yourself to bring about a better product, to bring about advancement for all = that is competition within the principle of common sense. Competition that leads to destruction, poverty, starvation and that drives people out of their homes and that creates extreme wealth for just a few = that’s not competition, that is brutality and abuse of all Human Rights in every way.

Study the Universal Human Rights, study the Human Rights by The Equal Life Foundation. It is time that we take this on politically and bring about a change in this world because the situation is not going to get better without us doing something about it.

Join and research solutions for the world. It is time for change.

Equal Life Foundation Research Team

Basic Income and Nationalized Resources