wall street

The Butterfly Effect and Living Income Guaranteed

Posted on Updated on

Flowing Economy

The economy in any given location, can be likened to the dynamics of water. If the water in a river flows, then the river is healthy, life thrives in its waters and supports the surrounding terrestrial ecosystems.

Water evaporates from the Earth’s surface, transforms into clouds, travels with the wind, and lands in a new area where it can support life.

When water stagnates, it can become stale. Bacteria and disease start brooding and life stops thriving. Water, and more specifically flowing water – is an essential element and resource in sustaining life.

In our society, we have made the primary element that supports life: ‘money’. If you have money, you can eat, you can drink, you can live in a nice house, you can educate yourself, you can start new ventures, you can support a family, you can participate in leisure time. Money is used, and money is spent – and each expense in turn becomes a flow of income for someone else in society.

Money like water – can be stored for the future. Water-grabs in the form of excessive damming can threaten the vitality of an entire ecosystem: as water is held back, not enough water flows and the area that was once supported by its flow is now faced with a condition of lack, resulting in the degradation of the environment. Dams, when properly regulated and monitored, can be a beneficial factor in the environment. In the same way, we know that saving money can be beneficial to get us through a future ‘rainy day’.  However, when we hog money, like water, we create averse conditions within the economic environment (=ecosystem) around us.

1960926_222311491303375_245929095_o

The Marginal Propensity to Consume, Save and the Multiplier Effect

Within the realm of economics, you may sometimes hear of the term ‘multiplier effect’ and ‘marginal propensity to consume’ or ‘marginal propensity to save’. Although these terms sound daunting, their meaning is actually very simple.

All these above-mentioned terms, relate to changes in the economy when an influx of income (and resulting spending) occurs.

Whenever we have money/an income, we will tend to save some of it and spend the rest. The amount we spend in contrast to how much we save for each unit of additional income, is our ‘marginal propensity to consume’ (MPC). If our MPC is 0.8, then this means that for every additional increase of income, we will spend 80% of it. In turn, the ratio of how much we save over how much we spend for each additional unit of income, is our ‘marginal propensity to save’ (MPS). If our MPC was 0.8, then our MPS is 0.2, which means we will save 20% of any additional income.

When you have little money, your propensity to save will be very low as money will primarily be spent on everyday needs. As your income goes up, your propensity to save will go up as you feel secure enough to ‘put something away’ and still be able to tend to your everyday needs. Once you’re well off, you will be more likely to save a higher portion of additional increments of income, leading to a lower marginal propensity to consume.

The multiplier effect, refers to an effect in the economy where an increase in spending will bring about a ripple effect which results in a greater amount of value as an outcome than the initial amount spent. In a way, one can look at it as ‘returns on an investment’. Here, we can go back to the example of the river, where additional flowing water in a river is not just ‘additional water’. It is also the drinking water for animals downstream whose presence is absolutely vital to the local biome [See ‘How Wolves Change Rivers’ to see how a change in a single variable can have a huge impact]. The same way, money spent in the economy is not just ‘some money spent’, but also the income of another human being who in turn can utilize this income to employ the services of someone else and again contribute to someone’s livelihood.

We can see from the following excerpt, that these propensities matter when it comes down to economic health and vitality:

“Wall Street banks handed out $26.7 billion in bonuses to their 165,200 employees last year. That amount would be enough to more than double the pay for all 1,085,000 Americans who work full-time at the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

Purveyors of luxury goods always welcome the Wall Street bonus season, but a raise in the minimum wage would give America’s economy a much greater boost. To meet basic needs, low-wage workers tend to spend nearly every dollar they make. The wealthy can afford to squirrel away more of their earnings.

All those dollars low-wage workers spend create an economic ripple effect. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of low-wage workers, standard economic multiplier models tell us, adds about $1.21 to the national economy. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of a high-income American, by contrast, only adds about 39 cents to the GDP.”

Bang-for-the-Buck

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/wall_street_bonuses_and_the_minimum_wage

This article nicely illustrates the power of money movement, and where this ‘current’ is the strongest.

By bringing Living Income Guaranteed into the economic picture, we can bring in a gush of fresh new water and transform our stagnant pool into a thriving flowing river. Besides fulfilling our moral duty towards our fellow men through securing each one’s Basic Human Rights, we also put into motion a new economic drive from which will sprout new opportunities of innovation and entrepreneurship.

It becomes possible to have a nice life and to enjoy the latest comfort and tech that science and creativity have to offer, whilst simultaneously making sure that everyone’s livelihood is guaranteed. The principle behind an economy like this is really a simple one: Give, as you would like to Receive.

By changing the money composition in the economy by a fraction, we can bring about tremendous changes. These changes in turn, will bring about their own effects. Even if one might not agree with a Living Income Guaranteed for political reasons, we cannot ignore the ample economic benefits that are coupled with its implementation; to name but just a few: economic growth and expansion, higher living standards, better skilled labor force, lower debt levels and better employment conditions. These in turn translate into social, cultural and psychological benefits such as lower crime rate, lower levels of stress, increased personal freedom, social cohesion, enhanced personal growth and development and overall happiness.

Let’s unleash the wave of economic, social, cultural and personal potential with Living Income Guaranteed.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements

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