basic income

From Zero Sum War to Win-Win Life Support

 

forgive-yourself-life-is-too-short

Fear is the starting point of our actions or inactions, of every thought we create and act upon. Why is this? Well, because we haven’t mostly learned how to consider each other in our actions or inactions – we haven’t learned how to communicate in order to establish agreements to, for example, get to share things in a way where all involved are considered and so, no one would have to fight to get their ‘share of the pie’ so to speak. Fear is what drives us to want to ‘secure’ our resources or get someone else’s because we fear not having enough for tomorrow – or simply wanting to have more just to have more power, more control, more ‘security’ which is once again all coming from fearing losing it all, and ultimately fearing our own death. This sounds like the reason for wars at the moment and one would tend to look at it as a problem between nations only, however, this within each one of us and it has to exist within us first in order to now ‘make sense’ and justify wars as righteous actions to secure (grab, steal) someone else’s resources/territory or people to serve as slaves – this might sound ‘outdated’ or how it was in the old days, however things haven’t really changed no matter how much ‘evolved’ we might be with all our super-powers to crate all of these technological gadgets and plan super-sustainable cities, which is great but one thing is certain: if we do not change our starting point from Fear toward a genuine principle of cooperation, solidarity, communication, ability to work together, to share, to establish agreements, to consider each other’s right to live in dignity = it will be rather difficult to get to any real evolution.

The reason why we cannot continue following a system of ‘morals’ of right and wrong is because that is the foundation of our ‘justice’ mind construct. For example, what one grows up believing is ‘right’ and ‘fair’ in America might not be the same as what someone in Russia grows up learning is right – in one or the other war can be justified as a means to ‘secure one’s homeland’ and in the other war is seen as a self-destructive action and last resort, while agreeing that it is right to stock on nuclear weapons to ‘defend our people.’ The point here being that in common sense, there cannot be any ‘right’ or ‘righteousness’ in promoting war or defense tactics, because the obvious principled living point is missed: how to Not wage wars but rather learn how to communicate, to know what each other is fearing, to know what each faction is requiring and so get to establish agreements, solutions where both or all parts are considering self-responsibility. Oh wow, such a simplistic way to avoid stocking on nuclear weapons or spending 20 million dollars a day on warfare while we starve 2+ billions of people and destroy the most precious resources we have on Earth! So you tell me whether there’s anything ‘righteous’ or common sensical in war as in there being any ‘fair’ or ‘just’ excuse to wage it…. There is NONE.

Where do we as ‘the people of the world’ fit in this scheme? Well, as much as we would like to think wars are a problem of the ‘super high spheres in society,’ it is not really only ‘them’ that have the ultimate say to wage wars. We all do this within ourselves, against each other, all the time. Have a look at our own thoughts, how much inner conflict we create within ourselves that we eventually create into actual problems between one another and ‘against someone’ just because we want to defend what we believe is ‘right’ which is actually – as the justifications for wars show – an excuse, a reason, a justification to get benefits for oneself and so justify doing ‘whatever it takes’ to get them. In this world, it is rather – unfortunately – common to have to lie, cheat, deceive, fool and abuse another/others in order to get ‘what one wants.’

One might think this is not so at all, because one plays ‘fair’ – but can there be any real fairness in this world in fact? Can there be any real cleanliness we even ignores how money is created as debt to tie us to a system of enslavement and how the very life we trade with is embedded in a monetary system that devalues life and ponders money as the right over life? No, no one can really escape from the actual thwarted foundation that moves every single cent in this world. This is no different to how we justify the means to get to an end, where we as individuals do not really question the outflows and consequences of us wanting to get something/someone in certain place that benefits us as individuals.

We rarely – if not never genuinely – consider everyone that is directly or indirectly involved and affected by our decisions, by our actions and how within creating of our world system a zero sum game – where one’s earnings is another’s loss – we actually bite our own tail all the time, because we have missed the understanding that by denying another’s growth and wellbeing is shooting ourselves in the leg as well, because we are all in fact interconnected by the sheer realization that we live in the same world. This is not a spiritual or metaphysical connotation here, but quite a factual aspect of our lives in this world.

Therefore, when we decide to go against others to get what we want, within following our fear to have none or our desire to have more, within believing that control and power are real as they make us even ‘more powerful’ and so intimidating others to not mess with us, we become in fact our own worst enemy – no matter who you are, where you are, what ‘right or wrong’ morality you base your actions on: physical laws of action and consequence dictate that the moment that we disregard a part of the whole and wage war against it = everyone else will be affected.

 

War Against Life - Democracy Against War

Maybe we will only realize this when it is too late and we have no resources to wage war on… we haven’t consider that everything in this world is alive and that our very decisions and principles dictate how we create ourselves, how we shape our reality, how we create or destroy life around us – being humans, animals, plants, the ecosystem in itself. What nature is showing us is that if we continue ‘waging war’ against each other, nature/ the animal kingdom will also demonstrate the outflows of our inability to coexist in harmony, maybe that’s what we require to see in order to wake up from our warmongering slumber.

Ultimately, isn’t it that all that we want is our secured access to resources, to live at peace and in dignity? Then why haven’t we yet actually worked on creating a system that guarantees just that? Why haven’t we placed our collective effort and work in gear to get that done and secured? Makes no sense to only keep ‘fighting injustice’ and ‘fighting against terror’ which is a paradox in itself, we have to instead focus on living the principles that we want to see reflected in this world .

If we want fairness and Justice we have to create it from within ourselves: to consider at all times what is Best for All, to do onto another as we would like to be done onto ourselves as ‘they’ are also ‘me’ as well, to give as I would like to receive and to ensure that no harm or abuse is waged in means of one’s benefit – that must be recognized as self-destruction, period.

So, there can be no excuse to not give to each other the right to a guaranteed Living Income, which is a first stepping stone to get everyone their share of the economy, no matter how thwarted it is in its foundation at the moment – this is a first step to begin straightening the crooked tree we have all allowed to grow ‘by itself’ without any clear definition of what we want that money to be. Our current zero sum economic system is our collective consequence, it is our responsibility, so we have to begin placing solutions to get everyone on the playing field, so that then we can look at how to best generate fairness embedded in the way that money is created, in the way that our laws are created – which would be turned into living principles that do not focus only on ‘punishing people,’ but rather on preventing crime, on preventing war, on preventing inequality, on preventing spite and desire for power. These are the living principles we have missed as humanity – we are witnessing the results of this as ongoing wars and environmental degradation keep going on until we one day we might find there’s no more clean water to drink, no bees to pollinate our flowers, no food to fill our stomachs with, no trust between one another at all and no strength to survive – that would be most undesirable chaos.

We are at a crossroads here: either we connect the dots and realize how we are waging a war against ourselves on all fronts, stop and decide to rather focus on collaborating, developing solidarity and implementing solutions that guarantee our decision to cooperate and coexist supporting one another or we obliterate ourselves.

I suggest we rather gear our minds, our bodies and our intentions to focus on establishing and creating solutions to prevent getting ourselves to that worst case scenario where no ‘win’ can exist – let’s prevent our children having to come to us and ask us why we didn’t do anything to stop this mess.

There’s still time, but it’s running out…. It is now or never that we create a world-system where no one ends up losing and everyone actually wins.

Join us and Investigate the Living Income Guaranteed: The Proposal

Environmental Sustainability LIG

Democracy Against War Now:

Why Central Banks Should Give Money Directly to the People

 

Notes from the article: Print Less but Transfer More Why Central Banks Should Give Money Directly to the People  By Mark Blyth and Eric Lonergan

Problems:

us-dollar-benjamin-bandage

 

Insufficient spending keeps the economy in stagnation

Starved up Economy: Lower Income Economies Save up as security and so spend far less than they could actually spend in development/ infrastructure – this leads to stagnation and austerity measures.

Retirement Fears: Middle-aged adults save up more and spend less in goods and services.

New printed money: Not the solution because inequality grows because it is not distributed from the bottom up.

Fiscal Policies have lowered taxes and improved government spending – this hasn’t worked as an effective incentive

Monetary Policies: the recipe that created the crisis in 2008 was the lowering of interest and the increase of money supply. This is now known as Greenspan’s recipe for disaster.

Tax rebates and stimulus packages don’t create sustainable solutions.

– There is no real consensus on how to best use taxes or spending efficiently to stimulate the economy.

 

QE Bernanke Quantitative Easing Recipe for disaster

Quantitative Easing (QE) by Bernanke: the formula of printing loads of money by purchasing billions of dollars worth of mortgage backed by securities and government bonds has been an attempt to boost stock and bond prices, only leading to furthering the bubble on to QE 1, QE 2… 3? to no avail

Since the end of the financial crisis in 2008-2009, the US Federal Reserve has been, essentially, printing money to boost the US economy.The programme, known as “quantitative easing” (QE), is about to come to an end in October.

Source: BBC News – Has quantitative easing helped the US economy? http://bbc.in/1r1kXrq

– European Central Bank (ECB) attempted to make interest rates negative to increase consumer spending

Did Consumer Spending increase? No

  • – Housing markets have overheated
  • – People do not borrow money because debt is too high

Expanding balance sheets through Q.E. is similar to inflating a hot air balloon, it will invariably fall back to the ground.

Fear of Spending: People hesitate to spend their money – this fear of spending causes instability and prolonged stagnation leading to

  • – High unemployment
  • – Low wage growth

 

Tax on the wealthy? It’s not a popular measure as this discourages private investment and further stagnates the economy. This shouldn’t be a punishment to anyone

What do we know thus far? All of these methods are not working!

Then… Why hasn’t the government provided Cash Transfers yet?

Governments Must Do Better!

 

 

 

Solutions

Governments Should Boost the Bottom/Low Income Households

– Central Banks – such as the Federal Reserve – Should Hand Consumers Cash Directly into Millions of Individual accounts.

  • – No more asset purchasing
  • -No more interest rate shifts/changes

– Cash Transfers stand a better chance than interest rate shifts or Quantitative Easing Policies.

How?

– Giving Tax paying households a certain amount of money

– The Government could distribute cash to all equally OR

– Give money to the bottom 80% low income households

The point is to: SUPPORT those that have The Least

Lower Income Households are more prone to consume, therefore handing them money means: they would boost the spending immediately

Central Banks wouldn’t need to print more money as they are now doing with Quantitative Easing.

 

Question: Would this offset “Income Inequality”?

No if a policy of implementing higher wages for people active in labor market is implemented along with the provision of Cash Transfers or a Living Income such as what we propose in the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal

Most economists agree that Cash Transfers from a Central Bank would stimulate Demand.

This is the First Significant Innovation on Monetary Policy since the Invention of Central Banking!

Cash Transfers become Monetary Policy as soon as the Banks begin using them.

– Payments should be exempt from taxes

– What about the inflation excuse? No problem, transfers can be a flexible tool and so inflation can be managed.

 

What about the Wealthy? They can provide higher wages to boost the bottom and so benefit themselves by expanding consumer base.

– Bank of England, European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve have 20% excess assets = this means that they could Invest Back on the Citizens

 

How will this money be used?

Each country and its government can decide to place certain conditions on how this money is spent. For instance

  • – To save money: retaining funds as savings for the future
  • – To finance their education
  • – To pay-off debts
  • – To Start a Business
  • -To invest in a home, car, etc.

This will lower income inequality as well as promote a culture of investing and spending in a Smart manner.

 

The ultimate question is: Why this measure hadn’t been implemented before?

This has to do with Central Banks: Central Banks were not designed to Manage spending. Their functions were

  • – To issue currency
  • – To provide liquidity to the Government Bond Market
  • – To Mitigate Banking Policies
  • – Q.E. which is a variant of Bond Buying function which has achieved little effect on economic growth, because the bottom was not supported.

Money printing

Here is to realize that Printing Money is Not the issue – as it is already what is been done with Q.E. However, the Federal Reserve Bank is extremely resistant to legislative changes, because it will affect its current monetary policy as no more bank-bailouts would be able to take place. This we all know was a grave mistake and now the actual bailout must be handed to the majority, which is subsumed in poverty.

How money is created is another discussion of itself that will take further steps to give a real value back on money –  however these are first steps toward a supportive policy that benefits the majority

There is NO Reason for Governments to Not try Cash Transfers out!

 

Rewards:

Cash Transfers as an initial version of the provision of a Living Income would generate the following positive changes in the economy:

– They would increase spending, which is what has been sought all along as solution to revive the economy

– No need to spend more in infrastructure or government spending

– No need to do immediate changes in the taxation code

– No more poor payoffs

– No more poverty, no more homelessness

– Better living standards = less criminality

– No more perverse consequences benefiting a few at the top and leaving the bottom with no solution

– Inequality is addressed without skinning the rich, eventually everyone benefits from this = it is a win-win solution

– It’s time to Innovate: we cannot continue following policies from a century ago.

We require the Courage, the Intelligence and Leadership to try something New. We fully agree, it is about time we stop living in crisis modality and start supporting win-win solutions coming from Central Banks. It IS possible, so why aren’t we doing this already?

Investigate the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal for Further Innovative Solutions to make of Cash Transfers a genuine groundbreaking supportive model for the Economy

 

Watch our Living Income Google Hangout discussing this Council of Foreign Relations article and other developments toward the provision of a Living Income/ Basic Income

 

cash-transfer1

Nice Guys Will Finish First– Living Income Guaranteed

 

Nice guys don't finish last, we run a different Human Race

 

I’ve pondered many times why we tend as a society ‘shoot ourselves in the leg’ which means not cooperating, most likely bashing each other just to ‘get to the top first’ and do anything required to get such desirable success, position of power or having ‘more than others’ which even at times implies damaging, abusing and harming others which is the foundation of this current dog-eat-dog world.

We can ask ourselves: well, why aren’t we working in a win-win type of mentality where we are living in solidarity and we cooperate and we get to live in mutual reciprocity as individuals? And in researching a bit more into this, you get to find Game Theory of course which is essentially that mathematical assessment behind all our decisions when for example, seeing ourselves in a game with two or more people wherein essentially there is a choice available: to either act in the interest of both/all the players involved or you decide to simply act in selfishness, in self-interest and only care for your own benefit – the latter seems to be the most popular and common drive of our everyday decisions.

What has been demonstrated in the BBC Production by Richard Dawkins Nice guys finish first – is that this kind of behavior has been observed in human beings playing games wherein they have to continually decide either to cooperate with the other players – which would actually lead them to make more points/more money whichever they are gambling or gaming for – than if they only think that ‘you know I rather get ahead of you first because I know that you will most likely retaliate back – in this we’re constantly existing in a ‘defensive mode’ because of knowing beforehand that we tend to – from the get-go – act in self-interest and so protect ourselves from others’ attack. So he actually shows how people seldom begin with a cooperative starting point or in a mutually supportive frame of mind.

Within this what is explained as a supportive game strategy is known as Tit for Tat. So for example, if the other player decides to cooperate, then you follow through with that decision the player made and cooperate back – so if the other person defects, then you defect as well which means: ‘If you jump = I jump’ – ‘if you don’t = then I don’t jump.’ So in this, there is a sense of stagnation as in there’s no perceived major loss or major win – yet, this is perceived as a ‘stagnant’ because there is no agreed or explicit agreement established to Cooperate and so build up together, because it would be possible to create such framework or starting point IF we as human beings for example explicitly decided to cooperate and to have a mutually beneficial foundation and so, made a decision to work together, to have an agreement to make of Success something that is Beneficial for both parts – instead of just for a few individuals.

So in this Tit for Tat strategy, success is in a way guaranteed because it is always like playing ‘nice’ or playing ‘clean’ – whereas it is also proven that people that decide to play ‘dirty’ or ‘cheating’ eventually end up at the bottom fighting/playing against each other and so losing – of course in some games they are meant to be the winners. So then we have to also consider how games are structured to make of the people that cheat, that lie, that play ‘dirty’ the ones that get to win. It’s then the rules of the game which we have to change in order to decide cui bono in our everyday social agreements.

 

Giving and Receiving

 

Success is currently measured with whether you are ‘winning’ over another individual – or it could become the definition of creating a supportive, cooperative outcome wherein all parties involved that cooperate with one another get equally benefited – this is the definition of win-win solutions, it is the definition of what is Best for All.

But the reason why this doesn’t work as such yet is because our usual first move, our first starting point, our first decision is not founded upon the consideration of ‘I’m going to Cooperate’ ‘I’m going to Bid for the Common Good/ For the Common Goal’ and instead, the immediate and innate move is actually out of Fear, out of ‘wanting to survive’ first, out of wanting to be ‘The Fittest’ – and this is where the whole Survival of the Fittest mentality has been actually blatantly used and made popular to manipulate our own – and already existent – desire to survive and desire to get the most money and desire to be the strongest because we have considered that That is ‘the most power’ one can get and so the meaning of success.

But if we look at it: it is simply an idea, an equation in our minds that ‘the one that gets the most, is the most powerful/the most successful’ – yes of course, at an individual basis you can have all the money and be the king of the hill, but if you look at the entire reality it’s as if you cannot really get into a better position economically speaking without making someone poorer or diminishing their ability to improve themselves too, or taking from the others to make yourself richer – which is the what’s currently happening with our growing inequality: some accumulate wealth and so provoking economic stagnation at all levels of society.

So in our economic system, we have to come to an Agreement – a without-greed solution as the sound of the word a = without and greed – that we don’t have to continue living in this mentality of ‘Survivalism’ and ‘Fighting for each other’s desire to win,’ but instead realizing that the greater success, the most stable relationships, the most reliable and cooperative systems start when both/all parties involved as the whole community or society decides to act in the interest of everyone. So that’s the real definition of success wherein it is no longer the ‘Survival of the Fittest’ mentality which has been exploited from what has been witnessed in the animal world. So it’s as anything, you get to be conditioned to then also fight for your own survival once that throughout time, throughout various cycles of relationships between individuals one gets to realize that ‘well if I don’t get anything back with me cooperating, I don’t want to remain the sucker, so now I’m going to fight once again to get to my own success.’

Richard Dawkins explains the value that is implied within self to have that starting point of ‘being nice’ or ‘playing nice’ which is deciding to be cooperative, to look for the common good – and to also not immediately retaliate when seeing that the other one is defecting/ not cooperating or attacking, because then: once that one gives into that attack, of course you become part of the ‘cheaters’ as the ones that play ‘dirty’ and so forth.

Nice guys race

All of this of course boils down to what should be a common agreement: instead of constantly fearing that one and another is able to win over you or that you have to attack to get the most. Why don’t we rather realize that if we build up societies that can cooperate with one another, it will be easier to keep each other alive and eventually efface or weed out and purge the abusers, the greedy ones and make them extinct because one can actually decide that: if you get the benefit = then you have to give back to society for example. And so giving that starting point: if you get this benefit, then you must cooperate, then you must be considered part of the whole group. Because what we tend to do as human beings is that of course we want to get the benefits but we don’t want to really do something, in terms of reciprocity and giving something back, which is not the expected ‘forced labor’ type of mentality, but simply regarding one’s life to be a +1 person that can contribute to make things work in a supportive manner in this world.

So we have to teach each other that selfish mentality leads us to parasitical relationships wherein some work for example and some others don’t yet benefit from the taxes paid by the ones that do work. And that’s actually one of the main and common type of dissonances that exist whenever someone talks about providing a Living Income or Money for people to live, and they say ‘well there’s always going to be someone that will be benefiting from you’ and do just like the Cheaters in the game that will simply get the benefit but they won’t give anything back. But if we don’t create a platform and an actual system that can work in a symbiotic manner, in a reciprocal supportive foundation, then we just create this mind game within ourselves as individuals, which is the starting point of our speculative financial system in fact. Instead of rather realizing ‘well, what in this system – for example in our economic system – is working in a way that this kind of abuse can happen? Why haven’t we established the rules of the game in such a way that if we cooperate, we get used to the idea of mutual or reciprocal benefit as the road to success?

And so we can instead educate ourselves of the various ways we’ve come to destroy each other – and even the initial self-interested individual will be left out and won’t be able to ‘win’ any longer – if they don’t get into the new societal principle which is ‘you support me, I support you, we support each other to win.’

 

cooperation

 

So in essence, it’s quite interesting because game theory or ‘gaming’ in itself wouldn’t exist in such a complex manner if the starting point of both players was obviously to support each other as equals – the ‘struggle,’ the ‘fighting’ and the eventual conquering of one over the other would simply not exist. Therefore, we actually make our lives very complicated when we are constantly ‘strategizing’ and ‘scheming ways to win,’ cheat and live by the law of the least effort.

We have been indoctrinated culturally – and maybe even at a genetic level –  that you have to win, you have to get the most, because you can die if you don’t get the most, if you don’t hoard all that you can because that’s your security, that’s where the power resides, that’s what success is: to get the most. And in that, any sense of cooperation, common agreement, commonality, common ground … all of that is feared – why? Because no one wants to end up being ‘the sucker’ which is explained also in the video on how tickbirds cooperate with each other to take off each other’s tics. So there are three kinds of tickbirds. First kind are the ones that cooperate between each other, then there are the ones that take the ticks off birds ‘B’ but birds ‘B’ decide that they don’t want to cooperate and take off the ticks of the other bird, so that makes him a cheater. But then, there’s the third kind: the ‘sucker’ who is the bird that goes taking off ticks and he never gets anything back meaning, no one takes his ticks off. So, both that lose are the one that abuses the others’ voluntary move to take off his tics, and also the sucker because the sucker is actually doing it all for others – but he’s not looking after himself either.

That’s also interesting when it comes to this idea that you have to give to everyone else but not to yourself because that is also not considering yourself as an equal, it’s just the law of equality that can really get things stable which means: not abusing, not devaluing yourself either, but just finding that equilibrium which in all ways, it’s simply acting in the best interest of everyone. And within this, learning that there are more benefits in fact when we cooperate and we consider each other’s benefit than if we live in this constant ‘scheming’ as an offense-defense balance which, if you study International Politics for example, that’s the whole thing that you learn, offense-defense balance: if you attack me = I’ll retaliate, if you retaliate this way = I’ll retaliate this other greater way – if you stop shooting = then I will also stop shooting.

And we are witnessing this right now with the whole sanction process between Russia and the US, it’s the whole cold war scenario and the sanctions are actually going to be upgraded toward Russia. So Russia had been quite ‘pacific’ within this all, it had taken certain measures to ban certain foods from the EU producers, but now it’s like ‘Ok so if you US/EU upgrade these sanctions = I will also upgrade my sanction which will be airplanes won’t be able to fly over Russian airspace.’ So what are we witnessing here? The actual development or starting point of wars in essence, it’s the war mentality and as I’ve explained in the beginning this exists within us even when we play a silly board game wherein we are constantly scheming how can we win, how can we cheat, how can we get the most and so in essence we end up abusing each other, destroying each other and getting the least success.

This is something that I’ve been very aware of in the society that I live in wherein I would see that corruption is the king of the world – or at least very, very common and socially acceptable. And I also saw this for myself when even playing this board games like monopoly and so forth, whenever I didn’t play ‘dirty’ or ‘greedy’ I would obviously lose because I was expecting everyone else to be equally ‘good’ or ‘compassionate’ and I was around 6-7 years old. And that’s when I got told by my older cousins that ‘You know, if you continue that way you won’t ever win. This world is about cheating, it’s about being greedy, it’s about making others suffer’ That was my enlightening revelation of how the world operated similar to a Monopoly game.

And that’s in essence the tragedy that we have created when we’ve come to believe that “Success = Winning over others” instead of realizing that REAL Success implies cooperating and establishing win-win solutions that benefit everyone.

 

Success

 

So we actually have to create a common agreement, a pre-planned system to get cooperation going and so maximize the benefits for everyone – and I’m actually paraphrasing what Richard Dawkins said. Why haven’t we done this at an economic level? Why do we keep shooting ourselves in the leg?

It’s about time that we completely get this notion of ‘The Survival of the Fittest’ as our starting point in reality out of the equation and rather realize that it is cooperation and reciprocity and mutual benefit that creates the real success, that is and should have always been the law of how this physical world and ecosystems operate – that is what makes it prevail, function and be sustainable – not the constant wars fighting to get each other’s land, money, territory, wives, etc. because it really exists at all levels in our minds: constant competition, constant desire to retaliate, constantly ‘watching out’ what the others’ move are so that we can then decide how we act.

I do also agree that in order to make this work, we do require to unite because that’s what makes the strength. As I mentioned, if I was playing with my cousins and they were all playing the ‘cheater’ mode and I was playing in the ‘cooperative’ mode, obviously I was the one that lost every time – but what if it was four ‘cooperative’ ones vs. two ‘cheaters’ and the games was designed to support the cooperative ones?

We decide the rules of the game, we decide that it is about time that we make the cooperative ones the successful ones, the ones that are aligned to the new principles that we have to create to make our world function for the betterment of everyone. So this is absolutely what I want to create and what is also proposed as part of the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal, we aren’t fighting against ‘the powers that be’ – we don’t want to leave anyone ‘out of the equation.’ An Equation in Equality means: Everyone Benefits – yes. And that is a Win-Win Solution and that is what will ensure that we realize that No Wars will be required, that we don’t have to constantly ‘aim’ at winning over others through abusing them, but rather live the realization that if we enhance our living skills and personal development while supporting each other to create mutual benefit, we will all thrive as a civilization – and that’s the new Race that will redefine our humanity. This is the kind of change that we must create within ourselves to make of any provision of a living income an effective solution to our world crisis.

Providing a Living Income as a Living Right will prevent us from making our first decision based on survival and fear and so agree to have a clear starting point to support our common success.

Watch: BBC Horizon – Nice Guys Finish First (Richard Dawkins, 1987)

Win Win Negotiation

….

PayCheck To Paycheck No More! Living Income Guaranteed

Providing the Right to Life to Parents and Children is to Prevent Child Abuse

HBO Paychek to Paycheck Katrina Gilbert Single Mom Living Income Guaranteed

Parents carry the most responsibility when it comes to fending for themselves and their children and it is certainly easier when both parents have a job to ‘make ends meet,’ but what happens when marriages dissolve and mothers are left alone with the children, requiring two jobs at times to get sufficient money to live? Their mental health deteriorates, the lack of presence with their children creates further consequences in children’s life – as we had discussed previously in the entry Parents Need a Living Income Now – and marriages dissolve, shattering the family structure as the essential foundation of support for healthy child upbringing.

The documentary Paycheck to Paycheck’ reveals how there are 43 million single mothers in America –that means 1 in three women living with one single low income having to fend for their children. The case in this particular documentary is about Katrina Gilbert, a single mother of three that earns $9.49 an hour having to deal with the process of splitting up from her relationship – which already implies at times using drugs/painkillers due to the emotional experience – as well as making enough money to pay for the rent, daycare, car insurance, gas, taxes, stressing about losing food stamps and adding ‘food’ to the budget for herself and three children leading to bad nutrition and as such health problems, having to even get rid of pets due to not having sufficient money to feed them – having no medical insurance, no further time for superior education – which is not a guarantee to get a job these days either – which creates stress, not having sufficient ‘time off’ as paid vacations or else and even having to resort to using credit cards to pay for basic groceries.

· These problems can be usually associated with parental irresponsibility, such as judging the fact that this ‘recently separated’ couple decided to have three children. However before judging people’s decisions, we have to look at the system that we all have created where living is a constant struggle and as such here focusing on the stress, the emotional distress that this constant survival mode creates in parents.

 

parental abuse

 

Parental abuse has become an unfortunate problem in our society and the reasons for it can include generational transmitted educational patterns or simple accumulated stress due to ‘living paycheck to paycheck’ as in worrying about not having sufficient money to fend for the children, which has led many parents around the world to even kill themselves or their children due to being incapable of supporting them effectively. Parental abuse is a grave problem that we all must contribute to preventing and one first aspect of it that we can focus on preventing is the lack of money to provide basic sustenance to the children – and this is where the Living Income Guaranteed proposes a solution to lay a basic foundation to prevent parental abuse and so promote familiar stability: providing a living income to children.

To begin with, children will be given money through providing it to their parents up to a certain age, depending on each country’s consideration. This is already in practice in some European countries, and the idea of this is so that the child’s basic living necessities are covered and not be dependent on the parent’s living income or wage. Within this, it also means that parents will be more ‘relieved’ from the usual pressure that having to fend for their children provokes. This stress/pressure that exists based on not having enough money to feed and tend to children’s basic necessities causes families to be disrupted and/or have either a mother or a father that doesn’t want to ‘take responsibility for the child/children’ because it involves quite a lot of money to maintain them. This is for example what happens in the documentary ‘Paycheck to Paycheck’ where the father prefers to separate himself from her wife and children because he could not find a good job enough to finance the children’s necessities.This is one of the reasons why parents end up having emotional distress that is then exerted either toward the children as a form of abuse and/or between the parents, which is one of the factors that influence divorces/ anger/ frustration/ depression in parents: not having money and so creating further desperate experiences based on not being able to fend for themselves/their family in a sufficient manner. In the documentary, the mother goes through thyroid problems which can be usually associated with emotional distress, which adds up further expenses to her already limited budget, which in turn: causes more stress.

 

Paycheck to Paycheck the Life and Times of Katrina Gilbert

Many times we consider that the problem are the parents and that children should be financially independent from them if they so decide to ‘live apart’ or ‘run away’ from them – but the point missed in such assessment is that parents are not ‘naturally’ evil or abusive, the same structural violence in the system of survival and stressing about not making ends meet is what becomes such strain at a physical and emotional level that they unfortunately end up channeling toward their own children. So, the Living Income is not for children to ‘escape their parents,’ but to rather prevent the causes that create any form of parental abuse, which as I’ve explained above, is linked to – most of the times – lack of money and the emotional disturbance that this creates.
This implies that with providing a Living Income, people will be supported to develop effective parenting skills and have sufficient time to spend with their kids and continue to educate themselves on how to best educate them, since the requirement to have a job to make money will no longer be their prime and sole point of focus and necessity. This thus will open up a space for parents to rather dedicate themselves to effectively learn and practice how to best support their children instead of spending all their time at work, wearing themselves out just to ensure the basic needs that children require.

In this, providing a Living Income implies providing the essential support that will enable us to have our physical necessities satisfied. However, it is also important to consider that giving the money per se won’t solve the origin of the problems such as parental abuse. This will require parental counseling support, providing proper education for parents as well as a supportive education system, so that families can become a proper foundation for children’s development and so also ensure that the money given as Children’s Living Income is used to cover the process of taking responsibility for one’s well-being as well as for the purposes of the inherent familiar stability, which is also necessary for a healthy upbringing at home and in schools.

Within this all, we have to realize that there are certain social problems that stem from the lack of money – such as parents becoming abusive toward children. However in terms of solving the problem itself of ‘abusive parents’ or the emotional distress that single mothers experience: we will require more than just ‘giving money’ but also integrating proper education and psychological support for parents and for children at school, involving learning how to most effectively manage their money to cover their day to day living necessities, how to use money responsibly and also how to manage their emotions and experiences effectively so that with money and the support it provides, there can also come a healing/supportive process at an emotional and physical level for the parents and so for the children too.

happy-families-are-the-nucleus-of-a-healthy-society-1514484-bua-com-gia-dinh

The ideal plan would be that along with the implementation of a Living Income model, money is also earmarked to be part of educational programs for parents along with the aid of the education system, so that it can be a supportive platform to learn personal finances for parents, an early education on a good use of money for children and so understanding this provision of money as a given point of stability so that we as individuals can focus on developing our families, our parenting skills, our lives to their fullest potential.

Therefore a Living Income provided to children will alleviate parents from the current pressure and emotional stress experienced when having to take care of children while not earning sufficient money to do so effectively.

It is definitely required to understand that money in itself is the first given point of support – but, these programs of support and counseling for parents are required as well as certain regulation in order to ensure that the money granted for children in the hands of the parents is genuinely used for living needs and not for other purposes. I fully agree that at this stage there is much abuse – specifically also on the third world – where there is no culture at all of being granted support, which means: when living in poverty, it is quite difficult to all of a sudden use money wisely after you haven’t had access to it. So, along with the provision of a Living Income comes a collective agreement to support ourselves to become better parents, to create better education systems, to learn how to properly utilize our money, how to plan our lives, expanding our awareness of how to best utilize our time and money to educate ourselves and children the best possible way, which enables relationships of support and so preventing abuse.

Stress worry mental instability poverty parental stress living income guaranteedA common argument to this solution would be: ‘Can we trust abusive parents with children’s money?’ The first point to look at here is to not see parents as ‘the problem,’ but to understand how it is that we become ‘bad parents’ based on this pressure, stress, worry and constant survival mode we’ve conditioned each other to, which most of the times becomes the source of parents that become addicted to substances to relieve such stress/pressure, become abusive toward children in order to exert their accumulated fear, stress which causes more problems in our society than we might currently think of, as this implies having the foundation of children’s lives warped and so creating a broth for delinquency, criminality, mental illnesses, resentment toward ‘society and the system’ often leading to rebellion and/or further escape-mechanisms such as drug addictions and further violence.

 

Within this it is also clear that there will be a transitional phase as with any form of change. This comes within the realization that when we create a point of benefit that is available for everyone, it will also take time to learn how to use that support in an effective manner, which will imply monitoring the effects of how our own physical and emotional experience changes as one gets access to a living income – for parents and for children alike. For example: in being in a third world country, being a parent that is usually stressed out and having to work all the time, then suddenly realizing that you don’t require to work as much and you can actually provide support for your children can initially create an uncertainty of how to best utilize this money. This is where these supportive programs to suggest to people how to best utilize their money, how to administrate it, consumer advisory, etc. can be implemented.

Along with this given support, we will prove ourselves wrong about our usual beliefs such as ‘people cannot change’ for example, and believing that ‘abusive parents will always be abusive’ without realizing how such perceived ‘abuse’ is also a consequential outflow of the same poverty, the same marginalized experience of having no money to eat and live in dignity, or patterns of abuse that have been transmitted from generation to generation that most likely also have originated in a form of lack of support – either physically or emotionally.

So, when looking at the myriad of current consequential outflows in our societies, it is definitely so that money will grant the necessary access for us to have that first starting point of support so that parents can also reconsider their relationship to money and how that ‘lack’ affects their relationship to their children. With being provided money to live along come the social-responsibilities which could imply having to attend parental support meetings or educational parenting programs so that our decision to support each other is not only done at a financial level, but also at a psychological and relational level when it comes to providing support for parents, for addicts, criminals that had resorted to rob in order to eat, for all people that have had extreme conditions of surviving in the system with the least amount of support/money and so, having developed a ‘rougher’ type of personality in order to cope with this ‘dog eat dog’ system, which is our collective responsibility for not having supported each other to live in dignity since the beginning of time.

We are facing our collectively accepted consequences and so if we created the problem, we can for sure also create and lay out the solutions and Children’s Living Income along with Parental Support can change the way the family structure exists in our societies nowadays. It is definitely suggested that physical and mental support is given along with the provision of a Living Income for parents that decide to stay at home and educating their children. This will change the foundation of the future of the world which are our children, so let’s make it happen.

 

    • Does what you propose with living income guaranteed address this problem? Will parents, like myself, be able to stay home if we want to?
  • Yes, definitely. Anyone in a caretaker position will be able to stay at home and focus on such responsibilities, while receiving a Living Income Guaranteed that is sufficient, where one won’t require to sacrifice time spent with one’s family for the purpose of generating an additional income source. The Living Income Guaranteed movement recognizes the fact that parents are not able to spend sufficient time with their children and how this is having a detrimental effect on society, as it influences the development and education of new generations and how they are able to participate in and contribute to society as a whole. Forcing parents to take up employment and placing their children in the care of others is a disservice to the parents, the children and society as whole – thus, with LIG, parents are no longer punished for having a child, but unconditionally supported.
  • Living Income Guaranteed and Raising Children

 

….Watch our Google Hangouts on our YouTube Channel

 

Further articles:

Katrina Gilbert Of ‘Paycheck To Paycheck’ Explains Why She Was ‘In Shock’ After Seeing Documentary (VIDEO)

How to prevent immigration Problems with Living income Guaranteed

 

The main reason of immigration around the world is to obtain higher wages and better living conditions, so why hasn’t any nation solved the problem from its roots? Capping immigration through the implementation of tougher laws, quotas or thousands of kilometers of physical and virtual walls have proven to not resolve the problem. So, let’s have a look at the overall situation.

 

The following video is proof that our current government officials and bureaucrats can only see solutions within the same mentality that created the problem in the first place, where the sheer existence of massive inequality between nations has lead to consequences such as implementing tighter immigration processes so that the benefits of a certain nation remain only within the citizens of each nation, without realizing the obvious consequence that this would create, where the rich and powerful countries get the most influx of people from other nations, seeking to have a better living standard.

 

‘Fantastic day for democracy’ Switzerland narrowly votes to curb EU immigration

 

As we discussed in our Living Income Guaranteed Google Hangout on Switzerland’s vote for Basic Income, it is quite obvious that more people would want to be part of a nation that has a high living standard and on top of that, is already voting with great support to provide a Basic income Guaranteed to every citizen. This is how due to the general crisis existent in some of the poorer countries of the EU, more people were arriving to Switzerland to have access to better living conditions. The EU and Switzerland had an agreement of free movement between their citizens, however the referendum by the Swiss reveals that the majority votes to curb the immigration influx. This already creates more friction and conflicts between nations, as you can witness from the interview posted above.

“Quite a few Europeans have been taking advantage of the right to move to wealthy, stable Switzerland. About 64,000 people migrated there from the EU each year over the last decade, 69 percent of them highly skilled. About a quarter of the country’s population of 8 million is foreign-born, about four times the average proportion for the EU.” – Bloomberg Switzerland’s Immigration Dislocation

 

This is a malady that world powers tend to endure, getting massive influx of people from poor countries seeking a better life abroad. The EU and America also have the same problem. The UK started off this year with new immigration controls wherein newly arrived immigrants won’t be able to immediately have access to unemployment benefits, which makes it more difficult for immigrants to venture into seeking a better living standard in the UK. So far, the measures have worked since only two dozens of Bulgarians have arrived to the UK since January 1st.

 

La Vida es Sagrada - Mexican US Border - Immigration Living Income Guaranteed

 

In America, the massive influx of Mexicans, Central and South Americans has left many Americans without jobs, which is partly true since many of the jobs taken by immigrants are those low-wage/ menial jobs that most of Americans are not willing to do – which is the same pattern that happens in every other country where immigrant workers have become a necessity or an ‘economic efficiency’ convenience (due to providing lower wages to immigrant workers) – yet the reasons why people are seeking better living conditions are not seen within the greater picture, wherein the hierarchical relationships created through treaties like NAFTA and Neoliberal policies provoked the impoverishment of agricultural work in Mexico as an example, pushing people from the rural and agricultural areas to seek for ‘better incomes’ in the cities, having little to no success either. Therefore, the need to get a better living standard becomes a necessity and a possibility when crossing the border. This has led to the creation of a wall that physically divides the US-Mexican border, becoming yet another source of abuse, corruption, deaths and detention, treating immigrants like criminals, without there being any bilateral treaty that works in order to benefit both countries and curb the need for immigration.

 

clip_image002

 

Immigration creates a general resentment that in extreme cases might lead to xenophobia, since people mostly argue that immigrants take all the jobs, make use of unemployment benefits and in some other cases impose new languages and religions that create social segregation as well as new requirements like polyglot schools to raise children that do not speak the mother tongue of the country they arrive to, among others. This is how we’ve seen that even with the intention to make Multiculturalism succeed, it has failed due to the inherent economic aspect that comes with immigration.

 

Why complain about Immigration?

immigration

The reason why most of the people complain about immigration is because all current welfare and unemployment benefit systems are paid with taxes. So, the people that work and pay their taxes complain that their hard earned money funds an immigrant’s right to unemployment benefits without having to work.

This is one of the main reasons why we suggest that the provision of a Basic Income is Not funded by people’s income taxes, as this creates the general scorn and discrimination toward immigrants and/or unemployed people receiving the right to live with a living income, while others see it as an unequal measure because they do the work. And if a basic income was given to those that do work, it would be an unnecessary move, since such money will go anyways through taxes back to those who need it in the form of basic income – which doesn’t make sense, and is the reason why we also suggest that personal income taxes cease to exist as such.

It is only natural that we all seek better living conditions no matter what, and the variety of problems and conflicts that come with immigration are often more than the benefit that countries get, such as the need for workers for jobs that are not being done by the native citizens. Some other immigrants are skillful and educated workers that some countries cannot produce at home, which also creates another problem: brain drain and as such, developing/poor countries have their productive and best educated members of society living abroad to obtain greater benefits and wages from their skills and capacity, which also furthers the stagnation in an ‘underdeveloped country,’ an euphemism to call third world nations or poor countries.

Discrimination, racism, xenophobia, the failure of multiculturalism among other problems still exist today as a byproduct of immigration – but also the disruption of families, the acceptance of underpaid jobs due to not having proper working-visas and being ‘illegal,’ where all menial jobs are mostly then taken by immigrants.

There is also another form of immigration that comes with war refugees, placing enormous pressure on neighboring countries to the conflicted areas. And this can also be solved by preventing the problems in the first place – which we will explain in a moment.

 

 

Is the solution to Curb Immigration with more laws and restrictions?

UK Swiss Immigration

A referendum took place on February 9th, 2014 asking the people from Switzerland whether they agreed to curb the immigration to people from EU, and even if the difference was quite small, the majority votes to cap EU immigration:

“Stop mass immigration’ was introduced by the nationalist Swiss People’s Party (SVP). Its goal is to introduce annual quotas on the number of foreign workers entering the country. The result will likely vex multinational companies based there; Roche, Novartis, UBS, and other industry giants frequently utilize foreign labor. […]

Many in Switzerland – which is surrounded by the EU but is not a member – believe that rising immigration levels are putting pressure on infrastructure, rent prices, the social security system, and unemployment rates.” RT Switzerland votes a narrow ‘yes’ to cap EU immigration

 

Ever wondered why Bulgaria and other Eastern Europe countries showed an extensive support to implement a Basic Income Guaranteed? Bulgarians and other Easter Europe countries are amongst those whose citizens immigrate places like the UK, searching for better quality living, only to face now greater difficulty to do so.

It is to realize that for millions of people, the lack of opportunities at home place individuals in a catch 22 situation: either they leave their family and friends, their hometown behind looking for a better living wages to send money back home, or they remain ‘at home’ and resort to crime to make a living? We have really not left too many options for us, and it’s astounding that we still cannot see the origin of the problem when it comes to immigration.

 

Let’s walk the solutions

Can immigration cease to exist as an extreme necessity in order to get a better living standard? Absolutely. Within this it is to realize that better living conditions and having higher living standards only in a few countries in this world invariably becomes a center of attraction to anyone that wants to have better quality living and more money to live.

So, the way to curb immigration in a long term basis, without having to resort to tough immigration policies and harsh measures that lead to further separation between nations is by implementing a Living Income Guaranteed model, wherein each nation’s economy is strengthened in order to ensure that every person has access to their living necessities and live in a dignified manner, as a Human Right. 

How?

Nations that currently face the most influx of immigrants should directly endorse and support poorer countries to implement a Living Income Guaranteed model, so that long-term solutions are implemented by supporting other countries to stand on their own feet. This is part of what organisms like the UN should look into, as this will not only curb immigration but also support peace between nations.

A Living Income Guaranteed model should be voted and implemented by all of us, the people of each nation deciding implement the use of citizens’ dividends as our share of the economy, which implies that the profit made by major corporations in the nation – or the strongest sources of income in a country such as natural resources or certain industries –  becomes the direct source to fund our Living Income.

This measure ensures that every person is supported to live in dignity, which in turn creates and provides general stability and economic revival with corporate profit being also shared with the people, and we also then actively become part of the economy that the majority is often excluded due to living in poverty or at the brink of disappearing from being part of the middle class.

 

This money is in fact entitled to each one of us as part of our human right to access the resources that we require to live, and since money is the mechanism we use to purchase our living necessities,  the provision of a living income as an unconditional right to life, to have the necessary to live is the solution. But, it doesn’t stop there.

What about people that do work?

People that  work and won’t perceive a Living Income, will instead have their wages be at least double the amount of the living income that each particular country decides to give. This means that people will have better and equal opportunities to become a successful individual in society and as such, the need to immigrate to have ‘better wages’ and ‘more opportunities’ in another country is eradicated, since no one really wants to face the problems, trauma, stress, family separation and even death that comes with having to live abroad.

Free movement Living Income Guaranteed LIG

 

The Benefits

This process will in turn ameliorate the strained relationships between nations, leading also to the prevention of wars – since wars are mostly waged due to economic interests – and as such, it will become part of the necessary peace treaties between nations: to support and aid each other to establish a self-sufficient and self-governing way to develop their own economy along with a genuine democratic system to achieve a good quality living standard, a higher level of competence that enables all nations to genuinely have a ‘free market’ that is on an equal-opportunity basis, as well as supporting to eradicate xenophobia, racism and anti-cultural measures that further divide us to remain conquered.

This is also why we say that the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed must not be limited to certain economic block or nations, but every country in the world must implement it so that there is no more high inequality between rich and poor nations, creating immigration as an outflow – since everyone would want to also benefit from something like a living income guarantee. This will in turn also cut down the massive surveillance and border patrol services that are constantly upgraded in order to ‘prevent immigration’ – which even after all these massive expenses on border patrol and tighter laws to immigrate, are still not solving the problem yet.

So, we suggest that instead of countries raising their quotas or deliberately shutting down the ability to immigrate into their country, part of the responsibilities from the international community is to support nations to stand on their own two feet – not as another form of ‘foreign aid’ but as a genuine unconditional support to get people empowered in their own nations and as such, be able to revive the economy that will ensure each person stays  ‘at home’ with family and loved ones, as well as supporting their society and country as well.  

What will Immigration become then?

Immigration will stop being a problem. It will become solely a resource and a decision an individual makes based on the opportunities for self development, such as the usual labor exchange that takes place between nations, personal relationships or simply aiming for new ventures. Yet it won’t be a resort to seek for ‘better living conditions’ because each nation has to focus on first strengthening the economy at home to then expand further to trade with other nations and become more successful in our current globalized world.  It will take more reasons than ‘good wages’ to leave the country one is born in, when every country can have good living standards and higher wages which create better opportunities to live  satisfactorily.

If money is the source of the problem, we can always make money the solution as well. Empowering each other is the way.

Join us and Investigate the Living Income Guaranteed: The Proposal 

Supporting Each other to empower us world wide - Living Income Guaranteed

 

 

Vlogs:

 

Videos:

 

Articles:

Happiness in Capitalism is possible For Everyone with Living Income Guaranteed

 

Happiness and Living Income Guaranteed

 

One of the usual aspirations our lives is: to be happy. It becomes the continuous elusive fantasy that seems to be usually linked to the ideal of having (lots of) money, being wealthy enough to be and do whatever we want. And this is precisely the kind of idea that we have tried to manifest and recreate in our society with such force that we are willing to do ‘whatever we can’ to achieve this – and this is where happiness loses its reality roots and becomes an excuse to fight in the battlefield that we’ve turned our current world-system in, doing anything we can to win this happiness, even if our happiness becomes another’s loss and misery.

We haven’t realized that we can actually provide sufficient money as a living right to everyone in order to satisfy our immediate needs and with doing so, creating the ground for equal opportunity where each individual can then choose which way to develop themselves to their utmost potential. The problem is when Happiness becomes an excuse to abuse, squander and use the power that comes with money to become greedy and eventually, even daring to pay law makers to pass on regulations that benefit self-interest, while provoking damages that hurt the majority affected by it. This is when happiness becomes another’s worst nightmare, and this is how we get to know that our ideal of happiness as having ‘the most’ implies leaving others with the least or with any at all.

Happiness is not meant to mean ‘accumulating lots of money and buy/consume everything you can with it’ – Happiness is in fact a state of general well being where we can live with the certainty that, the way we make business, the way we obtain our money, the way we produce and consume is not harming anyone or anything, and instead all our economic activities and participation exists within the consideration of what making the most of our lives should be about: contributing to each other’s well being and being supported back for doing so.

Our definition of economics requires to introduce this idea of restoring – or implementing for the very first time – the necessary notion of general well being that comes with proper management, use and distribution of resources to enable a healthy functioning of our society and the financial relationships that we generate in order to provide each other with our necessary means to live, grow and expand while at the same time learning ways to improve ourselves, instead of continuing the current dog-eat-dog mentality that curbs our ability to grow. We have to work together in order to enjoy our life, and that means: taking the economic matters in our own hands. 

Happiness is thus linked to the certainty that we are doing the right thing, that we are taking care of each other, that we are respecting the use and distribution of resources so that everyone is benefited, to ensure that we are not allowing some to get ‘most of the cake’ while leaving others with non.

Living Income Proposes the introductions of values and principles that are lived as a property and function of a new economic model that can enable this first step in our human evolution towards a common wellbeing with the simplicity of providing a Living Income to everyone that requires it, higher wages to everyone that works and a series of reforms to our contribution to state revenues that will simplify our economic system to a functional unit of self-support, where we can stop the current financial crisis that comes with pain, stress and suffering and instead develop healthy mechanisms that provide the necessary money to cover our right to life – this in turn becoming the essential solution to reviving the economy and avoiding the current path of self-immolation that we are creating within the current egoistic version of this capitalistic system we’re participating in.

Time to add Happiness to our lives within the consideration of another’s happiness as our own too, which will in turn create the necessary trust toward one another to live in peace and harmony

Learn more about the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal

 

Happiness - Living Income Guaranteed

Military Budget to Finance a Living Income: World Peace and Win-Win Solutions

War only benefits those that wage it: it will never be the way to create peace, it won’t ever be a smart way to deal with rivalry between nations and it won’t ever have ‘good results’ since war is anything but constructive, it is the most vicious of humankind’s enterprises since it represents the epitome of ‘divide and conquer’; and because the greatest problem in the world is money, war then becomes a supposed ‘remedy’ for it, without understanding how this ‘solution’ is formed within the same mentality that believes we should always exist in fear of each other, of the potential attacks that we’ve allowed as part of our geopolitical arrangements  wherein entire nations are supposed to hate each other in the name of following a history, a culture, a tradition, a religion… right now waging war due to religion is as valid as waging war using the now worn up excuse of ‘terrorist threats’ to justify waging war against countries that most of the times do not represent an ‘threat’ but are deliberately made a threat to the current hegemony that certain countries manufacture in this world through the link between wars and the money systems.

 

What do we get from war?

Deaths, suffering, torture, destruction, post traumatic disorders, diseases, chemical pollution, desire for revenge, ‘winners and losers’  – but overall, what matters the most is money, the military industry behind all wars are the ones that really benefit from convincing the public that for example, 40% of each tax dollar paid by American people goes to the military budget

where-do-our-income-tax-dollars-go

For more charts and information visit: http://warnomore.wordpress.com/facts/

 

Who is responsible for wars?

Is it only certain corporations that make the weapons, the vehicles, drones, uniforms, food and services for the military abroad? No, that’s the materialization of money directed to war, but the consent resides within the each one of us that still accept war as something that does any form of ‘good’ which we should already know can only be a lie since deliberate attacks, harm and abuse won’t ever be what is best for everyone.

Now, I mentioned how we suggest that instead of having a basic income/ living income be financed by augmenting taxes in each country, creating further scorn within the taxpayer due to ‘their taxes funding ‘lazy people’s right to a basic income,’ we can instead use the money that would usually be directed to fund wars which for example in a country like the United State of America is equivalent to trillions of dollars. Such money should be instead directed to finance a Living Income for the people that is supporting such war in the first place due to economic interests or ‘manufactured consent’ within the idea of taking revenge or settling peace and democracy somewhere else.

See, as humanity throughout history, the old way to ‘revive the economy’ in times of crisis was through scheming a war and then having people producing and working in order to get an entire nation strengthen and ‘moving on’ within the common goal of uniting to go to war against so and so. This is still being applied in 21st century, though more and more we become aware of how All Wars are Bankers Wars and that World Wars I and II have only been waged for the purpose of redrawing the map of the world, occupying territories and generating ‘world powers’ as the ones that apparently ‘win’ the war creating the illusion that ‘a war solved the problem,’ whichever the ‘problem’ was in the first place.

So, with regards to the proposed ways to fund the Living Income Guaranteed:

 

REDIRECTION OF MILITARY BUDGETS

A second major and proper source of funds to finance a Living Income is the
redirection of
military budgets. Whereas the real and propagated justifications for war
are questionable, their resulting devastation is not. It requires no further explanation
or argumentation to clarify why warfare is undesirable and worth eradicating.

Every democratic government has a duty first and foremost to the citizens of their
own country. Spending vast amounts of public funds to finance military action under
the guise of humanitarianism has no sensical meaning when at home such things
as unemployment, poverty, inadequate education programs or health systems are
common and increasingly problematic. To better the world, we must start at home.

Source: http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/the-proposal/

 

Living Income Guaranteed - DAWN -  ELF - No More War copy

 

I got the following comment from Ann upon explaining the solutions to fund a Living Income without resorting to use personal taxes for it and instead, using the money that would usually fund wars:

“I like the idea of having money that goes to arms and war, going to the living income. However I also see an issue with this, in our current system, where there are many international actors with opposing goals, in conflict with each other, and which will not de-arm themselves because they you are basically naked towards the others who might still have arms and use them. Your then defenseless. So for that to work everyone would together need to stop wars, armies etc…  Which would not be easy because of all the conflict and manipulation going on.”

 

This is so and it sounds quite ‘logical’ within our current accepted ways of thinking and it is due to reasons like these that some nations have not yet signed treaties for disarmament and still reject the idea of ever having to sign any document to stop nuclear proliferation – this is obviously tied in with the excuse that ‘vulnerability exists’ between nations and that is why ‘everyone should have the right to have weapons to defend themselves’ – but we don’t even question any longer WHY such conflicts exist in the first place. The notion that a nation is vulnerable and becomes ‘defenseless’ exists as a consequence of a world wherein we’ve always learned how to ‘get what we want’ through force, and that means mostly power, gaining more money, more territories, enslave people, use their resources, invade with people and businesses… you name it, wars always exist as a façade of ‘valid excuses’ to kill, harm, occupy and abuse others in the name of so-called peace, which is in fact only more money and power.

Let’s talk about the most common example. The Unite States of America has a large capacity for such intimidation which can be seen as ‘preventing attacks’ from its smaller and less capable ‘enemies’ due to the fact that the US can annihilate them and they – most of the times – do not have the means to prevent this or retaliate in any substantial way. If the USA redirected the military budget, many could look at this as a form of weakening/weakness placing the USA in a more vulnerable position to be attacked due to its lessened ability to intimidate others or defend itself.

The offense-defense game in international political affairs is played by creating a continuous process of intimidation through potential military interventions by the world’s hegemons/ world powers upon nations that represent an obstacle to their expansionist greed. This is how ‘pseudo enemies’ are deliberately created to give continuation to a warfare industry that enables profit to be made upon these constant calls for the necessity to intervene in the name of peace and democracy in other countries or defend themselves from ‘potential terrorist attacks’ which is mostly a fabrication of such threat to keep the military industry in place.

This continuous provocation forces the nations ‘under the mire’ to arm themselves as well to have the means for defense. This ever present tension between nations is what creates the belief that each nation should always be ready and prepared to go to war, when in fact wars only represent the interests of a few that benefit from it, since war is always implying death and destruction using the public’s opinion as manufactured consent to support it in the name of fighting against terrorism and national defense; other reasons include fighting certain nations that do not comply to the views of imperialist-powers and so represent  an obstacle to their own imperial position. However throughout history we’ve witnessed how wars are justified consent to commit crimes against humanity including the use of tax payer’s money to fund such destructive enterprises.

 

If the USA redirected their military budget – which accounts to 40% of tax payer’s money – to fund a Living Income Guaranteed,  those with common sense would not perceive it as a weakness to not intimidate or invade others  for the sole purpose of generating profit for few corporate elites, realizing that the nation is already having a weak economy due to most of the funds being directed for military purposes for the illegitimate benefit of a few, instead of strengthening the economy at home if such funds would support individual’s financial security.

 

DAWN - war

 

Now, what to do with the apparent ‘potential threats’?

United Nations and such Conventions exist for a reason: to get together and establish solutions that benefit everyone: win-win solutions.

Let’s take once again the example of America, the most bellicose country on Earth. If the money spent currently in the ongoing Afghan war and Iraq occupation that has been going on for over a decade now, would be instead given back to the Americans in the form of a Living Income and Higher Wages for those that work, then there would be no such high poverty rates in America, no such grave unemployment rates or cuts in food stamps and/or unemployment benefits: because people would have money to live in dignity, would support the stability and continuous genuine growth of the economy – with the increase of each one’s power of acquisition – as well as ensuring that every bit of taxpayer’s money stays ‘at home.’ This is the real way to empower a country, however when nations participate in expansionist ‘foreign policies’ then such resources are aimed to wars that become a ‘necessary evil’ according to the manufactured consent in the public to gain resources, land, good position in the world-system, etc. As an extra fact, it is no coincidence that the country with most debt in the world is also the most bellicose.

So, international treaties should be signed between nations to cease all fire and/or potential threats and manipulation such as economic sanctions and instead, focus on establishing a Living Income Guaranteed model that will immediately support each country’s people at home. This will strengthen the weakened economies around the globe, and generate a true global market wherein each nation can still compete to be the most successful by providing the best living standards for their population. Trade will thrive, but some things will change now that  for example people won’t have to resort to do ‘any type of job to make a living’ as there won’t be such imperious necessity since a Living Income will be provided to avoid such forced labor conditions, which is also another form of warfare too, structural violence.

Now, these treaties would most likely not imply that nations will become ‘friends again’ – that would be mostly ideal, but we are realistic and understand that to ‘straighten trees’ that have been born crooked will take a while or simply a new generation to be educated with principles of supporting each other human being as an equal rather than identifying oneself from a certain nation, race, religion, political affiliation, financial status etc. so until then, It should be part of our democratic decision-making processes to endorse the Living Income model as a way to stop wars, redirect that money to fund social security, to provide higher wages as the incentives for people to realize that a nation’s power and ability to compete within the global market resides within the ability to have every citizen protected with money to live as a human right, having access to good public services, higher wages, improved education systems, unconditional healthcare, participating in the administration of nation’s resources through national corporations and in essence becoming a person that works on building and strengthening the nation’s economy, instead of taking the job to become a soldier – due to having no other means to make a living –  to kill with the excuse of defending their nation, leave their families and return with missing limbs, diseases/addictions and post traumatic disorders – or worse, not return at all.

War has never been and won’t EVER be the way to get a nation out of a crisis – it might be so for certain corporations and businesses but for the people, for life on Earth it is obvious it only means death and destruction and a direct attack against ourselves.

 

So, How can the military budget be redirected to fund a Living Income?

Through new or emerging political parties that endorses the Living Income Guaranteed proposal which will have to result in an unprecedented political revival from the people that have been currently disenchanted by politics and the government,  because in essence: we have to become the politicians that can propose and vote on these fundamental changes. It’s time we learn how to manage ourselves, our lives, our resources, our nations in a way that is best for everyone, including those that are already living quite well off within the current version of capitalism we live in. The ability to change our current ‘war paradigm’ is in our hands.

Investigate more in the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal where not only do we propose the funding of each individual’s right to live in dignity, but also contribute to a genuine way to implement world peace.

 

For more education on war expenditure visit:

Watch:

 

Read:

 

Military Expenditure - Funding Living Income Instead

Artworks by: Damián Ledesma 

What is the Living Income Guaranteed?

 

Originally posted at: http://livingincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/376-what-is-the-living-income-guaranteed/ 

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: