Does a Contract That Violates Human Rights Have Any Legal Standing?

The situation that has developed in Greece is a fascinating example of how commercial contracts, and within that MONEY, oftentimes (EVERY TIME?) takes precedence over Human Rights, even though international laws dictates that it should be the other way around. In this article I will expand on the possibilities that exist within international law to repudiate and cancel debt contracts when these makes it difficult for the debtor to fulfill its Human Rights obligations.

For starters, lets recap on the situation in Greece. What has happened is that the country, for various reasons, has accumulated a substantial amount of debt. Greece was close to defaulting on its outstanding debt and many private creditors were exposed to great risk. That is when the European Central Bank, the IMF and the European Union, otherwise known as the Troika, decided to step in. The Greece government apparently received bailout funds to handle their debts, however, these monies were only used to bailout the private creditors and transfer the risk of the debt to the Troika. As such, what happened was that the bonds switched owners – and much private debt was transformed into public debt; the winners being the private creditors, aka banks, and the losers being, the public.

For Greece to be eligible to the alleged ‘rescue packages’ it had to agree to implement structural adjustment programs, and within that enforce measures of austerity. In a less refined language, we would call that, forcibly living in dirt poor conditions to save up money, to pay of the pissed of creditor, otherwise he will hurt you. And these agreements were signed in 2010 and 2011 respectively, and in 2013, the Human Rights Council evaluated the conditions of Greece and how the adjustment programs had affected the people of Greece [1]. And then in 2015, we have a report submitted by the Truth Committee on Public Debt, a committee created by the Greece Hellenic Parliament with the purpose of investigating the debt of Greece [2]. Both these papers tell a similar story, that Greece is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis – and the reason – paying back debt. Does this make any sense?

It is no exaggeration to say that the situation in Greece has gotten completely out of hands, literally speaking, and that there has been substantial damages made to the economical and social fabric of the nation. Peoples access to housing, health, nutrition, education, freedom of expression and assembly, judicial services, and primarily WORK have diminished significantly. Greece’s GDP have lessened with 20%, and there is no bright future ahead, rather the GDP is expected to continue its downward spiral – because in trying to pay back the debt Greece have been forced to cut back on A LOT of public spending. 150 000 public sector jobs have been cut, pensions have been cut, wages have been cut, benefits have been cut, and as the economic freedom dwindles, so does the ability for the average Greece citizen to consume, which in turn affects the entrepreneurs negatively. In summary, Greece is going downhill, and with that, Greece’s ability to fulfill its international commitments on ensuring Human Rights for its citizens [3]. And here comes the interesting question: Can a contract, and more specifically a debt, be suspended or cancelled, because that very contract directly, or indirectly makes it impossible for the creditor to fulfill its obligations under international law to respect Human Rights?

According the International Law, Yes it is in-fact possible to suspend or cancel a debt with reference to Human Rights. The Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, Cephas Lumina, expressed himself this way:

It is increasingly accepted that non-State actors including international financial institutions, have obligations to ensure that their policies and activities respect international human rights standards. This obligation implies a duty to refrain from formulating, adopting, funding, promoting or implementing policies and programmes that directly or indirectly impede the enjoyment of Human Rights.

If you look at the point, it is common sense, that in order for Human Rights to be realized, commercial agreements must be subservient to Human Rights. If commercial agreements, and within that, debt contracts, are allowed to take precedence, then we will end up with situations as the one in Greece, where fundamental Human Rights are violated in the name of money. To have your debt repaid is obviously NOT a human right, and one can in-fact argue, that the creditor should always stand the risk that the debtor cannot or refuse to repay the loan, as that way, credit will not be awarded carelessly and without thorough research on the potential debtor.

Looking at Greece’s current creditors, the European Union, and the European Central Bank, we can conclude that both of these non-State actors are bound the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. And in the charter we find the Right to Work, the Right to Fair and Just Working Conditions, a Right to Health Care, which involves a high level of human health protection and that shall be pursued in all the Unions policies and activities – and as was mentioned previously – all of these rights have been severely compromised through the austerity measures imposed on Greece. Hence, it is possible to argue that the European Union and the European Central bank in-fact are obligated under EU-law to forgive the debt, or at least, stop all imposed measures of austerity.

The Human Rights are clear, however, as per usual, the fault is not with the legal instruments, but rather with those that interpret and apply them. We can write a ton of Human Rights Laws, that sound super cool on paper, yet if we do not make an effort to live by and realize these words, they are useless. Thus, for Human Rights to become a reality, they must be actively considered in all political decisions, and not just looked at as an ideal to hopefully be realized sometime in the future. In-fact, Human Rights should be the very foundational elements of our political system, the principles that determine each action and each decision – because we ALL know – that when Human Rights are compromised – People will Suffer.

And this brings me to the last point, our responsibility as ordinary citizens. Because it is interesting to notice that surveys done on Germans, as to whether Germany should forgive Greece’s debt, indicates that the general opinion is that there should be no forgiveness of the debt [4]. Many Germans, which are part of the nation that have the highest amount of outstanding debt to Greece, and thus stand to loose the most if Greece’s debt would be forgiven, feel that they have a right to their money – and that the austerity measures are just because Greece deserve it. However, what is not understood is that Human suffering can NEVER be justified on the basis of commercial principles, regardless of the amount of outstanding debt. The fact of the matter is that the moment we accept and allow ourselves to stand for what is apparently fair, and just, we disregard what is BEST for all – which might not be that which is just or fair. Look at it like this, the children born in today’s Greece, do they bear any guilt in the debt of Greece? Is it just and fair, and is it BEST, that they grow up in horrendous living conditions, only to repay a debt connected to money they have never benefited from?

Forgiveness is the way forward – forgiveness and honoring our Human Rights. That way we can create a world that is safe, were we all can feel secure in facing and waking up to a new tomorrow, as we know that regardless of what might happen, our basic needs are respected.

[1] Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent Export on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, Cephas Lumina, 2014 (http://cadtm.org/IMG/pdf/A_HRC_25_50_Add1_AEV.pdf)

[2] Truth Committee on Public Debt, Preliminary report, 2015 (http://cadtm.org/IMG/pdf/Report.pdf)

[3] Politaki, Alex, The Guardian, Greece is facing a humanitarian crisis, 2013 (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/greece-humanitarian-crisis-eu)

[4] McHugh, Jess, International Business Times, Greek Crisis: Young Germans React With Solidarity, Anger to Greece Debt Problem, 2015 (http://www.ibtimes.com/greek-crisis-young-germans-react-solidarity-anger-greece-debt-problem-2001511)

Corruption, Poverty and Capitalism

There is a clear correlation between the amount of corruption and the level of economic welfare that exists in a country. In countries that are rich, corruption is not as frequent as in countries that are poor. This shows us some fascinating points about human nature – and it also reveals solutions for how to deal with the tendency humans have to become corrupted, dishonest, and fraudulent when placed in positions of public power.

There are a few things about human nature that are obvious: We all have an inner drive geared towards self-preservation. If we had to choose between us dying, and someone we do not know dying, most of us would have the other person die. And really, there is nothing strange about this. Self-preservation is an innate trait most forms of life on earth – each organism wants to survive and reproduce. Hence, when we are placed in a position of shortage, we will find ways to get out of it – and if it is required – do that at the expense of another.

Then, we have this human characteristic called greed. If we look deeper at the nature of greed, we can see that greed in-fact consists of a deep-seated fear. Greed is the tendency we have to take more than we need, because we fear that we might need that more in the future, and we ‘just’ want to be on the safe side if something unexpected were to happen. Hence, greed is a form of self-preservation, though a more aggressive, and irrational variety – because where greed is involved – there is not an actual need to preserve self.

Moreover, we have a thing called competition. Most people drive themselves through life in a state of competition. They want to compete against neighbors, friends, acquaintances – they want a better car, house, family, etc. Competition thrives in areas/environments where there exists a lack of resources. For example, in an environment where there is little money, the competition for the money will be greater. And when there is a aggressive competition, there will be incentives to cheat, and incentives to preserve self at the cost of another.

We thus have these three ingredients: Self-preservation, greed, and competition – all of which can be said to be ‘natural’ parts of the human experience. And with natural I mean that most people have or develop such traits from an early age – though this does not imply that such traits are impossible to change and direct. No, all of these traits can be directed – and it is possible to change self to not anymore exist within and as self-interest. Though for this blog let us continue with corruption.

We have established that there are certain characteristics in the human nature that is typically part of the human experience. Now, what is clear is that these characteristics represent the foundation, the underlying reasons that will shape and form the decision of an individual to corrupt themselves. And what is fascinating is that these characteristics will become highlighted in a state where there is poverty, and lack of resources to go around. In such a scenario the average human being will start to think only about themselves, and how to make decisions that will benefit their life, and how they can get out of the precarious situation they find themselves in.

We can read the following in an article from Forbes magazine:

“The links between corruption and poverty affect both individuals and businesses, and they run in both directions: poverty invites corruption, while corruption deepens poverty. Corruption both causes and thrives upon weaknesses in key economic, political and social institutions. It is a form of self-serving influence akin to a heavily regressive tax, benefiting the haves at the expense of the have-nots. Trust–essential to financial markets and effective governments everywhere–is difficult to build in poor and corrupt societies.

Poor people and economically strapped businesses have few economic alternatives, and where serious corruption is the norm, they are even more vulnerable to exploitation. In that sense, there is no such thing as “petty” corruption: police shakedowns in a public market, or roadblocks in the countryside where farmers must pay up in order to transport produce to the city, may yield seemingly trivial sums of money, but they help keep poor people poor.

Low-level officials themselves may have trouble earning an honest living. In poor societies, they are often underpaid, when they are paid at all, and must provide a stream of payments to patrons at higher levels. In such settings, bribery, extortion and theft become matters of survival.” (Johnston 2009)

When survival becomes difficult, corruption flourish, hence corruption is a symptom not the actual illness. The real illness is poverty, and poverty is a structural effect of our current debt based money system – also called – capitalism.

”To reduce corruption from its current high levels requires something more than, and different from, additional laws, commissions, invocations of morality, regulations and so on. It requires basic, structural economic change. Earlier reforms achieved so little success because they ignored the very idea or possibility of such change. They left untouched capitalism’s basic incentive structure and capitalists’ power to use enterprise profits for corrupt purposes. Capitalists have continued to face all the benefits and gains that corrupted officials can yield (plus the risks and costs of failing to corrupt them). Capitalists have likewise continued to amass ever-larger profits and thus the funds with which to corrupt.” (Wolff 2014)

It is easy to blame human nature for being the cause of greed, yet at the same time, when we are able to map out and understand how the human functions, would it not then be easy to create a system where these characteristics are not allowed to fester? Is it not possible, that in a system where money is abundant, where opportunities are ripe, and there are no valid reasons to fear for your own survival, that self-preservation, greed and competition would cease to exist?

Maybe we can even stretch this even further, is it maybe so, that self-preservation, greed and competition are products of this current system, characteristics that are not supposed to be part of the human nature? In any case it is obvious, that if we were to restructure our money system and distribute resources equally, this would have massive positive effects on the human population. It has been shown that equality improves, among other things, physical health, mental health and education, and lessens drug abuse and obesity (Wilkinsson, Pickett & Reich 2011).

Corruption is an illness created by inequality and a unfair distribution of resources. We can change this be implementing a new system of distribution – capitalism is not and have never been the only way to structure and organize human labor, productivity and resource distribution. I suggest that we implement a Living Income Guaranteed – a Guaranteed monthly income that is sufficient to sustain a human being so that they can tend to their basic needs.

According to article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all humans have the right to life, though it is obvious that this right cannot be realized unless we implement a system that gives all the money they require creating their lives. Hence, money is a human right and not something that should be subject to conditions and demands.

Investigate the Living Income Guaranteed.

____________________

Michael Johnston (2009). Poverty and Corruption. Forbes Magazine. http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/corruption-poverty-development-biz-corruption09-cx_mj_0122johnston.html [2015-10-14]

Richard D. Wolff (2014). Political Corruption and Capitalism. Truthout. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21559-political-corruption-and-capitalis [2015-10-15]

Richard Wilkinsson, Kate Pickett, Robert B. Reich (2011). The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. Bloomsbury publishing

What would you do with more time on your hands?

I find it fascinating to look at old pictures of my grandfather and grandmother and the life they shared together. My grandfather was a farmer and my grandmother a housewife with many creative hobbies on the side. Their home was a big farm, and it is here on this farm that I have decided to reside as well. It is truly remarkable scenery that envelops these lands. Lush fields, trees are singing in the wind, and at distance a lake is glistening. I cannot imagine a better place to grow up and spend your life.

What is fascinating about the pictures of my grandparents is that they depict a time were there was more time. You can see them sitting by the lake having a cup of coffee, or sitting in their porch, eating a meal prepared on the grill. It is clear that there was less pressure back then, time was not such a scarce resource as it is in today’s hectic world. And talking with my grandfather this becomes clearer. He has shared with me how he used to fish with nets during the autumns and springs, and hunt on the lands. Nowadays, these hobbies do not exist in the same quantity as before – and the reason why? We do not have enough time.

All that we have time to do is to work. And now, it is not enough that only one person in the household works, both the man and the woman must work for things to go around. Now when the man and women come home from work, they must rest from work, cook, and then little to no time is left to actually do something with their day. What many tends to do, is to use the hours that are left over to watch some television. But what kind of a life is this?

Most of us will maintain that we have evolved during the last 200 years. I say we have not. Our technology has evolved, true, but our quality of life, the time we have available to give to ourselves and our dear one’s, this is devolved and decreased. What kind of a life is it, to be constantly rushing around, stressing, fretting, hurrying to make ends meet? Is that something we can even define as being life? Can we actually say that we are alive, or are we merely surviving?

I say that we are not alive, we are just surviving, because all we do is chasing money, and there is no time for self-development, self-expansion, and self-realization. There is no time left for us to enjoy the fruits of our labor and the advancements we have made in technology – and hence we cannot claim that we are living. Actual living would imply freedom and time to ponder, time to pursue our interests and passions, time to sit by a lake and enjoy a long coffee break, time to spend with our children, and strengthen the bond between family members – real living would be to experience a deep gratefulness for each day lived on this earth and the opportunities that are provided – and how many can contend that they experience such a gratefulness today? It rather seems that most of us are sick and tired – disillusioned and fed up with continuous money problems, stresses and fears around survival.

What would you do if you had all the time in the world? Who would you be if you did not have to chase money in your life? What interests and passions would you develop? What would you build? What would you decide to be a part of? Would you become a farmer like my grandfather, a housewife, a vagabond, a musician, a painter, or a builder? Who would you decide to be if all doors were open to you?

We must take a deeper look at what we have created in this world, and ask ourselves the question: Why have not created heaven on earth, and is this present world system truly the best we are able to muster? AND – HOW can we change what is here into a world that we would want to be a part off? That we would desire to be a part off?

Money is the key to creating time for all to discover who they really are. Through Guaranteeing Everyone a Basic Living Income – UNCONDITIONALLY – we can create a new world, and a new life. It is not impossible, and just as with any creation, it starts out as a vision, as a few words in our mind, that is spoken, then written down, then lived, and then pushed into manifestation – this is how we create. Be a part of this change – see what visions and dreams are hidden in the depths of your consciousness, and make the decision to create a world where you will be given the opportunity to realize all of them. All creation begins as a small seed – and when we nurture these seeds what will spring into life is our manifesto – our decision – and that is how we will create the TIME for ourselves to actually live.

Micro Credits – A Solution For Poverty?

After the Norwegian Nobel prize committee decided to give the United States president Barack Obama the peace price, a president that later came to continue to war in Iraq, and also fund insurgents in Syria, I seriously started to doubt the reasoning skills of the members of this Nobel price committee. And after having watched the documentary ‘The Micro Debt’ by Tom Heinemann, I have concluded that the Nobel prize committee (at least those handing out the peace prize) do not know anything about what it means to create actual peace in this world. Because when they decided to give Muhammad Yunus the peace price, for having founded the Grameen Bank, and invented the concept of micro loans, and for thereby apparently having found a solution to poverty, they were obviously not using basic mathematics to assess the outflows of such loan methods.

Though, before we dive into the basic mathematics of Micro Debt and whether this can be a solution for poverty or not, let me share the story of Muhammad Yunus, his bank, and the stories that has begun to surface about his money lending practices. It begins in 1976 when Yunus (supposedly) found out that small loans could make a disproportionate difference in a poor person’s life. According to Wikipedia, the first loans Yunus gave, made it possible for the borrowers to profit. Yunus business expanded, and by July 2007, his bank had issued around US$6.38 billion to 7.4 million borrowers.

As mentioned above, Yunus was awarded the peace price in 2006 for his efforts to create economic and social development. However after the release of the documentary ‘The Micro Debt’ the Bangladeshi government decided to review Yunus bank, and Yunus himself was removed as Managing Director of his bank. This is not particularly strange considering the claims that are made in the documentary, and the compelling evidence that it presents, that the micro debt is not at all a solution for poverty, but rather a trap, making the large amount of borrowers worse off than before.

Though in this blog I am not going to focus on Yunus and whether the claims made against him are true or not. My focus will instead be the concept of micro credits and whether these loans makes any sense; is it really possible to remove poverty through debt? The Micro Credit concept is not unique to Bangladesh; it has also become popular in South Africa, where it has created the opposite of poverty reduction. The following quote gives a stark description of the situation that unfolded.

”The microcredit-induced problems that emerged in South Africa are two-fold. First, microcredit per se is actually an “anti-developmental” intervention. For one thing, it exists on paper to support the smallest income-generating activities, but in practice is increasingly all about supporting consumption spending. In South Africa, the microcredit movement has created an incredibly risky and expensive way to support the immediate consumption needs of the very poorest.

With few poor individuals possessing a secure income stream that might ensure full repayment of a microloan – unemployment is now higher than it was under apartheid – many of the poorest individuals have been forced to repay their microloan by selling off their household assets, borrowing from friends and family, as well as simply taking out new microloans to repay old ones. For far too many now “financially included” individuals in South Africa, using microcredit to support current spending has been a disastrous and irreversible pathway into chronic poverty.”

Milford Bateman, Microcredit has been a disaster for the poorest in South Africa, http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/nov/19/microcredit-south-africa-loans-disaster (2015-09-25)

Academics and other proponents of the Micro Credit as a way out of poverty makes the assumption that the money lent will be used by the borrower to further his business. This however, is just that, an assumption. Most poor people are just as middle class people, not entrepreneurs, and do not have a very entrepreneurial relationship with money. The loan will be used to buy goods for immediate consumption, and will only serve to put more pressure on the debtor. In worst-case scenario, this will lead the already poor person, to loose the little safety they do have, when they are forced to sell their house to meet interest and installment payments.

Further, those borrowers that are indeed entrepreneurs, and that do invest their money in a business, there is nothing that says that these businesses will be able to profit. Nine out of ten startups fail – and that number will probably be even higher when not only you, but also all of your neighbors, decide to go out on the streets and sell the same thing – which did happen in South Africa.

Then we have the big problem when it comes to Micro Credits, the interest rates. On some of the Micro Loans that interest rate will be at 100 % or more. There is no startup that yields a sufficient profit to cover such a high interest rate. Conveniently for the creditors, most of the debtors are not proficiently literate, and will thus not really understand what they are signing.

Yunus was applauded when he was able to offer loans to poor people that cannot offer any securities in case they would forfeit on their installments. However, to ensure repayment of the loans, Yunus bank have developed a system of “solidarity groups”. It is these small informal groups that together apply for loans and its members act as co-guarantors of repayment and support one another’s efforts at economic self-advancement. Hence Yunus use the psychology of group pressure to ensure that the poor people are sufficiently motivated to pay back their loans. And even though this might seem innocent, in reality it has lead to the most horrific of consequences. One woman that was unable to pay her loan was pressed by her co-guarantors to take up prostitution as a way to meet her installment payment. That woman later poured kerosene on herself, and lit herself on fire. That is the effectiveness of group pressure when survival is in the picture.

What are we then able to conclude from all of this? One thing is clear: We cannot trust academics to know what is right! Even though they have a degree in economics, and even though they have received the Nobel peace price, that does not mean they actually understand how reality operates. Academics have their nose buried in deep books and because of that they will many times miss what is right before their eyes. Hence, we have to educate ourselves, and take responsibility. We cannot rely on a small intellectual elite to know how to solve such things as poverty – this is a problem that involves, and touches all of us, and accordingly it is everyone’s responsibility.

Then, the second thing we can learn: Change cannot come through DEBT. The very reason why we are living in a world where money is increasingly more difficult to obtain is because of DEBT. We live in a debt based system, and this forces us to work more – and even still there will/must be a loser. With debt, someone always loses; someone must be that poor guy that has to pay back the interest.

Real change will come through changing the structural design of the economic system – because only through changing the rules of the game are we removing this incessant fear of survival that is currently holding the entire human race in its grip. That structural change must involve giving all human beings a dignified life, real security, real safety, and easy access to money. This cannot come from debt, as debt is the very instigator of fear, anxiety and stress.

Hence, if you are interested in solving poverty, I suggest that you investigate the Living Income Guaranteed. This is an economical system that will revolutionize the way we think about money – and that is precisely what we need. We need something new, a brand new way of looking at things – a fresh start – free from debt and the old pessimistic ideas that apparently, poverty is unable to be removed from the face of this earth.

For more reading:

http://www.marlenvargasdelrazo.com/the-micro-debt-the-nefarious-business-on-poverty/#

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/nov/19/microcredit-south-africa-loans-disaster

Watch the documentary ‘The Micro Debt’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=791&v=yoAGKFaqwjM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6KHa4omGG8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdmXLpjykNk

Living On Stolen Money – Decision or Consequence?

A life of crime is two-part documentary (I’ve posted embeds of the videos in the bottom of the post), where a filmmaker follows some criminals during two periods in their lifetime. The first time he meets them they are in their late twenties and still quite strong and vigorous, and they are sustaining themselves through shoplifting. In part two he meets them when they are in their middle thirties and life has begun to take a toll on them.

What is so interesting about this documentary is that it reveals the mindset of the criminals, the WHY of their decision to become criminals. Several times throughout the documentary they exclaim that they are able to make much more money through stealing than through having a regular job. Working one day as a shoplifter makes them around 3000 dollars, while working one day at McDonald’s makes them about 80 dollars. Thus, what is clear is that these people are not driven by some form of bad moral, or psychopathic desire to cause harm to others. No – in-fact these shoplifters are economist’s showing to us what kind of consequences our current economic system create.

It’s obvious that thieves, shoplifters and burglars are not an incident or mishap, they are consequence, they are not an anomaly, they are a predictable outcome – the result of an equation. For those of us that have led a life of money, it’s hard to relate to and understand what goes through a person’s mind when he or she decides to become professional shoplifter, because most of us born in economically stable environments would perceive it as immoral, wrong and barbarian. However, for someone born at the very low end of the hierarchy theft and a criminal life is a way of escaping a permanent sentence to a life poverty, and hard work.

Economists would probably agree with me, because it’s simple mathematics, when there is no support for those at the bottom, no hope for a better life, no ability to rise and build a life for oneself, then crime is a way out = supply and demand = cause and effect = problem and consequence.

Thus, realize, when crime rise, it’s not something bad, it’s actually an indication that something is very, very wrong with society, and that there are some drastic changes required. Realize that when prisons are filled to the brim with people, then we have a sick society, and that sickness can be traced back to the unequal distribution of money and resources.

This is where we require embracing a paradigm shift, because in order to make our lives better, our society more safe, our life experiences more rewarding, we must learn to give – we must learn to give, as we’d like to receive. Most of us have extremely difficult to grasp this concept, and when confronted with it, we shiver and turn inside, immediately out of our mouths comes the statements that “it’s unfair!” – “they should work for their money!” – “we can’t change that!” – “there will always be crime!” – but see, this is not common sense, this is assumptions, ideas, projections, and in actuality useless opinions that have no significance in terms of how reality actually works.

The fact is that, when we make the decision to give all an equal opportunity to make something worthwhile of themselves in this world, we are doing ourselves a significant favor. We will in doing that release so much pressure, fear, and society will become a completely different place, where crime will be significantly less.

One of the solutions we’re able to implement is a minimum wage, and not just any minimum wage, but a big minimum wage with which one can buy luxurious items, start a family and make one’s life comfortable and enjoyable. Manual labor such as working for McDonald’s, or similar, shouldn’t be awarded with a salary that merely puts one on the breadline. Instead dedicating oneself to contributing to society should be awarded amply; it should be more profitable to live honestly than to make living as a criminal.

So, the key to designing a successful society is to ask us the question WHY? Because everything that happens in this world does so for a reason – our physical reality is filled with equations and these in turn produce various results, and through changing the variables, we’ll change the result.

Investigate the Living Income Guaranteed and allow yourself to step up and become a social engineer, question the movement of your daily life, what happens, why it happens, and how it could be changed in such a way that all are included. Because it’s clear that – there are SOLUTIONS – we must simply be brave enough to see and apply them.

The Theory of Economy

This summer I had the mixed pleasure of reading a course in Microeconomics and International trade. In microeconomics the primary focus of the researchers is to establish ‘What is the market really doing and why?’ – and this is attempted to be done utilizing mathematical formulas; primarily utilizing the famous graph where two lines cross each-other, the one line sloping downwards (demand) and the other sloping upwards (supply) – and where they meet each other = that’s apparently the optimal price for the product and the optimal quantity of that product in that given market.

What first struck me as being fascinating about these theories was that they seldom predicted how the market would behave in reality, and neither could they be verified with empirical evidence – and most of the time the authors of the my books where busy trying to find reasons and various viewpoints as to why these theories wasn’t working “as they should” – and how they probably did work but it was just that the inventors missed to take into consideration some important factors and variables.

Though, what was the most fascinating about this entire area of research, was how there was this complete worship to the idea that lower prices = higher consumer satisfaction; and that apparently for a market to be functional, what is required is that we produce as many products as possible, to the lowest prices possible, because then the consumers are able to buy as much as possible, and then we’re apparently okay, happy, and have a fruitful existence here on earth.

Obviously, when I looked at these ideas, I silently chuckled – because the logical flaw of this assumption is glaringly simple = the producers are the consumers! YES – that’s the secret of economy and the reason why we’ve got so many unemployed in this day and age is because we’ve failed to understand that when a product is cheaper, someone at the other end gets less money, which in turns means that a (employee) consumer gets less money, which in turns means that the producer gets less customers = and it all ends up in such a way that most lose but a few that manage to reap the monopoly profits of those very low-priced products – because they’ve priced out everyone else.

It’s clear that we have to develop a new way of looking at economics, and that mathematics and statistics isn’t the way to go – no – we actually require to look at the actuality of what is going on. For example, poverty, what is the actuality of poverty? Why does poverty exist to begin with? It’s not a matter of mathematics, rather it’s a matter of seeing what is behind everything in this world – and that is MONEY – money that in itself is a completely innocent creation meant to be but a way of distributing goods and services to where they are required and wanted the most; but in our current system – money has become a point of control – where those that are already rich and on top of things with all possible means make sure the keep those stricken by poverty in place – else we wouldn’t anymore have a functional slave labor force that can produce all of our various gadgets and other mechanics of entertainment.

Thus, what we must ask ourselves, and economists more importantly, is why have we never used our knowledge to produce a sustainable system where all of us are able to create a life that is dignified, cool and enjoyable? What is required for us to do that? MONEY – and what do we need to bring through such money into this world? Resources – so what is then the solution – the real economic master plan as to how to create a world that would be sustainable and practical for all its inhabitants? To agree that we share the resources – at least the basic and most essential resources – those that we MUST HAVE in order to live.

Thus, I stand behind the Living Income Guaranteed – which is a functional, effective and sustainable way of creating a new world for all people where money will be shared – and for those economists that want to make a difference – I suggest that you investigate this concept and bring your knowledge to the table and help to create something from which we can all benefit!