The Distribution of Wealth

[solve_et_coagula]

The Distribution of Wealth

Money is not, as many people believe, 'the root of all evil'. There is something within human beings that uses money as a means to express its greed. Do away with money and put anything else in its place and, as long as people continue to be possessed by their own weakness, base appetites and passions the probablem will be the same. So it is not money that is to blame, but man. Man is not sufficiently enlightened, he doesn't know what attitude to adopt with regard to money, how to use it properly, for what reasons and what purpose it should be used. In itself, money is neither good nor bad; it is neutral. At the same time, it is a tremendously powerful means in the hands of those who possess it and this is why it can be used either to destroy or to save. The whole question, therefore, is one of attitude. Money is powerful simply because human beings attribute great value to it. If they decided, tomorrow, to divest money of its value and attribute it to something else, the same pattern would repeat itself all over again, with the same tragedies, the same seductions, the same splendours and the same degradations.

Keep your money in your safe or in your pocket, but never in your head. If you keep it in your head it will be an opaque screen that will cloud your vision. If you keep it before your eyes as an ideal to be reached at all costs, less ready to see people's good points; you will be less considerate, generous and tolerant. You will become severe, intransigent and cruel. To have no money at all, on the other hand, is not desirable either. People have sometimes wanted to live in stark poverty, thinking that it would enhance their spiritual life, and have ended by becoming a useless burden to society. That is not the ideal solution! As long as we are on earth and things are organized as they are today, we need money.

Perhaps, in the future, there will be no more money: our currency will be love. Yes, why not? Love is a far more valuable currency than gold! But it is still too soon for mankind to achieve this conception of things and, as we may be sure that money will be with us for some time to come, it is important to have the right ideas about it so as to avoid becoming a prey to its seductive wiles. That is all we need: the right attitude. It is not wrong to have money. How could you help others if you had no money? It is all very well to have a heart full of love but, if you have nothing else, you still cannot help people materially. I seem to be talking to you as though I had to persuade you - as though you needed to be persuaded that money was necessary! I know that I don't have to worry about that: you all agree that we need money. The only question is how to behave where money is concerned, how to use it.

If you give money to someone who has not achieved the mastery of his thoughts, feelings and desires, he will hasten to use it and abuse it for his own debasement. His new wealth will enable him to ruin his enemies, have all the women he wants, etc. You cannot pin the blame on the money: if the desires of his heart are evil, it is not the fault of money. You can say the same for anything else: oil, gas, coal etc.: you can use them all for constructive or destructive purpose and, if you choose to use them for an evil purpose, it is not their fault. The fault lies with you who harbour evil in your heart.

The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that you must first transform yourself so as to be capable of using money and all your other possessions for no other purpose than your own elevation and the good of humanity. Once you achieve this, you can possess billions and still not fall a prey to it, still resist its lures; you will be in a position, then, to realize the sublime things that you have dreamed of for so long.

Those who are still weak, still subject to their passions should not be given money; that is clear, but if you give money to Masters and Initiates, they will never use it for anything but good. So it is human beings who need to be changed for the better and money can be left to fulfil the purpose for which it was meant; it is not at fault. I have so often heard people saying, 'Money is the cause of all our misfortunes'. Well, they say that as long as they haven't got any, but as soon as they get some we hear a different tune. In the first place, therefore, they are being stupid in failing to recognize the true cause of their misfortunes and, in the second place, they are being dishonest. Two terrible failings! What they should say is, 'Money is very, very necessary. In fact, it's wonderful; but Heaven forbid that I should ever become a slave to it!' If you think that money is the only thing that matters, you will have effectively destroyed the very qualities that would have enabled you to savour the pleasures and delights that wealth can buy. This is the danger: you will have everthing you have ever desired and still be unhappy because you will have everything you have ever desired and still be unhappy because you will have destroyed the element that enabled you to find such exquisite, subtle flavour in every experience. This is the greatest misfortune: to be in a position to have everything you want, to indulge all your desires and to be incapable of enjoying or getting any pleasure out of any of it.

Of course, it is also terrible to be destitute and penniless. But if you had the choice between possessing everything and being incapable of enjoying it on the one hand and, on the other, of possessing nothing but of preserving your powers of enjoyment, you would be better off with the second alternative for, when you have a sense of taste, you can delight in whatever comes to keep this power of enjoyment for it is also linked to health. To be sure, the best of all is to have both: money and the ability to enjoy it. If I see someone hurrying to give me money, I'm not going to fly into a rage and refuse it, but I have not devoted my life to trying to get a lot of money. If it comes, as I say, I'm not going to refuse it or drive it away, but I would never abandon my work to go in search of it: never!

To retain your ability for enjoyment, that si what counts. But only light can give you this sense of taste, this capacity to enjoy everything. Once you have found the light, whatever your activities, whether you are eating, working or going for a walk, everything has the most delicious flavour.

If you don't work with light, if you don't understand what light is, it means that you have not understood the first thing about life. Light is all: light created the world; light is the cause of the universe. Light is a spirit, a spirit that comes from the sun. Each ray is a tremendous force which travels througout the universe to penetrate matter and accomplish its work in it. If ever there were a subject that needed to be studied in depth it is the subject of light: the nature of light, how it works and how we can use it and work with it. He who abandons light and focuses exclusively on money and his business interests is on the wrong track for the gold he is pursuing is, in fact, simply a condensed form of light. Yes, gold is a condensation of the sun's rays which have been collected and fashioned by creatures living underground. What happens when you put gold and silver on a pedestal and neglect light? It means that you are forgetting the father, the cause of all things. Or, if you prefer, you are neglecting the lady of the manor and paying court to her servant.

Naturally enough, when her mistress sees this, she will close her door to you and tell you, ?It is I who am entitled to the place of honour; I see your courting my cook or my chambermaid whereas you should be giving first place in your love and respect to me. Very well, all doors will be close to you!'

When you have money it opens all doors in the physical world, that is true. But the other doors, the doors of peace, happiness, joy and inspiration, the doors of all the qualities and virtues remain closed to you. What good will it do you to find all other doors open if the doors of the sanctuary remain closed to you? Are you incapable of feeling joy or of taking pleasure in anything you do? It is a sure sign that the spiritual doors are closed to you and this means that you have a wrong understanding of life and the values of life.

You must give your love and homage to the lady of the house, the princess; in this way her servants will also serve you. The princess will tell them, 'Give him food and drink; give him clothes and a room', and her servants will hasten to obey: 'Yes, my lady; yes, Your Highness.' Gold is the servant whom we cherish so dearly that we never think about whose service she is in. Gold is dependent on the light of the sun; it is formed by light. So it is light that you must love first and foremost, and the gold will follow; it will come to you. When you walk out with the princess, all her attendants will follow you, ready to serve you. Whereas, if your head is full of gold, it will dazzle and blind you to everything else. Once the idea of money fills your head, you will have eyes for nothing else, not even for the beauty, splendour and intelligence of creation.

You will object, 'What are you talking about? We have to have money.' Believe me, I know better than you how necessary money is. But I still say that you must not fill your head with it; you must not make it your master, your ideal; you must not think that thath is what life is all about. money is a means, a tool, an agent, yes; but not an ideal, not a goal. Your ideal must be something quite different: your ideal must be light; your goal must be light. Never let money become your master; it is a very good servant but a very bad master; as your master it will give you disastrous advice and lead you away from the Kingdom of God. Keep your mind fixed on light, therefore, because, if you possess the light you will be capable of healing yourself, of achieving the mastery of yourself, of understanding the whole of life... and even gold will come your way. But if you don't possess the light, there will always be others more intelligent than you who will rob you of what you have. What else can you expect if you're so stupid?

The trouble is that people are stupid: they have found their attitudes at a commonplace stall in a commonplace market and now they spend their time clamouring for cash, cash and still more cash because, they say, 'If I had lots fo cash I could get everything else I wanted!' Yes, everybody knows that particular stall but almost nobody knows what I know. For I also have a stall in the market and you would do better to come to my stall. You will soon see what you can buy there.

Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov

[cruise4]

Only read the first few lines but I already don't agree. There are a few people with a criminal psychopathic mentality, who's families have been manipulating and fooling the common man throughout history. They have set up a money manipulating robbery and gone into business with an aquiescent Government.
As their power grew they have bought up our national Resources and the whole thing has become a self perpetuating nightmare. Everyone is caught up in their web of deceit.

These people are traitors to their countries and to humanity!

There are plenty of people who want to do the best for their fellow man. As DI said... how many of us could sacrifice a child on a stone alter? Virtually no-one I reckon.

These 'very few' are sick in the head. Everyone else needs de-educating. Good term that.

[Anders Lindman]

Keep your money in your safe or in your pocket, but never in your head.

I don't agree. Trying to not be concerned about money would only be a way of trying to fool myself. A better approach would be to become one with money in one's mind.

AND: Investigate the current fractional reserve scheme and see if charging interest on money-creation really is necessary.

[eternal_spirit]

There is only one answer. Everyone should be paid the same wages. Think about it. This has never been tried in any society.

[Anders Lindman]

There is only one answer. Everyone should be paid the same wages. Think about it. This has never been tried in any society.

That would only work if the common wage-level was extremely high so that everybody could buy a Ferrari and a super-expensive house. But if everybody was a billionaire, then nobody would have to work and nothing would be done, unless we had invented androids to do the work for us.

[eternal_spirit]

That would only work if the common wage-level was extremely high so that everybody could buy a Ferrari and a super-expensive house. But if everybody was a billionaire, then nobody would have to work and nothing would be done, unless we had invented androids to do the work for us.
.............................
LOL. If everyone had the same amount of money they would only be able to afford to buy the same standard of living. No rich no poor, just equality in all that is material.

[Anders Lindman]

.............................
LOL. If everyone had the same amount of money they would only be able to afford to buy the same standard of living. No rich no poor, just equality in all that is material.

And so Ferrari should stop manufacturing expensive cars? That sounds rather depressing to me.

Wouldn't it better to have a minimum wage level so that Bill Gates would still be able to be super rich, but nobody would have to work for slave wages.

[eternal_spirit]

And so Ferrari should stop manufacturing expensive cars? That sounds rather depressing to me.

Wouldn't it better to have a minimum wage level so that Bill Gates would still be able to be super rich, but nobody would have to work for slave wages.
..........................
A minimum that would give people a decent standard of living yes. According to Alan Watt if the NWO get their way in the near future they wan't to do away with cars! China is said to be an experiment for the possible standard future society planned for us. So you may find you'll be demoted to riding a bicycle :D

It comes down to this in the end....We need farmers not celebrities and a redistribution of wealth. The poor people throughout history rebel against the rich eventually. Theres no way of going back to living like they do in the Amazon Jungle a cashless society.

Even if they do away with money we'll end up with a system of credits based on computer technology provided by Bill Gates. Money can buy freedoms, popularity, friends and happiness in todays society. In the future if we all get the same amount of money, happiness may be sought in other ways and not just based on what you earn and how much you have and can do with that money.
More freedom all round.

[chris]

There is only one answer. Everyone should be paid the same wages. Think about it. This has never been tried in any society.

That's crazy...Who's going to be the one first collecting and then distributing that money? Given the fact that money corrupts I will not let anyone...Also the fact that if everyone gets paid the same wage you will get stagnation as no one will bother working...

We don't need the same amount of money, just the same amount of freedom and the money will sort itself out.

[eternal_spirit]

That's crazy...Who's going to be the one first collecting and then distributing that money? Given the fact that money corrupts I will not let anyone...Also the fact that if everyone gets paid the same wage you will get stagnation as no one will bother working...

We don't need the same amount of money, just the same amount of freedom and the money will sort itself out.
...........................

I'm surprised no one can see the obvious. Everyone I've mentioned this to in real life calls me a communist or says it won't work. Yet no one can give a solid answer to why it wouldn't work. It would be a better fairer system than we have in place today. The same amount of money would enable us to have the same possible freedoms without being in competition.

[Anders Lindman]

In the future if we all get the same amount of money, happiness may be sought in other ways and not just based on what you earn and how much you have and can do with that money.
More freedom all round.

I don't believe such severe limitation is necessary. We could have both rich celebrities and farmers, big rich farmers and small farmers basically only growing food for the nearest community and/or themselves.

I myself want to be rich, and buy a water-fueled Ferrari. Zero pollution. Over 1000 hp. :D

[chris]

...........................

I'm surprised no one can see the obvious. Everyone I've mentioned this to in real life calls me a communist or says it won't work. Yet no one can give a solid answer to why it wouldn't work. It would be a better fairer system than we have in place today. The same amount of money would enable us to have the same possible freedoms without being in competition.

Here's a solid answer...

1. You would need a HUGE government to firstly take ALL the earnings off everyone.

2. Then you would have the problem of who ever will redistribute the cash not to pocket some for themselves...Name a system in the past that hasn't done this.

3. You would have to designate jobs, jobs that people have no choice in the matter. You will take away their creativity and they would have no chance of doing what they want to do.

4. People would think that if you are going to get the same amount of money no matter what then they wouldn't need to work as hard and the system would fall, just like communism and all other social systems. Unless you want a guy with a whip lashing everyone.

5. If people don't want to give over their money you will need a huge police state to get them to or else no one will....

Hitler was a socialist. We are moving towards socialism not free market and the socialist system is responsible for Enron, Halliburton that get grants from the government so it’s nothing to do with free markets…The biggest company in the world in 1990 was in East Germany, yes they were a company but they had total monopoly over everything, that was under communism. So it’s not like the evil corporation will go away, it will only become far more powerful.

In other words it's just not going to work...

The alternative free market theory...

Under a socialist system unnecessary jobs are created because people are dumbed down, our skills are narrowed and we become dependant on the system.

However through free trade all market problems get sorted out naturally. If you look at where something is failing you will be able to find the government behind it trying to give the advantage to another group...Look at the NHS, this is a socialist system and is the biggest corporation in Europe (because it has government backing, they get more money for doing a poorer job).

Compare that to an aggressive market such as the mobile phone market...The technology increases rapidly and the costs are very competitive...Under your system you would not have any corporation other than the states own monopolised corporation and just imagine how slow the technology and cost would differ...

Is that solid enough?

[thunda]

...........................

I'm surprised no one can see the obvious. Everyone I've mentioned this to in real life calls me a communist or says it won't work. Yet no one can give a solid answer to why it wouldn't work. It would be a better fairer system than we have in place today. The same amount of money would enable us to have the same possible freedoms without being in competition.

I agree with you in principle, but as Chris said : Stagnation. If I'm getting paid the same as you, why should one of us work harder than the other? When I see you slacking off and not matching my work rate - I'll slack off and then when you see me slacking, you'll slack off - this will go on till we eventually stop.

Alternatively, they would be no reward for those who want to carve out a great career. Why should somebody study for 12 years to become a neuro-surgeon when they could just work in a call center and get the same life-style that being a neuro-surgeon would bring? Result : No or very few, neuro-surgeons and lots of call center workers (not dissing Call Centers workers here .. :o )

Yes - there needs to be a redstribution of money - or at the very least a re-think, at the top end.

But its not the average guy on the street thats the problem - Government is one of the worst kinds.

They'll bleat and whinge at somebody over £50 a week Job Seekers Allowance, yet quite happily drop numerous £500,000 missles on helpless saps in another country.

This is one of the reasons I've stopped given money to charity. Don't get me wrong - I'm a generous person and feel for peoples suffering and would do anything to help - but for every £1 we put in a charity tin, it £1 more for the government to kill people. Hows that?

We constantly hear about the local hospital needing £50,000 to buy a new MRI scanner, or some handicapped kid needing £4000 for an operation, or down and outs living on the streets etc and are made to feel guilty when someone shakes a collection tin in our face.

I'm sorry - Governemt gets £400 billion a year off us in taxes - if they chose to not spend more than a quarter of that on coming up with new ways to to kill and maim people then I'm quite sure every hospital in the country would have more than enough MRI scanners, people would get their operations and maybe we could house and help out those caught in poverty.

And when they do drop bombs on innocent people around the world - who picks up the tab? We do - all of a sudden there is a new charity where we're looking to feed and find shelter for the Afghans who had their homes blown to bits by the £500,000 missle we just dropped on them.

Every £1 we put into a charity box is an extra £1 governments can use to bomb the fuck out of people.

Now as I said - this goes against my nature - I want to help as many people as I can, but all I'm doing is picking scabs .. stop governments around the world from spending trillions in killing people and maybe they'd be enough to go around to give everyone a decent life.

[cruise4]

I'm reproducing a post from James Robertson a onetime senior civil servant who recognises the huge systemic problems posed by our money systems and has been busy for some years proposing an alternative.

Personally, I think it helps to start by trying to understand the big picture in fairly simple terms. It is that today’s national money systems are due to piecemeal historical developments over many years, not designed to serve the interests and needs of democratic peoples or a democratic world, but of rulers, bankers, aristocrats, powerful businesses and rich individuals; and that the international money system reflects all the resulting faults at an even less developed stage.

Starting Point
My suggestion is that you and your colleagues might start by taking a look at my paper on The Future of Money: If We Want a Better Game of Economic Life, We'll Have to Change the Scoring System. It is the third item, freely downloadable, listed at
http://www.jamesrobertson.com/articles.htm#articles

I think it offers a not too complicated introduction. From its fourth page, starting with the section headed The Monetary and Financial Responsibilities of the National State, it explains fairly straightforwardly the effects of

(1) how the way the money supply is now created and put into circulation,
(2) how public revenue is now raised (what is taxed and what is not taxed) , and
(3) what things public revenue is now spent on and not spent on.

The point is that all create incentives for everyone to behave in ways contrary to economic efficiency, social justice, and environmental sustainability.


The Effects of Governments’ Dealings with Money
Those government operational dealings with money play such a big part in economic life today that in combination their impact is bound to affect the relative prices and costs of everything. That does not mean that a free market economy would be better – or indeed possible. It simply means that the scoring system (and the rules ) of the game of economic life must be more intelligently designed. Whatever they are, they will inevitably encourage people to act in some ways rather than in others; it is nonsense to think that there could be “a level playing field”, or that money values possess some kind of objective status beyond human manipulation, as data in the physical sciences are supposed to do.

The fact that governments’ monetary and financial functions are carried out today in a way that makes money values conflict perversely with human values means that changes are needed. The aim must be to create a structure of prices and costs that provides incentives to everyone to meet their own needs in ways that will simultaneously help others to meet theirs, and will also help to conserve – not destroy – environmental resources.

More Detailed Solutions that that Implies
On what to do about the money supply, there is more in the first two chapters of Monetary Reform : Making it Happen, downloadable from the first item on
http://www.jamesrobertson.com/books.htm.
They give a shorter and simpler account than Creating New Money does.

On the need to reconstruct taxation and the collection of public revenue, you will find a lot of other material on my website if you Search it on “taxes”, “taxation”, “green taxes”, “land value tax” and similar terms.

Similarly, there is a lot on the website on reconstructing public expenditure. The key will be to stop paying

perverse subsidies and much of the money now paid to big organisations of business and government to deliver services to dependent citizens,

and to use the money instead to pay

a basic (Citizens) income to all citizens.


An Underlying Political Philosophy

(1) People and organisations should not profit privately from the value of common resources. Those are many. The value of land is one; it is determined almost wholly by the demands and activities of society, including publlc planning policy and public expenditure on social and economic infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, railways and roads. Also the value of environmental resources, including the environment’s value as a sink for wastes/pollution (such as carbon emissions). Also the value enjoyed by whoever creates the public money supply.

Private landowners and business corporations (including commercial banks) should not profit – get “free lunches” - from the value of those common resources. Everyone should pay for the value they take from the common pot, and by so doing provide the main source of public revenue.

(2) People and organisations should not be taxed on the incomes, earnings and profits they get from useful work and business activities – which add value. Those should be treated as their rewards for contributing to the “common wealth”. Taxes on those should be replaced by making people pay as at (1) above.

(3) The value of common resources would then provide a main source of public revenue, to be used for public purposes. A considerable proportion should be distributed to all citizens as a significant Citizens’ Income that will make them less dependent on big government and big business to provide them with jobs and money and goods and services. The remainder should be spent on the public services that will still be needed.

Need for a Phased Programme of Monetary and Financial Reconstruction
See the 1994 Item at http://www.jamesrobertson.com/toes-nef.htm - detailed proposals for three years of preparation and then a ten-year programme for the introduction of a Citizen's Income (basic income), combined with a shift to taxing land values and energy instead of taxing incomes, profits and value added. (I now propose that changing the way new money is created should be added to the mix.)

International and Local Monetary and Financial Implications
National reconstruction on the above lines will provide a democratic model for the international money system, which is now underdeveloped and undemocratic.

By facilitating greater independence in the economic lives of people and localities, it will also enable people to develop local currencies and local banking and financial services of all kinds for which they experience the need, but which the present money system suppresses.

Finally, it occurs to me that you might find the first two items on

http://www.jamesrobertson.com/newsletter.htm

interesting and useful.

Hope all this helps a bit. I’m afraid it does require a fair bit of reading and figuring out how you see the different parts of the whole system fitting together, what their impacts are, and how they need to be reconstructed. By all means circulate it to other people in your forum if you think they may find it useful.

[cruise4]

Alistair McConnachie explains how we are losing out
on billions of pounds worth of debt-free public income


The government obtains money in 3 ways.

One: Seigniorage Revenue
The Issue Department of The Bank of England sells banknotes to the banking system at face value.

The "seigniorage" is the term used to describe the profit after we have subtracted the cost of printing and distributing this cash.

In other words, it creates this money out of nothing and the public purse enjoys the profit. That is perfectly proper and fine for it to do so. We need cash to exchange, and a publicly-owned body of the State is the proper authority to be tasked with this necessity.

These notes are printed on demand -- which is to say, as the public's demand for cash goes down, because of the rise in electronic methods of payment, then less are printed and there is less seigniorage revenue.

To recap: It creates these notes out of nothing, sells them to the banking system, and the profits of this issue go direct to the Treasury.

According to the Bank of England's Annual Report for 2006 we can see that "the profits of the note issue were £1,698 million. These profits are all payable to HM Treasury." 1

So, the important point here to grasp is that in 2006, almost £1.7billion came into society simply as a result of the State printing it. It didn't borrow it from anybody. It simply created it, and we enjoy the profit. That's a good deal!

The only constraint on that source of revenue is demand. If there is no demand for notes, then they won't get printed and we won't enjoy the profit.

Now, when we consider that just after WW2, almost half the total money stock was cash and when we compare that with today, where, with the rise of cheque book and electronic forms of payment, only around 3% is physical notes and coins -- then we can see that we are being cheated out of a massive amount of debt-free public revenue.

Two: Taxation
The government raises money for public spending projects through taxation.

Three: Borrowing
The government borrows money. This is because it always fails to raise enough through taxation in any given year and so the shortfall has to be borrowed.

For example, in 2006/2007, the shortfall, according to the government's Budget 2006 report was £36 billion.

It borrows from individuals, financial institutions and from the private banking system by selling bonds, which are basically IOUs which promise, "If you buy this bond, we'll pay it back to you, with interest, at some future date."

The national debt is the total outstanding on previous years' borrowing requirements. The "interest on the national debt" refers to the interest which must be paid to these bond holders.

From whence does money come to pay the national debt?
It is we taxpayers who foot the bill when the time comes for repayment. It also comes from further government borrowing. That is to say, the government is indebting us all to the private banking system and other financial interests.

THE 480 BILLION POUND QUESTION
Now you might be thinking, "Well, if the government has the power to create money, which it does when it creates notes and coins which it sells to the private banking system, and for which we enjoy the profits, then why doesn't it just create all, or a proportion of, the money to make up for the taxation shortfall?

"Why does it borrow from the private banking system, and add to this national debt, which is indebting us all, and which means that our taxes have to continuously rise?"

And that would be a very good question! In fact, it is the £480 thousand million pound question, which is the UK national debt as we write, in August 2006.

It was the question that Thomas Edison, inventor of the light bulb, answered when he said, "If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good." 2

WE NEED MORE SEIGNIORAGE
We've seen that the public purse acquires the seigniorage revenue on the cash issue. This is debt-free as far as the public purse is concerned.

We are saying that we need more debt-free money coming into society. We are not saying that we need more notes and coins -- unless there is a demand for them.

So we say, "Extend this Seigniorage principle!"

If the government is creating cash money debt-free, it can and should create non-cash money debt-free - that is, the account-entry money which exists only in electronic format.

If it does this, it can slowly pay off the national debt and eventually dispense with it entirely. This debt-free money which it created would be spent, not lent, into society.

We call it publicly-created debt-free money -- to distinguish it from privately-created debt-based money. Money by the people, for the people -- the democratic imperative!

SPENDING, NOT LENDING, MONEY INTO EXISTENCE
Creating money in this way and spending it into society is a perfectly reasonable suggestion.

Vincent Vickers, Governor of the Bank of England between 1910 and 1919, made that exact suggestion when he advocated in his book Economic Tribulation, that, "Any additional supply of money should be issued as a clear asset to the State; so that money will be spent into existence, and not lent into existence." 3

Two main policies are presently "on the table" and both are intended to deliver this reform. Those are, Michael Rowbotham's "Publicly-Created Money"4 proposal and James Robertson's "Seigniorage Reform"5 proposal, which we discuss briefly here.


---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

(1) www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/annualreport/2006report.pdf at p.35.
For the previous year, The Bank of England Annual Report 2005 states that for the year 2004/2005, "the profits of the note issue were £1,618 million (2003/2004 £1,234 million). The change was the net effect of more notes in circulation on average during the year and higher interest rates. These profits are all payable to HM Treasury." (p.34). The 2005 Annual Report is online at www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/annualreport/2005report.pdf
We see, therefore, that the Bank of England is quite open about the fact that the profit from its note issue -- the difference between what it earns by selling the notes at face value to the commercial banks, minus its cost of printing and distributing them -- goes to the Treasury. The profit goes right into the public purse as an effective debt-free input -- the benefit of which is traditionally termed "seigniorage".
(2) Thomas Edison, quoted in The New York Times, December 6, 1921, in its report "Ford Sees Wealth in Muscle Shoals".
(3) V.C. Vickers, Economic Tribulation, originally published in Great Britain: John Lane The Bodley Head Ltd, 1941, Ch.7, p.75 and reprinted in the USA: Omni Publications, 1974, p.67.
(4) Michael Rowbotham, The Grip of Death: A study of modern money, debt slavery and destructive economics, (Charlbury, Oxon: Jon Carpenter Publishing, 1998).
(5) Joseph Huber and James Robertson, Creating New Money: A monetary reform for the information age (London: New Economics Foundation, 2000). Free download at www.jamesrobertson.com/books

Alistair McConnachie is the author of recently released Clarifying our Money Reform Proposals,
a complete 40-page, A4 manual explaining the concept of Money Reform, which can be purchased here.
He has spoken on these issues in the House of Lords, Toronto, Chicago and Dublin

[cruise4]

THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
OF THE DEBT-BASED MONEY SYSTEM
by Richard Greaves

Prosperity, November 2001

1) GOODS AND SERVICES ARE MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE
The cost of borrowing by producers, manufacturers, transporters, and retailers all has to be added to the price of the final product.

2) CONSUMERS HAVE MUCH LESS MONEY TO SPEND
They are burdened by the cost of mortgages, overdrafts, credit cards, personal loans and as a result of 1 and 2 above ...

3) THERE IS A SURPLUS OF GOODS AND SERVICES
... because the population can't afford to buy up all the goods and services being produced. This in turn creates ...

4) CUT THROAT COMPETITION
Businesses try to cut prices and costs to grab a share of this limited purchasing power in the economy, as illustrated by:
(i) Wages being held down as much as possible.
(ii) Shedding of jobs.
Both of these reduce people's spending power even more.
(iii) Retailers importing cheap products from abroad where wages are much lower.
(iv) Production of cheaper goods that don't last as long.
(v) Protection of the environment a low priority.
(vi) Mergers and take-overs -- corporations get bigger and bigger, driven to search out new markets.
(vii) Big companies shifting production to poorer countries which have cheap non-unionised labour and the least stringent safety and environmental laws or ...
(viii) Demanding large government subsidies and tax free incentives as the price for setting up new production or not relocating abroad.

5) INFLATION
- This is guaranteed because producers constantly have to borrow more, and must add the cost of that increased borrowing to the price of the goods produced.
- Why is it that when the bankers hike their prices (ie put up interest rates) this is supposed to reduce inflation?
- It doesn't. It's just that there's a delay in industry putting up prices.
- Initially, industry is forced to hold or even reduce its prices with its profits down, or even sustain losses, in a desperate bid to sell its products in an economy where the money available for spending has been reduced, because of higher interest payments being made to the banks.
- Inflation may be held in check or even reduced temporarily, but eventually industry must put its prices up in order to recover these higher costs.
- This most readily happens when interest rates come down, more people borrow, and money supply and consumer spending increases. Inflation then races ahead.
- The fact that -- in a debt based economy -- levels of borrowing/money creation have to keep on rising, and thereby adding to the overall burden of interest payments, guarantees that inflation will be present as long as we have an economy based on an increasing burden of debt.


6) NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE
- Surplus goods in the national economy have to be disposed of somehow. The obvious way to do this is to try to export them!
- The absurdity is that every nation is trying to do this, because of the same fundamental problem at home.
- This creates frenzied competition in world markets and masses of near identical goods madly criss-crossing the globe in search of an outlet.
- Instead of international trade being based on reciprocal mutually beneficial arrangements where nations supply each others' genuine needs and wants, the whole thing becomes a cut-throat competition to grab market share in order to stay solvent in a debt based economy.
- Big corporations demand unrestricted access to every nation's market -- so called "free" trade.
- The European Union "single market", the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organisation are the best examples of the drive to open up all national markets.

Exporting is good for a nation's economy because when exported goods are paid for, this brings money into the exporting nation’s economy free of debt.
- The money to pay for them was borrowed from banks in the importing nation.
- That money is lost to the importing nation's economy, but the debt that created that money still has to be repaid by the importer out of the remaining money in the importing nation's economy.
- If a nation can become a big net exporter, for a time its economy will boom with all the debt-free money coming in -- a trade surplus will exist.


Importing is not so good for a nation's economy because if some nations are building up trade surpluses in this way, others must be net importers and building up trade deficits.
- Ultimately, those with big deficits can no longer afford to import, since so much money is sucked out of their economies leaving a proportionally increasing burden of debt behind.

7) THIRD WORLD DEBT
- The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was set up to provide an international reserve of money supposedly to help nations with big deficits.
- In practice it makes matters worse. A nation with a big deficit has to seek a bail out from the IMF.
- But this comes in the form of a loan, repayable with interest.
- Like loans from a commercial bank, IMF loans are money created out of nothing, based on a cash reserve pool, which is provided by western nations who go into debt to provide it (see "National Debt" below).
- The nation with the deficit goes even more heavily into debt.
- It will however be able to carry on trading and importing goods from the wealthier nations.
- As a result, much of this borrowed IMF loan money flows into the economies of wealthier Western nations.
- However, the repayment obligation, including the interest payments, remains with the debtor nation.
- This is the horror of third world debt -- the poorest nations borrow money to bolster the money supply of the richer nations. In order to secure income to pay the loan and interest, and redress the trade balance, these poorest nations must export whatever they can produce.
- Thus they exploit every possible resource -- stripping forests for timber, mining, giving over their best agricultural land to providing luxury foodstuffs for the West, rather than providing for local needs.
- Today, for nations in Africa, Central and South America and elsewhere, the revenue from their exports does not even meet the interest payments on these IMF loans (and other loans from Western banks).
- The sums paid in interest over the years far exceed the amounts of the original loans themselves.
- The result is a desperate shortage of money in their economies -- resulting in cutbacks in necessities such as basic health and education programmes.
- Grinding poverty exists in nations with a great wealth of natural resources.
- Structural Adjustment Programmes -- these are now attached to IMF loans and include conditions that recipient countries will reduce or remove tariff barriers and "open up their markets to foreign competition" -- in other words take surplus goods off another country that can't be sold at home.

WAR
- War means enormous increases in national debt and enormous profits for the banks
- Massive government borrowing and money creation by banks is required to fund a war effort.
- Financiers and bankers have covertly funded both sides in both World Wars and many other conflicts before and since.
- Having profited from war leaving nations with massive debts and more beholden than ever to them, the banks then fund reconstruction.

9) NATIONAL DEBT
- British national debt now stands around £400 billion -- the annual interest on that debt is around £25-30 billion. The government can only pay it by taxing the population as a whole, so we pay! National debt is up from £26 billion in 1960 and £90 billion in 1980.
- Successive governments have borrowed this money into existence over the years.
- Instead of creating it themselves and spending it into the economy on public services and projects, boosting the economy and providing jobs, they get banks to create it for them and then borrow it at interest. And we pay it back in our taxes!
- It all started in 1694 when King William needed money to fight a war against France. He borrowed £1.2 million from a group of London bankers and goldsmiths.
- In return for the loan, they were incorporated by royal charter as the "Bank of England" which became the government's banker. Interest at 8% was payable on the loan and taxes were imposed on a whole range of goods to pay the interest.
- This marked the birth of national debt. Ever since then, the world over, governments have borrowed money from banks and taxed the population to pay the interest.

How the Government Borrows Money
- When governments borrow money, in return they issue to the lender, exchequer or treasury bonds -- otherwise known as government stocks or securities.
- These are basically IOU's -- promises by government to repay the loan by a particular date, and to pay interest.
- They are taken up by banks, but also by individuals with money to spare, including wealthy ones in the banking fraternity and, in more recent years, pension and other investment funds.
- When government securities are taken up by banks, this is money creation, out of nothing, at the stroke of a pen.
- Banks are creating money as loans, out of nothing, by lending it into existence to the government in very much the same way as they do to individuals and companies.
- The government now has new money in the form of loans to spend on its requirements, such as public services.
- If this money were not borrowed into existence in this way, there would be less economic activity as a result.
- Under this system national debt is money issued to the government and, as such, has become a vital part of the total money supply of any modern nation.
- The government constantly tells us that "there isn’t enough money", because it knows that the cost of borrowing money this way has to be passed on to the taxpayer.
- Instead, it sells off state assets and now gets the private sector to fund public services instead.

The Constant Increase in National Debt
- In the same way that under the present system, industry and individuals must keep borrowing more and more to enable interest payments to be kept up on their existing loans, so government must constantly borrow more and more to keep up interest payments on its existing loans.
- Furthermore, when a particular government stock is due for repayment, the government simply borrows more by issuing new government stocks.
- And it's we who pay for it in our taxes!

AN ALTERNATIVE -- PHASING OUT THE NATIONAL DEBT
"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good." Thomas Edison, The New York Times, December 6, 1921.
- Government could stop borrowing money at interest, and start creating it itself by spending it -- debt free -- into the economy on public projects and services, at the same time creating jobs and stimulating the economy.
- It already does this to a limited extent -- the amount it receives from banks when it sells cash to them is added to the public purse and is available for spending on public services and projects.
- For a start we could, at least, fund the interest payments on the National Debt by government created debt-free money, instead of by taxation -- as advocated by James Gibb Stuart in his book The Money Bomb (available for £5 payable to Prosperity, at the address below).

A DEMOCRATIC IMPERATIVE
Seeking to redistribute what money there is by taxing the rich to pay for services for the less well off does nothing to solve the problem of the overall shortage of money in the economy caused by the debt based money supply -- a problem which most socialists have yet to recognise.

The nation's economy is our economy. We create the real wealth through our ingenuity, enterprise and hard work. The current banking system operates as a massive drain on that public wealth as well as concentrating power and control in the hands of a tiny, private minority.

Money is the means of facilitating the exchange of goods and services.

There is nothing wrong with creating it out of nothing, because this is the only way to provide the means of exchange.

What is wrong is that the right to do this has been allowed to pass to private interests who create it as loans for private profit.

Can we not ultimately incorporate the humanitarian principles of a fair distribution of wealth that underlies socialism with the dynamic benefits of a free enterprise economy that lies at the heart of capitalism?

For as long as the power to create money is in the hands of private interests who do it for profit and control, we can never say that we live in a democracy.

[cruise4]

Under-investment is a problem in both rural and urban areas. We're always told, "There's no money" to fund vital investment, grants and subsidies.

What this really means is that the government does not want to borrow any more money from the banking system because it would have to raise taxes in order to pay it back.

Few people seem to ask why a sovereign government has to "borrow" money in the first place. And from where does the banking system get the money, anyway?

HOW GOVERNMENTS CREATE MONEY FOR NATIONAL NEEDS
Every year the government fails to collect enough money in taxes to pay for all its spending requirements. Therefore it has to borrow the money. The amount required is known as the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PSBR).

The National Debt is the total still outstanding on all past years' borrowing requirements.

The government borrows the money this way: It prints and sells "gilt edged securities", also known as stocks, bonds and Treasury bills. These are simply pieces of paper which promise an additional return to the buyer, sometime in the future. The securities are auctioned several times a year to meet the shortage of government revenue as it arises. They are bought by individuals, insurance companies, pension funds, trust funds, and banks. The government takes the money it has raised by these sales, and spends it on its public projects.

When the non-banking sector (individuals, insurance, pension and trust funds) buy government securities, then saved money is being recycled back into the economy through government spending.

However, when banks buy government securities, then entirely new money - which has been created out of nothing by the banks specifically for these purchases - is spent into the economy by the government.

These securities are becoming due, or "maturing" regularly. Servicing these securities is known as "paying the interest on the National Debt." The government has to find the money to repay them in full.

Of course, the government does not have the money to repay them - that is why it had to sell securities in the first place. Therefore, how does it repay them? Answer: It raises the money to repay the previous securities by selling even more securities and by putting up taxes even further!

That is to say: The government is raising money it doesn't have, by printing bits of paper and selling them to banks, which buy them with money they don't have either, but which they create out of nothing! The government then expects us, through our taxes, to pay back the banks with the real money that we've worked for!

The obvious question arises: Why doesn't the government simply just create the money in the first place? Why does the government indebt the population to the banking system?

Why doesn't the government - via a State institution - just print a £1000 note, instead of a £1000 security? That way, instead of borrowing the money from the banking system, and forcing us to pay it back in our taxes, it could simply create the money itself, spend it into society and not need to ask for it back.

IT'S THE PEOPLE'S MONEY
Clearly, if the government can issue a security for any amount, then it can issue the same amount of money directly, without recourse to any banks. Inventor Thomas Edison put it this way: "If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good.

"... It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people." (The New York Times, December 6, 1921. Article titled "Ford Sees Wealth In Muscle Shoals")

THE PROSPERITY PROPOSAL
We must establish the principle that the government can create debt-free money, without borrowing from the banks, and without indebting the taxpayers.

A basic policy to help achieve our aims is to ensure a proportion of the money supply is created debt-free by the government, and spent, not lent, into the economy.

By taking the creation of, at least, some money out of the hands of the banking system, it will go some way to establishing the principle that It's the People's Money, not the Banker's Money.

Some people wonder: "Surely, this will be inflationary?"
Inflation is caused by debts which, when assumed by individuals, lead to depressed incomes and demands for higher wages, and when assumed by companies, lead to price increases. Our proposal would not result in any such inflationary tendencies.

For example, say the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement required £10 billion to pay the Education budget. This money was previously to be raised by borrowing even more, at interest.

This debt would have worked its way through the economy and caused inflationary pressures -- for example, the tax increases necessary to repay the debt would lead to demand for higher wages, which would lead to higher prices, and so on.

This £10 billion has to be created anyway, and it is presently done by methods proven to be inflationary.

Our method of creating this money will be no more inflationary than the present method of funding, and indeed, it will be less inflationary because there will be no debt and interest obligations, working their way through the economy and causing the repayment demands which push inflation. Debt-free money causes no inflationary push.

Inflation could result if too much debt-free money came into society too fast, leading to everything losing its "paper" value.

However, we are presuming a monetary authority would be established to ensure debt-free money was created in a measured manner.

[chris]

The charity thing is something that also gets to me...I now pay charity to 'charities with balls' who take down corruption before giving healing...Otherwise it's like putting a plaster over the tigers thorn.

I really hate people in the streets trying to give me a guilt trip over not giving them twenty pence to pay for some third world hack to live it up.

[solve_et_coagula]

Continue to read, The Distribution of Wealth II - VI http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?messageid=417689&showdate=7/29/07&display=30&page=1#6491612

[danielg]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

[eternal_spirit]

I still disagree, all it would take is for the Government to make a new law (equal pay for all regardless of what job you do) That simple. I'm all for equality. Just some people are greedy and have an elite mindset and think they deserve more than others.

[notaslave]

The charity thing is something that also gets to me...I now pay charity to 'charities with balls' who take down corruption before giving healing...Otherwise it's like putting a plaster over the tigers thorn.

I really hate people in the streets trying to give me a guilt trip over not giving them twenty pence to pay for some third world hack to live it up.

best charities to give to are those run entirely by unpaid staff. I dont give to tin-rattlers.

[eternal_spirit]

There would still be rich and poor that's the problem. I can't see the rich wanting to give back money into the system.
But in time with equal wages there would be more equality and a fairer distribution in wealth.

[chris]

I still disagree, all it would take is for the Government to make a new law (equal pay for all regardless of what job you do) That simple. I'm all for equality. Just some people are greedy and have an elite mindset and think they deserve more than others.


You can't just say equal pay because wealth has nothing to do with money. If we were to really implement an equal wealth policy then we would have to also redistribute the wealth of estates and things like that which would take a huge police state to do because no one will give up their hard earned property.

Why be dependant on your government? Money is meaningless. The socialist utopia you describe is what is creating the corrupt businesses lobbying the governments to make it 'fair' (for them)...

Our needs are put second to the needs of the state and we will loose our creativity...We are going the way you are wanting us to go and this is what is fucking us fincancially...A lot of people blame the greedy businesses on free trade but it's not true, it's the government giving those businesses a monopoly...If you government is in total charge of your money it will start make its way into the pockets of those who are in government.

Let's say the perfect freemarket system, surviving in the wilderness...We pay nothing and live off our hard work. We will have many skills, hunting, fishing and others, we do work for others and others do work for us, we trade with real wealth and there is no government, just mutual agreements. If you add a third party to take everyones wealth which would have developed naturally for everyone in abundance because it's not hard to live off the land fruitfully then we will eventually end up with what we have today.

Your answer is not undoing the problem, it's racing to the final solution of the globalists. How much they would love to be in control of everyones pay cheque...

Even if Jesus was in charge of the wealth, he might die or might be usurped by the globalists and they will take over again...It's just impossible to work with...

[thunda]

I still disagree, all it would take is for the Government to make a new law (equal pay for all regardless of what job you do) That simple. I'm all for equality. Just some people are greedy and have an elite mindset and think they deserve more than others.

Its still impossible - Lets say me and you run our own business both selling Curly Wurlys .. I sell twice as many Curly Wurlys as you - I make twice as much money .. nothing can be done about that and whats wrong with it? .. and so you'll still end up with some having more than others.

I have no interest in money (which is fortunate for me .. :D) or the lifestyle it can bring. As long as I can feed myself, pay my rent and other household bills - I'm happy. But thats me. There is only me and Mrs Thunda. It suits us.

Others like to own their own house, have a holiday each year, have 6 kids, drive a nice car, go on the piss each week or eat out. Their lifestyle requires more money than me - if they work for it, good on them.

Yes - I agree with the wealth of the rich and powerful being distibuted if they'd ever give it up - what does Bill Gates need $37 billion for when people are starving and homeless? Or top footballers arguing over an extra £5k a week when they already get £100k a week in wages. Thats pathetic.

But it would be impossible to implement the system you propose - if someone works twice as hard as someone else, they "deserve" twice as much - and people would never accept - law or not - to be capped in what they earn when they are a neuro-surgeon and the guy next to them is a toilet attendant. Just wouldn't work.

[notaslave]

But it would be impossible to implement the system you propose - if someone works twice as hard as someone else, they "deserve" twice as much - and people would never accept - law or not - to be capped in what they earn when they are a neuro-surgeon and the guy next to them is a toilet attendant. Just wouldn't work.

I think you have too little faith in human beings. People always say it wont work because him down the road wont do it or whatever.

Now if we all get the same money, where does our status come from? You cant have a huge fancy car to say "I'm Mr Important and I have a huge fancy car and holiday in Bermuda to prove it" because Joe Smith the lazy tosser next door can have the same car and holiday.

So I think it could work because of STATUS. I am Mr Super Fantastic Street Cleaner just look at how clean my streets are - compared with Joe Smith's, where there's cigarette ends and sweety wrappers galore. Lazy tosser.

[Anders Lindman]

There is static wealth and also what can be called dynamic wealth. Static wealth is the ordinary pile of money or some other property that is valuable. Dynamic wealth is the inflow and outflow of money. For example, if I continuously earn a lot of money but I also spend a lot of money in a fairly responsible and thoughtful manner, then that flow is a contribution to society, because my huge inflow (I wish I had that :)) of money is constantly being redistributed to other people.

[cruise4]

I can only assume you guys didn't read the earlier posts I made (which are long granted). Here are the pertinent bits:

(1) People and organisations should not profit privately from the value of common resources. Those are many. The value of land is one; it is determined almost wholly by the demands and activities of society, including publlc planning policy and public expenditure on social and economic infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, railways and roads. Also the value of environmental resources, including the environment’s value as a sink for wastes/pollution (such as carbon emissions). Also the value enjoyed by whoever creates the public money supply.

Private landowners and business corporations (including commercial banks) should not profit – get “free lunches” - from the value of those common resources. Everyone should pay for the value they take from the common pot, and by so doing provide the main source of public revenue.

(2) People and organisations should not be taxed on the incomes, earnings and profits they get from useful work and business activities – which add value. Those should be treated as their rewards for contributing to the “common wealth”. Taxes on those should be replaced by making people pay as at (1) above.

(3) The value of common resources would then provide a main source of public revenue, to be used for public purposes. A considerable proportion should be distributed to all citizens as a significant Citizens’ Income that will make them less dependent on big government and big business to provide them with jobs and money and goods and services. The remainder should be spent on the public services that will still be needed.

[cruise4]

And as for those already wealthy and redistribution... you do not allow robbers or their associates to keep their ill gotten gains. We will take Prince Charles Estate and give it back to the people, for example. We will forgive all personal debt because the reality is you owe nothing. Everyone who has profited from the Public Resource robbery will have to give it back. These people are crooks. They are robbing you. Its as blatant as if they walked up and put a gun to your head!

[umbrex]

There is only one answer. Everyone should be paid the same wages. Think about it. This has never been tried in any society.

that's called communism.. tried and failed..

and think about the stupidity of it.. no incentive to work hard for anything..

[notaslave]

I dont believe true communism can work unless it used worldwide, so any "been tried" excuses dont wash.

No incentive to work, let me see, I get my material needs met for me allbeit at a very basic level. (However one learns to be very creative on a very little) So where is my incentive to work? I dont work fulltime theres no real need though we did up our days to an extra one by joint agreement because we are "branching out" into other areas. None of us get paid.

Ah, so why did I return from a trip away earlier than I had planned? The promise of a huge bonus? hehehe

We dont get paid, we do it because we want to, because it gives us a purpose.

Ask the whole army of volunteers in UK - without which many things would collapse and the tax payer would have to meet the bill - why they do it, when the guy two doors down sits on his ass and does nothing.

Ask "Don't you resent doing what you do for no payment when Joe Bloggs gets his giro (now paid into bank) and does nothing?" The resounding answer will be "Joe Bloggs, so what - we like what we do. It gives us purpose."

[umbrex]

I dont believe true communism can work unless it used worldwide, so any "been tried" excuses dont wash.

No incentive to work, let me see, I get my material needs met for me allbeit at a very basic level. (However one learns to be very creative on a very little) So where is my incentive to work? I dont work fulltime theres no real need though we did up our days to an extra one by joint agreement because we are "branching out" into other areas. None of us get paid.

Yeah i'm sure the young people of today will be thrilled to take 8 years education or more to get jobs which help develop technology, medicines and mankind with the same BS pay as the people who educate themselves for two years..

The ideal doesn't sell itself, it is naive to think otherwise.


Ah, so why did I return from a trip away earlier than I had planned? The promise of a huge bonus? hehehe

Are u serious, if so the hipocracy is total!


We dont get paid, we do it because we want to, because it gives us a purpose.


Sorry, but that is a BS generalization and if you left your vacation to work because you wanted to come back i would suggest there is something not right in your lofe.

[Anders Lindman]

I can only assume you guys didn't read the earlier posts I made (which are long granted). Here are the pertinent bits:

(1) People and organisations should not profit privately from the value of common resources. Those are many. The value of land is one; it is determined almost wholly by the demands and activities of society, including publlc planning policy and public expenditure on social and economic infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, railways and roads. Also the value of environmental resources, including the environment’s value as a sink for wastes/pollution (such as carbon emissions). Also the value enjoyed by whoever creates the public money supply.

Private landowners and business corporations (including commercial banks) should not profit – get “free lunches” - from the value of those common resources. Everyone should pay for the value they take from the common pot, and by so doing provide the main source of public revenue.

(2) People and organisations should not be taxed on the incomes, earnings and profits they get from useful work and business activities – which add value. Those should be treated as their rewards for contributing to the “common wealth”. Taxes on those should be replaced by making people pay as at (1) above.

(3) The value of common resources would then provide a main source of public revenue, to be used for public purposes. A considerable proportion should be distributed to all citizens as a significant Citizens’ Income that will make them less dependent on big government and big business to provide them with jobs and money and goods and services. The remainder should be spent on the public services that will still be needed.

I agree that all land cannot be privately owned, because then some super rich Prince of Persia can buy all the land in Sweden for example, and say to all Swedish citizens: "Sorry people, get out my property", which would be nasty indeed. Or, imagine a dollar crash and China comes in and buys all the land in United States, and then the Chinese leader says to the American people: "Stay away from our property!"

[notaslave]

It's no bullshit generalisation, you are really too far embroiled in the work for wages thing. Until you can free yourself from the work - money - work lifecycle you wont understand. Speak to retired people or something.

I often used to wonder why my retired mother handwashed some items when she had a machine, because when i was in the work-pay-work cycle I thought it was crazy. No longer do I think that.

Life is for living and the simpler it is the happier you can be.

edit - when you say vacation you may be picturing a paid for in advance holiday - sorry I was visiting people not on holiday in Spain or something.

[umbrex]

It's no bullshit generalisation, you are really too far embroiled in the work for wages thing. Until you can free yourself from the work - money - work lifecycle you wont understand. Speak to retired people or something.

Some jobs hold more value. Are harder to obtain. Creaters more beneficial things for everyone. That must be rewarded. What do u do for a living ?


Life is for living and the simpler it is the happier you can be.

In my view: The more complex the better. The more facets, the wider the spectrum. But if you want to be a simpleton, maybe are, i can see where your coming from.

[notaslave]

Yeah i'm sure the young people of today will be thrilled to take 8 years education or more to get jobs which help develop technology, medicines and mankind with the same BS pay as the people who educate themselves for two years..


So from that am I to take that YOU wouldnt work unless you were paid?

oh and being insulting - doesnt mean you are clever btw

[umbrex]

So from that am I to take that YOU wouldnt work unless you were paid?


If you were talking about my steady job once i finish, then no, of course not.

oh and being insulting - doesnt mean you are clever btw

Smashing basil.. Must have hit a nerve.

[notaslave]

If you were talking about my steady job once i finish, then no, of course not.

But you would for work NO PAY to better society?



Smashing basil.. Must have hit a nerve.
well that certainly makes a change from all the love. But I would question why you are on a forum such as this if you want to attempt to put people down. Have you yourself a complex about your intelligence quota?

[umbrex]

But you would for work NO PAY to better society?

Yes, i would, have and will do, but there is also a matter of realizing yourself and make a desired and sustainable life for yourself.

What's your point and what did u work as by the way ?


well that certainly makes a change from all the love. But I would question why you are on a forum such as this if you want to attempt to put people down. Have you yourself a complex about your intelligence quota?

I have alot of love, but it's not endless. I bet your one of those who believe that if we channel all our energies we can bring all this down. I'm not an idealist, i'm a realist. I believe in action.

And no, i am settled about my intellect, but when people become too naive, it brings up the worst in me - one of the reasons why i stopped browsing this site a while ago and why i should just leave it alone.

[notaslave]

Yes, i would, have and will do, but there is also a matter of realizing yourself and make a desired and sustainable life for yourself.

What's your point and what did u work as by the way ?

Forgive me if I am wrong but I got the impression from you attempting to ridicule me for returning earlier to my unpaid work that you thought the whole idea of unpaid work for the better of society was a no-no.

If you are willing to work for the better of society for FREE and I am also willing to do so, then I think it is a bit harsh to presume the majority of society - or at least enough to sort out the mess - would do so in order to make this world better. That is prejudging and your prejudices may be wrong. It is also what Capitalism, which serves the elite, encourages us to believe.

What I have worked at is not really relevant, unless you were trying to find out my income bracket, which isnt relevant in this case.


I have alot of love, but it's not endless. I bet your one of those who believe that if we channel all our energies we can bring all this down. I'm not an idealist, i'm a realist. I believe in action.

And no, i am settled about my intellect, but when people become too naive, it brings up the worst in me - one of the reasons why i stopped browsing this site a while ago and why i should just leave it alone.

Again I find you prejudging, channelling my energies is what I do. I take action where I can. Which is why I work in my community.

[notaslave]

And I dont think you should leave it (forum) alone. You may be prejudging but we can all be that way. We have to work together - all of us. I'm for action, but only for well thought out action, within the law (ok it can be bent) and peaceful. But def peaceful action because thats the only sensible route we can take.

[eternal_spirit]

that's called communism.. tried and failed..

and think about the stupidity of it.. no incentive to work hard for anything..
--------------
Its the only logical sane answer there is have you got a solution?

[eternal_spirit]

It's obvious some here don't believe in equality.

[umbrex]

Forgive me if I am wrong but I got the impression from you attempting to ridicule me for returning earlier to my unpaid work that you thought the whole idea of unpaid work for the better of society was a no-no.


No. We were in a debate about society. The communism. Society as a whole cant function on charity. Your miss-interpretations are on you. I still stand firm that it's an obscure idea that society as a whole can function on even the most basic level without some form of currency or reward.

That would only work if everyone were good, but unfortunately, that ain't so. You seem to be an idealist, and iøm a realist. Arguing for your ideas on a real basis is a waste of time tbh.

If you are willing to work for the better of society for FREE and I am also willing to do so, then I think it is a bit harsh to presume the majority of society - or at least enough to sort out the mess - would do so in order to make this world better.

what u mean is it's harsh to presume they wouldn't right ?

To answer that (because as it is, it doesn't make sense) i would start off my saying; no it's not an option. Come on, look at the world around you monkeywoman - we live in an amass of egotistic, selfish assholes who are only concerned about them and theirs. Mobilizing them into a pro-bono work group for the greater good is a nice thought, but it's all it is.

That is prejudging and your prejudices may be wrong. It is also what Capitalism, which serves the elite, encourages us to believe.

I think i made my opinions clear enough to see that i'm not building this on capitalism and prejudice alone. One might say your mind has been tainted by to much good-doing and icke-isms for you to see what's really behind the curtain.

What I have worked at is not really relevant, unless you were trying to find out my income bracket, which isn't relevant in this case.

That's an absolutely critical question.
Why?

Because if you don't have an education, haven't been working for yours and your own, then you won't know the meaning of working hard to get what you earned. And this is where it becomes preposterous to assume that everyone should work for the same pay.


Again I find you prejudging, channelling my energies is what I do. I take action where I can. Which is why I work in my community.

Well, doing nothing more then channeling your energies against the big evil will leave you nowhere but ran over by the NWO.
You may be selfsufficient, denying ID-cards and trying to form your own outside community, but how long until it will be blasted away i wonder.

[umbrex]

It's obvious some here don't believe in equality.

What does that have to do with anything ?

Believing in rewarding effort is in no way the same as not believing in equaility.

Obviously someone are making some weak points..

[eternal_spirit]

What does that have to do with anything ?

Believing in rewarding effort is in no way the same as not believing in equaility.

Obviously someone are making some weak points..
..............................

Yes but you base this reward ideal on someone studying for years etc to get a high paid job, which is an elitest mindset. The refuse collector, the farmer and baker are just as valuable as the professional It engineer, neuro surgeon etc. So deserve the same wage. :)

Nothing weak about that, would make for a better fairer society it's really that simple.

[notaslave]

No. We were in a debate about society. The communism. Society as a whole cant function on charity. Your miss-interpretations are on you. I still stand firm that it's an obscure idea that society as a whole can function on even the most basic level without some form of currency or reward.

That would only work if everyone were good, but unfortunately, that ain't so. You seem to be an idealist, and iøm a realist. Arguing for your ideas on a real basis is a waste of time tbh. I consider myself a realist, there is an amry of volunteers working in the UK which proves me right - that people will and do work for the benefit of society.

No reward? I now question are you for real? (In a non-attacking friendly way) I already stated the reward in an earlier post. The reward is STATUS. If everyone can have a Ferrari then the reward is I built the fucker and didnt I make a good job of it? Better job than Joe Bloggs who hashed up the fitting of the GPS.

I can say this from personal experience of all the times I have worked for nothing. Hells bells we want to do a good job. We are STATUS driven! (and without wishing to blow our own trumpets, well hang yes I do - we do a bloody good effective job - for fuck all)



what u mean is it's harsh to presume they wouldn't right ? yes

To answer that (because as it is, it doesn't make sense) i would start off my saying; no it's not an option. Come on, look at the world around you monkeywoman - we live in an amass of egotistic, selfish assholes who are only concerned about them and theirs. Mobilizing them into a pro-bono work group for the greater good is a nice thought, but it's all it is. then explain how the voluntary sector works???? Stop buying the bullshit and get to know people in your own community. Yes many are arseholes but if you ask them to help you, they arent as big assholes as you actually think - or more to the point are ENCOURAGED to believe.



I think i made my opinions clear enough to see that i'm not building this on capitalism and prejudice alone. One might say your mind has been tainted by to much good-doing and icke-isms for you to see what's really behind the curtain. Good doing? It's survivial here mate! And I will say again I have only watched a couple of Icke videos and read and participated in this forum. I dont have a hero - he died with Jesus. And I dont think Icke would really want anyone hero-worshipping him if truth be known. It's get up and do where I come from.... and I rather think Icke is of the same mindset.



That's an absolutely critical question.
Why?

Because if you don't have an education, haven't been working for yours and your own, then you won't know the meaning of working hard to get what you earned. And this is where it becomes preposterous to assume that everyone should work for the same pay.

I have an education, I have had the mortgage and the latest video recorder (as was then), I have run my own business (European safety approvals - CE mark was the first sign of the "mark of the beast" and I was in that game)




Well, doing nothing more then channeling your energies against the big evil will leave you nowhere but ran over by the NWO.
You may be selfsufficient, denying ID-cards and trying to form your own outside community, but how long until it will be blasted away i wonder.

No way I dont sit meditating though dont condemn those who do, we each do according to our abilities. Meditating makes me freaky. Protesting doesnt. Forming my own community - nowt wrong with that if I could get people who could put up with me.

[thunda]

People tend to be missing the key point : Its ok for half a dozen people on here to support the idea of equal pay or just working for the betterment of society in general - yeah, its a sound a noble idea - but that half a dozen people on a forum where a handful of 'enlightened' souls visit is nothing compared to a population of 6 billion and counting.

I'm with you - I'm all for it - unfortunately, the other 99.99% of society wants a bigger house than me and you and the people in power who could make it happen have too much invested in the current system to allow it to happen - hence why its an impossibe dream. It just won't happen no matter how wonderful we make it sound.

The simple fact is that the curse of the human race is that we're gatherers and we set out to gather as much as possible for ourselves - even if that means others going without.

Ohh .. we'll sit there and be sad while we watch a couple of starving kids in Africa, we might even dip our hand in a pocket a throw them a few scraps - "but hey, if it stops me getting the things I want in life - fuck 'em."

No matter what system you put in place - there will always be someone who wants a bigger slice of the pie than everyone else whether they deserve it or not - its human nature.

Does that mean I have little faith in the human race? Hell yeah. Ok - its not their fault, they've been manipulated all their lives to be that way - but to think its ever going to change is a little naive - as I've said, too many rich and powerful people have too much invested in it to allow it to change.

No amount of idealism on here or elsewhere will change it no matter how right we may be.

[notaslave]

People tend to be missing the key point : Its ok for half a dozen people on here to support the idea of equal pay or just working for the betterment of society in general - yeah, its a sound a noble idea - but that half a dozen people on a forum where a handful of 'enlightened' souls visit is nothing compared to a population of 6 billion and counting.

I'm with you - I'm all for it - unfortunately, the other 99.99% of society wants a bigger house than me and you and the people in power who could make it happen have too much invested in the current system to allow it to happen - hence why its an impossibe dream. It just won't happen no matter how wonderful we make it sound.

The simple fact is that the curse of the human race is that we're gatherers and we set out to gather as much as possible for ourselves - even if that means others going without.

Ohh .. we'll sit there and be sad while we watch a couple of starving kids in Africa, we might even dip our hand in a pocket a throw them a few scraps - "but hey, if it stops me getting the things I want in life - fuck 'em."

No matter what system you put in place - there will always be someone who wants a bigger slice of the pie than everyone else whether they deserve it or not - its human nature.

Does that mean I have little faith in the human race? Hell yeah. Ok - its not their fault, they've been manipulated all their lives to be that way - but to think its ever going to change is a little naive - as I've said, too many rich and powerful people have too much invested in it to allow it to change.

No amount of idealism on here or elsewhere will change it no matter how right we may be.

I have this conversation with every single adult, from my own kids to acquaintances - and if YOU are willing and I am and i kinda think Eternal Spirit would be willing and Umbrex had said that they (sorry dont know gender) are willing then naive? Who is being naive?

Who has met the person who refused to help? This mythological stereotypical human being (worthy of being in a zoo) who has said fuck off I aint helping you?

[eternal_spirit]

The problem with the masses of poor people most believe by getting degrees through education, or getting that lucky break, or by working hard to try get a high paid job that they will one day reach the top of society and become very wealthy. It's a bg lie which most fall for.

Those at the top won't let those at the bottom up to their own level, you have to be an elite bloodline, or part of their masonic club or some elite society to get to the top. Which means very few will ever progress through the levels of the class system defined by how much you earn.

If the masses of poor people ralised this they would realise they're all in the same situation and could pull together to demand a fairer equal system than the one that's in place at the moment.

[cruise4]

In a new society education would be a priviledge. Someone that studies for 10 years means someone has to provide education for 10 years.

Communism is not possible because people are not the same.

If we had a Citizens income as a right, then those who choose to work and provide services or products, over and above, deserve recognition.

Ownership of land is not necessary. We would be caretakers.

Those that 'take' from the land should expect to pay the rest of us something for our allowing them to do so.

So lets look at Water Supply as an example. Water storage requires areas of land. So the Industry would compensate the people for this need. Those that choose to work in the industry would get the basic citizens income plus further income. The consumers of water would pay an amount to balance this equation out.

Farming uses land so the people have to be compensated. The workers get the Citizens income again topped up by their labour compensation. The people that receive the food grown pay an amount to balance this equation out.

Housing...you choose a place to live. You are using land so compensation to the people occurs. Builders provide a house, so they get extra income, they also use resources from other industries so pay compensation. You pay enough to balance this equation out.

These examples use products that most people want. But obviously something like a Playstation may be required by far fewer. The contribution to the Public Pot would, though, be shared by the many.

Whilst these examples are somewhat simplistic, why doesn't this work? can we build on this?

[Anders Lindman]

Those at the top won't let those at the bottom up to their own level, you have to be an elite bloodline, or part of their masonic club or some elite society to get to the top.

Not only the elite are greedy and protective. We have all been trained to be greedy monsters. Given the opportunity to get hold of money, we grab and grab and grab endlessly. There is never enough money to fill our bottomless pits of greed. The good thing is that I think more and more people are beginning to recognize what childish and immature behaviour that is. For health we need a healthy inner and outer environment, and greed is not only detrimental for society, it is also a poison for our inner health, and people are beginning to recognize that more and more I believe.

[seanx]

The idea: Everybody gets the same wages (points) no matter what
they do.

Society would collaspe in a week.

Imagine you apply your idea to the Premership.

'Hi, lads, play your matches - but no matter what happens everyone
is getting the same points because we want ever team to be equal'.
We believe100% in equality'.

The league would be dead instantly. What would be the point
of any team taking part?

For the 'illusion' of the league to succeed there must be winners and
losers . There must be inequality.

[cruise4]

"There is never enough money to fill our bottomless pits of greed"

But this relies on what you can actually buy. If land cannot be owned, how many playstations can you actually want? Greed relies on what is available for purchase, surely?

Someone else mentioned Status. This is a very important mindset change and should be incorporated as well somehow.

[umbrex]

In a new society education would be a priviledge. Someone that studies for 10 years means someone has to provide education for 10 years.

Communism is not possible because people are not the same.

If we had a Citizens income as a right, then those who choose to work and provide services or products, over and above, deserve recognition.

Ownership of land is not necessary. We would be caretakers.

Those that 'take' from the land should expect to pay the rest of us something for our allowing them to do so.

So lets look at Water Supply as an example. Water storage requires areas of land. So the Industry would compensate the people for this need. Those that choose to work in the industry would get the basic citizens income plus further income. The consumers of water would pay an amount to balance this equation out.

Farming uses land so the people have to be compensated. The workers get the Citizens income again topped up by their labour compensation. The people that receive the food grown pay an amount to balance this equation out.

Housing...you choose a place to live. You are using land so compensation to the people occurs. Builders provide a house, so they get extra income, they also use resources from other industries so pay compensation. You pay enough to balance this equation out.

These examples use products that most people want. But obviously something like a Playstation may be required by far fewer. The contribution to the Public Pot would, though, be shared by the many.

Whilst these examples are somewhat simplistic, why doesn't this work? can we build on this?

@ notaslave; we are two very different person with far to different views of the world to ever reach an agreement. I will not debate with u on this matter any further. The guy after hit it straight on. If you don't get that there is no other reason to proceed.

@ cruise4: Isn't that what you call currency and taxes ?

The system works, a damn shame it's corrupted. We should have entered the golden dawn of man 50 years ago..

[umbrex]

Someone else mentioned Status. This is a very important mindset change and should be incorporated as well somehow.

No way in hell people will do hard work their entire lives for status and the same crap the rest has..

[Anders Lindman]

Not only the elite are greedy and protective. We have all been trained to be greedy monsters. Given the opportunity to get hold of money, we grab and grab and grab endlessly. There is never enough money to fill our bottomless pits of greed. The good thing is that I think more and more people are beginning to recognize what childish and immature behaviour that is. For health we need a healthy inner and outer environment, and greed is not only detrimental for society, it is also a poison for our inner health, and people are beginning to recognize that more and more I believe.

Imagine at a birthday party if all people would rush to the birthday cake as fast as possible and try to grab as big piece of the cake as possible before anyone else. That is exactly the subconscious mentality we have when it comes to money.

[chris]

I don’t get why you are asking for equality…Let’s say you employ someone, in your system they’d only need to meet the criteria and that’s it…In a free market system you could choose the best person for the best price and if he screws you over you can refuse to pay him. Equality is to be free to choose the best.

There is no system simpler than the free market system. In a free market you can go and live in the woods, build your house, not pay a thing to the state and just live your life. Under communism you would have to pay taxes which will mean that you will have to get a job in their system so you will never be able to live the self-sufficient dream.

The system you are describing is an extreme form of socialism. If you want a total form of communism then you will have to go through all the uglies of socialism to get there…

Fascism is simply a merger between corporations and the state. Lenin…

We are socialists. Adolf Hitler

Products of socialism…

1. Enron: through merging with the state they were given the monopoly of the energy market and the worse job they did, the more they got (a common trait of socialism).

2. Lawyers: there is no justice as the state always wants to intervene between the two parties and only the lawyers win. Rich people can also attack the poor people who can’t afford lawyers.

3. Big Oil: Big oil merged with the states years ago and now are calling the shots in many cases. If you want communism then there would be a total monopoly by the state and would be given to one of their oil friends who will only do a worse job as the worse they do the more they get paid (PRS).

4. NHS: Total socialist system, biggest company in Europe…The more money they get the worse they do and the worse they do the more money they get.

For those that think communism is the answer then please respond to these questions…

How will you stop the huge government from pocketing incrementally more and more money from the people?

How will you assess the wealth created in the public sector and tax accordingly?

What will you do to free loaders?

I agree that if the money was divided between the people we would all be a lot better off as the elites have so much of it but from then on you can’t build another socialist system or else we will end right back where we are now only with a different group of elites.

[Anders Lindman]

"There is never enough money to fill our bottomless pits of greed"

But this relies on what you can actually buy. If land cannot be owned, how many playstations can you actually want? Greed relies on what is available for purchase, surely?

Someone else mentioned Status. This is a very important mindset change and should be incorporated as well somehow.

Not necessarily. The main reason for greed is that we want security. And for that we need to get hold of as much money as possible. The more money we can get hold of, the more secure we will feel. And when our security is secured, we want the freedom that money gives and so we want to grab more money, and money can only buy freedom to a certain limit and so after that we want the power that more money can give us.

[cruise4]

But umbrex... don't we have to have some medium of exchange? whether we call it barter, tokens, points, money, IOU's... whatever, I can't see how we can do without something. It would be far too inconveniant. But would love to hear an alternative. I can't carry a lettuce around to swap for a potato can I?

Its the system 'now' thats screwed up. I gather when they used Colonial script there was no inflation and no meaningful inequality. But I'm no expert in this field. Its actually quite challenging to try and bypass my pre-concieved ideas. Thats why I welcome input.

[umbrex]

How will you stop the huge government from pocketing incrementally more and more money from the people?


I would sit down and have a talk with them, explaining how it would benefit all by rewarding them equally by performing different jobs, and they should stop feeding their own pockets because it's naughty.


How will you assess the wealth created in the public sector and tax accordingly?


Well, when everyone makes the same, then we are all just as rich, and then it doesn't matter anymore.


What will you do to free loaders?


I would sit down and have a talk with them, explaining how it would benefit all by rewarding them equally by performing different jobs, and they should stop freeloading because it's naughty.


Sry, couldn't resist =)

[cruise4]

"The more money we can get hold of, the more secure we will feel."

How does greed provide security Anders?

Umbrex, I haven't said Status is the driving force have I. I said its important within the confines of a general change of direction. You need to take the whole and realise status is important. A teacher for example should have a higher status than those that chose to do nothing at all bar accept the Citizens income. This bit is about changing attitudes within society 'from' greed for one.

[umbrex]

But umbrex... don't we have to have some medium of exchange? whether we call it barter, tokens, points, money, IOU's... whatever, I can't see how we can do without something. It would be far too inconveniant. But would love to hear an alternative. I can't carry a lettuce around to swap for a potato can I?

Its the system 'now' thats screwed up. I gather when they used Colonial script there was no inflation and no meaningful inequality. But I'm no expert in this field. Its actually quite challenging to try and bypass my pre-concieved ideas. Thats why I welcome input.

No.. exactly.. i mean the fundementals of the system is very balanced and can be used to benefit all if it wasn't corrupted as i said. Trading goods simply wouldn't work in a modern society, but neither does fiat currency. The people who held (and still do) power corrupted it and turned it in their direction.

Imo the question isn't how to replace the system, but how we make the system benefit mankind, rather than the elite.

[cruise4]

I think we are agreeing then Umbrex... but the question becomes so what do we set up if we actually get the chance to completely revamp everything?

[umbrex]

"The more money we can get hold of, the more secure we will feel."

How does greed provide security Anders?

It doesnt. Money = power and that's the source behind greed as i can see it. Serious greed at least. I dont think Anders thought it through tbh

Umbrex, I haven't said Status is the driving force have I. I said its important within the confines of a general change of direction. You need to take the whole and realise status is important. A teacher for example should have a higher status than those that chose to do nothing at all bar accept the Citizens income. This bit is about changing attitudes within society 'from' greed for one.

Well.
There is recognition and then there is status. I dont think teachers for example should have status as they used to. The job is simply to easy and most often (at least in denmark) it's being performed by people who didnt have much other choice.

Education is the key in our societies today and everyone (in europe at least) has the possibility of achieving greatness if they have the will!

However i do think they should b recognized for doing good, rather then trying to fill their pockets. The whole status vs. reward (riches) is obscured by the materialistic society we live in today where riches = status, more or less detaching us from spiritual gains.
But again, it's 2 different systems or mindsets. It's in the eye of the beholder i guess, and by that one can conclude that it's the attitude of the people which needs to change, and i ultimately end up agreeing with u :)

[umbrex]

I think we are agreeing then Umbrex... but the question becomes so what do we set up if we actually get the chance to completely revamp everything?

That's the sad part. Imo ...we would have a great system which would become corrupted by the same greed after 50 years tops, unless u would regulate it totally and opening up for the possibility of fascist powers to unfold.

It's a balance on a knife's edge corrupted by human nature i guess.

[cruise4]

"The whole status vs. reward (riches) is obscured by the materialistic society we live in today where riches = status, more or less detaching us from spiritual gains."

Absolutely:) So the potential for power needs to be curtailed, but how? Perhaps this does come down to the way money is produced... in which case if the nation owned the only printing press and money production was responsibly managed, and governments were enlightened and couldn't go into debt... have we got a working model? For reducing Power I mean?

[chris]

How will you assess the wealth created in the public sector and tax accordingly?

Well, when everyone makes the same, then we are all just as rich, and then it doesn't matter anymore.

There is the money that is given to us by the state and then there is the wealth that creative people make through the use of that money...How will that get assessed?

If there is no change then obviously the system is not working as there is no growth.

Also why are the creative ones being burdened the most with having to part with their ingenuity to the state?

btw, I know your just playing devils advocate;)

[umbrex]

"The whole status vs. reward (riches) is obscured by the materialistic society we live in today where riches = status, more or less detaching us from spiritual gains."

Absolutely:) So the potential for power needs to be curtailed, but how? Perhaps this does come down to the way money is produced... in which case if the nation owned the only printing press and money production was responsibly managed, and governments were enlightened and couldn't go into debt... have we got a working model? For reducing Power I mean?

It would b fantastic if we had the possibility of derailing the entire society, opening up for alternative theories, energies, channeling of these and focusing on developing those parts of the human mind.. I guess we would need a reverse inquisition or something like it, where the spiritual gains of man-kind for everyone should be the focus. The current model is built on mass commerce and manipulation, and as i see it, is responsible for the frustrations and spiritual detachments we see today. As i have experienced it there are more or less 3 kinds of people (trying to generalize gen pop): Atheists who base their entire lives on scientific facts, religious fundamentalists whether it be christians or muslims and scared sheeple who are to scared to not believe in either the stuff the media are feeding them or god.. but i guess i got off track there for a minute :)

Maybe we don't have it for the time being, but the technology certainly enables us to make some suggestions.
I don't believe it's simply the power to create money. The FED and the central banks are just a bad and brilliant idea being created by rotten scoundrels. Let's assume for a sec that we didn't have that kind of corruption, that only political abuse of power was the cause of the deterioration of man.(how sad was that sentence!)

We the people should be able to make the decisions by majority.

Multiple parties are required to express all opinions

Many decisions regarding politics are so complex that the average joe has no concept of it, hence we need politicians.

Technology today would enable us to have a real time democracy (from a utopian standpoint ofc:P).

Politics and national decisions should be determined from long term goals, not recent polls (contradictory to the real time democracy)

So how do we combine the interest of man with the least potential of abuse of power from the above factors ?

Ok, i'm just taking a wild shot here :)

So. You could have a government who would sit in power for 15 years at least. It would have to have majority by 60% +.

The elections should be based on the 15 year plan the main party would have. They would go to elections on achievable goals

Society would come to a halt for 14 days of the 15 years where people would be required to do nothing else then get into the plans, points and part goals. The goal would be for them to make a balanced choice.

The head of state would sit for no more then 1 year and people would take turns. There should be a focus on developing a synnergy and team-work as oppsed to one-leader rule within the government.

If a leader would try to do rash things there should be a possibility through real time elections to remove him from office if more then 75% of the voters agreed on it.

Every major decission (ie building a new bridge or going to war) suggested to the people should go to vote.

Every person would be required by law to participate

The system of government should be a subject in school, engaging every citizen in what is going on, why and how.

Total transparency for the opposition.

"The watchdog" a small group of those politicians from the furthest opposite side should be designated as looking over every aspect of government as it unfolds or having the possibility to do so.

That's pretty much what i can extract at this late hour :P

[Anders Lindman]

"The more money we can get hold of, the more secure we will feel."

How does greed provide security Anders?


No, it's the other way around. The perceived need for security fuels greed.

And not only that. Greed is an automatic program in people. Ask a company how big profit they want to make or an employee how big salary he or she wants, and they will automatically and mindlessly reply (at least if they were honest): "As big as possible", and the learned old-school economic professors will say: "Excellent! That's all that is needed for an efficient market economy", but it's not. Economy is not separate from society, and society is not separate from civilized behaviour, and as we know, it's not civilized behaviour to try to grab as big piece of the birthday cake as possible. From the individual's perspective such greed may look like optimal economic behaviour, but seen from a larger perspective with several people involved, such behaviour is suboptimal, even from an economic point of view.

[Anders Lindman]

Is there then a solution to the greed problem? More regulations is not the solution because that would only reinforce the greed mindset, plus it would be like putting more sand in a greedy engine that already has a lot of friction in it.

The solution will be an influx of ethics into business. In the past, a company with a profit-at-all-costs-screw-the-consequences strategy could use child labor without anyone noticing it and perhaps not even care. Today, if it was discovered that a company used child labor, even if it was not covered by mainstream media, the news would spread like wildfire on the Web and then I certainly wouldn't want to be one of the managers for that company. :o

The influx of ethics will make the free market economy to run more smoothly and more efficiently.

[Anders Lindman]

The influx of ethics will make the free market economy to run more smoothly and more efficiently.

Ethics is a bit boring and can easily lead to guilt complexes and other dysfunctional states. Better than ethics could be to use a "good enough" strategy. With this strategy I can still be greedy, and I don't need to be an ethical angel. With the "good enough" strategy I make good enough deals instead of always best possible deals. A LOT of effort and conflict can be removed with this strategy.

[cruise4]

I think you are struggling to see past existing misconceptions based on current practises Anders. I don't know what else to say.

Chadrava in another thread mentioned 'Meritocracy'. This ain't a bad concept. I haven't seen his response yet but lets say this means all sections of society have representatives. For example: Medical Guild, Education Guild, Warrior Guild (debateable but maybe always necessary to some degree), Builders Guild, etc. (Getting the necessary component parts together is interesting in itself)

From this starting point, everything changes. Ethical would be the new greed. Status would be the new profit. Justice would be the new Law. Forget economics... its a fairytale.

"Greed is an automatic program in people"

No, its not. Greed is a result of the system we have now. They have planned it that way. It wouldn't work for them otherwise. Greed is unnatural and counter productive or sub optimal as you put it Anders.

This addresses some of the concerns you raise also Umbrex.

[Anders Lindman]

"Greed is an automatic program in people"

No, its not. Greed is a result of the system we have now. They have planned it that way. It wouldn't work for them otherwise. Greed is unnatural and counter productive or sub optimal as you put it Anders.


Could be that greed has been programmed into people, but greed is almost like an automatic knee-jerk reflex in us.

My new strategy is to be half-greedy, and to allow other people to be greedy as hell. It's up to them. :)