Day 245: Living Income Guaranteed and Equal Currency

The ideal of free market in terms of globalization in being able to buy from anyone and sell to anyone - is based within the idea that: one should be able to get access to the best products and services - and if that means people keep buying cars from Germany, then it means car companies in other countries have to step up their performance if they want to compete - and so - creating a worldwide stimulating environment for excellence in service and quality-price ratio.

Though, one of the major influential factors determining whether people buy their stuff in their own country or in a foreign country - is the exchange rate between currencies. The exchange rate is in fact the price you pay for a currency in terms of another currency. So - if in the US the price of the car you want is 40 000 dollars and in Germany a very similar car would cost you 40 000 euros and say that both cars meet your requirements and you have no preference between the two - then there is still a difference in cost. Say that you are located in South Africa and that the price for 1 dollar is 7 Rand and the price for 1 euro is 10 rand - then the car in the US is 'cheaper', but only because the American dollar is cheaper than the Euro. One would have to pay 280 000 Rand for the American car and 400 000 Rand for the German car. With no preference between both cars, the choice is easily made, and the American car is bought.

To understand what determines the exchange rate between two currencies - read: 'What are Currency Exchange Rates and Why do they Keep on Changing?'

From there - you can see that the exchange rate is a result of the performance of an economy as a whole in relation to the performance of other economies - and, in turn, the exchange rate affects the economy deeply. You can also see that within currency exchange rates there are always winners and losers. Say - if the euro is 'strong' in relation to the dollar, then Americans will buy less from Europe and more locally, and Europeans will buy more from America and less locally. That would mean that European exporters are worse off, but American exporters are better off. At the same time, America importers are worse off and European importers are better off. So - the exchange rate is one of those things that has a deep impact on the individual lives of people, that does not stand in relation to their particular merit. So, the whole global free market is skewed, because it's not only the quality of goods and services that determines in which country you buy your products - much is determined by the exchange rate, over which one, as an individual, can exert no influence. So, here is another example of how the free market theory as yielding the best result is not being applied and lived.

So - why do we propose equal currencies with Living Income Guaranteed?

Because the Living Income Guaranteed system ensures that one's economy is stable and effective from the perspective that each one will have an income with which to purchase the required goods to live a dignified life and in turn this income that was spent becomes the income of the labor force, that now can afford a more luxurious lifestyle - as such Human Rights are ensured and the principle of those who work harder earn more money is still in place as well. However - if we now have currencies with different values - the whole point can collapse - because instead of buying the products locally, one can buy the exact same products abroad for a 'cheaper' price, just because of a favorable exchange rate - as such, money drains out of the economy and the cycle is disrupted. Unequal currencies distort the values of goods and services across the globe. With equal currencies - if one goes and buys products abroad, its not because of a distortion - it's because the goods and services are actually better or are produced more cost-efficiently. Therefore, when in a particular country it is noticed that one's company is suffering due to people buying abroad, it is an actual indication that one requires to change the quality of one's goods and services or become more cost-efficient - such indications are valid and stimulate the economy in the way it is supposed to.

If one has a look at the entire Living Income Guaranteed proposal, one will notice one thing: Central to this entire economic system stands one point: Real Value. The Real Value of Life, the Real Value of Labor, the Real Value of effort and merit, the Real Value of goods and services - to be done with the charade of survival on the one hand and outrageously extravagant entertainment on the other - neither have Real Value - to get back to what matters, to give back to ourselves and each other that which we have lost: Dignity, Respect, Consideration, Support, Acknowledgement, Integrity, Gratitude.

Living Income Guaranteed is an effective, clear-cut way to make an end to all and everything that has been diminishing Life over the centuries, of which we see it is unacceptable, but for which we haven't been able to formulate a solution before - and to bring back all that we have always wanted and searched for - not just for the rich and famous - but for every single human being.

For more information:
http://basicincome.me
http://basicincomeguaranteed.wordpress.com

Day 244: Transforming Currency into Money with Living Income Guaranteed

In the video "Hidden Secrets Of Money - Ep1 'Currency Vs Money'" Mike Maloney and others present one of the problems we are facing in our current economic system and that is - how the value of our currency is able to change over time - where it can both appreciate and depreciate - but throughout history it has mainly depreciated until it becomes worthless and then a new currency is introduced. The video explains the problem, but it doesn't offer a real solution - which I will be discussing in this blog.

Now - when I said 'the value of our currency is able to change over time' - with 'our currency' I am not referring to a specific currency such as Dollar or Euro or Rand - I am referring to fiat currency. For those who are not aware of the history of our currencies: paper bills were introduced as IOUs - a piece of paper stating that: I owe you 5 gold coins, for instance. Say that you deposited 5 gold coins at the bank. The bank would then write you a claim check that specifies that with that piece of paper, you can at a later time come and claim those 5 gold coins back. Now - over time what started happening, is that when people would go to the market place and wanted to buy something for 7 gold coins, but they only had 2 on them - they would go: "You know, I only have 2 gold coins on me, but I've got 5 at the bank, how about I give you the 2 gold coins plus the claim check for the 5 gold coins at the bank, and then you can just go and claim them." And from there, the ball started rolling and less and less people went to actually collect gold at the bank and started simply trading with the paper claims - which is what we currently know as paper bills. From there, it didn't take long before banks would just start printing money that was no longer 'backed up' by any gold at the bank. From this point onwards - we started trading with fiat currency - a currency that is not limited by the resources that is 'backing up' the value of the currency.

Why does that matter? It matters from the perspective that the amount of gold in the world is limited and therefore, the value of gold stays round about the same over time. What determines the value of gold? It's determined by how much of it is in circulation, and thus - by consequence, how much we are able to buy with it. So - let's take an example of a little village where 10 people live and there are in total 10 gold bars in circulation in this mini-economy. These 10 people have certain goods they want to buy and each a certain amount of gold that they are willing to spend on it. This determines the demand for the goods in the village. The suppliers balance their costs with profits - where they know that if they charge a high price, there will be less villagers able to buy the product, and if they charge a lower price it will become harder to make a profit and eventually even difficult to cover their costs. So - balancing demand and supply - a price for the goods is determined. Now - let's say that suddenly - instead of 10 bars of gold, there are 20 bars of gold - what will happen to the prices? They will go up because the demand goes up. Herein - understand that demand means: people want it and they can pay for it. So - when there is more money - it doesn't mean that people suddenly want more of something - it means they always wanted that amount, but they couldn't demand it because they didn't have the money to demand it. So - with demand increasing - the suppliers will realize that they can now charge a higher price - and so the prices of the goods in the village go up. What has happened to the value of gold? The value of gold decreased, because with the same amount of gold, people are now able to buy less of the goods - because the price went up.

So - with currency initially being backed up by gold - it limited how much money was in circulation - and so, it kept the value of money stable - because it was tied to the amount of gold that was available in the world. Gold is not something we can create - we can melt gold down and change the form but we cannot make new gold. So - the amount of gold we have in the world today is the same amount of gold that we had centuries ago. With fiat currency, however, reserve banks are able to simply print more paper money, increase the money supply - and in turn prices increase and the value of the money depreciates.

So far the reasoning of the economists seems sound - however, it is not - because they are misusing the term 'inflation'.

When they discuss inflation they assume that it means: the prices of all goods and services in an economy go up as a result of an increase in the money supply - and therefore, money becomes worth less and people can buy less and less stuff.

But what is not considered is the following: with inflation - the price of literally EVERYTHING in the economy goes up - and that includes the price of labor. So - from that perspective - if the prices of 'stuff' doubles, it's not a problem, because your wage would have doubled as well. And so - technically - yes - the nominal value of money depreciates - but the real value remains the same: you can buy less with one dollar, but you can still buy the same amount with your wage.

So - this reveals a problem in our current economic system - and how it is deviating from how things should be done. Let's take again the example of a village where there are 10 people and there are 100 dollars in circulation. If the money supply suddenly increases to 200 dollars, suppliers will up their price because the demand increased. Now - this higher price has to also increase the wages of those who work for the suppliers - and when their wage increase, they will have no problem paying the higher price. The wage of the workers would go up simply because they will demand a higher wage through their labor unions because otherwise they cannot pay the higher prices. But instead - what's been happening: the suppliers keep the wages of the laborers the same or only give them a slight increase - and instead: just make a lot more profit. And have a look - that's exactly what's been happening in the world. Why? Because when laborers demand higher wages - what do the bosses say? Well - if you don't want to work for that wage - I let you go and I will find someone worse off than you and have them do the work. That is why we have so many companies that closed down in Europe and America that moved to China and the third world in general - because they could profit from people being worse off there than in their country, that were willing to work for much lower wages.

And this is why within Living Income Guaranteed - we suggest that prices be determined according to the value that was put into it - which includes your labor. And valuing labor means: your workers must have a wage that allows them a certain lifestyle. This should be enshrined in the Constitution as a Human Right - otherwise one creates cycles of abuse where some win and most lose. And so - if all prices in the economy go up because of an increase in the money supply - your wages will have to increase simultaneously - otherwise you're committing a crime against life.

Herein, then - it doesn't matter whether you have fiat currency or not - becaue the real value of the currency remains the same. In the video they explain how the difference between currency and money is that money is a store of value - its value remains the same over time - and with currency this is not part of the definition. So - with making this one adjustment to the economic system, so that it would function how it is intended to function - we would be able to say that our fiat currency is in fact money - because the real value of the currency remains the same over time.

Is it a solution to step away from fiat currency and go back to silver and gold? No! Why not? Exactly because the amount of gold and silver in the world is limited - it doesn't change. But what does change? The amount of people in your economy. So - if you take  again the village of 10 people with 10 gold bars and let's say each owns one gold bar, but now they all make babies and suddenly there are 20 villagers and still the same 10 gold bars - you obviously have a problem - because now each villagers (assuming an egalitarian society) only owns half a gold bar. And yes - the value of gold remains the same: you can still buy the same amount of stuff with one gold bar before there were babies as you can after there were babies - but not everyone has a gold bar anymore - so the standards of living goes down anyway as you can suddenly buy less stuff.

So - to have your money supply absolutely the same over time, regardless of a change in population, is also counterproductive. When it comes to money creation - it should be calculated according to two points:
- available resources
- population

Furthermore - which is quite fascinating - in the video the economists point to history and how throughout history every fiat currency reverted back to zero - and therefore we should use gold/silver instead. But they ignore the fact that throughout history people have always also gone back to fiat currency - simply because it is much more convenient to carry around paper or a plastic card with a chip than a bunch of gold bars. I mean - making gold/silver the currency would eventually lead to history repeating itself, just because it's not practical to transport gold for transactions.

Therefore - instead of telling people to invest in gold and silver because currency will become worthless - and then at least you have something to trade with - rather correct the problem with fiat currency so that it works for everyone.

We continue in the next blog with our discussion on money and currencies where we'll have a look at the nonsense of having currencies with different values.

Related articles

• Day 251: Living Income Guaranteed and Market Mechanics
• Day 252: The Rich Be Cursed, The Rich Be Blessed
• Day 247: Only in a Broken System does Misery equal Profit
• Day 226: Living Income Guaranteed will Prevent Destruction of Homes
• Day 339: Why the CommonWealth was Never the Common Good

Day 243: Living Income Guaranteed and Communism

Whenever a new way of organizing society and our economic system opens up, one of the comments that comes to the surface is :"But isn't that communism?"

Now, communism in itself as a word has become a word of Terror. It is used specifically to instigate fear reactions within people, where you do not want to be linked or involved in anything that may be deemed 'communistic'. But what is communism really? Nobody knows anymore. It's one of those terms -- just like the Inflation concept -- that has taken on a life of its own. In the case of communism, it's become a boogieman story. I mean, when people talk about communism and 'fighting communism' it is done from an assumption that communism is 'one clearly defined thing' and ‘it’s clearly evil’. Truth is, there were many various different concepts that developed that could be deemed 'communistic'. It's the same with Religion, you can talk about for instance 'Christianity' but then within that you have various variations and adaptations of Christianity. Forms of communism were adopted in Spain in the 1930s which were highly effective, yet you don’t hear about it anywhere.

So when you talk to people and ask why they are against anything that could closely be related to communism, they go "oh but just look at Russia, and all those people that died it was a total failure, it’s never going to work". What is not being done is putting communism that took place in Russia (or what actually would be more correct is to say 'the communism that DIDN'T take place in Russia) into context.

What must be understood is that Communism as an idea and Communism as ‘what happened in Russia’ are two different things. You see, people were angry, people then had an idea and then they went into a Revolution to try and implement that idea. The thing is that once they were in power – they had no practical plan or way of implementing their idea in a way that would actually work. They had no knowledge of things like politics and economics and were completely inadequate and incompetent to actually run a country. So, they tried things out, it failed, they went into fear and established a form of authoritarianism and all in all the story did not have a happy ending.

To go back to the Christianity example – the way Communism is treated is the same way the Jesus message and Christianity is being treated today. We have what Jesus said, being one thing – as principles of ‘Love thy neighbour’ and ‘Give as you would like to receive’, which is very much a principle of Equality and Harmonious Living. And then you have Christianity in all its various ways as what is ‘supposedly the Jesus message’ – but when you look at what is actually being lived out, is a message of fear, hate and inequality. So just like ‘what Jesus said’ and what ‘Christianity does’ are two completely different things – you can’t say that ‘Communism as an idea’ and ‘How communism took place’ are the exact same thing.

If you look at what happened in Russia, this is exactly one of the reasons why we never promoted any type of ‘Revolution’ to bring about change within any of our proposals, because they are impulsive and short-sighted. So yes, communism in Russia failed because there was no practical common sense reasoning or research that had gone into what they were doing. And because they failed big time, communism now has forevermore been branded by the mark of the Devil, and we should fight it in any way we can.

So now, each time something comes up that even in the slightest way could disturb the way things currently are and can in the slightest way be interpreted as ‘communistic': fear rises and it gets boxed away. All communism has been reduced to in this day and age is a form of fear induced superstition to keep people from actually thinking for themselves, kind of the same way Parents will tell their children that the boogieman’s gonna come for them if they don’t eat their veggies. Come up with any idea that will bring about a change in the way the current system works and people will come at you with the big C-Word to scare you into shutting up and conforming.

It’s come to a point that anything that doesn’t fit and support the status quo is labelled ‘communism’ and ‘socialism’ and anything that does support the current system is called ‘democratic’ and ‘free’. It’s just a word used as one pleases – if you don’t like it, call it communistic – if you do like something, call it ‘democratic and free’. I mean, you can have two countries who both to some extent operate within a form of Nationalization – but depending on how much they threaten the status quo the one will be called Communistic and the other one won’t. It’s just a word of convenience. Take Chile for instance whose economy is based on the nationalization of copper, copper being one of their main exports. They nationalized it and they did it effectively – and yet Chile is not deemed communistic. In fact, the World Bank will tell you that they are very proud of Chile and that Chile is an example for other South American countries in terms of adopting the Free Market System. But if you’re a different country and you nationalize say your oil and you adopt policies that are unfavorable to the United States = now you’re communistic = You are evil, your president is the Devil, you must be stopped.

It should actually become a rule that you can’t use the word ‘Communism’ in any form of argument or way to make a point, because the word has gotten abused so much that it’s just a joke. If you can’t make a point without resorting to terms like Communism as a form of Propaganda to terrorize people, then you just shouldn’t bother.

Related articles

• Day 330: Inflated Egos, Deflate Reality.
• Day 252: The Rich Be Cursed, The Rich Be Blessed
• Day 226: Living Income Guaranteed will Prevent Destruction of Homes
• Day 246: Green Economics - the Newest Fad?
• Day 227: The Myth of Conscious Buying

Day 242: The EFF and Land Redistribution in South Africa

The EFF (Economic Freedom Fighters) in South Africa, under the leadership of Julius Malema, are placing some very cool points on their political manifesto. One of them is to nationalise resources, including financial intermediaries and the South African Reserve Bank. Reserve Banks being the institution that steers monetary policy in an economy should by principle be in the hands of the people and not an independent point where so-called experts apparently have the right to do what they think is best. Such points are too important to exclude from public decision-making.

Another point they insist on is the redistribution of land as land is so extremely skewly owned in SA at the moment as an outcome of colonisation and apartheid. To pretend that such huge disadvantage will simply 'fix itself' is delirious. Herein, the EFF wants a full audit to find out how much land is available and what it is being used for - where, land that is wasting away would be re-appropriated and put to proper use. Having this information mapped out would obviously be able to significantly speed up the process of equitable land distribution.

The problem comes in with the call to start occupying land as a statement of 'taking what's ours'.

"The position is that we are expropriating without compensation. We want that to be an act [of law], and before it becomes an act, our people should begin the process of occupying the land.”

Encouraging and enticing people to take the law in one's own hands will inevitably lead the country into disorder, chaos and conflict. Taking such route to increase the popularity vote without consideration for the repercussions is only a sign of immaturity and a lack of understanding of what true leadership entails. Within the international community no-one would take such leadership seriously as it undermines the very political and legal system that it is supposed to derive its legitimacy from.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/State-must-own-SA-Reserve-Bank-EFF-20130720

Related articles

• Day 340: The Common Law is Feudalism in Drags
• Day 232: Capitalism Caste System - Better than the Indian One?