Pessimist?

I recently started studying ‘Environmental Economics’, which basically deals with analysing and observing the impact the economy has on the environment and how we can find more effective ways to reduce negative impact for the sake of everyone’s health and the future of our planet and the generations to come.

In the book they started off with explaining how there are two views/stand points within environmental economics – where you have the ‘pessimist view’ and the ‘optimist view’.

Now, what does the pessimist view consist of? It basically says that we ought to get our shit together and start looking at new ways of dealing with production and our energy usage because we’re going to come to a point where our resources are going to run out, if not now then in future generations  - and then we’re going to be in big shit.

The ‘positive view’ takes the standing that we shouldn’t worry, and that if we leave everything to the market forces we will automatically adapt to scarcity and that somewhere in the future we will probably have technology to release us from the ‘scarcity of resources’ limitation.

What I find fascinating is how they could have possible named these two perspectives ‘pessimist’ and ‘optimist’. All the so called “pessimists” are stating, is the actual state of affairs that we’re faced with and taking into consideration the practical consequences of our actions. There’s nothing ‘pessimist’ about it – it should have been called the ‘realist’ point of view!  It might not be what everyone wants to hear, and it might not be a situation that we want to be in – but that is not the point.  It is what it is and just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean you should label it as ‘pessimist’. Or maybe it should have been labelled as the ‘optimist view’ as it’s the only view that will lead to a bright future.

And ‘optimist view’? More like ‘La-la-land view’. Basing a theory and perspective on a future that is completely uncertain is stupid and irresponsible. Instead of dealing with the problem it just gets shoved to ‘out there’ in ‘the future’, where market forces, future people and some other technology can deal with it (technology you’re not even sure is going to exist). It’s probably the same line of thinking people were used to a hundred years ago, which make US those future people, it makes US the ones who probably would have ‘invented new technology’ – the time is here, and we don’t have much more to waste!

The labelling of these views is absolutely ridiculous but nicely shows how one wants to ‘dress up’ the situation. Negative energy and vibes are BAD, we must focus on the POSITIVE things in Life!

It’s so easy to call someone a ‘pessimist’ and completely ignore their input, as if it’s just that they’re in a bad mood, they got up on the wrong side of the bed and if they just get a nice night’s rest they’ll be just fine the next day – ready to join the optimists again!

People just don’t seem to see and understand how our ‘positive views’ of valuing ‘liberty’, ‘free choice’ and ‘free will’ - is exactly that which creating the mess on Earth we so dearly want to ignore.

That’s why it is important to study the Desteni material and the Desteni message, so we can wake up and tear this veil of blind optimism away from our eyes – so we can actually see what is going on and thus see what it is that we practically have to do to ensure a bright and secure future for all.

Equal Money – it’s the only way.

Our Economic System – Doomed to Face a Crisis from the Start?

Note: all economic terms marked with an asterix* are explained at the end of this blog.

At the heart of economic theory and activity lies the dilemma of human ‘unlimited wants and needs’ and ‘scarcity of resources’. Within this, the economist concludes that decisions require to be made in terms of what resources will be allocated to what unlimited wants and needs.

From this, the supply* and demand* model is derived whereby the price of a good or services ‘decides’ whether one will be able to acquire these goods and services or not. (Whereby demand is defined within the context of having a want or need while having the financial means to back up one’s want/need – i.e. whether you have sufficient the money to purchase the particular good or service you want/need). This way, the economy can limit and control the amount of people who can have access to a particular good or service according to the ‘scarcity’ of what it is they want.

Let me illustrate with a diagram how the ‘forces’ of supply and demand interact with each other, which in turn determines the affordability (which in essence is the same as accessibility) to particular goods and services:

 On the vertical Axis we can read the possible prices at which bread can be sold, at $ per unit.

On the horizontal Axis we can read the amount of bread which can be demanded at any particular price.
The red line/curve represents the ‘Supply’, whereby one can distinguish at which price a particular amount of bread will be supplied: At $1.00, the supplier is willing to supply only 1 bread (The self-interest of the supplier lies within the price of a particular product as the supplier wants to be able to reap as much profit from selling a single unit – thus when something is considered to be ‘cheap’, the supplier is not motivated to produce/sell a great quantity of this product/service, as it is considered to be non-profitable, and he could be doing/selling something else which will reap more profit – this is known as ‘opportunity cost*’ within the world of economics), at $2.00, the supplier is willing to supply 2 Breads -- at $3.00, the supplier is willing to provide 3 Breads – and at $4.00, the supplier is willing to supply 4 Breads.
The blue line/curve represents the ‘Demand’, whereby one can distinguish how many breads the consumer will buy at a particular price: When a bread costs $4.00, only 1 bread is demanded (the self-interest of the demander/consumer also lies within the price, but at the opposite pole of the supplier – the consumer wants to be able to get as many possible products/services per unit of money he owns – thus the ‘cheaper’ something is, the more will be demanded (and also the more people who will be able to afford it), and the more ‘expensive’ things get, lesser quantity will be demanded.), at $3.00, 2 breads are demanded – at $2.00, 3 breads are demanded – and at $1.00, 4 breads are demanded.
Where the demand and supply curve meet (the cross in the centre, indicated with the light blue dot) – is what is referred as the ‘equilibrium*’.  At this particular price (in this case $2.50) all the goods/services in question will be met with an equal amount of quantity demanded (in this case 2.5 breads) which implies that all the goods will be sold – there is no ‘excess supply*’, there is no ‘shortage in supply*’, there is no ‘excess demand*’ and also no ‘shortage in demand*’). This ‘equilibrium’ point will then be the point to which prices will be set.

From my perspective however, this is an unacceptable model to lead one’s economy by. Using the ‘Demand and Supply’ model – there will always be winners, and thus there will always be losers. There will always be people without access to resources, simply because they don’t have the money to do so. If we go back to the diagram, we indicate it as following:

Anyone with the a financial capacity which is unable to reach $2.50 for 2.5 loaves of bread (indicated by the grey area in the diagram) simply gets ‘eliminated’ and ‘removed’ from the Supply and Demand framework as their want/need now no longer falls within the category of ‘demand’. The system will not provide for these people – and this is how the economy manages and distributes its resources as a solution to everyone’s ‘unlimited wants and needs’ in the face of ‘limited resources’.

You see, the problem lies within the premise itself (people have unlimited wants and needs, but there are only so many available resources – what goes where/who gets what?). The economist immediately jumps to making a plan in alignment with this premise, where the only possible outcome is to satisfy ‘some’ beings their wants and needs, while keeping others from getting the same resources to satisfy their wants and needs -- whilst providing a ‘mathematical system’ to justify why resources are distributed in this particular manner (Supply and Demand).

Instead of just ‘going along’ with the statement and ‘trying to make it work’, they should have looked at the implications of the statement itself, and decide whether this statement in itself is an acceptable basis to build an economic system upon.

If we have a closer look at the statement (here it is again:)

“people have unlimited wants and needs, but there are only so many available resources – what goes where/who gets what?”

we are able to translate this statement into an equation, whereby we are trying to satisfy infinity (∞) with something which is finite (x) – this in itself is simply impossible. So why even try and make it work if you know that it is never going to be able to. Instead of conjuring up a ‘Supply and Demand’ system to manage this equation which is inherently out of balance, they should have changed the very equation itself before constructing a system of distribution based on something unmanageable.

What they ought to have done, is look at the variable of ‘unlimited wants and needs’ and firstly separate them into two separate components (instead of giving both equal value).
Once we distinguish between wants and needs, we can recognize that needs (unlike wants) are actually quite limited and defined. Needs include things we can name such as: housing, food, clothing, security, – etc. There is a limit to what can be defined as a ‘need’ whereby everything placed under the heading of ‘need’ is directly related to the achievability of a life of sustenance. In essence, the first system of distribution that should have been designed should have pertained to the satisfaction of everyone’s basic needs. Once the needs are sorted out, can one look at designing a system pertaining people’s wants.

Currently the system of Supply and Demand is the embodiment of ‘irresponsibility’ – because it decides to spent precious resources on people’s wants, knowing that this cannot be sustained, knowing that needs are not considered if it is not a ‘demand’.

It is fundamentally a system of discrimination between those who have money and those who have not (or very little). In my next blog I will be going deeper into this discrimination point and on what principles it was found, and how it currently is still being justified.

Glossary:

Supply: The supply of a product is the amount of the product that producers are willing and able to offer for sale at a certain price.

Law of Supply:
The law of supply states that if nothing else changes, suppliers will supply more goods and services to the market when these goods and services have higher prices, and will supply less if these goods and services have lower prices.

Demand:
A demand for a product or service exists when people want to buy it and also can buy it, in other words if they have the financial means for it (can afford it).

Law of Demand:
The law of demand states that, if nothing else changes, people will buy more of a product when the price of the product decreases, and will buy less of the product when the price of the product increases.

Excess Demand / Shortage of Supply:
This occurs when the quantity demanded of a good is greater than the quantity supplied of a good at that particular price.

Shortage of Demand / Excess Supply:

This occurs when the quantity supplied of a good is greater than the quantity demanded of a good at that particular price.

Opportunity Cost:
This is the cost of something you have to give up to get something else, that is, the value of alternative opportunities that have been given up.

Equilibrium:
The price at which the quantity demanded equals the quantity supplied.

What will happen to electricity bills and all monthly bills? -- FAQ

There will be no bills as everyone will simply have unconditional access to resources such as energy, water, etc. There will however within the distribution of the resources be a monitoring system that measures how much you use of your resources to identify cases of abuse where intervention is necessary – but bills as such will no longer have to be part of the system.

For more information on the Equal Money System and other frequently asked questions check out the following compilation:

The Need to Cheat

Throughout my research on the Monetary System and studying economy, I’ve observed a fascinating pattern that humans seem to not be able to stay away from, which is: The Need to Cheat.

Whenever a system is working fine and everything is operational, there is always someone, someone who wants to deviate from the system and the rules of the game to make things ‘go faster’, ‘better’ and ‘for him only’. Like for instance the goldsmith who realised no one ever comes and claims all their gold at the same time and then invented the beginning of fractional reserve banking. Then, by the time everyone realises what happens, the whole system has become dependent on this ‘cheat’ to make things ‘better’ – and ends up legalizing it and even make it a custom.

Throughout my economy textbook there’s been so many moments where I go “they did it again!” where someone wants to make things go faster and wants to make more money and “cheats” the system. The thing with these ‘cheats’ is that they always only work for one person or one party only, while creating a polarity situation for the rest where they are off more miserably than before.

All these little ‘cheats’ then accumulate within the system, and overtime you have a giant monster of a system that is actually completely dysfunctional in nature due to all these cheats that have been implemented and accumulated. But obviously those in power do not want to put an end to this unsustainable and dysfunctional system that is bound to just explode into a million pieces, because they are the ones benefitting, they are the cheaters.
From the very first moment someone started with the first cheat, the whole system was bound to doom, because there was no more equality, no more balance within the equation. Instead it’s just a giant monster machine with a black hole in the centre that just sucks everything up into nothingness.

(What’s even more disgusting is that so many Western elitists currently and throughout histoy really get off on being able to cheat and “outsmart” everyone with their clever way of doing things and making money – as if this makes them someone better and superior than everyone else, while all they are doing is just showing what lowlifes they are with no sense of integrity or respect for anyone else.)

What does this imply? It implies that the end of the system was already placed a long time ago, and that no matter what happens, our current monetary system will end – there’s just no fixing it.
The only “choice” that we have in the matter is where we will take up our destiny in our own hands and stop this monster – or wait for the monster to finish us first before we come to the point of “enough” and think about implementing a change.

(It also means we gotta stop cheating in the name of our selfishness and greed and start acting from the principle of What is Best for All – anything else will just be another road to digging our own grave)

Don’t wait, be the change – EqualMoney.org

The Scarcity Fallacy

One of the main points that makes people 'back off' from hearing and being interested in an Equal Money System is the concept of scarcity. For some reason people think that because we speak of Equal Money that we hold the illusion that our resources are not limited/scarce.

What is actually happening in people's minds is that they've made an incorrect connection between scarcity and limitation. This connection has been quite cleverly placed by the way economists and the media write about resources. They will deliberately use the term 'scarce resources' and 'limited resources' interchangeably as if they mean the exact same thing – while they don’t – imprinting a false image of world affairs.

‘Scarce resources’ has got a connotation of there being a ‘shortage’ of a particular resource.

‘Limited resource’ simply means that the resources are not infinite.

The catch here is that now people immediately assume that because something is limited, that it therefore necessarily is scarce and that there is a ‘lack’ involved. This is however an incorrect presupposition as something that is ‘limited’ does not necessarily imply a shortage – something can be limited but still be ‘enough’ or be present in abundance.

This is how the current Capitalistic System is being justified, where inequality is simply ‘inevitable’ due to our “scarce resources”.

However, if we have a look around, we can observe a world of decadence where things such as golden toilet seats, diamond padded vacuum cleaners, decadent houses, cars – etc. exist. And another world where a few billion people are living in a chronic state of poverty and starvation.

Walk into any mall or shopping centre and see how many totally completely useless products get produced in the name of profit and capitalism. If we live in a world where resources are scarce – is it not simply irresponsible to spend our majority of resource on these products which are not necessary for our subsistence, but only here for our entertainment?

Be responsible, Educate Yourself – Investigate Equal Money

The Principle of Economy... Or what it Ought to Be

The other day I was watching one of the DVD’s that goes with my Economy module for this Semester and an interesting point opened up.

The guy in the video was explaining how the ‘basic’ Principle of Economy in essence works with three point:

1.     We have a certain amount of limited resources.

2.     There’s a certain amount of Beings that require these resources

3.     How do we get those resources to those Beings?

But now the interesting thing is that in real life this is not really how it works.
Instead it follows the following Principe:

1.     We have a certain amount of limited resources

2.     There’s a certain amount of Beings that require these resources

3.     Not everyone can pay for these resources

4.     How do we get the resources to the people that can pay for the resources

So – we’re not looking at basic common sense practicality where you know if a child were to set up an economy it would look at “okay how much is there of this, there’s so many that need it, how do I get to there’. That seems to be the most simply way of dealing with the situation.

Though in reality this is not how it is applied . No, instead we’re playing a game of win and lose where if you have money you are part of the winners and if you have none well then you’re not even a loser, you don’t even have the privilege to ‘play’ the game.

So how did it get this far that we allow basic points such as the allocation of basic resources that everyone needs be directed by only money. Why does money decide where what goes? Why can’t we just decide from a starting point of Common Sense and what is best for all?

Obviously the solution is already outlined in the initial principle mentioned – but since we are in a current World System that works with Money to move every single point – the only possible way to correct this “mistake” is to give everyone Equal Money! Because – if everyone has Equal Money then everyone can access the Basic Resources = Problem solved!

Also – if we have a look at the current System and what our “limited resources” are being used for = it’s a whole lot of bunch of CRAP: technology with an expiry date, shoes that fall apart in a matter of months, clothes that look pretty but require a manual for you to know how to put it on, make up, shampoo, food that is not food – basically most of the things that you see in your everyday mall are products of consumerism that support the profit making money game. They have no other practical use whatsoever.

So instead of moaning about ‘our limited resources’ and ‘we’re gonna have to up the prices, because the resources are getting more scarce’ – we should have a look at what we are spending our precious resources on and if it is really worth it. Because if I look at all the crap in this world that is being produced – 98% is all just for profit – where foods are being produced in masses and get thrown away, where there’s hundreds and thousands of designs and brands for a single object, just so you can have your ‘choice’. It’s too much and we don’t need it.

So Imagine in an Equal Money System, where we stop wasting our resources on useless crap – just imagine what is possible and what future we can secure for those still to come.

Support Effective Use of Resources - Support an Equal Money System!