Even the Rich Can Enjoy Capitalism with a Basic Income


Even many within the 1% should be willing to accept capitalism that involves a basic income where there is no poverty, and people compete for relative rather than absolute wealth.

Why would some people who have so much money under the current system prefer a system where they are still well off, but have less (in absolute terms)?  Because their relative rank would go up (in terms of wealth/recognition etc.)

Redeeming personality-types are found in all fields and sectors of society as are sinister personality-types.  Some genuinely kind-hearted people do find their way into realms of affluence.

They have a lot under the current system, but what they don’t realize is they would have MORE under a system where there is LESS inequality.  In a less oppressive society where there is no poverty (and only minor inequality,) there is greater truth.  Greater truth only threatens sinister personality-types that hurt others to get ahead in society.  Someone like Oprah would also be successful in a world without poverty.  However, many people who did questionable things to become richer than her might have a much harder time doing so in a humane society.  Thus, her relative rank goes up.

And it’s not just about wealth either.  In a world of zero poverty and genuine honesty, more compassionate human beings receive greater recognition and are actually less inhibited in their service to humanity.

Nobody’s perfect.  I feel Oprah has promoted excessive materialism and a very specious form of spirituality (i.e. colourful, but empty.)  I don’t like how she lauds the United States, describing it as “the greatest country in the world,” as if the ascendancy of Rome should eclipse the ruthlessness of its empire.

Having said that, I do think she is somebody who genuinely wants to alleve human suffering.  Leading up to the Iraq war, she did have a show that expressed her distaste of violence over peace.  However, it was met with the typical hysterical ultra-nationalism that applauds itself in suppressing any criticism or dissent.

So many of us have so much to say but can’t because there is no platform where such words are considered acceptable without sinister personalities taking advantage of the convenience of oppressing on behalf of (arbitrarily accepted) intellectual authorities.  Zero poverty allows truly resilient personalities to survive long enough to defend truth.

The more genuine characters within the 1% actually advance in terms of relative wealth/recognition in a society where there is no poverty at all.  Thus, there is some impetus for the rich to favour their wealth being redistributed fairly and properly (especially since the idea of property was arbitrary and anti-democratic to begin with.)

Ending poverty is also just the right thing to do and success within a system that is fundamentally elitist/oppressive is like being a major success in North Korea—is that really something we applaud?

Keeping the eco…


Keeping the economy afloat is not actually an objective or something worth applauding within itself. We need to start asking: “What direction should humanity be heading? What should we as people be trying to achieve?”

“A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem.”

― Albert Einstein

A Challenge to the Economists


I would challenge any economist, economics professor, or economics student to take a look at my model for High-Efficiency Capitalism and tell me it is not superior to current models associated with traditional capitalism.  I think the models for traditional capitalism are inherently flawed.  For example, I think Adam Smith’s model has inherent problems within it and he identified some of these himself in “The Wealth of Nations.” On top of this, the American system goes even further beyond these flawed models and has resulted in a lumbering hodgepodge of broken economics and inefficiency.

High-Efficiency Capitalism:
A New Economic Model for a New Age
Raymond Li BSc Pharm

High-Efficiency Capitalism is a simple concept. The first principle is that the basic necessities of life are guaranteed: food, shelter, water, electricity, and health. People will work hard just to do better than others on relative terms.

This economic model is far superior to either pure socialism or pure capitalism alone for various reasons. It is also not so much a compromise between the two as much as it is both systems at the same time.

1) Ethical Reasons:
a) It is frankly not ethical for people to be homeless and starving when society is able to provide for them.
b) No matter how wicked people are, as human organisms we all deserve the basic necessities of life.

2) Efficiency Reasons:
c) People want job security and even more decent individuals will block progress in technology and other sectors in order to maintain job security. For example, if I am a receptionist I might block phone automation in order to keep my job. If I was confident the basics of life were still guaranteed, I would allow this automation to occur. I could then live off the system until I find a new job. In our society today, jobs require far greater training and are far more standardized than in the past. Thus, there needs to be sufficient time for people to transition from one job to another.
d) Allowing greater automation and for people to transition to areas they are actually needed is far better for the economy overall.
e) People naturally want to work, to feel they are making a difference in the community, to feel they are useful, to look like they are not lazy, to look healthy, to be doing well relative to their peers and people in the community, to keep ahead or keep up with the group etc. All of these factors will drive people not only to work, but to do that which is actually of maximum value to society.
f) On top of this, people will work to have luxuries. Video games, jewellery, and fancy cars are not things the state will be providing for under this economic model.  Market forces are still considered valuable to set prices for these non-essential commodities.
g) Competition can be of value when not overdone. When children play soccer, the competition drives them to do better; but no matter how poorly a child performs, they are still fed at the end of the day and still get to sleep indoors.
h) It frankly isn’t worth it to maintain a level of poverty in order to punish the lazy. Society hurts itself far more than it helps itself in the long run.

3) General Knowledge:
i) Ayn Rand only argued for individualism and detested weakness in men because she herself is incapable of standing alone and these views allowed her to find a stronger mating partner. Women such as Dickinson and Bronte who did not detest the weak to indulge the strong should be the true heroines among feminists.
j) Nobody argues for traditional capitalism with the intent of making the world a better place. People only argue for traditional capitalism because it is the ideology of the strong. Those who argue for traditional capitalism do so out of purely selfish pathology. Selfish individuals such as these still have a place in the economic model of High-Efficiency Capitalism because it is assumed that selfish individuals will still work hard to benefit themselves.

Read More…

The Daily Servant of Power


Today’s servant of power is:

Alan Greenspan

If it’s true that he recommended keeping a baseline level of poverty to create worker insecurity to “stimulate” the economy, then he has already destroyed one of the fundamental tenets used to justify capitalism.  Capitalism is supposed to raise people out of poverty and result in everyone having more.  It inherently cannot do that if a baseline level of poverty is maintained.

Again, people like Greenspan couldn’t care less about the public.  He is there to maintain a ‘mindless-consumption’-economy that is “properly” under the control of the business élite and nothing more.

Those who are willing to create an environment of financial insecurity for those at the lower levels of the economic ladder ensure that they never have to experience that anxiety themselves.

via Shambhala

People like Greenspan, to me, represent a branch of finance and economics I like to refer to as “A-hole economics.”

Job Creation, Job Creation, Job Creation…


I’m seriously so sick and tired of politicians solely using job creation as their platform.

Just provide the basic universal income or the basics of life already.  They are using every single excuse in the book to keep people under the hand of employers and corporations.  They don’t want to say anything that will hurt their standing with the business elite.

They want to pretend they care about the public by saying “we will help get you employed,” rather than just providing the basic necessities of life which are long overdue.

It’s ‘the people’ that are supposed to command the country and demand what they want.  The refusal to allow for basic income results from elites of different sectors boycotting the will of the public and pretending that they need to be a filter to stop the public from hurting themselves.  They clearly do not care about the public so what do they care if the public hurts themselves or not?