Economist's Journey to Life: social dividends

Showing posts with label social dividends. Show all posts

Friday, 13 December 2013

Day 255: How will Companies be Nationalized and What does it Mean? LIG

How will companies be nationalized and do you foresee any resistance?

Within LIG, nationalized companies would not be owned by the government – they would be owned by each person of the population directly. One of the great down-sides of nationalizing companies as how it has been done in the past, is that the government owns the companies, and thus – the companies are managed in a way to benefit the government, often creating inefficiencies due to corruption and fraud. With LIG – the government would be the vehicle to transfer the company from the private to the public sector – but the company would not be owned by the government, where the government then supposedly runs the companies ‘on behalf of’ and ‘in the interest of’ the people. No – each citizen would become a shareholder of the company and have the ability to perform their shareholder duties. The Liquid Democracy platform would herein be beneficial to allow such large numbers of people to participate in events such as annual shareholder meetings.

In terms of the process of nationalization – herein the laws of a specific country must be consulted. In countries where nationalization occurs through providing compensation to the current business-owners, we suggest this would be the last investment for which personal income taxes would be required. The government would then purchase the companies on behalf of the people, however still with taxpayers’ money – which implies the company belongs directly to the people.

What does it mean in effect that a person owns an equal share in a country's national companies?

We suggest that every citizen becomes shareholder of those companies that are nationalized as part of a nation’s national heritage. In being a shareholder, each citizen owns an equal part of the company and hence:
-    Each citizen has an equal vote in important decisions, such as nominating directors.
-     Management and daily operations are likely to remain as they are.
-    The companies and their management are directly accountable to every citizen.
-    Citizens can submit shareholder resolutions.
-    The companies serve the interest of the shareholders, which means: they serve the population as a whole.
-    Government officials play no privileged role in the management of the nationalized companies – they are citizens and thus their role equals that of every other citizen.

In terms of receiving dividends, every citizen has a right to receive a Living Income Guaranteed, funded by the profits of the nationalized companies, when they have no other means of supporting themselves (as determined by the particular means-test of the country).

So the share-income from National companies does not work as stock dividends do in today's world, if those who have sufficient means to support themselves have their Shares but don't get LIG?

Correct.

Thursday, 20 June 2013

Day 234: Living Income to Cure the World of Crime

One of the objections that has been raised against implementing a Living Income Guaranteed to ensure that every person is secured with the means to support themselves - is that: one would be rewarding individuals without them doing any effort to create a better life for themselves - and so - implicitly, one is rewarding laziness.

This objection obviously does not consider the reality of the economic system we currently live in - where, motivation and one's best efforts are simply not enough to 'make it', let alone make a decent living for oneself and one's family. Those perceptions come from When the economy is in such a state as it is now - then, regardless of one's best intentions and efforts, one can remain stuck in a life of poverty and deprivation, simply because there are no sufficient jobs through which to earn money. Or, one could get a different degree to be able to have access to a particular job market - but this also implies that one requires to already have some sort of income to fund the studies. One can also not start one's own business, because that requires a starting capital.

So - what options are left? What are we encouraging when we say to a person with no means to support themselves that they are on their own and that they must devise their own way to make a living? Well - we are basically suggesting that they should become criminals. That is the one option they have available. And when the economy worsens and less jobs are created, more turn to crime - and when crime increases the economy suffers even more because no-one wants to invest in a country where the law is not enforced, because then there is no guarantee that the investors' interests will be looked after from a legal standpoint.

No - motivation is certainly not enough to make a decent living for oneself. But there is one thing - and if one possesses this one thing - a world of opportunity and possibility suddenly stretches out before one's feet. And that one thing is: MONEY. It only takes money to be able to feed oneself. It only takes money to be able to clothe oneself. It only takes money to be able to educate oneself. It only takes money to make the difference between disgrace and dignity.

Capitalism is a system of incentives and the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed for all those who find themselves without a job - would be the perfect way to discourage crime - or otherwise, to stop encouraging criminal behavior. Because it is easy to say that those with nothing must just do some effort to improve their lives - but if we'd be in their shoes - having to provide not only for oneself, but a family too - with no support system to fall back on - what would you do? Would you sit at home watching your family suffer, or would you do whatever you can - even if it means stealing and robbing and conning - or making a deal with the 'wrong kind of people' where you get dragged into situations you never thought you would find yourself in - but what choice is there, there are mouths to feed, bills and rent to pay. How can we even call such people criminals? Wouldn't it be criminal to in those instances obey the law and not take one's responsibility within taking care of those around us? Then - isn't it criminal to allow a system where individuals are placed in a position where they have no means to adequately support their families within the boundaries of the law?

We're the criminals here because we make laws and follow economic rules without any consideration of what the reality, consequences and implications of these decisions entail.

We are the people and in any democracy - it is the people who are supposed to rule. And if that is not happening - then that is not the fault of those in power or of the corporations or anyone else's - but OURS - THE PEOPLE. Any democratic dispensation places the responsibility of what is allowed to happen in a country squarely on each and every single citizen's shoulders. So - be a citizen and take your responsibility - become politically involved so that you can stop the REAL crime that is being allowed. To create a crime-free and peaceful society - you're going to have to do something - and that is one simple thing: To give to another what you would want to receive if you were in their shoes. And this can at the moment practically be done through the implementation of Living Income. It is a workable proposal. It is a dignified proposal.

So - join the political party in your country that supports a Living Income or form your own - the time to act is here, nagging is just a waste of your breath.

Thursday, 13 June 2013

Day 232: Putting Economic Theory into Practice with Living Income Guaranteed

Living Income Guaranteed as the Capitalist’s Answer to a Healthy and Wealthy Economy

Any economist is familiar with Keynes and the Keynesian economic model of a demand-driven economy. Keynes understood that money requires to move for an economy to thrive, in the same way that blood must flow for a body to be healthy.

An economy can be broken down into three basic flows: Spending, production and income – spending requires to happen for companies to be able to produce goods – the production of these goods then provides income to the employees of the companies that produced them. There is thus an undeniable link between spending and income. When too few people have adequate income, or when income is too low – too little is spent, too little is produced – and income reduces even more.

The ideal way to ensure spending is therefore to secure everyone with an Income.

Furthermore – capitalism can only work if Equal Opportunity of Participation exists. Unless Equal Opportunity exists, capitalism becomes a system of exclusion and deprivation – because Capitalism only ensures efficient production and distribution of resources for those with an income. Therefore – to prevent Capitalism from becoming a weapon, but instead, an actual management system as how it was intended to be – each individual should have a guaranteed income.

Furthermore – an economy will not only thrive through money movement, BIG pilot projects have shown that more children attend school, and thus, one will have a more qualified labor force in the future – increasing the intellectual capital in an economy.

A Guaranteed Living Income is a Human Right

Regardless of the economic arguments, guaranteed income is a basic human right. To speak of Basic Human Rights without securing the means through which to benefit from these rights, is useless.

The Equal Life Foundation therefore suggest that the Living Income one receives should be sufficient to be able to enjoy one’s Basic Human Rights, and thus, large enough for individuals and families to live a decent human life – meaning: one can live off a Living Income Guaranteed with dignity. This implies the ability to pay for one’s basic needs such as electricity, water, food and clothing – but also extends to the means to participate in our current society and thus includes things such as a car, a phone/cell phone and internet access.

Social Dividends

To fund a Living Income Guaranteed – a system of social dividends is ideal. In every country there are those goods and services that are vital for the basic well-being of the citizens of that country. Examples are basic resources such as water, electricity, raw materials, transportation and media. Such goods and services do not belong in private hands – but belong to each individual of the nation. Therefore – every citizen should be a shareholder of every company involved in the production of such goods and services.

This is not a new idea – as early as 1935, G.D.H. Cole, wrote the following:

“How will ... incomes be distributed? There are two possible ways - payments for work done, and 'doles', or, to give them a less coloured name, 'social dividends'. I believe the system of distribution will be a combination of these two, but a very different combination from that which now exists. ... There will remain, broadly, two sources of income - work and citizenship. Incomes will be distributed partly as rewards for work, and partly as direct payments from the State to every citizen as 'social dividends' - a recognition of each citizen's claim as a consumer to share in the common heritage of productive power.” (Cole 1935, pp. 234-235)

The dividends one receives from the profits of these nationally owned companies then form the Living Income Guaranteed. With each one being a shareholder, each one immediately also has an equal say in the activities of such companies – which is an application of direct democracy in the areas of life that are most important, which again solidifies and protects each one’s Basic Human Rights.

Incentive to Work

The inevitable question then comes up: If everyone receives an income that covers one’s needs – who will be willing to work?

This is where the Equal Life Foundation suggests an interesting solution. To provide incentive – the minimum wage should be double the Living Income. This means that anyone who has a job can not only fulfill one’s needs, but can enhance one’s quality of life through acquiring luxury items that would not be available on a Living Income budget. One can then afford a bigger house, a larger family, a second car, a bigger garden, more exotic and fulfilling holiday destinations, subscriptions to sports clubs and other leisure organizations, and so on and so forth.

Consequentially - as soon as one has a job – and thus, receives a wage that is at least double the income one would have earned from social dividends – one’s right to the Living Income Guaranteed falls away – simply because one doesn’t require it anymore. The social dividends system then functions as a National Insurance system – combining unemployment fund, life insurance and retirement funds all in one – where, one receives a pay-out based on the applicability to one’ situation.