The third flaw in the economic system

Over the last few days, Daily Pickings highlighted two of the fundamental flaws in the economic system, exclusive land ownership rights and interest on money. The third fundamental flaw is that the means to life is conditional on paid employment. The industrial revolution drove people from the land into factories, depriving them of the means to life provided by access to land.

As mechanisation and computerisation transformed productivity, full employment has become unnecessary, unachievable and undesirable, resulting in the creation of Bullsh*t Jobs. An unconditional citizens income would transform the power balance between employer and employee and liberate people to engage in politics and community activity, unfettered by the control imposed by forced employment.

CITIZEN'S INCOME TRUST provides lots of information on how an unconditional citizens income would work and its advantages. A basic income pilot scheme in India demonstrated how societies can be transformed by this simple measure.

The solutions to our problems are drawn from the lessons of history and based on principles established over a century ago but which vested interests suppressed with bogus economics created and controlled to serve the interests of the few. We now have the opportunity, given the will, to transform our civilisation.

New Model Charter

Comments   

 
0 #6 Clive Menzies 2014-04-28 21:33
Quoting Malcolm Ramsay:


That's all I'll say here. Let me know where I should send more information on my ideas.


Malcolm, your ideas sound interesting and not a million miles from where we've got to. Your use of the law as an approach is something we want to explore. see:
http://freecriticalthinking.org/new-economy/920-critical-thinking-milestone
You can email which will get to me.
Thanks for your interest.
 
 
0 #5 Malcolm Ramsay 2014-04-28 21:03
Quoting Clive Menzies :


Malcolm, This debate deserves more thorough analysis. Would it be possible for you to attend a Critical Thinking session in London one Tuesday evening? We could devote some time to exploring your ideas and look for common ground. If that's not possible, can you send a paper on your proposition?


Hi Clive

Thanks for the invitation. Unfortunately I live near Lincoln so I can't come to the meetings easily but I can certainly send something.

I've actually boiled it down to a single fundamental reform which would force a lot of specific issues onto the agenda, and which opponents would find it hard to argue against: I'm pushing for a requirement that laws be compatible, where possible, with uncontroversial legal and political principles (such as fairness and equality).

Last October I submitted a proposal to the Law Commission (who are just preparing a new programme of reform) calling for that, and wrote 16 pages on the most important issues which would come up if the reform were adopted, analysing the problems and suggesting reforms which would make those areas of law compatible with fundamental principles. Not surprisingly the Law Commission have turned it down (on the grounds that it would be a constitutional reform and it's therefore not within their remit to propose it to Parliament).

As it stands, what I wrote for the Law Commission probably wouldn't be suitable for this site (though I'd be happy to send you it if you're interested), but I could probably re-work it into three or four separate pieces (Inheritance law and land ownership; Land use and planning law; Taxation, money supply and subsidiarity; and strategy for bringing about reform).

The reforms I'm proposing are intended to be acceptabe to the people who recognise that the system is rotten but are afraid of change. For the most part they wouldn't change anything directly, they'd simply open the way to social transformation by allowing those who want to build an alternative to the existing system to do so.

That's all I'll say here. Let me know where I should send more information on my ideas.
 
 
0 #4 Clive Menzies 2014-04-28 13:56
Quoting Malcolm Ramsay:


I can't really see how this is a fundamental flaw because it's actually the result of the other two.

The two economic reforms I've been trying to push are a right to land (which initially involves reforming inheritance law) and a right to pay taxes in labour (which people have a natural capacity to supply) rather than in money (which they have to obtain from others who are able to withhold it). It seems to me that those two changes would, in principle, free people from the need for paid employment.

I also find the case for a Basic Income somewhat dubious because it imposes a one-sided obligation on society at large. I can see that it could have some merit as a way of mitigating the ill-effects of existing perverted economic structures, but it seems a poor substitute for establishing a sound economic foundation.

In my view a healthy society can only be based on individuals being responsible for their own subsistence and the focus should be on reforming the features of existing systems which make that impossible. The Basic Income initiative seems to me to be a distraction from that.


Malcolm, This debate deserves more thorough analysis. Would it be possible for you to attend a Critical Thinking session in London one Tuesday evening? We could devote some time to exploring your ideas and look for common ground. If that's not possible, can you send a paper on your proposition?
 
 
0 #3 Malcolm Ramsay 2014-04-28 12:58
"The third fundamental flaw is that the means to life is conditional on paid employment"

I can't really see how this is a fundamental flaw because it's actually the result of the other two.

The two economic reforms I've been trying to push are a right to land (which initially involves reforming inheritance law) and a right to pay taxes in labour (which people have a natural capacity to supply) rather than in money (which they have to obtain from others who are able to withhold it). It seems to me that those two changes would, in principle, free people from the need for paid employment.

I also find the case for a Basic Income somewhat dubious because it imposes a one-sided obligation on society at large. I can see that it could have some merit as a way of mitigating the ill-effects of existing perverted economic structures, but it seems a poor substitute for establishing a sound economic foundation.

In my view a healthy society can only be based on individuals being responsible for their own subsistence and the focus should be on reforming the features of existing systems which make that impossible. The Basic Income initiative seems to me to be a distraction from that.
 
 
0 #2 Clive Menzies 2014-04-23 16:50
Thanks Janos

Great presentations
 
 
0 #1 Janos Abel 2014-04-22 18:00
Here is a 30 minute youtube presentation from two of the founders of Basic Income Earth Network

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr8RZP9qkBg
 

Please register to post comments