Monthly Archives: January 2018

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS OUR HISTORY AN ADEQUATE GUIDE TO OUR PRESENT-DAY CIRCUMSTANCES.  

30 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

( A Ten-minute read)

We all know that the world’s problems are complex, but what in the first place is it exactly that makes a problem complex when the solution is known.

You could say there are many reasons, and you would be right.

The problem is ignored, misunderstood, tampered with, to complex to understand etc,

So is it that our history is now so complicated that it cannot teach us anything.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of complexity"

Indeed understanding complexity an inconvenient oxymoron.

The word itself is generally used to characterize something with many parts where these parts interact with each other. It is difficult to understand the whole without understanding the motion/behaviour of every single one of the components.

I suppose in the end the complex thing about complexity is it is constantly in competition with other complex systems.

Complexity breed complexity.

We see and witness this every day with Capitalism versus the core values of life, none more so than with Climate Change and Poverty that are interconnected to all the woes of our world.

The climate is probably the most complicated system in the world and maybe only a fraction of the many problems that we face in the world,  but no matter how you look at it, the climate has plague human civilisation and is entrenched throughout human history.

The problem is that all of us take it for granted and have little understanding of its effects other than it governs all of us for better or worse.

Ignore it at your peril.

So will Social media change the course of history?  Will it make the world a better place? Can it force all of us to realise that if we want a world we must as a unity world address what is becoming more and more evident day by day that if we continue to ignore the scientific warnings we are heading for a world that will not be livable on for and species, man or mouse?

It has the power to do so, but only if it expresses the majority in a unified outcry.

Two hundred or so years ago we had Slavery. These days you would say that it is all but eradicated.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "world environment day pictures"

Today we are causing inescapable devastating changes to the ecology of the earth.

Let’s awaken our conscience. With every passing year, the environment is getting degraded.

In the foreseeable future.

Scientists have estimated that over two-thirds of flora and fauna that once inhabited the Earth are now extinct.

However, we all know the problems that climate change will bring and once started will be unstoppable for all intuitive purposes other than building defences and moving.

There will be little or no point in saving National Parks with Elephants, Tiger, Silverback Apes unless we save the termite, the ant, the butterfly, the trees, the plants unless we save the environment as a whole.

Everything is interconnected – especially the environment which is connected to all forms of HUMAN LIFE, RICH OR POOR, INTELLIGENT OR IGNORANT, VIRTUAL OR  REAL.

Unfortunately for the planet ( On which all life exists, ) we are the only species with the ability to effect change. All others are only interested in their own existence.

Our present dilemma is the lack of Collectivism driven by the Smartphone and Algorithms. Both technologies are concealed from us the truth, creating a sea of irrelevance, with a captured Culture of short-term Pleasure.

We are becoming oppressed by data. A society drugging ourselves.

In 20/25 years we are going to see a major change due to climate change which will be swift and big. There will be no room for I am all right Jack politics of the Donald Trumps of this world.

Something is rotten in the state of technology where there is little social conscience.  Fake news and disinformation are just a few of the symptoms. But the problem is far more fundamental. These powerful algorithmic engines that run platforms are black boxes of profit.

The great lie is that social media shows us the world. Brings us closer together. Little wonder that lies spread, and inflates, to pickle our minds and our own prejudices.

Facebook, Google, Twitter, strap us into a single-seated algorithms theatre without any windows or doors. It is an infinite blend of your personal likes and dislikes scraped off the internet.

How will we be able to measure the impact of the above?

Google is more powerful than most states on the planet presenting a threat to liberal democracy in as far as the preservation of the rights of the individual’s data is the property of private corporations or the state.

No one should now douth that these platforms impact and shape public discourse, and shape society at large, distracting attention away from of core values TOWARDS social INSTABILITY.

Facebook and Google, Apple, U Tube, and their like are powerful monopolies almost void of any regulation.

Algorithmic accountability should not mean that a critical mass of human suffering is needed to reverse the damage they are inflicting on us and the generations to come.

It will be too late to measure their impact, except when we feel its harms.

With climate change, there will no gradually decay.

The Paris Climate Change Agreement is not an inspirational rallying cry or a recipe for bold action. It serves better as the motto for the tortoise than the hare.

It appears at this moment in history as in the past centuries that we humans do have not the ability to turn long-term thinking into action without creating a war.

There will be no solution till we give Eco Systems a Monetary and Rights value.

Shallow Paris Climate agreement promises are already worthless.

Why?

Because without removing or at least making the one thing that is driving Climate change and poverty – Greed to pay there will be no marked improvement in any future or present world problems.

We can all wail like I am doing here till the cows come home.

Without independent financial clout to effect change, we are pissing against the wind. ( See previous posts)

The solution to climate change and poverty is not just money.

Free energy would go a long way to saving the environment.

A basic wage, generated from greed/ profit for profit sake, would reduce the inequalities of the world and have a profound effect on the climate.

Both are a simple solution to a complex world problem.

It is Crystal Clear that if we do not do something to protect the Enviorment we all Fucked.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. SHOULD THE EU GRANT A TRANSITION PERIOD TO THE UK

27 Saturday Jan 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

 

( A one-minute read) Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the uk eu negotiations"

UK government wants the EU to give it a transition period even if talks on the future relationship break down.

Britain and the EU will have to overcome some key sticking points regarding transition before they can move onto the question of the future relationship.

The question is can you have one foot in the door and the other outside.

All logic tells one that this is not possible.

What is possible is that any final agreement carries a watertight moratorium granting a suitable implementation period of let’s say two or three years.

Such a moratorium would allow the dust to settle while ensuring that the final agreement is not watered down.

It would save taxpayer on both sides unnecessary further costs due to changing circumstances on both sides.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WITH SO MANY WARS IN THE WORLD WHY IS ENGLAND TURNING ITS BACK ON THE ASPIRATION OF A UNITED PEACEFUL EUROPE. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY CURRENT WARS WE HAVE IN THE WORLD.

25 Thursday Jan 2018

Posted by in War.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

( A Fifteen Minute read)

As you read this, there are more than 40 conflicts unfolding in countries around the world. You could not be blamed for thinking that most of the world is in conflict.

They all seem to overflow into one great swam of human misery that occupy our News on a daily basis.

These days wars are more to do with identity based in historical, geographical, political, social, cultural and economic realities.

The EU endeavors to appease these differences, however the European Community needs to stop worry about protecting yesterday’s accomplishments rather than facing tomorrow’s challenges.

THIS IS HIGHLIGHTED BY ENGLAND PENDING DEPARTURE LEADING TO THE   QUESTION:

DOES A DEFINABLE, IF NASCENT EUROPEAN IDENTITY EXIST OR IS IT LIKE ALL OTHERS.

It should come as no great surprise that most EU citizens regard themselves as belonging within a number of culturally defined groups and do not normally feel that these overlapping identities are incompatible. 

As we are now witnessing with England’s departure and the divide between northern Europe and the Southern Europe.

The critical moments that lead to war are those when one or more identities take precedence over the others. So the objective of the EU must be to reach a stage at which regional, national, European and other identities are regarded as compatible rather than competitive.

This stage has not yet been reached and it may be argued that reaching this plateau is the major challenge which the Union faces in the next century.

It is extremely difficult to construct a European cultural project which embraces both the differences in European cultures and their common roots but in a world now driven more and more by technology that must be the objective, not isolation. 

Europe is by far the most peaceful region in the world. Yet the continent is not immune to war – Britain, France, Belgium and others are heavily involved in external conflict in the Middle East, and face a growing threat to peace from international terrorism.

It is not inevitable that the logic of unity and interdependence will prevail and there is a consequent danger of a return to a dangerously fragmented Europe with potentially devastating consequences.

So given all the dire warnings from either side about the security of Europe if Britain leaves the EU, does the IEP foresee a change in the region’s fortunes in the event of Brexit?

In the short-term it’s unlikely to have an effect.

The longer-term ramifications, more for Britain than for [the rest of] Europe, would probably depend on what the economic outcome of a British exit would be. If there’s a further deterioration in the economy in England we may well witness an increase in violence.

This is a country that is full of places of worship that are thronged with glorification of war, saturated with historical blood, building two new aircraft carriers, while its people are on trolleys in hospitals.

Leaving the EU for all the wrong reasons, expecting to retain all the advantages of being in the EU but none of the responsibilities and costs.

A self-inflicted position.

At the moment they have the best trade deal possible – the best one imaginable – which is a customs union and access to the European Single Market and the European Economic Area.

The sites covers every ongoing conflict around the world, from Colombia to the Ogaden, from Kashmir to Western Sahara. Pictured, North Korean soldiers march and shout slogans during a military parade marking the 105th birth anniversary of country's founding father, Kim Il Sung in Pyongyang, North Korea April 15, 2017.

We are now further away from world peace than at any time in the past 10 years – and it’s creating a global ‘peace inequality’ gap.

There are now just 10 countries which can be considered truly at peace – in other words, not engaged in any conflicts either internally or externally, completely free from conflict.

The lack of a solution to the refugee crisis and an increase in deaths from major terrorist incidents have all contributed to the world being less peaceful in 2016.

Many of the conflicts  don’t get the media or policy attention of the wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan or Ukraine, and they may not have the same geopolitical or economic importance.

All wars need arms so who is supplying the arms:

Fueling the deadly conflicts for profit.

War kills. And war sells.

Where do nations from every corner of the planet look when they want to increase their arsenals?

Ten countries are responsible for the vast majority of all major arms exports, accounting for 90 percent of global sales with the United States, the world’s largest arms dealers.

The world’s top six major arms exporters are the United States, Britain, Russia, Germany, France and China. Together, they account for 74 percent of the total volume of exports.

Sales are in the region of $31.bn

If you don’t believe me here below is a link to interactive map.

The map is part of a series of articles from IRIN around the concept of forgotten wars.is an interactive map of the current conflicts in the world.

http://www.irinnews.org/feature/2015/07/30/mapped-worlds-conflicts (@irinnews)

It examines the root causes, human cost and potential for peace of conflicts in Myanmar, Casamance, South Kordofan, southern Thailand, and Mindanao in the Philippines.

The map marks each conflict with a red dot.

It is sized to represent how long the battle has been going on,  with the

larger dots representing those that have lasted the longest.

To see more about each conflict, click on the dot.

This brings up a fact box explaining the nature of the conflict, when it began and how many deaths have resulted from it.

Syria has been embroiled in civil war, that is also the biggest and most complex proxy war the world has witnessed.

Mexico’s drug war, fueled by 54 ruthless cartels lust for territory, cash, power and violence has slaughtered as many as 85,000 people since 2006.

Mali, AL-Qaeda took root in the country’s north. Around 4,000 people have been killed in Mali since 2012.

Afghanistan, Taliban and IS.

Iraq, the 2003 US-led Iraq war killed up to a million Iraqis, gave birth to Islamic State.

The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have been going for well over a decade, then it spilled into Syria in 2011, and afterwards into Libya and Yemen.

Yemen, AL-Qaeda and IS have fighters in Yemen, over 7,600 people have been killed in the past two years.

Pakistan, since the 9/11 outrage in 2001, war has been raging between the Taliban, IS.

Lebanon, Nearly a quarter of Lebanon’s population is made up of Syrian refugees and sectarian division has risen as IS battles with the Shia militant group Hezbollah.

Libya, 35,000 people have been killed since the Arab Spring uprising.

Democratic Republic Of Congo, more than 70 groups are fighting despite the presence of 20,000 UN troops.

Somalia, Al-Shabaab had 9,000 fighters in Somalia. IS has a foothold in Somalia and is trying to recruit Al-Shabaab fighters.

India,a fragile ceasefire since 2003 with Kashmir, but still exchange fire across the contested border.

South Sudan, over 50,000 people have been killed and more than 1.6 million displaced since war broke out in 2013. It has raged for more than 60 years.

Egypt, at war against Islamist militants in the Sinai.

Central African Republic, 6,000 people have been killed in the Central African Republic, with 25 per cent of the 4.6 million population displaced.

Ukraine, Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.

Nigeria, 50,000 people have died in the war between regime forces and Islamic State-affiliates Boko Haram.

Israel -Palestine, has forced tens of thousands of Arabs from homes in land grabs.

Turkey, fighting the Kurdish Workers Party the PKK, is hostile to the Kurdish Democratic Unity Party’s armed wing, the YPG, but has good relations with the Kurdish Peshmerga of Northern Iraq. The Turkish and Syrian Kurds are fighting IS and others in Syria but are against the Turkish government.

Potential Wars:

North Korea, technically, it has never stopped being at war with the South since 1953.

East China sea, South China Sea. 

Will any end soon. Not likely.

 

This autocracy must stop.

The shelf-life of weapons is often longer than the governments and situations they were sold to.

Britain – is now the world’s second largest arms exporter after America – around 120,000 people are employed in weapons dealing.

Two-thirds of UK weapons have been sold to Middle Eastern countries.

If Europe is to escape the cauldron of fragmentation and national strife our shared bonds of European identity must be more broadly defined, given concrete expression and have the flexibility necessary to create an outward-looking and self-confident union of people’s.

The logic of global socio-economic interdependence that spells integration and the logic of ethnicity and nationality that demands separation both apply.

If England leaves the EU without a satisfactory solution to the Irish Border it could reignite one of the longest conflicts in the world going back 700 years.

To make the Irish less Irish backfired once and it will again.

With the coming Climate Change, doubts about the science are being replaced by doubts about the motives of scientists and their political supporters.

Once this kind of cynicism takes hold, is there any hope for the truth?

Climate change deniers argue they are only trying to discover the truth.

We should all be sceptical about that.

No Technology, No Artificial Intelligence, No inequality adjustment, No Frontiers, No Nuclear weapons, No alliances, not anything is going to stop migration.

Where will the next War be?

It will be between the countries relying on the Nile for power and water.

The toll of decades-long conflicts – from Colombia to the Ogaden, from Kashmir to Western Sahara – will be just as devastating for the people who do not live there.

All of the above presupposes that the development of Europe’s cultural identity is a worthy and attainable goal. 

Europe, when you think about it, is a pretty small place. Jump on a plane in London and you can be all the way across the continent, in big old Russia, within just a few hours.

Europe stresses the importance of a continuing dialogue between the present and the past.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE OPEN LETTER TO MRS THERESA MAY PRIME MINSTER OF ENGLAND. IT’S TIME FOR ENGLAND TO TAKE THE BLINKERS OFF

22 Monday Jan 2018

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Re – Seeds of fantasy Read:Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of brexit"

Dear Mrs May.

As I understand it your stated aim for the continuing Brexit negotiations is to secure the exact same economic benefits that England now enjoy’s in the EU.

I regret to inform you that you and your Government is labouring under the misapprehension that it will be able to secure a free trade agreement (FTA) outside of the single market that not only covers goods (like the FTA Canada has with the EU) but most services too.

It almost unheard of to have a FTA – one that sits outside of the single market. Because it would have to be approved by 42 regional and national Parliaments in the EU and domestic political objections in other states would stand in the way.

The FTA Canada has with the EU took seven years to negotiate.

You can only have this if you remain in the single market.

Perhaps it is time for you and Government to refresh your thinking on what is the Single Market.

( The single market provides for tariff-free trade between EU countries and a common framework of rules including employment rights, competition policy, consumer and environment protections. EU countries come together through the customs union and apply the same tariffs to goods from outside the union. Non-EU countries participate in both bodies and doing so is the best way of retaining the benefits of EU membership while being outside the EU.)

You will not be able to enjoy these economic benefits outside of the single market and the customs union. Yet you and your ministers keep insisting otherwise.

The reality is if the EU give England any special arrangements, other third countries with whom they have agreements will demand the same too.

For example, just in case you were not paying attention.

Norway has already warned that giving into UK demands for a special trade deal allowing different UK sectors to participate in the single market without being part of it would force Norway to rip up its own agreement with the EU.  Not to Mention Ireland.

It is sad as the reality of Brexit becomes clear, to see such a great country unable to change its mind.

You and your ministers keep talking about the desire for a “deep and special partnership” and a “bespoke” UK deal.

Unfortunately time is running out to set out what you believe that bespoke agreement would look like because your Cabinet cannot agree on it.

It is time to do the right thing.

To request in the forthcoming negotiations a stay of execution for a period of six, seven years that will allow your government in the House of Commons an opportunity to debate among yourselves what kind of arrangements is wanted between the European Union and the United Kingdom.

I believe you made a profound mistake in pressing the Article 50 button without working out so many of these details, now there is simply not sufficient time to agree a properly bespoke deal.

While I fully appreciate you inherited the situation if you want to stay in power you should be in the long run open to the electorate to take a different view on whether you and the Government should press on with this process.

A moratorium might salvage the wreckage that is coming out of the Article 50 process and allow you to enjoy the Bayeux Tapestry and weave a country that works for everybody.

Yours Sincerely Anglophil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only way Britain can is for Mrs May to do the right thing – by Britain and by Europe – to stop these negotiations and simply.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: ENDING WORLD POVERTY IS AN UNREALISTIC GOAL. l’

21 Sunday Jan 2018

Posted by in World Aid., World Leaders, World Organisations., WORLD POVERTY WHERE'S THE GLOBAL OUTRAGE

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

 

( A twelve-minute read that could be the answer to Poverty)

You don’t have to be Einstein to recognize that inequality in all its forms is what wrong with our world. It haunts every minute of our lives no matter who you are, however  ‘Ending world poverty is an unrealistic goal’Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of poverty around the world"

It is policy not aid which matters most in today’s world.

Why?

Because the politics of inequality in the future will be as important as the economics of the Future.

Relative poverty is unpreventable without tackling inequalities. 

The aspirations of delivering a world where the quality of education, healthcare and national infrastructure available to every person is sufficient to bestow on them meaningful hope and ambition is hopefully the aim of “development”.  I emphasize the word hopeful.

In a world in which a billion people live on $1.26 a day, with climate immigration increasing and technology Algorithms blundering the world’s wealth.

We’re going to have to realize sooner than later that if we are to avoid or end violent conflicts ( That these days has inequality as their triggers) there is only one course to follow and that is to spread the wealth of the world fairly.

Poverty is a perception – it is a status which is bestowed on people who have relatively little – even in societies of plenty. Just look at the prevailing political view on aid to middle-income countries that contain hundreds of millions of desperately poor people.

We all know that the chances of ending poverty altogether are zero.

It would potentially cost some of the world’s biggest businesses billions and would need to be agreed by a group of world leaders who, if they all went out to dinner, would be sat around the table with their calculators out arguing about how to split the bill.

In a world driven by Greed, Advertising, and now more and more by filtered Social Media, we are becoming increasingly desensitized to the blight of others.

For those working in organisations that are dependent on official development assistance, it is hard to talk about ending their dependency, but the 21st century demands the challenge is not ducked.

Too much negativity and accusation of not making any progress with aid money. Comments like Shit Holes, which imply that aid is no longer necessary are undermining our Aid agencies, which are becoming an increasingly endangered species.

So if we accept that we won’t be satisfied if we overcome absolute poverty, where do we go next?

The closer we get to ending extreme poverty, the harder it is going to be to do it.

Imagine how different the world would be if the focus of aid spending was not “ending $1.25 dollar a day poverty” but “creating a fairer and more equitable world”.

Relative poverty will always exist and it should always be at the forefront of efforts to improve our world because it demands more than the bare minimum solution, or Asshole Trumps.

Decisions taken on tax regimes, remittance flows and trade concessions are now not the fastest route to assist poor countries in their development. Inequality is at the root of the reasons why.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of poverty around the world"

So in this world of inequalities is there any way of assisting development in a meaningful way.

Gadgets like tablets, smartphones and not-so-smart phones are multiplying five times faster than we are, with our population growing at a rate of about two people per second, or 1.2% annually.

The world is home to 7.2 billion gadgets, and they’re multiplying five times faster than we are.

The Mobile phone has done more for Africa than all Aid. No other technology has impacted us like the mobile phone.

The number of mobile phone users in the world is expected to pass the five billion mark by 2019. In 2016, an estimated 62.9 percent of the population worldwide already owned a mobile phone.

The mobile phone penetration is forecasted to continue to grow, rounding up to 67 percent by 2019.

By 2019, China is expected to reach almost 1.5 billion mobile connections and India almost 1.1 billion.

The number of smart phone users worldwide is expected to grow by one billion in a time span of five years.

It’s not that every person in the world has a mobile device, far from it; more than half of the population don’t have a mobile phone.

There are around 250 million machine-to-machine connections.

That may only be a fraction of the total number of mobile connections, but it was enough to knock us people off our perch in the man vs machine superiority stakes.

Just imaging what would happen if we were to equip everyone in the world (of voting age) with a mobile phone that could receive a basic income on a monthly basis.

Each phone with its unique pin.

With a phone that supplies a basic income we would witnessing a transformation in the way people relate to their governments.

A game-changer.

Not just a safer way to store money, but to reduce the need for Aid, to cut out corruption, to empower the poor, to eradicate inequality, to encourage closing the digital divide with the rest of the world. To give a sense of a future, information, opportunity and choice. To lift young people are currently trapped in poverty, often exacerbated by the need to contribute to their family incomes.

Explosive growth in mobile broadband use across continents would improve transparency and give a voice to citizens.

They would have a major economic, social and political impact.

So instead of the World Bank, the IMF, the Warren Buffets, the Bill Gates, the Mark Zckerbergs, the UN, Oxfam, the WTO, technology has the potential to lift people out of poverty.

There is no reason that a mobile money basic income could not be achieved with the application of a world aid commission of 0.05%. ( See previous posts)

Applying such a commission:  (On all profit seeking Algorithms, on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions over $50,000, on all Sovereign Wealth Funds acquisitions, to mention just a few of the existing Capitalist instruments that are solely designed for Profit.) would create a perpetual Fund of trillions.

Traditional banking is out of reach for many people in rural areas of developing countries, but mobile is bringing people into the financial system in droves. Financial inclusion, starting with a humble savings account, enables people to start businesses, invest in education and weather bad times.

Mobile still has hurdles to jump before it can reach all the lives of people most in need of the technology: Namely, reliable, affordable energy and comprehensive network coverage.  However you can rest assured if aid was directed to placing a communication satellite in orbit to service Africa or Latin America cell, phone use could help developing the countries within these Continents to plan electrical infrastructure.

There are in the world already a enough used mobile phones to supply most of Africa ( Pop. 1,273,903, 985)

Unfortunately there seems to be a major barrier to people turning in their old phones to be recycled.

To give a couple of examples, a recent survey found that 63% of Canadians have an unused phone at home. And in the UK alone, people are holding on to an estimated 76.8 million unused phones.

If your used phone is a very recent model, you may want to consider sending it in to Fairphone’s recycling program.

So Technology presents as opportunity to articulate a broader and more sustainable vision.

It is essential that we take it.

Poverty shouldn’t be a Catch 22 but in reality, for some, it is.

All human comments and suggestions much appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY ASK’S: WHERE DO YOU THINK POVERTY CAME FROM AND WHERE IS IT GOING TO END UP.

19 Friday Jan 2018

Posted by in Poverty

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

 

( A twenty-minute read if you want a world worth living in)

Most of us were taught that poverty started with the Industrial Revolution.

For the most part this is true but it did not happen in the isolation of the British Empire.

This story is powerful in its simplicity but if we rewind to about 1500 people living in South America, India, and Asia were much better off than Europeans. In fact Europe was just emerging from the dark ages.

China and India controlled most if not nearly all the world economy.

The Question is how did this change and why?

I put it down to Christopher Columbus and shoddy geographical calculations.

On his second outing in the Caribbean he was looking for gold and as a result the Spanish invasion killed must of the islands inhabitants. Then came a bloke named Cortes who ripped off the Aztec of Mexico,followed by Pizarro yet another Spanish conquistador with an unquenchable thirst for gold.

A total of over  185,000 kilograms of gold and 100 million kilograms of silver were pilfer from Latin America and pumped into Spain and then used to pay for Spanish war and debts.

(A 100 million kilograms of silver invested back then @ 5% would amount to $165 trillion to-day. More than double the world’s total GDP to-day)

This wealth allowed Europe to grow its economic wealth beyond the China or India.

The result was Europeans outsourced its labour into wars and colonization reducing the population of the rest of the world by slavery, epidemic diseases and massacres while enjoying the rich life.

(  Free Slavery labour benefited the USA Colonies by over 222.5 million hours)  Britain pay compensation of over £20m to slave owners equivalent to £300 million to-day which tell us nothing of the total value they produced.

The Silver was turned into cotton and sugar and spices. Cotton being the key raw material for the European Industrial Revolution.

The Surviving slaves got nothing.

Indeed without the slave colonies of the New world there would have being no market for the Industrial goods.

You could say that the above is rather a simplistic explanation but development in Africa and Latin America was effectively stolen by Europe.

So where are we to-day.

  • Almost half the world — over 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.
  • The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world’s 7 richest people combined.
  • Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.
  • Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen.
  • 1 billion children live in poverty (1 in 2 children in the world). 640 million live without adequate shelter, 400 million have no access to safe water, 270 million have no access to health services. 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (or roughly 29,000 children per day).

Poverty is the state for the majority of the world’s people and nations. Why is this?

Behind the increasing interconnectedness promised by globalization and technology are global decisions, policies, and practices.

Formulated by the rich and powerful.

These can be leaders of rich countries or other global actors such as multinational corporations, institutions, and influential people.

As a result, in the global context, a few get wealthy while the majority struggle.

The poorest are also typically marginalized from society and have little representation or voice in public and political debates, making it even harder to escape poverty.

The amount the world spends on military, financial bailouts and other areas that benefit the wealthy, compared to the amount spent to address the daily crisis of poverty and related problems are often staggering.

To attract investment, poor countries enter a spiraling race to the bottom to see who can provide lower standards, reduced wages and cheaper resources.

This has increased poverty and inequality for most people. It also forms a backbone to what we today call globalization. As a result, it maintains the historic unequal rules of trade.

Now we are looking at a new form of Poverty currently being created by a few monopolies. I call it Algorithm Poverty.

Around the world, in rich or poor nations, poverty has always been present. In most nations today, inequality—the gap between the rich and the poor—is quite high and often widening.

The causes are numerous, including a lack of individual responsibility, bad government policy, exploitation by people and businesses with power and influence, or some combination of these and other factors.

Inequality will affect social cohesion and lead to problems such as increasing crime and violence. Almost half the world—over three billion people—live on less than $2.50 a day and at least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day:Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of poverty in america 2016"

And we wonder why the world is in a state of chaos.

Around 21,000 children die every day around the world. World hunger is a terrible symptom of world poverty.

Food aid (when not for emergency relief) can actually be very destructive on the economy of the recipient nation.

Free, subsidized, or cheap food, below market prices undercuts local farmers, who cannot compete and are driven out of jobs and into poverty, further slanting the market share of the larger producers such as those from the US and Europe.

Poverty leads to hunger. There are many inter-related issues causing hunger. They include land rights and ownership, diversion of land use to non-productive use, increasing emphasis on export-oriented agriculture, inefficient agricultural practices, war, famine, drought, over-fishing, poor crop yields, etc.

Solving world hunger in the conventional sense (of providing/growing more food etc) will not tackle poverty that leads to hunger in the first place.

Further, there is a risk of continuing the poverty and dependency without realizing it, because the act of attempting to provide more food etc can appear so altruistic in motive.

To solve world hunger in the long run, poverty alleviation is required.

For the first time in our history Technology offers us a chance to distribute the world’s wealth fairly.

Without Trade agreements, Aid, Repayment, Corruption, Power Brokering by NGOs, United Nations Begging, Bureaucratic interference, or any other hidden agendas.

It could be both implemented and funded by the very Algorithms that are going to spread poverty. ( See previous Posts)

It requires the large capitalist monopoly platforms to supply a free basic mobile phone to every person register as citizen of a country world-wide.

On registration the people would be allocated a pin number.

This pin would allow them to access a monthly Basic non repayable no strings attached Income payment.

There is no other way of ensuring that our world can fight poverty and climate change.

Most of the causes of hunger are found in global politics.

People are hungry not because the population is growing so fast that food is becoming scarce, but because people cannot afford it.

The number of people overweight or obese is now rivaling the number of people suffering from hunger around the world.

Its time to get off our fat asses and share our wealth not push it around to create more wealth.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of poverty in america 2016"

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of poverty in america 2016"

If you want a world worth something in the future now is the time to start creating it. Solve                                             World Poverty once and

For all.

It can be done with the press of a button.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

THE BEADY ASKS: HAS ENGLAND SOLD OFF ALL OF IT’S INHERITED SILVERWARE AND IS NOW SET FOR BANKRUPTCY 

18 Thursday Jan 2018

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

( A three minute read)

Brexit negotiations are about to restart and we just witness the collapse of one of the UK biggest private companies.

Although few people yet realize it, the UK is bankrupt:Notes and coins.

The Government cannot pay its debts nor will it be able to pay for its departure from the EU unless it get an extended transition period, even then it will be on HP terms.

Unfortunately, the Government’s official debt is not the real problem:

The Government’s ‘official’ debt is only a small percentage of its true debt exposure. The official debt is merely the tip of a very large hidden iceberg.

The Government’s true debt is the present value of all the commitments it has entered into, on the expectation that these commitments will be paid for by future taxpayers.

One recent estimate suggested that a UK citizen born in 2011 will inherit, on birth, a debt of perhaps £200,000, and it could easily be much more.

It is simply inconceivable that debts on this scale will be paid off in full.

Nor will they be.

These were not debts that youngsters freely took on, but obligations incurred on their behalf in many cases before they were even born.

The moral question of course is:

At what point does the debt become so large that future children will be born into a new form of slavery, entering the world shackled by the debts of their forbears?

The whole political system is creating a huge intergenerational Ponzi scheme, passing the buck from one generation to the next, until the whole rotten system inevitably collapses under its accumulated weight.

With the collapse of Carillion the government is losing all control of its finances and will once again end up printing money to pay off its debts, so leading to hyperinflation and economic collapse.

the actions are both immoral and reckless with crippling liabilities on top of the national debt, two-thirds of which is made up of “unsustainable” public sector retirement monies.

Overall, the real cost of debt to every man, woman and child in the UK is £53,822 each or over a £100,00 if you are graduating University student.

Since the global financial crisis erupted in 2007. The Bank Of England  has pumped £445bn electronic money into the economy, by what is called quantitative easing programme

 Public sector pensions are a ticking debt bomb with around £1.3trillion needed to cover 93 per cent of the benefits that are currently unfunded.

Britain ‘set for BANKRUPTCY amid £1.85 trillion of hidden debt’

Future generations will inherit a bankrupt country, with two new worthless aircraft carriers, an unusable nuclear deterrent, a high-speed rail system going nowhere, a health service in tatters, a broken up UK, a State funereal that going to cost millions, a pound that worth toilet paper, etc

Make no mistake about it: The country is bankrupt.

Benefits across the board will be cut, massively: the government will renege big-time on many of its commitments, breaking its health, pensions and other promises on a huge scale.

The social and economic consequences don’t bear thinking about.

The cost of Brexit by now should be apparent with a loss of £350m a week to the UK economy.

If you asked me Brexit is far from inevitable.

The collective failure of the English to understand that in a world driven by technology there is no such thing as Sovereign.

The whole fabric of England is at the moment jeopardize.

There are still fifteen months until Britain departs.

I am convinced that the British people provided they are provided with a credible and ambitious social plan that recognizes that the balance of advantages lies in continued EU Membership.

Through humility and what is called cop on.  A new settlement addressing Britain’s inequalities and the EU need to reform can be achieved. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of brexit"

I can hear the outs saying look at Greece.

The Greek government, which faces more debt repayment deadlines this summer, said it was hoping for a “positive conclusion” to the protracted review of its bailout programme. It has lost more than 25% of its GDP – the biggest downturn to be experienced by an advanced western economy in peacetime – since its financial collapse seven years ago.

So England can rest assured that Brexit will have ‘Grexit’ for company. A debt payment of €7 billion is due in July.

Or Greece could just default out of the euro zone.

Stranger things have happened: Before the term “Brexit” was invented, “Grexit” was the far better-known word — and the more plausible scenario.

All Human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A BEADY EYE WARNING: Named Storms Affect Your Insurance Coverage.

17 Wednesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Insurance policies and claims

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

 

( A ONE MINUTE READ THAT COULD SAVE YOU FROM BEING OUT OF POCKET)

We all know how difficult it is to claim on Insurance policy. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of insurance claims"

Anthropogenic climate change is rapidly blurring what used to be a factually and rationally supportable distinction between “natural” and “man-made” weather events.

While people have been naming major storms for hundreds of years to days STORMS ARE NOT JUST NAMED TO FACILITATE WEATHER FORECASTERS BUT TO ALLOW INSURANCE COMPANIES TO DEFAULT ON PAYMENTS.

It makes little legal or logical sense to attribute costly and otherwise detrimental weather events to “superior forces” or “God” to which we now know that we mankind have contributed to a very large extent.

The interface between weather problems and contract law, currently established law is not good law. It is becoming archaic and does not match on-the-ground reality.

Everyone including contracting parties must pay heed in order to better protect themselves both practically and legally from the realities of an increasingly volatile climate.

“Extreme” weather has become the new normal.

Previously considered to be inexplicable and unpredictable “acts of God,” such weather can no longer reasonably be said to be so. The use of such phrases as “act of God” or “force majeure” in boilerplate or closely drafted agreements is not and should not be dispositive.

So if God is not in control who is?

Many insurers use this term in their buildings and contents insurance clauses. It refers to an unpredictable, large-scale event that couldn’t have been planned for – such as lightning, a tornado, an earthquake etc.

Severe weather events have vast financial implications for private parties and government entities alike. Thus, the time has come to rethink the doctrine of
impracticability in contract law in relation to weather-related problems.

The insurance sector are paying heed to the effects of climate change and extreme weather on their business performances, by introducing deductible clauses in insurance policies related to Named Storms.

As insurance policies may vary, please check your own policy for language specific to your covered property.

“We will not pay for loss, damage or expense caused directly or indirectly by or resulting from a named tropical storm or hurricane to a property located in a county listed above. Such loss, damage and expense are excluded regardless of any other cause or event that contributes to or aggravates the loss, damage or expense, whether concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.”

An insurer can charge a higher deductible than normal once a weather event becomes a named storm. There is no “usual” anymore when it comes to assessing the risks associated with “extreme”weather events.Hurricane Katrina on August 28, 2005. Image Credit: NASA.

If you are in an area where your property policy excludes coverage for Named Storm, your agent can typically either add Named Storm coverage or may set up a separate policy specifically for that peril.

This naming of storms does not just apply to Home Insurance.

TRAVEL INSURANCE.

Depending on the type of coverage you want, once a storm has been named you’ll be limited to the types of plans and the protection offered, especially plans with cancellation coverage.

Climate change is real and is already affecting humankind as well as our natural surroundings.

They are acts of man.

According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), it is easier for people to remember names than numbers and technical terms.

This is not as straightforward as you think.

Ironically if the storm is not named defining a storm can be difficult.

Your insurer will want to see that a storm actually damaged your property and also whether the weather conditions constituted a storm.

Get clued in, not rip off.  Get named Storm cover.

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IT IS NOT TIME THAT WE TACKLED THE INEQUALITY PARASITE THAT IS AND HAS FOR CENTURIES TORN OUR WORLD APART.

16 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by in Universal Basic Income

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

 

( An Eighteen minute read)

You could describe the history of the world in four words ” Kill or be Killed”

If we were honest looking at the state of our planet to-day we would be forced to recognize that we humans have achieved little with what we call democracy or any other political system other than inequality.

Government by the people for the people and of the people is now with the arrival of AI daily becoming a farce.  There is no longer any need to justify or backup a statement or make a speech on a subject. As any constructive counter arguments are prejudiced with a Twit. We are living in a cult of smart Algorithms running our Smart Phones to ensure we only hear what we like in order to ensure our loyalty and profits.

As a result masses of the world population are excluded and marginalized: without work, without any opportunity or means of escaping other than migration.

While our world output is blundered by High Frequency Trading Algorithms on Wall street, and other World Stock exchanges for profit, with the continuing cost of environmental destruction, technology is creating a new structural inequality.

The United nations has poured millions into resolving poverty, wars, environmental protection, summits, it has achieve little other than passing resolutions that fall on deaf ears.

So I ask you, is it not time if we want a world worth living on that we change tack, too reach higher.

In a post-scarcity world why hold back wealth from people just because they can’t provide labor inputs just to create wealth, if we do not offer realistic alternatives, we legitimize the exclusion of the long-term unemployed from the society

At the moment due to the fear of AI replacing what we call work, on any day in New Zealand, 1 Million working aged people are not working, that is 40% of all
workers. In England, the non-workers are about 50%, in the USA the non-workers are 51%, in Spain with a much higher unemployment rate there would be more than 60% not working.

Can we now say that the system is broken?

Inequality in all its forms cannot be cured by Individual Countries, Organisations, Wars, or the begging bowel. Nor will Globalization, Free Trade deals, Nuclear weapons, Education, G8 to G10 summits, and their like have much effect.

But with technology there is an opportunity to take the parasite Greed, (profit for profit sake) that resides in all of us, head on.

While the discussion on the possible implications of the digital economy for labour continues unabated, there is only one way to achieve genuine progress and that is a Universal Basic Income for one and all.

Will a UBI bring more people back into meaningful employment?

Now I know that many will disagree with the following, but if we are to tackle the global gridlock, the world problems we must make Corporate Capitalism pay its fair share.

This share must be perpetual and distributed transparently fairly without any political votes, or repayment. It would distribute the fruits of technological advancement fairly.

The question is would it work: A Universal Basic Income.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of basic income"

Could such a policy be implemented not to mention be affordable?

It seems clear that at the technological level, new digital technologies and artificial intelligence makes implementation possible.

Where would the money come from?

By putting an International Wealth Tax or what I like to call  a 05% World Aid commission:

On all High Frequency Trading, on all Sovereignty Wealth Funds acquisitions, an all Foreign Exchange transactions over $ 50,000, on all Search Engines Platforms, on all Twits, on all Facebook Posts, on all Dividends, on all Robotic produced products/ services on all Prize money/ Gambling, Vat, Negative interest rates earnings from Investments, decrease in Military spending  Etc to mention just a few.

This will create a Perpetual Fund of trillions.

Out of which all receive a non repayable Basic income, reduced bureaucracy,while moving towards less conditional social security.

Briefly here is why I think the answer is yes:

1) People will have money to spend – and they will be spending it.
2) Businesses will be busy, and needing to employ more staff.
3) New GST/VAT registered businesses will be starting up as people offer services to each other. Worldwide, people will be catering to the overseas visitor’s market.
4) Smaller communities will be self-supporting retaining their youth in meaningful
employment.
5) Cities will be greatly enriched and new jobs will arrive to cover the increased demand placed on these production centers.

I say, that if economic growth continues, it will bring about ecological disaster. But if economic growth stops (or declines substantially, or the economy contracts), there will be high unemployment and rising inequality.

Whatever we do it will be better than doing nothing. A basic income affords some economic security in a process fraught with uncertainties.

In a world that has succeeded in the globalization of financial assets while keeping political rights enclosed to territories, we need to build new models of democratic governance that enable humanity to collaborate and address pressing global issues. To avoid catastrophic effects of global warming, including sea level rise, increasing droughts, more severe storms, species extinctions, climate refugees and other social consequences of climate change, it is necessary to keep global warming below 2 degrees Centigrade (2C).

The current global average is 5 tons per person.

It might be seen as part of a compact we make with each other, to make sure no one falls below the floor, in exchange for willingness to commit to a decades-long process of transition

To date there have being several Countries trying what is called a Basic income.

Further experiments are necessary to get further data and reports to underscore the significant impact of basic income both to the individual and to the society as a whole and how to initiate and eventually implement a universal basic income in any country.

Show the people what a basic income means to them and let the world decide.

Basic income is by definition fairly simple, but complex and deep in terms of necessity, legitimacy, and direction.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of basic income"

A technologically advanced society can enter agreements of mutual cooperation
without falling back to the means of coercion and violence.

History teaches that money means power and power means votes but the next Silicon Valley is not in a far away land or on any land at all, but a new frontier of the internet itself rising as the one true open, free and sovereign network of peers.

“What happened to the governments?” I inquired. “It is
said that they gradually fell into disuse. Elections were
called, wars were declared, taxes were levied, fortunes
were confiscated, arrests were ordered, and attempts
were made at imposing censorship — but no one on the
planet paid any attention. The press stopped publishing
pieces by those it called its ‘contributors,’ and also
publishing their obituaries. Politicians had to find honest
work; some became comedians, some witch doctors —
some excelled at those occupations…”
J.L. Borges, Utopia of a Tired Man. Writer (1899–1986).

AND FINALLY:

I WOULD SAY;

That every individual and every organisation involved in the Basic Income debate should ask what they mean by the terms that they employ, and should seek the greatest possible clarity, including clarity over any unstated assumptions lying hidden behind the stated definitions; Some state that the Basic Income will be a right of citizenship, or of legal residence, and others might be taken to assume this.

When that is fully fleshed out, it is not dystopian at all. Business as Usual brings us to dystopia.

Degrowth is a readjustment of priorities, consuming less, but living better.

Any politician running on the platform of reducing economic growth is likely to lose without implementing a Basic Income.

Universal Basic Income may be our only way out.

It will eliminate poverty and reduce inequality, with dignity and security for all

• Save capitalism, as technology substitutes for human labor and reduces wage income/purchasing power

• Encourage entrepreneurship, life-long learning, creative and caring work, and civic engagement

However there is one great problem with a Universal Basic Income ( apart from who gets what) is that if it is going to work it has to be implemented on a global scale.

If not it will only contribute to more Inequality and mass migration to get into the country that has such a system.

All human comments and suggestions appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: THE WORLD OF WORK IS IN A STATE OF FLUX.

14 Sunday Jan 2018

Posted by in 2018: The Year of Disconnection., Capitalism, Democracy, Freedom, Happiness., Innovation., Life., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Politics., Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Wealth., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

( A Sixteen minute read)

How much stuff do we really need to lead a normal life?

Not as much as you might think.

Automation, digital platforms, and other innovations are changing the fundamental nature of work.

You could say that: The world of work is in a state of flux.Humanoid robots work side by side with employees in the assembly line at a factory in Kazo, Japan.

There is growing polarization of labor-market opportunities between high- and low-skill jobs, unemployment and underemployment especially among young people, stagnating incomes for a large proportion of households, and income inequality.

However the field of robotics promises to be the most profoundly disruptive technological shift since the industrial revolution.

The development of automation enabled by technologies including robotics and artificial intelligence brings the promise of higher productivity (and with productivity, economic growth), increased efficiencies, safety, and convenience. But these technologies also raise difficult questions about the broader impact of automation on jobs, skills, wages, and the nature of work itself.

Somehow, we believe our livelihoods will be safe. They’re not:

Every commercial sector will be affected by robotic automation in the next several years. We have yet to reach the full potential of digitization across the global economy.

More than half the world’s population is still offline.

Greater interaction will raise productivity but require different and often higher skills, new technology interfaces, different wage models in some cases, and different types of investments by businesses and workers to acquire skills.

In a recent report, the World Economic Forum predicted that robotic automation will result in the net loss of more than 5m jobs across 15 developed nations by 2020, a conservative estimate. 40–50% of all jobs will be taken by robots in the next twenty years.

By 2025, average salaries in the robotics sector will increase by at least 60% – yet more than one-third of the available jobs in robotics will remain vacant due to shortages of skilled workers.

Developments in motion control, sensor technologies, and artificial intelligence will inevitably give rise to an entirely new class of robots aimed primarily at consumer markets. For example  “Create Your Taste” kiosk – an automated touch-screen system that allows customers to create their own burgers without interacting with another human being.

The thing is: we’ve heard this all before. Time and time again, we underestimate capitalism’s extraordinary ability to come up with new meaningless jobs. (It’s 37% in the UK right now, but it could be 50%, 60% or even 100% in the future.)

Unless we update our ideas about what ‘work’ even is. The rise in the total of those employed is governed by Parkinson’s Law, and much the same whether the volume of work, were to increase, diminish or even disappear.

Labor which was once the capital of working men will be longer true.

Again: it’s not about the technology, it’s about the choices we make as a society.

When it comes to universal basic income: we don’t have to wait for the robots. We are more than rich enough to do it right now – in fact, we should have done it forty years ago!

Technology is not destiny, education is.

Everything depends on the choices that we make as a society.

If history is any precedent, we already know the answer.

MOST OF US ARE NOW SURROUNDED WITH A PORTION- DISTORTED EMBARRASSMENT OF NOT JUST FOOD BUT GOVERNMENT SIZE.

Guest Blog: Downsizing for Public Health

It’s time for taxpayers to remind themselves just how much the cost of government to run us is..

Let’s take the cost of running the UK as an example.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of house of parliament in london"

The House of Commons with 650 Mbps at £76,000 pa costing the tax payer £156 million a year.

Add in the £6.4m pa given to opposition parties (Short Money), and support items like IT, and the overall total for each MP goes up to £242,000 pa.

But that’s only part of the bill: we also need to add in the costs of running the Commons itself.  According to the HoC Administration Resource Accounts 2006-07, those costs total £210m, which is a further £325,000 per MP.

Oops I nearly forgot the gold-plated final salary pension guaranteed by taxpayers.

The official cost of MPs’ pensions is under 12 per cent of their salary, after 11 per cent contributions from MPs themselves. This adds up to total pay and pension for an MP of £85,000 (their £76,000 salary and £9,000 pension).

So with 650 MPs, that means each one costs us £85,000 pa in salary, pension contributions and employment taxes. Those troublesome “staffing allowances” cost us an additional £57.9m pa- £90,000 for each MP. Then there’s incidental expenses, additional cost allowances, and travel expenses, totaling a further £30.7m (£48,000 each).

Then you have 814 unelected Peers in the House of Lords at £83,000 pa. Costing the tax payer £67,932,000 a year plus £462,510 in tax-free expenses. Members can claim £300 or £150 for every day they attend the House and undertake parliamentary work. The dining rooms and bars are all subsidised by the taxpayer.

Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill, who has claimed £220,000 of expenses over her 27 year career on the red benches, has never spoken in a debate.

The total cost of members’ allowances and travel is around £20 million per annum.

So reducing the size of the House by about 250 members would represent a significant saving to the taxpayer.

Then you have the Civil Service 418,343, (316,792 full-time and 101,551 part-time.)  Gross annual earnings (excluding overtime or one-off bonuses) for Civil Service employees is around £25,350, pa.

You dont have to ask why people are lying on the floors of hospital corridors.

————————————————————————————————-

‘What do you do when there is nothing left to do?’

What should a government faced with an unmanageable level of unemployment do when conventional policy has failed to resolve the issue?’

Perhaps then a seemingly radical solution, such as universal basic income (UBI), becomes plausible. Universal Basic Income (UBI), a form of social security paid to individuals, not households. It is paid to everyone.

It would give individuals the freedom to say ‘yes’ to jobs. Individuals will not have to do that which they do not wish to do. Fewer people will engage in menial and unsatisfying work. Employers may be forced to increase the wages for underpaid or unpaid jobs.

UBI creates a floor (minimum level) on the income distribution curve, alleviates poverty, and gives bargaining power to the ones who have it least.

Forgetting about work for a moment (if you can), think about what you should do when your physiological needs are no longer a concern. If you’ve had a passion at the back of your mind then you might finally pursue it. If, on the other hand, you’ve passed life going from one kind of busy to another, then you might have missed opportunities to reflect and figure out what you would like to be doing. The cost of failure may have been too high if it meant putting you or your family’s livelihood at risk.

Assuming UBI ensures a basic livelihood for everyone in a community, do these citizens have a duty to give back by working? Do individuals have a duty to accept paid, available employment?

I would say Yes: Individuals should have a duty to do something, providing it is socially beneficial. There was something about people helping each other for its own sake that makes for a good society. A society is not well-functioning if it’s members are not interested in actively improving each other’s well-being.

Caring for the those who cannot care for themselves (such as the elderly, children and disabled). One could volunteer for various causes they care about, whether they be social, environmental, tech-related or so on.

Your recognition that you have alleviated the suffering of others might make you feel like you have done something meaningful.

UBI provides the opportunity for you to try contributing to your community in different ways. This freedom lets you find a way to contribute that is most satisfying for yourself.

It would remove fear replacing it with dignity.

UBI would also reduce the cost of citizens relying on the state for assistance.

There are many pending environmental crises hanging over us, but human wastefulness can be avoided. Can you imagine a world of 7.6 billion people no longer struggling for food or shelter and now focused on bettering the world for their children? That’s universal basic income. That’s a legacy we can all leave.

So why is it not being done?

Because it would downsize our consumerism lifestyle and remove inequality.

There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.

I can hear you saying where will the money come from?

Vat, Negative Interest rates, Earnings from investments, Decreasing militry spending, Sovereign wealth funds, etc.

It would ensure that the distribution of the fruits of technology advancement are distributed fairly. 

As Jeremy Howard said: ” In a post-scarcity world , why hold back wealth from people just because they can’t provide labor inputs just to create wealth.”

All human comments and suggestions appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin>