Rational vs Irrational Planning Rational Planning _____________________________________________ WORK -- something that needs to be done. (God of Hosts (world, body) & Goddess of Nature (environment, life force), parent/cause. PUBLIC DOMAIN / GOVERNMENT / COMMUNISM (equal rights) PLAY -- something that wants to be done. (Lord of Consciousness (mind, reason, value & priorities learning), child./effect. Fool is having lots of fun when the work was not yet done. PRIVATE SECTOR / BUSINESS / CAPITALISM (unique rights) _____________________________________________ * Leisure IN CANADA, Summary of the Montmorency Conference on Leisure, Montmorency, Quebec 1969, Report of the Study Committee on The Philosophy of Leisure. “Our production-oriented society is rich in materials but has not yet managed to assure its members an economic and social minimum for a civilized life. Because modern societies favour standardization of ideas and opinions freedom to think and create is inhibited. Pluralism is necessary in a free society. The preponderance accorded to rationality and logic minimizes the resourcefulness of the senses, affections, emotions and intentions; notions which normally counteract abuses by bureaucracy and technocracy. The result of all this is a stereotyped life in which development of spontaneity and individuality is hindered, thereby contributing to alienation. Fundamental changes in the values of our society will be required to make a new and profound philosophy of leisure possible.” “Leisure should be considered positively as a state of being in which the person has the opportunity to choose to be what he wishes. Because of the unity between man and his environment, leisure implies a consideration of the interplay between all services, resources, and institutions in a community.” (https://www.facebook.com/notes/alexander-braun/guaranteed-annual-income-gai/10155029838515442) * “The 35-hour working week is a measure adopted first in France, in February 2000, under Prime MinisterLionel Jospin's Plural Left government. It was pushed by Minister of Labour Martine Aubry. The previous legal duration of the working week was 39 hours, which had been established by François Mitterrand, also a member of the Socialist Party. The 35-hour working week was in the Socialist Party's 1981 electoral program, titled 110 Propositions for France. The 35 hours was the legal standard limit, after which further working time was to be considered overtime.” (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F35-hour_workweek&h=fAQFAcMaV) * The “Freedom 55” meme was popular not so long ago. More robots, mechanisation, industrialisation, corporatization, and the scientific advancements promised less work, more play, earlier retirement. * “A Canadian City Once Eliminated Poverty And Nearly Everyone Forgot About It.“ “Between 1974 and 1979, residents of a small Manitoba city were selected to be subjects in a project that ensured basic annual incomes for everyone. For five years, monthly cheques were delivered to the poorest residents of Dauphin, Man. – no strings attached. And for five years, poverty was completely eliminated. The program was dubbed “Mincome” – a neologism of “minimum income” – and it was the first of its kind in North America. It stood out from similar American projects at the time because it didn’t shut out seniors and the disabled from qualification.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-manitoba_n_6335682.html) * In 2016 “Ontario floats idea of guaranteed minimum income to ease poverty.” “Proponents say a guaranteed minimum income, which would see families living below the poverty line topped up to a set level, would be more efficient and less costly than administering the existing series of social programs that help low-income residents. They also say poverty is one of the biggest determinants of health, and a guaranteed minimum income could mean reduced health-care costs. "Poverty costs us all. It expands health-care costs, policing burdens and depresses the economy," Sen. Art Eggleton said last month as he called for a national pilot project of a basic income guarantee. About nine per cent of Canadians live in poverty, but the numbers are much higher for single mothers and indigenous communities.” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/charles-sousa-guaranteed-income-1.3490107) * New Political Philosophy: Communism AND Capitalism, NOT Communism Vs Capitalism (https://www.facebook.com/notes/alexander-braun/communism-and-capitalism-not-communism-vs-capitalism/10155029856115442) Communism -- common needs, i.e. bodily functions & basic security of being, as described by the UN Human Rights declaration, along with other critical infrastructures organized and prioritized by the public governments. Capitalism -- different wants, i.e. various mind-derived desires of different individuals to get non-essential things, which is organized and provided for by the private business within the free-market economy driven by the supply and demand of the consumers. As far as what can be done by the government right now in order to make the immediate improvements, well, there are a few things: 1. The implementing of the Universal Guaranteed Minimum Income across the board as a citizen shareholder dividend paid in line with the common sense, the corporate law, national charter and civil rights, and international UN human rights, article 25 to be precise. 2. Ending the prohibition of cannabis would be good start, which would bring the necessary tax revenues. 3. Stopping fluoridation of public tap water, which calcifies the pineal gland and makes people docile, unmotivated, and sick. 4. Introducing the ranked ballot into the voting system, while the voting itself should be focused on naming the issues and solutions to these issues, with then top ten issues, along with top ten solutions for each issue, forwarded to the respective public officials, who are elected along side with the democratic process of social problem solving, ... and not as a sole political popularity pageant spectacle, with the politician promoting their party platforms, as well the attached private interests, who are therefore not flexible and not able to efficiently deal with the real issues at hand that face society and the people whose interests the political system purports to represent. 5. Returning to the original mandate of the national banks, such as pre-1974 Bank of Canada charter, to issue interest-free loans to their respective governments. A shot in the dark but an important part in the equation of building a healthy society and environment. Sadly, many public officials are corrupt and mainly serve the private interests of the world's elite, while the real issues that matter in most people's lives for most part get ignored and swept under the carpet, out of sight and mind. Sunny ways, sunny days. * After all, the "Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise person") is the binomial nomenclature (also known as the scientific name) for the only extant human species." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens) The basic income in terms of the shareholder's rights, would it be a shareholder in a corporate entity, or a government, or both, last is the case currently in society, means how the wealth represented by that "shareholding" is shared and distributed. That's all. If the criminals are stealing people's wealth and are self-serving by way of force, corruption, and disregard for the laws and ethics, then it is because they are criminals, hence the word to describe them as such, and not due to the flaws of the actual theoretical premises of resource and benefit sharing in itself, would it be a capitalist (want-based) or a communist (need-based) system, the actions of criminals by definition disregard and disassociate themselves from whatever the supposed ideological convictions of the honest representations of these respective social contracts. In the current "monetized" economy all social services are therefore monetized, even if you don't have to pay for it, the price tag is still attached to it; the hospitals, the homless shelters, the prisons, and the food banks etc., to account for their respective budgets. A stupid argument made by some socialist dilettante demagogues, that if we in Canada have a free health care system (which is actually not free since every visit gets $$ subsidised from the borrowing done on the citizen's behalf) why then have GAI, have everything free. Well, tell that to my landlord and the grocery shop. However, here I am talking about how to fix the current monetized system with the citizen's share payments of dividends that can be made to the citizens within the current monetized economy, thus improving the wealth distribution. People still have to pay their rent and utilities and buy their food, so even if some of the services, such as health care, is somewhat socialised, there is still much of the economy and personal survival is depended on the availability of the monetary resources. According to UN Human Rights (Article 25) all citizens have a right for an affordable housing and functions of life adequate for human dignity and well being. I don't see any of you socialists providing free housing and food to people in your utopian communist rhetoric. Last time i checked the rent costs money, as in the monetized economic system, no free rides here yet, aside the institutionalized residencies, so unless you are prepared to live in the hospitals and prisons, i would advise you getting some of that money meantime. The more the merrier. GY wrote: "yes the GAI and privatization are in NOWAY related. hitler didnt lose the regatta because he was a bad guy... well actually, hitler didnt row, these things are NOT RELATED. just cuz i can then afford dentalwork doesnt mean i should pay for dental work. by that logic we are free to take all their money because as a hockey team,theleafs REALLY fucking suck. so rights and politics aside, we are a modern advanced economy we should be doing modern advanced things with it! espones that will reap economic benefit andoffset economic hardship, reduce healthcare costs,domestic violence,suicide etc etc etc its not even socialism. It is an adjustment of capitalism made necessary by systemic dysfunction. naysayers on the left mean well,but they are comfortable as well. removed from the reality of actual poverty." The bottom line, we are not going to get rid of money any time soon, so we may as well get use to it, better yet, figure out how to get the people their fair share of these monetary resources. People still have to pay their rent and utilities and buy their food, so even if some of the services, such as health care, is somewhat socialised, there is still much of the economy and personal survival is depended on the availability of the monetary resources. The Logic Governments represent the common needs/infrastructure. Corporations represent the individual wants/market place. Human beings represent the common sense universal inalienable/common law rights, the International UN Declaration of Human Rights, the national civil/charter rights, the shareholder's rights in the corporate law, and the consumer rights, dealing with various public safety regulations enforced in public and private sectors. The human beings, as citizens, elect their respective public officials to form their governments which in turn manage and regulate the societal laws and order which applies to both the public and the private sectors. Thus the public governments regulate the private business so that it is done within the allowed legal framework. The citizens in fact control and regulate the private business through legislature. The governments are bound by their constitutional duties and acts, therefor must respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of their citizens and their international human rights and treaties obligations. Since the public governments are also a registered corporation, on municipal, provincial/state, and federal level, the citizens are as well its shareholders and as such are entitles for their dividend payments from the GDP of their respective jurisdictions, enough for it to be in compliance with the corporate law, the national charter provision, and the international human rights, again, article 25 to be exact. Therefor, in this light, the economic activities in the current monetized system of the individuals and the groups in public and private sectors would be synchronised to more accurately reflect the social dynamics in fair, positive, logical, prioritised, inclusive, symbiotic, prosperous, sustainable, efficient, effective way. Sure it would be nice to get rid of money all together and have a utopian communism of spiritually mature souls, however I am not talking about some wet pipe dream but rather focusing on what can be done within the current economic and sociopolitical environment. The moral of this story is: if people can't figure out how to share something fairly, then it does not matter what the ideological "ism" it purports being motivated to "share" it under, capitalism or communism alike, because at the core of the issue of sharing is who owns what and how much of it along with what can one do with it. So, would it be a share in a company declaring a dividend in dollars, or a share in the economic prosperity of a group, such as a family and/or friends, or some community of people, the concept of sharing in itself -- sharing an environment, making survival easier, sharing beauty, knowledge, wisdom, and emotions, or having a share of something -- is still a subject to how fair and true to that definition of "sharing" it is. If one steals from another then it is not sharing. Many companies steal from their shareholders on regular basis, spend company's money on large salaries to their executives while leaving little for declared profits hence small dividends, pissing of the small shareholders. But that would be the case too in the public sector with the corrupt persons of power. Such is the human nature. It is spiritually fallible and prone to unenlightened temptations. However, that is not to say that there are no good companies who are honestly making money for its shareholders or that there are no public officials who do a good honest work. Of course there are good and bad examples on both sides of the spectrum, but that would not reflect negatively on the entire modus operandi of the public and private sectors. That would be missing the point of why they are there in the first place. Nature likes to be recognised in her pressing priorities, as is every household has its own. Irrational Planning * The current situation, in the so-called developed world, since the subtle replacement of the rational planning with the irrational, from the public institutions and its members’ interests perspective, private corporate banking elite’s agendas. Despite all the robots and machines of the post-digital, technological, mass production, scientific revolution, people nowadays are working harder to get by than ever before, many have to handle two to three jobs, if they are lucky to find any, and work seven days, forty+ hours, a week and are still trying to make the ends meet. More work for less pay, higher taxes for the working poor and less taxes for the corporate rich, higher prices for the basic staples, higher rents and less affordable housing, higher rates of inflation and less social safety net, ever more poor and ever less rich. * Nowadays the retirement was pushed to 67, whille the savings and RSPs have been methodically consumed by the low interest rates sitting below the high inflation rate, along with the “vanishing” effect of the various “funds” in the stock market Ponzi schemes, such as sub prime fiasco, due to the loosened rules around the personal savings vs the risky speculative investments. It is clear that the old ways of doing business as usual is crippling not only the economic growth but the spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical growth as well for ever increasing segment of the population. (https://www.facebook.com/notes/alexander-braun/guaranteed-minimum-income/10156430190760442) * Well, that's the point, the GMI (Guaranteed Minimum Income) will enable most people to take care of their physical, critical needs, leaving exposed those who for whatever reason are unable to provide for themselves, in which case the government and community would be in a batter position to provide the necessary assistance, as well as to identify the issues relating to primary care ahead of time, as a result reducing emergency situations, along with relieving the pressure from the wealth-distribution relating social agencies, the health care and the criminal justice system, which are already at capacity. Thus, with the promised legalization of cannabis potentially bringing substantial tax revenue and the saving offered with the implementation of GMI across board, as a social dividend paid to the citizen base, it is possible to achieve the necessary economic stability that comes as a result of a healthy consumer base represented by the purchasing powers of the middle class, who are engaged, in the GMI scenario, in the economic activities beyond their basic needs of survival, and not pushed to compete for the jobs with the ever increasing mechanized and computerised, robots-run work force to the brink of extinction. The super rich only accumulate the wealth and do not spend it, the middle class does, and with ever growing number of the poor, working poor, sick and disenfranchised while the circle of rich and well to off is ever shrinking and tightening, the middle class will all but disappear very soon, leaving behind misery, doom, gloom, and destruction for all life on earth. God forbid, and God will probably interfere in due time. The Universal Guaranteed Minimum Income UGMI is basically the common sense truth of sharing the common resources to provide for the basic common needs, such as God given earth and all life on it for the human beings to live on, to have a home, with what is necessary to nurture oneself physically, mentally, spiritually, and emotionally. If someone wants to trade shells, buy expensive stuff, or go on a cruise trip around the world, it's their private business how they want to achieve their goals, and the government can tax that extra income as it wants, however the Public interests of common denominator needs should be fairly represented by their democratically elected incorporated government representatives, which is what the government is for -- to govern, and not to sleep with the corporations making money and lining each other's pockets. Hence the UGMI is based on moral, ethical principals, the sound judgement and the refined system of ownership dividend distribution as practised by the corporate private sector without a hindrance of complication, down to the fraction of a penny they always know who owns what, so it should be with the same rigor that the public domain must enforce its interests. Since the public domain consists with the individual human beings, who are also legal members of their respective jurisdictions, such as a citizen of a country, or a tenant in a building, where the tenant rights apply, is represented in the form of the human rights, internationally, and the citizen/charter rights, nationally, the democratic public government of such collectively generated economy, which is measured in GDP, must allocate a citizen dividend share of the economic ownership for the shareholders of that economy, who are the human citizens and shareholders in every sense of the word, and too to satisfy the legal mandate set in the provisions of the incorporation charter itself, which the governments most certainly are -- the corporations -- then also based on the civil/charter rights defining the legal entity as a citizen person that a certain human body is thereof attached to, thus it comes to, and more importantly, the Article 25 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which are based on the common sense, or so it purports to be. Conclusion Therefore, if any claim to the private property and ownership is to be taken seriously, the individual human, citizen, shareholder rights must be well defined, and they are, and thus need to be enforced and applied in practice, not only the lip service. Otherwise all claims to the private property, especially of those made by the corporate legal persons, are null and void. The greed has no bounds, it will never be enough, even a handful of evil, greedy dictators can spoil the fun for everyone and oppress the rest of the group no matter how small or big it is. Fair & Square The question is about the fairness in how we share our common resources and how effectively we organize our common needs and not how many people the concept of fairness can support, it is ludicrous to compare the two since both concepts are neither mutually exclusive nor are in any dichotomy with each other. Fairness is based on the moral values and ethic, it is part of the sound judgement, prerequisite for success when dealing with the others, while the population number is just that, numbers of people involved in the equation, which has nothing to do with how the concept of fairness itself is carried out when it comes to sharing or determining the ownership and/or portions of it. Since the whole concept of sharing and fairness implies that we are talking about more than one person, therefore the bigger the number of people involved in the ownership of something the more the concept of fairness is essential for peace, prosperity, and well being of such family, community, nation, or the whole species. "Perhaps the most challenging aspect of the above is the stigma and mindset associated with giving everyone "free money."" (http://www.sott.net/article/314589-Giving-everyone-a-basic-income-might-eliminate-poverty-and-have-wide-ranging-positive-social-impacts?utm_content=buffera1f00&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer ) The most challenging aspect is to change the perception that we are not talking about "free money" honey but rather about the fact that since the governments are a legal corporate entity therefore the citizen base must be its shareholders, who during the democratic elections elect the CEO with the BOD, and whose collective wealth these corporate governments purport to represent, thus, as with all corporations, the dividend would be paid to the citizen base from the GDP generated by their combined economies, hence the role of the government is to first provide for the basic collective common denominator human needs, the social laws, criminal justice system, health care, maintain the industry standards, critical infrastructure maintenance and development, of the individuals and the groups on local and international level, second, since the government IS a corporate entity, it would then has to also focus on generating profit for its shareholders, the citizens, including paying the regular dividends. It's not free money as much as it's not free environment, or free of the consequences decisions that do harm, such as denying the people's share in the collective enterprise in order to sustain their basic needs by being unfair, unreasonable, criminal even, due to perhaps being ignorant to the fact that people DO own stuff and have rights from the fact of birth (UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25), and DO own stuff and have rights as the citizens of their nations (Charter/Civil Rights), and DO own stuff and rights as members of their communities and families (Minorities Rights, Family Law), and DO own stuff and rights as the shareholders in the corporate enterprises and can collect dividends (Corporate Charter). So, the bottom line, if there is any property to exist in any meaningful legal terms, along with a functional government in a functional, reasonable society, all the above points should be addressed properly. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ ~.~ Controlled Opposition Propaganda HEADLINE: "Universal Basic Income Is a Neoliberal Plot To Make You Poorer" (http://furtherfield.org/features/articles/universal-basic-income-neoliberal-plot-make-you-poorer) Utter nonsense. the UGMI i am talking about, and no one else it seems, is the citizen's dividend paid as their share in already incorporated national economy, as well as provincial and municipal, in exactly same manner the corporate shareholders in private sector get paid their dividend on the investment, and thus it would also be in compliance with the UN Universal Declaration OF Human Rights, article 25, making citizenry true owners of their nations and respective regional jurisdictions with beneficial effects because of it and not being enslaved by the boundless greed of spiritually decayed oppressive economic so-called elites. The article tries to associate the idea of being paid your fair share in a collective enterprise, which is what the citizen represents in a country, province, city, neighbourhood, building, family, etc., with the Negative Income Tax theory of Milton Friedman, who was not talking about the inherent citizen dividend in the economy paid according to GDP & inflation with interest rate set above the inflation and not below it as is case nowadays, which is NOT capitalism, since the first law of capitalism is that one makes returns on the investments, not losing it through crime & gambling. Thus the savings should grow in the bank not evaporate being eaten away by the inflation and service fees, whatever it is -- it is NOT capitalism, but rather so-called command and control centralised economy, which dictates who gets what part of the tightly controlled economic sectors, instead of the free market forces of actual supply and demand to figure out on their own, with the government fulfilling the role of the arbitrator with focus on making sure the citizens and the environment are fairly represented in their economies with all the human & charter & ownership rights intact, enforced and protected by the state from the possible abuses in intent or negligence by private sector and criminal behaviour and elements, setting and maintaining the safety standards and industry regulations, with the environmental and human rights interests in mind. Hence the government's role is to administer the democracy, representing social organisation of provision for basic needs and critical infrastructure. "everyone according to their needs" is the communist motto, thus to make sure that the citizenry CAN provide for their NEEDS in the ever corporatized privatised capitalist economies, the Universal Guaranteed Minimum Income must be paid to the citizenry as a dividend of their share in collective ownership of their respective economies, which is fair, sound sense, and legally bound. The article, after equating the concept of UGMI with the minimum income supplement as a form of so-called Negative Income Tax, Milton Friedman argues, would streamline the government's bureaucracy in order to save money, which is not bad in itself, the idea of topping up your fellow family members who fall below certain economic poverty line, however, it is largely based on the idea of private sector and charities to administer the ever increasing impoverished population, instead of the overpriced overextended welfare state with various forms of wealth distribution, which is not cost effective, as Canada, for example, spends $20 billion on office clerks and paper trail to figure out how and to whom the remaining $20 billion goes, instead of giving people their $40 billion and the hell with the clerks and their bureaucracy, Friedman concludes, quiet correctly I agree, BUT he does not address the inherent OWNERSHIP of the citizenry and how the dividend of that ownership is delivered to the individual members. This concerns all forms of ownership, would it be dressed up in the capitalist or communist outfits. The premise is simple: the human owns and has rights by birth and the fact of being alive, the citizen has charter & civil rights, the corporate shareholder -- the investor -- had dividend rights, the consumer has rights, travellers have rights, environment has rights, animals have rights, sick, old, young, voters have rights, etc... or else they claim they don't have any rights and do not own anything. The point is that this article, along with Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax is not representing fairly and properly the very concept of the Universal Guaranteed Minimum Income, not philosophically, not rationally, not even conceptually, as a matter of fact, it is completely counter intuitive and opposite of it. All it is is nothing more than the Neo-Liberal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism) internationalist dilettante demagoguery, which refers primarily to "the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy," as a more "radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman."*1 enough said. ~O~ Epilogue I am for the Universal Guaranteed Minimum Income (not to be confused with a Negative Income Tax)* paid to the shareholders of the economies, in the national/regional corporations case such shareholders are defined by the citizen base, a portion of GDP as agreed by the corporate/business laws and rights of the shareholders, national charter/civil rights and responsibilities of the citizens and the public office holders... *phew* then too,, the international human rights (UN Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, Article 25) that were proclaimed after the WWII hell, and of course the basic common sense to respect people's God given universal inalienable freedom and right for their fair share on God's earth and what's one's own personal stake and share, thus people can decide what they have to do or not, share or not, on their own accord with what they can afford without being forced to act by being robbed. The whole premise that the human being in this world, and a citizen of a nation on top, represents no wealth enough for one to survive and sustain the necessary for life basic needs, is flawed by the definition of it, and lame, thus, it is with the great suspicion any such claim of the inherent membership poverty based economic model will end up in ruins due to being all rotten. The success of society, community, as is family, and/or friendship, is how its most vulnerable members are represented. If it is easy to cheat and sin does not mean that one should or will in order to win or to redeem, hence the free will. (*-The Macroeconomics of a Negative Income Tax http://digitalcommons.bard.edu/hm_archive/429/) I am talking about the solution within the current "monetized" economic system, regardless of the fact of who makes the loans to whom and at what interest, for the argument sake. The argument being that since all three levels of government are incorporated then the citizens are its shareholders and as such should be paid their dividend as accorded to them by the corporate law which represents the interests of shareholders, the charter rights which represents the interests of citizens who elect the government's CEO and BOD, and the UN Human Rights (article 25) which represents the interests of human beings and the natural environment. Sure it would be nice to return to pre-1974 Bank of Canada charter, when BOC was providing Canadian government with the interest-free loans that paid for most of the Canadian infrastructure up-to-that point, however it had to stop and Canada had to start borrowing at the market rates, set by BIS in Switzerland, the price that Trudeau senior had to pay to get Canada independent of Britain, constitutionally, and become part of the G7 nations club, with the subsequent changes to the BOC Act as part of the BIS requirements, followed with the Canada Act 1982 "that was passed at the request of the Canadian federal government to "patriate" Canada's constitution, ending the necessity for the country to request certain types of amendment to the Constitution of Canada to be made by the British parliament." The bottom line is, it does not matter what ideological type of a group its membership represents if the members are screwed out of their share in that group. Thus, would it be a collective utopia or a private enterprise dream, the end result would be one and the same -- failure of such a group and sacrifice of many of its members without reward and to their detriment. As long as the current situation of private interests driven exploitation of public and shared resources, where in the private sector the ownership of everything is measured, registered, and traded in fractions of seconds and cents, while the personal stake in the public/citizen/human rights domain is left vaguely defined, not prioritised, and unenforced, leaving it to being exploited unchecked by the predatory interests, any hope of building a prosperous, happy, healthy human society and civilisation is purely theoretical, while the corrupt government officials are spending in frenzy billions of taxpayer's money on toys and payouts, as though there is no tomorrow, without a thought of giving the citizens their share, not even enough to stay alive on, Devil may care, ...out of the huge amount of borrowing and spending happening on the citizen's account, who at the end of day don't see any of that wealth generated on their behalf, the working and poor alike, where the working poor are being ripped off twice, if not thrice, and the poor poor are fed to the medical/prison industrial complex to generate even more money as they slowly suffer and die. It's a corporate music chairs game, where many hope not to lose their spot at survival. However many do lose it and become poor, disenfranchised from the privately funded circus. While some souls deal with their challenges well, with their ethics, and morals intact, if they were lucky enough to gain them in the first place, others get angry, desperate and start to compromise with their values, some embrace the evil and turn to darkness, as their souls fail the Job's trials, or been consumed by revenge and resentment, many still go crazy, if they weren't already, become sick, depressed, apathetic, or devolve into a a complete moron, or give up all together, in combination of all that, Meanwhile those who have the money and their jobs and spots secure are no better off. Truly parasitic it is. Then of course, no matter how the parasites are organised, the outcome will be the same -- death and destruction. The Free Choice & The Freedom The UGAI (Universal Guaranteed Minimum Income) is not based on a social or left wing principles but rather on the fact that since the governments are incorporated, then the citizens are effectively its shareholders, and as such should get paid their dividend of GDP, which should be pegged to the inflation rate and in compliance with the UN Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (article 25), the national charter and civil rights, and the shareholder's rights under the corporate law. As for an income that is only given to people who do not earn the required minimum, that is conservative economist Milton Friedman's idea of so-called “negative-tax” theory, when an income of below poverty line is topped to the basic minimum, which is arguably the current welfare state minus the stigmatised degrading treatment, monthly audits, every three months interviews, neither the current inflation rate is reflected in the OW payments, nor has it been adjusted in decades. Well, the humans can either fight for their rightful share within the current command and control "capitalist" system or they can fight for their rightful share within the possible future of social command and control "communism" utopia, either way the poor humanoids would have to fight for their right to party. At least within the current "monetized" system it is remotely possible to achieve within a lifetime. Where is the citizen dividend payments? There is no capitalism. The first law of capitalism is that investment should always yield returns on it, which is not the case with the current situation where the interest rates hover just above zero while the inflation rate is 5% above it. This is not free market economy so-called theoretical Capitalism but rather a Tin-Pot Command and Control Dictatorship by the international banksters, that's all. Arguably, there never was a true capitalism anywhere on the national level. They are all red commies in disguise. That is not to say that there was true communism either -- there wasn't -- since the communism, in theory, is social organisation in provision of common basic needs, while the capitalism, again in theory, is the free-market providing the supply and demand of different wants/desires. Both systems, that address the common needs and different wants, are meant to be together in symbiosis, since after our basic needs are satisfied then we want to do different stuff as well, the homo sapiens after all means "wise person" and not mere animal procreation and survival, -- and not competing with or contradicting each other, since it takes the two to tango. Anyway, enough said. No stupid comments please. I will block it immediately. ( http://www.pressprogress.ca/fraser_institute_capitalism_may_create_less_equality_than_tin_pot_dictatorships ) Work Work work work.... they greedy capitalists are obsessed about others working for them, in their boundless efforts to enslave and destroy the free people along with the whole ecosystem, environment, and all life on earth, in a name of a mighty buck and work. The robots are automating the workforce, what a disaster! Now poor overworked workers have to compete with the robots and the rest of the world for the jobs or else they starve while billions dollars of food is being wasted because it does not get sold. In a normal society the technological progress is seen as a good thing, where it should liberate the human kind from the hard work that can be automated, not make it harder to survive because of it. or dreading it as an unwanted competition. That IS absurd and backwards. Where is the citizen's share dividend as the Universal Guaranteed Minimum Income in compliance with article 25 UN Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, national charter/civil rights, corporate shareholder rights, and the basic sense of common sense decency? I agree with Bob Black, "No one should ever work." (http://www.primitivism.com/abolition.htm) Fear not, they will reap what they have sowed. Namaste. _\|/_ Live! Prosper! Be Well! _\|/_ https://www.facebook.com/notes/alexander-braun/rational-vs-irrational-planning/10156674611645442