Ronaldo from esperanto.net and moneyasdebt.net asked me questions about #IONE on worldcitizen@yahoogroups. I answered him the following: Dear Ronaldo, You wrote: > currency and its acquisition is the main problem of all economies > individually and collectively; solutions lie in a total rethink of > distribution and the end of wealth accumulation What are you thinking about specifically? A legal maximumwage so people dont horde millions they never spend? An unconditional basic income (basicincome.org)? And of course, the creation of the (necessary to avoid economic collapse) additional money should not be left to commercial institutions that demand it back with interest (aka BANKS) groetjes, Ronaldo 1. A legal maximumwage is not in plan. To counterfit the growing relative poorness there is a concrete mechanisme in a povertyrelated fiatcurrency, that has to be approved step by step by an ecological controll council, like for example the world parliament will be. Sure that there have to be restrictions on the buy-out of commons by the private economy, as well as cultural - normative toplevel rulings for different kinds of cancerous growth. These are things that genuinly a World Parliament should debate on. 2. Equality is a strong goal to fight for. But the more important goal in the 21.st century is to give people the possibilities for their survival. In that regard a maximum wage might not be a bad idea. At all, it is even pretty witty. It might lower the interest of following the fordian industrial ideas of efficiancy and overproduction. But on the other hand you would have to ask: Who shall own the rest then? The american FBI? As a european I have to raise protest in advance. 3. Now to the unconditional basic income: It shall secure survival, maybe education and medic-aid, is that right? The social hammock would be perfect, there would be people to say automatically this is loss in the motivation for progress. In fact indeed, the economy would very much benefit from that, for consume would rise. Also the product development would rise throught that. I would nonetheless not leave it remaining unconditional. I would bind it to a work/education due, in which the years of binding duty non-frone work remain eventually unclear this time. Therefor I see an unconditional basic income as a secondary step into a row of steps towards an ecological poverty abolition. The IONE-concept currently does not reach out for an unconditional basic income, but it has a six step division in payout preferences, that seem neccessary. It holds a blue payout, the sixt and final step, which is adressed as luxury. Regarding the limited ressources of ressources and industries, a stepwise and supervised progress leads us more secure to a world, where an unconditional income is possible, then to just try it out. Because that would lead to worldwide collapse. Respectfully Fabian R. Elleder #einewelt #oneworld #worldcitizen #worldparlnow
Posted on: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 22:36:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015