Throughout the course of history, many have decried the system we call capitalism. With valid points, they have criticized and bemoaned its negative impact, yet the suggested alternatives have little or no real chance of working. No matter what system mankind has used, the result has been the same: those at the top of the pyramid grow fat and enjoy the fruits of everyone else's labor while those at the bottom are ground into dust.
Systems which have tried to provide for all have failed to do so in a meaningful way, time and time again. Yes, the rule of the land may be that all will receive that which they need such as medical care, basic education, housing and other necessities - but the fact is that in such societies the meager dregs which "trickle down" to these people have little more than token value. They still starve, suffer and die of conditions which those in higher strata of society never have to consider, much less endure.
I have the luxury of a decidedly unbiased opinion. I have never been wealthy, nor have I ever been completely in the gutter. However, I have been near enough to both to have unique insight, particularly given that I have never been indoctrinated in any sort of theory regarding economics. Instead, I have educated myself through various means including observation, and this has led me to some distinct conclusions.
1. Predatory Capitalism is unsustainable and devours itself on a cyclical basis
2. Communism and socialism likewise are unsustainable due to the discrepancy between ideology and practice.
3. There is an alternative economic system which can provide for all while supporting exponential growth and success.
Let me start with point #1. Our system is based upon a cycle which dooms itself to failure on a regular basis, which appears to be approximately 60 years, or just over two generations (if generations are to be understood as representing 25 years each).
This continuous cycle of boom and bust cannot be broken without understanding why it happens, what causes it, and what will prevent it. I have taken the liberty of adding an approximate timeline, relating to American History.
The following unverified quotation (from wikipedia) has been attributed to Tytler, most notably as part of a longer piece which began circulating on the Internet shortly after the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election[1]: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
*My notes, taken from American & World History
|
There is some argument about the origin of the above piece, but nevertheless its words ring true, and hold a harsh warning for those who think that they can end this cycle through the use of the same tools and methods which have been utilized over and over, ad nauseum.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. |
This brings me to point #2: alternative ideologies which represented themselves as being superior to capitalism. These systems look good on paper, and sound great in late-night conversations about "how things should be", yet these methods have not been successful in delivering that which they were intended to provide.
The thirst for wealth and power will always lead the most intelligent and devious to make their way to the top, or "inner circle" so that they may appropriate that which the masses with less savvy can never hope to see. Propaganda and brainwashing are utilized to control the people and prevent their uprising. In such societies, even minor complaints can lead to a death sentence - one is expected to do as instructed or face dire consequences.
Keeping people's behavior in check through the use of fear and threat of punishment dampens creativity and ultimately dooms such societies to dreary mediocrity. As a result, nobody is happy - even those at the top live in constant fear that they will be betrayed and replaced. Knowing that one does not truly deserve the position one has breeds an incredible amount of paranoia, which can lead to additional injustice and cruelty against others in order to prove one's power and "leadership".
Finally, point #3 suggests that we can stop the madness and inject some sense into the world through the use of technologies which were not yet available as recently as a decade ago. We do not have to buy into the lie that we need what we are told we need. We can make a bright new future for our children and their progeny. It is a choice, and like all other pivotal moments in history, it must be made before a critical point is reached, at which time the option will no longer be possible.
First, what are our needs?
Very simply put, we need food & water, clothing, ample shelter from the elements, and companionship.
Taking it one stop further, we also need the highest levels possible of medical care and education in order to be capable of maintaining the civilization we have developed - and we need transportation to school and work.
Finally, we have other needs which are ancillary to those others. These include such things as computers and cell phones for education and communication as well as the "tools of our trade" or capital goods.
Now: What is it that we don't need, yet our system has been constructed to convince us that we do?
- Insurance, which only complicates matters
- Banks, which are technically obsolete at this point in time
- Corporations, which are really "fake people"
- Money as a physical object
- Jobs (we need to produce, but that requires working together cooperatively, as opposed to 'having a job')
- Competition (cooperation gets helps us to succeed faster, and makes winners of all instead of demanding that some be losers)
In the system we are proposing, people will be paid by Payers, a group of people who have agreed to take a vow of poverty for life. They can have no luxuries nor can they have money, although they will have accounts in the system so that one may keep track of their reputations
Payers must live among the poorest members of society and live on necessities alone (those things which I said above that we all need) while they are responsible for paying anyone else who provides net benefit to others.
Net benefit is derived by taking overall benefit and subtracting any negative consequences. People will be very careful about what they do or neglect to do when their future income is affected by it. When we are being paid in this manner we do not receive our income until net benefit has been delivered. However, one can get paid a little bit for the rest of their life (residual income, like a royalty) as a result of performing work which provides continuous net benefit or which contributes to an overall effect of continuous net benefit.
Under this system, which I call "Net Benefitism" money comes into existence when you earn it and ceases to exist when you spend it. Money can never be transferred from one person to another, and only people can have money: no more corporations, etc.
Necessities are free to all - the Payers pay those who provide them, but when we go to obtain them we just get permission from their owner and take them home. The provider does not get paid for the item, per se - he or she gets paid later, based on the net benefit you receive from that item. Money is only paid by us when the items we wish to have are luxuries, and when we pay that money ceases to exist, it does not go to the person or store we purchase the luxury from.
While you may think of socialism when you consider the 'free stuff' available to all, Net Benefitism is actually a form of capitalism. I'd call it 'cooperative capitalism' because in order to earn money you must cooperate with others and provide net benefit. ANYTHING which provides net benefit is eligible for pay, from raising or homeschooling one's own children to cleaning and maintaining one's own home/property. Since the only way to get paid is to provide net benefit, it actually turns greed into a charitable force.
Furthermore, since all necessities are provided at no charge, all of one's income can be devoted to luxuries. There will never be more luxuries than there is money to buy them, since the money supply which the Payers draw from is based on how many luxury goods and services are available for sale. The more luxuries available, the more money there is to pay out to folks who are willing to work.
How will we keep track of all this? It's not as hard as you think. When we eliminate the parasitic elements of our current system such as banks and insurance companies, we will have the resources (equipment) from those companies at our disposal. With the right software and a lot of programmers, the new computer system can be ready in two years or less.
Once we are identified to the computer using our biometric markers (retina scan, handprint, voice print, motion signature, scent, etc.) the Payers can credit our accounts for any work we do. Not only that, but we can never again have our identity stolen and will no longer need ID or credit/debit cards.
There is ever so much more to this system than I could possibly include in a short essay, but these are the basics. To learn more, please visit our website: WWW.NOPOM.INFO


Comments: 17
Capitalism is a derivative of the free market and as such has problems because of its scope is enhanced by government. Its the market that has given humanity a way of life unbelievable to people only a couple of generations ago. In every nation that it existed in, even the controlled one of 20th/21st century America, it produces both wealth and a standard of living unsurpassed for the majority.
Its only real drawback is that not all will share in it. Some will fail and others be incapable through lack of ambition or ability to take part. That is it's weakness and until recently, that weakness was not enough to distract greatly from it.
Now in search of perfection, our government seeks to emulate the often shabby comfort of the fading dreams of Europe. A Europe that lives on our needs and coattails. What happens when we end up like them but with a far larger population?
: )