How to get screwed on a budget

"Please, sir, I want some more." (Dickens)

It is said that the more things change, the more they tend to stay the same. Such is the feeling after the pious budget speech delivered with much smurkiness by the positively radiant South African Minister of Finances on Wednesday the 22 February 2012.

We, the people, have been told to work together towards building a better country. And with that emotive aphorism, all is well in the land of the living. Or so we are told.

We were even told that if we think that running a democracy is easy that we should go and work with 'them' for a while. If this is not a veiled threat of 'we know what we are doing,' then I don't know what the meaning of a veiled threat is!?

What irks me the most is the constant fleecing of the motorist whenever funds are required to pay for financial blunders by those that have our best interests at heart? If this is having our best interests at heart, I would hate to see what it would mean to be on their bad side!?

And as predicted, the e-tolling system is going ahead. The difference is that the motorist will now not only be paying the tolling taxes as one drives through the numerous tolling gantries but also paying for the tolling deficit through the fuel levy. Is this what is meant by being cautiously optimistic?

On the plus side, the platitudes for the wonderful buoyant budget-speech have been flowing freely by all financiers, bankers, political parties and most news agencies. I, for one, can't wait for the post-mortem.

At least we the people are assured that the sun will continue to shine and the moon to wax and wane.

Comment: if Governments have to power to print money when required (and they do,) why is the concept of taxation still in existence?

Money is only paper, nickels and dimes

We know (or have been told) that America is in the Red and China is in the Green; financially speaking of course. Same goes for the countries in the Euro zone: some are in the green, others in the red. In other words, some have true money while others only have printed money.

Not being a financial person I am fascinated by the machinations of the money energy!?

Take the following speculation: A country has a huge deficit base. To overcome its repayment responsibility, it raises its deficit base so as to allow for the printing of more money which also allows for the borrowing of more money.

The monies of a country is regulated and issued by its Reserve Bank.

The company that I work for gets its operating money from a Commercial Bank who in turn is supplied by the Reserve Bank.

Does this not imply that, because of the high deficit base of the country, the printed money I receive as a salary is not worth much if at all (here I am not referring to the inflation factor)?

How does negative money turn into a positive entity just because it exchanged hands?
If America’s negative money is of a larger proportion than that of China’s positive money, does that not mean that the negative difference turns China’s real money into baseless paper money?

Similarly, I understand that SA has positive reserves that can be used to offset its national deficit base. Money that can be used to bail out the economy should the negative offshore effects of all the negative ‘developed’ economies reach our shores. This is good news, yes?

But does not the same mathematical principle apply: if a negative is higher than the positive, the difference is still negative? Thus, are we not fooling ourselves into believing that all is Ok in the land of finances?

What intrigues me further is the fact that when Uganda’s Idi Amin tried the same stunt i.e. he wanted to print more money, he was shot down by the developed world!?

But I must be missing something for investors (people of whom I presume know what they are doing) are still throwing their money around...and getting richer by the day (an interesting aphorism seeing that it is mostly negative paper money that they are playing with.)

Global Warming: A Growing Woe

I am of the opinion that the whole so called global warming/climate change issue is too complex a subject to just apportion blame willy-nilly onto the veritable human being, especially as no real workable solutions are put forward by the activists and pundits of global warming/climate change theories.

We live in a self perpetuated and accepted way of life that puts much emphasis on finances and wealth. We mostly all work for a living because of that culture: Those that sponge of the system are looked upon as just that; spongers (why don’t you get a job, you lazy good-for-nothing so-and-so.)

The accepted capitalist system is devoid of emotion and empathy: two human qualities that make life liveable and mostly comfortable. We are becoming automaton of technology and convenience while overlooking the consequences of those actions (I have money, why should I care.) Anyway there are enough charities to contribute too to pacify that nagging conscience.

I am also of the opinion that the capitalist system as we know it is long overdue for a makeover. The fact that the living-wage gap (rich vs. poor) is getting larger by the moment, is enough of an indication that all is not well in the land of finances.

Add to the above equation an emotional subject such as global warming/climate change and a calamity is created at the forefront of the human perception and psyche. The situation is mostly aggravated by the fact that traditional means of incomes are threatened by the call for closure/minimalisation of factories, manufacturing plants and energy utilities – oil is bad, coal is bad, CO² is bad, methane is bad, flatulence is bad, meat is bad, mercury is bad, sugar is bad, cholesterol is bad, obesity is bad, paper is bad, planes are bad, motor vehicles are bad, smoking is bad, fertiliser is bad, et al.

The above-mentioned commodities supply a large percentage of workers with employment/wages on a global basis.

The call for cleaner and renewable energy utilities is adding to this woe for most of the proposed renewable energy generating theories require little human intervention and hands-on skills (not labour intensive); and are expensive to boot.
Developed countries are being asked to provide assistance (money) to developing countries so that they too can implement ‘earth saving’ initiatives. This in itself is seemingly the-proper-thing-to-do, but the underlying catch is that it’s the tax-payers living in the developed countries that will have to foot this noble expense. It must be said that altruism and charity, although seemingly noble, do not fix the underlying problem(s).

So yes, global warming and climate change is a reality of life on earth. It has been for countless of centuries and nothing we do will stave off that inevitably. And yes, our contribution to that ‘inevitably’ can also be counted and measured. And yes, many proposals have been put forward by pundits and activists alike – some more aggressively than others, to what needs and must be done to put off that ‘inevitably.’

What most do not want to take-in is that the problem is not that simple to solve. Those that are at the forefront of the war for change, are mostly gainfully employed or living of the welfare of others, or living on some plot of land (usually wrongly occupied or left behind as an inheritance) growing their own meagre crops feeding themselves and their offspring: close to nature, so to speak.

What most also do not take in is that there are factors outside the control of the veritable human being viz. Volcanic eruptions, solar flare-ups, earth’s passage through the galaxy/universe, moving tectonic plates, etc, that add to the ‘inevitably’ equation.

The ‘legacy’ issue also plays an emotive role in the whole cry for survival i.e. what of the future of my children, what about the poor animals, etc.

And then there is technology; another detractor.

Technology has provided a portion of the human race with tools that have made the acquisition of knowledge easier and cheaper. Technology has also provided a portion of the human race with powers that were previously not easily enacted i.e. freedom of expression (good and bad,) global empathy (good and bad,) power to circumvent despotism, cyber anarchy, etc.

Technology has also provided a portion of the human race with feelings on invincibility and immortality i.e. blogs will live long after one has expired, I can say what I like to whom I like without fear of physical consequence, the power of anonymity, governmental/corporate feel-good marketing campaigns, etc.

And not forgetting the power that technology has granted the giants of human-thought-manipulation i.e. the media, the swaying of public opinion, bending of outcomes to suit a given objective, popularising a certain way of life, sensationalising a happening for the sake of profit, etc.

I have over the past years made it my business to follow the reasoning behind the global warming malady by reading, watching, researching and pensively thinking about the issue at hand (from both sides of the spectrum.) I have also, in view of the few points mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, tried to formulate an opinion that encompasses the problem as a whole, without going off the activist deep-end.

My take on the problems facing the required ‘global warming’ mindset change always comes back to one glaring point: economics. What happens to the petrol industry workers when the petrol plants are done away with? What happens to the meat farmers when people minimalise eating meat? What happens to the livestock when people discontinue feeding on them? What happens to the pilots when people minimise flying? What happens to the motor vehicle industry workers when motor vehicle manufacture is minimised or done away with?

Thus in essence, solve the economics of living and the problem at hand is minimised!

Although the predicament of the human-inflicted global warming danger is a growing one, being self-centred and antagonistic in forcing people to change their sceptical fearful mindsets will not change the internal motivational drives of the human being.

The needs and wants of the people need to be addressed and pacified. Workable solutions have to be constructed in such a way that either alternative gainful employment is generally guaranteed or, that a new means of income generation is devised i.e. doing away with the traditional capitalist way of doing business.

Irrespective of what is said and done, my overriding opinion is that the inevitable will happen and that no amount of political posturing and or activist will and or new-age bluster will change that ‘inevitably.’

It is the now-or-later scenario that remains on the table.

The Poor be Damned!?

The other day while listening to another well-meaning politician sprout foibles on the eradication of poverty, I was struck by the lack of solutions in his speech. This phenomenon is common whenever politicians or people get-together to source solutions to an ever-present, and growing, social ailment.

This lack of presentable solutions is more of an ill than the whole poverty paradox. Poverty is solvable. The problem arises mostly from the reality that solutions are money based and that in itself, will require a mindset change by the way many think about money.

Money or even the mention thereof is a taboo in most languages. Yes, most will talk freely about other peoples money, but their own is a guarded secret.

Many, when confronted by poverty, will jump on the get-a-job horse. Others will look the other way. Some will put some pennies into the begging-tin and drive off in a rush. Few will attempt to come up with short term solutions (meals-on-wheels, shelters, charity drives, etc) but find themselves alone in the fight-to-eradicate-poverty.

There have been many workable solutions put forward by thinking individuals on changing the way society views and thinks about money:

1) The National Dividend. This was invented by engineer C. H. Douglas and has been revived by Ezra Pound and designer Buckminster Fuller. The basic idea is that every citizen should be declared a shareholder in the nation, and should receive dividends on the Gross National Product for the year.

2) The Guaranteed Annual Income. This has been encouraged by economist Robert Theobald and others. The government would simply establish an income level above the poverty line and guarantee that no citizen would receive less. This plan would cost the government less than the present welfare systems, with all its bureaucratic red tape and redundancy factors.

3) The Negative Income Tax. This was first devised by Nobel economist Milton Friedman. The Negative Income Tax would establish a minimum income for every citizen; anyone whose income fell below that level would receive the amount necessary to bring them up to that standard. Again this would cost "the government" less than the present welfare systems. It would also dispense with the last tinge of humiliation associated with government "charity," since when you cashed a check from IRS nobody would know if it was supplementary income or a refund.

My take on the whole eradication of poverty is a simple one.

In South Africa we have a Lotto entity that pays out huge amounts of money in a given year (In excess of 50 Million Rand.) With an estimated population of 50 million persons, a conservative disbursement of 250 thousand Rand per person would elevate all to a liveable economic level and rid the SA society of the terms poverty, poor and the-poor-of-the-poor in an instant

.
From the outset, my avaricious money-based common-sense screamed louder than a wailing ambulance siren: the rich would get richer, many would stop working thus creating economic chaos, employers would loose their power over their remaining employees, politicians would not be happy, inflation would shoot sky high, the money markets would suffer, what about the work ethic (did not the ancients say that one needs to work to acquire wealth,) how would the disbursement work, who would oversee the disbursement process, etc, etc, etc.

On the other hand, would people not revert to doing what they enjoy doing, would not their creative potential rise to the fore collectively, etc?

As the global situation stands, the human race future looks bleak. To survive longer than its nose, it needs to elevate itself above clichés of old, do away with wage slavery, embrace humanity and move forward to a co-operative mind-set for the good of all.

Alas, I feel that humanity will remain doomed.

(with thanks to Robert Anton Wilson)