When you think about it, societies are made up of distribution systems. How successful a society is depends on how successfully it creates and distributes the basic necessities and luxuries of life to its population. Whether we realise it or not, we have distribution systems for money, jobs, land, housing and experiences as well as the more obvious systems for food, electricity, water supply, internet, natural resources and health services. We even have a distribution system for having babies. Some of our distribution systems are not fit for purpose which results in a great many problems. Most are dependent on money which links these systems together.
In essence, it is all about sharing. Our distribution systems determine how work and rewards are shared among humans and wildlife. A perfect distribution system would deliver just enough rewards or output instantaneously, without losses, and so require a minimum of work or input.
As a first example, lets examine a water supply system. In a modern city, they usually deliver adequate quantities of water to all customers. Although some customers will get better water pressure than others, the sharing is more or less equitable with everyone getting all the water they want but with most taking much more than they need. We can consider this a saturated system where all end users are able to take more than they need and where the system input or water treatment plant output is controlled to saturate fully the needs of end users and distribution losses. It is a kind and generous system to customers but is heavy on water resources.
What about jobs? Here, the end users or customers are the employers who determine the market. The employees are the system input. In any sector or location jobs and employees will be out of balance. With our current system, employees often need to retrain and change sector and location to get a job. There is little to no correlation between the jobs that employees want to do and the jobs that employers offer. The distribution system is the job hunting and hiring processes. These are anything but immediate and have no control over the jobs or employees available to be matched but do control the matching that does take place. We can consider this an unsaturated system with employers and employees both unsaturated and unsatisfied. Employers and hiring processes guarantee an inequitable distribution of jobs by sector and location. This is proving to be a recipe for misery for many.
As for money, as individuals we have a dual role as both outputs and inputs. When we spend money, we input our money into the money distribution system. We spend or input some of our money on the basic necessities and have discretionary power over what happens to the remainder. In other words, the money distribution system comprises two input or money supply components: basic necessities and discretionary spending. When we earn money, we take money out of the money distribution system. For the most part, our money distribution system is quick and efficient at transferring money, but there are two main problems. Firstly, too much of the money in the distribution system is taken out and controlled by the top 0.1%, by governments and large corporations. Secondly, the money system encourages these bodies to spend money on whatever ventures are most profitable rather than on providing the basic necessities we all need. We mistakenly rely on the money distribution system to produce and distribute our basic necessities, but it is entirely unfit for purpose.
Like jobs, the money distribution system is an unsaturated system. Many cannot get enough money to meet their basic needs. Those producing the basic needs often cannot get enough money to produce the quality and quantity necessary to meet real demands. Indeed, the real demands are made irrelevant by the money system since it only supplies the demands that people can pay for. When money is pumped into the money system, where it goes is not determined by real needs. The money system is a competitive environment. Because it is a competitive environment, there are a lot of losers. Competition gives all competitors an opportunity to succeed but guarantees that few will.
When we buy vegetables, we can only buy what is available. We cannot choose what is unavailable. The money we spend on vegetables will go to the seller who may pass on tax to the Government. The seller will have already paid money to their staff and their supplier who will have paid money to their staff and to the farmer who may have paid money to suppliers for fertiliser, pesticide, seeds, land rent and irrigation. All of these sellers and suppliers will be competing with each other to take as much money as possible out of the supply chain. Within each company in the supply chain, owners, shareholders, management, accountants, lawyers, marketing and other staff will take money out of the supply chain. While essential to the success of the company in our money system, most play no role in actually producing or distributing the goods. Predominantly these are clever, hard working people who are not doing anything wrong and who, like all of us at present, need money to survive. It is our money system that is wrong.
Our money system allows and encourages an increasing number of people not to contribute directly to the provision of the basic necessities that we all need and use. It diverts our best and brightest away from the most essential tasks towards whatever pays most money. It has turned most of us into parasites. It forces us to charge others for whatever we can. This is why we charge others to rent or buy our house even though it wasn’t us that built it, the builders may have died a century or more ago and housing is a basic necessity. It diverts money away from the true providers of the basic necessities towards those who do not contribute. This threatens the security of those basic necessities. Work loads, stress levels, insecurity and health problems skyrocket while everyone chases everyone else for money for their basic necessities that are produced by only a few. In the process we ravage our planet and decimate wildlife.
As for pensions, they guarantee neither how much you will get nor when you will get it nor the price or availability of what you will need to buy. They are unfit for purpose because they are money based and inherit the failings of the money system.
Does bitcoin help? No. Bitcoin also diverts people away from providing the basic necessities and creates competition among the miners who compete to produce the bitcoin.
Satisfying our most basic needs, such as food and housing, is essential to our wellbeing, When they are satisfied, we have a secure platform from which we can create, innovate, invent and improve our future. In order to satisfy our basic needs, it is essential we all have the opportunity to contribute to them. This is not the case at present. Our jobs and money systems limit who can participate. Indeed, if you really want to plant or pick crops, lay or repair a water pipe or build a house, your employment is likely to be insecure and poorly paid. Consequently, while our current system produces nearly enough for all, quality leaves a lot to be desired. And even when there is enough for all, only those who can pay can actually receive.
In our current world, if you lose your job you may lose your house, even though housing is a basic necessity and the number of houses available remains unchanged.
Money is sometimes defined as a medium of exchange, a unit of accounting and a store of value. As such, it should be excluded from playing any role in the provision of our basic necessities. Basic necessities are essential to providing the security and stability needed to take risks, innovate and create a better world. In a kinder world, we would all be able to contribute to their production and take what we need. Good water supply and electricity distribution systems deliver all the water or electricity that every customer wants. We need the same type of distribution systems for housing, food, internet access and other basic necessities.
As a water engineer I used to hear people say that water should be free. I used to think that such people must be ignorant of the considerable effort needed to design, build and operate a water distribution system. Now I think they were right. Water and other basic necessities should be free, free from the influence of money. Instead, I believe we should all contribute about two days a week, 100 days or 800 hours a year of our time to providing these basic necessities. In return, they could then be free for all. With this level of input from everybody of working age, we could create a much kinder world for humans, wildlife and the environment. What people do with the other 265 days a year is up to them. Heavy work loads, high stress levels, insecurities and health problems would largely disappear. Automation would be seen as the benefit it is rather than a threat to jobs. Crime rates would diminish. Creativity and innovation would soar. When you are able to contribute to and don’t have to worry about your basic necessities, most other problems disappear or become insignificant.
If this approach were adopted in the UK, Brexit would seem less of a threat to those worrying about their employment prospects. Indeed, it may be seen as a positive since it is likely to make adoption significantly quicker and easier. Within the EU, adoption is likely to take a little longer.
Is this vision feasible? How would it work in detail and how can we plan the transition from our current state of affairs? Would this spur even more population growth and increase further the burden on our resources? How would this impact trade? How would we pay our debts? Would different approaches be needed for developed and developing countries? All this and more are discussed in upcoming posts and books.
Contact me and let me know the issues you are most concerned about. I can then address these first.
Copyright © 2017-2018 Robert Gaskin. All Rights Reserved.