I'm sprucing up the joint. When I made this site it was basically a copy of my Buckminster Fuller Challenge entry, and I've been meaning to make it it's own site for years, and now I'm doing it. The home page is looking good, last night I worked on the 'Current Problems' page and now I'm working on the 'Basic Premise'. I keep you updated here on the blog.
Here is an excerpt from an article on FT.com, which is written by Written by Robert Skidelsky and Edward Skidelsky, who wrote a book called, 'How Much Is Enough? Money and The Good Life'. I didn't read the book but they seem to back up my idea!
I really need to get in touch with these guys.
"So what is to be done? First, we must convince ourselves that there is something called the good life, and that money is simply a means to it. To say that my purpose in life is to make more and more money is as insane as saying my purpose in eating is to get fatter and fatter. But second, there are measures we can take collectively to nudge us off the consumption treadmill.
One is to improve job security. Government should restore the full employment guarantee. This does not mean guaranteeing everyone a 40-hour a week job. Government should gradually reduce the maximum allowable hours of work for most occupations, guaranteeing a job for everyone who wants to work that amount of time.
At the same time it should institute an unconditional basic income for all citizens. This would aim to improve the choice between work and leisure. Critics say this would be a disincentive to work. That is precisely its merit in a society which should be working less and enjoying life more.
Third, government should reduce the pressure to consume by curbs on advertising. We already have curbs to guard against specific harms: it would not be a big jump to recognize that excessive consumption is itself harmful – to the environment, to contentment, to any mature conception of the good life.
Underpinning these measures would be a steeply progressive consumption tax, with a top bracket of, say, 75 per cent. This would be a tax on what is spent, not on earnings. It would reduce the pressure to consume, finance basic income, and encourage private saving for old age and infirmity.
All these proposals are open to criticism. However, unless we take a collective decision to get off the consumption treadmill we will never get to the point of saying “enough is enough”. And if we don’t do that, we will go on wondering what all that extra money was for."
They have an RSA Talk if you want to listen to them talk about it.
I'm always finding interesting videos and articles, so I thought I'd share them.