See the two pictures below where copyright is reserved to Reaktion Books Ltd. Either picture depicts people who would implement the unconditional universal minimum income support if they had the opportunity to decide. In fact, they do. The man sitting on the chair is Scandinavian, watching a Samsung TV. There is an observable pattern around the world involving universal unconditional minimum income support. All countries are obligated but every country does not comply. The countries that do comply are not in debt to any other nation unless they are an English speaking nation. Many of the countries that do comply are quite large. Some of them are quite small. However, every major car producing nation with three or more car companies of its own is a universal unconditional minimum income support nation. England does not have its own car company. They are in debt. They have only begun regular compliance with the universal unconditional minimum income support in the last 12 months. America has one car company of its own. They do not comply. --- The issue and question is why is there any argument? The Latin American countries comply; all of them. Ireland complies. France complies. Italy complies. The Ukraine complies. Russia complies. Sweden complies. Belgium complies. Haiti complies. The Cayman Islands complies. Scotland complies. The OECD evidence confirms the pattern. There is evidence of resistant aboriginal peoples in North America who resisted 24 hour electricity. They also resisted the rail system. Today, resistance seems to be set on the monies to be guaranteed to every citizen for economic fulfilment to also protect them from the human savagery as occasioned by robotic automation. If you love yourself as a people or if you love the other nation who is a major car producer, then you will provide the people with the unconditional universal minimum income support as you can purchase more products, more food and provide the economy with more buying. --- When the North American wakes in the morning, part of his day must involve a decision or choice about identity. Evidently, North Americans are managing the lives of the North Americans who could be part native or native Latin American or part Italian or part French. A partial identity does not disable you from making pasta or tortillas or from understanding human hurt or disenfranchisement. You should treat others as you wish to be treated. The only issue is that if you dont have the universal unconditional minimum income support who do you blame or call as responsible except but the North American who is being resistant to the obligation, the requirement? The idea os that if he is tough on people by denying legal entitlements such as an unconditional universal minimum income support, then some authority is to accept him or some band or community. It could be his imagination but maybe it is a genetic imagination that if you resist in doing what the law requires with respect to ensuring UDHR liberties that you will be considered heroically tough on the people in your position of authority But, it nah make no sense. The people in Europe are not asking you to be tough so that you might be accepted by showing your toughness or by hindering your economy's economic capability or the capability of your own children. They are asking you to comply. Your compliance is the acceptance you seek. The Latin American natives in Latin American countries comply. The Europeans comply. Change your language maybe. Don't go anywhere. Then maybe everything will become as clear as crystal. The tension you feel is your war with logic.

See the two pictures below where copyright is reserved to Reaktion Books Ltd.  Either picture depicts people who would implement the unconditional universal minimum income support if they had the opportunity to decide.  In fact, they do.  The man sitting on the chair is Scandinavian, watching a Samsung TV.  
  








There is an observable pattern around the world involving universal unconditional minimum income support.  All countries are obligated but every country does not comply.   The countries that do comply are not in debt to any other nation unless they are an English speaking nation. Many of the countries that do comply are quite large.  Some of them are quite small. However, every major car producing nation with three or more car companies of its own is a universal unconditional minimum income support nation.  England does not have its own car company.  They are in debt. They have only begun regular compliance with the universal unconditional minimum income support in the last 12 months.  America has one car company of its own.  They do not comply.
---
The issue and question is why is there any argument? The Latin American countries comply; all of them.  Ireland complies.  France complies.  Italy complies.  The Ukraine complies.  Russia complies. Sweden complies.  Belgium complies. Haiti complies.  The Cayman Islands complies. Scotland complies.     The OECD evidence confirms the pattern. There is evidence of resistant aboriginal peoples in North America who resisted 24 hour electricity.  They also resisted the rail system.  Today, resistance seems to be set on the monies to be guaranteed to every citizen for economic fulfilment to also protect them from the human savagery as occasioned by robotic automation. If you love yourself as a people or if you love the other nation who is a major car producer, then you will provide the people with the unconditional universal minimum income support as you can purchase more products, more food and provide the economy with more buying. 
---
When the North American wakes in the morning, part of his day must involve a decision or choice about identity.  Evidently, North Americans are managing the lives of the North Americans who could be part native or native Latin American or part Italian or part French.  A partial identity does not disable you from making pasta or  tortillas or from understanding human hurt or disenfranchisement. You should treat others as you wish to be treated.    The only issue is that if you dont have the universal unconditional minimum income support who do you blame or call as responsible except but the North American who is being resistant to the obligation, the requirement?  The idea os that if he is tough on people by denying legal entitlements such as an unconditional universal minimum income support, then some authority is to accept him or some band or community. It could be his imagination but maybe it is a genetic imagination that if you resist in doing what the law requires with respect to ensuring UDHR liberties that you will be considered heroically tough on the people in your  position of authority
 But, it nah make no sense.     The people in Europe are not asking you to be tough so that you might be accepted by showing your toughness or by hindering your economy's economic capability or the capability of your own children.
They are asking you to comply. Your compliance is the acceptance you seek.   The Latin American natives in Latin American countries comply.  The Europeans comply. Change your language maybe. Don't go anywhere.   Then maybe everything will become as clear as crystal.   The tension you feel is your war with logic.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Image

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH & FLEET STREET FINANCIAL DISPATCH LONDON — SEPTEMBER 2025 — SPECIAL ECONOMIC INVESTIGATION THE ARCHITECTURE OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM AND THE MECHANICS OF UNIVERSAL DEMAND An Analytical Examination of the Post-War Industrial Order, the Fallacy of Unfettered Laissez-Faire, Mechanisation, and the State-Guaranteed System of Participatory Remuneration BY OUR SPECIAL ECONOMIC CORRESPONDENT IN FLEET STREET, Warren A. Lyon with Cheuy Leon Stephen Lam Tom. LONDON — In the tenth year following the cessation of European hostilities in 1955, as the Western world navigates the transition from wartime economic controls to the mid-century industrial consensus, thoughtful observers in Fleet Street, Westminster, and the City must confront a fundamental problem of political economy. The modern capitalist apparatus—stretching across the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, North America, and Western Europe—operates upon a single, immutable law: the imperative equilibrium between Supply and Demand. Yet, despite the vast expansion of mechanized production, factory automation, and electronic computation, our financial architectures continue to suffer from a crippling structural defect: the systemic failure to guarantee requisite consumer purchasing power (ability to pay/ATP) across the whole of the populace. I. THE LESSONS OF THE POST-WAR CONSCIOUSNESS: SUPPLY, DEMAND, AND THE ELECTRIC CIRCUIT To comprehend the crisis of modern industrial organization, one must discard the antiquated Victorian dogma that human existence is defined solely by manual toil. Under the classical doctrine of laissez-faire, labour was treated as an elastic commodity, hired when factories required muscle and cast aside into poverty when machines replaced handiwork. In an age dominated by automatic machinery, conveyor systems, and early electronic computing, such a doctrine is not merely obsolete; it is actively destructive to the civic health of the realm. Consider the macro-economic structure as an electrical power grid carrying a constant current of thirty amperes. Under a rational and balanced order, this current is bifurcated equally along two parallel conductors: fifteen amperes are directed to energise the lamp of Industrial Supply (the manufacturing apparatus, capital investment, and technological innovation), while the remaining fifteen amperes flow uninterrupted to power the lamp of Demand—the Ability to Pay vested within the consumer public. In an unregulated laissez-faire system, however, an artificial blockage is introduced along the conductor powering Consumer Demand. It acts as a deliberate obstruction—resembling a corkscrew jammed into the brass fittings of a ship's engine room. The electrical energy, unable to reach the lamp of Demand, encounters extreme resistance; heat builds rapidly within the circuit, insulation scorches, and the entire socio-economic edifice is threatened with catastrophic conflagration. Energy in an economic system, like energy in physics, is never destroyed; if it is denied its proper outlet in legitimate consumer spending, it manifests as market collapse, civil unrest, shoplifting, and social decay. Click here.

Post a Comment