Category Archives: Background

Economic Briefing

Work in progress, latest update 5/7/2016 – comments welcomed….. to

This information is being prepared for the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Chancellor as requested in face-to-face meetings during recent weeks.  In the wake of the unexpected Brexit vote, which may give rise to a leadership challenge, and/or a mid-term general election, the urgency for a credible economic alternative to be defined has increased considerably.  

This paper, which is informed by work done by CCMJ – – over several decades, in particular  the period since 1998, under the chairmanship of Rev Peter Challen.  It surveys the basic issues, giving references to organisations working on each, and suggests potential policy initiatives that may have traction.  For continuity, readers are reminded of the House of Commons Debate: “Money Creation and Society” that took place on Thursday 20 November 2014, which is recorded here:


One reason for voting Brexit was a fear of uncontrolled MIGRATION. The EU’s policy of free movement across borders, which, after the atrocities of the second world war, aimed to promote peaceful integration, appears to have resulted in a net influx of people who are perceived as either “taking our jobs away” or having a free ride on our benefits system, but the underlying reason was economic austerity.  However immigration might be controlled, e.g. by making job offers mandatory and/or by limiting newcomers’  access to benefits , whilst ensuring provisions for genuine refugees, we need to address the underlying issues, e.g. (a) improve the UK’s skills training, and (b) build infrastructure for low-carbon energy production, e.g. wind farms, and solar panels, in areas which have suffered industrial collapse, and (c) enforce the “living wage” and ban zero-hours contracts which prevent employees from engaging with other employers, (d) urgently increase the stock of social housing.

The second type of reason given by Brexiters was TAKING CONTROL, which for most people was the need to re-establish sovereignty over our legal system.  Despite the fact that most European legislation is generally considered to be beneficial to the UK, ensuring common standards in relation to human rights, employment, farming subsidies, water management etc, the decision to leave Europe will involve years of re-legislating not just these issues but also renegotiating world-wide trading agreements, without necessarily improving on them. The perception that the EU is controlled by unelected officials and is a stepping stone to world government by the “global elite” is widespread.  When President Obama made his “back of the queue” statement, he was referring to the secretly in progress TTIP negotiations, which if agreed will enable international companies to sue national governments if their policies cause them to lose profits, and those taking this view are more than sanguine to see the UK omitted from these provisions. This ultimately leads to an examination of our constitutional rules, and a number of different groups,  who were simultaneously considering different routes towards constitutional  reform, have been brought together by Assemblies for Democracy  See also and

A third type of reason for voting Brexit focused consciously on the problems of INEQUALITY. The evils of banking cartel practices were identified by CCMJ in the sixties and an increasing number of well informed analysts and activists, and as the antics of the neoliberalism proceed unchecked, the division between rich and poor has escalated.  Whatever our relationship to the EU, the sorry truth is that most of the progressive policies introduced by Clement Attlee’s Government in the post-war years have been systematically dismantled, with creeping privatisation of  the NHS, secondary schools being turned into independent academies, sell-offs of the garden cities, a planned demise of local authority and housing association affordable homes, with rents of the remaining properties set to rise to 80% of the market rate, and many of the properties emerging as buy-to-lets and properties built on land that cash-strapped local authorities have been forced to sell to commercial developers are being sold off-plan to foreign investors, and left empty for “land-banking”, whilst the problems of homelessness are on the increase.


MONETARY REFORM:  With much of the UK’s income being derived, not from productive industry but from the City of London’s position as an epicentre for financial services.  Whether or not one views fiscal gambling manouevres as immoral, the activity amounts to a bubble that could collapse any time that market forces turn against it, making the UK vulnerable, and with Brexit, the risk is even higher than before.  Positive proposals are thus needed to inspire confidence in the electorate. The purpose of these notes is to identify key issues and point to possible remedies which can be included in election manifestos.

In 1963, the Christian Council for Monetary Justice (CCMJ) – – (in particular see – began its campaign for reform of the banking system. Members of CCMJ  and another group campaigning under the name “Prosperity” – – honed their ideas at a series of residential conferences at Bromsgrove and have continued articulate their concerns to their own members and the public at large of the years. As the situation has worsened over the years, other organisations have provided similar overall analyses and/or joined them in campaigning on particular issues:

i.e. • Money being created as DEBT by private institutions for their own profit rather than for the good of the people [Forum for Stable Currencies: and Positive Money:] • USURY as in instrument of injustice, and an accelerator of economic growth, ultimately giving rise to over-use of the earth’s resources, and global injustice:  see Jubilee Debt Campaign:, Campaign for Interest-free Money:, currently being incorporated into the Campaign for Co-operative Socialism: • with LAND as the key repository of wealth [Coalition for Economic Justice, representing a number of separate campaigns:]; and • INEQUALITY in ownership and earning power  causing increasing social distress [“The Spirit Level” and The Equality Trust:]; • exacerbated by Tax Avoidance on the part of  some of our overwealthy citizens [Tax Research:] and [Tax Justice Network:]

These issues are closely intertwined, and although each campaigns gives primacy to its own particular concerns, our view is that a set of economic reform proposals needs to draw from all these areas of analysis.  Policies must cover areas which have been identified as key, to be in any way credible, such as Housing, and provision of Health, Education and Employment, and go into sufficient detail of how change can be effected in each of these areas. However, the central question is what to do about the MONETARY SYSTEM itself, beginning with Money Creation as Debt and the problem us Usury, i.e. charging of interest.

Money Creation as Debt: Long done are the days when the crown issued coin as fiat currency, based on gold robbed from ancient colonies, or simply printed and distributed as paper notes, recalling the chaos of the hyper-inflation experienced by the Weimar Republic.  Nevertheless several secular groups advocate such a system, recalling the fact that in wartime, government has in fact issued currency direct:  e.g. UK Column:, the British Constitution Group: and the Reset Group:  A programme of quantitative easing following the 2008 collapse, when the Treasury authorised money-creation to re-fund the banking sector, but the beneficiaries were the banking fraternity, who had collectively mis-managed the monetary system by such manoeuvres as funding mortgages to people who could not afford to repay, then floating the debts on the stock-market as  “collateralized debt obligations”.  It is not clear why the government having saved the banks from collapse, allowed everything continued as before, with the culprits continuing to receive bonuses of millions – the Cooperative Bank was not immune and suffered its own scandalous collapse some years later in 2013 –

The Brexit vote was in some cases, an inarticulate vote of protest against this type of corruption which continues to be endorsed by the government, the only type of reform that seems to have been carried out is a small tightening of regulations concerning banking reserves. With the knowledge that this kind of mechanism has been employed, there has been some talk of “helicopter money”  but this seems to be an idea for crisis management, and the method of creating money as debt appears to be well-entrenched technically as the way to do it. However,  Positive Money – campaigns to remove the power to create money as debt by the bankers and to bring it under the control of a public organisation – see details on

The problem of Usury:  The work of Margrit Kennedy is a key resource:   Islamic Finance:  sets out to avoid usury by a different model of stake-holder finance:] and some of its ideas have been incorporated into Binary Economics – see  •  •  Some of these ideas have been picked  up in proposing stake-holder finance for housing (see below).

Another model, State-Owned Banking, which is in practice in the state of North Dakota, USA has been endorsed by well-respected economist Ellen Brown, who recently presented it at a meeting hosted by the RSA – see • – in the example she described, existing infrastructures of smaller banks are used as outlets, and the challenge would be how to adapt the model to the UK situation, something that it can be argued may be more possible than before, given the Brexit vote.  In the UK we do have a network of Credit Unions, which are community-owned savings and lending institutions – • – and there is scope both for supporting them, and enlisting them as outlets for such a proposal.  In the meantime.  In the meantime, the nearest model we have to an ethical bank is Triodos: One glimmer of hope for future planning is that the taxpayer owns 70% of share of the Royal Bank of Scotland.


The huge rise in precarious employment has in recent months caused a number of organisations to coalesce around a campaigns for CITIZENS’ INCOME, now usually referred to as UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (UBI).  Although it may at first appear to be unrealistic to give everyone “something for nothing”, on closer examination there are a number of cogent arguments in its favour, ie, (a) predictions of fewer jobs being available due to increasing automation, (b) the current benefits system dis-incentivising people from seeking work, and (c), an abusive (privatised) system of assessment enabling petty bureaucrats to impose arbitrary sanctions, leaving job-seekers without income for weeks at a time, sometimes directly causing homelessness, (d) the positive idea of providing basic security so that they can volunteer in many available schemes for doing good in the community, and mothers who so wish can stay home looking after their children, free of financial pressure. Campaign Groups include: Citizens Income Trust: and Basic Income UK:

The left-leaning think-tank, Compass, has commissioned research on UBI and their report costs out several models of UBI:  The general idea is to have continuity from a much-increased child benefit, continuing during study and training, right through adulthood and connecting up to old age pensions.  The level of income, which would replace the tax-allowance for all workers, is of course crucial, whether it’s equivalent to unemployment benefit, or amounts  to a decent “living wage”.  UBI would not alter the need for additional disability support, and/or housing benefit.  Being universal, the system would be much cheaper to run than assessed benefits, and although “land reformers” suggest supporting it by  “land taxes”, Compass’s figures indicate that it could be supported by modest increases in overall taxation, which would of course apply to all employees, with the UBI forming the basis of their income.  This proposal is therefore definitely worth considering as a proposal that if properly presented, could gain wide support amongst the electorate.


HOUSING: Organisations such as Housing Justice: and Shelter: provide emergency help with the enormous upsurge of homelessness.  However, with mortgage-debt accounting for around 80% of money-creation in the UK, housing is a key factor in our economic system, embodying the four basic issues identified by CCMJ so long ago, i.e. Debt, Usury, Land and Inequality, and is considered by most people to be the most important challenge for improvement by any government. With key workers who cannot afford to live in the centre being forced into the suburbs, putting even more pressure on our transport system; with cash-strapped local authorities being forced to sell off land for development by commercial companies and many of the flats sold off-plan to overseas investors who have no intention of even renting them, just keeping them as an investment to sell on; many of the younger generation, even those with good jobs, are living in over-crowded shared accommodation or continuing to live in the parental home into their thirties because they cannot afford to get on the housing ladder. Lack of available housing is also one of the reasons for the rise of xenophobia. Even without attempting to alter the basic mechanisms of the economic system, there is considerable scope for practical intervention, for example:
(a) If possible, to reverse recent legislation forcing Housing Associations to sell off their properties as a discount.
(b) Controlled Rents should be re-established to cover both public and private sector rentals to ease the pressure on those renting properties.
(c) A modest form of Land Value Tax could also be considered, i.e. varying council tax according to the property size, which would incentivise owners of under-occuped to take in lodgers. Punitive rates can be imposed on landlords who practice “land-banking” by keeping properties empty, and if necessary, legislation should be enacted to enable local authorities to do this.
(d) Legislation can be framed, and generous finance provided, to enable brownfield or fringe agricultural land to be purchased to enable new large-scale housing to be provided in suitable locations, either Local Authority-owned or via Community Land Trusts and other models of Co-Ownership should be encouraged.

Co-Ownerships can exist informally when two or more individuals or couples share accommodation, commune-style, whilst they save up deposits for housing, but in current conditions, even with this arrangement, they may never be able to raise the funds required.  The idea is that by forming legally watertight partnerships, a group of private investors can come together to fund housing projects either for themselves and/or for others.  The current situation is that housing co-operatives, having amalgamated into larger commercial organisations, will be forced by the latest legislation into providing yet another tranche of right to buy properties.  Co-ownerships are envisaged as operating on a much smaller scale, as stake-holding investments rather than an anonymous co-operatives.  The basic concept is that two groups are in partnership, the investors and the occupiers, and these groups may overlap.  A key part of the proposal is flexibility, so that occupiers who become able to put more funds into the pot than the basic rent can gain a proportional share in the whole project and that should they wish to relocate, their shares can be sold on to new partners coming in.  Such projects can thus serve as starter-projects for aspiring home-owners. The theory of this area of housing is set out in Open Capital: and currently points to a page on this website (which may need updating).


TAX REFORM should be used to raise finance by more progressive taxation of international companies, and abolishing tax havens, to re-establish more funding for the above and for the voluntary sector, including better support of Neighbourhood Planning Forums, Community Centres and Voluntary Organisations, which will be even more important to provide opportunities for the elderly and the unemployed.  More follows…..

This paper is being drafted on The Map of Economic Reform: – see

New Money or No Money?


At the LETSlink London gathering on Sat 3rd January 2015, ROBIN UPTON posed the question “New Money or No Money?”: link to power-point slides.

Money limits the attention of its users. This is necessary in the globalised economy, since weighing up of all the consequences of our economic actions is unthinkable – we do not know even the names of those with whom we economically interact. Money encourages its users to temporarily suspend their ethics and behave purely selfishly:- to seek the best available goods at the lowest prices.

The selfishness which the money system engenders has implications well beyond the often remarked upon externalisation of costs. The phenomenon of price differentiation highlights the problem of reckoning in money terms. As an example, consider INTEL, who damaged some of their 486DX CPUs, destroying the maths co-processor, to produce a strictly less functional chip, the 486SX. By giving them two different products, so they could charge a premium price for the DX while the SX one was sold to a wider market. It economic terms, it was rational for them to damage their own property. This is still true of all ‘alternative’ currencies, none of which challenge the basic doctrine of selfish maximisation.

By limiting its users’ attention to what can be bought and sold, they ignore things that are beyond price, such as the health of the wider community of life, on which all human life ultimately depends. By granting people economic access to whatever they can pay for, it implicitly confers a moral right. Charities provide an outlet for people’s altruism, buy they end up degrading it to the extent that they use money, generally reflecting the self-interest endemic in business. In fact, the business ethos of ruthless competition has lead to what Chris Hedges refers to as a “hollowing out” of society; the facade of traditional societies and cultures remains, but a sociopathic money inspired selfishness eats it away from the inside out.

People have a natural tendency to be altruistic, to consider the impact of their decisions on those with whom they come into contact, but this is at odds with its explicit ethic that people are expected to behave as selfish maximisers, and even more fundamentally, with the money system’s zero-sum nature. Is it realistic to expect that a work-a-day world in which people are encouraged to be selfish can be devoid of an impact on how people treat family and friends?

Ever more areas of life are now being controlled by the market, which since “He who pays the piper calls the tune”, is structuring activity not for the common good, but according to the plans of the super rich.

Decentralised crypto currencies are inherently more democratic than national currencies since they have no central position of power which regulate them. However, Bitcoin (and the like) are zero sum, so they do little to challenge to scarcity mentality that pits all against all. Moreover, since Bitcoin is freely exchangable for dollars, it is hard to see it having a truly equalising effect upon society.

Altruistic Economics, by contrast, was designed not to imitate the current economic system. For one thing, it doesn’t have money – there is no abstract evaluation system which takes precedence over the real world. Wealth is not measured by accumulated points, but by strength of relationships. Users are as rich as others choose to make them, by declarations of sympathy.

For example, what if a friend calls you and asks you to call her back – not because she’s low on credit, but because it’s cheaper for you? If you are ready to give up your own profit to prevent someone else’s loss, you have sympathy for that person. Altruistic economics allows everyone to independently evaluate interactions, so it is non-zero sum. Interactions are not expressed in strict win-loss terms (as they are when using money, since one person can only get what another loses). This method of independent evaluation allows truer reflection of joint value creation, since it exerts no systemic pressure on people to misrepresent their feelings.

Users can record whatever they choose to about interactions – they are not limited to $,£,€ etc, but may prefer to supplement (or completely replace) such evaluations with records about the real world, such as trees planted, kilos of fruit harvested etc.

In the late middle ages in UK, capitalism gradually became as the primary means by which activities were structured. The importance of heredity began to wane in assigning social roles and the stability of feudalism was replaced by a system that was more fluid, and to many people more unsettling. In the same way, there are those who – awareness of the failings of the modern economic system notwithstanding – doubt that any new paradigm could or should replace globalised capitalism. Is there, though a fundamental obstacle to a grassroots movement replacing the existing social order – a movement that normalises altruism rather than selfishness?

More than ownership of dollars, gold or any kind of asset, concern of the people around us is a more promising structure. Doesn’t almost everyone, rich or poor, have a network of people who care about them. If not, wouldn’t they like to? Shouldn’t they pay attention to this as a matter of priority?

What if, for example, a cellphone app were developed to help connect givers with receivers. Since money normalises selfishness, a money-free method of interactions may be more effective at encouraging its users to take one another into account. Some fairly simple accounting could encourage people’s natural inclination, for example, by giving priority to the requests of people who have given a lot lately, allowing altruism to become a self-reinforcing norm.

Grassroots options are emerging along these lines, such as Streetbank and Streetlife, but individual websites inevitably face difficulties achieving critical mass – problems that would be lessened if an agreed data standard allowed users to share data between sites, an approach that would also tackle the issue of centralisation.

Initially, such a system would probably be beyond the ability of many within the current economic fold to comprehend, and might be expected to appeal only to those for whom the current economic system is demonstrably failing. The “precariat” are a global class who are denied access to stable living arrangements, or healthy food. Within this exploited underclass economic dissent is already manifest, and already people are thinking I need to get by, how many are thinking how can I make this a healthier world.

The pandemonium about the collapse of capitalism misses the fundamental point that unless we accept that debts can continue to grow for ever, there will be a mass default, and that we (presumably!) all wish human life should go on even when an economic discontinuity occurs. How better to prepare for this than with a renewed attention to human relationships? Taxes and interests payments could, in principle, go unpaid, but we must not become blind to the consequences of our actions in the real world.

The powers that be have been waging what Ivan Illich referred to as “a war on self-subsistence”, manipulating society to try to promote dependence on “the system”, but as circumstance begin to unmask how disposable people are to the system, they are seeking to make alternative arrangements. This is clearly easier in Bangladesh, where most people grow their own food and the country is covered in handpumps which access the ground water. It may seem impossible in a modern city, but we won’t know unless we try it. What is clear is that the current, fossil fuel based, system cannot continue for long. It is also clear that there is a huge amount of slack in the current system – which throws away about 50% of the world’s food, and shuttles millions of people to and from offices to work for the man at activities which in the real world, are useless or even worse.

A world without large hierarchical social structures may be hard to envisage, but then so is a world devoid of fossil fuel use, or how the current system could ever respect the earth’s natural limits unless it had a fundamental revision. Robin points to Illich’s prediction that “social power” is about to collapse. Gandhi’s idea of self sufficient villages offers a vision of independent ‘cells’ which might coalesce to create a new social body. Even in the midst of capitalism, many of us seek an alternative way of living, one that doesn’t divorce a hard-nosed “business mentality” from our social selves, one that would allow us to naturally cooperate with strangers just as we cooperate with friends. Modern technology allows us unprecedented options (such as a high tech, decentralised system of globalised goodwill). But more than any particular technology it is important to have a new vision of what humanity is. We should not see ourselves as a blight on the earth, in competition with one another and with the rest of life on earth, but with the potential to fulfill our special, unique roles, or expressing our love and giving gifts to those around us. The utility of new systems directly relates to their ability to facilitate healthier patterns of interaction. Our life patterns need to fit with our fundamental natures. • contact: robin-upton [ÀŤ]


Presentation by: JAZZ RASOOL at the new year gathering of Londonwide LETS.

….. Centres of Gravity – if we knew what our centre of gravity was for that day, we would conserve the most energy.  Collaboration comes down to how well you are able to meet your needs to some kind of purpose.  it’s like charity, it begins at home.  If you have learned how to get out of your way, and you hook up with someone who does the same, then you can work together.  Some people are always getting in their own way, and interfere with others.

A few years ago there were riots in Tottenham, for the first time 100 odd people in my block of flats accepted the possibility that someone could throw a petrol bomb.  So I persuaded everyone in their block to fill their bath with water, and make arrangements for security should things go wrong.  So people came to a meeting and agreed what to do.  I got the idea of collaborating to make a different in his community.  Working with the police, working on stop and search, telling police about volunteering organisations, told them some volunteering organisations were not doing great work with one another.

They were suffering from “collaboration illiteracy”, so there was a lot of wastage, they were not producing the effect they could have done had they worked together.  My research from that project was to find out what were the best practices, and the worst practices.  I gathered the different principles and the evidence.  The successful people worked out a cycle of steps.  This was the result of the research Idid in theTottenham area.  How they were able to create coherence out of what happened.  It’s a paradigm change, an example of shifting perspectives, changing the way people think and act. For a paradigm shift to occur, usually there’s a new burst of technology.  It took a long time for Christianity to spread until the printing press was produced, and this was able to spread the ideas throughout the world.

If you try and produce the technology before you have the mindset, the issues get magnified, and the technology shows up the issues in a magnified way.  So don’t take a new way of doing things into technology before it’s been demonstrated to work.  With the internet and society during the last 20 years, things have shifted.

The internet delivers results based on relevance.  These are the things that google and Facebook connects by.  It returns results based on preferences.  With the Arab Spring, people wanted to connect up into their deeper intentions, i.e. resonance factors as opposed to relevance factors.  People wanted to demand technologies which connect them with what they have resonance with.  It’s not only about connecting and sharing, it’s about learning.  It’s not about what you had for breakfast but what you can learn from people – a smaller network can have massive relationships. Now things are become more distributed, they realise everyone is a source for something.  You want someone’s insight and intuition.

In the past people bought something then you give them after sales support.  The new method is that first you support people, then later you might get a sale.  It used to be who can sing the loudest.  Now it’s more about connecting into things that make a difference.  Especially in the creative industries and the sharing economy.  Now the newest technologies are focusing on how we are empowering people.  They used to be about following whatever is trending, but it is shifting from relevant to resonance, which are the side-effects.  If you have a priority you will develop activities around it.  The thing that’s more powerful to work with are the resonance factors.  Technology is developing a new engine to connect people up by their wisdom.  If you are an energy healer, you want Reiki, not oil.  The evolution of social networking involves: relationships:  i.e. INFORMATION – KNOWLEDGE – INTELLIGENCE – WISDOM.

Driven by software, when Information (directories), Facebook and myspace started seeing migration from software to clout.  Now intelligence is driven by shared mind of everyone on the internet, i.e. what you have resonance with it.  New technologies are emerging which are called: “mind ware”.  Originally directories, then search engines, then social engines.  This new engine is connecting people by wisdom – the Resonance Economy – which is a paradigm shift.  This applies to currencies and changing order in the world.  When the banks stop lending, people connect up by their own wisdom and getting crowd-funding.  Individuals are going to collect up their own wisdom and forming crowd-government.  It’s already going on, but there’s no technology to connect it up.

The solution is to get people to collaborate with themselves then each other, then technology.  From Tottenham, first you have to have connection (1) serious, (2) fun (3) engaging.  If the three are in the right proportion they can connect.  I also found this with the voluntary bodies.  People stared building trust.  Then they contribute.  If you want to work with a larger amount of trust, they cross over into the collaboration half.  You have “trust momentum”.  This will take you into the next stage.  Ultimately you want to build something for the long-term, and talking a much bigger audience.  If you are not getting commitment, it’s because there was not enough contribution.  If there’s a lack of trust or moment, you orbit or go back.  You can have lots of activity but nobody trusts in what’s going on, so they cannot move from one stage to the next.  If they did not build enough trust or activity, if they competed a lot within themselves, they go backwards, it’s a sign of the opposite, which is competition.

If you reduce communication etc etc, you go backwards into competition.  If someone is not co-operating it’s because they are not able to make a commitment, so whoever is around them has to help them to make a commitment, etc.  People get stuck because they are not valued, and they close down.  This is based on the circle, eng, emp, ent  in the centre of the circle.  If you can get the DNA of their why, you can get them to collaborate.  it’s based on the “why”.  Moving forward requires enough support, challenge/ stretch, reflection/ processing. Each of these needs to have trust –  build on three proofs – Evidence, Experience, Education (Moel/Principle).  If someone says they are keen on something, then you will tend to trust it.  If insufficient support, challenge, reflection, you can reverse back into competition.

Y-space:  How to identifying. social vitamins, nurturing your inner world.

Support, challenge reflect.  If they can find people to give the right proportions, these are the right people to form a connection with.  How well are they meeting their needs right now.  How are these needs met?  These are emotional intelligence factors, how are you self aware, self manage, how do you develop yourselves.  How self-aware are you?   How can you help others to self-manage their intellectual development.

Mapping Collaboration:  Take questionnaire scores, arrange on grid, paint by numbers, paint by numbers, build a picture, and you can see how much alike people are.  This is just the surface perception, this shows the limits of the personality of that person.  it’s possible to talk the picture, it’s a mental selfie.  Where does the centre of this person’s energy located?  Just because an areas is scoring high, it does not mean the centre of that energy is there.

When people start focusing on the main area, the used less energy, so they conserved more energy, started to be more alive, all just by getting them on a daily basis to say where their centre of gravity was.  If they can’t get the needs met themselves, they can book up with someone else, not someone similar to themselves, has to be someone with different, opposite strengths.

On diagram:  Y axis is energy, Security, Freedom, Intellect, Creativity
X axis is How you help others? Experience, Happiness, Build experience………(look at diagram). VQ – Vitality Quotient. How alive is this person? If someone is skilled 89% only 50% committed, impact is 44%.

Are you in flow?  Out of 127 people, the average heart was only 10%. So the impact they were making is only 10%.  If only 40%, they are doing better than the average.  Divas are hard to work with because more skilled than trustworthy.

Brain Scans – Atmascape.  Comparisons:  When you try to connect with someone, you can try and find out how similar they are, and how much in sync.  You can build a community of people you can check in with every day and managing relations with 30 or 40 people with them.  You can everyone you’ve bookmarked, and you can see how much they can support, you , learn from, reflect with.  if you add up on a daily basis it varies every day.  The profile does not deviate over a period of every two weeks.

Needs/ Ability matrix. Should work through social media, and gaming. If you put information into a game engine and create a terrain, using that information about what is going on with their character, you can decorate their landscape with appropriate features.  You can put trees, deserts, people may look like they are scoring high, but ready to burnt out.  Can be low but showing a lot of resilience.  If lots of flow put water.  Habits show up as white spots.  Habit leading to high scores, plateaus, worn down, beaten tracks.  In a game engine can build it as a picture.  You could then experience your own inner world.  Shows strength, resilience, houses, habit becomes habitation, bad habits become a ghetto.  In that landscape you can find out what’s going on inside yourself, but for their relatives they can go into this world and see what’s going on inside their world.  Used in mental hospital, and showed results at NHS conferences, new technology shows people’s mental health, allows for the therapist to monitor the person remotely, cold alert the therapist to the person dashing or recovering.

At Greenwich, Occulis Rift, virtual reality helmet, you can physically be in inner world.  You can ask someone else to put on your helmet and wander round in your inner world. Teams should go on inward bound expedition, to change what they are going to do.  When people sat in areas with plateaus they reported a feeling of being at home because this was the place they were most accomplished, this is where they felt kinaesthetically at home, so deeded to see if terrain information could be matched with terrain in the real world, where the outside world matched people and took them to destinations, because the world outside matches the terrain inside, which is why they feel at home there.  What about travel agents using this information?

Collaboration can be done face to face.  We now have funding for this project and will run events called collaboration cafes, over 4 weeks, learn collaboration cycle, business people and residents, to improve the empowerment and wisdom.  3D world projects for communities, mental health, businesses, it’s all online, i.e. EnergyDiamond, Atmascape, at

Social vitamins, SUPPORT/ CHALLENGE/ REFLECT – the people who can help you.  Or go to people you’ve bookmarked, your own tribe.  You use this if you can’t connect with people face to face.  This approach appeals to a lot of people because it changes their perception of the outer world.

Bankers creating physical landscape wanted it to be embedded in the internet, wanting it based on resonance rather than relevance – an internet-driven government.  Does not require external government to manage why’s already going on.  Annual experiment in February, laws of energy. software can be put behind the internet and made  available to everyone.  It only nly needs 17 people with correct mind-set this would set a ripple of mindset, you, comment intent and complementary life paths.  For a whole country you only need 22 people coming together to affect like the whole country.  2.5 thousand people to all get profiled, and we found 17 people with a common intent, with complementary walks of life, would create a laser effect.

Full details of Jazz Rasoul’s work is on:

Interest, Inequality & Environmental Destruction

Presentation given by Clive Menzies at the first meeting of the Money Alternatives Project on Saturday 3rd January 2015 – link to power-point slides.
Clive opened by posing the question “How do people rule?”
Interest, (also Land, Citizens Income)
Its the mechanism of how we create money that is a significant problem. This is to explain why.
Margaret Kennedy wrote a book on interest and interest-free money. Inflation.
1. Everyone pays interest
2. Interest doesn’t treat everyone equally
3. Interest drives exponential debt growth, causes inflation, mutually caused
West Germany 1982, data – first 8 deciles shows the poor are paying interest to the rich. We are pushing water uphill. This illustrates that interest is one of the major drivers of inequality.
4. There’s a correlation between interest and exponential growth. The debt interest grows faster than our ability to service it. 3% GDP means that the economy has to double every 24 years.
Eg example of the wheat crop.  Looking at the curves in nature in nature it levels off. Exponential growth is like cancer.
Discounting cash-flow, everything is valued on discounted cash-flow, so we are discounting the future. If you owned a forest, you decide whether to cut them down and get the wood now or wait until the future. Every financial calculation is based on getting the cash now, to extract as quickly as possible.
Frank Ramsay in London said it’s because of a reduced time preference. Indefensible and a failure of imagination. If you based it on the future. They want the £100 quid now to invest it now. The forest, if we cu it down now its worth a million. Or at current rates of interest it might be worth x in 10 years time, discounted according to the rate of interest prevailing at the time.
Banks aren’t lending to small businesses because they can make more money on the markets. Private ownership of land incentives them to maximise the value without giving them the responsibility for protecting kit for future generations.
This comes back to the time value of money.
Another example £10 ticket, if you buy it now it’s cheaper, because of the mechanism of interest. this system has evolved over centuries, it’s so ingrained in our society that we have to make our money work for us. The idea that money needs to work for us is wholly flawed. It suggests that money of itself is capable of creating value. Not in absolute terms. Only because of the mechanism of interest.
People in the city only have the answer as it exists now.  Fundamentally it does not make sense. it’s based on capitalism, an environment where it’s necessary to compete.  There’s nothing to stop anyone connecting an entity even if you take away the option of interest. The free software movement runs the internet, but there’s never been a profit motive to create software.  This operates under a different set of rules. If you have a driverless bus, it’s going to make money, you can buy the bus, so it has to make money.

a) Interest-free national currency possibly backed by land spent into the economy by the government to create infrastructure.  b) Land rents accumulated for the common good.  c) Citizens income.

A world without interest: * Infrastructure * Private Enterprise * Housing.
Major obstacles to change are the people who benefit from interest, e.g. banking interests, and industrialists, who are people who benefit from exclusive land and resource rights, so that the means to live is conditional on employment. The new model is the Current Global Political Economy and the Ruling Clique hold the levers of power  They create division, ecocide, war, depression, they are leaching off the 7 billion people who create value on the planet, extract interest from them.

In the Critical Thinking project, they see that this is the way the world works, and can interpret everything through this model – see 45min filmed presentation by Clive Menzies via this link: Contact:


This is a co-operative project, for those who have the knowledge to share it with others, so we can all find our way around these topics, and can choose where best to contribute to the myriad projects seeking positive change. If you know of something that should be included here, and/or would like to contribute, please contact: