Welcome to the blog site for OUR SYSTEM. OUR SYSTEM is a global location for changing our system so it enables us all to live without harm. If you are interested like us on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.

Our Agenda

A conscious acknowledgement of our common purpose as fulfilment without harm so we may organise ourselves, our justice systems, our economies, our organisations, and our societies to enable our pursuit of it. The organising principle of fulfilment without harm must override the pursuit of money and/or power. Specifically: (more...)

Wednesday, January 3, 2018


If people don’t appreciate your contribution now, I think you’ve still got to do it, remember all the people who weren’t appreciated until after they’ve died. So try.

To be honest, market signals can obviously be wrong, or at least, very, very delayed. And you, contributing as yourself (even if it is while you are earning an income doing something else for someone else) is better than never being yourself at all.

So do what feels right to you. Contribute what you feel is needed (even if no-one seems to want it now - you never know, you may become an 'over-night success').

Tuesday, January 2, 2018


I am writing this tribute to LIFE as an alternative to belief in gods or God (and religion), and the idea we should live for an afterlife rather than for now. I’ve felt no great driver to do this before, but recently, I felt the direct repercussions of more importance being placed on the hereafter than living for now, and most us have felt similar repercussions (via religious violence or persecution or exclusion) indirectly, or have been vessels of this belief themselves.

Before we begin, we should probably acknowledge, that all beliefs in gods and the hereafter likely started as explanations for the mysteries of LIFE, and so why not just acknowledge the power of LIFE directly? So to begin… (note, I capitalise LIFE generally, and keep life singularly/individually lower case, but sometimes it can be read both ways…)...

LIFE is great. We are formed by LIFE, sustained by LIFE, the very air we breathe comes from LIFE, the food we eat is LIFE, LIFE is in us, we are LIFE. So choose LIFE, this life, now, choose to live fully and in accordance with LIFE. LIFE is the power in all of us. LIFE is the truth. LIFE is the way. Serve LIFE, whatever LIFE has in store.

If you feel it (a desire, a feeling, a need, a want), then LIFE knows it. We are made by LIFE for life, and life is made by LIFE for us to live it. LIFE knows what we want. LIFE knows. And LIFE will provide.

LIFE is the truth, and the truth is all around us, through us and in us, visible and invisible, understood and misunderstood. LIFE loves us, LIFE invented love, and attraction and nurturing and everything else we do we do in life, we evolved in LIFE. We (and all life alive today) are the forefront of LIFE’s evolution so far, we are made for our environment, we are our environment. So love LIFE, learn about LIFE: learn to live, live to learn.

LIFE is understood through more than science, there are fields of knowledge that have not been imagined, so there is always more to learn, be open to new ideas and especially ideas that confound your own.

Creation isn’t just one event that happened one time as an act of God, creation is happening all the time right now and for as long as there is LIFE.

“Life should be an aim unto itself, a purpose unto itself.” Montaigne.

“Let life be its own answer.” Sarah Bakewell on Montaigne and ‘How to live’.

“Live it [your life] according to Nature.” Marcus Aurelius.

“I don't have any idea of who or what God is. But I do believe in some great spiritual power. I feel it particularly when I'm out in nature. It's just something that's bigger and stronger than what I am or what anybody is. I feel it. And it's enough for me." Jane Goodall.

That spiritual power is LIFE. We can all believe in LIFE. It is real. It is bigger and stronger than us, but we are all part of it. There is no other force stronger for us, for all living things, for we are all part of LIFE. So celebrate LIFE, guard LIFE, protect LIFE, be grateful for LIFE, be true to LIFE, live your life, the life that is now.

LIFE is also a cycle, through death and creation, endlessly evolving. We are all dying, everyday that we live. Only when we are dead are our bodies not dying. Dying is part of living. Dying is the recycling of LIFE into more LIFE, and even though we die, our cousins and other life live on. So LIFE is effectively immortal, even when individuals are not.

LIFE is our king, and we are all kings, kings of ourselves. You are the king of yourself. LIFE gave us our kingdoms, our lives, to live, and by living them we fulfil LIFE itself. We respect LIFE and the lives we have been given by being ourselves, not the same, not sheep, but individuals, fulfilling the variety that LIFE has created in us. To do that, so that we can all do that, we must also do that without harm to others. Safe communities are communities of individuals respecting the right of everyone to be their individual selves. So live now, a good fulfilling life, without harm to others, realising your unique self and finding your niche, your place in your community, your place in the universe.

The Green Man (image courtesy of Big Bridge Design and Green Man Brewery

Ben Wallace
Author The Common Purpose Manifesto
LinkedIn - http://nz.linkedin.com/in/benwallace13
Twitter - http://twitter.com/BenDWallace

Saturday, November 25, 2017

What Does A SBI Mean For Us? Shared Growth

The whole idea of a shared base income (the SBI, a universal income funded by a half share of all earnings) is to enable everyone to grow, to fulfil their potential. So the SBI encourages excellence in what we do, it encourages us to contribute at what we're best at, because that best realises who we are.

Humans (also known as 'homo sapiens' or 'wise men' to translate) are also mind-centric, we try to understand how things work in order to learn and to adapt and form ideas on how best to use and do things. The ideas on how to use, shape and form things are the ideas that enable us to do more. These are the ideas that form new techniques and new technology, and technology is the driver of economic growth. It is why, for the last 250 years or so, we've had economic growth of 2 percent per year on average; whereas, for the last 2 million years or so before that (when forms of primitive humans first evolved) economic growth had been virtually zero.

A true SBI should put us on a new level of growth, above the 2 per cent average. And it should enable the benefits of that growth to be shared with everyone, which is why the greater growth happens.

Ben Wallace
Author The Common Purpose Manifesto
LinkedIn - http://nz.linkedin.com/in/benwallace13
Twitter - http://twitter.com/BenDWallace

Sunday, November 19, 2017

The Shared Base Income (SBI) - quick intro

Income seeking is the desire to build enough wealth to ensure financial security. Financial security gives people the financial independence not to need to work for an income because they have enough wealth to sustain themselves without one. With financial independence, we can choose how we contribute and be safe from loss of income for any reason (such as illness, accident, whatever).

At a very high level of wealth, people have the equivalent of guaranteed income such that they can choose how much work, and what work, they do. They have the financial security, the financial independence, to do this.

One way to help people get off the rat-race of pursuing ever higher incomes to generate ever larger stores of wealth to gain financial security, is to just give them than financial security directly via a guaranteed income. This is what universal basic income plans seek to do.

Importantly, the universal basic income does not have to be only in direct payments. In fact, it is more effective if a substantial component of it is indirect in the form of public services like universal free education, universal free healthcare, and other public services that have a universal application by their nature, such as transportation infrastructure, law and order, and defence. By being a universal insurer, the government can (at least theoretically) provide the best and most effective services to everyone, and at the least cost (the government could competitive tender out the service provision, the important part is that the government ensures the universal provision).

The risk to giving everyone enough of a guaranteed income not to work, or rather, to work at what they wish to, is that the market forces of supply and demand and its intermediary of price levels are obscured, thus people may provide products and services that the market (other people) don’t actually want. That is why, rather than providing a guaranteed income at a high level, the guaranteed income, in a shared base income, is set at a ‘base' level, one that isn’t too high to destroy the desire to still attain more income by contributing product that others need.

The base income is coupled with a ‘half-share’ flat tax rate that funds it. It is flat so that there is a fixed (non-diminishing, so still motivating) return on every dollar earned, and is set at 50 per cent on the rationale that it can be conceived as a ‘fair share’, i.e., ‘half for you, half for me’. This also makes it very simple and straight-forward (and less costly) to administer.

The concept of a 'fair share', and a 'base income' that is 'shared universally', is why this universal basic income proposal is called the 'Shared Base Income' (SBI).

Ben Wallace
Author The Common Purpose Manifesto
LinkedIn - http://nz.linkedin.com/in/benwallace13
Twitter - http://twitter.com/BenDWallace

Thursday, November 16, 2017

International Comparisons of UBI

In The Common Purpose Manifesto, I mentioned that a useful measure of international performance might be a simple comparison of the level of their shared base income (the SBI, which is a form of universal basic income or UBI).

Of course no country has a completely universal basic income (UBI) in place, let alone an SBI. However, partial UBIs exist, such as New Zealand's superannuation retirement income which is paid to all citizen 65 and over, and there are numerous countries with universal free (or highly subsidised) education and health services that are essentially an indirect form of universal income (where they are universally provided). Adding together the income of these provisions by country is unfortunately far from straightforward.

Aside from the income provision front, with an SBI we also have the half 'share' of profits wages and salaries. Performance on this can be calculated by comparing countries tax systems against the 50% flat tax of the SBI.

The best collated source of economic data is probably OECD Data. Unfortunately it's going to take quite a bit of work to shape the data available to universal incomes (direct or indirect). Even getting the right measures of public (govt.) sector spending is problematic.

The following example is government spending by 'individual'. Unfortunately the chart as 'shared' from OECD drops off the region names on the X-axis. The coloured bars are in fact Finland, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, and Sweden (in that order, left to right). The chart is interactive.

'Individual' spending is in services like healthcare and education which can supposedly be provided by the market and so is being called 'individual' (even if they are provided universally). This is opposed to 'social' spending on 'public goods' like defence and justice (I'm not sure where they've placed infrastructure spending at this point).

It won't be any surprise, I imagine, that Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, and Sweden are also in the top ten OECD countries for 'life satisfaction'. The other four countries in that top ten are Iceland, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. So given we know better sharing of income works better for our system, why aren't more nations doing it?

Ben Wallace
Author The Common Purpose Manifesto
LinkedIn - http://nz.linkedin.com/in/benwallace13
Twitter - http://twitter.com/BenDWallace

Saturday, March 4, 2017

New Zealand's Best Apps

I don't know why there isn't a webpage with New Zealand's best apps, or at least, the best apps on New Zealand.

Given I am, in fact, a New Zealander (I live here so I am a New Zealander, by nationality anyway), I feel I should try to rectify the situation.

Also, because OUR SYSTEM is about trying to understand our system, these two apps that follow are particularly appropriate.

The first is the Regional Economic Activity App, because it gathers and summarises, in rapidly digestible figures and charts, the key things you need to know about every region of New Zealand (at least, every key thing that has a measure available). And it's not just economic. Also, it's beautiful. Like New Zealand.

The second app, the Occupation Outlook, is all about trying to find your niche. And that is what life is all about. That is our common purpose, to live, to grow, to find fulfilment, and to do that, just like in evolution, you need to find your niche. This app helps you do that. You can search and look at vital information on over 100 occupations (they're classified like a taxonomy, just like biologist's do for nature, you have to do that to make it all manageable, but of course there's infinite variety within those occupations and around them). You can also indicate your skill levels on core subjects to get back a list of matching occupations (in order to help you think about what you want to do). So give it a go, it's easy.

Here are the links. There's apps for both Android and Apple smartphones.

Apple iTunes App Store - https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/new-zealand-regional-economic/id1022179449?ls=1&mt=8

Android Google Play - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=nz.govt.mbie.rear

Apple iTunes App Store - https://itunes.apple.com/nz/app/occupation-outlook-2016/id820638027?mt=8

Android Google Play - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fronde.occupationaloutlook&hl=en

Saturday, July 4, 2015


When I wrote The Common Purpose Manifesto in 2008/9 I tried to cover every key aspect of our system. But one part I left out is critical to creating a system where everyone has the freedom to live without harm. That part is love.

As an analyst, I do not usually deal with the emotional, feeling aspects of systems. Typically, these aspects are ignored in rational assessments, as they are expected to be dispassionate to be taken seriously.

However, emotions are fundamental to people in systems. Even analysts have them. And love is the strongest and most rewarding emotion. Love of life, love of wisdom, love of truth, love of others - these are vital to building a system based on fulfilment without harm, because fulfilment is all about life, wisdom and truth; and the capstone of living without harm is the love of others.

The following excerpt on love was added yesterday to The Common Purpose Manifesto...

"The pursuit of fulfilment without harm is the love of life, wisdom and truth, and the love of all people, to and from whom there should be no harm.

"Fulfilment is living. That is what life does, fulfil itself. This is it purpose, its prime directive. Sometimes this purpose is obscured by the complexity of our systems of government, economy, organisation and society. However, at their base, their key guiding principle should be to enable fulfilment for every person.

"The purpose of fulfilment often gets obscured by the competing purposes of income, property, status, and power. These purposes override the primary purpose of fulfilment in systems that aren't shaped to adequately protect and enable the fulfilment of everyone.

"Wisdom is the knowledge and understanding of life gained through experience and learning. As the most intellectual of all animals, wisdom is a key element of human fulfilment. Humans have evolved into beings for which wisdom, learning and understanding are primary to living.

"Truth is a requirement of wisdom, and is what is sought when wisdom is pursued. Incorrect understandings are not of greatest benefit, and the theories and ideas we produce to further our understanding are constantly under test by our observations from reality to ensure their accuracy and truth.

"For the purpose of fulfilment to be realised for all it must be pursued without harm to others. So, at the very least, the requirement is not to harm or accept harm. And given we are all one human species, there is every benefit for ourselves as a species to love and assist one another in a manner that best suits our individual abilities, that is, in a manner that fulfils ourselves doing it.

"Our own needs are our primary responsibility, we are responsible for ourselves, but in pursuing our fulfilment we can help others seek fulfilment in a virtuous cycle of increasing fulfilment, providing we act with love and without harm to others.

"When we have a system that enables everyone to fulfil themselves and realise their potential without harm then we will have a world of 'peace and love'. This goal is realised by shaping the systems we have and influencing the people who live in them. It is not reached through catastrophic upheavals and religious interventions to 'purge the wicked'.

"The pursuit of fulfilment without harm does have similarities to the Christian commandments to love God (which can be interpreted as love life as God is the creator, love wisdom as God is all knowledgeable, and love truth as God is the truth) and love your neighbour (so, at the very least, do them no harm). But fulfilment without harm does not require the carrot of the Promise that comes with Judgement Day (when all nations will war and Jesus will come to save the righteous who will live forever). This promise (and threat) isn't needed or helpful in the secular pursuit of fulfilment without harm, for the benefits of creating a system where everyone can find fulfilment (regardless of religion) accrue to everyone and are being pursued now. It is a positive purpose and an empowering purpose.

"Love was also around before Jesus and the Bible. Christianity, or other religions, do not own love no matter how strongly they claim to. The Bible puts a commendable emphasis on the love of God and neighbour above all other things. An emphasis we should realise non-religiously in the love of life (of ourselves and all 'creation' realised by pursuing our fulfilment and our understanding of the universe) and love of others (not harming them or accepting harm from them but assisting them in the ways we are best able). This maximises good relationships, peace on Earth, fulfilment for all, and love."

[Excerpt from The Common Purpose Manifesto]

Ben Wallace
Author The Common Purpose Manifesto
LinkedIn - http://nz.linkedin.com/in/benwallace13
Twitter - http://twitter.com/BenDWallace

Monday, October 7, 2013

Framework for Fulfilment

It's been a long-time, but inspired by a workshop I attended today on the Living Standards Framework (given by the New Zealand Treasury), I created this framework, which I think more accurately and deliberately targets the greater goal (greater than just living standards) of all people to lead fulfilling lives, ones that increases their general well-being and life satisfaction.

I haven't given any specific, numerical measurement indicators for the five components of the framework - Legal, Economic, Organisational, Social, and Change. However, I think the sub-components of each of these point pretty clearly to what some obvious indicators may be.

I also haven't written here any further explanation of what the sub-components actually entail in terms of a fulfilment framework or system. However, I have already written on these fairly extensively on this website and on others (www.thecommonpurpose.com) and in print. I will also be developing this framework further.

Anyway, below is the draft framework for fulfilment, feel free to comment on this to me directly or on this site. Click on the image to enlarge it.

Ben Wallace
Author The Common Purpose Manifesto
LinkedIn - http://nz.linkedin.com/in/benwallace13
Twitter - http://twitter.com/BenDWallace

Friday, June 7, 2013

Well-Being & Income

Well-being continues to increase with income according to data gathered in a recent journal article by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan.

This contrasts with assertions that increases to well-being diminish as incomes pass above a level at which basic needs are met.

The table below provides clear evidence that well-being continues to increase significantly as incomes increase, far above levels at which basic needs are met:

However, the more salient matter for well-being is not income levels per se, but income security.

It is income security - that is income which is not lost due to loss of work or other misadventure - that enables people to choose how they contribute and work, so increasing individual well-being.

Without guaranteed income security, the motivation is to attain very high incomes, as at very high incomes wealth can be built, and only wealth can provide life-long income security when it is not guaranteed.

We can see from the chart that at incomes of over $500,000 per annum, people are 100% very happy and very satisfied. Not all of this well-being is due to high-earners being able to build a pool of wealth that delivers them the income security to choose how they contribute and work, but a substantial proportion is.

If we were to create a guaranteed level of income security for all people, then we could expect that the happiness and satisfaction of those earning less would very greatly increase.

Society still doesn't have the level of shared understanding and empathy required to introduce something like a shared base income. But when it does, and the internet is continuing to expand and build these levels, then we may see happiness and satisfaction distributed in a much more even and fair way.

Ben Wallace
Author The Common Purpose Manifesto
LinkedIn - http://nz.linkedin.com/in/benwallace13
Twitter - http://twitter.com/BenDWallace

Reference: Subjective Well-Being and Income: Is There Any Evidence of Satiation?, B. Stevenson, J. Wolfers, April 2013.

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Technology, Capital & Labour

In economics, “Capital and labour are two inputs into a production process. When they are used to make a good or services, they function as both complements and substitutes to each other. Generally, for a given level of output they are substitutable - depending on wages and the cost of capital we could change the mix of labour and capital we use to create a good. However, they also complement each other in the sense that the more capital you have, the greater the additional output a new employee could create.

“As a result, although it is true that, for a given level of output, more productive capital means we need fewer workers - the fact that each additional worker can make more from this capital implies that wages are higher, and makes hiring workers more attractive. As a result, the real change in employment is not clear - all that is clear is that technology that makes capital more productive leads to greater output and income.

“In order to understand the impact of a change in technology on employment, we have to ask how it fits into this relationship between capital and labour, and we have to ask how people can change their skills in order to adjust to the change in technology. Contrary to both utopians and dystopians this process is far from clear and predictable!”

Should We Fear The Robot Uprising, Infometrics

Following on from above, increased capital can be used by the same total number of (possibly more skilled) workers to produce more product, and the wider question becomes, ‘how much more product can we consume?’ as, if consumption were limited there would be a limit on how much production we need and on how many workers we need to do this production. If there is not a limit, then no matter how much capital we supply we can always find work for more workers.

Probably we don’t need to consume much more raw food, oil, or other commodities per person than we do now (and we shouldn’t in many respects given factors such as climate change and finite resources). So we could just take growth in their extraction as equivalent to per capita growth (although climate change, commodity replacement and other factors should incentivise us to lower resource extraction per capita as well). However, in terms of their transformation into more diverse and refined products, there are next to no limits on production or consumption (only our imagination), so we can create and ‘consume’ better houses, better fuel, more efficient cars, more delicious varieties of chocolate, better machines, and so on, without any real limit on the creativity side.

Likewise, and in some ways less-resource depleting, are the products of software application and the web – to which there are also essentially no limits on our production or consumption of.

With next to no limits on production and consumption, due to the unlimited nature of technological advancement and human creativity, the only real limit on production is the quantity of non-renewable raw commodity (or how quickly renewable raw commodities renew). The less these finite resources are a factor of a product’s production (because instead refining technology makes up most of their finished states) the less they limit total production.

With no limit on the creativity (or technology) multiplier of production and consumption the issue then becomes, 'how can we enable people to work in ways that don't limit them to the jobs replaced by automation and fast advancing technology?', or to put it around the other way, ‘how can we enable people to work in ways that use their creativity to either a. produce the technology which replaces repetitive work, or b. produce the final (creative) products and services that improve our lives?’ And related to this question (because it relates to enablement) is, 'how do we fairly share the incomes from the ownership of raw resources, capital and technology, given that these incomes (which enable people to contribute) are always generated via the good fortunes of inheritance (genes, fortunes and class) and circumstance (geography, nation, education and government)?

The market is good at distributing resources (within its work and income limitations), but is less good at distributing work, and is poor at distributing incomes. Given this, the simplest way is to share the income from work and profits into a base income everyone over the age of entitlement receives (say half is shared into the base income, half retained), as this allows everyone to make their own choices about how they learn, develop and contribute - a freedom that would produce an enormous and on-going increase in productivity as people became ever more able to realise their own diverse contributions.

The Infometrics article above reaches at this later in the piece with: “The simple answer seems to be that we allow people in this situation the opportunity to increase their skills, and where they can't, redistribute some of the gains from mechanisation to these people in the form of an income payment”. But Infometrics confines that sharing ("redistribution") within the concept of unemployment benefits, student loans and subsidised education. So the additional question remains, 'how should income be shared - by some sort of government mediated benefits, student loans and subsidised education, or (and) directly via a base income all receive?'

Personally, I favour a mix of a direct shared base income with on-going, dynamic, and in many cases diminishing, government programmes. I don't think the government is good at picking winners (and nor should it) or that people should have to crawl to government to get a benefit. However, there are programmes that should be centrally organised and provided to ensure that everyone contributes and benefits from them when required (such as health and education). These programmes must be accountable to the people in a set of regular accounts accompanying the shared base income.

Ben Wallace
Author The Common Purpose Manifesto
LinkedIn - http://nz.linkedin.com/in/benwallace13
Twitter - http://twitter.com/BenDWallace

Monday, January 28, 2013


I think the concepts behind the diagram below are largely self-evident, but the primary message is that by adopting a confident, relaxed and comfortable posture and attitude you enhance your ability to deal with pressure. On the other hand, passively holding an unconfident, tense and awkward posture can lead to less than optimal results.

These postures or attitudes are affected by external stimuli such as praise or criticism of performance, and so performance management in organisations is highly relevant. However, self-awareness of your own posture/attitude can help you adopt a posture that is more positive and resilient regardless of external input.

Testosterone and cortisone are the chemical-biological intermediaries which are generated in response to pressure, converting pressure into either increased performance via the confident-relaxed-comfortable posture or into increased stress via the unconfident-tense-awkward posture.

These concepts and the diagram are informed and inspired by the Wired article "The Truth Behind Testosterone" and the TED talk "Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are" by Amy Cuddy.

Ben Wallace
Author The Common Purpose Manifesto
LinkedIn - http://nz.linkedin.com/in/benwallace13
Twitter - http://twitter.com/BenDWallace

Friday, January 11, 2013

The War On Drugs

Isn't it time to finally stop this wasteful war on drugs?

Watch the documentary. Sign the petition.

For more information visit http://breakingthetaboo.info/