The economic model outlined below is provisional. These are first thoughts about what an "intelligent" economic model (in the sense of the LUTTAI definition of intelligence) could look like according to my ideas. But I hope that I will get additional support in developing an intelligent economic model, maybe from you?
If you do not find any of the following seven rules useful, or if you would like to add an additional rule, please let me know. If you can convince me, I will include your suggestion for change and show who helped me, if you like. I hope that together we can develop an intelligent economic model that is fair to all employees, fair to humanity and fair to nature and all sentient beings. Hope dies last 😉
The following principles serve me as a guideline:
The LUTTAI definition of intelligence serves as an ethical guideline for all business activities. The promotion of well-being within the company, for all fellow human beings and for nature, and thus the avoidance of as much suffering as possible, is the ultimate goal.
The salaries paid to all employees should enable a decent life, but at the same time be capped.
Companies that generate profits give away a considerable portion of their profits to start-ups that want to operate according to the same economic model and can demonstrate that they are trying to act in accordance with the LUTTAI definition of intelligence.
The finances (wages, income, expenditure, expenses), business partners and supply chains must be publicly disclosed in order to ensure the highest possible transparency.
LUTTAI economic model
Version: August 30, 2020
Das Unternehmen versucht im Sinne der LUTTAI-Intelligenzdefinition zu wirtschaften.
Die Einnahmen des Unternehmens werden zu Beginn wie folgt verwendet: Zurückzahlen von externen Schulden (z.B. Krediten). Danach zurückzahlen von privat eingebrachtem Vermögen von Unternehmensgründern. Sind alle Schulden abbezahlt, wird das Einkommen gleichmässig (nach Stellenprozenten) auf alle Mitarbeitenden aufgeteilt, bis jede*r Mitarbeiter*in den Landesmedianlohn erhält. Dies entspricht im LUTTAI-Wirtschaftsmodell dem Mindestlohn bei Unternehmen die Gewinne erzielen.
The profits earned beyond this are first used to pay employees unpaid hours at the minimum wage (national median wage) during the start-up phase of the company. Employees who are involved in the development of a company and who, for idealistic reasons, make their labor available, should be reimbursed for their work as soon as the company can operate profitably.
Once all debts have been paid off and the hours worked since the company was founded have been remunerated, and each employee can be paid the national median wage, the profit beyond that is divided by two. 50% of this money is donated after deduction of corporate taxes as starting capital for company foundations which also want to operate according to the LUTTAI business model. The remaining 50% of the profit is used for investments in the company, provisions and/or as bonus payments to the employees. The maximum salary of each employee, including management, is four times the national median salary.
Unternehmen, welche Startkapital in dieser Form geschenkt erhalten, verpflichten sich nach dem LUTTAI-Wirtschaftsmodell zu wirtschaften. Wenn sie aus diesem Wirtschaftsmodell aussteigen möchten sind sie verpflichtet mindestens das erhaltenen Startkapitals an ihre Geber*in zurück zu zahlen, welche das Geld an ein oder mehrere andere Unternehmen vergeben wird.
Das Unternehmen ist verpflichtet folgende Angaben öffentlich zugänglich zu machen: Geschäftspartner/Lieferketten, alle Einnahmen und Ausgaben inkl. Löhne, Spesenabrechnungen.
Der Unternehmensbesitz bleibt in Unternehmensbesitz, sollte die Unternehmensleitung abtreten. Die neue Unternehmensleitung wird durch die abtretende Leitung bestimmt oder falls von dieser gewünscht, oder bei vorzeitigem Ableben, demokratisch durch die Mitarbeitenden gewählt. Es soll sich dadurch kein privater Reichtum durch Vererbung anhäufen.
Okey, these are my first ideas of what a sensible or intelligent economic model could look like. If you notice something that you don't think makes sense, please let me know so we can reconsider it. Thanks a lot already for this. Until then, I will now get started and try to put this model into practice. But I have never built a profitable business before and if it will succeed with LUTTAI.com, well, you can dream. I suspect somewhat that I am not the best entrepreneur. But maybe someone else with more entrepreneurial talent reads this model and finds certain approaches useful and then manages to put this into practice. I would be very happy. Because the current economic model, which in my opinion is the most widespread, which strives for maximum profit optimization and maximum wealth, must be changed in my eyes. Too few people profit from this model and too many suffer from it. In addition, there is the resulting, unmeasurable suffering of countless sentient beings and the progressive destruction of their and our basis of life, nature.
The attempt to define intelligence in a more meaningful way.
In a truly intelligent world it would be good for yourself, for all fellow humans and for all of nature and all sentient beings. True intelligence therefore sets itself this goal and tries to reach this state, this ideal through purposeful action. True intelligence is therefore found in actions that increase one's own well-being, the well-being of all fellow humans and the well-being of all sentient beings.
This is my definition of true intelligence and I would like to explain in this blog why I find this definition useful, at least more useful than those definitions of intelligence I have heard so far.
I don't mean that I personally have earned the designation 'intelligent'. In general, I don't think that we will ever find a human being who can be called 'perfectly intelligent', because in every single action that a human being performs, I think it should be weighed again whether this action was intelligent, that is, whether it was good towards himself, good towards his fellow human beings and good towards other sentient beings, and I can't imagine anyone who is able to always act intelligently. Often, for example, there are conflicts of interest or unknown feedbacks on our actions, but I believe that we would have a more just world, with happier people, if more people saw 'intelligence' in terms of this definition and this concept was also taught in schools in this understanding, which I think is rather less the case.
I suspect that at the moment most people would classify a professor of mathematics as more intelligent than a factory worker, for example, or a chess player more intelligent than a football player, or a lawyer more intelligent than a farmer, and so on.
Perhaps this viewpoint applies to you as well? Or how do you define 'intelligence'? When can a person call himself 'intelligent' in your eyes?
I think this is a very important question, because if you don't have a meaningful definition of 'intelligence', then you probably don't have a meaningful definition of 'stupidity' and I think it is very central to all of our lives who or what we call 'intelligent' or 'stupid'.
Very common in this widespread idea of intelligence are so-called intelligence tests to make 'the intelligence' of a person visible or quantify and maybe you have ever wonderes how high your IQ is?
What do you suppose, 80, 100, 120?
Or asked in another way; are you below average, average or above average intelligent?
Do you even want to know? Or are you a little scared of this test too?
What would it mean to you if 80 came out?
I don't think there is a single person in this world who would not like to call himself intelligent. But I believe that there are many people in this world who feel that they are not intelligent people, that there are others who have been chosen. For example, those who excel in mathematics, or those who have studied, or those who are allowed to adorn themselves with a Dr. in front of their name, and so on.
This idea is, in my opinion, deeply sad and then also completely nonsensical.
Ich bin der Überzeugung, dass das Verständnis von Intelligenz, welches wir nach meinem Empfinden in weiten Teilen meines Kulturkreises verwenden, nämlich als Sammelbegriff einer spezifischen Gruppe von kognitiven Leistungsmerkmalen, mehr Schaden als Nutzen anrichtet. Eine solche Sichtweise führt dazu, dass Tests entwickelt werden, welche eine sehr beschränkte Auswahl an menschlichen Fähigkeiten messen und welche dann den getesteten Menschen eine Zahl zuordnen mit der Ansicht, dass diese Zahl ausdrücken soll, wie intelligent sie sind. Diese Sichtweise führt zu einer Mehrklassengesellschaft und damit zu einer Einteilung in wertvollere und weniger wertvolle Menschen. Ein solcher Test unter dieser Bezeichnung (Intelligenz) ist meines Erachtens unnötig, denn er wertet Menschen ab, die in einem solchen Test schlechter abschneiden als andere und ihnen dann das ganze restliche Leben lang das Gefühl geben, dass sie weniger wert wären als jemand, der mehr Punkte erreicht hat.
I don't have anything against aptitude tests or grades in general, they can help us to see where we currently have our strengths or interests or whether we are suitable for a certain job, if we don't find out by nature what we are particularly good at and what we feel called to do. But in my opinion it is wrong to play off grades or skills against each other or to call the result of a single test intelligence.
Why, for example, should the mathematics grade be more important than the work grade? A view which I suspect is widespread.
If you want to become a civil engineer, it is certainly an advantage if you like to juggle with numbers, but if you prefer to do something manual, then you better not hit your finger with every hammer blow, otherwise you will probably not find much pleasure in your task. However, we need civil engineers who ensure that the house construction is built on solid foundations and craftsmen who can turn this theory into reality. In my opinion, it makes no sense to weigh up what is more important or more intelligent.
I, for example, had no trouble in gym class, but when I was supposed to sing, it was just barely enough for the shower, according to my taste in music. But what would our world be without music? An infinitely more desolate place, don't you think? I believe we will never be able to express the value of music in any number, and we should stop expressing the value of a human being in any number. We are happy that we have music and that we have people who support and complement us with their individual abilities.
Again and again it is pointed out that IQ is the best factor for predicting school success and often also social advancement and social prestige. Often in this context one even speaks of 'success'. It may well be that a professor needs different qualities or strengths than a farmer, but why do I think most people attribute a higher social status to a professor than to a farmer? After all, the professor would starve to death if he/she didn't have the farmer, but the farmer could survive without problems. Of course, a farmer would not deny his right to exist to a professor, because he might make important discoveries that will advance farming methods or the like, but the professor is certainly not more important. I think we should let them both live, because we can use both.
I think that the common notion of intelligence and the supposed social status are very closely related and I think we should change something about it, because I don't think the status quo makes sense.
The question of who is the most intelligent person is just as inappropriate as the question of who is the best sportsman in the world. It is simply impossible to measure this in any meaningful way. Depending on the sport we are testing in, someone else will be swinging on top. In addition, we could invent new sports every day, just as we can never fully write down human abilities, which are always linked to cognitive performance. Imagine, for example, if we agreed that we would select the best athlete in the world by having all athletes sumo wrestling. I could imagine that we would have to turn back a few pages in the ranking until, for example, the name Roger Federer would appear. So does such a procedure make sense for you? Probably not.
And if it doesn't even make sense in sports, why should it be any different with a term as important to our self-esteem as 'intelligence'? In my opinion, this term is too central for our social life and the self-esteem of every human being than that we can only use it with a certain range of cognitive faculties, which I suspect many of us do.
Today, grades are only used as a guide and I currently have a completely different definition of intelligence than what an IQ test could ever measure.
In my opinion, true intelligence is found in actions that improve one's own well-being, the well-being of all fellow human beings and the well-being of all sentient beings.
Achieving this form of intelligence is probably not too easy, or in every single action I have to test myself again and again against this guideline. Of course, I will only be able to weigh this question with my limited resources in any situation, but I think that if we all had this goal, it would be worth a start, or rather a try.
Of course I have to ask myself what 'good' means. This question about 'good' or 'bad' is often not easy to answer from my point of view and I think that every person has to find an answer for himself anew in every situation. Nor do I believe that we will ever be able to resolve this issue conclusively. This definition is never complete, but must be found again and again in the hope of doing more 'good than bad' to oneself, one's fellow men and nature.
Personally, I like the word self-esteem in the area of 'oneself', for example. In the area of 'fellow human beings' I find the Golden Rule very useful and if you are not sure whether the other person really wants to be treated the way you want to be treated, then you can simply ask and in the area of 'other sentient beings' I like the word animal rights.
Whether you prefer juggling numbers, writing lyrics, caring for people, building roads, driving vehicles, singing songs, teaching students, managing money, being at the forefront of government business, developing new apps, running the household, preparing food, maybe even planting it yourself or doing something else and therefore being destined for it, is very individual and should receive the same social recognition. And that is exactly why we humans are so strong as a community, because each of us is unique and we can use everyone who does something for the community..
I am convinced that we cannot call some abilities intelligence and leave others out. Such a view will always lead to losses. But I would like each of us to be a winner and for each 'intelligent action' of each of us as a community to make us even stronger. In my opinion, the definition presented here is more likely to achieve this goal; a different definition will probably lead to more intelligent and less intelligent people, depending on which abilities are chosen to represent intelligence, which in my opinion is subjective. It's like we all measure athletes only in sumo wrestling.
Some intelligence tests may figuratively calculate the average of sumo wrestling, soccer and javelin throwing, but do you think such a test will give a meaningful answer to the question of who is the best athlete? I think not. The only answer that such a test provides is who is the best in these three sports on average, but the best athlete is not. Just as the person with the highest average of IQ (intelligence quotient), EQ (emotional intelligence quotient), SQ (social intelligence quotient), CQ (creative intelligence quotient), etc. is not the most intelligent person.
We can have championships in any discipline, but I don't think that has anything to do with true intelligence.
I know I wouldn't have a chance to survive on my own. Every day I need the help of countless people without whose help I would be completely lost. Our world has become so complex that I don't even know who has just helped me. For example, I have no idea how my computer here works, who designed it and who then assembled it. But if no one had done that for me, I couldn't write this text on computer now and you would probably never read it. I wouldn't have anything to eat either, if someone hadn't planted food for me, or my rubbish bags would be piled up in front of my apartment entrance if someone hadn't collected them for me.
We need everyone who does something for the community.
In my eyes, every person is worth exactly the same and unique at the same time. Each of us has strengths and weaknesses and we can use every strength for the community and respect every weakness as long as it does not lead to the disadvantage of another person or nature.
So if I compare the common definition of intelligence and the one proposed here, and ask myself what the practical consequences might be in the reality of these theories, I would come up with something like this:
The common definition of intelligence, in my opinion, leads to the fact that there are more intelligent and less intelligent people, depending on how well certain cognitive abilities perform in a test that assumes that certain cognitive abilities are 'intelligence'. However, this test result is limited to the individual person and has no positive effects on the community; rather, it leads to a multi-class society, along the lines of:
Too bad if you're stupid!
My definition of intelligence would lead to a situation where a person would be called intelligent if he respects himself and his own needs. If she treats every fellow human being (and not only those of her country, her religious community etc.) in the same way as she would like to be treated and if necessary also asks if it is ok how she treats her counterpart and if she then also makes sure that our children will find all of our homes, the earth, as wonderful as we are allowed to find them even today.
Now imagine two societies which, according to their respective definition of intelligence, consist exclusively of intelligent persons.
With the first society, I would imagine that we would have a society which, according to our school system, would consist of professional groups requiring an academic degree. These would have died out after a few months, because they had no time, probably no desire, and maybe not the skills; to grow food, sew clothes, build a house and much more.
If, according to my definition of intelligence, we had a society of only intelligent people, then we would have a society in which everyone takes care of himself, his fellow human beings and nature and uses his individual and unique strengths for this purpose without being branded by his fellow human beings in important and unimportant things.
I think we can use all professions that want to make a difference for the community, even those with a degree, but just as we can use all other professions. In my opinion, everyone should be able to contribute to the community without being stigmatized by society in unimportant or more important ways, which I believe is the case at present.
We are glad that there are people with the most diverse interests and cognitive strengths. We can use outstanding mathematicians* just as we can use outstanding soccer players, housewives, men, nurses, psychiatrists, entrepreneurs, salespeople, bakers, foresters, hairdressers, chauffeurs, police officers, doctors, etc. And each of these professions that make our lives easier and sweeter should, in my opinion, have the chance to be intelligent without being forced to believe this limited viewpoint by people who have the power to invent intelligence tests, and then to live in the belief that one is not intelligent oneself, because one did not do well in math, physics and chemistry at school, or was not allowed to skip a class, or has no Dr. in front of one's name, or did not recognize a fixed pattern in a presented series of numbers, etc.
Why should it be important that everyone can recognize any pattern in a series of numbers?
Isn't it enough if person 1 recognizes something in it, person 2 on the other hand feels, if their counterpart is not doing so well at the moment and he could use some support, or if person 3 recognizes that it is not sensible to throw the garbage into the forest?
Why should it make sense that person 1 is allowed to call himself 'intelligent', whereas person 2 is simply called an 'emphatic person' and person 3 a 'nature conservationist'?
Does it really make sense to lease the concept of intelligence for number series?
I don't think so.
Intelligence should benefit us all!
I will try to shape my future actions as best I can according to this definition of intelligence and I would be happy if you would try the same. It would probably benefit not only you, but also me, the human community and the entire planet.
In a truly intelligent world, you yourself, all fellow humans and nature would be well.
The goal of true intelligence is therefore that it is good for itself, its fellow humans and all sentient beings.
True intelligence is therefore found in actions that increase one's own well-being, the well-being of all fellow humans and the well-being of nature and all sentient beings.
True intelligence, on the other hand, has nothing to do with measuring who can calculate better, interact better socially, express yourself better in language and much more.
Stupidity shows itself in actions which are bad towards fellow humans, bad towards nature and, to a limited extent, also bad towards oneself.
But there are not basically intelligent or stupid people, rather there are people who manage to act intelligently more often. But it is not the individual human being who is stupid, but always only the individual action. So every human being can try to act intelligently at any time.
But what does it mean to act good towards oneself, good towards one's fellow humans and good towards nature?
How do we find out which actions improve the well-being of all sentient beings and have few or no negative side effects?
To answer this question is not easy, but I think it is worth a try.
LUTTAI would like to investigate this question and find projects, people, ideas and above all actions that act in the spirit of this definition of intelligence to alleviate the suffering in this world and work on a truly intelligent world.
EN 
DE