Global Focus Realization v.02

The scarcity of the world is not of time nor money nor energy but of mutual solutions. Solutions are unlimited but we are so limited because we are not giving back enough to our sources of solutions.

Money is prove that the holder has helped and hasn't been helped back. Most of the time we are not giving our money away to those who have not helped us. 

Ok

Now let me get into the point of what I'm trying to say... 

Since money is acknowledgement, that means an industry is a collection of people who created a type of solutions that's focused by a lot of other people (consumers) to be appreciated. 

A profitable industry at a period reflects what the people at the demographic were appreciating. 

But what if an industry became too productive? The solutions were many but the appreciation was not increasing anymore? Then regardless of there were or weren't something to do about it people need to be informed of when that threshhold would arrive. 

Say for example marvel, with a fanbase that like the idea of saving the world it might be less of an economic optimization to dwell on making new marvel movies. Instead the focus is there to make a business that cleans up the ocean for example, then the fanbase's focus would be maintained. 

Let's be honest and acknowledge that we have limited attention span on the same thing. However just because the same thing doesn't capture our focus anymore, doesn't mean that thing is no longer part of our history or our infrastructure of the mind. It would be a waste to just shift our attention to something else without using what was the focus of our attention as a stepping stone or as a reason to move on. 

That's our intuition. 

Market saturation is not a disaster, it's a power. It means the people are ready to do something.

When that threshhold arrived, MR no longer MC (shoutout to Jacob Clifford for emphasizing this concept for me strongly), let us know when's that and let us together do something. ^_^

Community Pledging v.03

Another way to gather capital is to gather pledges from your community. If you need an asset, pitch to your community that know each other within it. If you managed to get certain amounts of signatures to a total of certain amount of money, then the pledge would be given to you in cash. 

So this is a way to invest using people's disposable income, each of them don't have to contribute a lot at one time, but a lot of them would become one big asset. Sounds like charity, but it has ROI

The administration is extra indeed... so good accountants are your friend.

----------

If I were to do this I'd put a cap to how much one could help me

Why everybody should consider soft commitment more v.02

Hard Commit is when you took credit/debt for a venture to scale up your success. 

Soft Commit is when you use disposable income for investments

I think the way our culture is, hard commitment is at saturation point and even more. Mistakes are highly penalized, new innovations are frowned upon, selling at low prices even if it's not at a loss is frowned upon, closing a company signifies failure, and firing spells possible demise of someone's life. 

When you hard commit, if you failed you would've lost your livelihood, your employee's livelihood, your life savings, etc. Maybe not if you had a lot of reserves but if people do then the culture wouldn't be too much like this. Putting all of those economic demise on the table not only dangerous for you but also a risk factor for future competitors because they would be talked about as those who caused the devastation. This is kind of a penalty to success. 

When you play you make mistakes, but if you made mistakes during the context of hard commiting you're playing with economic demise. Innovation, came from playing. Yes it came from pressure too but a lot of the time from playing, and this is frowned upon. 

Innovation should lift up the economy and make the innovators feel good, but too much hard commit gave the illusion of "too much innovation" and upon bankruptcy/firing, resentments appeared. Is this what will come for you bringing upon the Intellectual Property into the community? 

Why couldn't we have businesses opening and closing here and there? After success close, a lot of followers would came out of the tailwind and then be the vanguard. Figured out an innovation, start something new... then the vanguards exited you came again at the front... they learned something new and immitated you they opened up at your tailwind... then you close again and figured out new stuff and then next and then next... 

Barrier to entry is too high! If we allow this to happen people wouldn't have to be so afraid of losing jobs, people wouldn't had to work 9-5 everyday at one place. It would be a norm for people to have multiple jobs at decent working hours. Like a mesh structure one guy's boss is another guy's servant, and that guy was also the other guy's customer

------------------------------

Are the credit institutions evil? All institutions that are prominent in the world are evil, but they are also good for what they've done for everybody. 

It's just that, like a leader who don't want to step down would scale up their blank spots, things that are oversaturated and uncountered are unbalanced.

Why Pen on Paperness is better for the Government

One - the value of money is pen on paperness, the power of property is also give and take, represented, and bestowed, and attenuates around pen on paperness (like energy and electric cable). The Law is pen on paperness, political stability pen on paperness. 

Two - Identification of inflows and outflows of money in a more vivid visualization therefore would enable solutions that otherwise wouldn't be thought of. 

Three - The increase of taxes as result of well articulated accounts, increasing participation. 

Four - Enabling publicly owned companies to cover for accounts that are needed to be addressed, things that are supposed to be posts of income but legally and ethically problematic. 

Five - Putting borders between legitimate income and illegitimate income, clean officials and bad officials, the need for violations and the implementation of solutions without violations. 

Let's encourage this and discourage that v.02

This: 

Relationship started with the increase of property/mutual solutions/justice

That:

Extortion, or display of creepiness. 

(What on earth has happened to this world, people acted as if the creepier they are the more people are going to held them in high regard)

I don't know if such thing applies intensely in some places but we should correct that instead of encourage that, right? Do I want to contribute to the economy or harm the economy?

----------------

Edit: I'm not talking about teenager's sense of humor which is unique, I don't really understand about that