Transition to Merit offense mode v.05b

If an economy was sick and tired of being played like a tool and be passive about it by retardation, injustice, and evil, it can choose to went on the offense by being consciously meritocratic.

It might be problematic but I recommend:

1. Reward people less per time and more per job, readyness and availability could be a job as well, but not for everybody, so per job.

2. Reward availability separately from action. Both deserve merit but both are different.

3. Proceed on abolishing severance payment so that people could diversify too not just corporate entities.

4. Print money for heroes like doctors and pay fixed income for their availabilities. Subscription merits. Again these are two different instances.

5. Implement Golden Stickers so that people could contribute to IP and also receive serotonin. But this one doesn't have to be the 5th step, implement this immidiately

In the end I predict constant increase in levels of availabilities in mutual solutions.

In most of my theories though, I don't account for sabotage, its very situational sometimes, thats just the problem people would have to face in all progressions. Also part of what makes humans important.

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

Example: 1000 people subscribed to a fire department. Each pay 100 per day so the squad got 100.000 per day.

When there's a fire and it took half day to quench it. They are not paid for availabilities anymore (50.000). The one whose house got burned then rewarded the department for their action, of course he/she would consider his/her sub all this time (+/-). Honestly this part is tricky for me... year of jubilee? 2 parts of subs? Maybe 3 parts is also viable where the third part goes back to the customers with no incidents (an incentive) so this is also an education on saving/investing.

Problem: If somehow 2 houses were on fire at the same time and the department could only helped on one, they might be liable for not only the paid availability money but also the damages since the second house could've contracted some other fire department instead. So in this situation legal professionals would probably had some answers.

This is why people don't trust you with money v.04e

If you hate on some "rich" person claiming that he didn't deserve that much money, that means that the money he/she got or the assets he/she got was debt not owned. So which one is it? Has he or hasn't he been paid for his/her deeds?

Edit:

So if he was claimed to had not been deserving for what he/she had, that means he had always been in debt, therefore even when the claim was only partial, when he had ever been not in debt? (The sentiment brought upon sum of double minuses, or more cause you're basically claiming random things that he/she owned at any points in spacetime, which would translate to, everything!)

So this is why irresponsible talking is the one at fault, especially because money is official and written in value, it is always going to be in conflict with the culture.

Is this the love of money? In a limited sense yeah when money is about honesty. Anyone even non christians should be able to relate that the bad love of money means to prefer money than paying people their due, or to prefer money than to actually solve the problem tasked. 

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

So if you are not going to say why and how one has been overpaid or another has been underpaid out in the open, responsibly gave the platform for rebuttal, don't act on it. 

Edit: Even when you've said it openly and received your responses you should still observe the law, or to have discretion over your actions whether it is good or not.