Rationed assets and credit responsibility v.02

Rationed assets are rare assets that's needed for all human beings that exists. Like if water were scarce, you need water as rationed for all, not hoarded. If you say this is anti-capitalism, then how would you like your money unlimited in exchange with zero access to food? Although it doesn't make sense to me how people are allowed to have more than 2 kids without financial backing, but I digress. 

So my point is simple, if you use debt to acquire rationed assets, the system is rigged. If you pool shares to acquire rationed assets, like locations, it still makes sense to me. I don't see the counter argument against banning people that still has debts to buy this category of goods. You have to pay off all of your debts in your responsibility first, then you can get rationed assets. 

But this is in the context of the system of money. Why? This is a system of using money to earn your share. There is another system like in schools where you line up and get a bowl of porridge, that's not a system of money. But I'm not advocating for that, I'm just saying that's my logic on the system of money, that due to how it is set up, it would want to make that rule

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

Some details:

- Renting/Borrowing the said asset from the owner is different, also buying directly from the owner by credit to the owner is different. 

- Sellers are just sellers not the government

- Jesus said just tax the strangers, but in the meantime, its still not that bad from my limited point of view compared to all of those interests you got to pay if you're indebted. 

- Logically fines / correction over violation would be in the form of rewriting the ownership deed / title to the debtors. If within 1 month of the purchase you got into debt, you'd also might be held liable to this, although it would also be a good idea to not put such limitation. Now here is the problem here... I think I've figured it out, but I'm lazy to write it here.

Strong argument for UBI v.03

If you and your friends set up a company and you became a shareholder because of you put in some foreign currency, then the CEO used all of your currencies on administrative expenses for overseas operations, meaning your currencies in the company is now 0 (zero), would you still have shares in the company?

So if a country printed money, does the money should be shared amongst the current holders of the currency, or all the citizens? Just a question, not closing any counter arguments possibility, but personally I find it to be correct that all the citizens (roughly) is the answer. 

The implication is, monetary policy should not only benefit the current holders of money, but also every citizens of the said currency. Meaning if the country printed money, those money's power came from all the citizens, so if you were to use those money to increase scarcity of certain resources like land, oil, you shouldn't detriment access of some citizens from those resources using the newly issued money. 

Yes, I'm talking about credit, don't use credit upon which legitimacy came from savers and all the other people of the country to compete against all the other people of the country.

Also UBI, would be an objective thing to do, as long as its not too much. 

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

Wait how is this logical? Well consider a good citizen vs drug abusers. If a good citizen ran out of money, the UBI would be used to produce problem solving things and elevated the economy. If all the good citizens ran out of money because of inflation caused by extra scarcity of resources that came from the credit, the UBI based on the goodness of each individuals would save the economy instead of penalizing the rich. Because without the UBI, the rich would ran out of producers in the economy that he/she's sort of anchored in, maybe partially, maybe in whole.

2 types of people v.03

There are people who are no matter how smart should not be given access to the nuclear weapon. There are people who are the opposite, committed to integrity, wanting to be held responsible, keep on improving themselves in their capabilities to be responsible. 

There are people who are just not about integrity and responsibility, no matter how capable they are they are not going to be held responsible for their actions. 

I'm not talking about people who think there are certain people who can scrutinize them and some cant, even though I think they could potentially be a huge problem. 

The people who just don't want to be in the law of responsibilities no matter how capable should not be responsible for things, they might support the people who are responsible but they shouldn't be categorized as those who are responsible. These are just different people. 

----------

√-4 

This thing exist because I typed it

Wannability consideration (handing out self control is not goods and services)

Government tend to favor communism because they just want as many people as possible to submit regardless of productivity. Governments also tend to want people to produce as much as possible regardless of problem solving in order to have the legitimacy of GDP on paper. 

In order to acquire the right perspective you should see the wannability to solve problems and to help people out, albeit you the ruling class... which is unfortunate that you are a gang network. Regardless, you don't want racist people who is not going to want to solve your problems because they are not your race, you also don't want discriminative classy people who considered you not of their class, you also might consider pragmatic conscienteous people as a threat because of their disgust propensity that they use to perform their jobs well. You disgusting people... 

But regardless, what matters is the wannability of people to solve your problems and your attitude could make that worse. Instead of GDP consider wisdom, instead of giving out control consider having all the properties to be as productive as possible and the legitimacy in the culture that the properties are reward enough for the problem solvers. Give us access to The Word. 

Instead of communism and crazy 1000 cat adoption lady attitude, be spartans or gideonians and let the government be small and productive. If you can't then the sub govenments the regionals be a bit more pure here and a bit more pure there. A jail region here, and an economic region there. 

Why innovation is scarce v.02

 Lets start by looking at the economy, people solve each other's problems and with money they remember each others' deeds. The world keeps on changing and people keep on inventing better and better ways of solving problems, sometimes faster but short term, sometimes long term but took a lifetime to notice the difference. In the middle of this dynamic, we started to have assets with leverage. Now, scaling up for efficiency is common sense already and that's a blessing, but the economy wants to change because time keeps on changing anew and problems may seem to be the same at the surface but they also change. 

The scarcity of the world is not of time nor energy nor money but of mutual solutions

When we have a lot of stakes in the scaling up of an industry, we have a huge concern. Innovation is going to challenge the returns of these economics of scale, or should I say the increase in entropy. Innovation is going to respond to the increase in entropy but an extra problem that innovators are not going to be happy to meet is the stakes of the status quo industrial complex. Worse when they're all leveraged, worse when the employees associated with them put all of their eggs there, worse not just eggs but also credit and collaterals. 

This is a forehead expander, the reason we don't have the system in place to deal with this significantly is because the very problem itself. Free market is supposed to adapt to this thing, however the free market had been instituationally or organizationally manipulated (in neutral sense) so that it wouldn't be as devastating for the stakeholders of the leveraged assets - Its HUGE - therefore the free market has not yet reached a plane where I could see forward and noticed the solution in the horizon, I don't think we are there yet because of this very thing. 

I think as much as the devils are hiding in the details, angels maybe conducting espionage in the details as well. I might came up with something but what would it do? So people, find the angels in the details

Royalties but taxed (this can solve a lot of current problems!) v.02b

In order to improve tax compliance, widespread tax compliance, the country could implement royalties obligations for all revenues from all companies or all income. So all revenues should budget such amounts of royalties to some contributors which they would decide on their own. Upon these obligations, royalty taxes would be paid. So yes, the tax would be a very small percentages but because it is a widespread thing, almost all would participate. 

I personally would pay royalties in turn, so probably different people would receive the royalties everytime, but they had to be directly related to the revenue (the contribution had to be directly contributing to the revenue). 

For example restaurant income might want to recognize the recipe creators, or the pseudo recipe creators, or maybe the developed taste of the market (the first Indonesian restaurant / pioneer for example), or maybe the health workers who healed the infectious disease of the season, etc. 

Because there are a lot of contributions but there's not enough time and money and also attention to attribute, if we could do it turn-based at least there would be progress, not hopelessness, plus there would be tax involved so that those who competed without paying tax would not have too much edge against those who do pay tax. Your firefighters, police, the army, the cleaners etc, need meritocracy as well. 

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

In the case of existing royalties or main intellectual properties this is not intended to replace that, so if those had been allocated this "tax" would take an after portions. I know I've said from revenue but what I mean by that is an after gross thing, not before gross.

The Other meaning of expertise

 Experts are good at what they do, if you zoom out to the long term, seasoned experts would be those who appreciate things related to their expertise best.

The increase in entropy would mess with one's relevance, it'd mess with one's agility, but proper appreciation is a divine prize

Tax Exempt on Insurance payment return

National Health insurance is a blessing but its also a big burden for the whole society. So in order to ease the burden consider this:

Upon coverage of past treatment, a then successful person could decide to return the cost to the insurance company. The insurance company then returned to him/her all the premiums before that. 

This coverage then would be recorded in the books as cost / tax deductible.

-----------

The cost of human resources should include their health right? So it is only logical to include their health costs against their revenue. However we don't pile up everything at once because its too expensive of a cost that way, but in truth it is always there lingering. 

It is not a bad thing, not putting in the equation all of the health costs of a worker or a revenue receiver, only those immidiately associated with the context of the revenue. On the other side of the coin, wouldn't it be an objective assessment to acknowledge the rest of the costs as contributive too when a point has already been reached?

Sunshine

If you can own then you can share
If you can not own then you can't share

If you're regulated to "share" that's not sharing cause that's not yours
If you want to improve sharing, you got to reduce tax and increase LOVE

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

I'm not saying that the share of tax is not owned by government workers ok, but those are not "yours" to begin with, therefore those were not "shared", those were allocated. If you wanted to improve "sharing" then to increase tax is an idiot solution.