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.

When reputation was measured in more rich manners

Reputation has a spectrum, it could come from achievements, popular presentation of one's self, being audited or scrutinized, being on a court, etc. 

What I envision the future would be if people would want to improve on how they measure reputation is:

The favor of consumers over a company would not only be from the prices of their products, or the qualities, or how fancy and dandy were their situations, but it should be more fluid. A company would be measured not only from its size and prevalence but people would look at the "golden stickers" or the history of achievements of their management for example. When the management changes how the public would view the company would also changes, scientists would be able to influence this as well for example by pointing out the statistic of how the change of management influence company policies and achievements, how sensitive a company is to change of management. Something like that

Another point that should also be in the spectrum is scrutiny. Like now we often were scrutinized by the tax office, that's how we and the government came in good terms. Those who had undergone high scrutiny would probably be trusted more by the government. Strangely now people who were cancelled received no extra points for being scrutinized, the consumers quickly move on to the next new thing while ignoring the advantages that their network already build with people like Pewdiepie, Joe Rogan, Johnny Depp etc (some names are controversial but rightly mentioned; Mr. Beast, Logan Paul, Dr. Disrespect, Will Smith, and more). Not saying that they are better than the other people, but the fact that they've been under scrutiny should be an extra merit, which is unfortunately the public in general is not doing that in my opinion. 

So of course an obvious possible way of how this improvement would happen would likely be from an app or an extention to social media. Golden Sticker for example is something that I've proposed for more than a decade, is a system of putting stickers in your profile page that's an aggregation of your receipts, such electronic sticker could be filtered and zoomed in through various dimensions such as period, type of industries, magnitudes, etc. Now in this case, one might incorporate a display of how many times he/she/it had been audited, by what parties. Each communities would do well also to have a forum where they could chip in information that would make up these "badge" or these electronic favors. 

These favors are important for each individuals because we want to be in a circuit and we don't want to have our community or our circuit to not be reciprocal to us.  Also other reasons such as altruism, honesty, devotion, Justice, and fairness. What I'm saying here is hardly new, we already knew of the term "blood diamond", "black companies", "child labor sweatshops", and these people have actually in my opinion started something big. This is an easy way to look at it but of course it is more than that, to have an online electronic reputation system would help people to recognize the entities better, and the entities should not be encouraged to be a giant, but to be fluid where they wouldn't mind to disband and regroup, they would not lose their achievements. Entities would also not encouraged to manipulate speech or public images or to adopt hostile PR policies that attacked honesty, because people value courage more than touches of "make up". 

Tax discount chores idea

The municipalities could announce seasonal or occassional requests for goods and services in exchange for cash (of course, tax coupons, or tax discounts)

The god v.06

When social condemnation is your god, you'd need the social to condemn

However you knew that the society is blind, so you'd need the society to conform to esteemed figures

However you knew that the revered figures are corruptible (especially those who gave assurance that they're uncorruptible), so you need auditors

However you knew that the revered figures will attack the auditors, but somehow you didn't know what to do...

Lets increase the punishments instead

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

fyi : that post was sarcastic... -_-

why make punishment harder and harder for public sentiment? Evil politicians! Like, these persecutions only empowers them to intimidate others who are checking on them or wanted to do better than them. Reduce the punishments so that audit can be done with less stakes and anyone can audit. If you said audit is a market then the opposite is logical! we need people to realize what audit is and how expensive it is... if they never do that because of "culture" which is trash and satanic (that aspect of it), how could they understand and appreciate what it is and what it costs?

Cheap audit is cheap and its beautiful

Expensive audit is expensive and its beautiful

Different definitions of worship

Based on my own personal observation, open to critique btw, some people have different meanings of worship when they say worship. I think what a lot of people had is I'll subject myself to "God" with absolute loyalty. That's the kind of embedded circuit within people, which entails one of the "need" in human being, to have someone or some deities to worship. Its probably like sex where it just needs to be channeled. 

However you got to train yourself to separate elements of this circuit in your brain. Politicians could tap into this and take advantage of this against our own best interests. People might not realize this but the party that they're in, the race, the religion, the group that they're in, potentially not only cater to our social needs but also our room for God. Such if unchecked can make people do things or be a certain way that is profitable firstly not to them but to other people (evil politicians). 

So when you worship, worship to the true God that is the Spirit of Truth, cause you'd pledge your loyalty to the Truth and then you'd be free. Because worship will make you be wrong when the "god" is wrong, but if God is the Spirit of Truth then He will invite audit. 

Search me O Lord and Seek out my Heart...

Drawing meaning through derivatives (of writings and sayings)

When someone was not talking directly either responsibly or irresponsibly (attribution-wise), what is the meaning that the person was saying or writing? Stalkers and gossipers would argue it is in their conviction, but a person could have hierarchies of convictions. So based on the gossipers and bully's culture they would consider whatever they deemed to be the meaning as the meaning, as long as it is a person's conviction. 

This is why in Christianity God is the one who sees the heart, humans are to judge just by the result. When comes to "conviction", a person might had emotional conviction in what he / she illustrated, but if such person was, for example, acted in a discipline that always prioritized their "Rule conviction", maybe they were religious, or maybe they commited to lawfulness, it would be painting a wide brush to say that such emotion was what they mean when "the rule" could mean another. Moreover I don't think types of convictions are few, should be many.

However such logic could only improve derivation not complete it. So the best thing is to reconfirm or to ask the person again. When an art or an illustration or a humor was done responsibly, inherently it would be within context to inquire on the meaning of such product, irresponsible ones would require an out of context invokation of inquiry of the thing, which burden the inquirer. But, some people might not realize what other people contexts were, and some people were just choosing not to comply to such contexts.

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

Here therefore a logical problem, when could one refuse a context? When could one refuse some contexts while still speaking? I'd say you should always be able to do that as long as your conviction and your actions statistically speaking, or your discipline follows your preferred context always. Of course the primary context or the basic wording of the speech is the context, that's the extent of one's responsibility is it not?

Here's another logical problem, whose responsibility was it when some secondary or tertiary context were habitual or cultural for a group of people? Whose responsibility was it to always consider them when talking? The problem is these contexts are unlimited actually with ever changing orders of importance. I'm not one of you, I should have the right to be considered just as a member of the public, please relieve me of this uncalled for obligations. 

Maybe, cause it had to go somewhere right?

When you communicate usually it would transfer responsibilities to the receiver, when it comes to art or humor or music that shouldn't be the case, but other times it is. For example when you say that there is a lamp that is yellow and there is a lamp that is blue, since you've said it, you've said it, so when such information amount to something you would've already said it. The worst kind of communication is when there was a transfer of responsibility but the messenger wouldn't be responsible, in this case the receiver couldn't refuse the responsibility or adjust it without "paying" for some extra steps. It is infuriating. 

Then I assume, people thought that it is normal to experience such things, so the culture went towards more and more furious. What I mean by that is that the culture is looking for more and more things to define as bad or immoral or not nice or unacceptable. Most of the time such things are not that infuriating supposedly, but damn why is it that you just can't dodge these things sometimes. 

So if you wanted to experience what our predecessors experienced when they fought and successfully delegitimized slavery, this could be our next thing to get rid of. I'm sorry I mean, this shit, this shit could be our next thing to get rid of, my bad. 

Justice people are not being difficult, the focus is different

Good and Evil is not about neuroticism or not. Today some neurotic people might feel like doing injustice for the excuse of their intense feelings, tommorow the less neurotic people might be the ones who were unjust for this and that.

Justice is hard enough to achieve, like an arrow might not hit the bullseye even after being aimed, those that are aiming would not hit the bull's eye unless its a coincidence. 

To make it harder for those that are trying or specifically prevents those that are trying to be Just is being too adversarial, unnecessarily adversarial. People we should talk responsibly

Turn based community credit system v.02

So 3 people made collaterals (same sizes), and the bank gave for them an overdraft account. Each could take 90% of 1/3 freely, but if at a moment one would take, say, 130%, the next turn he/she could only take 50%

Each turn period was determined beforehand, maybe 6 months, maybe 8 months, or else.

You'd want to use this for...

This could reduce gang fights, maybe

Because gang disputes are evil, when you remove a chunk of the evil the interests would reduce. So if you legalize gang fights, maybe create a special area like special economic tax free territories we have now, and then you inform to the gangs that you knew were in a tension with each other, you'd reduce the chances of that happening. 

Maybe an increase for non deadly fights, but deadly gang battles should be able to be reduced just by the act of legalizing and organizing it. Because they were fueled by evil.

If they wanted to do it without supervision anyway, then I don't know, but still my point if you organized it and legalized it, they should be less likely to want to do it. Such event should add nuances to the way of the gangs and eventually reduce the chances of "traditional" practices.

Lawful Professional Private Police v.02

As a supporter of many Libertarian ideas I anticipate that governments would face a state where the police departments would be understaffed. In such occassion the government would gather funds from the people and finance private police entities that had the professional education to be professional police forces. Then the role of the original police would be changed into becoming reviewers or overseers of the new "mercenary police forces". I mean this in the context of occassionally not permanently.

This is pretty flexible in a way that we would want a stable income for the police but we also want no incentives to play any "crime farming" game. We could choose an insurance style setup where the "mercenaries" were employed by insurance companies, or just a dedicated company. We could also choose a kind of militia setup where regular people were rewarded for doing police works as long as they were disciplined in the law (because it is imperative for them to not be draconian for their own unjust desires). To have this be more potent we should have better lives for those who otherwise wouldn't conscript.

Is charity unjust? v.11g

Before I get to other points I'd say that charity is not always unjust and so not always just. The thing is monopoly exists in this world, meaning that you could look for systems and procedures that had prevented selling below cost in the past, if such were not found then pretty likely injustice had happened in the economy, there was a mutilation (the cutting off of competitions by selling unprofitably), unless the monopolizers were angelic. The problem is that people had been cut off from being able to contribute to the economy, I blame monopolistic practices for this however I was wrong in judging all monopolies as bad, I shouldn't have said that and instead should've pointed out that some unfair competition schemes are and have been difficult to address.

So in the face of injustice you'd want to make it right, using whose money? Robbing other people? even if you robbed the monopolizers, it is still an act of injustice and its going to build the momentum of injustice, To use your own money?, yes this is good although other times it is not going to be enough (2024). The popular best way would be to gather up the disposable income of the public, for example collective charities for ex-cons that were clearly and officially wrongly punished and haven't been compensated enough by the country.  Another example would be to gather up charities for orphans those who because of the injustice of either nature or humans were orphaned, such orphans are like us, the embodiment of human beings, and for them to be in this world without being evil is virtuous. Another, the elderly who were inadequately rewarded. Such Just charities would increase the prosperity of the economy (because its meritocratic).

The lack of such adjustments in the economy are going to encourage evil behaviors more and more, making everything unsafe and bad for business scaling ups. Obviously because it is the glorification of evil/injustice or ignorance of the presence of injustice, which is also evil. 

Charities like those are important but what if charity went to those who were arguably not like that but its legal to do so? This is the purpose of this blog post. 

Evil in the economy attacked the opportunity of prosperity, meaning what is your faith? How prosperous could the minimum of every relatively non criminal people were supposed to be if the economy wasn't evil? Based on that figure, if charity lifted some people out of poverty to that point, that would be a correction. Still the argument would be, wouldn't it supposed to go to productive people or merit based, rather than charity? Justice is when "everyone" gets whatever they wanted and needed whenever they wanted and needed it, if we weren't being meritocratic we would be sabotaging the progress towards justice therefore unjust. But then who would be the judge and what would be the remedy? Cause if the remedy means taking away from those who legally owned properties, that means a violation against the law and the law is the progress of humanity, it is not to be taken lightly. 

If you hosted and nurtured unjust behaviors especially out of despise of the law, to act upon your own judgemental sentiments, it may not be impossible for you to be able to attack your targets and improve the prosperity of your targeted economy, but after that the administration that had been nurtured is going to want to go for the inside (since the outside accesses had been depleted). For illustration if you took the properties of those who had received charities but deemed to be non contributive to the economy, and successful in doing so, the next target would be the people who were deemed worthy but not as much, and its going to keep on and on until the economy became poor, and everybody would be equally poor but one guy, the supreme leader. And its only logical then to say that that guy too would be poor (in terms of value). 

So meritocracy is not always tied to individuals, it could be an organization, a configuration, or a spirit. If you were to be a reciprocal person you should care about this as well, embrace your instinct to connect with new people or to be interested in new things, such are reciprocal as well.