The limit to the evolutionary value markets, is measurable by changes in genetic capital, and genetic capital is measureable by differences in total number of population and distribution(superiority) of traits. Likewise, the limit to genetic capital is competitive speciation (transcendence).
Again, if you cannot state the limit to a theory(‘good’) then you do not understand of what you speak.
Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy
-
Doolittle’s Law Of Market Limits
The limit to the evolutionary value markets, is measurable by changes in genetic capital, and genetic capital is measureable by differences in total number of population and distribution(superiority) of traits. Likewise, the limit to genetic capital is competitive speciation (transcendence). Again, if you cannot state the limit to a theory(‘good’) then you do not understand of what you speak. -
DOOLITTLE’S LAW OF MARKET LIMITS The limit to the evolutionary value markets, is
DOOLITTLE’S LAW OF MARKET LIMITS
The limit to the evolutionary value markets, is measurable by changes in genetic capital, and genetic capital is measureable by differences in total number of population and distribution(superiority) of traits. Likewise, the limit to genetic capital is competitive speciation (transcendence).
Again, if you cannot state the limit to a theory(‘good’) then you do not understand of what you speak.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-27 10:26:00 UTC
-
Goods (Physical), Services (Actions), Information, Promises(Requirements), Oppor
Goods (Physical), Services (Actions), Information, Promises(Requirements), Opportunities(Options) Is that all there is really? -
Goods (Physical), Services (Actions), Information, Promises(Requirements), Oppor
Goods (Physical), Services (Actions), Information, Promises(Requirements), Opportunities(Options) Is that all there is really? -
Goods (Physical), Services (Actions), Information, Promises(Requirements), Oppor
Goods (Physical),
Services (Actions),
Information,
Promises(Requirements),
Opportunities(Options)
Is that all there is really?
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-25 16:09:00 UTC
-
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how to allocate each according to his need. 2 – Socialism: total state ownership, with all income by redistribution. 3 – Fascism: Mixed private public ownership, with strict limits on commerce and behavior, such that maximum income is devoted to the production of commons. 4 – Social Democracy: Mixed public private ownership, but dividends (taxes) from the private sector redistributed for consumption. 5 – Classical Liberalism: Mixed public private Ownership with dividends (taxes) invested in commons, and without redistribution for consumption. 6 – Christian Monarchy: Monarchic ownership of territory, but nobility and property holders permission required for changes in taxation. 7 – Dictatorship: central ownership of everything and taxes collected by practical limitations, but with the intention of keeping the ‘public’ (cattle) productive. TWO AXES: X) Organization of production between involuntary(no property) and voluntary(Property). Y) Direction of proceeds of production and market activity to Government members, or to commons, or to consumers. That’s all the axes we have to work with. That’s all there is to do. Period. -
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how to allocate each according to his need.
2 – Socialism: total state ownership, with all income by redistribution.
3 – Fascism: Mixed private public ownership, with strict limits on commerce and behavior, such that maximum income is devoted to the production of commons.
4 – Social Democracy: Mixed public private ownership, but dividends (taxes) from the private sector redistributed for consumption.
5 – Classical Liberalism: Mixed public private Ownership with dividends (taxes) invested in commons, and without redistribution for consumption.
6 – Christian Monarchy: Monarchic ownership of territory, but nobility and property holders permission required for changes in taxation.
7 – Dictatorship: central ownership of everything and taxes collected by practical limitations, but with the intention of keeping the ‘public’ (cattle) productive.
TWO AXES:
X) Organization of production between involuntary(no property) and voluntary(Property).
Y) Direction of proceeds of production and market activity to Government members, or to commons, or to consumers.
That’s all the axes we have to work with.
That’s all there is to do.
Period.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-21 16:04:00 UTC
-
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how
1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how to allocate each according to his need. 2 – Socialism: total state ownership, with all income by redistribution. 3 – Fascism: Mixed private public ownership, with strict limits on commerce and behavior, such that maximum income is devoted to the production of commons. 4 – Social Democracy: Mixed public private ownership, but dividends (taxes) from the private sector redistributed for consumption. 5 – Classical Liberalism: Mixed public private Ownership with dividends (taxes) invested in commons, and without redistribution for consumption. 6 – Christian Monarchy: Monarchic ownership of territory, but nobility and property holders permission required for changes in taxation. 7 – Dictatorship: central ownership of everything and taxes collected by practical limitations, but with the intention of keeping the ‘public’ (cattle) productive. TWO AXES: X) Organization of production between involuntary(no property) and voluntary(Property). Y) Direction of proceeds of production and market activity to Government members, or to commons, or to consumers. That’s all the axes we have to work with. That’s all there is to do. Period. -
The Alternative To Increased Taxes And Fixed Redistributoin
Assuming: Your credit card balance is the average 8000 @16% @minimum payment(400), Your first car costs 30,000(550), and Your second car costs 20,000(370/M), and Your home 350,000(1,400/M), That means you pay 400 + 550 + 370 + 1400 per month in debt load, or $2,720 in debt fees. that means that you pay roughly 400 + 4000/5 + 2700/5 + 325,000/30 or 12,400 per year, and ~1030 per month in interest. If you maintain your debt at 1/3 of income (sure you do), then that’s $8,160 (3* 2720) per month or ~97,000 (12 * 8,160) per year of take home pay after taxes. That means your Gross income (salary) needs to be $140,000 per year. Yeah. that’s not cheap. So that means without interest charges, you’d have one of the following options: 1) An increase of 1030 in taxes. 2) An increase of 1030 in monthly cash (12%) 3) A HALVING of your payoff period, meaning you would own your car in 2.5 years, your home in 15 years. Ok, so, of these optoins, 1) I have a hard time thinking americans will want to increase their tax contributions. But it’s possible. However, the two other solutions will increase taxable income substantially at higher income rates, versus current corporate tax rates. 2) Increasing your monthly cash might seem nice but as far as I know it would just be inflated away or your debt would increase and the net effect would be small. 3) Or we can halve the payment periods, (and demand they stay that way), so that you would have NO payments on cars and houses (credit cards in my opinion would simply be paid off through liquidity distributions in order to correct shocks etc. So I don’t even know how to estimate that.) So imagine what happens when you own your house in 15 years and have not only no interest payments, but no mortgage payments, but you are able to maintain your current standard of living? Now, assuming that we had (as some of us recommended) simply paid down people’s credit (card, car, mortgage) with the trillions we added to the economy. What would have happened to the world pricing system and the world economy in 2008? Now, we issue how much debt every year? We increase the money supply how much every year? Now what would happen if we took the single action that would correct the economy in the fastest way possible: paid down debt for those that had it (first), then distributed liquidity (cash) directly to consumers instead of the financial sector? Consumers would pay down debt or spend, and businesses would fight for their new liquidity. We would need to professionalize banking (access to the treasury) the same way that we professionalized law and accounting, (and to some degree being a CEO and CFO). And we would need to require bonding (insurance) of and possibly licensing (minimum education) people involved in that process, but it’s a well understood subject. Imagine that your credit was managed by a human being just like your accountant and lawyer, and that they simply administered it as does your tax accountant. This is trivially easy to accomplish – really. And it would gut the banking and financial system’s consumer predation, and it’s ability to prey upon our people. It would force the world financial system to work more entrepreneurially and make consumer rents impossible.