My place in the world
We are born into a world claimed by beings who learn and laugh, advance and conserve, build, and build again.
Such a world requires the activities of many different sorts of people.
Some people like to keep things clean, so activities are safer, healthier, and more fun.
Some people like to make delicious food, teach, serve and protect, make clothes, build houses and factories and farms. There are so many things we can do, in our place in the world.
How shall I find my place?
First we learn, and laugh, at school. This can seem tiring at times, because we need to know about many things, to find the ones that will make our place in the world. We need to know many little things, to see the big things clearly. So pay close attention to your work, and learn, because we need plenty of time to laugh.
Laughing helps us find our place in the world. Our place is where we laugh the best.
We each advance by learning new skills, and practicing old ones, to get better and better. Our world advances by having everyone cooperate, and take care of their own place in the world.
We each conserve by caring for our place, and keeping it healthy, for those who will come after us. We all care for our world by learning how it works, and the best ways to keep it healthy, and happy.
We each build our place in the world, we find jobs, and homes, and chairs, and we arrange them to suit us. We all build the roads and rails, towers and trails, and buildings large and small. Some do the building, and many more do the many other jobs that help everyone get the things they need, to live in the world.
We all claim this world, and when we are grown, we each can claim a share. We cooperate with each other by pledging our share to support our community, and agreeing to follow the law. Our community provides protections, payments for the use of our shares, and whatever other benefits the community includes in our social contract.
Your place can change.
As you learn different things, and different things make you laugh, your place may change, little by little. Sometimes, we learn of different places, and sometimes we change our place in the world all at once, changing communities, and social contracts.
Some find their place right where they are, and live and grow there all their days. Some change places over and over, learning different things, and ways of doing.
You will find your place, because you are in it now. Your place will always be where you are, and if you follow your laughter, your place in the world will be filled with joy.
The Economy Runs On CreditEdit
Debt is the basis of society
We can easily recognize the debt we owe to society, for the construction of infrastructure, the inventions of all kinds, the protections and services that may be provided, and in the same measure, the debt society owes each of us, for our cooperation, our construction of infrastructure, our inventions of all kinds, the protections and services that we provide
This is a valid basis for an economy, and we are very close, much closer than you might think
Looking at a list of national external debt by country shows some interesting and not so intuitive things
The U.S. of course has the most debt, but the debt per capita is kind of average for what one would expect are wealthy nations, about the same as Germany, Spain, Australia, half the U.K. A number of small but wealthy countries have twice the per capita external debt as the U.S. or more. China’s is about two percent of the U.S. and Russia only about three times that.
The majority of countries though, have per capita debts that many Americans might have in their checking accounts, or in their wallets, many under $200
Aside from a couple outliers it appears as though debt accompanies prosperity.
Perhaps the most instructive is Luxembourg, with the “world's highest GDP (PPP) per capita, according to the United Nations in 2014,” and per capita external debt of over three million dollars. (noting that Luxembourg owns far more debt than it owes) Debt is clearly a source of wealth
One might simplistically conclude that poor countries simply need to borrow a whole lot more money… simple
Seems a reason they don’t is because they have bad credit, and where the U.S. pays an average rate around two percent, lower for new, and some government securities are paying negative rates, countries with bad credit have to pay upwards of ten percent, (and agree to restrictions, and support for things they wouldn’t otherwise,) mirroring the same problem poor people have. Another reason is that there isn’t enough money to borrow.(coming back to this)
I mentioned to someone that currencies are not backed by gold any more, just by the promise of the issuer, and was a little surprised that was unknown to many. Demonstrates how specialized the tolerance for economic information is among humans. It is a subject I dislike immensely.
So they call it fiat money, because it is just made, and fiat is nothing at all but belief, and agreement. We believe this paper, and the numerals in our accounts are meaningful and have value. We agree to work for and pay for things with the currency, it is specified in contracts.
When people are told how money is created they often just don’t hear it. Banks write checks when people get loans, and fiat, it is made. That isn’t for all banks mind you, and rates too high is the same as no money available, and they are restricted to some multiple of the money they have on deposit.
This can be difficult to believe because it seems like something made up by a child, or some older criminal, or out of frustration and pragmatism, because it has been working. It is difficult to regard the process as anything but a scam, collecting interest on fiat, nothing.
I can't see getting enraged about it or anything like that, it has been working. It's been working because nothing (fiat) is a more appropriate basis for currency than gold, or any commodity. Commodities change price, currency is best stable. Commodities have to be stored and protected, and the hoarding increases the price of the commodity... I understand that it's just business, and brilliantly successful, I just want a cut, and for me to get mine, everyone must be enfranchised.
Back to not enough: Not enough money for poor countries to borrow, so they can be, not poor, so how much is enough?
From a Basic Income perspective, working backward from a thousand dollars a month, at a sustainable rate of 1.25%, a million dollars per capita would produce enough income to provide that. Krishn Ramesh pointed out last year that in the world there is about $51,600 per capita (nearly the same as the U.S. per capita debt.) That is much less than a million.
As crazy as it might seem to charge interest on nothing to create money, it seems to work, and to actually provide the opportunity for each to succeed we need to create more, and we need to get the more to each.
Many believe that a sovereign country may simply create all the money they want, but the reason loaning fiat money into existence doesn't cause inflation is the accounting. Giving each the equivalent of a million dollars would be folly, because that could not be secured and soon many would have none.
Fiat though, since it is nothing, can be inexpensively and securely distributed to each in the form of a Share that is held in trust with the bank where it is claimed. While the Share may be transferred to another bank, it is existentially connected to a unique set of biometric data. The notion of loaning money made from nothing seems a little less crazy, and more sustainable, when the nothing is defined and limited, and the interest goes directly, and equally to each.
When we define fiat as the right to loan money into existence for sovereign debt:
We limit the amount of fiat available to that million dollars (whatever) per capita
Each adult human may claim a Share for deposit in trust
Each bank holding these Shares will be entrusted with investing this fiat
Since the value of this fiat is significantly more than existing wealth, the power derived from existing wealth will be reduced, and competition will be significantly enabled.
An example would be in the sale of a company: A large corporation seeking to acquire a company will have access to a large amount of money, and the leverage that provides, but with each adult an enfranchised individual sovereign, each employee will have access to secured loans against a portion of the value of their Share for home, farm, or secure interest in employment. In this way employees would be able to compete for the ownership of the company they work for, and any group of people presenting a project to local fiduciaries and actuaries could obtain funding if found worthy
To slow concerns about the vastness; The functional reality would be that a structure of secure accounts is established. It's a good thing to have anyway, we can use it for our votes. I suspect their are enough interested parties that redundant space could be found.
The rule is established, new sovereign debt, and any that can be beneficially converted, gets borrowed from Shares, and each person starts getting paid.
When all the current sovereign debt is converted each will get something like USD $20/ month.
Twenty dollars a month is a valid global experiment, that will produce valid global data, per capita will really mean something... ...enfranchisement is a right... ...and where it goes from there will be determined by a more free market
We need this,
Thanks so much for your kind indulgence
I'm concerned with getting everyone paid.
Global Economic Enfranchisement System:
By requiring sovereign debt to be backed with Commons Shares, that may be claimed by each adult human on the planet by presenting a unique set of biometric data, exclusively for deposit in trust with their bank, as part of an actual social contract, we recognize, distribute, and secure, some value of the Commons for the direct benefit of each.
The Commons Share is existentially connected with a unique set of biometric data, so it is not transferable and ceases to exist with its owner, thus maintaining a constant number of Shares relative to shareholders. Each Share represents a quantum unit of the fiat that backs the world's currencies. Defining, limiting, and distributing fiat in this way disperses the power to create money proportionally by population to each bank holding Shares in trust.
The fiat that currently backs our currencies is generally defined as the full faith and credit of a particular country. This faith and credit is a product of the efforts of each citizen, so it is reasonable to demand a share of the interest gained from their efforts
The example I use of a Share being worth $1 million USD is derived from a target of $1 thousand/mo basic income, and an interest rate that is compatible with a sustainable system. It works just as well with £ or €.
The recognition of this value would make $1 million USD equivalent times the population available to finance sovereign debt, at a sustainable rate, 1.25% is within the generally accepted notion that 2% growth is sustainable. This capital would be invested by the local banks, and while a majority would likely need to be invested in government securities for maximum return, whatever portion that can be prudently invested in the community will be available.
In order to be enfranchised in a capitalistic society, one must have some minimum level of secure capital. This is how society can secure the public capital, provide a basic income, establish each person’s relationship with society as a sovereign individual, while stabilizing trade and exchange.
A basic income is a vote in capitalism, what gets produced, by whom, what projects can attract sufficient support.
The suggested structure recognizes that in order for each to truly have the possibility of achieving financial success, sufficient money needs to exist in the world. Currently there is something close to fifty thousand USD per capita. The example would define and distribute fiat Shares valued at $1 million USD equivalent times the adult population, so about $6 quadrillion. One might observe that to increase the amount of money this much would take centuries the way money/wealth is currently created.
We can also observe that this much debt, distributed as suggested, can sustainably be repaid or serviced, and represents a far more reasonable valuation of our society. The maintenance of this debt will create, and make available, sufficient new capital globally, without “poor” countries, or “poor” individuals, having to beg for overpriced loans.
The existing Capital, in most of the world is highly undervalued, especially the human capital.
Land value alone, with all humans enfranchised, will increase the Capital valuation significantly, based on demand, also increasing land tax revenue.
Also observe that the structure is not funded with capital, it only makes credit available, and is funded with income.
At the inception, current sovereign debt is being serviced, so the limited income stream exists, it will just be diverted to service Commons Shares, and current sovereign debt holders will need to reinvest, stimulating economic activity.
The expansion of the structure to increase Basic Income can proceed as Capital valuation increases, along with income/revenue.
The structure does these things without interfering with any government, though the people will be significantly more empowered to affect whatever changes they desire, and we may expect human desires to be more rational, with the establishment of a rational relationship between and among humans and governments.
In order for a Basic Income to be paid, the money has to be collected.
In any given state, the rules for collecting money vary, and change, this will not change, but the arguments will. Instead of directly taxing and paying citizens, each state/sovereign entity, will collect funds to make the payments on their sovereign debt, and each human will receive payment from their bank, as interest on their Share.
In this way, the argument becomes; “How can we collect sufficient revenue to support the debt we have to our citizens?” As opposed to; “How will we collect enough more taxes to support the lazy bums who cause such a drain on my personal finances?”
The actual social contracts will specify the responsibility of government to protect and support the Commons, through rational action, and by making regular sovereign debt payments. This allows for, and supports, the diversity of customs, and practices.
Each sovereign entity will acquire a treasury/secure investment along with acceptance of their debt, and this treasury will be sufficient, when prudently applied, to produce more than enough income to make the payments. (Interest payments could be made for five years without collecting additional taxes, and >90% of the treasury would still be on deposit, or like the US where the current debt is already nearly 10% of the suggested debt, there are plenty of sources for the required revenue.)
As public works increase economic activity, revenue is generated. If we examine the scale of suggested debt, and sustainable debt service, it becomes clear that generating sufficient revenue will be possible.
In this way each human will receive equal interest payments from global sovereign debt.
This establishes the sovereignty of each human, and distributes the ability to create wealth.
As a sovereign entity, each individual would have access to sovereign debt for home, farm, or secure interest in employment, relative to a portion of the value of their Share. The value of a Share need not fluctuate, and would set a natural sovereign debt limit. The return on a Share though, would depend on how much of that value is borrowed. Individuals could borrow a significant fraction, but maximum return would likely require states to borrow all remaining Shares. The ideal state, I suppose, would be for the entire value to be loaned interest only, maintaining the basic economic activity and the state of indebtedness owed by the various states to the individuals who comprise them, and to the Commons.
I suspect that a nation with 1 million residents could borrow the entire $1 trillion (equivalent) of resident Shares as reserve cash and devise a plan to increase revenue by the $12 billion/yr (equivalent) required to pay the interest. The U.S. example of a $268 trillion debt, a $250 trillion treasury, and $3 trillion annual interest payment seems equally optimistic. These are maximums, to return the target $1,000/month, as the central debt would be reduced by state, local, and personal sovereign debts, and the market may determine a lower BI.
Current sovereign debt would return about $10/month, $20 if corporate government debt is included, (observing that corporations are governments subordinate to their charters) which would be significant in many parts of the world. The increased spending on basic needs will necessarily reduce the cost of providing them. As the basic income increases, and the cost of basic needs shrinks, the return on a Share will ultimately be what is demanded by the market.
If a similar system was attempted in a single state, the currency of that state would be devalued, as other countries will not accept at full value a diluted currency. With all currencies tied to the Commons, and the proportional increase in wealth flow in all states, all currencies will be expanded simultaneously, proportional to population, creating disadvantage to no one, exchange rates and trade can stabilize.
Since the spending of money is restricted by the availability of materials and labor, and “full employment” is restricted by the availability of money, recognizing and distributing some value of the Commons in this way would simply “fill the reservoir” so the world economic system may act more like a “Free Market.” This restriction, and most familiar others, can enable an orderly increase in money supply, with most new money in reserves and increased valuation.
Please consider the notion, and as you view the worlds problems, and crises, imagine how this would alter those conditions. The perspective change for each individual so enfranchised is critically needed.
Thanks so much for your kind indulgence,
Tralfamadoran777 (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Edited from: "Tralfamadoran777 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)" Tralfamadoran777 (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Tralfamadoran777 (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Tralfamadoran777 (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps less importantly, but more immediate, is my concern for the lies, and distortion of science, used to further the continuing criminal enterprise that is called "drug war," but acts as an attack on genetic variants that contain instinctive attraction to the herb cannabis.Contrasting models of genetic co-morbidity for cannabis and other illicit drugs in adult Australian twins.
This fact is ignored, obscured: "No research or study has proven that Cannabis causes any significant harm to users or society." This simple and verifiable fact should, in a rational world, end the hateful prohibition.
Characterized by a conflation of associated with caused, this deception capitalizes on the fact that these genetic variants accompany a predisposition for the divergent thought conditions, including major depression, bipolar, ADD/ADHD, schizophrenia, and the autistic spectrum. Genetic predisposition to schizophrenia associated with increased use of cannabis. Neuroinformatic analyses of common and distinct genetic components associated with major neuropsychiatric disorders.
Since any group of cannabis users will necessarily contain a disproportionate number of individuals affected by these conditions, an association between cannabis use and any number of psycho-social harms associated with these conditions is assured, while also not being able to provide proof of cause, for more than four decades.
While the literature is encumbered with prejudicial POV, like "risk of using cannabis," as opposed to predisposition, or instinctive attraction, the science is still generally valid.
A common begged question is that some 9% of people who try cannabis will become addicted, which is a statistical deception. The data collected from surveys suggests a number of people who have tried cannabis, and with treatment program records, inflated by court mandated attendance to avoid criminal record, simple math suggests the claim. The reality is more likely that there is some population of people who have addictive personalities, and the number of folks "addicted" to cannabis is just a reflection of the proportion of addicts with a personal preference for the herb over other substances or activities. I strongly suspect that if 100 normal healthy people who have shown no interest in cannabis try it, some may consider using it again, but none will become addicted.
One of my favorites, the Meier I.Q. study of the Dunedin cohort, suggests a causal effect, though following work demonstrates socioeconomic factors could account for the losses. My interest was in the breakdown of sub test results. While the non-users, and more than 90% of the users, had statistically no change in total I.Q. scores, those 3% or so of the cohort who lost the 8 total points, scored higher in the Arithmetic, block diagram, and picture completion sub tests, while the non-users scored lower in these three sub tests.
This effect should be expected from a group with atrophied, or undeveloped social skills, and a preoccupation with detail and analysis, which is characteristic of divergent thought conditions. Similarly, the breaking even of the non-users I.Q. by increasing verbal and social skills, while losing analytic ones, could look different if more weight were given to analytic intelligence.
The reaction of prohibitionist factions of government and science to reasoned debate follows the evangelical precept not to engage the devil in argument, as the Prince of Lies is infallible in his deception, so just put fingers in ears and go "lalalalalalala." (I actually watched a guy preaching this on TV the other day)
The typical stereotype of a stoner; slow, but not necessarily stupid, and going on about things no one understands or cares about, is a fairly accurate caricature of my disability, when I am not using cannabis. Of the few times I have been accused of being high, I was not, and usually for quite some time, so a big part of this prohibition thing has been making fun of, and interfering with care for the disabled. Tralfamadoran777 (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)