Archive for May, 2008

Implimenting Trust Spending

Wednesday, May 21st, 2008

Dear Reader,

It seems to me that Instituting the Manifesto of the International Capitalist Party’s system of funding government would be difficult. More so for a rich country than for a poor country. The difficulty would be met at the end with an enormous payback, as I have explored before.

A rich country is assumed to have a well developed economy. With long standing institutions and well worn practices when it comes to taxes and finance. A nation that is wealthy also has a stable government. (A nation without a stable government is not long wealthy). These circumstances build up momentum in an economy. Like a gyroscope the built up moment of inertia makes it hard to change the orientation of laws regarding taxation and regulation. A wealthy nation also spends a lot of money. When the government spends 20% twenty percent of GDP and GDP is measured in the Hundreds of billions or trillions that is a huge amount of money to transition into trust spending.

A poorer nation would have a comparatively easier time. Poorer nations have less stable governments and probably have recently undergone political convulsions. The Department’s of government will be new and ductile instead of old and brittle. The methods of taxation will have been mercurial. Even though a poorer nation probably spends more of it’s GDP perhaps 25%-40% twenty five percent to fourty percent, with a GDP that is measured in the tens or hundreds of millions it isn’t that much money to transition into trust spending. Plus being poor in and of itself means that markets are undeveloped. Undeveloped markets don’t resist change like developed ones do.

In either case a phased transition would be in order. The poorer country would have to successfully implement the other parts of the Manifesto before the transition would take place. The economy and government must be stabilized and the populace must have the basic necessities met. These are preconditions to starting transitioning into trust spending.

A constitutional amendment is another precondition. Without this control later governments will find it too easy to find a reason to spend all the trust money. Near sightedness is a perpetual problem with the Elite. They always want to look like a hero today… let others deal with the aftermath.

A final note about potential positive externalities. With a successful transition to trust government spending the money spent by government would contribute to real GDP. With tax as you go deficit spending, at best, government is a minor drag on GDP. But most often government tax and spend policies serve to produce a huge amount of friction in the economy and sometimes even in peoples daily lives. The Elite will never let taxes go away, there are always good reasons to spend someone else’s money, but they will be less onerous and won‘t have the sand in the gears effect of deficit spending.

Incapp on Government Funding

Sunday, May 18th, 2008

Dear reader,

I was wondering what would be a possible consequence of funding government using the means outlined in the Manifesto of the International Capitalist Party.

The first thing that came to mind is the fact that the “National Savings Identity” would be flipped upside down. The National Savings Identity is simply that, Within a nation, “Individual Savings plus the Inflow of Foreign Capital must equal Government Borrowing plus National Capital Investment.”

Were government to be funded by the means outlined in the Manifesto of the International Capitalist Party, the National Savings Identity in a nation would be changed to “Individual Savings plus Government Savings must equal National Capital Investment plus Investment in Foreign Countries Markets.

This would inevitably lead to a positive Balance of Trade. Balance of trade being the Outflow of Goods and Capital minus the inflow of Goods and Capital. It would allow a Nation to import huge amounts of goods with no negative Balance of Trade implications. Further opening the National markets to International trade would make available to the people the production capacity of the World in the form of Goods and Services. Improve the standard of Education and the populace would be more able to take advantage of this state of affairs. The standard of living would be greatly improved.

Unless growth were to be phenomenal, (20% or more), the Capital available to National Firms that want to upgrade would be available. National GDP growth would be unrestrained by lack of Capital for investment. With Capital for Investment overseas, comes International expertise. Making International expertise available to National Markets. Again leading to reducing friction to the real growth in GDP.

It would be tough to implement, (more on that later), but the results, once made apparent, would be impetus for other countries to implement our policies.

Are You a Burden?

Monday, May 12th, 2008

Dear Reader,

It seems to me that to group people as a means of relating to them, or perceiving them is bad. But, to group people as a means of studying human nature is not necessarily so. To this end…

There are two types of people, for the sake of this argument, those that see humans as a burden for the planet to bear, and those that see each individual as a potential. I guess the difference is the philosophy of “zero sum gain.”

I don’t believe in zero sum gain. Even when there appears to be a finite thing, there is almost always some way to produce or acquire said good. Thus negating the zero sum gain. All nature is dynamic. Dynamic change is the nature of the universe. That is a self evident fact. In a dynamic, constantly changing world the concept of zero sum gain is absurd. Mo Ti said that heaven loves all equally, we know this because heaven gives to all, whatever he sows, that he reaps. (Not exact).

The only way zero sum gain has any validity is when mankind imposes upon himself rules that in some way limit his possibilities. In other words, government can impose laws that in effect, if not intentionally, serve to so limit the potential of the individual that there is in effect a “legislated zero sum gain“. In this scenario all society is limited by the myopic legislator. Inevitably as the population grows the conditions of the people worsen. This is not because of the nature of the universe, it is because of the nature of government.

The nature of government is to grow and become decadent. Great civilizations grow is virtue and decline in decadence. This is clearly illustrated by the story of history. From Samshi-Adadd’s Assyrian empire, through Cyrus’s Persia, and highlighted by the rise and fall of Romulus’s Rome. Great civilizations have all risen and then fell. This is because of the nature of government among other things. A common thread between all these and many other ancient civilizations is that as their civilizations aged, their governments grew and grew. Finally the bureaucracy was such a wrench in the machinery of society that society ceased working. The bureaucracies created a ‘legislated zero sum gain’ in their societies. This led to their becoming dysfunctional.

An individual is a potential in that he or she has within him or her the potential to raise the lot of man. Properly nurtured and cared for we are our own saviors. The vast strides that man has made since the invention of Guttenberg’s printing press are a testament to this fact. As the means of invention became available to the masses the masses became inventors. Nowhere is this more true than the example of the USA. Here a man or woman can invent a product, process, or even just an idea, that can save everyone else time energy and waste. Mankind has accrued and stored more knowledge in the last five hundred years than in the thousands that preceded it.

This means most mimics nature’s dynamism. When all people are given access to the sum total of man’s knowledge and have the freedom to utilize it we will be in a truly dynamic world. With the greater and greater use of this freedom and knowledge the sum will gain and gain. Elevating the lot of man, and of men.

So, if you are of the mind that people should be kept ignorant, or must be controlled, you probably believe that we are burdens for the poor planet. If you believe as I do, that people are all gems in the rough, you probably also believe that people are potentials… That is not to group anyone…

Socialize This!

Sunday, May 4th, 2008

Dear Reader,

It seems to me that if we take as a given, as a means of argument, that to socialize some industry is a good.

Then I would argue that socializing the Health Care industry would be a bad first choice. If you really want to do society some real good socialize the Legal industry.

All attorneys would be paid by the State. Given a good salary and fourty hours a week. If you need a legal document made out you would submit it to the government lawyer and he/she would provide the service at a flat rate. Legal services such as lawsuits would be assigned an attorney by lot.

Or perhaps there could be a ’One Payer’ system. We would be taxed by the government. The taxes would pay all lawyers a set rate for their work. Then if you need legal services it would be free. The poor should have access to legal services, like the rich, it’s a matter of justice!

This would keep large corporations more in check. Anyone injured, real or perceived, would be able to, free of charge, sue anyone else. The single payer system would be the ‘gold standard’ of legal representation.

To make the system really fair however one would have to make it illegal to use any legal services outside the government system. This would assure fairness, efficiency, quality, affordability, racial justice and certainty of services as only the government can provide.

Think about this for a few seconds…

Why then are we doing this to our health care system?