Verottajan verottaminen

What is the relative G of any given situation? Well, it of course boils down to our behaviour and the constituency of the materials forming the Planet we live upon. How much of which is being steered in what direction of a story, taking into account the distance-in-practice from the consideration of the fundamentals above presented (how much you’ve thought about them), will give you the answer.


Yleinen asevelvollisuus on minulle kyseenalaistamaton itsestäänselvyys: mielestäni Suomi hyötyy siitä, että jokainen saa yhteisen kurikoulutuksen joka samalla etäännyttää entisestään vääräromanttisista sotaunelmista.


Ultimately, success in everyday life comes down to getting to bed on time. Ultimately as in, deep-down, getting to bed on time is the primary thing you want to worry about.


To be flying at the leadership-level with proper pillowing on the mind, I believe that it is not only a benefit but a necessity to be part of a work-external, professional network. Having a broader perspective is what counts in being ready for the responsibilities that, ultimately, come as surprises in the day-to-day.


The money of politics is votes.


As the Captain of any Vessel will tell you: you do wish to assess your capacities to maintain control prior to engaging in the act of motion-creation. In the interests of maintaining systemic stability: you do further wish to have a self-separate Approval Council to affirm your opinion of controllability.


In being a Captain, you must learn to realise the difference between Skipper and Non-Skipper moments. If your pressures of acting as Captain mean you must fail to attend an event or other gathering, then be Skipper and focus on the task at hand. But then it is really important to get into a habit of knowing when it is that you are a Non-Skipper.


The thing about being a Captain is being able to handle the beingness of the storm: its everpresent impending arrival or its therebeing.


Työstä pidetään sen alkuun asti kiinni. Sen jälkeen siitä aletaan päästää irti, kunnes tulee taas aika alkaa tarrautua hommaan. Kuin hengitys konsanaan.


This has been written by an American working the bar in Helsinki (a Man clearly of the highest calibre: building a Family with his Wife, in the finest of physical shape, and versed-for-work in the Finnish tongue after but a few years of residence in this immense City of ours that lays in the Far North):

“The primary form of social welfare should be work. An Individual’s capacity to provide for their own Family is empowering and proves to be the basic necessity when one pursues a meaningful life with the opportunity of advancement & growth. Therefore our collective goals should be to increase the opportunity for everyone (who wants to) to get reliable employment. Regulation should protect workers but it should be negotiated upon by Owners & Employees. The workplace is the breeding ground of welfare & progress.”

This, in turn, has been written by me:

“Speaking of the welfare state is a mistake: we should always remember to speak of the well-being state. Welfare awakens connotations of handouts, of passivity: well-being is an active effort, one achieved through the continued passings of the taxed fiscal flows, made possible by the aggregate work of a Nation, into the funding of the operation of the base societal system, the vehicle of insurance that no Citizen should ever be left behind to fend for themselves and their own against the tremendous forces of Nature that so closely rest behind in our wake as we step in through the door from the cold outside to the warm residing within. We should note that whilst the State is a vehicle of insurance against worse times then it is also a vehicle of assurance that that which works today shall continue to work tomorrow or improve: taxes are the lifeline of this assurance/insurance feature of modern living, defining modern as that had with the being of the State.”

We have zero fundamental disagreements with the American, whilst maintaining the integrity of the necessary insurance-bringing functionality of the Nordic system.


Asioita aikaansaadakseen on tärkeätä keskittyä tavoitteeseen ja pitää silmä lujasti siinä kiinni. Jokaisella organisaatiolla on funktionaalinen merkityksensä jonka luonne on helposti tarkasteltavissa käyttämällä filosofian vanhinta työkalua: poistamalla se olemasta. Kun nappaa jonkun asian irralleen todellisuudesta tarkastellakseen sen luonnetta, jättää todellisuuteen aukon jonka luonnetta tarkastelemalla löytää irroitetun kappaleen merkityksen todellisuuden muodostumiselle.

Verottajan funktio osana yhteiskuntajärjestelmän todellisuutta on hyvin yksinkertainen: rahaimuri. Vaikka yleinen keskustelukulttuuri nykypäivässä on erinäisistä syistä valunut siihen pisteeseen, että Verottajaa ja verojen maksamista halveksutaan, niin on syytä viettää pienehkö tovi pohtien sitä mitä tapahtuisi jos yhteiskunnalta poistettaisiin hapentulo. Mitä sinulle kävisi?

Se, että Verottajan olemassaolo on yhtä todellinen osa ihmiselämää kuin kroppamme hapensaanti, ei kuitenkaan tarkoita sitä, ettei verotusjärjestelmää voisi kritisoida. Verottaja toteuttaa heille määrättyä työtä, aivan kuten kaikki virkahenkilöt sotilaista sairaanhoitajiin kuuntelevat ylimmän päättävän elimen, Kansan valitseman Eduskunnan, sanaa. Jos Verottajalle annetaan yskivä järjestelmä käytettäväkseen, tulee Verottajan toimenpiteet olemaan yskiviä. Vaikka F1-kuski Lewis Hamilton on kiistatta kivunnut lähimmäksi F1-legenda Michael Schumacherin historiassa asettamaa tasoa, niin ei herra Hamiltonkaan nakuttaisi kärkisijoja ilman kärkiautoa.

Ennenkuin jatkan kohti päivitysehdotuksia verotusjärjestelmään, on syytä kuitenkin antaa mitä suurin kunnia Verottajalle siitä, että Suomessa elävä järjestelmä on maailmanluokan kone ja päihittää monen muun vertailukohteen. Ei tarvitse kuin viettää pienen hetken mittaisen piipahduksen verran aikaa tutkien esimerkiksi Yhdysvaltain IRS:n pyörittämää hirviötä halutakseen kirjaimellisesti naimisiin Suomen ja sen veroehdotukseen pohjautuvan, automaattimallin kanssa.

Tästä huolimatta, minä en ole tyytyväinen. Verotusjärjestelmä on vieläkin aivan liian läski ja vie päättäjiemme ajatukset väärään suuntaan: nippelisäätöjen tekemiseen prosenttien kymmenysten varassa verraten Suomen yhteiskuntajärjestelmän operatiiviseen johtamiseen Virkahenkilöstön (ja siten Kansaa palvelevan koneen) ylimpänä johtajana. Mitä tämä tarkoittaa?

Tarkoitan hyvin yksinkertaisesti sitä, että sitä saa mitä johtaa. Jos johtaa nippelisäätämisellä, saa nippelisäätämisen tasoisia tuloksia. Kun poliitikkojen kokonaispohdinta-ajasta (se aika mitä poliitikko käyttää miettien asioita kertaa poliitikkojen määrä) merkittävä osa menee sen säätämiseen mielessä, pitäisikö jonkun luvun olla 0,1 tai 0,2, niin kehitys ajattelun tasokkuudessa tyssää siihen. 

On tiedostettava se, että johtaminen on ihmisten kohtaamista ja ohjaamista oikeaan suuntaan. Periaatteessa voisi olla ajateltavissa siten, että nippelisäädöt verotusjärjestelmään ovat juuri tätä: mutta se ei ole johtamista, sillä se unohtaa ihmisen.

Käytännön todellisuuden ymmärtäminen puuttuu Suomen päätöksentekojärjestelmästä miltei täysin. Jokaikinen minuutti mitä Yrittäjä tai Kansalainen käyttää verotuksensa pohtimiseen – minuuttimäärä joka on luonnostaan nouseva järjestelmän nippelitason kehittymisen myötä – on minuutti pois Työntekijöiden johtamisesta, Asiakkaiden palvelemisesta, Markkinoiden tutkimisesta. 

Jokaikinen Verottajalle hävitty minuutti on yhtä kuin kuolema arvonlisäykselle.


Mitä pitäisi tehdä?

Verottaja on Valtion rahaimuri. Tämä on hyvä asia, sillä emme halua tutkia sitä mitä tapahtuu kun yhteiskuntajärjestelmältä leikataan hapensaanti.

Rahaimuri on joko suora, yksinkertainen piippu verotettavan ja verottavan välillä, tai sitten se on monimutkainen polku erinäisiä vaihtoehtoja ja muita säätöjä, jossa hallinnon voimin paetaan Työntekijöitä, Asiakkaita ja Markkinoita.

Minä kannatan yksinkertaisuutta. Minä en halua vuosikymmenen päästä edes tiedostaa Verottajan olemassaoloa. Sitten kun Verottaja on täysin näkymätön ja unohdettavissa: sitten verotusjärjestelmä on valmis.

Digiajassa tämän toteuttaminen ei ole vaikeata. Kun raha liikkuu esimerkiksi työnantajan tililtä työntekijälle, ei työntekijän tarvitse tietää mitään muuta kuin se, että tietty summa rahaa on saapunut tilille. Kaikki on hoidettu etukäteen: näin asia on jo nyt, Suomessa ainakin. 

Se minkä tulisi muuttua on, että Yrittäjältäkin poistetaan kaikki verotuksen operatiiviset rasitteet. Ihan kaikki. Kaikki. No okei varmasti jotain on. Mutta melkein kaikki. Kun Yrittäjä vastaanottaa rahaa Asiakkaalta, niin yritykseltäkin rahat on viety Verottajan kirstuun automaattisesti.

Se on tulevaisuuden reaaliaikaisuutta, että Verottajan työt on hoidettu ennenkuin ne ovat edes alkaneet. Kun on rahaputki tililtä A tilille B, Verottaja on jo tehnyt tehtävänsä ja lähettää kuitit perään.

Kun järjestelmästä poistetaan kaikki verosäädöt ja asetutaan standardeihin jota ei muuteta poliittisten tuulten mukana, vakautuu talousjärjestelmä kun kaikki voivat lopullisesti pysähtyä oppimaan miten se toimii. Opin myötä osaaminen järjestelmän kanssa automatisoituu, ja aikaa vapautuu varsinaiseen työhön ja muuhun elämään, nostaen kaikkien hyvinvointia. 

Mitkä voimat ovat vastassa?

Kaikki ne joiden palkka ja osaaminen ovat suoraan kytkettyjä nykymuotoisen verotusjärjestelmän pyörittämiseen: eli aivan hemmetin monen ihmisen, kun järjestelmä on paisunut niin laajaksi. Erikseen tulee mainita kaikki ne poliittiset voimat jotka johtavat nippelisäädöillä ja siten kokevat osaamisensa arvon nimenomaan verotusjärjestelmään kohdistuvien diilien kautta: kun on tottunut olemaan se paikallinen poliitikko joka saa väännettyä kaverille tai kaverin kaverille erinäisiä verovähennyksiä ja muita (jotka – toistettakoon – ovat Yrittäjän kustannusten siirtämistä Yhteiskunnalle), niin siitä valta-asemasta on vaikeata päästää irti.

On kuitenkin sen aika.

Verotusjärjestelmän raju yksinkertaistaminen leikkaa rahankierron transaktiokustannuksia (eli sitä hintaa mikä syntyy yksinkertaisesti siitä, että raha liikkuu – riippumatta mistä se tulee ja minne se on menossa) ja poistaa kitkaa talousjärjestelmän toiminnasta. Tätä on mahdotonta vastustaa: on silkkaa idiotismia lähteä väittelemään vastaan, että rahankierron hidastaminen verotusjärjestelmän sisääntuloputkessa olisi vastoin kenenkään etuja (kun laskuista poistetaan yllä mainitut vastavoimat: kun heitä ei ole enää laskuissa mukana, on rahankierron sujuvoittamisen edut kaikille nähtävissä).

Ulosmeno: siinä saa olla kitkaa. Mutta sisääntulon hidastaminen? Se on silkkaa idiotismia. Sen olemassaolo on ymmärrettävää historian teknologisten rajoitteiden myötä, mutta ei enää tänä päivänä jossa IT:n voima auttaa meitä kiillottamaan Valtion rahaputken kultaiseksi.

Verottajan pitäisi toimia täysin automaattisesti ja olla ytimiltään kytketty Pankkien järjestelmiin suoraan: periaatteessa Verottajan voisi organisoida Pankin sisälle asennettavaksi komponentiksi. Kun rahaa liikkuu tililtä A tilille B – missä tahansa päin talousjärjestelmää – niin suoritettakoon maksu Verottajalle automaattisesti mikäli kyseessä ei ole lahjaveron rajan alle jäävä henkilökohtainen siirto. Kun raha istuu tileillä, niin tehkööt Verottaja vuosittaisen varallisuusveroa muistuttavan verotuksen seisovalle pääomalle: tällä tililtä suoraan verotettavalla prosentilla (oli numero mikä tahansa, sanoisin aivan maksimissaan 2-3%) ylläpidetään inflaatiota (joka on hyvin tärkeä osa talousjärjestelmän terveyttä) kirittämällä pääoman pitäjiä joko kuluttamaan tai sijoittamaan.

Hyvin yksinkertaista: Verottajalla on kaksi automaagista toimenpidepistettä. Tilisiirtojen välissä automaattisesti oleminen ja pankkitilin keskiarvobalanssin verottaminen minimoi Verottajan näkyvyyttä ja suoraviivaistaa sen toimintaa, jonka pitäisi aina olla Verottajan ensisijainen tavoite. 

Poistamalla nippelisäätöjen mahdollisuuden vapautuu Markkinoiden (eli siis: vapaiden ja itsenäisesti toimivien Ihmisten) luonto toimimaan hintamekanismin kautta. Jos jotkut hinnat nousevat kun veroedut poistuvat, niin sitten ne tekevät näin: ei muuta kuin myymään paremmin tai omia kustannuksia leikkaamaan. Poistamalla nippelisäätöjen mahdollisuuden pääsevät poliitikot ja muut johtajat keskittymään siihen varsinaiseen, operatiivisen organisaation johtamiseen. Poistamalla nippelisäätöjen mahdollisuuden kitketään korruptio ennenkuin se edes ehtii syntyä.

Haluaako joku vielä keskustella asiasta, vai ryhdytäänkö automatisoimaan Verottajaa? Verottajan pitäisi vuosikymmenen päästä olla miltei täysin näkymätön, muutaman sadan IT-insinöörin lentämä järjestelmä.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

The Solvation of Universal Basic Income

EDIT:// I would personally incept Basic Income into Finnish society by making it the base of the retirement system, decoupling the idea that equity ownership should fund the Golden Path. I believe it should be equity creation: money can be created (via the solution below) directly to fund the path. This opens up many avenues to destress the economic system from forced growth (not from growth itself, which will happen by those who work) and makes trickle-down economic thinking a lot more viable and simple to operate: it becomes possible to delete a massive bunch of administration from the path that money takes to get to the account of a retiree.


This one really isn’t hard. It just needs a complete reconstruction of the base of the financial system: of money. Instead of one-dimensional money, we need to make it two-dimensional: give birth to the other side of the coin.

One-dimensional money – as we have it now – is as it is. Equal on all fronts: a euro is a euro, a ruble is a ruble, a yuan is a yuan: earned by working for it.

Two-dimensional money maintains the equality of the number. A euro is still a euro in number. But two-dimensional money arrives into our use through two separate forms:

First, we have money as we know it now: that earned through work, useable and saveable in the marketplace.

Second, we have money as we will know it through universal basic income: that given as a natural right, enabling all lives to be lived with a basic sense of dignity. Natural Money differs from Worked Money in that it is born at the beginning and laid to rest at the end of each month. Natural Money can only be used – not saved – and thus it can be directed purely in the direction of covering life’s basic necessities so that everyone can live with dignity.

Now that we have the blockchain, we can build it. Two-dimensional money is within very easy reach, administratively & technologically. Just issue each Citizen a payment card, load it up with Natural Money every month, and send them out into the marketplace.

The purveyors allowed acceptance of Natural Money can be limited by a standard definition of basic needs (not too much science required here – and politics will maintain the definition process across time). In turn, purveyors accepting Natural Money will – of course – have it transferred into Worked Money that they can save up, since they have worked for it.

The importance in making Worked Money saveable is that that annotates the value of work as the path towards ownership and increased personal sovereignty, and we should wish to maintain the value of work, as work is what keeps us where we are, setting the preconditions required for us to be able to move forward. Without work, we inevitably slide backward as we forget how to operate the societal machine and all its parts – such is the process of natural decay, which work counters, and let us not forget that society is a part of Nature. By making Worked Money saveable and thus giving it additional value as compared to Natural Money, we maintain the sanctity of the value of work and preserve the value of equities already had.

This is not to say that a life lived mostly or perhaps someday even fully on Natural Money isn’t or won’t be a sovereign life in and of itself, as well. It is just that work should have the higher valuation when it comes to increasing One’s sovereign power through ownership, since ownership is a powerful world-defining force that shouldn’t come without prerequisites. Ownership sets the stage for our forward progress by having control over the equity that we live our lives upon, and it takes work to own something well. The value of work cannot be discounted.

This solvation of universal basic income is completely dependent on us living in the digital age, since otherwise the overhead costs of issuing and transforming the moneys every month would be irredeemably high. Let it be an example of why the digital platform we have built is worth preserving at all costs.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

Eat The Pie

For me, meaning is the first thing to not struggle with too much. A bit, but not too much. Because it will always reveal itself by itself, anyway, but also because the simple part of it is that it is. Even the lack of meaning has meaning: it allows for the valuation of the desire for meaning. You may consider this in line with the name of this post.


Everyone around the world is living and working exactly as they are so that the markets are adjusted exactly as they are so that the price of something you buy is exactly as it is. At the center point of fiscal gravity, the price is as it is presented in the moment. That is where it is found: the perfect number.


This is how I can best condense my relationship with the smartphone against those I consider addicted: I feel that my smartphone use helps me look out of it for the betterment of my understanding, not into it for the worsening of my health. Its inner realm is a navigational tool for the outer realms.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

OK, MORE

There are many truths to being a Salesperson. The first of which is that there are many truths to being a Salesperson.


I think one thing that really impresses me about the People of the money is their constant desire to self-impress, as a source of motivation for being able to carry the responsibility that they have chosen to carry. Their desire to do their best fuels my desire to do mine.


“This moment of not flying off the Earth is brought to you by Gravity.

G: no whizz.”


There is the saying “Godspeed” that is used at the offset into hairy situations, especially in epic Military thrillers but also in reality, as far as I know, as well – since it has been said to me. I translate Godspeed to an immense speed that God can go at. That would make it “God’s speed” because only God can go at it: thus by forced fact God “owns the speed” (ownership as denoted into being by the apostrophe) because God’s being at the speed is the very thing that defines it.

God’s owning it, creates the owning.

But God requires the apostrophe to prove the owning in objective form: does God self-create the apostrophe, or does God have linguistic help?


If there were to be a book of the money written with completely objective instructions put forth with completely predetermined certainty on how to behave in such a fashion that every interaction with another human being is had so that value is created to the maximal amount in all directions: it would have been written by God, and it would only exist in God’s own mind, because You would literally need to be God to calculate that amount of perfection into actuality.


There is a natural flowing balance between competition and co-operation. In our service deal with the Planet, it is a bit like this:

(Winter, take care of yourself) , (Summer, do that less)

We know all about this in the North.


I know Finland is all about forests. I really do. That being said: it is the Mystery Spot in California that really forest-fucks your mind for good. I mean what in the fucking shit is going on with gravity and perception and all that over there?


Onko Digitaalilapset hyvä nimike sukupolvelle, joka on syntynyt siten, että Internetin kuluttaja-aikakauden jälkeistä aikaa on enemmän kuin puolet heidän elämästään? Jos sanotaan, että Internetin kuluttaja-aikakausi alkoi 2009 (riittävä teknologiapenetraatioaste, älypuhelimen olemassaolon määrittämä), niin tämä tarkoittaisi vuonna 1999 syntyneiden olevan ensimmäiset Digitaalilapset. Mielestäni etenkin heiltä pitäisi tällä hetkellä kysyä mielipiteitä Maailman meiningistä: ovat sentään jo nuoria Aikuisia ja hyvin koulutettuja sellaisia – Suomalaisia kun ovat.

Myös itse-edustamani Techshift Sukupolvi (jostain seiska-kasariluvulta Digitaalilapsiin asti), joka on elänyt kasvavat vuotensa digitaalittomassa luonnossa (mutta Commodore 64:sta se pelien ja koodien tie alkoi..) ja sitten alkanut aikuistua kasvavaan digitaalisuuteen: myös meidän ääntä voisi tuoda esille jotta pääsemme nauttimaan entisestään kasvavista tulovirroista tälle Maailman huippuyhteiskunnalle, meidän ymmärrystämme ammentaen rahavirtojen ohjauksen kohdentamisessa tässä hetkessä, missä nyt elämme.

Meidän isoin eromme Digitaalilapsiin on mielestäni se, että Digitaalilasten IT:n käyttö on painottunut korkeafideliteettisiin (älypuhelin, fideliteetti eli laatu) kuluttajapalveluihin, ja siitä aiemmissa sukupolvissa enenevissä määrin IT:hen asennoidutaan työn kautta, kuin luonnollisena liukumana. IT on kehittynyt kuin luonnostaan: työn kautta leikkiin.

Nyt pitää sitten tietenkin kysyä, kun aina sanotaan, että “leikkivä lapsi on terve lapsi” – ylileikkivätkö lapset nykyään, sillä Digiin on niin helppo vajota (puhelin ulos, sormet lentoon)?

En tiedä sillä olen vielä suhteellisen kaukana perheellisyydestä ja asian kohtaamisesta suoraan arjessani, mutta kysymys on mielestäni arvokas. Sen tiedän, monivuotisena Perinneleikit ry:n lahjoittajana, että he ovat toimintansa aikana vissiin kohdanneet jo miljoonan palvellun kansalaisen rajapyykin. Ansaitsevat himmeet aploodit tässä hetkessä.

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

Algorithms

“Algorithms are just opinions expressed in numbers,” says mathematician Cathy O’Neil.


Derivatives traders are essentially People that say to their Customers: “if these numbers do that (derivative source pointed at) then your number does this (show impact to Customer).” Algorithms.


If I had to, I would describe consciousness or conscious reality as continuous multi-perception across time. I know there’s a philosophical discussion going on on the consciousness front: this is how I’d word it from a money-perspective, which I seek to embody. Sales is all about being superconscious about the impacts of your actions. Since there is always a multifaceted strategy of actions going on by all participants in a situation, that is why there must be multi-perception as considered from your own perspective as well: because it is the act of thinking about what others are thinking, so that you can act accordingly. It’s a bit like there must be an equal and opposite reaction to every action, I guess: there must be two sides to the story.

Perhaps the correct question is not “what is consciousness?” but “what are consciousnesses?” What I’m thinking is that relativity between them defines them.


“The pronouncement by Vice President Mike Pence of the intent of the United States of America to go to the Moon within five years is one of the best pieces of news in a long time. Such a religious man such as he is making such a gesture on behalf of the advancement of science: bravo! Seriously – BRAVO.

And it isn’t as if anything and everything space isn’t the highest-demand operative realm for those well-grounded in a religion. I literally find it impossible to think of anything else that requires the skilled power of faith as much as anything and everything space. Even love falls into second place on this front: I require less faith thinking about love than thinking about the vast expanse of space that we’ve barely begun to step into. Faith that it is a good thing: that it is there. Space, that is.

The continuation of the Space Race is an excellent thing (I want and hope Finland will join, because it has immense Physicist-capacity and People willing to work for a relatively small amount. Get a proper handle on materials pricing like Mr. Musk has done, and Finland is in the game). I just think that Finland should work together with everyone else on the weaponized parts of it, so that our Planet can jointly point all the Space Nukes and stuff at the potential Aliens (not back at ourselves on Earth).

Anyway, once more: bravo, Mike Pence. Bravo.


© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

Chocolate Stew

For those so inclined
To try something new
Herefinds they Instructions
for a chocolatey-stew:

Into a cup:

Put cocoa powder, plenty
Put farin sugar, plenty
Put butter, enough, but not too much

Microwave, not too long, max 45 sec., mass-dependent

You’ve got yourself:

Chocolate Stew
YUM.


“Jos on niin kuin minä ja tykkää makaamisesta, yleisesti, ja etenkin sen ajattelusta ja tuntemisesta kuinka painovoima painaa kohti ihanaa patjaa, niin voi välillä mietityttää miltä tuntuu olla esimerkiksi sonni, jonka tonnien elinpaino painautuu kohti täydellistä pellonpoukamaa jonain juuri sopivanlämpöisenä kesäpäivänä, tai vaikkapa kala, joka jotenkin vain kelluu täydellisesti pintavedessä, elämästään nauttien ennen ruoaksituloamme.”

© 2019 Jens J. Sørensen

Value Creation

“Effort creates value, value gives emotion, emotion is power.”


Let’s begin by stating the obvious that, every now and then, the obvious needs to be stated. There are many reasons for the necessity of the statement of the obvious, primarily the refreshment that is wrought from feeling oneself to be of intelligence, with minimal effort.

The below statements of an obvious nature, apart from showing how time can be slowed down by delving into the details of a moment, also prove the tremendous impact that the nature of the obvious has on the experience of reality. The obvious herebeing that, ultimately you’re making the call.

Narrow value

Objective receipt.
A certainly objective receipt.

A Customer has actual cash, potential chocolate. A Purveyor has actual chocolate, potential cash. The Customer is in the market for chocolate. The Purveyor is in the market for cash. A shared flash of light. The Customer and the Purveyor conduct an exchange of ownership: cash for chocolate, chocolate for cash. The transfer instant creates its own proof in the form of a receipt, a contract proving the past – if it is trusted to have been had as documented. The Purveyor now has money. The Customer now has chocolate. Value is had in its most narrow of forms: ownership has been transferred. Primary market goals have been fulfilled.

Value expansion

An uncertain situation.
An uncertain situation.

The mouth expands. The Customer eats the chocolate. The Purveyor draws a breath of hope. Time moves on, as it does, as such is its way.

Broad value

A pleasant clearing.
A pleasant clearing.

A Customer’s smile. A Purveyor’s relief. Broadened may value be, thanks to the power of feedback, you see. Objectivity keeps the definition of value on the nigh, subjectivity brings the emotion: see it multiply. Ne’er forget that an instant is but one, but a smile is a sign, that more of them can be won. So be sure to ask for feedback – never fear to hear – for with the knowledge of the truth, you’ll be hittin’ more home runs, just like good ol’ Babe Ruth.


The Big Picture

OK. Strap-in, buckle up, shades on, aim high. From the minuscule transaction to the maxi-school transaction. Here’s some really useful, hyper-compressed world knowledge to set all y’alls straight:

MIB.
MIB.

Allow us to take it as granted that the general target of a human being is enjoyment of whatever is a human being’s thing defining enjoyment. The primary requirement for enjoyment is a state of living. Let us proceed step-by-step:

0.) We live off of the Earth. Work must be had to extract raw materials.

1.) Yoda has a message for all the No-Work Super-Hippies: happen it must. The vast majority of people strive to work, for work provides meaning to their enjoyments, for they balance the sense of enjoying it against the sense of having earned it. Basic parenting skills: Work hard, play hard. Homework first, games later. Et cetera, et cetera. Yoda out.

2.) Extraction must be enforced. There is no way to circumvent the enforcement of extraction, because those not working directly with the extraction are still dependent on the life forces, such as food, provided by the extraction. So the indirect-extractors need to motivate the direct-extractors. Taxation is the minimal-burden form of enforcement, and society should be had in the form of minimal-burdens, as then it is running efficiently, meaning it weighs less for all to carry. This story of enforcement can be told in many ways – this is just a really easy one – but it will always be told, for all work must be enforced, at minimum by the maximal weight of the matter of purpose.

3.) On matters of purpose, there is a purpose to the enforcement by way of taxation. Taxation fuels a massive shared service center (the public sector) that, ultimately, services the continuous creation of the future, by making investments that enable extraction to continue past the lifespan of currently-existent direct-extractors. Whilst the bodily energy of a direct-extractor is limited, the intergenerational transfer of extraction-intelligence can be facilitated at increased efficiency through a shared societal system as compared against, say, every family fending for the preservation of their own skills by themselves. Operational life-preserving attributes of the shared societal system, in particular that of the educational sector, enable future extraction.

4.) And so it is that the ultimate goal of enjoyment should be filled for the individual and exponentially scaled in magnitude through the tax-enabled dispersion of the energy, as derived from the extraction. For the feeling of enjoyment as deduced from the work of extraction should be felt as much greater when there has been service to others, alongside the obvious service to self.


I work to live

For it is with my work
That I stay alive
And it is through my work
That I come alive
For Now
For Good
For All
And obviously for myself
For it is my life
That I am living.

Look up!
Look up!

© 2018 Jens J. Sørensen

Money Creation


I have been grappling with the discussion regarding money creation by private banks, and have come to the conclusion that it is the best thing that there can be as the backbone of the financial system. All other options centralize power to a condensed authority – say a central bank or a state government – and thus severely limit the potential for innovation and growth in the economy.

Let’s remember that money in the bank is like gas in the tank. Money is fuel for economic activity and carries only potential value until it is being used. Thus, sitting in bank accounts we have the real potential value of money that is not being used – like gas in the tank of a car waiting to go places. Money in a bank account exists as potential value, since in and of itself it is not doing anything. This is not to say that potential value doesn’t have value: the ability to hop in the car and go places at a moment’s notice definitely has a lot of value for the holder of the potential.

There are two kinds of people: those with gas in the tank and those without. Those without are stuck in place without the capacity to go and do. Those with are much freer in the sense that their options for activity in life are broader. This divide of peoples as separated by liquid wealth will always exist – it is just a question of to what extent the divide is there.

What then becomes the main question is how to allow people without gas in the tank to get up, go, and do. The question of access-to-capital is of central importance in practically realizing the freedom of the people. Political philosophy is full of all types of ways of describing freedom and liberty, but in practice the matter boils down to cash. Do you have it or not?

So, to stay true to our words of freedom and liberty – and all such good things that respect the sovereignty of the individual – we must ensure access-to-capital, and since there must always be risk involved in a capital outlay, this means that there must be debt. To all wishing for risk-free capital outlays then let us remember that the first risk is to imagine that there is no risk. Risk is what makes you go. Without risk, you slowly turn into a sack of shit, like a child whose parents aren’t demanding enough and thus raise a human being who lacks initiative. You begin to envelop yourself in a false sense of entitlement when you begin to believe that there is no risk to anything.

Effort creates value, value gives emotion, emotion is power. Risk is really damned good at spurring effort, because behind effort lies the lack of effort, and that’s where the entrance to the cave of real fear begins. Just imagine a world filled with a lack of effort. The risk that lies ahead of effort is nothing like the real fear coming from a lack of effort.

So, thank God for debt. Debt is a great thing at getting people to move, because debt must be paid back with interest, and that means debt is only created when there is some planning involved to ascertain a certain level of understanding about the potential to pay back the debt and interest, and this is why I think people hate debt: they actually have to think ahead and face the risks of taking it on. They actually have to plan things out.


How it
works

Now that we understand why debt is a good thing, let’s understand its functionality so that we can close with an understanding of why private money creation is a good thing.

We have already described the real potential value of money – of having cash in the bank. Let us set that aside as given and begin the consideration of the virtual potential value of debt. We begin by assuming the characters of Banker as creditor and Individual as debtor. The Banker creates debt and the Individual takes it on, for whatever purpose.

How money creation works is that private banks magically conjure up debt out of thin air when making a loan, and as the loan is paid back, the banks then destroy said money. In the event of a successful loan – where the debt is paid back with interest – the debt comes into the world and leaves it, leaving behind the equity that was created for the Individual (whatever the loan was taken out for) and the interest that was created to pay the salary of the Banker (and to set the Individual in motion to start paying back the debt – interest is like an ON-button).

What we can see happening is that the virtual potential value of debt exists only during the process of equity creation – of whatever the loan was taken out for and of the interest that pays the Banker’s salary. Debt is virtual because it doesn’t really exist in the real economy – the real economy that consists of equity that has been created with debt. Debt is like a creative spirit, a breath of fresh air that is blown into the financial system, and as it is sucked back out by the pressure of time (the loan repayment schedule), it leaves behind the equity for which purpose the debt was taken out. Debt doesn’t stay in the economy – by its very definition, debt destroys itself, and that is a good thing since it is not the weight of debt that we want, it is the equity that it brings us, after we have worked to earn it.

Money creation through debt – from nothing, back to nothing, leaving behind something that becomes the real money – is the lungs of the global financial system.

This is why private money creation is a good thing. If we were to only have one huge set of lungs – say a central bank with all the power of money creation – then only those with access to the central bank would be able to get up, go, and do. By decentralizing the power of money creation to the private banking system, the very power of creation itself is dispersed into society. By having a competitive money creation market, the forces of competition will ensure efficiency, given a solid regulatory framework correctly incentivizing all parties.

The more access-to-capital, the more egalitarian a society we have. There is absolutely no way around this fact.


Responsibilities

Of course, handling the power of creation is not to be taken lightly. I would posit the assumption that most people of power understand this completely and are honest human beings of significant dignity and moral stature. I would also posit the assumption that most rage towards the financial system is based on a lack of understanding – on both sides of the table – about its nature and functionality, since it is such a ridiculously complex system.

So here it is that I should venture to take a guess that the best solution for Banking Peace would be for all to realize that the Banker and the Individual operate on the same side of the table. The Banker wishes to make successful loans to produce interest with which to pay a salary. The Individual wishes to make successful loans to create cool stuff into reality and avoid default notations on the personal financial record. It is hard (impossible) for me to see how, in the process of capital outlay, the Banker and Individual are not on the same side of the table, just as Customer and Supplier are in any other industry.

To close, then, we must take note that creating money by being vested with the capacity to blow debt into the economy and suck it out again is a job of the highest responsibility, requiring immense understanding of how value is built and operated in reality – of how business works. The oversight of the lungs of the financial system is a task on par with any position of power.

I believe, with a clear understanding of why money creation by private banks is a good thing, it is possible to write a Banker’s Constitution that sets out the role and limits of the financial system as a part of society, making it understandable for everyone and ending the rage against the machine that has gone on for eternity – probably because there hasn’t been egalitarian access-to-capital!

Egalitarian access-to-capital: being brought to you now by private money creation.


Addendum

Private money creation requires a few changes to the way we see risk from the perspective of the Banker, and I believe not seeing this has been one of the main reasons why private money creation has been questionable. It used to be that banks took deposits and lent them onward to other people, meaning that if loans weren’t being paid back, then other people’s deposits were at risk. Now – with private money creation from nothing, back to nothing – the default of a loan doesn’t put another person’s deposits at risk. The debt came from nothing, and it is going back to nothing – so it doesn’t really matter whether less debt is destroyed than was created, because it is all being destroyed, nonetheless. The only thing at risk is that the Banker gets a smaller salary because less interest has been paid (and isn’t as hot shit within the Firm), and that the Individual who held the loan gets a default notation for not having been able to pay back the debt in full, which will hurt their credit rating.

So it is important to see that – for private money creation to work – we must separate the holding of equity (the maintenance of the real economy, of what already exists) from the creation of debts (the maintenance of the virtual economy, of what is coming into existence). The storage business and the creation business are two different things, no longer dependent on each other in operation per se, but of course fueling the motions of each other – as the real economy loses old players, more demand arises for new debt to fill whatever gap was created in whatever market where some player died. (added note: Thanks to some great help from the Bank of Norway, I’ve now learned that the term narrow banking exists and deals with this same separation of the storage and creation sides of banking).

But probably the best side of private money creation from nothing, back to nothing is that it has so many moral benefits for all involved, as it removes unnecessary punishment from the list of risks inherent to debt-induced economic growth. If the loan isn’t being paid back in full, this means that it is not generating returns, which means operative failure deflates the economy, just as it is supposed to. With debt conjured from nothing, back to nothing, we are also able to remove fear-inducing enforcement requirements from the system: we don’t need to force defaultees to keep paying unpaid debt back anymore, since the debt would be being destroyed anyway. This wasn’t the same thing when debt was considered as having been outlayed against the deposits of others, creating a situation where Bankers also played police, because they had to get the money of their other customers back. The Banker’s smaller paycheck and the Individual’s hurt credit rating is enough punishment, and the banking system can have a clean moral conscience and say “at least you tried – sorry it didn’t work out, we must now stamp your forehead with this mark of default which will wear off in a while, but you don’t need to keep paying us back. Go out and get a salaried job until the mark wears off your forehead, and then you’re ready to try again, if you so wish.”)

The final thing to realise is that the basis for the existence of interest is generally held as “a money today is worth more than a money tomorrow.” This puts value on the potential value of having gas in the tank, making interest compensation for the removal of liquidity which investing existing capital into an interest-bearing asset does. By separating the storage of equity from the creation of debt, however, this is left as only one side (the storage side) of the argument. On the creative side of the interest argument, where there is no longer a need to consider the liquidity of a depositors standing (as debt can be created as completely separate from depositors) the rationale for the being of interest is to motivate the debtor into motion, and to motivate the creditor to ensure the loan is repaid, as the interest pays salaries.

Realising the dualistic nature of interest – on the storage side and on the creative side – is really important, because it shows how interest works both ways: holding depositors’ equity in place and compensating for the loss of liquidity (the time-value of money), and setting a debtor in motion to create more equity (the money-value of time). Needless to say, the Banker takes a deserved cut, whichever way the interest is going, as compensation for operating the system.

The Good Hombres.
The Good Hombres.

© 2018 Jens J. Sørensen