Creating New Value For — the Universe: Trekonomics

In the old paradigm (world picture) space and time were the only really important factors we needed to account for.  But Now I am adding value – we now have the space-time/ value concept.  Here, we note that supply and demand law applies to the cosmos.  With the expanding universe, our total space is expanding (or rather space time), and since all of it has future opportunity value, its value per unit is falling.  The supply (for now) is outrunning the demand.  But Moore’s law seeks to offset this loss, by increasing the value per unit of space — highly specialized space (-time) to be sure.

I’ll post more about this topic later, but for now suffice it to say that supply and dmand apply to space ands time, and that by adding value to any one part of it, we contribute to its overall growth — on this little planet we are starting a cosmic economy.  Get in early, buy low sell high.  The space time/ value unit that falls out in light of an interesting combination of scientific models and economic features will be driving future economics texts — trekonomics starts now, courtesy of the ideal value system (see profitability and value as an element of this).

more later.


The New Math: Its Ideal and NOT EQUAL to the Old Stuff

The development of various ideal features of cultural growth has a very important elements that affects everything from the sciences and technology, to economics and music — namely, mathematics.  Math has taken the leading edge of advancement over the other areas of study for at least the last 1,700 years or so, when Euclid’s system of geometry adopted its standardized textbook form out of Alexandria, Egypt around the early 4th century.  What exactly does it mean to make math more “ideal”?  A description of ideal math properly forms the basis for the best answer to this question, and is found at some length in a previous post.  But by way of reminder, recall that the point of it all is to yield “humanitarian profitability,” whether in the sciences or economics. Another way of saying this is that excellent math pursues what is best for the general welfare and common good.  And it’s efficient.

The old math systems improperly seem to wish to reduce almost everything to an equal sign.  With a few exceptions like the “greater than or equal to” sign, or the notion of “congruence,” very few formulae used in the sciences or economics use something other than an equal sign at the end.  Equality does not always yield profitability.  In fact, it shows a “status quo” mentality at odds with it in many cases, since A = B does not show any improvement or progress from one side (i.e. term or expression) to the other side. So here at this site, for those who want it, I shall list a review of several kinds of verbs we might want to use to replace the equal sign with:

Implies, permits/ allows, causes, doubles, forbids/ prevents, aligns, replaces, reflects, retraces, changes or transforms, completes (set), supplements, translates, correlates, includes, is congruent with, is a parallel to (in respects A, B, C as with an analogy [analogy math is plausible]), implies, instigates (catalyzes), etc


The Concept of Rights Versus Privileges, Dignities and Honors

One might guess at the topical material that forms the substance of this blog post, and shall tend to it just as soon as time and convenience permit.  There are a few preliminary remarks that I can suggest in that direction, however.

First, the French Revolution, which gave birth to the fairly “religious sounding” concept of the divine (-ly granted) “RIGHTS OF MAN” — they could not capitalize it enough, was and is, clearly born of the metaphysical convictions that attended the environment out of which the notion of “inalienable rights” arose.  One of these convictions, monotheistic creationism (Deism) seems necessarily to attend the notion of inseparable rights — due process was added by the U.S. Constitution as a qualifying condition, but the concept remains adamantine in the Declaration of Independence.  “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” appears to be a somewhat philosophically-immature attempt to grasp at the Kantian notion of transcendentals — though Kant was German, not French.

It does so in specific language far more British than French or German, sounding a bit like later “Scottish Common-sense Realism.”  But it does seek Cartesian “indubitables,” here, and in the Constitution, and uses them as first principles of (Here, juridical) Reason.  The Constitution seeks to unpack in detail the declared “Inalienable rights” as a “Bill of (Inalienable) Rights.”  The rights are understood as an anthropological-legal equivalent of first principles of knowledge in philosophy — as it were, unshakeable, irrefutable, unchallengeable, and insisted upon by Reason itself.

Monotheistic creationism, was, from the vantage point of the founders, part of the indubitable package.  For a hendiadic polytheist like me, this would function to highlight the reasons we must be careful about, and even skeptical of, metaphysical dogmata.    These were very-well educated men, and authors  ever-so-aware of many of the theological and philosophical objections likely to be encountered by what they wrote and affirmed.  I would suggest that the concept of rights, as they have come down to us in the received tradition, here the “received package,” has some of the same baggage.  And I think we can do better than they, as we stand on the shoulders of giants.

One of the problems with some of the concepts of inalienable rights stems from the fact that they seems to EXPECT a challenge from, say, criminal elements.  The people most famous for going on and on about their rights, protesters and the like, are often those who feel either that their right have been grossly violated, or that their rights are threatened, or both.  By making one’s rights as iron-clad as iron can get — to reinforce them against anticipated incursions (by announcing that these are extra-, triply confirmed and most certainly divine, with only half the calories of man-made edibles).  “Guns at the ready” postures, even or especially, in legal language, often backfire and suffer from the “He has built a high gate” problem of implied provocation.

If perceived provocation meets perceived provocation in return, you have the makings of a forbidden fruit syndrome.  If nontheistic “unbelievers” perceive the dogmatic character of “DIVINE rights,” language, they will surely grow suspicious of them.  If language creates culture, especially the legal language that founds it, then language that ANTICIPATES legal violations will tend to create them over time.  They are taken as presupposed, implied or connoted in the document (s).

For these, and many other reasons, we should search for a better way of expressing a commitment to procuring for all a uniform access to legal resources and privileges when they are most necessary to protect the innocent from the abusive behaviors of others.  But since the notion of “rights” suggests the rigid monotheism of old, we should, as rational people with a more scientific outlook, study to find ways more consistent with a better world-picture to do this protecting.  I propose that we appeal to the ideal value system, as a systemic transcendental, that procures for us the privileges, dignities and honors native to humanitarian requirements — rather than the “divine rights” of an angry Ogre who WILL toss you into hell in a fruitbasket, or else a deity who absconded with our rights shortly after creating all things, and simply did not give a damn afterward — WHAT you wrote in your constitution.

I shall continue my post later, if I don’t get tossed into HELL before I resume my efforts.  These will focus on the concepts mentioned earlier, known as dignities, privileges and honors, treating them as the more profitable — and a bit less fiery — option.  Unlike the historic concept of ‘divine rights,’ we do not have to “triple-dog-dare” people to violate these in order to find out that the gods and goddesses actually did approve them.  Rights are inherently defensive in an “institutional” way, where “crime” equals “transgression against them.”  SO punishments ready themselves against such sins, crimes that are SURE to come to pass.  And so they do.

The alternative implies the ethical (but not necessarily legal) command to perform, that which upholds the dignity and honor of others, and thus nec. bears the prohibition against transgression, but secondarily.  The terms “dignity and honor” invokes ethical language, and can be understood as a transcendental necessity, rather than a divine mandatum.  What is a social TN?  Civilization functions to provide the necessary community that language, education and profitability require, and law proceeds from the necessity of protection, including the protection of the civilization itself.  This makes dignity and honor given to others a “civilization transcendental.”  Civilization is not optional.  It is necessary to the IVS and human condition.  We need to have it to procure those things necessary to our survival and happiness in the long of it.

Then I shall move on to discuss the context of, and system of, positive sanctions used to reinforce all the ideals of the IVS in all our excellent citizens, in order to show what is missing from our entire social order presently, that makes much better sense out of what would otherwise seem to be superficial, and perhaps a bit naïve, when it comes to dealing with the more aggressive elements in our society, and how legal codes should treat them.

A brief P.S. and disclaimer is in order.  No Monolithic, and ever-so-Threatening Antique, that wantonly-Metaphysical Iceberg that we all know and love — has at any time, either divinely-inspired, or otherwise approved this message.

Ideal Legal Principles and the Ideal Constitution

Ancient legal codes, including the “Law of Moses” mislead millions of people into affirming a principle called Lex Talionis (LT), that appears on the surface of the matter to offer a helpful principle in determining what amounts to “justice” in this or that case.  The whole project, including religion that is based upon it, as with the Old and New Testament teachings (If a man sheds man’s blood…), has turned out to be a kind of Trojan horse.  The reasons for this judgement are offered in my previous post on this topic.

There are in fact better legal principles that properly belong in the Ideal Constitution. These should be listed near the outset, probably shortly after the preamble, which describes the purpose of, and bases for, and proposed value and benefits of, the document and its circumstantial emergence.  These principles include:

  1. The Principle of Economy  (Less is More)(e.g. Never impose a sentence greater than the other legal Principles require).
  2. The Principle of Optimality  (prefer that which is closest to the optimal)
  3. The Principle of Profitability  (Prefer that which is most profitable to the general welfare)
  4. The Principle of Priority  (Estab. a hierarchy of priority for values and principles, and follow the appointed order)
  5. The Principle of Protection  (The law exists to protect innocent life, and their property and reputations; apply the law according to its primary purpose)
  6. The Principle of Uniformity  (Apply the law uniformly, as much as other considerations allow).

More about this topic later.

Today, I am Advancing the Most Profitable (Ideal) Constitution, Ever, and Challenging Metaphysics

When the United States finished all the formalities, jots and tittles of its written Constitution (1803), it created one of the most profitable documents ever written.   The stability and predictability provided by its required (and permitted) legal arrangement fostered an economic environment so sound and stable that it — the United States — shot like a meteor-rising to the status of an economic superpower within 100 years.  And it took the Western hemisphere, with its mutually-developing set of trade relations, with it — “GNP skyward.”  With time allowed for the delay factor and trickle down (in this case, trickle-across) effect across the globe, it actually took the entire global economy with it — even the East, albeit lopsidedly, and most notably, after 1917, and then 1921 — and then after 1991 when “the [German] wall came down.”

I believe, where I to take the time to document it, I could show that one fairly good, written constitution, with as many mistakes and omissions as it may have, because it represented such great progress at the time. procured for the world an economic “Atlas” (or Hercules) that raised up the entire global economy to new and unimagined levels of productivity.  It procured the greatest rise in the general “standard of living” of any single innovation.  Here are some sobering and exciting thoughts to imagine.  What if every nation — or many of them — had adopted a like constitution?

What if many, and extremely profitable corrections and additions, were made to the Constitution and its international facsimiles?  What if they were made almost Ideal?

Another meteoric rise around the corner?  It is absolutely plausible.  Fact: no written constitution ever produced has this as part of its written text:

“We, the people of this nation, have chosen with great and considerable scrutiny aforethought, as our economic system of choice, a form of humanitarian free market and free trade economics best described as integrated (managed as a whole, integrated unit), greatly innovative and strategic, highly-productive of assets both tangible and otherwise, profit- and progress-seeking through enlightened self-interest, and that of others, which aims at the excellent profitability of the general welfare, and a higher standard of living for all.  It seeks through free-market processes, privileges and procedures, and by adherence to the ideal value system, pursues the reduction, and even elimination, of the dependence upon taxes and taxation at all levels of government for yielding revenues.

The ideal value system consists of “Wisdom and understanding, life and joy, profitability and value, gentleness and kindness, excellence and progress, beauty and majesty, truth and integrity, honor and dignity.”   This system displays the supreme human values, composed in writing for all in this constitution.

Because profitability proceeds in units of time (as with interest that compounds daily), universal and profitable timekeeping require us to shape our concepts of time, and our system of measuring it as progressively as we might in light of excellent science, linguistics, economics and legal studies.

[This part is not to be put in writing, but is merely an aside: A scholarly and scientific council should be appointed to study and implement the new system of calendar and time keeping, and to do away with the extremely unprofitable and mythological “religious calendar.”   This is fine for medieval villagers and toothless pirates.   But it divides history (time) in half, foolishly beginning it with the first century of the pre-economics era.

Adam Smith probably began the profitable era of in 1776.  The forward contract (later known as “futures”) originated a few years later, around 1830.  These are significant for all, not just people of some particular, irrelevant mythology of “Triadic gods.”  Excellent science, law, linguistics and economics should decide our way of measuring time (timekeeping), not obscure religion].  [Religion is jacked-up, let’s face it. We need science to keep time instead].  Science is a better gatekeeper of time than toothless, ranting crusaders.  That’s my point.

More literary fun and profit shall proceed at this blogpost at a later time, if the gods and goddesses shall permit it.

Other features of the Ideal Constitution: A Mechanism for Progress and Change made to the IC, appointed BY the IC.

In addition to the features mentioned above, the IC will need to specify a mechanism created that procures excellence in the changes [Excellence and progress] created and allowed to the IC itself.  This will be by (probably 8) councils of experts [Wisdom and understanding require this].  The changes must be proved “reasonably profitable,” and should be “excellent in procuring profitability.”  Each part of the constitution should treat each (other) part systemically, and should proceed by “mutual consent of each part.”  It should meet (display benefits in terms of) two criteria of the virtue hendiads, and violate (prove counterproductive in) none of them.

Other features to be added “down the road” include affirmations and descriptions of:  Ideal Math-Science; Ideal Economics (called “Integrated Free Market Capitalism”); Ideal Genetics and Physiology; Ideal Education (System); Ideal Logic-Computer Science/ Related Technologies.  Ideal Taxation is best described by the numeral ZERO.  (More later on the new Math, and math formulae for computing 0 to the 1 millionth power).

The various aspects of ideal culture (The ideal civilization does in fact exist, and insofar as current culture displays progress — here or there — that means it takes small steps in the direction of that ideal civilization, in this or that respect, or area of cultural development) can be delineated down to its kind(s) of music, festival-celebration days (These are eight annually, each celebrating one of the hendiad virtues of the ideal Value System (IVS).

These are highly profitable “days off.”  Even more profitably, they would replace, Halloween (National cavity-celebration day wherein we shall praise all manner of dental work), Christmas (Nat’l DUI party day), and Easter — Nat’l dead-people rising day — sometimes called ZOMBIES, sometimes not) complete with chocolate-ruined-by marshmallow, which has in fact also risen from the dead, day.

For the inquisitive, this philosophy “cultural neo-idealism” (Collingwood be praised), does in fact propose to replace (at law) the past (metaphysics — we were created?  if so, how? did we evolve? if so, when?) with ethics from THE FUTURE, as the source of transcendence, conveying value and authority to the ideal constitution.  We are trading up — swapping the past, the era of less profit, for the future, and trading (controversial, jihad debates) metaphysics for ideal ethics and value theory.  This trades religion out for philosophy and the sciences.

This does not mean that I believe that no good answers are available to tough metaphysical questions.  It means instead that I think them legally irrelevant, given the (ideal and the) future as the (primary?) source of transcendence and authority, and not the past. The right answers to the metaphysical questions, for my money, begin with the study of complementarity in physics, and of DNA in the life sciences.  Life is the answer, well, somewhat.  It still needs insurance.  And medical.  We all need good medical. Yeah, that’s my point.  You can’t beat that.  Well, it could be cheaper.

Right then. Off you go.

A Word of Wisdom (Or Two) for the Goldbugs: “Partial and Variable” (collateral)

It is possible to collateralize a currency’s (e.g. the U.S.) money supply in a way that provides not only stability, but versatility and finesse — matching the Fed’s ability to maintain stability through adjustments (as with the many small ones under Fed Chief, Alan Greenspan) in the lending rates of banks (to wit, the overnight and prime lending rates).

First, just as Wall Street recommends with the portfolio (20% in precious metals), so we ought to take for advice on managing the money supplies strength. “But someone will say, what if the strengthening of the USD makes our exports too expensive, so that fewer will buy them?”  Answer: 1. Extend credit to them at low or zero interest rate (depending on the degree of “emergency”)  2. Adjust the rate of collateralization just the way the Fed adjust interest rates

But how do you adjust the rate of collateralization?  First, when collateralizing the money supply, use 10% in precious metals, and then the next 10% in BOBPO stock shares or mutual funds.  This gains value at an average of about 10% every year.  This means the rate of collateralization will rise on its own each year, unless and until, the collateralizing agency officially takes some of this share-value “offline,” buy an official declaration, moving the funds that represent this value (certificates that represent the stock shares, each with its own designation [CUSIP] to a different account.

This makes the rate of collateralization — that is, the strength of the national currency, adjustable and versatile — a great force for stabilizing and growing the national and international economies. With Fed-like announcements in advance, the markets can price in the changes made to the rate and degree of collateralization.

The gold and bi-metal bugs never had this advice to offer.  Instead, their monolithic and inflexible approach (very much like that of 19th century religion) actually contributed, after the fashion of unintended consquences, to the repeated “Boom-Bust-Panic” cycles of the nineteenth century, and actually aided the viability of the institution of slavery in ways they neither wanted nor imagined, at least in the North anyway.

“Partial and variable” collateral offers some golden advice for stable and profitable markets of today.

Futures Contracts, the Future and Profitability

Here is a new suggestion I will maintain in brief, and then later add to the post when convenient.  The futures markets should be allowed to create a new source of value.  It takes its cue from mutual funds and the stock market, and combines these features with futures contracts in order to render them far more stable and predictable, meaning FAR LESS RISKY.  Here is the idea:

Suppose we take a wide diversity of futures contracts — some are stocks futures (Apple, inc., etc) and some are commodities futures (cocoa, orange juice, etc. — and we pool these together in a kind of fund.   Each contract is divided into shares — just the way stock shares divide (and make for sale) a corporation’s assets — into many tiny fractions of its “total value.”    These futures-contract-pool shares can then form a kind of “mutual fund,” with the expiration dates of the long-term contracts — they should be written for something more like 5 and 10 year contracts — scheduled and priced in, so that those who wish to stay in the fund can simply pay a small fee — called a “rollover fee” — for continuing in the fund.

The funds could front loaded (pay at the outset), back-loaded (pay when you exit), etc., or any combination of payment types the contract affirms.  The great diversification allowed by the multiplying of different KINDS of contracts greatly reduces the risk of ownership.   Further, the mutual fund could even be collateralized, say at ten or twenty percent, to draw far greater participation by those more risk-averse.  And the collateralization can be made ADJUSTABLE and variable, by using BOBPO stocks for collateral.  The collateral thus INCREASES in value every year by some 10%, inviting still further participation (investment activity).

“Adapt … improvise … overcome” — Clint Eastwood

How the Free Markets Enable “Human Value”

The old canard and abusive notion that “free market capitalism” describes markets run by a few old and angry “J. Jonah Jamesons” — complete with spent stogies protruding from the left side of their mouths, with slightly largish bodies sitting behind equally largish desks — has run its (slanted history) textbook course.  These kinds of people never ring the morning bell, and haven’t for a long time.   These would be well-dressed, articulate, and well-educated C.E.O.’s — and some of them — thank the gods and goddesses — are actually WOMEN.  Some of them are even brilliant.  And they don’t even like cigars (unless tobacco is guiding up).

Human value has often been the angry cane with which the free marketeers have had their consciences beaten to the tune of “You tycoons should care more about people.”  But the complaint spells out a false dichotomy, an “Either you favor human value, or else ECONOMIC value” falsity.   The truth is that human design AIMS at profitabililty.  Men and women are NOT political animals; they are value-creation animals (free-market agents [= FMA, hereafter]).  In my theory of ethics, it works this way:

We were designed to live and work in community, with the tendencies and propensities to speak (learn language), use abstract logic — reasoning by principle and strategy — to do the things that make for better lives for ourselves (enlightened self-interest) by providing goods and services for others (act as FMA’s).   Free markets are actually built-in to the predilections with which we are created because they aim at value creation AND community.  The community begins with two, as every male anatomically corresponds to a female — community is built-in, and their union yields, at the very least, what economists call “Human capital,” which yields labor value.

Human value is tacit, or implicit.  It consists in the ability, including individual gifts, talents and creative capacities. We are born with it.  But it does not materialize until we become active agents in the free market context, producing value for others.  This happens in many and complex ways (e.g. advice of a friend in supporting a family business by offering creative insights to aid it in little ways), as well as ones that can be described as simple and clear (e.g. making lemonade and selling it at a lemonade stand).  As we learn to become more profitable to ourselves and others, we being to strategize and think in more complex and productive ways.  We may even hire a business consultant to help us think more profitably — giving us a surprising advantage in the markets.

The upshot?  Human value is created by DNA.  It enables us to serve our own interests by serving others.  The intrinsic value, however lies fallow, until we adopt an active role as FMA’s in the context of valuable market activities, and this process (Work) forces us by market changes (market dynamics) and market forces, to adapt progressively to its requirements in order to increase our service to others, and our bottom line.   This adaptive process causes people to become more patient, since wealth accretion best proceeds over longer periods of time, and we learn as more mature FMA’s that wealth has to be “cultivated” like crops — over time.  There is no instant plan for planting on day one, and then reaping on day two.  Time and labor do not work that way.

Productivity and profitability over the long run requires PATIENCE.  So the Free-markets yield more patient people over time.  Providing charity does not do this.  Investing is better than charity, because it not only enables MORE charity than charity can, but it forges character, when done well,  that charity cannot.

Human value is not properly SET OVER AGAINST free-markets;  It lies fallow (As INTRINSIC) until it is cultivated and MADE EXTRINSIC by interacting with free markets.  In other words, for human value to become realized, it must be shared with others by working to improve one’s own life situation.  Goods and services — note the word “service” — leads the way to real virtue.  This new description of human value is worth buying.  If it is good for the markets, it has great value in and of itself.

Buy low.  Sell high.   This too is wisdom.  And it yields virtue.  And get this — it is decisively not religious.



Profitability and the Concept of Virtue

From time of old to the present day, different cultures have pondered what it means for someone to become an “excellent (or virtuous) person.”   These notions have varied greatly, including ideas ranging from the just man (Plato) to the person of “Arete” (one of my former “Hellenistic period” faves) — arete roughly means, the “magnanimous (noble) person,” and other such concepts as the Thinker to the Wise Man, a greek — as well as Chinese — notion — which often become The Sage (somewhat like the futuristic Yoda).  Still later versions included the Christianized monk, a rather retreatist sort of Stoic, all the way forward to the Enlightened Monarch, where we finally started taking virtue seriously for the first time since the Greeks prized Wisdom above all else.

Now comes a surprisingly different suggestion: profitability actually gives us an excellent measure of real “virtue” when viewed over the long haul (not instant wealth creation).  With the advent of mature, liquid free markets since the 1980’s (it took all the way until 1979-80 for the Dow Jones Industrial Average to reach a bare 1000 points), it has become possible for the average person to create his/ her own portfolio, and with some strategy. to build a personal fortune of considerable sums within a relatively short time frame.  Under these new conditions, profitability has the power to gauge what was more traditionally thought of as “virtue.”   This is because of the win-win nature of the free markets, and because producing goods and services for the betterment of others is just HOW one makes money in the markets.  Investing creates jobs.  That is — you create an excellent best-of-breed-purchases -only (BOBPO) portfolio, and you will be putting people to work, and working to PREVENT POVERTY.

The traditional virtue of “Charity” — working to abate the SYMPTOMS of poverty — is weak and pale compared to the power of investing TO PREVENT IT in the first place!   Shaking down the wealthy in a constant telethon looking for alms (Christian methods) fails miserably to compete with Wall Street’s ability to do this without recourse to such annoying petitions by getting the markets to pay for all the charitable giving your heart desires — you can even automate that giving with what is known as a Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT).  The first is a win-lose proposition — with the old religious approach, for one person to win (the poor receive help), the wealthier has to lose — give up funds.  But with the WALL, everybody wins — investments create jobs, the return on investment pays for the charity, and the charitable giver can even get a tax write-off.  This even bolsters – be it ever so little a mite — the entire economy for everyone.  The traditional method hires no one, depletes the wealth of the wealthy (win-lose), and does not even dream of preventing poverty.

Profitability, it turns out, is the key to real virtue and the solving of real problems by prevention as well as abatement of the afflictions of poverty.  Think not of traditional “Charity.”

Thus is fulfilled the saying of Wall Street —

“The lack of money is the root of all evil.”  And Big Al (Dr. Einstein) sayeth thus: “There is no such thing as magic in the real world; but the closest thing to it … is compound interest.”