Economic policy is focused on the removal of social costs as examples of economic negativity.
We appreciate your comments and suggestions. Feel free to contact us at the link below.
Logical Positivist has the simplest and best job creating strategy. Anyone, anywhere can create economic development using Positive Exchanges.
Social costs are expenses created by individuals or the state but externalized onto society and future generations.
All wealth is created at the local level, globalism and free trade only benefits those who play off one local economy against the other.
Taxation is justified only if the market cannot provide social goods. Guess what ....
Any ethical organization using a time management module is able to eliminate taxation
material is added daily as we develop the site. Thanks for visiting and come again soon.
Jobs are a human right because they are a Positive Right. Logical Positivist is the best job creation strategy known.
Normally job creation is considered the responsibility of businesses and governments. Social Positivist sees the problem of providing jobs as the responsibility of all positive persons.
Consumers create jobs by making use of goods and services provided by their other identity, the worker. Jobs are created by workers buying the products of their work. Businesses and governments make goods and services available, but it is the consumer spending his or her money, made as a worker, that creates the Demand that decide what jobs will be created. If we think about the process, it is easy to see consumers create jobs by spending the money they made working.
What is a job, but you helping me in a very specific and limited way? What is an economy but others helping me and me helping them, preferably in a formal and quantifiable way?
No matter what anyone tells you an economy is just people helping one another.
To gravitate from an informal or primitive economy we only need to be able to account for the help given and got. Our help has to be quantified so what we do and get can be given a precise value and the giving and getting be done in a fair and equitable manner.
We have a human right to be paid for what we do.
To create jobs requires we find new and better ways of helping one another. The simplest way to do this, is by means of an Exchange.
No one works globally or buys globally. We work and buy in a very limited area and this area is generally a local community. A local community’s wants and needs, is more efficiently provided for by a local market.
To create jobs a group of people who want to help one another must see a need that is not being met. More importantly they see resources that could be made better use of.
A system of measurement needs to be created so as to quantify value and measure the value of jobs done. The value of our work needs to be quantified.
The value of a job is measured by a voucher issued on the equity of the market. The market being the total value of all the jobs done in the Exchange.
Equity is simply wealth or capital. If 100 persons donate $100.00 each to a business venture, the available capital is $100 x 100 = $10,000.00. If $30,000.00 of goods and services are donated to capitalize the business, an additional $30,000.00 in equity has been created making $40,000.00 in capital available to the start up.
Preferred shares are units that measure value or utility, for members of an Exchange. Preferred shares can be issued in units that are multiples of each in the same way conventional currencies are issued. Thus, preferred shares serve as an positive (value creating) currency.
Any cost we pay that we did not create is a social cost. Social costs are such things as unemployment, poverty, debt, inflation, taxation, pollution, business cycles and all those things that transfer costs from one agent that created the cost onto society and future generations.
It may appear to be smart to avoid paying costs one creates. The free market suggests this gives an advantage. The hunter that can access a kill made by another hunter save himself a lot of calories and risk; at least potentially.
But what are the costs of this strategy?
How do we do the accounting that tells us it is better to avoid immediate costs at the risk of facing indeterminate future costs?
A business that closes and lays off 3000 workers may have no choice but to do this and ignore the direct costs of the decision they make, within the present economic system. However, the choices that led to the firings had nothing to do with the community that is now burdened with the costs of the 3000 unemployed persons.
The business that shuts down and lays-off 700 employees may feel pressured to shut down, though the owner may have decided to move operations to China. The owner reaps the reward of cheaper labour and an open market. It is the best of both worlds for the manufacturer. But the company is not paying the full costs of the move as the costs created by the lay offs are off the books.
The same holds true when a manufacturing establishment pollutes a stream. The costs of the chemicals are a cost to the company. If these chemicals are disposed of in a safe way this is an additional cost. If the chemicals are dumped in a river the company avoids the cost of their disposal. This is a cost that is externalized onto the wider community. Perhaps the community loses a fishery or even human lives because of the pollution. But it is costs the company may be able to avoid paying.
These kinds of situations are not uncommon, and the state must exercise oversight at considerable cost, to prevent companies and individuals from doing what may make sense from an individual perspective, if not from the perspective of those who must cover any costs avoided by the private sector.
The state covers the overage of the private sector because the private sector and the state have a symbiotic relationship. The state legitimizes the private sector and cannot abandon them when they incur costs they cannot sustain. A shut-down creates one set of costs and subsidizing the company so it does not need to shut down is a different set of costs, but they are both costs the state pays. Which it pays is for the stat to decide.
The right and left feed off of each other. No one admits they are part of the problem. It is the other person that needs fixing. For 6000 years people have tried to fix the blame on society and it is this that fuels the left/right debate.
Most people prefer do not want to be governed by implacable rules. Even if they obey the rules that exist, they prefer some wiggle room.
Dictatorships are viewed by most as oppressive systems. But what is it that is being opposed? Do we oppose the rule of law, itself? Do we oppose the idea of morality or the concept of doing what is right? The bible is a book that demands we do the right thing. Is this not being dictatorial? What about a system in we have to pay the costs we create? Is this unjust? There are people who think so. Anarchists want freedom to throw cigarette butts out a car window, through this may cause a forest fire. If it does who pays for the cost of the fire? People want to speed despite the people killed. We know what we are doing and can handle a car travelling at high speeds unlike those who cause accidents.
We want laws against theft for other people because we know some people are criminals and need to be controlled, but we reject too much policing for ourselves because we understand the spirit of the law and know right from wrong, even though others may not agree with us.
There are a lot of reasons we all are nervous about being dictated to by others. We ought to be honored to be dictated to by God. We ought to want, to be ruled by the moral law. There ought to be a strong desire to be dictated to by reason and logic. Too often it seems as if we get caught up in the ideal of freedom and think it is good in all times and places. Freedom is at best a relativist concept. No one will ever be totally free nor will we be absolutely happy.
Social costs are costs we create that we do not cover and often cannot cover. Murder is one of those costs which cannot be paid for not even with our own death. That level of harm cannot be reversed or compensated for.
But we do not want to be dictated to by justice or any rigid set of rules. We want a system that is more forgiving and tolerant than the one described in Scripture. We do not want to live up to the standard set by Jesus either.
Capitalism offers us a free market in which we buy what we want according to the price of the product. It is to our benefit as consumers, if the price of the product is less than its cost of production. As customers we benefit when costs of production are externalized, or we think we do.
If the production process pollutes a stream and society cleans this up, we get a cheaper product and only have to pay a small percentage of the clean up costs. We come out ahead. But we are getting a small percentage of all the social costs created. Does it help to pay 1% of $100.00 ten times or an immediate cost of $8.00?
We have no idea of the extent of the social costs we are paying. Pollution, unemployment, debt, poverty and crime are all social costs, and all require we pay a premium to deal with their consequences. We have no idea what the total cost is for their redemption, nor what the costs would have been had these social costs been paid at source, instead of being externalized.
If producing a newspaper pollutes a stream, why ought not the full costs be applied to the newspaper? Why ought society to pay for the pollution in lost amenities and clean up costs? If the paper cannot survive when the full costs of production are applied to the product, then by the principles of the free market ought the newspaper to be in business? If the cost of having some products available is to have society subsidize the product, ought not society own the production facility outright? If society ends up paying the costs of production, then by rights society ought to own the facility that is creating the costs.
This is not a suggestion that the state ought to own the productive assets, or capital. State ownership does not prevent the formation of social costs in fact just the opposite. It is not the state that pays social costs. It is not the state that ought to exercise the rights of an owner.
If the system does not contain all costs within the price of the products and services sold, then the system must expand to embrace those who pay the costs. All stakeholders need to be included in the cost-creating process. Exchanges bring all stakeholders to the table. All costs are by this means kept within the group responsible for paying these costs and the products and services produced carry a price that reflects their true cost of production, even if the actual product or service is subsidized by the community, since it is the community that owns the Exchange. In this way, Exchanges eliminate social costs.
Free Trade is a liberal policy. Free Trade is not consistent with a coherent view of reality, that is though it may make sense when considered as a discrete idea free trade does not fit in with a society with a concern for human rights or truth. Free Trade is inconsistent with our values and human rights. The nation is not supposed to be run as a service of the state. A profitable economy is not the first priority because no oligarch is the reason for the existence of the nation state. The nation is God's gift to us, the citizen. Many otherwise reasonable people and politicians who ought to know better have been misled by Free Trade rhetoric. If you do not agree with open boarder immigration do not side with those who advocate open boarder trade. A nation must always have the option of shutting down its boarders for the sake of national security and national benefit. Some things ought not to enter our property; our lands or our culture. We ought always to have the right of choice and the power to say, no!
Ethical organizations are not against imports, but the true cost of the import has to be established. If a business sheds 3000 persons and imports what it used to produce the cost of the policy has to be added to the price of the import. The company in fact has to pay the cost of resettling these displaced workers or the savings for the community is from the position of the community, illusory.
Exchanges allow communities to determine the true cost of imports. Free Trade is not a viable option. It leads to the loss of national security and the loss of the people control of their communities and economies. Free Trade is not socially neutral. Ensure your party and political candidate restricts all imports to those that are specifically beneficial to the local economy. Support Locavores policy on Free Trade by promoting the use of free markets to create value in our communities.
Globalism is the phenomenon of multinational corporations taking power from the nation state with the assistance of liberal governments to create international markets. Globalism is the new face of fascism. It is pursued through Free Trade, and Inter-governmental agencies that gradually supersede and marginalize the state. The EU and UN are prime examples of the kind of organizations globalists support, (using your tax dollars).
Globalism is the natural outgrowth of liberalism and a natural consequence of formulating and prioritizing social agendas by the state. The U.N. is the ultimate expression of the liberal belief that the end justifies the means.
Exchanges systematically strip power from the center and use these resources to build the church. In building the church is power returned to those who have a vested interest in maintaining the nation state; the people of God.
Globalism is of necessity socially nihilistic, it is destructive of the social structure. It plays one group off against the other as it consolidates world power in the hands of a global elite.
Taxation is not only unnecessary but a violation of our human rights. For more on this subject see our Blog entry, “Taxation Is A violation Of Our Human Rights.”
The right of the state to tax is inherent in the state but no where else. Taxation exists because the state makes it possible to tax its subjects.
It would have to be shown that there is no other way to do what the state does or that it has a legitimate claim on the resources it requisitions.
This brings into question the nature of ownership. In Babylonian cultures the state issues charters giving certain rights to private persons over the resources under state control. At one time the state would assign whole cities and towns to its sycophants, later on this became adjudicated by a market in which the state would sell resources to wealthy clients. In the modern version of the state the state became something of a service provider. However, these services are more akin to those provided by a broker of stolen goods, or fence in the vernacular.
There is only one form of ownership which cannot be disputed and that is personal ownership. To dispute this is to dispute everything that makes life possible. This being said what is more owned than what we create? If we have a right to our home and our food what is more rightfully owned than the food, we grow and the house we build?
There are issues with this, but these issues have been dealt with in several other places, for now we will then ask, “Where does the state get its ownership claims?”
Who gave the state the right to claim all the resources within a nation and then to assign certain charter rights to individuals?
Unless we are willing to say, “Might makes right,” we cannot find justification for the states claim to a political jurisdiction. Constitutionalists may say that the people gave this right to the state. Where did the people gain this right to assign it to the state?
We often consider that the majority has the right to impose their will on the majority, but the potential evils of this philosophy are well-known.
This is not to be an in-depth inquiry into the moral case for government. It ought to be seen by now there is not strong moral foundation for government, at best we can say that it is a necessary evil. And this is what the following will be on, “Is the state a necessary evil?” The answer to this is contained in the answer to the following, “Can the private sector provide social goods?”
The response is rarely a, “Yes,” or a, “No.” There is a lot of things the private sector can supply, at least in part, that the people prefer to see supplied by the state. Which brings us to the crux of the issue. “Do we want the private sector supplying social goods such as education, health care, policing and defence?” Virtually everyone will say, “No,” to one or more of these items, which brings us to another point. “What are we talking about when we discuss the private sector?”
Language is an incredible thing but when one thinks about language, we realize all those terms used to convey meaning convey only that meaning which the hearer has learned. It is unlikely many will associate the private sector with anything other than capitalism and what is erroneously referred to as private ownership and the free market. Here, the private sector refers to that which is external to the public sector. It will assist the discussion no end if the reader remembers the private sector is not equated with capitalism, unfortunately the reason for this is not as clear as it ought to be.
Capitalism is not free of the state and despite all claims to the contrary this writer sees no practical way to change this. Private ownership of the means of production is seen as a fictitious form of ownership and the free market is anything but free, other than free of any moral or religious scruples.
We could talk about reforming these institutions to make them more fully private, but this seems to give these words new meaning which would be better served by abandoning them altogether. A free market that is not free and a capitalism that no longer responds to the profit motive is felt to be incoherent. Here we will discuss an Exchange as a form of ownership that eliminates the public sector and its agents. Here we must include capitalism.
As this is just an introduction and not a full scale inquiry, we shall reduce the discussion down to simple terms. Thus the transformation will occur on an island. As Locavore Exchanges are infinitely scalable, applicable to a few persons or to many billions; it is reasonable to deal with a small population on an island. What is earth but a far larger island similarly isolated?
Let’s assume this population could get together, vote in a discussion group who could write a constitution. They could then vote on the constitution and having assented to it, elections would be held in accordance to the constitution and a government elected.
This government would have by constitutional authority, the right to enact law including laws relating to the financing and boarding of an elected government.
However, let’s say they take an alternative route. Let’s assume they divide up into 12 craft guilds. Each guild specializes in a particular economic sector. These are listed below:
3. TECHNOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT
5. ENERGY MINES AND RESOURCES
7. SALES AND SERVICES
9. HEALTH AND WELFARE
11. POLITICS AND JUSTICE
Each sector has its officials. Here is where language becomes as opaque as informative. The head of the Transportation sector is a private entity, a CEO is you need a label, but he or she also serves as a political official. Or, to put it another way, since the public sector was not established the head of the private sector institutions i.e., the head of a guild serves as the government on the island.
First of all, lets think of what a government would do. If it wishes to build a road it extracts money from the subjects. Then it hires people in the construction sector to build the road. On the island the guilds decide a road across the island would make the island more efficient, save on transportation costs and improve the quality of life, in short, a new road would increase the value of the island. This is spearheaded by the Transportation Sector.
The Construction Sector looks at all of the various projects planned and arranges to have sufficient resources shifted to the road building project at the most appropriate time.
If it is short of resources, it applies to have resources shifted to the Construction Sector. If for some reason it has resources that are not going to be fully utilized, it has these resources shifted to some other sector. The island in this sense operates as a single market or business. It does not pay the island to have any resources idle or underused. If the Construction Sector did not shift under-utilized resources to a different sector the potential wealth created would decline and the entire island would share in the loss, which would likely cause the head of that Sector to be replaced.
The justice sector engages in policing activities. The sectors would hire the Justice Sector to control crime and other issues. Because the Justice Sector is a private company, or a department in a private company, the department heads or Sector Heads, decide how to allocate the policing function and how much resources will go into this sector.
All of this is over seen by the shareholders, which are the citizens of the island. They vote in the chairpersons of the local cells and so control the appointments of all the officials on the island.
If we can imagine working for a company in which all the employees are the shareholders and the officials of the company are all paid employees of the company this gives us a picture of how the island operates.
This has been a very brief overview. For more detail acquire, “Human Rights Versus Legal Rights,” on Amazon.