Humanitarian Government: Section 8, Part 2, Subsection 1

Hello all. Yet another episode (but I did promise this) of 'Humanitarian Government'. It's also a dozy.

This one is economics. I'm going to warn everyone right now (again) I'm not an economist. I'll also remind that this is premised on the US no longer being the US as we know it. I call this post US Erf (for those just coming in). However, some or all could be done or started today and help in a recovery of sorts based on today's economic issues. It's also going to cover some infrastructure that is needed across the nation and building/construction for the most part. In the last article, I mentioned some of the social structure of what would be, essentially, either an 'Americanized Demarcy' or a new form of government. I also put out a visual addendum because I know there are times that either I get confusing with my descriptions or that I need something visual to 'see' what is being told to me. I'll be doing a bit of that here, too.

So let's dig in.

Framework of Issues and Possible solutions

I'm writing this a bit differently that most of my other articles. The reason is that the organization and various issues needed to be addressed in an alternate way.

This will be addressing the ten major sections of any type of economy: both potential benefits and potential failure point. I keep putting this out and I'll add to it: humans aren't perfect. We are also impatient and modern humans have gotten used to instant gratification. Lasting change, though, isn't fast. It may be messy, and any outcomes won't be within even four years of any given Presidency. In my lifetime, I've sort have a guesstimate of time: for every one bad year of bad policies especially economically, it takes at least three to make up for that one bad year. So, you get a presidency with an accommodating Congress that passes and signs bad policies, most of the next presidency can only pull back about a year. That means for a full term, it will take sixteen years to get up back to either a baseline, or in a situation that good policies can show their benefits.

This presidency, however, isn't acting like any other in history. It's being run by Executive Orders, social media posts, and messaging that has no accountability or history. It's just smoke, mirrors, and weak people who are more in numbers and congregation of power than one man, even with billionaires on his side because the People would back good policy. So, how to fix a crucial aspect of government and social interactions?

Well, lets start with what needs to be covered first. I did say ten major sections. Here they are:

• Problem Definition
• Principle Exploration
• Human Nature Assumptions
• Resource Allocation Mechanisms
• Power Structure Design
• Innovation and Growth Frameworks
• Crises and Adaptation Mechanisms
• Implementation Pathways
• Stress testing
• Integration

Yeah, heavy stuff. I'll be honest: I've had issues with this article. Economy changes scare the hell of most people, and I'll tell you: suggesting a new one isn't just 'scare the hell', you can add an 'f' word to that and you'll get my reactions.

So lets get into defining issues.

Issue: Defining

Essentially, this topics question would be something like this: What are the core systemic failures we must solve that the two major and semi-acceptable systems of economics (capitalism and socialism) have and could be addressed?

I'm first going to refer you back to my three part Economic definition set. It goes into what I thought were good highlights, definitions, some history, some examples and such. So, if you're reading this, you might want to look up Section 4, parts 1-3. Thanks if you do.

Now, for capitalism we already know and are living with most of the problems that system has.

Using price signals (such as the Stock Market) to help or fully coordinate economic activity. Markets and producers consistently ignore costs other than the obvious. Some of those ignored costs are things like pollution and worker burnout. The biggest issue that is seen daily and we live with constantly is the fact that since the 1980s we've had an issue with the two facets of economy that determine everything: financial markets and real economy. This means that financial markets that are systems, ideas, and policies that chase financial returns are increasingly being used or exploited versus real funding of actual production. It's an unsustainable system.

I've already made known my position on various aspects of the economy, indirectly or directly. Both sides and all aspects are valid and I'm sure most if not all would agree (Well...those who don't benefit from those systems. Those that do would hate me and my ideas simply because accountability would be called for their behaviors and actions).

There's those issues, but the social attending issues also need to be addressed whenever we're talking of any form of structure that touches on people in whatever fashion. This means whatever needed and/or created needs to reduce inequality and effectively process information and decisions based on that information on what to produce and where.

Those are the individual sides of the same issue. Now, how do those mix, have common ground and how to come up with some sort of listing so both systems can be addressed at the same time?

Yet another listing:

• Historical systems
• Social and Cognitive Errors
• Human Nature of Behaviors and Thought
• How to meld all factors into a new system

Yeah...simple, right? (I'm being sarcastic and facetious with that.)

Lets go down the line.

First is historical systems. Humanity as a whole have multiple versions and layers of economy since the dawn of time. We've had things like barter that developed into money systems, versions of goods exchange, and layers of social interactions dictating economic layering.

Let me explain: hybrid or mixed economy systems have worked better than limited or 'one-size-fits-all' thinking and execution. Something like families sharing things in common, having markets/guilds/family businesses for more individualized needs, and growing to various global enterprises that demand or require resources and people to work effectively and produce items wanted en masse.

So that paragraph put in many of the issues both social and economic that proves out that not only do humans normally and naturally organize via multiple and overlapping systems or institutions. Those overlaps also mean that humans have to think of context both in execution and decision making. That leads into cultural standards and norms and even how families do things on a smaller scale. So, just to tell you now (and I'll repeat it more during this): what works in small scales can and probably will fail in larger scales. So, those overlaps? Yeah, those will cause friction (and do even today) but also need to work together or the entire system will fail before it even gets to a point it is big enough and strong enough to show any sort of outcomes, good or bad.

Issue: Principles

Just one question: what is it that business or economics need to accomplish?

Answer: Create materials for public or individual consumption while being a structure on how those materials are distributed or exchanged for.

That's it. A simple answer.

Yeah, uh, if you can't tell by now my theory on simple answers let me clue you: there is no such animal, even a unicorn. If you try to create and implement simple answers for a complex situation, it will always fail.

Now, I'm not saying there is no 'yes/no' answerable questions or situations. There are many that come up throughout any given day. However for more complex systems, I demand accountability for those decisions, both on how that was made in the first place and living with consequences afterward. Good or bad.

Now, I don't have all the details or plans. I'll admit that now. As stated, I'm not an economist and I don't have the knowledge base of fully fleshing out this. I can tell you some of what I envision, but honestly, I've begged for help and unfortunately, that help is limited. I WANT help, I WANT input. I'm not doing any of this for me. No, this is for those younger than me and have a chance to start this and maybe even see it blossom.

However I do know this, and personally I hate this fact. We live in a world that pushes for immediate or short-term gains. Instant gratification. However, that can be used on small scales but when it comes to State, Regional, Federal/National level and even Globally, we all need to include and push for long-term projects and outcomes. I also add Globally because if we can break the ground now, or relatively soon, we could reverse what's been happening. Maybe even become the leader we used to be. Not militarily, but socially and economically.

I bring these time-line issues because they tie into social and ecological items that need to be addressed. Most of our current production is based on finite resources. Business, especially big corporations, want to fatten bottom lines at any cost. Those costs are cutting jobs, keeping wages as low as possible, raising prices to maximum and not caring that every other industry that touches a person is doing the same thing. Pushing those who they do hire to be accessible more and more hours or even going so far as to demand being available (for no pay) around the clock. That's burnout conditions. None are sustainable.

This is the first thing I'll address fully.

Big business has been screaming about the lack of workers, especially educated in the way they want. What they fail to see, and I had this problem back in the 1980s so this has been going on for too long, is when requiring 5 years of experience, but pay dirt level wages despite having the education requested, not having programs to get the experience asked for, ask for longer hours for more work per hour (I have also had this problem: efficiency quotas based on output and time spent rather than quality of given work) and being available (for no pay) whenever the job requests you to have your phone on and you available at all hours.

Now, I can see that availability being requested for something like pool work: the work most healthcare professionals know about and is essentially being voluntarily 'on call' for work. But not for office work. That is getting ridiculous.

Also, I've heard of workers having to pay for their training for the job hired for, requests/demands for working only one job when the pay isn't enough to work just one job and still make a living, and there is probably things I haven't heard about yet.

This is where I would have those I've mentioned as representatives to step in and create guardrails and what you might call socioeconomic behavioral expectations. Essentially a form of 'socially acceptable behaviors' for business.

I'm going to list out at least a partial this: only list. The reason why that is, is because the behaviors expected would need to be adapted to the scale of economic level and/or what that business does, and what type and how teeth-and-claw punishments for violations would be like. That I will leave to society to create and enforce.

By the way, I'm going to say this just once: you have to be consistent and be very willing to put into play anything with a toddler. That toddler? YOU are society and have a major say in anything, business and politics are actually social constructs. So individually YOU are the parent and social constructs of any type are toddlers. Treat them and create limits that help all parties, not just one over another.

Here's the list:
Human Limitation Acknowledgment

• Humans aren't perfect.
• Humans aren't machines that can be 'on' constantly.
• Humans require human basic requirements.
• Humans truly own and limit rather than work for and allow no limits to exist.

Resource Limitation Acknowledgment

• We have one world.
• That one world only has so much in resources at any given time.
• Those resources cannot or should not be held but a small group of any type (individual, governmental, business).
• Innovation and creativity can be had by any part of 'the system' and needs to keep in mind those limitations and strive to extend the life of those resources and limit the harm done by that innovation.

Cultural, Language, and Individual Diversity Acknowledgment

• All forms of human differences need to be acknowledged and respected.
• Humans are not, and never have been, a 'one-size-fits-all' creation and should not be treated as such.
• Diversity fosters creativity although it can also create friction. That friction isn't good or bad, rather, they are opportunities and how they are addressed is the 'good or bad'.

Should this framework of acceptable interactions along with the frameworks of economics, governmental structure, and individual learning and social skills be taught? I would say yes.

Frankly, educators, I hand you a challenge right now: figure out a reasonable system of education that covers all of these from pre-school on up. Weave them all together. Right now, things are broken. To fix them, though, will mean different thoughts and behaviors. Some of which will need curbs and demands for limitation now, and fostering natural boundaries and respect for later and long lasting outcomes.

Issue: Human Assumptions

Exploitation. Adaptive responses. Scale. Motivations. Outcomes.

Yes short items but with big definitions and therefor need something to be addressed for.

I've already mentioned a social behavioral list and that human nature is put into that. Well, this is more of a deeper reasoning and definition of that facet of economics and business.

Humans will always have a need for motivations to do anything. Yes, sounds like I'm demeaning people in general, but not in reality. Example: you're human and you already have a need to breath, right? Can you decide to not breath? Yes, but you have to work on that and it will only go on for so long. Too simplistic and I'm describing an autonomic response. So not good enough.

Lets go to another example: eating. It's not an autonomic system, so there for you have to do something to create and implement that behavior. So, long ago hunter-gatherers went out hunting and gathering, learned to cook, and all attending steps to present your body with something edible that wouldn't kill you. Congratulations: you just acknowledged you have a motivation for an outcome. Living is the outcome and motivation for hunting, gathering, et al.

So, lets get into this deeper.

First the more sociology type issues, behaviors and/or thought.

One, I'm not sure if its a design flaw built in, or if its something fixable. Hierarchies do exist and not just for leadership, either. It is a corner stone that has to be addressed equitably and balanced with each level. In this case, exploitation.

For one, we are living in an age that is in response to being human simply means you're a cog or a resource being used up and thrown away. In short: exploited. Every human in the world is in the same boat as you are and based on our system of economics it's not adapting to multiple situations or responses. Rather, it's forcing more and more homogeneity, use expectations and more. Guess what? It doesn't work.

The response being given back to the very system that has become cancerous is actually a normal one: 'stop that assh---' (I'm trying to keep my language clean).

For cancer, that means surgery, radiation, chemo and sometimes life long drugs to prevent a recurrence.

For malignant economic systems, that means changing the system from an entrenched one to a new one. That also means resistance on both sides and potential failure and disastrous outcomes if not done willingly and with a soft transformation. Right now, I can see that only on one side, but the patience is running thin and in some places it's run out. On the other, the motivators (power and money) are enough to fight changing and the outcome...well, I'll get to that.

But motivation isn't the only thing, nor is trying to balance out what is considered exploitation versus what is tolerable behaviors.

We've developed over hundreds of years, probably longer, material self-interest. Granted, having a well crafted arrow head is just as important to earlier man that a well crafted cell phone is to today's man but those serve that material self-interest. This feeds into the next: social status.

Again, having something well crafted versus less well crafted, or costing more or some other form of socially acceptable form of symbology of 'I'm better than you and I'm more permanent of being better' is just part of human hierarchical behavior. However, I'm not a big believer in that sort of thinking: everyone has their strengths and weaknesses and together that rainbow makes humanity better. Individually, it can create friction and has become a cyclic feature to wars, selfish behaviors, and out-and-out excuses for horrendous outcomes.

I get it though but this is part of that education system: finding ways of channeling hierarchical behaviors into creative and equitable ways to help, in balance, both individual and socioeconomically. Its going to take some trial and error and getting rid of that 'one-size-fits-all' thinking.

In today's world, too, that material self-interest has translated itself into social status, moral principles, and even to the point of what group you're loyal to and defining even your personal autonomy.

I'm suggesting a return to something a bit more balanced: your moral principles would be the focus, group loyalty, individual autonomy, and social status is based more upon how you use your moral principles in good outcomes for both personal and society as a whole, and material self-interest be part, only part, of a 'reward' for good outcomes. No, it's not elegant or easy. Not even close. Society plays a much bigger part into Humanitarian Government and that also goes along with economics.

But even today: lying has consequences, right? Well, so does being greedy. Problem is, those who end up on the wrong side of greed are lying to themselves and everyone else that their monetary success makes them successful in all ways. I will disagree with that.

Timing is everything is the base rock for that disagreement. As in: you got lucky to be born into a family that either had the position or money already accumulated in such a way you were able to use that as a springboard to get into other businesses or social positioning to make more of that with businesses or positioning you had knowledge of and guide that to meet your vision. Does that vision mean 'bad'? Only if you don't take into consideration of WHERE not only the origin of your beneficial positioning, but also WHERE you get your increased beneficial positioning in an on-going mental/economic framework. In short: you got lucky and was able to parley that luck into various other lucky situations, started to use that luck as a thinking that meant you were better than others.

Jumping in and out of the sock market is another such 'luck' and 'time' based wealth generation situation. So, you've just drew the card or rolled the dice and it managed to come up the way you wanted. Because either way that could have not gone your way and you might have lost part or all of your wealth, that you're using to say you're better than everyone else and allowed to use people, governments and even national militaries as pawns on an increasing scale.

This is also why monetary success shouldn't ever be considered a 'success' indicator. It just creates a fertile ground for a spiral of increasingly worse forms and strengths of various use, a disconnect between behaviors and outcomes, and less and less realization that what one has is based upon a system with larger numbers and individual strengths that the person on the top of the pyramid of monetary power. Both ends are required and when one side tears upon another, the entire system collapses.

So, what is needed? A multi-layered approach to economics and social behaviors that can challenge and have just enough friction between things to spark innovation and creativity, but also takes into account normal base-line needs, individuality, and the limits all aspects of human nature in normal situations within any hierarchical system.

Let me present you with another question:

Who is more important? That wealthy person, an artist working in a studio apartment somewhere, a person who is working with children, or taking care of people in healthcare settings, a stay at home person that is providing essential services to a household, or a Nobel prized winner of some form of cultural achievement?

If you say one over another, then you're needing to take a look and possibly a sociology course or two.

All are important and have economic inputs in various ways.

• The wealthy person
  • Jobs creation, production, and wages.
• An Artist: something creative and/or marketable and fulfills a social need of creative outlets.
  • Generally discounted as part of the economic system.
• The people working with various parts of humanity and society: creates and performs back-bone work of society, supports the monetary parts of an economic system.
  • Generally not recognized as part of the economic system unless paid.
• The Nobel prize winner? Well, anyone that is the top of their game in most any aspect of education or socially intensive system are discarded, but provide another form of creativity, guidelines, and innovation that propels business forward. The guidelines and social aspects are indicators of how various aspects intermingle and react.

Guess what? Our system has gotten to the point, even when I was younger, that wealth has become the most important aspect of not only status but also motivation and recognized input into society as a whole.

This I know first hand. When I did work, I felt exploited because I was working what felt around the clock with very few hours to myself or sleeping, and for living in general, I was in a rock and a hard place position. If I didn't do that over work, I'd either lose my job but have time to take care of things other than work; which goes into a circle of yes: I can work but I don't have time to do much else and still have no say in what is done with my money because I have no time to have a say or not whenever. When I've not been able to work for one reason or another, I've been discounted and told I had no say because I didn't bring in money. But, I was still an input: mother, transportation, support and more.

It's that way now, but not just on an individual basis. It's more of a national issue and the younger one is, the more of an issue it's become.

Now, we're in a position of backlash. That backlash can be minimized, but not ducked around. Not at this point, it's gone too far. That backlash 'fix' would be recognizing people as more than just cogs and monetary drain on profit. There is a school of thought that is semi-acceptable in those who are 'rich' or ultra-rich: that if you instituted a form of feudalism (Neo-feudalism), it would be a better system of life for all.

I will argue someone needs to open up some history books and read up on that. The low people on that particular totem pole, when situations became such that there wasn't enough of them to 'go around' yet nothing was done to change things, a change was forced upon those who had land, homes, and position by the very low people they thought were beneath them. Look at the end of the Middle/Dark Ages. We've had a very short reprieve when a strong working class worked for more of a balance both individually and nationally in the economic world. But we're rapidly falling into a new Middle/Dark Age where science and personal autonomy are being stripped away.

Issue: Resource Allocation

Resources aren't just raw materials. Although I'm sure, because it was in my economics class once upon a time, that it's still taught that way. People are a cost of business but sort of a 'renewable' resource that is unfortunately needing to have money invested into.

Again, there is a disconnect and failure in two different forms of thought and how they are interconnected: the very investment in any way into your backbone (workers and this is consumer/production) circles back and re-feeds into a supply/production system.

If the supply/production system fails to recognize it's function the consumer/production part fails, and therefor the supply/production system will fail. Maybe at a delay, but it will still fail.

I'll say this to any who reads this that are on the supply/production side: when consumer/production is suppressed by either costs of supply or the costs of living in order to either consume or produce, you're cutting your nose off your face.

This gets into my next point.

What do basics, personal goods/services, common resources and investment all have in common?

Goody on you if you said they are all part of a healthy form of economy!

Maslow's hierarchy of needs figures into this. The fundamental base is all about biological needs or requirements of survival: air, water, food, shelter, clothing, sleep, and reproduction.

Some of these are very basic: air, water, food, shelter. Yes, sleep and reproduction is important but can be called more of individualistic or psychological needs in a broader sense of Maslow's. In an economic form of Maslow I'd add education and healthcare in exchange.

I'm going to give another example as an reality check of what is truly at work here: A business uses some sort of machine to make something else. If that business doesn't maintain that machine, yes it'll work for a while but eventually break and the cost of replacing is higher than maintaining that equipment.

Translation: a business puts both the cost of production and maintenance on a self-aware and self-deciding person (machine) and business fails to realize personal experience and shouldering some of the costs at a minimum of maintenance is cheaper than burning people out or providing not enough for the self-maintenance of people.

In reality: When I talk about business, it's generally big business (sorry smaller and/or family business for not clarifying, you've issues but closer to people than the businesses I'm talking about). Also, a whole host of issues that started in the 1970s and are in the middle of collapsing now.

At one point, there was a huge population where hard work or getting a better education meant getting ahead. Also at that point, the working class had more of a say in production and compensation. Not to mention how taxes were structured, benefits earned and distributed, and hours worked.

Business/wealthy persons have always had an issue with those that tend to limit or have a say in their end game: money and power. However, those who are after those two things need to look at history, the cyclic nature of that game and how it ends. If you're looking at Russia-only, you're missing out. Russia I point out not because it's a rival nation. Mostly, I point it out because of historically, the population has been under someone's or something's thumb since the dawn of time. In short: it's almost baked into the populous to follow and conform fully. North Korea is either there or getting close.

However, in Russia, and I'm only guessing at North Korea based only on what is allowed and not allowed, cycles have formed or will be forming. Those under a thumb rebel, overturn violently, then the control systems put into place fail to stay active or allowed or the results are no guardrails and the cycle repeats.

I'm trying to explain a system that won't have those issues, and yes, most of the cyclic nature of those issues with Russia in particular are economic in nature. The current US/mythological Erf is too individualistic for the systems used in either Russia or North Korea to work, so another way needs to form.

I've already said that YOU have the power to create those guardrails and limitations. Because business is a social construct, not just economic. It's high time to take a spoiled toddler in hand and force good behaviors.

Sub-issue: Basics

Air, food, water, and shelter are essential basics. Without those, people cannot exist. That means business can't exist and the entire structure and all parts of the socioeconomic and governmental system fails. Hear that ultra-wealthy?

Since those are essential, and business runs on people for either ideas, consuming whatever produced, or even making whatever is produced, guess what? Shared costs needs to be mandatory but also individually controlled. Remember, individuality must be addressed, not 'one-size-fits-all'.

How do I propose this? For one: costs of creating issues with air, food, and water such as pollution are not something business can write off and walk away from. I'll point out any company (and there are still many in business to day and have done that write off/walk away) that's ended up creating a Super-fund site. They do pay to clean up, buts it's more of pennies on the dollar. The taxpayers pay the bulk for what is essentially a business mistake and/or problem. I'm thinking that more of the costs should be coming from those companies involved, or even owner/families of businesses who have been sold or even folded but those owner/families have benefited financially be held accountable. This means socially and financially. If you want to do business, mid- to long-term thinking needs to be part of your business model and also a willingness to off-set damages not foreseen but yet created by your company. You also need to be accepting and accountable to any messes and clean up of those damages.

Shelter is a bit more tricky. It's more of a three part hybrid: essential, common-held, and individualistic. Currently, most of all housing (apartment and house) are held by some form of equity company and is completely blind to anything but money generation. Buildings are poorly kept if apartments, if rented the same, and if bought and flipped the costs are double or triple of the cost of buying the property at a bargain and upgrading. I'm going to suggest a few things in another article, but for financial I'll address that here and now.

Until a situation can arise in that next article, housing would end up being highly regulated, and and financially put into different hands.

For the US, equity companies would be offered $.50 per dollar of fair market value of each property and placed into a community based corporation run more like a city council of working class and non-politicians. They understand the economics of living and I'm hoping that they are in the position of either hiring people who understand economic reports or are well-versed enough in economics to understand and for a more equitable housing cost-to-true supply situation. That would be for foreign or domestic companies who hold more than a couple of houses or one apartment complex. If the companies fail to take the offer, well...I have said consequences have to be paid, right? Yeah, you buy properties, jack prices up to where the market is no longer able to support those costs, force a collapse or bubble burst...that's the consequences: buy or forced hand over. No other will be acceptable to me.

Sub-issue: Common-held

Water, forests, healthcare and bandwidth are just a few that are common-held. I know I said water is a basic, and it is. But the process of keeping it drinkable/usable, the supply and such are more of common issues in water. Forests and bandwidth are common simply because all of those are used for enjoyment and/or raw supplies for production. We're a tech-driven economy and society not to mention business has created the situations of needing or requiring that tech, that's why bandwidth is a common.

Another item of common-held are things like transportation of goods and people.

Walking nearly 100 miles from where I am to the most major city isn't exactly doable unless you've a week or two. In today's world, that is slower than paint drying so isn't practical. Cars are used as a primary, but also creates other issues. There has been talk for nearly two or three decades of a rail line from one end of the state to the other on a north-south orientation but hasn't materialized due to various reasons.

However, if people are willing, equitable methods created and/or given for land and construction, that system could be created. Any excess positives could be put into either maintenance, replacement, or R&D of better systems based on existing structures. Or if good enough, a replacement of the original structure.

Good mass transit in smaller scales, and better scales of size like national or global could be developed and instituted. All of those, although could be done fully by automation, should have a more human component to them. Security, making sure of rail alignment and other structural issues, interventions for unforeseen crisis, and more should be taken into consideration and creates jobs. That feeds into that motivation for social and group standing or belonging.

Sub-issue: Individualistic

Things like clothing, the looks and layouts of housing, what you want for food and such is individualistic in nature. So, yes: food is a basic both economically/physiology but also part of Maslow. So somewhat of another hybrid.

The rest is fully individualistic.

These would fully need something like money to procure and be capitalistic in nature. That's why capitalism is still involved but regulated to reasonable levels.

So no: we're not talking about making everyone and everything uniform and 'gray'. We're talking about creating a system that takes into account relativity and even a form of social hierarchical need.

Sub-issue: Future investment

Believe it or not, most of our research is done more in with public money than not. I don't mind that so much although some forms or lines of research I have no clue why it's done. Grants are normally given out for lines of research and if it ties into something bigger, then yes, it can and should be done even if there is no financial gain to be had. It's still valuable for learning maybe an intricacy of social interactions, forming a new facet of creativity, or something like that. There is one that I still think is hilarious: finding out how much cows fart. Yes real deal and it ties to air pollution and climate change (and yes, I've seen this as a real thing both personally and scientifically). Although kind of stupid sounding, there has been outcomes of that research that has been valuable.

Drugs, science, and tech of various lines are more of what I think of when I think of returns. Business gets grants or some other sort of public money for either a given outcome needed or to develop an outcome that would effect society in general in (hopefully) positive way.

I'm also thinking more along the lines of NASA. What isn't generally known, is most of NASA's full budget isn't funded by public dollars. Rather, it's money made from patents of items and tech developed during the space race. Gee, interesting that, right?

So, what am I getting at? Most drugs, science, and tech (especially military) is funded publicly but produced privately and no return to the public on that production. Rather, the production is normally marketed in some way to individuals so they double-dip: gain money for R&D publicly and charge the public money for the item and gain profit from that sale. A win for business (or two) and loss for those who pay taxes and work to produce and buy.

What I will propose is more of a return of investment opportunity for the overall public/general economic system. For every $1 put in, at a minimum $.50 back for a period of a minimum of 15 years. New developments created privately but on the back of publicly-funded research would also cost. I know... but that's private money!

Scream all you want business. Government, you too. We've one group who won't pay for needed research without wanting immediate returns, and we've one group that doesn't want to pay for needed research but complains if it's not done. Again: a no win situation and unsustainable.

The public either needed (and mostly doesn't realize that its needed...no one person is fully informed or knowledgeable of everything) or wanted, paid for the initial research, gains and pays a secondary price for that item or thought, and if improvements are done privately, it's still based on that initial R&D.

So, I'm asking for $.10/dollar for 10 years on that. That's all. That's only for the first improvement. Anything beyond is fully privately owned.

If a company wants full profit off of something, then they need to start putting in money for R&D.

When it comes to military, it used to be a company built prototypes on their money and R&D, then marketed it to the military. Now? The military puts out what outcome is wanted, pays all or part of R&D then, again, produces and sells back to the very government agency that granted that money. Again: double-dip.

Sure, we can have public money go into the R&D. However, I'm demanding half price of hardware created (and software/firmware) until something new is fully developed and put into place. A good amount of things we have now is from a semi-military research department. Those things are generally developed into something publicly used and also marketed at about a twenty years behind that first development. So again: public money, then charged on production to the military at first, and then another step is charging the public for that tech.

Things that are made for military use and 'could' be marketed to overseas markets or developed into something publicly marketed and sold wouldn't be allowed until such time legislative and military agreements are ironed out, agreements put into law, and then signed by the executive branch. The public, on that score for military, wont' necessarily be fully informed for the required time held until declassified. Yes, some things in the military aspects of things won't ever be public in a person's lifetime although exist. That's not unusual and is part of national security. Not to mention, oversight for that branch of government would be more classified than not but strictly held in check. The military industrial complex needs to be regulated heavily, money into needs some sort of positive beyond just the item wanted/made (with attending ethics attached), and we need as a society move from that sort of economy to something more positive and self-sustaining.

Sub-Issue: Private

Last one, finally.

This is more for individualistic items or consumables in general, including food to a degree. Personally, I'd love to see more of ideas on a national level with some sort of structure that is more localized and job creating. The localization would be for more measured and/or individual made items when it comes to clothing and shoes. I'm of the thought that if something is fitted to the person and/or made to adjust to a persons body if it could change massively (um, women, I'm talking mainly for you), then yes, although it would cost more, it would be of such a way it could last longer. In short: whatever private company hold those types of companies need to somewhat be suppliers but regulated enough not to gouge makers or end consumers.

For farmers find ways of creating variety and economicaly sustainable in addition to have some overproduction but not so much it can't be sold either locally, nationally, and for profit overseas. In other-words: no more one-crop farming and ways of not burning out the land and having to use artificial means of having that land produce adequate crops. That may mean rotating each growing season, multiple types of plants in the same area, or new ways of farming entirely. I know orchards are a different animal: you don't cut down your trees until they can't produce anymore or if they get diseased somehow. I'm asking for any breeding look for flavor and hardiness and reproduction capability rather than sterile forms even if more flavor or hardiness. We've crops now that are essentially sterile. Let's not cut our food chains due to various reasons because one area doesn't have access to seeds for that crop from some sort of supplier otherwise.

Sub-issue: Monopolies and the hybrid issue

Monopolies anymore are two types, not just the one I learned in school. Horizontal is market share and limitations of companies involved. Vertical ones are of having control and amounts wanted from supply to final product.

Both have have the same issue: money and costs.

Oh sure, both can control costs, but they can also form blocks that set too low costs for supply, have very limited options for the consumers, and with that situation, can set the consumer costs higher than what should be. We have an agency or two that is supposed to prevent monopolies from happening. However, it's not been very effective as of late. The FTC for business and the FCC for media. Either haven't been doing their jobs.

Hybrids between the other sub issues are also a problem and can end up with major issues later. Some of which is similar to monopolies.

City-run utilities or publicly run transport....actually any that have more than one pure facet (which isn't possible) need clear guardrails, regulation, and input from all sides. Just because something is a basic right doesn't mean it's free. Either costs are through some form of taxation (and no, not a complete flip onto the ultra-rich, I'll get to that later) or via a system similar as to what we have but also has publicly determined pricing and payment systems.

Personally (again) I'd work the system like this: all common-held and basic needs be funded directly through taxes and inputs. Housing would be mixed in all areas and that would create a more even economic and social base that we don't have now. Also, it would be partially based, on costs, on an income based scale. I'll be going into taxes or funding in a future article simply because this will end up being a two part as is (I didn't foresee that) and taxes/financing will be another huge and complicated mess.

Utilities, water and bandwidth would have regional and local aspects. Again, this would tie into taxes/financing and also a future multi-part article on infrastructure. The only thing I'd say now is allocation and costs would be shouldered more along the lines of industry/business. Why? Well, major explanation and point-out is data centers.

The way data centers are cooled and energy use is huge and drains water sources. For utilities especially, Big Energy/Utility are taking or giving Big Tech cheaper costs for electricity, but that lowered cost is considered a 'loss' by them and that 'loss' is now being passed to the public, raising electrical costs anywhere from double to quadruple. Unreal. Not only that, Big Energy/Utility is putting in new infrastructure for those data centers that are in the middle of nowhere. Yet, there is one major company that swore they would be generating their own power and was...for a while.

Once AI was started up on either development or roll-out that changed the entire landscape. No longer is that the case. In fact, I can cite at least one case that is damaging and that center is in a heavily populated area. I'm fairly sure, too, the costs for bandwidth infrastructure going into remote areas will also be passed on by whomever puts that in, even if it's the same company.

All these 'Big' companies are generally ones who benefit by cheap property costs, cheap tax deals, promises of jobs that end up drying up after the center is built, and dry up water sources for the public or general environmental health yet are making billions and not improving or doing research on how to cool and power in part if at all possible.

Most jobs after building, are remote jobs, so that's why I say the jobs end up drying up. Cheap property costs, sweetheart deals for local, state and federal taxes hurt the economy. The benefits aren't much in the public sector not to mention the increase of using AI for things like call centers are taking jobs and yet no one is re-training people while the costs for re-training and general education are going up.

Transportation: I can hear Big Auto and probably Big Transportation screaming. Cars will still be a part of the transportation system I foresee. The train group will fight for minimal people on any kind of trains and keeping track of track quality and maintenance. They already are and that's just as bad, especially for trains caring toxic substances. Recently, there was a derailment locally over a major highway, killed at least one, and there is still a fight on who was at fault: the state because of a restraining wall not able to hold that car and it's load of coal from ending up on an transportation artery. The state is fighting back saying the rail company needed to make sure of the track and wall needed inspection and more. Guess what? In my view: both are at fault, I've seen that wall multiple times and quite often, and it's on an over pass bridge and I can't see how that wall, even today and it's new, could hold with a full load of coal in anyway it could either tip or jump the rails.

So, correct maintenance, keeping track of all aspect of the rail, in car safety and emergency medical care within reason, and all that: jobs.

Water and air would mean more science-related testers, researchers are with the expertise in R&D on keeping those clean. Again: jobs.

What it will cost is the rising costs on business and push back for yet more raising of costs to consumers when things are already at max and can't get any further raised.

Closing

For now, I'm at fifteen pages. I'm going to cut this now, and will continue this next week.

Beyond that, I'll start into the nitty-gritty of some of what I wrote today, and possibly for the second part of this. Those will be broken down even further yet. Since it's all part and parcel of economics, and honestly I feel for those who are economists and accountants now, it's a huge and broad issue and I'm sorry it's taking so long.

Have a good day and week.