Humanitarian Government Section 8, Part 2, Subsection 2

Hello to yet another section of Humanitarian Government: Section 8, Part 2 Subsection 2: Role of Economics.

Yes, fifteen pages last time and I've got a shuddering feeling it might be as long on this. However, I'm not sure.

In this, I'll be talking about Economic Power structure design, innovation and growth frameworks, crises and adaptation mechanisms, and implementation with its stress testing and final integration issues. That final integration will touch on just more than national implementation.

In my view, to gain a leading position again, we're not only going to have to support people/families and the various aspects of jobs; but also break the way to show that whatever system we have does well, can be adapted to one degree or another elsewhere and finding common ground enough for the new age of humanity. Meaning, humanity has take more than a few steps on 'growing up' and all the attending behaviors and issues attached.

So, jumping in, I suggest you read #4, Parts 1-3, and #7 Parts 1 and 2, #8 Part 1 entirely, and Part 2 Subsection 1 to catch up to this. Thanks.

Framework of Issues and Possible solutions

I'm going to repeat my introduction that I have for Subsection 1. Sorry, but it's a good way of explaining a few things and saves my fingers from so many key strokes (yes/no on being 'lazy'). This is that:

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 power structure design issues.

Issue: Power structure Design

I've already mentioned the fact people tend to be hierarchical in thoughts and actions, and that means we also tend to allow concentrations of power or money. That is, if we don't define that as a society, build in safeguards, be strong enough to keep those safeguards solid, and changes be weighed on. I've already gone into justified voting and why I believe in that. With that, thought and input would need to be gotten and even then, I have already built in ways of consequences being addressed.

But all that accountability needs, especially in economics, be done throughout the system rather than single points of control. I know, 'that's slow', 'it'll plug things up and get nothing done', that sort of things. As stated in the justified voting, timescales and limits would be created and those shouldn't be allowed to be extended to end up being without limit. So, justified, randomized representation, and time-limited movement in government. Well, similar ways in economics would be applied, too.

To start with, we shouldn't allow concentrations power or money in the first place. That and moneyed power shouldn't be allowed to enter into any form of government either. Am I saying you can't be 'rich'? No, however I am saying you need to be socially aware and socially responsible. That means controlled economical personal growth and business economics needs to be balanced out with social (peoples needs) and profits.

As of right now, and it's November of 2025, we have eight men, eight multi-billionaire men, that have more wealth than four billion people. We've corporations that don't pay living wages, their employees on public assistance programs, yet we've also various groups and politicians that don't believe public assistance programs should be used unless 'needy'. Guess what? Both can be true at the same time and is. I could name the biggest corporation who uses this 'corporate' welfare to gain even more profit on a yearly basis. I won't simply because I can't afford to fight the legal issues it could bring up. When one lawyer's daily pay more than a month or two one individual can bring in, you'll probably lose the fight even with a raft of pro bono lawyers.

Now, I'm not going into public services and such right now, that's going to be later. But what I will get into is the various subsections and who gets what say.

Sub-issue: Generalized Economic enterprises

For now, I'm not going into much on private versus social ownership. But ownership isn't the same as having a say in any given company.

Back in the day, we had strong unions that had a say on pay, benefits, and other compensation. We also had a tax structure that looked 'high' for business, but it's strange. See, that age also saw unprecedented growth and economic health of this nation.

What information we get now on the economic front I could argue isn't true. More likely skewed sharply and it's not good.

It's very interesting that when I attempted to find federal numbers, that page on the official .gov web page isn't able to be brought up. It simply isn't found. That tells me a few things: the worst one is that the numbers are worse than anything put out into the media. Also, the national economy isn't nearly as healthy as claimed.

Those on unemployment benefits are those who are counted for unemployment figures to start off with. Not those who graduated off unemployment, wasn't able to find work, and now living either in assisted funded housing or on the streets. This isn't at their fault, either. When you turn people out from even call center work because AI or robo-voiced calls can do things cheaper in various ways and that increases profits in a capitalistic system...yeah, jobs will disappear and without re-training or something, people won't be able to get back up on their feet.

So what can we do?

I've already mentioned about jobs, infrastructure and other things in Subsection 1. But in the economic system I envision, everything is more interconnected: workers, communities, customers, and capital providers (money).

Companies or even the government pays out a lot to either develop, keep, or grow jobs. That's great, but...in reality does that system work?

Maybe in the past, but not today.

Workers should have a say in compensation for their time, expertise, and rising costs for living. What would that do? Well, for one, that would make big business be more responsible on their financial responsibilities rather than shuffle a good portion of them to the government. As stated above. I stress responsibility all though Humanitarian Government. Because when any part or parts of any given nation or society can get away with reduced or no consequences for their actions and behaviors, the line is generally moved to even less consequences to be paid when you do something 'bad'.

Communities should have says, also. Not just on 'yea/nay' on allowing a company to come in with economic benefits to get that company to come in. Nope.

Community responsibilities should be such that whatever company comes into an area pull it's weight economically and socially, transparent on what pro/con issues going into that area would be, not expect economic benefits beyond general operation (like tax or utility breaks), and be very willing to sign community contracts on equitable outcomes for those pro/con lists created and agreed upon by both parties. Will that cut into profits? Well, yes. But, in ways, the answer is also no.

When you're not forcing austerity, meaning the minimum output for maximal gain, you create a pool of people that spend. That spending increases consumption, and that consumption makes jobs and increases the use of whatever. Again: interconnected issues. The gains won't be immediate. I've said before: we as a society and as an economic system needs to learn that instant gratification isn't exactly a healthy thing: both personally or in business.

Customers have a say with their pocket books. In today's world, that pocket book is almost releasing moths before anything goes into that wallet and moths float around until the next pay period. That isn't sustainable or economically healthy. When your population has no way of having money for basics little lone anything extra, hear me well corporations, you get fewer customers and decreases in profits. This isn't me being an economic guru. I'm not. It's simple math and knowing that my household runs the same way as most other households. You feed and shelter yourself first, clothing might be next on the list and think: if a tee-shirt is $30, that consumer will wear that thing until it falls apart before buying another, even if low quality.

Business, you too have a say in the web of economics. Or those wealthy enough to provide potential money to potential businesses. Your responsibilities are to monitor your costs versus price on goods or services created, balance that out with social and community obligations, and yes, even profit. However, profit needs to be reasonable and over time. Again: responsibility and instant gratification needs to be noted and one of those curbed.

That's the four cornerstones.

Now, this I know I'll get push back on by business and I'll say this: when money is generated by stocks or bond-like means and increasing worth of a company is based upon certain economic behaviors, you're creating issues with the Stock Market. I'll point out very clearly: 1929 and you best believe that wasn't just October that started the Great Depression. That was various factors that harmed the economic structure throughout that year.

So how does a company who needs money to gain growth but it's profits are such that the amount needed as a gross amount can't be gotten right away? My first suggestion is getting rid of the Stock Exchange to start with.

Commodities are handled a bit different than stocks and I'm leaving that issue for economists. I'm not an economist, don't have all the answers, nor am I going to research every last detail on economic knowledge. I'm not here to become a PhD.

What I would do to replace the Stock Exchange, however is a few things.

The first would be an offering to employees at a fixed rate of cost with also contracts with a fixed rate of return plus some interest. Real money for real results for real outcomes.

Especially if those outcomes will create jobs even if needing retraining for those jobs. You see, morale is a huge consideration when you're talking about output. It's that taking care of your machinery analogy I used in Subsection 1. It's part of the maintenance. A decrease in morale and pushing more and more in 'efficiency' directions that have no real-world reality decreases quality and quantity of work.

As far as real money and real results? Well, tell me exactly how profits are made in the billions even when costs are high to the consumer, pay is low for the producer, and yet a company says they're losing money when they put into the books the amount of profit they claim?

Well, like loans and credit cards: that money isn't really there except on paper. This economic system is real-world and solid. Don't get me started on crypto. Only thing I'll say to that is: we already have money markets, banks and money systems that track money trails but also don't allow for things to be hidden because of block chain privacy and such.

Now, after employee offerings, then public. Not only public but also limited on how much any one person can own. I say this because of eight men. Eight. You want wealth, that's fine, but you're going to spread things out and no one controlling block in any of the cornerstone groups. Communities can also be involved in that offering. But it will all be in contracts with return of investments and some profit because they're putting real world money into a system and that real world money is limited.

Business will also have a say in public issues in exchange, that's where the negotiating tables for community and workers comes in. Basics and common-held items will be partially funded by business involvement in one way or another: contracts for maintenance at a discount, or by some sort of tax system. Workers and communities will have the other say on basics and common-held parts of the economy. See a pattern?

Individual production such as for clothing or art, that sort of thing, can be bought and sold on individual basis with individual earnings. Just not at outrageous costs-versus-profit conditions. However, the public at large based on taste and demand created the drive for whatever items.

Sub-issue: Innovation and Growth

Currently, growth is counted in dollar signs. However, Erf's economy isn't fully engulfed in dollars. Or whatever Erf calls it's currency.

Couldn't growth also be progress? Like better healthcare or medicines, better energy systems, and encouragements of social connections like family taking care of family, friends watching out for each other, and communities keeping track of the pulse of the populace and trying to meet what is needed and matched up with the wanted list. Those lists are two very different animals.

I've mentioned, too, that most research is done with public money, sometimes hilarious in how that research is done but directly impacts one facet or another of life.

What I will propose will trigger people who wants every bit of science to essentially be 'weaponized' by being secret and used for some advantage. That advantage could be of either military or monetary advantage. But what would happen if results and methods create paths the entire Earth could build upon?

For one, that's open-source and some of the best things on Earth has been either created or used in an open-source method. Now...I'm sort of a dreamer beyond my normal dreamer situation in this section.

What if, on global scales, various nations or regions builds on each others work: less resources put into duplicate projects and wanted outcomes, more variety of projects and all that data is shared. Now, that is a positive to the economy: both national and world.

On a national level how could that help? For one, scientists generally don't see national lines like governmental or even personally. If we can foster a safe spot for research, even have agreements with other nations to share and create scientific programs and manage that information gotten from the various forms of methodology.

So, a boosting of 'brains'. People who want to get ahead, or rather nations even, gain edges and creates multiple paths and faster outcomes. It's that one outcome strived for that has multiple pathways to be researched and developed (mind you, much research uncovers other paths or new outcomes that would be worthwhile to research and/or developed.

Not only that, but the issues we have with things like AI are being driven more along the lines of national security; not world-wide safety and ethical use. Now, I have issues on AI. I'll admit even though I know AI is something like a large-language model (or is). I've sort of tried to figure that all out. Either I'm think and will need a sledgehammer to break that wall, or it's simply my age and late-life exposure of that knowledge that makes my poor brain turn to mush and leak out via my ear because I can't comprehend.

But my issues isn't just knowledge. It's how it's being used.

Now, I do understand AI can help. The picture used for my articles? Yeap: AI and I used that because I have zero budget and I can't make a period straight. So AI assisting (assisting being the key word) can allow creation and creativity to bloom. It could also run simulations much more effectively but when used to take over jobs without jobs and/or training being available to replace the lost jobs but filling either new jobs created due to development with or without re-training, then your release of AI isn't a benefit. Not to mention since AI runs on data given it and usually that data is skewed in one way or another, that's also not something good.

So, whoever can lead the way or be home of science-related research centers wouldn't necessarily have some sort of national security or military advantage. I understand nations need their own identity, government and such and I'd call that national security. However in my dream Earth, nations aren't head to head via military strength. More like pouring money, time, and people on either implementation or R&D of world-wide benefit and ethically guard railed into world-wide programs that progresses humanity. As stated, those science-related centers, making sure of their safety and stability, and whatever other new definition of economic health would play a large part of 'progress'. In that future Earth, science would be more of a global common-owned resource rather than private or even nationally owned. That funding would still be publicly used for the most part, but there are ways of business to enter that research and development, I've stated last article on how I would handle that as in monetary terms, but guided between society at large and world determination of needed outcomes.

So, if we wanted to transition to something that is like this (open-source) we'd have to regain our spot as a research and tech leader, that also keeps in mind advancements, consequences and safety for all rather than just one nation. Everything is interconnected, so whatever is let loose wild against one nation or group, will eventually come back around changed enough to create problems. So, lets be grown ups and work together, please.

Monetary gain, yes, would still be part of the progressive markers. But it's more of a HOW that monetary gain was created in the first place.

You own a business, doesn't matter what the size. You've worker input and they say: we can do X to grow, but that means X,Y,Z is needed, but we're thinking and want more professional input to check, but the outcomes can be A, B, C.

So, you do X with the lowest bidder without checking on it's past work for X,Y,Z. That cost was thought to be of one price of reputable supplier or maker but the difference you pocket. Part in the business and part in you pocket. You also pocket money what would be allocated for more professional input on proving out if the idea would work. Then, you still do the idea at a higher risk.

A,B,C could end up becoming one or two out of the three (for this example). However, those one or two helps in whatever way, or produces something new and catches on or some other beneficial outcome. Granted, you may not be making as much as if all were made and successful (or worse, it all fails), So somehow, you still make that 'loss' into a positive either way again: personal or business. That sort of thinking and actions is how we've gotten here. That would essentially not only be a monetary loss, but also progressive loss. Yes, progress isn't something easily defined or measured, and that would be up to Erf's people and business communities. But that non-monetary gain would eventually go into a loop of educated people that produce or strive for even better outcomes than what is set out at the first, etc.

Now, I keep mentioning science. Partly because that's one of the most visible of mission-orientated forms that forms up the economic power base. I also gave pathways for both public and even private markets.

I'll address things for the garage tinkerers or some sort of stumble into something improved in a household or high school lab.

Your input is also very important.

Part of that is a more individualistic version of R&D and open-source. Now, I'm going to go down a bit of a conspiracy theory-type rabbit hole for an example. I warned you, so I'm now off the hook for anything that comes after this, not to duck responsibility, but I'm being very clear on my examples background.

There is a...physics theory (?) of zero point energy. Now, that's been worked on in various ways and allegedly has had success by independent developers in non-research situations. Well, traditional research situations like a lab. Thing is, those alleged developers tend to run into fates that not only stops their research, but also their ability to biologically function. There are laws on the books about how new information and science can be used and even patented.

Now, zero point energy is allegedly clean, unlimited, and is considered somewhat (allegedly also) top-secret and not supposed to be public knowledge or used. Rather, that is allegedly used or researched by a particular sector and for whatever reasons, being gagged from public use.

I've my theories of any of this was true. I'm also not weighing in on those theories of mine, either. However, that garage tinkerer would have produced a major societal benefit and should not only be recognized, but if it changed energy use (generation is the 'product') of machines via different delivery or whatever, then that would spark off various job and even a need for re-training to fill those jobs or movements in employment. That development might spark off lines of potential research and that feeds back into the science example.

Sub-issue: Crises and Adaptation

Now, I push this a lot in various parts of my upcoming, multi-part Infrastructure articles. But I'll touch on that here.

Now, how to deal with crises, adapt to those issues that can come up from crises, and what does that system need to have to address those.

First, lets define what’s needed: resilience and having multiple pathways to accomplish easing or rebuilding from a crisis. The smaller breakdown is that resilience needs to have redundancy, the ability to be modular, and has a huge need to curb or simply not have efficiency optimization.

I'm going to use energy as my example, since its the most widespread issue both economically, socially, and environmental impact.

This will go quick (or at least to me) because I've already wrote this into a draft of Infrastructure. But here goes:

We have the tech right now, just not scaled production, of energy generating systems that could replace more centralized systems. Not to mention, there are new methods of using the systems needed for decentralized power generation, clean and renewable, and can create micro-grids or even household power generation even after something major happens. The only issues is that certain conditions can wipe that out, but only for the affected area and very limited.

Yes, again I'm hearing screaming from various corners. But hear me out. Big Energy, especially you need to listen up. For one, most energy isn't from sources that doesn't produce either long-term issues (nuclear) or pollution in forms that aren't easily cleaned up or controlled (fossil fuels).

Now, Big Energy, what if you changed your model to more of maintaining systems, partial creation and dong R&D specifically geared on improvements? Generate money via the maintenance and partial creation, and progressively with the R&D and implementation of advancements? You won't be as time-limited because of finite resources, and that's my top benefit to you.

That sort of power system is not only redundant but also modular. But things for food or water, getting those back on tract would need two types of adaptation and management: fast and slow reactions or adaptations.

Now, financially, it's different that the actual supply issues. We're talking more along the line of costs of getting things to an affected area and how fast we need to do that, and post-crises planning needs.

Say we need bottled water in either the 8 or 12 oz bottles for drinking, gallon jugs for things like cooking, that sort of thing. One: the supply of bottles alone is a hefty cost. However, it's also a basic need and alternative methods of having that for a crisis situation would also have costs. That's where that non-efficiency comes in. Not non-efficiency on getting to those in need but of the costs and other attending issues of getting that water to wherever not being re-couped fully or even in part.

It's part of that social awareness and responsibilities, which also goes into a form of progress growth, which is a part of economic growth. So, it may take a chain, but it's still 'profitable' in ways.

Now, getting water, food, and other basics would have to be on a rapid response path. Healthcare for those hurt can be a close second, because a body can only survive only so long with no or limited water and food, etc.

But what of the slow adaptation? For one, each community or group can do some of the deciding based on how that community or group operated best. Two, the smaller scale of community or group needs to work hand-in-hand with the following: state, regional, even national responses and planning but also business needs to be on that planning, too.

Secured supplies that could be used short-term close to community or groups would be part of that module and redundancy points. The cost of producing, delivery, and keeping the supplies stocked properly and without issue would be only part of business costs.

Larger stockpiles in secured areas that are 'heavy duty' protected in multiple places state wide and coordinated with regional and national stockpiles or supply webs would put into place. Again, this part might be rapid response, but it falls into slow adaptation, too.

We have disaster preparedness SOPs even today (Standard Operating Procedures). But, those SOPs need to be reviewed, adapted, and changes on things like amounts, types of storage, etc on more than just every so many years or just after one disaster. Same for finance. How to back, or not back money, banking forms, monitoring of various sectors for developing crises or response.

Part of this type of change will also be trying to keep knee jerk reactions from happening or developing a blasé attitude on how to respond to whatever and however those disasters befall Erf.

Level-headed thinking, scaled responses to meet the demands of how severe the outcome is or could be, and economic breaks as such as post-crises cost increase or falling economy and such. Yes, I was talking more of physical or infrastructure, but the same ideas apply economically.

This is also why I'm more for a broader form of localization of supplies, production, and distribution. Fewer bottlenecks, more localized economic responses, and even somewhat of insulation of areas having issues from areas who aren't. Am I saying each area is completely on it's own?

Like most of my questions: the answer is no. Granted, communities and groups, in economic disasters, could de-evolve into forms of barter if needed. Even for production needs: raw materials that are fairly local for finished goods but economically scaled to local demand.

State and regional scales can, if in the very worst of outcomes, be able to create their own economic systems for limited amounts of time, create trade agreements on those scales for various goods or services, and making sure things keep ticking even if hard and not nearly as comfortable. This is why distributed economic systems (yes it's a thing) not only keeps things going without as many bottlenecks but also creates a more even economically resilient and recoverable system.

I also said this would up costs. It's true. Because business aren't using as few hubs for storage, distribution, or production. Rather, they have redundant facilities and such spread out, hiring more people, and such. But again: it's not necessarily huge profits or gains that are fairly close in time. We're talking long term. I say long term for most things because even short-term needs or situations affect long term outcomes. Besides, when I get closer to the end, you'll find out why.

Now, I covered all but individual preparedness. Because culture, resources, and collective responses are covered in that 'community and group' and 'distributed economic systems'.

As far as individual preparedness, we're talking skills, individualistic production and how to use those in an economic or even natural disaster situation.

If you've a work force that has time for individual pursuits and enough money for discretionary spending or saving, that allows for various skill and training that could be used in various settings. In short: a secondary skill set that can be called upon in not only a crisis situation, but even as preventive re-training. When I get into infrastructure, that production and disbursement will be much more evident on how this scale can work. Still, it's all that accountability and social thinking. It's not that you're not an individual anymore, just you're not thinking of outcomes just for yourself.

Sub-issue: Implementation

I've said this for government, and it follows economics as well, considering they are wedded.

Gradual, voluntarily, and non-violent.

Erf is born from a violent and globally shaken economic collapse that started all the other changes. However, if gradual, it won't necessarily be 'voluntarily'. That's because existing money and power holders will fight. In truth they are doing that now.

Blocks by legal, economic, and cultural means will happen, and are happening. In today's world, legal blocks are things like keeping Citizen's United alive, subsidies for multi-billion dollar profit companies continued, and ways of muddying the waters via educational and political situations or definitions with the addition of giving people a lack of personal time to self-educate themselves that create culture wars and such are being used.

The muddying of the waters are things like creating rifts and splits via how a life is lived, sexuality and reproduction defined and controlled, creating issues with education and still bemoan the issues caused by that interference, and using terms from by-gone ages interchangeably to fit whatever narrative that have negative connotations to encourage resistance to change. All these things can crush a new system from even taking hold in the first place, and if not nimble enough on positive outcomes, squash that system. That is where that long-term thinking needs to come in.

Pilot programs on various scales would need to be developed with supporting legal frameworks, having non-traditional financing, having ways of not being depended on traditional capital markets, and having cultural or individual narratives that legitimize alternative models. Thank you Zohran Mamdani for breaking the way!

I mention him because those who hold money and power in New York City are fighting as stated. They don't want to help pay for the very systems and services needed to keep that money or power in place to start with. Remember: the lower you go doesn't mean those people on the bottom of the business pyramid are any less important the the top. In fact, I'll argue if that base becomes riddled with issues, loopholes, or excessive expectations with fewer resources given: that will topple those on top. So, just saying.

As far as unconventional financing or independence, that means it may be a group or groups gathering up various forms of help, interconnected resources or expertise, and volunteers to create, keep alive, and prove out the benefits of whatever scale program or system that works out.

No, I'm not taking a million versions of independent monetary systems. However I am talking about a million varieties of economic systems that need to work together to create a nation-wide economic system that isn't one-size-fits-all and works for everyone, not just a few. But there is one more issue that can make or break a new system: a lack of realization of some of those systems might take longer than others to change and adapt and integrate into the full web of national economics. That's because regions and various economic sectors will lead and support, making a new system work faster. There will be regions and economic sectors that will fight, drag their feet, and try in ways to sabotage any change because they are comfortable and have 'an upper hand'.

This issue isn't just for a national scale either. That's another way of Erf becoming a leader of sorts. Not in a way that Erf dictates various forms of power (I'm hoping like hell Erf has learned from history that sticking its nose and demanding the same things as Erf does isn't necessarily practical or beneficial), but showing that the socioeconomic governmental system I'm proposing can work even better than their own, whatever that may be. Again, I'm not saying everyone has to have the same thing all over the place. Humanity may have pockets of compliant and un-motivated for change populations, but overall humanity are a hard-headed bunch that covers the rainbow in every possible way. However, even if wanting multiple different pathways, a good amount of times the end result is the same for any who are involved. That means those who want to either come up with solutions or some form of outcome need to come together, talk, compromise, agree on various methods to be tried to get to that outcome and be the humanity version of an adult.

Now, that uneven progress on adopting a new system or even government has a few other hitches. Like progressive politics today, younger generations want change and have fewer investments into what is currently available, so more bendy. The younger folks will need to coax, ease fears, and teach by action and word what those changes are all about. The older folks need to be willing to open up their minds to the fact change is a universal constant, that what they grew up with or even lived may not work anymore, and that younger generations have to have a say now because they will be the ones to live with whatever results, not the older generations.

In ways, I'm an anomaly. I'm older and have actually become more progressive as I've aged. Maybe that is part of me educating myself in part, being aware of my surroundings and society, or simply because I've watched and worked during this closing of free reign capitalist system.

But, for all of what I've said about crises and such, we've an outcome currently at play as a negative result.

Crises in the economic sector of life may be wave in nature (or was, faster communication and centralized economic variations of power has changed this), cyclic in historical context, and resists change. These behaviors have created bubbles and crashes. When those bubbles burst, they create crises and crashes. Now, we could change the system at that point to a more stable system and better overall outcomes for all facets. Have we? No, because we’re still having the same economic issues.

However, since the populous in general is wanting change, and economic hits the hardest, it opens the door for change and if not monitored or if simple solutions are offered and accepted as being good solutions to complex problems, we get what we have now: authoritarian capture of the government and economy.

You might have noticed and I've already said it: I'm for a more diverse, distributed system of not only governmental power or control, but also economically. Things on various scales may or may not work on a different scale or even area of the nation. That means I don't want my life monitored and dictated on how my life should be lived. Authoritarians do that. Technocracy and other versions of authoritarianism join up to seize controls of social, economic, and government systems and because those are so centralized and limited in nature, the base that either created or supported that takeover suffer the most and the change into something else can be slow, messy, forced, and even bloody. It's happened before, I'm hoping it won't again, but realistic enough to realize that history will 'win' out and repeat itself.

Sub-issue: Testing and Full Integration

When it comes down to stress testing and full integration both on a national and world scale, there is a whole host of issues that need solving. Some use words we associate with negatives. However, context in government and economics is key.

Both scales need ways of keeping whatever system or systems used compatible enough to be used fully. In a global system, major problems or projects that would be better handled by that scale (like dealing with space, pandemics or climate change) need coordination and methods of easing stress and friction. That friction can come in various forms and on various scales. Some questions, issues, and benefits have to have independence from other scales, some are the same across all scales.

Nationalism, resource wars, hybrid allocations of government, and economics are the top ones.

We’ve nationalism and isolationism being put into place. This world and how things are made or researched aren’t supported by being isolated. It also creates the ground for resource wars because of the lack of trade or other methods of gaining resources needed for something else down the line. Keeping the various allocations less of hybrids or cross-pollinated needs to be monitored and things changed as needed to keep that from happening. Or more to the point: less issues created by having that hybrid nature.

We also have two other issues that are real-world and active. Democratic capture by vocal minorities and technocratic elites who are manipulating participatory processes.

How did those come about? Well, I will attempt to put things on vocal minority takeover in a short nutshell. There's enough information for a book, and honestly, I don't normally write non-fiction.

The first major issue on that is religion. Remember me saying I'm not in favor of any organized religion and I limit the definitions of what I'd call a church? This is part of that distaste. Back in the 50s or 60s there were a few mega-churches based on radio broadcasts and physical congregation members that qualified those churches to be labeled as such. Over time, attitudes, involvement in public sector life, and such developed into quasi-political groups. I say quasi because the Johnson Amendment, an IRS based legal definition of religion and how politics and religion was separated and having 501c status (non-taxable/non-profit) was dealt with, exists.

Now, like I said it's a universal constant, time passed, Johnson got gutted and then made moot although still on the books. I've read it and even with a legal dictionary I scratch my head over the wording. But, because of that mess, the definitions that I could understand makes it very hard to call any religious group who speaks about political matters from the pulpit qualifying to have their non-taxable status revoked. During all that time, the groups that managed to get away with things gained more power.

The Moral Majority was the first major step that merged politics and religion fully. Needless to say, even then they wanted to keep women from having bodily autonomy unlike men, keep things skewed in such ways that white men kept power and position as primary, and wanted to create more of a Christian-revolving society and government. See? Authoritarian, patriarchal, theocratic and as they developed: technocratic.

Each new re-branding created stronger, more comprehensive methods and sphere of wanted control (not simply influence) grew.

That brings us to today: MAGA and Project 2025. Every last thing is either already being set up, or in the process of being fully integrating everything into a powerful and controlling situation that won't be good except if you follow the right religion, believe the same as everyone else in that religion, follow patriarchal precepts even to the detriment of the economy as it stands (economy is more important than government), authoritarian with technocratic tools so everyone acts the same way, thinks the same way, and keeps tabs on health on all fronts along with economic status.

Why health and economic status? Health because, and I hate to say this because it brings up the same sort of crap WWII showed humans are capable of, if you don't conform to whoever’s version of being healthy, there will be consequences that will still use your life, however only for the short-term. The end consequence I'm sure you can infer.

Economic, because over time those in economic and political control has forced hands and issues to where there is a huge homeless population with attending issues. Those, too, will be used for the short-term.

Problem is: where does that path end up?

One outcome that is wanted is Neo-feudalism. You work at the pleasure of someone else's demands at whatever job given, for whatever benefits that will be given such as housing and food, and little else.

Again, read up on feudalism in Japan and Europe, find out why those failed. So, instead of finding new paths and methods, as a society we're being shoved back from where we came, into already failed systems.

The last I tried to address already by the suggestions of allowing only time-limited decisions. I tried to keep stakeholder governance to a minimum or in their separate roads as best possible. Not only that, but to force situations that don't allow accretion of wealth or power into dominating blocks. This is for the risks of having stakeholder governance of business/economy being too complex, or having those that have time and skills aspects. Contracts and compromises I would call an economic form of justifiable voting and governance. I didn't address failed business growth or start-ups, but I'm thinking that if it's a business and if worker input is the primary idea starter for changes of product creation or something like that, then both sides not adapting or having other issues that simply failed on the onset, then yes, workers will get the brunt of negative outcomes, but not so much as to chill further advancement or harming life situations. No, rather whatever is proposed next have a more detailed method and outcome to get to whatever is suggested. If business, they're going to get the brunt and have to explain why, and how whatever investment had been done by non-corporate funds would be paid back and on what fixed timeline. This system encourages not only equitable blame/benefit and foster a want to make things work.

We've got military, financial, and cyber warfare going on constantly and are considered external sabotage. However, right now for the US, I'd argue we not only have that externally, but internally.

This system I've already said, needs to be nimble enough to show results fairly quickly. However, that's not conducive to a slower, gradual acceptance that has more of a chance of success. Erf, however doesn't need that slower, gradual acceptance: it's predecessor failed economically and new systems would be welcomed by younger generations that has seen the fall and aftermaths of what we have now both economically and governmentally.

Not only that, the nimble system needs to adapt quickly to things like: complexity issues, context and rules understanding on all facets, keeping things not so complex that there is cognitive overload, and the possible issue of cultural backlash.

I've already talked about those in a different viewpoint: more like an economist rather than a sociologist or humanitarian.

Like what I've said in the governmental system in one way or another: work, success, community roles, and I've mentioned several times here scales mismatch or inability to make either systems or scales work together, are all issues that need as little friction as possible and definitions of what any one category is. Remember: education isn't' just a power form, it's ways of opening up doors and thoughts that can create rather than destroy.

But that leads into something else: resource scarcity and crises reverting to zero-sum competition. Both needs to have ways of being worked around or avoided. Resources need equitable ways of being gotten on any given scale or involvement. Zero-sum, meaning the one side gets benefits and the other(s) get the shaft, needs to have ways of flat out being so socially unacceptable that it's not thought about. Until then, laws, consequences, and other forms of guardrails need to be put into place.

Mind you, too, of inequality and exclusion. Throughout history, no matter where on the globe, changes have created new groups to be included/excluded and that means who gains/looses. These too need to be defined, preventive measures put into place that aren't written in stone and can be adjusted easily (and since justified voting is a thing in Erf, that 'easily' doesn't mean a 'yea/nay' that can give a group or other collective more than another).

Closing

So, all that for a 'simple' facet of life, right?

To me, people under-think about how important economic factors feed into governmental or even social facets of life in general. Not only importance, but also the intricacies and interdependence of various forms of economy and how it can be positive even if the name might be off-putting. Because yes, socialistic principles are involved, but so are capitalistic ones.

When I get to infrastructure, I'll also go into specifics on various sectors economic variations.

For now, later.