This was put into one of the Keynes threads, but that may have been confusing. . . .kind of like Disney, anymore!
Regulate Purchasing Power First
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern Economies rely on arithmetic to function. Arithmetic has rules. If everyone gets the same percentage pay raise, plus the same dividend and saving percentage rates on accumulated arithmetic, and so on: Then arithmetic happens, according to its rules.
Since incomes are reliant on paid prices, or extensions of arithmetic(?), such as credit or forebearances from arithmetic(?): Then, (just like in health insurance prices), a rise in prices can be helpful in creating even more income.
Mainly, insurance companies, doctors, teachers, and The University of California higher education system: Do not believe that prices ever rise. It's all just like it was at the beginning, and is now and ever shall be(?). The President of the United States seems to think that prices actually tend to fall(?), who now even pays nothing for carfare.
Since prices tend to follow an equilibrium: Then a price rise for one is a price rise for all--who are affected. If the price of a set standard of living increases--then all are affected--If the percentage of the rise gets applied to the incomes, then some get more income raise, following arithmetic, and some get less income raise, following arithmetic.
The new trick is to not increase the relative distances of the all-affected from the standard of living. The trick is to keep the distances constant. If more and more can purchase less and less, then even people with even more and more have to pay, even more--to make-up for the prices unable to be paid by the people with lesser and lesser. The prices paid can still pay the lesser and lesser, but not those with the greater than lesser to begin with. More is needed to pay their raised incomes. The lesser and lesser paid, will be lesser able to pay-up(?)!
The alternative concept is to increase the liklihood of purchases, not to decrease the liklihood of purchases.
Anyone raises all incomes the amount of the rise of prices. In relative terms, the standard of living price is more affordable for the lesser paid, and is still affordable for the greater paid. Those people keep what they can have, and can even have more, just like before. The lesser paid can forgo less of something else, to reach into the goods and services pool of the set standard of living. Then even new standards become more affordable.
Then if the equal amount is indexed, to account for the decrease of the value of the units--More now being required to keep the distance between the incomes constant--then even more choices and options can be offered within the basic standard of living price--which is more than before.
Regulated purchasing power tends to diminish the need for further regulations.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred."
(A well-regulated "people(?)," being needed for the security of a truly free state, then the right to keep and bear. . . .well. . . .All kinds of "regulations(?)" can be changed!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulate Purchasing Power First
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern Economies rely on arithmetic to function. Arithmetic has rules. If everyone gets the same percentage pay raise, plus the same dividend and saving percentage rates on accumulated arithmetic, and so on: Then arithmetic happens, according to its rules.
Since incomes are reliant on paid prices, or extensions of arithmetic(?), such as credit or forebearances from arithmetic(?): Then, (just like in health insurance prices), a rise in prices can be helpful in creating even more income.
Mainly, insurance companies, doctors, teachers, and The University of California higher education system: Do not believe that prices ever rise. It's all just like it was at the beginning, and is now and ever shall be(?). The President of the United States seems to think that prices actually tend to fall(?), who now even pays nothing for carfare.
Since prices tend to follow an equilibrium: Then a price rise for one is a price rise for all--who are affected. If the price of a set standard of living increases--then all are affected--If the percentage of the rise gets applied to the incomes, then some get more income raise, following arithmetic, and some get less income raise, following arithmetic.
The new trick is to not increase the relative distances of the all-affected from the standard of living. The trick is to keep the distances constant. If more and more can purchase less and less, then even people with even more and more have to pay, even more--to make-up for the prices unable to be paid by the people with lesser and lesser. The prices paid can still pay the lesser and lesser, but not those with the greater than lesser to begin with. More is needed to pay their raised incomes. The lesser and lesser paid, will be lesser able to pay-up(?)!
The alternative concept is to increase the liklihood of purchases, not to decrease the liklihood of purchases.
Anyone raises all incomes the amount of the rise of prices. In relative terms, the standard of living price is more affordable for the lesser paid, and is still affordable for the greater paid. Those people keep what they can have, and can even have more, just like before. The lesser paid can forgo less of something else, to reach into the goods and services pool of the set standard of living. Then even new standards become more affordable.
Then if the equal amount is indexed, to account for the decrease of the value of the units--More now being required to keep the distance between the incomes constant--then even more choices and options can be offered within the basic standard of living price--which is more than before.
Regulated purchasing power tends to diminish the need for further regulations.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred."
(A well-regulated "people(?)," being needed for the security of a truly free state, then the right to keep and bear. . . .well. . . .All kinds of "regulations(?)" can be changed!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited:
