PAY BY THE ACT OF DISTRIBUTION
and
TOTAL VALUE PUT INTO LIFE BUYING
is a business procedure that uses two new basic assumptions on which to base business transactions. The two new assumptions are:
To accomplish "earned status position" distribution of goods and services, instead of "taking an equal value away from customers" distribution of goods and services, a new kind of total value put into life price is placed on items or services for sale. The new kind of price is determined by whoever is selling something starting out by placing a high price on something that is the highest amount customers are showing as their "total value put into life" and using the simple idea: a customer can have a reasonable amount for the asking of anything with the new kind of price on it the same as or lower than the total value one has put into life. Seller determines "reasonable amount".
If no customers want an item or service with a high total value put into life price, a seller lowers its price until the price level is found by experiment where what is being sold is being received by people with total value put into life recognitions the same as or higher than the price of an item or service. "Price" ceases to have any relation to "profit earned".
Remember that "making a profit" from a sale (distribution to a customer) is no longer accomplished by taking value away from a customer. "Profit", "pay", "reward for selling or helping others" is by the act of distribution as an electronic data base bookkeeping entry, and no longer by "trading equals".
When selling items for resale, that is to say items or services that are used for manufacturing or distribution instead of personal reward out of life for a customer receiving such items, the idea is not used that a customer who has put a larger total value into life can choose to receive before customers who have put a smaller total value into life.
For resale selling a resale seller decides by personal opinion (individual initiative), knowledge of who are customers for what is being sold, and the nature of one's market area how much of each customer's order will be filled to accomplish an end result of a uniform personal consumer price for the same item or service throughout a resale seller's market area. Both small and large are able to receive for new ideas or resale. Unfairness or waste complaints are settled by courts, judges, juries.
Thus proportionally more of a resale item is sold to customers where personal use prices for what the items sold are used for are high, and proportionally smaller amounts of resale orders are filled where personal use prices for what is sold are low.
See the 4 comparison of a similar life in current system, and total value put into life system
This is "proportional participation" distribution instead of "whoever can out spend someone else with equalism trading" distribution, with "pay by the act of distribution" instead of trying to take value away from customers in order "to be paid for selling something". For the result produced by this different way of interpreting present business records, see 4 "A Similar Life In Each System charts.
Transition procedure: let those who have keep, and produce more for those who do not have.
Since taking value away from customers is not available in total value put into life business procedure to determine what the value is of something put into a business system, the alternate procedure for determining value that is already widely established and in place all over the Earth is used of "democracy" or debate to determine value, instead of seeing how much work recognition can be taken away from a customer to determine value.
Other names for "democracy" or getting together in a meeting to discuss something and then voting on what was discussed, (instead of seeing how much you can take away from someone), are "collective bargaining", "labor unions", "representation based on what one puts into life" (instead of what one agrees with or disagrees with as political or religious ideas, or the location of one's residence, or nationality, race, sex, or other ideas different from what one puts into life to be able to receive out of life).
Total value put into life buying among the many other interesting things it can accomplish, can also cause a changeover to a different kind of government where the purpose of representation in government is not to overpower or destroy someone by the basis for representation used, but instead is to include everyone (in the same way that everyone is included in the proportional participation arrangement of the total value each person has put into life), instead of including only the largest mob by a criterion such as ballots or bullets.
The purpose of debate in a representative government that includes everyone on the basis of what each person puts into life, is to debate and vote on higher or lower value put into life recognition for work or items the debate conducted before voting says are needed in larger or smaller quantities. Higher value put into life recognition is voted for work or items the debate says more are needed than is currently being produced. Lower value put into life amounts are voted for work or items the debate says are being produced in surplus or are not as necessary as some other kinds of work or items.
Individual initiative and freedom of choice by all members of the business system is then used to have people on their own initiative choose to change over to work or items for which higher value put into life recognition is voted, and stop putting into life work or items for which lower total value put into life amounts have been debated on and voted.
This kind of "democracy" or "democratic government" does not perform a function of dictating what each member of a business system will put into life. Instead it performs the function of debating about what is needed in larger or smaller quantities, and voting higher value put into life recognition for what by debate it says more is needed, and voting to lower value put into life amounts for what by debate it says less is needed. Individual private citizens then decide on their own initiative if they want to change over to doing what has been voted more necessary, and stop doing what has been voted less necessary as indicated by the total value out into life recognition that is earned for various ways to put value into life.
AN AMAZING DIFFERENT WAY TO THINK OF DEBT AND TAXES
"Total value put into life buying" instead of giving away (spending) part of your value put in recognition "equal to" what you buy, can produce amazing different ways to think of business procedure, (similar to the Earth rotating instead of the universe rotating).
An example is an employee of government using "total value put into life buying", (instead of being given money to spend as pay for work put into life), does not require that a government "collect taxes" as spendable money to pay to employees of government for the work they do as government employees. That much of tax collecting ends with this different way to think of what is already being done. That part of taxation ended!
With individuals or groups putting into life materials used by government using "pay by the act of distribution", a government no longer needs to collect taxes as money to spend, to pay money to individuals or groups that provide materials used by government. That eliminates the portion of government having to collect taxes to pay for materials used by government!
With the elimination of government trying to collect enough taxes to pay the costs of operating government, and when not enough taxes can be collected to "equal" the debts of government, a government "going into debt" by selling various kinds of "promises to pay later for money loaned to government" (government bonds, notes, debt instruments), government debt is also ended along with ending taxation. Government debt ended!
The same can be said for individuals "having to go into debt" to buy what has become available to be purchased but for which a person or group does not have the money to spend for what is available. Any sale to a private individual or group is the same as a cash sale in the older spend money to buy something way of doing business. Pay is by the act of distribution instead of by trying to collect money to spend from customers.
Trying to collect debts, or discounting what is put in to a smaller amount, and often not getting "paid" at all for value put in is eliminated. Various tricks, cheating, lying, bookkeeping manipulation, interest, carrying charges, taxes, etc., to give one less or no buying ability for value put in is ended. One's buying ability is automatically "the total of the value one has put in". One no longer tries to use the procedure of trying to convert "record of value put in" to "money to spend", which if for various reasons one does not receive an amount of money "equal to" value put in, one often thus feels or interprets that one has been cheated, stolen from, lied to in some way, tricked by some dishonest portion of "buying by spending money".
Thus a surprising condition that emerges from thinking of what is already being done in the little bit different way of this suggestion, is eliminating both national and individual debt! and taxation!
Not spending one's value put into life recognition to buy something (and instead using reasonable amount per purchaser to limit purchasing) produces some additional interesting results in the current areas of human problems dealing with unemployment, medical care, and retirement.
Because one no longer gives away, loses, or has reduced in some way one's recognition of the total value one has put into life in order to buy something, it becomes mathematically possible and reasonable to eliminate "unemployment". There can always be work to do for anyone who wants to work (increase one's total value put into life recognition).
The mathematical reason why "unemployment can be eliminated" with total value put into life buying, and pay by the act of distribution, is because one no longer gives away one's value put in recognition by trading what it is equal to, to buy something.
Thus the mathematical condition does not arise in the first place, that to have what one is paid "equal to" a certain amount, (to be able to purchase in a period of time such as a week what it takes to "live decently" or "reasonably" considering what is available for purchasing), it is no longer necessary to engage in a mathematical exercise such as: "to spend a reasonable amount to live, one must use a rate earned per unit or hour, such as $10 an hour, and multiply it by hours worked during a week, which may be a traditional amount such as 40 hours. This by equalism exchanging reasoning produces a figure of $400 a week to spend, or about $1600 a month, or about (52 times 1600) $19,200 a year.
That by human nature (spending all the money one earns) becomes a definition of the minimum amount of "equalism for spending" that must be earned to live reasonably or decently.
By such a process of reasoning, if for some reason (such as not enough work hours available for a full year of work at 40 hours a week), one works less that 40 hours a week or does not work at all, one thus does not receive the minimum amount of equalism for spending to live decently. Thus although one may be "employed", if employed for less that 40 hours a week (employed part time, or laid off, no work), one is thus not receiving earning enough money for spending to "live decently". Solution in an equalism trading business system : welfare supported by taxes. Solution in a difference arranging business system: permanent purchasing ability you never lose once it is earned.
By looking at "available work to do" in a little bit different manner, and whether what work is done produces what is needed or desired to live decently, it is mathematically possible with total value put into life buying to eliminate unemployment. The following is how.
If you do not have your total value put into life recognition taken away from you to buy something, this means that working a shorter length of time per week such as 20 hours instead of 40 hours does not mean that you thereby have half as much buying ability ($200 a week instead of $400 a week), and thus fall below a decent amount that can be purchased per week because you are not working enough hours to be paid enough money to exchange for what you receive (see 4 comparison charts).
With total value put into life buying, even if you work fewer hours per week or no hours, you stay in approximately the same "PROPORTIONAL POSITION" in respect to other purchasers in your business system (ahead of those who have put less value into life than you, after those who have put more total value into life). As an example, if you work half a number of hours per week such as 20 hours instead of 40, you do not thereby suddenly (as in money trading purchasing) have half as much buying ability that week, that can be below decent living. You are using proportional participation buying, not money spending buying.
It is thus possible and reasonable in effect, to divide the available number of hours of work needed to produce what consumers want to purchase, by the number of individuals who want to increase their total value put into life recognition. If the result of such a division arithmetic procedure is 25 hours a week for each person "employed", it does not cause each of the "employed" individuals to "earn less than a living wage amount of money to spend". They are not "spending, giving away, having it taken away from them" an amount "equal to" a reasonable amount to purchase per week.
Stating this simple arithmetic division procedure in a little bit different way, present "take a person's work recognition away to buy something" business procedure in effect divides the available number of work hours by a figure such as 40 (hours per week). If the result of that division arithmetic is less than the number of people "who want to work", those left over are "unemployed". Such an arithmetic calculation that produces "how many people are unemployed" with equalism trading business procedure, does not arise in the first place with pay by the act of distribution, total value put into life buying business procedure. What is being described here is proportional participation buying, not equalism trading or money trading buying.
An additional automatic feature of proportional participation buying that results from using pay by the act of distribution, total value put into life buying, is that anyone can retire at any time in life one chooses at the total value put into life level one 4 has worked up to by the time one decides to retire. No "pension plans" are required. No government collected taxes to pay for pensions. No private pension plans. No purchasing of private annuities or cash value retirement insurance by giving away one's work in life recognition.
At any time in one's life one purchases by using the recognition of the total value one has put into life. Any time in life that a person feels he or she is receiving what one wants out of life from what is available at the proportional participation position one has worked up to (total of the value one has put into life), one can stop "putting value into life" at that point and retire, and let other people who are younger, or who want more or nicer things out of life keep putting value in to earn higher total value put in recognition.
An interesting condition takes place with health care. Because pay is by the act of distribution, this means that the effect is accomplished automatically of "universal medical care" without having to try to navigate the almost impossible to accomplish quandary of "who to tax or mandate" to pay for medical care in a money trading way of doing business, and without having to set up a government bureaucracy to dictate who will and who will not receive medical care or from whom in order "to save costs" (spend less money on health care).
Any medical care provider can decide to whom he, she, or it wishes to give medical care, and "pay" for whatever care is given is by the act of distribution as a bookkeeping entry, instead of having to try to collect money for spending from either private insurance companies, or from a government that has obtained the money it pays to medical care providers by taxation in various ways.
A person needing medical care can choose any person or group desired for the care, instead of being told by government who one's doctor or health care provider will be "to keep money spending costs as low as possible". "Costs as low as possible to keep taxation as low as possible" ceases to be a consideration or limitation on medical care with pay by the act of distribution instead of by trying to exchange "something equal" for medical care.
Another startling relationship can take place automatically in pay by the act of distribution, proportional participation distribution business procedure. It is, finally admitting female human beings to full membership in the human race.
In present spend work recognition to buy something ways of doing business, in order to make it possible for female humans to live who as their work in life bear and rear children (motherhood), present money spending business procedure uses the band aid or patchwork device of issuing a begging permit to female humans whose work they put into life is bearing and rearing children.
Bearing and rearing children is traditionally not thought of (in male thinking oriented current human civilization), as actually doing any work in current money spending business systems. Thus for women not doing anything of value in life (such as the no value work of bearing and rearing children), such non working females are issued begging permits by government bureaus so that they can at least receive a pittance out of life to stay alive by begging since they are not doing anything of actual value, (i. e. motherhood).
The begging permit is issued to beg enough to live (buy, consume, receive out of life) by tradition either from the designated father of one's children, or if the father of one's children is missing, unidentifiable, or "unemployed" in a money spending system so he has little or nothing that can be begged from him, a begging permit is issued to female humans to beg enough to stay alive from a government welfare agency.
By either begging method, the relationship is substantially less than recognition that a female human bearing and rearing children is putting value (work) into life that is as worthy of being recognized as work as any other kind of putting in different from bearing and rearing children, (and especially if a woman purposely provides a replacement consciousness manifestation vehicle for someone who has died), and thus because of such work put into life female humans should be as much entitled to full membership in human civilization (including earning purchasing ability because of the work one puts into life) as any other person who is putting work in that is not bearing and rearing children..
With pay by the act of distribution, it is possibly, finally, to admit female humans to full membership in human civilization with bearing and rearing children just as much a buying ability in life form of work as any other kind of work that is not bearing and rearing children. That in turn can end the necessity in a money spending way of doing business for patchwork and often blatant dishonesty devices such as "divorce", "divorce settlements", "alimony", "child support", and welfare to support humans who do not do anything of value in life (mothers) but still ought to be kept alive out of pity if nothing else, or at least for their children's sake even if the mother of such children is doing nothing of value in life. That thousands of years long exercise in hypocrisy (or "fall from grace") can finally be ended with pay by the act of distribution, total value put into life buying, (referred to in archaic language as "the Judgment Day").
The references to "conquering death" when women are admitted to full membership (no longer surviving by obtaining begging permits if one's work is being a mother) in the quotations cited, refers to a more knowledgeable form of "work" as a mother, wherein humans instead of continuing to breed like animals (with whatever male is available when one is in heat), instead, females in particular as their portion of going through adult initiation rites, come to realize, understand, and use the portions of "resonation physics" that pertain to how to give birth to a child on purpose (instead of by statistical accident in about 3% of births), who is a 30 replacement consciousness manifestation vehicle for a specifically selected memory of experiences (personality, person, soul), whose previous body has worn out, expired, died of old age or disease, or was accidentally and prematurely killed.
Such a more knowledgeable performing of the work of bearing and rearing children has been referred to in archaic language for several thousand years as "resurrecting the dead", "human understood reincarnation", or "the mystery of God ended".
As for other instances where the "free hand out system of welfare" seems to be the band aid or patchwork way to deal with individuals in a money spending system of business who for various reasons "do not have money to spend to be able to receive out of life" (doing something of no value in life such as spending most of one's life being a mother to a family of children), or too sick or too old to work, proportional participation purchasing ability you do not lose, give away, or have taken from you in various ways, means the degrading "free hand out system" of "government welfare to the unfortunate and needy" is no longer necessary. Anyone receives what they receive out of life because one is entitled to receive it, and not because some group, government agency, or other group has taken pity on the destitute and gives charity or a free hand out to the poor and needy, (or buys votes in force overpowering elections to be a political party that stays in power to steal more and more by increasing taxes).
Because pay is by the act of distribution, the issue of "how to pay for an education" (such as by increasing taxes), ceases to exist. Admission to "better" schools or colleges can actually be based on better academic achievement in previous grades, instead of how much money to spend one's parents or other sources possess.
More details about reasonable amount determined by individual initiative, and "being fair".
If everything in the new "pay by the act of distribution" business system is already paid for, instead of any longer trying to take away some of the value paid into life recognition a customer has earned (equalism trading is no longer used to buy something), is it "fair" for a seller of something for personal reward in life to let the first person who shows up at one's place of business back a truck up to the loading dock and load up with all there is of some item or service such a customer can haul away because it has already been paid for, so that anyone who shows up later finds no more of the item is available?
If a personal use seller is unfair, some irate late arriving customers with high total value put into life recognitions might file a lawsuit claiming a merchant let people with lower total value put into life recognitions "steal" what was rightfully theirs to choose to receive BEFORE lower total value into life customers, (this is a difference arranging prior choice procedure, not a value taking away from a customer procedure).
How a personal use (reward in life) seller decides who gets an earlier choice, and what is "reasonable" per customer, is left to individual initiative, rather than to government bureaucracy. This is a freedom of the individual, individual initiative system, not a government dictatorship system.
Sellers with a talent for making all customers happy will have few or no problems with the new system. Sellers who "just don't get it" with individual initiative to determine "what is fair per customer" will find themselves constantly involved in "stealing law suits". Maybe they will eventually get an idea of "what is fair" or just go out of business to avoid the hassles of customers who object to their ideas of or irresponsibility about "fairness".
Pay in resale selling as with personal use selling is a bookkeeping entry based on the act of distribution, (this procedure is called in current business systems "factoring") rather than by trying to take value away from a purchaser "equal to" what is purchased. A stealable impersonal intermediate medium of exchange is no longer used to accomplish reward for selling.
Or in other words as an example, if some kind of material or service a resale seller provides is used to produce personal use items that end up with a price of $20,000 one place in one's market area, but have reached a reasonable amount per customer personal use prices for the same kind of item of $5000 at another place in one's market area, a resale seller would exercise the initiative of deciding to fill proportionately more of orders for his materials from the $20, 000 area, and proportionately less of orders from the $5000 area, in an effort to lower the $20,000 one place, and raise the $5000 personal use price at the other place.
Again as in personal use selling, any resale seller is on his, her, or its own to decide how to do such proportional distribution in such a way that one is not sued and has to go to trial for selling "unfairly large quantities" to some customers, and unfairly small or nothing at all to other resale customers.
Thus a new start up company of maybe only one or two individuals with little or no "total value put into a business system so far recognition" has just as good a chance of getting "a reasonable amount" of what it needs for starters, as the largest company or activity in a business system using the same materials. Maybe 10 lbs. a week of whatever it is to the new start up group, and the regular weekly order of 1 million lbs. of it to the largest activity using the same material in a business system. Its resale provider makes that decision, and is paid by the act of distribution whether selling 10 lbs. to a new start up company or selling a million lbs. a week to the largest user of the resale item.
Because taking value put into life recognition away from individuals or groups is no longer used as the basic process of business transactions, the "penalties" in "unfairness suits lost in courts of law" do not consist of having a certain amount of value for trading transferred from the recognition of someone who "lost a suit" to someone who "wins a suit". Instead it consists of a ("graduated scale", graduated magnitude difference arranging) process of beginning by issuing a court order to distribute "the fair amount denied" to whoever wins a suit.
If more complaints of the same kind repeatedly involve the same seller in multiple unfairness suits, such an individual or group by court decision may be denied the ability (business license revoked) to continue in the business activity in which constant unfairness suites are repeatedly filed against such a person or group.
In extreme cases of persistent and blatant unfairness after repeated court orders defining fairness for a specific individual or group, (stealing, people receiving not entitled to receive), the extreme old fashioned recourse might be instituted of "confining the individual" in some way, jail perhaps, or other more high tech restraints such as electronic tracking devices setting off an "apprehend the restrained individual" if he or she is tracked in an area prohibited by court order to that specific person, such as a person convicted of violence or abuse in the vicinity of his or her victims, revoked driver's license driving, or a convicted drug dealer in an area where it is known illegal drug production or distribution is taking place.
With a social ethic instituted that gives everyone a "hangup about fairness" (instead of retributive punishment or stealing from criminals in various ways, ways for lawyers to steal large amounts of money from everyone), the whole "lets be fair to everyone" based as its first option on individual initiative can become a self regulating procedure as it infiltrates human civilization, (instead of a legal system deteriorating as in the current instance into how many ways can be devised to take value put into life recognition away from anyone, that is to say "practicing law" consisting of an unlimited license granted by government to engage in stealing, whether as a lawyer practicing law, or lawyers as elected representatives in a "democratic assembly of lawmakers" increasing taxes and "distributing" taxes).
This incidentally actually accomplishes the elimination of money spending to buy something, to match the emotional sensation of "not seeming to hand someone money to buy something" when purchasing with a "credit card" or "debit card", or "welfare card". Human civilization had to wait for instant electronic communication for money exchanging-stealing to end, to check in a reasonable time (a few seconds or a few minutes) the honesty of 18 how much a stranger says he or she has put into life, to be entitled to receive out of life. A new kind of human using a new way of buying extending human senses to be aware of (networking with) all of 6 Team Humans on the Earth in business transactions with strangers, can be called "homo net".
With the procedure ended of trying to take value put into life recognition away from customers as the pay, reward, or profit for selling items or services, what is there to prevent a dishonest seller from increasing one's position in the total value put in data base, but not actually selling anything to anyone?
Stealing by manipulating bookkeeping records is easy to accomplish when a business system is using equalism trading with large amounts of not individually identifiable as to honest ownership of a "medium of exchange" or "money for trading". In a pay by the act of distribution business procedure, each entitlement to receive and who receives is an individually identifiable transaction in the data base of all buying and selling (total value put into life buying, or resale buying).
Thus the procedure already widely in use and understood by virtually anyone in (honest) business, of credit-debit bookkeeping, or "double entry bookkeeping", where an accounting trail can be traced for all transactions, can as with the rest of this new business procedure simply be thought of in a different way.
Instead of tracing what equalism trading values are transferred between accounts, and "books not balancing" potentially showing where false or dishonest bookkeeping entries have been made (instead of simply mistakes in entries), a different interpretation and use of the "double entry" system can show specifically to whom something was sold, and then various measures used to determine if the stated receiver actually received what was indicated (sold to imaginary individuals, more than "reasonable amounts" being received by some individuals, transactions reported to the data base that show individuals have received items or services they have not received and who did the supposed selling so that such thieves can be apprehended). This is a 13 yin yang-ing of the current problem of computer piracy.
Procedures easily accomplished with electronic data processing (homo net processing) are already being used to do constant comparisons of "reasonable rates of equalism trading amounts transfers" to detect where tax paying cheating is taking place in equalism trading based business systems.
With taxation ended in total value put into life buying, and pay by the act of distribution as a data base update instead of trying to take value put into life recognition away from customers, the electronic data processing procedures currently used to detect tax cheating in equalism reasoning based business systems, can be used to detect where dishonest data base updates are taking place where value put into life recognition is increased for an individual or group, but value was not actually received distributed. (See discussion above of fairness oriented court procedure).
Go to next selection 25 Stop The World I Want To Get On
Go to Contents
Last update March 10, 1998