by Tom Baugh
Conversely, you can increase the quality of life for others by removing sources of negative delta Q. When Ploi offered K'ette to have his sister Emma tend to the bunnies in their hutch to prevent their starvation and waste of value, he was proposing to remove a source of negative delta Q. A policeman is theoretically employed to remove local sources of negative delta Q, while I was employed as a Marine to do so on a global scale.
Individuals or organizations are willing to pay for sources of positive delta Q and for removal of sources of negative delta Q. But, experienced individuals often erect trust barriers to prevent themselves from being scammed by monkeys who have gone before or were rumored to be afoot. If you can successfully penetrate this trust barrier, and trade fairly with men, there is practically no limit to the amount of money you can make.
If you find a way to provide me with twenty dollars of value for ten dollars, I am going to be peeling off Hamiltons all day long to you for those Jackson-worths. I will eventually get saturated in getting so much of that twenty-dollar value such that I no longer perceive your service or product as worth my ten dollars. But even so, plenty of others will be lining up behind me to get some of the good stuff, too.
Sadly, we shall see how monkeys have constructed, using tools we have given them, fantastically complex mechanisms to prevent this free exchange of value between men. Monkeys have created these mechanisms so that they might insinuate themselves in the transaction and thus feed from these manufactured teats. And some of these mechanisms, although millennia old, were advocated by Hamilton and Andrew Jackson themselves as a means of increasing the power of the central government. We celebrate some of these mechanisms through their inclusion on the script. Each of these mechanisms are but one of the bars in the prison we ourselves have helped the monkeys erect.
Pump Value As the tribesmen discovered, not all individuals in a culture will have the time or energy to reach all their potential customers, although in our culture today the Internet and various express services certainly help.
To that end, Mar and K'ette created a means by which stuff could be translated in time and space to where it had more value. Their story illustrates the second means of increasing quality of life, which is to pump value. We pump value when we transport stuff from a quality of life matrix where it has less value, to a quality of life matrix where it has more. There are several ways in which this value pump might be arranged, but in all cases the relative value of stuff, push and time are adjusted to benefit the consumer.
One such value pump might be constructed to transport low value stuff to areas of higher value. We've already seen an example of this form when we discussed transporting oil from Arabia to the continental United States. An entrepreneur who carries a truckload of prepared meals to a disaster area to sell it for twice the retail price is also providing value in a similar way. Left to free market forces, this entrepreneur benefits customers by pumping low value stuff to areas where this stuff has greater relative value.
A related transportation of stuff is across time instead of across space. Og's fifth woman-weight of wood on a given July day is of little value to him, but is of significant value to a customer in November. Similarly, the relatively low value of plentiful gasoline in a station owner's larger tank becomes much more valuable during a crisis or shortage. For the customer to benefit from this value, we would only need to encourage the owner to have it available by allowing him to profit.
A different sort of value pump transforms low value stuff into higher value stuff. A fertilizer plant converts air, water and energy into ammonium nitrate. Similarly, Beri converted Pok Jr.'s low value bunny pellets, which had actually become a source of negative delta Q (-ΔQ) for him, into more valuable berries.
One can also pump value by applying stuff or push to conserve time. A water pump uses ten cents of electricity to lift ninety thousand two-liter bottles into the irrigation system. This pump also allows your wife to avoid serving your dinner late, by freeing her from the task of hauling and lifting all that water. The pump, then, saves you time by letting you get back to your nap quicker instead of wondering where dinner is. Similarly, that diesel backhoe lets you dig a ditch much faster than you or your right-wing extremist chain gang could with shovels.
A related value pump is for someone to apply their relatively low value time in exchange for stuff or push. This value pump, collectivist policies aside, would be available to all monkeys if they would only choose to do so. An employee does exactly this when he exchanges hours of his day for pay.
These three mechanisms encompass the entire spectrum of ways in which money is created. The first is to directly increase the quality of life, or add +ΔQ. The second, removal of sources of -ΔQ, is the counterpart of the first. And the last mechanism to create money, or equivalently, the accumulation of resources, is the pumping of value. In each case, the recipient of the additional value must decide for themselves whether the stuff or push or time which they surrender in exchange for the benefit received is a suitable price. You make this decision when you pay ten cents for a kilowatt-hour of electricity.
Each time you flip a light switch or change the thermostat setting, you effectively ask yourself whether that kilowatt-hour provides sufficient +ΔQ to make it worth the ΔQ you incur by the loss of the dime. If that kilowatthour cost ten dollars, you would make exactly the same decision. At a higher price, though, the threshold, of course, will be in a different location. Even at ten dollars per kilowatt-hour, I bet it would still beat hauling water.
These means of obtaining money, and the resulting transactions which, as with Og and Pok, benefit both parties, may be summarized in the following ethic. I believe this ethic is the secret to success in any economy, or survival in any crisis:
Always provide more positive delta Q than your negative delta Q cost. Other means of obtaining money or resources, which we will see shortly, range from the merely benign to the downright destructive. Those means, while they might increase the net worth of specific individuals or groups, only destroy value in a culture overall. And in a crisis, some of those negative means would probably get you killed.
Redistributive Effects The mechanisms which monkeys of all classes use to redistribute stuff, the foundation of quality of life, takes many forms. But, the effect of monkey redistribution is always to diminish the overall value in a culture. Consider the following diagram which illustrates this effect:
A popular notion among monkeys is to take resources away from those who have more of them, and then redistribute those resources to those who have little or none. By so doing, the monkeys claim, a sense of fairness or justice will be satisfied. As mentioned before, these redistributed resources typically only add to the number of those who live in subsistence. Even so, these resources are removed from persons who produce value and transferred to persons who only consume them, or who produce value less efficiently than the original holders.
Worse, the relative efficiencies in the two resource regions lead to additional waste, even if the transfer costs such as collection, transportation and distribution are ignored.
Consider that those individuals in the wealthy groups are wealthy precisely because the distribution efficiency is so high for them. Let's call the distribution efficiency for this group η1. Individuals in the subsistence group tend to be so poor because the distribution efficiency for them, often by their own hand or demand, is low. We will call the distribution efficiency for this group η2, which must necessarily be less thanη1. We can then define an equation which describes the change in stuff. We will express this change in terms of the energy cost to deliver that stuff. This change results from denying access to this stuff to those in the prosperous group and transferring it instead to the subsistence region:
Now, because the subsistence delivery efficiency is low compared to the wealthy delivery efficiency, the amount of stuff which can be delivered has been reduced.
Let's try a concrete example. Assume that the distribution effici
ency of a particular item of stuff is 80% for wealthy individuals. Also assume that the distribution efficiency is only 50% for the subsistence group. Then, as shown below, only about two-thirds of the original stuff ever makes it to the poor:
The culture has then lost about one-third of the original stuff which could generate quality of life, even if the remainder isn't pilfered, lost, or diverted by the redistributive agency itself. Further, as I stated before, the wealthy group can, much like that engineer designing a bridge or the grader operator shaping a road, create value with that stuff. This additional value which the original owner could have imparted would have led to more value and opportunity, while the poor can only consume it.
One might argue that the percentages shown are arbitrary, and skewed to make my point. But consider this. Wealthy people, in a free market, are more capable of getting resources they want without any outside assistance. The poor, by definition, are less capable of getting resources they want on their own. Otherwise, they would have already gotten at least a little more for themselves each day. These facts indicate that the wealthy are more efficient at accumulating wealth, while the poor are less efficient at that same activity.
Notice that I said "in a free market." We do not live in a free market. I shall cover in later chapters exactly how our current economic structure differs wildly from a free market. I shall also show how that difference causes the wrong people to become wealthy, and for the poor to stay poor. This effect, itself, is a redistribution, and as such, is inefficient. More on that topic later.
As our example above shows, the energy cost equivalent of a kilowatthour of electricity, if transferred to the social equivalent of Zimbabwe, would necessarily result in fewer resources overall. But when I say Zimbabwe, this could mean wherever in the world or the nation or your state that depressed sector of your economy may be. In Zimbabwe itself, this amount of energy results only in the equivalent of a shotglass of fuel or a few briquettes for the meal.
Regardless, in its original hands the electricity, or other form of energy stuff, is creative. But, in the latter hands after redistribution, this energy stuff is merely subsistive.
Food for Thought You are now ready to consider a few exercises. There are no right or wrong answers, so I'm not going to give you an answer key. The important thing is that you think about these issues and form your own opinions.
We have often heard the phrase "idle hands are the devil's workshop." Also, some spiritualists promote the concept that loving sleep leads to poverty. Which is better for your success, and ultimately, your well-being:
a) Pointless daily unending struggle pushing against a brick wall, or equivalently, performing piddly tasks simply to keep busy to keep the devil away? Simple tasks done while thinking are not in this category. In fact, given the intent of piddly tasks to make you too tired or busy to think, this type of thoughtful work would pretty much be classified by theologians as apprenticeship in the devil's workshop.
Or, b) Drowsing about, as Og and Pok might by the stream? And while drowsing, formulate a plan of action to more efficiently apply stuff, push, time or ideas, and then arising to implement those ideas?
Assuming that you answered b) to the above, why might spiritualists seek to cripple your personal resources which could otherwise make you independent of crisis or tragedy? Who benefits from your dependency?
Recall that some interpretations of the Bible indicate that Adam and Eve sinned and condemned us all by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Accept for argument's sake that ideas are the most powerful resource available to us, as ideas allow us to make more effective use of all the others. Also accept that God created man with a remarkable mind and placed him on a planet with a seemingly endless cache of treasure. If these things are so, then why would God, incomprehensibly, tell man to not use his mind to discover that wealth using the treasure map of math and science which He Himself created?
Imagine that you are Og or Pok, transported into your life and circumstances. Make a list of:
a) All the stuff you have at your disposal.
b) The various means of push you can employ.
c) The time you have available to push your stuff around.
While creating the list above, remove from your mind any limitations whatsoever. These limitations include your need to work at a job somewhere, your background or education, your economic, social, incarceration or probationary status. These include divorce, bankruptcy or other pending or adjudicated legal proceedings or related obligations. It's amazing the variety of snares monkeys have devised, isn't it? Or, for that matter, arbitrary laws which constrain your action.
For example, if you have a chainsaw, but it has been rusting away unused in your garage, include that as stuff. If you have the ability to paint houses, even though you might be an engineer or a teacher, include that on the push list. Also, include time at your current job as time available to you. You are, over and over, deciding to go there each day, after all.
Now limit yourself only by the principle that you will not cheat, actively harm or steal from another person, but instead you will trade with all men fairly as did Og and Pok. What could you then accomplish with your resources? Aggressively include those things which enable you to derive value for yourself while providing improved quality of life to others. Make a list of the top ten most productive of these ideas you could pursue and prioritize the top five based on the amount of value each provides to you. Include in your estimate of value the happiness you receive while implementing and attaining those ideas.
Note that leaving a monkey to wallow in need without giving him anything could be, nonsensically, considered as causing passive harm to him. For example, we have been programmed to be charitable, but choosing to not give to charity is not considered active harm for the purposes of this exercise. So, ignore any bleatings of the monkey that you aren't going out of your way to save him.
What other persons might benefit from these activities? Recall that Og found Pok's squirrels to be more valuable than his wood, and vice versa. How might these other persons return to you stuff, push, time or ideas which would be more valuable to you than what you provided to them? How, at the same time, from their perspective, might you provide more value to them than they returned to you?
Now start adding back limitations based on your personal circumstances. What would you need to change about your life, either immediately or over time, which would enable you to implement the top five ideas on your list? Are there any skills you need which you might learn for yourself, or learn from another? For example, could you offer your services as an apprentice, thus providing value in your service in exchange to the skilled master, to learn a necessary skill?
Now consider the artificial limitations imposed by the society of monkeys, including laws which protect no one from you but merely constrain your freedom. Consider whether these regulatory issues would not be required if men traded fairly and were held accountable for the results, or are simply restrictions which create unnecessary jobs for monkeys. Examples of these limitations, in order, might be drug laws, contractor licensing and tax accounting requirements.
With these limitations in place, how many of the top five ideas have now been placed outside of your reach? Why, and who now benefits from these ideas instead of you? Are there any ways in which you could game the system to achieve these goals while still obeying the letter of the law if not the intent or the spirit? And who defines what is meant by "gaming the system" versus "an effective business model"?
Consider the options you had to improve yourself before these artificial limitations were added. For example, was a potential apprenticeship rendered impractical? Who benefits instead? And why them?
Consider the beneficiaries of your efforts before these artificial limitations were added. Who, other than yourself, now loses the benefits which you might have otherwise provided?
Chapter 7, The Shamans
As we discussed in the previous chapter, the source of all p
ure wealth, or equivalently, other resources, comes from providing more quality of life to others than you cost them in the process. Og and Pok discovered this miracle long ago, and their tribe lived happily, growing in wealth and number seemingly without end. But this wealth and growth soon became the envy of others who sought to take a shortcut to satisfy their needs. These doomed shortcuts occurred to the envious in several flavors.
The first crack in the foundation of trust in the tribe was outright theft. This theft started almost innocently: a passerby took a stick of wood from a pile here, or picked a handful of berries from the cultivated stands. The root of this theft came from envy for the riches of their productive neighbors, allowing the thieves to justify their actions.
"Og doesn't own the wood, he merely gathered it into this stack here," they reasoned. "Had he not gathered all of it, I wouldn't have to walk so far to get just this one stick, or this other one, too, or maybe these, also, which I need."
"Beri is lucky that this fruit grows so well next to her hut. All the other brambles in the valley are hard to harvest, and grow in a tangle which makes them hard to reach," the others claimed. "She shouldn't hoard all the good fruit for herself."
In the early days of the tribe, before it could even be called such a thing, men the world over simply took what they might from nature and from each other. Only the strongest or the most cunning managed to have any food or other resources, but even they ultimately fell prey to others in an endless cycle of violence. No one could plan beyond the immediate moment at hand. Worse, property ownership was a concept which reached no further than a man's own hand and ceased as soon as what he held was snatched from his grasp.
Some groups of men, like the barbarian tribes, had ceded power to the strongest and most ruthless, hoping to convert fear into referential power for themselves. The barbarian kings ruled by no means other than that it would mean death for any who challenged their rule. Each man in a barbarian tribe hoped to win favor for himself, and thus a larger share of the resources the tribe stole from others. In that hope men would often turn on their neighbors, reporting the slightest lack of loyalty to their king.
