Category Archives: Axel Thinks

Tax the Billionaires: The Right Complaint, the Wrong Target

Posted on by
Reply

Listen on Spotify Here

Every few weeks a politician goes on TV and says we need to tax billionaires to pay for roads, or schools, or child care, or whatever the line item of the month is. It’s a reliable applause line. It also happens to be one of the emptiest arguments in American politics, and it’s worth walking through exactly why — because the emptiness hides two real problems underneath it.

Start with the arithmetic

We run a deficit of roughly $2 trillion a year. Not total debt — the annual shortfall, the gap between what the government spends and what it takes in, every single year.

Now price out the billionaire tax. A wealth tax or a jump in the top marginal rate pencils out, on optimistic assumptions, to somewhere around $100–300 billion a year. And the optimistic assumptions rarely survive contact with reality — valuation disputes over illiquid assets, avoidance, capital flight, the usual. Call it a couple hundred billion in a good year.

Against a $2 trillion hole, that’s a rounding correction. It’s not a funding source. If the government wanted to fund a road, it could fund the road today, with money it already spends freely without any new tax at all. The tax was never the thing standing between us and the road.

So the first thing to notice is that the whole “tax them to pay for it” framing is a costume. Money is fungible. No billionaire’s check gets routed to a specific pothole. The spending happens or it doesn’t; the tax is a completely separate lever that gets bolted onto the announcement for political effect.

What taxes actually do

Here’s the part almost nobody says out loud, and it’s the key to the whole thing.

Taxes are not how a government with a printing press “affords” anything. A government that issues its own currency is not revenue-constrained the way a household is. What actually constrains it is real resources — labor, steel, concrete, energy — and the inflation that shows up when government demand bids against everyone else for those resources.

So the honest economic function of a tax is not to fund spending. It’s to pull spending power out of the private sector, so that when the government goes and buys something real, it isn’t just adding fresh demand on top of everyone else’s and driving prices up. Spending matched by real taxes is roughly demand-neutral. Spending financed by printing is the inflation you feel at the grocery store and the gas pump.

Sit with what that means for the roads line. Taken literally — tax first, then spend — “tax the rich to build the road” would describe the anti-inflationary way to build a road. The version that feeds inflation is the one where they skip the tax, deficit-finance the whole thing, and print the difference. Which is exactly what actually happens.

But billionaire money is the wrong money to drain

If the real point of a tax is to withdraw demand that would otherwise chase real goods, then here’s the test for any tax: would those dollars have chased real goods and services soon?

A billionaire’s marginal dollar fails that test badly.

Most of a top-ten net-worth figure isn’t money circulating anywhere. It’s a mark-to-market number on stock the person already owns and isn’t selling. When a founder’s net worth balloons, it’s usually because the market re-rated shares he already held — not because he bought anything, and not because he sold anything. That “wealth” is inert. It sits there as a claim. It doesn’t bid on concrete, it doesn’t bid on labor, it doesn’t bid on groceries or diesel. It’s about the least inflationary form of money that exists, because functionally it isn’t in motion at all.

This is why a wealth-tax-for-roads scheme is doubly incoherent. To pay the tax, you’d force sales of static holdings — converting frozen, non-circulating wealth into live cash that then funds active government bidding in the real-resource economy. You’d be taking the least inflationary money in the country and turning it into some of the most inflationary. The cure is worse than the disease it claims to treat.

And even where the wealthy do deploy money, most of it doesn’t touch normal people:

  • Trophy assets — mega-yachts, $100M penthouses, blue-chip art — are a closed loop. Rich people bidding against other rich people for positional goods nobody else was ever going to buy. That inflation stays quarantined in its own market. You’re not priced out of a Basquiat you were never bidding on.
  • Land and housing is the one real exception, and it’s a legitimate grievance. When concentrated wealth does hunt yield, a chunk lands in the single-family homes, rental stock, and farmland that regular people actually need. That’s direct competition for the same asset, in a market you can’t opt out of, and it does push prices up.

But notice the scale even on the one channel that bites. That’s a housing-supply and distribution problem, measured by the flow of dollars actually deployed into housing — a fraction of a fraction of the headline net-worth numbers. It’s real. It’s worth caring about. And it’s still nowhere near $2 trillion. It keeps landing in the same place: the money-printing and the government’s own real-resource bidding dwarf every one of these channels.

The influence argument — which is the real one

Peel back “they should pay more” and you usually find a better argument underneath: we don’t want billionaires with this much power over politics. That one’s serious. But it’s a different argument, and taxation is the wrong tool for it too. The spending data proves it cleanly.

In the 2024 cycle, by the New York Times’ accounting, about 300 billionaires and their families put in roughly $3 billion — nearly a fifth of the almost $16 billion spent to elect candidates nationwide. Americans for Tax Fairness, using a narrower method, counted $1.9 billion from just 150 families. One man — Elon Musk — accounted for over $278 million on his own, close to 2% of all federal election spending in the country. And every one of these figures is an undercount, because dark-money channels keep a lot of political spending anonymous.

So the headline number is big: two to three billion dollars a cycle. Scary if you stop there.

Now here’s the number that ends the argument. Americans for Tax Fairness — a group whose entire mission is higher taxes on the rich — reports that these billionaire families each gave an average of about $9.2 million, which came to just 0.06% of their wealth.

Be clear on what that $9.2 million is. It’s not per race, and it’s not their net worth on paper. It’s the average total a single billionaire family actually wrote in checks to politics across the whole 2024 cycle — money out the door to candidates, party committees, PACs, and super PACs combined. Real dollars spent, per family, in one election. And it amounted to six one-hundredths of one percent of what they’re worth.

Now put that next to what an actual race costs, because this is where the scale becomes absurd:

  • A U.S. House seat. The typical House member running for reelection in 2024 raised around $2 million. Safe-seat incumbents win on well under a million. Even a genuine toss-up House race runs the candidate maybe $2.5–8 million on their own side. So one billionaire family’s $9.2 million cycle spend is, by itself, enough to bankroll the candidate side of several House races at once.
  • A U.S. Senate seat. The median senator seeking reelection raised about $11 million — roughly one family’s cycle giving. Only the marquee, nationally targeted Senate wars (Ohio, Montana) blow past that into the tens or hundreds of millions once outside groups pile in, and those are the exceptions, not the norm.
  • A governor’s race. Enormously variable by state. A normal, non-marquee governor’s race can be won in the low tens of millions (Washington’s 2024 race, for instance, ran the winner around $14 million). The eye-popping ones — New Jersey and Illinois topping $200 million — are a handful of expensive states with outside money flooding in, not what a typical governorship costs.

Hold those side by side. One billionaire family, spending a rounding error of its wealth, can fully fund the candidate side of a Senate campaign, or several House campaigns, in a single cycle — and dozens of them do exactly that. That’s the influence people are worried about, and it’s real. The point is only that it runs on pocket change relative to the fortunes.

Which is what makes ATF’s own number a trap for ATF’s own solution. Run the thought experiment. Say you strip a billionaire down to a single billion dollars — confiscate literally everything above a billion. 0.06% of a billion is still $600,000 — enough to be the dominant funder of a House race or a state legislative seat, and that’s after you’ve wiped out 90%+ of a ten-figure fortune. To actually make even a single $2 million House check unaffordable at that 0.06% rate, you’d have to grind the person’s net worth down into the low eight figures — at which point you’re not “taxing billionaires,” you’re expropriating people down to the level of a successful surgeon, and a merely-rich person still clears the political bar with room to spare.

That’s the bind. ATF hands you the very stat that shows how trivially cheap political influence is — and their own proposed remedy, tax them more, could never claw a fortune down far enough that the family couldn’t still afford to buy the seat. Political influence is that cheap relative to these fortunes. No tax anyone is seriously proposing comes anywhere near reaching it. You’d need outright confiscation down to eight figures, and even that wouldn’t do it.

So point the complaint at the right thing

If the actual worry is billionaires distorting elections, the tools that address it are structural, not fiscal: contribution limits, super-PAC rules, disclosure requirements that kill the dark-money loophole, and a serious look at the Citizens United framework that opened the floodgates in the first place. Those attack the spending directly. A wealth tax attacks a balance-sheet number that, as the data shows, has almost no relationship to how much a person can deploy politically. You could halve every billionaire’s net worth tomorrow and barely dent their capacity to write these checks.

The tax argument and the influence argument get welded together in political rhetoric because “billionaires are too powerful” and “billionaires should pay more” sound like the same complaint. They aren’t. And the cleanest proof is the spending data itself: the influence runs on a rounding error of the wealth, so aiming at the wealth is aiming at the wrong target entirely.

The thing all of it obscures

Step back and the whole “tax the billionaires to pay for X” debate does one useful thing: it keeps everyone’s eyes off the actual machine.

The government’s spending isn’t constrained by its tax revenue. It never was — that’s the whole point of the $2 trillion deficit. The gap gets financed. It gets printed. And the printing is the inflation. That’s the real transfer of wealth, and it’s a far bigger and more regressive one than any billionaire’s tax bill, because it hits everyone holding dollars and wages while asset-holders ride the appreciation.

The billionaire framing is comfortable for a politician because it delivers the applause line about making the rich pay, and the spending, and the printing — all three — while pointing the audience at the smallest lever in the room. Real taxes never come. The road, if it gets built, gets deficit-financed anyway. And the currency keeps quietly losing value in the background where nobody’s looking.

Who this actually serves

Here’s the part I want to say plainly, because the rest of this piece has been about mechanics and this is about motive.

The politicians running the “tax the billionaires” play — and it’s mostly Democrats who campaign on it — are not doing their constituents a single favor. They present it as fighting for the little guy against the oligarchs. It’s the reverse. It’s a worthless motto they never act on — a line engineered to feel like class solidarity, to harvest the votes of people who are genuinely getting squeezed, while committing the politician to nothing that would actually unsqueeze them. They say it every cycle and the billionaires get richer every cycle, which tells you it was never a plan. It was a slogan.

Look at what it costs them to say it: nothing. And look at what it delivers to the voter: nothing. The billionaire tax, as we’ve seen, wouldn’t close the deficit, wouldn’t fund the road that gets deficit-financed anyway, and wouldn’t touch the political influence it pretends to be about. It is pure position-taking. The applause lands, the segment ends, and the machine that’s actually draining working people — the deficit, the printing, the inflation that eats wages while it inflates the assets the rich already hold — rolls on untouched. Arguably the rhetoric helps that machine, by keeping the audience angry at a target that isn’t the problem.

If they meant it — if the goal were actually to reduce the outsized power of the ultra-wealthy and to stop the quiet transfer of wealth away from ordinary people — the to-do list is sitting right here in this post, and none of it is a wealth tax:

  • Cap the influence directly. Contribution limits, super-PAC reform, real disclosure to kill dark money, and revisiting Citizens United. That’s the lever that actually moves the thing they claim to care about, and it’s one they mostly won’t pull, because they’re drinking from the same trough.
  • Stop the printing. Confront the deficit and the debasement honestly, because that’s the regressive wealth transfer hammering their constituents every single day — not some billionaire’s unrealized stock. This is the big one, and it’s the one they’ll never say out loud, because it indicts the spending they campaign on too.
  • Fix the money itself. The whole disease is a currency that can be created without limit. Sound money — money that can’t be quietly printed away — protects the wage earner and the saver far more than any tax on the rich ever could.

Not one of those is as satisfying to shout from a podium as “make the billionaires pay.” That’s exactly the tell. The easy line is the one that changes nothing, and the things that would actually help are the ones nobody’s offering. When a politician reaches for the costless applause line instead of the lever that works, they’ve told you who they’re really serving. It isn’t you.

That’s the debate worth having. Not who pays for the road — whether the money you’re paid in is honest in the first place. And the next time a politician tells you they’ll make the billionaires pay, notice what they never mention: the donation rules they could tighten, the deficit they could confront, the printing they could stop. The slogan comes back every cycle. The levers that would actually work never get touched. That gap is the whole answer.

Trump’s Character and Leadership: The Pattern of Self-Dealing, Broken Promises, and Pardons-for-Access

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a habit in political writing of treating every Trump controversy as its own isolated storm — a scandal that flares, dominates a news cycle, and fades before the next one lands. Taken one at a time, each can be argued away: this one is exaggerated, that one is contested, the other is just how politics works. But step back far enough and the individual episodes stop looking like weather and start looking like climate. There’s a pattern, and the pattern is the point.

What follows is not a list of grievances. It’s an attempt to describe a consistent operating style — in his personal conduct, his promises, his relationship to accountability, and the way public power flows toward private benefit — and to ask what that style means for the quality of his leadership. Every factual claim below is sourced. Where the popular version of a story overstates the case, I’ve said so, because an argument that needs exaggeration isn’t worth making.

Character, on the record

Start with the one thing that isn’t a matter of interpretation: in 2024, a New York jury convicted Donald Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records (People v. Trump). The underlying conduct was a scheme to bury a story before the 2016 election — hush money paid to adult-film performer Stormy Daniels over an alleged 2006 encounter, which took place shortly after his wife gave birth to their son. Trump denies the affair. He does not get to deny the conviction; it is the first felony conviction of a former or sitting U.S. president in American history.

The personal history rhymes with it. The affair with Marla Maples during his first marriage is well documented — she became the second wife. You don’t have to litigate every episode to notice the common thread: a pattern of treating other people — women, employees, voters — as instruments, and a confidence that the rules bend around him. Hold that thread. It runs through everything else — and nowhere more sharply than in the way he now positions himself as a protector of women.

Protecting women — from everyone but him

One of the load-bearing themes of Trump’s politics is the protection of women and girls. He has campaigned and governed on keeping transgender women out of women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports — framed explicitly as safeguarding the safety and privacy of women and girls in the places they undress and compete. Set that posture against the record of the man striking it.

This is the same man a Manhattan jury found liable for sexually abusing the writer E. Jean Carroll — in a department store dressing room, in 1996. A federal appeals court upheld that verdict, the Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal, and in July 2026 Carroll received the roughly $5.6 million she was awarded; a second jury added $83.3 million for his defamation of her, an award he is still appealing. He denies her account. But the finding stands: the literal setting of today’s women’s-safety panic — the changing room — is the exact setting in which a jury concluded he assaulted a woman.

It is also the same man heard on the 2005 Access Hollywood recording bragging about grabbing women by the genitals without consent, and heard on Howard Stern’s show boasting that as pageant owner he could walk into contestants’ dressing rooms while they changed — including at Miss Teen USA, where some contestants were minors. In upholding the Carroll verdict, the appeals court noted that jurors could reasonably infer from that tape and the testimony of other women — including Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff — a pattern of abrupt, nonconsensual physical advances.

And it is the same man whose name appears hundreds of times in the released Jeffrey Epstein files, who kept a years-long friendship with a man who trafficked more than a thousand girls and women, and at whose Mar-a-Lago club an Epstein accuser says she was recruited as a teenager. To be precise, because precision is what makes this stick: Trump maintains he cut ties with Epstein long ago, and he has not been accused of specific wrongdoing in the Epstein case; released emails in which Epstein claimed Trump “knew about the girls” are Epstein’s words, and Trump denies them. What is not deniable is that, having campaigned on releasing these files, he obstructed their release once in office — hardly the move of a man confident the record clears him.

Put it together and the “protecting women” posture reads less like conviction than costume. It casts a small and vulnerable minority as the threat to women in changing rooms, while the person striking the pose is himself a court-adjudicated abuser who bragged about walking into those very rooms. You can hold any view you like about transgender participation in sports and still notice that the messenger has disqualified himself as a credible steward of women’s safety. This isn’t concern for women. It’s a man using women as a shield — the same instrumental use of people that runs through everything else here.

Promises as tactics, not commitments

A promise tells you what someone wants you to believe. What they do afterward tells you what they meant.

The Epstein files. Trump campaigned on releasing the government’s files on Jeffrey Epstein. In office, his Justice Department spent 2025 narrowing and delaying disclosure. Only after a near-unanimous Congress forced his hand — the House voted 427–1 — did he sign the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025, a law that on its face forbids withholding records for “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.” Then his DOJ announced it would miss the deadline to release them all. Promise, obstruct, get cornered, slow-walk. The transparency was never the goal; it was the applause line.

The wars he wasn’t going to fight. Trump ran as the candidate who would keep America out of foreign wars and warned that his opponents would drag the country into catastrophe. Then he ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025 without congressional authorization, and by February 2026 the United States was in a full-scale war with Iran that is still killing American service members as of this writing. You can argue the strikes were justified. You cannot argue he did what he said he would do.

Contempt for the machinery of accountability

The most revealing minute of Trump’s first term wasn’t a speech. It was a phone call.

On January 2, 2021, he called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and pressed him to “find 11,780 votes” — one more than he needed to reverse his loss in the state. It was recorded. You can read the full transcript and hear the audio the Washington Post obtained. This is a man who lost an election asking a state official to manufacture the exact margin of victory, then suggesting the official might be committing a crime by refusing. It formed the basis of a Georgia racketeering indictment. Leadership includes accepting outcomes you don’t like. This was the opposite instinct, on tape.

Where the money goes

Here is where character stops being a matter of private morality and becomes a matter of public cost.

Neither of Trump’s adult sons holds any government office. Yet since his second term began, Donald Jr. and Eric have become linked to at least ten companies with military applications that have collectively received about $3.7 billion in federal funds — three of which had no federal contracts at all before this term. Donald Jr. sits on the advisory board of a drone-parts maker with a multimillion-dollar personal stake while the Army awards that company contracts. ProPublica reported that the White House itself intervened to secure a $620 million deal for a company tied to Trump Jr. The only formal scrutiny so far comes from a letter by House Oversight Democrats — the minority party — asking the Defense Department’s own inspector general to investigate.

To be precise: no one has proven a crime here. Conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety are not, by themselves, illegal. But notice what makes that “no crime” claim possible — the executive branch that would investigate is run by the family’s patriarch.

The double standard, in one comparison

The cleanest way to see the hypocrisy is to set the sons beside Hunter Biden.

Hunter Biden’s signature business “scandal” was a board seat at a Ukrainian energy company in 2014 — a lucrative foreign directorship with no U.S. government contracts anywhere in it. Republicans made that seat the centerpiece of a years-long impeachment inquiry into his father. He was then prosecuted in two federal cases by a special counsel: convicted by a jury on three felony gun counts for lying on a purchase form about drug use, and he pleaded guilty to nine tax counts over roughly $1.4 million he had since repaid with penalties. He became the first child of a sitting president convicted of a crime — for a gun form and back taxes. His father pardoned him and was pilloried for it.

Now apply that same standard to the Trump sons: a family enrichment that is larger, contract-based, and running directly through the government their father controls — met with no prosecution, no serious investigation, and near-silence from the same people who called a no-contract board seat disqualifying corruption. The point isn’t that the sons are criminals. It’s that the accountability applied to one presidential son has simply evaporated for the others, and the deciding variable is who holds the pardon pen.

Justice for sale: the Walczak pardon

If you want a single episode that fuses the character and the corruption, it’s this one.

Paul Walczak owned South Florida nursing homes. According to the Justice Department, he withheld more than $7 million in taxes from his employees’ paychecks — their Social Security, their Medicare, their income tax — and spent it on a yacht, luxury cars, and shopping sprees at Cartier and Saks; with his unpaid personal taxes, the total topped $10 million. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison and $4.4 million in restitution. Twelve days after that sentencing, Trump pardoned him. Less than three weeks before the pardon, Walczak’s mother — a major Republican donor — had attended a $1-million-per-person dinner at Mar-a-Lago. Walczak served no prison time and owes none of the restitution. The sentencing judge had said there “is not a get-out-of-jail-free card” for the rich. Twelve days later, one was issued.

He stole money withheld from nursing-home workers’ own paychecks. Hunter Biden filled out a gun form wrong. Guess which one never spent a night in a cell.

The honest counterweight

An argument is only as strong as its treatment of the other side, so here is the best case against everything above.

Trump’s defenders would say: he denies the Daniels affair, denies E. Jean Carroll’s account and is appealing the $83.3 million award, and has not been criminally charged in connection with Epstein. They would add that a person’s private conduct doesn’t invalidate a policy position, and that concern about single-sex spaces can be sincere regardless of who voices it. The Iran strikes are defensible as preempting a nuclear-armed adversary that international inspectors had found non-compliant. The Georgia case and the New York conviction are, in their telling, politicized prosecutions by opposing partisans. On the contracts, the sons hold no office, the president likely isn’t personally selecting winners, and some firms won competitive slots on the merits. Hunter Biden actually committed the crimes he was convicted of, whereas the Trump sons have not been shown to have broken any law. And pardons are a lawful, discretionary presidential power that every modern president has used for allies.

These are real points, and a fair reader should sit with them. But most of them defend the individual episodes, not the pattern — and the pattern is what should worry anyone regardless of party. Even granting every charitable interpretation, you are left with a leader who breaks his word when keeping it is inconvenient, who tried on tape to reverse an election he lost, whose family fortunes rise with the contracts his government awards, and who trades clemency to donors while a judge’s warning about justice-for-the-rich goes ignored.

What this says about leadership

Leadership is not charisma, and it is not winning. It’s the willingness to be bound — by your promises, by the law, by the outcomes you didn’t want, by a standard you’d apply to your opponents and your allies alike. The through-line of Trump’s record is a refusal to be bound by any of it. Rules are for other people; commitments are for the campaign; the machinery of accountability is an obstacle to be pressured, staffed, or pardoned around.

You can admire the results, dislike the alternatives, or believe the coverage is unfair, and still recognize the shape of the thing. A country can survive a leader with flaws. What it cannot easily survive is the normalization of the idea that power exists to serve the people who hold it. That’s the real cost here — not any single scandal, but the pattern they add up to, and what we teach ourselves to accept by looking away from it.

Sources

Find Me 11,780 Votes (Election Fraud, Trump)

Posted on by
Reply

Every republic runs on one fragile agreement: the loser accepts the count and goes home. Rome had that agreement, then lost it — and once it was gone, nothing else held it together.

For centuries the Roman Republic chose two consuls a year by vote. That annual, peaceful handoff was the Republic. What broke it wasn’t a single villain but a slow rot in that process. After Marius’s military reforms, soldiers came to depend on their generals for land and pay, so their loyalty shifted from the state to the man who led them. Once that was true, Sulla marched on Rome, and Caesar followed. Power stopped flowing from the ballot and started flowing from whoever controlled the legions. The votes still happened for a while. They just stopped mattering.

That’s the lens I’d use for the current moment. The most dangerous thing Donald Trump has done isn’t any single policy — policies get reversed. It’s the sustained effort to convince tens of millions of Americans that their elections are rigged and the count can’t be trusted. Once enough people believe the vote is fake, the vote stops being the thing that decides who governs. That is the exact door Rome walked through.

And here’s the part that should bother anyone: the loudest voice claiming the 2020 election was stolen is also the one caught on tape trying to steal it. On January 2, 2021, Trump called Georgia’s secretary of state and asked him to “find 11,780 votes” — one more than he needed — and warned that officials could face criminal exposure if they didn’t. Every fraud claim he pushed on that call had already been investigated and debunked.

There’s an old pattern worth noticing here: the loudest accusations of cheating tend to come from whoever is actually doing it. “Rampant fraud” was never a description of the election. It was a description of the phone call.

A candidate who loses and calls it stolen — with no evidence, and a recording of himself asking an official to manufacture votes — isn’t defending the system. He’s exactly the thing the system was built to survive. Rome didn’t survive it. Whether we do is still up to us.

Post Labor Econonomics Videos – David Shapiro

Posted on by
5

Update 7-27-2025 – He added a 5th video Post-Labor Economics Lecture 05 – “Bridging the Gap” (2025 Update)

as well as a long podcast – Full Post-Labor Economics Deep Dive and Book Preview! Interview with Dalibor Petrovic

I am looking forward to the book.

original post below

Over the past couple weeks, I’ve been diving deep into David Shapiro’s Post-Labor Economics lecture series (linked below — all around 40 min). I’ve listened to each one twice, and then used a mix of ChatGPT, Copilot, and Grok to create four 10-point summaries — one per video. Then I asked ChatGPT to synthesize those into a single meta-summary of the core ideas.

Here are the 4 videos. Each about 40 minutes long. 

Post-Labor Economics Lecture 04 – “Day 1 Implementation & Solutions” (2025 Update) 

Post-Labor Economics Lecture 02 – “Economic Agency Paradox” (2025 update)

Post-Labor Economics Lecture 03 – “That which gets measured gets managed!” (2025 update)

Post-Labor Economics Lecture 04 – “Day 1 Implementation & Solutions” (2025 Update)

ChatGPT – Here is a 10-bullet-point meta-summary that synthesizes the key themes and insights from all four “Post-Labor Economics” video summaries:

  1. Automation is Inevitable and Transformative: AI and robotics are displacing human labor across all sectors, making wage-based employment increasingly obsolete while simultaneously threatening consumer demand and economic stability.
  2. Economic Agency is the Core Concern: Individuals require labor rights, property ownership, and voting rights to retain agency. As labor rights erode, property rights become the cornerstone of financial autonomy.
  3. The Demand Paradox: Businesses want to automate to cut costs but still need paying customers. Without jobs, people can’t spend—creating a structural contradiction that leads to economic collapse unless resolved.
  4. Rethinking Metrics: The EAI: Traditional KPIs like GDP and unemployment are no longer sufficient. The Economic Agency Index (EAI) measures household income sources (property, wages, transfers) and highlights the need to prioritize ownership income.
  5. UBI: Helpful but Not Enough: Universal Basic Income is necessary as a safety net but inadequate on its own due to inflation risk, governance issues, and centralization. It must be paired with decentralized, property-based income streams.
  6. Ownership is the New Wages: Future economic resilience depends on expanding access to trusts, wealth funds, co-ops, patron equity programs, and digital tokens to replace lost labor income with ownership-based dividends.
  7. Counties as Innovation Labs: With 3,100 U.S. counties, local governments are ideal sites for experimenting with and scaling post-labor economic models, offering granular data and tailored policy solutions.
  8. Banks as Economic Interfaces: Banks will evolve into the primary economic hubs, managing dividend flows, investment portfolios, and identity verification, replacing the role of traditional employers in financial life.
  9. Guardrails Against Technofeudalism: Preventing elite capture and concentrated corporate control is critical. Transparency, participatory governance, and broad-based ownership are essential safeguards.
  10. Market-Driven, Not Ideological: Post-labor economics distinguishes itself from socialism and communism by preserving markets and private property. Its goal is not wealth redistribution through state control, but wealth inclusion through distributed ownership and market-based tools.

I continued to have a conversation with ChatGPT to understand further. 

I asked it “”How does post-labor economics differ from individuals simply investing in the stock market to generate passive income?”

It gave a very nicely formatted response, below. 

🧩 TL;DR: It’s Not Either/Or

Buying stocks is one tool — a good one — for individual financial freedom.

But post-labor economics is about designing an entire economy where capital income is as normal, widespread, and accessible as having a job once was.

It’s not just you winning the game — it’s everyone getting a seat at the table.

Great question — and an important one.

🤔 At first glance, post-labor economics might sound like:

“Just buy stocks and live off dividends — problem solved.”

But post-labor economics goes beyond that in a few key ways. Here’s how it’s different from individuals simply investing in the stock market:

🏛️ 1. System Design vs. Personal Strategy

  • Stock investing is an individual solution — you build capital and income for yourself.
  • Post-labor economics is a system-wide redesign — it’s about building structures where everyone can participate in ownership, even if they don’t have savings, brokerage accounts, or financial literacy.

💵 2. Barriers to Entry

  • The stock market requires:
    • Disposable income
    • Access to financial tools
    • Risk tolerance
    • Education
  • Post-labor models focus on lowering those barriers by:
    • Distributing residency-based dividends
    • Creating local trust funds
    • Offering non-transferable community equity (you don’t have to “buy in”)

🏘️ 3. Ownership of Local, Tangible Assets

  • The stock market mostly involves ownership of national or global corporations.
  • Post-labor economics emphasizes ownership of local assets: businesses, land, water rights, data, energy — things that create direct, community-level income streams.

Owning Amazon stock ≠ owning the gas station, solar field, or rental housing in your own town.

🤝 4. Shared Governance & Resilience

  • When you buy stock, you have no governance power, unless you’re a billionaire activist investor.
  • Post-labor structures are built on shared governance — resident voting, dividend boards, and community stewardship.

💬 5. Not Everyone Can or Will Invest

  • A huge portion of the population has no stock market exposure. About 45% of Americans own no equities at all — and among the bottom 50% of income, it’s more like 10–15%.
  • Post-labor economics seeks to bake ownership into the system so that even non-investors receive income from capital.

🧠 6. Ownership as Policy, Not Privilege

  • Stock investing is optional and personal.
  • Post-labor economics treats ownership as infrastructure — like roads or clean water. It should be available to all by design, not just those who planned ahead or got lucky.

🌐 7. Resisting Elite Capture

  • The stock market concentrates wealth — the top 10% own over 85% of equities.
  • Post-labor models try to decentralize ownership — giving communities a stake in the economy before everything gets bought up by private equity or mega-corps.

🛠️ 8. Designed for the Age of Automation

  • Stock market investing was never intended as a wage replacement for the masses.
  • Post-labor economics is explicitly built to answer:

“What happens when jobs disappear, but people still need income?”

My next question. 

“What mechanisms does post-labor economics use to avoid the tragedy of the commons when assets are collectively owned?”

✅ TL;DR:

Post-labor economics avoids the tragedy of the commons by turning shared access into structured, incentivized, accountable co-ownership.

It’s not a free-for-all — it’s a designed economy, where people are rewarded for taking care of what they collectively own.

Excellent question — and one of the core design challenges of post-labor economics.

The tragedy of the commons refers to a situation where a shared resource is overused or neglected because no one feels personal responsibility. In a post-labor economy — where ownership is distributed rather than concentrated — this is a real risk. But it’s not unsolvable.

Here’s how post-labor economics intentionally designs around the tragedy of the commons:

🧩 1. Move from “Common” to “Co-Owned”

  • The key shift is from open access (commons) to structured, governed co-ownership.
  • Think: community trusts, resident shares, dividend boards — where everyone has skin in the game, not just access.

📜 2. Define Clear Rights and Responsibilities

  • Successful post-labor models include smart governance charters:
    • Who can vote?
    • Who maintains assets?
    • How are profits used?
    • What happens if you leave?
  • This clarity prevents freeloading and aligns incentives for stewardship.

💰 3. Tie Participation to Rewards

  • Dividends aren’t just handed out — they can be tied to local contribution:
    • Show up to meetings
    • Volunteer hours
    • Local residency
    • Use the service or shop locally
  • This ensures that ownership feels earned, not distant or abstract.

📊 4. Transparency and Dashboards

  • Many models propose using public dashboards to show how community-owned assets are performing.
  • When people see the numbers — usage, revenue, maintenance costs — it creates accountability and pride.

🧑‍🤝‍🧑 5. Decentralized Governance Structures

  • Rather than one central authority, post-labor systems push decisions downward:
    • Counties manage their own trusts
    • Co-ops elect local boards
    • Banks help automate compliance and distribution
  • Local control = stronger stewardship.

🏦 6. Hybrid Ownership Models

  • Some assets are shared (like land or solar arrays), while others are individually owned (tokens, local equity).
  • This creates a blended structure where people benefit both as individuals and collectively, reducing the temptation to abuse shared goods.

🛡️ 7. Guardrails Against Elite Capture

  • Ironically, many “commons” in the modern economy (like housing or water) have already been captured — just not by the public.
  • Post-labor models bake in protections: voting caps, local-only ownership, anti-speculation rules, etc.

It’s a powerful framework. Personally, I’m still focused on achieving my own financial freedom — and I encourage everyone to do the same. But once we secure our own foundations, we’re in a much better position to help build a freer, more equitable world for everyone.

The Fed has no power to stop government spending, which is the root cause of inflation!

Posted on by
2

The Fed has no power to stop government spending, which is the root cause of inflation!

Below is a quote from Senator Elizabeth Warren, during a grilling of Fed Chair Jerome Powell

Senator Warren: In other words, you don’t have a plan to stop a runaway train if it occurs. You know, Chair Powell, you are gambling with people’s lives. And there’s a pile of data showing the price gouging and supply chain kinks, and the war in Ukraine are driving up prices. 

You cling to the idea that there’s only one solution: lay off millions of workers. We need a Fed that will fight for families. And if you’re not going to lead that charge, we need someone with the Fed who will. – original link here. 

What does Senator Warren think he is going to do about price gouging and supply chain kinks, and the war in Ukraine?

The Federal Reserve literally has 1 tool in their tool box, and that is to raise rates. He can’t stop the war in Ukraine. He can’t fix supply chain kinks. While she has identified some things that are nominally impacting inflation, it’s not all of them. There is 1 big one she is missing, which she could impact as a Senator, Government Spending!

To be clear, what the Fed is trying to do is reduce spending by individuals so they aren’t buying so many things. They try to reduce spending by offering higher rates on bonds. The thought is that people will buy bonds paying 5% interest instead of spending their money on goods. The fewer people trying to buy goods, the less money is chasing the same amount of goods and the prices will go down. 

Elizabeth Warren lives in her own kayfabe financial world. She is bullying the Fed Chair, Jerome Powell, to lower interest rates because she thinks he is hurting the economy. She is right that higher rates are one of the things that is likely to hurt the economy in the long run. But the real thing that is driving inflation in the USA is government spending. The US government debt is rising by $1 trillion about every 100 days.

Like I mentioned above, if the goal is to reduce spending in the economy by taking individuals’ money out of circulation by getting them to buy bonds, then the government comes in and is spending $1T, there isn’t less money chasing the same amount of goods, there is more money!

The Fed has no power to stop government spending, which is the root cause of inflation!

More money chasing the same amount of goods causes inflation. It is that simple. 

Think of it as if you are at an auction and you have $100 in your wallet and 5 other people also have $100 in their wallets.. There is another bidder who has a printer who can literally print $100 bills at will and outbid you and all others at anything you want to buy. This bidder with unlimited buying power will bid up the price of things until they are beyond your reach. Are other bidders, who also all have $100 causing the problem? Or is the bidder with the money printing machine outbidding everyone causing the price of things at the auction to go higher?

It’s pretty clear in this situation that the money printer is driving prices higher. People don’t study fiscal policy (use of government spending and taxation to influence the economy) very often. Most people just want to work and then come home and live their lives. Because people don’t study it often, and it’s a pretty big and abstract thing to most people, it’s very hard to wrap their heads around. 

There is also, unfortunately, almost nothing anyone can personally do to impact government spending. 

I can only think of a few things you can do personally.

  1. Learn what is actually causing inflation instead of listening to the news tell you what they think is causing it.
    1. A couple of books I recommend to understand money and its role as a tool
    2. Broken Money: Why Our Financial System is Failing Us and How We Can Make it Better – Lyn Alden
    3. Gold: The Once and Future Money – Nathan Lewis
    4. Principles of Economics – Saifedean Ammous
  2. Have a personally sound balance sheet. Spend less than you make. Invest your excess income in sound assets. Stocks, Real Estate, Gold, Bitcoin. 
  3. Communicate with others about personal finances and government finances. If we all become more fiscally literate we might form a large enough coalition that we can start impacting government spending. But first we need to understand it ourselves. It is my hope that writing this and sharing it helps educate just 1 or 2 others about the topic. 
  4. listen to this podcast – Prices, Interest Payments, & The US Deficit: It’s All Going To Get Worse with Greg Crennan

As an addendum to the above, I have copied the 2023 Congressional Budget Office report below, in case it disappears in the future. It highlights how the government spending is projected to grow as a percent of GDP every year going forward. Do we really want the government spending more and more of our money? Do we think a central authority is better at knowing what we need than we ourselves do? I think not. 

I’ve also linked it below.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59014

Each year, the Congressional Budget Office publishes a report presenting its projections of what the federal budget and the economy would look like over the next 30 years if current laws generally remained unchanged. The long-term budget projections typically follow CBO’s 10-year baseline budget projections and then extend most of the concepts underlying them for an additional 20 years. This year, the long-term projections are based on CBO’s May 2023 baseline projections but also reflect the estimated budgetary effects of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Public Law 118-5), which was enacted on June 3, 2023.

Deficits

In CBO’s projections, the deficit equals 5.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2023, declines to 5.0 percent by 2027, and then grows in every year, reaching 10.0 percent of GDP in 2053. Over the past century, that level has been exceeded only during World War II and the coronavirus pandemic. The increase in the total deficit results from faster growth in spending than in revenues. The primary deficit, which excludes interest costs, equals 3.3 percent of GDP in both 2023 and 2053, but the total deficit is boosted by rising interest costs.

Debt

By the end of 2023, federal debt held by the public equals 98 percent of GDP. Debt then rises in relation to GDP: It surpasses its historical high in 2029, when it reaches 107 percent of GDP, and climbs to 181 percent of GDP by 2053. Such high and rising debt would slow economic growth, push up interest payments to foreign holders of U.S. debt, and pose significant risks to the fiscal and economic outlook; it could also cause lawmakers to feel more constrained in their policy choices.

Spending

In 2023, outlays fall to 24.2 percent of GDP as federal spending in response to the pandemic diminishes. Outlays continue to decline through 2026 but increase thereafter, reaching 29.1 percent of GDP in 2053. (By comparison, from 1993 to 2022, outlays averaged 21.0 percent of GDP.) Rising interest rates and persistently large primary deficits cause interest costs to almost triple in relation to GDP between 2023 and 2053. Spending on the major health care programs and Social Security—driven by the aging of the population and growing health care costs—also boosts federal outlays significantly over the next 30 years.

Revenues

Revenues fall to 18.4 percent of GDP in 2023 and continue to drop until 2026, when the scheduled expiration of certain provisions of the 2017 tax act causes tax receipts to increase. Revenues generally rise thereafter, reaching 19.1 percent of GDP in 2053, as an increasing share of income is pushed into higher tax brackets. (By comparison, from 1993 to 2022, revenues averaged 17.2 percent of GDP.)

Changes From Previous Projections

Measured as a percentage of GDP, federal debt is now projected to be 2 percentage points higher in 2023 and 9 percentage points lower in 2052 than it was in last year’s report. Overall, CBO’s projections of debt have increased through 2042 and decreased in later years.

Letter to Politicians – Ban Stock Trading and Create Term Limits for Congress

Posted on by
Reply

I put on my goals for 2024 to write at least 4 letters to politicians this year. This is my 2nd letter. You can find the 1st here.  I believe I would find very few people who would be against these ideas. There have been multiple bills proposed to rectify both of these issues. But none has ever been passed by Congress. Why? Ask your politicians. Vote them out if they don’t fix this.

I write these so you can copy, paste, send to your politicians if you agree with these ideas. We often think writing politicians doesn’t do anything, and it might not. But if they know there is large enough support that people will act on (vote them out) if they don’t do what we want, they will eventually do the right thing.  

“Bans on stock trading & term limits for Congress are *wildly* popular, yet never get enacted because they run against the self-interest of Congressmen. Here’s the solution: propose legislation requiring it  & just “grandfather” exemptions for those enact it. It’d pass instantly.” – Vivek Ramaswamy, 1-31-2024 X post

I am writing you to encourage you to vote in support and show my support for 

S.2773 – Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act. 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2773/text?s=1&r=1&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22ban+congressional+stock+holdings+act%22%7D#:~:text=Introduced%20in%20Senate%20(09%2F12%2F2023)&text=To%20amend%20chapter%20131%20of,trusts%2C%20and%20for%20other%20purposes.

Mr. Ossoff (for himself, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Warnock, Mr. Bennet, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Luján, Mr. Schatz, Ms. Baldwin, and Mrs. Shaheen) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Trust in the government, which you are a part of, has been eroding for over 60 years.

Public Trust in Government: 1958-2023

One of the reasons is that it appears that many politicians get into government after they are already rich and then proceed to use their positions to get even richer. 

There are multiple websites and X accounts to follow Nancy Pelosi’s stock trading.

 Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker ♟- @PelosiTracker_

The 1 reason why I like Ron Desantis is he sold his stocks before he became a member of Congress to remove any show of insider trading. While I don’t agree with all his policies, I appreciate that about him. I wish others would follow him. 

https://rollcall.com/2023/08/14/desantis-says-he-sold-all-stocks-house-disclosures-show-otherwise/

The fact that there is a bill in congress that has been proposed multiple times to ban stock trading but has not been passed makes me trust Congress even less. 

I ask you why this bill has not been passed?

As mentioned in the original quote from Vivek, there is also a bill proposed to pass term limits for members of Congress. 

H.J.Res.20 – Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may serve.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-joint-resolution/20?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22term+limits+congress%22%7D&s=2&r=3

I also ask you, why has this not been passed?

Gold, Silver, Debt To GDP, Wealth Preservation

Posted on by
3

“I think if everyone was to hold a little gold and silver (say 1%) it would send a message to the government that we are tired of inflation. Part of the goal of the FED raising interest rates is to get people to stop spending money and to invest it in bonds. I propose that instead of putting all your cash in bonds, what if many people considered buying just a $100 or $1,000 or $5,000 of physical gold or silver?”

The USA has ever increasing national debt. You’ve probably heard about it recently due to the silliness around raising the debt ceiling. Republicans always make a huge stink about it when they are in control of either the House or the Senate and there is a Democratic president but make no mention of deficits when a Republican is president. Anyway.

Regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on, every increasing debt is an issue because it is related to inflation. The government continually funding operations with printed money leads to inflation which reduces your purchasing power. In extreme cases this can lead to currency collapse as we have seen in Argentina, Sri Lanka and Lebanon recently. 

When this happens, locals basically lose all savings they have in cash. 

There are a few things to do to maintain purchasing power. One is to invest in the stock market. This has historically been a good place to hold money to maintain purchasing power over the long term. Holding German stocks after WWII, in Germany, even kept you mostly ahead of inflation!

Historically, gold and silver have been money. But in the Roman empire silver coins were subject to debasement as emperors melted down existing coins and made 2 coins with the silver previously used for 1 coin and continued for 200 years until they completely destroyed the value of their currency. 

The United States did this in 3 steps. In 1930 there was Executive Order 6102 which essentially forced Americans and “gold hoarders” to turn in their gold to the US government for a set price, $20.67 (equivalent to $433 in 2021) per troy ounce. The order also permitted any person to hold up to $100 in gold coins, a face value equivalent to 5 troy ounces (160 g) of gold valued at approximately $10,000 in 2020. The 1934 Gold Reserve Act subsequently changed the statutory gold content of the U.S. Dollar from $20.67 to $35 an ounce.

So, the Government basically paid people $20.67 for their gold, then said, you can’t buy it back, but if you could it would cost you $35/oz. Seems pretty crazy!

Step 2 of United States Currency debasement happened in 1964. Up to this time half dollars, quarters and dimes were made of 90% silver. After 1964 they were made mostly of cheaper copper. 

The final straw that broke the dollar’s link with gold was in August 1971 Nixon ended the convertibility of US dollars to gold on the international market. Up until this time, while much of international trade was done in US dollars, technically, anytime any nation holding US dollars could ask the USA for the equivalent value of gold. Because the USA had been printing money for years it would have been impossible to redeem all the US dollars that existed for gold, so we basically said, “you can’t”. It was technically a type of default on the US dollar!


All the above context is just for historic purposes to get around to the point below and to mention why gold and silver are not used as money today. Governments always print more money than they can pay back. It happened in Rome, it happened in America, and it will likely happen again hundreds of years in the future (unless Bitcoin takes over as hard money, but that is a topic for a different post!)

Back to government debt, “Since 1800, 51 out of 52 countries with gross government debt greater than 130% have defaulted, either through restructuring, devaluation, high inflation or outright default. The IMF expects US government (USG) debt to GDP to be a record

141% by year-end 2020.” – Hirschmann Capital 

This was partially due to the reduced GDP from Covid but also due to increased gov spending. In 2023 you can see Debt to GDP is “down” to only 120%. 

So, what is the average person to do? As mentioned above, holding stocks is a good option. I personally do hold most of my wealth in stocks. Real Estate is another option that many people use. Bitcoin is also something I personally hold. I think Bitcoin has many long term benefits for wealth preservation. You can also hold bonds. But if you are holding a bond paying 5% and inflation continues up to 10% or 100%, like Argeintia, that won’t preserve your wealth. But this post is about physical Gold and Silver. I think holding physical gold and silver probably provides a little of a long term hedge against long term inflation. In the short term it certainly can be very volatile. But holding cash is always destined to go down over time. While over time, gold and silver are destined to go up, especially gold. 

You can see the declining value of the dollar here. 

While you can see the value of gold rising over time below. 

Silver chart, can be toggled to be inflation adjusted

https://www.macrotrends.net/1470/historical-silver-prices-100-year-chart

Gold chart, can be toggled to be inflation adjusted

https://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-year-chart

If you want to learn some more about the history of gold as currency this was a great video I watched/listened to. 

If you want to learn about buying physical gold and silver there are plenty of great youtube videos. Here is a video about buying silver I listened to recently. 

Here is another good channel – SpegTacular

I am only allocating a small percentage of my net worth towards physical gold and silver about 1% of total net worth, for now. In the grand scheme of things, I think this might not be very impactful. Some data says that “12% Of All Americans Own Gold, 14.7% Own Silver” .

I think if everyone was to hold a little gold and silver (say 1%) it would send a message to the government that we are tired of inflation. Part of the goal of the FED raising interest rates is to get people to stop spending money and to invest it in bonds. I propose that instead of putting all your cash in bonds, what if many people considered buying just $100 or $1,000 or $5,000 of physical gold or silver? Buying gold and silver would achieve the same end goal the government wants of removing money from the system, but then people would end up holding something of value, physical gold and silver, instead of bonds, which are currently returning 5% while inflation is at 7% or more yet. You are losing money holding bonds.

To be absolutely clear, I don’t think everyone should go sell all their stocks and put 100% into physical gold. But I think allocating 1% smartly for the reasons above is a pretty good idea. 

I don’t have time here to review why I have been specifically saying “physical gold and silver” so many times. But this has been reviewed in many places.

Here is a good video and here is a good article about why physical gold or silver over paper gold and silver. 

Personally I have used https://sdbullion.com/ to buy gold and silver online and always check their deals page. https://sdbullion.com/deals  I get no commission off this, just sharing my experience.
This guy also made a ranking of many of the online bullion dealers. 

Abigail Disney

Posted on by
Reply

Abigail Disney (Disney Heiress worth $120 million) thinks that governments should tax the rich more. I guess the assumption is that then the government would do “good” with that money? But would they? Data says that giving money to people directly often is much better than having “someone else” decide what is best for them. 

There are multiple examples of this

Home June 2023

The Finnish Experiment 

California Program Giving $500 No-Strings-Attached Stipends Pays Off, Study Finds

So, instead of deciding what is good for others, why doesn’t she embark on a personal redistribution? I proposed a similar, self funded, basic income idea to Mark Zuckerburg in 2017. He never took me up on that. 
Here is the basic setup.

$30k/year*500 people =$15 million *5 years = Cost of program $75 million over 5 years.

Since Abigail is worth $120 million and has rising stock, she will likely come out with over $75 million at the end of the project!

I am sure someone in Stockton who did this project would be happy to take some money to fund a larger project. 

Or I am sure Andrew Yang would be happy to help facilitate such a project. 
We are waiting for a large donor to step up and fund such a large scale, long term project. 

Be a leader Abigail. 

Bitcoin As Legal Tender Around The World

Posted on by
Reply

One interesting thing about bitcoin adoption is places that allow it to be used either as a legal tender (El Salvador) or for payments (many businesses). I think what is most exciting is the game theory that plays out as more and more nations adopt bitcoin as a legal tender. Being a finite resource, only 21 million bitcoins, will ever be created, there is an incentive to adopt early as a reserve asset. “Getting in on the ‘ground’ floor”. 

Of course, some countries have less incentive to do that. For example, the United States enjoys huge benefits of the USD being the world reserve currency. To adopt bitcoin openly would show lowering faith in the USD, so likely, America will be one of the last countries to openly buy bitcoin. 

El Salvador was the first country to adopt bitcoin as legal tender. It has already given up it’s own currency and all transactions in the country were beign done in US dollars. Adopting bitcoin as a secondary payment method/legal tender really isn’t that big of a deal. 

Now there are a few more small autonomous regions that have started to also allow Bitcoin to be used as legal tenders:

 Lugano, Switzerland

Prospera, Roatan Island, Honduras

Madeira, Portugal

Rio De Janerio (for property tax payments)

The best number I could find was El Salvador owns 1800 bitcoins. I believe it is a few more as this was in Jan 2022. When comparing their population (6.5 million) to the world population (7.9 billion) and their bitcoin holdings (1800) to total bitcoin available (21 million) they hold about the right proportion relative to the world. But Since they are accumulating more, while the rest of the world doesn’t, they should pull ahead and have the economic benefits of that as the price rises. 

There are a few other more autonomous areas that have also legalized bitcoin. 

“Lugano, Switzerland, has formed a partnership with stablecoin issuer Tether to establish bitcoin, Tether and Lugano’s own LVGA Points token as essentially legal tender in the city.r”

“Rio De Janeiro Is Giving People a 10% Discount to Pay Taxes in Bitcoin”

Honduras’ Roatán Island, Portugal’s Madeira to ‘Adopt Bitcoin’

https://cryptonews.com/news/honduras-roatan-island-portugals-madeira-to-adopt-bitcoin-mexican-senator-sends-bullish-sign-too.htm

More information about what exactly Madeira is. 

More information about what exactly Prospera (Rotan Island, Honduras) is.

Of course, Bitcoin is still quite risky. Then again, everything is risky.

Stocks are risky as any 1 company could go under. 

Holding cash is risky as it can be inflated away as a country prints more of it. This has happened in many countries in history. Just because it hasn’t happened in the USA yet is not a good reason to think it couldn’t! (I recommend this book , Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order: Why Nations Succeed and Fail -by Ray Dalio, as a very interesting history primer on money).  

There’s also a 1 hour youtube video summary, by the author, if you don’t want to listen to the whole book. 

As always, this is not investment advice or telling you to buy bitcoin. But I believe it is a very interesting technology and certainly worth learning about!

Haitian Development

Posted on by
Reply

The world’s prime, vital problem bears repeating a million times. It is how to triple swiftly, safely and satisfyingly the overall performance realizations per pound, kilowatt and man hour of the worlds comprehensive resources. To do so will render those resources, which at present design level can support only 44% of the humanity, capable of supporting 100% of humanity’s increasing population at higher standards of living than any human minority or single individual has ever known or dreamed of. To this concentrate on the mastery of the physical service of man will also have its inadvertent profit increment, for to master the physical, intellectually, will bring into human intecourse a lever of integrity of exploration fo the metaphysical capabilities of man and the metaphysical ramification of universe also heretofore undreamed of by man. Science and engineering say this is eminently feasible. – Buckminster Fuller (p 227-228, Utopia or Oblivion) (Comments made in 1965)

I write to help myself discover what I think about topics. As I write I often discover I haven’t though as thoroughly about an idea as I think I have.

The topic I want to think and hopefully talk about in the future with some of you in person is international development, specifically, helping create a better environment in Haiti. When I say “better” I specifically mean access to electricity, wider dissemination of knowledge (internet, school), access to better tools for production and access to better healthcare.
I want to think about Haiti because it is the poorest country in this hemisphere.
As you may have read in my post from July, I currently have 2 young adults I’m supporting in their studies in Haiti. One of those students now has a sister who also wants to start studying. I do not have unlimited funds so I have reached out to others to ask for help in funding.

The big question I am asking myself is how to help Haiti become economically profitable. That’s a pretty big question. There are many factors contributing to Haiti’s current economic state. Political corruption, international pressures, outside countries economic manipulations. How does a person even start to think about affecting all these things as an individual? I think it’s best to start at an individual level. How can I help one individual in Haiti have a little better life? That’s why I am working with Wathson to understand his prospects after he graduates from high school and as he studies to be a medical professional.

I believe that each person who finds a better life is able to bring more prosperity for their region. Ultimately production is the way to prosperity. One person creating more with better tools, increasing efficiency, is a way for more wealth for that person. In the process of one person creating more more efficiently, they will seem to take that wealth from another person. The fallacy in this is the thought that there is only so much production to go around. The world is not infinite, but it is pretty large. Large enough for there to be literally tons of resources for each person on the earth. The dissemination of knowledge to each person will ultimately let each person create enough for themselves. There is one scenario for the future where each person has so much capital and knowledge that they are able to create everything they need for themselves. If you don’t believe that it’s because you haven’t thought about it enough yet.

One question I have been asked repeatedly while I am providing funding for students education in Haiti is “Is that the best use of the money?”

I ask myself that also.
One of the concerns I have is that they wouldn’t be able to get a job in a foreign country with the education they receive in Haiti. I have no proof of that. I also don’t know the likelihood of them getting a job in a different country anyway.
While the above is a good question I think there are other good questions. For example “If these students don’t get this education what is their future likely to look like in Haiti?”
“Are they more or less likely to find employment with this education?”
“Are they likely to have a brighter future because of receiving this education?”
Because I believe the answer to those 3 questions is yes I think this is the right path to take at the moment to fund their education.

A country like Haiti did not end up in the economic situation it is in all by itself or over night. Many other countries and people have had an impact to bring it to where it is today. It will take time to pull it out of the rut. I believe that eventually the world will be a good place for everyone. In “a good place” I mean that there will not be death from simply preventable causes such as starvation, lack of access to iodized salt or lack of access to clean water. I would like to be a part of the process and help to accelerate the process. If left to its own devices, it might take a century or 2 or more to have everyone reach an economic prosperity. I believe it should be possible in 40 years, maximum, assuming the economic haves (nearly everyone in the USA and many other developed countries) focuses on helping the current have nots.

For a start on learning some of the things I have you might want to read this article about crop dumping.

Then there are a few books I recommend.

23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism – Ha-Joon Chang
Capital in the Twenty-First Century – Thomas Piketty
Enough: Why the World’s Poorest Starve in an Age of Plenty – Roger Thurow, Scott Kilman
The Last Hunger Season – Roger Thurow
Operating Manual For Spaceship Earth – R. Buckminster Fuller
Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think – Peter H. Diamandis, Steven Kotler

If you would like please contact me via email hooglandaxel@gmail or by commenting below to discuss the possibility of a better future for all.