Tuesday, 4 August 2015

The "Embarrassed Property Owners"

The embarrassed property owners are a political class. Their main asset is property of course. They often have little cash flow making the asset rich cash poor. And because property is untaxed in the end, pay very little tax.

This class are the worlds number 1 tax avoiders. We admire the for this though they are not aware of it.

What makes them different from other wealthy people is they say its bad to be wealthy. Or there is so much injustice in the world and something must be done about it.

Almost without fail they will try to do something about it or change the world by doing charity or joining social reform movements or try to change the banking system.

Without being conscious of it this class forget that the thing making them so wealthy and root cause of all the injustice they harp on about is privatisation of public property - land assets, and socialisation of private property - taxation.

And because this observed fact has been buried away deep they do not realise it is they who need to change first and before all others if things are to get better in the world.

We often point it out to them for a bit of fun. Its fun because it always triggers a 'shadow projection' which is a bit like gaining bonus points in a game. The fast asleep property owning planet saver  when shown this knowledge will try to shut down the messenger, by any means, at best dishonourably at worst painfully.

When this knowledge is revealed, its just too embarrassing to look at themselves in the mirror.

If one day you find yourself the messenger, hold fast.

Contact MeltFund 
What is MeltFund?

Thursday, 30 July 2015

Private sector civil service

We're all aware of the huge dead weight costs inflicted by benefit scroungers of all ranks and the creation of 10s of thousands of unnecessary jobs within the civil service.

Meltfund is pointing out how the private sector - so called free enterprise - fares no better in effective work practice. There are just as many enormous dead weight losses in the private sector too.

And how also the private sector is tasked by the taxman and regulator to offer private sector welfare services before being allowed to trade and get tax breaks in exchange.

So who really is government - the public or private sector?

The astonishing answer is BOTH. It's all relative to how much tax and rent is being collected by the collectors of it whomever they are.

Whomever collects either the taxes or profits from economic rents is the de facto government notwithstanding who any authority declares government to be nominally.

The question forbidden from serious scrutiny is this:

"In what proportion are taxes and rents being collected by the collectors compared to the goods and services it gives in exchange"

Because that factor will determine how much it has authority over the people it collects them from.

It's not complex. But does go very deep into the collective psyche of the people. So is extraordinarily hard for anyone in authority to investigate properly.

Wednesday, 29 July 2015

MF: "What will you do with the migrants?" Theresa May, Secretary of State for Home Affairs: "I do not know. So lets treat them like invaders"

If the secretary had been elected by virtuous and loving people she would know exactly what to do right away:
  • Give every one of them the jobs of lazy English workers, and on lower wages
  • Send the same English scroungers through the tunnel toward France. If they complain make haste and put them on Eurostar
Simples. That way now that UK productivity is being done out of a smaller wage fund, the only place the extra productivity can go is into rents and the selling price of real estate.

And we'll have got rid of a load of whining English benefit scroungers too.

Sadly the people of the England prefer otherwise and repeatedly deliver clueless leaders.

Contact MeltFund 
What is MeltFund?

Monday, 27 July 2015

How much rent is the right amount for any society?

If you do not know about or ignore the cause and effect of economic rent in any economy, then you'd better come back later once you do because this knowledge will be useless to you until then.

More than 99% of economists and social reformers who investigate the economy do not know about or ignore its cause and effect.

For those remaining who do know, even most of them are forbidden from asking how much is the right amount to be present in that economy. Or at least are forbidden from considering that too much or too little rent in an economy is just as bad as how well or poorly it is distributed.

Classic basket cases of this are those who demand all excess rent should be pre-distributed to all citizens as welfare while refusing to consider whence the excess. Or the equally destructive collective psychosis which says that every shortfall in rent should be made up out of taxing the incomes of hard work, skill and enterprise.

So what is the right amount of rent to emerge in say an economy of purity, virtue and thrift? The simple answer is:

Just enough to administer a fully functional government, no more and no less.

The sceptic might say "what exactly do you mean by a fully functional government?"

MeltFund would say: the primary duty of a fully functioning government is one that protects the equal rights of all people. And once it takes on any other duty it is taking more power than it has been mandated and is now introducing large dead weight costs to that society. Thus more rent will be required to function at all, in general and all else being equal.

To determine what the right amount of rent is needs no scientific precision nor intellectual manipulation:
  • if the society under examination is more virtuous and its people love each other more authentically, the amount of rent emerging naturally within it will converge on the amount required to run a fully functioning government. All excess rent, wealth what have you, will already have been distributed by those with a surplus to those with a need because that kind of society is one where authentic love and virtue dominate
  • if the society under examination is less virtuous and its people in general love each other less authentically, the amount of rent emerging will diverge from what is required to run its government. A fear of poverty will prevail in general and the majority will elect leaders to enforce law that makes it legal to rob ones neighbour and illegal to be virtuous to the extent of the lack of love and virtue
In general, all else being equal, it's all relative. In an economy using technology efficiently to increase its productive power - as we live in today - the amount of wealth created and rent available from it to run that society cannot easily fall below what is required. And can easily far exceed what is required with little accountability.

Despite there being a lot more wealth, how useful is it while we still do not love each other very much? There's so much more stuff produced per person today compared to yesterday in spite of an increasing population, we no longer need to compete in a battle of survival of the fittest, yet we still behave as if there was a shortage of everything, thus the poor we will always have with us.

So how functional are the governing authorities of the world today, democratic or not, religious and secular, rich and poor, left or right wing?

The tell tale measure of a functioning government is the size of its welfare state and the amount of charity seeming necessary - small being more functional large being less. Because this is where the largest proportion of excess rents get absorbed. The more of either the less well functioning it is and the more the rent emerging will exceed the amount required to run a functioning government.

But how much welfare and charity is actually necessary if the people selecting government of all sides were to turn around and start to love each other a bit more and stop irrationally fearing a shortage of the things necessary to live a good life. This fear if treating a mentally stressed individual would be called a clinical neurosis that if allowed to proceed would develop into a psychosis endangering others.

And a world where we loved our neighbours somewhat more authentically and behaved with more virtue as individuals would mean the need for welfare and charity would be obviated in proportion to the love and virtue of its people. Thus there would be that much less rent or tax required to finance it. Government would be doing just enough for the people, no more and no less in proportion. The distribution of wealth would not require the force of the law and government to the extent the people loved each other authentically and were virtuous.

And the amount of wealth produced by that society and its justice of distribution would hardly be a consideration leaving the higher things in life ample scope for exploration. Who knows, maybe that would mark the first leap in evolution of humanity since we discovered society 10,000 years ago. And it would be a genuine social one not a genetic one. I'm terribly sorry Mr Dawkins.

The sceptic might step in once again and say "are you looking for heaven?". We would reply by saying "are you looking for hell?". You may have noticed these sceptic when under pressure usually turn out to be social reformers or others who are "here to save the world" and have "the truth".

We'll let you go figure where we are today.

Contact MeltFund 
What is MeltFund?

Saturday, 25 July 2015

Islam's freedom fighters thwart plan to launch mass bombing raid on innocent women and children

Banks are a form of government just like the one we elect through democratic due process

They're supplying the nations credit money so must control the economy. And 85% of all loans they make are secured against the value of locations as mortgages thereby intensifying their power over the people.

We're not saying banks are bad or good. We are merely saying they have the power and the people willingly keep signing the mortgage contracts giving them the power. So to blame banks - the de facto 'government' - is a form of clinical neurosis.

Nearly all of a nations money flows into every economy by virtue of a mortgage contract. And flows back out again by interest payments or redemption of the mortgages - AKA taxation privatised. Mortgages must be a tax fine because they credit money was created free from capital out of nothing.

Deeper still, not a single quark of new economic wealth can be created in this universe without secure exclusive access to a location so priority access to locations is mandatory for a business to start up and produce anything at all. Sure, it might be possible in an alternative universe but not this one.

And similarly corporations of other kinds too are a form of welfare service - provided by 'government' - to their employees. 75% of all jobs they create out of nothing too are not necessary to keep the corporation afloat. So must be a form of private welfare state.

The Mafia and drug Lords controlling any group of people are no different in kind either, all being forms of the same kind of enslaving authority or protecting father figure. What fascinates us is that the people in the west with democracy think we've got special rights to punish those who do not submit to the collective of wealth and power the people selected by democracy. 

"We have the law which is truth. So you must comply". 

Very dogmatic mind set. There is nothing inherently good nor bad about democracy. Its just another form of selecting a powerful master over the people, by the people.

Meltfund likes all this because it keeps taxes on hard work, sales and enterprise high. Thus monopoly profits, high rents and high property prices are protected from similar taxation.

Here is perfect exposition of the collective under any master living in a fantasy world protecting itself fiercely from an evolution of freedom. Fascinating psychology.

Thursday, 23 July 2015

Society is a forced function needing law, the basis and perpetuation of all slavery

Without exception, society, in all its forms, led by both secular and religious doctrine *must* be forced onto the people it governs.

People believe that society is inherently a good thing yet if it must be forced onto the people it *must* be a systemic and structural form of slavery. And no matter who is currently in power, that master class will always govern a slave class not only in a modern democratic society but also a medieval tyranny or feudal economy.

We're not saying anarchy is better in the least. We are saying there's an alternative yet to be tried and both government and anarchy are historically repeated proven failures in all times and all places.

Nor are we saying people working in harmony with each other is a bad thing not that the individual is supreme.

So is there a remedy?

Of course!

The only thing not tried before is for people to start to love one another with authenticity. That is to look in the mirror and accept own complicity prior to blaming anyone or anything else for anything. And then to use the miracle just reflected by that action to start living ones life without any expectation of reward, not even from a master God.

Just to give love with absolutely nothing expected in return: MeltFund: The Key

And the evolution can happen unilaterally and improvement for all can be observed immediately, there's no need to wait nor negatively state that all must change at the same time.

The first person to start to love his neighbour authentically is the start of permanent progress for all. The next person to evolve in this way will intensify the effect... all the way to infinity, or heaven, whatever.

While we wait for the human race to make its first leap of evolution since society formed say 10,000 years ago, we have the law as our master to protect us.