BD: More precisions to Home for All, positive supply shock
(too old to reply)
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore syntotic
2012-05-15 03:09:57 UTC
Raw Message
We need the benefits of this policy after rents are condemned and the
excess of funds consumed to be greater than its costs of paying
landlords for the forfeited properties, that is, we have to engage in
superior degree differentials. This can be pictured as a structure of
wood straws, each increasingly small and placed one successively on
each side on top of the last one at some angle. If both sides are
harmoniously place, at the end we get a soft bullet-like structure
were straws from both sides end up placed horizontally next to each
other. If the angles at which they are placed are not harmonious, at
the end one side ends flat and the other side protruding, representing
either bigger totdal costs or benefits. This structures represent
budgetary expenses, after condemnation.

We can make here an extreme assumption: in the limit, the budget can
be reorganized so that all costs are denied and full taxes are applied
to pay landlords for the forfeited properties. This is an extreme
charity government model where all government officials do not
perceive a wage, get their income from their own businesses or
spending saved wealth and full taxes are spent in the unique housing
program (with concomitant expenses, mainly, keeping properties well
REDUCING POPULATION. This is why a theory of genocides or population
reduction is perentory. If under this model the population serviced is
reduced suitably, there is no deficit and the benefits of condemnation
outweigh the costs of tax payment to landlords.

Common sense implies that population cannot be reduced among the tax
paying population: then burden falls on the children population or in
contraception of the next generation, etc. Landlords accumulate funds

Under this model the benefits of Home for all are superior over the
costs of paying landords for the condemned property at adequate
natural prices and the supply shock is positive (net positive).
Government budget is reorganized and reduced to minimum levels by
official charity. Only well to do individuals belong to government and
it is a desired expense. Quick accumulation of funds (depending on the
number and size of landlords), leads to a _development of the banking
system_. Fron the beginning it is assumed that the banking system is
inefficient, (LA cases), thus Home for All has the added benefit of
normalizing the banking system efficiency. It would be expected that
once those funds are productively (privately) reassigned, further
entrepreneurial corporative benefits among the population would offset
any diminution in baby property. Note that this is *_in abstracto_*,
independent of any current budget assignment and its reorganization.
Note also that once rents are stopped, families will implement an
increase in demand, that is, they will demand more goods and more
complex consumptions (Engel s law).* *[Considering that _some people_
do demand MORE than LESS.... though this distinction also brings
considerations of its own...]

In this charity government model with genocide adjustment, prices for
the forfeited properties can be fixed on international equilibrium
rates, rather than on demand prices. Landlords without the ability to
finance optimally their newly acquired wealth can redirect it to more
developed (banking and real estate optimal markets) countries and
leverage on the whole system to stabilize its condemantion prices.
Still the assumption here is that any discrepancy can be solved by
genociding or population decreases/contracept the next generation
(next generation has at least for some individuals [males] a big
discount rate). This means an outflow of capitals toward more
efficient countries while enjoying the development benefits of
increased propietorship!

Actually this is the promise of Economics: by reassigning economic
variables, an increase in wealth follows. But the most basic
assumption is still the same: individuals want MORE positive than
LESS. Even if this may NOT be the norm among ALL individuals.

Danilo J Bonsignore
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore syntotic
2012-05-15 03:14:47 UTC
Raw Message
[NOTE that a theory of genocides has a duality: a theory of population
increases. This is handled as policies: China handles two children per
couple or better only one, the Middle East trusts the Qu ran laws,
Africa does not matter, America protects individual (religious regime)
freedom, and so on.]

Danilo J Bonsignore
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore syntotic
2012-05-18 15:16:52 UTC
Raw Message
Funny, the extreme assumption looks like a good description of how the
USA government works, actually.

Danilo J Bonsignore