Presenting: Social Resource Allocation

Adam Smith criticized the commercial system because it created so many bad things for society such as imbalances, inequality, environmental destruction (the Dutch merchants destroying all trees in an Indonesian island) and wars (War of Jenkin’s Ear).

We define commerce as an objective trade between two or more entities. We define objective in turn as an adjective meaning ‘productive of objects’ or that which creates something observable that persists in physical reality. For example, ‘one’ is an objective term while ‘oneness’ is a subjective term. Everyone will have the same idea of what ‘one’ means, but not all can have the same definition for ‘oneness’. Objectiveness lives in intellectual study such as math, computer science, and accounting. Its end result is something quantifiable or logical such as ‘1’, ‘error’, or ‘-1,000’. Subjectiveness lives in the arts, such as music, language, and religion. Its end result is something qualitative such as ‘catchy’, ‘beautiful’, or ‘profound’.


What’s Wrong With Commerce?

Commerce, being an objective trade, restricts the exchange to objective terms represented in numbers which are assigned to, contained, or printed in money. If bread is worth $1.00 in a bakery, then it must be sold for $1.00 money. If a starving person gives $0.99 money for it, then it is rejected and the person dies. If a generous rich man gives $100 for it, then the seller must give back his $99. This objectiveness creates an exchange system that resembles a sort of self-running machine. The bakery’s owner does not need to be bothered making subjective decisions to allow $0.99 for the poor or accept the $100 of the rich, even if it would be beneficial to all parties.

During the 2008 Financial Crisis, many people lost their nominal wealth when the banks crashed. The economic and commercial system did not have any mechanism to know whose value really should have been protected and whose really should have crashed.


Presenting: Social Resource Allocation or ‘Invisible Hand Made More Visible’

To counter the limitations and faults of the commercial system, we created a new system of exchange called Social Resource Allocation, which relies on both subjectiveness and objectiveness manifesting in the real world as agreements. Instead of relying on a tool such as money, which can be arbitrarily controlled by governments or by rich individuals, the main tool in social resource allocation is the agreement itself. In this way, each person in the economy makes his own tool to buy and sell. This effectively decentralizes the economy and acts as a check against money and is an implementation of Smith’s Wealth of Nations* (WN).

*Basically, we took all of Smith's proposals in WN and made a real-world system from it.



A basic example is resource allocation within a family. The husband works in a company to send money home, while in exchange, the wife does the work in the house. You can ask your brother to clean your room, and in return you will cook breakfast for both of you. Both are natural human exchanges, but are rarely objective at all. The husband does not normally compare his contribution to his wife’s contribution and brothers do not enforce strict metrics on the things they do for each other. Yet the internal family ‘economy’ can hum nicely and be very productive.



In theory, this system will fulfill the work of Smith’s invisible hand* of making ‘nearly the same distribution of life’s necessities which would have been made, had the earth been divided equally among all its inhabitants.’

(Recall that we destroyed the current interpretation of the modern invisible hand as Samuelson’s invisible hand. We then equated Smith’s original invisible hand to the Eastern concept of human dharma, since what is observable in nature by Western philosophers must also be observable by Eastern philosophers. Otherwise, it would imply that West and East exist in totally different realities, which is absurd.)



So Let’s Do The Rudimentary Math

1. The concepts of Profit maximization and physical utility of Economics are thrown away, shredded, burnt to ashes, marked ‘lethal’, then put in a airtight super-strong glass box to be put in a Museum of Human Mistakes, along with racism, objectivism, religious dogma, etc. for future generations to study and hopefully never repeat.
They are then replaced by social utility (redefined as humanity + justice + generosity + public spirit) from Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments:
‘Humanity, justice, generosity, and public spirit, are the qualities most useful to others.. So far as the sentiment of approbation arises from the beauty of utility, it has no reference to the sentiments of others.’ (Part 4 Chap 2)
2. Adam Smith’s free trade system in Book 4 and his taxation system in Book 5 of the Wealth of Nations are implemented globally, which could only be possible because of Assumption 1:
‘Were all nations to follow free exportation and importation, they would resemble the provinces of a great empire. (Book 4) A much bigger revenue increase might be expected by extending the British tax system to all the empire’s provinces’ (Book 5)
Then Make An Equation To Measure Its Results Objectively:
1. Minor assumption. Greek symbols in math are thrown away to make it more understandable for the common human. This simple policy change would single-handedly make math interesting and would be more cost-effective than using marketing campaigns and promoters (such as Neil deGrasse Tyson) to encourage kids to take up math and science. Treat Greek as a relic of the dark ages when Europeans had to use foreign languages (Latin for communication and Greek for math and science) to facilitate their regional communication. English now fulfills this role, so Greek and Latin are obsolete.
Summation of max personal output = Max national or global output
Max national or global output / national or global population = average quality of life per citizen or human
Summation of max personal output – Summation of basic needs per person = Wealth of Nation or Planet
Wealth of Nation or Planet / national or global population = Wealth per Citizen or Human




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s