5.3-The Production of Cooperation (Law) · 5.5-The Production of Goods, Services, and Information · 5.6-The Production of Commons

Different Economies

As far as I can tell, pretty much anyone with christian ethics, with an IQ over 85, can contribute to society if we assist them by providing an economy that allocates work to them.

But the idea that we need a MONOPOLY form of economy, instead of different ECONOMIES for each class, is rather stupid in retrospect.

The laboring classes clearly don’t benefit from a market economy the same way that the middle, upper middle, upper, and elite classes do.

It’s not clear at all that the Upper and Elite classes actually participate in the market economy, or merely exploit positions that assist them in collecting rents on the distsribution of fiat currency (shares in the productivity of the labor, working, middle, and managerial classes).

Under the monarchies we did not try to create ‘one way’ of organizing society. In part because they had no alternative. But as long as the government doesn’t institutionalize involuntary transfers, there is no reason why we can’t end this enligthenment era fantasy of making the entirty of society operate like its middle class.

It isnt.

5.3-The Production of Cooperation (Law) · 5.5-The Production of Goods, Services, and Information · 5.6-The Production of Commons

Different Economies for Different Classes


—“Could you elaborate on the concept of different economies for different classes? Does this mean laws can be enforced differently on different classes?”—John Zebley

No it just means that the working and middle class and upper middle class market of voluntarily organized production does not account for the various commons produced by the people who make possible the voluntary organization of production (the market) by NOT engaging in criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions – and paying a high cost of doing so. Nor does the middle class market account for the vast extractions performed by the upper and elite class market which appears almost entirely extractive, and of trivial if any value. The working and laboring classes and the underclass contribute mostly by consuming (creating demand), policing each other, policing the commons, and serving in various hazardous capacities. But this is costly for them. And if they have access to consumption but not access to production then the market is ‘failing’ to pay them for what the market needs of them: behaving in the interest of the market. The same is true for the upper and elite classes most of whom benefit from tax revenues of questionable if not negative value, and the financial classes who benefit from our archaic liquidity distribution system in which they actually provide zero if not negative value.(really).

SO that may be a lot to grasp. But the classical liberal economic system – as well as the keynesian and new keyensian, fails to account for externalities paid for by the underclasses, and rents privatized by the upper classes.

The point is not so much that we need markets, but that by cherry picking what we measure, we legitimize the positive externalities of the middle class market, but fail to compensate the lower class market, and unjustly compensate the upper class market.

So it’s not a matter of different law. It’s a matter of insufficiently accounting for the very different inputs and outputs of the different classes.

I mean the whole world knows the middle classes generate prosperity. That’s settled science. But that doesn’t mean the middle class market and profit and loss account for the full inputs and outputs that make the middle class economy possible.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

5.5-The Production of Goods, Services, and Information · Genders

The Rational Risk Pursuit And Aversion Of Genders

(By Eli Harman)

—” While there certainly can be exceptions, in general, women are going to be more risk averse and men more risk tolerant.

That’s a sensible risk management strategy. If a man fails, (in contrast to a woman) the individual consequences may be severe, but the consequences to the group are less severe, because a man doesn’t have a uterus. On the other end, men can’t afford NOT to take risks because they have to *demonstrate* value, and if they don’t, they’ll be left behind by men who do.

Women, on the other hand, can afford not to take risks, because their uterii automatically give them some value, and so they’re usually better off playing it safe.

So this division of risk-taking makes evolutionary sense for all parties.

The problem comes when women attempt to IMPOSE their risk aversion on men as well, and this prevents men, not just from failing, but also from succeeding. And so it’s basically pointless even having men under those conditions, because they’re only women without uterii. And it prevents women from sharing in the successes that men can only obtain by taking risks.

But this condition is unstable, because that society will be highly susceptible to revolt or conquest by aggressive, risk-taking, males. (Think “Demolition Man.”) And when push comes to shove, the effeminate males will simply be killed, and the risk-averse women will fold to save themselves.”—

5.5-The Production of Goods, Services, and Information · Definitions · Tech Business

Business Terminology, Scale.

ESTABLISHMENT (small/craft) An establishment is a single physical location where business is conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed.

FIRM (regional/industry): A firm is a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments in the same state and industry under common ownership or control.

ENTERPRISE(National/Federation) An enterprise is a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments under common ownership or control.


Very small businesses Fewer than 20 employees
Small businesses 20 to 99 employees
Medium businesses 100 to 499 employees
Large businesses 500 or more employees

…………………Establishment -> Firm -> Enterprise
Large >500
Medium >100
Small >20
Very Small >0

It looks like half of the people are employed by LARGE organizations, the majority of the rest by Small and very small.
I look at it like this:

Given Median Family Income: 50K:

500*50K=25M * 4 = 100M+
100*50K=5M * 4 = 20M+
20*50K=1M * 4 = ~5M+
1*50K=50K * 4 = 200K+

Revenue per employee goes up with scale.
Ratio of employee to equipment costs balances out.
As an average we tend to use 30%. (Since I’ve largely been in technology, I have never run a business where it is that low).
If we use the median income, and multiply by four that seems to produce a fairly good “rule of thumb”.

Management of companies and enterprises . . ..104,041
..Enterprises with fewer than 500 employees . . . 76,484
..Very small enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155,557
..Small enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 70,065
..Medium enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 74,717
..Large enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 108,057

The organization of production distribution and trade is the highest paying sector in america. Entrepreneurship rules.