Money stuff.

[BrettNortje]

I have previously made my own economic models and trading strategies, but feel like doing some more. economics is not what i call a science - at first, being so into economics i was quite offended when i heard this too! truly, it is so mixed with maths that it might be a science, yet it is more of an art than a science as i will shortly explain.

Let me start with my economic model, the 'asset based economic system?' the way the gold standard works is that you need to represent your money by gold - if someone walks off the street into the bank, they need to be paid in gold for what the money is worth. no doubt you can also smell the ancient theories behind this? i mean, when jewelry was all the rage and there was no other assets, we all can surely see why this was done, yes?

My abes system replaces the gold in the country with the assets in the country. basically, for each building that is bolted down in the country, the state gets money worth that asset. it gets complicated with cars and depreciation, and even roads and rails are worth something, but this model stands to more reason. also, the more you build the more your country is worth, of course.

Then there are my trading strategies. forget buy low sell high, that should be illegal! if you buy low and sell high you destabilize the market, and, that is why we are not living in paradise in the seventies already! if we were to hold onto our shares, the market would become bearish, producing shortages of shares. this is why i have a theory and put it out there about making people wait for their claims to be processed before they sell again.

Anyways, i have a lot more to share, are you with me so far?

 

[DA60]

I have previously made my own economic models and trading strategies, but feel like doing some more. economics is not what i call a science - at first, being so into economics i was quite offended when i heard this too! truly, it is so mixed with maths that it might be a science, yet it is more of an art than a science as i will shortly explain.

Let me start with my economic model, the 'asset based economic system?' the way the gold standard works is that you need to represent your money by gold - if someone walks off the street into the bank, they need to be paid in gold for what the money is worth. no doubt you can also smell the ancient theories behind this? i mean, when jewelry was all the rage and there was no other assets, we all can surely see why this was done, yes?

My abes system replaces the gold in the country with the assets in the country. basically, for each building that is bolted down in the country, the state gets money worth that asset. it gets complicated with cars and depreciation, and even roads and rails are worth something, but this model stands to more reason. also, the more you build the more your country is worth, of course.

Then there are my trading strategies. forget buy low sell high, that should be illegal! if you buy low and sell high you destabilize the market, and, that is why we are not living in paradise in the seventies already! if we were to hold onto our shares, the market would become bearish, producing shortages of shares. this is why i have a theory and put it out there about making people wait for their claims to be processed before they sell again.

Anyways, i have a lot more to share, are you with me so far?

:inandout:

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I have previously made my own economic models and trading strategies, but feel like doing some more. economics is not what i call a science - at first, being so into economics i was quite offended when i heard this too! truly, it is so mixed with maths that it might be a science, yet it is more of an art than a science as i will shortly explain.

Let me start with my economic model, the 'asset based economic system?' the way the gold standard works is that you need to represent your money by gold - if someone walks off the street into the bank, they need to be paid in gold for what the money is worth. no doubt you can also smell the ancient theories behind this? i mean, when jewelry was all the rage and there was no other assets, we all can surely see why this was done, yes?

My abes system replaces the gold in the country with the assets in the country. basically, for each building that is bolted down in the country, the state gets money worth that asset. it gets complicated with cars and depreciation, and even roads and rails are worth something, but this model stands to more reason. also, the more you build the more your country is worth, of course.

Then there are my trading strategies. forget buy low sell high, that should be illegal! if you buy low and sell high you destabilize the market, and, that is why we are not living in paradise in the seventies already! if we were to hold onto our shares, the market would become bearish, producing shortages of shares. this is why i have a theory and put it out there about making people wait for their claims to be processed before they sell again.

Anyways, i have a lot more to share, are you with me so far?

 

[BrettNortje]

The best thing about money in a bank is it is basically imaginary - who are you to tell the bank how much money they have? on the other hand, if money was so easy to come by, it would be useless, and, that is why the state must make sure there is balance between supply and demand of all things.

But what can the state do to the private sector? if it were a monarchy, or communism, then there would be a way to police all the money of the country, but it is usually not. if it were that there was someone in need of money, they could send them money, but then everyone would want to get sent money, so no go there either. in short, there has to be some effort to making money or it becomes useless, of course.

If the state was, on the other hand, supply each factory with robots, then there would be no jobs in the factory for the people to have. on the other hand, with that much supply, there would be more demands for processing of these things. that would mean everyone that is not the owner of the factory, pushing buttons, would have a office job. this would mean that salaries would go up, and the value of money would go down. this was an objective of mine for a while, but now i see the flaws of it.

I have also made a 'self servicing systems' budget in my spare time. this system would be where the state pays less money to the public sector or state services, and the services support themselves. imagine a traffic officer collecting money for the department he works for? imagine schools where they advertise for companies for supplies from those companies? there are many many ways for the state services to collect money from the people without suckling at the nipples of the state, that they could operate as they only took orders from the state, abiding by their duties and making extra money.

 

[BrettNortje]

Often, i speak about stock trading on the floor. for this the people i consult use bankers and brokers to help them, which in my country is not such a big business, of course.

I have many strategies, but i wanted to share a new one with you, okay?

This latest one is called 'oversupply.' there is no such thing as oversupply of anything except for commerce related things, as our resources here on earth are stretched very easily accommodating or supplying the commerce sector with very little compared to how much the commerce sector could supply. the problem is there is so much waste too, yet not many people can afford anything, so that is why there is waste. if there was more people with jobs, then there would be more sold, of course, as the demand will go up.

The trick is to stay away from the commerce sector. avoid brands like coca cola, micro soft and apple. these are 'end user outlets' that satisfy the customer directly, so stand to make more, but there is more risk of a potential customer saying no. the trick is to invest in businesses that there is a need for, things that cannot fail. if there are fifty metal mines, two metal processing places and fifty shops that sell metal products, the obvious way to go is into metal processing, yes? this would be where the profits are minimal, and, then the owner suffers. the thing is, the more of something needed you supply, the more collateral you build up with your businesses, as they act as surety, of course.

So, 'oversupply' will never be a problem because 'over demand' is down to all the people that cannot afford these products. this means that supplying is not the way to go, direct retail is also not the way to go today. instead, processing goods is the way to go - this leaves you making less, but it is a sure thing. as soon as the demand is satisfied, a new demand comes along, because if you observe that countries will employ more people slowly, or yourselves employ new people slowly, then these people can buy goods too. this means that you will be creating demand.

Now, not everyone wants to create demand, except the banks. if you were to invest in banks, they will loan the money out to small business owners. some of these businesses succeed, and pay back the cash. others fall and get reclaimed by the bank, acting as investments in the form of appreciating assets. this means the best thing to invest in is a bank, where all the brokers are. it is here that money gets created, of course, for the people through loans and then money exists where it did not before, being paid back from the imagination of the people lending the money and the bank.

If you were to observe that certain needs need to be met due to these small businesses opening up, then you know where to invest. why not start a new company? this could be listed as a place for the needed services, and then you could sell it with just the name and the mission statement, as most people don't know how to start a business. hell, if you get some business or connections or customers, you could also sell it for more. thing here is to observe that you want to sell it, so offer goods cheap - that will bring customers to the business, the brokers will know the business, and then you can sell something with customers but making hardly any money!

 

[BrettNortje]

This is regarding an investment business. it grants people money to see their goals achieved. if some ask for a lot of money or a little money to do the same thing, it is better to go with a little or moderate business, because, if they succeed they can expand.

If a business comes to you with the same plan as the last, simply say no to the one with the 'inferior plan.' whichever one impresses you more, due to research or something, say yes to that business.

If these businesses are in great supply, say no. they will be competing with established brands, unless, they want to open in a new town or city or something. say makro and trade center share a city, it would be silly to fund a third party that cannot buy in bulk, i am sure you will agree? these small businesses might have customer list, but, that would probably be their friends or family buying their goods. i did this when i had to sell things for technikon in 1999, i didn't really do anything. then i heard stories about people that had such success selling they quit technikon and expanded their inventory lists, of course.

If it is a bright and innovative idea, and the cash is right, say yes! this will see new services supplied, especially for the big city where there are more potential customers, of course.

If it is in the small town, like cape town, where goods are expensive, maybe suggesting moving their business, or, requiring they move their business to the big city would help? this can be drawn up on a contract, of course.

 

[fmw]

Anyways, i have a lot more to share, are you with me so far?

No, I'll pass.

 

[Lafayette]

... economics is not what i call a science

Damn right. It isn't, and the mountains of economic "research" simply accomplish what I call "forecasting the past". Which simply repeats itself in a cyclical fashion.

Economics is more an art than a science, because the Principal of the subject is mankind; which has a diversity of behaviour so great as to be practicably unpredictable. For instance, you never know when one of its members will start a war that changes Supply & Demand. Economics did not predict that the Internet would change fundamentally the way we live (communicate, learn, conduct business, entertain ourselves, etc.)

Many like to think that the Great Recession was not predictable because its cause was outright fraud. It was therefore not an economic phenomenon but a man-made one. (And nobody went to jail for having perpetrated the fraud.)

Still, even man-made economic faults are worth studying. It's unfortunate that, in our mad-rush for the accumulation of riches, we make so many mistakes that others (not blamable) suffer the consequences ...
________________

 

[BrettNortje]

I find the economy is more dependent on the state of taxes and tax distribution than markets, of course. if we were to observe that the economy needs taxes to make money, there is a golden ratio for taxes. let me state an example i sued before;

If you have [x] taxes coming in, and the tax rate is forty percent, then you make forty percent of [x] at each tax point. but, if you have a tax rate of two percent, you will find that you get two percent at each tax point, collecting moss in the form of increased sales prices, collecting more taxes in total. so;

If you had [x] * [40 - x] it would slow down with each tax point, only allowing [x - 40] amounts. conversely, the [x] * [2 - x] would slow down a lot less, equaling a lot more money. the ideal tax rate has yet to be found, but i think it would work on about ten tax points or so.

 

[BrettNortje]

This money stuff is lovely, i think. it can grow so easily and will allow for more productivity, of course. if it was put to the test, money would nearly always grow in a bank account as the bank uses your money to loan to others and collects their money in excess too.

So, what is it like in a bank? behind the scenes i mean? if it was about the flow of cash being handled, then it should be rather 'laid back.' i mean, so many people asking for things while the answer is a simple yes or no, and, getting involved in their affairs approving plans or not.

If the banks want to make even more money, they should finance plans for the stock market. this would see them allow people to play the market from within the bank, where the bank backs them up financially with the market, and if the trading works, then the bank gets a cut. of course if it doesn't work, then there can be a loan approved to pay the bank back. but, under the guidance of the bank, they could approve trades and see the person follow guidelines for the trade, and, the money collected as surety, yes?

 

[BrettNortje]

Money is a great thing, so easily manipulated. if you have a lot of it, you are all set... to make more! if you have a little, even that could support you, i see this regularly with the hawkers on the side of the street, they had a little, they bought something essential, and now they sell something or keep what is left for themselves. obviously doing something like this on the weekend is a good idea, while still having a basic income to use or 'put into' the business, yes?

But, now i want to talk about new stat ups. all you need is an idea, then you pitch this before someone else does, you get investments into your idea, and then, you are all set to make money from your idea - nothing else required, except a form of media to get this new product across, of course.

So, you want an example? okay!

If you were to look at the cleaning of households, this is nearly an essential service, yes? either you do it of you pay someone else to do it often. now, whether you are doing it or someone else is doing it, you could form a company that 'services households' for the owners, and rotates domestic workers to fill this gap. then, you could organize shifts for them, getting a lot of work out of someone for 'bulk pay' would be preferred, of course. this is where instead of paying someone a hundred dollars or rand for one day a week, you pay them one hundred and fifty for two days, of course.

On that note, let's say instead of a service you want to put out a product? this could be down to making a vacuum that sits in the middle of the room and sucks all the dirt up with a powerful yet sensitively partitioned nozzle? this is the way to sell it to the rich, so they would not need a service.

Either way, there is room for innovation out there. needs can be satisfied and products created from bright minds - all you need is to identify a service or product and then satisfy the need or want for it. no more office hours for you!

 

[BrettNortje]

Another thing about money is that in the bank format, it is not physical, of course. if you were to go to a shop with your debit card, you could buy stuff and would not need money. this only really reflects the resources of the rich though, so money for the lower level of people is still important. imagine trading the market with the bags of jewelry? that would be slow and improper, if you ask me?

Anyways, a good way to make more money with your money is to get money from someone that has it already, or, generate it at the bank. let's say you want to get it from someone else? this would require a exchange of services or goods, of course, as nobody is just going to give you money! that is absurd.

So, to get cash from someone else you would need to sell them something they want more of. for example, if you were to sell a car user petrol, then they would want more at some stage, someone will. but, placing your garage in the middle of the city would be a bad idea, as people usually fill up when they are out of traffic, and we know how congested the city gets during traveling times.

If you want to sell petrol, you should think first where they will want it - there is a factor to business called logistics, and, the closer you are to where the customer is, the better. this reflects traveling times for either of you, of course.

This reminds me of an idea where someone would deliver petrol to someone that phones them, maybe on the back of a motorcycle or something? this would make it easier for someone to fill up, but filling up in traffic would be silly, as you never know when you are going to move or not.

Then, there is the chance to sell hoses for the purpose of transmitting petrol in traffic. this would be sold at the station, and let the drivers collect the petrol from passersby, as if a courtesy in traffic, maybe for a cash fee? this would be wonderful - no need to fill up as much in dire situations, of course.

Anyways, i think i have shown where there is a need there is opportunity. turning it into a non cash business would do as a way of making it a debit card business, or, they could use the new cell phone money transfer to pay for this service.

If you were to buy shares that equal all your money, then you will have your money represented in the bank. then, you could use those shares as surety on further lending, where you buy more shares in stocks. then, after all that, you sell your shares and pay the money back, where does that leave you? doesn't sound like a good idea to me, so,

Buy some shares. if they were to go up, this is not the be all and end of all your problems, all you want to do is enrich yourself. so, if you were to borrow to buy shares, you could leave those shares in the bank, and collect dividends for them before you pay the interest back. this would be where you get to pick your poison and let them go slowly - the longer you hang onto your shares the more they are worth usually, of course. this means, you will be collecting your dividends and paying the bank back less than the shares are worth, as, any stock earner is worth more than bank interest. bank interest is set at about six percent, while typical gains on stocks is about ten percent - the more you borrow, the more chance you have of making more money than you had, and, you still own the shares! this is like having other people work for you, and, anybody can do it!

Don't buy petrol, buy shares!

 

[BrettNortje]

Observing markets is rather interesting if you know how they work. one of the best lessons i can give is that if something goes down in value somewhere, something has or will go up somewhere else because of that. this is where investors pull their money out of the market, but, seeing as how the bank will only give them at most six percent of their capital a year, they reinvest it in something else, to make more money than the bank will give them for interest.

Of course, if things were different, the market may never recover if there is a lapse in profits, but, as something falls, something else rises, of course.

So, if you were to follow a market, the investors will usually buy again on that market, as then taxation is less and profits are maximized. the other side of the coin is that brokers usually only know one market, and, the investors want to use them to the best of their ability. that means using them on the markets they are most comfortable on, of course. hell, the investors will also know a little more about certain markets than others.

If you know of a 'potential winner yet a struggler,' something that goes up each day, and for some reason goes down again at the end of the day as people want to declare their assets and cannot find room for this business or shares, then investing in them in the long term could be a good idea. this is because it is a name that everybody knows, due to it's frequent activity, yet, they will be less interested in owning it over night when anything could happen. this is a safer gamble than just investing in something that could do well - they have survived for so long, yet there is so little faith in them.

Or, you could mix the currency market information you have with the stock market, to maximize your dealings on the market. this would be where you know of something gaining on a market due to news, or, a few markets. then, you could wait to see if a currency goes down in value, which would mean that buying in that country is less costly, and, into that countries sector you go!

That is all very basic though, but i am sure you all understand those two 'ideals.' it is very safe to trade this way, and, many of the traders do.

 

[BrettNortje]

Economics is something i stray into very seldom, as i prefer the market and business angles. none the less, i have thought up a very important thing i wish to share with you - 'neighbor economics.' this is where you can enrich yourself by enriching your neighboring countries of course, or, merely trading partners.

If you are a rich country, and you want to get richer, you need to enrich your neighbors if they are 'poor.' this is because then they will be able to afford your goods. if you are rich and they are poor, it costs more for you to make the same goods than them, and then you buy their goods anyway because it is cheaper.

If a poor country buys goods from a rich neighbor, then it will probably not sell, as it would be too expensive. this is because the 'first world' pays more for materials and staff workers than the poorer country, and then the goods, may go from the rich country to the poor country, if any are bought at all, and then the poor country sits with a lot of expensive goods that nobody can afford. this means the poor country needs to cut prices on 'rich country goods' to sell them, so the goods were made at a high cost and sold for a miserly sum. this means, of course, the poor will stay poor while the rich will stay where they are.

If a rich country wants to get richer, they need to enrich the poorer neighboring countries. this will be where they invest in that country, to up it's production to make 'first world goods.' then, that country will be able to sell international goods locally, and then it will see great returns on taxation, and, on a private level. remember, the state cannot enrich a business without it costing the state and therefore tax payers, and taxes from companies cannot be paid unless they are making profits. this means the private sector needs to make money to pay for taxes for more service delivery, leading to new product related needs from the tax payers.

So, the best thing for a rich country to do to get richer is sell it's goods internationally, and, that means everybody else needs to be able to afford it's goods.

If you were to invest in a poor country, you could establish cheaper goods from your country, to their private sector, to their shops, and get paid all the same.

 

[BrettNortje]

Something just dawned on me - if you pay twenty rand for some shares or some product, and you sell it for eighty rand, you make sixty rand. now, if you buy it back, it will cost you eighty rand, yes? this means that your profit is [60] - [20 + 80] rand. this means that if you are to buy stocks, you need to hold onto them and not buy them back, as you should not sell them.

Now, observing a market, if you buy some microsoft, mac donalds and samsung shares for twenty rand a piece, you will make money on them, unless you buy them back, of course. same logic applies here. if they go down in price though, say to forty rand, you will spend twenty buying them the first time, forty buying them a second time and have made sixty plus forty plus forty on each deal. so, if you are buying back shares that keep going down in value, this is good income, yes?

If you were to buy shares and buy them back, make sure they have gone down. problem is, if they keep going up and down, you will not make much money. instead, plan ahead! this will be where you buy shares in companies that are related to the company you are investing in, like rubber companies for shoe products. this of course is negligent if you own both companies, as you will be paying yourself, yes?

Think about it, if you buy a rubber company and then a shoe company, the value of the rubber company goes up if you place some orders to yourself! this means you will be paying yourself more, of course. the trick it so only own a few shares in the rubber company, so you are not the owner, of course, making this a incident where you get to pay yourself a greater dividend share! let me explain...

You buy rubber company shares for [30] rand. then you invest in shoe company for [30] rand. this makes the rubber company go up in value, if they have 'more orders.' regardless, rubber will reflect the input to the shoe, meaning that it will be worth more if the shoe company is worth more, yes? this means you get more money for having less shares in the company!

This should be observed as a market lesson - that companies sell shares in their suppliers companies and then reap rewards of investing those shares into customer companies. this will leave the account at + [supplier shares credit], - [customer shares debit], + [order from customer to supplier - connections!]. this is where you are the connection for your own goods, and other people pay you for them!

So, it is good advice to spread your finances far and wide, and, get the orders for the customers done yourself, of course.

 

[gdgyva]

Brett

How old are you?

What is your educational background?

this is the 3rd, 4th, 5th long post in which you try and tell us what you know about certain subjects

yet why would we listen or read your wall of text?

based on your earlier posts....you are an expert at all things psionic, and now how to make money in the markets

you are an avid gamer, a voracious reader, and seem fairly intelligent, and also very very young

i would bet i own a pair of boots older than you are....

anyway...maybe less of the teaching posts, and maybe more of you posts

just my two cents

 

[zyzygy]

Brett

How old are you?

What is your educational background?

this is the 3rd, 4th, 5th long post in which you try and tell us what you know about certain subjects

yet why would we listen or read your wall of text?

based on your earlier posts....you are an expert at all things psionic, and now how to make money in the markets

you are an avid gamer, a voracious reader, and seem fairly intelligent, and also very very young

i would bet i own a pair of boots older than you are....

anyway...maybe less of the teaching posts, and maybe more of you posts

just my two cents

Teaching?

 

[gdgyva]

Teaching?

what would you call them?

 

[BrettNortje]

what would you call them?

Ideas worth debating?

 

[gdgyva]

Ideas worth debating?

if you want a debate, you need to stop with the book formats

post an idea....and discuss it

not a full fledged book report

 

[BrettNortje]

if you want a debate, you need to stop with the book formats

post an idea....and discuss it

not a full fledged book report

I thought i would post a whole lot of ideas and people can just jump right in and call anyone on any point?

 

[zyzygy]

what would you call them?

He's the guy who wants to teach us how to start fires by using the power of the mind.

 

[gdgyva]

I thought i would post a whole lot of ideas and people can just jump right in and call anyone on any point?

the issue the way i see it is that it is almost all your own ideas...and the posts are way too long

you lose readers 1/4 of the way through

take a look at some of the threads around here

Someone sees an article or a topic of interest...posts a small blurb on it, and then puts their spin on it and links to where they got the idea or story from

that is how threads get started....

unless you are truly an "expert" on a subject

and how many things can one be an expert at?

 

[BrettNortje]

I still think money is a wonderful thing. through these methods, we can understand cell division in biology or chemistry, as we will understand how one thing can spawn more things. this is because the rate of remuneration will lead to more being produced than before. this is best explained by having interest on two accounts than one, reducing the capital gains tax, if you will?

So, back to economics and money. if you were to observe that money grows due to how others have access to it, the more access they get to your money, the more they owe you, yes? this is apparent in fixed deposits, that the bank can count on to loan to others, of course. as money is lent out, it grows - if you have an account with a thousand rand in it, and you borrow a million rand, you owe the bank a million rand, which you will be able to use immediately, of course. then, there is interest, how much money has been created then gets, for some reason, you paying back more than you borrowed. this money that enters circulation adds to the amount of taxes collected, enriching the state, and coming to the g.d.p. each year to be dishes out for your service delivery, of course.

Now, if you want to make more money for yourself, you should observe the access you have to money. if you have access to a little - i use this example as if you have a little you obviously have a lot of littles - you could buy shares in some business, shares that 'yield dividends.' this would mean, while you still have the shares, you get paid a little bit for them each month. but, how can you be sure that the business will succeed and you will not lose money? this is easily answered by observing that it is like collateral, where you can borrow money from the bank based on that businesses assets, and, tie it up once more. then, you place the shares into the bank, in your account, and it counts as money that the bank owns and you have access to, this can be there as surety for your account. if worst comes to worst, the bank can liquidate 'your assets' or shares, and then keep the money for itself, but, it has zero risk if done quickly, as buying shares of businesses send them up in value, so, over the course of a few minutes, with your bank manager, you cuold do this over and over, collecting capital from the bank, and then moving the money into the bank, keeping the rest.

 

[iEconomist]

The best thing about money in a bank is it is basically imaginary - who are you to tell the bank how much money they have? on the other hand, if money was so easy to come by, it would be useless, and, that is why the state must make sure there is balance between supply and demand of all things.

But what can the state do to the private sector? if it were a monarchy, or communism, then there would be a way to police all the money of the country, but it is usually not. if it were that there was someone in need of money, they could send them money, but then everyone would want to get sent money, so no go there either. in short, there has to be some effort to making money or it becomes useless, of course.

If the state was, on the other hand, supply each factory with robots, then there would be no jobs in the factory for the people to have. on the other hand, with that much supply, there would be more demands for processing of these things. that would mean everyone that is not the owner of the factory, pushing buttons, would have a office job. this would mean that salaries would go up, and the value of money would go down. this was an objective of mine for a while, but now i see the flaws of it.

I have also made a 'self servicing systems' budget in my spare time. this system would be where the state pays less money to the public sector or state services, and the services support themselves. imagine a traffic officer collecting money for the department he works for? imagine schools where they advertise for companies for supplies from those companies? there are many many ways for the state services to collect money from the people without suckling at the nipples of the state, that they could operate as they only took orders from the state, abiding by their duties and making extra money.

What is it about bank deposits you believe to be "basically imaginary?" I would push back on that to say that all forms of payment are basically imaginary. Money is not more "real?" than is the money in a checking account, or the tooth fairy, or gold for that matter. My point is that the role of money as it has been stated is that it is basically claims on future goods which people are willing to give you for it. none of it actually adds up to much outside of the seller of the goods willingness to accept the specified payment as good.

Another question that comes to my mind after starting your post is; is it actually the role of the state to balance the supply and demand of "all things." This model seems to be one of more socialistic mindset. But, if it were to be a competitive market, the supply and demand of "all things" would be determined by a different entity would it not? An entity made up of all the buyers and sellers available?...

So there has to be some sort of process by which an entity organizes and uses a skill to give something to people they wouldn't otherwise have, and that they receive a benefit from in excess of the cost the entity incurs to make it, and the price it charges for doing so? creating a surplus for the buyer and a profit for the seller? collectively creating a social benefit?

If all the factory labor supply now floods the market for office jobs, do salaries (income) rise? or does the increased labor supply put downward pressure on wages for office jobs?

It sounds like your model where you want the educations system, the state, and the fed to be seperate entities, wherein the education pays the state, and is governed by their rules but somehow turns a profit teaching low income office job workers children, by charging them a price for eduction of their children in excess of what the teachers require for a modest standard of living? then the office job workers who pay are distributed an income from the state department where they work to produce goods for their co-workers, the teachers, and the federal government? So just for clarification, in this model you basically want a socialist government with an exclusively private school system, the private school system then trains children in the best way they can work for the public government? why doesn't the state or fed retain the cost of education as well? since they are in effect the alpha and the omega in this model, with all jobs except that of an educator being public

I suppose in the model there is the prospect of the especially quant-types working for the bank, but my suspicion is the bank is unlikely to last long as no one will ever need to borrow money, and there is only one employer, which they will finance their car, their land and their credit cards through. So the bank would seem uneccessary, I suppose there is the prospect of it being the Central Bank and holds all the government finances.