: Sorry to keep tailing my own posts, but it just occurred
: to me that you would have to do what I just described,
: using the aggregate profit or loss for the system's
: Net, in order to compensate for any commerce between
: units within the Net and units outside the Net. I mean
: if all sorts of stuff is leaving the system and all
: sorts of wealth is coming back in, we need to add more
: wealth to the system to reflect that.
In connection with my last post, this should take care of itself, more or less. If more money were coming in than was leaving the system, it would work its way down and create slow inflation. If more money was leaving than coming in, the opposite would occur. This could be applied between two units in a given tier, or on a national level.
: While I'm here, another thought I just had, related more
: to the section of my constitution dealing with legal
: entities rather than economics: should all
: nongovernmental organizations be considered equal?
: That is, should a huge multinational corporation be
: considered a lowest-level "person"? If so,
: what "neighborhood" (or whatever the
: next-to-lowest-level tier is) is it a unit of? Should
: organizations perhaps be considered units of a level
: equal to whatever level they span - so that a company
: that spans three adjacent cities but nowhere else is
: considered on the level of a county government, and
: thus is a unit of the state, nor of any? (Or however
: your subdivisions work). Or would that be bad -
: international organizations being considered on the
: same level as the international government? Perhaps
: instead, a level below whatever level it spans - so a
: neighborhood-wide business is considered a
: person-level entity, a county-wide business is
: considered a city-level entity, and a huge
: multinational corporation is treated like a
: nation-level entity. And it is considered a unit of
: whatever tier it spans, of course. But if this is
: implemented must there then be a separate set of rules
: that that corporation must follow to redistribute
: wealth within itself appropriately, or can we rely on
: the tax system to provide for the people in the
: corporation who get screwed and thoroughly tax the
: fatcats in charge who hoard all the money for
: themselves? (basically leaving the corporation one
: really big, flat, bottom-level tier, in the latter
: case).
Well, in this case, I guess it all comes down to how you want to redistribute the wealth. It seems like the reason you have certain units in certain tiers is so that money will transfer from wealthier units to poorer units. However, this has to be handled with care. You wouldn't want to have one tier with ten units all consisting of normal citizens, and have a neighboring tier with nine citizen units and one multi-billion dollar corporation unit. It simply wouldn't be just to redistribute that much wealth to some, but not to their peers two towns over.
My solution then, would be to establish corporations as a lowest level unit, similar to an ordinary citizen, but group them into separate tiers. For example, a group of citizens in a local area might be grouped together into a few tiers. The legal entities for that area would be on the same tier level, but would be grouped into their own, corporate-only tiers. Or perhaps you wouldn't group the corporations by area, but would group them dynamically on a year-to-year basis based on their profits/losses, number of employees, or what they produce. Similar corporations grouped together, depending on how you want to redistribute their wealth. This would allow corporations to have the same freedoms as all base units, namely yearly profits or losses, and keep them separate from tier governments, which should have a NAT of zero.
-Phil.
