[x] User Info
Welcome Anonymous
Nickname
Password

[x] Quote of the Day

[x] Main Menu

[x] Coppermine Stats
coppermine
• Albums: 1
• Pictures: 3
  · Views: 2531
  · Votes: 0
  · Comments: 5
Path to a GUT 10-31-10 NOT Enforcing Strict Liability On Corporations Reduces Quantity of Life

NOT Enforcing Strict Liability On Corporations Reduces Quantity of Life

by Dan Alter n1cl-1


Preface


Corporations by legal definition limit Liability upon their owners to the amount invested. Needless to say, this creates incentives to perform illegal and negligent acts to increase corporate profits at the expense of others. Theses incentives have been recognized since the beginning of legal corporations and regulated against. As the recent Wall Street bailouts show, the corporations now own our politicians and regulators to our wider societies great loss. Relaxing Liability for the few and politically powerful will always occur unless every citizen can see the objective scientific reason why corporations must be rigorously regulated and instantly sanctioned for letting any of their owners and employees break our laws and regulations. I will prove below that to do otherwise will ALWAYS result in an immediate loss in the Quantity of Goods & Services Exchanged, that is the food, shelter, clothing, and medicine all must use. In short it reduces the quantity of time alive, it kills people at the margin.

ABSTRACT


Ronald Coase asked in "The Problem of Social Cost" Journal of Law & Economics October 1960 the fundamental political economic question.

It turns out, its correct answer is required to construct a true Grand Unification Theory(GUT) that explains the natural laws governing our universe:

Coase asked,"Who do we hold liable for causing a cost to another person?" i.e. committing a crime, or a lesser cost upon another equal?" He pointed out there were two possible ways;

1. Strict Liability(SL) = you cause the cost we society makes you pay; and

2. No Liability(NL) = You cause the cost, the person damaged pays you NOT to cost you in the future = the legal definition of extortion.

He measured cost by how much any action or change affects the Quantity of Goods & Services Exchanged(Q G&S XCed). Ergo, something that decreases Q of G&S is bad, while an action that increases it is good.


I show how and why Coase wrongly concluded there was no difference in Q XCed between SL and NL. This result was controversial, but our elites and corporations loved it because now they could change our laws to exempt themselves from Strict Liability and they have done so.

He made a fundamental 'obvious as the nose on your face' mistake, 'once pointed out', in his method of comparing the two alternative Q of G&S XCed. Coase did not use a real objective good as a money for comparing the Q of G&S XCEd between the two alternative ways of enforcing civic Liability as the Walras neoclassical mathematical economic model he used to sum up the Q of G&S XCed requires.

Coase's conclusion that there was no difference in the Q G&S XCed was controversial. He used Walras neoclassical mathematical economic model to compare his alternatives. By explicit construction, Walras model requires that one of the real Goods in the chain of XC MUST be used as the money or numeraire used for a comparison. Objective necessity in a real universe requires a real piece of it to be used as a measure of comparison, and so does a conserved logic like Walras' Law.

Why and How was Coase Wrong?


Coase's basic analytical error is obvious once pointed out. It is called the fallacy of Non-Attribution. He did not use one of the goods in his chain of exchange described in his theoretical model as his basis of comparison = his money. In order to tie economic analysis to objective(we can all verify it with our senses)reality, economists use Walras Law, it is the fundamental mathematical theory used by economists to sum up the Quantity of Goods & Services Exchanged(Q 0f G&S XCed). It explicitly requires that a real good in the chain of exchanges being described, be used as a common denominator measure = numeraire = money. All real scientists require that our measures be objective for all of our predictions, not imaginary. Coase assigned imaginary money prices to the cattle and wheat used in his example.

Here is how his 'imaginary' mistake worked: Coase assigned $100 price to each cow and $1 a bushel to the wheat damaged. He had assumed that at the economic margin between profit and loss there were 10 cows and 1000 bushels of wheat produced under either No Liability or Strict Liability; ergo he always arrived at $2000 = $2000 produced under either system of Liability.

But once you use either the cattle or the wheat as your 'money', the wheat farmer(WF) has to pay some wheat to 'not be damaged' in the future; then switching to a system of No Liability instantly reduced the Q of G&S XCed. The reason is simple, since the WF has paid the CM 100 bushels of wheat(= time spent producing wheat) the WF has less wheat to buy the Cattleman 10 cows implying the CM now only has to produce 9 cows to get the same amount of wheat. Pretty sweet for the CM; less work, same pay. Not so good for WF same work, less pay. Ergo, the total Q of G&S XCed must decrease.

After I made this fundamental discovery in Economics; my mentors said I was right, but they refused to help me publish. At first I did not understand why, but later I realized this discovery destroyed the basis for limiting Liability for corporations. I determined to not let our scientific 'establishments' block my or any other scientist publicizing results that cost them power and money again. The result is the No 1st Cost List. A public place for Earth for all scientists to publish unpopular results.

Scientific Implications


Coase's wrong answer to his brilliant question earned him the Nobel in Economics in 1991, but it raises a raised for me a fundamental economic question. For my demonstration of Coase's error to be true, the question "How must we life forms measure costs to ourselves?" must be answered, i.e.

What do all life forms use as their personal objective measure of value under any set of circumstances?

Objective means we agree that we each can perceive the data reported with properly operating senses..

A measure of value must be the one thing common to everything any life form does. Life forms use this 'measure' automatically to determine how any change in circumstances affect them for good or ill.

Up to now, we Earthlings have used this "objective measure" unconsciously, or someone would have pointed it out before me: The Answer is: Our time alive in a life form = "one unit of time alive per unit time". We all 'unconsciously' try to use as little of our time alive as possible to get what we need to stay alive. For good reason, when we take to long, we die. We have been up to now, unconscious own time cost minimizers. Unconscious gets you dead in a conserved universe.

Conclusions


1. No Liability can not be tolerated in a civilized society that wants to maximize the Q G&S XCed in a society of free and equal citizens. No Liability leads to tyranny.

2. This result leads directly to deducing what "Objective Measure Of Value" all life forms must use to maintain there existence in an entropic conserved universe. Explained elsewhere and below.

3. Coase got the Nobel prize in Economics for 'The Problem of Social Cost' Journal of Law & Economics, October 1960 where he stated that No Liability could be tolerated. I am owed a Nobel in Economics for showing why he was wrong, and more importantly, for deducing the implications that arise from showing how he was wrong.

4. I was told I was right in private by my mentors, but publication of my paper "The Objective Measure of Value Created by Exchange" was blocked. I was naive and did not fully understand why at first.

Not getting credit was fortunate for us all. I got mad, and invented the No 1st Cost List, so no scientist would ever be denied publication again for making a discovery that overturned existing theory.

The Worst Public Policy Result of Coase's Paper

Our wannabe 'aristocrats' = 'establishments' loved Coase's result. It gives them scientific cover to change the laws any which way they want to. Amazingly, these rule(law) changes always seem to make the people at the top better off at others expense. e.g. Now corporations can sell pollution rights. Another example, so called Tort reform = the little people can not sue to protect themselves from corporations = owned and controlled by the rich and powerful.

Why answering Coase's brilliant question leads to a true GUT?

Demonstrating how and why he was mistaken directly implies the answer to this question: What must the causal premise for a GUT be? A Grand Unification 'theory implies this question, "Unified with respect to what?". My "Objective measure.. ....etc" paper implied the answer. 'We' are what a GUT is unified with respect to; 'we' create scientific theories to describe the universe back to ourselves. A GUT must begin and end with 'us'. So if Coase was wrong; then "How must we life forms behave so as to maximize the quantity of Goods & Services Exchanged?". i.e. Thus what 'objective' part of 'us' do 'we' all use the same way, all the time, to measure what is good and bad for each one of us? It is the same 'thing' for all of us, and all life forms use it the same way all the time, unconsciously.

The answer is obvious, it is our time alive in a body, we each have only 24 hours a day alive = one unit of time alive per unit time as measured by the speed of light in a life form. bingo we are linked directly to e = mcc.

A Review of Coase's Question and Argument?


Coase asked, "Someone must be held liable for causing a cost", the only question for a civil society is, "Who should society make pay?"; the person causing it; or should we make the person bearing the cost, "Pay the person causing them pain, not to cost them again in the future?".

An example: A cattleman(CM) and a wheatfarmer(WF) live next to one another and wholly own their property: The cattle trample or eat some of the wheat. Somebody will pay for the cost of the lost wheat. Strict Liability = CM pays WH for the damage; No Liability = WF pays CM not to damage him again in the future.

Coase used a theoretical model to show that there was no difference in the Quantity of Goods & Services Exchanged between the two ways of enforcing Liability; Strict Liability; or No Liability.

A result that our 'leaders' really liked, but showing Coase was mistaken meant they could not publicly justify enriching themselves at everyone elses expense.

Why is This Result so Important to Ordinary Citizens?


In showing how and why Coase was wrong; I also showed why we must enforce Strict Liability for the Time Our Exchanges(XC)Cost Others. Otherwise, the Quantity of Goods & Services Exchanged (Q G&S XCed) decreases every time; that's the food we eat. In any society that uses money to run its exchanges(us); enforcing Strict Liability for the time our actions cost others is crucial for our long-term prosperity and survival.

The two biggest reasons;

1. Any civilization premised on "All men are created equal" can not call itself civilized until its citizens legislate the Rule Of Law we will enforce between us = Strict Liability for the Time Alive we cost one another.

2. An accurate scientific picture of how the 'Natural Laws' of the universe work with respect to ourselves rests upon understanding "How we use our time alive to get what we need to stay alive.".

What Law we enforce between us is a big deal for a society that, by inspection, lives by XC using a "money" = numeraire, isn't it?

A Natural Law: Demonstrating that 'We must enforce Strict Liability' upon anyone, big or small for the slightest amount of Time they cost others, or there will be an instant decrease in the Quantity of Goods & Services Exchanged(Q of G&S XCed) is a Natural Law.

The only reason we do not see the decrease in the Q of G&S XCed instantly in present real life, is central bank credit. It lets us postpone the evil day of reckoning for relaxing liability by creating debt that eventually can not be repaid, unless we want to die.

Limiting Liability for the rich and powerful e.g. Large corporations; can not be a good idea then.

How do we Change Our Present Political System?


Use the No 1st Cost List to reform our political and scientific system.

The N1CL's basic premise is that a network logically can only have one central place where everyone can meet to disagree in real-time.

The N1CL is the only way we can clean out this Augean stable of corruption in our leaderships in time to save our planet.

Dan Alter N1CL-1

Posted by dan1 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 (11:00:00)
[ Administration ]


Associated Topics

Science of Conservation DebtPath to a GUT

"10-31-10 NOT Enforcing Strict Liability On Corporations Reduces Quantity of Life" | Login/Create an Account | 5 comments
Threshold
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Re: Why did I invent the No 1st Cost List (Score: 1 )
by blowfirst on Wednesday, December 31, 1969 (19:33:25)
(User Info | Send a Message)
GUT? Where did this come from and what does it mean?

Save the second paragraph for the ending????


Who is Coase?

Conservation debt needs to be explained in easier terms

For the simple man (business person)why do I (edited)t to use this site???? and not just because I am (edited)ed at the politicians.



Re: Why did I invent the No 1st Cost List (Score: 1 )
by blowfirst on Wednesday, December 31, 1969 (19:33:25)
(User Info | Send a Message)
First off for the most part this is a excellent commentary but it has a few typigraphical (sp?) errors. I understood most of it due to the fact that you have been explaining it to me for years. But it is a little confusing to the average person. I still believe that it needs to be easier to understand.

Kelly



Re: 10-31-10 NOT Enforcing Strict Liability On Corporations Reduces Quantity of Life (Score: 1 )
by happyzhi on Friday, November 18, 2011 (06:59:56)
(User Info | Send a Message)
Had repeatedly Rift Plat said he is Mulan ROM Gold,if further annoy so me,Xuan Feng shock said: Having said Dragon Nest Gold,normally what a mighty.curled up body Dragon Nest,Ye Gu Yun began to gradually R2 Online Gold transfer the original Buy Swtor Credits feel only the breath of stagnant up Rift Gold,I feel very boring to turn on the general channel Guild Wars 2 Gold,the cold mountain breeze will rub the Troy Dra front said: He came here the purpose is so Nostale challenging to me,said Qi Hongguang's ancestors Runes of Magic Gold also had to foll ow the Japanese to attack the Great Grand Fantasia Kublai Khan,surrounded by full of Maple Story Mesos hair flying
a green light Forsaken World envel oped the entire cavalry corps headed by Zhao Moedas Perfect World Bailong above.above a tree,but also FFxiv Gil for their ruthlessness Buy Alz,and instantly stop the oncoming force Fly For Fun Penya.for him

Related Links [x]

Article Rating [x]
Average Score: 4.55
Votes: 27


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options [x]

Social Connect! [x]

Disconnect Links [x]

Seeing Ourselves [x]

Latest Articles [x]

Forums Last posts [x]

Message Tree [x]
Dan: Equation news & todo: Whait the identity objective identity described in MT below does is porvide two vectors from "objective observers" center point that terminate on each edge of Moebius surface giving a straight perpinducular line from edge to edge. Further one vector terminates of Plus side of surface and the other terminates on the Minus edge for every possible point on M surface. Since there is a distance between the two sides of surface for practical navigation purposes we can say the line between the two vector ends runs between the two sides. However there is one point on M 's circumference where it is impossible to use t(edited) vectors = the inner end of the Bowtie line. There the two vectors end side by side, one above the other so to speak at BT line's lower end.
02-Feb-2012 19:43:56
Dan: Equation news: figured out the base objective equality that defines the precise center of a Moebius geometry with respect to all points on its surface. From which the "neutral observer watches", the objective observing point. Where God would sit. It is, as usual, as obvious as the nose on your face once pointed out.
28-Jan-2012 22:17:52
Dan: Watching the Republican debates is refreshing. They are so childlike in there greedy hypocrisy. They claim to be Christians but cheer for attacking and starting wars for no other reason than they think the USA is too strong to be defeated. They better hope Christ is not an actual piece of the Godhead who said,"There are no commandments greater than these two, "Love God with all your heart, mind and body; and Love your neighbor as yourself." Lying to start a first strike war is in direct violation of those two commandments. Wow! These false Christians better hope their God is not a vengeful one as many of them proclaim. That God loves to punish greedy stupid cowardly hypocrites who violate God's commandments.
27-Jan-2012 19:59:53
Dan: Bingo, Robert Heinlein shows the dividing 'action or inaction' that explains our political leaders public behavior. "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." Robert A. Heinlein. I can't, nor would I tell you what to do. You by nature or choice have to choose to treat others as equals, worth of love and respect. That is the path of life, making others do what they do not choose is certain societal death.
15-Jan-2012 04:32:40
Dan: Ghandi, "Disobedience to the law of the State becomes a peremptory duty when it comes in conflict with the law of God.".
12-Jan-2012 08:19:16
Dan: Locate yourself on a Moebius Eq: You only need three ravs from a zero point to describe a 3-D coor. system, A Moebius has two sides to its surface, so any pair-points sitting 'back to back' necessarily have 3 rays on each side of M. The question is, "What does this do to the 'plus/minus relationships between this two sided coor. system?
09-Jan-2012 03:18:37
Dan: "In fact, it is not "Judge not, lest you be judged."; it is, "Judge not yourself, and be judged.". Each of us acts or does not act according to how the particular circumstances we face affect our self-interests. Your self-interest, as mine, rests directly on the continued existence of life on Earth.
02-Jan-2012 05:35:58
Dan: What our central banks are doing to cover up our big banks bad debts: "A person who can't pay gets another person who can't pay to guarantee that he can pay. Like a person with two wooden legs getting another person with two wooden legs to guarantee that he has got two natural legs. It don't make either of them able to do a walking-match." Charles Dickens
26-Dec-2011 05:36:14
Dan: "There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu The USA is a good example.
25-Dec-2011 07:01:54
Dan: "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing." Theodore Roosevelt
24-Dec-2011 15:27:37
Message History
Only Registered Users can POST
Create/Login


COPYRIGHT 2005 No 1st Cost List, Patent Pending
The logos and trademarks used on this site are the property of their respective owners.
We are not responsible for any information and comments posted by our users, as they are the property of the poster.
Unless you charge above actual copying expense, you may read, copy, reprint, incorporate or pass on to others in any form the material put on the
No 1st Cost List public record for public and private benefit.
When charging above actual copying expenses, except for accepted 'fair use', you must arrange terms of compensation with the author(s).
Interactive software released under GNU GPL, Code Credits, Privacy Policy