A tariff says “if you want to sell something to me you must pay me.” If we set a fixed tariff on a specific trade item then it will pull tight the love energy flow in the direction of the buyer. For love-not-threats to be mutual the seller would have to set another tariff of equal degree. If the trade of that item was reciprocal (over the border.) Then the tariff would create a “UBI”.

Now, there are multiple economic-physical items that cross the borders. And, often times the items that go one way don’t nessisarially go the other. So, if you want to have the ability to trade any item, then the tariff should apply to *all* items that cross any border. And be implemented by all countries.

If we take that to be, then the receipts from the tariff-on-all-imports for *either* country will be dependent on the inport/outport balance. So when one country has imported more than they have exported that imbalance registers them a debit. This while the other country (that exported the stuff that the first country is importing,) registers a credit on the ledger. (Now, both countries are, in a decentralized manner keeping track of this ledger and only if there is a discrepancy do they launch the nukes. But, somehow blockchian nodes work this out [IBM].)

The point is that.

The level of a counties debtedness or creditedness thus determines the instantaneous tariff that they set on all items sold to them from a particular country. It follows that the tarrifs that both countries impose on each other differ and change day-to-day dependent on how that days trade changed either countries overall (all-country) level of debtedness/creditedness.

Can’t we illustrate?

It can be visualized as a tariff feild in which force vectors become stronger (longer arrows) the more imbalanced a country’s level of debitedness or creditedness is. Or, it can be visualized as a ranking of countries from most credited to most debited. The two may be combined.

Do all countries pay a tariff?

Credited countries (those who have exported more than imported this [standardized] term) must pay a tariff proportional to the amount of credit held in imbalance (over average/ballot.) This is because the “tariff” enforces the relayment of the excess credit according to the standardized term.

Debited countries pay no tariff. This is because they have lent their soverigenty and by selling to you they are simply repaying their debit. (As publicly accounted for.)

How much is the tariff?

This, of course, depends on whos measurement of value we utilize. Is it Dollar, Euro, Yen, RMB? And do we clearly understand the credit standard we wish to utilize?

Well, no, so let’s see.

There are two currency defining factors: (1) the granularity of the Ballot (e.g. MZM money stock to total population ratio,) (2) the statutory-fixed term which defines the minimum rate of credit principle repayment.

So, if a country doesn’t buy from us at a high enough flow rate the currencies float relative to each other. I suppose the issue is whether you limit the sale of soverign debt to foreign investors.

Remember, the sale of soverign debt can be considered the sale of a Ballot. The issuance of soverign debt is the purchasing of good services from other sovereigns. But, when the bond market buys treasuries (rather than bank printage) the “money is second lent” while the service purchased is money flow in the form of future coupon payments.

That means that, for the term of the loan (treasury bond) the Ballot’s power has been delegated from some constituent person to the so-called soverign government. This even though the sovereign governments bank’s issue credit on behalf of all constituents in the collective. This perverts the top-down hierarchy by making the government serve those who have delegated power to it’s bad income taxation rather than having the government place it’s constituents on top.

The issue is that the Ballot is the soverign ability to lend from the bank the first time. (AKA to issue Dollars into main st market existence.) But, since Ballots have been wrongly de-individualized Congresses spending is in one sence inverted and in another liberalized in an uncontrolled fashion that leaves the market functioning but unmonitored. That is until it taxes income in order to repay principle and service the interest payments. Thus, the entire market is set free to seek profits to service that debt and is unfettered except via inefficient top down socialistic central regulations.

But, boy, have I digressed.

We would like to consider this a Republic’s market globally yet retain state controls that may be necessitated. And, a margin capable brokerage account, in a (complicated) sence, allows individuals to tap into the issuance of the currency the margin is denominated in. Yet, this ability to spend ballots in the market is often limited to wall st assets rather than main st services. Also, the creation of corporate persons allows for some individuals to multiply the number of “ballots” they may issue leveraged dollars. This is why knowing who the beneficial owners of assets is relavent to policy. Each individual human will have a capital requirement in his or her capacity of bank-like currency issuance. He or she may offer that limited margined leverage capital to whichever ventures chosen. Since the overall capital margin regulations is dependent on the number of humans in the market population the total stock of measurable credit is, ultimately, soverign humans.

What has happened is that humans have been collectivised into nation-states and, the granularity of their soverigenty as a collective changes dependent upon trade imbalances with other soverign nations. I suppose I’m saying that if one nation’s curency drops in value relative to another then it has “become less granulated”. In other words, in the geonationstate that has sold more than it has bought, and that therefore had its currency’s value relatively drop, what has happened is the Ballots of those people, aggregate, has become divided into less fine pieces.

To what end or purpose is this lower granularity of over-sellers Ballots?

To answer we must Fourier Transform from the “time domain” to the “frequency domain” and thus switch our focus to periodic timing (AKA frequencies) rather than the “spot granularity” of different currencies at any particular point in time.

The radically fundamental question at any Republic’s constitutional ratification is the commonly agreed upon duration of time (term) or the frequency of how often Ballots to be distributed to those entitled to vote. So, at issue isn’t, “how often do we get to choose”, but how do we enforce the reciprocal purchasing of services among friendly trading partners?

If the dominant Republic wishes to enforce it’s standardized voting frequency among trading partners then there is a minimum rate of credit principal repayment that is considered acceptable. And, since the Ballot and the standardized voting frequency is being enforced via variable tariffs, the granularity of a countries Ballot and the size of the enforcer nation’s trade deficit thus determines the rate of credit principal repayment that is enforced via that variable tarrif.

Hahahaha. Got it?

So, the trade deficit is repaid faster by countries with a more granulated currency thus pulling the currencies back to parity at the enforced rate. In other words, the trade deficit must be repaid/eliminated at a minimum rate.

We can generalize like this:

The trade deficit of each country is divided a fixed number of times (reevaluated each period.) Then that amount must, per fixed period of time, either (1) be paid in tariffs, or (2) be spent in the country owed.

For example, if the term is 4 years the minimum credit principal repayment rate is 25% per year or 0.066849% per day. There are 1,461 days in each 4 year term. So, every day divide every country’s trade deficit by 1,461. That amount is due to be spent that day.

• Uncategorized