I've been thinking about the macroeconomic ripple effects of introducing a profit tax specifically targeted at consumer-side side businesses. While traditional economic theory says this would cause a slowdown, I think it could actually trigger a massive upward chain reaction in revenue, competition, and labor demand.

Here is how I see the mechanics playing out step-by-step:

1. Market Consolidation & Demand Inelasticity: When you hit consumer-side side businesses with a profit tax, smaller or weaker players will naturally leave the market or merge to survive. Because there are fewer alternatives available, this reduction in options will create inelasticity in the demand curve.
2. Upward Shift in Demand: This newfound inelasticity will cause the demand curve to shift upward. Because consumers now face a more consolidated market with fewer substitutes, they will accept higher price points, ultimately creating more overall consumption and higher total revenues for the remaining consumer businesses.
3. The Supply-Side Shift (Arbitrage): Since this new profit tax is strictly focused on the consumer-side, entrepreneurs looking to avoid the tax will decide to start businesses on the supply-side of the economy where they are completely unaffected.
4. Booming Competition & Lower Input Costs: This massive influx of new founders into the supply-side will promote intense competition in that space. More competition among suppliers means they will have to drop their prices, dramatically lowering the operational costs for consumer-side businesses.
5. The Double Effect on Revenues and GDP: This creates a double positive effect for consumer businesses—their revenues are already climbing from the upward-shifting demand curve, and their input costs are dropping due to supply-side competition. This combined boost in profitability and revenue will increase aggregate GDP and significantly ramp up the demand for workers across the entire economy.

What are your thoughts on this? Does this framework hold up, or are there specific macroeconomic variables I might be overlooking?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a simpler version of the same tax idea cleaned up with chatGPT:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have an economic theory I'd like people to critique.

The proposal is simple:

Create an additional profit tax on businesses that are counted in the CPI, but not businesses counted in the PPI.

I am not proposing that PPI businesses receive a tax cut. Their existing taxes would remain unchanged. The only change is that qualifying CPI-side businesses would face an additional tax on their profits.

What do I mean by "CPI-side" and "PPI-side"?

The distinction I'm using is based on whether the business is represented in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the Producer Price Index (PPI).

For example:

• Restaurant → CPI-side → subject to the new profit tax
• Auto dealership → CPI-side → subject to the new profit tax
• Utensil manufacturer → PPI-side → not subject to the new tax
• Auto-parts manufacturer → PPI-side → not subject to the new tax

So the tax is directed specifically at the businesses operating on the consumer/final-goods side of the economy.

Why do I think this could increase GDP?

My theory starts with competition.

If CPI-side businesses become less profitable after the new tax, some entrepreneurs may decide they don't want to start or expand CPI-side businesses.

That means fewer businesses competing on the consumer side.

For example, suppose there are initially 10 restaurants competing for customers. If the tax makes the after-tax return unattractive enough that fewer entrepreneurs enter the restaurant business, perhaps only 7 restaurants eventually operate.

The remaining restaurants now face less competition.

This means the demand curve faced by an individual CPI-side business can become more inelastic, because consumers have fewer competing alternatives.

If demand becomes more inelastic, a CPI-side business has more ability to raise prices without losing as many customers.

That creates an important part of the theory:

Less competition → more inelastic firm-level demand → greater pricing power → higher prices and potentially higher revenue.

That higher revenue can produce a larger tax base, which could increase government tax revenue despite the tax itself reducing the after-tax profitability of the business.

But there is another side to the theory

I don't think the economic activity simply disappears.

Entrepreneurs who don't want to start a heavily taxed CPI-side business still have an incentive to start businesses elsewhere.

In particular, they can move toward PPI-side businesses, which are not subject to this additional tax.

This could increase competition among suppliers.

For example, if restaurants are taxed but manufacturers of utensils, equipment, food inputs, auto parts, etc. are not, entrepreneurial activity could shift toward those upstream businesses.

More suppliers competing with each other could result in:

More PPI competition → lower supplier costs → lower input costs for CPI businesses.

Those lower costs could eventually benefit the consumer-side businesses and allow them to produce more output.

So there are potentially two forces happening at the same time:

Consumer side

Higher profit tax → fewer entrepreneurs willing to enter CPI businesses → less competition → more inelastic demand for surviving businesses → greater pricing power → higher prices/revenue → greater tax revenue.

Producer side

No additional tax on PPI businesses → entrepreneurs shift toward PPI businesses → more competition among suppliers → lower input costs → greater production efficiency → increased output/GDP.

What I am proposing

To be clear, I am not proposing:

• reducing taxes on PPI businesses;
• eliminating existing corporate taxes;
• taxing consumers directly;
• taxing every business;
• or intentionally creating a recession on the consumer side.

The proposal is simply an additional profit tax on businesses counted in the CPI and not the PPI, while PPI-side businesses remain unaffected by this particular tax.

My hypothesis is that the resulting change in incentives could cause:

less competition among CPI-side businesses

while simultaneously creating

more competition among PPI-side businesses.

The first effect could make consumer-side demand faced by individual firms more inelastic and increase pricing power and tax revenue.

The second effect could lower input costs, increase production, and ultimately expand real GDP.

The question

Could these effects, taken together, actually produce higher government revenue and higher real GDP, despite imposing an additional tax?

That's the part I'm interested in having economists critique.

I'm particularly interested in whether the mechanism involving CPI-side competition, firm-level demand elasticity, entrepreneurial allocation, PPI competition, input costs, and GDP makes economic sense—or where the theory breaks down.

Here’s a first look at my new theory, bounded capitalism, it will only be viable at a global level due to its nature but with that said I would like feedback for it and potential suggestions.

Bounded Capitalism

Core Idea

Bounded Capitalism preserves capitalism's productive engine—private property, competitive markets, investment, profit, entrepreneurship, and individual economic freedom—while placing explicit boundaries on the extremes capitalism can produce.

The goal is not equality of wealth or outcome. Instead, Bounded Capitalism seeks to bound the economic range:

A floor beneath poverty, a ceiling above personal wealth, and limits on wealth compounding indefinitely across generations.

1. Capitalism Remains the Foundation

The fundamental mechanisms of capitalism remain intact:
- Private property
- Private businesses
- Competitive markets
- Investment
- Profit
- Entrepreneurship
- Individual economic freedom
- The ability to become extraordinarily wealthy through innovation and success

Bounded Capitalism does not replace capitalism's productive mechanism with centralized economic planning. The premise is that capitalism remains the economic engine; the system simply establishes boundaries around its extremes.

1. A Guaranteed Economic Floor

Every person is guaranteed a livable minimum standard of living. The floor is not intended to provide luxury. Its purpose is to ensure that people have enough to survive, participate in society, and access fundamental necessities.

Public resources can support areas such as:
- Healthcare
- Education
- Infrastructure
- Basic assistance
- Scientific research
- Exploration
- Other essential public services

The exact level and composition of the floor are implementation questions rather than fixed requirements of the theory.

1. A Personal Wealth Ceiling

Individuals may accumulate extraordinarily large personal fortunes, but eventually reach a socially determined maximum. The exact numerical threshold is an implementation detail rather than a fundamental part of the theory. For example, a society could hypothetically establish a ceiling of $1 billion, but the theory itself does not require that particular figure.

The ceiling applies to personal wealth, not simply the total valuation of businesses someone owns or controls. Someone could therefore build a company worth billions without automatically being considered personally worth the same amount.

The fundamental distinction is: The value of a productive enterprise is not automatically equivalent to the personal wealth of the person who owns or controls it.

1. Defining Personal Wealth

For the wealth ceiling to function, the system must distinguish between:

Personal wealth — assets and financial claims that genuinely belong to or economically benefit an individual.

and

Productive enterprise value — the value of businesses, equipment, infrastructure, employees, intellectual property, and other productive assets belonging to an operating enterprise.

The ceiling therefore cannot simply be based on cash in a bank account. Personal wealth accounting would need to consider assets such as:
- Cash
- Bank deposits
- Securities
- Investment accounts
- Real estate
- Personal financial assets
- Beneficial interests in trusts
- Other transferable financial claims

At the same time, business valuation cannot automatically be treated as equivalent to the owner's personal wealth.

1. No Wealth-Ceiling Loopholes

The distinction between ownership and personal wealth cannot become a mechanism for concealing personal fortunes. Comprehensive beneficial-ownership rules would prevent individuals from artificially holding wealth through:
- Shell companies
- Nominee owners
- Trusts
- Hidden financial arrangements
- Related-party structures
- Other mechanisms designed primarily to conceal actual economic control or benefit

The system would recognize economic reality rather than merely formal paperwork. If an individual genuinely controls or economically benefits from an asset, the system must be capable of recognizing that relationship.

1. Wealth Above the Ceiling Funds Society

Once an individual reaches the personal wealth ceiling, additional personal accumulation beyond that ceiling is redirected into the public economic system. The individual is not necessarily prevented from continuing to work, invent, invest, operate businesses, create new products, expand existing enterprises, or generate additional economic value. The restriction is on unlimited personal accumulation, not on economic productivity.

The redirected wealth can fund:
- The guaranteed economic floor
- Healthcare
- Education
- Infrastructure
- Scientific research
- Exploration
- Public services
- Reductions in the tax burden on lower earners

The principle is that once an individual has reached the maximum personal accumulation permitted by society, further accumulation contributes toward the society and economy in which that wealth was generated.

1. Incentives Continue After Reaching the Ceiling

Bounded Capitalism does not assume that individuals become altruistic after reaching the wealth ceiling. Two additional incentives remain:

Stewardship — A person who builds a highly successful company may still want to preserve, improve, and expand it even after they can no longer personally accumulate unlimited wealth from it. They retain an incentive to see what they created continue to succeed.

Provisioning — Individuals can continue creating economic value for their descendants. Although inheritance is limited, heirs can still receive substantial wealth. A person may continue building because their descendants can benefit from what they create, even though the entire fortune cannot be transferred intact.

This preserves ambition without requiring unlimited personal accumulation.

1. Generational Wealth Limits

Bounded Capitalism prevents enormous fortunes from compounding indefinitely through inheritance. When an individual dies, their estate is not automatically transferred entirely to their heirs. The government is treated as an additional beneficiary.

For example: 4 children + government = 5 shares. Each child receives 1/5, while 1/5 enters the public system.

Heirs can therefore still inherit substantial fortunes and potentially remain extremely wealthy, but an entire fortune cannot simply pass intact from generation to generation. The purpose is to prevent permanent economic dynasties whose wealth continues expanding independently of their descendants' own contributions. Future generations remain free to become wealthy themselves; they simply cannot rely indefinitely upon inheriting an intact fortune.

1. Businesses Enter the Private Market First

When an individual dies, privately owned businesses are automatically offered for private purchase through auction. This gives the private market the first opportunity to preserve the enterprise under private ownership. If a buyer purchases the business, the proceeds become part of the estate and are handled according to the inheritance system. If the business fails to attract a private buyer, ownership defaults to the government.

A dedicated business-inheritance mechanism allows heirs to directly inherit businesses outside the auction process, subject to a cap on the number of businesses any single heir (or family line) may hold at once. This cap is what keeps direct inheritance from becoming a backdoor around the auction system: a family can remain owners of a select few enterprises across generations, but cannot use inheritance alone to accumulate an ever-expanding portfolio of businesses. Once a family is at the cap, any additional business acquired at death is directed to auction rather than passed down intact.

The exact number set for this cap is an implementation detail, not a fixed requirement of the theory—consistent with how the wealth ceiling and land limits are treated elsewhere in this framework.

The government therefore does not automatically seize productive enterprises; private ownership is preferred whenever the private market is willing to sustain the enterprise, and direct inheritance is preferred over auction whenever the family remains within the business-count cap.

1. Businesses and Their Land Are Connected

A business is considered connected to the land on which it operates or which it owns. This prevents an inherited or auctioned business from being artificially separated from the physical property necessary for its operation. The business and its associated land are therefore treated as a connected economic unit when applying inheritance and ownership rules.

1. Land Has Separate Inheritance Limits

Land receives separate treatment because it is a finite resource that cannot be produced in response to demand. An illustrative inheritance limit could be approximately 100 acres per heir. A narrow exception allows up to 20 additional acres when the additional land is genuinely connected to the same property and separating it would artificially divide an otherwise unified holding.

For example:
Permitted: Two connected 60-acre properties → one heir receives both → 120 acres.
Not permitted: Six independent 20-acre properties → one heir receives all six → 120 acres.

The exception exists to preserve coherent properties, not to create a general loophole around the acreage limit. Land exceeding the applicable inheritance allowance returns to the government unless it qualifies under a legitimate exception.

1. Global Coordination Is a Structural Requirement

Bounded Capitalism requires near-universal international adoption or equivalent global economic coordination. Without it, wealthy individuals and businesses could relocate to jurisdictions without wealth ceilings and undermine the system through capital flight. This is not a flaw the theory accidentally overlooks. Global coordination is an explicit structural prerequisite of the model. Bounded Capitalism therefore acknowledges from the outset that its successful implementation requires a sufficiently unified global economic environment.

Overall Philosophy

Bounded Capitalism does not attempt to make everyone equally wealthy. It attempts to prevent both extremes:

Below: Nobody is permitted to fall beneath a defined minimum standard necessary for survival and meaningful participation in society.

Above: Nobody is permitted to accumulate unlimited personal wealth indefinitely.

Across generations: No family is permitted to compound an enormous fortune forever simply through inheritance—whether that fortune takes the form of liquid wealth, land, or ownership of multiple businesses.

Everything between those boundaries remains substantially capitalist: Build. Compete. Innovate. Inv

I've been thinking about a policy idea that might increase GDP by allowing businesses to use price discrimination more efficiently.

The idea is this:

Credit card companies could issue cards with a color that corresponds to a person's yearly spending. The color wouldn't reveal an exact income, just a broad category.

Businesses could then choose to offer two prices:

• A regular price that maximizes profit from higher-spending customers.
• A discounted price for lower-spending customers who normally wouldn't shop there.

Here's why I think this could help the economy:

Right now, a business often has to choose between charging one high price (losing lower-income customers) or one lower price (earning less from customers who would have paid more).

With two prices, the business could keep its higher-margin customers while also selling to customers who previously wouldn't have bought the product at all.

That means:

• More units sold.
• More revenue for businesses.
• More profit.
• More consumer purchases, which increases the consumption component of GDP.

I also think there could be a one-time increase in prices for some products because businesses would optimize their pricing once this system exists. However, after that adjustment, the economy could permanently operate with more mutually beneficial transactions taking place than before.

A country's law would have to make such price discrimination legal for this to work, but I think it's a good idea.

Hey everyone,

I wanted to share a macroeconomic policy experiment I’ve been modeling that aims to fix the UK’s stagnant GDP and cost-of-living issues without blowing a hole in the national deficit.

Most tax cuts (like the US 2017 TCJA) fail because they rely on massive borrowing, which causes inflation and forces central banks to spike mortgage rates. This plan avoids that trap entirely through a slow-burn Revenue-Neutral Percentage Swap tied directly to Green Energy Corporate Bonds.

Here is how it works:

1. The 8-Year Gradual Percentage Swap

Instead of a massive shock to the economy, we enact a microscopic percentage-point-for-percentage-point shift every year for 8 years:

• Increase VAT (Sales Tax) by 0.1% annually.
• Decrease Employee National Insurance (Social Security) by 0.1% annually.

By Year 8, the employee labor tax has dropped by 0.8%, and the VAT has crawled from 20% to 20.8%.

1. Why this Generates a Massive Surplus (No Deficit Hole)

In the UK, the VAT tax base is significantly larger than the employee social security tax base. Because of this structural size mismatch, a direct percentage-for-percentage swap inherently favors the government's balance sheet:

• +0.1% VAT brings in roughly +£850 million per year.
• -0.1% NICs costs the government roughly -£550 million per year.
• The Result: The government automatically pockets a net surplus of +£300 million each year, accumulating to a permanent £2.4+ billion annual surplus by Year 8.

1. The Grand Strategy: Global Green Corporate Bonds

Instead of letting politicians waste the £2.4 billion annual surplus, the money is legally locked into a fund to purchase global green energy corporate bonds.

By acting as a massive institutional buyer, the UK government drives down bond yields. This lowers borrowing and capital costs for green energy multinational corporations, allowing them to build massive renewable infrastructure (wind, solar, tidal) at a fraction of the market cost.

1. The Macroeconomic Chain Reaction (How GDP Grows)

This framework creates a self-reinforcing economic loop that solves multiple UK crises at once:

• Stable Mortgages: Because the VAT increase is capped at an invisible 0.1% per year, it is completely swallowed by normal inflation targets. The Bank of England has no reason to hike interest rates, keeping household mortgages completely stable.
• Tourism Immune: International tourists won't notice a fraction-of-a-penny tax increase on a cup of coffee. Currency fluctuations matter 10x more to them than a 0.1% tax shift.
• Lower Housing/Living Costs: As cheaper green infrastructure scales up globally from the bond investments, wholesale utility costs plunge. Lower electricity and heating bills act like a permanent, economy-wide tax cut for domestic households and renters.
• The Dual-Curve GDP Boost: Workers get higher take-home pay on their monthly pay slips (shifting the consumer demand curve up), while domestic businesses face drastically lower utility operating costs (shifting the production cost curve down).

By moving the tax burden away from human labor and onto broad consumption, we can build a multi-billion-pound investment engine that drives down utility costs, anchors suppliers to the UK, and fuels long-term, deficit-free compounding GDP growth.

What does it mean for a country to be considered an economic success? You picture a country where everyone is rich. But, if everyone was rich, there would be inflation, and the country would have to raise interest rates until the economy cooled; severely slowing GDP; leading to unemployment. When I imagine a rich country, I imagine a low unemployment rate with a minimum wage that is high enough such that nobody is in poverty. However, currently there is a tradeoff between high minimum wages and economic prosperity. That is because a high minimum wage raises business costs, thereby raising the aggregate cost curve across an entire economy and cutting business sales, which in turn requires less labor. So, temporarily, low unemployment cannot exist with a high minimum wage. However, there may be a way around the 'higher minimum wage tradeoff' that may make everyone better off. The first part of the proposal is simple: create a business profit tax, and use the revenues of that tax to lower the payroll tax paid by employers. Right now, the U.S. does not have a federal business profit tax, so it would have to create one. However, it does pay a payroll tax (or something like it) in the form of a social security tax that all employers pay on employee income. So, what exactly happens when you raise the business profit tax and lower the payroll tax? Raising business profit taxes will force companies to merge to keep their profit margins. This will raise prices due to decreased business competition. However, the decreased costs in labor due to the decrease in payroll taxes will lower prices and send interest rates lower overall. Because, businesses will see their profits going to fund lower labor costs, you might assume that no profits are gained or lost. However, because the labor cost curve is lower (and both demand and cost curves are further separated), not only are profits gained, but so are revenues and the demand for more labor. The lower cost curve allows for the minimum wage to be raised until the cost curve comes back to it's original state. The only thing that is gained by this policy, is a higher minimum wage at no tradeoff with unemployment or GDP. So, there you have it; a tax plan to increase the minimum wage without losing jobs.

AI seems likely to replace most programmers, finance folks, lawyers, artists and many other people. Seems like this will displace millions of consumers. Who pays for AI services if there are so many fewer potential customers with money? Who pays for taxes? Who pays for stuff?

I want to discuss about this.

Most people think that AI will kill world of informatics.

I can't understand why they think that way? If AI kill the informatic industry ( i refer to all jobs related computers), what will happen to doctors, teachers or any desk jobs?

Before computer engineers lost their jobs, they probably steal many doctors' job because AI can diagnose most health problems.

I also think that

if AI can replace many jobs, this means AI better at that job. If companies prefer AI to humans, AI is probably cheaper than humans.

This means, most products will become cheaper. (games, security softwares and many more) And I think it is good. I think it is not gonna happen exactly like this, but everything will get cheaper in a similar manner.

What do you think? as i say, I want to start a discussion about this. Am I wrong? why?

Link to full article included, here's some pieces of it

https://open.substack.com/pub/anothercompetitor/p/the-economic-body-rethinking-keynesian?r=4p8hob&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false

...

I’ll get to the nature of the organism later, but for now, I want to talk about some problems I had with his economic modeling that jumped out at me while I was reading for my econ course.

...

Keynes did not completely understand the nature of the organism he was diagnosing.

...

Now, to the organism that Keynes should have been diagnosing.

In this analogy:

wealth = the body and its structures

income = eating

economic growth = wakefulness

recessions = sleeping and rest

depressions = illness

In Keynes diagnosis, the government was the only body structure accounted for. But this is not exactly how bodies work. A body is made of many, many individual cells with cell membrane structures. An economic/political body is made of many, many people and units like families that can be analogous to cells.

Keynes “body structure,” the government, sort of feels like a plastic or artificial cover encasing the economy “body.”  The internal parts of this economy seem to be lacking individual cells and sort of just a gelatinous substance. Illness can be likened to any change in the consistency of the internal substance. From the outside, Doctor of Economics can inject different medicines or “foods” to adjust the consistency of the substance on the inside. This is a strange organism, and probably not really alive.

If diagnosing the economic problem were like diagnosing a real-living patient, the situation would look different. In the time of the Great Depression, the Doctors of Economics who were working with the government had artificially lowered interest rates, so that people in the economy, the individual cells in the actual organism needing diagnosed, had borrowed more money than the system could handle. It was like a child being given way too much sugar. Because of this, the system crashed, like a child after a sugar shock. People had too much income, and not enough real wealth, such as a house they owned, or other equity to fall back on and sleep off the crash.

The organism became ill. Keynes came in to diagnose the organism, and well, as stated before, did not completely understand the organism being diagnosed. His solution was to shock it awake and feed it more through income. The outside plastic structure was shored up as well, through government spending in the form of government jobs. But the real organism was not plastic. The cells starved. Many died. His solution was not to let it rest, and give it mild, cell-membrane-structure building necessities. Or, in economic terms, letting people have access to land and natural resources to build real wealth and help naturally restore economic function.    

His misdiagnosis of the problem persists to this day. The cells in the organism have little wealth, instead they are reliant for survival on a stead and uninterrupted stream of income to maintain any semblance of structure. Because the cells are not strong, the organism is unable to sleep without many cells being put in dangerously unhealth situations. Also, the organism sleeping, or mild recessions, can sometimes be seen as signs of it being unhealthy and in need of medicine. For this, the organism often becomes ill, leading to depressions, and the prescription written from Keynes’s misdiagnosis is administered again.

Hi. I'm writing a small paper about philosopical pragmatism, climate change, world currency... (I have a physics trylogy, just 3 small papers and this one is the completion).

I just want some ideas to complete the text, maybe about justice, free will and economy!

Can you tell me?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388110335_Ethics_in_quantum_prison_Philosophy_of_Science

Okay, not sure if this is the right sub and I might sound like an idiot, but this question has been bugging me for a while. In the summer I needed to plant some plants in my backyard. It was 90 degrees by 9am and I went to find a day laborer to dig the holes. My backyard is filled with rocks and roots. It was really tough work. This guy did it speedily and well. I figured I would pay him $30/hour, which was more than the $20 he originally said, because I appreciated how hard he worked. But I still felt so weird about it. Why do I get paid $70-80 an hour for doing much easier work? No one wants to dig holes, hell, I could not even physically dig one hole successfully. I think the argument is usually, 'well anyone can dig holes' but honestly...I could not. Neither could/would my neighbors, friends, etc. So why does a job that is actually very hard to do get paid so little?

The lecture is found in an obscure publication of a series of special lectures at the United States Department of Agriculture held in 1930.

https://www.irwincollier.com/chicago-hayeks-seminar-equality-and-justice-1950-51/

how would you rank these? which of the two philosophies makes for a more productive, competitive and innovative community?

https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/keynesian-economics-vs-austrian-economics

This is a slight modification on a previous economic theory I made called cycle economics.

Equilibriism, or also Social Democratic Conservatism, advocates for a heavily-regulated (transportation, law enforcement, education, healthcare, [perchance] energy, etc. are still government controlled) (agriculture is a maybe as well) free market and the potential to have more success in running for government positions; however, unlike true Laissez-Faire, the vast majority of the wealth of each individual is recollected after the death of said individual and their wealth is redistributed to public works and institutions. Furthermore, there is a limit as to how much any one individual may accumulate, but being enough for them to live a hands-off life for the rest of their lifetime if earned. Do note that the government will be allowed to set up their own “companies” even in industries that aren’t exclusively owned by the government. Take agriculture: it is everybody’s right to have a fine meal, which is why the government will set up their own communes to create jobs and provide a stable food supply to the populace. Competitors are allowed, but the main purpose of this is to provide alternatives to consumers’ choices in lifestyle (Equilibriism may also have the government take control of agriculture entirely). After the death of the owner of any privatised establishment, the majority (75% rule) of assets of any privatised company will be liquidated, wherein 25% of said liquidation will be given back to the new inheritors given the net worth of the assets is less than (what is worth in 2020 1 million USD).

The idea of the richest people within the country opening up a “third chamber” in any legislative institution may serve as some incentive is up for debate in regards to it being implemented, which will serve as a weak branch of the government that in special cases such as legislative dreadlocks may intervene. They may also propose laws. This is naturally a risky development given the affluence detracting the country from the ideology.

[AI] Generated Supporting Evidence.

Equilibriism economics is a unique approach to economics that balances the principles of a free market with the need for social equality and public investment. Here are some pieces of evidence to support its approach: 1 The benefits of a free market: Proponents of Equilibriism economics recognize the potential for increased efficiency and innovation in a free market system. By allowing individuals to pursue their own self-interest, the market can allocate resources in the most efficient way possible.
2 The need for wealth redistribution: However, proponents also acknowledge that a free market can lead to unequal distribution of wealth, which can have negative effects on social stability and economic growth. By collecting the vast majority of an individual's wealth after death and redistributing it to public works and institutions, Equilibriism addresses this issue. 3 Limits on accumulation: The limitation on how much wealth any one individual can accumulate provides a check against the concentration of wealth and helps prevent negative consequences associated with such concentration, such as reduced economic mobility and political influence. In conclusion, the combination of a free market system with measures to redistribute wealth and limit accumulation provides a unique approach to economics that balances efficiency and innovation with social equality and public investment.

Self-Made Afterthought.

The main foundation in the creation of this economic philosophy was—to a great extent—the U.S. constitution’s unalienable rights: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that free markets are a fundamental part of free will, which these rights; however, as history has shown, this right has become the basis of most problems that ultimately violate the rest. To ensure this wouldn’t occur, I established other fundamental principles of social welfare, and even some unmentioned government fail-safes against manipulative business-government practices (Essentially a supreme court based on merit and contribution )to attempt to achieve this. As with other philosophies, though, this is far from perfect and merely an idealised thought.

Furthermore, this theory does not advocate and in fact deplores violence in attempting to establish itself. It is a strong supporter of democracy or voting rights of the populace it provides for. The ideology, however, due to its large responsibilities is inherently tied to a large government.

This economic ideology operates independently from social/moral ideologies, so it may be compatible with both conservative or liberal cultural values.

ADDENDUM 4-29-2023: If any federalised districts or states exist within a country, their main objective should be to regulate laws regarding cultural/moral values and issues.