Coopetism 5.5 – The Cost-of-Living Conundrum: 260+ Years of Post-Subsistence Innovation, How Can Our ‘GDP-to-USI Ratio’ Be Just 5?

Coopetition: Nature’s Sole Societal Demand

‘Cooperation first & foremost and, within that context, Competition as the treasured second.’

Nature’s requirement for a society – human or otherwise – is for its individuals’ interactions to be ‘Coopetive’.

Regarding the current Western Model, so-far it has evolved a full array of ‘Inter-Citizen-Coopetivity Infrastructure’, which relate to the universalisation of ‘The Rule of Law’, ‘Democracy’, ‘Education’ & ‘Health’, with one exception – i.e. there isn’t ‘The Universal Subsistence Income’ (USI).

The USI-absence gifts us, Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS).

Thus, it’s hypothesised that SIS is the reason for our miniscule ‘GDP-to-USI Ratio’ where GDP is Gross Domestic Product, which is the value, in a year, of an economy’s finished goods & services.

In Australia, ‘The GDP-to-USI Ratio’ is just 5 – i.e. a $A 2.4 trillion economy with The USI about $480 billion – and, therefore, there’s the exclamation, “The USI is unaffordable!”

Assuming SIS is the source-problem then it’s the damnedest of cost-of-living conundrums – i.e. due to a low ‘GDP-to-USI Ratio’, we think The USI can’t be afforded, which means we can’t eradicate SIS; however, it’s SIS’s presence that’s making the Ratio low.

Comparing ‘Production-to-USI Ratios’: Today’s Australia vis-à-vis 1760 Britain

‘The GDP-to-USI Ratio’ calibrates GDP in terms of nature’s currency – i.e. survival.

In 1760 Industrial Revolution (predominantly subsistence-farming) Britain, their production was something above subsistence – i.e. their Ratio was, perhaps, 2 – however here, to be conservative, it’s assumed it was the bare-subsistence-minimum – i.e. just 1.

Also, ‘subsistence-standards’ in 2024 Australia have increased compared with 1760 Britain – i.e. today we expect building regulations, education, health, electricity, sewage disposal etc. – which means what sufficed for subsistence in 1760 was, perhaps, 20% of that now but, to be conservative, it’s assumed to be just 1%.

Thus, even being ultra-conservative, the net value of production per person in today’s Australia is a maximum of (5 x 1 x 100 =) 500 times greater than that in 1760 Britain.

Yet, over the last 260 years, via Science, Citizen-Organisation & Technology (SCOT) innovation, our potential-productivity (distinct from actual-productivity) has regularly been doubling and a production-Ratio 500 times greater means it has only been doubling every 29 years (260/9 = 29) – i.e. 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 2⁹ = 512 times.

Looking back 29 years from today (1995), the World Wide Web was just 6 years old and Google search was 3 years from being invented so, since then, our potential-productivity has doubled numerous times.

Even if our potential-productivity has been doubling only every 20 years then that’s 2¹³ = 8192 times.

And, if we assume our potential-productivity has increased 10,000-fold then, with our subsistence-standards 100 times greater than 1760 Britain, our GDP-to-USI Ratio should be (10,000/100 = ) 100, which compared to our current ratio of just 5 means, if our economy was efficient, without using any extra resources, it would be producing 20 times more of the goods & services we want such as food, housing, health, education, fuel, cleaning, electronics (including computers), cars, entertainment etc.

In this case, the difference between what our GDP-to-USI Ratio is and what it should be is the difference between the Developed & Developing Worlds again or, regarding Australia, a total economy more than 1.5 times as powerful as China’s.  What are the implications for Israel and Taiwan?

[Do you see what’s happening?  We’re happy to determinedly scavenge GDP growth of 4% yet are ignoring low-hanging fruit – i.e. all the ‘Inter-Citizen-Coopetivity Infrastructures’ such as Rule of Law & Education etc. are investments that make us multiplicatively more prosperous and there’s still one left.]

Reiterating, the problem is our potential-productivity is only fractionally approaching our actual-productivity with the difference being inefficiency.  [For more detail, please see ‘Coopetism 5.2’.]

…

July 21, 2024

Hello

Isn’t the total USI amount – in Australia, $480 billion (20% of GDP) – prohibitive?

Actually, $480 billion is just a headline – a ‘tabloid’ one.

‘Net-Taxpayer-USI’

Untrue: “The USI is just more income-Welfare.”

Our current income-Welfare (including housing-for-the-able, childcare, the States & Territories’ expenditures etc. and without considering tax-deductions for superannuation and fill-the-gap activities) is edging towards $240 billion.

Yet, while the amount’s ‘only’ half The USI ‘headline’, it’s similar to the ‘net-taxpayer-USI’.

The ‘net-taxpayer-USI’ equals the amount paid by income/profit-taxpayers for The USI that’s not returned to them as The USI.

That is, whereas income-Welfare is targeted, which means it’s a transfer from taxpayers to non-income/profit-taxpayer recipients, The USI is received by every (non-incarcerated in-country) citizen, which means, flowing from taxpayers to all citizens, about half of it returns to those paying it.

In this way, unlike income-Welfare, The USI has tremendous overlap such that most citizens are both a contributor and a recipient.

And, due to this difference, the policies represent different paradigms – i.e. while income-Welfare, theoretically, is only for emergencies (though most recipients are long-term), The USI is a key ‘Inter-Citizen-Coopetivity Infrastructure.’

Coopetition

‘Cooperation first & foremost and, within that context, Competition as the treasured second.’

Coopetivity is a natural phenomenon, which, occurring from bacteria to traditional-human-tribes, inclusively optimises:

1. Unity; and,
2. Productivity.

Coopetition may also be viewed as, ‘nature’s morality’ – i.e. a secular-morality consistent with most religious-moralities, which optimises what’s best for the group with what’s best for the individual.

Moreover, trust is the emotionalization of Coopetition – i.e. one will have trust in an individual or system if one thinks it is Coopetive.

Furthermore, Coopetivity’s Cooperation-component incorporates all those constantly praised (but, alone, somewhat boring) attributes such as ‘empathy’, ‘compassion’, ‘respect’ & ‘listening’ and, within that context, its Competition-component catalyses the interactive dynamism, invigoration, vitality, innovation and fun via banter, physicality, trading of ideas etc.

Lastly, we perceive nations as being civilised to the extent their citizens are Coopetive.

However, in the 1760’s, via the potential-subsistence-transcending-event known as ‘The Industrial Revolution’, the economy transitioned from communities to the nation via subsistence-farmers becoming income-earning machinists.

In the process, citizens gave-up direct-control over their survival-needs in the hope of greater personal & family prosperity.

Meanwhile, whereas in everyone-knows-everyone communities, Coopetition may be catalysed by trust between individuals, nations-of-strangers can only be Coopetive if citizens trust its systems – i.e. trust must be transposed from trust in individuals to trust in systems, which, for instance, is why police wear uniforms.

In turn, for citizens to fully trust their nation’s systems, those systems must be fully-Coopetivity catalysing.

Thus, ideally, governments should administer ‘The Optimised Western Model’ of ‘Coopetism.’

Coopetism: Optimised ‘Inter-Citizen-Coopetivity Infrastructure’

Coopetism:

‘Government infrastructure that maximally catalyses inter-citizen-Coopetivity.’

Governments are nations’ mother-infrastructure – i.e. with ‘infrastructure’ referring to ‘nationwide-systems’, governments are the infrastructure responsible for their nation’s other infrastructure.

‘Coopetism’ is full-‘Inter-Citizen-Coopetive Infrastructure’, which consists of 5 cornerstones:

1. Universal Rule of Coopetive Law
2. Universal Subsistence Income (USI)
3. Universal Liberal Democracy
4. Universal Education (including the Coopetition & Coopetism narratives)
5. Universal Healthcare.

[Note: each cornerstone affects each of the others, which means if one is suboptimal (let alone entirely absent) then it detracts from all the others.]

Together, this interconnected infrastructure optimally empowers, incentivises & invigorates citizens to ‘nationally-contributively self-actualise’, which is unity & productivity optimising.

Yet, with humanity oblivious to the Coopetism narrative, since the Industrial Revolution, nature – i.e. human-nature – has been evolving these infrastructures via an ongoing 260+ year ‘Mega War’ against our own anti-Coopetivity.

‘The Mega-War’ Against National Anti-Coopetivity

For 2²/₃ centuries, humanity has been amid a single ‘Mega-War’ toward full-civilisation

– i.e. toward full-‘Intra-Citizen-Coopetive Infrastructure’ – however, it has hit a policy bottleneck.

Since the Industrial Revolution, when there was negligible Coopetivity-catalysing infrastructure, citizens’ perceptions of ‘injustice’ led them to complain, rally, organise and riot.

In the West, via such evolution, this Mega-War has led to relatively robust ‘Rule of Coopetive Law’ and, via the American & French Revolutions and the 1^st World War, ‘Universal Liberal Democracy’ then, because the elite wanted educated employees and all citizens wanted opportunity, ‘Universal Education’.

‘Universal Healthcare’ has only recently been added (not yet in the U.S.A.), perhaps because, when one is incapacitated, it’s difficult to riot and their dearest must focus on attending to them.

Returning to ‘Universal Liberal Democracy’, while, in the West, following the 1^st World War, it gained a strong hold, Authoritarianism continually challenges it – i.e. via the 2^nd World War, the Cold War and, currently, once again – why?

The reason we are forced to keep refighting different versions of the same battle is not because of them but because of us – i.e. with all 5 cornerstones interrelated and yet to be optimised, there are continual vacuums that attract Authoritarianism.

Thus, with The USI the only cornerstone entirely missing and whose absence gifts us Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS), in turn, this has gifted us:

1. Most of the last hundred years’ highlights – i.e. indirectly Nazism and, directly, Communism
2. A policy bottleneck.

Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS): The Mega-War’s Continuing Thread

We think our wars are against Authoritarians; however, our wars are against anti-Coopetivity, which means, rather than wishing individuals will change, only requires us to fully-Coopetise our systems.

SIS is anti-Coopetive – i.e. servitude on threat of starvation and homelessness is not Cooperation – which means, assuming we want an improved civilisation, we’re attempting to swim against our own system’s current.

SIS’ symptoms include the social-problems (Econo-inefficiencies) of:

1. Poverty
2. Employee-exploitation
3. Self-actualisation-denying-mental-illness
4. Poverty-&-escapism-driven-crime.

Imagine 1930’s Germany but with The USI in place, even under the Allies’ pressures, could Hitler, the Nazi Party or ‘The Final Solution’ have arisen?

At that time, German citizens craved a scapegoat for their destitution; however, with full infrastructural Coopetivity, the masses would instead have had the opium of opportunity.

Similarly, regarding antisemitism’s current rise, The USI will directly (and indirectly, via it strengthening the other 4 cornerstones) defuse it.

Regarding Communism, Marx explicitly designed it as an antidote to poverty & employee-exploitation, which The USI directly supersedes.

Contemporarily, if Russia had The USI, would the Ukraine War even be possible? 

With crime miniscule, there wouldn’t be hordes of prisoners to pardon in exchange for soldiering and, while in theory, there could still be conscription, with Russians no longer subject to SIS, what if, say, half of paid-workers protested by being absent for a day or a week?

Looking at contemporary Western nations, what most defines the Left & the Right – isn’t it SIS and its peripherals of unemployment, inequality, homelessness, lack of opportunity, hopelessness etc?

Moreover, SIS – as servitude – is:

1. Anti-democratic – i.e. it’s a form of Authoritarianism
2. Anti-free-markets – i.e. in particular, the labour-market is involuntary.

Accordingly, while the legendary Francis Fukuyama, in The End of History and the Last Man (1992), was correct that democracy and free-markets characterise ‘The End of History’, in retrospect:

1. We are yet to have them – i.e. due to SIS, we’ve only ever had quasi-versions
2. Civilisation isn’t synonymous with democracy & free-markets but with Coopetivity, which includes democracy & free-markets but also The USI.

So, with The USI the only impediment to ending our ‘Mega-War’ to full-‘Intra-Citizen-Coopetivity Infrastructure’, given, in the West, the 4 other cornerstones have evolved, why hasn’t The USI?

Because there’s a bottleneck consisting of SIS Band-Aiding policies.

The Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS) Band-Aiding Bottleneck

SIS’ symptoms of poverty & employee-exploitation (and, ambiguously, mental-illness & crime) are being Band-Aided with, amongst other things:

1. Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW), which is unemployment’s creator
2. Excessive hire-&-fire laws, which exacerbates unemployment
3. Income-Welfare
4. Fall-through-the-gap Not-For-Profits.

These Band-Aids are expensive – i.e. they are reducing ‘The GDP-to-USI Ratio’ to just 5.

So, what effect would SIS-eradication have on ‘The GDP-to-USI Ratio’?

The National Cycle: The Degree-of-Citizen-Coopetivity Cycle

‘The National Cycle’ is relevant to all government types whether:

1. Authoritarian
2. Quasi-Democratic (i.e. SIS-afflicted) such as our current Western Model; or,
3. Fully-Democratic (i.e. the yet-to-exist ‘Optimised Western Model’ of Coopetism).

‘The Cycle’, as per the diagram, begins with:

‘[A] SCOT systemic-tools’

where SCOT represents ‘Science, Citizen-Organisation & Technology’.

A subset of SCOT is the centre-topmost:

‘[B] Government Inter-Citizen-Coopetivity Infrastructure.’

This is most prominently placed because it is what catalyses a nation-of-strangers into a society.

Regarding ‘The Cycle’s Big Picture totality, within nations, citizens’ endeavours are circularly processed, which means any structural imperfection – no matter how slight – will be exponentially damaging such that ‘national-outcomes’ will increasingly angulate off-track.

And, in the case of SIS, it’s not a slight structural imperfection but a major one.

On the upside, with ‘The Cycle’ self-catalysing, while anti-Coopetive infrastructure catalyses anti-Coopetivity, Coopetive infrastructure (as inherent leadership by example) catalyses Coopetivity, which is why government is the crucial element.

In analysing ‘The Cycle’ more closely, we start at [A].

[A] SCOT Systemic-Tools

‘Science’: ‘the understanding/contextualisation of nature’, which underpins both ‘Citizen-Organisation’ & ‘Technology’.

Science, Citizen-Organisation & Technology (SCOT) is a vector (as are people), which just means they possess both:

1. Direction – i.e. priorities/foci, which includes moralities (& the extent to which they adhere to them)
2. Magnitude – i.e. leverage via degree-of-intent, skills, position, machines etc.

Regarding SCOT-direction, this is predominantly determined via Citizen-Organisation and regarding SCOT-magnitude, this is determined by all 3 SCOT components with Technological-innovation increasingly a tearaway.

[Humans are uniquely innovative – i.e. whereas other conscious-animals live the same type of lives as their ancestors, we’re constantly revolutionising our ‘SCOT systemic-tools’ – for example, the wheel, glass, government, nations, the car, the television, the computer, The Fosbury Flop, Australian Rules Football etc.]

Hence, with Citizen-Organisation embodying the harnessing of our efforts toward achieving specific outcomes and Technology leveraging those efforts, S&T can be used for citizens’ benefit or detriment – for example, nuclear technology can be used for power or explosives.

Thus, it is Citizen-Organisation we need to optimise, which means our current disproportionate reliance on S&T for solutions is misplaced.

Notably, Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS) is, consistent with it being our source problem, a Citizen-Organisation phenomenon.

Returning to ‘The National Cycle’ diagram, [B] & [D] create a linchpin, which is:

‘Citizen-Coopetivity.’

[B] & [D]: The Coopetivity Linchpin

Coopetition:

Cooperation first & foremost and, within that context, Competition as the treasured second.

Regarding our societies, though Coopetition has never existed as a conscious narrative, via human-nature and evolution, it characterises every one of our civilised systems – i.e. it characterises everything from sport to (notwithstanding SIS) democracy to the court-room to (notwithstanding SIS) the economy.

That is, they’re all governed by overarching foundational rules and, within those constraints, participants compete.

Regarding ‘The National Cycle’, effectively, it is a ‘Degree-of-Citizen-Coopetivity Cycle’ whose key Coopetivity stimulator is ‘[B] Government Inter-Citizen-Coopetivity Infrastructure’.

However, given optimal government is about optimal ‘national-outcomes’, what are the SEE-in results we should be seeking?

[C] Optimised SEE-in National-Outcomes

First, of the 4 Socio-Econo-Enviro-[international/natural] (SEE-in) national-outcomes, the Socio– is most important because it directly relates to citizens and ‘nations are, predominantly, for citizens by citizens.’

[Note: The Econo- is a subset of the Socio- because it’s also, ‘predominantly, for citizens by citizens.’  The 2 Enviro’s are external circumstances that indirectly affect citizens.] 

Second, in general terms, the optimal national-outcome is:

‘Universal sustainable-stability-prosperity maximisation.’

And, this is represented via the following optimised 4 SEE-in outcomes:

1. Socio-                                                                               Optimally-Interactive
2. Econo-                                                                              Maximally-Efficient
3. International-Enviro-                                                        Fully-Sovereign
4. Natural-Enviro-                                                                Perpetually-Sustainable.

Regarding the Socio- of ‘Optimally-Interactive’, this is synonymous with citizens being supremely-Coopetive.

Meanwhile, as per ‘The National Cycle’, ‘[C] SEE-in national-outcomes’ impact ‘[D] Citizens’ Level of Coopetivity Commitment’.

[D] Citizens’ Level of Coopetivity Commitment

With ‘SEE-in national-outcomes’ affecting ‘Citizens’ Level of Coopetivity Commitment’, if the former’s quality is high then this will reinforce citizens’ desire to behave Coopetively and, if not, will lead to increased disquiet, which, if not addressed, will result in further problems.

Currently, The West is experiencing the latter.

Moreover, with the Socio- the most important of the ‘SEE-in national-outcomes’, notably, it’s characterised by increasingly suboptimal citizen-interaction, which is driven by citizens increasingly distrusting both the infrastructure and each other.

Citizens’ distrust of ‘[B] Government Inter-Citizen-Coopetivity Infrastructure’ is particularly important because it means a distrust in government, politics and politicians, which means there’s a distrust of the entire mother-infrastructure, which is a step towards revolution – i.e. Civil War.

Regarding the case where all 4 SEE-in outcomes are optimised then this will maximise ‘Citizens’ Level of Coopetivity Commitment’ – i.e. citizens will want to be Coopetive, which means they will be ‘nationally-contributively self-actualising’ or ‘SEE-in-contributively self-actualising’.

In this case, with both ‘[B] Government Inter-Citizen-Coopetivity Infrastructure’ & ‘[C] SEE-in national-outcomes’ optimised, citizens will be happy with both, which will reinforcingly turbocharge Coopetivity.

Returning to ‘The Cycle’, it is completed via ‘[D] Citizens’ Level of Coopetivity Commitment’ impacting ‘[A] SCOT systemic-tools’ – i.e. the degree of Coopetivity feeds back into the construction, use and innovation of our systemic-tools.

So, how does Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS) damage The National Cycle’s 4 components of:

1. [A] SCOT systemic-tools
2. [B] Government Inter-Citizen-Coopetivity Infrastructure
3. [C] SEE-in national-outcomes
4. [D] Citizens’ Level of Coopetivity Commitment?

[A] SIS-Impairment of ‘SCOT Systemic-Tools’

Since SIS is anti-Coopetive, it’s a dagger to Citizen-Organisation – i.e. rather than citizens prioritising ‘SEE-in-contributing self-actualisation’, they’re forced to prioritise gaining their and their family’s Subsistence-Income.

Foundationally, this distorts the family – i.e. citizens are forced to prioritise Subsistence-Income above:

1. Their other needs such as self-actualisation, which fosters mental-illness
2. Their family’s non-material well-being – including raising children.

Citizens’ involvement in other civic groups, especially business (whether as an employee or employer), is similarly corrupted – for instance, if an employee really doesn’t want to be there but has to hide it, given ‘one bad apple spoils the barrel’, does the employer benefit?

Also, SIS catalyses the full-gamut of SCOT misuse – for example, illegal-drug-manufacturers.

Moreover, with citizens prioritising their Subsistence-Income, this corrupts what they expect from the supreme Citizen-Organisation of government, which, most spectacularly, has led to government forays into the non-infrastructure Econo-.

[B] SIS-Impairment of ‘Government Inter-Citizen-Coopetivity Infrastructure’

In principle, the government’s job is clear and, also, simple – i.e. notwithstanding international-Enviro- related commitments such as the Armed Forces & the Foreign Affairs Department, its role should mostly be confined to the 5 Coopetivity cornerstones, which correlate citizens’ social-status, income and merit with ‘SEE-in-contributing self-actualisation’.

However, due to SIS, governments are distracted away from focusing on ‘[B] Government Inter-Citizen-Coopetivity Infrastructure’ because it’s expected to manipulate the economy – i.e. prioritise ‘Jobs; Jobs; Jobs’ and other income-related matters such as various inefficient tax-regimes and subsidies.

Also, government must attempt to compensate for SIS’s harm to the 5 inter-citizen-Coopetivity cornerstones – that is, SIS:

1. Represents an absence of the 2^nd cornerstone – i.e. The USI
2. As a form of Authoritarianism, directly sabotages the 3^rd – i.e. Universal Liberal Democracy
3. Indirectly corrupts the others – i.e. Universal Rule of Coopetive Law, Education & Health.

Regarding Universal Liberal Democracy, SIS has created a ‘forever Civil War’ – i.e. while nature insists societies be Coopetive, with SIS untouched, we’re ‘forever’ fighting our own human-nature with the gradual winner being Authoritarianism’s 2 forms:

1. Secular-Authoritarianism
2. Religious-Authoritarianism.

Regarding the Universal Rule of Coopetive Law cornerstone, SIS nurtures crime – i.e. via its consequent poverty, potential-employee-exploitation, self-esteem-diminishment, opportunity-&-choice-tempering and selfishness-catalysation, it catalyses everything from disregard for others’ life & property to natural-Enviro-wantonness to personal-escapism such as drug-abuse to tax-reform resistance.

Regarding the Universal Education cornerstone, in a household with just one (let alone all) of poverty, domestic-violence or substance abuse, how can a child focus on their education?

Regarding the Universal Healthcare cornerstone, all this has implications for, for example, mental-health.

[C] SIS-Impairment of ‘SEE-in National-Outcomes’

In terms of the Socio-, SIS directly sabotages ‘citizen-interaction.’

At the family level, in addition to potentially forcing parents to subordinate their children’s upbringing and physical & mental-health, it can also split families via creating both pressure and a power-chasm (i.e. for those who don’t have their own income), which may lead to domestic-violence including the perversity of a woman with children being, financially, forced to stay.

In addition, it legitimises and cultivates inter-citizen disunity and insults – i.e. the ‘dole-bludger’ narrative and its various racist, sexist, disablist and ageist variants, which are exemplars and exercising for other snobberies from the self-funded-retiree/pensioner division to sexism to racism etc.

Regarding the Econo-, SIS has created inefficiency so all-eclipsing it may defy the imagination of all the world’s 8.1 billion inhabitants – i.e. despite S&T innovation doubling our potential-productivity every 5 to 7 years, it’s all but disappearing into inefficiency with GDP only 5 times The USI.

Paradoxically, this is despite citizens and the government prioritising the Econo- (because it’s the realm from which the Subsistence-Income is conventionally obtained) above the international-Enviro-, the natural-Enviro- and even the Socio-.

Absurdly, this prioritising of the Econo- perverts the economy – i.e. the economy should be for ‘exclusively efficiently producing and distributing the goods and services we need/desire, which we cannot or don’t wish to produce ourselves’ in which there are 3 main employer types:

1. Government for infrastructure to catalyse ‘Inter-Citizen-Coopetition’
2. Business for producing and distributing non-infrastructure goods & services
3. Not-For-Profits for anything else.

Of these, business is our wealth and innovation creator.

However, due to SIS, we’ve added a 2^nd purpose to the economy – i.e. obtaining a Subsistence-Income – which means a job is justifiable even if, in terms of efficiency, it’s counterproductive.

Meanwhile, instead of The USI, there’s been added the Coopetivity-corrupting policies of:

1. Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW)
2. Excessive hire-&-fire laws (as a paid-worker-exploitation compensator)
3. Income-Welfare
4. Unemployment-addressing government jobs.

All increase business costs – the first 2 directly and the latter 2 via increased taxation – which detracts from our collective prosperity.

Most ironically, UMHoW creates, then the others increase, unemployment/underemployment, which contradicts our economy’s artificial 2^nd purpose – i.e. UMHoW is unemployment’s creator and the others, via increasing business-costs, exacerbate it with income-Welfare also creating the ‘gain-paid-work-lose-income-Welfare distortion’.

Regarding income-Welfare, its waste includes large targeting & job search bureaucracies plus fall-through-the-gap providers (both government & Not-For-Profits).

Regarding job search bureaucracies – financed by our S&T innovation, the inefficiency is limitless because more people can always be employed to, supposedly, help find other people jobs.

Moreover, income-Welfare’s ‘dole-bludger’ division multifariously adds to economic costs.

Furthermore, with security of one’s Subsistence-Income prioritised, there’s decreased entrepreneurial risk-taking and innovation as the emphasis is on getting a ‘good job’ and incrementally building one’s career, social-status and wealth.

Accordingly, rather than innovating, we’re constantly rehashing (particularly in the media) our SIS-symptomatic problems.

Lastly, our humanity is also devalued as our worth is calculated depending on our Econo-role, which, once again, among other things, increases mental-illness.

In all these ways, our productivity, via inefficiency, miscorrelates with prosperity.

Regarding the international-Enviro-, SIS gives external Authoritarians a free-ride – i.e. via failing to optimise our system, we’re failing to fully challenge them – in 2 ways:

1. Our economic might is a fraction of its potential
2. Our lack of social-unity is being projected to their citizens.

Accordingly, Authoritarians are challenging us militarily while, domestically, only contending with a muted revolt from their citizens.  

Crucially, if we implement Coopetism then the only way Authoritarians will be able to compete is to also implement Coopetism, which includes Universal Liberal Democracy.

Thus, with Coopetism the ultimate wedge to Authoritarians, it’s our fault Authoritarian regimes still exist because, to extinguish them, without firing a shot, we just need to optimise our own model.

This has existential implications including for Ukraine, Taiwan & Israel.

Regarding the natural-Enviro-, SIS-eradication will automatically raise its prioritisation level – i.e. the decks will be cleared of our other present concerns including ‘Jobs’. 

Second, because SIS-creating-inefficiency is so mindbogglingly overwhelming, just by eradicating SIS, it will result in less resources being used even should our ‘GDP-to-USI Ratio’ increase to, say, 50.

[D] SIS-Impairment of ‘Citizens’ Level of Coopetivity Commitment’

With SIS, our SEE-in outcomes are poor, which, breeding distrust for our infrastructure and each other, corrupts our morality via catalysing self-prioritisation – i.e. a MNOGA ‘Make Number One Great Again’ attitude.

Accordingly, with citizens used to prioritising themselves and theirs, ‘successful’ ones may ‘reason’ such as, “the homeless deserve their lot because, if I can do it, everyone can”.

Hence, votes are accorded to what we think will make our situation best rather than what will make our fellow citizens’ situation and the nation best.

Currently, this is being exacerbated by the cost-of-living crisis, foreign wars and Democracy’s subsequent increasing credibility gap.

Also, due to SIS, there exists the infrastructurally-Disempowered who are divided into 2 categories:

1. The enfranchised-Disempowered who, to a degree, still see themselves as part of society and want to benefit society
2. The disenfranchised-Disempowered who are so alienated (often they’ve lost hope) they no longer prioritise assisting society.

Returning to ‘The National Cycle’ as it comes full-circle arriving back at ‘[A] SCOT systemic-tools’, in the case of the SIS-damaged Cycle’s Disempowered, governments and the social-services industry (including trade-unions) attempt to assist them; however, ignoring SIS, they conduct another ‘forever Civil War’ to raise UMHoW & income-Welfare as governments (who have a bet each way), business & most citizens resist including because of inefficiency concerns.

Thus, social-services leaders (of which some are, morally, the best of us) have the power to, within months, fix this situation via shifting their advocacy from UMHoW/income-Welfare to ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’, which, self-capitalising and SIS-&-unemployment-eradicating, constitutes ‘The Deal of the Century’.

Until social-services’ leaders do this, no matter their good intentions and the individuals they may think they help, in terms of the Big Picture, the more ‘success’ they have, the greater the damage.

Conclusion

As per ‘The National Cycle’, to optimise our national outcomes, we need to maximise our ‘Government Inter-Citizen-Coopetivity Infrastructure’, which, in the West, mostly devolves to eradicating Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS).

SIS is infrastructural anti-Coopetivity whose abysmal damages are all-pervasive.

In the West, SIS associated inefficiency is responsible for nearly all our infrastructural inefficiency, which means ignoring dealing with it dooms us; yet, that’s what we’re doing.

Amongst other things, eradicating SIS will raise our ‘GDP-to-USI Ratio’ to well above its current level of just 5.

The solution is the self-capitalising SIS-&-unemployment-eradicating ‘USI-4-UMHoW Reform’, which is ‘The Deal of the Century’ because, except for Authoritarians, everyone (from Left to Right) get, via increased Coopetition, what they say they want, which boils down to optimised:

1. Unity; and,
2. Productivity.

Coopetism gives us a future.

Paul Ross

The Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO)