Answers to questions commonly received on the Venice Beach Boardwalk from 5/2013-12/2015.

What is CGT?


Combinatorial Game Theory, the study of such strategies that are subject to the conditions made possible by systemaccounting. The object is to have the gameboard* automatically supply the conditions that enable the buyers and sellers competing on it to take part in a game that is both fair and optimal for all its participants. Think of it this way: It is only fair that anyone competing in a game should be able to see the entire game board before they form and execute a strategy.

To cause the game to be as productive as possible, it is also necessary to supply all players access to the most efficient path with each turn. Finally, it is without exception that any game must maintain certainty that each historical move is legal, and has led to the current position of all its pieces.

*Note: Projection enabled by a data type where 3D spaces cumulatively map to a 5D structure.

What is money?


In the absence of a technical definition, money is often presented in more sophisticated terms as "legal tender", a "medium of exchange", or "currency".

Money is nothing more than accounting. When someone possesses $5, it's because they've earned a revenue from another person who simultaneously had an expense—an activity known among accountants as double-entry bookkeeping, and an event known among physicists as a conserved quantity. Money enables members of the public to define their property in terms of numbers, then bookkeep when buyers and sellers agree to swap ownership coordinates after their indifference to such property's value is proven. Encouraging trade through the use of numbers is far more efficient for an individual than maintaining a chart of all the combinations of goods and services where the free market measures its indifference. Furthermore, enabling producers and consumers to record delivered value as a potential—so they have the choice to kineticize it at a later time, liberates producers from having to consume something at the time of trade, and likewise, consumers from producing a good or service—in return—at the time of trade.

In short, money simply empowers us to measure the value of our private property in terms of numbers, then allows us to bookkeep who is owed value after they are scientifically proven to have delivered it to others. Systemaccounting protects an economy by banishing the charlatan's dictionary from economics through the enforcement of a law of conservation of information across a money supply. As a mathematical definition of money is maintained across transactions to disambiguate delivered value from expected value*, "banking", "credit creation", "monetary policy", and the rest of the lexicon of absurdity will undergo summary replacement by private lending, credit earning, and a scientific measure of the cost of capital.


*Note: Receiving permission to include one's balance sheet as part of the money supply because they are a "government-chartered lending business" is both scientifically absurd & unjust.

What is a bank?



"Banks" are government-chartered lending businesses that receive the privilege of funding their lending activity by storing & transacting money on behalf of the public, and then sharing their cost of default with the public.

When someone wishes to start a business, they must either use their own property as capital, or produce a financial model and offer potential investors the opportunity of owning a portion of the expected future earnings in exchange for their capital. Pitching a business opportunity to investors, or raising capital, is hard work. Furthermore, if the business spends the capital without earning a revenue, it must inform investors, "It's all gone," because owning revenue also requires owning its expenses.

On the other hand, there is a type of business that excuses a person from all the hard work of raising capital, and further, owning all the expenses associated with its revenue. When someone receives a "bank" charter from the government, they receive the privilege of bundling the services of storing & transacting money on behalf of the public with their own service of lending. Therefore, if this business requires money for its lending activity, the government gives it permission to simply place a 4-letter word above its front door and wait for people to walk in and offer them money—since everyone requires assistance with storing & transacting money. Furthermore, if the "bank" spends all the money its storing & transacting for others on lending, then it may inform its investors, "It's still there," because the government grants this business the privilege of measuring whatever loans they've accumulated on their balance sheet to be "money". Since expected value & delivered value are scientifically different quantities, falsely measuring the value a lender personally expects to be the same as publicly-recognized delivered value forces the public to share in the cost of default when their expectations are violated by the Physical Universe, "False!".


It's helpful to first understand that "bank" is not a technical word; it's a legal word defined in federal law that mandates the existence of a specific business model within the private sector. A business model is a thesis for how value may be physically added in an economy, and is subject to constant evolution due to the advancement of research and the division of labor.
According to 12 U.S.C. § 1841 (c), a "bank" is defined as a business that simultaneously:

  1. "accepts demand deposits"
  2. "[supplies] payment to third parties"
  3. "[supplies] commercial loans"

Lawyers & legislators are similar to mathematicians in that they are free to aim the equal sign at whatever they wish to produce as many definitions as they wish. However, once the equal sign is aimed at an object possessing physical dimension (i.e. not intellectual), the duty to step in and prove the definition's physical stability belongs to the scientist. To a physicist, the business model defined above may be simplified as three additional services hypothesized to add value to "money", a service supplied by the U.S. Treasury:

  1. store
  2. move (change ownership)
  3. lend

Now, we will evaluate the physical properties of each function:

To store, an owner leaves some measurable quantity of property in a single location, and then returns to measure the quantity as unchanged. Since property is not sold & repurchased during its storage, there is zero market risk* while this action is performed, i.e. riskm = 0.

To move, an owner changes the position of some measurable quantity of property from one location to another (a change in location may also include intellectual coordinates, i.e. a change in ownership). The quantity of the property is measured to have remained unchanged during its change in position (i.e. movement). Since property is also not sold & repurchased during its movement, riskm = 0.

To lend commercially, an owner swaps ownership of some quantity of property for a promise to receive an increased amount in the future. When a promise is sold to borrow property, an expense is paid (interest). When a promise is redeemed, a revenue is earned (interest). Therefore, the business of selling, purchasing & redeeming promises admits the presence of market risk (riskm > 0) because the 'Profit = Revenue - Expense' relationship must be negotiated.

Capital is any property used to negotiate a profit. Borrowing & lending aside, businesses are offered capital in a free market because they are judged to negotiate profit well, or produce a positive rate of return. From the perspective of a currency-issuing government that faithfully executes its duty as Impartial Observer on behalf of The Physical Universe, profit testifies when riskm > 0 may be physically interpreted as reward > 0. Therefore, the technical eye must be able to spot an absurdity if there remains in existence a business model that continues to acquire capital while the rate of return expected of it is defined by government to be as low as possible. To strengthen discernment, the difference between the following scenarios ought to clarify when the absurdity is realized:

  1. Most consumers enter a "bank" to demand the services of storing & moving money regardless of its signaled return, "Can I store my property here and obtain a plastic card from you?"

  2. All investors who enter a business to demand a fraction of its signaled return ask, "Will you accept this capital in exchange for a fraction of the return I've measured you to produce?"

Mandating the existence of a firm that simultaneously stores, moves, and lends money not only requires blurring the lines between property & capital, but it does so in favor of firms who exploit government authority to reach across these lines and access capital at prices the free market would not likely accept IF the opportunity cost of capital was scientific (not dictated by government), and publicly accessible.

Another issue with this hypothesized "bank" entity which is not mentioned in the definition above is receiving government privilege to double-count money's ownership:

  1. Someone first stores money with a "bank".
  2. The "bank" uses the newly-stored money to purchase a note from a borrower, or lend them money.
  3. The note replaces the money in the vault.
  4. The borrower is the new physical owner of the money—which is no longer in the vault.
  5. The "bank" is authorized by the U.S. Treasury to measure the note as "money still owned" by the person who first stored it.

The most common form of capital within the business of borrowing & lending is credit. Credit measures one's faith in the opinion of another to predict the truth—and is testified in the credit market by the judgement, acceptance, and therefore purchase of a promissory note. Receiving the authority to double-count money's ownership between those who produce & consume promissory notes (credit) is to reckon the lending industry's judgement of the existence of value as possessing more authority than that of the U.S. Treasury, and more importantly, the opinion of the Physical Universe.

Though it may be tempting to mitigate the effects of fear to one who is lending money to a "bank", distorting the physical effects of the transaction by informing them that they are merely storing it breeds economic infertility because it conditions people to lend money for reasons having nothing to do with exercising judgement in the pursuit of the riskm > 0, an aim which results in reward > 0 when negotiated successfully. Viewed from the other side of the transaction, allowing a "bank" to refer to credit as "deposits" is to increase undue confidence in one who has received a government exemption from having to earn credit the natural way: "In the presence of riskm > 0, this economic actor produces reward > 0, so lend faithfully". A borrower must only receive a loan from someone who accepts the cost of default, an arrangement which is not difficult to produce for a borrower who is constantly measured to produce opportunity, and ultimately, fulfills their word.

To protect the trust of those you govern is to command it. "I am worthy of credit because I am a bank" violates the public's trust because it has no physical meaning, and thus, violates the trustworthiness of the government that certifies it. Money signals the green light to move goods & services because they are proven to have already been delivered elsewhere by its owner. If only a promise was delivered, e.g. "I'm buying this car with borrowed money," then only the note's purchaser (lender) must pay the cost of default, and not an entire economy forced by its government to count the goods & services promised to pay for the car as "delivered"—a scientifically false statement permitted to cloud public expectation.

In short, a "bank" defines nothing but a government subsidy to competitors of capital & credit who expect to survive by promising, rather than physically producing, added value. The demand for capital is signaled by a verifiable rate of return, which is a number produced from a measurement; not a government-defined word ("bank"). It therefore behooves the U.S. Treasury to subject all economic participants to the same scientific standard so that the statement, "I am worthy of credit because my actions produce this number," has physical meaning.


*Note: Market risk refers to the risk that separates expenses from revenue. Conducting a business means consuming the risk between expenses & revenue to secure a profit, e.g. "I have to walk across the bridge of uncertainty from expenses to revenue to earn a profit because a free market does not guarantee buyers."

What would happen to banks?

If the United States Treasury were to provide systemaccounting to the public, what would happen to the banks?


The "banking" industry will continue to exist so long as people want to use its services. Systemaccounting is to be offered as a choice to people who want to participate in a modern free-market economy after exercising their right to refuse the service of “banking” or crowd-funding government-defined rates of return (see overview page for legal and technical definition).

In the event public conversion to systemaccounting causes the insolvency of a "bank", a central "bank" will not be rescuing it with printing money, i.e. value that wasn't earned from physically delivering value elsewhere in the economy. To begin enforcement of the law of conservation of value, customer deposit balances will be transferred to systemaccounting where it will be recognized as the user's cash balance (debit "bank" liability, credit systemaccounting user asset). The "bank" is then dissolved where the restructured loan portfolio will be assumed and operated by a newly-formed or existing private lending firm going forward.

Where will loans come from?

If fewer people use banks, and they don’t have nearly as much money to lend, how will I obtain a loan for my home or business?


Loans come from lenders. There will be plenty of private lenders who, lead by the desire to compete, will specialize in offering a variety of competitive loans along side the many other products the financial industry offers today. Lenders have everything to lose if it turns out they’ve lent you money you cannot afford to return. “Bankers” are not real lenders since they can 1) afford to stay in business after lending you money you cannot afford to return, and 2) depend on government to obtain their inventory (cash) from the public at below market rates.

How does systemaccounting work?

How does the U.S. Treasury make the systemaccounting platform available, and how do I use it?


The U.S. Treasury will begin by installing the systemaccounting software in the cloud to make it accessible to the public. Next, the software will be aimed at a single transaction account safeguarded by U.S. Treasury. The transaction account is not a “bank” account since no one is permitted to borrow from it. The money inside the transaction account is required to remain a conserved quantity where financial risk = 0.

Next up, we just need some mobile apps and other software to make existing point-of-sale devices adaptable. Mobile apps for the systemaccounting platform can be designed and offered by the public through iTunes, Google Play, etc. And for people not yet using smart-phones, access to systemaccounting can still be achieved via a debit card, mobile web browser, a regular web browser, or any payment terminal used by a business that accepts credit and debit card payments.

Now that the U.S. Treasury is set up (server), and We the People are set up (clients), the only thing left to do is pay a visit to that finance company you call a "bank” to say, “I do not wish to be an investor in your company anymore. Remove my property from your possession, immediately, since I believe I am better capable of using it as capital than you are.”
After some pouting, you will be issued a check.

The fun continues: Since the U.S. Postal Service is in desperate need of a new job, walk on into your local branch and request that the balance shown on your check be deposited or electronically posted to the balance of a brand new U.S. Treasury systemaccount! Whether you’re opening a new account, depositing cash, or withdrawing it, the U.S. Postal Service will change the balance of your account accordingly, and deliver any such cash to, or from, the U.S. Treasury’s single transaction account. Of course, it’s likely that you’ll just be able to electronically transfer the balance from your bank account directly to the U.S. Treasury transaction account, but it’s important to understand how everything works behind the curtain.

The most succinct way to describe how all this works is with the following example:

100,000 people each open a $10.00 account.

The balance of the transaction account maintained by the U.S. Treasury is now $1,000,000.00.

Assume Alisha and Peter are both systemaccounting users.

Peter sells sandwiches at his deli for $5.00. Alisha visits Peter at his shop and uses her systemaccount to buy lunch. The moment Alisha completes her payment to Peter, a record is created in the systemaccounting database that states Peter has earned $5.00 in revenue because Alisha has chosen to pay a $5.00 expense. As the law of cause and effect is recorded in the form of a single debit-credit table referencing both Peter and Alisha, Alisha's balance is naturally reduced to $5.00, and Peter's balance is increased to $15.00.

Meanwhile, back at the U.S. Treasury, the balance of the transaction account is still only $1,000,000.00.

Systemaccounting puts pressure on finance companies to physically add value by eliminating the type of accounting responsible for permitting inflation. Enforcing the Law of Conservation per transaction removes the public's need to accept the price of monetary inflation in exchange for adding value to the economy.

In sum, the U.S. Treasury is storing people's cash together in a single account, and then using the systemaccounting software to publicly enable the facilitation of, and accounting for, the change in ownership of value (money). The people's right to electronically access their money can no longer be held hostage by firms who wish to use it as capital, while everyone is held to the same mathematical standard of accounting.

You have your app, you've transferred your balance. Now go sell something, or buy something, and pay one another without ever having to be forced into another “banking” or investment relationship again. And when you do decide to invest, take comfort in knowing that you are doing so in a system that treats you the same everyone else does: same math, same access.

Is systemaccounting a cryptocurrency?


What the public recognizes as "cryptocurrency" is merely distributed data and encryption to the veteran technologist. Knowing when to distribute, and when to encrypt, is what separates systemaccounting from whatever technology trend currently substitutes a bandwagon for knowledge, and fiction for production (try leaving the bakery with a loaf of bread after explaining to its producer your computer created a "coin"*). Specifically, systemaccounting distinguishes itself by ranking the distribution and encryption of data as secondary to its structuring according to scientific law, the scientific law's enforcement, and the data's suitability for continuous computation.

The cryptocurrency software is densely designed around denying the financial industry the ability to control and print money through a compromised government. While the feature of locking out financial hackers is important, the cryptocurrency application over-emphasizes its response to such concerns in its design, thus causing it to be an inefficient and incomplete solution. Among other shortcomings†, the primary reason why the cryptocurrency software can never become more than a novelty in the application of trade is that it does not support law enforcement's duty to enforce judicial writs. For example, if a consumer purchases an item from a seller, and the seller does not deliver the item as promised, a judge issuing a writ to return the property to the consumer is powerless if the sheriff cannot execute the levy. Though crippling law enforcement through technology is currently a popular and emotionally gratifying response to the distrust of one's government, systemaccounting recognizes such motives as both short-sided & unsustainable because justice cannot be served to whom it is owed (issuing negative reviews to a thief is not justice).

Rather than indulging in some reckless phobia of government, systemaccounting remedies government distrust by defining a reaction relationship between accepting the duty of enforcing law for the public, and the duty of becoming a user in a system where the public may enforce accountability, in return:


In short, measurability and accountability are instruments systemaccounting supplies citizens to maintain the trustworthiness of a government they depend on to uphold justice. As systemaccounting eliminates the learning curve to a fundamental law of physics through efficient and easily-consumable data science, the "communists", "socialists" and "capitalists who once tore society apart with their complicated ideologies will be converted into data scientists because they've realized their labels don't mean anything to a simple process that requires one to measure their environment before forming an opinion about how to improve it. Reducing division, chaos and absurdity may always be expected from an empirical view of social matters (see: privacy, justice, interest rates, elections, etc. on FAQ).


*Note: While the U.S. Dollar is not without entropy, alternatives do not possess less.

Note: An alternative currency is attractive given the popularity and importance of the subject, but money must ultimately testify to the irrevocable opinion of the one who issues and enforces it. When a U.S. dollar, or the goods and services it was traded for is stolen, there are people sworn to uphold its physical truth who promptly appear to correct an incident where the recorded numerical opinion of the United States Treasurer was violated. When someone steals a unit of cryptocurrency from another person, the opinion of the United States Treasurer is not involved. Any action not involving the U.S. dollar has nothing to do with the United States Treasurer's recorded opinion of who has earned value after measuring, promising, and delivering it, and who shall receive value after measuring and accepting the promise of its fulfillment by another. For systems in a constant state of trade, the only currency worthy of trust is the one that swiftly enforces justice among all its users, at all times.

Eliminating the financial industry's control of money while preventing counterfeit are but minor features for a system designed to address the deeper technical issues plaguing the economy. The systemaccounting software provides coverage for all of the above and more through its unsurpassed mathematical simplicity and computational elegance. By modeling a fully-analytic economic continuum, the elimination of information asymmetry, uncertainty, and any other event owing its existence to financial friction are all dilemmas the systemaccounting platform is designed to resolve for the U.S. Treasury.

How does systemaccounting produce a scientific measure of the cost of capital?


Money must measure value delivered—ownership of financial risk included, since one is not at liberty to equate value physically delivered by others in the past with value personally expected in the future.

Therefore, systemaccounting enforces a law of conservation of information to protect an economy from those who would violate it to delay the effect of false promises and spread their liability to others. With a conservation law in place, systemaccounting eliminates the possibility of equating what's been promised (hypothesis) with what's been physically earned (fact) so as to subsequently price capital strictly by referencing the cost of equity, rather than debt, as the system's risk-free rate.

Risk functions across a spectrum of predictability. The highest end of the spectrum is located at "certainty" where information is "risk-free". The opposite end of the spectrum is labeled "absurd" where information supplies zero predictability. The price of credit hovers around the high end of the spectrum because lenders prefer a more predictable return to the type that characterizes the other side. However, there is zero correlation between expecting predictable returns and their ability to be physical fulfilled—this is why the cost of credit is not a legitimate reference for a system's risk-free rate. Despite equity's increased variability of return, it is the only measure a system may appropriately reference as its risk-free rate since, for example, if a set of firms are measured to produce anywhere between 3%-159% return on equity, it was the physical fulfillment of at least 3% that is scientifically proven as the set's risk-free, or scientific rate.

Except where the most trivial math & science is concerned (1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples), risk is subjective because prediction involves each person uniquely accessing whatever information is available to them to exercise judgement. While each human being must be free to judge risk according to their own capacity, systemaccounting only exists to publish what The Universe is certain of in the following way:

All transactions in systemaccounting possess both a differential & differentiable data structure (see Physics of Value, dO/dt):


1. This is how a transaction appears when the owner of Ellie's Cookies opens a systemaccount in the amount of $1,000 through the U.S. Treasury (record1.PNG):


2. This is the transaction that appears when James purchases $7 worth of cookies from Ellie's Cookies (record2.PNG):


3. And another transaction where Ellie's Cookies purchases $40 worth of eggs from Daisy's Eggs (record3.PNG):


Each systemaccounting transaction records a change in the balance of a pair of user accounts as ownership of i) money, and ii) goods & services flow in equal but opposite directions (risk may be included, but ownership data provides for the enforcement of the law of conservation of value & liability between users).

Since James is located on the expense side in the second transaction, adding up all historical transactions referencing his user account will produce a current balance that is $7 less than it was before the purchase. Moving forward to the third transaction, the balance of Ellie's Cookies is now 1,000 + 7 - 40 = $967. As Ellie continues selling her cookies, her account name is always referenced on the revenue side. Whenever Ellie uses her business account to purchase flour, eggs, electricity, and so on, the account name is referenced on the expense side.*

Assume Ellie's Cookies earns a revenue of $10,000 for the month, and the account's expenses add up to $6,500. By computing Revenue - Expenses for Ellie's Cookies, the economy measures the business to have produced a $3,500 profit. Dividing the $3,500 profit by Ellie's equity identifies her monthly return on equity.

When the same (Revenue - Expenses)/Equity computation is conducted across all business users throughout the system, the economy is measured to have produced a 3% return on equity. With a scientific measure now in hand, no rational person would walk their money into a "bank" supplying an inferior financial instrument because the price of capital was measured by The Universe to be at least 3%. Basically, systemaccounting causes the demand for capital to be signaled by a scientifically verified rate of return, thus empowering the public to ignore whatever imaginary numbers are defined by financial clergy established by the state.

The rate paid by the U.S. federal government to borrow is currently judged by the credit market to be the "risk-free" rate because lenders predict the government's ability to deliver on its financial promises is at least equal to its ability to tax its citizens, i.e. "My promises always come true because of my right to tax." Therefore, if a government issues an inordinate amount of promises, the public must then bear the burden of fulfilling the expectations of the lenders who purchased them, even if such expectations are not shared by the public—a condition known as information asymmetry. Democracy's limitation is drawn at the line of consensus. Consensus predicts agreement; not truth. To spread the liability of not judging in favor of the truth is the price of consensus. To mitigate the risk of imbalanced access to information, and the irrational outcomes it precipitates, choices must therefore be accurately measured and published so that shareholders may have their expectations calibrated accordingly.

*Note: Systemaccounting does not support net debitors because its single purpose is to measure activity. A strict separation of concerns between "measuring" and "lending" guarantees informed & optimal lending in a system that protects the public from the externalization of i) financial risk and ii) the cost of transacting on false information.

Does using systemaccounting mean the U.S. Treasury will be my bank?


The U.S. Treasury is not a "bank".

When systemaccounting is implemented, there will be no borrowing or lending involved with the transaction account protected by the U.S. Treasury since measurability is to be found at the heart of a healthy economy; not the accumulation of unfulfilled promises. The role of any government's Treasurer is that of bookkeeper and security guard to a nation's economy. When someone possesses or owns money, it is because that money is serving as undisputed testimony from the nation's Treasurer that the owner has measured, promised and delivered value to another person. Naturally, it is out of pure deference for the law of cause and effect that the money's owner deserves to receive the same value once they accept the value that was measured and promised by another person. Upholding justice within the process of trade is not the same as the process of borrowing and lending.

To help frame the concept visually, consider a nation's Treasurer to be a bookkeeper who possesses a government subsidiary ledger listing the names of all the people who have measured, promised and delivered value to others—and who now deserve to receive the same amount of value delivered to them in return. Next, the bookkeeper converts the balance of each person's account into a bunch of 1's (e.g. instead of writing $500.00 as the balance, $1.00 is written five hundred times). The bookkeeper then tears out all the 1's which constitute the total balance of each person's subsidiary account and hands it to them. As people seek to transact value, they hand these minuscule pieces of paper back and forth between each other, directly—instead of through the Treasurer. Today, however, most of these little papers are not handed back and forth directly between their owners because the transactions orchestrating their movement are intermediated by people desperately seeking to be in the middle, if only for a single evening, to access the cash at unrealistic prices. As losses mount due to the poor use of money, Treasurers are put on the hook to surrender the control ledger over to people who are incapable of succeeding unless they be permitted to add as much as they wish to the ledger and tear out page upon page for themselves.

Systemaccounting removes the printing press keys from the hands of state-chartered lending companies and places them rightfully into the hands of the Treasurer. The honorable individual is then shown the way to the accountant's chair so that their role as protector of the trust of the people is vindicated by their ability to perform the math correctly.

How is the current balance of an account computed by systemaccounting?


The balance of any account is computed similarly to how programmers build the most recent version of their code using revision control. Instead of building from all the changes in a codebase to determine its current version, systemaccounting sums all the transactions comprising an account's history to determine its current balance:


R = the sum of all transactions where a user was on the revenue side,

E = the sum of all transactions where the same user was on the expense side.


R - E = the current balance of a user's systemaccount.

While lines of credit may be offered between users, negative balances are not possible because systemaccounting is not a lender; it's an app that is designed to define and record the acceleration of value.

How does systemaccounting affect my privacy?

Is everyone going to know what I buy and what I do?


The purpose of systemaccounting is to measure trade for those who contribute to an economy’s existence; not to publicize the minuscule details of their involvement to create markets that shouldn’t exist. For example, if Henry purchased $100.00 worth of groceries from The General Store on Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 1:11:03s PM, the rest of us are not going to automatically know what he bought, where he shopped, or even that he spent $100.00 because Henry has not chosen to supply this information to the market. Despite there being a demand for Henry’s information from advertisers, marketers, and anyone else interested in having access to it, not supplying his information to the market is Henry's way of exercising his right to not include it in the market for information; therefore, this section of the economy should not exist.
There are other markets, however, that do have a right to know that $100.00 in revenue was verifiably earned by The General Store on Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 1:11:03s PM. One such market having this right is known as the market for equity, which is a subsidiary of the market for return (a.k.a. market for risk). If someone shopping in the market for equity is considering an investment in The General Store, they deserve not to be lied to as they form a final opinion about the value of its business. Not being lied to doesn’t mean "knowing everything about Henry", it just means being certain that the $100.00 The General Store earned on Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 1:11:03s PM was because someone else chose to expend that same $100.00 @ The General Store (debit = credit).
Also, if it was proven that Henry walked out with $120.00 worth of groceries, then the fact he only transmitted $100.00 to The General Store is one he is not at liberty to deny the public. Just as it's not rational to commit a crime if one expects to be caught, it's not rational to conceal evidence of one's deeds if others are expected to defend them. When privacy is cited as an exception to accountability, the liability of a failure in judgement is transferred from the offender to the judge whose ruling risks exclusion of the fact, thus giving host to state-enabled crimes. Citing privacy as an exception to accountability also vastly increases its cost due to expensive and unnecessarily-invasive discovery, the indulgence of rumor and intrigue which may further disrupt the affairs of the parties involved, the false admission of hearsay, etc. On the other hand, the person who proves accountable at the outset avoids many of these expenses for themselves and the state in which they are a stakeholder. Lowering the cost of accountability lowers the cost of privacy in a system where quick and efficient discovery phases to prove or disprove claims of liability, and not marketing hypotheses, more easily affords the accountable all the privacy they wish.

Justice is, physically, the property of all: A market in which we all are consumers and producers. As inhabitants in the Land of Intellectual Justice, it is our duty to access this intellectual property to correct an instance where each and every contributor to the economy was not physically rendered their due.

Finally, once members of the public realize that those who have the most to gain from citing privacy as an exception to accountability are those who have the most to profit from a lack of accountability, they will gladly step into the light despite their modest imperfections—if only to await and identify those who refuse.

Will the use of systemaccounting cause me to be vulnerable to hackers?


Is it possible that someone may discover and use a password that doesn't belong to them?

Sure, once in a while. However, if any firm out there is capable of warding off and reducing the frequency of inappropriate financial activity, it is the United States Treasury. Where resolving transaction issues is concerned, there ought to be no firm more competent than the one issuing the money in the first place.

While systemaccounting will use the most advanced but practical mechanisms to counter security breaches, it was designed to expel a much larger type of hack affecting the entire financial system. When software contains a flaw, it is said to be a bug—which are objects that allow for hacks to become possible. The United States Congress is similar to a software company in that it also produces intellectual property that users of the system must abide by, and unfortunately, it has released a bug in the form of a law that causes the whole of the financial system to be compromised and hacked.

Briefly put, there are private lenders, and then there are "banks". The word "bank" is not a technical word, but a legal one that refers to a business model defined by federal law. The difference between a private lending firm and a "bank" is that a bank may acquire capital for its business from people who walk into their building looking for safe storage and convenient access to their cash. In other words, when a person wishes to store their money in a big metal vault and receive a debit card from a "bank", they have no choice but to also lend that money to the "bank". Private lenders do not rely on bundling the services of storing and accessing money to acquire capital. In the private lending sector, capital must be raised like every other business: investors, or lenders, offer cash or other property strictly for the sake of investment, i.e. in hopes they will receive a return.

Another legal bug "banks" exploit is the ability to mix their receivables with cash to increase the money supply. First, mixing cash with receivables is to mix apples with promised apples—which are different units of measurement. Secondly, mixing financial instruments which contain market risk with the objects designed to communicate the market has cleared causes uncertainty, contagion, and systemic risk. Increasing the money supply through what is pseudo-technically called "the money multiplier effect" has no place in an economy that values its own scientific integrity.

Achieving the elimination or obsolescence of a business model by correcting the error that created it, or through the advancement of science & technology, is almost impossible when it is i) decreed to exist by federal law, and ii) continues to be enforced by a government chartering process. Does the magnitude of such an obstacle justify the abandonment of a solution? Of course not. Economic growth has both its citizens and its soldiers. The duty to expand growth's frontier is in part fulfilled by expelling bugs and facing down hackers no matter how superficial or deeply-rooted they are. Once an economy is secure within itself, it is no longer compromised into serving as host to the idle but volatile game of "Get Away With Whatever I Can" between its individual participants. An economy that is both stable and transparent shifts away what is not known from in between its participants, and sets it plainly before all participants to create a friendly game of "Together, We Will Discover" between mankind and the Physical universe.

Won't systemaccounting make it easier for government to know everything about me?


As sovereignty is exercised through its courts, and the growing effectiveness of information technology is used, the access government has to information about the public faces little limitation.

One of the many purposes of systemaccounting, however, is to empower the individual to know as much about their government as their government knows about them—this is how trust is secured. By establishing transparency in leadership markets, whether the allocation of the commodity in question is capital or votes, it is the establishment of a symmetry in access to information between both parties that serves as the most valuable surety for all shareholders.

What is the systemaccounting position on cash?


If the technology to use systemaccounting is not yet accessible, then be practical and use cash.

However, keep in mind the following:

Exclusivity restricts competition in markets.

While allowing unfettered access to both the buy and sell side of capital markets to the public is indispensable for a healthy and competitive economy, this access is meaningless if there is not an accurate measurement of it prices. Asset prices are affected by the movement of money, and cash is not a practical instrument for informing the price of an asset in a modern economy. Owing to its high cost of accounting, cash naturally causes exclusivity, sometimes going as far as even helping others to avoid accountability.

And yet, while any activity affecting the price of an asset must be measured, measuring is not the same as publishing. If the owner of an asset does not wish to offer their property on the market, they need not disclose its price so long as the following systemaccounting axiom is upheld:

Each human being must be allowed to understand and own all the consequences of their individual choices, in addition to all the consequences that must be shared and owned as they arise from the individual choices authored by others.


What if others don't use systemaccounting?

What about people who don't use a mobile device? Or what if I go out of town to do business with people who aren't using systemaccounting? How will I pay them? How will they pay me?


Debit cards will still be around. There’s no reason why you shouldn’t be able to link a card to your U.S. Treasury systemaccount. And if debit cards aren’t accepted, visit the post office to conduct a withdrawal of cash, or obtain a money order. To receive payment, go ahead and continue to accept cash, checks, cards as nothing changes here except where the funds get deposited (U.S. Treasury vs. one of the lending firms it has chartered).

How is the path of capital "planned" for the public?


The direction of all capital is determined by the rate of return its owner will choose to pursue. Once the choice is made to send property off on any particular path for investment, it is because its owner has judged that the rate of return their property is now in pursuit of will exist in the future (see risk). In short, investors are believers because investment requires faith.

By virtue of the legal definition they have received from the state, it is these lending firms now referred to as "banks" that currently possess the privilege of defining a scientifically untested equilibrium price of capital for an entire economy. In the United States of America, a federally chartered firm called the Federal Reserve defines the economy's scientifically untested equilibrium price of capital. In Great Britain, a collection of nationally chartered firms also define the economy's scientifically untested equilibrium price of capital (LIBOR). Either way, the price of capital being offered on either side of the Pacific are 1) not scientific, and 2) not capable of being easily rejected by members of the public who only wish to store and move their cash in a modern economy.

Hence, most all cash is forcefully converted into capital that chases state-sanctioned, scientifically untested rates of return; this is how the path of capital is planned in the direction of a state-chartered "banking" or borrowing & lending system.

How does giving firms the privilege to define the economy's scientifically untested equilibrium price of capital cause inflation?

See: Inflation.

How are central banks affected by systemaccounting?


Systemaccounting eliminates the role of a central bank from an economy because it 1) enforces a scientific definition of money, thus distinguishing and separating it from the risk-bearing financial instruments held on the balance sheets of banks (see monetary inflation, money-supply hacking), and 2) recognizes the measurement & publication of unmodified prices in a conserved system to be the only legitimate means of establishing a stability criterion in a free market.

Contrary to popular belief, economic inefficiency and instability is not ultimately caused by a central bank since its function is to serve as a control-mechanism* for any action taken by a government to centralize a borrowing and lending function (see central planning). In the case of the United States, it is the U.S. Department of the Treasury that both i) authorizes and issues money to increase the efficiency of trade, but then ii) compromises this efficiency by centralizing a borrowing and lending function through the bank chartering process. When lending firms are granted the legal privileges of 1) bundling the services of storing, moving, and borrowing money from the public—which inappropriately subsidizes their cost of competing for capital, and 2) redefining the money supply to include their notes receivables, the demand for a central regulating authority to intervene by a) mitigating the effects of monetary inflation and b) preventing money shortages is unavoidably created.

Once the role of government in financial markets is corrected through the aid of science and technology (see role of U.S. Treasury), the private financial sector will no longer find in government a willing bedfellow who is open to compromising its scientific integrity in exchange for economic privilege. The days of exploiting government authority to i) charter technically-absurd business models, ii) falsify rates, iii) bend the rules of accounting, and iv) force the public's acceptance of financial risk will end once the economy comes to depend on a purely scientific measure of value & cost of capital.

*Note: False information is used as feedback in a control loop intended to secure the stability of a system in a constant state of disequilibrium (markets are prevented from clearing when the objects defined to communicate this event are mixed with instruments containing financial risk). Since the setpoint is defined to favor only a fraction of the system's inputs (cost of borrowing), it is this same false-setpoint-dependency that causes the accumulation of entropy to persist until the system is lead to failure.

What is the position of systemaccounting on monetary policy?


"Monetary policy" is a golden calf. While there is yet a legitimate reason to alter the money supply, it does not include protecting state-chartered lending companies from a failure in judgement. Furthermore, producing a scientific measure of the price of money has nothing to do with deferring to the expectations of state-appointed officials who are quick to offer up the wealth created by the private sector to state-chartered lending companies requiring "regulation".

The systemaccounting standard requires, without exception, a law of conservation of value & liability to be enforced throughout its system. To understand the implication of requiring a conservation law from a money supply, consider the example of an economic actor attempting to operate a "bank" within systemaccounting:

A person seeking to operate a lending company solicits funds from other users.

The new lender has received permission to create transactions on behalf of 10,000 accounts, each storing $500, thus capitalizing & empowering the manager of this new business to lend $5 million.

10 individuals approach the lender, and each one requests to borrow $500,000 for 3 years. Indeed, the request to "borrow" money is more appropriately defined as offering to sell a note promising to repay the contacted sum, interest included, to the lender at a later time. Offering to sell a note (borrow money) is to produce risk. Offering to purchase a note (lend money) is to consume risk. 

Despite the risk, the lender judges the value of the opportunity contained in each note to be TRUE in 3 years, and lends the money (purchases 10 notes).

When one of the owners of the originating accounts inquires from the lender about the balance of their account, the lender replies, "Zero."

Perhaps increasing the Notes Receivables of a "bank" and NOT decreasing the Cash account belonging to a "depositor" is an acceptable cross-firm balancing transaction to an economist, but not to a physicist. Such an exception is an absurdity that violates the law of conservation in favor of 1) someone who refuses to accept the full cost of default for lending money to a professional lender, and 2) a professional lender who refuses to physically prove their judgement as worthy of credit in the credit market. 

Under systemaccounting rules, the moment money leaves "the vault", the U.S. Treasury is declaring the borrower to be the money's new owner, and at least 1,000 of the accounts managed by the lender to be fractional owners of a new note (each time their accounts were used to lend money, account owners receive a receipt offering congratulations on the purchase of a new note). 

The authority of the U.S. Treasury to declare a change in ownership of property does not, and will never come from a mandate furnished by the democratic process insofar as this declaration is a fact identifying a mutually-agreed upon measure by which a pair of human beings exercised their free will. Therefore, a "bank" has no physical right to declare the money lent to someone else as "still owned by the depositor". Permitting a "bank" to contradict both the U.S. Treasury and The Physical Universe by double-counting money's ownership is to allow the "bank" to define its own creditworthiness in an alternative universe with a future the economy must reconcile after the creditworthiness was proven undue (a promise goes unfulfilled).

Creditworthiness is a measure of the frequency with which one physically fulfills their word, or fulfilled/promised. A person who fulfills their word 5 out of 10 times (5/10) is 50% creditworthy. When selling notes (borrowing money), the numerator is "delivered", and when purchasing notes (lending money), the numerator is "received" ("fulfilled" accommodates either direction).

The reason why "banks" are allowed to add whatever notes they purchase from borrowers to the money supply is because the U.S. Treasury's "bank" chartering process grants them the privilege of defining their own standard of creditworthiness: "BANK" = received/promised. Should one's creditworthiness be measured according to the government charter they receive instead of the measure which the credit market tests all other firms, the amount of money promised in the denominator will grow increasingly large because fulfilling promises (numerator) is second to being a "bank", "I'm exempt from proving all the promises I purchase from other people are fulfilled before more money is offered to me. And when I do receive more money, I'm allowed to pretend as though it's still in my possession after I lend it to someone else. I receive both privileges because I'm a BANK. "

When untested, unearned, yet government-ordained creditworthiness attempts to raise an economy up through the constant stacking, compounding, and renewing of debt, the only possible outcome for the unfortunate ones sent to labor at the top of this 'Tower of Promises' is a collapse through what is only the most recent artificially-sustained floor having no other purpose but to avoid triggering the structurally-inherent sinkhole of accumulated & deflected default risk scattered throughout previous levels. 

Economists may not see a problem with placing the cart before the horse where the measure of creditworthiness is concerned, or sending multiple generations to be swallowed whole by an unsympathetically-expanding denominator of "money promised", but a physicist will openly recognize that the burden these generations are forced to carry as a result of this false unit of measurement has unjustly caused them to be both slaves and sacrifices to it. Ask a physicist how much an animal can comfortably haul and their answer will come from first measuring this limit. Asking how much risk a human can haul is no different.

There are no entities within systemaccounting that may count their receivables as part of the money supply because conserving both value & liability during a transaction seals financial risk between its producer and consumer. The U.S. Treasury is recognized by systemaccounting to supply the service of bookkeeping the transmission of value's ownership between buyers and sellers of goods & services in the form of money. Regardless of the medium used to record the transmission of value (paper, hard disk, etc.), this mathematical object increases the efficiency of trade by allowing its users to i) measure and relate goods & services in terms of numbers, while ii) remaining mathematically certain of what they are owed after servicing the demand of others. Money is already an axiomatically complete service, so when a government chooses to add to it by centralizing a borrowing & lending function through the "bank" chartering process, the perfection upheld by the calculus of value's ownership is violated to create an environment of statistical ambiguity that accommodates the falsely-assumed credit-worthiness of firms facing little accountability for the risk they socialize & multiply throughout the system.

What is the position of systemaccounting on unconventional monetary policy?


The Illusion of Macroeconomic Opportunity

Economic growth is achieved when capital is allocated successfully, and not when the means we use to measure its existence is altered (supply of yield vs. supply of money). The lack of courage to move capital around in the physical economy is due to a low visibility of yield, i.e. there is a high degree of uncertainty as to where opportunity is produced. In the same way filling the tank of a car with a broken transmission does not empower it to move, printing money does not empower an economy to grow. To a physicist, yield is a vector quantity (having both magnitude & direction) that must always point at those who are measured to physically produce it. Allowing the government to simply dictate the price of capital (violation 1) and alter the means we use to account for it (violation 2) in favor of the network of lending firms it has chartered (violation 3)—is perfectly irrelevant to a process that depends on establishing the free market's transmission effect between 'money' and the 'firms the economy has verified to produce yield'.

Producing a scientific measure of the cost of capital is essential to the health of an economy because, at the heart of a healthy economy is measurability; not borrowing & lending. After all, how can the cost of credit be reckoned if we don't, at first, measure it? For those who place their own eyes before their academic degrees, it's obvious that government authority is not a legitimate substitute for the data point of yield.

The Reality of Microeconomic Costs

Altering a money supply to cover up the consequences of public sector failure robs it of its ability to reflect future private sector success, and violates democracy by raiding ballot boxes to change the number of votes in favor of the inadequate. Failure is an inescapable, yet valuable form of economic feedback to private sector participants, and is not one which the public sector is free to exempt itself.

If government attempts to deny voters their right to learn of a failure in choice of leadership, the Universe will inevitably reveal the magnitude of its indifference to the promises the undue leadership was traded for. Rather than naively interpreting the results produced by democracy to be above failure, and indulging this false expectation through false accounting, a just government will expediently reveal its inadequacies so as to minimize their cost to those who will ultimately answer for them, the private sector.

Falsifying interest rates and violating the rules of accounting merely delays the inevitable: The physical bill will come due, and the Universe will choose none but the private individual to be its recipient.


Does systemaccounting support the gold standard?


Gold is not money.

Gold is 79 electrons, 79 protons and 118 neutrons mingling together to form a noble metal.

Money is:

1. an intellectual measuring device,

2. serving as evidence,

3. that the value measured, promised and delivered = the value measured, accepted and received (MPD=MAR).

Hence, money enables its users to keep track of, or "bookkeep", how much they owe one another after MPD=MAR. This mathematical definition of money is required if numbers are to serve as an interpretive key for how one may measure the value of one good or service in terms of the value of any other good or service, e.g. "I earn $2.00 selling a bottle of water, I spend $2.00 purchasing a pen. Therefore, bottle of water = $2.00 = pen."

Systemaccounting recognizes the Golden Rule, when practiced with mathematical fidelity, as the gold standard responsible for the ennoblement of all mankind :)

Note: What is value?

How does systemaccounting value information?


If information is intended to add value to a decision, then its value is productive. Otherwise, information having only entertainment value is consumptive.

Systemaccounting defines the productive value of information to be measured by the amount of work it reduces, i.e. shorten the distance between an initial condition and the desired outcome. For information that describes how to achieve a previously-impossible outcome, the productive value is infinity, and for information that informs its recipient how to achieve an outcome they're already capable of, the productive value is zero.

It is the purpose of systemaccounting to maximize the circulation of information possessing as much productive value as possible within the economy.

How does systemaccounting define monetary value?


To value is to choose. Though these words refer to the same action, value* refers to its measure. The etymology of value has French people using it to judge or equate worth, and this definition persists today since choice is the consequence of intellectual measurement, or judgement.

When someone sells a bottle of water for $2.00, then turns around and buys a pen for $2.00, their actions are informing the market they judge the value between a bottle of water and a pen to be zero. Someone accustomed to only using the word "choice" in their vocabulary may be more likely to identify the distinction between a bottle of water and a pen (they're two different objects), but to one who is familiar with the concept of value, there is no difference.

Value is the amount of work done a human chooses to receive while accounting for the amount of work done they must transmit to another to obtain it.

For example, “To have this person choose to supply some work done for me, I must choose to supply some work done—as chosen by them, or someone else.”

Value quantifies choice; not work done. However, choice becomes economically optimal when informed by the measure of work done it causes (physically rational).

After forming the habit of seeing “mass and energy” whenever the words “goods and services” appear†, relating work done to both goods and services will no longer be difficult because i) mass unquestionably performs work by supplying resistance (e.g. you rest comfortably on your sofa since it supplies a fluffy resistance to the acceleration of your body), and even more fundamentally, ii) mass–energy equivalence.


*Note: "Monetary" is not a real word, but meaningless sophistry used to conceal one's inability to distinguish i) capital from property, ii) expected value from measured value, and iii) science from a consensus fallacy.

Note: Evaluating the physics of a good or service requires dispensing with the lazy intellectual process that is overemphasized & exploited by "branding". Branding is antithetical to systemaccounting insofar as it commonly depends on adding friction to the human intellect by persuading people a difference exists when there either isn't any, or it is trivial.

What causes monetary inflation?


First, the value of money is determined by the goods & services it can purchase:


However, when a community of government-chartered lending companies ("banks") are legally granted the privilege of using the same money many times over to fund multiple loans, there will be an increase in the total supply of money because the definition of "money supply" is altered to include the notes receivables of all "banks" (money supply = money + notes receivables):


  1. Money is a service supplied by the U.S. Treasury that identifies & communicates when value has cleared between consumers of risk*. Mathematically, the value of the money was measured, accepted, & received by the seller, and an equal value of the goods or services was measured, accepted, & received by the buyer.
  2. The notes receivables identifying & communicating when the promise of increased value will clear in the future is a service supplied by "banks". Mathematically, the value of the money is measured, accepted, & received by the seller (borrower), and an equal value of the note's risk is measured, accepted, & received by the buyer (lender).

Consequently, modern economists like to say "Banks create money" because the notes receivables of all "banks" is judged by the government to be equal to money. Not only is the "money = notes receivables" opinion scientifically false (value delivered in the past ≠ value expected in the future†), but so is the vernacular used by untrained economists who fail to uphold a scientific standard in their explanation of how the ownership of creditworthiness & risk evolves under such an assumption: Government authority is used to assert the unmeasured, untested, and therefore unearned creditworthiness of firms that may purchase multiple notes using the same money, thereby socializing & multiplying the risk of any event where a promise to deliver the goods and/or services required from the note's seller (borrower) to redeem its value from its purchaser (lender) is physically proven to be FALSE.

Since government regulation is an empty counter-measure for using government authority to violate the natural principle that governs the flow of value & liability, the cost of systematizing financial risk must therefore be transferred to the pocket of consumers in the following way: As the likelihood of poor judgement in lending does not result in a commensurate increase in the amount of goods and services produced (money ≠ notes receivables), it is this incommensurate result—involving an increased "money" supply chasing around a smaller increase in the goods and services produced...


...that is called monetary inflation (Δ "Money" Supply - Δ Goods & Services Produced > 0):


Stated another way, the public's purchasing power is appropriated by a government that severs the continuity of risk's accountability to pay for the falsely assumed credit-worthiness of government-chartered lending companies.

Credit is to be earned; not created. Thus, the concept of computing the receivables of "banks" as part of the money supply is eliminated with the introduction of systemaccounting since a law of conservation of value & liability does, indeed, apply between the consumer of a note (the lender) and its producer (the borrower). As monetary value remains a conserved quantity at all times, monetary inflation does not occur within the system:


*Note: 'Transaction risk' differs from 'financial risk'. If a transaction is 'false' (theft), an ideally-swift intervention from the justice system will correct a result that does not confirm the previously-agreed-upon outcome defined between the buyer and seller involved. If there is financial failure, its cost of ownership is NOT transferred to the state since the owner accepted the risk of default when they consumed it.

†Note: An apple farmer plants a seed, grows a tree, harvests an apple, locates a potential buyer, sells the apple, then stores the money in a "bank". The "banker" then lends the money by purchasing a note offered by some borrower. The cash stored in the vault is replaced by the borrower's note. A "banker" is someone authorized by the government to enforce the following scientific absurdity, "My expectation this note will prove true in the future is equal to the value of the apple farmer's labor & materials delivered in the past." In short, democratic authority is naively cited to equate "apples" with "promised apples".


How is credit defined by systemaccounting?


Credit is the value earned through the sale of a promise.

Creditworthiness is a measure of the frequency with which one physically fulfills their word.

Does systemaccounting require a fixed money supply?


No. Resolving denominational inefficiency by adding a decimal point to the entire float, which increases the resolution of a currency, does not violate the Law of Conservation.

How does systemaccounting define risk?


Risk is just a measure of how uncertain you are of something. If risk = 0, you say, "I'm certain". And if risk = 1, you say, "I have no clue". Risk is also purely subjective since it can only exist when perceived by humans having “incomplete information”. For risk to truly equal zero, there would either have to be i) zero humans to perceive it, or ii) a perfect measure of what is being assessed throughout the trajectory of its existence. Since humans are definitely here to stay, the other option is to be pursued:

Within the context of a model system in classical mechanics, the phase space coordinates of the system at any given time are composed of all of the system's dynamical variables. Because of this, it is possible to calculate the state of the system at any given time in the future or the past, through integration of Hamilton's or Lagrange's equations of motion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space 2012-08-15)

How does systemaccounting define democracy?


Democracy is measuring the number of individual choices that either confirms, denies, or defines a choice required by all.

Systemaccounting requires suffrage to be protected by verifiability & transparency if the right to tax is to be enforced. Putting verifiability & transparency first, democracy must then be expedient, easy, secure, and inexpensive for it to be most effective.

How does systemaccounting define republic?


To define the word republic, the definition of 2 other words must first be known:

1. Freedom: To exercise one's will.

2. Sovereignty: To transmit one's will.

A republic is a space where the will of the public is transmitted.

How is a country defined by systemaccounting?


Systemaccounting maintains a 3-part empirical definition for the word "country":

  1. the number of meters2 within each coordinate-defined boundary,
  2. the number of human beings who are individually accountable for the costs & benefits of producing & enforcing intellectual property within the corresponding area,
  3. the number of characters comprising the intellectual property produced & enforced by human beings within the corresponding area for the purpose of maximizing equity per capita.*

Prejudices are useful only when they are formed in favor of performance measurements. Once mankind accepts a country to be nothing more than an area where human beings produce & enforce laws for the purpose of measurably improving the wealth of all human beings, policy creation will no longer be plagued by the absurdities which must arise from the prejudice sold by those who value government authority more than the well being of the people it serves.

*Note: Access is a form of property, and is counted as part of the equity owned by a person who is content with little. A transparent & efficient economy hosting an abundance of opportunity for both labor & capital will offset economic entropy by funding & managing its social services programs effectively. In other words, before individuals may provide for others, they must first be enabled to provide for themselves. Locating successful job & investment opportunities will produce funding for private and public social programs. The same tools used to negotiate one's personal success are then used to measure and improve the effectiveness of their investment & management of public or private social programs. A person who has little interest in acquiring, by comparison to their contemporaries, a large sum of personal equity will still be endowed with a historically high level of personal equity since receiving access to well-managed health care, education, and any other social service is a form of personal wealth.

What is the political position of systemaccounting?


Systemaccounting abstains from "politics" since the concept, itself, is expected to prevail only as long as individuals cannot scientifically prove or disprove the claims of others. 

Similar to the pledge of starting a family, issuing someone an invitation to wed their choices to government authority is done with faith that the person's ideas & choices will measurably increase and sustain the offspring of public opportunity. Swearing anything besides 100% loyalty to conceive enforceable ideas on behalf of an electorate's well-being is an act of infidelity that weakens results. One cannot be 100% married to one's office, and yet 1% married to the priorities of another without compromising results. Political parties are private firms that earn revenue by selling promises which, by financial industry standards, are all junk-rated issuances (e.g. the promise to increase job availability, the promise to reform the tax code, the promise to increase access to education, etc.). The public's massively irrational demand for unsecured promises indulges the political party business model, which subsequently funds access to expensive technologies used to broadcast further unverified statements aimed at persuading an unearned invitation for authority. Swearing loyalty to a political firm that arbitrages the careless consumption of promises carries within it the cost of standardizing a high rate of failure—which is accounted for, in part, by occasionally denying the most effective idea & choice on behalf of one's electorate to accommodate a conflict of interest. From the viewpoint of voters, considering one who exploits the activities of a political firm undermines the process of detecting the office's strongest option insofar as measuring the number of promises sold, and votes traded, as proof of "leadership" is false.

The economic infertility caused by the incessant arbitrage of poor accountability and collusion on policy may have been unavoidable when communication across long distances depended on the horse & carriage, but at a time when information's mode of transportation is light, there is no excuse for weakening the process of independently-judging matters on its merits, and then sincerely choosing the most effective course of action, as charged. Therefore, the only policy base systemaccounting serves is the one that seeks to empower individual judgement. The ability to recognize the praiseworthy statesmanship demonstrated by such men and women who wish to have their opinions held to a scientific standard of accountability is a faculty which none will be denied.

What is the role of systemaccounting in journalism?


Systemaccounting defines the industry standard for journalism since it journals words & numbers into a database to empower the independent access, analysis, & interpretation of facts. Adding a writer of stories to a process intended to improve the timeliness & effectiveness of other people's decisions is, with little exception, redundant & self-defeating.

Information's purpose determines its format. If information is strictly intended for consuming entertainment, then formatting it as a story will suffice because the intellect is not under pressure by the physical universe to confirm the fidelity of every word. However, if information is intended to serve a decision, then the producer seeking to be as effective as possible will prove the receipt of distilled & relatable units of fact to be of higher value. Data clears the market for facts more quickly than stories, a process that suffers from friction and the build-up of pressure when the demand for facts by a growing & maturing civilization constantly increases, and information prioritizing its entertainment, or emotional value, is mislabeled as prioritizing productive value (massage parlor journalism).

Those who earn a living by blurring the lines between entertainment and enabling competent decisions may expect the unapologetic torrent of data produced by systemaccounting to reveal, by comparison, how infrequently their product clears the market for facts, thus increasing its displacement further into the category of fiction until its easily distinguishable by the public to more aptly serve the market for entertainment.

How will political campaigns be affected by systemaccounting?


The promise associated with an individual is best signaled by their actions; not their words. Today, the physical legitimacy of an individual's words is often compromised by hosting a contest for Who Can Affirm Public Expectation the Most. Leading according to public expectation is the opposite of leadership (rejecting expectation solely because it comes from the public, included). Therefore, entering the competition to juggle agreeing with as many people as possible while exceeding their position as "leader" produces a creature whose only substance is the ingratiating conduct they cunningly tender in exchange for fame. Judgement in favor of securing public acceptance instead of facts on its behalf produces a different outcome: Of course, the Archetype Public Affirmer hasn't the capacity to solve any other problem besides how they are publicly-perceived. Of course, installing the contest winner in an office where they are allowed to falsify the mechanics of trade will produce a sinkhole of debt that swallows an economy whole.

The inability of the public to hold a policy author's words to a scientific standard of accountability is what enables the competition to service false expectation. Systemaccounting empowers the public to detect individuals who, after issuing their words, achieve distinction by proving them through their actions.

politicianfree - systemaccounting.org

As the distinction between the imaginary and the physical increases with clarity, those who previously sought to advance themselves by issuing false words, i.e. words predicting no physical quantity, will subsequently find they are unequal to the task of competing for the trust of others. False words have no place in leadership markets supplying many promising candidates preferring honest work and meekness to self-promotion.

How does systemaccounting measure leadership?


When a person opens doors for others to create prosperity, their leadership is demonstrated. Therefore, leadership is a measure of how much one person serves as a source of opportunity to another.

Is systemaccounting a liberal or conservative organization?


Neither. The words liberal and conservative refer to nothing human or even animal since they are risk-response models used in poorly written software programs.

Is systemaccounting a libertarian organization?


No. Systemaccounting does not recognize libertarianism, communism, or any other psudo-scientific concept as real since they do nothing but lead to the formation of mobs rather than promote individual judgement.

First and foremost, systemaccounting recognizes human beings who must be permitted to pursue their own free will, but never to the extent of denying another human being justice. It is the existence of justice that upholds the liberty-equilibrium enjoyed by all human beings.

Secondly, systemaccounting recognizes those human beings who courageously prove the opinion of the Physical Universe through their own actions, thereby settling any false claims brought against it by the human mind. To the systemaccountant, the practice of science is an act of justice between human beings and the physical universe.

Ultimately, it is systemaccounting policy to identify each noun with its measured action; not what it claims to be.

Which school of economic thought does systemaccounting embrace?


None of them. There is no such thing as Keynesian, Austrian, conservative, or liberal economics. Economics is a science. In science, we measure things to determine what they are (beginning with numbers); not dictate where they should go. In other words, economics is the study of scarce resources and how they are allocated; not where they should be allocated. The only language that economics may be spoken in for the time being is math (an exception exists and will be mentioned at the end).
Studying “scarce resources” requires the student who is interested in referring to a particular fraction of a finite quantity at rest (stored) to speak of this fraction in terms of kgs, tons, gallons, and so on. Also relevant are the distances this resource must travel across a period of time between old and new owners (in km, mi, inches, etc). Therefore, economics is entirely a science because its study requires establishing access to knowledge that refers to how much of this stuff traveled such and such distance—and because we’re most likely interested in “trade”—we must also make known how much traveled in the opposite direction.
At its root, it must be recognized that economics’ rightful place within the tree of knowledge is that of “branch” to the field of physics since it is strictly concerned with measuring how humans negotiate the trade of property when the Law of Conservation is a physically inviolable parameter.
So, if you’re the head of the Econ department at a university, you've just received a new boss :o (kindly begin packing your belongings and move into the appropriate building).
You may now confidently regard all such words as “socialism”, “communism”, “leftist”, and “right-winger” as literary devices that describe nothing scientific or useful because their purpose is to promote gangs rather than knowledge. And if you do come into contact with a PhD who argues for one of them, or that economics is not a science, please understand that they most likely obtained their degree from a thesis advisor who merely agrees with them. People have a tendency to defend their academic degrees at the expense of what is real because they refuse to see all their hard work voided by a consensus fallacy. As a result, a ton of confusion abounds where many people who don’t know what to believe, and plenty of hurt feelings. Don't sweat these things. Now it’s time for you to see and think for yourself, which is why science is such a wonderful gift. Let’s measure and do the math together as we reconcile what we see!
Finally, here comes the exception to the rule stated in the beginning that math may be the only language used when pursuing economics. The English translation for x2+y2=1 is “circle, with radius of one”. Math may be translated into English, or any other language, so long as the resulting translation does not transgress the bounds fixed by its mathematical equivalent. Otherwise, things begin to mutate (sometimes conveniently) and we end up with an enormous monster that devours reason and understanding. Issuing promises of how things will look in the future, as well as the use of metaphor, requires a license that may only be obtained by demonstrating a deep commitment to the literal. How literal? Mathematical.

How does systemaccounting relate public finance with trade?


Systemaccounting separates public finance from trade.

A government institution is every bit as accountable for its debt obligation as the common business. Since the full faith and credit of a republic shall never apply to bond markets*, printing money to service the unaddressed and accumulated debt created by the elected authors of poor judgement results in a number of serious violations:

1. a failure to clear the the market for leadership of its poorly-performing assets (e.g. elected officials, private executives),

2. a robbery of the public trust as it steals away the rightfully-earned purchasing power created by the public,

3. a denial of accurate measurability of any and all prices defined by the public.

Printing money is appropriate only after an increase in purchasing power causes a currency to become denominationally inefficient. Even so, the only method appropriate for increasing a currency's supply is adding a decimal place to the entire float. Increasing the money supply by allowing state-chartered lending companies to equate the value of their notes receivables to cash, or directly lending to them and other privileged firms are all grossly inappropriate and inefficient since, among other offenses, it seeks to exempt a small fraction of the public from the same competition and failure to which everyone else is subject.

Labeling an experiment to be above failure naively undermines its purpose. The purpose of an experiment is to discover truth by detecting failure. Without detection, a remedy cannot be identified.

*Note: Contrary to popular belief, speech is not free—insofar as it depends on time, a commodity bearing physical value in finance. When information identifies value to be added with respect to time, the strength of the instrument which financial experts use to prove their theories at the cost of exposing others to risk is not determined by the quantity of votes received in exchange for the emotionally-attractive words issued by politicians, the number of people who join in singing their anthems, or waive their flags. Creditworthiness is affected by the physical gains produced by those capable of negotiating and consuming risk. Election results are not a substitute for what financial experts use to prove the strength of their word.

How does systemaccounting define a free market?


A market is free when an individual 1) may own property*, and 2) define any price they wish for their property, and 3) externalizes zero costs per transaction. The third condition recognizes how others can become imprisoned by the costs externalized by an individual, thus forming a type of transfer payment to those who avoid accepting full account of the cost of their production or consumption (failing to fulfill the terms of a previously-agreed-upon contract, included).

Systemaccounting maintains a mathematical definition for transactions occurring in a free market (w):


t = time in seconds

a = value freely defined by a seller

b = value freely defined by a buyer


w = value transacted between a buyer & a seller in free market (where a = b @ t)

See pricing & capitalism for more details.

*Note: Labor and access are forms of property.

Does systemaccounting support capitalism?


Systemaccounting recognizes private property. Furthermore, systemaccounting recognizes one's right to define the value of their private property to acquire what they wish from another person in exchange (labor is a form of private property).

Capital is a simple concept. Understanding capital depends only on knowing the definition of these 3 words:

1. Value: see definition,

2. Revenue: the amount of value received after issuing and fulfilling a promise,

3. Expense: the amount of value transmitted after issuing and fulfilling a promise.

Now, with "Value Added = (Revenue - Expense)/Revenue", we may conclude that any property used to pursue a added value is capital.

A person must be free to negotiate the risk present in this mathematical relationship with their own property:

i. When Revenue > Expense, value is added (property grows).

ii. When Revenue = Expense, value is unchanged (property remains the same).

iii. When Revenue < Expense, value shrinks (property decreases).

Once private property and the right to set a price is recognized, the concept of capital is only a matter of basic arithmetic. Systemaccounting most certainly supports basic arithmetic.

How does systemaccounting define socialism?


Socialism is exercising government authority to define an equilibrium price that is not equal to what an informed free market may choose. Replacing the price discovery mechanism with government authority prevents a system from identifying its most effective producers (e.g. teachers), thereby increasing the risk and spreading the cost of an unsustainable economic event.

Socialism may be measured.


M = equilibrium price of a good or service measured in an efficient free market
G = equilibrium price of the same good or service defined by government

Socialism = M - G

1. When G > M, we say, "Socialism is present."

2. When G < M, we say, "Socialism is present here, too."

3. When G = M, we say, "Government is benign."

Excepting the need to overcome inordinate costs, goods and services such as water, fire prevention, medicine, education and security are often paid for using the blunt instrument of socialism because the infrastructure enabling the public to anticipate the exact need for resources to fund them competitively is not yet present. Taxes are the largest source of socialism in an economy. When carried to excess, using government authority to define equilibrium prices causes a gross misallocation of resources and promotes disorder and instability. Since the purpose of exercising government authority is to maintain order and stability, a gentle and elegant approach to adjusting for economic unknowns in pricing is therefore indispensable. Applied correctly (G = M), government authority's place becomes that of benevolent steward over an economy rather than ignorant and whimsical overlord of it. As an economy matures to the point of being able to identify and invite its top stewards into government, the risk of socialism declines insofar as asking the most systemically-efficient price-setters to operate as public trustees is a formality that produces little change in the economic outcome: Property is governed by those who stably grow it for everyone.

Now for the disclaimer: Systemaccounting does not recognize socialism to be a real word since the technical concept it refers to has been superseded by some other ambiguous definition that aids the recruitment of people into mobs. After presenting only the technical definition, the word "socialism" is now deprecated by systemaccounting as it has no use among people who are capable of responsibly judging matters for themselves, and willing to be held personally accountable for their own opinions.

Does systemaccounting support the labor movement?


Collusion over the price of labor will last only as long as there is collusion over the price of capital. Systemaccounting eliminates both the opportunity (capital) and the need (labor) for collusion.

How are taxes affected by systemaccounting?


Systemaccounting enables its users to automate the fulfillment of their promises between one another. Whether the promise is to issue an interest payment, pay a dividend, process payroll, or pay a tax, the fulfillment of all such promises may be easily automated through systemaccounting. For example, assume a pastry shop owner in Los Angeles sells a half dozen cupcakes for $7.07, tax included. If the pastry shop owner uses systemaccounting, then they may define a rule that says, "Whenever a revenue transaction is created between a customer and the pastry shop, automatically create another 8.75% of revenue transaction between the pastry shop and the California Board of Equalization." A customer arrives, orders a half dozen cupcakes, then uses systemaccounting to pay the pastry shop $7.07. As the $7.07 transaction is completed, a secondary transaction is created between the shop and the California Board of Equalization for $0.57. The tax is promptly paid, and the owner is left to focus on their business instead of complex tax obligations.

City, state, and federal officials will also appreciate the tremendous efficiency gained by using systemaccounting. Ourfiscalsecurity.org (now expired) published an article in 2011 estimating the federal government loses approximately $310 billion every year to tax evasion. Saving the federal government from losing $3 trillion over 10 years while boosting economic activity is possible through technology; not politics. The data-driven republic that emerges from paying taxes expediently through a publicly accessible accounting system will enable voters to easily distinguish between the policy-makers who depend on accountability from those who depend on its absence.

How is limited liability viewed by systemaccounting?


Physically, there is no such thing. Limited liability is a legal exception that results in physical absurdity. In the real world, choices are followed by consequences. If the revenue from a choice is to be individually owned, then so must be its expense. Liability refers to who is accountable for risk. If the response to an absence of observability is to use government to force the public's acceptance of the price of ownership of risk, then count on one who is skilled with the measure to restore its ownership to whom it rightfully belongs.

In the end, it is not the role of government to serve as a receptacle for negative externalities,* but to eliminate them—the first of which must be risk.

*Note: Private individuals receiving government exemption as a substitute for the purchase of liability insurance is a government subsidy.

What impact does systemaccounting have on corporate governance?


There is no distinction between the individual or the firm in systemaccounting.* The mechanism that protects the public from the costs incurred by private firms consuming market risk is also responsible for shielding equity holders from the internal risks consumed by a firm's agents. Whether the event under observation is at the level of the market or the firm, the solution in either case is the elimination of a lack of observability, and its fast accomplice, information asymmetry.

The formation of complex governing structures is an attempt to mitigate agency costs. Once owners are empowered by systemaccounting to directly scrutinize the performance of their equity, firms may dispense with all the middlers, meddlers, & squatters that tend to undermine or divert the focus of an executive away from his or her sole responsibility in an economy: more efficiently service demand. When demand is serviced well, both individual owners of equity and the economy propser. If there is a failure to service demand more efficiently, its measure will be known to all. To be hamstrung in the presence of opportunity, or benefit from collusion in times of failure, are both outcomes enabled by archaic mechanisms used to seek balance when the relationship between accountability and authority are unknown.

Now that the balance is set, a producer has only to look to the action of a consumer to earn the most substantive form of praise.

*Note: This subject is entertained according to current convention. While risk is currently perceived to be consumed at the levels of i) the individual, ii) the firm, and ii) the market, systemaccounting recognizes that liability rests solely with the author of a choice, or "consumer of risk". A "firm" is nothing more than a group of individuals. Therefore, there is no such thing as "corporate" since the opportunity for individuals to transfer the cost of risk to some other entity ("the firm" or "the public") after consuming it is eliminated.

How does systemaccounting aid the economy to create jobs?


Jobs are created when capital is allocated. For example, assume the owner of a Los Angeles bakery uses the systemaccounting application to receive payment from customers, and also to pay vendors for expenses. A month goes by and receipts add up to a total revenue of $74,115.09 and expenses account for $41,233.55. Since the profit of the business is $32,881.54, an investor on the supply-side of capital markets will be delighted to identify a business capable of producing so competitive a return as 44.3%.

wallstreetfree - systemaccounting.org

Naturally, the investor will contact the owner of the bakery and present an offer of capital in exchange for a fair rate of return. If the offer is accepted, then it may very well be because the baker intends to open more bakeries and buy more equipment. In other words, as the baker physically proves his or her ability to identify and service the public's demand for delicious pastries, the baker simultaneously proves his or her ability to identify and service the public's demand for desirable rates of return.

The point: When capital is allocated to purchase or lease more property & equipment, the demand for labor to manage and operate this property & equipment is created. As the baker opens more shops with mixers, ovens, and refrigerators, the demand to hire more people to manage and operate this property is created.

Market uncertainty is a lingering cloud that blocks the light of opportunity from reaching the fertile ground that is the capital market's supply-side. Ordering the U.S. Treasury's affairs so that it serves as a cutting-edge data repository for the entire public, rather than a cave for a handful of financial Morlocks, is how the economy may create opportunity and put its unemployed to work. As adoption of systemaccounting increases, capital will come to be allocated with confidence, thus increasing the demand for labor in industries which are scientifically proven to identify and service demand.

How are stock markets affected by systemaccounting?


"Stock markets" is Wall Street slang for what is properly termed the equity market. When the owner of a business wishes to increase its capacity to produce, one option is to sell a fraction of its future earnings in exchange for cash or some other property. In return, an investor receives equity. Equity is a measure of one's ownership as it relates to a property's total ownership, and its units are fractions; not "stock".

Systemaccounting does not recognize exchanges such as the NASDAQ, NYSE or LSE as legitimate markets in a modern civilization because they provide 1) inadequate market coverage due to their high exclusivity, and 2) zero access to the primary market for equity—the more significant market involved in the growth of an economy.

Once equity travels its way down to the secondary market, its purchase no longer represents some courageous allocation of capital where an opportunity of spacetime-arbitrage is seized to service the demand for goods & services more efficiently in a later time-coordinate; rather, the equity purchase becomes an instrument for speculation in an idle scheme made possible by imbalanced access to information among traders in the same time-coordinate. Equity's value does not tend to be justified by receiving the anticipated future earnings of a business in secondary markets, but by the ability of traders to manipulate its resale price using a media industry in service to fallacy. As the resale value of property becomes more important than its endogenous ability to add value, emphasis on the property's usefulness declines until someone eventually discovers, net of any negligible dividends, they owned little more than a false promise issued by middlemen instead of a growing economy.

Assuming the owner of a business does wish to exploit the highly unjustified resale values achieved in the secondary equity market, they must still pay a tremendous price to multiple lawyers, regulators, and "investment bankers" (misnomer) for the sale to become legal. Several months may pass before completing an initial sale of equity in the primary market. Only after the sale is complete in the primary market is equity sold to the highest bidder in the secondary market.

In systemaccounting, a user has only to press a single button to publish their earnings. In the time required to chat a smiley on a social media site, a 17 year old female developer experimenting with a new idea in the suburbs can easily signal to the capital market where the next compelling internet business opportunity is located. Seconds go by as a flood of emails and phone calls are received from investors all over the world who have located her through her various integrated online profiles. After half an hour, the developer decides to accept the highest bid of $150,000.00 into an account that automatically pays 10% of the project's profits every 30 days. No "stocks", no lawyers, no accountants, no "investment bankers", no brokers.

A spirited, young entrepreneur required extra money for additional servers, and since the U.S. Treasury already recorded transaction data proving her business was worth the risk, a deal was completed within minutes. Shortly thereafter, the young developer was called down to dinner by her parents, none of which was shared with firms that profit from an inefficient market.

How is high frequency trading affected by systemaccounting?


If the rate at which information is accessed increases in value because the supply of valuable information does not increase, then count on a technology that produces an abundance of valuable information to eliminate this constraint.

The ability to profit from differences in prices measured by traders in the same time-coordinate eliminates the incentive to reduce the cost of production, and subsequently, the cost of consumption. While many private equity businesses, hedge funds, and other institutional firms profit by employing complex trading algorithms, these algorithms ultimately owe their value to extensive use of mathematically-trivial, conditional logic intended to reconcile short-lived patterns between systems sustained by high entry barriers.

Systemaccounting supplies the following condition as a public service, "Every user is at least as insightful as the system's most capable applied-mathematician." As the mathematically-adept are enlisted to automate away for the public whatever trivial logic was once used against them by "captains" of finance, even the most unschooled user will immediately understand where to locate opportunity—and how to avail themselves of it, if they so please, because needlessly-complex jargon, scripting, and relationship-brokering is replaced by real-time, path-optimizing, visually-efficient data. Meanwhile, those who prided themselves on their bottom-feeding of economy activity within the flow of information & time will be forced to test the physical value of their technical acumen. Consumers under guard by an applied mathematician who refuses to permit trivial logic from sustaining activity not kosher for a growing population will find their only option is to produce math that reveals how arbitrage may be secured by transforming x, y, & z through t.

How is the media industry affected by systemaccounting?


Human beings close the neurological circuit on such emotions as anger, fear, pleasure, etc. as expectation is permitted to first create a potential difference, and is then either violated or confirmed. Examples:

  1. I expect to receive a pay raise tomorrow (violation→fear).
  2. I received a pay raise (confirmation→pleasure).

The media industry currently reaps significant financial reward from incessantly setting up and tearing down expectations with no other aim but to trigger stimuli. Entertainment aside, much energy is wasted in the economy since chronic triggering depends on producing unstable information that empowers the frivolous cycle of consuming stimuli instead of stable information that empowers production.

While there is a fraction of the public that demands any information enabling the consumption of stimuli (including false information supplied to confirm false expectations), systemaccounting only services that fraction of the public who demand the constant tapping of the public's amygdala be silenced by flooding the economy with new information that provides for testing the buoyancy of expectation at the higher cerebral hemisphere.

The public depends on media to train its expectations, a process that involves brokering the public's access to some hypothetical route to its future. It is therefore best to avoid treating the responsibility of operating as an intermediary between the public and its future as a plaything.

How does systemaccounting affect social networking?


Strengthening market signaling to emphasize the measurement of "what you do" eliminates the "all about who you know" advantage often espoused by information-intermediaries, relationship-brokers, and social hackers.

How is language affected by systemaccounting?


Systemaccounting recognizes the existence of both a Physical and Intellectual Universe, and serves to reconcile them by measuring how the one that is observed by humans (the physical) is influenced by the one used by humans to interpret it (the intellectual).

Reconciliation is achieved by maintaining a data dictionary that is constantly added to and referenced as transactions are created. With the flow of ownership between users & time measured through an evolving chart of accounts of goods & services, observers can expect the intellectual stability derived therefrom to serve as indispensable for the maintenance of economic stability. In other words, using spin tensors to ward off whatever spin words by standardizing the dimensions referenced in transactions across time-coordinates protects an economy from charlatans & copycats who prey on consumers & producers, respectively.

Whether artistic or scientific, systemaccounting identifies when human creativity leads to a new observation the moment the newly-discovered idea first receives physical dimension in a transaction. Once an idea is born, systemaccounting conserves its definition so that the evolution of its function among humans in the physical universe may be confidently understood over time.

What is the position of systemaccounting on internet access?


An economy grows when its contributors can reduce their costs. Searching for, producing, transmitting, consuming, and automating from intellectual property has costs which are all reduced by internet access. Therefore, systemaccounting requires the elimination of the internet's barrier to entry.

What effect does systemaccounting have on income inequality?

The redistribution of wealth will happen naturally once the redistribution of access to information occurs. Greed is inefficient, and will happen only as long as it is technologically possible.

How is education measured by systemaccounting?


Education measures the amount of information received by a student after its transmission from a teacher. The value of an education is measured by the value of the information transmitted & received. Since issuing letter grades & certificates in exchange for a teaching wage does nothing to prove the value of the information transmitted & received, higher learning must therefore be sought from market-tested specialists rather than tuition-funded professors.

Firms under pressure to address labor-shortages as they meritoriously satisfy a growing demand for their product will do well to reallocate the funds intended for scholarships and grants towards increasing internal training & education. Stretching the production-pipeline to accommodate the constant training and education of students may not immediately appeal to the profitability of a business, but acquiring the habit of teaching other people to perform one's duties frees up time to perform research and development in the medium-term—which is the substance of growth to a business’s profitability in the long-term. Shippable research and development is the occupation of the market-tested specialist. A firm containing an employee who has trained others to perform his or her duties, and does NOT produce shippable research is economically comparable to a professor who has multiple graduate students teaching his or classes and merely publishes academic papers. Entrusting the training & education of human beings who are entering the prime of their lives to an environment that risks little by diluting the productive value of information with archaic, sophistic, and any other type of material not immediately tested to increase the well-being of consumers weakens the student's opportunity to contribute to a stronger economy. The inefficiency currently plaguing academia is rooted in ignoring that the equilibrium for teaching is the communication of competition-driven information to students; not publishing dense research to compete for the envy of one's peers. While communication answers to its own area of research, divorcing the process of "teaching" from "publishing academic research" to form a new higher-academic system based on "equilibrium-tested communication" will i) incentivize richly-rewarded communicators of productive information, and ii) force a much-needed exit of idle individuals from knowledge's frontier. Should a student seek information not supplied by their employer, then pursuing a personally-convenient course of study tested by other firms actively managing the relevant curriculum will satisfy the student’s demand for knowledge while simultaneously revealing future candidates for hire.

An eager class of students willing to accept any responsibility that they may increase their knowledge and opportunity likewise represents a highly-valuable opportunity for an economy. Both labor inputs and the value of education stagnate if the information guiding it is not tested to precipitate growth. Therefore, if a firm pairs each step to command & conquer growth’s frontier with an internal step to educate, then the student-employees, the teacher-employers, the business, and the economy will all benefit. The first step, however, is to identify an economy's true teachers. Opportunity cannot be handed down if those at the top only know how to pretend to create it.

What is the position of systemaccounting on currency exchange?


Systemaccounting measures value to be a pure number parameterized only by its change in ownership with respect to time. Naming value "Dollars", "Euros", "Yen", etc., are all irrelevant to money's scientific definition and purpose since its unit of measurement is a time-dependent, yet independently-defined number between old & new owners of goods & services—nothing more.

Stated less technically, money is a device used to measure the historical, current, and future choices shared by human beings exercising free will between one another. Such measurements that refer to what human beings value provides for relating goods and services traded, and available for trade, in terms of the numbers human beings define for them. People who depend on rulers couldn't be more indifferent to the names they're given so long as the distances between the numbers written on them follow the rule of consistency (chartering "banks" and permitting the practice of "monetary policy" & "unconventional monetary policy" denies consistency in measure).

Also, complexity is a type of resistance that measures the number of references required by a system to automate its equilibrium. Introducing needless complexity into a system by adding divers measures for the same quantity creates damping points that only benefit those who specialize in manually negotiating a single mathematical translation at the cost of all others seeking access to the most efficient allocation, or equilibrium. Arbitraging complexity is appropriate if, within a limited number of steps, a permanent solution is applied. However, arbitraging complexity's symptoms with an endless number of steps is disingenuous, lazy, and debilitating for everyone separated across what are trivial points of complexity.

Systemaccounting prioritizes information's consistency & simplicity by enforcing the law of conservation across both value and liability.

Won't systemaccounting be expensive to operate?


Receiving kilobyte sets of key-value pairs from a consumer who is transacting with a producer, and entering them into a database for economic analysis is not nearly as expensive as the media-intensive endeavors currently pursued by many online platforms.

What effect does systemaccounting have on the size of government?

If the U.S. Treasury will be storing and moving the money on behalf of systemaccounting users, won't this new responsibility increase the size of government?


Systemaccounting reduces the size of government by ensuring the U.S. Treasury performs its duties correctly through the aid of science & technology.

To understand the magnitude of the reduction in the size of government, account for the fact that "banks" are government-chartered lending firms tasked to carry out duties the U.S. Treasury has inappropriately outsourced to the private sector. Since the U.S. Treasury is responsible for providing the service of money, it is not appropriate to leave its users at the mercy of lenders who require accepting the service of borrowing & lending money (where market risk > 0) a condition of receiving the services of storing & moving money (where market risk = 0).

As i) capital is sold to "banks" in the form of credit (sellers have little choice), and ii) the path of capital continues to be centrally planned in the direction of a network of federally-chartered lending companies, the amount of cash this network requires to stay in existence must inevitably grow because it serves to prop up lenders who are not market-tested to obtain the cash this capital is made of at prices the government continues to offer them (whew!). Being exempted from paying competitive prices for capital by government naturally creates an inescapable dependency that has no other end except to take down the network along with its supporting host.

In short, the "banking" industry is an ever-expanding branch of government that must continue to consume capital at amounts it cannot produce. And while systemaccounting successfully detaches this artificial branch of government from the public, it also ensures that any legitimate branch of government such as the U.S. Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget, and so on enjoy a massive boost in accountability and productivity using fewer resources. Such is technology.

Before the size of government can be debated, the subject of whether it is doing its job correctly must come first. After adequately addressing the first matter, we may confidently expect the second to be moot.

How are justice systems affected by systemaccounting?


When someone performs a measurement, they seek the opinion of the physical universe. Therefore, to be a scientist means to recognize The Universe as The Judge, a relationship that shows great reward to one who treats their own opinions as humble statements (hypotheses). Aside from exercising a court's sovereignty, reproducing a matter to test its conclusion in the company of a human judge is necessary only when the public must rely on his or her judgement to compensate for incomplete information* and restore order. Systemaccounting supports an individual's right to privacy while strengthening the public's right to defend itself from risk. The public's ability to defend itself more effectively from those seeking to exploit the absence of proof is enabled through the adoption of a technology that balances the right to privacy with the responsibility of accountability.

A simple example of the gain in efficiency:

If someone is denied receipt of a good or service after they have paid for it, the plaintiff will file a report with their local police. Upon escalation of the report to the district attorney, a charge may be filed with a request for a search warrant from the local court. Should the search warrant be granted by the court, systemaccounting enables the U.S. Treasury to receive and service the order by supplying the court access to the relevant transaction information. Assuming the plaintiff's claim is verified upon completion of a hearing, and a judgement in favor of the plaintiff is secured, a writ will be issued to U.S. Treasury requiring the creation of a new transaction that, in plain view of the public, reverses the one under dispute.

As the measurability of transactions increase, the deniability and uncertainty once exploited to secure false outcomes made possible by errors in human judgement will decrease. The length of legal cases will be reduced from months to hours as the realms of science and law merge through the aid of technology, and upon recognition that scientific research and legal discovery are one in the same: a hypothesis, or claim, requires testing if mankind is to remain in the grace & favor of The Court.

*Note: The difference between a judge and a powerful executive is the time-domain in which they are called to exercise judgement.

What is the position of systemaccounting on pricing?


There is such a price that can be set in the pursuit of adding value (profit) that denies its payor, and therefore the economy, the opportunity to maximize value. In other words, there is a price that causes its payor to spend so much time paying that their ability to discover how to be paid for something else (opportunity) is removed.

Property rights must be protected. The right to set a price, or individually choose how much work others must perform in exchange to obtain private property must be equally protected—this is where socialism fails. The natural limit, however, is drawn at the point where individually maximizing value prohibits the economy from reaching its own value-maximizing point—this is where poorly practiced capitalism fails.

Like a well-balanced system of organs, individuals must avoid becoming an obstacle to, or limit the ability of another to add as much value as possible. An economy cannot reach its value-maximizing point when its individual participants may only see their own, or are unwilling to acknowledge the one belonging to the economy (greed). 

To eliminate this blindness, whether innocent or willful, participants in an economy must have equal access to the same information. That information which must remain the same is the mathematical truth of what is physically occurring in an economy, at any time.

How is math viewed by systemaccounting?


Systemaccounting recognizes math to be the language of philosophy. To practice philosophy is to produce information that identifies the end of things, or how an object undergoes change in the presence of infinity. Therefore, to produce clear information that efficiently identifies the end of a matter, tying left & right-hand sides together to form a mathematical statement is in order.

Systemaccounting advises against practicing philosophy that does not describe some physical activity. Since math is not safe from dazzling and wasteful sophistry, it is advisable for computation's sake to prioritize the adoption of a programming language above learning a handwritten scripting technique. Receiving feedback is costly when using pencil & paper since reliance on this technology-pair forms a dependency on another human who may not always supply the correct feedback when they are accessible, or none at all when they're not accessible. Relying on a superior technology to quickly control for errors while independently expediting laborious computation enables the sincere student of the Rational Universe to test their own theories, chart their own course, and map their own physically useful views.

The machine that only understands logic has much to teach the creature who violates it. If one's childhood is therefore spent encountering the bulk of common error messages while testing the boundaries of their own independently-produced logic, the search for wisdom in one's formative & adult years will be more productive & fulfilling.


How does systemaccounting define science?


Science is the process of proving, disproving, or defining statements by applying the measure.

Once a standard is defined, statements claimed to be equal to the standard may be proven TRUE or FALSE.

A hypothesis is a statement awaiting proof.

White-collar science is defining hypotheses.

Blue-collar science is testing hypotheses.

Systemaccounting defines mxfactorial as the standard for measuring when the flow of value is TRUE, and then pursues blue-collar science by proving when the statements exchanged between buyers and sellers are equal to this standard.

Why use "physically" in place of "socially"?

Vernacular-wise, why is the word "physically" used in sentences where the word "socially" is normally expected?


As scientists, our job is to firmly establish how one value relates to another so this relationship can be predicted on command. For example, assume someone says, "When I drive 60 miles per hour for the next 2 hours, the distance I will have driven is 120 miles." Such a prediction can now be faithfully accepted as well as reproduced on command because the values of "speed", "time" and "distance" have already been clearly related by the law that states, "speed is distance/time". Of course, as scientists we always remain open to the possibility of a serious challenge to this statement of physical law, and look forward to being resurrected in a reality made possible by the challenge's triumph.

Okay, now to the point:

The shortcoming of sociology is that it seeks to establish certain facts about human behavior, or why people choose to do things, when free will may eventually account for the nullification of those facts. Basically, the human choice cannot be predicted so it's fair to say that the measurements which have been attributed to them, and the adjectives and nouns that have been consequently created to identify these humans, are likely to be negligible in their applicability in the long run (but just long enough to sell a few text books). This is why it's scientifically legitimate to instead measure the physical consequences of a decision made from exercising free will, but stopping short of using incomplete information to judge and brand what a human being is.

Once there is a scientific relationship responsible for describing the physical results or values created by someone who is exercising their own free will, it will then become sufficiently clear as to why people choose to do things.

What is this math identity systemaccounting uses?


The math identity, pronounced m-x-factorial, is an abstract data type describing how a system-clock is intellectually and physically possible.

Ask a physicist, and they'll tell you the identity is a map that measures & plots the consequences our shared choices have in a land we all have in common, the Physical Universe.

Ask a data scientist, and they'll tell you the identity empowers humans to optimize their actions—such as discovering the lowest price of a good or service, or the highest rate of return—since it measures the highest possible resolution of GDP.

Ask someone who is familiar with both concepts, and they will explain how the identity establishes for an economy the conditions studied by combinatorial game theory. But don't ask a mathematician because they'll say, "Your equation is wrong!" (they only consider notation that keeps them occupied with their own games :0).

Now, instead of depending on the assertions a few people define on behalf of everyone else, real live transaction data becomes the source of measuring both economic activity AND the price of capital.

Mxfactorial Explained

The purpose of the system-clock is to record how one variable changes with respect to the change in another variable. The system-clock may account for changes in multiple variables.

The first application of the system-clock is to be in economics where it will take the form of a "systemaccounting" technology used to measure how the following 3 variables change with respect to one another:

  1. Ownership
  2. Value
  3. Time

In economics, we are specifically concerned with measuring the change in the owernship of value with respect to the change in time. And since the $5.00 used to pay for a sandwich must remain the same between both the buyer and the seller at the time of its purchase, the variable we have defined as value is to experience zero, or no change. At the macro level, system-clocking economic variables does not allow for the monetary inflation created by socialized default risk to spread within the system because all variables, including value & liability, are structurally-gated as conserved quantities.

The ability to access this data to analyze the performance of an economy at any public level empowers ALL of us who contribute to its existence to do so while being as informed as possible ...which some may not prefer, but that's irrelevant. We're not asking permission to be equally informed. Are We?

Whether comprehending the true price of an asset, or the true cost of a fiscal policy, systemaccounting allows us all to be equally and scientifically informed about what is truly happening on the economic playing field.

Share the handout below with someone who speaks the language of math. Then, once you understand what it says, and understand its implications, turn around and teach it to someone else. Become an Mx! professor:)


Your equation is wrong.


The left side of the systemaccounting.org equation must be read as a 3-character symbol ("Mx!") defining a data type rather than an expression (M·x!). The symbol identifies how setting the measure for, computing, and transmitting the flow of value as unmodified scientific feedback for a system of users i) optimizes its path between them as buyers and sellers in a free market, and ii) satisfies the conditions studied by combinatorial game theory. The right-side variables of 'u = transactions / second' and 'w = value / transaction' are referenced in a summation to express a SELECT SUM(transaction_amount) FROM transaction_table WHERE date_time='YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss'; Structured Query Language statement.

While the equation symbolizes the unity of math, physics, accounting, and game theory through data science, the obvious violation in mathematical notation is intended to express 'Minimizing the number of definition-steps of some physical event or object across the languages used to describe it' as ideal.

How much math a person does, or can do, is irrelevant since it's what a person's math can help physically achieve that counts. To avoid wasting their lives using an inconsistent, manual runtime to reinterpret each other's work in the wheel of identity, mathematicians are best recognized as mankind's first information scientists now merging into computation science (producing statements that fail to reduce complexity is entertainment).

Therefore, emphasizing a computer science-to-math syntax above a math-to-math syntax recognizes that it is ideal for humans to expediently relate what they wish to communicate in physical terms to maximize its impact on the physical world. As physics confirms math to be a language the Physical Universe understands, systemaccounting quickly relates how a database may understand the Math of the Physical Universe. The impact: Unifying environments ignites a Big Bang of opportunity in support of an ever-growing population of citizens served by those who treat math as an instrument of automation & testing, and not an activity pursued to win a medal.

Furthermore, minimizing definition-steps to uphold simplicity protects humans from sophistry. The difference between the growth in population vs. the growth in useful information taught in schools has created a significant build-up in pressure between the necessity to consume and the capacity to produce. Academia currently poses a great burden on the economy by falsely recognizing some fields—namely the "social sciences"—as scientific and useful. When a word is allowed to be defined by words that must be defined by more words, and so on, the mind of the human who learns these definitions becomes impotent in the Physical Universe because all their knowledge comes from word inventors indulged by thesis committees appeased by a weak and easy-to-hack application of a single function. Hacked certificate in hand, book after book is then published while a wage to test and certify others on their knowledge of this physically-idle content is collected. And when the consumer of all this vague and ambiguous "knowledge" is finally called upon to fulfill the condition of supporting themselves by supporting others, they're left helpless because they sought intellectual approval from a social universe created by book-publishing, tuition-funded, word-inventors*.

The ability to recognize patterns rapidly is not a requirement for pursuing science. The ignorant mind reinforced by patience, fortitude, humility in the face of truth, courage in response to falsehood, accountability, and detachment from how one is perceived by others, will, in time, possess whatever knowledge it values. After the human mind resigns to exposing itself to the friction of confirming which words consistently define naturally-occurring numbers—and further, how their underlying dimensions relate, it earns valuable citizenship in a simple, elegant and beautiful place shared by all human beings, The Tested Reality Common to All†.


*Note: Applied math is mental boot-camp for our shared reality. Those who enlist deserve the utmost patience and encouragement if their willingness is expected to bear fruit. The allure of social academic disciplines is that they service the unwillingness—and NOT the incapacity of a student to tolerate the pain often experienced when the Physical Universe we all share refuses to confirm their impulsive expectations, i.e. "If I don't get it...if I don't receive the response I want, and in the time I want it... then I'M NOT GOOD AT IT. Therefore, I'm going to major in sociology and hack my way into an academic degree by writing 50 papers on subjects that lack an immediate feedback mechanism for declaring when my statements are false." People who seldom learn their opinions are fiction develop a sense of entitlement that undermines both themselves and their economy because a preference to secure an emotional outcome from their own imagination—an action that reverses the beneficiaries and payors of interacting with the Universe to produce a physical outcome for everyone else, is indulged. Though the art of persuasion may be perfected through excessive paper-writing, and even prove profitable in commerce, the Physical Universe is impervious to this skill because protecting individuals from whatever negative emotional reactions they experience from their failure of its Law is not available in a system where protection is strictly afforded to the physical outcomes proving the Law's success.

†Note: Learning how to negotiate one's way through the ocean—and not only the crowd on some shipis invaluable to one who both seeks their own mental independence, and recognizes that knowing how to work a room has zero value if it's submerged in water.

How is systemaccounting a matter of science and technology?

I have a PhD in mathematics. How is mxfactorial so important if it's only a summation?


Axiomizing a summation of the set of all equilibrium points, per unit of time—in a system of conserved quantities describes the behavior of an economy in terms of the same law that governs the physical universe.

Humanity depends on science to show people how to measure. Until now, the public has had difficulty with unambiguously defining "money", the instrument used to measure the change in ownership of value with respect to time, and its role within a physical system. Systemaccounting presents a scientific definition of money, then preserves that definition as buyers and sellers transact with one another through a payment application designed to keep all users equally informed.

The science educates the public how to correctly produce a measurement, the technology enables them to independently transmit & receive this measurement directly between one another (no "banks").

Why does systemaccounting charge one penny per transaction?

If the U.S. Treasury is supplying this service, shouldn't it be free?


The systemclock is a technology invented to solve the problem of how to measure & optimize the action of a system. As with all other electronic devices, the systemclock requires a battery. In exchange for the service of measuring and recording the change in ownership of value with respect to time, i.e. where the cost of accounting is incurred, a revenue is required.

Also, a precedent must be set for the scientific community: 

  1. Science is a form of labor not justified by academic degrees, scholarly publications, or the pageantry of awards, but by application. Revenue serves as physical proof that one's research has application by connecting it to a domain that permits society to measure & relate how much it reduces the expenses of others.* 

    It's been said that Real artists ship—the same applies to scientists. However, science is a unique form of labor that produces only one type of commodity: knowledge, or useful information. Marching forward with physical production & distribution to complete the ship equation often requires a scientist to negotiate a great deal of cost that emerges from unnecessary intermediation and task-switching. Scientific invention does not admit execution risk, yet it may be inappropriately cited by those not experienced enough with the relevant field, or who seek to exploit undue market power* by withholding physical production & distribution until there is an unjustified allocation of ownership. Too often an idea capable of physically solving an important problem goes unfunded, or ends up in the hands of the inept, because its inventor is at the mercy of a capital market whose supply-side succeeds at gaming the system's loose logic, barriers to entry, and susceptibility to social tactics.† Teaching the solution to people who are not rewarded by understanding the problem—who are even part of the problem, becomes an exercise in futility. An economy can rarely expect to grow if it sends its most capable problem-solvers to seek capital from those who acquire it by avoiding technical achievement; whose idea of exploiting inefficiency is to prevent others from eliminating it.

    Now that the mxfactorial research is complete, and the systemclock is invented, only production and distribution are left: Applying the systemclock to economic variables allows for a systemaccounting application to produce the properly ordered measurements that are freely-defined by human beings to be distributed by the internet to a publicly-accessible database hosted by the United States Treasury. Science + physical production & distribution = All aboard!

  2. Taking into account the opposite end of the revenue number line, science is a labor that is not cost-free.

    "If the work belonging to another is intellectual, then I am exempt from having to pay for it," is a position belonging to those who place no value on their own future, who place no value on knowledge, and who choose to enslave those who pursue it.

    Great, even grave self-sacrifice is required to uncover truth's path. Instead of stampeding through to appease an unchecked sense of entitlement, justice and prosperity dictate that the beneficiary of the newly-revealed path testifies to both i) its discoverer and ii) the measurable reduction in their own burden by supplying a fair amount of value in return—value that may be used to reveal yet another path which the traveler may further benefit from. As advancement begets advancement for all sides of the transaction, big science is left to those who practice useful science.

*Note: The market power is undue because, rather than producing intellectual property other firms are incapable of, the power to set a price owes itself to the scientist's lack of access to other more capable bidders on his or her intellectual property.

Note: This same failure trickles down from the capital market and is amplified throughout the labor market as skilled and competent individuals are subordinated to people who exploit socially opportunistic behavior rather than work & accountability to compete, i.e. opportunity for an information-intermediary increases as measurability and access within a system decreases.

Why not pursue systemaccounting as a normal startup?

With billions wasted on frivolous research across the private and public sectors every year, systemaccounting distinguishes itself from the rest as science offering an invaluable return to its supporters by way of:
  • eliminating the systemic risk caused by illegitimate, government-chartered assets,
  • scientifically disproving all attempts by financial market participants to equate the value of the promises they accept from borrowers to the value of the work delivered by laborers in the past,
  • protecting the public from the absurdities concealed within the jargon of pseudo-technical "experts",
  • denying the externalization of liability from organizations claiming to be "corporations",
  • defining and maintaining​ an empirical standard for earnings,
  • increasing the visibility and competitiveness of returns for investors, the availability of capital for entrepreneurs, and therefore, the purchasing power of consumers,
  • all the while, establishing economic transparency and accountability.

In view of the benefits outlined above, people believe in systemaccounting because their sanity is proven to be intact; not because they receive equity compensation for financial insight & bravery. Just as automobile tires are not compensated to believe speed=distance/time, or conductors that current=charge/time, investors in search of a return are not asked to believe the flow of value=Δownership/time.

Correcting the U.S. Treasury's inappropriate choice to allow "banks" & "monetary policy" occupy the role that only science may play within the trade of capital is therefore medicine rather than entrepreneurship. When rates of return are permitted to be legally-dictated instead of scientifically-discovered, the U.S. Treasury is left with no other choice but to hand the printing press keys over to firms whose only means of restoring the inevitable loss of capital they've obtained from the public at unnatural, government-defined prices is—to print more money. Printing for "banks" the device used by the public to serve as undisputed testimony that value was delivered in the past, and therefore, deserves to be received in the future is to falsify reality in favor of a few, and distort prices. Adding the variable of information asymmetry, it is necessary to diagnose the entire financial industry's landscape as owing its existence to imbalanced access to unjustifiable prices of capital—credit included.

The act of prescribing a solution for the recurring destruction caused by chartering under-performing assets, and then attempting to stabilize an entire system in their favor, is not one that first seeks the approval of venture capitalists dependent on a "stock market", or any other financial professional whose success may be enabled by the current system's imbalances. Furthermore, systemaccounting would be incomplete and insincere as a scientific revolution if the very people it is intended to test were found compensated in advance of its consequences to profess its legitimacy. Once people recognize that advocating science's role within the trade of capital is in their best interest, the technology will pay for itself.

In sum, investors are compensated for believing an idea. Systemaccounting is a matter where the roles of the believing and the believed are reversed.

What is the epistemological position of systemaccounting?


 Exercising independently-informed judgment is not a human right, but a duty belonging to every human being.

*Fulcrum: one that supplies capability for action.

How is epistemology viewed by systemaccounting?


The theory of knowledge is to be abandoned for the science of information.

Isn't the only true solution to the economy's problems a spiritual one?


To talk of the spirit is to talk of the motive reflected by a choice, and nothing else*. Like the youth coming of age, man at this stage in his development has little interest in being told what to choose, let alone why. Therefore, the task isn't to barge into the private quarters of a man's soul to reorder things as we see fit, but rather to extend an invitation for him to open a door so that he may understand how the life he lives on the inside affects others on the outside. This can best be achieved by simply showing man the consequences of his choices, i.e. by teaching him how to measure them—one of science's many gifts.


*Note: People often misinterpret emotional events for spiritual ones. Emotions are both produced and consumed by the creature capable of pleasure, pain, and anything in between, whereas spiritual events do not account for the emotion one desires to consume. Accepting personal responsibility for reflecting a well-formed idea through an individual choice, the aim of which is to physically produce some desired consequence in a Physical Universe shared with others, often requires its originator to avoid any conflicts & distortions caused by prioritizing their own emotional outcome (consumption). In short, a spiritual event is an act of production where the only thing consumed in return is an idea identified by a choice's physical consequence.


What is the systemaccounting view of religion?


Science is choosing to prove an idea. Faith is choosing to be an idea's proof.
Pursuing both maximizes the physical value of information.

What is a 'Warrior Scientist'?


One who reveals the true measure of a matter despite aversion or consequence.

Was this helpful?