Last updated: August 21, 2019
This Agreement is composed for you (“you” means “potential Book Club member” or “Book Club member”, depending on what suits the reader of this agreement best, and will also be named “Book Club member”, “member of D.O.C.I.S. International”, “member” because this is about Book Club memberships), to ensure that you are aware of what requirements D.O.C.I.S. International should meet for its Book Club members, as well as know what is expected from you as a D.O.C.I.S. Book Club member, when you become an official member of the D.O.C.I.S. Book Club.
1.1. D.O.C.I.S. International (in the Agreement also referred to as “proprietorship”, “organization” and “I”)
D.O.C.I.S. International, also known as “Fangs”, is the sole proprietorship registered under Dutch Chamber of Commerce number 71968253, from which websites https://docis.international, https://store.docis.international, https://thefangs.nl and https://lilfangs.com are operated.
1.2. The D.O.C.I.S. Book Club (in the Agreement also referred to as “Book Club”)
The internationally oriented Book Club operated by D.O.C.I.S. International, whereof memberships are sold in the D.O.C.I.S. Store. Members of The D.O.C.I.S. Book Club are also called members of D.O.C.I.S. International.
1.3. Online Member
An Online member of the D.O.C.I.S. Book Club is someone who is entitled all of the features of the Online membership (https://store.docis.international/book-club#memberships).
1.4. Full Member
A Full member of the D.O.C.I.S. Book Club is someone who is entitled all of the features of the Full membership (https://store.docis.international/book-club#memberships).
1.5. The D.O.C.I.S. Store
The (online) store of D.O.C.I.S. International is named “The D.O.C.I.S. Store” (https://store.docis.international).
1.6. The Fangs (also called “TheFangs.nl”)
“The Fangs” is the collective blog and (e-mail) magazine of D.O.C.I.S. International. With “collective blog”, I mean a blog on which articles are written by more than one author. Via The Fangs, the interactive side of the D.O.C.I.S. Book Club is operated. (https://thefangs.nl)
1.7. The D.O.C.I.S. Assignment
A D.O.C.I.S. Assignment is a creative assignment that is done for the D.O.C.I.S. Book Club.
2.1. Someone is considered an official member of the D.O.C.I.S. Book Club when he or she has received a confirmation, by D.O.C.I.S. International, of the receipt of his or her subscription fee.
2.2. To become a member of the D.O.C.I.S. Book Club, the potential member has to submit the sign-up form for the Book Club membership that meets his or her preference (https://store.docis.international/book-club#memberships). The potential member is entitled one membership and not multiple. After submitting the sign-up form, the member has to transfer his or her subscription fee to become an official member.
2.3. Aside from being suspended from the D.O.C.I.S. Book Club (Article 4, Section 7.4.2), there are no limitations to becoming a member of the D.O.C.I.S. Book Club.
3.1. D.O.C.I.S. International has to notify its Book Club members when it is time for them to renew their Book Club subscription. It does this with sending out an invoice to them. Book Club members are responsible for paying their subscription in time.
3.2. The start days of the quarters of a year are: January 1st, May 1st, July 1st and October 1st.
3.3. 15 days before a new month-based quarter of the year starts, D.O.C.I.S. International should send out its invoices for the renewals of Book Club subscriptions. If it is, by the Book Club member, not paid on the first day of the quarter yet, it should send a reminder.
3.4. If D.O.C.I.S. International, for whatever reason, sends out the invoice less than 15 days before the quarter starts, the count of the 30 days the Book Club member has to pay his or her subscription fee, start on the day the invoice is sent out.
3.5. If the subscription is, within 30 days of receiving the invoice for subscription renewal, not paid by the Book Club member yet, D.O.C.I.S. International is entitled to freeze the member his or her account on TheFangs.nl.
3.6. Current accepted payment methods are bank transfers and PayPal transactions to the account of D.O.C.I.S. International (owned by D. D. Elia).
3.7. The Book Club member is entitled to change his or her subscription for the next quarter, by submitting the form about changing the member’s membership, in his or her account settings on TheFangs.nl. The subscription renewal invoice the member receives should have the subscription fee of the selected membership on it.
4.1. Both Online members and Full members are entitled to make use of the private social network for Book Club members that is on TheFangs.nl.
4.2. The private social network consists of a forum, a set of pages where one can add friends, write private posts, send private messages to D.O.C.I.S. Network friends, edit his/her profile page, find other members and make groups, a Book Club page with information about the theme, books and assignment for the quarter, a voting page, where one can vote for books and for whom should get a higher function in D.O.C.I.S. International, and an account settings page, where one can add or take away additional features to his or her Book Club account.
4.3. Additional features to one’s private social network account that are available to both Online members and Full members are: becoming electable for higher functions in the D.O.C.I.S. International and signing up to publish a self-composed work with D.O.C.I.S. International. This can be added to one’s membership via Account Settings.
4.4. Additional features that are only available to Full members are: being allowed to suggest books for the Book Club and having access to the date picker for International Book Club meetings.
4.5. A special account feature that is only given to a member (both Online and Full) after he or she has motivated his or her reasons why, is: being an author for The Fangs.
4.6. Authors for The Fangs may, on our collective blog, only post materials that are originally composed by them. If there are other sources used for their original work then the sources have to be mentioned.
4.6.1. Settings that apply to all accounts on The Fangs may not be changed without permission of the owner of D.O.C.I.S. International. This includes the creation of categories.
4.6.2. Authors for The Fangs may not make profit of their authorship on The Fangs without sharing that (a little) with D.O.C.I.S. International.
4.6.3. Only with permission of the owner of D.O.C.I.S. International, posts may be featured.
46.4. Authors for The Fangs are allowed to create their own post tags and permalinks.
4.6.5. Authors for The Fangs may refer their readers to other websites.
4.7. If a Book Club member finds that a post that is published on The Fangs is offensive or incorrect or another reason it is – according to that member – disputable, the member may open a dispute about the post via Account settings.
4.7.1. A dispute may only be opened if the Book Club member who wishes to open it, motivates his or her reasons why and what the consequences for the author should be.
4.7.2. The standard setting for a dispute is a written debate where the D.O.C.I.S. Nicknames of the pro and contra parties are visible. The person who opens the dispute may, however, choose to stay anonymous if he or she motivates her reasons why.
4.7.3. If there is more than one person opening a dispute against the same post or against the same author, an equal amount of Book Club members who are not against the writings of the author will be sought, to give the pro and contra parties equal strength. The seeking may be done by the author, given that he or she sends this request without using offensive language towards the parties opening a dispute against him or her.
4.7.4. The final judgment and consequences of the debate are decided by a member of the D.O.C.I.S. International Council who has been entitled to do this (elected as Mediator). This member also organizes and supervises the debate.
18.104.22.168. If the roles for supervising and judging debates have not been assigned yet, or if there is another reason why the entitled members cannot supervise and judge the debate, the final judgment and the consequences of the debate will be decided and spoken out by the owner of D.O.C.I.S. International.
22.214.171.124. The most severe punishment for publishing a disputable post, especially when what is written is in conflict with The Alliance (Article 8), is a permanent suspension of the author’s Book Club membership.
126.96.36.199. If the author is not suspended, the people or person opening the dispute and the author or the author and his or her defendants, all together, will have to do a bonding assignment together that relates the theme that has caused the dispute, to keep our collective alliance strong.
188.8.131.52.1. The Mediator decides what the bonding assignment will be.
184.108.40.206.2. If one who has to do a bonding assignment according to Article 4, Section 7.4.3., refuses to do this, the Mediator is entitled to question the continuance of the refusing member’s membership.
220.127.116.11.3. The bonding assignment has to be sent to the Mediator within eight weeks and has to be made public by the Mediator.
4.7.5. All Book Club members are entitled to know the pro and contra arguments for and against the disputed post.
5.1. Doing a D.O.C.I.S. Assignment is voluntary, unless:
5.1.1. Unless a dispute is the reason why, according to Article 4, Section 7.4.3..
5.2. A D.O.C.I.S. Assignment is created and assigned to members, by the owner of D.O.C.I.S. International, unless:
5.2.1. Unless the owner has given official permission to let an assignment be created and assigned by someone else.
5.2.2. Unless the reason for the assignment is a dispute, according to Article 4, Section 7.4.3., and the owner is not the Mediator of the dispute.
5.3. Assignments may not include publicizing private credentials, unwanted physical activity or anything that can be considered offensive by the person who the assignment is assigned to.
5.4. The standard time span for a D.O.C.I.S. Assignment is eight weeks.
5.5. There should be reading material for the Nosce Te Ipsum Thesis with every theme.
6.1. Both and only Full members and Online members may participate in elections for higher functions in D.O.C.I.S. International.
6.2. Both Full members and Online members may vote in elections for higher functions in D.O.C.I.S. International.
6.3. A person participating in elections may not vote for him or herself.
6.4. The owner of D.O.C.I.S. International is the only person entitled to organize elections.
6.4.1. The owner of D.O.C.I.S. International is entitled to select people for a pre-selection committee, in case there are more than 50 applications in total for the organized elections.
18.104.22.168. The pre-selection committee is entitled to filter out two thirds of the amount of applicants they are assigned, based on how well they meet the requirements for the function they are applying for in comparison to the other applicants.
22.214.171.124. If an applicant is not selected in the pre-selection, the pre-selection committee has to notify the applicant why he or she is not pre-selected.
6.4.2. The owner of D.O.C.I.S. International has to narrow down the amount of candidates to ten candidates per function. These are the ten candidates the members of The D.O.C.I.S. Book Club will be allowed to vote for.
126.96.36.199. If there is more than one spot for a function available, the amount of available spots is multiplied by 10 for the amount of candidates for the function. (E.g. there are 3 spots for Mediator available, so there may be 30 candidates the Book Club members may vote for, unless there are less than 30 candidates in total.)
6.4.3. Before the voting, the candidates are allowed an equal amount of individual broadcasting and collective broadcasting through the media of D.O.C.I.S. International.
188.8.131.52. Individual broadcasting is considered a broadcasting organized by the candidate, on a medium that is selected by the owner. (E.g. on a certain date, all candidates may publish one blog post and one video on all media of D.O.C.I.S. International.)
184.108.40.206. Collective broadcasting is considered broadcasting of all candidates together, in a friendly or competitive setting.
6.4.4. For which functions there will be elections (including an explanation of the functions, the selection criteria for the functions and the compensation for the functions), when the elections period will be and when members can apply for a function has to be announced at least a month before members can start to apply.
6.5. Quarterly book selection votes have to be narrowed down to ten potential options. This may be done by the owner or by a pre-selection committee created by the owner.
6.6. There is one vote allowed per D.O.C.I.S. ID.
6.6.1. Members are allowed to vote blank.
7.1. International Book Club meetings may only be organized by the owner of D.O.C.I.S. International.
7.2. International meetings may only be attended by Full members.
7.3. Entrance to the Book Club meeting event should be free of charge.
7.4. Before the event, all attendants have to be asked if they wish to not be seen on any pictures and videos made at the event. This wish has to be obeyed.
8.1. The goal of The D.O.C.I.S. Book club is to add to the member’s reflection of self and to show the member various ways of interpretation, all meant to stimulate finding new practical solutions to the problems we are facing in society, as a colloquial collective.
8.1.1. A solution found by The D.O.C.I.S. Book Club may only be made public outside of our Alliance when it has been patented.
8.2. Members of The D.O.C.I.S. Book Club treat each other with respect, regardless if this is interpreted formally or informally.
8.3. Disagreements between members of The D.O.C.I.S. Book Club are never settled with violence.
A D.O.C.I.S. Essay
By Lil Fangs
This essay was written when I was in a very difficult situation. Again, being put in a powerless situation by someone else’s authority. I hoped that selling what I know about the deep-state, would help me to afford to get away from those circumstances forever. I’m not in that crisis center anymore, so the contextual information at the end of the post does not apply to me anymore. I, however, still need the funds to live independently. The essay was, because of that, put online for €1177.77, but it had no sales. I find it still important that you get the rest of my message, and that is why I now put this essay online for free.
When I published any other book I’ve published, just like when I was trying to sell this essay, I am trying to earn, so that I can set up a successful business and leave my current life behind me for good. I hope I can count on your support, this time.
“Always start the documents you sell, off with a quote. It will make you look more (modern) scholarly.”
– Lil Fangs
That was a joke 😂 … The rest won’t be…
This essay is all about the hierarchical pyramid, visible on the next page. I’m writing this from my own perspective. As a regular citizen, attempting to formulate an independent opinion, hoping I’ll succeed in nudging the official authorities, so that we can flip the pyramid together, forming a new powerful union.
Oh meow I reallyyy need to share this citation with you again, though. (I used it in my EP, too.) It perfectly suits the content of this essay! The first three paragraphs of Propaganda, by Edward Bernays:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.”
Slowly but surely, the system is destroying itself. The education system and cultural stories that are told from generation to generation, have taught us to value money. It gives us a status. It is the reason many people leave their homes every day.
If an idea is not an idea that can make you rich, society will not consider it a good idea. In that way, making an unprofitable difference, out of kind-heartedness, and to do what is best for our generation and future generations to come, is unappealing to society.
What is appealing to society, is to maximize profits, regardless of what it does to nature. What is appealing to society, is to destroy the names of talented people, because most people don’t have any talents. What is appealing to society, is to make a small story far bigger than it actually is, because otherwise, people have nothing to talk about.
When nature gives out, because it has been abused by this generation far too much, money will have no value. Many lives will become purposeless. That is not our problem (anymore), because they have had enough time and have received enough information to create a better system.
Those at the top (three layers) of the pyramid, have no clue what they are actually doing. They’re far too busy playing the status game. They think it has actual meaning, while it’s only talk. They don’t think about the future, and the consequences of their actions.
To make sure that they don’t ruin the future of us and generations to come, we should flip the pyramid. Instead of trying to maintain what we have, we should disrupt it even further – none of us truly enjoys this anyway. It’s only a façade, needed to keep our status. It is better to cause the disruption ourselves, so that we have control over the way the world looks, after it the system is collapsed, instead of giving in to the prospect of our fate being an uncontrollable chaos, caused by idiots.
The disruption starts with your purchase – thank you 💕 – and is followed by all of us taking physically visible action, simultaneously. I’ll first convince you of why the system has to be disrupted, some more, including some sad stories and good prospects, then I’ll tell you more about my Stratagem, and after that, it’s time for real action 🙂 .
From the bottom of the pyramid, the experience of life is anything except joyful. Formulating an independent opinion is too difficult for many, so we are taught to adapt and dumb down our conversation. We watch the members of the inner cabinet try to uncover who is who, and know that right-wing and left-wing are meaningless concepts in that context.
Some individuals are in multiple positions in the pyramid at the same time, due to the status that comes with their profession. Some, like me, aren’t. There are right-wing politicians, doing independent research, echoing their views over the sounds of journalists who blindly follow trends, attempting to reach the business authorities that are being told what to do, by binge-watching babyboomers and their offspring, for example.
We, at the bottom, hope to see a large Volta, where there will be no more name shaming as “world news”. We, at the bottom, want to see the type of change in society that will make everyone go back to school again, because life as we know it will fully change.
But the change the bottom two layers want and need to see, will mean that the top three layers of the pyramid will become obsolete. Fully obsolete…
When I say this to those who blindly follow trends, they respond with something in the context of: “No wonder you are diagnosed with schizophrenia.” The media pre-chew everything there is to discover in life, and tell you how you should feel about that, so how come I have such an odd opinion about everything in life?
“Propaganda” is a bad word, “multiculturalism”, “professional” and “STG” are good words, according to the trends. How about they become just words again, where “good” or “bad” depends on the context they are used in, and the personal view of the listener.
So then, in my view, “I’m going to use propaganda to make everyone my minion,” is bad. But “I’m going to use propaganda to force people to think independently (and unveil their identity),” is good.
Since I’m, in the meantime, still busy debunking the diagnosis schizophrenia I have received, I have to still point this out, though I assume you know I know this, and I hope you know this: Officially, the official authorities and those backing them, are on top of the pyramid. But because we are taught that the media are the voice of independent reason, the official top of the pyramid is not treated as the top of the pyramid, but as puppets who have to be shaped according to the will of the self-preservative deep-state, profiting of the overrated status game.
The bottom two rows of the pyramid are structurally being prohibited from emancipating, because the top three layers do not want to give up their position in the Silent Pyramid. This is so severe, that from a young age, people are taught to stop hoping for change, and accept life as it is. Then the media confirm that image, by publishing thousands of pessimistic articles per day. And if you go too far in your believes for change, like me, you’ll become a victim of social shock therapy and be forced to take psychiatric drugs until you give up on your dreams. Life can’t go on like this forever! Especially not because of the state of the waterworks… 🙂 (The state that is fully ignored by those who blindly follow, and which is not getting enough media attention AT ALL!!!)
I have a lot of trouble with that people who blindly follow trends are authorized to label and stigmatize the worlds of people they can’t even understand. In my view, schizophrenia – as well as MANY other labels – cannot exist, because every perspective on life is unique. It’s just used to push us down the Pyramid even further… That includes people who are convinced by other people that they’re dumb, while they’re actually very smart.
As was said in the citation of Bernays: the members of the inner cabinet, do not know the identity of their fellow members. As in that they cannot openly discuss their hidden agendas. But if you’re only in it for the money and other forms of self-preservation, it’s not necessary to discuss your agenda to reveal your identity. (I say “your” for simplicity. I don’t necessarily mean you, my dear reader.)
In our competitive world, everyone is incentivized to show characteristics of politeness and intelligence, whether they’re real or fake. Humor, in the meantime, has evolved into “laughing after barbarianism”. To me, today’s sense of humor is painful and loveless. Real humor requires intelligence. Intelligence most people – sad but true – don’t have.
Through someone’s sense of humor, you can decipher that person’s identity and hidden agenda. The façade of politeness and intelligence is meaningless, when jokes are misunderstood due to the lack of understanding. From that, an interview follows, to unveil the nature of a joke [Was it to indirectly insult, or was it to make laugh?], and to unveil the nature of the listener [Does the listener find the joker a good conversationalist, or does he/she find him an annoying nerd?].
I’m pulling out all the stops in this paragraph [wonder why?] 😏 . I just want to show you that, even though I’m not really part of it (yet), I know your world very well.
We shouldn’t spend time with those we can’t get along with. The politeness, resembling “professionalism”, in this competitive world, we should let go of, because I know that there are, like me, many people who stay polite, while they would rather scream so loud that their saliva starts to foam. It’s not healthy to crop up emotions (of anger)!
I believe that there is a professional deep-state, and a personal deep-state. The professional deep-state has superficial people wanting to look cool in the one corner, and pioneers wanting to make a change, in the other. The experience of the personal deep-state depends on individual identity, but I would categorize it in this way (mind you that my personal bias will echo through this): there are those who live to spread love, of whom some people in their lives live to do the same, but most people live to take advantage of them, because those people, taking advantage, live, but are barely conscious. They have no talent and don’t want to think about life, because their minds are not capable of understanding it, so let alone improving it. Due to the competitiveness in our society and everyone wanting to be a star, they’ll act as if they live to spread love, but in reality, all they do is just survive (by taking advantage of others).
I’m talking to the bottom two layers of the Silent Pyramid, who truly live to spread love (and receive all of mine 😻 ).
A real “Revenge of the Nerds”, will set the record straight. We have adapted ourselves to less intelligent people for long enough. How about we all let “professionalism” go, simultaneously, and just be ourselves. (You’ll breathe more freely than ever before!)
We, the bottom layers of the Pyramid, don’t need large groups of people to do what we want to do in life. It is what makes us strong as individuals, but it’s what makes us weak against the competitive top three layers in the Silent Pyramid, who are more focused on forming self-preservative alliances, than self-development.
We, “nerds”, should seclude ourselves from those we wouldn’t truly voluntarily spend time with anyway. If we all do it together, at the same time, the top three layers will be powerless. We can outsmart them with so much ease!
That is why I plead for the independent alliance of the bottom two layers of the Silent Pyramid, through D.O.C.I.S. International, funded to unite us and revolutionize society. Who do you want to be, when, due to the collapse of the waterworks, the entire system collapses? You can start your life all over again and re-log who you are, for the history books of our future generations. Please let me know, by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
The international deep-state should be uncovered, the media should be taken less seriously, those who blindly follow trends have no purpose in our revolution, official authorities should become actual authorities and those who work hard to formulate an independent opinion, will become the world’s new generation of pioneers.
I hope to have given you information that is understandable, and the incentive to do something you easily can and want to do. All you need to do, is, the next time I ask you to publicly support me, say that you are part of the D.O.C.I.S. International Council, and poke your chest and bum out, showing the world the strong and independent individual that you are. I’ll divide positions and tasks on the fly. (They say don’t put new information in the conclusion of your texts… I’m still doing it. #YOLO.)
War in the Western world, would make me happy. To get the chance to rebuild the overpromoted, decaying metropolitans, which are like old, squeaking amusement park attractions, facilitating the same routine over and over and over and over again. I can’t even pretend to like it anymore. I can’t pretend to value it, either. It would also end that awful “The West is the Best”-sentiment (democrats often use).
The top three layers will point a moralistic finger at me, for the first sentence of this digression, but that is only because the war will be against them, and they will be so very powerless.
Ik hoop dat je je door mijn schrijven een stuk minder alleen voelt. Ik hoop dat ik je leven leuker maak, vanaf de afstand van waar ik je bereik.
Je voelt je zeker alleen omdat je voor de meeste mensen te intelligent bent. Maak je niet (meer) druk, want je persoonlijkheid zal binnenkort de allernormaalste zijn. Andersdenkenden belachelijk maken, zal binnenkort belachelijk worden. Ook zal het normaler worden om culturele gebruiken te laten varen.
Of ik helemaal klaar ben met Project Nosce Te Ipsum? Nee, ik wacht tot men me antwoorden opstuurt. Ik moet weten hoeveel mensen A of B stemmen op de laatste vraag in The Hypothesis, omdat ik op basis daarvan, had ik gezegd, het vervolg van het verhaal zal bepalen. Het is ook onderdeel van de informatie die ik nodig heb voor het publieke opinie onderzoek dat ik doe, om te bepalen wat de beste regeermethode is, voor wanneer de waterwerken er niet meer zijn.
Het wordt een spannende tijd. Maar hoe dan ook een leuke tijd, omdat we samen zullen zijn.
I love you 💕
– Xxx – The Fangs
Die dit allemaal in een avondje op haar telefoon typte, in de crisisopvang, hopend dat ze met de opbrengst hiervan een beter alternatief heeft dan de daklozenopvang, omdat ik vandaag weg moet uit de crisisopvang. Hartelijk dank voor je aankoop 💕 .
Hoe vind je mijn verkooppiramide concept, voor de verkoop van mijn essay over de Stille Pyramide? 😏
© Lil Fangs (Dominique Daniëlle Elia) – The contents of this document may be re-sold for a lower price, but only when part of the profits are shared with the author. When reproducing the content, always mention the author.
From Project Nosce Te Ipsum to the Economics and Law that constitute Planet Fang… I’ll explain E-VE-RY-THING (including my communication strategies) in this group chat!!! 🙂
And you can ask me anything :D. I can also remove you from the chat if you’re not interested (anymore) :).
Check out @LilFangs_’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/LilFangs_/status/1122320028848803840?s=09
I just created this poll and wanted to share that with the people I follow on the social network, which caused me to create a group chat.
And now I’ll use it to give lectures about D.O.C.I.S. International [Determined Observant Colloquial Intelligent Stratagem] 🙂 .
The spontaneous fun we could have here makes me want to do nothing else than this 🙂 .
It never ends! 😀
It will work better on a different platform, with people who already have some background knowledge about my endeavors.
Geboortedatum: 1 november 1996 (22 jaar)
E-mailadres: email@example.com (persoonlijk)
Adres: XXXXXXXXXX Capelle aan den IJssel
Op de lange termijn wil ik, door middel van het combineren van wiskundige, economische, wettelijke en didactische kennis, graag bijdragen aan de hervorming van het internationaal politiek-economisch systeem, met een (nog) sterke(re) nadruk op duurzaamheid. Dit of via het bedrijfsleven, of via de politiek zelf.
Korte termijn doelen
Behaald in 2016
Profielkeuze: Economie & Maatschappij met Duits, Latijn, wiskunde B en informatica
Nog niet behaald
Georiënteerd op (Financiële) Wiskunde
augustus 2013 – september 2016
Het bijhouden van de financiële bewijsstukken (zowel digitaal als fysiek) en de financiële correspondentie tussen het bedrijf en het (uitbestede) accountantskantoor.
juni 2016 – september 2016
Het ordenen van de administratie, opstellen van persoonlijke budgetten, inlichten en aanvragen voorbereiden, van mensen met financiële problemen in de regio Delfshaven, in een bijstands- en/of schuldsaneringstraject.
september 2016 – december 2017
Het ontwikkelen van PR strategieën en campagneconcepten voor individuen, op basis van de technieken van de grondleggers van de PR, in een uiterst alternatief, modern jasje.
juli 2018 – heden
Het ontwikkelen van een onderzoeksproject met toekomstige bestuursuitbreiding, aansluitend op mijn langetermijndoel, door middel van een invulverhalenserie (om zo te beginnen met een consumentenonderzoek dat uiteindelijk aanduidt aan welke eisen de internationale gemeenschap wil dat een revolutionair politiek-economisch systeem voldoet). Dit concept is echter nog niet officieel aan de man gebracht en dient op dit moment meer als een hobby waarmee ik ook een zakcentje verdien.
augustus 2018 – september 2018
Zomerkracht op de afdeling gespecialiseerd in de internationale voorziening van huurauto’s voor mensen die pech hebben gehad onderweg, maar toch hun vakantie willen voortzetten.
Overige (Informele) Ervaring
Ik sta al van jongs af aan in de keuken, ken veel diverse kooktechnieken en smaakcombinaties uit keukens uit vele verschillende landen (met name Suriname, Nederland, Italië, Frankrijk en India), ontwikkel zeer regelmatig mijn eigen recepten (want ik hou van gevarieerd eten) en kook ook regelmatig driegangendiners voor groepen van 5 tot 10 mensen.
Over lesgeven (en spreken voor publiek) ben ik zeer gepassioneerd. Ik heb in veel verschillende disciplines (bij)les gegeven, waaronder: wiskunde, economie, PWSsen schrijven, piano spelen, vechttechnieken, basketbaltechnieken, koken, Engels, Nederlands en omgaan met telefoons en computers.
Van kleins af aan doe ik af en toe modellenwerk op aanvraag of voor eigen bedrijfsdoeleinden.
Gepubliceerd op 24 september 2018
Een heruitgave van episodes over mijn onderzoeksproject en science-fiction verhaal die ik eerder had gepubliceerd, maar later van het internet af had gehaald in verband met de controverse achter het publiceren van mijn persoonlijke verhaal in het verhaal en het risico dat dat kon zijn voor een baangarantie.
Gepubliceerd op 30 september 2018
Een introductie van het invulverhaal en de onderzoeksmethode achter het invulverhaal, waarin de lezer de protagonist is en de ingevulde informatie zal worden gebruikt voor het zoeken naar “The Universal Standard of Human Reasoning”, die nodig is voor het vinden van een politiek-economisch consensus.
Gepubliceerd op 30 november 2018
Een uitweiding van het invulverhaal, met als thema de (bedrijfs)filosofie en strategische uitdagingen binnen het onderzoeksconcept, gecombineerd met een vroege poging tot ledenwerving.
Gepubliceerd op 30 januari 2019
Een lang essay over een non-cijfermatig algoritme voor levensverbetering en de toepassing hiervan.
Gepubliceerd op 30 maart 2019
De onthulling van de spanningslagen uit het eerste boek van het invulverhaal en de laatste invulvragen die samen de hypothese van The Universal Standard of Human Reasoning vormen.
Publicatiedatum: 28 februari 2019
Dit is deel 1 van de artikelenserie die gaat over de macro-economische gedachte achter de organisatie die ik wil starten en over de economische hervorming van Keynes.
Publicatiedatum: 15 april 2019
Deel 2 van de serie over macro-economie in de context van mijn (hopelijk) toekomstig bedrijf, gaat in op hedendaagse voorbeelden van marktfalen en de (zelf ontwikkelde) wiskundige basismodellen achter mijn idee van duurzame hervorming.
|Communicatief sterk||Soms verlegen|
|Doortastend empathisch vermogen||(Vrijetijds)workaholic wat betreft auteurschap en onderzoek|
|Leert snel||Gebruikt soms complexe woordkeuzes en zinsconstructies|
In mijn vrije tijd dans ik graag. In het verleden heb ik ballet (3-4 jaar), streetdance (12 – 14 jaar) en hip-hop (16 jaar) danslessen gevolgd. Ik heb vroeger ook judo (4 tot 8 jaar), pençak silat (6 tot 12 jaar) en tennislessen (3 jaar eventjes en toen 10 tot 12 jaar) gevolgd. Vanaf mijn veertiende tot mijn achttiende speelde ik voor Rotterdam Basketbal. Sinds mijn negende speel ik piano.
Tekenen (en schilderen en beeldhouwen) doe ik met slecht weer met plezier. Fotograferen doe ik ook heel graag. Vooral wanneer ik reis, wat ik ook erg vaak met vol enthousiasme doe. Ik ben in Nederland (Amsterdam, Texel, Ameland, Hoenderloo, Maastricht, Enschede, en nog een paar steden), Duitsland (Berlijn, Stuttgart, München, Düsseldorf, Trier, Wiesbaden en Meerbusch), Frankrijk (Parijs en diverse delen van Normandië), België (diverse plaatsen in de Ardennen en Antwerpen), Engeland (Newcastle), Ierland (Dublin), Suriname (Paramaribo en twee plaatsen in “de binnenlanden”), de Bahama’s (Nassau), Spanje (Ibiza), Italië (Rome, Udine, Verona, Venetië en Brugnera), Turkije (Marmaris en Alanya), Griekenland (Kreta) en de Verenigde Staten (Miami, FL; Baltimore, MA) op vakantie geweest, gedurende mijn hele leven, en zou graag nog veel meer van de wereld willen zien.
Verder lees ik ook graag informatieve klassiekers (zo kom ik bijvoorbeeld aan mijn PR basiskennis), ben ik bekend met programmeren met Visual Basic (en heb ik ook ervaring met programmeren voor Android, Java (in het algemeen) en C# (voor Unity)), kan ik Access databases bouwen (zo heb ik mijn eigen boekhoudsysteem gemaakt, voor mijn persoonlijke administratie), beheers ik HTML en CSS, spreek ik vloeiend Engels (en kan ik een beetje Frans spreken (en het bijna vloeiend verstaan (als het niet te snel en geen gebroken Frans/straattaal is)), Sranan Tongo kan ik redelijk verstaan, Duits kan ik redelijk spreken en vrijwel vloeiend verstaan), maak ik soms beats met Reason Lite, ga ik regelmatig naar de sportschool (voor krachttraining), houd ik van (neo-soul/rap/hip-hop/jazz/klassiek/R&B) muziek luisteren, fietsen en sprinten, ben ik de laatste tijd een beetje Italiaans aan het leren, en – last but not least – schrijf ik heeeeel veeel (voor mijn persoonlijke blog LilFangs.com 🙂 ).
If you are interested in becoming part of D.O.C.I.S. International, please read my Business Overture 🙂
Publication date: March 15th, 2019
Future business concepts are not reality yet, because the debates about what change should look like, are not settled yet.
We are losing time with solely conversing about it. Fangyism is decisive. There are solutions that can be carried out in only a few weeks’ time. But there are some barriers that need to be broken, for this to become reality. In this article, I explain how this can (and should) be done.
To make my language more “cross compatible” (for there are no officially acknowledged Fangyist terms yet), I will reflect my future concepts to the way Keynes defined his future concepts, in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. This article thus also indirectly touches on part 2 of that book.
In the second part of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Keynes takes a moment to elaborate on the solution to a challenge he had found for himself, in economic theory. The economic language he wanted to use to address the general issue and his solutions, was not used by any other economist yet (Keynes 2017, p.37). In his own words, he used those 4 chapters, to define the following:
“… firstly, the choice of the units of quantity appropriate to the problems of the economic system as a whole; secondly, the part played by expectation in economic analysis; and, thirdly, the definition of income.”
(Keynes 2017, p. 37)
I will use a similar approach, to define the flaw in today’s economic assumptions and give you the fundamentals of Fangyist economic theory.
Fangyism says that the current way value is assigned to products, labor and even nations as a whole, is incorrect. That is because the competitive nature of the assignment methods – “the higher the value, the better the status” is a form of competition – is in conflict with the fragility of nature.
In a competitive market, everyone his or her labor is intended for the maximization of the organization’s profit. Simultaneously, the media monitors the economic development of firms closely and the stock market fluctuates along.
Because of the general financial objective regarding maximum financial gains, earning as most as possible, with the least amount of capital and labor, is what dominates business philosophy. Regardless of the effect it has on nature, while that, in actuality, determines real value.
An example of this, is what is happening to the Cavendish banana. Scientists are incentivized to invent new races of bananas, because the popular curved yellow fruit that can be found in every supermarket, is threatened to go extinct. Fusarium fungi are destroying the plants and the soil they grow in (Reynolds 2018). (In Dutch, the illness of the species is called “Panamaziekte”.)
The consumer knows this, because the media have covered it (depending on their reach and audience). Other than that – in the western world – it seems to be business as usual. The bananas are in high demand, and the market is still competitive, so the price of the banana is kept low, and quick solutions are sought.
In the Netherlands, the short-term solution to this problem is to grow the Cavendish plants in glass houses, on rock wool and peat, instead of on regular soil (abroad).
Yes, in this way, the demands of our large and growing population are met. But our system, in this way, disregards the financial safety of plantation workers, and gets naturally grown high quality foods closer to extinction.
That is why – though it will not be in favor of many – Fangyism says it is better to let the price skyrocket, in a context like this. It is a better incentive to find a good solution to this problem of the risk of extinction.
As long as there is no alternative, collectively, the value of a banana should be based on the relationship between the amount of people who want the product, and the amount of products available. Prices would become higher, but nature would be treated better.
The Fangyist system, therefore, guarantees its citizens a basic income (of essential products) and uses a system to assign value to a product, which is based on availability, instead of on “competitive value”. This requires the use of calculation methods that are different from the ones we know and use today.
The gross domestic product, also known as GDP, is an indicator of the total value of a national market. It is used as a controversial way to compare how wealthy a country is. But quality of and access to education, quality of and access to food, quality of and access to health care, and other sustainability related concepts, it does not indicate.
There are different ways to calculate the GDP:
In theory, every calculation method should have the same value as its outcome. Whether this is true or not, in the end, the value does not say anything about available resources and intellectual capital in a country at all. In Fangyism, available resources and intellectual capital (including individuals), is what determines national value. It does not acknowledge any of the GDP calculation methods.
Government expenses, for example, can, in my Fangyist optics, never be seen as an addition of value. By way of illustration, let’s say milk farmers are having financial trouble, because people are not buying enough milk, so the government keeps bulk-buying extra milk, until the farmers earn enough to not go bankrupt. This expense cannot be seen as an addition to national value, because of the following reasons:
Another example of controversial added government value, is the taxpayer money spent to celebrate the king’s birthday as a national holiday. (I am sure that the holiday is valued, but when it comes to nature being stripped from its resources, it is not an addition.) Before I tell you what calculation methods the Fangyist system does acknowledge, I would like to zoom in on another aspect of my digression.
Keynes defined the total value of labor, with the following equation:
E = N x W
Where E is the total wages and salaries, N stands for the total amount of employment and W stands for the (marginal) wage-unit. This means that N = 1 resembles one hour of labor for a regular employee. An employee with special skills (who receives a higher salary than a regular employee), his or her value of N is based on the relative difference in hourly rate.
So, for example, a firm has two employees, of which one is regular and the other one has special skills. They both work 5 hours. The regular employee is paid €10 per hour, and the employee with special skills is paid €20 per hour. For the regular employee, N = 5 and W = €10. For the special employee, N = 10 and W = €10. It follows that:
E = 15 x €10
E = €150
In this context, the value of labor is based on skill and/or education, and the amount of hours the employee has worked. Productivity, actual capabilities and inflation are not part of this calculation. Today, (in the Netherlands,) inflation is taken into consideration when a salary is calculated, and performance/productivity bonuses exist.
However, Fangyism does not consider an addition to the value of a nation, because many types of labor add more pollution than improvement, to nature. Any action that includes environmental destruction, for the sake of making profit, can never be seen as something that is beneficial to a country.
Fangyist economics is a sustainable alternative to modern economics. Fangyist equations can be used by both firms and nations. Its outcomes are precise values, instead of estimates, indicating its value and indirect development status. They (solely) apply to the Fangyist system, of which all aspects are non-profit. As long as that system is not established yet, its functions are arguable.
The Value of Labor function, indicates, when results are compared over several periods of time, the general value and efficiency of Fangyist employment. It looks like this:
L: Labor, is separately measured in tangible Fangia (tF) and intangible Fangia (iF). (They can, in reference to part one of this article, still be renamed RLF and DF.) For nations and firms, in which both tangible and intangible goods and services are delivered, the total value of labor, is calculated in the following way:
L = LtF + LiF
N: The value of N, is the total of employees that have been/will be paid in tangible Fangia and/or intangible Fangia. Keynes translated this value to hours of labor and pre-defined skill about which price agreements are made. Fangyism counts one employee, regardless of whether he or she is educated or not, or has some other type of distinguishment, with the value of one. It is the calculation in between brackets that determines the monetary value yielded by an employee. So one uneducated employee and one employee with 6 PhDs, both solely working with tangible Fangia, give us: NtF = 2.
The total amount of employees, is distinguished in whether they yield and work with tangible Fangia and/or intangible Fangia. If an employee works with both tangible and intangible Fangia, his or her returns are calculated in both the tangible and the intangible labor function. For administration purposes, the total can be calculated like this:
N = NtF + NiF
R: This value stands for the return, which is what an employee earns back, in either tangible Fangia, or intangible Fangia.
I: The investment of resources, needed to yield the return, are deducted from the returns earned by the employee. This value includes not only what is literally needed to create the product or deliver the service. It also includes the employee’s cups of coffee, pollution from commuting and anything else the employee wouldn’t be doing in that measured period of time, if he or she weren’t working for D.O.C.I.S. International or one of its partners.
Let’s say we have a Fangyist business that sells art of an artist online and from the artist’s home studio. The Fangyist value of labor, is then calculated in the following way:
Value of Labor 1 Jan 2019 – 31 Jan 2019
|i [Employee]||Intangible Return||Intangible Investment||Tangible Return||Tangible Investment|
|1 [The Artist]||
iF 96,348 * 0.5
|tF 15,630 * 0.8||
|2 [Web development and web maintenance]||
iF 96,348 * 0.3
|iF 1,235||tF 0||
|3 [Sales & Correspondence]||
iF 96,348 * 0.2
|iF 429||tF 15,630 * 0.2||
|iF 96,348||iF 1,664||tF 15,630||
When this is done for every month, which is a requirement for Fangyist accounting, individual and overall labor. The salary of a Fangyist is his or her basic income – which is equal for everyone – and what he or she has earned, which is his or her individual total of R – I. The way a salary is divided into tangible Fangia and intangible Fangia, depends on the choice of the receiver.
Fangyist accounting requires every single investment done to be reported (including indicating for which employee the expense is made), to keep a clear overview of the state of available natural resources and other products in a country.
A second basic equation of Fangyist economics, is the Value of Produce. An individual product (or service), is valued in the following way:
For a single product:
P is the value of a product, in either tangible Fangia, or intangible Fangia. Which Fangyist valuta is chosen, depends on whether the product is tangible or not.
Q is the total amount of available products at a certain point in time.
D stands for the amount of people who demand the product.
This is multiplied by the multiplier of tangible or intangible Fangia, which is determined by all supply and demand traffic on Planet Fang.
For an accumulation homogeneous products:
The Fangyist value of an accumulation of products, is calculated by multiplying the value of a single product, with A: the amount of products (to be) sold.
As you might have noticed, Fangyist labor gives an individual employee a lot of responsibility, and is more focused on different disciplines working together, than having large individual departments. All routinous jobs should be replaced by artificial intelligence, is one of the things a Fangyist lives for, to accomplish. I have several reasons why I believe this:
One of the first objectives of D.O.C.I.S. International, aside from the general construction of its corporate state and compounds, is to implement this shift at once, for every nation and/or firm who is interested in forming a partnership with this organization.
The change D.O.C.I.S. International aims for, is the rapid implementation of solutions that will make the common routine of life a more diverse experience, in a way that is the outmost sustainable.
To make the Fangyist system officially existent, the first step is collective currency conversion, officially establishing the Fangia. This is what happens after the second part of the D.O.C.I.S. International Partnership Agreement is signed collectively. Conversion is withheld, until the total value of the assets to be converted, is more than enough to fund our new state with.
The more-than-two-factor selection process, is designed to filter out those who are the best at keeping up with the level of complexity and responsibility this organization carries. This is because every officially registered and acknowledged member, is co-owner of the organization.
Fangyism is extremely controversial. Still, some form of consensus, together with those who do not accept it, has to be found. That is why the debate is set up around the following questions:
For an overview of Fangyists and non-Fangyists, in accordance with the Universal Standard of Human Reasoning, potential outcomes of the debate are pre-defined (though any other type of outcome is welcome as well):
As long as D.O.C.I.S. International does not have any ambassadors or sponsors, I will continue to attempt to make myself heard through text, until enough funds are acquired to deliver the message of D.O.C.I.S. International beyond its own digital realm. After that, the Fangyist system could be put into practice.
You will be kept up to date of the organization’s development and the moment the official (non-digital) debate takes place, by signing up for Project Nosce Te Ipsum.
Hopefully, by the time the next part of the MacroFangs part of the Nosce Te Ipsum series is released, there is a debate to discuss…
Keynes, J.M. (2017), The General Theory of Employment, Interest & Money Wordsworth Editions Limited ed, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited
Reynolds, M. (2018), The banana is dying. The race is on to reinvent it before it’s too late [online], Wired [Viewed on April 14th], Available from: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/cavendish-banana-extinction-gene-editing
RTL Z (2018), Wageningse wetenschapper bedenkt oplossing voor zieke banaan [online], RTL Z [Viewed on April 14th], Available from: https://www.rtlz.nl/algemeen/binnenland/artikel/4517041/banaan-chiquita-cavendish-bananenziekte-wageningen
The featured image is made by Adrianna Calvo, downloaded from Pexels.com I chose this image, because the Fangyist system is an economically safe, transparent and honest one, and Fangyist economics in practice, is a collective effort. An umbrella resembles reliability during bad times, and in this image, the sun is shining. The multitude of umbrellas, resembles the collective.
We were all born into a world that was already shaped, before we got here. We didn’t have to figure everything out from scratch. Language and the monetary system, for example, were already here, before we got here. Our predecessors have left us the knowledge their legacies were based on, which we learn in our education programs, to keep the world spinning.
They have introduced us to a way to interpret life, which has held up for decades. Even though some of their concepts have even evolved into far more modern ones, the foundation has not changed. That it lasts for so long, shows that it’s a pretty solid construction. But should we go on like this forever?
Our environment is fragile. More fragile than our system treats it, with its “unstoppable” emission and scaling. Quick radical change is inevitable. That’s how I see it.
In the MacroFangs series, I explain the concept of the alternative economic system I have in mind, while discussing one of the fundaments of our current economic system. It’s an economic shift, which starts with a shift in economic interpretation.
To explain the economic shift I want to cause with D.O.C.I.S. International, I’ll use another change in economic interpretation, as my starting point. In The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, originally published in 1936, economist John Maynard Keynes, the founder of Keynesian economics, sheds new light on classical economics (Keynes 2017). The philosophy that was introduced in this masterpiece of him, is still taught in schools worldwide, today. It’s part of the foundation that determines how we perceive economics.
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, was published to start a discussion about whether to accept or deny Keynes’ alternative view, meant as a way to settle difficulties of theory (Keynes 2017, pp. 3-5). The build-up of it and its content, will be the guideline of my explanation. It was addressed to other economists. About the involvement of the public, he said the following:
“At this stage of the argument, the general public, though welcome at the debate, are only eavesdroppers at an attempt by an economist to bring to an issue the deep divergences of opinion between fellow economists which have for the time being almost destroyed the practical influence of economic theory, and will, until they are resolved, continue to do so.”
(Keynes 2017, p. 3)
Today, the general public has a louder voice than in the past. (Via the (social) media) it demands to be fully informed of any reforms or “big happenings”. I think that if there were a revolutionary debate going on that includes serious global action, they will surely want to know the ins and outs of the means of it and how it will influence their own living. But still, even today, I think he’s right about leaving the real discussion to those who really know economics, who are the authorities in this debate. If we’re discussing the Fangyist system, I hope I may be the chairwoman, though.
I’m not an economist. I’m a Fangyist. And I, too, want to start a serious large-scale intercontinental debate about the implementation of the system I want to introduce. A bit similar to Keynes’ revolutionary endeavor. “The general public”, however, of which I make part, in this context, should definitely be involved in my debate!
Just like there were disagreements between economists when Keynes wrote his gem, there seem to be disagreements between economists today. Currently, there’s a New-Keynesian movement and a New Classical movement (Keynes 2017, p.3; Preceden sine die). I hope that I can get both of them to agree to one thing: the Fangyist system works.
This is written for everyone. Literally everyone. I try to explain everything as simple as I can.
I just indirectly discussed the preface of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money with you. In the rest of the paragraphs of this article, we’ll discuss the first book of this magnum opus, called “Introduction”, and the principles of the Fangyist system. It has six books in total, so this (ini)mini series consists of six articles.
As I mentioned earlier: I’m not an economist. I hope you’ll learn something from the economic knowledge I state here. If you’re an expert: I would sooo love to hear your opinion(s) about my interpretation. Do you agree/disagree? I hope you’ll sign up for my website and join the discussion. May it evolve to something beyond this blog. I hope I’ll interview Graeynissis about this and other aspects of Project Nosce Te Ipsum, one day 🙂 .
Karl Marx was the first to speak of “the classical economists”, by which he meant David Ricardo, James Mill and their ancestors. Popular followers of “the classical school” are John Stuart Mill, Alfred Marshall, Francis Ysidro Edgeworth and “Professor Pigou”, to which Keynes often refers in his The General Theory. Before he changed his mind, he was a follower of the classical school as well (Keynes 2017).
The way the postulates of classical economics are interpreted, can have disastrous consequences, he says (Keynes 2017). I think he has this view because of what he has experienced after “The Roaring Twenties”. The classical school had no official justification for the sudden decrease in production and historic unemployment rates during the Great Depression. It was something their postulates didn’t hold up against.
Keynes defined the postulates of the classical theory of employment like this:
“1. The wage is equal to the marginal product of labour.”
(Keynes 2017, p. 11)
[Please don’t forget that he considered the postulates incorrect and that I fully agree with his reasons why]
In other words: the salary of the employee, is the value of the amount of product(s)/service(s) a single employee delivers. Basically that means that the employer pays you a salary worth a laptop, for example, and you earn him or her a laptop’s price worth in the company’s product(s)/service(s), in exchange. Right after mentioning the first postulate, he wrote that this is only so when there is fully equal pay (Keynes 2017).
During the Great Depression, salaries for the same jobs were lower than they were in the years before. Employers were struggling after the crisis that followed after the stock market crashed in 1929. (Also regular [(marketed) trading for consumers isn’t new]) people lost the savings they invested into shares (and back then it was normal for investors to borrow money to buy stock), so they consumed a lot less. That made companies earn less, so they weren’t able to pay their employees as “comfortably” as they used to. The Great Depression came with great insecurity (History 2009).
I hope that today, it’s not acceptable anymore to lend money to invest. Especially not for digital currencies… Personally, even though part of what I currently offer is e-books – though in the future this won’t be my main product at all – I think that giving things that are digital a monetary value, is something that is in great conflict with the fragility of nature. Because if the internet didn’t exist – the internet is not a direct product of nature – all of this extra value wouldn’t exist. It also wouldn’t be possible to spend the millions you’ve earned online, to buy products that require natural resources.
I believe that there should be two different types of money: one type of money to buy tangible/real-life things (and services), and one to buy intangible/digital things (and services). It’s included in the Fangyist system. Real Life Fangia & Digital Fangia seems like the right way to split our one Fangyist currency into two sub-currencies. But maybe splitting it into Tangible Fangia & Intangible Fangia, is even better for our environment. What do you prefer? Real Life Fangia (RLF) & Digital Fangia (DF), or Tangible Fangia (TF) & Intangible Fangia (IF)? When you receive a Fangyist salary, you may choose your own ratio. Fangia in general will be valued based on its comparison to the dollar, and the sub-currencies will be valued among Fangyists. The Fangyist system is a fully independent system.
The concept of wage will be completelyyyyy different from what we know today. I’ll get to that later. Let’s dive into the second (and last) postulate 🙂 .
I don’t want to spend the rest of my life slaving 9 – 5, and I believe no one should be (indirectly) forced to do such thing. It’s such a literal waste of (life) time. But it has been deep-rooted in our evolution. The world is kept spinning by great percentages of its population sacrificing great amounts of their time, to, in the end, have done something a computer could do by now, and at the end of their lives, they have never had the opportunity to truly get to know themselves and exist and grow, in a manner that money doesn’t influence their decision making. It saddens me. I want to see a world where that freedom does exist. That’s what the Fangyist system values the most. Employment will include a lot more freedom, if I succeed.
The second postulate is something of which even Keynes’ alternative to it, is incomparable to what Fangyism could do to the concept of a job as we know it. The second postulate is stated like this:
“2. The utility of the wage when a given volume of labour is employed is equal to the marginal disutility of that amount of employment.”
(Keynes 2017, p. 11)
Marginal disutility means the financial “inconvenience” (for the business) of adding that unit of labor. In the case of the postulate, but not in reality during the Great Depression (and today), this means that if a salary is lower than what the employee wants, he or she won’t work. During the financial crisis in 1929, a lot of people settled for lower salaries, so that shows that the equilibrium stated in the postulate, is incorrect.
I think that in today’s society, there’s a great(er) mix between financial needs. Some have so much money that they don’t know how and where to spend it, so they need more (suitable) opportunities to spend, and some are, like in 1929, settling for lower incomes (and jobs that are “below” their level of expertise), because they can’t find a suitable job. Like so there are more extremes in needs. By extremes, in this context, I mean (the frequency of) individual options in the mix of financial needs.
The Fangyist system offers a perfect balance for all extremes. Not only because your basic income is based on your personality (addictions not included, if they are part of your personality): working 9 – 5 will be unprofitable for both you and me, because as many jobs as possible will be computerized! Based on your profile, you can be requested to complete certain assignments, only human intelligence can solve, when that is needed. That’s how flexible your work hours are. The rest of your extra income, is based on what you contribute to society individually. The Fangyist system is all about sustainability, as you might have noticed.
[Every time I say “I think”, please feel free to confirm or deny my statements 🙂 . Of course, the same goes for everything else written here, but when I say “I think”, I’m not fully sure. Otherwise, I would state it as a fact.]
In the classical doctrine, people assumed that “Supply creates its own Demand”. They spoke of profit, under the condition that the Aggregate Supply Function (Z) and the Aggregate Demand Function (D), were at equilibrium (Keynes 2017, p 27).
The aggregate supply price is the total paid for a certain amount of output, by a certain amount of employees. This translated to a function, looks like this:
Z = ϕ(N)
Z means the aggregate supply price, and N means the amount of employees (Keynes 2017, p. 26).
The Aggregate Demand Function, displays how much revenue a business “will” make, with a certain amount of employees. Its function looks like this:
D = f(N)
Where D is the amount of revenue and N is the amount of employees. Thus the equilibrium for “classical” profit is:
ϕ(N) = f(N)
So the prediction of profit was solely based on the amount of employees hired. That point Keynes called “the effective demand”, after which he stated a dozen reasons why that equilibrium and the assumption that “Supply creates its own Demand”, are incorrect (Keynes 2017, p. 27 – 34). He ends his explanation with this:
“It may well be that the classical theory represents the way in which we should like our Economy to behave. But to assume that it actually does so is to assume our difficulties away.”
(Keynes 2017, p. 34)
I consider that the sweet words of empathy, towards the classical economists that had to surrender to his (revolutionary) economic philosophy. If “Supply creates its own Demand”, and employment is all that matters, it would be normal to say: “I will make a profit when I have 40 employees.”
Maybe if you’re the only baker in a small deserted village, and you’re intuitively 100% certain that producing 100.000 breads is too much, it could make a little sense to base your profit on employment. (Assuming that the village won’t suddenly throw a “Project X”-style festival, where everyone wants bread.) But even then, employees shouldn’t get sick and be equally productive. It sounds crazy to my modern ears. If “Supply creates its own Demand”, I would have been a lot more successful already. (But I don’t mind, because all of this is just the beginning 🙂 .)
In the modern doctrine, the expected profit is based on the amount of products manufactured/services delivered. Generally, we speak of profit when the marginal revenue is equal to the marginal cost [“MR = MC”]. That’s because then, the difference between total revenue and total cost is the greatest, so the most “extra revenue” (thus profit) is earned [“ΠQ = TR – TC”] (Cartwright & Wallace 2016, pp. 301 – 344). It’s a lot better than the classical doctrine, I believe. But I also believe that it’s time to take the next step, and transition to a more evolutionary conviction.
We all know how wild markets can behave, and/or what bad publicity can do to the success of a business. Especially in this digital era: 10000 clients today and 500 tomorrow. (Or the other way around, of course! (That’s what you hear more often.)) No doctrine holds up against that unpredictability, currently. Marketing, public relations and the media, take over, where statistics and mathematics become limited, due to a non-algorithmic cause, I think.
I think “Supply creates its own Demand” is very incorrect. But I think that in today’s society, “Effective Marketing creates its own Demand” applies very well. And that includes the media’s comments on the stock market, which I perceive as indirect incentives given to the public, to buy or sell. Most success stories of a business are about marketing, and simultaneously the story itself is marketing. (Those stories do great at parties, if you can be touched by that sentiment.)
I believe that there are many reasons why “Effective Marketing creates its own Demand”, applies to the behavior of today’s consumer. With the way owning or wearing/using a brand can give someone a name. And free choice exists legally, but the options to choose from you are notified of, are determined by the advertising of the highest bidder and the algorithm based on your previous choices.
Consider demand something that is currently based on whether an individual likes the “look and feel” of a product or not, rather than what it’s actually made of (otherwise McDonalds wouldn’t exist). (And correct me if I’m truly wrong.) Production then (solely) depends on the conversion of the reach of quality advertising and indirect marketing. (I believe that that – including that I need much better graphics and audio – is the sole reason why I haven’t succeeded yet.) This is the market I’m a player in, and my intention is to shift it as a whole. It’s not what my former school book says, but I guess I’m looking at markets differently.
The goal of profit maximization exists in both the classical and the modern doctrine. Keynes has delivered a beautiful contribution to the improved definition of it, the way we know it today. But for the sake of our environment, I really think it’s time we start working for something else than ΠQ = TR – TC.
I consider it my duty to direct the reform of the system on this planet, before I leave it. I hope you’re interested in joining the debate, and that you’ll sign up for my newsletter, so that I can keep in touch with you.
The next part of this series will be released after the release of the newest episode of the Nosce Te Ipsum series. The Hypothesis [Nosce Te Ipsum I, Book I, Episode 5], will be released on the 30th of March. Part 2 of MacroFangs about Keynes, will be released on April 15. (I secretly hope to be able to start the debate before having released the second part.)
Please tell your friends about this! 😀
I love you
– xxx –
Cartwright, E. and Frank, R. H. (2016), Microeconomics and Behaviour 2nd (European) ed, London: McGraw-Hill Education
History (2009), Great Depression History [online], History, [Viewed on February 28], Available from: https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/great-depression-history [this is not an “official source”, but I think it’s true, what the page says. If you think it’s not and you see “the facts” differently, please let me know 🙂 ]
Keynes, J.M. (2017), The General Theory of Employment, Interest & Money Wordsworth Editions Limited ed, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited
Preceden (sine die), History of Economics [online], Preceden, [Viewed on February 28], Available from: https://www.preceden.com/timelines/67774-history-of-economics [again, this is not an “official source”, but I think it’s legit]
The featured image I found on Pexels.com, originally uploaded on Pixabay.com I chose this image, because I feel it resembles the destruction of the environment, that comes with the incentive of maximizing scale.
For every subject field the to be established version of D.O.C.I.S. International touches on, I’ll be writing a (theoretical) blog series. The first one is called MacroFangs 😀 . This is part of Project Nosce Te Ipsum.
Usually, when a single business is analyzed, microeconomic theories are applied. But in this case, because of the intended size of operations, the types of services intended to be offered, and its to be established economical and legal individuality, macroeconomics will apply to this business concept as well 😀 .
To make sure that I use understandable language for my potential experts, and for the sake of feeding my common knowledge, as well as including educational elements in my blog posts, I want to let the theories that form the fundament of our current system, relive, and derive from there, with my writing, to explain the type of business I’m trying to establish.
The category of the publications is called MacroFangs, because, even though other fields of the subject of economics, such as finance (since within the Fangyist system – which is D.O.C.I.S. International in its economical and legal individuality – money will be valued differently) will be covered, too, the macroeconomical aspect of the business is the most unique feature of its concept.
When D.O.C.I.S. International is established properly, it can influence all cycles of the system, on its own, and, if everyone allows this, replace the current cycles with something more fair. Something more fair towards the individual and something more fair towards nature. If people choose to be (or stay) conservative, the concept can exist as a parallel, instead of as a replacement.
To explain the exact workings of the business concept, in a language that suits general – as in regardless of when and if the person reading it was educated – common knowledge, I’ll first define the theories my theories originate from, before I define the concept. Until now, I’ve defined the concept for myself, in non-official terms only I would understand, reasoning from the end result I’m working towards, back to what the world is like right now. MacroFangs will make it fully public.
For someone who is unfamiliar with what I’m exactly working towards, whether he or she is familiar with economic doctrines or not, to understand my theories for the official establishment of D.O.C.I.S. International, I’ll break it down, starting from how the world as we know it is built up (economically), to how I would shift it into something I consider a better, more fair way to govern life. I find it very important that those who decide to become a part of this, know the ins and outs of the alternative fulfilment of life I’m trying to establish. (And everything about who you’ll be working with 🙂 . )
Currently, D.O.C.I.S. International is registered and findable as a publishing company. That’s only for correspondence purposes, while I further develop the concept, satisfy my hobby of writing, and will later very actively seek investors. My full-time search for investors and other types of supporters will start when I’m done writing the series, but, of course, you can reach out to me at any time. My e-mail address is firstname.lastname@example.org and my phone number is +31618579724. You would be the greatest support, with an incomparable contribution to my personal history and the history of D.O.C.I.S. International, if you would reach out to me, before I start my very difficult search for someone who would want to take the time to process this. (My only source to find an investor is the internet…)
Your support would be a contribution to my personal history, because I’ve devoted my life to finding that one alternative indestructible business concept, which now needs confirmation from the specialists in the fields it touches on, and the (aggregate of) investment(s), which can set in motion the economic and legal individuality of D.O.C.I.S. International: that indestructible concept.
I speak of legal individuality. Legal independency might cover it better. That’s because of the types of law(s) that will apply to those who decide to transition to the Fangyist system. The legal side of D.O.C.I.S. International is the second part of this blog series, where the depths of that will be broken down. Economics is what the first part of the series is about: MacroFangs 🙂 .
The series begin with economics and are followed by law. I want to tell you about how this world was built up. I’m not talking about its shape. The Big Bang Theory versus (or featuring(!)) religion will be part of the last part of the series.
In this case, and only in this case, for the sake of clarity, economics will be discussed before law. Because the actions that stem from economical incentives, are “tamed” by the law, is how I see it. And I think it’s more clear when the business concept is explained before I dive into its legal construction. So in that vision, it’s economics first and law second.
Noooooo. In any other case, I believe that law comes first, and finances and other aspects of choice come second. Otherwise we would be speaking of injustice, I believe.
I’ll start off my theoretical journey by analyzing The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, by John Maynard Keynes. The treasure of Keynesian economics.
For every chapter of the book, I’ll translate his theories and philosophy to my own words, and put them in perspective. I’ll reflect it to todays world, and to my concept for D.O.C.I.S. International. The first post about Keyneses analysis, will be published online, right here, on the 28th of February. If you would like to be reminded of that date, please sign up for my newsletter 🙂 ♥.
If you keep up with the Nosce Te Ipsum book series, you’ll notice that some (theoretical) elements mentioned in this blog series, are and will be used there as well 🙂 . (The newest episode thereof will be released on the 30th of March 😀 . )
I hope that one day, I’ll publicly interview (my) specialists about the topics that will be addressed in this series.
The featured image is made by Nizam Abdul Latheef, originally uploaded on Pexels.com. I chose the image, because what I want to do, is create a fully individual system, within the system, and the image shows an altered image of a city, within the image of the city, in a crystal ball.