Parent and Child

S=I+(S-I)

Fundamentally, this equation is the expression of the parent class: Savings to a specific child: Investment, specifically identified and isolated from all other children in the class: Saving.

It is like a parent saying:  I want to talk about my relationship to my children.  Specifically, I want to talk about my relationship to Irving not all my children that are not named Irving. 

Or perhaps the intention is to talk about the most important child; Irving the doctor in relation to all the other children that are not doctors but are lessor important in whatever they do.

S=I+(S-I) is therefore an expression of a more fundamental relationship:

All Child members of a Parent  Class =  Any single Named Child of a Parent Class + All other children of that class having individual class member names that do not have a the same name as any individually identified child of that class.

It is a way of saying:  Let's put Investment at the center of our focus.  The reason being that investment is the backbone that drives everything else.  That is, of course, the point that Cullen Roche is making and supporting it with the thinking that it is the most realistic way to look at it.  Out Investment in the center and see how everything else relates to it.

If Investment, as I think he defines it is Savings employed in Production as opposed to all other forms of savings not employed in investment (like money under a mattress) then then that kind of investment is certainly more productive (important) by definition and everything else is hoarding?  Or maybe speculation?  In any event non-productive or even detrimental to total systemic operation.  Alternately, any savings that is not invested in productivity is sub-optimized in its application to some other employment.

Banksters are the greatest sub-optimizers in the system. 

S=I+(S-I) Is not an astounding nor comples statement.  It merely says:  Let's talk about Investment.  Describing the subject of conversation in a highly structured format (math) is an excellent way to start the conversation.

What is needed is a highly structured manner of carrying on the rest of the conversation regarding the relationship of Investment to all other things that are children of the parent Investment as well as relationship of Investment and its children to all other children of the parent Savings as well as relationships to all other classes in the total system (and their children) that are not Savings.  It gets very complex, very quick.

Nested comments in a blog are a start.  They create a mind map picture of teh conceptual structure being created by the words and relate the blog entry words to other blog entry words.  That is barely a start at organizing and formalizing the model. 

This is the information age.  Operating systems and application programs are the product of organized thinking applied to complex concepts.  The process to do that is well established in system design.  State of art is Object Oriented Modeling for System Design.  It is simply architecture built on a foundation of physical sciences applied to a Social Science that in many ways should and does follow the physical science model of dealing with facts until the point is reached that we choose the facts to be anything we want them to be. 

When we get to the point where the facts on which a system is built is anything we want them to be then those that establish their conceptual statements as facts dictate the design of the system.

Statement of conceptual fact:  Money is debt.  So we get a debt money system.

That concept can also be presented like this:

Money = Debt + (Money - Debt)  In this situation Debt is the backbone of the system.  The most important thing that drives it.  Debt is a child of the Parent: Money.  The most important one.  To Banksters it is the only one and anything that is not Debt is not Money.  Or expressed in a simple math relationship:  Money minus Debt equals No Money.  A concept devised by the Banksters, controlled by the Banksters, owned by the Banksters.  Debt as their concept has sub-optimized the total system to their great benefit. 

M = Money
D =  Debt

M-D=0

If there was no debt there would be no money.

In debt we trust.  What is the fear of real money?


Real Money defined as:

M - D = Number greater than Zero (N>0)

Maybe a balance sheet equation is good for horizontal money but vertical money is not only a number that is not only something greater than zero but the sum total of all money in the system.  That would make Debt a child class of the Parent class Money.  The other children in the parent class money would be money that is not debt.