CLICK HERE. Rates of Consumer Stimulus/ Rates of Return on Investment. Logic defies colours and skin tone. The nice thing about this is that we can gauge consumer stimulus as Mr. Lyon, a student in the Doctoral program at UCL points out, in pennies per minute. We can gauge consumer stimulus at pennies per minute. Gauge the Improvement on Investment. We can gauge the improvement in returns on investment also therefore and actually see the increased returns on investment across the economy; more food and vehicles sold for an extra 2 cents a minute paid to the consumer for example. This is easy to see more clearly once we provide the 8 cents a minute or 17 cents a minute to the consumer in total to see more car sales vs car rentals. But you will see more sales of everything. How do the returns on investment improve at 17 cents a minute vs the current rate of 6 cents a minute in Ontario vs the 8 cents a minute in Québec; and the 8 cents a minute in California? Sales go up. But to see sales go up, it would not be that the government takes it's authority to set food prices by subsidising prices with the manufacturers for a cheaper average price on the shelf at the supermarket. You would ensure they get the money necessary to do this. Food subsidies already exist and it's not a new conception so why advertise the phenomena as if you have done something, achieved something? You would go into to the government computer system and send them the money. But you would also have to go into the government computer system and send every citizen the benefit money so they can PAY for the food as subsidised. Subsidies or not, the food is not Paid For Yet and we have not earned anything unless people can pay. Subsidies are legal but constitute price fixing. But the benefits are the essential factor in the whole enterprise and without it you have a supermarket full of subsidized food but no earnings, revenues; no return on the investment. The problem is people must have the ability to pay or finance their purchases in Leicestershire or Toronto or Quebec. This is obvious but we could discuss and talk for an eternity and nothing is done while you sit at your desk under 50 years old and Jack Sparrow all our time as the jack out of the box. It might be best to not only pay at the current benefits rate but to also increase annually at the rate of standard inflation, if any, if the price goes up. Yet it may go down since the cost of manufacturing has gone down with automation. These companies do owe the government on loans made to them for the installation of automation processes for food manufacturing. The machine heralds the time of entering the great rest; so there is no work. When there is no work there is rest but also usually it means no money. Id there is no money there is less return on goods made; (in the investment). This is in so in the lower (cost of the investment) to make the goods with the machines. There is lower cost in using the machines but less return on investment because the company is not hiring people; not paying people money. Logic is a universal language. If making the investment in machines saves money because machines are a faster, more durable form of non- human industrial laboriousness that cancels human jobs but leads to you earning less return/ less money, then we are in an economic stalemate or system failure. You earn less money because there are fewer people around with money. This is because they are not working like they used to. The economy can no longer rely on employed people to be a consumer base when there are fewer employed people who can buy the goods that provides the company a return on investment.

 

CLICK HERE. 

  Rates of Consumer Stimulus/ Rates of Return on Investment. Logic defies colours and skin tone. 

The nice thing about this is that we can gauge consumer stimulus as Mr. Lyon, a student in the Doctoral program at UCL points out, in pennies per minute.   We can gauge consumer stimulus at pennies per minute. 

Gauge the Improvement on Investment.

We can gauge the improvement in returns on investment also therefore and actually see the increased returns on investment across the economy; more food and vehicles sold for an extra 2 cents a minute paid to the consumer for example. 

This is easy to see more clearly once we provide the 8 cents a minute or 17 cents a minute to the consumer in total to see more car sales vs car rentals. But you will see more sales of everything.  How do the returns on investment improve at 17 cents a minute vs the current rate of 6 cents a minute in Ontario vs the 8 cents a minute in Québec; and the 8 cents a minute in California? Sales go up. 

But to see sales go up, it would not be that the government takes it's authority to set food prices by subsidising prices with the manufacturers for a cheaper average price on the shelf at the supermarket. You would ensure they get the money necessary to do this. Food subsidies already exist and it's not a new conception so why advertise the phenomena as if you have done something, achieved something? 

You would go into to the government computer system and send them the money. But you would also have to  go into the government computer system and send every citizen the benefit money so they can PAY for the food as subsidised. Subsidies or not, the food is not Paid For Yet and we have not earned anything unless people can pay. Subsidies are legal but constitute price fixing.   But the benefits are the essential factor in the whole enterprise and without it you have a supermarket full of subsidized food but no earnings, revenues; no return on the investment. The problem is people must have the ability to pay or finance their purchases in Leicestershire or Toronto or Quebec. 

This is obvious but we could discuss and talk for an eternity and nothing is done while you sit at your desk under 50 years old and Jack Sparrow all our time as the jack out of the box. 

It might be best to not only pay at the current benefits rate but to also increase annually at the rate of  standard inflation, if any, if the price goes up. Yet it may go down since the cost of manufacturing has gone down with automation. These companies do owe the government on loans made to them for the installation of automation processes for food manufacturing. 

The machine heralds the time of entering the great rest; so there is no work. When there is no work there is rest but also usually it means no money. Id there is no money there is less return on goods made; (in the investment). This is in so in the lower (cost of the investment) to make the goods with the machines. There is lower cost  in using the machines but less return on investment because the company is not hiring people; not paying people money.   

Logic is a universal language. If making the investment in machines saves money because machines  are a faster, more durable form of non- human  industrial laboriousness that cancels human jobs but leads to you earning less return/ less money, then we are in an economic stalemate or system failure. 

You earn less money because there are fewer people around with money. This is because they are not working like they used to. The economy can no longer rely on employed people to be a consumer base when there are fewer employed people who can buy the goods that provides the company a return on investment. 

We create an artificially funded consumer base that is just as eternal and certain as the machine in how we fund them. Whether they have a job or no job with jobs being so uncertain, they will at least have funding to achieve the purpose of consumering and buying goods so the producers of goods have certain returns. 

 A war is just the same artificiality in Stimulus and shares the same government funding but costs more in the end.  You have lost a consumer in the War  and also in preparation for the same too often, lost that  that consumer who you wanted to fill the town and buy the vehicle, have children and they would buy the vehicle and that new home.  But, where are they? 

Economic Stalemate/ System failure or Recession is avoided if we input the necessary and certain moneys into the lives of the workers who are those persons soon to be former workers.