Home essentials for efficiency.

Having standard electrical equipment is great. But it is even better to have super-standard equipment, to free up your time.
This simplifies your life and allows you to do more of your stuff in less time.
You think you can’t afford these? But can you afford losing your lifetime?

  1. Automatic vacuum cleaner.
    It basically vacuums the floor for you, so that you don’t have to do it yourself.
    And they play well with cats!
  2. Dishwasher.
    It sprays dishes with water. Hot water. And soap. So you don’t have to!
  3. Garbage disposal.
    Not only reduces the amount of trash you have to take out. It also makes your kitchen smell better. And even reduces methane emissions.
  4. Insect killer lamp.
    It might be even integrated into the light bulb… if you like to have the window open, that’s definitely worth trying.

Savings against corporations.

Most workers dislike corporate jobs. And for a good reason.

For sure it provides good development opportunities (training etc.) and a good pay, but it is frustrating in many aspects. Big organisations still react slowly. Still put up more facade, to manipulate the public (and prospective new workers), rather than invest in good working conditions (beyond legal requirements).

And still are inefficient. Due to lack of communication between employees, and lack of problem-solving on the manager’s side, aside from only fulfilling business requirements that can be reported in spreadsheets, a new engineer trying to actually solve problems will meet a brick wall.

Additionally, they are hyper-compliant towards the state. Which taxes and expropriates us all… and taxing only a little the entities, that have legal departments aiming at minimizing the tax liabilities.

But what can we do? The only way, currently, is to start the alternative of local, small-scale business helping people achieve what they usually associate with multinationals. That will boost competitions for employees, and allow them to save more money (if they are not dumbasses that spend every penny they earn).

And that is what I do. I save. I invest. I dislike holidays, journeys, and keep them to the minimum. It doesn’t make sense to play, losing money, and losing time, which cannot then be turned into money. A man must achieve to win a notch.

And now, not needing that much money, I can deny toxic contracts. I can build my own business, and hopefully move to a less socialist jurisdiction one day. I can buy good products based on merit and efficiency (even if it’s corporate), not based on the mere oligopoly (like, I can pay cash by choice, and skip paying with cards once in a while).

And more importantly, I can patronize local startups. They are highly competitive. And don’t require a license to operate.

Oh, and I forgot one thing. There are some corporations that I admire in the world. Things like Uber. They work not by complying with laws – they work by finding a grey zone to innovate. And by saving people money. Not by using an oligopoly… and tying people up with contracts.

Because what else are the big oligopolies doing? Let’s look at some examples, like mobile carriers. In most countries, unfortunately, you need a license to operate a cell phone company. Which leads to having only a few of them. The ones that can afford frequencies. Which leads to high profits, and high barriers of entry.

Even if governments lift the barriers, they are already set. And leftists will complain about inequalities. Not about licenses that created the unequal opportunity in the first place.

Luckily cost are driven down, and alternatives emerge, in form of mesh communication networks.

I just paid income taxes.

I just paid income tax.

Part of it was from corporate job, and part of it was from holding and selling Bitcoin in 2017.

And of course I feel morally wronged. What did I do against the society that I’ve got to pay so much for it? The money I oficially had to pay for merely speculative gains are the equivalent of:

  • about 250 parking tickets (or littering, or public drinking)
  • about 100 average speeding tickets
  • 5 strong laptops
  • 10 decent laptops
  • 10000 cans of average beer

Who the hell invented progressive taxation? You even don’t have to earn a fortune to be fined very heavily. Not even close. I just did well this year.

I didn’t do that well in the previous years, in fact I was quite poor back then. And I cannot calculate that into the cost of previous years good performance.

That’s fucking frustrating. I consider changing the country, cause cryptocurrencies will rise once again (after they end their current decline), and again I will be able to profit. This time I am not willing to be fined that much for it.

Do not punish productivity.

It’s true that some amount of state intervention is necessary and brings more good than harm.

Unfortunately income tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, property tax etc. all punish the productive people, who make and consume all kinds of goods and services.

But production itself is not something evil, harmful, and costly to the society. So what is costly?

  1. Environmental impact (water use, CO2 emissions, dust, smoke, noise).
  2. Health impacts of goods (i.e. someone who drinks and smokes more is more likely to get sick, which might burden public health system)
  3. Use of public space (like cars occupying the roads, leading to congestion, which is then relieved by constructing more roads, which is costly and allows even more traffic).
  4. Use of public services (like subsidised goods, energy etc.).

And these are the domains that are ethical to tax.

These kinds of institutional transformation would provide much more efficiency and prosperity for society. It could eliminate road congestion, promote new technology in environmentally sound way, or even allow more green cities and towns without invading private property.

Isn’t that great that city or state can shape it’s future?

Then why is that still taxing productivity, even if good, instead of shaping it for the better?

Environmental impact of cryptocurrencies.

Critics state that Bitcoin mining, being an energy hog, is a terrible thing to the global economy, because electricity is a vital resource that could be used for a better end… and because carbon emissions are not ethical, as they change the Earth’s climate unfavourably.

But let’s not forget the fundamentals of economics. Such a high energy consumption is only possible because of speculative value of cryptocurrencies. It’s value is derived from their superiority to traditional money and banking system:

  1. Political independence, payment channels which cannot be blocked by government, which promotes economic freedom and has potential to starve crony capitalism.
  2. Convenience, no need to transport money physically with use of heavily armored vehicles… no need to go to ATM to get cash. No advertising from Bank.
  3. No need for brick-and-mortar banks, no need to hire bank clerks, which is a waste human capital.
  4. Promotion of saving over spending. Potential ability to stop inflation, which in turn forces people to invest more into real estate, which costs much energy to build and maintain.
  5. Cost saving, because money can be cheaply sent worldwide. Of course Bitcoin network is a bit expensive now, but there are many alternatives to Bitcoin (such as Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum, Dash, Litecoin) with superior characteristics in terms of transaction cost… and potential to scale massively with no greater energy cost.
  6. Increased competition and access to global markets. Creative freelancers from around the world could now work for everybody in the global economy, just by using a computer. Private payment option allows an unprecedented freedom.

There are some drawbacks of course, which socialists and democrats like to point. Firstly, financial freedom allows people to freely support terrorist groups. But should that be the domain of blocking? In my opinion no… governments should rather inoculate people to dangerous ideas, educate, promote productivity and track actual bandits, than try to starve them financially. A criminal should be certain that he will get prosecuted in 100% of cases (because of cameras etc.) not blocked from having a gun and money.

Some say that trade sanctions are needed to promote a fair world, where rouge states don’t get to trade with the “noble” West, such as EU or NATO. But is that really an average Russian’s fault, that he or she lives under an authoritary government? Is this an African’s fault? No… rather I feel these people will behave nicer if allowed to trade and earn money by selling services to us. Starving people only promotes passivity and allows wrong systems to persist.

Then there’s a question of the environment. Firstly, the States that want to shut down cryptocurrencies have invested heavily in coal-powered generation themselves. They have subsidised energy, to let people run various industries, and then… if energy goes to Bitcoin they are upset about it’s environmental impact. Seriously? Better think of ways to account for CO2 and pollutants from the energy you produce. Higher energy price, ability to trade it freely, and demand from crypto miners can only help promote building of PV, wind and water-based generators. Energy market is not innovative partly because of administrative overhead of trading energy. Not because of lack of technical means of generating and storing them…

Energy will be even more sustainable, if you allow people to trade it between neighbors. Right now you cannot just sell electric current to a neighbor, or to a local factory. You need to sell it to a monopoly first.

And finally, energy usage will have to be more in proportion to transaction volume if cryptocurrency inflation decreases with time. Bitcoin has a cap o 21 million units, and there will be never more Bitcoins than that. Now it’s energy use is high due to the simple formula:


But as soon as inflation decreases and only transaction fees drive miner’s rewards, energy cost will have to be in proportion to it.

But you ask, how about energy poverty? How about people that cannot afford some electricity? Well… they do have to pay for monopolies currently anyway. And they do pay consumption taxes even for goods that don’t have many adverse environmental effects. And they do pay for bank fees, if they have an account.

And they cannot just produce goods and services for a populace. I would like to have my relatively poor neighbor to cook some food for me. Or to sell me wine, beer and other drugs. Or even go to the local wholesale grocery market, and sell some fruit/vegetables on the street as they used to do in the good old times. But now they cannot. You can park hundreds of idle cars in the street, but if you try to sell something from a van without a license – you will get a fine. Especially if you don’t want to pay taxes for that sale.

They get a welfare benefit if they are really poor, but as soon as they earn some money, they not only must legally stop getting benefits, they will get taxed. Especially if they try to work as an independent business, they will have to pay relatively high social security contribution, regardless of the profit they have. Despite theoretically progressive tax system.

What a sad world, which fights merit and production, but promotes cronyism, idleness and inflation.

Economics of tree ownership under socialist regime.

Socialist states care for the environment, if private owners can bear the cost. Rightly they want to protect nature, but unfortunately using coercive means.

If you inherit a parcel with trees, or if you allow trees to grow, you cannot just cut them down. You need consent from your local authorities. Even if it’s quick and cheap to obtain, it’s still mandatory or you can get a fine for cutting down your own tree.

That’s because having a tree in the immediate environment is advantageous to the society as a whole. Trees protect people against dust and gases, accumulate water, regulate temperature, and allow life of worms, birds and other animals.

So it’s fair to incentivise tree ownership… but it’s not fair to punish people for getting rid of one’s private tree! A better approach would be to compensate those that own trees, because they are environmentally productive. But how can we do that without coercing the rest of populace to pay more taxes?

Simply by accounting for positive environmental effects of trees as dust/smoke collectors, and taking that money away from polluters. It will provide incentive to plant trees and clean the air, as well as incentive to mitigate pollution on the polluters side. It will also improve public health, and lessen direct damages to health, because dust (and money) will from from polluters to the owners of trees (instead of only from polluters to the owners of lungs).

Freedom to plant and cut down trees is always good. Biomass is a great source of energy. But disallowing someone to cut down a tree is invasion of property. Even if property is prettier due to this invasion… how would you feel being forced to exercise, or to a plastic surgery, or to collect trash from the streets?

I would feel bad… innocent people should not be forced to do anything.