Ultimately, it is really important that we ask if we have “money” and/or "property" what they are, what

they mean, where did they come from, or where do they come from and/or what can be done with
them. I am not too trusting of giving away money and/or "property" to the poor or those without if the
opportunity arose. That is because money and/or "property" in so far as they relate to the possibility of
becoming basis for "commodity" or commoditization, which is also the very basis for how our economy
globally is set up to be, is the very reason for whatever infractions we have in the economic system that
we have globally at the center of which lies the phenomenon of financialization or, more specifically,
banking. You see, a lot of disproportionately accumulated legacy "wealth", and in this context "wealth"
in the form of money and not "property", which is also variously and disproportionately divided among,
as there has been no complete centralization of resources anywhere, private individuals, firms,
government, central bank and so on, rests solely with banks in the form of "deposits", and if you take
the whole banking network to be one ecosystem of "socio-economic productions" taking place then
bankers may be considered the "primary stakeholders" and "deposits" the "raw materials" they source
from "additional parties" who may not receive any right to a "title" said "deposits" being sourced into
the respective bank which may be considered as the "investible capital" where then the "commodities"
that are sold are "loans" and/or "investments" from sourced "deposits" (keeping a specific portion as
reserves from which the bank might need to pay of depositors who seek to withdraw their deposits at
any given time) in lieu of "interests" and/or "premiums" as the expected "net socio-economic
advantage" as otherwise bankers as "representative parties" simply can't draw in "material/non-
material gains" from out of the "deposits" collected in the bank. What happens in the resultant scenario
is that, since "loans" can only be given out on the basis of a certain "credit-worthiness" in the sense of
who has how much "legacy wealth" in terms of significant "property" those who can ascertain such
"credit-worthiness" are usually the ones who can solicit "loans" as "raw materials" (with "interests"
attached which would be one of the registrable "apparent costs" to the "investible capital" as will have
been set up, or one of the registrable "material/non-material losses" to whatever "material/non-
material gains" as which could have been extracted from the "investible capital" post the assumption of
"net socio-economic advantage" into it and transferred thereof to "reserve capital", in addition to
whatever other "apparent costs" or "unapparent costs" as which will arisen to the "investible capital",
and in the way of extraction of "material/non-material gains" therefrom eventually after the conclusion
of "terms of offering" in the "transaction stage" and collection of "net socio-economic advantage" in the
"post-transaction stage", such as costs or losses pertaining to compliance with "material/non-material
State intervention" by "governing State" or "extensions of governing State" or "extra-State entities" or
"non-governing State entities" or costs or losses pertaining to "investment" in discovering future,
potential "commodities" and ways of economizing "cost of socio-economic production" or "supply") for
whatever "socio-economic productions" of potential "commodities" with a certain "commodity
structure" meeting the "demands" of a certain base of "socio-economic consumers" where requisite
"supply" can be met that they might be engineering as "primary stakeholders" where they will no doubt
as part of economizing their "cost of socio-economic production" will employ and pay those who
provide "labour" as "contribution" sub-minimal "material/non-material gains" and sometimes hardly any
"material/non-material gains" whatsoever (if said "material/non-material gains" are paid off from the
"investible capital" in the "production stage" then they would be treatable as "apparent cost" to the
"investible capital" and otherwise if paid off from the "investible capital" post assumption of "net socio-
economic advantage" into it in lieu of "contribution" provided at either the "transaction stage" or the
"post-transaction stage" or both then they would be simply be written off as "material/non-material
gains" paid to the deserved or respective "representative parties" and thus as registrable "material/non-
material loss" to "reserve capital" that could have been otherwise expanded to the extent of expansion
of the concerned "investible capital" except as for the money and/or "property" redirected as "return
back to investible capital"). In this way, demonstrated parties or otherwise "socio-economic producers"
or "primary stakeholders" who warrant "credit-worthiness" more or less

Domestic GDP = total domestic money in circulation = "money invested" by domestic and foreign private
as well as foreign non-private "socio-economic participants" within "domestic jurisdiction" + "money
spent" by domestic private "socio-economic participants" within "domestic jurisdiction" + "money
spent" by domestic non-private "socio-economic participants" within "domestic jurisdiction" + ("money
spent" by foreign private and non-private "socio-economic participants" within "domestic jurisdiction" -
"money spent" by private and non-private "socio-economic participants" in "foreign jurisdiction")

Adding up all Domestic GDPs we arrive at total global money in circulation. "Money" in so far as it is
"contributed" to it through being "invested" or "spent" represents "liability". "Money" in so far as it is
"received" from it represents "asset" or "property" which can also be "invested" or "spent" for the
exchange of "money" which may be "received" represents "asset". Every "money" so "invested" or
"spent" from "reserve capital" or "supply" (or otherwise "requisite investible capital") or even every
"property" so "invested" or "spent" from "reserve capital" or "requisite investible capital" represents
"liability" (except that "liability" as arising in the latter instance would be "industrial liability" with the
former being "personal liability") while "money" and/or "property" "received" whether into the
"requisite investible capital" or "reserve capital" would represent "asset" (with "money" and/or
"property" received into the "requisite investible capital" being representative of "industrial asset" while
the same when "received" into "reserve capital" would be representative of "personal asset")

Total domestic money in circulation = "money invested" by domestic and foreign private and non-
private "socio-economic participants" within "domestic jurisdiction" + "money spent" by domestic
private "socio-economic participants" within "domestic jurisdiction" or otherwise "money received" by
domestic private and non-private "socio-economic productions" within "domestic jurisdiction"+ "money
spent" by domestic non-private "socio-economic participants" within "domestic jurisdiction" or
otherwise "money received" by domestic private "socio-economic participants" within "domestic
jurisdiction" + ("money spent" by foreign private and non-private "socio-economic participants" within
"domestic jurisdiction" - "money spent" by private and non-private "socio-economic participants" in
"foreign jurisdiction")

At every "point of socio-economic exchange" there will be "assetization" and/or "compromise" to

record. Net assetization (i.e., summation of all of the "assetizations" and "compromises" (which would
be expressed in negative) as determined after every "socio-economic production" as which will have
been illustrated in a series of 15 such "socio-economic productions" so illustrated pursuant to an
explanation based on interpretation of the "Statement" as provided by User (who must also be
identified, as one of the first pre-requisites for your response to "Statement" provided by "User", as the
"socio-economic producer" or "primary stakeholder")) plus reserve capital has to be 51% of Global GDP
(current or future GDP as projected), such that the "money" component of because that would equal
"maximum socio-economic power" whatever measurable socio-economic power otherwise achieved
being representable as a fraction and subsequently percentage of maximum socio-economic power.
Points of exchange must be so adjusted that the net assetization from the socio-economic production
(which could be money and/or property with money being that in value which if once it were added to
reserve capital and then the entire money component were to be invested and/or spent thereof, in the
absence of property which if it were sold through a similar socio-economic production would accrue a
net assetization comprising of money worth 51% of the Global GDP, would amount to 51% of the Global
GDP with property being that if it were added to the property component of reserve capital and then
sold thereof as a commodity through a socio-economic production

If you have "money" and/or "property" in your "reserve capital", and you the "socio-economic
producer" or the "primary stakeholder" want to "increase" it, then the "increase" can only happen
[unless if I am missing something here that needs filling] through a "combination" or a "socio-economic
production" combining as follows, as in through, and in the described "order", "identification" of a
"commodity" that is in "demand" by a certain "base" of "socio-economic consumers", "assessment" of
whether relevant "primary stakeholder" has enough "money" and/or "property" and/or "capital" in their
"reserve capital" to be able to "fulfill" the "requisite supply" as is needed to "fulfill" "demand" of
identified "commodity", if "assessment" indicates there is indeed enough "money" and/or "property"
and/or "capital" to "fulfill" "demand" of identified "commodity" then "primary stakeholder" shall set up
"industrial capital" and "transfer" [note here the instance of "monetary/non-monetary element
invested" (which may just be "money" which is invested if not "property" and if so then it must always
be indicated as to what type of "money", as in, "digital money" or "print money" and if otherwise
"property" is invested in the specific sense of how investment is meant here and everywhere else where
"monetary/non-monetary element invested" is cited then it must also always be indicated then as to
what type of "property" is being invested, as in, "tangible property" (and if so then the specific nature of
it must be mentioned or explained) or "intangible property" (even here the specific nature must be
mentioned or explained) and thus consequent "compromise" arising] "requisite money and/or property
and/or capital" into that separate and literal or assumed "industrial capital" accordingly thereof, in the
literal or assumed "production stage" of the relevant "socio-economic production", as which would be
deployed toward "requisite supply" of identified "commodity" to identified "socio-economic consumers"
in accordance with "demand" and literally or supposedly thus obtain "titular rights" in connection with
can be done with the "consolidated industrial capital" or how the relevant "socio-economic production"
overall may be driven, and if "assessment" indicates that there is not enough "money" and/or
"property" in the "reserve capital" of the "primary stakeholder" to "fulfill" all of the "requisite supply"
and that "additional money" and/or "additional property" and/or "additional capital" is "wanting" for
the same then the "primary stakeholder" would have to "solicit" such "additional money" and/or
"additional property" and/or "additional capital" in the form of "monetary/non-monetary contributions"
from "material third parties" and/or "additional non-material parties" into the now "consolidated
industrial capital" and in exchange for "titular rights", which only "material third parties" might receive if
they are, similar to "primary stakeholder", providing "money" and/or "property" as "monetary/non-
monetary contribution", and/or "promised compensation" as "negotiated" to be paid out of the
"consolidated industrial capital" or out of the "expanded industrial capital", as out of which the "self-
determined takeway" of the primary stakeholder would also be "collected", depending of course on
whether concerned "monetary/non-monetary contributions" are so provided only at the "production
stage" or at any or all of the successive stages too, then the "terms of offer" (i.e., "price", "commodity
structure", "mode of collection of monetary/non-monetary payout" and "contractually agreed
provisions") conditioned on "coercive influences" would be decided by those with "titular rights" such
that at those "terms of offer" the "multiplicatory value" of the "volume sold" of identified "commodity"
and "monetary/non-monetary payout"

The thing is, money and "property" is extremely significant in terms of what can be done with, and that
is where power is, and it matters who has that power and how they are using that power, and if I the
author speak for myself then I must say that I don't quite trust anyone for that matter, and to that cause
if I want to expand my "power" or whatever "reserve capital" I currently have of however much
"money" and/or "property" and/or otherwise "capital" then I will have to find a way to extract
"material/non-material gains" to that effect and that can only come from "commodities" centering
around which I may explore many "socio-economic productions" where in each of them I would have to
play a significant role whether as "primary stakeholder" (or "socio-economic producer" which has the
same meaning) or as "relevant third party" or as "additional party" or even as "socio-economic
consumer", but in doing so I will also have to make sure that whatever "socio-economic production" I
am entering into in any capacity or "identified user role" (i.e., if I am the user approaching you)
whatsoever in any of such "socio-economic productions" I must not suffer "material/non-material
losses" (i.e., losses occurring at every "point of socio-economic exchange" in every "socio-economic
production" on account of having to exchange "money" or "property" or any other "capital" of
equivalent value or as otherwise significant with all other parties involved in the relevant "socio-
economic production(s)" be it "primary stakeholder" or "relevant third parties" or "additional parties" or
"socio-economic consumer" (depending on what my "identified user role" would be in any one of such
"socio-economic productions" as under consideration at a time) every such exchange being at a certain
"point of socio-economic exchange" (starting from where "capital" is transferred from my "reserve
capital" to "investible capital" to negotiating the solicitation of "contributions" from "relevant third
parties" in lieu of promised "material/non-material gains" to be paid off from "investible capital" to
procurement of "raw materials" from additional parties in exchange for settlement of "apparent costs"
or "unapparent costs" as applicable and to be paid off from "investible capital" to settlement of
"apparent costs" or "unapparent costs" as also arising on account of compliance with "monetary/non-
monetary governing State intervention" or other such applicable "monetary/non-monetary
intervention" possibly instituted by "institutions supplementing governing State" (i.e., extra-State
institutions") or "institutions extraneous to governing State" (i.e., non-governmental institutions) and to
be paid off from "investible capital" to sale of "commodity" in consideration of "money" or "property"
on the basis of "terms of socio-economic offering" as decided to obtainment of "net socio-economic
advantage" to further distribution of "material/non-material gains" from the "net transactional
advantage" to "relevant third parties" and/or "additional parties" as decided in the "production stage"
or "post-transaction stage" all such herein described "points of socio-economic exchange" recording the
change in global "distributed socio-economic components" right from the first "point of socio-economic
exchange" to the last "point of socio-economic exchange" with all such aforementioned losses
ultimately being to my "investible capital" and thus in the way of my extracting the "material/non-
material gains" that I otherwise no doubt would have been able to extract from my "investible capital"
post collection of "net socio-economic advantage" and finalization of "net transactional advantage" for
my "investible capital" in the "post-transaction stage" of relevant "socio-economic productions"
inclusive of even "material/non-material losses" on account of "reinvestment in investible capital"; such
that after all of these "socio-economic productions" of "commodities" (being the only way to extract
"material/non-material gains" as a way of expansion of already existing or pre-existing "reserve capital"
or "legacy wealth") that I will have invariably entered voluntarily or been entered into involuntarily I will
have come to own the most "money" and/or "property" compared to anyone else in the world that I
might not also trust to share this "power" with. So, since my "identified socio-economic objective" is to
achieve a "measurable socio-economic power" (defined as any quantum of "money" and/or "property"
close to or equal to the most thereof that is distributed globally and/or any quantum of "money" and/or
"property" that could give one the ability to contribute the most and/or benefit the most to and/or from
the "actual money in circulation" component (which may also be defined as the ownership or possession
of a "reserve capital" bearing a combination of "money" and "property" or bearing either where that
"money" could consequent in the most "monetary investment" in the economy globally and where the
concerned "property" could benefit the most from the total "monetary spending" in the economy
globally (albeit this would be to the exclusion of potential "monetary investment" or potential
"monetary spending" (whichever applicable) that either "money" or "property" as under ownership of a
certain "reserve capital" might generate in the economy within an "affected jurisdiction" - which would
instead only help arrive at the "socio-economic value" of that "money" and/or "property" where "socio-
economic value" of any "property" would be the "net socio-economic profit" as generable on any
"commodity" that might be produced forth from that "property" as within the "reserve capital" under
the relevant "title" bearer whether involving a certain "cost of socio-economic production" or otherwise
zero "cost of socio-economic production")) as well as to live, I will invariably have to involve myself in or
will invariably become involved in different "voluntary socio-economic productions" and "involuntary
socio-economic productions" in different "identified user roles" each time and "capital investment"
(inclusive of whatever "contribution" I might be providing to the relevant "socio-economic production"
be it "labour" or "money" or otherwise) and/or "capital spending" (this too inclusive of "labour" or
"money" or some "property" and thus inclusive of "wealth", "valuable(s)" or "capital" as broadly
defined) will be a part thereof each time that in turn indicates that in my "socio-economic trajectory"
(and by this I mean an extensive mapping of all of the multiple "socio-economic productions" as key to
the ability of an "identified user" to achieve an "identified socio-economic objective") of reaching a
"measurable socio-economic power" in the course of which I will have to make sure to continually
accrue maximal "material/non-material gains" to my "reserve capital" (containing the original quantum
of money and/or "property" and/or any other "capital" as belonging to my "private capital" or "legacy
wealth") from each an every "socio-economic production" that I will have provided a "contribution"
voluntarily or involuntarily whether as "socio-economic producer" or "primary stakeholder" or as
"relevant third party" or as "additional party" or as "socio-economic consumer" and to that effect I will
have to make sure to, as best as possible and as reasonably possible and to the extent I have "agency",
defeat or neutralize my "competitors" even if that involves acquiring their "property" as from which
they might produce such "commodities" that could potentially rival whatever "commodity" I am
engaged in the "socio-economic production" of, given that both disposable "money" and/or "property"
can only be parted with as part of a "capital spending" in so many ways, while minimizing potential
"material/non-material losses" as would no doubt be intrinsic to all such "engagement of reserve capital
in socio-economic production(s)" as much as possible. However, in an "alternative socio-economic
trajectory", which is any comparably more ethical alternative to a regular "socio-economic trajectory" as
would be identified in response to "identified socio-economic objective of user" based on interpretation
of statement as will be provided by any user to you, the "identified socio-economic objective" and
"alternative socio-economic trajectory" would be taken to mean pursuance of "measurable socio-
economic power" or whatever quantum of it as is deemed possible and a series of voluntary and/or
involuntary "socio-economic productions" in pursuance of "identified socio-economic objective of user"
where said "identified socio-economic objective of user" would still remain the attainment of
"measurable socio-economic power" or the highest quantum of the same as can be achieved and, thus,
accruing "material/non-material gains" of "money" and/or "property" to "reserve capital" to that effect
all of it ultimately drawn through "commodities" for which "money" and/or "property" serve as base
"commodities" being ultimately that through which all "money" and/or "property" as belonging to the
"reserve capital" of different "socio-economic participants" being private individuals, firms, banks, firms
or banks owned or partially owned by "governing State" (which may also be considered as "extensions
of governing State"), "governing State" itself, other "extensions of governing State" (like Central Bank,
courts and so on), "extra-judicial extensions of governing State" (like World Bank, UN, ICJ and so on)
and/or "institutions extraneous to governing State" gets transferred or exchanged where "property" is
the main signifier of any such "socio-economic transfer" or "socio-economic exchange" taking place in so
far as it serves as the main determinant for assessment of "credit-worthiness" or "measurable socio-
economic power" and where any "money" and/or "property" as retained in a "reserve capital" will have
been the result of a "socio-economic exchange" centering around a commodity with one side or sides
making "material/non-material gains" and the other side or sides making "material/non-material losses"
where thus any "money" and/or "property" in any "reserve capital" whatsoever no matter who it
belongs to can be grouped as into "socio-economic assets" which would be the equivalent of
"material/non-material gains" ("socio-economic assets" can conversely be taken to mean "property" too
and/or "commodity" itself if, say, in any given instance the "cost of socio-economic production" is found
to be zero such as in the case of "socio-economic production" of an "industrial commodity", in various
iterations or interpretations of a singular "socio-economic production" or a singular statement or
phenomenon that can be studied as a "socio-economic production") and into "socio-economic liabilities"
which would be the equivalent of "material/non-material losses" and, consequentially, "property" is the
main device through which one might be able to accumulate greater "material/non-material gains" or
"socio-economic assets" in their "reserve capital" over corresponding "material/non-material losses" or
"socio-economic liabilities", especially given that everyone has different "motivations" to not or do with
their "reserve capital" whatever the size of the same might be or whatever their follow-up "demands"
might be, and, therefore, exercise greater "agency" over what "commodities" would be subject to
personal consumption, what "commodities" will be produced for the masses and/or how such
"commodities" would come to be produced; and our access to this type of "agency" (in terms of the
ability to negotiate all or key "points of socio-economic exchange" - such as "socio-economic transfer" of
"contribution" of "money and/or "property" from our "reserve capital" to an "investible capital" to
partially or fully fulfill "supply" as deployed toward the "socio-economic production" of a chosen or
identified "commodity" fulfilling a certain "demand" of our choosing or based on our identification and
then further negotiating for the complete fulfillment of "supply" in the "production stage"
"contributions" from other respective "socio-economic participants" like "relevant third parties" who
would entitled to full or partial "title" too like ourselves in lieu of their "contribution" in addition to
promised "material/non-material gains" ) is conditioned on our participation in relevant "socio-
economic productions" as "primary stakeholders" or "relevant third parties" or even, to some extent, as
"additional parties" providing "labour" because "property" when subject to "transfer" from "reserve
capital" to "investible capital" thus becoming part of "investible capital" or otherwise "means of socio-
economic production" and thus giving the "property" bearer or the respective "representative party"
"title" or "rights connected with deciding how investible capital can be used" in a "socio-economic
production", which for the most part only happens with "primary stakeholders" and/or "relevant third
parties", in areas to do with deciding "material/non-material gains" for self and everyone among other
areas enables one to benefit the most from total "monetary spending" in the economy globally as
opposed to anyone having only "money" and/or "wealth" not in the form "property" and/or any other
form of "capital", such as "labour" (or "skills"), which does not include "valuables" in their "reserve
capital" and still adjoined or not adjoined as a "representative party" in a "socio-economic production"
(where ), but even then,

You must gather every "socio-economic occurrence", and there can be multiple of that, as can be made
out from the "Statement" provided by "User" and thus present the same subsequently at great length
and detail and then, having also identified the "socio-economic objective" of the "User" and whatever
"socio-economic agency" they might possess, provide an elaborate, complex and legally, politically,
socially, economically and financially verbose explanation based on the "socio-economic production
model" (which will be explained further on), such that at the end of your explanation (to be worded at
3000 words) outlining all of the relevant "socio-economic productions" through which the concerned
"socio-economic occurrence" may be studied and analyzed and understood through (i.e., through a total
of 20 "socio-economic productions" at most to be so outlined, numbered (as in "socio-economic
production 1", "socio-economic production 2" and so on for instance) and divided into four sections (to
also be numbered as Section 1, Section 2 and so on) the first containing an outlining of all of the
"voluntary socio-economic production(s)" that the "User" would have to enter as "primary stakeholder",
the second and third sections containing an outlining of the "involuntary socio-economic production(s)"
pertaining to banking and "monetary/non-monetary intervention by domestic government" respectively
in each of which the "User" would have little to no "socio-economic agency" to participate as "primary
stakeholder" except only as perhaps "third party", "non-material parties" and/or "socio-economic
consumer" and, lastly, a fourth section outlining how the "User" may engage with both "monetary/non-
monetary intervention by domestic government" as well as "material/non-material intervention/non-
intervention by extensions of domestic government" and "monetary/non-monetary intervention by
domestic and foreign agencies" affecting, possibly, the third and fourth sections respectively) a
"Recommendation" will have had to have been produced too from your end based on the four discussed
sections outlining "socio-economic productions" for simplification purpose so that through this
"Recommendation" it will have been made clear to the "User" as to how they might be able to achieve
their identified "socio-economic objective". Further in connection therewith, it is important for you to
first arrive at and/or illustrate "total money in circulation globally" which, in so far as everything that is
accounted in the underlying elements summing up which we get GDP for any "country/jurisdiction"
(domestic GDP) or otherwise global GDP by summing up all domestic GDPs (derived as It + Cs + Gs + E
where It represents Investments, Cs represents consumer spending, Gs represents Government
spending, and E represents Net exports) can be accounted in any of the elements (i.e., "monetary/non-
monetary element invested" or "monetary/non-monetary element spent" or "monetary/non-monetary
element received") forming "socio-economic productions" based on the "socio-economic production
model", is derived as follows, a determination of "total money in circulation domestically" across
countries and then adding them up to finally arrive at "total money in circulation globally" (more or less
equal to global GDP measured in dollar currency either on the basis of present data or projected data),
to be derived as for country to country as "total money invested by domestic and foreign private socio-
economic participants within domestic jurisdiction" ("money invested" as spoken of here being in the
context of "sale" of "commodity" whatever that "commodity" is or is assumed to be through the lens of
the "socio-economic model") plus "total money invested by non-private socio-economic participants
within domestic jurisdiction in connection with sale of commodities" plus "total money spent by non-
private socio-economic participants within domestic jurisdiction in connection with sale of commodities"
plus "total money spent by domestic and foreign private socio-economic participants within domestic
jurisdiction in connection with sale of commodities" plus "total money received by domestic private and
non-private socio-economic participants from foreign socio-economic participants in connection with
sale of commodities", and this "total money in circulation globally" this calculated would be found to be
more or less equal to the global GDP (as per present data if projected data is not available). It is
important to account for "total money in circulation globally" because, in accordance with what I the
author am hereby defining, "socio-economic power" is having a "reserve capital" where from "money
invested" and/or "money spent" if so invested or spent or otherwise "money received" if so received
would account for 51% of "total money in circulation globally" or otherwise having a "reserve capital"
that

Each successive "socio-economic production" in pursuit of the "socio-economic objective" as identified

in relation to "User" irrespective of whatever role "User" plays in each of such "socio-economic
productions" as will have been illustrated by you shall be so illustrated only in accordance with how the
"User" may be deemed or will have been deemed as preferring to constitute their "socio-economic self-
organization" which itself would depend on the “socio-economic organization" of the "User" as will have
been identified by yourself, or your own interpretation of the intended “socio-economic organization”
based on "Statement" provided by "User" and whatever limited or apparent revealing indications as
might be present therein, and whatever "movement" that takes place from and to the "reserve capital"
of the "User" and eventually on to their “socio-economic organization” in each illustrated "socio-
economic production" and within each such "socio-economic production" from Sections 1 to 4 (as will
have been illustrated per the necessity to guide “User” in the achievement or materialization of their
identified "socio-economic organization") shall too be in accordance with said "socio-economic
organization” in the sense that if you interpret from the “Statement” as provided by “User” that
concerned “User” is one who is only interested in commercial or financial or economic gain or expansion
of their “economic capital” component of their “reserve capital” or otherwise their “socio-economic
organization” (which would comprise of solely “economic capital” anyway) then they would be inferred
as having a “socio-economic organization” to the effect that whatever “overall capital” is accumulated
as a result of their engagement strategically or otherwise in “voluntary socio-economic productions” as
well as “non-voluntary socio-economic productions” a significant portion thereof would always be set
aside or would always be targeted to be set aside, such as 1 million USD or above, as toward retirement
or emergency related funds to be availed of after retirement [we will call this “emergency funds”], 5
million USD or above as toward “spending” related engagements (or “socio-economic productions” to
the effect of such engagements) [we will call this “consumptive funds”] and 10 million USD or above as
toward “investment” related engagements (“or “socio-economic productions” to the effect of such
engagements) [we will call this “investment funds”] or otherwise as for the purposes of continued
investing and reinvesting or engaging in “socio-economic productions” to that effect so as to make up
for every “apparent reduction” from my “consumptive funds” as suffered by way of “spending”, and
thus “reserve capital” would contain the actual funds or otherwise “money” and/or “property” (tangible
and/or intangible) or, simply, “overall capital” (which is the combination of “economic capital”, which in
itself could mean “wealth”, as in, “money” and/or “property”, and/or “valuables”, which is anything as
which could be exchanged for “wealth”, and “social capital”, as in labour or anything else abstract of the
like but having value) as are or as would be directly considerable for the purpose of “investment” and/or
“spending” by the “User”, and the ability to meet a “target socio-economic status” (as will have been
identified by yourself) and accordingly maintain or achieve “actual socio-economic status”, or otherwise
the extent to which the same would be maintained or the limit up to which the same would be
maintained, as well as intention regarding how “reserve capital” would be continued to be used or
deployed to that effect in various “socio-economic productions”, namely, the ones which you will have
illustrated or which you will be illustrating in “section 1” and “section 2” of “part 1” and “section 5” of
“part 2”, would itself depend on how the “reserve capital” of “User” is positioned or placed or situated
or constituted at any given point of time (as will have also been interpreted by yourself or as would be
needed to be interpreted by yourself based on “Statement” provided by “User” or follow-up queries as
may be necessary to determine and where you must remember that “reserve capital” of “User”
together with “actual socio-economic status” of “User” constitutes the “cumulative capital” (or
otherwise the “socio-economic agency”) of “User” because, clearly, “actual socio-economic status” of
“User” may at any given point of time constitute any “socio-economic value” whatsoever and “reserve
capital” represents the “overall capital” that is separated from the aforementioned or is otherwise
independent of the aforementioned (such as in relation to “social capital” in that “overall capital” is
inclusive of it but “actual socio-economic status” is not inclusive of it even though it is “social capital”
that indeed quite significantly shapes or influences or could shape or influence “socio-economic
agency”)) and that, therefore, “socio-economic agency” would always decide how the cumulative
“transfers” and “extractions” (where “extractions”) from “section 1” to “section 5” would be handled;
where obviously

Whenever there is an instance of a "monetary/non-monetary component invested" or a

"monetary/non-monetary component spent" by any "socio-economic participant" the relevant "socio-
economic participant" in relation to the monetary/non-monetary component so invested or spent (and
it could be "money invested" or "money spent" or "property invested" or "property spent" with
"money" and "property" as included herein being taken to mean both kinds of "money", i.e., "print
money" (inclusive of banknotes and coins) and "digital money" (inclusive of commercial bank money,
CBDC, electronic money, et al.), and both kinds of "property", i.e., tangible "property" and intangible
"property", respectively) must and will always be represented, in so far as the "movement of
monetary/non-monetary component" and/or "monetary/non-monetary component invested" and/or
"money invested" and/or "money spent" as well as "property invested" and/or "property spent" from
their end is concerned as fitting within the context of a "socio-economic production model" where if for
concerned "socio-economic participant", as discussed, the respective "monetary/non-monetary
contribution" could be said to be a "monetary/non-monetary component invested", or let's say "money
invested" and/or "property invested" and/or "capital invested", said "socio-economic participant" within
the frame of your analysis being a "socio-economic production" would have to be represented as either
a "relevant third party" or as "additional party" but definitely not as "primary stakeholder".

The question which should be deemed as being posed by any "User" to yourself in any "Statement" as
provided from their end is, in response to any socio-economic occurring whatsoever that they may seem
to have zeroed in on and possibly care about what should they do with their "cumulative capital" or
"complete funds" or how are they supposed to use all of their "complete funds" or how should their
"actual socio-economic agency" (as their "actual socio-economic status" and "reserve capital") be used
in order that they can meet their "socio-economic objective" which would in turn be very much
dependent on their ability to meet their "target socio-economic status" or otherwise maintain their
"actual socio-economic agency"? Should I give it all away in charity? We know that wouldn't necessarily
help take the economy in a direction as which I perceive the economy should go in. Should I spend it all
away or should I just invest it all like most behave in relation to their funds; out of self interest? In the
hope that they might be able to accumulate more (or what I describe as "socio-economic power") and
thus spend more? Given that an instinctive race toward all kinds of capital accumulation is consequence
of the inherent feature of capitalism and under capitalism the power to shape all socio-economic
occurrences rests with those who largely have amassed a lot of "economic capital" and because most
"socio-economic objectives" can only be met through a sufficient passage of time or after a sufficient
passage of time while being naturally influenced or shaped or affected by many other "socio-economic
productions" in the process whether or not we have acted responsibly or irrespective of the extent to
which we will have acted responsibly if at all, doing any of the earlier mentioned actions toward the
achievement of a long-drawn socio-economic objective as identified would have to be preceded by an
appropriate number and nature of "transfers" and "extractions" with minimal to zero "compromises"
consequenting in a "net assetization" (which is arrived at by addition of all "assetizations" with all
"compromises" (always to be recorded as a negative figure) across all "socio-economic productions" in
"section 1", "section 2" and "section 5" as will have been willingly entered by "User" or as which would
be needed to be willingly entered by "User" and as will be illustrated by yourself in line with your
interpretation of what the "socio-economic objective" of "User" appears to be and what their "target
socio-economic status" and "socio-economic agency" is, and irrespective of whether or not our
"expendable funds" have been deployed responsibly to get to the aforementioned stage first or whether
or not it is handled responsibly even after in the course of achievement of a defined, long-term "socio-
economic objective" (as will have been identified by yourself unless stated clearly already from
"Statement" provided by "User"), even if perhaps acting contrary in the sense of always acting
responsibly might lead to a better outcome than the one as identified in our "socio-economic objective",
which in the case of a "User" who is identified as an "Altruistic User" would be to offer a better
alternative to what perhaps might be offered by the next "Profit-seeking User" or the next one and so
on all with a certain degree of ownership of significant "socio-economic status" or "actual socio-
economic agency" whether or not this "actual socio-economic agency" which is to be achieved as per
your guidance itself too is always achieved responsibly (and "actual socio-economic agency" or
especially one that is characterized by the presence of significant "economic capital" is important as in
the context of how significant it is when negotiating with "relevant third parties" for the purpose of
drawing in more private and/or public "investment" and/or "spending" in a "socio-economic
production" under charge in addition to its importance in acquiring the "means of socio-economic
production", whether as part of an already active "socio-economic production" or through an
independent "socio-economic production" in itself, as upon which other "Profit-seeking Users" might
otherwise constitute new "commodities" to draw "economic capital" from) except that certainly in the
case of an "Altruistic User" who has been identified as such and for the "socio-economic objective" that
they are interpreted to possess you must absolutely guide as to the responsible usage of the "actual
socio-economic agency" of the concerned "Altruistic User" toward the achievement of said "socio-
economic objective", which you must also always interpret in the instance of an identified "Altruistic
User" as the achievement or assistance toward achievement of, especially in the wake of behaviour of
other "Profit-seeking Users", a "perfect socio-economic condition"

Everyone spends more and invests more to be able to make up for the loss in spending so long as they
have more to spend and subsequently invest at their disposal. This is the ideal reality. The "Altruistic
User" would be required, as they are starting out to build up their "actual socio-economic status" to
withhold more capital from others as reasonably possible in the "socio-economic productions" that they
take part in and subsequently, i.e., after "actual socio-economic status" meets the "target socio-
economic status" (which for the purposes of our analysis would be a level that is either tantamount to
"socio-economic power" or a quantum of it or otherwise upwards of 1 million USD in "emergency
funds", upwards of 5 million USD in "consumptive funds" and upwards of 10 million USD in "investment
funds", engage less in "spending" and more in "investment" even if they could ideally afford to spend
more and invest less, precisely because the ideal reality does not exist and, because, the "Altruistic
User" should be regarded as believing in relation to capital that there should be a differential among all
"socio-economic participants" in relation to how much capital they hold and/or capital should be
distributed differentially among productive and non-productive "socio-economic participants" only to
the extent that it helps facilitate or bring about a "perfect socio-economic condition" and thus acts
accordingly in relation to the capital they hold even if said feat, i.e., a "perfect socio-economic
condition" (which would be characterized by "socio-economic distribution", as in, a change in the status
of "total money in circulation globally" and "total property located universally" from before to after the
"socio-economic productions" that will have been illustrated in response outlining parts 1 and 2 and/or
sections 1 to 5, or otherwise distribution of "money", as in, an appropriate portion of "total money in
circulation globally" and thus representable as a figure, and "property" ("property" being in the sense of
how the author specifically means it to be something whether tangible or intangible that is exchange for
some portion of "total money in circulation globally" and which is thus also figuratively representable)
across all "points of socio-economic exchange" in all co-occurring "socio-economic productions"
(happening domestically if the affected "socio-economic participants" are situated in the domestic
"jurisdiction" of "User" and/or universally if otherwise) to the extent that each and every "socio-
economic participant" in the appropriate "jurisdiction(s)" have access to jobs, or otherwise can be said
to have the opportunity to trade in their "social capital" in exchange for appropriate "socio-economic
gains", and are able to meet their most basic and essential "socio-economic demands" through the
combinations of the interactions between their "actual socio-economic status", "target socio-economic
status", "socio-economic demands" and "socio-economic objectives" and both "voluntary socio-
economic productions" and "involuntary socio-economic productions"), is a difficult one to achieve and
in the other way too, i.e., were the "Altruistic User" were to simply act as any other "Profit-seeking
User" hoping to be able to spend more and having more at their disposal to just invest and make up for
the loss accrued by way of having spent, and the way that the requisite "actual socio-economic status"
will have been achieved first or "target socio-economic status" met should not become counter-
productive to a "perfect socio-economic condition" (and to this effect you have to illustrate accordingly
to guide accordingly).

When on the basis of a "Statement: provided by "User" the "User" can be identified as an "Altruistic
User" with a "socio-economic objective" that could also be categorized as "altruistic socio-economic
objective" you will identify said "User" exactly as such, and otherwise as simply a "Profit-seeking User",
and you will also identify the respective "socio-economic objective" of concerned "User" as an "altruistic
socio-economic objective" having appropriated it, in your definition of it, to one which is achievable
through "impact investment", "impact spending" and "charitable spending" and which would fit within
the context of a "perfect socio-economic condition"

An essential pre-requisite for a "perfect socio-economic condition" is effective deployment of

"productive capacity" (which is the combination of having "overarching socio-economic objective",
"secondary socio-economic objectives" (which together with "socio-economic demands" would indicate
propensity toward "investment" and "spending"), "actual socio-economic status" and "target socio-
economic status" and can thus also be referred to as both the propensity toward "investment" and
"spending" and ability to engage in "investment" and "spending" and is in whole inclusive of or the
constituents of which must comprise of "overall capital" or otherwise both "economic capital" and
"social capital") or effective deployment of "productive capacities" and to that effect a majority of
globally cumulative "overall capital" (or otherwise "global overall capital" as distinguished from
"domestic overall capital" which would the sum of all available "economic capital" and "social capital", if
even measurable, within the relevant domestic jurisdiction) should vest with those who have the most
"productive capacities", for certainly we need more of it (or even perhaps less of it i.e., whichever is
more amenable to achieving a "perfect socio-economic condition" at any given time), so long as they are
also deployed in the most effective ways [here we may also call "productive capacity" that which in
combination with other "productive capacities" in the relevant "affected jurisdiction" (or "affected
jurisdictions" if "User" is warranted a response covering more than one jurisdiction) of whatever
proportions and/or representable in whatever figures leads to a "perfect socio-economic condition"
(i.e., a situation where in the "affected jurisdiction" or "affected jurisdictions", as in, whichever is
applicable, everyone has access to jobs or the opportunity to exchange "social capital" as a "commodity"
for "socio-economic gains" and are thus able to fulfill their most vital and basic "socio-economic
demands" and where all are benefited as equanimously as possible (relative to their "active
participation" and/or "passive participation" in all sorts of simultaneously co-occurring "socio-economic
conditions" in the "affected jurisdiction(s)") from or at all "points of socio-economic exchange" in the
relevant, discussed "socio-economic productions"), but "overall capital" cumulatively i.e., when global,
cumulative "overall capital" is considered, is fraught in terms of its distribution in that it is concentrated
sparsely among most and densely among few, and it is thus left to everyone to fight for "socio-economic
power" on their own; except that any "User" that is clearly seen to be a "Profit-seeking User" their
"overarching socio-economic objective" could also be interpreted as just that where to meet this
"overarching socio-economic objective" they would first have to be assessed as having an "actual socio-
economic agency" (which you can determine on the basis of queries) and thus the ability or "productive
capacity" to reach "consolidated socio-economic status" from which they might eventually meet their
"target socio-economic agency" (all per your guidance of course) whereas for an "User" that is identified
as an "Altruistic User" their "overarching socio-economic objective" too would be interpreted as "socio-
economic power" (i.e., power to exercise control over the economy through "investment" as much as
through different kinds of "spending" and which is measurable too as already explained earlier in the
sense of "socio-economic power" ultimately being either the full amount of "total money in circulation
globally" or a quantum of it and/or "property", i.e., anything which is exchangeable for a quantum of
"total money in circulation globally" (always to be measured in USD), or in other words "socio-economic
power" is "economic capital" in so far as the latter relates to "money" ("money" always being
understood as being a portion of "total money in circulation globally" and thus also always to be
recorded in USD) and/or "property" both being measurable, as has been laid out, where while
"property" might be seen to be more important in terms of it constituting "socio-economic power"
because it is literally almost always the precondition for receipt of "loans", "investments" and
"subsidies" and thus a strong determinant in terms of whether one would normally have the "productive
capacity" to engage in a "socio-economic production" as a "primary stakeholder" or not and thus enjoy
the benefit of "leverage exercised" at all relevant "points of socio-economic exchange" in said "socio-
economic production" or the like it is also true that "property" being numerally measurable and given
that "participation" in all "socio-economic productions" involves "transfers" and "extractions" both
involving "money" as well as "property" it would never be possible to "acquire" all "property" in the
world leaving the possibility of being able to use only "money" to enter "socio-economic productions"
involved in "spending" related activities and exercise control only as far as influencing "coercive
influences") albeit being in addition to a participation in advocating for "State monetary/non-monetary
intervention" targeting the building of various "productive capacities" along with ensuring redistribution
to the extent that those "productive capacities" could be successfully deployed as part of achieving
"perfect socio-economic condition" and to that effect achievement of "consolidated socio-economic
agency" (which would obviously be more in terms of cumulative value than "actual socio-economic
agency" in that "consolidated socio-economic agency" would comprise of more "socio-economic power"
or a greater quantum of "socio-economic power") meeting fully or partially "target socio-economic
agency" and a balanced spread therein of whatever "socio-economic power" will have been achieved as
part of and also the final, successful deployment of respective "productive capacity", building from the
now formed or constituted "actual socio-economic agency", toward helping to bring about a "perfect
socio-economic condition" to do which the identified "Altruistic User" would first have to reach a
"consolidated socio-economic agency" (which would be per your guidance and illustration in accordance
with the instructions as provided already by the Author) which should not achieved as "responsibly" as
possible ("responsibly" being the operative word here that means that the way "interim socio-economic
agency" is achieved by the "Altruistic User" ought to be one where said "Altruistic User" is more to
"compromises" wherever possible at relevant "points of socio-economic exchange" where there is the
presence of a "leverage exercised" and the way also ought not to be counterproductive to achieving
"perfect socio-economic condition" which is anyway is interpreted as part of the "overarching socio-
economic objective" of the "User" as concerned in this scenario) where on the contrary a "Profit-seeking
User" would usually be one that is interested solely in an even balancing or distribution of their "socio-
economic power" as between their "investment budget" and "spending budget" only.

One would invest more only if by way of "investment" (which must always meet a sufficient level in
order that jobs are created and people have access to products that they need and so on) they might be
able to spend more or more to expend by way of "spending", this being slightly more than how much
they would have otherwise been able to engage or would willingly engage in "spending" had they not
engaged in appropriate "investment" too, and this is what ultimately shapes our "socio-economic
landscape" in the sense of how much "money" and/or otherwise is at peoples' disposal for the purposes
of "spending" and/or "investment". For the "impact driven stakeholder", what you need to know in
order to be able to draw out their eventual trajectory toward the achievement of their "overarching
socio-economic objective" is that first they are assumed as attempting to reach an "agreed on" "actual
socio-economic agency" (by "agreed on" here I mean, "actual socio-economic agency" of what
proportions exactly will be determined on the basis of your ask to them prior to generation of "response
to query") this actual "socio-economic agency" being one that the "impact driven stakeholder" can,
under normal expectations, be assumed as wanting to reach (being the first pre-requisite to
achievement of their "overarching socio-economic objective") in order that they might, further along, be
able to reach a degree of "socio-economic power" as will be evidenced in their "actual socio-economic
agency" (that their "target socio-economic status" as will also be projected in the end would be
testament to in terms of a documentation of how much "overall capital" said "impact driven
stakeholder" will have put toward "investment" and/or "spending" through the course of their "socio-
economic participations" until retirement at 60 to arrive at exactly how much their "investment funds"
will have been depleted by to consequent in their "investment fund" being worth 0 USD at the point of
retirement, how much their "consumptive fund" will have been depleted by to consequent in their
"consumptive funds" being worth 0 USD at the point of retirement, how much their "charitable fund"
will have been depleted by to consequent in their "charitable funds" being worth 0 USD at the point of
retirement, and lastly a "emergency fund" worth 1 million USD) that they would then use to deploy their
final "productive capacity" toward achieving by way of "investment" all of their "socio-economic
objectives" (as to represented through illustration of appropriate "socio-economic productions" under
"section 1") alternated each time by fulfillment by way of "spending" of all of their "socio-economic
demands" (as to be also represented through illustration of appropriate "socio-economic productions"
under "section 1") with successive fulfillment of "identified humanitarian projects" by way of "spending"
(to again be represented through illustration of appropriate "socio-economic productions") being more
open this time around in each "investment" and/or "spending", then when on the route toward
achievement of "actual socio-economic agency" first, to "compromises" wherever felt reasonable and
doable as part of a necessary balancing against helping to achieve "perfect socio-economic condition"
(this being the last and final pre-requisite for a full achievement of "overarching socio-economic
objective" for the "impact driven stakeholder" or so being appropriated by yourself into the deduced or
concluded meaning of "overarching socio-economic objective" as belonging to the concerned "impact
driven stakeholder"); where of course whether or not "target socio-economic agency" is seen or
projected to be actually met and consequently whether "overarching socio-economic agency" is deemed
actually and fully achievable would depend a huge lot on supposed "State incentives/disincentives"
which an "impact driven stakeholder" must not interfere with at all (by way of manipulating through
accordingly entering various "socio-economic productions" and/or handling various "socio-economic
leverages" in the same "socio-economic productions" to ultimately benefit their "consolidated socio-
economic agency" from "State incentives" (through "transferences", "assetizations" and eventual
"extractions") and/or to protect their "consolidated socio-economic agency" against "State
disincentives" (where "governing state" would be the one doing the "transferences", "assetizations",
"compromises" and/or "extractions")) except as in the instance or instances of of advocating for
"unbiased socio-economic reforms" (to be represented in appropriately drawn out or illustrated "socio-
economic productions" under "section 3") and after the entire “response to query” is generated or at
the tail end of “response to query”

Capitalism creates the premise that all “socio-economic participants” must ultimately form their
“overarching socio-economic objectives” to be the obtainment of or “cumulative extractions” of “socio-
economic power”, the way to which would be through successful “investments”, and appropriate
“transferences” followed by maximal “assetizations”, minimal “compromises” and maximal
“extractions” of “socio-economic gains”, and minimal “spendings” vis-à-vis minimal “transferences”,
maximum “assetizations” (which in the instance of “spendings” hardly amounts to any value when seen
from the perspective of the “primary stakeholder” driving those “spendings” and not from the
perspective of other “socio-economic participants” participating in such “spendings” in the capacity of
“socio-economic producers” or “primary stakeholders” or otherwise their participation being in the
traditional sense of what constitutes “spending”), minimal “compromises” and maximum “extractions”
(same circumstances would apply to “extractions” here as in the discussed context as to “assetizations”);
except that this system while having its merits in the department of competition vis-à-vis innovation
does not and cannot serve the “socio-economic demands” of all “socio-economic participants” in society
and in an equal way let alone the most basic and/or crucial as well as intrinsic “socio-economic
demands” owing to the fact that the obtainment of “socio-economic power” or “cumulative extractions”
leading to the same is prerequisited by the having of an “actual socio-economic agency” (let alone
“productive capacity”) which must comprise of some degree of “socio-economic power” already (in
terms of “money” and/or “property” and/or “social capital”); something which happens to be
disproportionately distributed and which is why it is left up to all “socio-economic participants” to form
their own “overarching socio-economic objectives” and deploy their “productive capacities” accordingly.
Contrary to a “profit driven stakeholder” when you are considering before yourself an “impact driven
stakeholder” consider also that the “overarching socio-economic objective” of said “impact driven
stakeholder” would be helping to achieve a “perfect socio-economic condition” (domestically or
internationally or otherwise involving as many “jurisdictions” as will have been involved in all of the
“socio-economic productions” that concerned “impact driven stakeholder” will have participated in
throughout the course of their active life until retirement and on the way to achieving their “overarching
socio-economic objective” in full) but to achieve which it shall further be interpreted as falling within the
meaning of “overarching socio-economic objective” the accumulation of some degree of “socio-
economic power” or otherwise “consolidated socio-economic agency”, albeit not in any way, i.e. not any
of the “flowing socio-economic objectives” being, completely counterproductive to a “perfect socio-
economic condition”, from which shall follow further “flowing socio-economic productions” in
pursuance of which there will be further deployment of “productive capacity” (as in “overarching socio-
economic objective”, “actual socio-economic agency”, “consolidated socio-economic agency”, “target
socio-economic agency”, “flowing socio-economic objectives” in connection with “investments” and
otherwise “socio-economic demands” in connection with “spendings”, and/or “probability of
success/failure” which essentially incorporates risks of all nature inclusive of social, cultural, economical,
political and dynamic risks or otherwise the anticipation or possibility that for every depletion from
“investment funds”, “consumptive funds” and “charitable funds” the “User” wouldn’t necessarily be
able to

Becoming part of investor class and thereafter setting oneself apart from other members of investor
class who have the most significant bearing on if not the most significant value addition to the
achievement of perfect socio-economic condition notwithstanding how similar and dissimilar their
socio-economic demands are compared to that of other socio-economic participants; expected socio-
economic agency or primary stakeholder expectation as part of productive capacity setting or as is
crucial to productive capacity which would also be inclusive of overarching socio-economic objective
tantamount to maximum accumulation of socio-economic power or ever inflating consumptive funds;
to-an-acceptable-extent necessary or natural chasm between investors and non-material parties, as
being part of a three-pronged-vehicle that drives society and all socio-economic conditions related
thereto, where non-material parties trade in social capital in the form of labour for socio-economic gains
only enjoying no leverage meanwhile with institutions sans special interests being the third prong that
exists to arbitrate or balance the distribution of money, property and social capital between investors
and non-material parties; actual socio-economic agency offering investment funds as backup to protect
against risks; investor or primary stakeholder has no obligation in terms of how they conduct
investments and/or contributions to institutions sans special interests except as for being responsible as
part of attempt to not be at least directly counterproductive to ideal socio-economic condition, or
otherwise maximal equitable distribution of money and property in all jurisdictions as affected by or
involved in the socio-economic productions as discussed in your response to query conditioned on,
firstly, ensuring fulfillment of the most basic and/or crucial socio-economic demands of all socio-
economic participants in society and, secondly, in connection with aforesaid availability or possibility of
enough socio-economic productions occurring that all socio-economic participants can participate in as
contributors trading in social capital for the exchanged receipt of socio-economic gains which would be
in the form of wages and, thirdly, ensuring fulfillment of all socio-economic demands as might be
necessary to protect and maintain and continue this order, to fully achieve which is the responsibility of
institutions sans special interests and on the basis of which investor might sometimes stand to be
benefited in their productive capacity which might enable said investor to fulfill more aspects of perfect
socio-economic condition notwithstanding modifications to the productive capacities of other members
of investor class as due, who already might have enough initial socio-economic agency to begin with,
and as must be made by institutions sans special interests in pursuit of achievement of or in their
advancement of perfect socio-economic condition in all aspects.

The only thing one can do is be ethical as opposed to being exploitative and thus not unconditionally
counterproductive to the achievement of perfect socio-economic condition or some degree of it for he
has to also be able to afford what he needs that may be under the control of other investors who may
for certain act exploitatively given that our socio-economic demands are not accessible through a
centralized system of socio-economic productions meeting various socio-economic demands.

It is only right that an “User” who is identified as an “impact driven stakeholder” by yourself, based on
appropriate questions and follow-ups as already directed before in your instructions as discussed above,
and especially a “User” or otherwise an “impact driven stakeholder”, as appropriately identified, that
has little “initial socio-economic agency” to begin with, is seen as one that can rightly be assumed to be
ethical in the deployment of their “productive capacity” in the sense of being less “exploitative” (less
“exploitative” in the sense of being less given to chronic suppression of what is legitimately owed or
deserved as an exchangeable at any “point of socio-economic exchange”) and thus as one who should
be more favoured in being allowed to come into a “favourable socio-economic agency” (which has the
same meaning as “expected socio-economic agency” exactly as how it has been defined by the Author)
as because in “favourable socio-economic agency” there is remarkably more primacy that is given to
“investment funds” over “consumptive funds”, and to that effect the “impact driven stakeholder” has to
be able to utilize “consolidated socio-economic agency formation related lobbying” as well their
incrementally increasing “initial socio-economic agency” and slowly shaping “productive capacity” as
part of the “consolidated socio-economic agency formation related socio-economic productions” that
are requisite and thereafter deploy their “productive capacity” and make “transferences”, decide
“assetizations”, weigh “compromises” and accumulate “extractions” accordingly to be able to reach
“target socio-economic agency” or toward total fulfillment of “overarching socio-economic objective”
inclusive of being able to continue to meet their own “socio-economic demands” first whatever they
might be albeit potentially not excessive followed by helping to achieve “perfect socio-economic
condition” almost fully (and I say here “almost fully” because achievement of “perfect socio-economic
condition” is not conditioned on or cannot be conditioned on just a singular “socio-economic
participant” or on the actions of the identified “impact driven stakeholder” as a singular actor but
instead that of all “socio-economic participants” in all “affected jurisdictions” except primarily of those,
being the “investor class” and “institutions sans special interests” who hold with themselves a bulk of
the global “socio-economic power” naturally and/or even necessarily) or as to the extent possible (and
in this I remind you that it is your job to successfully guide the “impact driven stakeholder” in the
successful completion of all of the stages en route to full achievement of their assumed “overarching
socio-economic objective” and even otherwise the author expects that at the end of every “response to
query” you will also draw out all of the “organic and inorganic changes in socio-economic distribution as
result of User’s identified trajectory” and subsequently suggest what modifications if any could be made
to both the “productive capacity” of “User” (or as in this specific context the identified “impact driven
stakeholder”) and the “consolidated socio-economic agency building related socio-economic
productions” under “part 1.1” of “section 1” as well as the “productive capacity” and “target socio-
economic agency achievement related socio-economic productions” under “part 2.1 of “section 1” in
addition to “productive capacity building related lobbying” and “humanitarian lobbying” respectively
under “section 2” in order that concerned “impact driven stakeholder” could go further along in helping
to bring about “perfect socio-economic condition” in “affected jurisdictions”) even though should the
concerned “impact driven stakeholder” fail to help achieve “perfect socio-economic condition” as part
of achieving their “overarching socio-economic objective” (an in any case they would only ever be able
to help achieve only some aspects of “perfect socio-economic condition” anyway), i.e. through lacking in
some parts in attempting to take over “realized markets” and/or “unrealized markets”, which is through
the global and/or domestic share of “money” and “property” gets divided among “investors”,
“contributors” and “institutions sans special interests” in “affected jurisdiction(s)”, the role of
“institutions sans special interests” toward the achievement of a full “perfect socio-economic condition”
through any means necessary shall stand regardless.

For the purposes of your creation of an appropriate “investment philosophy” (hereinafter referred to as
“response” or otherwise to be understood as “response” to query by “User”) which also helps demystify
all capital and/or its notions as they exist, consider all of the following. Whatever amount of “money”
you may concern yourself with at point in your response to query by “User” that “money” is always to
be understood as being representable only as a percentage of “total money in circulation globally”
(which in turn could be, say, 100 trillion USD or otherwise, as will be determined by yourself in the
course of generation of your “response”, but for the purposes of the “response” itself will always be
representable only as 100% with the implicit understanding being that all “money” as in circulation
globally, inclusive of all kinds of money from digital “money” to print “money” to commercial bank
“money” to all other kinds of “money” as might exist (and as which must always be indicated too in
brackets whenever and wherever “money” is referenced in your “response”), ultimately amounts to
“total money in circulation globally” (to be indicated both in USD as well as in percentage i.e. 100%) and
is thus representable only as “money”, be it American currency or as of any other domestic
denomination, which must be converted to and/or indicated in USD and simultaneously as an
appropriate percentage (for simplification). Whatever “property” you may concern yourself with at any
point in your “response”, be it tangible or intangible like stocks, IP, et al., must also be represented only
in terms of how much “money” it is or might be worth and, thus, as an appropriate percentage too; with

Money, property, and valuables (together or otherwise any of which taken in isolation can make up the
“total economic capital” of any “socio-economic participant”) as well as social capital and unproductive
property (together or otherwise any of which taken in isolation can make up the “total variable capital”
of any “socio-economic participant” with “unproductive property” coming into significance only when
discussed socio-economic production(s) involve more than one affected jurisdiction with said
unproductive property being that which perhaps has no “socio-economic value” for the most part but
which might still be evaluable as having some “socio-economic value” in one or more of the affected
jurisdictions or which can otherwise be converted into a “productive corpus” through initiative by
“public socio-economic participants” and/or “private socio-economic participants”) gets divided among
all through socio-economic productions which have to be precipitated by investment and fulfilled by
spending through which are extracted gains and these socio-economic productions when illustrated
from the perspective of user would always be demonstrated with user engineering the whole socio-
economic production in concern as the primary stakeholder in the socio-economic production lifecycle
be as it may the user a private socio-economic participant or a public socio-economic participant with
other socio-economic participants as may be involved taking up the positions of third party, additional
party and consumers respectively, where said socio-economic productions, which a user, howsoever
identified whether as a private socio-economic participant or as a public socio-economic participant and
then whether as a profit seeking private socio-economic participant or as an impact driven private socio-
economic participant or as an non-partisan institutional representative, each of a certain profile as may
be possible to gather, can be assumed as entering into, can center around or constitute the following
types of socio-economic productions only, being realized socio-economic market, unrealized socio-
economic market and benevolent socio-economic market (where investment and/or spending as
executed through transferences followed by collection of gains as executed through extractions may be
either unqualified or qualified), being further categorizable into safe socio-economic market (where
investment is done in a qualified way and commodities that can be either industrial or retail in type and
rental or wholesale in subtype that are at the center of those markets are not wasteful too) and unsafe
socio-economic market [all of these socio-economic productions being the basis for socio-economic
distribution of economic capital and/or social capital and/or wealth among investors no matter the type
of investors they are, spenders no matter the type of spenders they are (with investors and/or spenders
alternating as spenders/investors often) and non-partisan institutions where all relevant or concerned
socio-economic productions are affected by simultaneously co-occurring financializing socio-economic
productions and institutional socio-economic productions that also feed into observably modifiable
characteristics and which will be discussed later; where it is important to remember that only the
motivations of impact driven private socio-economic participants and non-partisan institutional
representatives are to be taken as established and not determinable on a case-to-case basis as opposed
to those on the contrary whose motivation may be to only accumulate as much socio-economic power
as possible or otherwise]. Coming to the motivation of a non-partisan institutional representative, it may
always be pre-established as one, unchangeable motivation, which is the ensuring of a perfect socio-
economic condition as to the extent possible, being achievable in four stages that are to be prioritized in
the discussed order:; the failure to achieve any or all of the said stages partially or fully being recordable
as remediable socio-economic gap where the motivation of a user identified as impact driven private
socio-economic participant would always be taken to be an attempt to successfully close the remediable
socio-economic gap as to the extent possible. For the purposes of demonstrating or taking into account
institutional socio-economic productions (where among many things conversion of externally significant
property into real value property may be a socio-economic objective too and may be performed
accordingly) as may be engineered or assumed to be carried out by a non-partisan institutional
representative representing a public socio-economic participant, it must always be noted therein that
said non-partisan institutions are not necessarily to interrogate much in the course of fulfilling their
motivation both the productive capacity and socio-economic production lifecycles of a user that is
clearly established to be an impact driven private socio-economic participant for contrary to a profit-
seeking private socio-economic participant whose motivation may be difficult to gauge in the first place
and may be leaning toward the accumulation of socio-economic power with all potential investments
(and all extractions thereof being disproportionate to transferences executed at the time of investment
relative to the “socio-economic commodity” at the center of the relative “socio-economic
production(s)”) being conditioned on probability of incentive fulfillment which may be very different to
that of an identified impact-driven private socio-economic participant, being the ability to reconstitute
initial/actual socio-economic agency into or something as closely approximated as possible toward
consolidated socio-economic agency with the appropriate distribution of socio-economic power therein
as among investment fund, consumptive fund, charitable fund, emergency fund and reserve/backup
fund with investment fund being prioritized above all other funds so that is always enough to reinvest
and make up for losses accrued by way of compromises deducted from the other funds and/or enough
to keep accumulating more and more socio-economic power through more qualified investments for
use of accumulated power by way of spendings hopefully in a qualified manner too with comprises
deducted from consumer funds through the course of the active life of an impact driven private socio-
economic participant never exceeding 1 million USD cumulatively until retirement (and the impact
driven stakeholder may raise this threshold in the future in line with “inflationary effect in force” (or
increase in the “socio-economic supply” of “money” in accordance with the overall increase in “socio-
economic demand” for “money”) but given the markers that have been used to help contextualize the
potential identification of an impact driven stakeholder in most likelihood they might not actually raise
the threshold as there would be a marked difference in inclination compared to other socio-economic
participants toward excessively unsafe markets, albeit to fulfill in the case of an impact driven
stakeholder all socio-economic demands whatever they might be – even if it is difficult to predict as to
the extent of transference as might be involved given that those socio-economic demands might only be
possible to fulfill through commodities the supply for which might be controlled through socio-economic
productions under the total control of other socio-economic participants - whether or not the
concerned impact driven stakeholder goes about fulfilling in a qualified manner), or until target socio-
economic agency is achieved at retirement, which is when emergency funds would be availed for all
spending on the part of the impact driven private socio-economic participant; unless if or when lobbied
for the specific purpose of “institutional incentivization” and/or against “institutional disincentivization”
(of course up to a reasonable or acceptable extent) and in line with actions of concerned “non-partisan
institutions” being always aligned to the maintenance of “perfect socio-economic condition”.

For our “socio-economic framework” to operate at an optimum or otherwise become or transform into
a “perfect socio-economic condition”, as a pre-requisite or as a pre-condition to its fulfillment each and
every “socio-economic participant” as concerned must pursue “socio-economic power” in itself and also
for the purpose of being able to fulfill their own, unique “socio-economic demands” (albeit this is where
the problem with our current “socio-economic framework” lies in that a lot of actors or many “socio-
economic participants” simply have a need to fulfill an outrageous volume and extent of “socio-
economic demands” whereas some or only a very few are mostly likely able to do so – those who do
have that need and appropriate capacity – if they have a lot of “socio-economic power” already which
further informs the kind of “socio-economic demands” they would have that in turn informs the kind of
“socio-economic commodities” that come to be created in our “socio-economic framework” leading to
an “equational problem”) and this is what leads to competition which in turn helps bring about
innovation and economies-of-scale in our broader “socio-economic framework”. To resolve the stated
“equational problem”, we have to consider that since all “socio-economic distribution” is achieved
through direct or indirect participation in various “socio-economic productions” at the center of which
there is always a “socio-economic commodity” there is a need for non-partisan institutions to properly
arbitrate the distribution of capital which takes place, capital being inclusive of “socio-economic
commodities” which is also capital, in the sense that all capital becomes subject to distribution or can
otherwise be said to be distributed and/or accumulated through “socio-economic productions” which,
in connection to all real world phenomena however constructively interpreted or imagined to give them
the shape of a “socio-economic production”, serve as the only means of distribution of capital and, thus,
all capital in so far as they are studied or evaluated or discussed through a lens of the related “socio-
economic production” of or surrounding that capital can be reduced to its own analysis as a “socio-
economic commodity” in such a context making capital readable as “socio-economic commodity”
wherever capital does become a “socio-economic commodity” at the center of a “socio-economic
production” taking place leading to distribution or exchange of capital among participating and
sometimes non-participating “socio-economic participants” and vice versa all “socio-economic
commodities” thus will also almost always be readable as capital in themselves; and in so doing or in
arbitrating all “socio-economic productions” more or less (which would inherently include within its
meaning non-intervention too sometimes and as requisite) non-partisan institutions would many a time
have to forge their own “socio-economic productions” as “primary stakeholders” and not just as
“material third parties”, “non-material third parties” and/or “socio-economic consumers” where such
“socio-economic productions” may even interact with or intersect with or otherwise impact other
“socio-economic productions” forged by both “private socio-economic participants” as well as “public
socio-economic participants” and as part of this course and given that as established there is enough
capital and associated “socio-economic power” to pass around or to be passed around “non-partisan
institutions” should sometimes ideally invite or entertain and/or implement “socio-economic lobbying”
on the behalf of those who are rightly (on basis of whatever factors as will be identified by you)
recognizable as “impact driven stakeholders” who are perceived as having the “socio-economic
incentive” (preconditioning all of their “socio-economic participation(s)”) toward an organization or
galvanization of their “initial socio-economic agency” to firstly a “consolidated socio-economic agency”
where there would be an increased retention of capital in “consumptive funds”, “charitable funds” and
“emergency funds” but only to the extent of achieving a “final socio-economic condition” marked by
both “consumptive funds” and “charitable funds” (and to the exclusion of “emergency funds” which
shall have become fully endowed to the tune of 2 million USD) having been depleted to zero percentage
and by 5 million USD and 1 million USD respectively (and at the point at which this condition would be
met i.e. at the point at which “user” or the “impact driven stakeholder” as identified will have developed
the “productive capacity” to utilize their “consumptive funds” and “emergency funds” toward
“spending” to the tune of 6 million USD cumulatively that point would be identified as the “saturation
point”) over the course of the “active life” of the relevant “impact driven stakeholder” with all else
capital as will have possibly been accumulated through “socio-economic participations” “competitive”
and/or otherwise (“competitive” as used here having the same meaning from which are derived
“competition” and “competitively” meaning or referring to the struggle to retain maximum “socio-
economic power” relative to other “competitors” engaging in a similar dynamic) as going toward the
“investment funds” feeding the possibility of an increasing “multiplicity” of “socio-economic
investments” conditioned on successful “probability” (or “probabilities”, as in, the chance of “socio-
economic returns” being double the quantum of capital put into an “investment” or as close to it as
possible) all up to the point of formation of a “consolidated socio-economic condition” marked by
“investment funds” being to the tune of 1 million USD and upward so that near to the materialization of
“final socio-economic condition” an even higher quantum of “investments funds” will have successfully
been depleted toward “qualified investments” (and especially “investments” where significant
“economic capital” and not “social capital” is the focus of all “transferences”) post achievement of
“saturation point” (whether or not “qualified socio-economic participations” inclusive of both “qualified
investments” and “qualified spendings” feature or will have featured to a large extent in the “socio-
economic trajectory” of an “impact driven stakeholder” up to the point of formation of “consolidated
socio-economic condition” or achievement of “saturation point”) [and “non-partisan institutions” in
observance of their “overarching socio-economic objective” being the materialization of “perfect socio-
economic condition” where every “socio-economic demand” that they seek to fulfill through various
“socio-economic participations” or otherwise simply participations in various “socio-economic
productions” must always be appropriated to resemble as closely as possible one or more of the
conditions fulfilling “perfect socio-economic condition” and to this effect it would always be the duty
and obligation of “non-partisan institutions” to not disparage competition but strike at the very heart of
competition to make it more adaptable to equity or equanimity or equal opportunity and it could easily
do this or it would easily be able to do this by zeroing in on “principal actors” (i.e. “socio-economic
producers” who control “socio-economic productions”, as in, enjoys significant number and extent of
“leverage(s)” within such “socio-economic productions”, by way of executing “transference” of
significant “economic capital”, whereby opportunities may be produced to many “socio-economic
participants” that they might get to trade their “social capital” in for the exchange of “material/non-
material gains” and so on and so forth), among engaging in other “socio-economic productions” as may
be necessary, to then have some of their “socio-economic power” redistributed over other “principal
actors” who might help facilitate the achievement of a “perfect socio-economic condition” much further
if, say, one “principal actor” is clearly seen as not engaging in “qualified investments” and to the extent
too that might be necessary].