I have decided that i am going to start writing--Nate, the Old Man Blogging--tomorrow.  I still intend to use the early morning period of my day for "blogging", but i have also decided that i want to get a 2-mille walk in, coffee with the dogs out on the porch, and a little more than an hour or so in the pool, before i get to my writing.  We'll see how it goes, but just the same, the new novella is where i intend to focus my attention outside of my normal doings.

So with that said, i would like to mention a few things that i didn't want to end up being loose ends.

Starting with the 49.99% argument.  You must understand this is simply the most optimal mathematical approach for economic expansion (i.e., raising standards of living, quality of life, etc.).  It really does not tell the story of the people.  For example, giving the U.S. Bloc, 49.99% does not mean that the people in that bloc are "actually living better lives"--that measurement comes through the National Hierarchy of Needs part of globanomics.

That is a very important thing you must understand about globanomics.  I might not be the greatest mathematician in the world, but i sure do get the sense that it is the best solution--considering the fact that the U.S. Bloc already has more than 50%.

Globanomics is not just optimal from a philosophical standpoint, it is also optimal from a mathematical standpoint.  

And that is what makes globanomics better than any science before it.  It is always reaching towards the "optimal".

And that is why globanomics needs to be let out there.  The mathemeticians and the economists are not going to be able to tear it apart.  They may say it is a piple dream, but let them try and come up with a "more optimal" model for world operations--and they will default right back to me right away.  I am not afraid of taking on the mathematicians nor the economists.  I probably have most of the business types on my side (or could) as it is.

And what is wrong with thinking about "what would be required if purchance we wanted to create the "optimal world government"?  What could something like that hurt?

Economically and mathematically and morally, globanomics is superior to either finance (business) or economics.  Just the same you do need good finance and economics for globanomics to work well.  Poor economics or poor business weakens globanomics, so stupid problems should be kept to a minimum.  There is no financial or economic problem that cannot be solved in some way without panicking.  

Nations can maintain a level of culture as they desire in globanomics--somewhat using their currencies define how far they want to go.  For example, China can still be an important player simply based upon the number of people it has and the culture that it has over a myriad of years.  No one would be ruling China nor would any one try to tell China how they need to operate their country and economy; however, we could advise China what we think would work best for them in the long run.  (Would China understand the truth from the above?  That is something we do not know.  It would be a hard pill to swallow; however, i want to remind you that the Percentage Advantage that the U.S. has in the World Senate compared to China--is in fact, somewhat countered in the World Federation House where (China's population is about four times that of the U.S.  Although the U.S. has 49.99% of the Senate vote, the U.S. has only about a 5% vote in the House)

And it takes both Houses to pass any legislation.  Thus, the World Federation House is the "people of the worlds house".  The Senate is simply a reflection of economic and financial times.  The House thinks more in terms of making sure the National Hierarchy of Needs is being met.  The Senate tries to think how all the creative business and economic resources should be spent.  The two Houses will be required to work together through a series of "compromises", which always moves you closer to "optimality".