“REPURSURY,
How Slavery Evolved Into Usury Through Repurchase”

(Book Subject: Social and Macro Economics)

Sample Chapter:

The Birth of Repursury

The majority of economists mark as the singular major event in Modern Economics was the publication of “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith in 1776.  Most economists also shortened the title to “Wealth of Nations,” this is a blunt misstep in the understanding of Economics, because Adam Smith was pointing out to the patterns and not setting the bible for Economics, thus the insertion of word “inquiry” in the title of the book.  These patterns were all around Smith and he was pointing out the mechanics of it.  Since I did not learn Economics through the dogmatic bible of academics I have chosen a different day for the singular major day when Economics as we knew changed its structure from monarchies to corporations and multinational corporations.  The date is a singular paradigm in the ways economics were conducted henceforth.  The changes in economics, since this singular date I refer to, were noticed by Smith.

No Thanks to Smith: The Birth of a New Economy
There is a single event in history which births corporations as we know it and creates the platform for Repursury.  The day or the date of the consensus that usury through repurchase or Repursury it is a cleansed better sanitized model to slavery.  The singular date was December 31st, 1600 in which the adaptation of slavery got started.  After raising private capital for two years, the Earl of Cumberland and over 200 knights were granted a royal charter under the title “Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading with the East Indies,” by the queen of England on December 31st, 1600.  The name of this royal grant funded with private capital was later shorted to the East India Company or EIC.

The enterprise proved to be very successful to all parties except to the majority of residents from the India (Ecositron-2).  The EIC benefited from the profit of its gain, the British Crown benefited with taxes from the profit of the EIC; furthermore, the Crown benefited from lack of expenditure; in other words, it did not have to preoccupy itself with details of governance of India, all the details from then on was on private hands minimizing management from the behalf of the Queen.  The EIC grew so strongly in power and structure that soon began to run an enormous private army and taking over the ruling of India.  EIC forwarded the official control of India to the British Crown; nevertheless, it continued to run the nation as part of its enterprise.  The charter granted for almost two centuries the monopoly trade with the Thirteen British Colonies in the Americas.

The Repursury model was in its infancy.  The EIC charter model began to be copied by other nations and venture capitalists setting up multinational corporations; the United East India Company (Dutch model), in 1602, the Danish East India Company in 1616, the Companhia do Comércio da Índia (Portuguese model) in 1628, Compagnie Française pour le Commerce des Indes Orientales (French model) in 1664, and the Svenska Ostindiska Companiet (Swedish model) in 1731 when Adam Smith was 8 years old.  In concurrence with the charter of EIC, the British Crown began to grant covert license to privateers to raid ships of other nationalities, Dutch, French, Portuguese and Spanish trades (Ecositron-1) to guarantee supremacy and hostile takeover the competition, pun intended.  Once again the Queen did not have to preoccupy with micromanagement and liability after all these were private enterprises.  Most of these privateers were known as pirates, after finishing their years of services in piracy, some took government post under the Crown, like famous Welsh Capitan Morgan.  Admiral Sir Henry Morgan became lieutenant governor of Jamaica, the name continues to me immortalized as popular rum.   Others former pirates were knighted like Sir Frances Drake.  Along with piracy the privateers and other merchants started the slavery trade (Ecositron-2).

The First Repursury War
The evolution of the royal charter into a full blown international of commerce has been thriving for 176 years before the publication of Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.”  In fact, the year of the publication an interesting occurrence took place, the first Repursury War, and the first challenge towards a multinational corporation.  The plight of the American Revolution has been mislabeled because of bigotry (Ecositron-2).  Historians claim it was because of taxation without representation, but we need to follow the economic incentives for all of these changes.  The Repursury side of the revolution it is because the Colonies were repurchasing the same good, but the goods were coming at a non-negotiable cost.  The British Crown guaranteed monopoly power to EIC, so the Colonies had to pay whatever was the cost and profited decided by the EIC.

In the meantime, the wealthiest men of the American Colonies, Jefferson and Franklin were spending time in Paris; they were negotiating commerce with future French providers of goods to the Colonies, for when the monopoly of the EIC was going to be interrupted by the Colonies’ an effort still to be named as the United States Revolutionary War.  The leaders of the war against the first multinational ever created were the wealthiest George Washington as the supreme general and John Hancock twice president during the Revolutionary War.  This was not only the first Repursury War, but also the first hostile takeover the commerce from a nation on the behalf of French corporations in conspiracy with the wealthiest English subjects born in the American Colonies.  In other words, the French government was going to interrupt the monopoly of British merchants to gain and have first access in providing goods to the American Colonies.  Once again, looking from the point of financial incentive, which had the most to lose, the British Empire or the East Indian Company?  The line “Taxation without Representation” sound like a good motivator against people from other lands (Ecositron-2), but the taxes on a product are usually a small percentage of the final price, for instance from 5% to 15%.  However, the EIC had much more to lose than the amount of taxes it was collecting for England.  The EIC was also going to lose the monopoly of selling the goods from the Colonies to be shipped to England and Europe.

The merchants in the Colonies and French merchants were looking forward to do business directly with much more to gain in profit than negotiation with the English Crown via the EIC.  Here are questions where the answer must be economic incentive.  Why did the French help the Colonies fight its Revolutionary War against the British Empire for more than a decade?  Was it because the French hated the British, was it because it love the Colonists or was because it would be the main merchant with the Colonies for years to come?  Karma is an interesting energy, fast forwarding 225 years later; the United States invaded Iraq removing all the French corporations to monopolize commerce with Iraqis under American corporations.  To claim that the French was helping the American Colonies to fight for freedom makes as much sense as the United States wanted to free the people of Iraq.

December 31st, 1600 is a unique day because the Queen consciously or not, transferred government power to financial power.  Once the Queen had the ruling of the armies, later the corporations began to be essential to generate the income responsible for the taxes which provided maintenance to the Queen’s army; thus, a silent transfer of power in macro-accounting.  Today’s model is not very different, the power of multinationals or corporations ruling the White House, the fact that Merrill Lynch used to have a revolving door during the years of Reagan at the White House and this power has been transferred to Goldman Sachs is not a new enterprise.

The EIC had a much bigger interest in the profits made at the American Colonies than the British Empire.  When the American Revolutionary War started, it was defended with British soldiers.  However, the British soldiers were not enough to protect the interest of the EIC, so mercenary soldiers were contracted by the EIC through the British Forces.  Along the ranks of the British soldiers was a mercenary group called the Hessian Army.  The Red-Coats were the British and the Green-Coats were the mercenary army.  The mercenary soldiers were wearing green jackets giving them the advantage of camouflage.  I have tried to find a financial connection between the Hessian Army and East India Company to validate a point that the way that history is written is based on racism and bigotry, but the facts points that most wars were started on economic incentive.  To solidify my point will require a trip to the British Library, to wear white cotton gloves and touch verily old and yellowed papers.  However, Rodney Atwood in his book, “The Hessian: Mercenaries from Hessen-Kassel in the American Revolution,” published by Cambridge University Press in 1980 mentioned that “Britain found it easier to borrow money to pay for their services than to recruit its own soldiers.”  Mr. Atwood quote is loaded with financial interest.

Follow the Money
Let us follows the British financial interest and the financial interest of EIC by analyzing Mr. Atwood’s quote.  Why would the British Empire borrow money to pay for mercenary soldiers in the last quarter of the 1700s?  The British Empire was the richest rule and gradually overtaking the Spanish Empire back then.  It had more gold and silver than it would ever be able to spend on Indian tea.  Not to mentioned that it has been raiding the Dutch, the French, the Portuguese and the Spanish merchants for two hundred years with their covert pirate fleet.  Why would Britain borrow money when rented money is more expensive than its own reserves?  All the British Empire had to gain was a premium (as taxes) on the product sold, on the other hand, and the EIC had a chance to make 100% profit on the products sold and bought from the Colonies.  It makes more sense that the EIC gave money to the Crown so it would have more leverage in hiring mercenary units from German Princes.  The EIC would have loved to bring their own private army from India; however, corporations run a tight ship all private soldiers in India had their duties already assigned.

A scholar may say, “Mr. Sandy, these are loaded assumptions on extrapolations!  To say that the American Revolutionary War was not about patriotism, to say that the Colonists were actually fighting the first multinational corporation instead of the British Empire, you are exposing yourself to ridicule!”  In my defense, I was not born a cynic, I was born a patriot; unfortunately, the more I have read the more I began to see the hands of private economic incentive dictating connections to wars.  Everyone is conditioned with one set of history in kindergarten, one set in elementary, another while at the universities.  The financial bias is stripped away from history.  Why did the pyramids in Egypt started to be bigger or smaller depending of the dynasty?  Did the space aliens and their UFOs stop assisting the pharaohs of ancient Egypt?  Economics is the answer; the Egyptians pyramids peaked according to the human and material resources around.  Everyone forget to follow economics when they look in history.  I was doing a signing for my first title at a bookstore at the Las Vegas airport.  A potential client picked up my book and noticed the Egyptian motif on the cover and asked me, “Why did the Egyptians built the pyramids?” Without taking a breath I answered, “Because you cannot build towers in sandy soil, ask the Italians!”  I failed to validate his space alien theory; he placed the book back on the table and left without a word.

Conversely, money follows the laws of inertia and gravity, money does not follow patriotism without a financial reason.  I think the first author who turned me into a cynic, to place economic incentive to explain the real motive behind the outcome of history was neither a historian nor an economist, a Wall Street investor named Peter Lynch and the book was “Learn to Earn.”  Lynch and his co-author John Rothchild narrated the genesis of the American Colonies, how the pilgrims spent so much time bargaining for their crossing in Holland, that when they finally agreed on the barter, it was already too late for the crossing and most of them died during the first winter with no shelter and food.  Today we celebrate the rescue of the survivors by the local natives as the feast of Thanksgiving but the economic incentives behind history are rarely taught in school.

All Diamonds are Blood Diamonds
The British Empire began to grow a much bigger thanks to the grants given to private enterprises. Another private charter which expanded British territory was known as the British South African Company or BSAC.  Cecil John Rhodes became a villain in Africa and a hero in England.  Through political manipulation he started to acquire mining rights.  His rate of success was so great that eventually he began to monopolize the mining rights and even attach adjacent nations.  Along the charter he founded the corporation DeBeers and transferred to it his mining rights.  To gain on his business deals he entered politics and started passing law to favor his enterprises.  The Glen Grey Act of 1894 was to push native Africans from their lands for development.  To curtail the competition; Rhodes also it made more difficult and raised the requirement for mining rights.  Unsuccessfully he tried to overthrow the Boer government with led to the Second Matabele War and the Second Boer War.

The hands of private enterprise are to minimize cost and maximize profits.  Thanks to the Maxim gun the private enterprise no longer had to hire the Hessian Army.  One Maxim gun alone sputtering 600 bullet rounds per minute could do the work of many Hessian units.  The private corporation of BSAC lost about 100 employees in the First Matabele and the Maxim gun was able to mow down 10,000 Africans armed mostly with spears.  On the Second Matabele War there was the casualty of about 400 employees and the extermination of approximately 50,000 Africans.  Expanding mining operation required the invasion of nearby nation of Transvaal.  The British Empire scorched the farms of European settlers and pushed them into a concentration camp.  The final legacy of this British relocation was not very different of the Nazi Holocaust.  Over 27,000 civilians including women and children died of starvation and other diseases, is also estimated that over 100,000 Africans died in the name of diamonds.  The civilians were from different countries in Europe including United States but no subjects of the British Empire (Ecositron-2).

The film “Blood Diamonds” (2006), helped publicize the amount of death connected with diamonds.  In 1999 DeBeers started to guarantee that their merchandize are conflict-free diamonds.  Since there is no statute of limitation on murders, how can a corporation like DeBeers ever be conflict-free?  DeBeers was founded raised on the death of nearly 200,000 European settlers and Africans on its inception through the hands of its founder Cecil Rhodes or through his private charter called BSAC.  The more a person knows about history the less they want to touch the karma of diamonds, gold and silver touching their skin.

The Repursury Model
Multinational corporations have compiled vast amount of cash, they can lend money to other corporations raid nations on their own accord, provided they change the laws on the books first, and they do.  There was a secret meeting called the Energy Task Force in 2001, only in 2005 “The Washington Post” was able to obtain the list of participants, they were CEOs of Exxon-Mobil, Conoco, Shell, British Petroleum.  Following financial incentive, a secret energy task force involving the largest oil producers happens in 2001 and Iraq, a large oil producer, a member of OPEC is invaded with faulty and cherry picked information on March of 2003.  The reader can come up with his or her own conclusions following the three laws of Economics: incentive, incentive, and incentive, and not forget their biases called the Ecositronic Laws.  Now if the reader does not want to come up with their own conclusions they can read the report by Antonia Juhasz published on April 15, 2013 on CNN, the article is titled “Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil,” here is an excerpt of the article.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies.  A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.  From Exxon Mobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq.  So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.  Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007.  Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."  Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

Petroleum has been the most perfect Repursury product, a chapter called “Petroleum: Repursury Perfection” shows its adaptation in modern slavery.

Since the East India Company charter granted in 1600, business has evolved into a new model. Although economists like to claim Adam Smith invented capitalism, history shows that it is more likely that it was the Earl of Cumberland and his band of investors.  While Adam Smith only wrote about the patterns 176 years later the Earl not only wrote about it, he raised the money and lived it.  The Earl took two years to raise the capital on the riskiest venture of the time, two years earlier 1596, a similar venture with three ships were lost at sea while sailing to India.

It is not enough that I make a statement claiming that Repursury exists; I have to show the hidden pattern all around us and its evolution just like Adam Smith did in his claim of the “invisible hands.”  The evolution of the private enterprise since the joined venture of the Earl of Cumberland in the 1600s proved that monopoly is a profitable business.  Not only that, that usury can be hidden in the profit of a monopoly.  While usury is a stifling interest in a contract that guarantees that the principal will never be paid, Repursury is the implied monopoly that will never be stopped.  On a usury contract the permanent indenture is visible but on a monopoly the slavery is invisible (unless the monopoly is destroyed).

So profitable became the charters of Repursury granted by the business of monopolies that the British Empire decided to end slavery by 1833 (although the East Indian Company was granted an exception for another 10 years).  Slavery is not the most profitable enterprise because it has too many costs: the capture, the transportation, the clothing, the housing and the feeding of the slaves.  In contrast, Repursury (or usury through repurchase) has the main benefit of slavery, or profit and the management and expenditure are considerably reduced.  The Repursury insured through monopoly makes advertising unnecessary, because the buyer cannot shop around, yet there are the cost of maintaining the monopoly with hegemony or an army.  Repursury in a free market has the cost of advertising and competition. Let us examine both Repursury models:

Repursury through monopoly:
The East Indian Company brought all goods to the American Colonies; it made a profit regardless of the liking of disliking of its clients, the Colonists.  It had the cost of collecting taxes for the Crown and the cost of maintain a private army in India.  No cost of marketing, no cost in advertising, but it had the cost of capturing, housing, and feeding their enslaved workers.  In addition, the EIC had to have a staff or guards to torture and monitor the slaves as motivation or to maintain higher productivity.

Repursury through the free market:
Gone are the cost of the iron chains and others to keep the slaves in line under monopolies and slavery.  However, in the market place their will be a competition for market share.  The Repursury model under the free market place will spend a portion of assets on advertising, and mass conditioning to gain customer loyalty.  The iron chains have been abolished from wrists and ankles and essentially relocated onto the brains.  The expenditure of keeping the slaves in physical form has been transferred to advertising and conditioning to keep the modern slaves in concealed yet congealed form.

 

Biblical, European and Anglo-American Slavery
Repursury is a modernization of slavery, but we need a sidebar to also analyze the incentive for slavery.  In my previous book “Archetypes in Our Lives,” I explained the archetypes of slavery in modern lives.  There has been a racist connection to slavery in recent history convoluting the essence of slavery.  Slavery is not an enterprise from one race to another it is simpler than that.  When the rule of law is obscure the archetype of prostitution arises, in form of corruption for briberies or even the market for sexual favors; however, when the rule of law is radical or non-existent then slavery occurs.  Throughout history and since biblical times, there has been the recording of slavery in spiritual text and in books of fiction and non-fiction.

Genesis 16:  1) Now Sarah Abraham’s wife had not borne him a child. But she had an Egyptian slave-girl named Hagar; 2) so Sarah said to Abraham, “Here now, Adonai has kept me from having children; so go in and sleep with my slave-girl.  Maybe I’ll be able to have children through her.”  Abraham listened to what Sarah said.  3) It was after Abraham had lived ten years in the land of Kena‘an that Sarah Abraham’s wife took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to Abraham her husband to be his wife.

In Exodus 13:14  “In days to come, when your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ say to him, ‘With a mighty hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

In Genesis the Hebrews had an Egyptian as a slave, in Exodus it was the opposite.  Nations have been taking turn enslaving each other; slavery in history has been a punishment lighter than death.  Having superior army and technology asserts hegemony and slavery.  In the Iliad by Homer, shows that after a conquest the Greek Achilles took a Trojan as a slave, Briseis as his prize.  The Romans took the Greeks as their slaves and incorporated most of their mythology.

In biblical and ancient Europe slavery was not a racist condition.  However, when the English Empire entered in the business of slavery to expand its empire, they purchased slaves from warring tribes in Africa.  The strongest tribes were going to take over the territory and ship out their defeated neighbors to the English Colonies.  The skin color became an easy asset for the American-Anglo market and much easier to determine status quo.  Making racism the only connection to slavery is not showing a comprehensive scope of history; slavery has never been about race, but power.  Because of lack of physical power, females still fall victims of the slave trades because even today, with lack of education or language barrier, they are not able to free themselves.  DynCorp International is a private military contractor for United States; in 1999 during the Balkan War, DynCorp had employees taking minors as slaves and selling them to each other.  On September 11, 2011, the Newspaper “The Guardian” reported that five people were arrested for enslaving 24 men, the slaves were from England, Romania, and Poland, the enslavement camp was in Leighton Buzzard a couple hours north of London.  This side bar talking about slavery is to show that physical power has too much liability and expenses when it comes to slavery, and slavery is about power and power is acquired with profits.

Market Saturation
Private corporations and multinationals since 1600s and Earl of Cumberland realized that the lowest denominator is power.  The power of monopoly was providing more profit than slavery.  With usury and iron chains off the table, the power of profit had to evolve into a more refined process.  Repursury through monopoly provided the constant outlet for the transfer of profits to the monopoly holder.  What happens when monopoly is also removed from the table along with usury and iron chains?

In economics there is a condition which is called Market Saturation, when a city can no longer support another Starbucks, another McDonalds or another massage parlor.  The company will stop growing and if there are too many coffee shops, to many burger joints or too many massage parlors the price will drop and it will not provide a return.  Coffee, burgers and massage are items that a normal person could use from time to time; however for an investor, it is going to be very difficult to find growth.  A dear late friend of mine Pedro Rossi once said, “I would love to have a marina, have my boats, to be on the water, but I have a wife and kids.  It would take a great amount to invest, and in Cancun market is already saturated, my friends have marinas they cannot rent their boats and still have rent.  I’m from an Italian family you will always find us selling food, selling beverage or selling fashion.  So I had to compromise, I’ve chose beachwear because it is lower investment and gives me more flexibility.  I had a restaurant once, when you have a restaurant, you never have a day off.  I would be talking to you right now and worrying if all my staff arrived, if all the food stock is fresh, inventory for tomorrow, in sum never a day off.”  When I first met Pedro he would take electronics to Brazil in suitcases, return with the suitcases full of bikinis to sell in Miami.  Five years later, he moved to Cancun, from the ground up he raised a company with five stores, a factory, and fifty employees.  Provided the market is not saturated  food, clothing, beverages, funeral homes, mattresses, plumbing stores will never go out of business, they will provide a steady income, but they will not make anyone rich overnight.  Investors already know this fact, if anyone is entering a burger or coffee market it has to be better than McDonalds, and better than Starbucks.

How can an investor enter a market that will not reach saturation?  The answer is to produce a product that will require maintenance or replacement.  The American automakers never realized that they were making excellent cars until they started to find market saturation.  At one point every American family had a car and they had no need to replace it.  Many cars made in the 1940s, 50s, and early 60s were being passed down to one or two generations.  Then in the mid-1960s the cars began to have more mechanical problems.  At one point the American car makers made their cars so disposable that European and Japanese car makers had a chance to compete with cars that could last much longer.

This is the genius of Repursury and how most markets realized that they have to make an excellent product yet which will require eventual replacement so not to reach market saturation.  Here is a mathematical view of the slavery model compared with Repursury, from the point of view of the business owner on Box 1. It was sad and sickening for this author to have to gather the economics during physical slavery in the United States, what is import to keep in mind is that during slavery days slave masters were struggling to make a profit, in the best of times it was 18.5%, and at the worse sell their slaves in auctions.  However, the cost of slaves kept rising when after the British started to set blockades to free Africans kidnapped from Portuguese, Dutch and Spanish fleets.  Death in slaves was estimated as 9.1 per 1000 slaves; thus 1%.  Land lease and real property value was not accounted for.  Suffice it is to say that business venture during and after slavery are thrilled to keep a return on the investment of nine percent per year.  The most important thing to notice is that the cost of media and advertising during the slave economy was almost not accountable and in an economy or Repursury advertising is instrumental in creating virtual chains to keep the product from reaching market saturation.

Box -1

Source for this data:
“The Economics of American Negro Slavery, 1830-1860” by Robert Evans, Jr.
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
“Economy of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South” Conrad and Meyer

To look at the chart from the point of view of the two economies under slavery and under Repursury we need to set up some mathematics derived from the cost of living in a life time of a worker in the United States.  A global model will be difficult to establish because each country has a different cost of living and a different social structure.
For instance the medium average income of a worker in the United States as of May 2012 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics it was $45,790.00.  On Box 2 are the main expenditures of the United States Citizen per annum.

Box 2

The goals of Repursury are slavery and also keep repurchase of the product which will guarantee that the investors or the modern slave owners will never drive their corporation into market saturation.  Here are a few examples of the mechanics of Repursury.
Example one Tobacco Repursury Model:
According to the American Lung Association, a heavy smoker will smoke 25 cigarettes per day.  So we are going to keep 20 per day or one pack of 20 per carton per day.  The same association mentioned that the national average cost of a pack in 2012 was $5.51.  A smoker may have a lifetime of addiction for 40 years so here is the economics of Repursury.

Example of Tobacco Repursury Model:

5.51 x 365 days =  $2011.15 per annum
2011.25 x 40 years =  $80,446.00 lifetime expenditure (cash, no interest accrued)
45,790 – 12,683=  $32,927.00 (Average income – Cost of Living= Disposable Income)
$32,927 /365 days = 90.21 (Daily Disposable Income)
80,446.00 / 90.21 = 891.76 Days of Repursury in a lifetime or 2 years, 5 months, 9 days and 6 hours.

The Tobacco Addiction Model shows that an average smoker will spend approximately two and a half years working exclusively as a modern slave of the masters of the tobacco industry.  In the old days the slave master would have to worry about the enslaved cost of living, but in modern economy the slave has the illusion of freedom and worries about his own cost of living.

After the car industry realized that they had to make the cars disposable as soon as the loan was paid off to keep the market from saturating, it insured the Automobile Repursury Model.  In an average work life of forty years, we may assume that an American citizen will have to keep replacing his car for at least 30 years for commuting to work.

Example of Automobile Repursury Model:

$3477 per annum x 30 years = $104,310 lifetime expenditure (cash, no interest accrued)
$45,790 – 12,683=  $32,927.00 (Average income – Cost of Living= Disposable Income)
$32,927 /365 days = 90.21 (Daily disposable income)
$104,310 / 90.21 = 1156.30 days of repursury in a lifetime or 3 years, 2 months.

The Automobile Repursury Model shows that an average worker will spend just over three years exclusively as a modern slave of the masters of the automobile industry.  The new vinyl smell of the car upholstery is the hook for another few years of slavery.  Below is a macro view of the Repursury model against the old slavery model.  Depending of the point of view, it has been claimed that the life of a slave in the field was 9 years before his death with no days off 18 hours per day.  Others claim that the longevity of a slave depended of gender and tasks referring that the Negro enslaved lived for 36 years.  Since 15% never arrived alive at destination the figure for average life of a slave will be accounted as:
9+36= 45, thus 22.5 average, minus 15% loss = 19.125 years, or round up for 19 years.  For the sake of convention the population of slaves in 1860 was 4 million and the population of the United States in 2010 or the last census was 309 million. Eliminating 1% as the elite of the US population it leaves 306.91 million was the working or the class submitted to Repursury.

Box 3

Before the reader pulls out the calculator, this author wishes to say, that this are a very crude numbers.  It is not 99% of the population that purchase cars or car insurance, it is not 99% of the population that has a 4 years college education; notwithstanding, estimating a life of slave into 19 years is also using a crude assessment.  This gross estimate it is an approximation of Smith’s per capita model and allows us to have a macro-view in the economics of one model versus the other.

[End of Chapter Sample]

..........Bayardo Sandy

..........6990 Paddington Way

..........Las Vegas, NV 89147

..........Office: 702-989-9996

..........Mobile: 702-410-0474

..........bsandy@bsandy.com

..........www.bsandy.com