Percentage As You Earn   (%PAYE)

Finance and Finansurance of Human Investments (HI)

Research for Dissertation - 1978
The more recent version will soon be available
​Daniel Brake d'Avignon

  Page 1

Creating The Uncommon Man -
Management Lessons Gained from Historic Uses of PAYE Finance

When America was young it had financial reasons for being a creative nation. Mirroring those reasons, our language did not include the word "crisis".  Instead we used two words:"danger" & "opportunity". Today that might be a good semantic suggestion to those who perpetually accept "Education in Financial Crisis"

"Decision-making in the face of uncertainty" is what several modern fields of study seek to  achieve.                                  
Econometricians, statisticians, and financiers, should have a fine culmination of purpose in Percentage As You Earn (PAYE) finance management.       Additionally, the inventiveness of futurists, gained from the insights of historians, could supercede mere management with major direction of PAYE finance initiatives.  Words, terms, names, and ideas from long ago can be of use to us today.

Today's business management, however, seeks only to show us how knowledge effects decisions; not the other way around.                                     

Modern businesspersons are largely paralyzed when confronted by"human-investment": first, because they forgot how to do it well; and second, because today's conventional finance does not know how to account for all those people whose only collateral is a willingness to use brainwaves, heartbeatsp and opposable-thumbs.
Thus, Education is the biggest undeveloped market on earth.

There are billions of individuals who want to change their destiny with tools in hand and in mind.   More importantly, they are willing to pay for the opportunity to acquire those tools for making a living.  Most of the world's population is today composed of more young people than the world has ever seen before.                    Yet a few centuries ago there was a comparable population explosion in Europe, and the debtors' prisons were full to brimming.        

Installment payments on a fixed schedule could not cope with real-life then, anymoreso than now.        

So decisions were made that changed the knowledge of "the way the world is", and developed a New World.
The sophisticated historical uses of PAYE finance can show us how to abide by the ebb and flow conditions of an unknowable future. We can be thankful that 375 years ago some courageous souls looked across the Atlantic Ocean, and made the calculated risk to sail on the high tide to an uncalculated wilderness.

SUMMARY -- Section Two

Historical Lessons Learned for Today & Tomorrow's PAYE Finance

The search for some other examples of PAYE finance, more satisfactory than recent small-scale educational ex eriments, led to the di cove J of entire business cultures composed entirely of income-contingent interactions.
               The wisdom gained from this effort will avert eleventh hour groping for ways to solve high-volume operational questions; but more important, these moral examinations of great nations' beginnings illustrates how we can advance our imaginations to improve the world we live in today through PAYE finance.

What have we learned from these historical probes in a practical sense?

  • Decision-making under conditions of uncertainty, is a reality in business, and can finally be dealt with profitably by PAYE finance.

  • Redeeming the value of a good or service on contract with a redemptioner, offers a continuum-of-contact that enhances PAYEment of debt.

  • We've learned three ways to Pay & reward the management & employees of  an enterprise whose product/service is offered for sale via PAYE finance.

  • If the percentage-PAYEment is in goods instead of money, then arbitration agents may be required; and they too can be made available on an income-contingent retainer.

  • When a reliance on trust is specified to all parties; then it is more costly to run audits, discount PAYEments in exchange for invasions of privacy,&run investigative procedures. Operations that can range from mundane to extremely high-risk will all adapt nicely to income-contingency, when you honestly have little knowledge about how effective your product/service will be with some customer over the long-haul or on a longshot.

  • Overtime, the continuum-of-contact will certainly let you know how effective your standards of excellence are.

  • When in the hands of a well-defined capitalist free-market, PAYE finance safeguards investors, customers, and entrepreneurs from fraud and theft.

  • Whenever volitional human-investment is in direct competition with vaguely defined State-run PAYE finance, then the free-market will win for the benefit of more people than the advocates of public-interest ever hoped to help: refugees, tyrannyfighters, explorers, artists...

  • Income-contingent finance is impervious to wheelbarrows full of inflation.

  • PAYE finance could be resistant to bankruptcy proceedings.

  • If the information gathered to calculate the percentage-PAYEment & period identifies the real values of all parties and the econometric values of their environment; then the percentage price will always make sense over time.

  • PAYE finance's price set on contract for goods/services,whether rendered in the past, present, future, or on retainen will offer excellent monetary rewards if the goods/services were, are, will be, or still are worthwhile, PAYE finance's one weakness is that the backlogged desire for opportunity by so many poor people might inundate early capital,  Yet there is hope, PAYE finance will quickly release so much creation of wealth for everyone by everyone involved, that Earth could sign a new lease on life.

Page 3

 Historical Inquiries by Brock d'Avignon
Into Highly Evolved Organizations Entirely Founded Upon
Income-Contingent Percentage Payments

How did European Merchant-Adventurers' early American development companies stop slavery and end indentured servitude in New France, New England, and New Amsterdam?  350 years ago, how were impoverished refugee "Redemptioners of Debt" enabled to become "Entrepreneurs", in order to pay for expensive tools and trans-oceanic passage capitalized by "Merchant Bankers"?

How did indigenous tribes of North America peaceably lease farming rights, water rights, transit rights, hunting rights, and fishing rights to conserve resources and to preserve sacred grounds for non-use by settlers to the agreements?

How did 792 stockholder-owned privately armed warships set sailors' incentives to capture over 3,100 British Empire vessels during the American Revolution? In contrast, besides cannonballs, could higher income-contingent ·rates charged by the new Continental Navy on prize vessels, account for why there were merely 64 State tax-supported ships outfitted; and of those, why only 3 were operable at war's end?

Why did 517 American Privateers and 23 U.S.Ships in the "War for Free Trade and Sailors' Rights" define 20 onboard functions to be paid as percentages of a percentage of crew­ income? Within each function, why was the number of specialists conveniently variable?    How were three "merit pay" functions paid out of the 2/20ths of the captain's purse for accuracy, ingenuity, and gallantry?

How did early American Title Company Courts in competition with each other, advance principles of justice and mercy beyond English Common Law?  Why were income-contingent fees and fines the basis of pay for judges, advocates, and jurors?

How did Mountainmen leverage best market rates for equipment in isolated rendezvous with Trading Companies' middlemen "Bourgeousie"? Why did young "Pilgrims" learn to pay a full, honest, agreed percentage of pelts for their training, traps, and grubstake?

How did econometric charging methods of old country doctors result in providing balanced preventative health care, and curative medical care to rich and poor alike?

Why did the first 5-year plans of the Bolsheviks include a return-on-investment "tithe" to the Supreme Soviet from the factories it capitalized?     How did this non-Marxist concept bail-out dis-incentives of mono-item production and quotas, to result in a ±6% annual Gross National Product rise average between 1917-1961?

How could tithing be separated from church-owned colleges' tuition-subsidies to the advantage of tithepayers, students, and universities?  How could tithes and offerings capitalize re-employment reserve systems using income-contingent repayment?:

The Welfare/Workfare System of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Historical Probe #1

Merchant-Adventurers and Redemptioners of Debt
Defeat Indentured Servitude and Slavery

How was it that impoverished ocean-crossing migrants were enabled to pay for expensive tools and sea-passage to a rough-hewn paradise known as America?

At the back of a large 100' X 400' Meeting Hall & Title Court of Merchant-Adventurers, in one of the several small rooms called "chambers of commerce", some men met 350 years ago.                                                                                  They discussed their tested beliefs in the "advent" of a new age. 
They hadbeen the first to "venture" their capital to equip the first privately financed colonists to the New World. 
Twenty-five years previous they had been among the 659 merchants and 56 companies that incorporated themselves in the title court just beyond their chamber door as "The Virginia Company of Adventurers of London". Their ships, Discovery, Susan Constant, and Goodspeed, had first sailed in the year 1609.

Their colonists had landed, unbeknownst to them, in what was a malarial swamp that killed 6,000 of the first 7,000 colonists.
They named the place after their king: Jamestowne on the Chesapeake. The Virginia Company had been accused of mismanagement by the Crown, for it was unthinkable so many would have died for any
other reason.  The King used the death-rate of"his subjects"as a rationale to nationalize the colony that had nevertheless survived.

       This misfortune was the latest in several for the trader-investors in Virginia; yet they had noticed two positive trends in their effort, and had made two wise decisions.
The first decision was to stop trying to control the behavior of indentured servants by 3-year full-time labor contracts.                                       

          It was a situation not only unprofitable for all parties, but an alternative had been glimpsed. 

         The Company had inadvertently  encouraged laziness and/or routine running away from untenable agreements, not to mention running away from the colony.  The frustrated choices of the indentured servants, meant subsistence level conditions for the servant, and virtually no productivity for the Company.   The problem's severity was made known through the first group of indentured colonists, now on their own, who in comparison to their previous work seemed enlivened.
           These ex-servants had even accumulated enough investment capital to "sponsor" through the Virginia Company more immigrant laborers willing to sign an indenture.
            Recalling their own past laziness, the sponsors didn't like having to become an overseer, or to hire one; but they did, which required an undue amount of time and emotional strain.

          By accepting "business as usual", persuasion yielded to impulsion, which deteriorated into coercion.  Hot-branding fugitives on the hand with an "R" for "runaway" was a cruel penalty permitted during the first two years by English Common Law to "protect the property rights"of the sponsor.  Worse yet, slaves, brought to Virginia in 1619 by monarchal investment, were defined by the title courts under Crown pressure as "those who had lost the right to own property, especially that of their own body". The possessive words belied the fact that the judge understood the meaning of the word "mine". Productivity sunk even lower.  Yet one bright spot in the adventurers  bleak ledgers showed them a profitable alternative to indentured employment difficult to organize from across the sea, in addition to violations of human rights making work-committments difficult to honor.

           A thorough study of the Jamestowne era causes this researcher to deduce a series of events which must have occurred there as follows:
                 Some of the adventurer/sponsors built fine brick homes in the tidewater swamps, lived a short time, and succumbed to the mosquitoes. Their numerous laborers' indentures were willed to another colonist.
                 Since 6 out of 7 sponsors died like everyone else, there was a lotof probate court attendance and a lot of re-location of indentured servants. 
                 The moving about from place-to-place required new lodgings for the newly bequeathed contract-laborers. To build the housing and enlarge the food supply for the new servants, cost a season°s worth of their valuable time.                           One fine day, a case was brought before a title company's probate court judge. 
                 A judge who had probably been an indentured servant himself years ago.

           Quite probably, a new owner of a bequeathed indenture "ungratefully" objected to feeding and lodging a laborer who was obligated to stay for only a short time before his/her contract expired.  Instead of releasing the contractee, the new owner of the indenture wanted a refund from the Virginia Company.  The Company, which had enough employees, objected on the grounds that they had delivered the servant to American ground, and it was no longer their problem.

              The Virginia Company might have admitted that all the "moving about" was wasteful to the Company's eventual interest in productivity, but the case was submitted to arbitration.  Both parties were represented at one of the several private title courts, but so also must have been the indentured servant in question.      
               The wise title-judge must have asked the indentured servant how much time he/she had left to work 100% of the time for the new owner of the indenture.   The indentured servant's reply was most likely one year. The judge then asked the contractee hypothetically: If he was to become his own freeman again, would he be willing to "redeem" his debt over two years, paying-off with one-half of what he produced on his own?---or over 4 years with a quarter of what he produced?--­ or over ten years with a tithe?        The unknown laborer preferred to become an entrepreneurial "redemptioner", and agreed to monetarize his immigration debt as a percentage of his income.
             The owner of his full-time labor contract renegotiated it to a long-term 7 year monetary contract allowing the "redemptioner" to work on his own.
             In his own self-interest, the redemptioner would incidentally earn an income-contingent amount of some real worth the the ex-sponsor.
            American ex-sponsors quickly hired their "released" ex-servants, if the redemptioner didn't head west to farm. 

            The Virginia Company0 s ship &   dock agents noticed that the redemptioners were suddenly more productive working for themselves, than the indentured servants were while working on similiar tasks  for others.                                        Many servants declined offers to become redemptioners; they preferred "to get the three years over with" under the guise of enjoying the minimal effort expected of them.  However, indentured servitude died as rapidly as it could. 
            Redemptioning debt by a monetary percentage of goods was encouraged by the merchant's shippers and the Virginia Company itself in new original redemptioner contracts. The word "indenture" means an agreement in writing, usually in duplicate, the parts originally being notched or cut so as to perfectly match to each other.                              Redeeming debt also had its contracts in an indenture format; but what was being indentured was now goods & money, not flesh & blood.  

                                                                                     Immigration began in earnest.

           The second decision that the adventurers in London made was to invest their money in "redemptioners" in different territories. Tracing the trend leading up to this decision, answers the question about where our wise title-judge got the idea for redeeming debt and why it was so readily accepted.                     
            This financial phenomenon began to blossom about the time of the chaos caused by the King's usurpation of the title company's charter to the adventurers, and his designation of the place as the "Dominion of Virginia".

           The King's men had fomented a conflict with the property rights of the"Indians", much in contrast to the way the Virginia Company had always peacefully "settled" problems.             
          The Company considered itself both physically and morally vulnerable, the Crown did not. The Indians had retained ownership of the land but sold (to the various title companies, the Virginia Company, and individuals) various water rights, hunting rights, transit rights, and farming rights.
           A mean spirit grew among the servants obesiant to Crown Dominion against not only the independent Indians, but the Virginia Company freemen's dominium.             
       The "savages" land claims were ignored when the Crown declared that whatever lands were granted to a "sponsor" (a King's vassal for instance) as a "headright" of 50 acres for each indentured servant or slave
imported; then that land was to be the sponsor's territory and should be fenced in or marked accordingly by their bondservants or slaves.
          The policy resulted immediately in 189 deaths by Indian retaliations.
The strength of the idea for"redemptioning debt"can be discovered within Bacon's Rebellion of 1675, the first American Revolution to"secure liberty and genuine property rights•:  

            Unfettering the freemen's dominium (the right to acquire or dispose of property by one's own personal will in league with another's free will) was to be attempted against the King's warped sense of property (race) rights. Crown pressure on the title courts to "act in the publick interest" meant of course, the Peerage's financial interest.
Nathaniel Bacon led a revolt against the King's policies.          
            His popular support came when the remaining private backers of the colony withdrew their capital.  Being alone on an uncharted shore
was not comfortable.  The merchant-adventurers feared a severe Indian uprising such as "mysteriously" ended Sir Walter Raleigh's Roanoke Colony. 
           Since treason wasn't on the list of crimes against specific individuals that were alleged in title company courts, a Crown court had to be created by the new Royal Governor. 
           The American populace began to understand the difference between the way they decided justice and the way the government decided who was a criminal.

           The violent judicial competitor to the title-court judges,did not use income-contingent court fees!    Stacking the King's wealth and commonwealth up against Nathaniel Bacon's income was just not to be done in the American manner.                    
            Bacon was executed by the King's men in that Crown court. His crime: following the King.
           In tandem with the development companies, the colonists had evolved a new system of justice not dependent on the precedents of English Common Law, nor Parliment, nor the Crown.                    
            They did their own thinking.              
            They had left establishments behind, memory was short, and their need to settle disputes was rather immediate.  Early on, two claimants came upon the idea of hiring a wise man to decide an arguement.   The wise man asked each of them for an equal percentage of their income to render judicial services and to insure their seriousness.                    
            The method was accepted by all parties, as was the judge.    Going into business as a judge was as typical as being asked to be a judge.  Court records were essential to many decisions, so property-title companies were formed by a group of judges.
           Title companies began deciding everything from trademark disputes to property lines.  The code-of-the-duel died as justice could be obtained quickly.        (A six-gun society returned 200 years later west Of the Appalachians only when the U.S. Land Office decided cases not by who was there first, but by the elusively defined "public interest".)
         The early regional title companies used moral suasion against "copycats" and "claimjumpers" by throwing the title to all that the offenders owned into question,until the judgement rendered was honoredc          Their judgement was ignored sometimes until a loan was needed, or the timely sale of goods mandated the old "lien" against
their property or actions be paid.  Private judges had to be honest, or they weren't hired again.          If the judge accepted difficult cases that could make him unpopular or unemployed; then he simply charged a higher percentage-of-income from the disputants.                            

         Thus, the title-companies' court costs were applied with equal weight on rich or poor.                         

       The income-contingent court fee made the judges self­ interested in the case,but in a balanced manner.  Besides, the judgement rendered could easily change who was rich and who was poor. No temptation to side with the status quo was felt, and the judges even stayed awake.      The Indians liked this order too and only peace reigned until King Charles decided to reign.   

      Americans perceived Justice as possible only as a function of income-contingent court fees.   This required disclosure of disputants' income levels, and sometimes disclosure of sources of income (since patent & trademark cases revolved around such information).            

       This lack of privacy was supposed to be kept confidential to the judge & jury, but wasn't in reality.           To solve that objection in some small towns during the late 1700's, an impersonal retainer fee percentage was paid to the title companies. Therefore, the judge & jury would not likely know the wealth of the disputants, unless it was material to the case.             

       In the large cities, disclosure caused scoundrels a problem, since revealing sources of income could mean ruin for both, far worse than losing a mere court case.   Such openness chilled some litigation, but caused a different problem.   In reverting to a duel, only one scoundrel would lose the case.             

      One such infamous duel was fought between two such charlatans, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr; both had much to lose in open court. They settled their differences in a manner not generally thought well of, since it was assumed both had something to hide; and they did. The death of Hamilton cause a new look at impersonal ways to pay for courts.  The afterthought creation of the U.S. Court system was one such impersonal solution to maintaining anonymity of income.                         

       The intermediary solution of the title companies, so obvious in small towns, was simply co-opted by the Federalists' taxes for places of justice.  Impersonal retainer percentages never came to be practiced by the title companies in the large cities as should have been.  For this belated reason of privacy, private courts ceased to be.

       Today, "equal justice for all" lacks its original competitive economic support and income-contingent foundation.  Largely empty traditions of heritage occupy the benches in modern tax-supported courts that maintain a monopoly of force.  The hallowed American sense of justice that grew for nearly 150 years, was hollowed by the Federalist coup of 1787. The countervailing response to its Constitution was made by jurists like Thomas Jefferson & Patrick Henry.        Their Bill of Rights was a brilliantly simple expression that wrote the complex free-market foundations of the earlier order into law. What were interested judges' arbitration codes, became dutiful disinterested judges' legal codes.          What was once emerging as functional freedominium, devolved back into common English liberty under law.

      In the fertile ground of 17th century experiments in justice, the increasingly sophisticated American land development companies decided also to grow freedom in the face of Europe's monarchs.

      In North America the Crown of England founded more colonies from Virginia south through Georgia with slaves, inmates of debtor prisons, and criminals released to open coventry.     Meanwhile, adventurers formed new colonization efforts strategically complimenting King William's cynical "religious tolerance" in an effort to rid England of strange Separatists from the Church of England.         

      For instance, the "proprietary colony" of William Penn was well supported, as others          were, to block Crown encroachment to the north.   However, the adventurers preferred to establish "corporate colonies" with the financial theme that they stumbled upon in the title company courts.  The Company of Adventurers of England Trading Into Hudson's Bay, The Company of Canada, The Company of One Hundred Associates, The Dorchester Company, The New Netherland Company, The Company of the West.•.all began using income-contingent finance, then called redeeming debt (& what this author today terms Percentage As You Earn finance).

      Redemptioners were so productive with their self-directed lives and their tools mortgaged only on their sweat, that within 20 years neither indentured servitude nor slavery existed in New England, New Netherland, or New France.     It just wasn't profitable when there was a better way.with contracts made in freedom.             

      During the next century, the only trend that overshadowed immigration of laborers by a factor of 20 to 1, was the fantastic American birthrate. The parental participants facetiously named their own development of young farmhands as "going into labor".                                        

      Yet the most popular adventure other than babymaking, was the one where the investors asked about the same percentage-of-income from emigrants as God & the Church of England: ten percent, but usually for only seven years. The great cities of seaboard North America stand today as testimony to the efficacy of PAYE finance.

      On the other side of the sea, distant management, if it could be called management at all, was made feasible by what the French called "entrepreneurs" who dealt with the agents of the development companies.            An agent negotiated the amount of goods accurately representing a percentage of the entrepreneur's harvest or craftsmanship.   Arrangements were also made to stack it up on the docks.  The "bound" or indebted goods from redemptioners' "PAYEments" were spoken of as "bound for England" or some other destination.  Tools for American redemptioners were equally "bound" for America in trade. This word evolved from the agent's bookbindings of copies of the indentured contracts, not chains on people. These notched records were important, because the burden on capital was emmense, and every participant's percentage kept investment coming to new immigrants.        

       Outfitting and landing miners on the Moon would be as significant today as this human­ investment was then. The cost of these early American "PAYE financed" colonists can still be measured by the fact that such a level of immigration by enterprise has as yet been unequalled in the annals of history.  It was worth it then and worth it now.

       Redemptioners energized England with a commercial might far above the static centralized economies of France and Spain that rested upon taxation and conquest.   Yet England's internal economy was not based on any form of "PAYE finance".      Within 150 years, it paled by comparison to the American colonies' creation of wealth per capita. Noticing this phenomenon, a one-year-off-the-boat immigrant from England named Thomas Paine wrote the booklet, Common Sense, identifying the new-found strengths of Americans and encouraged their independence.     Three unfortunate British financial trends led to that booklet's publication and caused George Washington at Valley Forge to thank Paine for explaining what his troops were fighting for as well as what they were fighting against.

      American commercial success led to a decline in Crown excuses for condoning British Seahawks preying upon Spanish galleons full of precious cargo stolen from the "Indians" to the south.      So much of that secondary piracy had issued from North American ports, that the Spanish milled dollar was the primary hard specie base in British America. (Monetarizing debt on a percentage basis was made easier by the fact that the Spanish dollar was the only unit of currency figured on 100 cents).   

      For a century, Americans had been taught "privateering" ostensibly for their coastal defense; Paine encouraged American warship construction on page one of his treatise. A British tax-supported navy evolved to replace Elizabethan Seahawks in the next era of history.  His Majesty's Navy, to justify its existence, was to tempt British business into the foolish use of force to "protect" their trade from their own colonies' success. Claiming the Admiralty could enlarge commercial coffers (for a larger tax-base), the Navy's heavy lumbering warships were built to police the seas for the sake of the slow Merchantmen.  Along with "protection" of "home island jobs", went military draft (tavern style) conscription.           As more taxes were enacted to  support the militaries' promises, the average British Subject demanded equal tyranny under law, especially regarding impressment of Americans.    "Mercantilism" would cause them to lose their colonial trading partners.      Enforcing legalized monopolies, created an American nation of smugglers who built fast ships to outrun revenue-cutters.  John Hancock, among others, owned not a few.

      History wonders how the world 0 s wealthiest island nation with the most powerful army & navy could be beaten in two wars by rustics. Victory depended upon landlubber Americans who had learned the value of "PAYE finance" to combat the high risks of farming. 

      The English land development companies' relative importance faded away during the Revolution, but not "PAYE finance". 
      There are many management lessons to be learned from the logs of American Privateers who floated on income-contingent "rePAYEment" for the risky use of stockholders' ships.

Historical Probe #2

Privateers' PAYE Financed Defense of Free-Market America

        Once upon a time, 792 stockshare owned and privately armed rebel warships set sail against their government's barriers to free trade. Over 3,100 of His Majesty's vessels were captured or destroyed by American Revolutionary warships entirely outfitted and operated with Percentage As You Earn (PAYE) finance.  Joining the fray to end the Crown's legalized monopolies, the Colonial Burgesses and later Continental Congress taxed or printed enough money to finance in a similiar manner 64 republican warships.          
        On 15 April 1775, four days before the Lexington Commons and Concord Bridge Battles, the Massachusettes State Ship Tyrannicide hoisted anchor.

Congress requested dividends from its U.S. Navymen of 66 13 percent of any captured prize-ship and cargo.  By contrast, typical American investors into capitalist cruisers requested dividends of only 33 ½ percent, leaving to the crew the 66 213 percent of whatever enemy vessels the Privateersman boarded and brought to ports' maritime title company courts' "condemnation" hearings. Not surprisingly, the skilled seamen signed aboard the instruments of war that would be loaned to them at the much lower rate:

Comparative List

Class of Warship
Continental Privateer

Year 177 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782
31  34  21  20  13   9   7
136  73 115 167 228 449 323

Edgar S. Maclay, A History of American Privateers,
D. Appleton & Co., New York & London, 1899, p. iv.
Circa 1775, Americans calculated the return-on-investment in the quite literal removal of the British Roi's taxation-subsidy cycle.

       Idle ships were bottled up in harbors and were thus useless to the owners. Their "opportunity cost" was no less beneficial in risking the equal loss of the ship at sea, while volunteers loaded a gesture of defiance at the Crown's enforced protectionism. Since blockaded shipowners were often broke, the outfitting of the vessels was usually underwritten by a popular stock offering to other colonial rebels who had seen the strategic wisdom of a unilateral declaration of free-trade.            

       The number of American stockholders grew:
Comparative Number of Guns Carried By the American Vessels Above Class of Warship Year 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782
Continental      586 412 680 462 266 164 198

Privateer     1360 730 1150 2505 3420 6735 4845

       Both owners and operators floating on percentages, decided to structure privateering's merit pay incentives aboard ship in three ways: 1) Smugglers like John Hancock had early defined 18 basic jobs in high risk operations plus 2 incentives; so aboard Privateers the 2/Jrds "earnings" of the crew were formally divided into brackets of 20ths.                  

      Custom was established aboard square-rigged ships that cabinboys, no matter how many, received a sub-bracket of 1/5th of 1/20th; still a sum enough on some voyages to place a boy into the middle class economically.  The same 1/20th bracket concept applied, no matter how many occupied that bracket, all the way up to the First and Second Mates who split a full 20th.

2) The"captain's purse", however, was a notably outsized J/20ths or 15% of crew booty.   There were two good reasons for the size of the captains purse, and they were encouraged by the crew. It was widely recognized by these sea-going mercenaries that no one dies for moneyo Ideas counted as did obligated duty; but risking death more than other crewmates were willing to risk, had better account for something more than the thrill of a fight.             

       The captain alloted merit pay percentages from his purse based on sub-bracket percentages according to any specified success totalling 1/20th of the booty, equalling a third of his purse: for gallantry (the first man to board an enemy vessel would receive an extra meritorious wage, or his widow at home would); for marksmanship (the first Kentucky Rifle up in the marines'"fighting tops"to pick off the enemy captain); for a lookout's eyesight from the crowsnest; or for an excellent cook.  The captain kept 1/20th for his own•

3) The last third of the captain's purse merit pay incentives was a 1/20th designated by the captain and the owners for the crew if they achieved some extra-un-ordinary feat.     This action might be the burning of a specific revenue cutter or capturing a patrolling frigate.          This 1/20th or third of the captairls purse was often nailed to a mast, and the impossible became the routine.  For instance, Privateer Captain Jonathan Haraden captured over 1,000 British naval cannon during the Revolution.

        The Revolution's seapower became self-financing within .3 years, which attracted more participants.    Unlike most forms of capitalism that make money, privateering set out to take money back as a reprisal for financial suppression.                             
       Privateers went to sea with an overload of men and material for the purpose of reoutfitting and remanning thinly several captured prize vessels. Fortunes rose or sank in prize vessels on their way to American or French ports.

       Prisoners-of-war often rose to recapture prizes back from the skeleton crew; sometimes a ship changed hands and navigation several times. For this reason of disparity of luck among the same original privateer crew, the admiralty courts judged that all hands who sailed off together would be entitled to their agreed portion of wages and dividends in the overall venture.  This trend concerning reprisals was standard throughout the former colonies.          
      All previous and future reprisals, accrued to the privateersman no matter where they are now, "in heaven, in port, at sea,,in hell, or worse as prisoners in Britain".  If the original Privateer ship was lost, it  was not usually deducted from the crew's pay but from the stockholders' "capital gains"; although a refundable insurance bond accumulated
from prizes sent in, until the original ship's return.                                                  
      The admiralty courts clearly sided with the sailors since they were in fact risking their lives on the high seas whereas the stockholders were not. Many sailors became "men of property" and could vote in the title company courts to sustain judges on their bench.
      When a prize vessel came in, it often carried financial instructions from some of the privateersmen who captured it regarding investment in it to create yet another Privateer.    Some privateersmen used their wages from the prize to buy or barter stockshares in its hull or reoutfitting.  This practice aided cash flow in the war effort and became known as "waging war" against England's not-so-commerical empire.   Several such wage warrior stockholders in a prize vessel  for some reason made the best watchful prize crew imaginable.   Thus, whenever a spyglass sighted a convoy of the Crown's Mercantilistic "business" underway with a warship, eyeing it was referred to as "taking stock" in the situation.
        Many privateersmen who didn't invest in gambling that prize vessels would reach port, retained their bloody hard-won hard silver specie while sailing the currents of war.  A Privateer captain could rely on his crew's stout self-interests down in the hold; much in contrast to the U.S. Navyman who was paid in ever-inflationary paper currency.
While subsidized British commerce lobbied in the lobby of Parliament for more restrictive laws, sail, and cannon to inflict more economic woe on the untaxable colonials---American seaboard political pressure in October 1776 rose with the tide of Congress' inflation of money. Congress acquiesced to lower its 66?3 % "rePAYEment" from Navymen to 50% on cargo craft captured; would forego revenue if the crew captured an enemy man-o-war or British Privateer; and would pay in paper money a bounty for the destruction of any British vessel of half it adjudged value in a governmental admiralty tax court.  For the Continental Navy then, the policy to attract volunteers was translated into the orders: burn, sink, & kill.  To an American Privateersman's point of view, it seemed as if Congress had institutionalized the bloodthirsty failure to bring capturable ships of any sort to any port.            
      Glance again at Maclay's table to see how well regarded these measures of vague "national interest" were, and how few signed aboard USN warships in the name of "national security".

       Navy Captain John Paul Jones wrote Congress decrying "the impossibility of manning a government vessel whenever a Privateer was outfitting and recruiting in the same harbor, which is most all the time, Alas without a Navy!"  
       Some republican navy captains became desperate enough to try involuntary servitude, which crossed against the individualist grain of most other revolutionaries and what they thought they were fighting for.        Congress was dominated by Privateer interests; the man they chose to command the fledgling U.S. Navy was Commodore John Barry due to an incident of principle on the Delaware Rivero          He was selected because as Privateer Captain Barry he had been already primed to fire a broadside into a Continental sloop commanded by a USN lieutenant under Navy Captain Seth Harding.        The Navy ship had sent an impressment gang to Barry's Privateer to conscript his privateersmen.        Barry piped the would-be draft board aboard and simply pointed to a gunner's mate holding a lighted fuse and silently saved the Revolutiono        It is Commodore Barry's statue  in front of Independence Hall today that stands as a testimony against upholding the sins of governance with efficient PAYE finance.

       Barry knew that State misdeterminations will cause tax-revenue over-reliance, causing inept use of bonds, causing a desperate need for inflated printed money. As government loses its power
base to the free-market using the same financial method: governments will excuse their lack of insurance liability on its "good faith & credit" based on its tax-supported military's ease in killing and enslaving to"man'' its programs of "national service""';\- all ironically in the name of"national defense education acts'for liberty.                                               Perhaps we won't get fooled by that line anymore than the Commodore.
       Freedom makes living worthwhile, and a living worthwhile. Percentage As You Earn (PAYE) finance is determined by both"worth" and "while'Its PAYEment systems are relevant to only those tools and services that increase a borrower's erratic yet ever-increasing capability to be more productive.                  
        Freedom itself, in this case was the service sought, the tools were ships.  PAYE finance was well suited to  build freedom's defensive infrastructure in 1776. Thus, the investors' strategic orders were very precise: raid only British commerce, since that was the raison d'etre of the Royal Navy blockades and its influence in Parliament. American Privateers' orders were aimed at protecting the salubrity of all vessels in a fight, making the resale of enemy vessels profitable.                
          Privateers captured 16,000 well-equipped "redcoats" on the high seas, as compared to the 8,000 not-so-well-equipped Kingsmen that Washington captured on land, until Yorktown.  Prisoners were worth $20 at the exchange rate in America.     The investors' orders translated into: capture, extinguish fires, minimize loss of life, and run blockades to port with prize vessel, cargo, and prisoners.         
         Thus, new Revolutionary warships returned to sea flying the 13 gold and black striped Privateer ensign emblazoned with an American rattlesnake proclaiming, "Don't Tread On Me'!
American Privateer's revolutionary success in comparison to their U.S. Navy compatriots was of little note as compared to their practical success against the formidable foe of the Royal Navy.
          His Majesty's incentives to gain enlistments were lumps on the head, lump sum fixed bounties, pension installments, and occasionally an insurance company's salvage reward for recapturing a formerly British cargoship.
The British Navy was embarrassed by American Privateer tactics being blatantly concerned with retaliation against their commercial empire.         Instead of a suicidal nationalistic urge to go up against the King's majestic ships-of-the-line with three times their armament; the American's lightweight, fast, shallow-draft, 16-gun platforms would dart from Merchantman to Merchantmano         Privateers found themselves capturing several 36-gun frigates anyway, as they turned the Merchantmens' carronades upon King George's folly. The  only desire the Americans ever had to dare attack the even larger "hell ships" manned by the impressment of Americans enslaved for years, was to show-off gunnery skills.  The Royal Navy did not practice gunnery as did the pecunious Privateers who had to make every shot count; but relied on massive multi-decks of firepower. The Americans would quickly capture and sail away the dreadnought's little cargo convoy, leaving the lumbering slow warship without a purpose.      

    The British taxpayer quickly grew tired of paying for such worthless objects of nautical art.

    Whenever a British fleet actually nabbed a Privateer that wasn't quite quick enough downwind, the British sailors couldn't handle the amount of sail crowded on them because it wasn't Navy Regulation. "Going by the book" they cut down masts and spars, and then after filling the hull with rock ballast; they wondered why it couldn't catch other Yankee designed vessels.        
     Thomas Paine's 1776 challenge to Americans was to build with their forests enough Privateers to deny British business the fruits of its Navy's tyrannical canvas and cannono     Paine had been in America one year before he gave this advise.   He was probably not expecting ocean-crossing Privateers to dare attack English cities in the Thames, nor sink the Dover fishing fleet for being loyal to the royal's protectionism.                                   
       After such actionsp Ben Franklin in France personally financed three Privateers from France with Irish crews to raid the English Channel. These too were PAYE financed and PAYEment operated.
      The Royal Navy could not fathom the lack of concern American Privateers had for not carrying permission of a government to attack them; a "letter of marque and reprisal", or in modern business license parlance, a "certificate of public need".   The British Admiralty always referred to their own few Privateer ships as "letters of marque" and hoped they would envelope something.                       
      Fortunately the British did recall the principle of a stock market deciding on the number of warships at sea instead of a maritime bureaucracy, so only early in the Revolution were any rebels hung as pirates.       Yet as monarchists they could not comprehend people contracting on their own as [email protected] individuals without a Sovereign authority.  To Americans of the era, corporations were not creatures of the State; to the British they were chartered by the Crown. British political pressure at sea ironically caused the legitimacy of the Congress to rise, at least in the subjective eyes of the British sailor.  The Continental Congress and the various United States were happy to remedy the difficulty in gaining Royalist and Loyalist respect by issuing letters-of-marque like they were licensing the waves of the sea. 3,000 marque "coasters" from Massachusettes alone kept their ports!-: sealanes open before they returned to peaceful pursuits of happiness. The British mind was satisfied, but to Americans such national permission was a sham. Investors were interested in eventual free trade with England.         
      When the Crown recognized its loss by surrender and treaty, only 2 American Privateers remained at sea to become pirates in 1783.   Seaboard America defined them as rebels without a cause and sent a fleet of Privateers with one Navy ship to end their aggression.

      Little was said in the "London Times" about George Washington or Congress; the news was all maritime disasters.        When Lloyd's of London insurance rates rose 5000%, it was time to tell the Royal Navy that the war for mercantilism's empire in the Atlantic was over.       They decided to send Cornwallis to India to impose upon a different set of Indians who didn't use such savage PAYE finance incentives against their imperialism.
      In Americap at the end of the War for Independence only 3 ships of the U.S. Navy were left operable. Such lessons did not go unheeded 29 years later during the War for Free Trade and Sailor's Rights. This time 517 ocean-crossing American Privateers again captured over 3,100 vessels from the British Navy and Merchant Marineo  The U.S. Navy's 23 ships didn't do too bad either.
      Perhaps the most valuable lesson taught us by American Privateers was their keen insight into how to motivate individuals who float on a percentage-of-income. ·Their activities were deadly and hold for those into constructive pursuits of education, medicine, and tooling -- an objective view of organizational co-operation, pay scale identification by function, merit pay for both individuals and the crew, and benefits recognized for brave souls whose buckle got swashed.     These were ordinary beings who were able to calculate the odds of risk, and gambled with their lives on improving those risks with comensurate rewards.     Heroism increased their capacity to"earn" beyond the stockholders' investment in rigging masts with "green hands".          
     Freedom isn't free, yet it can have its rewards.

Historical Probe #3

The Rendezvous between Mountain Men and PAYEments

             American westward exploration was trailmarked by business transactions leading back east to the transoceanic fur trade.                                  
              Mountain Men had taught novice trappers called "pilgrims" how to hide pelts in caches and how to find them again in summer (and why they should). Each pilgrim was taught "percentages and prices". Each fall, canoes hopefully full of pilgrims and pelts were led east by their grizzled teacher to a rendezvous with the mule packtrains of a bourgeousie.        
              The bourgeousie were often the "wintering partners" of European investors in American furrier merchants; his middle management was responsible for the year-to-year bookkeeping success of the adventure.
At the wilderness rendezvous, the pilgrims paid a percentage of their pelts to the fur company in exchange for the amount of training, equipment, and grubstake they had received the previous year.  More senior trappers paid cumulative percentages based on the different levels of investment in their activities they had accepted.   
           For instance0      each new trapspring coil carried a choice of prices: first, a percentage of all pelts caught in the coming year; or second, a coil was sold for "cash on the barrel". 
           If 200 coilsprings were required, then the calculation equaled 200 minor percentages of all pelts caught.       This anticipated percentage of pelts to be paid in the future would usually more than equal a "cash on the barrel" price plus interest.
          The ALL INCOME concept was to balance the fact that the judgement of the trapper about where to place the trap was solely his; it should not be inside his knapsack.    He should not be tempted into non-use of the new trap that year, thus saving its use for the next season without percentage PAYEment.    The trapper had an incentive to make his whole set of traps pay well by using them in aggregate.
           Conversely, if the trap the bourgeousie brought west failed to work, then it was the bourgeousie who was almost as incrementally hurt as much as the trapper who set it. Thus the seller had an incentive to offer good goods.  There were no grudges held against the company for inferior products on balance; because a clean slate,offered by the company each year for past deb made grudges a moot point.
The purpose of these temporary settlements was to settle agreements. Since the trapper was no longer in continued debt and had done the best he could do with his traps the past year, and only lost the same percentage of his total lower amount; then he could afford to say about his trap that failed to work: "its no skin off my back". And since there were less skins heaped onto the company's mule backs, there might be a new supplier of excellent tools to the company's network of entrepreneurs.
          The pilgrims, trappers, and mountain men sold the remaining number of their pelts to the fur company on a cash or barter basis after they had settled last year's accounts. (Although not usually done, a trapper could pay the fur company's agent another percentage for transporting furs to a specific retailer. Note, however, the carrier's fee percentage was not calculated on future uncertain earningsp but on what was certainly present. Thus, it is not a PAYE finance concept but merely an established commission on a specific amount owed.  However, since the task of reaching the eastern destination was still uncertainp the commission could be defined as a PAYE finansurance concept.)
         The Hudson Bay Company, the Company of the Northwest, and the Rocky Mountain Fur Company all realized their self-interest lay in investing in developing a talent pool of independent entrepreneurs, not employees,    This changed the way that behavioral influence could or should be achieved.  There were lots of other mules, furriers, and canoes in America.     The fur companies yielded to the druthers of their non-exclusive independents and remained so popular with them that competition was short-lived,   A good relationship existed to  the point that most mountain men invested their earnings back into the fur company.         One, Jedidiah Smith accumulated 25% of the Rocky Mountain Fur Company and courageously ran its field operations in such a way to attract Canadians like Etienne Provoto  If a real or imagined injustice was perceived by the trappers, the company adjusted its percentage increment by increment with one exception: Honesty.

         Honesty was expected about the number of furs caught by a trapper who was using traps sold on a percentage of all furs caught.          It was announced that no calculation was ever made for liars who lied about their earnings total.       No one was naive; it was possible to cache away alot of furs for planned sale to other buyers, and then lie that your cache had been lost, or perhaps stolen by Indians who perceived a property rights dispute,    Seemingly, you could beestablished as a trapper with all the trappings by exchanging fewer skins than you should and some temporary embarassment about being a greenhorn.                   
        No witnesses would be the wiser since auditing couldn't be achieved by checking under every pinetree. Short-lived fur companies found that demanding installment payment debt & interest was unworkable since it avoided the common issue of misfortune. Even at the threat of gunsmoke, it was difficult to repossess a year's worth of food, knowledge, and traps in a thousand streams.                      
        So what did the companies do to guarantee all furs being present and accounted for with honest Percentage As You Earn finance PAYEments?

        Trust seemed to have a pricetag, yet it was priceless as a percentage. If you put a number on alledged dishonesty and calculated a percentage for even one accused liar; then every trapper would be tempted to be that one liar, since everyone believes they are being "charged" for it anyway. The solution: The bourgeousie simply accepted whatever excuses at face value a trapper offered for his low productivity or total losses.  Because of the unexpected shortage, the bourgeousie adjusted his wholesale pelt-price (not percentage for supplies) upwards at the moment and announced it for the upcoming weeks as likely to be paid.             
        Any tall tales created an artificial scarcity that was ingeniously honored as real at the moment.     This would be the zenith price.         No competition facing a stack of hidden hides would want to pay the prevailing zenith price.   News traveled fast on drumskins from a rendezvous for those who chose to have nothing to hide.           The honest trappers enthusiastically set out to trap even more furs the next year and would drive the price down in the coming months.  Thus the dishonest trappers held their hides off the market for no immediate gain and even a long-term loss, as balanced against what they should have paid the company at the rendezvous for their training and tools.     The marketplace reflected its knowledge and decisions right back at the phony scarcity;and a real oversupply punished liars by cancelling out their hoped for trend and offered the dishonest a mistimed misfortune.

       The crooked buyers could raise your hair, but could never raise enough money to match the honest buyers offer based on the word of all the trappers at the rendezvous, whether that word was good or bad.   If too many trappers in a group were corrupt, then the rendezvous had few pelts; even though the liars discharged their PAYE obligation falsely at near zero and collected their grubstake, they might not see the bourgeousie at the next non-rendezvous. This action was never recorded because the price on furs for any group that tried it,found the price quickly rose and quickly fell. And the higher price they created would not matter at all by the time they delivered their furs elsewhere.    The brilliantly simple resilience of these mobile commodity markets sprang back because the pelt-percentage on tools to do the job was rarely adjusted, even though the price of furs fluctuated.

       The bourgeousie set their original pelt-percentage for supplies (not pelt-price) as to what reality should be, plus or minus excuses; thus the percentage was stable although the amounts it represented varied greatly.         If all traps were not as productive as they should be, the bourgeousie consulted with a mountain man to reassess the geography and other real factors.         Honesty became a reliable function of expected performance recorded year-to-year in the bookkeeping.      Erratic performance of a sole trapper was easy to measure against the region's potential and performance.                       An erratic performance by a trapper was cause for inquiry, and was either explained or not explained by consulting with the mountain man to the satisfaction of the bourgeousie.                               
    The company man decided whether or not to keep grubstaking a trapper or not.                           
     Sending investigators to check out a trapper's sad story was rarely done unless he insisted salvage was possible. It was an unnecessary waste of time geographically for one trapper to work in tandem with another just to keep an eye on him.                    
     Auditing was always more  costly than any losses sustained and bred a revengeful mistrust.
     Considering that it was also ineffective when changing the wholesale price of pelts was so easy; a man's word was encouraged by the market to be true.  The price and percentage was going to be set
by the company at the rendezvous, not in some cache somewhere.
     Usually all the trappers would not be charged any higher percentage for traps, food, and spare parts for the next year even if bad luck was the order of the day.                       
     The pelt-percentage for supplies was rarely altered because it was set at the maximum level of stupidity and inexperience of pilgrims, and that was at a level the company could still make a profit.        Disasters did happen.                      
     Unless a whole riverboat capsized that effected the solvency of the company, the equipment's percentage rate was rarely changed. If it was, they all knew why and were content to live with it(and a company that was still content to live with there.

       Trappers and mountain men often sought a more favorable lower percentage on new equipment because it was more productive in their hands than in the hands of pilgrims. They rarely got it because the fur companies had already figured a growth curve for their experience.  Additionally, old traps lasted years and it appears that the companies might have sustained a loss on the traps just to get them into the hands of trappers; knowing that over the years as entrepreneurs they would have to buy coilsprings from the rendezvous.        
        The Rocky Mountain Fur Company's formation was attributed to such a coil spring dispute where the fur companies centered near the Great Lakes failed to charge what they should have and attempted to make up for it later.                               
        The Hudson and Northwest Company's claim to have been offering something for nothing was not appreciated by the straightforward mountain men,and they left. Such disputes over 250 years were still rare as every trader learned that percentages were just as able to measure mistakes as were prices. The free association continued to benefit all parties.
        The trappers became more efficient and the bourgeousie became more experienced at getting supplies through on time despite difficulties.
        Competence was the only real currency in a world of unlimited opportunity made possible by PAYE finance.   Thus all trappers found themselves making their honest PAYEments at the rendezvous anyway, and accurately cashing in their naive temptations for profitable virtue.

Historical Probe #4

                            - If you should meet with Triumph or Disaster And treat those two imposters just the same••• You'll be a man, my son. --Rudyard Kipling

       The "inability to pay" is a practical problem, not morally the same as the "refusal to pay".    Yet when credit payments are not founded on an income-contingent percentage, any crisis can shatter brittle contracts and blur the moral distinction to nobody's self-interest.
       In 1929, as the Great Depression deepened, bankruptcies increased, and by the time unscrupulous lawyers had finished with a case, creditors were lucky to get eight cents against a dollar of debt. At number 2 Wall Street an attorney, "Wild" Bill Donovan, served without fee as counsel to an investigation of such bankruptcy "scandals" in New York. A Federal judge, Francis A. Winslow, resigned in disgrace, a lawyer killed himself, and 12 other attorneys were indicted.                       
        Donovan's task was to investigate what was wrong with bankruptcy procedures and recommend reforms.
Donovan exhibited the global fact-finding technique he became "famous" for ten years later as the Director of the U.S. wartime espionage Office of Strategic Services.                                  
        Donovan hired the entire Yale Law School staff who helped Donovan study 1,000 separate court files and listen to the testimony of 4,000 witnesses.   His report filled 12 volumes covering bankruptcy proceedings not only in the United States but in foreign countries as well. The vast effort, co-ordinated by Donovan, relied on the work of many people; all concerned unfortunately with law in their present, not the economic order of the past.
        The final 358-page summary which was tendered to Judge Thomas D. Thacker of the U.S. Court, Southern New York District in April 1930 showed no awareness of a 200 year gap in any bankruptcy proceedings in early America.   Donovan urged the creation of a Federal bankruptcy administrator to take the burden off Federal judges.    The administrator would be appointed by and be responsible to the President.  He believed this would speed up cases of collapse, save time and money, and eliminate most opportunities for league-al conspiracy.   Donovan's work became the basis for Congressional reform of the bankruptcy laws; those laws stand today.  While all those minds were trying to cure the effects on the legal profession of bankruptcy's bankruptcy, no one questioned the economic value of bankruptcy.

       After 50 years, bankruptcy has lost its stigma.  Reliance on legality has shifted the long-term inhumane servitude victim-status to the loaner, not the debtor.    Neither shifting the burden back, nor balancing it on the scales of justice is the solution.   If Donovan's law professors had noticed the disappearance of early American title company court's function in this area, they might have discovered a solution to the practical/moral dilemma for the future.
       The development companies of early America operated in the uncharted vastness of a continent where people could easily decide to get themselves "lost".       The "losses" of these companies as plainiffs where the defendant never showed up, always seemed to be in those broken agreements where redemptioner-finance (PAYE finance) wasn't used.      The development companies noticed that even in the worst hardship cases where people were paying them zero percent, they didn't go west as readilyo    In the long-term they stayed and paid the execution of their debt.  Where other payment systems were used and abused by debtors, it was the company that had to make-up the loss of investor's money over the long-term anyway.      A redemptioner farm or business remained intact to be worked by its ownen and pay off the debt sooner than letting it lie fallow until new tenants could be located for season.                   Thus, the practical difference in reasons for bankruptcy cases faded away.    The moral indignation of servitude due on the account of the debtor's default, or the fault of risks investors had not counted upon--became a moot point.
Although lawyers rarely examine the facts of economic order's history, the primary concept of justice any redemptioners' disputes were settled upon seems to be still listed in Black's Law Dictionary: "dominium", the ancient Roman Republic s right "to acquire or dispose of property by one's own personal will".   To coin a new word "freedominium" simply means that that right is not interfered with by friend or foe.  This should be the ideal objective of all loaner/debtor relationships.
        As immigrants later came to America by their own life-savings, the development companies and their major use of PAYE finance faded.                                                
     The melodramas of the 18OO's began to characterize villains holding court-ordered liens, repossessions, foreclosures, and whose henchmen were collection agencies' skip-tracers and bounty-hunters. In light of the previous two centuries, all this antagonist/ protagonist dramatic form seems so useless, but let's examine a morality play anyway:

      Snidley Whiplash's Bank decides to foreclose on Little Nell because she couldn't pay the agreed installment amount payment due on a fixed schedule of amortization.   Such a system of contracts seems like crystal-ball gazing to know that on the 6th of January a $331 payment will miraculously appear.                         Whiplash is not only mean but he's an irrational mystic too. Little Nell loses her grip on the wheel of fortune and crashes; she too cannot keep her equally prophetic word on the 6th very well, no matter how honest she is from her hospital bed.
      Whiplash callously chuckles one of his own truism's reflecting the psychology he must have to deal with the death of loans, " One day a shah, the next -- a chauffeur."                   
     Whiplash wants to foreclose and grab some of Little Nellco's assets, but he still has more of his own judgement out on loan to question. Nell is well enough to run. She does.      Snidley must spend more money to locate her.  He does.
Since he cannot get the courts to recognize how he can further get blood out of a turnip, he impatiently recourses to revenge.      This is to make-up the difference and teach other whiplash victims a lesson to avoid accidents.         Would tying her to railroad tracks do? He decides instead to take her to the old idle Nellco sawmill.
      There Whiplash meets Our Hero, a PAYE finance consultant, who stops the buzzsaw and asks Little Nell to stop screaming, "I am not a crook," over and over again.                 
      Our consultant offers Whiplash the opportunity to turn the buzzsaw on again and amortize Nell if his advise does not make sense:"Time heals all wounds, and wounds all heels!' --- Our Hero then describes a possible scene to Snidley:
Recognize that Nell is not only the best person to be interested in Nell's future, but she is dynamically interested in sawdust because of that self-interest.    Besides she thought up a new plywood recipe while in the hospital.
      Her time in the hospital has been put on the PAYE finansurance plan since the doctors saw that getting percentages that mean something from a healthy workaday client, is smarter than trying to remove installment premiums from a sick patient. Their incentive was to get her up and out working again and stay pay a worthwhile%.

      If Whiplash converts his loan to Nell to"Percentage As Nell Earns" finance, yes, he is likely to receive a few PAYEment slips with $0 representing 8.9% of zero income.    Whiplash winces.       
      Our Hero points out that Whiplash will have an unbroken "continuum of contact" with Nell, and won't have to trace her because she has no deadline incentive to skip out on him again.   Nell has no reason to leave her sawmill career unless she doesn't want to make lumber-money. Nell nods her head,through her gag (Our Hero put on her)she says she does want to make money.

4.   If Whiplash sees the potential in Nell, but dislikes her inept foreman; he could either stockraid Nellco to change management or offer to send the foreman to get an M.B.A. on a generous PAYE finance plano Nell has refused to sell and since buzzsaws didn't intimidate her, its likely that as an entrepreneuse who no longer has to run from his noose, she will see how her loyal foreman deserves to go to college.

5.    If Whiplash sees that he has an incentive to be interested in Nell during bad times and good, she might accept his counsel of a non-legal type.

6. If Whiplash sees the financial method has patience as a planned virtue, he might make alot of money sooner than expected from Nell's interest in success.

       If Whiplash doesn't unrealistically expect a fortune soonp he will figure the PAYE loan's time/percentage ratio on the inept foreman°s worst work record.    Whiplash smiles.   He will be more than able to pay his depositors their interest from the accrued PAYE finance PAYEments.   Half his red ink is carried longer than it should because even he has an ounce of faith in agreements.
       Whiplash repents his crudeness and announces he will become a PAYE financier. He might even go into international PAYE finance to help poor countries out of their "rollover" dilemmas.
       Nell says that with her "continuum of contact" she might even get to like the new Snidley Christian Whiplash.   Nell looks at Snidley and asks if a different percentage could be figured out for a woman who wants to have children? Better yet, a deferment?
       Our consultant rides off into the sunset muttering, "Time heals all wounds•••".  He was just about to devote his life to politics to convince legislators to exempt PAYE finance from bankruptcy laws when he realizes he can be saved from a life of politics because soon most debtors will use PAYE finance and it won't be in their self-interest to file for bankruptcy.

       Our consultant sees another sawmill in the distance.                                             

       Our Hero recalls to mind the If Poem by Rudyard Kipling.

An  Involuntary Application-

Historical Probe #5     The U.S.S.R., the Education Soviet, and PAYE Finance

      When V.I. Lenin and his State-socialists displaced Bakunin's anarcho-communist revolution that had previously overwhelmed Kerensky's republican government which had largely overthrown the czar's monarchists, considerable economic chaos in Russia was going on by October 1917.   Having won the last battle, the Reds were faced with running an economy.                                         
      Neither Engel's nor Marx's ideas turned out to be of much immediate value.  Fixing prices and production quotas didn't answer how produce was to be collected from collectives, nor how farm-tools were to be distributed in practice, nor paid for. Marx certainly didn't have Russia in mind when he wrote Das Kapital; how to industrialize the place just wasn°t addressed.
         Every culture has its own style of family mutual aid for financing babies, barns, business loans, and book-learning.      For example, many Chinese families and friends belong to "betting circles".
         Each person draws a "year marker" to receive assistance from the circle for his own projects in that year, he helps the others in the meantime. This tradition's function carried over into the Maoist government of mainland China that today chooses to develop regions in turn by the same manner considered "fair" to the culture. Its all for one, or number 14, or whatever the region's "emphasis­ number" is.

          Analogously in Russia, a flexible anomaly occurred in its doctrinaire socialist economics that has supported the rest of socialism's rigidity there ever since.  By 1918 a funny thing happened when foreigners comprised the leadership of 85 of the first 115 government bureaus called "soviets".  These Russian soviets were primarily operated by American New Yorker socialists. Even though they were mostly atheists, several had a strength in their Jewish cultural background, as did Lenin.                           
         He asked these commissars of the emerging Communist Internationale (Comintern) to write the first 5-Year Plan.     It looked remarkably alot like their Manhattan families' self-help development traditions based on tithing of all things.
         Persecution had not only influenced Judaic religious practices but also the cultural experience, mostly in the way that free assembly was thwarted by bigots. In bad times the tithing went not to a demolished synagogue but to the patriarch of the family.      Tithing could be transported with an understood purpose that did not require a large meeting.     In good times a tithe was paid to the local temple, and another percentage of some sort went into the family fund.    Since consistency of committment is valuable to financial planning, the family's general fund often kept receiving 10% no matter whatever other tithes were offered elsewhere.         
        In America, most agnostics or atheists with a Jewish heritage continued to recognize the value of mutual aid societies.   Many had been enabled to receive fine educations, become professionals, and
become notable in the world younger than otherwise possible. 
       Thus, they have maintained their "rePAYEment" participation in that aspect of their relatives' culture, if none else.

       The first 5-Year Plan coined some words of interest.  Every factory was to pay a "use-of-tools-tax" ofv yes, 10% to the Supreme Soviet.  The Presidium theoretically provided the tools in the name of the people.    In America, "payment-for-the-use-of­ tools" is an ideal definition of "profit"; and "dividends" calculated on a percentage basis are paid to the stockholders for being "tool-providers".       
         The misnomer "State-capitalism" was used to describe the new Soviet Union by early internal dissidentso Yet "Russia Incorporated" didn't fall apart like every other socialist experiment in history.   The only valid reason was and is Russia flexibly calculates its profits as percentagesp as balanced against rigid Marxist "production quotas" and cartel "price-fixing" which have little bearing on reality except as goals.  "Needs­ analysis" became a pseudo-science.
Budget allocations to the various soviets are somewhat rationally based on the amount of rubles their factories' percentage tax represents.         Goals0      as irrational quotas set by the whims of the "dictators of public need", mark overages or shortages.  Strategic concentration of capital at the right time and place would solve a perceived problem.   When this is done, the Communist Party is well liked by the "proletariat" because everyone knows who runs the Union of Bureaucratic Socialist Republics.      The prols also know who to blame if the public administrator's "needs-analysis" is in error.  The Party thus always blames the Soviet for stupidity and insensitivity when something goes wrong.       With confidence in the "use-of-tools-tax" and finance revenue cycle, the American socialists in 1922 confronted the Russian socialists over the two subjects unharmonious with it: 1) arbitrary price-fixing for their giant cartel was and is untenable for the long-term; and

2) the production quota system in the hands of central planners was divorced from local realities on the short-term.   They were treading on Marxist writ.   Ironically another American of a previous era would be responsible for their "purge". Marx had got the idea of an iron dictatorship of a collective's equal division of an operation's proceeds partly from a French American world-traveler.  In his younger days this globetrotter was known as the Pirate Jean LaFitte.  In 1815 LaFitte ran his Caribe communalist crew and island of Barataria near New Orleans quite unlike any Privateer of the time; he is noted for aiding 200 of Andrew Jackson's Tennessee Volunteers against the British landings and defeating 6,000 troops.   The aging LaFitte was so honored by Marx9 s interest in his past and ideas on leadership that he helped underwrite Marx's authorship.                   
          100 years later "equal division of the spoils" and"world conquest" would never quite be the same, "barratry"(or mutiny of the officers for equality)enforced one man rule. Lenin, consolidating his position as the iron dictator of the
collective, had to choose between the two factions; Marxian dictatorships cannot have any dissensiono   In 1923 he decided to Russify the Comintern by executing all of the Americans and murdering all of the foreign volunteer administrators.       However, he kept their precedents and their next 5-Year Plan intact; he alone understood its validity.  In a Russian automobile factory the dual-picture frames of Vladmir Lenin and Henry Ford as heroes of labor came down off the wall.       
         Lenin died in 1924.           
        The new steel dictator, Joseph Stalin, ordered new pictures for the walls proclaiming new heroes of socialist labor: the price-fixers and quota setters.    The new bosses subordinated the ''use-of-tools-tax" to their other doctrines, but could not dismiss it.    Stalin did not fixate on the 10% tax rate either; his commissars adjusted it up and down as now an integral part of "planning".   They kept the revenue cycle's percentage concept as a sacred principle of the
Revolution, not knowing or caring from whence their system debatably came.   Western capitalists deemed it workable and actually invested in the place. After that endorsement, there was not much debate  for bullets' paths are also inflexible.  Lenin was fond of saying about his profitable Russia that"the capitalists are always happy to sell us the rope we intend to hang them with, let us be sure to pay them for it," "PAYE finance"became more important than ever,

         Though not as spectacular a development rate as early America, the Gross National Product of the Soviet Union rose an amazing 6% annually (except WWII) until 1962,   The USSR's GNP trendline also seems impervious to deep global business cycles and depressions; except as exhibited in the deathrate of forced labor,  Outside Russia at the same times, capitalist systems used a more brittle installment payment transaction system, even though its generally voluntary nature grants it adaptability.                      
        The West forgot the financial system: that built America,
        Unfortunately, today the major use of PAYE finance is in the hands of collectivist dictators armed to the teeth,                   Soviet military armaments have eaten up the rate of non-military GNP growth until today it equals only 1%,  Armaments are not only a weight around their neck when they keep them and don't use them, but when they sell them,the USSR must enter into a rather free-marketo      Because the USSR is now the world's leading weapons' shop, Russian factories are ordered to produce weaponsc      The factories still pay their
use-of-tools tax and the workers still get their percentage.                                     
           Both percentages represent a significant amount of rubles.   However, since the State itself is the customer, the cycle feeds itself in favor of the factories' self-contained independence,                                             

         Whereas armaments make a "wealthy" business cycle because of the open market (in the name of world revolution); other parts of the Soviet economy are straining under the ridiculous non-consumer priorities. The proud interest in capital-tools of the oldest generation is not so pronounced in the younger generation; their pride is now in
war machinery,  Yet in daily life, the ruble is composed of 100 kopecks like the American dollar's cents and it is easy to figure pie-charts and percentage payments.               
         Whether their State continues to use  weapons or tractors to gain foreign currency, shall remain to be seen.
Either way literacy is required, COMECON sees the writing on the wall: "commie con" doesn't return the profit to the workers-owners.
         Developing the communist economies and world revolution requires
alot of double-talk,  Thus, the Education Soviet has had the benefit of priority status and the advantage of receiving percentages from factories and farms without strict accounting about how wellknowledg-eable-worker quotas are filled,  The students in the Socialist Educational System do not directly pay their schools or alma mater on any kind of a tuition contract,    This creates the illusion of no-cost education for all,  The Soviet Constitution deems education a "right" as it does food and housing; but the latter two are paid for "out of pocket" by a Russian after their factory/farm collective's use-of-tools-tax is paid and wages are received.                                
         Education is considered a tool, that is an important distinction; tools do 95% of the labor in an industrial society of the Westp some ,s% in Russian life,  Man is primarily a toolmaker, thus thinker to survive; think first,and food and housing become second nature.  Once in the productive workplace, part of what a worker does not get paid is an already deducted percentage of his collective's income for his past/future education,         
        Thus, Education is not itemized, justtaken within vagueness.  The percentage as earned is not well defined, as owed, This vague revenue cycle does not help the schools to know how good or bad of a job they are doing spending money on specifics beyond basic literacy,  If Higher Education was not such an extreme priority to their total mobilization, a more meticulous accounting for its graduates' income success would become the order of the day, just like any other factory's percentage, The so-called "right-to­ education" would not be changed in the least, the opportunity would still be there.  The change would be that a specific school's success could be added up monetarily and compared to any other diploma mill, The Education Soviet,as the tool-providers,could then make better decisions as to capital concentration and goals for the future.
              However, since prices and production are fixed arbitrarily, such "demand" conclusions would have a statistical bias toward fields of State priority.  Management is relatively quite easy concerning "supply",(even though price and quantity whimsically change by edict}, the percentage tax remains rather stable at the factory, farm,(or schoo]),  Tuition"rePAYEment"would also remain stable over the long-term; it probably does,but nobody knows thatin the Education Soviet because there is no way of knowing that without direct payments.  Budgets do not reflect how much their schools do for the Russian industrial machine.  Its just that some factories and schools don't get much State assigned priority if what they make doesn't "go boom" to make a boomtown.

              The myriad of "supply" decisions in the Soviet economy are not made by central dictators, they can't do it (they insanely try a la Marx) but the effort is really unrequired in practice.  The percentage tax for tools and training reflects major policy into local decision- making regarding largess or belt-tightening.               
               Inaccurate knowledge in the marketplace makes for bad decisions.
              Naming a percentage that revenue "demands" float  upon.,  is not as difficult as setting a firm price that is obsolete the day that it is established.  The handful of dictators in the Politburo and Supreme Soviet are vast consumers as well as tool-providers, but they are not the producers. Russia is burdened with the dictatorship's demands; but with all the guns at their disposal, their demands have thus far been supplied.
              PAYE finance was the cotterpin holding the wheels of Russian industry onto its body politic 1918 - 1989. If it were not for PAYE finance and rePAYEment cycles, the Soviet Union would have collapsed like all other collectivist outfits based on "need" that ever tried to produce something or conquer something.     Yet PAYE finance has modified Marxist philosophy as stated "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"---to a Leninist "acco;rding to his work." With PAYE finance, Russia could adopt a model beyond the privatization of 70% of their houses.
               Having identified PAYE finance's little understood role in the USSR, how might that knowledge be used against those using it for creating government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) in America, such as FannieMae to Navient or, state disemployment and disability insurance centers which could also be privatized with a decent charging system, such as PAYE Finance?   
                Stretching thin the savings that are backing up any finance system is a means of influencing it. However since PAYE finance percentages can never go bankrupt, assembly lines remain intact and will always have a brighter day ahead.  For instance, every economuc downturn automakters bet bought out by foreign businesses because their own credit arms have fanatically adhered to Rigid Installment  Payments (RIPs) that upon bankruptcy both auto makers and auto credit companies; market pressure to change from repossessions of one of six automobiles to PAYE Finance can now occur.  
                Conversely, influencing a lower amount of capital allocated to war machinery is possible by waging an "envy­ war" on "needs analysis".  Socialism is based on "envy" and "enforced equal acquisition" theoretically.        
                PAYE finance has proven malleable to that purpose, but it is better designed for truly productive endeavors like fulfilling"wants" plus mere "needs". 
                Fomenting a consumer demand crisis under the dictatorship would be the objective.

                 One method is via communications: beam western style radio commercials into the SovUnion at a powerful enough frequency to turn every doorknob and bedspring into a radio machines. Perhaps the enemy's will to by the will to have clean clothes.  If advertising, say, washing­ fight can be pre-occupied the black market first capitalizes the manufacturing of agitators, the marketeers will ask of the not-so-underground factory workers a payment-for-the-use-of­ tools dividend, not tax. The many factories converted to this new ideology of illegal ''excess production" will eventually be arrested. An acute problem will unavoidably come to the attention of the commissars: their time-honored financial method is not set on khaki any longer, but on permanent press.

                   PAYE finance is not  ideological at all, just a brilliantly simple method for use by anyone.
                   Perhaps then the Soviets will place a higher priority on ring-around-the-collar instead of mustard gas.       Perhaps not.
                   If the "dictators of public need" don't acquiesce to the agitator's agitators, then new targets for mustardgi ains will be the workers. The elite Soviet public administrators would then find that PAYE finance is stronger than dirt.                           
                  When the smoke clears, and peace with the world is declared, then Russia Incorporated will become a genuine world power to be reckoned with.