20/05/2020
1
I like to approach economic models like a physicist. Test the fundamentals of outcomes, and deduce frameworks. Always go back to first principles if things look wrong. Architecture does the same, if you find the central idea of your design is lost. That's my background.
My objective with this article is to go to the grassroots fundamentals to design an economic model, rethinking exchange, human identity, and sustainable empowerment.
If you understand game theory, even games in general, it is easy to see that money, as we know it, is just a game. It's nature is whether we have enough or not, it plays to our competitive nature to want more, irrespective of the consequences. Such people are even applauded for doing this.
What many are blind to is the full framework and scope of the game. We succumb to the game theory Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD), reinforcing the framework that we are prisoners of the human form, that empowerment is not a natural foundation of human nature. One has to question why we chose a game where it absolutely begins with humanity being a prisoner.
This mindset is prevalent also in many philosophical discourses, from Socrates to Nietzsche, framing human nature (HN) as a weakness to overcome. Living in tribes without technology to compete with nature, this would make sense, and so community bonding through ceremony, built on cultures of survival through dominion. And so, civilisations glorifying power become the standard, and corrupting, means of governance. Perpetuating a disbelief of human trust, humanity becomes comfortable with what it is familiar with, fighting for change, but never believing in itself enough to do that.
Dostoyevsky reinforces this in Notes from the Underground, articulating the human condition (HC) being that even when presented with possible solutions towards empowering human nature, we choose to be blinded by choosing such solutions. I differentiate between HN and HC as this:
- HN: Adapts to its environment.
- HC: Not wanting to overcome its fears.
Being good or bad is dependent on mastering one’s environment. It appears that even when people want to be good, but environment relegates those who stick with it to being backburners, or changing mindset to succeed. The latter could also be for fear we may not have any more stories to tell outside of the frameworks we have become accustomed to. In essence, we keep the door open to trust those selling overcoming fear, consequently compromising ourselves in the process. Perpetually.
Do we think there are no stories to tell if we overcome being ruled by fear? And so we shift the story to sustain some sense of empowerment as the status quo would be comfortable with, an icon for change, knowing deeply that this will never happen at scale. So the cycle of hope for change continues, not facing the core of why it never seems to happen. We ‘absolute’ scarcity and fear as the framework to begin from, despite reframing the choices we could make empowering the abundance of creativity and sustainability of collaboration.
So despite our repeated capacity for creativity and imagination and the absolute evidence that we have been able to overcome the limitations of nature, we instead create and sustain artificial, synthetic, disempowering frameworks of power based on dominion by the ultimate destructive unsustainable disempowerment: conflict. We have stepped beyond overcoming natural systems and now play a hypocratic game of trying to overcome the disempowerment of the synthetic systems we have created, built on the fear based game theory that implies we are prisoners, wasting the most resources for the least relevant reasons: war, politics, and finance.
Ideas for solutions in the present day, magic bullet or not, are still built on those same fear-based frameworks: to overcome HC. Despite so many people wanting empowered change, we think such people are the exception, not the hope of the norm. Our experiences hoping for leaders, to the point of deity, of political and religious leaders, even reactionaries, has not led to empowered change. They are either usurped by the crowd all left to be ignored. But it is not just a large-scale phenomenon. It's also as small-scale where businesses are in perpetual debt.
These dichotomies make great stories to trickle down for people to tell and write books about, but that doesn't resolve the problems. Many don't want those problems to be solved because there's no money in it. And this is the oxymoron. We hope for people to pick morals over money but never question money as a value of life. It's no wonder there is no solution don't people want to support when money is compromised.
If we are to be leaders for the world to be a better place, then we must look at practical empowered systems that all people can use with little need for hierarchical governance or fear. One of the best engineering companies, Arup, are renowned for their 2-level company structure and are renowned for some of the greatest engineering feats globally.
We need to find, and use, trust-based systems built on the abundance of our creativity and imagination that includes all things. Trying to create trustees models to afford change will not work. Humans are not innately trustless. We instinctively trust. Children are the truth of this. That we are adults means being wise children, not programmed zombies.
It's interesting to find that in so many solutions put forward for empowered change, the design frameworks of currency are seldom looked into. People may offer new processes for currency and exchange but they are still built on the same usury frameworks that incentivises people to quantify wealth in terms of money with little regard of what created that money.
I am proposing a model that incentivises and empowers all people, good to bad, to look at profit and wealth in qualitative frameworks that default to build trust, in both competitive and collaborative relationships, to value sustainable synergy in creating experiences to empower the most people for all.
During this unique time of the C-19 pandemic, timed or opportunistic, with this mass devolution of economic empowerment that has pushed most people to the edge again, it's essential to find solutions that don't revolve around continually accepted panic cycles like this, and be left to still more iconised messengers wanting your sacrifice, confinement and/or self immolation to support the narrowing few. It is not just about over population or environmental destruction or moral business, but much more the frameworks that even less to this spiralling disempowerment cycles of humanity against nature.
So, let's look at the physics of human identity and empowerment and discover the wealth model framework that supports the sustainable synergy of evolution to the greatest empowerment possible.
2
The objective here is to present an economic framework which values wealth empowering all people and Earth using decision making principles to resolution. The shift is to move from quantitative scarce measures of wealth to qualitative abundant methodologies, adaptive to local nuance promoting diverse opportunities grounded in sustainable synergy.
The central idea of this empowered economy creating the most empowered wealth is:
what and how we create to empower the most people in the most sustainable way possible, to redundancy.
Anything we do has to support this absolute. It must be structured on the strongest people that possess and act in distributing empowerment to the rest of their community, not through obligation or requirement, but as a preferred choice.
From this central idea, we build an adaptive social framework that incentivises such empowerment in the most constructive way possible adapting to the local environment.
Let's look at the basic fundamentals to work with:
Human Nature (HN):
Adapts to its environment. This is the beginning of how we build culture.
In scarcity or abundance, we are valued by the excellence of what we create.
Highest excellence empowers the most people to survive.
Loves something to strive for.
Is the only species that has overcome nature's limitations.
Thrives on creative capacity and imagination.
Wants to be remembered.
We want to trust more than fear others. Children are an excellent example of presenting this. Even as adults, we want to trust if we can, particularly governance. It's easier and wastes less energy.
Wants to be as lazy as it can possibly be to achieve the greatest gain. We always pick the easiest, most pragmatic path to get something as is possible. Whether that is through taking advantage of people, taking the path of least resistance, accepting our boundaries without reason, or being able to create something to make things easier for others, it is dependent on the frameworks that creates the most status and wealth for the capacity we choose to have.
Has an appalling capacity of believing in itself. As a result, it's self sabotage is itself despite the opportunity of realising self-empowerment.
From this mindset of lack of self belief, we attract governance that values inefficient compromise and disempowerment which segregates creative capacity, regardless of resources scarcity or abundance. This builds models of exchange and social structures that promote weakness.
Fundamentally, however, all people want to achieve excellence, and so adapt to the parameters to be able to do that as best as possible. In essence, self-belief up to a certain boundary. instead of changing the framework to be further empowered, they work within a framework of compromise in the best way they possibly can. But if we really want more, we must have a belief not just of self but that other is also can be ready to meet their true selves.
This is not possible in a bubble of just selling self belief in a framework that doesn't want you to achieve that. The framework has to adapt to the want of self-belief. If you define something about human nature on a negative framework, then it is more important to look at yourself and ask what is lacking in yourself to think such a thing.
Environment (E):
Resources are always scarce, but our creative capacity is limitless.
Resources only those that are useful to the central idea.
For resources to be their most plentiful, natural symbioses between them must be maintained and regenerative. Any adaptive social framework must support this.
It makes sense to build economic models that promote collaboration as the best, most excellent choice to be able to be adaptive and flexible to empower self with others. Any conflict or competition is only as a means to create empowerment better.
Social Frameworks (SF)
How we value wealth defines status, in all cultures, qualitative or otherwise. This influences the governance to support that framework.
It doesn't matter whether it's from a disempowered or empowered framework, all that matters is how well we do that to achieve status with our greatest self-security in mind. If a framework is built around scarcity, then mainstream status will always be based on the success of overcoming this. If it is based on abundance, then mainstream status will be based on the best to cultivate that.
Fear drives separation. Joy drives integration.
We are also more likely to trust someone who offers an opportunity to overcome fear. This is most apparent in times of desperation. This usually doesn't end well.
if social frameworks are built around fear, then it only establishes the fear. It does not overcome it.
It seems while we feel that we can trust some people in communities, we have an existential belief that this cannot be global. we use this as a foundation of building social structures despite the fact that brother it's the inverse that is more true. When humanity is so empowered in accessing resources at will, it must adapt to empower those resources to be used in the most efficient way possible. Leveraging trustless systems is not understanding empowered HN. Any social structure that the sides that compromise is inevitable, whenever value creating sustainably.
Money/Currency/Exchange (M)
Money doesn't exist unless we create something and somebody wants it. If there is nothing to buy, money is meaningless.
The wealth of a true economy is it's people. It is an oxymoron to think money exists separate of the work of people.
People's capacity to create is the real money. If we do nothing, there is no economy or wealth. Therefore, money must be directly based on the work people do. Basing money on something outside of that disconnects that basic fundamental.
Wealth is not money if there is nothing to buy. Therefore, money is always servant to peoples' capacities to create.
There are only three money structures to define and work with: usury (positive cost), demurrage (negative cost) and neutral (no cost). What defines which are empowering or not are dependent on how much is available, how it's distributed, I know if it is based on the work of people or something else.
Usury does not mean exorbitant cost. It is any cost. If it was the former, then there is an undefined band of money which is little cost. This seems to be conveniently swept under the carpet. It also implies that a cost on currency is fundamental. It isn't. Anyone that promotes such a definition of exorbitant cost and/or interest is not interested in sustainable synergy solutions.
Basing currency on something outside of work incentivises using it as a commodity of its own value. Basing it on work makes this impossible with the right parameters.
Cryptocurrencies are not different to any other mainstream currency if it follows the same frameworks as usury currency. it is just the same thing delivered a different way. Bitcoin is quite different to every other alternate currency due to specific parameters that made it difficult to continue as an exchange mechanism versus a store of value that many people have tried to overcome. This brought on ICO commodity boom that was purely fictitious, totally missing the larger picture that Bitcoin wanted to present. That again shows how powerful changing currency can be for sustainable empowered change.
Here are the parameters to scrutinise:
What is it based on?
Is the volume infinite or finite?
How is that volume distributed?
Is there a cost?
There are also only three frameworks of currency cost:
Usury (any interest or fee)
Demurrage
No cost (neutral).
Unfortunately, we have been dealing with usury currency as a commodity for as long as humanity can remember and built our understanding of human nature from that. It is built on the framework of disempowering social structures that PD game theory succinctly presents. It defines HN as a prisoner by default. Why? Money has almost always been created from violence and disempowerment to gain dominion to combat scarcity. David Graeber's book Debt: The First 5000 Years, establishes this. Usury currency has always been connected to political power disempowering people, regardless of whether it's capitalist or communist or anything in between. The only difference has been from the people who choose to have status to empower or disempower. As most democracies separate currency from governance, politics will not change anything unless you change fundamental frameworks to incentivize leadership to support people by default.
What usury currency and PD really demonstrate is that we trust what people tell us to overcome our fears and we try and trust what they say because we're told we cannot trust ourselves. So we choose to accept fighting disempowerment rather than leveraging empowerment because we are led to believe it's easier to follow then be an independent peer competing and collaborating for the greater good.
It seems the human condition is that it gravitates to its fear of knowing self and not trust itself instead of the opposite. That's quite different to defining human nature that objectifies humanity to be perpetually bad and need to be saved from itself.
This is beyond the ethics of morals and virtue to be the foundation in creating empowering frameworks. It is more relevant to incentivise the ethics of excellence in building empowering frameworks that value wealth in accessing experiences created sustainably. It seems some people mistake the word excellence to mean self against others. No one achieves excellence without the help of others. Excellence in absolute terms is connected to and supports everyone. That is the highest ethic.
3
The parameters of BUXB incentivises people to value wealth in creating sustainably in synergy with others, regardless of their personality and self belief. It takes out the argument of whether humanity needs to be saved or not. It takes out objectifying people being good or bad, true or not. It promotes at looking at oneself in the present and being an environment to know that there is a choice to do better rather than worse. It is a model where people I'm not compromised to be good and be influenced to be less than this. BUXB is simply an exchange model that promotes being better as a personal choice and being supported to do that.
It's primary means of incentive to valuing ethics is the opportunity to be educated to be your best and leverage are there has to be their best with you. it does not promote virtue against yourself. It promotes excellence with yourself.
In David Graeber's book, 'Debt: The First 5000 Years', it is clearly demonstrated that so much money is built on violence, compromise, and disempowerment. BUXB totally eradicates the need of compromising people for money. Money is not wealth without people. There is no wealth without people.
All people are peers. What people create and why will define whether they are worth your time. If they're not doing their best to create experiences to empower the most people, including yourself, in the most sustainable way possible to redundancy, then they are not going to be efficient with your time or resources to warrant it.
BUXB means Be yoU eXchange Bank. The denomination of currency is 'bux'. The parameters of bux are as such:
It is created by the exchange of work between at least two people. If nothing is done there are no bux.
As a result, no money is created independently of work done. BUXB is not able to be bought by other currencies.
Total exchanges balance to zero, except in regards to education. In such a case, all people participating in an education platform are paid by the bank.
The bank's deficit is the positive of education that is happening in the community. The volume and type of transactions recorded by the bank, irrespective of the amount, will show what interests the community or communities involved. This is transparent for everyone to see to know where to best use their energy, to the individual's greatest interest.
No one is forced to exchange with another person if they choose not to.
What people choose to create to exchange is transparent to everyone else in the community. again, this is to inform not just the community what has the greatest benefit to create but also the interest of the person in wanting to create it. It will also establish how good day are at it which only promotes them more.
People are free to give what they wish and record it in the bank if they want to.
If someone chooses to keep a transaction a secret, for whatever reason, they are welcome.
the bank exists simply as a ledger of exchange and amount of what people choose to create. It cannot create any currency whatsoever. Anyone working for the bank is paid by the bank. There are no taxes taxes from the community to run it.
Community projects are mandated by direct democracy which people at BUXB manage. The only advantage 4 people both at the bank and the community Ark pick the projects that best support empowering the most people in the most sustainable way possible to redundancy. Since this is the case, there is no compromise between self interest and the community. On a project being decided on, the best people who can do that most efficiently will be the people that will be paid. Such civil or community costs will be covered by the bank.
the bank is not a separate entity or corporation or business that requires profit. It is simply a quantitative record of exchange between people in the community and communities that use the same currency.
To overcome any misconceptions that charging more would mean more wealth, no one can be paid more than 60bux an hour. As prices of products are based on the amount of work that people do, there is a natural incentive of the price mechanism to fall for everything while quality increases. This establishes that products and services of higher quality cost less.
There is no loss of a free-market. The natural consequence of presenting ideas to the community to use their time in the most efficient way possible to effectively empower others in the most sustainable way possible to no longer at needing to be required is the incentive for people to give their time to such ideas. Competing ideas will be based on those parameters. If there is a conflict of which idea is better, the natural consequence of this is either consensus to follow one project or for both projects to work concurrently to find out which is best. This is still the most efficient means of using resources instead of conflict in resolving who is better without actually have any experience to know and learn from doing what the idea of say they were going to.
Resources that people own using BUXB are not taking away from them. they only become available as they see fit while they become more comfortable and empowered using a model that has more options. It will become plain to realise that trying to find ways to look after properties you own when people are more independent is more difficult but you gain more connecting with people with what they make and don't lose your comfort for your security a,d experience; you gain it a different way
Any business built by many people will have a part of the business in some way to attain part of that future profit. But as the price mechanism is quite different in BUXB, participants would game or by selling products at the price that it took to make it. Ask the price will be quite different to what it would be in usery currency, the real value is that quality increases, prices fall.
The true currency really is people's status in creating quality. The price is simply a transition mechanism as people become more comfortable to qualitative frameworks to value status.
Controversially, the best example of how BUXB would work in the community is the intentional community mentioned and discussed in the end of Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged. Entrepreneurs in her book get a bad rap but, as usual, we trust the messenger that delivers fear instead of logic. To say that entrepreneurs are bad because they are self-interested egoists is saying to love and improve yourself is bad.there should be no difference between an entrepreneur and a person. I must stipulate that saying an entrepreneur is an opportunist is incorrect. Whether we are people alone or together creating, the objectives of creating experience it's to empower the most people in the most stainboy possible to redundancy is the absolute objective to warrant any idea, and the work to do it, to be valued in its highest esteem.
It is plainly clear that her hero entrepreneurs create the best for the least price. all value the quality of their work, and the people that do it not just for but with them. They are not just the entrepreneurs but the politicians we would like to see. They respect everyone who respects themselves in being their best. This is priceless. It is only in that intentional community where they can negate the disempowerment of compromised social structures and usury currency for the greater good. In this intentional community, we can focus purely on what her hero entrepreneur is a truly like. They are mindful empowered selfish creators self aware enough to create their best for the greater good. Any bastardisation of that interpretation has been made rampant by the wannabes. Alan Greenspan, a frequent guest at Ayn Rand's social events, is the epitome of the second-handers she despises.
All her heroes are interested in education first, to offer the opportunity for everyone to be their best at what interests them. Hank Reardon makes the best alloy at the cheapest price than his competitors. Dagny runs the best railroad. Hiring a vehicle for $0.05 for the day. Who has the car is not important. All her hero entrepreneurs value creating the highest quality for the best price they can. All got their hands dirty being on the ground to experience the knowledge to be their best for those that will know better. In a commodity-driven world of wealth, there will always be the compromise between what to pay oneself vs the people under you doing the work. And the absolute genius to present how different this is in Ayn Rand's intentional community is the bank.
Midas turned everything into gold. In business, everyone he backed succeeded. When he leaves to join the intentional community, he balanced his books to zero. Rand's subjective in pointing this out is Midas left without owing or being owed anything. That in itself is an extraordinary feat in a usury world. Arguably, if that were truly possible, this could only happen in a currency with no cost. It would be interesting to analyse that. But in the microcosm of the intentional community, Midas is picking the best in a barrel. They're all good. They all want to be better. Interestingly, the means of exchange is in gold. This can bring up whether people a mining for gold for currency or as a resource. What's more important is that the main purpose of Midas in the intentional community is simply being the creator of the means of exchange. There is no possible need or means or requirement to add any cost to the currency in such a community. It would be absolutely pointless. His objective is to create enough velocity of exchange as required. It is just he would, but he can only, only, give money to those who are the best at perpetuating empowerment. No one else is living there. Further, it is not required to compete with whom may have a car to lend or not as there is no need to create more cars if none are really required. There will be enough business for everyone until more cars required; then the best most sustainable people will make it, customised on demand. No one in the community would be bothered to make them if they are not needed. The ultimate empowerment in such an intentional community is no one is owned by anybody else and doesn't do anything for anybody unless they want to. Consequently they all do their very best for self and all because there's no better option. That is what selfish really means.
Many say these ideas of economies will not work at scale but understand we are in economic models that create so much for nothing. There is so much waste that is not sold. That's not efficient or useful or sustainable or empowering for anybody. So what is created is dependent on the creativity also of the means of production but not for the sake of the economy, but the community. It is easy to create a Tesla production line that can be powered on demand if another vehicle is required and then turn it off again. Cars need not be bought but rented as needed. Any alternative to sharing resources is far more efficient than the waste usury currency economies create.
People will assume and say that such ideas can only work in small communities. but the whole global market is a series of small communities connected together. What matters more are how sustainably they connect for the greatest benefit of all that lived there. I'm not just talking about humanity. Any human would know that if they want to at least survive, they must respect the environment.
When a person says human nature or the human condition is inherently bad; when they say it cannot work at scale, they are only presenting the weakness and disempowerment in themselves.
And this brings up the alignment of ethics and excellence. Going back to first principles, this sphere of ethics is very much built around the game theory of the PD: people are not to be trusted, so there will always be compromise. In doing so, we prioritise it. Instead, this intentional community is built on the capacity to achieve excellence. That is their highest ethic. What do we create to empower people and the environment without compromise for the greater good without self-immolation? You do want to live, right? The idea of self immolation as many religions value as a way to relinquish the weakness of human capacity is the largest most init oxymoron of human identity I could possibly imagine.
Another book to establish the ultimate empowerment of excellence is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. This is, incredibly, a seriously underrated book. it overcomes the duality and weakness we are presented with over and over again in being human and presents a simple monoism without making it a religion or a deity to follow. What Robert Pirsig makes abundantly clear with his first hand experience teaching his classes in Bozeman, Montana, is quantifying results disempowers people to create excellence and leverage empowerment. It is only when he conceals the marks that he must give because of the system he lives in that the students do their best independent work. Quality may be compared but it has no price. When quality is based on creating empowerment, there is no price-to-value such status. There is no greater wealth. We tell stories about people who have overcome the system. But why do we enforce a disempowering system to overcome? Do you think we will have no story to tell past the point of fear?
Look at the work you are doing an ask yourself if it can attain the absolute of empowering the most people in the most sustainable way possible to redundancy. Ask yourself if you are attached to the object of the work you were doing as the status in itself, or it is truly a trajectory to reach that ultimate goal of self and community empowerment.
If your work is based on the mindset of beliefs that the bigger picture is full of bad people to overcome, if it is based on absolute scarcity, if it is based on the character for people to follow and not the idea itself that can be given freely to empower, then you're not being honest and it won't work and it isn't worth doing. Who is it that said doing the same thing the same way leads the same results? While you argue for empowerment and freedom on frameworks of weakness, this reinforces itself. If you really want to do something different, you must change the way you value yourself. It's got nothing to do with commodity currencies.
BUXB itself could become redundant in the same way that currency almost is in Ayn Rand's intentional community (ARIC?). Other pioneers believe completely moving forward past quantified exchange would be impossible. But it is certainly achievable. Look at Trekonomics. No one buys the Replicator. It replicates for free, on demand. Wealth is in the discovery of empowering all people to do the same.
We are not all heroes, but in BUXB, you are fully supported to be the creator you want to explore. A master does not hide his evolution of being. He welcomes your interest, but what you do with it is your opportunity to be your own master. Not in ritual, not in obedience, but in creating to empower the most people the best way you can. And if you prefer to follow the master, that's fine, too. However, the fear of fearing people for their objective in connecting with you is allayed in every transaction. There is no need to swindle anyone participating in the BUXB. that would be the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. Instead that could alienate you. more likely, he would would look at you strangely saying 'You can be paid to be educated. What on earth are you thinking?'
In the real world, BUXB has an incentive to be used because it's free. It affords resources to be used more efficiently. It allows what is now regarded to be waste to be researched as new materials for other things. Further, it affords people to look at methods that don't create waste. In kind, this changes what type of work we value as status. Those that empower insynergy will have more value to be recognised.
By simply basing empowered social modelling on the concept that we want to be recognised in creating excellence, with respect to Earth, which is fundamental, the natural consequence of using BUXB, regardless of your personality, is to collaborate to make things better. It does not connect self away from others on virtue orl morality. Bitconnect self with others on the basis of sustainable excellence. The wealth of entrepreneurs is no longer limited to creating objects to obsolescence, but is now creating experiences to evolve every one to the point that they are no longer required. Everyone is now the money with the potential to do what they want to be valued for their creative capacity empowering self and others. we do not create energy for the sake of it. We wonder what we are using the energy for. We do not worry about overpopulation, rather we look at that there is more sense as a global whole to work collaboratively to reduce the population and be recognised for that choice. we do not waste energy on theories that are less than the most beneficial to apply in the soonest time possible. The icon of status is not to do with discussing change but acting on the best ways to change. people will recognise that it is safe to be in the present. that they can spend time with themselves and discover who they really are and be able to express that to others through on the same journey without fear.
BUXB is not just a different exchange model; it is a means of revaluing what our wealth and quality of life really is.
If you are absolutely dogmatic to want resolution to the object of renewable eenegy, climate change, overpopulation, modern monetary theory, steady state economies, degrowth, sustainability/regeneration, environmental/ecological/resource-based economics, discrimination, crime, slavery, famine, without looking at revaluing wealth on qualitative frameworks, then you are playing the object of being a changemaker, an activist, an icon for something better without actually changing anything. There's a long list of that: another story to tell doing the same thing the same way and not getting any results. If you feel I have an attachment to 'BUXB', then you're looking at me, not the model. Wrong target. It is a tool for you, not against you. And it's free.
It has the means to achieve whatever empowered endgame you want. All I have done is change the currency model framework and revalue wealth for what it really is.
Not that complicated.
In this short time during the coronavirus, it's clear we can act fast globally if we want to. Let's try to do it with something empowering instead of disempowering as a means towards identity.
Frederick Malouf
