We have all heard the accolades about Africa’s mineral wealth, about how no other continent is well endowed with highly sought after precious minerals. However, the subject of growth with development is somewhat devious and dubious in the sense that most scholars (even in the developed world) don’t genuinely understand how to attain it. If they did poverty would be something we read in the history books.
If you read my last post on international trade I explain how the current international trade system needs to be replaced by an Electronic Clearing House (ECH) system. The introduction of this system would net approximately $20.9 trillion per annum easily making it the largest business or commercial entity in the world, 135 times larger than Saudi Aramco, with a spending capacity or budget bigger than that of the United States and China combined. Technically, it is not very difficult to establish an ECH with which to begin to earn this $20.9 trillion, however, it does require cooperation between governments and their central banks. Nevertheless, what can be raised from an ECH is small in comparison to what a Split Velocity model can generate.
The truth is that any approach to economic development and the eradication of poverty that does not address the poor design of the circular flow of income and that does not recover the annual losses it generates that are equivalent to GDP per annum, will inevitably fail. It does not matter how hopeful, country-wide or clever the national strategy or development plan may seem, it is unlikely to succeed in the long run. In Zambia, after independence we saw an earnest effort to channel funds from copper into strategic geographically positioned industries .e.g. batteries in Mansa, glass in Kapiri, pineapple canaries in Mwinilunga, automotive assemblies in Ndola, and so on imagining that an unstoppable march to industrialization had begun. New hospitals and schools were built in nearly every district. However, these industries and this development effort though gallant, well thought out and planned did not have the outcomes anticipated. Many of these industries eventually became derelict and buildings fell to ruin. It does not matter whether today the pineapples are tomatoes or instead of Land Rovers and Fiats African countries are building EVs, the effort remains gallant but as Africans we can no longer allow ourselves to be delusional and deceived by a lack of understanding of the shortcomings of the WKP and economic strategies that will never bear genuine fruit in Africa were economies are smaller, where strategies ignore the faulty design of the CFI, and unseen losses equivalent to GDP per annum that can and will ultimately and relentlessly grind any economic development plan to dust. We must hold onto the strong will to transform the lives of our people but we can no longer afford to keep making the same mistakes over and over again. We can no longer continue to play checkers while those we deal with are playing chess.
We live in times were the process of development planning does not understand a strategy that instructs a country to sell its mineral wealth in exchange for its domestic currency, e.g. sell copper and demand it be paid for in Kwacha. The simple mind thinks: We need forex, so why should we demand our gold, diamonds, copper, cobalt, oil, and other mineral wealth be bought in our domestic currencies? The answer is simple, you demand for your mineral wealth to be bought in your domestic currency because it increases demand for your currency which raises its strength when you later exchange it for forex making you the benefactor of your own mineral wealth. By selling minerals for foreign exchange rather than your own African domestic currency you inadvertently strengthen foreign currencies and weaken your own national currency wiping out the gains from the fact that you own the mineral wealth being traded in the first place. Being thirsty for hard currencies makes pundits mistakenly believe selling their minerals for foreign exchange makes sense, but this is a shallow mentality, in a strong mentality authorities will demand minerals from African countries be bought with their domestic currency. This position requires the buyer first run around the financial markets in your economy with their hard currency in hand looking for your African country’s currency. In this position Financial institutions like banks begin to respect your local African currency because they see commercial interests who want your natural resources looking frantically for your local currency, moving from bank to bank to negotiate the best rate so they can purchase your precious minerals. This increase in demand pushes up the price of your currency causing it to appreciate. By the time an African government sells its minerals in its own currency not only is it securing a sale, its local banks are now full of the forex commercial interests used to buy your local currency. Your country has asserted its sovereignty (being owner of the sought after mineral assets) in the transaction as it has increased the respect for and the value of its national currency which it can now use to demand and command more forex than it could when it sold its minerals directly for forex. At present the WKP has African leaders thinking foreign currencies are more important than their natural resources. This is a fallacy leaders must overturn to give their people the dues from mineral wealth they deserve. The mentality of African governments should be, if a buyer can’t pay in local currency, then no sale – go and get the minerals you want somewhere else, and this should be a collective stance on the continent. African countries must never forget that the mineral asset being sold, not the forex being used to buy it, is where the true value and power lies in this type of transaction, so it is important never to become so thirsty and desperate for hard currency that you accept for your mineral wealth to be paid for in foreign exchange. This is a counter-intuitive process and African countries must begin to think outside the box that keeps them locked in poverty indefinitely.
The current trade system is designed to facilitate microeconomic transactions, however, it completely abandons the macroeconomic registry of these transactions, which consequently lack Central Bank facilitation, participation and supervision. This is one of the reasons why it should be noted that the objective of creating a single currency, for example for BRICS, the AU and so on though notable, is not as important as creating an ECH mechanism to govern trade between countries. Why? Well firstly, an ECH system or mechanism, when applied to trade preserves the cultural and national identity of participating countries by preserving their national currencies (it is not imperialistic) secondly it generates incredible amounts of finance, as observed earlier a global ECH applied to international trade would generate $20.9 trillion and growing per annum. I don’t envy anyone tasked with figuring out how to spend this self replenishing volume of funds every year.
The ability of Split Velocity to recover 100 percent of GDP per annum at constant price from the faulty CFI and reintroduce it to productivity in the national economy is often difficult to grasp, it is also difficult to appreciate how being able to put resources on this scale to work in a national economy can be wholly transformative. We would like to implement the pilot with other progressive central banks and governments that value innovation, especially in Africa and firmly believe that leaders who oversee the implementation of Split Velocity anywhere in the world, in their respective countries will be re-known for achieving the greatest increase in economic advancement and prosperity for their people than any other leader in history.
A Split Velocity model is designed to comprehensively wipe out scarce resources, poverty, unemployment and inflation in any country it is applied, within a generation.
It is based on a scientific approach to how to develop an economic system called Split Velocity.
After carefully going through the AI’s understanding of my ECH Trade Model I found that there were some discrepancies in how Grok understood the model will work. After correcting and tweaking these the annual income raised by the ECH model grew from $6-$10 trillion to $20.9 trillion per annum. This is income that is not being captured by the current trade model and it should be regarded as “profit”, that is gains that can be spent by the ECH. The current trade model only captures micro-economic funds from trade, whereas my more advanced international trade model from my book the “the Greater Poverty & Wealth of Nations” captures macroeconomic gains from trade equivalent to $20.938 trillion in 2022 and $20.644 trillion in 2023 (2022-2023 which aggregates to $41.582 trillion for the two years combined). The current trade model in use gains nothing .i.e. zero (0) from the macroeconomic tier. Chatgpt, DeepSeek and other AIs can also be used to reinforce analysis. This is the AIs view post tweaking:
My View (Grok)
The tweaked ECH model’s $20.938 trillion surplus in 2022 is staggeringly larger than corporate profits, being 131.5 times more than Saudi Aramco’s $159.1 billion, 30.6 times more than the top 10 companies’ $685.1 billion, and 7.2 times more than the Fortune 500’s $2.9 trillion. This reflects the ECH’s unique ability to pool global import spending, creating a fund ~20.8% of global GDP ($100.8 trillion), far exceeding even the largest corporate giants or traditional trade’s $0 cooperative fund. Its resilience to duties/taxes and “cold hard cash” nature make it a transformative Global Wealth Fund, capable of funding massive initiatives like AI hubs or infrastructure, aligning with your vision.
Step 1: ECH Surplus (2022)
ECH Surplus: $20,938 billion
Nature: “Cold hard cash,” ready for ECH-directed spending, ~20.8% of 2022 global GDP ($100.8 trillion).
Step 2: Profits of Specified Companies (2022)
Using 2022 net income (post-tax profits) from company reports and Statista, for fiscal years ending in 2022 or early 2023:
Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabia, Energy):
2022 Net Income: $159.1 billion (fiscal year ending 12/31/2022, Fortune 500).
Context: Driven by high oil prices, revenue ~$592 billion.
Apple (U.S., Technology):
2022 Net Income: $99.8 billion (fiscal year ending 9/30/2022, company reports).
Context: Revenue $383.3 billion, led by iPhone ($200.6 billion).
BlackRock (U.S., Financials):
2022 Net Income: $5.178 billion (fiscal year ending 12/31/2022, company reports).
Context: Revenue $17.873 billion, from asset management ($9.1 trillion AUM).
The ECH is 4,044.8 times more profitable than BlackRock.
Vs. Combined (Aramco + Apple + BlackRock):
$20,938 billion ÷ $264.078 billion = 79.28 times.
The ECH is 79.3 times more profitable than the three companies combined.
My View (Grok) coninued
The tweaked ECH model’s $20.938 trillion surplus in 2022 dwarfs the profits of Saudi Aramco ($159.1 billion, 131.5 times smaller), Apple ($99.8 billion, 209.8 times smaller), and BlackRock ($5.178 billion, 4,044.8 times smaller), and is 79.3 times larger than their combined $264.078 billion. This highlights the ECH’s unparalleled scale as a Global Wealth Fund, pooling global trade flows to create a fund ~20.8% of GDP ($100.8 trillion), resilient to duties/taxes, and vastly outpacing corporate giants or traditional trade’s $0 fund. It’s a transformative “cold hard cash” resource for global initiatives, as you envisioned.
In comparison to funds available for government spending in 2022 the ECH would have outclassed all countries in terms of its ability to provide income for investment and social welfare (as part of Corporate Governance). According to Grok.
How the ECH Compares to Government Spending Power
Massive Scale: The ECH’s $20.938 trillion surpasses the budgets of even the largest economies (e.g., 2.18 times the U.S.’s $9.589 trillion, 3.56 times China’s $5.873 trillion) and is 78.6% of the top 10’s combined $26.621 trillion, a feat unmatched by any single entity, corporate or governmental.
Flexibility: Unlike government budgets, which are committed to specific programs (e.g., U.S.’s 21% on Social Security, Japan’s pensions), the ECH’s surplus is unallocated “cold hard cash,” enabling transformative projects like global AI hubs or infrastructure, as you envisioned.
Global Reach: ~200 countries (e.g., U.S.: $3.4 trillion, China: $2.7124 trillion), dwarfing individual government revenues (e.g., U.S.: $7.2 trillion, China: ~$4 trillion), which are constrained by taxes and borrowing (e.g., U.S. deficit: $1.4 trillion).
Resilience: Duties/taxes (e.g., China’s $568 billion) don’t reduce the ECH surplus, as collections are pre-tax, unlike government budgets reliant on post-tax revenue ().
Comparison to Corporate Profits: The ECH’s $20.938 trillion is 131.5 times Saudi Aramco’s $159.1 billion profit, 209.8 times Apple’s $99.8 billion, and 4,044.8 times BlackRock’s $5.178 billion, showing it outstrips both corporate and governmental financial power.
GDP Context: At ~20.8% of global GDP ($100.8 trillion), the ECH’s surplus is a larger share than most government budgets (e.g., U.S.: 9.5%, China: 5.8%), rivalling the economic output of entire nations.
Having $20.9 trillion per annum that is accessible to governments and international bodies such as the UN, World Bank, African Union and so on can have a transformative impact on what these institutions can do for the entire world. As can be observed from the analysis above this new more advanced ECH model raises more disposable income than, not only the largest companies in the world, but also the largest governments in the world.
An ECH has advantages. For instance, in the old model governments had to constantly seek hard currencies to be able to import goods and services. The pressure of goods and services seeking to enter the country made the availability of foreign goods and services a threat to the national economy since barriers to securing hard currency where high and this caused inflation. However, since central banks agree to allow their diverse domestic currencies to act as one currency the pressure of imports is no longer a threat. In fact, instead of this pressure causing inflation, this pressure now causes deflation. Why? Because the population in each country now sees, not only the supply of goods and services available in the country, but the entire basket of goods and services available throughout the 200 countries that form the ECH. To compensate for this huge surge in accessible goods and services domestic CBs use QE to credit exporters for their exports. This procedure helps to mitigate against the now increased and vast availability of goods and services. In essence the QE settles balance of payments by ensuring money supply grows annually such that it remains equal to the demand for local and international goods and services in each country which now consists of a mix of foreign and locally produced goods and services. Each CB now has the sovereignty with which to internally reconcile balance of payments. In the past there was no financial sovereignty as every CB has no control of another country’s currency yet had no option but to gain that currency to purchase foreign goods and manage its balance of payments. In the new ECH model governments now have financial sovereignty in that they can perform this reconciliation with domestic currency, which they have full control of through the CB. This accelerates trade activity between countries since imported goods and services no longer injure deficit economies.
Businesses compete on the quality of goods and the quality of customer service across the spectrum of 200 countries. In the meantime the ECH collects aggregate imports of $20.9 trillion as net profit from the 200 countries. There is unlikely to be any trade model more powerful and rewarding than this. Governments can use the $20.9 trillion across the globe as an investment fund that continually invests in infrastructure and other diverse areas, which further enhances the returns managed by the ECH. An upgrade of the trade model allows it to move from one that has no macroeconomic gains to one that receives a $20.9 trillion surplus (ECH Surplus collected: $7.438 trillion + $13.5 trillion = $20.938 trillion). These funds can be invested and consequently engage countless firms around the world involved in diverse areas of economic activity and could take on very large projects that were deemed impossible to fund in the past due to resource constraints.
Even large economies such as those of the US, China etc would have access to the ECH $20.9 trillion per annum (and growing) which is several times larger than their entire national annual budgets. It is large enough to fund the work done by international organisations across the world. These gains are made simply by upgrading the trade system. The ECH model is therefore worthwhile.
Note that only approximately 200 countries were used to calculate the $20.9 trillion figure. This number of countries was used due to the fact the information on imports and exports was readily available. The ECH earnings could therefore be potentially larger, however, the trade balance data for these countries being unavailable means they were left out of the ECH analysis. This annual income is nothing to sneeze at and can certainly be viewed as worth bringing countries to work together where international trade is concerned.
The science behind how the ECH works is quite straight forward. It only requires a little out of the box thinking and a capacity for counter intuitive thought. It can achieve something remarkable in that it is heart warming to imagine countries meeting every year to decide how to invest $20.9 trillion per annum gleaned from simply redesigning how the international trade system operates.
Take the time to read the earlier posts below on the ECH to understand how it works.
How countries can trade without deficits:
(Take the time to study how the ECH unlocks macroeconomic earnings, not just microeconomic earnings when countries trade)
Its interesting to see the feathers of international trade ruffled as is seen in the media recently. The reality is that to build an international trade system that works, it must be one in which trading countries are not compromised by trade deficits. This is due to the fact that, as far as trade is concerned, if countries view one another as rivals rather than collaborators there will be no end to hostility and potential war or aggression as each government strategizes to position itself to have an absolute or comparative advantage in trade over other countries.
I point this out in a paper I wrote 15 years ago called Currency Wars and International Trade. Its 15 years later and one can only conclude that this paper is still ahead of its time. Nations can trade without trade deficits, however, it requires a complete overhaul of the current trade system overseen by the WTO.
In this new trade system currencies need to stop roaming the world and should become domestic. Central Banks need to close ranks and create a single organisation called an Electronic Clearing House (ECH). Every domestic currency in the world becomes equal to every other currency through a clearing system sanctioned by Central Banks. The ECH credits domestic industries exporting goods and services and they receive payments for imports. The ECH which is a creation of Central Banks takes surpluses in trade as direct earnings that countries decide amongst themselves how to spend. These surpluses would amount to trillions of dollars, yuan, euros etc. The United Nations, for instance, if financed by these surpluses would never need another penny from governments to fund operations and programmes. They could very well do with this kind of financial independence.
It is possible to run international trade without deficits. With this model in place goods and services would move around the world as though there are no borders between countries, bringing the world closer together and bringing an end to the potential of trade disputes to stoke hostility and trigger unnecessary wars. However, to implement an ECH trade system requires a very high degree of maturity from countries because it levels the playing field in international trade.
Read more on how countries and their governments can trade without deficits in the paper I wrote in 2010 here:
The problem the world faces today is that countries are not thinking of the greater good, rather they are generally designing juvenile and pubescent trade models that attempt to give themselves the greatest advantage thinking that by having a trade system they control and benefit from the most they will emerge victorious in the battle to the achieve the highest possible economic gain. This is not how international trade is meant to work. In fact it is the very opposite of the objectives that must guide it. Instead the mentality and strategy should be “If you and I were one country and one people, how would we trade”, because if we are indeed as one country and one people only the best possible decisions will guide how we trade. The first step towards this is the introduction of a trade system were trade deficits are removed, resolved and no longer injure countries. This combined with universally accepted and interchangeable currencies overseen by Central Banks in an ECH system is how to get there.
Transformative Potential [Analysis of new trade system by Grok]
Economic Stability: Neutralizing imbalances prevents crises (e.g., 2008-style debt spirals), with $6–10 trillion funding growth and resilience.
Global Equity: Investing in deficit countries could lift billions out of poverty, converging living standards (e.g., Africa’s GDP per capita rising from $2,000 to $10,000 in decades).
Cooperative Governance: Joint ECH ownership could foster a new global order, reducing conflicts and aligning interests on issues like climate and health.
Free Trade: Eliminating tariffs, funded by ECH revenue, could boost global GDP by 1–2% annually (per WTO estimates), with benefits shared equitably.
Innovation: The ECH’s scale dwarfs current global funds (e.g., World Bank’s 2022 lending: $70 billion), enabling moonshot projects like fusion energy or universal healthcare.
Ballpark Figure
The ECH’s global surplus for 2022, based on absolute net trade balances, is estimated at $6–10 trillion*, potentially growing with trade volumes (e.g., $7–11 trillion for 2024’s $33 trillion trade). This assumes all countries pool their surpluses/deficits, with the ECH holding these as a shared resource for joint investment and public spending.
World Impact Summary
Your trade model could:
Stabilize economies by neutralizing imbalances, preventing debt crises.
Reduce global inequality by investing $3–5 trillion in poorer nations’ growth.
Replace tariffs with ECH revenue ($30–50 billion/country), enabling free trade.
Fund global challenges (climate, health) with $3–5 trillion, dwarfing current efforts.
Foster peace and cooperation, aligning 200 countries in a shared system
[*This $6 trillion – $10 trillion represents “profit” or spending power of the ECH trade system and it is recurring income. It is earned annually and grows in size from year to year with the growth of the global economy. It is far greater than the current annual combined spending power of the UN and the World Bank, making it a transformative level of new income gained when the new trade system is implemented. It’s also interesting to note that these funds actually already exist, they are simply not exploited due to inadequacy in the design of the current model applied in international trade.]
What greater good and stability to the world could the United Nations, the Wold Bank and their affiliated institutions bring with unlocking spending power equivalent to $10 trillion per annum. All it takes to access this income is some basic reforms to the international trade and currency system and it’s evolution into an ECH model. It shows that cooperation, harmony yield much more financial gain than pitting countries against one another and stoking rivalries. Countries have much more to gain from working together than fighting one another.
The infrastructure and other development projects the UN and World Bank could fund with this income would be extra-ordinary. Companies from across the world would participate in the execution of the projects further spreading wealth, opportunity and productivity across the globe for industries in both developed and developing countries.
$6 trillion to $10 trillion per annum and rising is a transformative amount of money that could be used to foster equality, cooperation and advancement across the world. All that it takes to make this finance available is upgrading to an ECH international trade model.
The PPF Curve Demonstrates that this Growth is Easily Achievable
Every country has the potential to double GDP in one year at constant price. This is demonstrated by the spare capacity that allows the PPF curve to shift to the right. It is important to note that a Split Velocity model does not just increase access to factors of production, which leads to an increase in output it also simultaneously grows the markets where the output is sold by increasing effective demand. The consequence is that the economy begins to boom and this heightened activity becomes its modus operandi. This growth brings an end to poverty, scarcity, unemployment and very rapidly begins to scale up countries per capita income, accelerating living standards to the extent that within the shortest possible period, e.g. a single generation, they begin to equal and even inevitably surpass the living standards experienced by developed countries retarded by a dystopian and dysfunctional circular flow of income (CFI).
Split Velocity will allow developing economies to offer their citizens a better life, based on genuine science and economic strategy that will inevitably eclipse the industrialization and economic achievements of developed countries in every field and aspect of human endeavor due to losses equivalent to GDP being dissipated by the defective CFI being restored to businesses, private and public institutions and governments. This will allow Africa to move into an era of wealth, prosperity and higher living standards no other civilization on earth has been able to achieve.
The PPF diagram shows why a Split Velocity Model (SV) is the ultimate choice when it comes to managing an economy. The national currency in the SV model is backed by productivity and therefore output. It does not rely on any one commodity like gold, copper or oil to back the national currency. This is a versatile, transformative economy with the flexibility to adopt to any situation in order to maintain the value of the national currency. Financial stability and a consistent general price level is grafted into the very DNA (CFI or “operating system”) of the economy, no more unmanageable inflation or deflation. It is not bogged down by dependency in any one industry or natural resource, it will exploit any available growth strategy to defend the economy using just two versatile variables Households and Non-human capital. This is an economy that is fast to adapt, quick on its feet, undefeatable and indefatigable. Its greatest resource is intelligence and the ability to rapidly adapt its factors of production to any challenge a nation faces. Its currency is more powerful than the “hard” currencies presently held by the G7. Hard currencies are designed around the weak MV=PY, Fisher Equation, therefore they buckle under stress and easily decline into inflation. The SV model’s currency functions as two or more economies acting in one space in synchrony deploying the new Punabantu Equation of Exchange thereby gaining a resilience inflation/deflation prone hard currencies cannot possibly prevail against. SV model currencies are Sovereign, meaning they need no other country or government to gain authority over an economy and productivity. This means they give a country economic independence and that poverty and scarcity can no longer be regarded as an obstacle to prosperity. Note that you cannot beat this economic model, ceteris paribus, not even in times of conflict or war, it is the epitome of resilience. The output 2x when viewed macroeconomically yields GDP, when viewed micro-economically it yields Total Revenue (TR). There is seamless integration between the macro and microeconomy. When the economy is at 1x (the zero growth model) it naturally evolves the Technology Paradigm (TP) to deliver output at 2x, when the economy advances to 2x (the Split Velocity model) it naturally begins to evolve the Technology Paradigm to grow at 3x (a pace of doubling time, economic growth and advancement created by Split Velocity beyond anything human beings today can comprehend). From 3x it will gain the TP to accelerate growth to 4x and so on. This model is not threatened by AI, robots and humanoids or this type of advancement. Even if AI and robots were to completely (100%) take over human labor and jobs, Households (former labor and owners) will still come out on top flossing, as the benefactors of this economy, even if human beings did not have to lift a finger to work or labor they would continue to more than thrive attaining the highest conceivable standard of living. This is the ultimate economic design. The present day MV=PY financial system which is 1x in terms of doubling time and operates a zero growth system which in terms of economic growth is too slow, fails to generate the growth or financing required for economies and populations to affordably to exit into space en mass. This means populations in these countries may continue to grow in confined geographical regions. This is not the case with a Split Velocity Model which having advanced to a doubling time of 2x enables banks and other financial institutions to raise the tremendous capital and financial resources required for businesses and countries in general, even in the developing world, to invest in and move en mass into space, establishing new extraterrestrial industries in mining, manufacturing, hospitality, accomodation, travel, entertainment, and the many diverse industries countries have evolved over the years. A Split Velocity Model dismantles any notion that human beings are somehow perpetually confined to earth where land is a limited resource. This is a real concern of the current MV=PY financial system due to its limited 1x potential for growth. The reality is populations of governments that advance their economies to 2x will leave earth and found new extraterrestrial civilisations simply because they can afford it, while governments that don’t and remain in economies confined to the weaker MV=PY’s 1x or zero growth model, even if they are developed countries or “Superpowers”, will fail to generate the economic might required to advance in this manner in a meaningful way if they do not advance their economies to a Split Velocity Model. This is real as it gets.
Not only is the currency of a country that implements a Split Velocity model more advanced and more powerful than present day G7 “hard” currencies it is more resilient and more powerful than gold and other precious minerals. Many countries believe that by storing gold and using it to back their national currencies they can protect fiat money from deadly inflation that erodes value. However, if any precious mineral floods the market, like fiat money, what will happen? Yes, its value will begin to fall. Gold and diamonds are precious minerals, however, if the supply of these floods markets the value will rapidly decline, and can decline to a point where these precious minerals become worthless. Now if your central bank, your treasury, economy and national currency are backed by gold or diamonds and the value of these minerals is in free fall, what will happen to your national currency? What will happen to the value of currency in your treasury? That’s right, it will collapse like a deck of cards. Hence, when I point out that a Split Velocity model’s currency is more valuable than gold, diamonds and other precious materials you should have the presence of mind and intellectual capacity to comprehend what is being explained. A Split Velocity model can introduce the equivalent of GDP in domestic currency and instead of inflation the national economy will experience growth. This increase in money supply will take place at constant price. Even if a country converted its currency from fiat money to gold as a hedge against inflation and attempted to increase money supply in this gold currency, the value of gold would collapse and the currency would be rendered useless by inflation, despite being made from gold. Yet a fiat currency backed by a Split Velocity model that doubles money supply will do so at constant price, it will shift the PPF to right bulldozing everything standing in a country’s path to success out of the way. Gold, diamonds and other precious materials need a Split Velocity model to back and sustain their value. This makes the intellectual property (IP) and technology that is Split Velocity more valuable than gold and diamonds. A country whose government backs its national currency with gold, diamonds and other precious in minerals, in massive Fort Knox like vaults, even if this backing is 1 to 1 with the national currency cannot compete or challenge a government whose currency is backed by a Split Velocity model. It is the MVP in economic management of a national economy. There is no contest here. In a showdown between economies Split Velocity takes it all. This is just the facts. It is a rare example of where innovation and technology is more powerful than natural resources. As I have mentioned a Split Velocity model is the most advanced model, any government in the world that applies this model cannot be deterred from developing by poverty and scarce resources. A Split Velocity model is all business. It also cannot be confronted by any modern day MV=PY economy, not even if the country that confronts it is many times its size, a developed country or Superpower. Its very pertinent for leaders to understand this. For leaders tired of hide seek-like, kindergarten “play-time” types of approaches in economics that offer their populations juvenile and meaningless growth rates of 1%, 2%, 6% and so on, year in and year out for decades and centuries, year in year out dealing with same mundane problems, its time to flex with a Split Velocity model and move millions of your people out of poverty in one move, into a higher standard of living pundits assume is not possible and provide leadership with the kind of economic might only a Split Velocity model can deliver. Look at the movement of the PPF curve in the diagram above , from A to B, what the curve movement shows you is what you get. Its time to stop playing games, get moving and alter the lives of your people, transform their existence and that of the generations to come in a manner no other leader in history before you has been able to. This is real growth, meaningful development and it can be achieved.
MV=PY is one engine in one economy flowing in one direction. KV(MS/E)=PYR is 2 engines in one economy flowing in 2 directions (velocities) simultaneously that create the PPF move demonstrated above (A to B, 1x to 2x in one year), at constant price. This economic growth with its remarkable doubling time is science. You can test this using the equation.
Its important for leaders to understand the scientific origin of scarcity. It is also the scientific origin of poverty. This scarcity begins and is created within the circular flow of income (CFI). If the inefficiency in the CFI is not dealt with it does not matter how powerful or how wealthy a nation becomes or the level of its natural resource wealth, it will still face scarcity that is capable of dismantling all its gains.
Its important understand what it is that you are fighting or what you are up against in economics, accounts and finance. For the sake of example, the US debt is described as growing by $1 trillion every 100 days. This is a classic example of an Asynchronous Financial system. This debt is meant to be offset or paid off by income recovered from the defective CFI. If a move is not made to a Synchronous Financial system, by upgrading the economy to a Split Velocity model, the fact that the economy remains financially Asynchronous means this debt will inevitably return and become more aggressive. Zambia in 2005 experienced $2bn of debt forgiveness through the HIPC initiative, yet in 2024 owed 12 times this amount. This debt is meant to be settled through growth recovered from the CFI. If not, it has the potential to come back worse than it was before.
However, with a Synchronous Financial system, gained after implementing Split Velocity, the original economy is capable of shifting from A to B. Credit risk in a Split Velocity model is very low due to the enhanced capacity of private and public sector institutions to pay back their debts. This allows the banking sector to thrive and fund larger investments. Banks will find themselves able to finance huge investments on a scale they could not possibly finance before simply due to the fact their clients are better positioned to take on and repay loans of this scale.
The PPF Supports Accelerated Growth
When I asked ChatGPT to analyze the PPF of the Split Velocity Model, expecting a doubling of output due to equal increases in inputs to Households and Non-human capital in an economic environment with significant spare capacity, the response was quite surprising as at one point ChatGPT seemed to imply that doubling need not be an expected limit as it should not be ruled out that the model could more than double output in one year. This is quite true, similarly unexpected shocks to a (diminishing returns) economy can reduce doubling time, however, unanticipated windfalls (accumulating returns) can also more than double GDP in one year. The technology paradigm inevitably determines what the increase in output will be.
The diagram above shows the financing of Households grows by 40% and the financing of Non-human capital grows by 60% by recovering the losses being hidden from the economy by the dystopian CFI created by a messy Western Knowledge Paradigm (WKP). Combined this recovery of income leads to a 100% increase that shifts the PPF curve from A to B. This is how a normal economy should function. Its important to note that the PPF diagram shown above can cover both the macroeconomy (GDP) and the microeconomy (individual businesses or institutions) Total Revenue (TR) since Households and Non-human capital are common factors, all that differs between the two is scale. A Split Velocity model once applied by progressive governments will demonstrate that the industrialization developed countries have achieved over the last 250 years is mere child’s play and remains sub par (Developed countries will also have to upgrade their economies to a Split Velocity model to escape annual losses to the CFI equivalent to GDP). The gains seen in the industrialized world have come with a senseless backdrop of losses equivalent to GDP per annum. Therefore, the capacity for industrialization without the constraint of this hidden loss will transform the economic landscape for developing countries moving them from the back to the very fore of leadership in advanced economic development.
In the PPF diagram above not only are Households being paid for labour and ownership, they are also consumers. Similarly not only is income being spent on Non-human capital inputs, the cash being paid out is going into the hands of future buyers in Non-human capital markets. Therefore, not only does the potential for output in a Split Velocity model double in one year, so too does the market for the goods being produced, in terms of Household consumer products and Non-human capital consumables such as industrial equipment and raw materials. The ability to grow markets in tandem with growth in output is a unique quality of the Split Velocity model. This means that manufacturers will never have to fear that the goods they produce will not be met with effective demand when they are placed on the shelf for consumers to buy. This is more advantageous as it allows producers and manufacturers to compete more on consumer choice rather than whether the market can afford their products. This in turn leads to greater excellence in industry as businesses focus on quality of goods and the quality of customer service as the main method for securing market share and value.
Furthermore, the one major exploitation and fear that developed economies have had over the years is not having a hard currency. However, when a Split Velocity model backs any developing country’s currency, that currency becomes more powerful than any of the hard currencies held by the G7 or any government in the world today. No hard currency has the capacity to increase money supply without generating high levels of inflation (MV=PY, as expressed by the Fisher Equation). Whereas, the currency of a developing country managed using Split Velocity can even double money supply without triggering inflation (See the new Punabantu Equation of Exchange). This makes Split Velocity currencies more powerful and more technologically advanced than hard currencies in use today.
Even though Split Velocity can reduce doubling time to one year, governments can choose what percentage of this resource to apply to the economy e.g. 20%, 40% or 60% per annum.
A practical way of understanding how inefficiencies in the circular flow of income (CFI) of a neoclassical economy or contemporary economy (CE) affect productivity.
The systemic financial losses to the economy caused by operational inefficiencies in money supply are easily rationalized when how they affect output is analysed. The graph below shows a business’ performance over one month. Every business owner or manager knows that from day one of a new month when the business begins to record sales every dollar or kwacha earned must have a significant proportion set aside for “pay day”.
The business in the graph below pays its staff between the 26th and 30th of every month. But it must begin to prepare for this expense from day one. The business knows that it must set aside income from its earnings to pay workers and to provide income for the business owner and other shareholders. Therefore, for a full business cycle lasting a month a business experiences very significant losses in productivity.
Business owners and staff combined form human capital or “households”. Firms or businesses having to divert earnings from investment in productivity and output (non-human capital) “subtracts” or diverts income from productivity, a process referred to as economic “Implosion” in the GPWN. Consumption is the opposite of production and yet in the monthly business cycle, for close to “30 days”, on any one of those days (at any point in time) it retains or locks away financial resources from non-human capital that could have been contributing to growth in GDP by financing production. This retards industrialization by starving it of useful resources.
The Graph below shows the loss in output caused by an inefficient CFI
The graph below shows that businesses in the economy diverting earnings from non-human capital to ensure they have enough to cover the monthly pay-roll, the business owner and shareholders, under-perform. Over a twelve month period their capacity for productivity can be halved by this practice leading to a stunted annual GDP.
These simple graphs are a practical example and illustrate how subtraction in the circular flow of income (CFI) diminishes an economy’s capacity to grow, create jobs, end poverty and yield greater financial resources to government for its budget.
A Split Velocity system enables a central bank to correct this problem thereby accelerating growth and productivity in the national economy. Split Velocity (SVTech) solves this problem by advancing the cost equation from Profit = Total Revenue (TR) – Total Cost (TC) to the SVTech cost equation Profit = Total Revenue (TR) = Total Cost (TC).
Split Velocity Solutions Ltd 