To: A few friends, many lurkers and Innocents, and too many Devious Defenders
of the Status Quo (DDotSQ) on several mail lists.
Good day Folks,
My previous post, Macro & Micro Models of a Nation, II, Date: 99-06-03
07:02:21 EDT, concluded with an offer which Fred Foldvary, Prof. of
Economics, could not refuse. The offer read:
>> If this does not illuminate the forward from Harry Pollard, let me know
who Harry Pollard is and what the forward consisted of, and I'll do my best
to close the gap.
Sincerely,
WesBurt <<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prof. Foldvary replied,
>> WesBurt:
Harry Pollard is on the land-theory e-mail list, where he posted your
message.
He teaches economics to high school students in Los Angeles.
I too admire Thomas Paine, but I don't see how this ties in to your
presentation, which seems to be saying that families should get some
minimum income from the government.
Thomas Paine said that society should be free, and that land rent should be
shared.
If there are no taxes on labor and enterprise, and rent is used for our
collective services, then would that solve the problem?
Fred Foldvary <<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I could be making the second mistake of my life, but it seems to me that
Prof. Foldvary is trying to dissipate my meager resources by changing the
subject, from Macro and Micro models for cockroaches, rats, and poor people,
to what Thomas Paine did or didn't say in Part II of his 1791-2 reply to
Edmund Burke's 1790 REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE.
Part I of Paine's THE RIGHTS OF MAN treated the political structure of
democratic-capitalism, Part II described the financial structure of
democratic-capitalism, which had been well enough established in the United
States by the 1790s to provide a steady increase in the value of the dollar,
in peace time, until the 1890s. But democratic-capitalism also needed to be
established in France and England, or the "Old Order" would rock back into
place. They damned near hanged Thomas Paine for proposing the new economic
paradigm. Too bad Europe and England had to wait until after World War II
before they could experience democratic-capitalism, and after a run of three
decades, it seems that they can't hold on to it any better than the U.S. has,
with its 4-10% unemployment and 2-3%/year inflation, since the 1890s.
The task ahead is to show the lurkers and innocents on these several lists
just how well the Macro Model <FIG4B.GIF> and the Micro Model <FIG8.GIF>
comprehends the financial structure of industrial economies, from the U.S.A.,
with its 30% of GNP tax rate, to the financial structure of the late great
U.S.S.R., with its 75% of GNP tax rate, 92% of which was indirect taxes on
the capital plant, as described in SEVENTY YEARS OF SOVIET GOVERNMENT, 1987,
by The Novosti Press Agency Publishing House? The financial structure of the
other industrial nations fall in between the outer tax rate limits defined by
the U.S. and the late U.S.S.R. With the U.S.S.R. gone, the outer limits seem
to be: the U.S. at 30% of GNP and Sweden at 55% of GNP.
By strange coincidence and good fortune, my subscription to mail list
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was approved yesterday and among the several
e-mails from SANE posters was a post from Harry Pollard on the subject: Re:
Wealth, 99-06-05 00:02:00 EDT, in which he writes:
>>
> >We are concerned with how to help people suffering poverty, and offer them
> >everything from food to money. We never seem to ask the question Henry
> >George posed 150 years ago.
> >
> >"Why, in spite of enormously increased production, is it so hard to make a
> >living."
> >
> >Harry
<<
Pleased to meet you, Harry. My understanding of "classical economics," from
Spinoza 1670 to Adam Smith 1776 to Henry Carter Adams 1887, had its origin in
the economic dispatching methods of the electric power industry. I had the
opportunity, in 1953, to include those methods in the technical
specifications for equipment which would automate that industry's production
dispatching function. It was not until 1969, however, that I began to search
the economic, religious, and political literature for some trace of the
"classical economic" solution which had been standard operating practice
(SOP) among power engineers since the 1920s. The objectives of that SOP
were: 1, satisfy the consumer demand for power with a minimum fuel input to
the system, 2, preserve the stability of the interconnected system and the
soveriegnity of each corporate member.
I am much obliged to you, Harry, for forwarding one of my posts to the
land-theory e-mail list where it came to Prof. Foldvary's attention, and to
Prof. Foldvary, for introducing me to this extended and SANE dialog.
Kind regards to all interested parties,
WesBurt
