Re: Don't shoot me. (wasRe: Fw: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

[Ed Weick]

It's being eligible for a government program payment, 
but getting less and less of it the higher you are on the income scale. 
For example, I'm eligible for Old Age Security, but don't get any because my 
income (combined with my wife's) is too high. Pity!

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Keith Hudson' ; 'Ed Weick' 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:31 
  PM
  Subject: RE: Don't shoot me. (wasRe: Fw: 
  [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
  
  
  Ed and 
  Keith,
  
  What’s a 
  “clawback”?
  
  Harry
  
  
   Henry 
  George School of Social Science of 
  Los Angeles 
  Box 
  655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 
  818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net   
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith HudsonSent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 11:58 
  AMTo: Ed WeickCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Don't shoot me. (wasRe: Fw: 
  [Futurework] FW Basic Income 
  sites
  
  Ed,Don't shoot me. I'm only the 
  messenger.At 12:51 16/12/2003 -0500, you 
  wrote:
  (KH)Your special 
  problem in Canada is that your government(s) 
  has already committed itself to future welfare payments of over 400% of your 
  present GDP. How on earth you are ever going to afford those, goodness knows. 
  You cannot possibly afford to consider any extra welfare payments. You will 
  certainly need a voluntary sector (and a very large one, too, one 
  imagines!).(EW)Keith, 
  absolute nonsense! I have no idea of where you got your numbers, but no 
  government, even ours, is that stupid. 
  I'm afraid that the IMF thinks so. This from a 
  report, "Who will Pay?" by Peter Heller, Deputy Director of Fiscal Affairs, 
  IMF. Canada already has an explicit debt 
  of something like 40-50% of GDP, but has committed itself already to future 
  commitements of about 400% of GDP. See the Economist of 22 November 2003 
  for a summary of the report. In respect of future commitments, 
  Canada is already twice as 
  bad as France and 
  Germany and they're already right 
  up to the hilt in what they can squeeze from the 
  taxpayer.
  But I do appreciate your sense of 
  humour. I don't know if you saw my piece on how a BI might be cobbled 
  together from existing programs. And this morning I posted a suggestion 
  that you could have a universal BI program with clawback 
  provisions.
  But, surely, clawbacks invalidate it as a BI. You 
  might just as well suggest further sets of welfare provisions. But even a 
  Labour government over here is talking about the need to reduce all sorts of 
  pensions and benefits in the future, and we've much less current debt and far 
  fewer future commitments than Canada. 
  Keith
  Ed 
  - Original Message - 
  
  From: Keith Hudson 
  
  To: Ed 
  Weick 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:38 AM 
  
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites 
  
  Ed, 
  At 19:18 15/12/2003 -0500, you 
  wrote:
  A special problem we have in 
  Canada, and I know we're not 
  unique, is the division of responsibilities under our constitution. The 
  federal government is responsible for some things, the provinces for 
  others. Too many people at the table to get an easy agreement. 
  Thank God we have a large voluntary sector that actually does things while our 
  two levels of government wrangle themselves into 
  stalemates!
  Your special problem in 
  Canada is that your government(s) 
  has already committed itself to future welfare payments of over 400% of your 
  present GDP. How on earth you are ever going to afford those, goodness knows. 
  You cannot possibly afford to consider any extra welfare payments. You will 
  certainly need a voluntary sector (and a very large one, too, one imagines!). 
  
  Keith
  Ed 
  
  
  
  
  
  - Original 
  Message - 
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Monday, 
  December 15, 2003 3:19 PM 
  Subject: RE: 
  [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites 
  
  I agree. I 
  was too sharp in my response. I apologize. 
  I think Ed's 
  posting covers why it is affordable. But we may not be 
  
  socially ready 
  for BI. We are used to taking from the pot but not giving 
  
  back. My 
  fear is that BI will only accentuate taking and not giving. 
  
  It may not be a 
  good idea, in my view, since we have yet to 
  educate/socialize 
  people understand that they are part of society and that 
  
  while society is 
  responsible to them with BI, they are also connected to and 
  
  involved with 
  society such that they are expected to give back to society. 
  
  Blame on too many 
  years of "smash and grab" consumerism/capitalism or 
  
  "bowling alone" 
  or what have you. 
  arthur 
  
  -Original 
  Message- 
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMA

Re: [Futurework] My ongoing struggle to see the obvious :: Basic question for economists

[Ed Weick]

I've been halfway through Diamond for a little over a 
year now and must finish it someday, although I don't think I've ever finished a 
book in my life. In my view,one reason why hunting and gathering 
groups attack and destroy each other is that they are motivated by fear of 
something they cannotreally understand. Competition for resources 
may be another reason. There is something of a classic case in Arctic 
Canada, where the modern Inuit (the so called Thule Culture) replaced the Dorset 
Culture (Tunit) beginning about a thousand years ago. From what little 
I've read, the lifestyles of these two peoples were very different. The 
Inuit used dogs, moved about a lot, lived in tents in summer and snow houses in 
winter. The Tunit were sedentary, lived in stone houses (or really holes 
covered by stone roofs), and did not use dogs -they apparently used 
sleighs that they dragged about themselves. It would seem that the Inuit 
pictured the Tunit as some kind of strange and sinister population of giants 
that posed some form of shadowy, omnipresent threat, and it was therefore 
necessary to get rid of them, which is what seems to have happened. As 
they spread across the Arctic from west to east, the Inuit also needed access to 
Tunic hunting and sealing areas. As a distinct culture, the Tunit 
disappeared about 400 years ago, although a highly resepected anthropologist I 
once knew told me that the last Tunit he knew of, a woman, died on Southampton 
Island in the 1920s.

I repeat a point I've made frequently on this list: 
inter-group or inter-ethnic strife is a very difficult thing to decompose into 
its elements. It is far more complex than an envious alpha-male jumping up 
and down because he wants to wear the same war-paint as the chief in the next 
valley over and is willing to part with his virgin daughter or kill people to 
get that paint.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 8:54 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] My ongoing 
  struggle to see the obvious :: Basic question for economists
  
  I am 
  about one-quarter of the way through Guns, Germs and Steel (The Fate of Human 
  Societies) by Jared Diamond. So far the picture that seems to emerge is 
  that humans tend to band together and with a murderous rage will defeat the 
  other band if they can. The stronger culture will 
  defeat/murder/subjugate the weaker culture simply because it 
  can.
  
  Its 
  a sort of Darwinian survival of the strongest (measured in terms of resources, 
  technology , social organization, tactics and strategy) 
  
  
  I 
  don't think its so much about status but about power and control and maybe its 
  natural, the same way that animals in the wild will hunt down and kill sick 
  and injured animals.
  
  I 
  suppose the whole legal system is in place to offset this sort of 
  acitivityand we are mostly successful in keeping the stronger from 
  defeating/murdering/subjugating the weaker, although I am sure there are some 
  on this list who would disagree.
  
  arthur
  
  
  
-Original Message-From: Keith Hudson 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 
9:17 AMTo: Brad McCormickCc: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] My 
ongoing struggle to see the obvious :: Basic question for 
economistsBrad,At 07:50 18/12/2003 
-0500, you wrote:
Why doesn't all economics 
  education and inquiry start with theprinciple: Friends 
  hold all things in 
  common. 
  (--Desiderius Erasmus, and others)?Since we have markets and such, 
  the firstlemma one seems forced to deduce from this principleis 
  that "the economy" is a realm of socialrelations which are at best not 
  friendly (andwhich in fact often are in varying 
  degreespositively(sic) unfriendly).I am being entirely serious 
  here.You've got the picture in one! 
Congratulations!When the leader of one group of early man saw the 
leader of the neighbouring group in war paint -- that is, with whom he was 
having a difference at the time -- of a particularly virulent shade of 
orange (iron ochre), he badly wanted some of the ochre for himself so that 
he, too, could look so splendid. But he couldn't lay his hands on any 
because there was none of this desirabvle rock in his own group's territory. 
So he had to he had to parlay with the neighbouring group's leader one fine 
sunny day when they were not at war (for, of course, warfare is only an 
occasional event) and decided to exchange one of his recently \post-puberty 
daughters whom he'd restrained (because she was about to leave anyway to 
find a partner elsewhere -- disposed to do so by what is called the 
'patrilocal instinct' by the behavioural pscyhologists) for some 
"leadership paint". The deal was done and 

Re: [Futurework] A Basic Income as a form of Economic Governance

[Ed Weick]

Doesn't the trade union movement off-set Ricardo's Iron 
Law?

It certainly has been 
one of the most important factors. However, from my 
dim remembrances of things I once read it wasenabled by a lot of pressure 
on governments and social legislation that moved through various legislatures in 
the 19th Century in reaction to the apalling degradation that accompanied the 
industrial revolution.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:38 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] A Basic Income 
  as a form of Economic Governance
  
  Doesn't the trade union movement off-set Ricardo's Iron 
  Law?
  
-Original Message-From: Ed Weick 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 4:22 
PMTo: Harry Pollard; 'Ray Evans Harrell'; 'Thomas Lunde'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
Re: [Futurework] A Basic Income as a form of Economic 
Governance
Thanks, Harry. I'll make a few 
comments.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ed Weick' ; 'Ray Evans Harrell' ; 'Thomas 
  Lunde' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 
  2:44 PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] A Basic 
  Income as a form of Economic Governance
  
  
  Ed,
  
  Several 
  remarks from the point of view of Classical Political 
  Economy.
  
  You'll 
  remember that.
  
  If 
  Ricardo is correct, all that will happen over time is that wages will fall 
  by about the amount of the BI. (The so-called "working poor" are an 
  example of this.)
  
  I think 
  that Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages is correct (that's the constant pressure 
  downward on wages). However, I would add the element of land speculation 
  to the equation - something he didn't do.
  
  I'm not arguing that the Iron Law of Wages is 
  incorrect, but would point out that we live in a very different world than 
  Ricardo's. His world was one of a huge number of poor, many having 
  left or been kicked off the land, scrabbling for factory jobs in the 
  emerging industrial cities. Ours is one of a much smaller proportion 
  of poor and a huge middle class. Ours is also one of what I would 
  call "income stratification". For example, you wouldn't expect an 
  accountant or lawyer working for a corporation to be moiling about at the 
  subsistence wage because a very long process of custom building, social 
  stratification and unionization has led to an acceptance of what the 
  recompense for an accountant and lawyer, or a middle or senior civil 
  servant, should be. Even guys (men and women) who work on the shop 
  floor of large factories can expect to be pretty decently paid. 
  So, no, I don't see a BI leading toward a 
  general downward spiral to a subsistence wage. What I see is 
  bringing people who currently do not have a subsistence income moving up 
  to that level.
  
  So, 
  this year's great Basic Income addition to income would become not a 
  useful extra - but would be linked to lower real wages as incomes become 
  not much different from before BI. (Of course, the "dollars" would no 
  doubt be greater.)
  
  Secondly, 
  I would adopt a premise that Canadian land belongs to Canadians. Not some 
  Canadians, but to all Canadians. People who want more valuable land than 
  the margin should compensate the rest of the owners by paying 
  Rent.
  
  In 
  other words, though the houses and other structures built privately belong 
  to those who built them - the land is held in trusteeship and requires a 
  Rent payment to compensate the rest of the 
  owners.
  
  This 
  collected Rent belongs to all Canadians and could well be shared among 
  them. However, unlike most suggestions for BI, which would be financed by 
  the "rewards for screwing Canadians" (or as I would put it, Privilege 
  income) - this distribution would merely be returning to Canadians what 
  belongs to them.
  
  You have me here. All I can say is 
  that our practice is to distinguish between privately held and publicly 
  held lands. Productive privately held lands yield a return to their 
  owners - i.e. income in the form of rent which can be taxed as 
  income. Part of the rent is also taxed away as a property tax. 
  For example, we pay property taxes which are related to the assessed value 
  of our land. Public land put out to private uses (mining or oil and 
  gas leases) yield returns such as licence fees until they begin to produce 
  and resource roy

Re: Don't shoot me. (wasRe: Fw: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

[Ed Weick]

I agree completely, Arthur. I used "Pity!" in an 
attempt to be pithy.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:35 
  AM
  Subject: RE: Don't shoot me. (wasRe: Fw: 
  [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
  
  I am 
  in the same position as you Ed. I don't consider it a pity that OAS is 
  "clawed back" I feel that it is going to someone who needs it more 
  than I. That that person will receive some income, maintain their 
  dignity and perhaps won't have to venture into a food 
bank.
  
  arthur
  
-Original Message-From: Ed Weick 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:37 
AMTo: Harry Pollard; 'Keith Hudson'Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
Re: Don't shoot me. (wasRe: Fw: [Futurework] FW Basic Income 
sites
It's being eligible for a government program 
payment, but getting less and less of it the higher you are on the income 
scale. For example, I'm eligible for Old Age Security, but don't get 
any because my income (combined with my wife's) is too high. 
Pity!

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Keith Hudson' ; 'Ed Weick' 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 
  7:31 PM
  Subject: RE: Don't shoot me. (wasRe: 
  Fw: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
  
  
  Ed and 
  Keith,
  
  What's 
  a "clawback"?
  
  Harry
  
  
   Henry 
  George School of Social Science of 
  Los Angeles 
  Box 
  655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 
  818 352-4141--Fax: 818 
  353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net   

  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith HudsonSent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 
  11:58 AMTo: Ed 
  WeickCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Don't shoot me. (wasRe: Fw: 
  [Futurework] FW Basic Income 
  sites
  
  Ed,Don't shoot me. I'm only the 
  messenger.At 12:51 16/12/2003 -0500, you 
  wrote:
  (KH)Your special 
  problem in Canada is that your 
  government(s) has already committed itself to future welfare payments of 
  over 400% of your present GDP. How on earth you are ever going to afford 
  those, goodness knows. You cannot possibly afford to consider any extra 
  welfare payments. You will certainly need a voluntary sector (and a very 
  large one, too, one imagines!).(EW)Keith, absolute nonsense! I have no idea of 
  where you got your numbers, but no government, even ours, is that stupid. 
  
  I'm afraid that the IMF thinks so. This from a 
  report, "Who will Pay?" by Peter Heller, Deputy Director of Fiscal 
  Affairs, IMF. Canada already has an explicit 
  debt of something like 40-50% of GDP, but has committed itself already to 
  future commitements of about 400% of GDP. See the Economist of 22 
  November 2003 for a summary of the report. In respect of future 
  commitments, Canada is 
  already twice as bad as France and Germany 
  and they're already right up to the hilt in what they can squeeze from the 
  taxpayer.
  But I do appreciate your sense 
  of humour. I don't know if you saw my piece on how a BI might be 
  cobbled together from existing programs. And this morning I posted a 
  suggestion that you could have a universal BI program with clawback 
  provisions.
  But, surely, clawbacks invalidate it as a BI. 
  You might just as well suggest further sets of welfare provisions. But 
  even a Labour government over here is talking about the need to reduce all 
  sorts of pensions and benefits in the future, and we've much less current 
  debt and far fewer future commitments than Canada. 
  Keith
  Ed 
  - Original Message - 
  
      From: Keith Hudson 
  
  To: Ed Weick 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:38 
  AM 
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites 
  
  Ed, 
  At 19:18 15/12/2003 -0500, you 
  wrote:
  A special problem we have in 
  Canada, and I know we're not 
  unique, is the division of responsibilities under our constitution. 
  The federal government is responsible for some things, the provinces for 
  others. Too many people at the table to get an easy agreement. 
  Thank God we have a large voluntary sector that actually does things while 
  our two levels of government wrangle themselves into 
  stalemates!
  Your special problem in 
  Canada is that your 
  government(s) has already committed itself to fu

Re: [Futurework] My ongoing struggle to see the obvious :: Basic question for economists

[Ed Weick]

A good read on the nature of the murderous virus is 
Samantha Power's "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide", in 
which she reviews the causes and consequences of recent mass killings, and the 
ineffectiveness of national and international legal systems in preventing 
them.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:40 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] My ongoing 
  struggle to see the obvious :: Basic question for economists
  
  The 
  fact is that it takes place, has taken place and will likely take place 
  again.
  
  National and international legal systems are in place to try to ensure 
  that it doesn't happen again.
  
  It 
  is in this way that things are getting better in the world. At least we 
  now know that humans have some sort of a murderous virus that erupts from time 
  to time (especially when we know we can beat/subjugate/murder the 
  other). Knowing the problem brings us a good part of the way to solving 
  the problem.
  
  arthur
  
-Original Message-----From: Ed Weick 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:15 
AMTo: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] My 
ongoing struggle to see the obvious :: Basic question for 
economists
I've been halfway through Diamond for a little over 
a year now and must finish it someday, although I don't think I've ever 
finished a book in my life. In my view,one reason why hunting 
and gathering groups attack and destroy each other is that they are 
motivated by fear of something they cannotreally understand. 
Competition for resources may be another reason. There is something of 
a classic case in Arctic Canada, where the modern Inuit (the so called Thule 
Culture) replaced the Dorset Culture (Tunit) beginning about a thousand 
years ago. From what little I've read, the lifestyles of these two 
peoples were very different. The Inuit used dogs, moved about a lot, 
lived in tents in summer and snow houses in winter. The Tunit were 
sedentary, lived in stone houses (or really holes covered by stone roofs), 
and did not use dogs -they apparently used sleighs that they dragged 
about themselves. It would seem that the Inuit pictured the Tunit as 
some kind of strange and sinister population of giants that posed some form 
of shadowy, omnipresent threat, and it was therefore necessary to get rid of 
them, which is what seems to have happened. As they spread across the 
Arctic from west to east, the Inuit also needed access to Tunic hunting and 
sealing areas. As a distinct culture, the Tunit disappeared about 400 
years ago, although a highly resepected anthropologist I once knew told me 
that the last Tunit he knew of, a woman, died on Southampton Island in the 
1920s.

I repeat a point I've made frequently on this list: 
inter-group or inter-ethnic strife is a very difficult thing to decompose 
into its elements. It is far more complex than an envious alpha-male 
jumping up and down because he wants to wear the same war-paint as the chief 
in the next valley over and is willing to part with his virgin daughter or 
kill people to get that paint.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 
  8:54 PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] My ongoing 
  struggle to see the obvious :: Basic question for economists
  
  I am about one-quarter of the way through Guns, Germs and Steel 
  (The Fate of Human Societies) by Jared Diamond. So far the picture 
  that seems to emerge is that humans tend to band together and with a 
  murderous rage will defeat the other band if they can. The stronger 
  culture will defeat/murder/subjugate the weaker culture simply because it 
  can.
  
  Its a sort of Darwinian survival of the strongest (measured in 
  terms of resources, technology , social organization, tactics and 
  strategy) 
  
  I don't think its so much about status but about power and control 
  and maybe its natural, the same way that animals in the wild will hunt 
  down and kill sick and injured animals.
  
  I suppose the whole legal system is in place to offset this sort of 
  acitivityand we are mostly successful in keeping the stronger from 
  defeating/murdering/subjugating the weaker, although I am sure there are 
  some on this list who would disagree.
  
  arthur
  
  
  
-Original Message-From: Keith Hudson 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROT

Re: [Futurework] BI

[Ed Weick]

 That's where the laws of supply and demand step 
in. An odious or even odorous job will be accorded a high enough wage to 
attract employees. Take a look at those crazy tv shows like "Fear 
Factor". I've seen people crush worms with their feet and drink the worm 
juice just to win a few dollars. I've never seen Worm-Crusher-Drinker in 
the CCDO (Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations) but if 
society needs such people it knows how to find them!  
FWP

Plumbers do all kinds of things that I would rather not 
do and they are well paid.

Ed


- Original Message - 
From: "Franklin Wayne Poley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:00 PM
Subject: [Futurework] BI
  Date: 
Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:29:18 +0100  From: Christoph Reuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites 
  Franklin Wayne Poley wrote:You may 
wish to ask the new Justice Minister, Irwin Cotler, what his   
position is on Canada adhering to the Universal Declaration of Human 
  Rights Article 25 which says that necessities of life are a 
"right".   Cotler is a former law professor with a human rights 
specialization.   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  The Swiss constitution (article 12) contains the right to a 
humane existence  and assistance to those who can't look after 
themselves.  In times of high unemployment then, there must be a 
BI to make Article 12 mwaningful. Has anyone ever put it to the test in 
the courts?   However, there's  no general BI, 
and no need for it. Maybe this has to do with article 6  
(which demands personal responsibility) and article 19 (which guarantees 
 sufficient education for free, even to women who marry mean 
patriarchs).   Ed Weick wrote:   
 If I read you right Ray, you are still associating BI with work, 
whether   for profit or not for profit. I can't go there 
with you. It sounds a   little too much like workfare, 
essentially grabbing people by the scruff   of the neck and 
making them do the shit work nobody else wants to do   
Who will "do the shit work nobody else wants to do" in a BI system ? 
 Nobody, I guess. But it has to be done. (Not necessarily by 
workfare  crews!) Worse, a lot of "shit work" has to be done 
that isn't "profitable"  and thus is not done -- unless paid by the 
state, but the state can't  afford that if it has to pay a BI to 
everyone.  That's where the laws of supply and demand step in. 
An odious or even odorous job will be accorded a high enough wage to 
attract employees. Take a look at those crazy tv shows like "Fear 
Factor". I've seen people crush worms with their feet and drink the worm 
juice just to win a few dollars. I've never seen Worm-Crusher-Drinker in 
the CCDO (Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations) but if 
society needs such people it knows how to find them!  
FWP  ___ 
Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: [Futurework] FT PR vs. Historical Facts

[Ed Weick]

Ray:

 Perhaps you know little about the 
Aztecs. They loved their children. Had no crime 
rate and had the first public schools in the world. They 
were fierce to their enemies and proud of their 
nation. Their cities were the most beautiful in the 
world according to Cortez and his men and they were the world's greatest 
farmers. They were great singers and poets. 
Etc.


Ah, but God was not on their side! as told in Patricia de Fuentes, ed. and trans., The Conquistadors. 
First Person Accounts of the Conquest of Mexico, 159.

  "… Cortés … After occupying Tenochtitlán (Mexico 
  City) … he and his troops had to fight their way out of the city to sanctuary 
  …. Years later … a former follower of Cortés who had become a Dominician 
  friar, recalled the terrible retreat …. "When the Christians were exhausted 
  from war, God saw fit to send the Indians smallpox, and there was a great 
  pestilence in the city. . . ."
Ed



- Original Message - 
From: "Ray Evans Harrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Christoph Reuss" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:38 
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FT PR vs. Historical 
Facts
 Perhaps you 
know little about the Aztecs. They loved their children. 
Had no crime rate and had the first public schools in the 
world. They were fierce to their enemies and proud of their 
nation. Their cities were the most beautiful in the 
world according to Cortez and his men and they were the world's greatest 
farmers. They were great singers and poets. 
They chose the direct method to human sacrifice rather than creating 
situations where people were worked to death or allowed to die to 
satisfy an invisible hand. You didn't screw around with them 
and they had public works projects for the poor and free food along the 
road planted every year for the poor and in case of drought. 
They also had the most efficient sewage system on the planet when Europe 
was killing itself in filth and plague and the world's largest city at 
the time. With every man woman and child sick 
from the Smallpox they still fought the Spanirds to a standstill and did 
not give up the city until there was no more city. I 
don't find them particularly more violent than senators who would vote 
to raise the speed limit in a highway system that would kill 10,000 more 
people a year just to satisfy the Green God. In fact their 
sacrifices were organized. One a day. That is 365. And 
no accident lottery to blame it on God. They took 
responsibility. Of course it was brutal and had nothing to do 
with justice but frighteningly little in this society has to do with 
justice either, when it comes to who lives and who 
dies. Nothing is just about environmentally caused 
cancer or heart disease caused by pollution or brain tumors caused by 
lead. The Gods of industry won't produce without their kill 
off of human souls. Today they even threaten the planet with their 
environmental chaos. Europeans spoke in terms of the deaths of 
thousands when the Aztecs fought wars of roses for captives to sacrifice 
the one or two a day. Death is death and numbers are 
numbers. Everything else is just excuses. 
So if you don't like the Aztecs. Sorry, I though I was making a 
compliment. Perhaps you don't like that they were 
religious fundamentalists?  REH  
 - Original Message -  From: "Christoph Reuss" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:18 PM 
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FT PR vs. Historical Facts   
 REH wrote:   I suspect Hitler would have   
found his equivelent of Vietnam had he invaded that mountain country 
filled   with violent people just itching to protect their 
homes. They kind of 
 ^^^   remind 
me of the Aztecs who destroyed their own homes and left nothing 
for   Cortez the 
brute. 
^   As I tried to explain long ago, there's a 
difference between violence and  defense. With violent people, 
you can't let everyone have his army  assault rifle at home, or it 
would be one big crime wave. In the same  sense, your 
comparison with Aztecs is also way off the mark.   
Chris
 
 SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains 
the keyword  "igve".
___  Futurework mailing 
list  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework   
___ Futurework mailing 
list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: [Futurework] A Basic Income as a form of Economic Governance

[Ed Weick]

Thanks, Harry. I'll make a few 
comments.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ed Weick' ; 'Ray Evans Harrell' ; 'Thomas 
  Lunde' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 2:44 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] A Basic Income 
  as a form of Economic Governance
  
  
  Ed,
  
  Several 
  remarks from the point of view of Classical Political 
  Economy.
  
  You’ll 
  remember that.
  
  If Ricardo 
  is correct, all that will happen over time is that wages will fall by about 
  the amount of the BI. (The so-called “working poor” are an example of 
  this.)
  
  I think 
  that Ricardo’s Iron Law of Wages is correct (that’s the constant pressure 
  downward on wages). However, I would add the element of land speculation to 
  the equation – something he didn’t do.
  
  I'm not arguing that the Iron Law of Wages is 
  incorrect, but would point out that we live in a very different world than 
  Ricardo's. His world was one of a huge number of poor, many having left 
  or been kicked off the land, scrabbling for factory jobs in the emerging 
  industrial cities. Ours is one of a much smaller proportion of poor and 
  a huge middle class. Ours is also one of what I would call "income 
  stratification". For example, you wouldn't expect an accountant or 
  lawyer working for a corporation to be moiling about at the subsistence wage 
  because a very long process of custom building, social stratification and 
  unionization has led to an acceptance of what the recompense for an accountant 
  and lawyer, or a middle or senior civil servant, should be. Even guys 
  (men and women) who work on the shop floor of large factories can expect to be 
  pretty decently paid. So, no, I don't see a BI leading toward a general 
  downward spiral to a subsistence wage. What I see is bringing people who 
  currently do not have a subsistence income moving up to that 
  level.
  
  So, this 
  year’s great Basic Income addition to income would become not a useful extra – 
  but would be linked to lower real wages as incomes become not much different 
  from before BI. (Of course, the “dollars” would no doubt be 
  greater.)
  
  Secondly, I 
  would adopt a premise that Canadian land belongs to Canadians. Not some 
  Canadians, but to all Canadians. People who want more valuable land than the 
  margin should compensate the rest of the owners by paying 
  Rent.
  
  In other 
  words, though the houses and other structures built privately belong to those 
  who built them – the land is held in trusteeship and requires a Rent payment 
  to compensate the rest of the owners.
  
  This 
  collected Rent belongs to all Canadians and could well be shared among them. 
  However, unlike most suggestions for BI, which would be financed by the 
  “rewards for screwing Canadians” (or as I would put it, Privilege income) – 
  this distribution would merely be returning to Canadians what belongs to 
  them.
  
  You have me here. All I can say is that 
  our practice is to distinguish between privately held and publicly held 
  lands. Productive privately held lands yield a return to their owners - 
  i.e. income in the form of rent which can be taxed as income. Part of 
  the rent is also taxed away as a property tax. For example, we pay 
  property taxes which are related to the assessed value of our land. 
  Public land put out to private uses (mining or oil and gas leases) yield 
  returns such as licence fees until they begin to produce and resource 
  royalties thereafter. There is always a lot of debate about whether the 
  fees and royalties are set at a sufficiently high 
  level.
  
  And no, the land is not seen as belonging to 
  all Canadians. Most of the public lands in the provinces are 
  provincially held and technically belong to the residents of those 
  provinces. I believe the federal government is still the major 
  landholder in the territories, but much is now also held by Aboriginal groups 
  via land claims settlements.
  
  I have no 
  idea what the land of Canada is worth, but an estimate of the 
  value of American land is $30 trillion (that’s trillion). Would you like to 
  take 5% of that and divide it among 285 million 
  Americans?
  
  I make it a 
  bit more than $5,000 but don’t trust my arithmetic. So, a family of 4 would 
  get $20,000. (Ricardo’s Iron Law would be squelched by collection of 
  Rent.)
  
  Some 
  Georgists are active in pursuing this. They call it a Citizen’s 
  Dividend.
  
  Its 
  advantage over the BI is that it is a recapture of values that belong to the 
  people of Canada (or the 
  USA). The BI, as I said, is 
  redistributing money taken by taxes.
  
  I don't think it would work in Canada. 
  Revenues from lands are simply absorbed into general 
  revenues.
  
  (When I 
  discuss this kind of thing, an ancient memory intrudes. TIME reported this at 
  the time of Johnson’s “War on Poverty”. The income tax

Re: I enjoyed Taming of the Shrew (was Re: [Futurework] RE: Survivor

[Ed Weick]

A very long time ago my wife and I found ourselves ina BB in 
Stratford on Avon. It was late and wife had gone to bed. I decided 
to see if there was anyone else up and behold there was. The elderly 
gentleman turned out to be a Shakespearian scholar from Oxford or Cambridge (I 
forget which) who made a pilgrimage to Stratford at least once a year. We 
got to talking about what combination of elements could possibly have produced a 
Shakespeare, and from that to the school system of the time, "grammer schools", 
I believe they were called. His view was that, because of those schools 
and their emphasis on the English language, Shakespeare was inevitable. 
All you needed was a kid with the right kind of genius and whoever it was that 
we now call "Shakespeare" provided that.

I agree with Arthur that putting Shakespeare into modern language would be 
to destroy it, and I still prefer the King James Bible to any of its modern 
variants.

Ed
  On 
Tue, 16 Dec 2003, "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  
 Or would translating into "modern language" remove much of the magic of 
  Shakespeare, much like translating Catholic mass from latin to 
english   or moving the Hebrew prayers into english. Seems 
to make it too   accessible, too plain. Maybe too 
transparent. [snip]  Isn't the problem with 
semantically decoding Shakespeare's sentences to some extent the 
spelling? Isn't it easier to understand when one actually 
watches the play?  The common wisdom among writers is that 
Shakespeare has been rewritten into modern vernacular uncountable times, 
under the standard policy of "steal from the best". I've even seen the 
plunder of Shakespeare for plotlines casually recommended by writers 
being interviewed when asked for advice for young people hoping to break 
into the field - more than once!  -PV  
___ Futurework mailing 
list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

[Ed Weick]

Sally, you could have a universal program with clawback 
provisions, like old age security.

Ed






- Original Message - 
From: "Sally Lerner" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 2:03 PM
Subject: [Futurework] FW Basic Income 
sites
 Bravo Ed and 
Thomas, for your explanations of how a Basic Income  might function. 
While I support a version that would be universal and  unconditional 
(get rid of stigma and address increasingly insecure  nature of many 
jobs), it is just possible that we in Canada will move  toward a BI in 
stages, group by group: "relentless incrementalism" as  Ken Battle 
(Caledon Institute) calls it. And he is a Friend of Paul  
(Martin), our new Prime Minister.  Sally 
___ Futurework mailing 
list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: [Futurework] (no subject)

[Ed Weick]

Title: Re: [Futurework] (no subject)



Thomas, I sometimes feel that poverty is a state of 
mind as much as a reality. I'm not poor now, but when I was a child my 
family was very poor. The feeling of being poor is still there in the 
background. It has alway been a little inhibitory - like I can't do or 
expect something because that's for rich people, and beyond my 
class.

A peculiarity is that I've always had trouble with 
toast. When I was a little kid just starting school the teacher would 
sometimes ask what we had for breakfast. The rich kids, or the kids who I 
thought were rich, would always say they had toast. I never had 
toast. That was for the rich kids.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Thomas 
  Lunde 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 2:13 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] (no 
  subject)
  Thomas:After just writing my sardonic piece on my poor 
  childhood, I am shamed at realizing how far I am from true poverty and I 
  apologize to the Universe and to you who read this for my 
  arrogance.Thanks for sharing Harry,Thomas 
  Lunde--From: "Harry Pollard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
  "\"Futurework\" "[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
  [Futurework] (no subject)Date: Mon, Dec 15, 2003, 3:37 PM
  Hi! Here is another letter from Zimbabwe. Looks 
bad there. Should we get ready to invade before the Fedayeen get too 
powerful? N! Well pass a strong resolution at the 
UN. After all, we have Christmas to enjoy and Africa is none of our 
business. Incidentally, a naartjie is a tangerine. Harry 
-- 
Subject: Irrigating nothing Dear Family and Friends, 
It has been a diabolical week for Zimbabwe. The 
Abuja decision to renew our suspension from the 
Commonwealth caused a tidal wave of 
recriminatory statements, propaganda and threats. First 
President Mugabe pulled Zimbabwe out of 
the Commonwealth altogether and then he, his wife and 
two dozen officials went to a UN Information Summit in Geneva. 
President Mugabe used this world forum to publicly slate 
his critics saying that the email and internet were being used 
to destroy Zimbabwe and recolonise the Third World. Meanwhile back 
at home Zanu PF turned up the temperature. First they 
pushed through Parliament a ratification of the decision to leave 
the Commonwealth. Then a Zanu PF caucus meeting 
resolved to expel the foreign diplomats of 
Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand from 
Zimbabwe. Finally, having used the fear factor to the limits, 
Foreign Minister Stan Mudenge announced that 
the diplomats would not be expelled 
"at this time." Sitting on the edges of our seats and praying for 
sanity, wisdom or just plain common 
sense, these are extremely worrying days 
for Zimbabwe. The consequences of statements and decisions 
made in anger and to try and soothe hurt pride, are 
almost too awful to contemplate and describe. And, through it 
all, the lives of ordinary Zimbabweans, just plummet ever 
downwards. One night this week the usually pitch black view from 
my window was disturbed by a brilliant but 
un-natural spotlight. The light came from the direction of a nearby 
cemetery and I didn't stay to inspect it, rapidly 
closing the curtains and praying that the light was in 
fact coming from further away. Goose bumps covered my 
arms as I thought about the latest horror story in Zimbabwe. At 
night grave robbers are descending on cemeteries and 
digging up newly filled graves. They are removing 
the corpses and taking the empty coffins for 
resale. I don't know if this appalling practice is 
being conducted by money making entrepreneurs or just by 
desperate people trying to get enough money to stay alive. 
With unemployment now at well over 70% 
in Zimbabwe, people are resorting to 
desperate means in order to feed themselves and 
their families and stay alive. Zimbabwe has now entered the 
fourth growing season in a row 
without any sort of decent agriculture 
being practiced. Every half hour, 72 times a day, our state 
radio churns out the latest propaganda jingle 
telling us that "Our Land is our 
prosperity". The government have seized 11 million hectares 
of prime agricultural land and yet, for the fourth year 
in a row, half of our population needs world 
food aid and people are starving and digging up coffins 
for re-sale. The majority of the seized farms have not been 
ploughed, the resettled people have no seed, no chemicals, no 
fertilizer and no money with which to buy the inputs they need 
to grow food. A recent overseas visitor to my home walked around my 
small garden and said it felt like looking at something from World 
War Two. In every flower bed, 

Fw: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

[Ed Weick]

I have reason to believe that the following didn't make 
it to the list, so I'm posting it again.

Ed


- Original Message - 
From: Ed Weick 
To: Keith Hudson 
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

Your special problem in Canada is 
that your government(s) has already committed itself to future welfare payments 
of over 400% of your present GDP. How on earth you are ever going to afford 
those, goodness knows. You cannot possibly afford to consider any extra welfare 
payments. You will certainly need a voluntary sector (and a very large one, too, 
one imagines!).Keith
Keith, absolute 
nonsense! I have no idea of where you got your numbers, but no government, 
even ours, is that stupid.But I do appreciate your sense of 
humour. I don't know if you saw my piece on how a BI might be cobbled 
together from existing programs. And this morning I posted a suggestion 
that you could have a universal BI program with clawback provisions. 


Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Keith 
  Hudson 
  To: Ed Weick 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:38 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income 
  sites
  Ed,At 19:18 15/12/2003 -0500, you 
  wrote:
  A special problem we have in 
Canada, and I know we're not unique, is the division of responsibilities 
under our constitution. The federal government is responsible for some 
things, the provinces for others. Too many people at the table to get 
an easy agreement. Thank God we have a large voluntary sector that 
actually does things while our two levels of government wrangle themselves 
into stalemates!Your special problem in Canada is that 
  your government(s) has already committed itself to future welfare payments of 
  over 400% of your present GDP. How on earth you are ever going to afford 
  those, goodness knows. You cannot possibly afford to consider any extra 
  welfare payments. You will certainly need a voluntary sector (and a very large 
  one, too, one imagines!).Keith
  Ed

- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 
3:19 PMSubject: 
RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sitesI agree. I was too sharp in my response. I 
apologize.I think Ed's posting covers why it is affordable. 
But we may not besocially ready for BI. We are used to taking from 
the pot but not givingback. My fear is that BI will only 
accentuate taking and not giving.It may not be a good idea, in my 
view, since we have yet toeducate/socialize people understand that they 
are part of society and thatwhile society is responsible to them with 
BI, they are also connected to andinvolved with society such that they 
are expected to give back to society. Blame on too many years 
of "smash and grab" consumerism/capitalism or"bowling alone" or what 
have you.arthur-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, December 
15, 2003 12:50 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW 
Basic Income sitesArthur Cordell wrote: I think similar 
criticisms were levelled against the minimum wage, child labour 
laws, old age security, medicare, etc. Same old, same 
old. Can't afford it today. Wait. Wait. 
Someday. Rubbish.Being in favor of the minimum 
wage(*), child labour laws, old age security,medicare, etc., but opposed 
to BI, I think there's a fundamental differencebetween the former and 
the latter: BI is of the "perpetuum mobile" kind.(not in the sense 
that BI works forever but that it won't work at all)It would be a 
pity if name-calling ("rubbish") and misrepresentation ofmy arguments 
("can't afford it today" -- no, can't afford it tomorroweither!) would 
be the only "arguments" of Arthur in reply to my postingand BI-example 
($1.2 billion) of 13-Dec-03. Let's hear some goodarguments (if 
possible with numbers) please... [if there are 
any](*) Btw, I was informed that a Canadian province has 
reduced theminimum wage from $8 to $6 (Can.). For comparison, it's 
about $15 inSwitzerland. I guess that's why a Swiss emigré 
mechanic recentlyhad to return from Canada to work for 6 weeks here, and 
with the moneyhe earned he can live for 5 months in Canada with his 
whole family.So Arthur, perhaps Industry Canada should introduce a 
_livable_minimum wage for _workers_ first, before you fancy about 
anunaffordable BI for everyone being 
"affordable".ChrisSpamWall: 
Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the 
keyword"igve".___Futurework 
mailing list[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/list

Re: [Futurework] A Basic Income as a form of Economic Governance

[Ed Weick]

Wow! If I read you right Ray, you are still 
associating BI with work, whether for profit or not for profit. I can't go 
there with you. It sounds a little too much like workfare, essentially 
grabbing people by the scruff of the neck and making them do the shit work 
nobody else wants to do in order to teach them "responsibility" and 
"self-reliance". IMHO, a BI has to be based on need and if there is a 
moral purpose behind it, it has to be that everyone has a stake or "entitlement" 
in society that must be respected by society. How great is this 
entitlement? I don't think that a liberal democracy could function 
properly unless it recognized that everybody's entitlement is 
equal.

If one were to look at this entitlement in terms of 
income, which is only one of many ways, one might say that everybody should have 
an income that provides for the basic needs of families, including needs 
associated with education and health. For families that need that income, 
whether their heads are working or not, that level of income should be provided 
without any stigma and without grabbing people by the scruff of the neck in 
order to teach them "self-reliance". Indeed, the underlying assumption has 
to be that people are self-reliant, but they are not in a position to exercise 
their self-reliance due to circumstances beyond their control. People who 
do not need the income should have it available to them for the sake of 
universality, but it should be withheld or clawed back via the tax 
system.

What I've argued is that a variety of programs for the 
poor that are currently operated by governments be cobbled together to form at 
least part of a BI. What can happen when these programs are kept separate 
and administered by separate bureaucracies using different rules is illustrated 
by a tragic case which occurred here in Ontario recently. In the summer of 
2001, a young woman, Kimberly Rogers, pregnant at the time, died in her 
sweltering apartment while under house arrest. Rogers was convicted of fraud for 
violating the rules of social assistance; she concurrently received both social 
assistance and a student loan. I might add that Rogers has become 
something of a cause celebre by advocates of better ways of treating 
the poor, but she can't take any pleasurein that because she's dead. 
Surely we can do better.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ray Evans Harrell 
  
  To: Thomas Lunde ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:41 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] A Basic Income 
  as a form of Economic Governance
  
  I want to thank you all for this excellent 
  discussion. For me, I prefer the Capitalist system's attitude 
  towards work. But I believe the limitation of for profit 
  only works for certain types of work that cannot be "free ridden" 
  on.i.e. the problem of "public goods" that are essential but are 
  incapable of profit or capitalization because they cannot be limited or the 
  limitation does not equal the cost of production. 
  "Productivity" is another problem concept for these essential 
  businesses. 
  
  If I may be allowed to take you on a little circle here 
  as we look at some of the key issues for me from the perspective of my own 
  work. Just a quick review so that we are on the same page. 
  The problem of for profit capitalism is one 
  of making expenses and then making enough to pay yourself and your 
  stockholders a profit. Capitalization means that you have to 
  guarantee some form of profit return in exchange for the seed money to make 
  things possible. Expensive projects that do not guarantee profit are 
  either lotteries, like BroadwayShows where you gamble on the show 
  "Hitting" the audience and then you make a big return on a long run or they 
  are stable ventures like industrial companies where your money is supposed to 
  be, but in the case of Enron etc. isn't always, safe. I realize 
  this is an artist's over-simplification. But I think that is 
  basically the story on capitalism. Everything else, hedge funds, 
  etc. are improvisations on the basic story for the purposeof some 
  "getting ahead"of others and winning a higher profit. But this 
  works only for certain segments of the society and it is extremely externally 
  motivated. 
  
  Certain activities are in the long run highly 
  "profitable" for a society but in the short run are too expensive to actually 
  accomplish privately. Space Programs for 
  example. In fact, if you look at most of the crucial 
  services of society like education, law enforcement, healthcare, religion, or 
  culture to apply the for profit motive amorally in a business sense 
  is to create a nightmare of chaos. Chaos is always creative 
  ultimately but inhuman and horrible in the short run. Such a 
  thought is Nazi like in its application. Consider if your doctor 
  chose to make you sick in order to heal you or to test a drug 
  withoutyour permissionor if your teacher 

Re: Don't shoot me. (wasRe: Fw: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

[Ed Weick]

Thanks, Keith. You won't be shot  yet! 
I'll try to track this down. What may be a problem here is distinguishing 
between stock and flow concepts. GDP is a flow that recurs annually, in 
fact recurs all the time even though we add it up once a year, whereas debt is a 
stock. Except for accumulating interest, it just sits there at about the 
same value from period to period, unless of course governments add to it or pay 
it down.So over a period of time, social programming, paid for out 
of current GDP, could well exceed the national debt. And it could add to 
the national debt if it were financed by borrowing. I feel it shouldn't 
have to be financed that way.

My reading of Paul Martin as Prime Minister is that he 
will do everything he can to bring the debt down. He was the Finance 
Minister who engineered a federal budget surplus, following a prolonged period 
of deficits. That surplus, first achieved at $3.5 billion in 1997-98 and 
continued ever since, will, if Martin and his current Finance Minister, Ralph 
Goodale, have their way, continue and be used to pay down the debt. My 
fear is that social programs may suffer.

I really have no idea of what commitments the Canadian 
government might have made that would add up to 400% of GDP. It just 
doesn't make any sense to me.I'll look for the Economist 
article.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Keith 
  Hudson 
  To: Ed Weick 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 2:57 
  PM
  Subject: Don't shoot me. (wasRe: Fw: 
  [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
  Ed,Don't shoot me. I'm only the 
  messenger.At 12:51 16/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
  (KH)Your special problem in Canada is that 
your government(s) has already committed itself to future welfare payments 
of over 400% of your present GDP. How on earth you are ever going to afford 
those, goodness knows. You cannot possibly afford to consider any extra 
welfare payments. You will certainly need a voluntary sector (and a very 
large one, too, one imagines!).(EW)Keith, absolute nonsense! I have no idea of where you got 
your numbers, but no government, even ours, is that stupid. 
  I'm afraid that the IMF thinks so. This 
  from a report, "Who will Pay?" by Peter Heller, Deputy Director of Fiscal 
  Affairs, IMF. Canada already has an explicit debt of something like 40-50% of 
  GDP, but has committed itself already to future commitements of about 400% of 
  GDP. See the Economist of 22 November 2003 for a summary of the report. 
  In respect of future commitments, Canada is already twice as bad as France and 
  Germany and they're already right up to the hilt in what they can squeeze from 
  the taxpayer.
  But I do appreciate your sense of humour. I don't know if 
you saw my piece on how a BI might be cobbled together from existing 
programs. And this morning I posted a suggestion that you could have a 
universal BI program with clawback provisions.But, surely, clawbacks invalidate it as a BI. You might just as 
  well suggest further sets of welfare provisions. But even a Labour government 
  over here is talking about the need to reduce all sorts of pensions and 
  benefits in the future, and we've much less current debt and far fewer future 
  commitments than Canada. Keith
  Ed 

  - Original Message - 
  From: Keith Hudson 
      To: Ed Weick 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:38 AM 
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites 
  Ed, 
  At 19:18 15/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
  
A special problem we have in Canada, and I know we're not unique, is 
the division of responsibilities under our constitution. The 
federal government is responsible for some things, the provinces for 
others. Too many people at the table to get an easy 
agreement. Thank God we have a large voluntary sector that 
actually does things while our two levels of government wrangle 
themselves into stalemates!
  Your special problem in Canada is that your government(s) has already 
  committed itself to future welfare payments of over 400% of your present 
  GDP. How on earth you are ever going to afford those, goodness knows. You 
  cannot possibly afford to consider any extra welfare payments. You will 
  certainly need a voluntary sector (and a very large one, too, one 
  imagines!). 
  Keith
  
Ed 


 
- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 3:19 
PM 
Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income 
sites 
I agree. I was too sharp in my response. I apologize. 
I think Ed's posting covers why it is affordable. But we may 
not be 
socially ready for BI. We are used to taking from the pot but 

Re: [Futurework] Symmetry (+ the right pick for Iraq reconstruction manager)

[Ed Weick]

I wonder how long they kept Saddam in that rathole 
before they decided to fetch him out. Great of timing. Very good 
timing for the election (Dean will be the real casuality), and good timing for 
the trial, probably a couple of years from now, in which too much may be 
revealed. If I sound like a conspiracy theorist, well perhaps on this one 
I am.

Ed





- Original Message - 
From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 6:14 PM
Subject: [Futurework] Symmetry (+ the right pick for 
Iraq reconstruction manager)
 ""He is a 
coward. Just like a rat!" shouted one man.  "He looks like a 
beggar!" said another.  "He is finished!" said a third." 
 (--from a NYT on the Web Story)   Surely true 
enough. But I think it well matches tail-gunner George's 
visit to Baghdad for Thanksgifing on total blackout except that 
he would not have done it id ther would not have ben any 
reporters on board.  What a shame that we cannot 
look to a future in which Captain Ahab and Moby Dick die in an embrace 
which Ahab even if not Moby does not in the least really 
understand.  Speaking of which, now "we" should have 
some sense of how safari-hunted "big game" animals feel, after 
our "jumbo jets" have to land and\ take off in fear of being brought 
down by big game hunters' stinger missiles  
--  But, back to the pictures of a bearded Saddam who I 
find hard from a dead Che Guevara:   All 
deposed dictators are the same color in the dark.  After they've 
been hiding long enough, they all look alike to me at least). 
 (N.b.: I have in the past couple of days become increasingly 
convince that Bush blew it in appointing Bremer the Iraq 
reconstruction manager. He should have selected Martha 
Stewart, instead. she could have done the job In Style.) 
 "Yours in a mised perecipitation storm"  \brad 
mccormick  --   Let your light so shine 
before men, 
 
that they may see your good works (Matt 5:16)   
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)  
![%THINK;[SGML+APL]] Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
- 
 Visit my website == http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ ___ 
Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

[Ed Weick]

Chris:
 For Canada, that would be over $300 billion (about 5 Bill Gateses 
worth -- how many Bill Gateses does Canada have, btw?), that is ~80 % of 
present tax revenues. (So I guess the schools, hospitals, roads, 
sewage system, army etc. will have to be maintained by unpaid volunteers 
then.) But since the BI would be an incentive not to work, the tax 
revenues would fall significantly. Bye bye Canadian forests and 
gas reserves...
It would not be like that, Chris. A basic income would likely require 
a net budgetary expenditure, but what should happen, and probably would happen 
is that manycurrently existing social programs would be rolled into 
it. Nationally Canada has an Old Age Security program and a Guaranteed 
Income Supplement, which provinces may top up. We have a National Child 
Tax Benefit, with a significant amount for the first child and only a little 
less for each additional child. So, leaving aside, for the time 
being,the question of whether these expenditures are too little or too 
much, we do in fact already have basic income programs for the elderly and for 
children. Nationally also, we have pensions for the disabled, and an 
insuranceprogram for the unemployed. Where we may be at our weakest 
is in the area of the various welfare/workfare programs operated by the 
provinces. With a rightward shift in provincial governments during the 
past couple of decades, people needing to access these programs have come under 
considerable duress.

One would also have to consider the costs of operating and stocking all of 
those food banks, shelters for the homeless and other charities directed at the 
poor. While these facilities and programs currently operate out of the 
voluntary sector, they do have to rent facilities, pay professional 
administrators and occasionally doctors and lawyers, and buy food and other 
goods and services.This wouldperhaps be one of the trickiest 
and most sensitive areas to deal with because if you did anything that 
threatened to close down charities you would be seen as depriving middle class 
people of something they can rightly feel good about.You could have 
a political storm on yourhands. I think governments would be better 
to leave this whole area alone until they could clearly demonstrate that there 
was no longer a need for food banks, shelters, snow suit funds and so 
forth. 

A basic income program would have to look at all of the foregoing 
initiatives and programs to see how many of them could be rolled into a single 
BI program. The design of a program would have to consider several 
matters:

  the value of a BI - most probably, low income cut-offs adjusted for family 
  size and location (rural/urban etc.) would come into play here; 
  eligibility:a governing principle would very likely be that anyone 
  having an income higher than the established LICO values would not be 
  eligible;
  the extent to which a BI might consist of a direct payment versus 
  something like a negative income tax;
  the possibilities of making the BI, or aspects of it, premium based;
  making recipients feel that a BI is something they get as an entitlement 
  because they are a part of a good and caring society;
  yet making sure people didn't cheat because some inevitably will;
  etc. 
As the foregoing suggests, I see an BI not as something everyone would get, 
but as a top-up for people and families who cannot afford a relatively decent 
lifestyle in a wealthy country. However, only after matters like the above 
had been given thorough study would we know whether a BI would be affordable or 
not. My guess (a matter of faith at this point) is that it would be 
affordable without having to find five Bill Gates and without having to chop 
down more trees that we are already chopping down.

I believe I've listed some to the benefits of a BI in a previous posting 
that I can't find right now, but they would include families better able to 
cope, children better able to handle education, etc. If I have time over 
the next few months, I may look at the BI question a little more deeply. 


Ed


- Original Message -From: "Christoph Reuss" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:30 AMSubject: Re: 
[Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Thomas Lunde wrote: 
 Well, Chris, you got me - sloppy analogy. Let me try a different 
one.We  have a benefit for children called the Child Tax 
Benefit. Depending onthe  age of the child and the number 
of children in the family - every parentis  eligible and I would 
say there is a 99% participation rate. Now notethat  their 
is no income eligibility. The millionaire's child is as 
eligibleas  the pauper's child. However, this has to be 
declared as income on the  yearly income tax filing and for low 
income families they get to keepall  the benefit of about $2000 
per child while the affluent having to addthis  to their income 
find that the benefit is taxed back. The end result isthe  
poor get 

Re: [Futurework] Status and Honours

[Ed Weick]

Keith, I'm going to have to 
leave the "status" field to you. There is no way my limited experience 
could add anything to your first hand observations of the 
wayhunter/gatherer virgins respond to alpha males. The only 
experience I've had with this kind of thing was in northern Canada, where, among 
the variousDene societies, it was important for girls from the Raven clan 
to marry Wolves and not Ravens, and vice versa. Until quite recently and 
maybe even now, women, not alpha males, ran the show in those societies. I 
defer to you on the New Guinea highlands. I've never been 
there.

Ed




- Original Message - 
From: "Keith Hudson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 3:31 AM
Subject: [Futurework] Status and 
Honours
 211. Status 
and Honours  The importance of status can hardly be exaggerated. 
In hunter-gatherer  times, the patrilocal instinct of girls leaving 
their group or tribe at  puberty and seeking sexual partners in a 
neighbouring group would mean that  they would preferentially select the 
alpha male, or at least as  high-ranking a male as possible that she 
found there. An extremely good  example of the modern survival of this 
practice is to be found in Michael  Palin's book, Sahara (and the BBC TV 
documentary) where the young women  from several different groups of the 
Wodaabe tribe select their lifetime  partners from the young men who 
dress up, wear lashings of kohl and  stibnite make-up on their eyes and 
lips, and prance about (in what, to us,  is an amusing way). Here, the 
girls are making their selection not on the  basis of status per se but 
on the looks, the imagination of the men's  dressage and bearing -- to 
them, as highly correlated with status  and likely future 
life-success of the males as modern girls are able to  assess by going 
to a night club and dancing and talking with possible  future boy 
friends.  Every group, every institution, and every country 
develops clear visible  signs for status -- statues, memorials, rankings 
(civil service, army,  university), decorations, letters after their 
names, honorary prefixes,  medals, ribbons, lapel badges, hats and 
uniforms and so on. In England,  such rankings, formally initiated by 
William the Conqueror in 1066 after  the invasion, when he chose those 
who should be his barons (in exchange for  military services), have 
evolved ever since. Lloyd George, when prime  minister early last 
century, used to (privately) sell peerages. Prime  ministers ever since 
have sold peerages to those who contribute to party  funds (and perhaps 
to pirvate pockets). People, and particularly the males  (for 
instinctive reasons) are desperately eager for signs of status. For  
most people, status is indicated in the goods they buy and, of course, the 
 notion of status goods is a central theme in my evolutionary economics 
 hypothesis.  But for a minority in England, we have the 
honours system -- whereby titles  and decorations are given by the Queen 
on her official birthday and at the  New Year. As with so many state 
functions, the business of choosing who  should receive honours has been 
taken over by the civil service and, in  particular, by a small group of 
very senior civil servants, usually the  heads of departments, or 
Permanent Secretaries. The minutes of the meetings  in which they 
discuss those who should receive honours on these occasion  are normally 
considered state secrets. Even political leaders -- even the  prime 
minister -- are not allowed to attend these deliberations or read  these 
minutes, though the civil servants concerned will take notice if a  
prime minister has particular preferences. The records are normally kept 
 secret well beyond the usual 30-years limits for state 
documents.  However, someone has ratted on this secrecy a few 
days ago. A recent set of  minutes has been leaked to the press. There 
we have read the reason why  this person or that was chosen for this or 
that rank of decoration. Many of  these reasons are revealed to be quite 
trivial -- indeed, insincere. This  has caused a tremendous furore and 
will dynamite the secret procedures that  have applied hitherto. 
 There are those who affect to believe that status is not very 
important,  particularly Americans who tried to overthrow all this 
royalty-derived  business when they set up their republic. Even now, an 
American who  receives an honorary knighthood from the British Queen is 
not allowed to  put "Sir" in front of his name -- but this doesn't 
reduce his enthusiasm to  go to Buckingham Palace and be tapped on the 
shoulder with the Queen's  sword while he kneels before her (on a 
comfortable cushion it must be said).  Incidentally, over here, 
honours are affectionately called "gongs" by those  senior civil 
servants who affect not to take the matter too seriously --  but who 
would kill if they were left out when their age and status  qualified 
them for a honour of the 

Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

[Ed Weick]

Chris:

 Do you know the total amount of all currently 
existing social programs ? (i.e. an estimate of what percentage of the 
$300bn this is)

Not offhand, but I intend to do some work on it when I 
have time. And, yes indeed, the Swiss are always ahead of the game. 
I've only been to Switzerland once, but was quite impressed. Among other 
things, they gave us Calvinism. {: )

Ed

- Original Message - 
From: "Christoph Reuss" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income 
sites
 Ed Weick 
wrote:  A basic income would likely require a net budgetary 
expenditure, but what  should happen, and probably would happen is 
that many currently existing  social programs would be rolled into 
it.  Do you know the total amount of all currently existing 
social programs ? (i.e. an estimate of what percentage of the $300bn 
this is)A basic income program would have to 
look at all of the foregoing initiatives  and programs to see 
how many of them could be rolled into a single BI program. 
 The design of a program would have to consider several 
matters:  a.. the value of a BI - most probably, low 
income cut-offs adjusted for  family size and location (rural/urban 
etc.) would come into play here;  b.. eligibility: a governing 
principle would very likely be that anyone  having an income higher 
than the established LICO values would not be  eligible; 
 c.. the extent to which a BI might consist of a direct payment 
versus  something like a negative income tax; 
 d.. the possibilities of making the BI, or aspects of it, premium 
based;  e.. making recipients feel that a BI is something they 
get as an  entitlement because they are a part of a good and caring 
society;  f.. yet making sure people didn't cheat because some 
inevitably will;  g.. etc.  As the foregoing 
suggests, I see an BI not as something everyone would get,  but as a 
top-up for people and families who cannot afford a relatively  
decent lifestyle in a wealthy country.  Thanks Ed. It 
seems that the more thought people put into this, the more their 
proposal moves away from the GBI proposed at the BI Canada website, 
towards the Swiss solution I described. Duh. ;-)  
Chris
 
SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the 
keyword "igve".   
___ Futurework mailing 
list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

[Ed Weick]

A special problem we have in Canada, and I knowwe're not unique, is 
the division of responsibilities under our constitution. The federal 
government is responsible for some things, the provinces for others. Too 
many people at the table to get an easy agreement. Thank God we have a 
large voluntary sector that actually does things while our two levels of 
government wrangle themselves into stalemates!

Ed




- Original Message - 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 3:19 PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income 
sites
I agree. I 
was too sharp in my response. I apologize.I think Ed's posting covers 
why it is affordable. But we may not besocially ready for BI. We 
are used to taking from the pot but not givingback. My fear is that BI 
will only accentuate taking and not giving.It may not be a good idea, in 
my view, since we have yet toeducate/socialize people understand that they 
are part of society and thatwhile society is responsible to them with BI, 
they are also connected to andinvolved with society such that they are 
expected to give back to society. Blame on too many years of 
"smash and grab" consumerism/capitalism or"bowling alone" or what have 
you.arthur-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:50 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sitesArthur 
Cordell wrote: I think similar criticisms were levelled against the 
minimum wage, child labour laws, old age security, medicare, 
etc. Same old, same old. Can't afford it today. 
Wait. Wait. Someday. Rubbish.Being in favor 
of the minimum wage(*), child labour laws, old age security,medicare, etc., 
but opposed to BI, I think there's a fundamental differencebetween the 
former and the latter: BI is of the "perpetuum mobile" kind.(not in 
the sense that BI works forever but that it won't work at all)It would 
be a pity if name-calling ("rubbish") and misrepresentation ofmy arguments 
("can't afford it today" -- no, can't afford it tomorroweither!) would be 
the only "arguments" of Arthur in reply to my postingand BI-example ($1.2 
billion) of 13-Dec-03. Let's hear some goodarguments (if possible with 
numbers) please... [if there are any](*) Btw, I was 
informed that a Canadian province has reduced theminimum wage from $8 to $6 
(Can.). For comparison, it's about $15 inSwitzerland. I guess 
that's why a Swiss emigré mechanic recentlyhad to return from Canada to work 
for 6 weeks here, and with the moneyhe earned he can live for 5 months in 
Canada with his whole family.So Arthur, perhaps Industry Canada should 
introduce a _livable_minimum wage for _workers_ first, before you fancy 
about anunaffordable BI for everyone being 
"affordable".ChrisSpamWall: 
Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the 
keyword"igve".___Futurework 
mailing list[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework___Futurework 
mailing list[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

[Ed Weick]

I could imagine people being given their incomes for the 
purpose not only of food, clothing and shelter but to develop capitalization for 
their own entrepreneurial activities.

Or to pursue whatever their star happens to be. 
For those who have no star or no entrepreneurial ability, a basic income. 
They can't help being born what they are, but they are part of society. 
For those with a special ability, help them cultivate it; help them take it as 
far as they can.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ray Evans Harrell 
  
  To: Ed Weick ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; Christoph 
  Reuss 
  Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 5:25 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income 
  sites
  
  Within the context of capitalization. I 
  could imagine people being given their incomes for the purpose not only of 
  food, clothing and shelter but to develop capitalization for their own 
  entrepreneurial activities. Of course you would have to train out 
  the "get the most for the least" mentality that would just take the money and 
  run. Artists are always in need of seed money for the work 
  that they do. Grants are demeaning. Figuring out how 
  to encourage development of quality ideas and projects without making a 
  competition or giving it away to be spent on status goods would be an issue 
  but education works if you think hard enough about it and have the discipline 
  to complete it. 
  
  REH 
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
    Ed Weick 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
; Christoph 
Reuss 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:29 
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic 
Income sites

Chris:
 For Canada, that would be over $300 billion (about 5 Bill 
Gateses worth -- how many Bill Gateses does Canada have, btw?), that 
is ~80 % of present tax revenues. (So I guess the schools, 
hospitals, roads, sewage system, army etc. will have to be 
maintained by unpaid volunteers then.) But since the BI would 
be an incentive not to work, the tax revenues would fall 
significantly. Bye bye Canadian forests and gas reserves...
It would not be like that, Chris. A basic income would likely 
require a net budgetary expenditure, but what should happen, and probably 
would happen is that manycurrently existing social programs would be 
rolled into it. Nationally Canada has an Old Age Security program and 
a Guaranteed Income Supplement, which provinces may top up. We have a 
National Child Tax Benefit, with a significant amount for the first child 
and only a little less for each additional child. So, leaving aside, 
for the time being,the question of whether these expenditures are too 
little or too much, we do in fact already have basic income programs for the 
elderly and for children. Nationally also, we have pensions for the 
disabled, and an insuranceprogram for the unemployed. Where we 
may be at our weakest is in the area of the various welfare/workfare 
programs operated by the provinces. With a rightward shift in 
provincial governments during the past couple of decades, people needing to 
access these programs have come under considerable duress.

One would also have to consider the costs of operating and stocking all 
of those food banks, shelters for the homeless and other charities directed 
at the poor. While these facilities and programs currently operate out 
of the voluntary sector, they do have to rent facilities, pay professional 
administrators and occasionally doctors and lawyers, and buy food and other 
goods and services.This wouldperhaps be one of the 
trickiest and most sensitive areas to deal with because if you did 
anything that threatened to close down charities you would be seen as 
depriving middle class people of something they can rightly feel good 
about.You could have a political storm on yourhands. 
I think governments would be better to leave this whole area alone until 
they could clearly demonstrate that there was no longer a need for food 
banks, shelters, snow suit funds and so forth. 

A basic income program would have to look at all of the foregoing 
initiatives and programs to see how many of them could be rolled into a 
single BI program. The design of a program would have to consider 
several matters:

  the value of a BI - most probably, low income cut-offs adjusted for 
  family size and location (rural/urban etc.) would come into play here; 
  eligibility:a governing principle would very likely be that 
  anyone having an income higher than the established LICO values would not 
  be eligible; 
  the extent to which a BI might consist of a direct payment versus 
  something like a negative income tax; 
  the possibilities of making the BI, or aspects of it, premium based; 
  making recipients feel

Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites

[Ed Weick]

I think, Chris, where we differ on BI is that you see 
it as "getting something for nothing" and I see it as a way of ensuring that 
people can make choices about their lives and the lives of their children. 
I've known low income people who sincerely wanted to better themselves and the 
lives of their children, but did not have the means to do so. They were 
literally in a "low income trap". They saw education as a way out, but 
could not access it. Their kids could not go on school trips or do many of 
the other things that higher income kids could do, so the kids missed out and 
grew upfeeling that they could not do what other people could. What 
I think I'm advocating,though I have to thinkit through a little 
more, is a program that does not make people feel trapped, that permits those 
who think they can get out of the trap by getting educated to get educated, and 
that permitsall children to go on school trips so that they don't 
permanently feel they've missed out. Then they can make choices about 
whether they want to do"jobs that are not "profitable" by neoclassical 
economic criteriabut are necessary/desirable for social and environmental 
improvements" or jobs that are profitable by neoclassical criteria, or whatever 
they feel they have to do.

Ed



- Original Message - 
From: "Christoph Reuss" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income 
sites
 Sally Lerner 
wrote:  Bravo Ed and Thomas, for your explanations of how a Basic 
Income  might function.  ...which both deviated 
fundamentally from your website's version...   While I 
support a version that would be universal and  unconditional (get 
rid of stigma and address increasingly insecure  nature of many 
jobs), it is just possible that we in Canada will move  toward a BI 
in stages, group by group: "relentless incrementalism" as  Ken 
Battle (Caledon Institute) calls it. And he is a Friend of Paul 
 (Martin), our new Prime Minister.  It rather seems to me 
that Paul Martin (and provincial counterparts like Gordon Campbell) is 
an adherent of "relentless DEcrementalism", as far as social welfare is 
concerned... But then, if "relentless INcrementalism" refers to 
the number of foodbanks, Friend Paul can easily adopt it.  At 
any rate, my point remains that tax money would be better spent on * 
minimizing (at the root causes, i.e. education etc.) instead of  
maximizing (as with BI) the number of people who depend on welfare 
money, and on * creating jobs that are not "profitable" by 
neoclassical economic criteria  but are necessary/desirable for 
social and environmental improvements.  You can't say "do both 
this and BI", because the money spent on a general BI will lack for 
these things, no matter how you slice it, and you can't count on 
individual BI recipients to voluntarily do these jobs (see the railways 
example in my posting of 13-Dec). The result is that BI is detrimental 
to a sustainable (societal  environmental) solution, and highly 
compatible to a sell-out of Canada. Might explain why Ken is a 
Friend of Paul.  Chris   
 
SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the 
keyword "igve".   
___ Futurework mailing 
list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework 

Re: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/

[Ed Weick]

Most 
would say that the USSR was not Communist, aiming toward it perhaps but a brand 
of socialism.

arthur

My own take on it is 
that it was state capitalist. The state owned all of the capital, made all 
of the important decisions etc. It kept most people happy, up to a 
point,just like large corporations keep their employees happy. I 
think it would have continued in that direction had it 
survived.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 3:28 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/
  
  
-Original Message-From: Ed Weick 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 1:12 
PMTo: Ray Evans Harrell; Harry Pollard; Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
Re: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/
I don't know how best to characterize it. 
Russia was a basket caseafter the revolution (even before). What 
it tried to do under Stalin and even subsequently was to industrialize very 
rapidly, which meant, via the state planning system,a very heavy 
emphasis on producers goods, especiallythose needed for heavy 
industry,and littleemphasis on consumers goods. Because of 
both paranoia and legitimate fears, there were huge expenditures on the 
military, meaning even less for the ordinary householder. By about the 
1980s, the system was simply not able to meet all of the demands it had 
placed on itself, and ordinary Russians had become tired of being asked to 
wait just a little longer for the workers' paradise to arrive. It then 
began to collapse of its own weight.

Via the planning system, the state decided both 
production and distribution, and I find it very difficult to distinguish 
between the two in the case of the USSR.

Ed




- Original Message - 
From: "Ray Evans Harrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Harry Pollard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 11:11 
AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/
 Yes but 
wasn't it supposed to be distribution that did in the Communists? 
I'm just a poor artist but I do remember that discussion from you 
economists talking about our superior distribution. I'm 
confused. Educate me please.  
REH   - Original Message -  From: 
"Harry Pollard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 2:00 AM 
Subject: RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/Arthur,   
Wouldn't you know it?   You almost repeated - word 
for word - what Henry George said in  1878.  
 Great minds think alike!   It's the reason why 
Classical Political Economy is described as  "The Science that 
deals with the Nature, the Production, and the  Distribution of 
Wealth.   That "Distribution" bit is the essence of 
Political Economy.  Would that modern economists would start 
thinking about why the  distribution is so unfair, instead of 
devising ways to patch the  system by taking from the rich and 
giving to the poor.   Harry  
   Henry George 
School of Social Science  of Los Angeles  Box 
655 Tujunga CA 91042  Tel: 818 352-4141 
-- Fax: 818 353-2242  http://haledward.home.comcast.net   
   -Original Message-  From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 
2003 5:26 PM  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Subject: RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/   We have "solved" the production problem 
but can't seem to deal  with the issue of distribution. 
  Arthur   -Original 
Message-  From: Harry Pollard 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Sent: Wednesday, 
December 10, 2003 5:15 PM  To: 'Brad McCormick, Ed.D.'; 'Ed 
Weick'  Cc: 'futurework'  Subject: RE: [Futurework] 
http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/Brad,  
 We are discussing these problems in a society where the power 
to  produce has reached unbelievable proportions (After many 
have  been thrown out of work, the industries they left behind 
are  actually producing more. Productivity hasn't fallen even 
though  there are far fewer workers employed.) 
  Why these "problems"?   
Harry---  Outgoing mail 
is certified Virus Free.  Checked by AVG anti-virus system 

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Title: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade




No Ed, it is just money, like economics and all of that 
stuff. The same choices as making symphony orchestras only 
play old stuff because no onewill make the effort tounderstand 
anything complex that hasn't been around for a hundred and fifty 
years. Shall I call it Beethoven as "mud 
wrestling?" Or are they just getting by with the most for the 
least effort? Least effort never got you anymore than banal 
entertainment. Now you complain? Fix the 
economic system! 

REH 

Next life, Ray.

Ed


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ray Evans Harrell 
  
  To: Ed Weick ; Harry Pollard ; 'Robert E. Bowd' ; 
  'Thomas 
  Lunde' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:13 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
    Ed Weick 
To: Harry Pollard ; 'Robert E. Bowd' ; 
'Thomas 
Lunde' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 10:12 
PM
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: 
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

I do think that it's a little more than money in 
most cases. It could be respect, including self-respect, stability - 
things like that.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
      To: 'Ed Weick' ; 'Robert E. Bowd' ; 'Thomas 
  Lunde' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 8:57 
  PM
  Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was 
  Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  
  Ed,
  
  If you can't get a job as a programmer, you gat 
  a job selling insurance, or laying bricks, or anything else that brings in 
  money (if it's money you want).
  
  Harry
  
   
  Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 
  655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 
  352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
    
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed 
  WeickSent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:45 AMTo: 
  Robert E. Bowd; Thomas Lunde; 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Slightly extended 
  (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern 
  Trade
  
  Good piece, Bob. What we seem to need is a 
  widely accepted sense of "entitlement" of some kind that galvanizes people 
  into political action. To get that, people would have to feel they 
  have a common cause and a gut-level sense of betrayal by the system. 
  I don't see that in wealthy democracies, where most people are concerned 
  with maintaining their status or moving up the ladder. There are 
  special interests and outlooksthat make people adhere to one 
  political philosophy or another, but there is very little sense of 
  injustice or outrage.
  
  A piece I posted earlier this morning dealt with 
  how people in the now busthigh-techsector are coping with 
  unemployment. In reading the article in the Ottawa Citizen, it 
  seemed to me that there was very little anger among the unemployed 
  techies. However,there was a lot of frustration, almost as 
  though firing off job applications left, right and center, should somehow 
  have fixed things up, but, dammit, it didn't,so what am I still 
  doing wrong? Individualism, not common cause. Not what is 
  wrong with the system, but what is wrong with me because I no longer seem 
  to fit.
  
  Ed
  
  
  ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked 
  by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.548 / 
  Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 
  12/5/2003

Re: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/

[Ed Weick]

I don't think we've solved 
the production problem. One reason for our inequitable distribution of 
income is that we use our scarce resources to produce a lot of crap. A lot 
of people make a lot of money producing crap. Others keep them rich and 
themselves poor by buying it.

Ed





- Original Message - 
From: "Harry Pollard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 2:00 AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/
 
Arthur,  Wouldn't you know it?  You almost 
repeated - word for word - what Henry George said in 1878. 
 Great minds think alike!  It's the reason why Classical 
Political Economy is described as "The Science that deals with the 
Nature, the Production, and the Distribution of Wealth.  
That "Distribution" bit is the essence of Political Economy. Would that 
modern economists would start thinking about why the distribution is so 
unfair, instead of devising ways to patch the system by taking from the 
rich and giving to the poor.  Harry  
 Henry George School of 
Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga 
CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 
353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net  
  -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 
5:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/  We have "solved" the production problem but can't 
seem to deal with the issue of distribution.  
Arthur  -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 
2003 5:15 PM To: 'Brad McCormick, Ed.D.'; 'Ed Weick' Cc: 
'futurework' Subject: RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/   Brad,  We are discussing 
these problems in a society where the power to produce has reached 
unbelievable proportions (After many have been thrown out of work, the 
industries they left behind are actually producing more. Productivity 
hasn't fallen even though there are far fewer workers employed.) 
 Why these "problems"?  Harry   
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG 
anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). 
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 12/5/2003 
 

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Inflation and greater inequity, Harry. Would 
anybody really be better off?

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 2:00 
  AM
  Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  
  Arthur,
  
  In all ways 
  they are better off.
  
  If your 
  boss offered to double your salary even as he increased the managers salary 
  by four times, would you refuse it?
  
  I doubt it, 
  for you would know you were better off with a double 
  salary.
  
  Wouldnt 
  you?
  
  Harry
  
  
   Henry 
  George School of Social Science of 
  Los Angeles 
  Box 
  655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 
  818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net   
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 6:27 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern 
  Trade
  
  
  If group A is 2x 
  better off than originally
  
  
  
  But group B is 4x 
  better off than originally
  
  
  
  and group C is 10x 
  better off than originally(well...you get the 
  idea...)
  
  
  
  is the whole 
  community better off?? In some ways yes and in other ways 
  no.
  
  
  
  arthur
  
-Original 
Message-From: Harry 
Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 10:37 
PMTo: 'Ray Evans Harrell'; 
'Keith Hudson'; 'Ed Weick'Cc: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: 
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern 
Trade
Ray,
Don't think George 
ever mentioned the invisible hand. Certainly not in his major books. I must 
say I can't understand the difficulty about the concept of the invisible 
hand.
What it says is that 
if each individual member of the community is better off then it can be said 
that the whole community is better off. Is this something difficult to 
understand?
Curious.
A clear understanding 
of what is private property, and what is common property, is absolutely 
essential to a free and prosperous society.
When you take time 
off from the chorale to make your own clothes, and build your own furniture, 
I will know that you don't believe in comparative 
advantage.
Harry

  ---Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.541 / Virus 
  Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003
  ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.548 / Virus 
  Database: 341 - Release Date: 
12/5/2003

Re: [Futurework] But what is the cause? (was RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/

[Ed Weick]

Keith, I do think that you push the status thing a 
little too hard. I am the consumer of all kinds of goods and services for 
all kinds of reasons. I consume bread and cereal, and have always done 
so,because it is part of a healthy diet. I rather doubt that the 
first person to have consumed such things had special status; everybodyhas 
consumed them for a very long time. I consume the services of my doctor 
and dentist not because I like to, or because I think the latest pills or 
gadgets they have give me special status, but because I need to. I'd like 
to think that employers orclients have consumed my services because of the 
status that imparts, but I don't think that's been the case. What about 
innovation? People buy something new simply because it works better than 
something old. Can openers are a good example. What about 
security? A lot of things that people did not purchase ordinarily were 
consumed post 9/11 because of the fear of terror. People did not look at 
one another and say 'Wow! he's got the latest germ protective suit! I 
gotta have one too!' They bought because they were scared.

I think you are too focused on one thing. 
I know that you are trying to make the argument that 
certain goods move the economy forward because of the status they impart, but 
the separation of status from utility, fear, fashion or fancy is never that 
clear.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Keith 
  Hudson 
  To: Harry Pollard 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 2:56 
  AM
  Subject: [Futurework] But what is the 
  cause? (was RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/
  Harry,Just as "natural history" in 
  Victorian times was formative in the development of botany, zoology, biology 
  and evolutionary theory, the traditional description of economics as dealing 
  with the "Nature, the Production, and the Distribution of Wealth" shows that 
  it still at an early stage of understanding. We can only move towards 
  economics being regarded as a science when we start to examine the *causes* of 
  economics and trade. Why did the whole business start in the first 
  place? If we were able to trace back the history of every single item of 
  consumer goods -- however trivial it may seem to us today -- we will 
  discover that, in every case (apart from food), it first made its appearance 
  as a item desired for its enhancement of status. Status, as in every social 
  mammal sepcies, is the means by which selection is made for sexual activity, 
  the strongest of our instincts apart from eating, and for its only slightly 
  lesser byproduct -- though still valuable -- of social inclusion with the 
  group or community.Today, the whole world of politics and business, is 
  in a dither. Economists can give us no guidance of where we're heading. 
  Unfortunately, the classical economists can give us no guidance. Major figures 
  though they were, they had not yet started to ask the Why 
  question.Until we do so -- and in my view appreciate that economic 
  activity is mainly driven by new consumer goods bought for status only -- then 
  we can make no sensible forecasts of just where modern society in developed 
  countries is heading. Until we do, economics will remain as a purely 
  descriptive activity -- as at the 'beetle collection stage' of the 
  biological sciences 200 years ago or, to change the metaphor, the various 
  economic nostrums that are prescribed today are no better than the weird 
  variety of medicines that doctors gave to their patients 200 years ago before 
  medical science started looking for causes of diseases. Keith 
  At 23:00 12/12/2003 -0800, you wrote:
  Arthur,Wouldn't you know 
it?You almost repeated - word for word - what Henry George said 
in1878.Great minds think alike!It's the reason why Classical 
Political Economy is described as"The Science that deals with the 
Nature, the Production, and theDistribution of Wealth.That 
"Distribution" bit is the essence of Political Economy.Would that modern 
economists would start thinking about why thedistribution is so unfair, 
instead of devising ways to patch thesystem by taking from the rich and 
giving to the 
poor.HarryHenry 
George School of Social Scienceof Los AngelesBox 655 
Tujunga CA 91042Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 
353-2242http://haledward.home.comcast.net-Original 
Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 
December 10, 2003 5:26 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/We have 
"solved" the production problem but can't seem to dealwith the issue of 
distribution.Arthur-Original Message-From: 

Re: [Futurework] But what is the cause? (was RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/

[Ed Weick]

Keith, it still sounds a little too focused on one or 
two things to me. Yes indeed cars do impart status, but they also are, and 
since their invention were, a truly useful appliance, as is and was the 
refrigerator, which nobody seems to buy for the sake of status, though perhaps 
some people did at one time. Personally, I still prefer Schumpeter's 
concept of innovation, major breakthroughs in production that drive the economy 
along for a time. I think that, if you looked at the industrial revolution 
as a sequential process, you would find it to be that kind of thing. The 
steam engine was initially invented because horses could not pump enough water 
out ofdeepening mines. Steam was then applied to all kinds of other 
uses, then replaced by the internal combustion engine, whichenabled the 
invention of the automobile, aircraft, etc. There is a basic, driving 
process that leads to all kinds of refinement and adaptation, but the that 
process is essentially supply driven, though admittedly pulled along by demand 
and the manipulation of demand as it moves along.

  No, you've got me wrong. There 
  are certain new types of goods which are status goods because they carry a 
  high profit margin. Unlike positional goods (with which they have some 
  similarities), status goods are then capable of mass production and thereby 
  make their way downwards through all the socio-economic strata, creating 
  bow-waves of profits and investment along the way. I suggest that the vast 
  majority of goods produced today even if they are new ones (like 3G mobile 
  phones which are a sub-category of a previous status good -- the telephone ) 
  are not status goods because they carry too little profit margin to stimulate 
  the economy. They sell widely from the start.
Innovative goods may 
initiallycarry high profit margins per unit of product because producers 
have to meet development and marketing costs, or so producers would typically 
argue.Drug companies argue this to maintain their patent protection, 
even though generic drug makers have demonstrated that the drugs can be produced 
profitably without protection. Costs per unit and profit margins per unit 
will typically fall as the market begins to be saturated, but thetotal 
profits of producers may not necessarily fall. Besides, there is always 
replacement once the market is saturated. Things wear out and often, 
driven by advertising (status maintenance?), consumers can be convinced that 
they wear out faster than they actually do.

I don't deny that your concept of 'status 
goods' has some validity, but frankly I don't see what it really adds to the 
theory of how markets and the economy incorporate new and innovative 
technologies that then become the impetus for a prolonged wave of growth. 
If there is a difference between us, it may be that I am thinking of relatively 
long waves, such as that produced by the internal combustion engine or the 
microchip, while you tend to think in terms of particular applications of these 
innovations. We may both be right, each in his own way.

Ed





  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Keith 
  Hudson 
  To: Ed Weick 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 10:13 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] But what is the 
  cause? (was RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/
  Ed,At 09:20 13/12/2003 -0500, you 
  wrote:
  Keith, 
I do think that you push the status thing a little too hard. I am the 
consumer of all kinds of goods and services for all kinds of reasons. 
I consume bread and cereal, and have always done so, because it is part of a 
healthy diet. I rather doubt that the first person to have consumed 
such things had special status; everybody has consumed them for a very long 
time.Food is not involved. Food never had to be traded 
  initially, nor for thousands of years. Think about it. If we'd had to trade 
  for food, then man as a species couldn't have got started in the first 
  place.
   
I consume the services of my doctor and dentist not because I like to, or 
because I think the latest pills or gadgets they have give me special 
status, but because I need to. I'd like to think that employers or 
clients have consumed my services because of the status that imparts, but I 
don't think that's been the case. What about innovation? People 
buy something new simply because it works better than something old. 
Can openers are a good example. What about security? A lot of 
things that people did not purchase ordinarily were consumed post 9/11 
because of the fear of terror. People did not look at one another and 
say 'Wow! he's got the latest germ protective suit! I gotta have one 
too!' They bought because they were scared.Well, 
  doctors and can-openers are subsidiary to the main economy. I've never 
  intended to say that all consumer goods have been status goods. But all new 
  goods

Re: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/

[Ed Weick]

I don't know how best to characterize it. Russia 
was a basket caseafter the revolution (even before). What it tried 
to do under Stalin and even subsequently was to industrialize very rapidly, 
which meant, via the state planning system,a very heavy emphasis on 
producers goods, especiallythose needed for heavy industry,and 
littleemphasis on consumers goods. Because of both paranoia and 
legitimate fears, there were huge expenditures on the military, meaning even 
less for the ordinary householder. By about the 1980s, the system was 
simply not able to meet all of the demands it had placed on itself, and ordinary 
Russians had become tired of being asked to wait just a little longer for the 
workers' paradise to arrive. It then began to collapse of its own 
weight.

Via the planning system, the state decided both 
production and distribution, and I find it very difficult to distinguish between 
the two in the case of the USSR.

Ed




- Original Message - 
From: "Ray Evans Harrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Harry Pollard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/
 Yes but 
wasn't it supposed to be distribution that did in the Communists? I'm 
just a poor artist but I do remember that discussion from you economists 
talking about our superior distribution. I'm confused. 
Educate me please.  REH   - 
Original Message -  From: "Harry Pollard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 2:00 AM 
Subject: RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/Arthur,   
Wouldn't you know it?   You almost repeated - word for 
word - what Henry George said in  1878.   
Great minds think alike!   It's the reason why Classical 
Political Economy is described as  "The Science that deals with the 
Nature, the Production, and the  Distribution of Wealth. 
  That "Distribution" bit is the essence of Political 
Economy.  Would that modern economists would start thinking about 
why the  distribution is so unfair, instead of devising ways to 
patch the  system by taking from the rich and giving to the 
poor.   Harry   
  Henry George School of 
Social Science  of Los Angeles  Box 655 
Tujunga CA 91042  Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 
818 353-2242  http://haledward.home.comcast.net   
   -Original Message-  From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 
5:26 PM  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED];  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Cc: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Subject: RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/   We have "solved" the production problem but 
can't seem to deal  with the issue of distribution. 
  Arthur   -Original 
Message-  From: Harry Pollard 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Sent: Wednesday, December 
10, 2003 5:15 PM  To: 'Brad McCormick, Ed.D.'; 'Ed Weick' 
 Cc: 'futurework'  Subject: RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/Brad,  
 We are discussing these problems in a society where the power to 
 produce has reached unbelievable proportions (After many have  
been thrown out of work, the industries they left behind are  
actually producing more. Productivity hasn't fallen even though  
there are far fewer workers employed.)   Why these 
"problems"?   Harry   
 ---  Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.  
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). 
 Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 12/5/2003 
   
___  Futurework mailing 
list  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework  

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Title: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade




If the Elders won't do it, who will?

REH 

Yes, Ray, I would like to do my duty as an Elder. I have a magic 
stick which I take to the lawn of Parliament Hill and shake at the politicians 
who are debating how the economic system might be fixed - or not. Nothing 
happens. The magic has gone out of my stick!

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ray Evans Harrell 
  
  To: Ed Weick ; Harry Pollard ; 'Robert E. Bowd' ; 
  'Thomas 
  Lunde' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 11:32 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Ed Weick 
To: Ray Evans Harrell ; Harry Pollard ; 'Robert E. Bowd' ; 
'Thomas 
Lunde' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 8:33 
AM
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: 
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade


No Ed, it is just money, like economics and all of 
that stuff. The same choices as making symphony orchestras 
only play old stuff because no onewill make the effort 
tounderstand anything complex that hasn't been around for a hundred 
and fifty years. Shall I call it Beethoven as "mud 
wrestling?" Or are they just getting by with the most for 
the least effort? Least effort never got you anymore than 
banal entertainment. Now you complain? 
Fix the economic system! 

REH 

Next life, Ray.

Ed


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ray Evans 
  Harrell 
      To: Ed Weick ; Harry Pollard ; 'Robert E. Bowd' 
  ; 'Thomas Lunde' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:13 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was 
  Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
    Ed Weick 

To: Harry Pollard ; 'Robert E. 
Bowd' ; 'Thomas Lunde' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 
10:12 PM
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was 
Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

I do think that it's a little more than money 
in most cases. It could be respect, including self-respect, 
stability - things like that.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
      To: 'Ed Weick' ; 'Robert E. 
  Bowd' ; 'Thomas Lunde' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 
  8:57 PM
  Subject: RE: Slightly extended 
  (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern 
  Trade
  
  
  Ed,
  
  If you can't get a job as a programmer, you 
  gat a job selling insurance, or laying bricks, or anything else that 
  brings in money (if it's money you want).
  
  Harry
  
   
  Henry George School of 
  Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 
  Tel: 818 
  352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
   
   
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed 
  WeickSent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:45 AMTo: 
  Robert E. Bowd; Thomas Lunde; 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Slightly 
  extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. 
  Modern Trade
  
  Good piece, Bob. What we seem to need 
  is a widely accepted sense of "entitlement" of some kind that 
  galvanizes people into political action. To get that, people 
  would have to feel they have a common cause and a gut-level sense of 
  betrayal by the system. I don't see that in wealthy democracies, 
  where most people are concerned with maintaining their status or 
  moving up the ladder. There are special interests and 
  outlooksthat make people adhere to one political philosophy or 
  another, but there is very little sense of injustice or 
  outrage.
  
  A piece I posted earlier this morning dealt 
  with how people in the now busthigh-techsector are coping 
  with unemployment. In reading the article in the Ottawa Citizen, 
  it seemed to me that there was very little anger among the unemployed 
  techies. However,there was a lot of frustration, almost as 
  though firing off j

Re: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/

[Ed Weick]

Thanks, Ray, but I'm not that good. I don't hold, 
or care to hold, political office, and I'm aging. But in my opinion, one 
of the great questions that we face as both a society and as individuals is the 
proper balance between self-interest and altruism. In the case of the 
individual, how much do wecater toour own needs versus the needs of 
others? In the case of society as a whole,how, and to what 
extent,should control over the use of resources be exercised so that 
frivolous, self-servingand wasteful usesare minimized and uses 
important to society as a whole are maximized?

All of which requires prior definition:what is 
individualism and what is altruism? What are the limits to both? 
What are frivolous uses of resources and how does one define importance to 
society? But I don't think we are flying blind here. There is plenty 
of literature on all of these subjects. And please note that, by society, 
it don't mean "government". I mean everybody in that society somehow 
thinking about and debating things together, not formally, but perhaps as many 
of us do now, by acting and reacting to things as they come along, learning all 
the while and incorporating that learning so that we do better next 
time.

IMHO, the most important thing a society can do is 
educate its people. And here I'm much more concerned with the arts and 
humanities than with the sciences. I believe we will continue to be able 
to produce the technologiststhat will then create thestatus goods, 
as Keith calls them, that will make the economy lurch forward. What I am 
concerned about is the ethics, morals, and ability to make judgments that define 
how people should behave toward each other and what limitations or permissions 
society should impose on its citizens. If we were really able to think 
about these things effectively, we would be far less likely to slip into long 
held conventional thought modes that we now label as "neo-con" or "neo-lib" or 
whatever. We would also be far more reluctant to let our politicians take 
actions out of such thought modes.

How to fix up education has often been discussed on 
this list. If I were to fix it up at the grade-school level, I would put 
less emphasis on mathematics and the sciences and more on disciplines that get 
maturing individuals to think about themselves and their society. And I 
would not stop there. I would set up special classes that adults could 
attend to learn about, and discuss, bills that are moving through legislatures, 
or other matters that could have a significant impact on society. My hope 
would be that, through education, we could reduce the crap, the waste and the 
inhumanity that now characterizes society and indeed ourselves.

So there you have it, Ray. That's what I would 
hope to fix and how I would try to fix it. But I do wish I had more 
time.

Ed


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ray Evans Harrell 
  
  To: Ed Weick ; Harry Pollard ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 12:03 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/
  
  Ed, 
  Crap is just "economie of scale". Your 
  complaint about survivor does not take into account the "news as 
  entertainment" cable news channels that pay almost nothing for performers 
  since life is the performer. The perfect 
  productivity. Make all of the performers volunteers or payment a 
  lottery. That drives the serious programming onto the 
  private for pay channels like showtime and HBO with a little in 
  PBS. (Not so great for upward mobility and designated marketing 
  will make the gulf wider)  People can rob music on the internet but when 
  the "dung hits the wind machine" everyone complains about the bad smell but 
  denies culpability. Productivity in labor creates a 
  decline in quality in labor produced products. Only in automated 
  products does it not matter. Qualityand judgement are 
  human traits not machines and that requiresprofessionalismon the 
  part of the producer and discrimination on the part of the 
  consumer. 
  
  Ed, you can't just crawl in a hole and retire. You 
  have to come up with a solution to the economic rules that have created this 
  situation. The theology of productivity and monetary value is the 
  root and it is rotting the tree. Harry can long for noble savages 
  while demeaning networks and connectivity and others can complain about the 
  education system as if their own views on culture and value had nothing to do 
  with it. But bemoaning your fate is beneath your considerable mind 
  and experience. I believe you see it correctly, now what are your 
  solutions? 
  
  REH 
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Ed Weick 
To: Harry Pollard ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 8:41 
AM
Subject: Re

Re: [Futurework] Are they going mad?

[Ed Weick]

Harry, there are no neutral observers. 
Nevertheless, some observers are more observant than others. I'm a couple 
of chapters into the new Chomsky. His arguments are well documented and 
seem to hold. They do not differ greatly from those of Bachevich, though 
he does put them more strongly. And it really was the Americans, not the 
Russians,who backed Saddam againts the Iranians.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ed Weick' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; 'Keith Hudson' 
  Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:23 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] Are they going 
  mad?
  
  Ed,
  
  Chomsky and Soros are of course neutral observers 
  of the American scene.
  
  Come along now, lad.
  
  Harry
   Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 655 
  Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
   
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed 
  WeickSent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 5:35 AMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith HudsonSubject: Re: 
  [Futurework] Are they going mad?
  
  Perhaps they always were a little mad and are now 
  becoming more so. Naom Chomsky has a new book 
  out,"Hegemonyor Survival". I saw ashort 
  televisedinterview withhim last night in which he argued that the 
  US Administration has become so obsessed with power that it has become a real 
  danger to the world. George Soros says something similar in an article 
  in the current Atlantic. Madness does seem to have descended upon 
  us.
  
  Ed
  
  
  ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.548 / Virus 
  Database: 341 - Release Date: 
12/5/2003

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Survivor I recommend because within its framework it 
shows unrehearsed interactions of people in often trying circumstances. The 
interplay of "He's so good, with him our tribe will win, so we must keep him" 
with "He's so good, there is no way we can beat him, so we must get rid of 
him"is at times hilarious.

Thanks 
Harry, but I'd rather watch people bash each other about in hockey. I'll try to 
be honest about 'Survivor'. One point I'd make is that it debases people. It 
makes them look like self-serving shits, and perhaps that is what the people 
they pick for the show really are. Another is that it gives a very false 
impression of what "tribes" - people who live beyond the pale of American 
civilization - are really like. Frankly, I see nothing hilarious in the show. 
Perhaps I'm a moralist, but to me it represents the very worst of the stench of 
America.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ed Weick' ; 'Keith 
  Hudson' 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:01 
  AM
  Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  Ed,
  
  It's just a television show.
  
  Would you not see Brigadoon because the highlands 
  were never like that? Would you refuse to see South Pacific because war is 
  really hell? And as for Peter Pan, we know how ridiculous it is. In reality, 
  people can't fly.
  
  Of course I would never have watched Wayne and 
  Schuster because they had an airline sketch where the first class passengers 
  enjoyed an orgy, but the coach passengers were simply pushed out of the plane 
  when their destination was reached.
  
  Simply Canadian crap - but at times the show 
  washilarious.
  
  Survivor I recommend because within its framework it 
  shows unrehearsed interactions of people in often trying circumstances. The 
  interplay of "He's so good, with him our tribe will win, so we must keep him" 
  with "He's so good, there is no way we can beat him, so we must get rid of 
  him"is at times hilarious.
  
  The writing is often very good. Previous shows 
  had allowed them to dress appropriately for their39 days on the beach. 
  They were given some basics - a little food, a machete and they could 
  bringoneluxury item. They climbed in a boat and were taken 
  ashore.
  
  This latest 16 players were brought up on deck 
  (I think for a photo-shoot). They had dressed 
  for the occasion - women in long dresses, men in 
  suits.
  
  They were asked to put their personal possessions in 
  a bag. Then they were ordered overboard to swim to the island - in their 
  dresses and suits. The game had started.
  
  They were completely surprised, 
  buttheyjumped overboard and the game 
  began.
  
  In the last show, instead of mixing the genders, they 
  put all the men in one tribe, all the women in the other. The tribes 
  compete.
  
  The men got to work, built a shelter, and were 
  comfortable.
  
  After several days the women were stillbeing 
  rained upon. They just couldn't get it together. The male tribe were pretty 
  arrogant and were sure they would destroy the female tribe in the contests 
  they would endure.
  
  Only problem - the women beat them. Male morale 
  dropped. Then the women won the second contest. Male morale slid further. The 
  women won the third contest and the males were whining and complaining. It was 
  fun.
  
  Finally, the women appointed a leader and she got 
  things organized and the game proceeded.
  
  I don't like commercial programs and I don't like 
  commercials. So, I watch little network stuff.However, Survivor for a while 
  (until the writers' ideas run out) is a fun program - not at first so much, 
  but as it proceeds and the contestants react to the situation and to each 
  other, it becomes very interesting and very 
  entertaining.
  
  I doubt the dozen and one copies of Survivor - the 
  reality shows - are in the class of Survivor - but I don't know. 
  
  
  Harry
  
   Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 655 
  Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
  ********  
  
  
  
  From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 8:11 PMTo: Harry 
  Pollard; 'Keith Hudson'Cc: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was 
  Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern 
  Trade
  
  Harry, don't even mention the show 'Survivor' to 
  me. I see it as absolute American crap, like the "Stench of 
  America". There's nothing in it that even remotely bears any resemblance 
  of the reality of hunters and gatherers.
  
  Ed

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Title: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade



Thanks, Thomas. There's an article in today's 
Ottawa Citizen on the fallout from the high tech bust that hit Ottawa in the 
late 1990s. It puts aninteresting perspective on who many of the 
poor are. As you know, in the 1990s, Ottawa enjoyed a huge hi-tech boom 
and became known as "Silicon Vally North". At the end of the decade, much 
of that collapsed, stranding thousands of well qualified people. The 
problem is that it also collapsed elsewhere, so these people really have very 
few places to go. Many, who earned high incomes during the boom, have 
taken low wage jobs. Many have relied on foodbanks, which may explain some 
of the harried mothers who I've observed getting in and out fast at the foodbank 
I'm familiar with. 

I know one highly specialized and formerly high-income 
person who has not found work for three years now. He was within a couple 
of years of a pension when he was let go. He is thoroughly upper middle 
class in outlook; there is no way that he would consider himself poor. Any 
yet that is what he is, and it weighs on him. The family survives because 
his wife has been able to find work. I don't think they use the foodbank, 
but they are not very far from having to do it. 

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Thomas 
  Lunde 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:56 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
  Thomas:Great essay and I've noted much of this myself. 
  Especially the concept that the "poor" are off the radar of needing 
  assistance. That the imbalances of capitalism does not allow wealth to 
  filter down. What I find surprising is that is where "demand" is and if 
  you want an expanding market in these shaky times, then why not allow those on 
  the bottom more ability to satisfy their demands. It does not have to be 
  a direct handout like welfare. It could come from raising the minimum 
  wage to $12 per hour or tightening the labour code so that employers have to 
  pay overtime and stop a lot of part time work that is just a method for 
  business to sqeeze their labour expenses down. Anyway, great 
  essay.Respectfully,Thomas Lunde--From: "Ed 
  Weick" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was 
  Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern TradeDate: 
  Fri, Dec 5, 2003, 9:10 AM
  As I said. 
There is no incentive to change. I hate to say it but food banks 
are part of the problem. arthurBut what's the solution? People that 
use the foodbanks are not activists. Most have no faith in politicians 
and many dropped out of the system long ago. Middle class donors want 
to keep giving pasta and tuna because it makes them feel they are doing 
something. Newly elected politicians discover, to their horror, that 
the previous government has left them a mess, just as their government will 
leave a mess to be discovered by the next government. There are 
organizations that are active on behalf of the poor, but they make little 
headway against neo-con governments concerned with the bottom line. 
Movements toward a GAI based on direct payments or a negative income 
tax appear to have stalled a decade ago. Public concern now is not 
about the poor, but about personal safety and security in the face of terror 
and a downsizing economy.I was a 
kid in Saskatchewan when the newly elected government, under Tommy Douglas, 
first brought in programs like universal health coverage. There was a 
receptivity to social programming at the time because people remembered the 
Great Depression and not being able to afford visits to the doctor. 
The cooperative movement was still a strong feature of the Canadian 
social landscape. The poor were considered respectable. They 
were us and our neighbours, good church going people who just wanted a 
"square deal". What has 
changed most since then is our attitude toward the poor. The 
proportion of the population that considers itself middle class has grown 
enormously, while the poor, now crowded down to the bottom as minimum wage 
earners and welfare recipients, are no longer respectable. They are 
seen as flawed losers who must be forced to mend their ways through 
upgrading and workfare programs.My 
diagnosis is that programs that were once considered new and even radical, 
like universal Medicare, employment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan, the 
Child Tax Benefit, and various Provincial welfare programs have now become 
part of the accepted background buzz of daily life. They are old and 
tired and just there, no longer really interesting. And peop

Re: [Futurework] And even more productivity or what?

[Ed Weick]

Title: Re: [Futurework] And even more productivity or what?



You mean Keith, Ray and Harry don't 
you?In fun,Thomas
Mebe! But I'm beginning to wonder if the CCA's 
who work for my ISP aren't former well-paid technies, casualities of the 
tech-bust, who are now working for an evil computer at near-minimum 
wage.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Thomas 
  Lunde 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:35 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] And even more 
  productivity or what?
  Hi Ed:You mean Keith, Ray and Harry don't 
  you?In fun,Thomas--From: "Ed Weick" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "Thomas Lunde" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
  Re: [Futurework] And even more productivity or what?Date: Mon, Dec 8, 
  2003, 9:36 AM
  So where the hell are Morpheus(?) and Neo 
when I need them?Ed
- Original Message - From: Thomas Lunde 
  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 4:02 
  AMSubject: Re: [Futurework] And even more productivity or 
  what?Welcome to the Matrix Ed!------From: "Ed 
  Weick" [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 
  "futurework" [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Subject: [Futurework] And even more productivity or what?Date: 
  Thu, Dec 4, 2003, 2:20 PM
  I was educated in the 1950s and 1960s. 
Until I retired from the Canadian public service some sixteen years ago, 
I had always worked in hierarchical, stratified institutions. In 
government, my Minister sat at the top, my Deputy Minister just a little 
below him, my Assistant Deputy below him, me a little further down and 
all kinds of other people in layers below. In the oil patch in Calgary, 
my one encounter with the corporate private sector, it was much the same 
 a Chairman of the Board at the top, a CEO a little further down, 
(though he didnt think so), then vice presidents, and down, down, down 
through layers and layers where the actual work got done, including 
drilling for oil and gas. Moreover, in both government and industry, the 
people who ran the show were mostly in one place, in tall buildings like 
the ones you see in Calgary or Ottawa. Thats still how I still 
picture corporate work and organization to be, but recently Ive run 
into something quite different. In trying to establish a website for a 
group of churches that run a foodbank, Ive had to deal with the 
employees of an Internet service provider to resolve a problem that I, 
as a non-technical person, found very difficult. There were two aspects 
to the problem, one technical and the other financial. To resolve both, 
I had to interact with persons known as "Customer Care Agents" (CCAs). 
While these people were helpful or rude on the technical side, depending 
on who I happened to hit in a particular phone call, they were not at 
all helpful on the financial side. They simply didnt know anything 
about it. So, I asked them, kindly at first though more heatedly as the 
conversation developed, to put me through to "Accounts". Well, Sir, they 
couldnt do that because there really wasnt anybody like that, but they 
would try to get the information for me. From whom? Well, they werent 
really sure, but they would get it somewhere. At one point in my 
dealings with the CCAs, I flew into a towering rage. I bellowed and 
threatened to sue, and asked who the CEO was so that I could write him a 
letter on how terribly I had been dealt with. Well, Sir, we really dont 
know, was the response. Well then, where are your headquarters, I asked. 
We think theyre in Alberta, Sir, but we really arent sure. Well, you 
have an office here in Ottawa. Who can I see there!!!??? Theres no one 
there, Sir, were all over the place. I gave up, slammed the phone down 
and stormed around the block several times. Gradually, in 
several bouts of raising my blood pressure to the limit and beyond, I 
came to realize that I was not dealing with something that fitted my 
concept of a corporate entity. There were no layers of people in one 
place. There was no hierarchy. There were people in various parts of 
Ottawa connected by telephone and computer grids of some kind. They had 
technical knowledge but little idea of what they were part of, a much 
larger grid extending across Canada that included contracting out many 
of the things that corporate entities are, by my image, supposed to do 
internally. Though there must be a center, though there must be a CEO, 
thoug

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Title: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade



Thomas:

I'm sure the ongoing drudgery of running a food bank must be a major pain 
in the ass.

Ed:

No, not really. Our foodbank has a permanent 
manager, a paid position. She likes the work. As for the volunteers, 
most are elderly. It makes them feel they are doing something useful and 
gives the a two or three times a week outing. And it allows the people who 
donate food and money to think that they are doing something purposeful 
too. Good and virtuous feelings all around, though not including the 
people who need to use the foodbank to stay alive.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:41 
  PM
  Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  that's the idea. 
  
  although I think that many people running food banks (along with those 
  who show up at shelters on X-mas day to dole out food) gain great comfort form 
  these actions.
  
  arthur
  
-Original Message-From: Thomas Lunde 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 
12:53 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade 
vs. Modern TradeThomas:If I read you right 
Arthur, then shutting down the food banks by volunteer groups would increase 
the misery index and force government to address the problem in a different 
way? That's not a bad idea as I'm sure the ongoing drudgery of running 
a food bank must be a major pain in the 
ass.Respectfully,Thomas Lunde--From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: 
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern TradeDate: 
Mon, Dec 8, 2003, 12:02 PM
I agree with 
  your analysis, Ed. Social change is ongoing and 
  new alliances will be formed---but out of necessity. The three 
  groups you mention don't have to work together or even acknowledge each 
  other as long as good hearted middle class folk are handing out free food. 
  Turn off the tap and you will see cooperation and shared 
  understanding aplenty.arthur
  -Original Message-From: Ed 
Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: 
Monday, December 8, 2003 11:17 AMTo: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade 
vs. Modern TradeEd, when 
the poor kick back politicians will 
act.I agree, and in some cases they 
have on matters such as housing, for example. But they can't seem 
to present any kind of unified front. The people I described as 
using my food bank, older guys from the valley, embarrassed young 
mothers with kids, and the young who graced us with their presence 
really wanted to have very little to do with each other. What we 
need is a unification of the poor and politicians who pay attention to 
them, but we seem to have run out of people like Tommy Douglas, Stanley 
Knowles and David Lewis and we now seem to have a plethora of people 
like Peter MacKay, Stephen Harper and Paul Martin, people who pay far 
more attention to the rich than the poor. In the past few decades, 
the political drift has been rightward, and the drift of society as a 
whole has been toward the establishment of a middle class identity that 
sees poverty terms of personal flaw and the poor as undeserving. 
Ed
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 10:37 
  AMSubject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] 
  David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern TradeEd, when the poor kick 
  back politicians will act.
  -Original Message-From: 
Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: 
Monday, December 8, 2003 9:32 AMTo: Harry Pollard; 
'Thomas Lunde'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] 
David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern TradeI'm not laughing, Harry. I've just accessed a 
report by the Canadian Council on Social Development that shows that 
poverty in urban areas, including poverty among the working poor

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

So what is the difference between Angels in America and 
Survivor? 

REH 

Haven't seen Angels. 

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ray Evans Harrell 
  
  To: Harry Pollard ; 'Ed Weick' ; 'Keith 
  Hudson' 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:49 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Harry Pollard 
To: 'Ed Weick' ; 'Keith 
Hudson' 
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:01 
AM
Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: 
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

Ed,

It's just a television show.

Would you not see Brigadoon because the highlands 
were never like that? Would you refuse to see South Pacific because war is 
really hell? And as for Peter Pan, we know how ridiculous it is. In reality, 
people can't fly.

Of course I would never have watched Wayne and 
Schuster because they had an airline sketch where the first class passengers 
enjoyed an orgy, but the coach passengers were simply pushed out of the 
plane when their destination was reached.

Simply Canadian crap - but at times the show 
washilarious.

Survivor I recommend because within its framework 
it shows unrehearsed interactions of people in often trying circumstances. 
The interplay of "He's so good, with him our tribe will win, so we must keep 
him" with "He's so good, there is no way we can beat him, so we must get rid 
of him"is at times hilarious.

The writing is often very good. Previous 
shows had allowed them to dress appropriately for their39 days on the 
beach. They were given some basics - a little food, a machete and they could 
bringoneluxury item. They climbed in a boat and were taken 
ashore.

This latest 16 players were brought up on deck 
(I think for a photo-shoot). They had dressed 
for the occasion - women in long dresses, men in 
suits.

They were asked to put their personal possessions 
in a bag. Then they were ordered overboard to swim to the island - in their 
dresses and suits. The game had started.

They were completely surprised, 
buttheyjumped overboard and the game 
began.

In the last show, instead of mixing the genders, 
they put all the men in one tribe, all the women in the other. The tribes 
compete.

The men got to work, built a shelter, and were 
comfortable.

After several days the women were stillbeing 
rained upon. They just couldn't get it together. The male tribe were pretty 
arrogant and were sure they would destroy the female tribe in the contests 
they would endure.

Only problem - the women beat them. Male morale 
dropped. Then the women won the second contest. Male morale slid further. 
The women won the third contest and the males were whining and complaining. 
It was fun.

Finally, the women appointed a leader and she got 
things organized and the game proceeded.

I don't like commercial programs and I don't like 
commercials. So, I watch little network stuff.However, Survivor for a while 
(until the writers' ideas run out) is a fun program - not at first so much, 
but as it proceeds and the contestants react to the situation and to each 
other, it becomes very interesting and very 
entertaining.

I doubt the dozen and one copies of Survivor - the 
reality shows - are in the class of Survivor - but I don't know. 


Harry

 Henry George School of Social 
Science of Los 
Angeles Box 
655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 
352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
  

    
    
From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 8:11 PMTo: Harry 
Pollard; 'Keith Hudson'Cc: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was 
Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern 
Trade

Harry, don't even mention the show 'Survivor' to 
me. I see it as absolute American crap, like the "Stench of 
America". There's nothing in it that even remotely bears any 
resemblance of the reality of hunters and gatherers.

Ed

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Title: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade



Thomas, if you can find and another solutions and sell 
it to the public and the politicians, I would be right there with you. 
Right now, some people have to eat; others have to feel good. That's 
it.

Equally respectfully, Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Thomas 
  Lunde 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 3:19 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
  Hi Ed:Am I to take it that food banks should continue 
  to exist because they satisfy the dysfunctional emotions of those who run them 
  while frustrating the self respect of those who have to use them. Talk 
  about the logic of the absurb.Respectfully,Thomas 
  Lunde--From: "Ed Weick" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was 
  Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern TradeDate: 
  Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 1:55 PM
  Thomas:I'm sure the 
ongoing drudgery of running a food bank must be a major pain in the 
ass.Ed:No, not really. Our foodbank has a permanent manager, a 
paid position. She likes the work. As for the volunteers, most 
are elderly. It makes them feel they are doing something useful and 
gives the a two or three times a week outing. And it allows the people 
who donate food and money to think that they are doing something purposeful 
too. Good and virtuous feelings all around, though not including the 
people who need to use the foodbank to stay alive.
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:41 
  PMSubject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David 
  Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Tradethat's the idea. 
  although I think that many people running food 
  banks (along with those who show up at shelters on X-mas day to dole out 
  food) gain great comfort form these 
  actions.arthur
  -Original Message-From: 
Thomas Lunde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: 
Friday, December 12, 2003 12:53 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David 
Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern TradeThomas:If 
I read you right Arthur, then shutting down the food banks by volunteer 
groups would increase the misery index and force government to address 
the problem in a different way? That's not a bad idea as I'm sure 
the ongoing drudgery of running a food bank must be a major pain in the 
ass.Respectfully,Thomas Lunde--From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
RE: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n 
Trade vs. Modern TradeDate: Mon, Dec 8, 2003, 12:02 
PM
I agree 
  with your analysis, Ed. Social change is ongoing 
  and new alliances will be formed---but out of necessity. The 
  three groups you mention don't have to work together or even 
  acknowledge each other as long as good hearted middle class folk are 
  handing out free food. Turn off the tap and you will see 
  cooperation and shared understanding 
  aplenty.arthur
  -Original Message-From: 
        Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: 
Monday, December 8, 2003 11:17 AMTo: Cordell, Arthur: 
ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman 
Trade vs. Modern TradeEd, when the poor kick back politicians will 
act.I agree, and in some cases 
they have on matters such as housing, for example. But they 
can't seem to present any kind of unified front. The people I 
described as using my food bank, older guys from the valley, 
embarrassed young mothers with kids, and the young who graced us 
with their presence really wanted to have very little to do with 
each other. What we need is a unification of the poor and 
politicians who pay attention to them, but we seem to have run out 
of people like Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles and David Lewis and we 
now seem to have a plethora of people like Peter MacKay, Stephen 
Harper and Paul Martin, people who pay far more attention to the 
rich than the poor. In the past few decades, the political 
drift has been rightward, and the drift of society as a

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Title: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade



I do think that it's a little more than money in most 
cases. It could be respect, including self-respect, stability - things 
like that.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ed Weick' ; 'Robert E. Bowd' ; 'Thomas 
  Lunde' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 8:57 
  PM
  Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  
  Ed,
  
  If you can't get a job as a programmer, you gat a 
  job selling insurance, or laying bricks, or anything else that brings in money 
  (if it's money you want).
  
  Harry
  
   Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 655 
  Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
    
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed 
  WeickSent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:45 AMTo: Robert 
  E. Bowd; Thomas Lunde; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
  Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. 
  Modern Trade
  
  Good piece, Bob. What we seem to need is a 
  widely accepted sense of "entitlement" of some kind that galvanizes people 
  into political action. To get that, people would have to feel they have 
  a common cause and a gut-level sense of betrayal by the system. I don't 
  see that in wealthy democracies, where most people are concerned with 
  maintaining their status or moving up the ladder. There are special 
  interests and outlooksthat make people adhere to one political 
  philosophy or another, but there is very little sense of injustice or 
  outrage.
  
  A piece I posted earlier this morning dealt with how 
  people in the now busthigh-techsector are coping with 
  unemployment. In reading the article in the Ottawa Citizen, it seemed to 
  me that there was very little anger among the unemployed techies. 
  However,there was a lot of frustration, almost as though firing off job 
  applications left, right and center, should somehow have fixed things up, but, 
  dammit, it didn't,so what am I still doing wrong? Individualism, 
  not common cause. Not what is wrong with the system, but what is wrong 
  with me because I no longer seem to fit.
  
  Ed
  
  
  ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.548 / Virus 
  Database: 341 - Release Date: 
12/5/2003

Re: [Futurework] What happens when Asia has caught up?

[Ed Weick]

Arthur:

Another factor is whether the carrying capacity of theglobe 
(energy, potable water, heat sink, pollution, resources, food) is sufficient to 
meet the development goals.
Or the survival goals of particular 
cultures. The last time I flew to Baffin Island, in winter some three 
years ago, I noticed a huge open lead in the ice of Hudson Strait just as we 
were approaching the island. I remember thinking that should not be 
there. Since then, I've heard of several instances of the Inuit finding 
the seaice less stable and safe than it should be.
The following is from today's Globe 
and Mail.
Ed



Climate an issue of rights, Inuit say 
By CHRISTINE BOYD

UPDATED AT 11:10 AM EST Thursday, Dec. 11, 2003 
The world's Inuit intend to launch a human-rights case against the United 
States, condemning its role in the global warming that they say threatens them 
with extinction.
Inuit Circumpolar Conference, which represents the 155,000 people who live 
within the Arctic Circle, argues that Washington has violated their rights by 
refusing to sign the Kyoto accord and resisting attempts to lower the country's 
emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.
It intends to invite the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to observe 
first-hand how the Inuit way of life is being destroyed as the Far North, 
particularly the sea ice the Inuit use to hunt key parts of their diets, melts 
away.
"What is at stake here is the cultural survival of the Inuit as a people," 
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the group's chairwoman, warned a United Nations meeting on 
climate change in Milan yesterday.
The conference was the first since Russia began flip-flopping over whether it 
would sign the 1997 accord. Under the protocol's rules, it must be ratified by 
industrialized countries accounting for at least 55 per cent of the world's 
greenhouse-gas emissions, as of 1990, before it becomes binding.
So far, 120 countries accounting for 44 per cent of emissions have signed on, 
while the United States -- which produces 36 per cent -- loudly backed out two 
years ago, with President George W. Bush announcing he feared U.S. industry 
would be hurt if it met the treaty's reduction goals. Kyoto will die if Russia, 
which produces 17 per cent of global emissions, does not sign.
Ms. Watt-Cloutier said her organization was not invoking the threat of the 
Washington-based commission, similar to the European court of human rights, in 
an "adversarial spirit." The commission has no enforcement powers if it rules 
against the U.S. government, but the Inuit hope the case will draw attention to 
their plight.




  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:23 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] What happens 
  when Asia has caught up?
  
  Another factor is whether the carrying capacity of theglobe 
  (energy, potable water, heat sink, pollution, resources, food) is sufficient 
  to meet the development goals.
  
-Original Message-From: Keith Hudson 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 
3:13 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
[Futurework] What happens when Asia has caught up?We have Karen to thank for bringing the following to our attention. 
In my view it is quite the most interesting and thoughtful economic 
discussion I have read in a long while -- a conversation ably transcribed 
into readable form by Erika Kinetz (a difficult job, as anybody who has done 
this will know!).The interlocutors had enough on their plates in 
talking about the jobs that are now leaving America and Europe for Asia to 
talk of other deeper factors. In a way, China, India and the other south 
east Asian countries have an easy job because they're playing catch-up. All 
they need to do essentially is to produce orthodox goods and services for 
the West more cheaply than we can make them and then supply their own 
consumer markets which, being much larger than ours, will produce a new 
super-large brand of multinational. Initially, as pointed out below, most of 
these will remain headquartered in American and European countries 
(hopefully swelling the funds of investors and pensions institutions over 
here) but increasingly they will become indigenous.Quite apart from 
the probability that all the developed and the neo-developed countries will 
be draining the existing energy resources of the world, there are two more 
big questions. The first is: Once the Asian countries have caught up, will 
they have the innovative ability to start supplying a new generation of 
consumer products? (We must remember that America's economic success in the 
last century -- to a very considerable extent -- has been due to being able 
to recruit the best brains of Europe and, in recent decades, Asia. The 
former brain drain will undoubtedly 

Re: [Futurework] Biography ~ asides

[Ed Weick]

Great thoughts for a dismal Ottawa morning, Brad. 
Speaking of Michelet, I have a book by him, "Satanism and Witchcraft", in which 
he mourns the passing of Great Pan and all of the little folk of the fields and 
forests, sent packing by the medieval priesthood. What would we be 
like as a society if they had not been sent packing and if we had not been 
forced to look upward instead of around us? 

Just a random thought for a very grey morning. 
Snow in the air. Hide away, wee folk! Your time may yet 
come!

Ed





- Original Message - 
From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Keith Hudson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Biography ~ 
asides
 Every person 
has a biography (born - did - died).  Although, to quote 
Michelet: the little people end up even more dead than the rest because 
their names are not preserved in history.  But, among 
those who are higher than the low and lower than the high 
 Some have resumes (e.g., computer programmers),  while 
others have curriculum vitae (e.g., college teachers).  
All perish; few publish. (I once read/heard that 90% of people who 
get anything published never get a second publication.)  
Carpe diem (i.e., complain about how your time is stolen by your job or 
lack of same).  I've been rereading a little essay by Hans 
Blumenberg:   Shipwreck with spectator: 
Paradigm of a metaphor  for existence (MIT, 
1996)  Perhaps the most lasting image from this essay is 
the idea that the sea effaces the wakes of all ships, big and 
small, afloat or sunk. Therefore, to speak of a "path" through 
life is at best questionable.  \brad mccormick  
--   Let your light so shine before men, 
 
that they may see your good works (Matt 5:16)   
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)  
![%THINK;[SGML+APL]] Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
- 
 Visit my website == http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ ___ 
Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: [Futurework] Are they going mad?

[Ed Weick]

Perhaps they always were a little mad and are now 
becoming more so. Naom Chomsky has a new book out,"Hegemonyor 
Survival". I saw ashort televisedinterview withhim last 
night in which he argued that the US Administration has become so obsessed with 
power that it has become a real danger to the world. George Soros says 
something similar in an article in the current Atlantic. Madness does seem 
to have descended upon us.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Keith 
  Hudson 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:21 
  AM
  Subject: [Futurework] Are they going 
  mad?
  What irony! If there could have been any 
  "justification" for America invading Iraq, it was because Saddam was excluding 
  US and UK oil corporations from development contracts in the rich oilfields of 
  northern Iraq.What's up with the Bush team? Are they going 
  mad? Those whom the Gods wish to destroy .I think 
  the Bush team is falling to pieces. Consider. Two days ago, Powell wanted NATO 
  to help with the occupation of Iraq. Now the Pentagon comes out with this 
  (below). Of course, this could seen as an immediate riposte to NATO turning 
  him down (or, rather, expressing reservations).No, I think the members 
  of the Bush team are now staggering about from one decision to another with 
  little coordination of strategy. They're in a schizophrenic state. They really 
  don't know what to do in Iraq. (Besides, why are they thinking about 
  reconstruction contracts when they should be applying themselves to the prime 
  objective of bringing about an Iraqi government by July?)I repeat my 
  guess of a couple of days ago. I think Powell (and perhaps Condee) will resign 
  soon. Then the team will really be seen to be falling apart.Now that 
  Howard Dean is overwhelmingly the Democratic front-runner, it's possible that 
  there'll now be a tidal wave of opinion against Bush. I'm amazed that America 
  has been so supine over the invasion so far -- considering Vietnam (and soon, 
  being kicked out of Afghanistan).Keith Hudson 
  PENTAGON BARS THREE NATIONS FROM IRAQ 
  BIDSDouglas JehlWASHINGTON, Dec. 9 The Pentagon has barred 
  French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in 
  contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying it was acting to protect "the 
  essential security interests of the United States." The directive, 
  issued Friday by Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, represents 
  the most substantive retaliation to date by the Bush administration against 
  American allies who opposed its decision to go to war in Iraq.from New 
  York Times -- 10 December 2003  Keith Hudson, 
  Bath, England, www.evolutionary-economics.org 

Re: [Futurework] Are they going mad?

[Ed Weick]

Just a short addition to my previous post. The 
Americans have now become child killers. Nine a few days ago, six more 
recently. If this isn't madness, I don't know what is. The following 
from the CBC morning news:


  
KABUL - Six children were crushed to death during a U.S. 
military operation in Afghanistan, a military spokesperson said Wednesday. 
The bodies of the children and two adults were discovered after a Friday 
night attack on a compound near Gardez, the capital of the eastern Paktia 
province. A wall had collapsed on the victims. 
American officials say the compound was used as a weapons storehouse by 
an Afghan rebel leader named Mullah Jalani. 
U.S. Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty said warplanes and soldiers attacked the 
site. 
"We try very hard not to kill anyone," said Hilferty, who said the U.S. 
regrets any civilian deaths. 
It's not known if any U.S. soldiers were injured or killed in the raid. 


  FROM DEC. 6, 2003: U.S. attack kills 9 
  kids in Afghanistan
It's the second time in a week children have died in an American raid. 
Nine children were killed Saturday in Ghazni province. They were 
discovered in a field after a U.S. air attack. American officials have 
apologized for the incident, which they say targeted a well-known Taliban 
official. 
The U.S. military launched on Dec. 2 what it calls the largest operation 
since the fall of the Taliban in late 2001. Operation Avalanche involves 
more than 2,000 troops. 




  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ed Weick 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; Keith 
  Hudson 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 8:34 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] Are they going 
  mad?
  
  Perhaps they always were a little mad and are now 
  becoming more so. Naom Chomsky has a new book 
  out,"Hegemonyor Survival". I saw ashort 
  televisedinterview withhim last night in which he argued that the 
  US Administration has become so obsessed with power that it has become a real 
  danger to the world. George Soros says something similar in an article 
  in the current Atlantic. Madness does seem to have descended upon 
  us.
  
  Ed
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Keith 
Hudson 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:21 
AM
Subject: [Futurework] Are they going 
mad?
What irony! If there could have been any 
"justification" for America invading Iraq, it was because Saddam was 
excluding US and UK oil corporations from development contracts in the rich 
oilfields of northern Iraq.What's up with the Bush team? Are 
they going mad? Those whom the Gods wish to destroy 
.I think the Bush team is falling to pieces. Consider. 
Two days ago, Powell wanted NATO to help with the occupation of Iraq. Now 
the Pentagon comes out with this (below). Of course, this could seen as an 
immediate riposte to NATO turning him down (or, rather, expressing 
reservations).No, I think the members of the Bush team are now 
staggering about from one decision to another with little coordination of 
strategy. They're in a schizophrenic state. They really don't know what to 
do in Iraq. (Besides, why are they thinking about reconstruction contracts 
when they should be applying themselves to the prime objective of bringing 
about an Iraqi government by July?)I repeat my guess of a couple of 
days ago. I think Powell (and perhaps Condee) will resign soon. Then the 
team will really be seen to be falling apart.Now that Howard Dean is 
overwhelmingly the Democratic front-runner, it's possible that there'll now 
be a tidal wave of opinion against Bush. I'm amazed that America has been so 
supine over the invasion so far -- considering Vietnam (and soon, being 
kicked out of Afghanistan).Keith Hudson 
PENTAGON BARS THREE NATIONS FROM IRAQ 
BIDSDouglas JehlWASHINGTON, Dec. 9 The Pentagon has barred 
French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in 
contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying it was acting to protect 
"the essential security interests of the United States." The 
directive, issued Friday by Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, 
represents the most substantive retaliation to date by the Bush 
administration against American allies who opposed its decision to go to war 
in Iraq.from New York Times -- 10 December 2003 
 Keith Hudson, Bath, England, www.evolutionary-economics.org 

Re: [Futurework] Are they going mad?

[Ed Weick]

And 
Canadian troops never accidentally killed children during WW 2?? Never 
accidentally killed civilians?? What were Canadians doing in the Korean 
War vis a vis controlling the movements of refugees??

arthur

So one killing justifies 
another? Thekids who were killed had absolutely nothing to do with 
the war. I still find it all rather horrible.The slaughter of 
the innocents! If there is such a thing as divine justice, this is where 
it fits.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 9:59 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] Are they going 
  mad?
  
  And 
  Canadian troops never accidentally killed children during WW 2?? Never 
  accidentally killed civilians?? What were Canadians doing in the Korean 
  War vis a vis controlling the movements of refugees??
  
  arthur
  
-Original Message-From: Ed Weick 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 8:54 
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
Keith HudsonSubject: Re: [Futurework] Are they going 
mad?
Just a short addition to my previous post. 
The Americans have now become child killers. Nine a few days ago, six 
more recently. If this isn't madness, I don't know what is. The 
following from the CBC morning news:


  
KABUL - Six children were crushed to death during a U.S. 
military operation in Afghanistan, a military spokesperson said 
Wednesday. 
The bodies of the children and two adults were discovered after a 
Friday night attack on a compound near Gardez, the capital of the 
eastern Paktia province. A wall had collapsed on the victims. 
American officials say the compound was used as a weapons storehouse 
by an Afghan rebel leader named Mullah Jalani. 
U.S. Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty said warplanes and soldiers attacked the 
site. 
"We try very hard not to kill anyone," said Hilferty, who said the 
U.S. regrets any civilian deaths. 
It's not known if any U.S. soldiers were injured or killed in the 
raid. 


  FROM DEC. 6, 2003: U.S. attack 
  kills 9 kids in Afghanistan
It's the second time in a week children have died in an American 
raid. 
Nine children were killed Saturday in Ghazni province. They were 
discovered in a field after a U.S. air attack. American officials have 
apologized for the incident, which they say targeted a well-known 
Taliban official. 
The U.S. military launched on Dec. 2 what it calls the largest 
operation since the fall of the Taliban in late 2001. Operation 
Avalanche involves more than 2,000 troops. 





  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ed Weick 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; Keith Hudson 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 
  8:34 AM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] Are they 
  going mad?
  
  Perhaps they always were a little mad and are now 
  becoming more so. Naom Chomsky has a new book 
  out,"Hegemonyor Survival". I saw ashort 
  televisedinterview withhim last night in which he argued that 
  the US Administration has become so obsessed with power that it has become 
  a real danger to the world. George Soros says something similar in 
  an article in the current Atlantic. Madness does seem to have 
  descended upon us.
  
  Ed
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Keith Hudson 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 
3:21 AM
Subject: [Futurework] Are they 
going mad?
What irony! If there could have been any 
"justification" for America invading Iraq, it was because Saddam was 
excluding US and UK oil corporations from development contracts in the 
rich oilfields of northern Iraq.What's up with the Bush 
team? Are they going mad? Those whom the Gods wish to 
destroy .I think the Bush team is falling to pieces. 
Consider. Two days ago, Powell wanted NATO to help with the occupation 
of Iraq. Now the Pentagon comes out with this (below). Of course, this 
could seen as an immediate riposte to NATO turning him down (or, rather, 
expressing reservations).No, I think the members of the Bush 
team are now staggering about from one decision to another with little 
coordination of strategy. They're in a schizophrenic state. They really 
don't know what to do in Iraq. (Besides, why are they thinking about 
reconstruction contracts when they should be applying themselves to the 
prime objective of bringing about an Iraqi government by July?)I 
repeat my

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Harry, don't even mention the show 'Survivor' to 
me. I see it as absolute American crap, like the "Stench of 
America". There's nothing in it that even remotely bears any resemblance 
of the reality of hunters and gatherers.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ed Weick' ; 'Keith 
  Hudson' 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 5:15 
  PM
  Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  Ed,
  
  Another good discussion.
  
  I see little network television, but one I try to see 
  is Survivor. In it, people are voted out of the tribe. Those that remain try 
  to "survive" until the final episode when the winner gets $1 million. 
  (Remember the $64,000 question?)
  
  One member was a good catcher of fish and they 
  enjoyed the food he supplied. Yet, he was also so good generally thatthe 
  others felt they would never win if he remained in the 
  tribe.
  
  So he was voted off. Yet, the worries of the others 
  centered on the lack of fish that would follow his dismissal. The crucial 
  factor was that there was only a week ortwo 
  remaining.
  
  If the tribe had looked to a longer life, I'm sure 
  they would never have let him go. His "hunter/gatherer" abilities were too 
  good.
  
  Interesting.
  
  Harry
  
   Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 655 
  Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
   
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed 
  WeickSent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 3:27 PMTo: Keith 
  HudsonCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
  Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. 
  Modern Trade
  
  Keith, I don't think we can go much further on 
  this. You are the product of a stratified society full of Alpha 
  males. I don't agree that this is necessarily the way societies and 
  males have to be. I would however like to add a few more comments before 
  I respectfully withdraw from the field. You say:
  
Once again, your Indian tribes would certainly have had hierarchies, 
all sorts of heirarchies depending on the skills that was the current 
context. But they wouldn't have been obvious and, I suggest, they would have 
been invisible to you as an outsider unless you got to know them very well 
indeed. Listen to what ethologists, anthropologists, animal behavioural 
researchers say -- they all say that they have to live with the group 
(animal or human) they're studying all day long, month after month and 
sometimes for several years until they understand the dynamics of a group 
and the hierarchy.
  Actually, I spent some five years working for 
  the Council for Yukon Indians (CYI) in the late 1980s and early 1990s and also 
  spent four years with the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry during the 
  1970s. While doing that I spent a great deal of time in the Yukon and 
  the Mackenzie Valley and got to know Native people quite well. Yes 
  indeed I was an outsider, but also a participant in what was going on. I 
  have to repeat that in their dealings with each other the people I worked with 
  were extremely egalitarian. In the case of the CYI, jobs were filled on 
  the basis of what people could do, and not on the basis of who they 
  were. Many important jobs were filled by women, including the leadership 
  of the organization. My boss was an extremely 
  competentwoman. She has now passed on, but her daughter has become 
  active in the Yukon Indian movement.
  
  You mention that ethnologists and 
  anthropologists have to live with the people they are studying. I have a 
  couple of friends that did just that. Hugh Brody, a British 
  anthropologist and film maker, learned to speak fluent Inuktitut and lived 
  with the Inuit of North Baffin for many months. One of his books, which 
  I would highly recommend, The Peoples' Land, came out of that. 
  Healso spent time in Indian communities in northern British Columbia, 
  and Maps and Dreams came out of that. Another friend, a 
  geographer, lived with the people of Banks Island while he was doing his 
  doctorate. I'm having lunch with him on Monday, and will ask him what he 
  thinks about stratification and Alpha males among the Inuvialuit he lived 
  with. In the course of my career, Ihave met and worked with many 
  other social scientists that have spent time in Native communities. 
  Quite frankly, I don't think many of them would agree with your views on 
  status, stratification and Alpha maleness.
  
  I'll try to repeat something I argued 
  earlier. Hunting and gathering societies are concerned with 
  survival. Skills in hunting and gathering are important to that. 
  The best hunters, usually men, a

Re: [Futurework] Biography

[Ed Weick]

Anyone who wants to know who I think I am and what I 
think I've done can go to my blog at:
http://nobrainer.blogs.com/about.html 
or, perhaps better, to my professional website at: http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/professional_ed.htm. 
The truth is or is not out there, depending on whether you believe me or 
not.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 1:36 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] Biography
  
  OK 
  if people want to do it, but not mandatory. 
  
  Privacy, anonymity and all that.
  
  arthur
  
-Original Message-From: Ray Evans Harrell 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2003 11:45 
AMTo: Keith Hudson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
Re: [Futurework] Biography
This is great. I think it would be 
wonderful if we finally arrived at an introduction type of post where we all 
do what Keith has done. These could then be put into an 
Introductions section at the web site and serve as a context file for each 
of us as we explore these things together. It also would be 
helpful if we posted the things that we are interested in, in relation to 
the Future of work and how we could help each other. Just a 
thought. What do you think Arthur, Sally?

Ray Evans Harrell 

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Title: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade



I'm not laughing, Harry. I've just accessed a 
report by the Canadian Council on Social Development that shows that poverty in 
urban areas, including poverty among the working poor, increased in Canada 
between 1990 and 1995. It has probably continued to increase since 
then. I'm not sure of what can be done about it, but I would agree with 
Arthur that foodbanks are not the answer. Neither is kicking the poor 
harder, as politicians seem increasingly to want to do.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ed Weick' ; 'Thomas Lunde' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 4:09 
  AM
  Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  Ed,
  
  Not only to liberty and justice not taste too well, 
  when they aren't there to taste, you will be sure that ends will not 
  meet.
  
  Two hundred years ago, Ricardo postulated the "Iron 
  Law of Wages" and about 125 years ago George picked it up and ran with it. Of 
  course that's all Classical stuff - out-of-date for these complex modern 
  economies.
  
  So, we have welfare for people with full-time jobs 
  who can't survive on what they get. We even have a name for them - the working 
  poor. We have a law to force employers to pay a minimum wage, when in the 
  England of half a millennium or so ago - there was a law to keep wages 
  down (the Statute of Laborers).
  
  Why don't we laugh? Even though it might sound a 
  trifle hollow.
  
  So, in ten years, or twenty, or a hundred, will we 
  still be trying but failing to provide something for an ever increasing number 
  of the poor?
  
  On second thoughts, don't laugh.
  
  Harry
  
   Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 655 
  Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
   
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed 
  WeickSent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:08 AMTo: Thomas 
  Lunde; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Slightly extended 
  (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern 
  Trade
  
  Thomas, very good posting. Ontario has just 
  raised the minimum wage from peanuts to peanuts. Many of the poor are 
  working full time and even double time, but are still unable to meet the rent 
  or buy enough food, let alone get their kids the kinds of in toys ("status 
  goods") that are going around. They can try eating freedom and justice, 
  but they don't taste very good when you can't make ends meet.
  
  Ed
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Thomas 
Lunde 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:36 
AM
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: 
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade


  They don't need money, Thomas. They need 
  justice and the freedom to enjoy it.HarryThomas:In a way, you 
  are right. Being poor and working with the poor as customers and 
  neighbours let's me see the many ways the poor are lacking justice. 
  A recent article in the paper made the outstanding statement that 
  37% of workers in Canada are not covered by the Labour Code and laws. 
  When wages for the poor are kept artificially low, then the only way 
  to compensate to maintain a survival standard is to work more. Of 
  course, there are about 4 to 5% who are mentally incapable, or physically 
  disabled or in the case of single mothers, family challenged. 
  However, the work more solution has only produced the working poor, 
  who still have to use food banks and subsidized housing, if thet can get 
  it. Not only that, as you suggest, they do not even have the freedom 
  to enjoy what little they have. I would agree, that justice and 
  freedom would go a long way to compensating for money - or as you might 
  suggest, make the earning and spending of money a by product of an 
  effective system of justice and the freedom and thereby create a surplus 
  to enjoy.Respectfully,Thomas Lunde
  
  
  ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.548 / Virus 
  Database: 341 - Release Date: 
12/5/2003

Re: [Futurework] And even more productivity or what?

[Ed Weick]

Title: Re: [Futurework] And even more productivity or what?



So where the hell are Morpheus(?) and Neo when I need 
them?

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Thomas 
  Lunde 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 4:02 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] And even more 
  productivity or what?
  Welcome to the Matrix Ed!--From: "Ed Weick" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
  "futurework" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
  [Futurework] And even more productivity or what?Date: Thu, Dec 4, 2003, 
  2:20 PM
  I was educated in the 1950s and 1960s. Until 
I retired from the Canadian public service some sixteen years ago, I had 
always worked in hierarchical, stratified institutions. In government, my 
Minister sat at the top, my Deputy Minister just a little below him, my 
Assistant Deputy below him, me a little further down and all kinds of other 
people in layers below. In the oil patch in Calgary, my one encounter with 
the corporate private sector, it was much the same  a Chairman of the Board 
at the top, a CEO a little further down, (though he didnt think so), then 
vice presidents, and down, down, down through layers and layers where the 
actual work got done, including drilling for oil and gas. Moreover, in both 
government and industry, the people who ran the show were mostly in one 
place, in tall buildings like the ones you see in Calgary or Ottawa. 
Thats still how I still picture corporate work and organization to 
be, but recently Ive run into something quite different. In trying to 
establish a website for a group of churches that run a foodbank, Ive had to 
deal with the employees of an Internet service provider to resolve a problem 
that I, as a non-technical person, found very difficult. There were two 
aspects to the problem, one technical and the other financial. To resolve 
both, I had to interact with persons known as "Customer Care Agents" (CCAs). 
While these people were helpful or rude on the technical side, depending on 
who I happened to hit in a particular phone call, they were not at all 
helpful on the financial side. They simply didnt know anything about it. 
So, I asked them, kindly at first though more heatedly as the conversation 
developed, to put me through to "Accounts". Well, Sir, they couldnt do that 
because there really wasnt anybody like that, but they would try to get the 
information for me. From whom? Well, they werent really sure, but they 
would get it somewhere. At one point in my dealings with the CCAs, I 
flew into a towering rage. I bellowed and threatened to sue, and asked who 
the CEO was so that I could write him a letter on how terribly I had been 
dealt with. Well, Sir, we really dont know, was the response. Well then, 
where are your headquarters, I asked. We think theyre in Alberta, Sir, but 
we really arent sure. Well, you have an office here in Ottawa. Who can I 
see there!!!??? Theres no one there, Sir, were all over the place. I gave 
up, slammed the phone down and stormed around the block several times. 
Gradually, in several bouts of raising my blood pressure to the 
limit and beyond, I came to realize that I was not dealing with something 
that fitted my concept of a corporate entity. There were no layers of people 
in one place. There was no hierarchy. There were people in various parts of 
Ottawa connected by telephone and computer grids of some kind. They had 
technical knowledge but little idea of what they were part of, a much larger 
grid extending across Canada that included contracting out many of the 
things that corporate entities are, by my image, supposed to do internally. 
Though there must be a center, though there must be a CEO, though there must 
be a Board of Directors, the CCAs I was dealing with had no idea of where 
these things were. And maybe there were no such things. What if the 
corporation, if that is what it was, just grew organically and horizontally, 
with somebody contracted out to do its accounting, someone else contracted 
out to ensure a supply of hardware, software and technology, someone else 
contracted out moving the whole thing into new urban centres, and yet 
another contractor building a corporate myth to ensure that the CCAs said 
the right thing in dealing with guys like me, and not too blatantly 
conveying the reality of fronting for computers, computers, computers all 
the way down? Ed

Re: [Futurework] Foul-up in education (was The Politics of Foodbanks (or lack thereof) (was Re: Slightly extended)

[Ed Weick]

Keith:

  Take care Canada! Take care Australia! America and England are far ahead 
  of you in many cultural ways -- but we're also leading the way into disastrous 
  state education. Really and truly. Ideologically, I get the impression that 
  you're where we were in the 1950/60s -- full of hope about the quality of 
  education -- new ideas -- new subjects-- new theories -- developing the 
  "versatile" pupil for tomorrow's world able to turn on a sixpensce and all 
  that (but not teaching any worthwhile skills and making aliens, even enemies, 
  of many of our young teenagers.). It's going bad at a rate of knots. It's as 
  though there's collusion going on between Americans and teachers/educationists 
  in this country: "How can we make our education system worse and worse  
  and worse  and worse  let's do it together ). 
As usual, just a few comments, Keith. As 
a Canadian, it's nice to know how my country ranks against Britain and the US 
"in many cultural ways". In my several visits to Britain and the US, I 
never got the impression that we were that far behind and even permitted myself 
to think that we were well ahead in some respects. Ah well, it's nice to 
knowone's place in the Empire.

And I must add that our education system is not 
in much better shape than yours. We have some very good primary schools in 
our neighbourhood, and a very good secondary school. In the case of the 
latter, my wife was on council while our daughter was moving through. In 
my wife's view - and here I trust her judgement completely because she knew what 
was going on - the teachers were good and dedicated people who worked very hard 
with the kids. Daughter's brain is wired so that she had trouble with math 
and teachers spent a lot of time with her to make sure she got it. If 
there a problem with our provincially run education system, and I believe there 
is, it's underfunding. Sometimes you got the impression that our neo-con 
politicians were deliberatly starving the public system in order to promote 
private schools - e.g. parents sending kids to private schools, including 
religious schools, got tax breaks. The new provincial government favours 
the public system but has to its horror "discovered" that it has inherited a 
large deficit from the previous government, so many of the promises it made 
about fixing things up before it was elected will remain promises, not become 
commitments.

Anyhow, Keith, I'm sure that by now you know 
that I favour public education. I'm the product of public education and 
can claim to have done reasonably well. The three children of my first 
marriage were products of that system and all went on to university, including 
post graduate work. My youngest kid, now eighteen, is attending 
university. My view of education is that it is a responsibility of society 
as a whole. The continuity of society depends on it. Perhaps, if I 
came from a more stratified society, I would make distinctions among elite, 
ordinary and mediocre schools and universities, but I don't feel I come from 
that kind of society. I've worked with people who had credentials from 
places like Oxford and Harvard and didn't feel cowed by them in the least. 


Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Keith 
  Hudson 
  To: Harry Pollard 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 9:24 
  AM
  Subject: [Futurework] Foul-up in 
  education (was The Politics of Foodbanks (or lack thereof) (was Re: Slightly 
  extended)
  Harry,At 01:28 08/12/2003 -0800, you 
  wrote:
  Arthur,When I read it, I 
agreed with Chris' remarks. Except of coursehis aside on 
protectionism.There are probably areas almost the size of 
Switzerland in the USwhere there is little crime and living is 
good.There are other areas that aren't like that,However, 
unless thought is given to the basics such as education,we will get 
nowhere with our slapped on social poultices.Talking with a friend 
last night who teaches Junior College kids.When they find he wants 
written work, they flee to other classes.He's left with those who can't 
find another class. He says heshould fail 75% of them but veteran 
teachers tell him to passthem through.The same 
  here!I first came across the poor state of education 20-odd years ago 
  when I was at Massey-Ferguson interviewing an engineer straight from 
  university with, apparently, a good second class degree. He proudly showed me 
  his final thesis. He had spelled "Globa's salt" (used in his project as a heat 
  reservoir in a central heating system) all the way through! Repeatedly! He had 
  obviously never seen "Glauber's salt" in print! Nor had his thesis supervisor 
  noticed the repeated mistake. I couldn't believe. Needless to say, he didn't 
  get the job.Today, 25% of 14 year-olds can't find "plumber" in the 
  Yellow Pages, and can't do simple fractions or decimals. 40% 

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Title: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade



Ed, when the poor kick back politicians will 
act.

I agree, and in some cases they have on 
matters such as housing, for example. But they can't seem to present any 
kind of unified front. The people I described as using my food bank, older 
guys from the valley, embarrassed young mothers with kids, and the young who 
graced us with their presence really wanted to have very little to do with each 
other. What we need is a unification of the poor and politicians who pay 
attention to them, but we seem to have run out ofpeople likeTommy 
Douglas, Stanley Knowles and David Lewis and we now seem to have a plethora of 
people like Peter MacKay, Stephen Harper and Paul Martin, people who pay far 
more attention to the rich than the poor. In the past few decades, the 
political drift has been rightward, and the drift of societyas a whole has 
been toward the establishment of a middle class identity that 
seespovertyterms of personal flaw and the poor as 
undeserving.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 10:37 
  AM
  Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  Ed, 
  when the poor kick back politicians will act.
  
-Original Message-From: Ed Weick 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, December 8, 2003 9:32 
AMTo: Harry Pollard; 'Thomas Lunde'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. 
Modern Trade
I'm not laughing, Harry. I've just accessed a 
report by the Canadian Council on Social Development that shows that poverty 
in urban areas, including poverty among the working poor, increased in 
Canada between 1990 and 1995. It has probably continued to increase 
since then. I'm not sure of what can be done about it, but I would 
agree with Arthur that foodbanks are not the answer. Neither is 
kicking the poor harder, as politicians seem increasingly to want to 
do.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ed Weick' ; 'Thomas 
  Lunde' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 4:09 
  AM
  Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was 
  Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  Ed,
  
  Not only to liberty and justice not taste too 
  well, when they aren't there to taste, you will be sure that ends will not 
  meet.
  
  Two hundred years ago, Ricardo postulated the 
  "Iron Law of Wages" and about 125 years ago George picked it up and ran 
  with it. Of course that's all Classical stuff - out-of-date for 
  these complex modern economies.
  
  So, we have welfare for people with full-time 
  jobs who can't survive on what they get. We even have a name for them - 
  the working poor. We have a law to force employers to pay a minimum wage, 
  when in the England of half a millennium or so ago - there was a law 
  to keep wages down (the Statute of Laborers).
  
  Why don't we laugh? Even though it might sound a 
  trifle hollow.
  
  So, in ten years, or twenty, or a hundred, will 
  we still be trying but failing to provide something for an ever increasing 
  number of the poor?
  
  On second thoughts, don't 
  laugh.
  
  Harry
  
   
  Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 
  655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 
  352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
   
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed 
  WeickSent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:08 AMTo: 
  Thomas Lunde; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
  Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. 
  Modern Trade
  
  Thomas, very good posting. Ontario has just 
  raised the minimum wage from peanuts to peanuts. Many of the poor 
  are working full time and even double time, but are still unable to meet 
  the rent or buy enough food, let alone get their kids the kinds of in toys 
  ("status goods") that are going around. They can try eating freedom 
  and justice, but they don't taste very good when you can't make ends 
  meet.
  
  Ed
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Thomas Lunde 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 
3:36 AM
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was 
Re: [Futurework] David Ricar

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Hi Keith,

I just consulted my dictionary to see what it says 
about "status". It says two things that seem to fit what we are talking 
about. One is position or rank [of a person] in the eyes of others. 
The second is the position or rank [of a person] in a hierarchy of 
prestige. I would agree that the first definition is universal. 
Among hunters and gatherers, the most effective hunters or gatherers are 
recognized and emulated by others. Among agricultural people, good farmers 
are given similar recognition. No hierarchy is required. Good is 
good, and that's about it.

The second definition requires a hierarchy and a 
ranking system. Whether they have done something well or not, some people 
are placed on prestigious pedestals while others march around them. 
Perhaps there is a universal tendency toward such behaviour once a society 
reaches a certain level of complexity, but there may be an almost equal tendency 
to do away with rankings and hierarchies of the pedestal kind. The 
discussion about Hobbes seems relevant here. People merge their interests 
into societies of their own free will because it is rational to do so. 
They appoint or elect people to govern because that is necessary if society is 
to function. Yet the people that are appointed or elected have no special 
rights under the law and can be removed if need be. Some people may still 
want to put them on pedestals, but that is not the intent of the society as a 
whole.

In any event, complexity seems to be the important 
thing. The people I dealt with in northern Canada followed the first 
definition, and did not have rankings and hierarchies until we imposed them by 
making them follow our system of governance. What we did was complicate 
their lives and their societies to the point that rankings and hierarchies 
became a necessity. Once they were in place, status in the sense of 
pedestals gradually crept in.

On the matter of a basic income, I don’t think a 
government could proceed without giving a lot of thought to why it was doing it. 
Would it be a mechanism to facilitate adjustment to economic change, or would it 
be a universal anti-poverty measure? It would also have to take a thorough look 
at the costs and benefits. On the cost side, a basic income would put an 
additional strain on government finances and might require a more progressive 
tax system or some reallocation of existing expenditures. The benefits could 
include matters such as a healthier population, kids who are more able to cope 
with school, and probably a significant reduction of the social costs associated 
with crime and the need to incarcerate people. There would be problems, a major 
one being that the financial costs would be perceived as being immediate while 
the benefits would only accrue in the longer run. Equity would be another 
problem - how to design a system that is basically fair to both those who pay 
and those who receive payments. And we all know people cheat, so a policing 
system would have to be devised.

Personally, I think a basic income program is feasible in 
a rich country and may even be possible to initiate by reallocating existing 
expenditures. In Canada we already have a variety of programs, such as 
employment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan, the Child Tax Benefit, and 
various Provincial welfare/workfare programs, that might be rolled into a basic 
income. If the object were the facilitation of adjustment to economic change 
rather than universal anti-poverty, a system of premiums scaled to salary might 
be utilized. It would take a lot of work and planning, but I believe it could be 
done.
Ed

  - Original Message - 
  
  From: Keith 
  Hudson 
  To: Ed 
  Weick 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, 
  December 05, 2003 4:09 PM
  Subject: Re: Slightly 
  extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern 
  Trade
  Ed,At 14:31 05/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
  Keith: 

  A BI sounds wonderful but it is a theoretical 
  solution that runs absolutely counter to human nature. Human society is 
  about relative status. Not only human society, but primate society. And 
  not only primate society but any social mammalian society. We really need 
  to understand this first before we can suggest quite new social structures 
  that will satisfy our basic instincts -- and, if possible, basic incomes 
  also. But not before then. Extending welfarism beyond what we have now in 
  most developed countries, desirable though it might sound (and I don't 
  object to it on moral grounds), is already running itself into the ground. 
  Keith, sorry, but 
you say the damndest things with utter certainty! Human society is 
about all kinds of things, depending very much on what people want it to be 
and agree that it should be. Status may be very important in American 
and European society, but I've dealt with small societies in north

Re: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/

[Ed Weick]

One question that this raises is whether what goes on 
in the decorated shed is going to become more banal or less. Linda 
Duxbury, who teaches business at Carleton University, argues that with the 
impending retirement of the baby boom population, employment will become a 
sellers market - people who are looking for jobs will be scarcer and will have 
the upper hand. But one wonders if they really will. Perhaps they 
will be paid a little more, but have to work longer hours and be run off their 
feet. Some of the work Duxburyis doing on work/life balance suggests 
that people in managerial positions are already working at the exhaustion 
level.

Ed
 Volkswagen is advertising a new 
factory in Dresden, with the theme of:  
 transparency  See: http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/  You will probably guess that this idea appeals to 
me, along with the location of the factory in Dresden (why 
couldn't they have built it in Newark NJ USA, or maybe even on 
the site of the former World Trade Center in NYC USA???).  I 
have no idea how far VW is going to carry this theme, but the very words 
contrast antipodally with the watchword of postmodern architecture 
(which, to the best of my knowledge, is one of America's contributions 
to the cultural world of the late 20th century):  
 the decorated shed  A decorated shed, 
in case you don't know what it refers to, is a glitzy veneer facade 
which covers up a banal lifeworld within.  Perhaps the 
heritage of Universalizing Culture in The West is not so dead in Europe, 
so that the future may not belong only to the Chinese after all. 
As a different NYT article recently suggested, the United States 
is becoming a source of cheap labor for Europe (I posted a 
little piece of my own experience here, working for Grolier Publisher 
after the French firm Hachett(sp?) bought the company and in no way 
provided working conditions similar to France here).  As 
Koffi Anan said about Saddam Husein's Iraq, we need more 
"transparency".  \brad mccormick  --  
 Let your light so shine before men, 
 
that they may see your good works (Matt 5:16)   
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)  
![%THINK;[SGML+APL]] Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
- 
 Visit my website == http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ ___ 
Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Air, water, fire and stone. It could suggest the 
kinds of transformations that people go through a they age or the historic 
sequence a country might go through as it matures, if "matures" is the right 
word. Take the US at the time of the founding fathers and look at it now, 
or Russia at the time of the Revolution, or France. Eventually, air 
becomes transformed to stone. But I don't think the four-fold division was 
intended to be understood that way by Native peoples.

I find it interesting that Cherokee women were 
dominant. Athabascan Indian societies in Canada are considered to have 
been matriarchal, though I don't know if they were matrilineal. I once 
heard a woman in the Mackenzie Valley say: "Men! We let them be boys until 
they're forty, but then they had better shape up!"

However, having said the foregoing, I must say I'm not 
really sure whether you are supportive of the points I made about status and 
basic income or not. 

Ed


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ray Evans Harrell 
  
  To: Ed Weick ; Keith Hudson 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 11:41 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  Sorry Robert, I'm going into the metaphoric again. 
  
  
  Hi Ed and Keith. 
  
  Ed, the societies in the North are built around the 
  concept of water. Clinton was a water President (remember Dick 
  Morris's "sailing" metaphor in describing Clinton?). He was of 
  Cherokee descent and much of his ideas and way of acting in the world, were 
  Indian*. 
  
  Stone people on the other hand, are into hierarchy and 
  consider the fact that stone is "solid" and can be seen in relatively the same 
  condition for a long time is therefore "better." The Iroquois from 
  another place consider "stone people" to be strong but clumsy and not very 
  smart. There are also people of the fire (transformers) and people 
  of the air (inspired). Stone people consider the four 
  elements to be old out of date science. Water people 
  consider the four elements to be the four divisions of movement and divide the 
  strategies of mankind in their approach to life. Stone 
  people consider permanent artifacts to be proof of superiority, Fire 
  people considertransformation andrenewalto be 
  superior. Air people consider creativity and dialogue to be 
  superior. Water people consider negotiation, patience and 
  clear vision with a stubborn drive to reach a goal to be superior. 
  
  
  These are ancient metaphors that touch the wisdom of our 
  ancestors. Today instead of a symmetrical synergy we get 
  competition for superiority. Instead of "walk in balance" 
  the"goodbye" of all native peoples in North America, we get "see 
  you tomorrow when we will fight again for Alpha dominance". 
  Wolves are war animals. Today we have the aesthetic of perpetual 
  war. Perhaps a reread of Kazantzakis and his Odysseus should be a 
  requirement for all who suffer from a theory of dominance rather than 
  balance. Or perhaps hardwiring is the rule and for most of the old 
  F...s its just too late. 
  
  REH 
  
  *Cherokees consider women to be of equal status and 
  to be the owners ofthe property. It is therefore, up to the 
  woman to decide whether she will kick the husband out or not. If 
  so, then all she does is put his shoes at the door and he is 
  gone. Men lose everything if their wife kicks them 
  out. On the other hand multiple wives or a type of "concubine" is 
  possible to help the wife if she agrees. Men only carry what 
  is truly possible in the world and that is the mind. Women own the 
  things. If you look closely at the way the Clinton's handle 
  property and charity you will see an ethic that is not European or 
  Patriarchical. It is also one of the most attractive 
  and controversial elements of Hillery Clinton. Her freedom and 
  independence. Something that has gotten her intotrouble with 
  the European based "conservatives" from the beginning. Their 
  historyuntil the last 100 + years is "women as 
  property." REH
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Ed Weick 
To: Keith Hudson 
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 10:29 
AM
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: 
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

Hi Keith,

I just consulted my dictionary to see what it says 
about "status". It says two things that seem to fit what we are 
talking about. One is position or rank [of a person] in the eyes of 
others. The second is the position or rank [of a person] in a 
hierarchy of prestige. I would agree that the first definition is 
universal. Among hunters and gatherers, the most effective hunters or 
gathere

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Title: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade




As I 
said. There is no incentive to change. I hate to say it but food 
banks are part of the problem.

arthur

But what's the 
solution? People that use the foodbanks are not activists. Most have 
no faith in politicians and many dropped out of the system long ago. 
Middle class donors want to keep giving pasta and tuna because it makes them 
feel they are doing something. Newly elected politicians discover, to 
their horror, that the previous government has left them a mess, just as their 
government will leave a mess to be discovered by the next government. 
There are organizations that are active on behalf of the poor, but they make 
little headway against neo-con governments concerned with the bottom line. 
Movements toward a GAI based on direct payments or a negative income tax appear 
to have stalled a decade ago. Public concern now is not about the poor, 
but about personal safety and security in the face of terror and a downsizing 
economy.

I was a kid in 
Saskatchewan when the newly elected government, under Tommy Douglas, first 
brought in programs like universal health coverage. There was a 
receptivity to social programming at the time because people remembered the 
Great Depression and not being able to afford visits to the doctor. The 
cooperative movement was still a strong feature of the Canadian social 
landscape.The poor were considered respectable. They were us 
and our neighbours, good church going people who just wanted a "square 
deal". 

What has changed most 
since then is our attitude toward the poor.The proportion of the 
population thatconsidersitself 
middle class has grown enormously, while the poor, now crowded down to the 
bottom as minimum wage earners and welfare recipients, are no longer 
respectable. They are seen as flawed loserswho must be forced to 
mend their ways through upgrading and workfare programs.

My diagnosis is that 
programs that were once considered new and even radical, like universal 
Medicare, employment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan, the Child Tax Benefit, 
and various Provincial welfare programs have now become part of 
theacceptedbackground buzz ofdaily life. They are old 
and tired and just there, no longer really interesting. And people who 
work for large organizations have good pension, drug and dental plans. 
People who are not really well-off but who, via double or even 
tripleincomes, manage to stay above low income cut-offs, can convince 
themselves they are doing OK by buying the latest status goods, as Keith Hudson 
calls them. They abhor the thought of paying more taxes to reinforce the 
health and social safety net because that would cut into their ability to buy an 
SUV, even if they have to buy a used one.

It's the kind of world 
that does not suggest the possibility of revolutionary change. Something 
cataclysmic would have to happen to shake us out of it. Personally, I hope 
it doesn't because I enjoy my middle class life style. Yet I know that 
major social change has alwaysdepended on drastic events. It would 
seem that revolutionary programming, like the Canadian social 
programmingthat followed WWII, has always eventually begotten encrustation 
and that something rather nasty, like a major economic downturn, has to 
happentoget us unencrusted. Until that happens, I'll keep 
helping to operate a food bank because even the poor need the comfort of 
food.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 4:48 
  PM
  Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  
-Original Message-----From: Ed Weick 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 4:35 
PMTo: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. 
Modern Trade
I agree with the concept of a basic income or 
guaranteed annual income, but I don't think there's been much discussion of 
it in government since the early 1990s, and certainly nothing very 
recently.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 
  4:16 PM
  Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was 
  Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  As my colleague who was born in India says, the first picture of a 
  Canadian child dying with a distended belly will be the spark that ignites 
  governments to end this current (farcical) set of 
  activities.
  
  There will be no starvation in Canada. There will be 
  panhandlers on street corners and panhand

[Futurework] Re: Hobbes

[Ed Weick]

Thank you, Stephen. It makes one think about the darkness 
that Hobbes was trying to penetrate. I have a PBS video on the life of Napoleon 
that I watched the other night. What struck me was how quickly a people who, on 
the basis of the equality and rights of all men, beheaded a king, shifted to 
crowning an emperor because they again wanted to submerge their equality and 
rights into something they saw as greater than themselves. 
When I was a very young man, fresh out of university, I 
had a boss who became one of my mentors. He based his knowledge of human 
behaviour on cats. He had several cats, very large ones. When he had us out to 
his place, he would invariably set his cats on the kitchen counter and sprinkle 
catnip into the sink. The cats would jump into the sink and start roiling 
around. "See, see!" he would say in mock amazement, "Look at those cats!" And 
then he would always look us directly in the eye and add: "Never forget … Never 
ever forget, people are just like pussy cats, ten percent conscious and ninety 
percent unconscious. And it’s the ninety percent you have to worry 
about!"
I don’t know if he had his percentages right, but as I 
found in progressing through my career, he had a point.
Ed



- Original Message - 
From: "Stephen Straker" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Ed Weick" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "futurework" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
"Selma Singer" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: Hobbes
Sorry to be so 
long replying on Hobbes. I have beenmeditating a decent response. Ed 
says:  ... I must say I've never felt comfortable with Hobbes' 
articulation of man in the "state of nature". It depicts man as 
solitary, acting only to satisfy himself, being nothing more than an 
"organic automaton". Personally, I don't think it was ever like 
that. First, we have always lived not by ourselves, but in groups, 
and groups were always governed by codes of behaviour... 
As you note later, Hobbes does not understand himself to begiving a 
*historical* account. It may well be that it hasnever been "like that" for 
any historical society. But we can do the thought-experiment. What is it 
LIKE, whatis our condition *in the absence of civil authority*? Ans:It 
is like when there is civil war (as, very sadly, in someparts of the world 
right now). Speaking perhaps more directly to us, Hobbes says that 
thereis another way to see political actors living in "the stateof 
nature" -- take a look at international relations;consider the sovereign 
rulers of the sovereign states in theworld. Between them there is no law, no 
mine or thine, nocommon power to keep them all in awe  thus to 
enforceobedience. There is only the practicalities and 
tenuousagreements, for the time being and every one of thembreakable. 
The invasion of Iraq shows this as clearly asanything could. [Thus 
there is ultimately a Hobbesian argument for worldgovernment (though he 
never argued for such a thing).] Thus a simple answer to Selma 
Singer, who asked:  Something that has always puzzled me about 
Hobbes: In what way does the writing he does profit him? In what way does the 
fact of his being a writer, philosopher, generator of ideas, support and 
validate the philosophy he writes about? Hobbes wants us all to 
understand clearly: what a sovereign,what government, *is*, what a citizen 
is, what the nature oflegitimate political authority is, and, in short, why 
anyoneshould ever obey any law. He believes that almost everyone is 
grotesquely anddangerously confused about these things and 
thereforesubject themselves to the most slavish and absurdarrangements. 
He can make his argument from clear firstprinciples and he thinks it is 
persuasive. **It's all in your head**It has always seemed to me 
important to underline andemphasize one especially important feature of 
Hobbes'sargument: he is urging us to *revise* the way we look upon,and 
relate to, a landscape that remains largely familiar. Hewants us to look at 
it from another angle and see it as it*really* is for the first time. At one 
level nothing at allchanges. Daily life goes on and the things, people 
characters who populate our world remain intact - Dukesremain, 
princes remain, paupers and yoeman and farmers andsoldiers remain, just as 
before. But who they really are andwhat our relationship to them all is 
radically reconfigured.Give your head a shake and see it all for what it is. 
We are matter in motion, organized so as to seek to remainin motion, 
to seek life and to shun death (the cessation ofall motion). All the rest 
follows. This is very like what Copernicus and Galileo do with 
theEarth, Sun, and Planets. At one level, nothing changes atall - the 
sun continues to rise in the east  set in thewest, Venus carries on as 
Evening Star and Morning Star, theearth is firm beneath my feet. And yet, at 
another level

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

ature. Human society is about 
  relative status. Not only human society, but primate society. And not only 
  primate society but any social mammalian society. We really need to understand 
  this first before we can suggest quite new social structures that will satisfy 
  our basic instincts -- and, if possible, basic incomes also. But not before 
  then. Extending welfarism beyond what we have now in most developed countries, 
  desirable though it might sound (and I don't object to it on moral grounds), 
  is already running itself into the ground. Keith
  We live in a democracy. As Amartya Sen 
said, there is no history of starvation in democracies.As I said 
in my earlier posting, the current system may be remarkably 
stable.arthur

  -Original Message-
  From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 1:12 PM
  To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David 
  Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
  So what if all the righteous 
  middle class people stopped sending their unused canned goods to the food 
  banks? Well the hungry people might just vote in a government that 
  promises radical change. Right now everyone wins: political 
  parties promise change and don't; middle class feels good about sending 
  food to the food bank; working poor can supplement their foodstock by 
  heading to the food bank. The system may be quite stable. 
  Maybe there really is no wish to change.
  
  arthur
  
  I'm on the Board of a downtown foodbank and 
  have spent a little time there. The people who came to pick up food 
  fell into several groups. There were older men, fifty plus, who had 
  migrated to Ottawa because there was nothing for them in the valley 
  communities. Their education and skills were limited, so there was 
  nothing in Ottawa either. There were young mothers, some with 
  children, who gave you every impression that they didn't want to be there; 
  they hurried in and they hurried out. There were a number of cocky 
  young people, some perhaps students, some living at the "Y", who acted as 
  though they were indulging the foodbank with their presence. None of 
  these people acted as though they wanted to change the system. All 
  they wanted was the food - except for the older guys who also seemed to 
  want to hang around and talk a little.
  
  There's an aura of powerlessness about 
  it. The churches that operate the foodbank know that if they didn't 
  do it, nobody would. So they keep doing it and their members keep 
  bringing the cans of tuna and the packages of pasta. The churches 
  might want to take an advocacy position, but that might infringe on their 
  charitable status. The politicians get themselves elected and their 
  promises become mere promises, not commitments. Most of the people 
  who use the foodbank hate doing it, but they need to eat. Watching 
  it without having to depend on it, I wish it would all go away. But 
  it won't. It's what the world is like and how it will stay. 
  Perhaps Canadians, as people who live in the developed world, should feel 
  fortunate that they can afford foodbanks. Ever so many parts of the 
  world can't, and people starve.
  
  Ed
  -Original Message-
  From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
  Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2003 9:08 AM
  To: Thomas Lunde; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David 
  Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
  Thomas, very good posting. Ontario 
  has just raised the minimum wage from peanuts to peanuts. Many of 
  the poor are working full time and even double time, but are still unable 
  to meet the rent or buy enough food, let alone get their kids the kinds of 
  in toys ("status goods") that are going around. They can try eating 
  freedom and justice, but they don't taste very good when you can't make 
  ends meet.
  
  Ed
  - Original Message - 
  From: Thomas Lunde 

  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:36 AM
  Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David 
  Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  They don't need money, Thomas. They need justice and the 
  freedom to enjoy it.
  
  Harry
  
  Thomas:
  In a way, you are right. Being poor and working with the poor as 
  customers and neighbours let's me see the many ways the poor are lacking 
  justice. A recent article in the paper made the outstanding 
  statement that 37% of workers in Canada are not covered by the Labour Code 
  and laws. When wage

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Title: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade



Thomas, very good posting. Ontario has just 
raised the minimum wage from peanuts to peanuts. Many of the poor are 
working full time and even double time, but are still unable to meet the rent or 
buy enough food, let alone get their kids the kinds of in toys ("status goods") 
that are going around. They can try eating freedom and justice, but they 
don't taste very good when you can't make ends meet.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Thomas 
  Lunde 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:36 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  They don't need money, Thomas. They 
need justice and the freedom to enjoy it.HarryThomas:In a way, you 
are right. Being poor and working with the poor as customers and 
neighbours let's me see the many ways the poor are lacking justice. A 
recent article in the paper made the outstanding statement that 37% of 
workers in Canada are not covered by the Labour Code and laws. When 
wages for the poor are kept artificially low, then the only way to 
compensate to maintain a survival standard is to work more. Of course, 
there are about 4 to 5% who are mentally incapable, or physically disabled 
or in the case of single mothers, family challenged. However, the work 
more solution has only produced the working poor, who still have to use food 
banks and subsidized housing, if thet can get it. Not only that, as 
you suggest, they do not even have the freedom to enjoy what little they 
have. I would agree, that justice and freedom would go a long way to 
compensating for money - or as you might suggest, make the earning and 
spending of money a by product of an effective system of justice and the 
freedom and thereby create a surplus to 
enjoy.Respectfully,Thomas 
Lunde

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Title: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade




So 
what if all the righteous middle class people stopped sending their unused 
canned goods to the food banks? Well the hungry people might just vote in 
a government that promises radical change.Right now everyone 
wins: political parties promise change and don't; middle class feels good about 
sending food to the food bank; working poor can supplement their foodstock by 
heading to the food bank. The system may be quite stable. Maybe 
there really is no wish to change.

arthur

I'm on the Board of a 
downtown foodbank and have spent a little time there. The people who came 
to pick up food fell into several groups. There were older men, fifty 
plus, who had migrated to Ottawa because there was nothing for them in the 
valley communities. Their education and skills were limited, so there was 
nothing in Ottawa either. There were young mothers, some with children, 
who gave you every impression that they didn't want to be there; they hurried in 
and they hurried out. There were a number of cocky young people, some 
perhaps students, some living at the "Y", who acted as though they were 
indulging the foodbank with their presence. None of these people acted as 
though they wanted to change the system. All they wanted was the food - 
except for the older guys who also seemed to want to hang around and talk a 
little.

There's an aura of 
powerlessness about it. The churches that operate the foodbank know that 
if they didn't do it, nobody would. So they keep doing it and their 
members keep bringing the cans of tuna and the packages of pasta. The 
churches might want to take an advocacy position, but that might infringe on 
their charitable status. The politicians get themselves elected and their 
promises become mere promises, not commitments. Most of the people who use 
the foodbank hate doing it, but they need to eat. Watching it without 
having to depend on it, I wish it would all go away. But it won't. 
It's what the world is like and how it will stay. Perhaps Canadians, as 
people who live in the developed world, should feel fortunate that they can 
afford foodbanks. Ever so many parts of the world can't, and people 
starve.

Ed

  
  
-Original Message-----From: Ed Weick 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2003 9:08 
AMTo: Thomas Lunde; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was 
Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern 
Trade
Thomas, very good posting. Ontario has just 
raised the minimum wage from peanuts to peanuts. Many of the poor are 
working full time and even double time, but are still unable to meet the 
rent or buy enough food, let alone get their kids the kinds of in toys 
("status goods") that are going around. They can try eating freedom 
and justice, but they don't taste very good when you can't make ends 
meet.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Thomas Lunde 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 
  3:36 AM
  Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was 
  Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  They don't need money, Thomas. 
They need justice and the freedom to enjoy it.HarryThomas:In a way, 
you are right. Being poor and working with the poor as customers 
and neighbours let's me see the many ways the poor are lacking justice. 
A recent article in the paper made the outstanding statement that 
37% of workers in Canada are not covered by the Labour Code and laws. 
When wages for the poor are kept artificially low, then the only 
way to compensate to maintain a survival standard is to work more. 
Of course, there are about 4 to 5% who are mentally incapable, or 
physically disabled or in the case of single mothers, family challenged. 
However, the work more solution has only produced the working 
poor, who still have to use food banks and subsidized housing, if thet 
can get it. Not only that, as you suggest, they do not even have 
the freedom to enjoy what little they have. I would agree, that 
justice and freedom would go a long way to compensating for money - or 
as you might suggest, make the earning and spending of money a by 
product of an effective system of justice and the freedom and thereby 
create a surplus to enjoy.Respectfully,Thomas 
Lunde

[Futurework] And even more productivity or what?

[Ed Weick]

I was educated in the 1950s and 1960s. Until I retired from the Canadian 
public service some sixteen years ago, I had always worked in hierarchical, 
stratified institutions. In government, my Minister sat at the top, my Deputy 
Minister just a little below him, my Assistant Deputy below him, me a little 
further down and all kinds of other people in layers below. In the oil patch in 
Calgary, my one encounter with the corporate private sector, it was much the 
same  a Chairman of the Board at the top, a CEO a little further down, (though 
he didnt think so), then vice presidents, and down, down, down through layers 
and layers where the actual work got done, including drilling for oil and gas. 
Moreover, in both government and industry, the people who ran the show were 
mostly in one place, in tall buildings like the ones you see in Calgary or 
Ottawa.
Thats still how I still picture corporate work and organization to be, but 
recently Ive run into something quite different. In trying to establish a 
website for a group of churches that run a foodbank, Ive had to deal with the 
employees of an Internet service provider to resolve a problem that I, as a 
non-technical person, found very difficult. There were two aspects to the 
problem, one technical and the other financial. To resolve both, I had to 
interact with persons known as "Customer Care Agents" (CCAs). While these people 
were helpful or rude on the technical side, depending on who I happened to hit 
in a particular phone call, they were not at all helpful on the financial side. 
They simply didnt know anything about it. So, I asked them, kindly at first 
though more heatedly as the conversation developed, to put me through to 
"Accounts". Well, Sir, they couldnt do that because there really wasnt anybody 
like that, but they would try to get the information for me. From whom? Well, 
they werent really sure, but they would get it somewhere.
At one point in my dealings with the CCAs, I flew into a towering rage. I 
bellowed and threatened to sue, and asked who the CEO was so that I could write 
him a letter on how terribly I had been dealt with. Well, Sir, we really dont 
know, was the response. Well then, where are your headquarters, I asked. We 
think theyre in Alberta, Sir, but we really arent sure. Well, you have an 
office here in Ottawa. Who can I see there!!!??? Theres no one there, Sir, 
were all over the place. I gave up, slammed the phone down and stormed around 
the block several times.
Gradually, in several bouts of raising my blood pressure to the limit and 
beyond, I came to realize that I was not dealing with something that fitted my 
concept of a corporate entity. There were no layers of people in one place. 
There was no hierarchy. There were people in various parts of Ottawa connected 
by telephone and computer grids of some kind. They had technical knowledge but 
little idea of what they were part of, a much larger grid extending across 
Canada that included contracting out many of the things that corporate entities 
are, by my image, supposed to do internally. Though there must be a center, 
though there must be a CEO, though there must be a Board of Directors, the CCAs 
I was dealing with had no idea of where these things were.
And maybe there were no such things. What if the corporation, if that is what 
it was, just grew organically and horizontally, with somebody contracted out to 
do its accounting, someone else contracted out to ensure a supply of hardware, 
software and technology, someone else contracted out moving the whole thing into 
new urban centres, and yet another contractor building a corporate myth to 
ensure that the CCAs said the right thing in dealing with guys like me, and not 
too blatantly conveying the reality of fronting for computers, computers, 
computers all the way down?
Ed

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Title: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade



I agree with the concept of a basic income or 
guaranteed annual income, but I don't think there's been much discussion of it 
in government since the early 1990s, and certainly nothing very 
recently.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 4:16 
  PM
  Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  As 
  my colleague who was born in India says, the first picture of a Canadian child 
  dying with a distended belly will be the spark that ignites governments to end 
  this current (farcical) set of activities.
  
  There will be no starvation in Canada. There will be panhandlers 
  on street corners and panhandlers using the food banks. Dignity is lost 
  all around: Those who receive and those who give (although they feel mighty 
  righteous at the moment.)
  
  We 
  can end poverty. There can be a basic income. Somehow there is 
  little incentive to change.
  
  We 
  live in a democracy. As Amartya Sen said, there is no history of 
  starvation in democracies.
  
  As I 
  said in my earlier posting, the current system may be remarkably 
  stable.
  
  arthur
  
-Original Message-From: Ed Weick 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 1:12 
PMTo: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was 
Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern 
Trade

So 
what if all the righteous middle class people stopped sending their unused 
canned goods to the food banks? Well the hungry people might just vote 
in a government that promises radical change.Right now 
everyone wins: political parties promise change and don't; middle class 
feels good about sending food to the food bank; working poor can supplement 
their foodstock by heading to the food bank. The system may be quite 
stable. Maybe there really is no wish to change.

arthur

I'm on the Board of 
a downtown foodbank and have spent a little time there. The people who 
came to pick up food fell into several groups. There were older men, 
fifty plus, who had migrated to Ottawa because there was nothing for them in 
the valley communities. Their education and skills were limited, so 
there was nothing in Ottawa either. There were young mothers, some 
with children, who gave you every impression that they didn't want to be 
there; they hurried in and they hurried out. There were a number of 
cocky young people, some perhaps students, some living at the "Y", who acted 
as though they were indulging the foodbank with their presence. None 
of these people acted as though they wanted to change the system. All 
they wanted was the food - except for the older guys who also seemed to want 
to hang around and talk a little.

There's an aura of 
powerlessness about it. The churches that operate the foodbank know 
that if they didn't do it, nobody would. So they keep doing it and 
their members keep bringing the cans of tuna and the packages of 
pasta. The churches might want to take an advocacy position, but that 
might infringe on their charitable status. The politicians get 
themselves elected and their promises become mere promises, not 
commitments. Most of the people who use the foodbank hate doing it, 
but they need to eat. Watching it without having to depend on it, I 
wish it would all go away. But it won't. It's what the world is 
like and how it will stay. Perhaps Canadians, as people who live in 
the developed world, should feel fortunate that they can afford 
foodbanks. Ever so many parts of the world can't, and people 
starve.

Ed

  
  
-Original Message-----From: Ed Weick 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2003 9:08 
AMTo: Thomas Lunde; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Slightly extended 
(was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern 
Trade
Thomas, very good posting. Ontario has 
just raised the minimum wage from peanuts to peanuts. Many of the 
poor are working full time and even double time, but are still unable to 
meet the rent or buy enough food, let alone get their kids the kinds of 
in toys ("status goods") that are going around. They can try 
eating freedom and justice, but they don't taste very good when you 
can't make ends meet.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Thomas Lunde 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursda

Re: [Futurework] Downshifting to a better work-life balance

[Ed Weick]

 Might I also ask 
whether the Moscow subway system was built under the saintly Czars or 
under The Evil Empire 1995 was already the period of free-fall 
capitalism in the breakdown-products of the former USSR, I 
believe.  \brad mccormick

I believe it was built under Stalin in the 1930s. 
The layout, in terms of getting people from A to B, is highly rational. 
The stations are grandiose, as befits the Stalinist era. The condition it 
was in when I rode it in the mid-90s was extremely dubious. I recall 
hoping many times that the wheel making that godawful noise would not fall 
off.

Ed

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:39 PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Downshifting to a better 
work-life balance
 Brad, 
 I remember the light rail system in Los Angeles (the red cars) and 
remember too when they were removed only to be replaced with GM 
buses. Coincidence? Probably.  Now let me tell you 
why Oswald was the lone shooter...  arthur  
-Original Message- From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 5:09 
PM To: Harry Pollard Cc: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Downshifting to a better work-life balance 
  Harry Pollard wrote:  Arthur,  
  I don't think we have a point A and point B in Los 
Angeles.I think I remember riding a bus once 
several decades ago, but I can't be   sure.  
  By the time I walked to the bus stop and waited for the next bus, 
I   could drive into downtown LA. That is if I wanted to go 
there.By far, the best transportation system 
for LA is the automobile. Why   this is so requires some thought, 
but thinking seems to be in short   supply these days. 
[snip]  I seem to recall having read somewhere that in the 
1930s General Motors bought the LA public transit system for the 
sole purpose of destroying it so that the automobile would be the way to 
go. (I read that before I realized the importance of the audit 
trail, so I don't have the source.)  Might I also ask 
whether the Moscow subway system was built under the saintly Czars or 
under The Evil Empire 1995 was already the period of free-fall 
capitalism in the breakdown-products of the former USSR, I 
believe.  \brad mccormick  --  
 Let your light so shine before men, 
 
that they may see your good works (Matt 5:16)   
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)  
![%THINK;[SGML+APL]] Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
- 
 Visit my website == http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ ___ 
Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: [Futurework] No Legal Cover

[Ed Weick]

 Ed Weick wrote:   With all due 
respect, Karen, anyone as big and powerful as the US writes   his 
own rules (masculine intended). Also appreciate that pillage has  
 always been a normal part of conquest. [snip]  
Well, you'd think "we" could write our own rules, wouldn't you? 
 But just like a zillionaire who smokes a carton of Gauloises a 
day is not immune from lung cancer, so too, "we" are not inmune from 3rd 
world nobodies blowing holes in our most advanced destroyer 
warships or knocdking down our biggest skyscrapers with our own 
planes. Damn those AlQaeda oncogenes!

Yes, it's terribly 
unfair!
  But we aren't even into enlightened pillaging: 
This week the NYT said that Iraq's oil reserves are becoming 
increasingly unrecoverable due to the oilfields not being maintained 
right.

And damn Mother Nature and people who can't do things 
right!

Ed

[Futurework] More Productivity

[Ed Weick]

Yesterday afternoon I was mulling over why, according 
to Statistics Canada, people who work in corporate settings are significantly 
more productive than people who work out of their home offices, when my wife 
came home and announced that her group at the Senate of Canada had just got a 
new copier that was an absolute dream to work with. Not only did they get 
a new copier, but they got about an hours formal instruction on how to use 
it. She added that all Senate staff had new copiers and had received 
instructions on how to use them. A few months ago, she told me that they 
had all got new monitors and new Windows software, which again they were shown 
how to use. And occassionally she has problems with her computer. 
When that happens, someone will immediately come in to fix it.

To someone who operates out of a home office, all of 
that sounds like a bit of a dream - new equipment, someone to set it up for you, 
and someone to fix itif something goes wrong. It has me wondering 
how large a role it plays in the corporate versus home office productivity 
gap. Not only is the productivity of people like my wife enhanced, but the 
productivity of the guys who are kept busy fixing things and setting things up 
counts too. The more things break down and need fixing, the more new 
systems need to be installed, the more productive they are.

People who work in a corporate setting have other 
advantages too. They don't have to use valuable time to sell themselves or 
their products, "Sales" does that for them. They don't have to use time to 
keep track of their hours, which are fixed, and if they incur personal problems 
on the job, why there is "Human Resources". All they have to do is be 
productive whether they are doing very much or not, which means putting in a 7.5 
hour day.

None of the foregoing is meant to impugn on my 
wife. She is truly productive and is recognized as being something of an 
encyclopedia on things like Senate rulings and precedences.

Ed

[Futurework] Productivity

[Ed Weick]

An op-ed column by Bruce Little in yesterdays Globe  Mail dealt with a 
recent Statistics Canada study on the productivity gap between Canada and the 
US. The gap has been growing but not, according to the study, because of 
productivity difference between Canadians and Americans who are employed by 
corporations or who operate out of doctors or lawyers offices. Differences in 
the latter cases are relatively minor. The big differences occur among the truly 
self-employed, the guys who work in their home offices all by themselves with 
their telephones and computers. There the American self-employed are said to be 
way ahead of the Canadian self-employed, and the gap is said to be growing.
All of which made me wonder what the self-employed do and, even more 
basically, what and how they contribute to productivity. To examine this, I 
thought about my own recent career. Ive operated out of a home office ever 
since I left the public services some fifteen years ago. What have I 
produced?
I look up at the top shelf of my home office. It is lined with reports of 
various colours and kinds, reports Ive produced by myself or with others. Some 
of those reports were useful and may still be marginally used while others do no 
more than gather dust on some official shelf, just like they are gathering dust 
in my home office. I could also look in the bottom drawer of my filing cabinet 
where I store various proposals Ive written on my own or with other people. 
Some of those proposals were accepted, but most were not.
So what have I produced? Perhaps Ive helped to gain a better understanding 
of a few social problems, but most of those problems do not seem to have been 
resolved. They are still out there waiting for the next round of consultants to 
shed some momentary light on them. How should what Ive produced be valued? By 
convention, it is valued by what I was paid to produce it. Even though a lot of 
thought went into them, I was paid nothing for my failed proposals, so they are 
not worth anything. They made no contribution to value or productivity. On the 
other hand, I was paid some $20,000 to $40,000 for some of the reports I 
produced, so that, by convention, is what they must have contributed to 
value.
To convert value to productivity, I have to take account of the amount of 
time it took me to produce my reports. Productivity, as I understand it, is the 
value of what is produced divided by time needed to produce it, usually 
expressed as output per person hour. Because I was mostly paid on a per diem 
basis, I kept careful track of my time. Yet because so much of what I did 
involved the exploration of unknowns, it usually took me longer than I had 
expected to understand or resolve something. And quite often I would find myself 
lying awake at three oclock in the morning mulling something over and trying to 
make a breakthrough. That was unrecorded time I was not paid for and yet it was 
often the most productive time.
I really dont know what Ive produced over the past fifteen years or so, how 
it should be valued in terms of a contribution to anything, or how productive it 
was. Even one of the very best pieces of work I did during that period, 
something for a Royal Commission, got buried and has never seen the light of 
day. So what is value, and what is productivity? Its something that economists 
and statisticians pretend to be able to pin down, but its elusive at best. 
Perhaps you can measure value and productivity when it comes to producing 
widgets or houses or calls made from a call center, but try to do it when the 
issue is why so high a proportion of the Aboriginal population is incarcerated 
or dies prematurely or why a land claim gets stuck and cant move on to the next 
stage. It gets trickier in cases like that.
I have no idea of why people who work out of their home offices in the US are 
more productive than their Canadian counterparts. To understand that, I would 
have to access the Statistics Canada study, and I cant do that right now. It 
may be that their work is better defined and easier to keep track of or that the 
kind of work I was trying to do as an independent consultant is more frequently 
done in a corporate or institutional setting in the US. But Ill just have to 
let the matter go for the time being.
Ed

Re: [Futurework] No Legal Cover

[Ed Weick]

With all due respect, Karen, anyone as big and powerful 
as the US writes his own rules (masculine intended). Also appreciate that 
pillage has always been a normal part of conquest.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Karen 
  Watters Cole 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 4:58 
  PM
  Subject: [Futurework] No Legal 
Cover
  
  
  Well, if I haven’t raised enough eyebrows 
  today, here is another rousing, controversial female challenging current 
  thinking (by some), and those twins, complacency and acceptance. 
  
  I believe we discussed this at some length 
  prior to the invasion this spring.
  Also see the companion FAQ’s – with notes - 
  where the Hague and Geneva conventions are specified. - 
  KWC
  
  Iraq 
  is Not America's to Sell 
  
  International 
  law is Unequivocal - Paul Bremer's Economic Reforms are 
  Illegal
  
  By 
  Naomi Klein, Published on Friday, November 7, 2003 by the 
  Guardian/UK
  
  Bring 
  Halliburton home. Cancel the contracts. Ditch the deals. Rip up the rules. 
  Those are just a few of the suggestions for slogans that could help unify the 
  growing movement against the occupation of Iraq. So far, activist debates have 
  focused on whether the demand should be for a complete withdrawal of troops, 
  or for the United States to cede power to the United 
  Nations.
  
  But 
  the "troops out" debate overlooks an important fact. If every last Soldier 
  pulled out of the Gulf tomorrow and a sovereign government came to power, Iraq 
  would still be occupied: by laws written in the interest of another country; 
  by foreign corporations controlling its essential services; by 70% 
  unemployment sparked by public sector layoffs.
  
  Any 
  movement serious about Iraqi self-determination must call not only for an end 
  to Iraq's military occupation, but to its economic colonization as well. That 
  means reversing the shock therapy reforms that US occupation chief Paul Bremer 
  has fraudulently passed off as "reconstruction", and canceling all 
  privatization contracts that are flowing from these 
  reforms.
  
  How 
  can such an ambitious goal be achieved? Easy: by showing that Bremer's reforms 
  were illegal to begin with. They clearly violate the international convention 
  governing the behavior of occupying forces, the Hague regulations of 1907 (the 
  companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the United States), 
  as well as the US army's own code of war.
  
  The 
  Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless 
  absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". The coalition 
  provisional authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful 
  defiance. Iraq's constitution 
  outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from 
  owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was 
  "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the 
  CPA overturned them unilaterally.
  
  On 
  September 19, Bremer enacted the now infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi 
  state companies would be privatized; decreed that foreign firms can retain 
  100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100% of their 
  profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist 
  dream".
  
  Order 
  39 violated the Hague regulations in other ways as well. The convention states 
  that occupying powers "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real 
  estate, forests and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile state, and 
  situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these 
  properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of 
  usufruct."
  
  Bouvier's 
  Law Dictionary defines "usufruct" (possibly the ugliest word in 
  the English language) as an arrangement that grants one party the right 
  to use and derive benefit from 
  another's property "without altering the 
  substance of the thing". Put more simply, if you are a housesitter, you 
  can eat the food in the fridge, but you can't sell the house and turn it 
  into condos. And yet that is just 
  what Bremer is doing: what could more substantially alter "the substance" of a 
  public asset than to turn it into a private one?
  
  In 
  case the CPA was still unclear on this detail, the US army's Law of Land 
  Warfare states that "the occupant does not have the right of sale or 
  unqualified use of [non-military] property". This is pretty 
  straightforward: bombing 
  something does not give you the right to sell it. There is every indication 
  that the CPA is well aware of the lawlessness of its privatization scheme. In 
  a leaked memo written on March 26, the British attorney general, Lord 
  Goldsmith, warned Tony Blair that "the imposition of major structural economic 
  reforms would not be authorized by 

[Futurework] Bushwhacked?

[Ed Weick]

From Mother Jones. Note that the writer does not 
think Bush is stupid. He may have a problem with aphasia, but that does 
not mean he isn't smart. Note too the comment by Jim Hightower: "Born on 
third and thinks he hit a triple."

Ed




The Uncompassionate 
Conservative It's not that he's 
mean. It's just that when it comes to seeing how his policies affect people, 
George W. Bush doesn't have a clue. 
Molly 
Ivins November/December 2003 Issue 
In order to understand why George W. Bush doesn't get it, you have to take 
several strands of common Texas attitude, then add an impressive degree of 
class-based obliviousness. What you end up with is a guy who sees himself as a 
perfectly nice fellow -- and who is genuinely disconnected from the impact of 
his decisions on people. 
On the few occasions when Bush does directly encounter the down-and-out, he 
seems to empathize. But then, in what is becoming a recurring, almost 
nightmare-type scenario, the minute he visits some constructive program and 
praises it (AmeriCorps, the Boys and Girls Club, job training), he turns around 
and cuts the budget for it. It's the kiss of death if the president comes to 
praise your program. During the presidential debate in Boston in 2000, Bush 
said, "First and foremost, we've got to make sure we fully fund LIHEAP [the Low 
Income Home Energy Assistance Program], which is a way to help low-income folks, 
particularly here in the East, pay their high fuel bills." He then sliced $300 
million out of that sucker, even as people were dying of hypothermia, or, to put 
it bluntly, freezing to death. 
Sometimes he even cuts your program before he comes to praise it. In August 
2002, Bush held a photo op with the Quecreek coal miners, the nine men whose 
rescue had thrilled the country. By then he had already cut the coal-safety 
budget at the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which engineered the 
rescue, by 6 percent, and had named a coal-industry executive to run the agency. 

The Reverend Jim Wallis, leader of Call to Renewal, a network of churches 
that fight poverty, told the New York Times that shortly after his 
election, Bush had said to him, "I don't understand how poor people think," and 
had described himself as a "white Republican guy who doesn't get it, but I'd 
like to." What's annoying about Bush is when this obtuseness, the blinkeredness 
of his life, weighs so heavily on others, as it has increasingly as he has 
acquired more power. 
There was a telling episode in 1999 when the Department of Agriculture came 
out with its annual statistics on hunger, showing that once again Texas was near 
the top. Texas is a perennial leader in hunger because we have 43 counties in 
South Texas (and some in East Texas) that are like Third World countries. If our 
border region were a state, it would be first in poverty, first in the 
percentage of schoolchildren living in poverty, first in the percentage of 
adults without a high school diploma, 51st in income per capita, and so on. 
When the 1999 hunger stats were announced, Bush threw a tantrum. He thought 
it was some malign Clinton plot to make his state look bad because he was 
running for president. "I saw the report that children in Texas are going 
hungry. Where?" he demanded. "No children are going to go hungry in this state. 
You'd think the governor would have heard if there are pockets of hunger in 
Texas." You would, wouldn't you? That is the point at which ignorance becomes 
inexcusable. In five years, Bush had never spent time with people in the 
colonias, South Texas' shantytowns; he had never been to a session with Valley 
Interfaith, a consortium of border churches and schools and the best community 
organization in the state. There is no excuse for a governor to be unaware of 
this huge reality of Texas. 
Take any area -- environment, labor, education, taxes, health -- and go to 
the websites of public-interest groups in that field. You will find page after 
page of minor adjustments, quiet repeals, no-big-deal new policies, all of them 
cruel, destructive, and harmful. A silent change in regulations, an executive 
order, a funding cutoff. No headlines. Below the radar. Again and again and 
again. Head Start, everybody's favorite government program, is being targeted 
for "improvement" by leaving it to the tender mercies of Mississippi and 
Alabama. An AIDS program that helps refugees in Africa and Asia gets its funding 
cut because one of the seven groups involved once worked with the United 
Nations, which once worked with the Chinese government, which once supported 
forced abortions. 
So what manner of monster is behind these outrages? I have known George W. 
Bush slightly since we were both in high school, and I studied him closely as 
governor. He is neither mean nor stupid. What we have here is a man shaped by 
three intertwining strands of Texas culture, combined with huge blinkers of 
class. The three Texas themes are religiosity, 

Re: [Futurework] No Legal Cover

[Ed Weick]

No, Karen, we can't turn a blind eye, and I do 
appreciate some of the implications of what Naomi Klein is saying. But 
what I can't seem to get my head around is what kinds of demons have been 
unleashed because of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.The 
American presence and actions of the CPA may very well be contrary to 
international law, but I question what would happen if that presence were 
removed within a short period of time, as Bush seems to want to do. 
Personally, I fear all hell would break loose because the various religious and 
ethnic groups can't get along. Having removed Saddam and let the genie out 
of the bottle, the US can't just walk away, whether it is there legally or 
not. And I don't think that ordinary Iraqis, caught in the middle of it 
all, care whether the power grid is fixed by privatized "keystate assets" 
or someone else, as long as it gets fixed up.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Karen 
  Watters Cole 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Cc: Ed Weick 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:47 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] No Legal 
  Cover
  
  
  Good morning, Ed. 
  
  
  Are you suggesting that historical 
  precedence and overwhelming power (might makes right?) means that dissent is 
  inconsequential?
  
  Let us not turn a blind eye to what is 
  wrong just because we cannot stop it for the moment. 
  
  
  Perhaps in addition to security, insurance 
  and asset risk management, corporations are wary about rushing into Iraq 
  because their corporate attorneys have told them what the White House and 
  Pentagon will not – that their investments can be renationalized, if a 
  noncompliant sovereign authority does not ratify the illegal war profiteering 
  contracts. 
  
  
  On the other hand, given their track 
  record, Bush2 could be drafting corporate gift tax breaks for those who lose 
  heavily if that happens. Bush2 knows how to reward its real 
  constituency.
  
  - 
  KWC
  
  
  With all 
  due respect, Karen, anyone as big and powerful as the US writes his own rules 
  (masculine intended). Also appreciate that pillage has always been a 
  normal part of conquest. Ed
  
  
  Well, if I haven’t raised enough eyebrows 
  today, here is another rousing, controversial female challenging current 
  thinking (by some), and those twins, complacency and acceptance. 
  
  I believe we discussed this at some length 
  prior to the invasion this spring.
  Also see the companion FAQ’s – with notes - 
  where the Hague and Geneva conventions are specified. - 
  KWC
  
  Iraq 
  is Not America's to Sell 
  
  
  International 
  law is Unequivocal - Paul Bremer's Economic Reforms are 
  Illegal
  
  By 
  Naomi Klein, Published on Friday, November 7, 2003 by the 
  Guardian/UK
  
  Bring 
  Halliburton home. Cancel the contracts. Ditch the deals. Rip up the rules. 
  Those are just a few of the suggestions for slogans that could help unify the 
  growing movement against the occupation of Iraq. So far, activist debates have 
  focused on whether the demand should be for a complete withdrawal of troops, 
  or for the United States to cede power to the United 
  Nations.
  
  But 
  the "troops out" debate overlooks an important fact. If every last Soldier 
  pulled out of the Gulf tomorrow and a sovereign government came to power, Iraq 
  would still be occupied: by laws written in the interest of another country; 
  by foreign corporations controlling its essential services; by 70% 
  unemployment sparked by public sector layoffs.
  
  Any 
  movement serious about Iraqi self-determination must call not only for an end 
  to Iraq's military occupation, but to its economic colonization as well. That 
  means reversing the shock therapy reforms that US occupation chief Paul Bremer 
  has fraudulently passed off as "reconstruction", and canceling all 
  privatization contracts that are flowing from these 
  reforms.
  
  How 
  can such an ambitious goal be achieved? Easy: by showing that Bremer's reforms 
  were illegal to begin with. They clearly violate the international convention 
  governing the behavior of occupying forces, the Hague regulations of 1907 (the 
  companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the United States), 
  as well as the US army's own code of war.
  
  The 
  Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless 
  absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". The coalition 
  provisional authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful 
  defiance. Iraq's constitution 
  outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from 
  owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was 
  "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the 
  CPA overturned them unilaterally.
  
  On 
  September 19, Bremer enacted the now infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Ira

Re: [Futurework] Downshifting to a better work-life balance

[Ed Weick]

I guess it all depends on where you live and what you have to work with. The 
best public transit system I've ever seen, in terms of design, was Moscow's 
metro: spokes radiating out of the center of the city and inner and outer rings 
connecting all those spokes. Moscow is a city of some 12 million, but you could 
get from any one part of it to another in a very short time, provided the wheels 
stayed on the rails, a problem in 1995.
Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 3:33 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] Downshifting to 
  a better work-life balance
  
  Arthur,
  
  I don't think we have a point A and point B in Los 
  Angeles.
  
  I think I remember riding a bus once several 
  decades ago, but I can't be sure.
  
  By the time I walked to the bus stop and waited for 
  the next bus, I could drive into downtown LA. That is if I wantedto go 
  there.
  
  By far, the best transportation system for LA is 
  the automobile. Why this is so requires some thought, but thinking seems to be 
  in short supply these days.
  
  Harry
  
   Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 655 
  Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 5:55 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: 
  [Futurework] Downshifting to a better work-life balance
  
  
  harrry,
  
  What is public transit?
  
  arthur
  
  What you will be 
  riding from point A to point B when all costs are counted and internalized to 
  the transportation equation.
  
-Original Message-From: Harry Pollard 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, December 01, 
2003 8:28 PMTo: 'Ed Weick'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
'Keith Hudson'Subject: RE: [Futurework] Downshifting to a better 
work-life balance
Ed,

I suppose everything I have is old - except the 
computer and some of the peripherals.

My car is 8 years old. It's a station wagon which 
can take an 8' x 4' sheet of plywood, or 7 passengers, as the need arises. 
My 60" TV is now about 4 years old. I don't know how old my other two 
televisions are. My 60" is used for films, news and discussion 
programs. The living room TV mostly is used for peculiar international film 
noire byson Alan. (He's just brought me in a DVD disk with an old 
British "Avengers"on it (downloaded from the Internet) - restored in 
brilliant color and excellent crispness. I hope he can get more 
episodes.

Don't feel 'holier'. Just continue to "do as you 
wish, but harm no-one".

What is public transit?

Harry


  ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.541 / Virus 
  Database: 335 - Release Date: 
11/14/2003

Re: A cottage in the country (was Re: Thoughts on IQ scores (was Re: [Futurework] Talmud vs. Science (or Censorship thereof)

[Ed Weick]

Never give up on that book Keith. I saw Studs 
Terkel, the American writer, interviewed on TV last night. I just caught 
part of it, but I think he's written another book and he's only 91! And 
please don't bother Harry and I while we are rabbiting about you. You give 
us plenty to chew on! The house and location sound lovely. Last time 
I was in Somerset I slept in an old barn, 17th Century I believe, converted into 
part of a BB.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Keith 
  Hudson 
  To: Ed Weick 
  Cc: Harry Pollard ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 3:24 
  PM
  Subject: A cottage in the country (was 
  Re: Thoughts on IQ scores (was Re: [Futurework] Talmud vs. Science (or 
  Censorship thereof)
  Ed and Harry,M'mm  I see. While the 
  cat's away .. I've been looking at a house for 
  most of the day and when I come back I find that the two old men of FW have 
  been talking about me.But I think I've found the place. Two old farm 
  workers' terraced cottages of the 1700s bolted together more recently (well, 
  about a hundred years ago). Attached to another pair similarly joined in 
  stoney matrimony. Front room of my choice extends across front garden boundary 
  into neighbour's building. Her kitchen extends across rear boundary into my 
  intended garden. All very higgledy-piggedly -- probably the result of 
  territorial disputes. Walls are two feet thick, circular staircase, oak beams 
  everywhere. No room for a study on the ground floor -- where I'll need to be 
  in coming years as my breathing worsens -- so I'll have to build a garden 
  office where the GREAT BOOK will be written. Also, I have a sudden fancy out 
  of nowhere to breed canaries or suchlike, so I might build an aviary next to 
  my office with a little doorway between me and them, and then they can fly 
  around as I toil -- no doubt crapping over the keyboard as they do so. That's 
  something that George Bernard Shaw never had in his garden office. But, then, 
  I'm aiming for higher things than GBS... Anyway, it's nice village -- has 
  all the things that English country villages should have -- cricket club, 
  bowls club (another incipient fancy of mine), Women's Institute meeting room 
  where they teach young wives how to make sponge cakes and marmalade, nice 
  Gothic church with a bent spire and, of course, the village pub. Also, so help 
  me!, two manor houses (both, I'm glad to say, have public footpaths that run 
  right across their graceful and spacious lawns along which the riff-raff can 
  walk -- we're still protective of the common weal over here) and one of them, 
  unbelievably, has a paddock with four llamas in it! What are they doing in the 
  Somerset countryside, for God's sake! Delicate whispy things they are with 
  dainty legs and all, nibbling away and eating fallen autumn leaves 
  rather than choice green grass -- but I was told by a bent and ancient 
  gent returning from the pub in painful gait on gnarled walking sticks and 
  wearing a white beard even longer than mine, not to let my dog off the leash 
  (she was anxious to give chase to these lovely creatures) because one of these 
  dainty llamas would land a well-aimed kick on her skull and crack it open 
  without a doubt. "Them there lamy things can look after 'emselves a'right", we 
  were told. M'mm  not so dainty after all! I return home to find an 
  invitation to speak at an economics conference in Milan next year. So even 
  though you two go on at me, someone out there likes me. Might go, might not. I 
  haven't got my ideas together yet. Still a few more hundred postings to write 
  before my great thoughts start to gell.And then I discover, from a 
  wall of e-mails in my mailbox taller than the rooms I've just been to, that 
  you two have been rabbiting on again.Ah well, back to the keyboard. 
  Haven't made an offer for the country pad yet. (Oh, I forgot, a well in the 
  garden, of course. Probably better quality than the stuff we get down pipes 
  these days.) Might not get the house -- might not have enough of the ready. If 
  so, it'll have to be another day of house-hunting. Meanwhile, does anybody 
  want a Georgian town house in a most desirable city? And with a genuine ice 
  room -- in which I now sit -- to which ice came from a freshwater lake near 
  Boston in the early 1800s. Honest! Jane Austen visited next door, and David 
  Ricardo lived a hundred yards away while he was dwelling on GREAT BOOK 
  thoughts just like me. (Very sensibly he kept away from the gaming tables.) 
  This place is stiff with history. Also, remembering a visitation (nay, 
  delegation) last summer, I'm planning on putting a plaque on the wall outside: 
  "Harry Pollard (and family) slept here"Or perhaps not. 
  Keith At 07:46 02/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
  Thanks, Harry. I enjoy my debates with Keith. Just to be 
fair, maybe one of these days I'll let him win 

Re: [Futurework] Downshifting to a better work-life balance~ the grim reaper enjoys his job

[Ed Weick]

Yup, there's always a 
downside. But it's also there when we go shopping.

Ed
 Ed Weick 
wrote:   Public transit is the bus. It gets me 
downtown in ten minutes and I   don't have to pay parking. 
[snip]  Here's the "other side":  
 But I do get to breathe in lots of people's germs 
--  a consideration which may become more interesting to 
"you" when treatment-resistent tuberculosis AKA TB) from the 
breakdown products of the former Soviet Union come to the U.S. 
for a visit. (Did someone say S-A-R-S???)  
 If not me, who? If not now, when? 
 (--not 
a quote from NIH, but it should be)(  \brad mccormick 
 --   Let your light so shine before men, 
 
that they may see your good works (Matt 5:16)   
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)  
![%THINK;[SGML+APL]] Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
- 
 Visit my website == http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/

Re: [Futurework] Downshifting to a better work-life balance

[Ed Weick]

Harry, I drive the smallest car that fits my family and 
regard it as nothing more than an appliance, like my refrigerator. I have 
a bus pass and use public transit as much as possible. We have two TVs, 
both well over ten years old. My wife and daughter get the big one because 
they watch sitcoms; I use the small one and rarely watch anything but the news 
and public affairs programs.Besides, I don't have topound the 
small one to make the picture come full size.

All of that, and other things, permits me to feel that 
I am holier than other people. I enjoy my inverse snobbishness. 
Excuse me, but I have to go polish my halo.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ed Weick' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; 'Keith Hudson' 
  Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:46 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] Downshifting to 
  a better work-life balance
  
  Ed,
  
  I must say that I have always been a "status good" 
  buyer. Back in England,around 1950when others were satisfied with 
  a small 9" television screen, I had a 12"! Wow and double Wow! (Now you know 
  why I have a 60" screen.)
  
  I would always have the latest hi-fidelity equipment. 
  One mistake I made was to buy a top of the line Fisher in Canada for somewhere 
  near $1,000. When I got to California a year later I foundI could get it 
  for $500.
  
  It's called Canadian tariff 
  protection.
  
  In Canada, I had a 27" Conrac television. They are 
  the people who make most ofthe television monitors you see in the 
  studios.
  
  Can't remember how I got it, but later I brought it 
  to San Diego with me.By then it was aRube Ginsberg, or Heath 
  Robinsonmachine. I had"repaired" it so often,whole sections 
  had been shorted out and replaced with other bits. Yet, it still gave a 
  first-class sharp 27" picture. (Remember this was over 40 years 
  ago.)
  
  Was this a status buy? Or, a fun pursuit? How about 
  my 12" television inEngland. Well, the 9" was far too small to watch 
  comfortably. The 12" was a little better. Was it a status good? Few others had 
  television back in the early 50's. Those that did looked at their 9" 
  screen.Did I go around boasting I had a 12? Of course not.
  
  However, people like me are useful to the economy. We 
  buy early at higher prices, making it possible for others later to buy 
  cheaper. When I arrived in Southern California to do good, my income dropped 
  severely. Did I bemoan the fact that I could no longer be in front of others 
  in the pursuit of the latest toy? Again, of course not. We may be the only 
  family in Southern California without a cell 'phone.
  
  One point I noticed in my Canadian subdivision. If 
  one family got a new car, other new cars would pop up around the neighborhood. 
  Status chasing? - Or simply copycatting?
  
  Actually, when one woman had a baby there seemed to 
  be babies erupting around the subdivision. Maybe, that was copycatting. Or, 
  perhaps it just became fashionable to have a car, or a 
  baby.
  
  As for what we "need" -would friendship be a 
  need? Is peace a need?
  
  Gets complicated.
  
  Harry
  
   Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 655 
  Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
    
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed 
  WeickSent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 1:55 PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith HudsonSubject: Re: 
  [Futurework] Downshifting to a better work-life balance
  
  Keith, I just want to make a brief comment on one of 
  your points because it's always bother me a little. The point 
  it:
  
new consumer goods throughout the whole course of our economic history 
have been bought mainly for reasons of status, not need. However, as the 
repertoire of bought goods rises, we become entrapped in the way of life 
that they have moulded;
  I'm never quite sure of how to make the 
  distinction between status and need. IMHO they overlap enormously. 
  A decade ago, I had a job that took me across Canada and into the Yukon every 
  couple of weeks or so. Across Canada, a four or five hour flight 
  depending on direction, I travelled business class. I enjoyed the 
  status, but, also, travelling that often and needing to feel rested, I felt 
  there was a genuine need. There is also the case of my house. I 
  need the house. I and my small family fill every part of it to 
  excess. However, the house is on a hill and I can look down on my 
  neighbours. Status or need? Cell phones came into our family 
  recently. My daughter and I both have one; my wife doesn't feel she 
  needs one. I guess I don't really need one either even if it feels good 
  to have one. It also comes in handy at times because daughter, a fir

Re: [Futurework] V is for Volcano2

[Ed Weick]

I think it's a bit of wishful pipe dream. I can't 
think of any women I've encountered in positions of power in politics, business 
or the bureaucracy who operate differently from the way men 
operate.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Karen 
  Watters Cole 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Cc: A Cordell 
  Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 4:07 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] V is for 
  Volcano2
  
  
  Dear Arthur, I must say I would have 
  written the last sentence differently myself, repeating the title and 
  finishing the political theme, “V is for Volcana, vote and 
  victory.”
  But I don’t think this can be called ‘male 
  bashing’, if for no other reason than she did express the conviction that the 
  patriarchal paradigm hadn’t been entirely healthy for men, either. I’ve 
  reduced her speech to the points I found most interesting, below. 
  
  Karen
  
  
  Let's hear 
  it for a feminist paradigm. Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher et. al. 
  really will change things. Hmmm.
  
  I thought we 
  were beyond the era of "male bashing."
  
  Perhaps Ms. 
  Fonda's estrogen levels need a bit of a boost. "V" for 
  Vagina, for vote, for victory. 
  (or for 
  vomit.)
  
  arthur
  
  
  Quote: 
  "Maybe 
  at some earlier stage in human evolution, Patriarchy was what was needed just 
  for the species to survive. But today, there's nothing threatening the human 
  species but humans. We've conquered our predators, we've subdued nature almost 
  to extinction, and there are no more frontiers to conquer or to escape into so 
  as to avoid having to deal with the mess we've left behind. Frontiers have 
  always given capitalism, Patriarchy's economic face, a way to avoid dealing 
  with its shortcomings. Well, we're having to face them now in this 
  post-frontier era and inevitably -- especially when we have leaders who suffer 
  from toxic masculinity -- that leads to war, the conquering of new markets, 
  and the destruction of the earth. 
  
  However, 
  it is altogether possible, that we are on the verge of a tectonic shift in 
  paradigms -- that what we are seeing happening today are the paroxysms, the 
  final terrible death throes of the old, no longer workable, no longer 
  justifiable system. Look at it this way: it's Patriarchy's third act and we 
  have to make sure it's its last."
  
  V is for 
  Volcano
  By Jane Fonda, AlterNet, 112403, Viewed on 
  120103 @ 
  http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17248
  
  …Yes, 
  men and boys receive privilege and status from patriarchy, but it is a 
  poisoned privilege for which they pay a heavy price. If traditional, 
  patriarchal socialization takes aim at girls' voices, it takes aim at boys' 
  hearts -- makes them lose the deepest, most sensitive and empathic parts of 
  themselves. Men aren't even allowed to be depressed, which is why they engage 
  so often in various forms of self-numbing, from sex to alcohol and drugs to 
  gambling and workaholism. Patriarchy strikes a Faustian bargain with men. 
  
  
  Patriarchy 
  sustains itself by breaking relationship. I'm referring here to real 
  relationship, the showing-up kind, not the "I'll stay with him cause he pays 
  the bills, or because of the kids, or because if I don't I will cease to 
  exist," but relationship where you, the woman, can acknowledge your partner's 
  needs while simultaneously acknowledging and tending to your own. I work with 
  young girls and I can tell you there's a whole generation who have not learned 
  what a relationship is supposed to feel like -- that it's not about leaving 
  themselves behind. 
  
  …Another 
  thing that I've learned is that there is a fundamental contradiction not just 
  between patriarchy and relationship, but between patriarchy and Democracy. 
  Patriarchy masquerades as Democracy, but it's an anathema. How can it be 
  democracy when someone has to always be above someone else, when women, who 
  are a majority, live within a social construct that discriminates against 
  them, keeps them from having their full human rights? 
  
  
  But 
  just because Patriarchy has ruled for 10,000 years since the beginning of 
  agriculture, doesn't make it inevitable. 
  
  So, as 
  Eve Ensler says, we have to change the verbs from obliterate, dominate, 
  humiliate, to liberate, appreciate, celebrate. We have to make sure that head 
  and heart can be reunited in the body politic, and relationship and democracy 
  can be restored. 
  
  …We 
  need to really understand the depth and breadth of what a shift to a new, 
  feminine paradigm would mean, how fundamentally central it is to every single 
  other thing in the world. We win, everything wins, including boys, men, and 
  the earth. We have to really understand this and be able to make it concrete 
  for others so they will be able to see what Feminism really is and see 
  themselves in it. 
  
  So our 
  challenge is to commit ourselves to creating the tipping 

Re: [Futurework] Downshifting to a better work-life balance

[Ed Weick]

Public transit is the bus. It gets me downtown in 
ten minutes and I don't have to pay parking.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ed Weick' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; 'Keith Hudson' 
  Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:27 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] Downshifting to 
  a better work-life balance
  
  Ed,
  
  I suppose everything I have is old - except the 
  computer and some of the peripherals.
  
  My car is 8 years old. It's a station wagon which can 
  take an 8' x 4' sheet of plywood, or 7 passengers, as the need arises. My 60" 
  TV is now about 4 years old. I don't know how old my other two televisions 
  are. My 60" is used for films, news and discussion programs. The living 
  room TV mostly is used for peculiar international film noire byson Alan. 
  (He's just brought me in a DVD disk with an old British "Avengers"on it 
  (downloaded from the Internet) - restored in brilliant color and excellent 
  crispness. I hope he can get more episodes.
  
  Don't feel 'holier'. Just continue to "do as you 
  wish, but harm no-one".
  
  What is public transit?
  
  Harry
  
   Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 655 
  Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
  ********  
  
  
  
  From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:14 AMTo: Harry 
  Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Keith Hudson'Subject: Re: 
  [Futurework] Downshifting to a better work-life balance
  
  Harry, I drive the smallest car that fits my family 
  and regard it as nothing more than an appliance, like my refrigerator. I 
  have a bus pass and use public transit as much as possible. We have two 
  TVs, both well over ten years old. My wife and daughter get the big one 
  because they watch sitcoms; I use the small one and rarely watch anything but 
  the news and public affairs programs.Besides, I don't have 
  topound the small one to make the picture come full 
  size.
  
  All of that, and other things, permits me to feel 
  that I am holier than other people. I enjoy my inverse 
  snobbishness. Excuse me, but I have to go polish my halo.
  
  Ed
  
  
  ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.541 / Virus 
  Database: 335 - Release Date: 
11/14/2003

[Futurework] Productivity

[Ed Weick]

What the following suggests is that it is wrong to use 
old methods of measurement to measure new and more complex situations, unless 
one wants to engage in self deception.

Ed






  
  
 
  
  
  November 30, 2003
  The Productivity ParadoxBy STEPHEN S. 
  ROACH
  


  
  espite the economy's stunning 8.2 percent surge in the 
  third quarter, the staying power of this economic recovery remains a 
  matter of debate. But there is one aspect of the economy on which 
  agreement is nearly unanimous: America's miraculous productivity. In the 
  third quarter, productivity grew by 8.1 percent in the nonfarm business 
  sector  a figure likely to be revised upwards  and it has grown at an 
  average rate of 5.4 percent in the last two years.
  This surge is not simply a byproduct of the business cycle, even 
  accounting for the usual uptick in productivity after a recession. In the 
  first two years of the six most recent recoveries, productivity gains 
  averaged only 3.5 percent. The favored explanation is that improved 
  productivity is yet another benefit of the so-called New Economy. American 
  business has reinvented itself. Manufacturing and services companies have 
  figured out how to get more from less. By using information technologies, 
  they can squeeze ever increasing value out of the average worker.
  It's a great story, and if correct, it could lead to a new and lasting 
  prosperity in the United States. But it may be wide of the mark.
  First of all, productivity measurement is more art than science  
  especially in America's vast services sector, which employs fully 80 
  percent of the nation's private work force, according to the United States 
  Bureau of Labor Statistics. Productivity is calculated as the ratio of 
  output per unit of work time. How do we measure value added in the 
  amorphous services sector?
  Very poorly, is the answer. The numerator of the productivity equation, 
  output, is hopelessly vague for services. For many years, government 
  statisticians have used worker compensation to approximate output in many 
  service industries, which makes little or no intuitive sense. The 
  denominator of the productivity equation  units of work time  is even 
  more spurious. Government data on work schedules are woefully out of touch 
  with reality  especially in America's largest occupational group, the 
  professional and managerial segments, which together account for 35 
  percent of the total work force.
  For example, in financial services, the Labor Department tells us that 
  the average workweek has been unchanged, at 35.5 hours, since 1988. That's 
  patently absurd. Courtesy of a profusion of portable information 
  appliances (laptops, cell phones, personal digital assistants, etc.), 
  along with near ubiquitous connectivity (hard-wired and now increasingly 
  wireless), most information workers can toil around the clock. The 
  official data don't come close to capturing this cultural shift.
  As a result, we are woefully underestimating the time actually spent on 
  the job. It follows, therefore, that we are equally guilty of 
  overestimating white-collar productivity. Productivity is not about 
  working longer. It's about getting more value from each unit of work time. 
  The official productivity numbers are, in effect, mistaking work time for 
  leisure time.
  This is not a sustainable outcome  for the American worker or the 
  American economy. To the extent productivity miracles are driven more by 
  perspiration than by inspiration, there are limits to gains in efficiency 
  based on sheer physical effort.
  The same is true for corporate America, where increased productivity is 
  now showing up on the bottom line in the form of increased profits. When 
  better earnings stem from cost cutting (and the jobless recovery that 
  engenders), there are limits to future improvements in productivity. 
  Strategies that rely primarily on cost cutting will lead eventually to 
  "hollow" companies  businesses that have been stripped bare of once 
  valuable labor. That's hardly the way to sustained prosperity.
  Many economists say that strong productivity growth goes hand in hand 
  with a jobless recovery. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the 
  1960's, both productivity and employment surged at an annual rate of close 
  to 3 percent. In the latter half of the 1990's, accelerating productivity 
  also coincided with rapid job creation.
  In fact, there is no precedent for sustained productivity enhancement 
  through downsizing. That would result in an increasingly barren economy 
  that will ultimately lose market share in an 

[Futurework] Unemployment

[Ed Weick]

Again, how do you ensure that you are measuring the 
same thing when the parameters are changing? Or, perhaps, for political 
expediency, you don't want to measure the same thing.

Ed






  
  
 
  
  
  November 30, 2003
  The Unemployment MythBy AUSTAN 
  GOOLSBEE
  


  
  HICAGO
  The government's announcement on Tuesday that the economy grew even 
  faster than expected makes the current "jobless recovery" even more 
  puzzling. To give some perspective, unemployment normally falls 
  significantly in such economic boom times. The last time growth was this 
  good, in 1983, unemployment fell 2.5 percentage points and another full 
  percentage point the next year. That's what happens in a typical recovery. 
  So why not this time? Because we have more to recover from than we've been 
  told.
  The reality is that we didn't have a mild recession. Jobs-wise, we had 
  a deep one. 
  The government reported that annual unemployment during this recession 
  peaked at only around 6 percent, compared with more than 7 percent in 1992 
  and more than 9 percent in 1982. But the unemployment rate has been low 
  only because government programs, especially Social Security disability, 
  have effectively been buying people off the unemployment rolls and 
  reclassifying them as "not in the labor force."
  In other words, the government has cooked the books. It has been a more 
  subtle manipulation than the one during the Reagan administration, when 
  people serving in the military were reclassified from "not in the labor 
  force" to "employed" in order to reduce the unemployment rate. 
  Nonetheless, the impact has been the same.
  Research by the economists David Autor at the Massachusetts Institute 
  of Technology and Mark Duggan at the University of Maryland shows that 
  once Congress began loosening the standards to qualify for disability 
  payments in the late 1980's and early 1990's, people who would normally be 
  counted as unemployed started moving in record numbers into the disability 
  system  a kind of invisible unemployment. Almost all of the increase came 
  from hard-to-verify disabilities like back pain and mental disorders. As 
  the rolls swelled, the meaning of the official unemployment rate changed 
  as millions of people were left out. 
  By the end of the 1990's boom, this invisible unemployment seemed to 
  have stabilized. With the arrival of this recession, it has exploded. From 
  1999 to 2003, applications for disability payments rose more than 50 
  percent and the number of people enrolled has grown by one million. 
  Therefore, if you correctly accounted for all of these people, the peak 
  unemployment rate in this recession would have probably pushed 8 percent. 
  
  The point is not whether every person on disability deserves payments. 
  The point is that in previous recessions these people would have been 
  called unemployed. They would have filed for unemployment insurance. They 
  would have shown up in the statistics. They would have helped create a 
  more accurate picture of national unemployment, a crucial barometer we use 
  to measure the performance of the economy, the likelihood of inflation and 
  the state of the job market.
  Unfortunately, underreporting unemployment has served the interests of 
  both political parties. Democrats were able to claim unemployment fell in 
  the 1990's to the lowest level in 40 years, happy to ignore the invisible 
  unemployed. Republicans have eagerly embraced the view that the recession 
  of 2001 was the mildest on record. 
  The situation has grown so dire, though, that we can't even tell 
  whether the job market is recovering. The time has come to correct the 
  official unemployment statistics to account for those left out. The 
  government agencies that can give us a more detailed and accurate picture 
  of the nation's employment situation  the Census, the Bureau of Labor 
  Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis  need additional funds and 
  resources from Congress to do their jobs. 
  Otherwise, announcements about a rebounding economy will continue to 
  show only half the picture. Take the revised numbers released by the 
  Commerce Department on Tuesday. They showed that output in the third 
  quarter grew at a rate of 8.2 percent, an extraordinary pace, and 
  productivity grew even faster. Almost no one noted, though, that Social 
  Security also announced the latest data on disability applications. Almost 
  200,000 people applied in October  up 20 percent from the previous month 
   tying the highest level ever. Despite the blistering growth of the 
  economy, the invisible 

Re: [Futurework] Death of a Consumer

[Ed Weick]

I attended a talk by Canadian economist John Helliwell on the development of 
subjective well being indices last Thursday. If economists, sociologists, 
statisticians or whoever else might work on them were able to develop a 
reputable index of this kind (a happiness index), its main components, judging 
by what Helliwell said, would include things like belonging to a community and 
church (or other religious organization), the stability of the institutions one 
relies on, having family and friends, having a sufficient income, and being able 
to achieve approximately what one expects in life. It would not include SUVs or 
being snowed under by presents you may not really need or want at Christmas.
Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 2:20 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] Death of a 
  Consumer
  
  It 
  really is sad. The news casts are all about "will this be a successful 
  shopping season" "Is it cold enough (too cold) for consumers to 
  shop" Recently one upbeat bizz talk analyst was putting her money on 
  "self gifting" ie., buying stuff for yourself. That this trend toward self 
  indulgence should boost holiday sales.
  
  If I 
  were a Christian I would be joiningthe "Put Christ back in Christmas 
  movement"
  
  Re: 
  X-mas, Keith. Be brave and take a stand. Give your grand-daughters 
  a hug and a kiss and forget about buying into the declining and obscene 
  consumer culture.
  
  arthur
  
-Original Message-From: Keith Hudson 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 
4:11 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
[Futurework] Death of a ConsumerIn Arthur 
Miller's famous play, Death of a Salesman (1947) he described the end 
of the 'American Dream' -- that if any individual worked hard enough he 
could achieve success. In the tragedy that overcame his chief character, 
Willie Loman, Miller dramatised the demise of the old-fashioned virtues of 
hard work. On the other hand, millions of real-life equivalents of Willie 
Loman did, in fact, achieve all the trappings of success that Willie Loman 
believed in during the 1960s and 70s -- a house and car and all the rest of 
the usual consumer delights. This was achieved not so much by hard work by 
the ordinary worker but because they were fortunate enough to be employed in 
the growing number of large manufacturing and retailing industries that 
became more efficient from year to year and, very importantly, buoyed up by 
the increasing quantities of oil coming from abroad -- becoming cheaper from 
year to year.But now there are more than a few signs that the 
consumer revolution is coming to an end. There are, of course, 
millions of people in America and other developed countries who have not yet 
caught up with that broad segment of the better-off industrial workers and 
the middle class and they, paradoxically, are having to work quite as hard 
as the fictional Willie Loman ever did -- even more so, perhaps, and many 
millions have also given up in despair, destroying themselves with drugs 
rather than alcohol. But the steam seems to have gone out of the whole 
process that has been so powerful in the post-World War II years. Despite 
the apparent surge of growth in America in the last quarter, most thoughtful 
economists and journalists are very anxious. They fear that this might not 
continue, many of them noting that most consumers have huge credit card 
debts which will have to be paid off sometime before they will regain 
undisputed spending power -- real credit -- on which sustainable growth can 
depend.I really do not know what to buy my grand-daughters for their 
Xmas presents. Their parents are not rich, but their children already have 
everything that I could think of. I should only be buying items for them 
that they already receive week-to-week or month-to-month anyway. Then again, 
among the trend-setting middle class, where are the major consumer items 
(what I'm calling status goods) that drove the economic machine all through 
the last century? Once again, there is little else that they can buy that 
are the equivalents of the car, TV and so forth which, in the last century 
were major items of expenditure when they were new. Today, the same middle 
class don't have any more time for anything similar, even if such magical 
new goods existed. They can only re-establish their status in society by 
buying things which don't require more time -- re-modelling their bathrooms 
and kitchens according to the latest fashions, for example, even though they 
are already perfectly practical. Another current example is the buying of 
SUVs instead of the family car. When and if SUVs become too widespread 
there'll be another 

Re: Thoughts on IQ scores (was Re: [Futurework] Talmud vs. Science (or Censorship thereof)

[Ed Weick]

Great stuff and a good debate, Keith, but I don't think 
we can come together on this. As good Talmudic scholars or whatever, we 
should now go our separate ways. As I'm sure you've gathered, my own view 
is that manifest intelligence depends very much on what people have to do, how 
many of them there are, and what they have to work with. I keep thinking 
of the poor Tasmanians Jared Diamond describes in "Guns, Germs and Steel", cut 
off completely from any cultural diffusion, down to some 4,000 people at the 
time of European contact and having lost pretty well all of the skills they had 
when they were cut off from the Australian mainland some 10,000 years ago. 
I doubt very much that they would have done well on the Stanford 
Binet.They were easily wiped out by Europeans, mostly convicts from 
Britain.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Keith 
  Hudson 
  To: Ed Weick 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 2:49 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Thoughts on IQ scores (was 
  Re: [Futurework] Talmud vs. Science (or Censorship thereof)
  Ed,This is becoming as complicated as two 
  Talmudic scholars arguing against each other -- except that, in older days, 
  the exchanges would be months apart. With this new device, we have the chance 
  of solving the world's problems in double-quick time. I'll extract pretty 
  drastically, whatever the colours, in what follows:At 16:51 
  27/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
  Keith, 
what I'm referring to is the migration of Jews eastward from Western Europe 
because of persecutions and expulsions (see: http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/christiansjews.htm 
). These migrations would have begun in, probably, the 12th Century 
and would have continued to about the 15th Century. Jews from Europe 
would have moved as far east as eastern Poland and the Ukraine. The 
Khazars ceased to exist as a distinct people in about the 11th or 12th 
Centuries, and one has to wonder what happened to them. They may have 
been aware of the movement of Jews into eastern Europe, and might have 
tried, perhaps succeeded, in making contact and merging with them. I 
have a friend of Jewish ancestry whose father came from Saratov in the 
Ukraine. While he doesn't think he has Khazar connections, he doesn't 
dismiss the possiblity. That's where I'll have to leave the matter for 
the moment.What I was saying (without expert knowledge 
  of all this) is that large scale migration didn't occur until the 14th century 
  when the King of Poland, impressed by their mercantile abilities, invited them 
  to Poland in order to raise the economic tone of the place. Of course, the 
  Khazar nation might also have been the result of a mass migration from the 
  Middle East also. Or it could have been a collection point from pockets of 
  Jews all over the Medierranean area.But let me just diverge for a 
  point. There seems to be great similarities between Jews and Chinese. Firstly 
  in their respect for scholarship (set within a highly definied Confucian 
  culture) and secondly in their highly family-based society (itself set in a 
  highly self-conscious culture). The result, I suggest, is that both cultures 
  encouraged the migration of individual (or single-family) Chinese and Jews 
  when their homeland fell on hard times. They had this enterprise because they 
  were bright -- and they had the psychological strength of knowing that they 
  were still connected to a highly defined culturfe even though they may be far 
  distant. Small groups of Jews seem to have migrated all over Eurasia from 
  about 500BC and onwards. Chinese migration seems to have occurred a lot later 
  -- from about 1450 when China started descending into hard times due to the 
  edicts against direct trade from China. In both cases in modern times, 
  poc`kets of Chinese and Jews seem to be found in every city and sizeable town 
  in the world -- wherever there's a possibility of a business. I think this is 
  quite remarkable in the case of both of these groups.(EW) 
  thinking about numbers and other abstract 
  concepts, others may have to think about getting out to the potato field or 
  cotton patch as fast as they can if they want to live another year. The 
  former would probably do very well on standardized IQ tests while the latter 
  would likely fail.
  Keith: Yes, I sympathise with 
your point but will the future of manking depends upon our skills in growing 
potatoes or at other things? If it's other things, then IQ scores are 
probably the best method yet of selecting people who perform them well.I'm 
afraid I find this a little too close to social Darwinism for 
  comfort.For myself, I abjure these sorts of labels. 
  "Social Darwinism" as originally conceived is rightly to be dead and buried. 
  Bringing that label back into modern circumstances -- particularly in the 
  context of a much more detailed k

Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage

[Ed Weick]

I find this a little strange. Don't all lives end 
in death? And in the case of marriages, surely they end when one spouse 
dies unless they've already ended in divorce. Or am I missing 
something?

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lawrence 
  DeBivort 
  To: Harry Pollard ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 8:58 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's 
  impossible problem of same-sex marriage
  
  I 
  did some research -- the numbers are available if you are willing to really 
  look for them -- and the news is really a lot worse. The simple truth is that 
  most lives end in death, I calculate about 98%, plus or minus 4%. This is 
  based on careful sampling, and, though it may seem counter-intuitive, seems to 
  be true of all cultures. Also, I found out that Eskimos have many words 
  for death, if you include euphemisms.
  
  There is also some research that suggests that if enough people die, 
  then more will die -- a sort of 100th Monkey effect.
  
  Cheers,
  Lawry
  
-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Harry 
PollardSent: Thu, November 27, 2003 3:14 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: 
[Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex 
marriage
Bill,

Good!

What I was reacting to - as you know - is the 
deliberate attack on marriage as a sometime thing. Marriages and divorces in 
a year are supposed to show that marriage is on the 
rocks.

You seem to adopt my attitude. When in doubt, 
count.

Since you came in to the discussion so well, I 
think I am going to broadcast the appalling statistic that half of all 
marriages end in death!

That should stop people from getting 
married.

Harry

 Henry George School of Social 
Science of Los 
Angeles Box 
655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 
352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
  



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:45 
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
[Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex 
marriage



Harry, you are correct if you consider ever divorced, viz:

Young Adults Were Postponing 
Marriage
_
The proportion of 
divorced persons increased markedly at
the national level 
in recent decades, but the increases were
not the same for 
all areas of the country. In fact, by 1990,
sharp regional and 
State differences were noted in the
prevalence of 
divorce (see map).
_
One measure often 
used to highlight the differences in the
level of divorce is 
the divorce ratio, defined as the number
of divorced persons 
per 1,000 married persons living with
their 
spouse.
_
The West had the 
highest divorce ratio of any region
in 1990, with 182 
divorced persons per 1,000 persons
in intact 
marriages. In contrast, the Northeast had the
lowest ratio (130 
per 1,000). The ratios for the South and
Midwest were 156 
and 151, respectively.
_
Not surprisingly, 
Nevada led the States in 1990 with the
highest divorce 
ratio (268 per 1,000), more than double
the ratio for North Dakota (101), with the 
lowest.

If you divide all divorces by all marriages, you get a higher figure. 
I'm looking for that.

Bill


---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.541 / Virus 
Database: 335 - Release Date: 
11/14/2003

Re: Thoughts on IQ scores (was Re: [Futurework] Talmud vs. Science (or Censorship thereof)

[Ed Weick]

Keith, just one more last word, if that's OK. I 
found the following in a book I quoted previously, Bjorklund and Pellegrini, 
"The Origins of Human Nature", published by the American Psychological 
Association in 2002:

  
  results of the transracial adoption study of Scarr and 
  Weinberg (1976; Weinberg, Scarr,  Waldman, 1992). Black children born 
  primarily of parents from lower-income homes were adopted by White, primarily 
  upper-middle-class parents. The average IQ of the adopted children who were 
  placed in middle-income homes as infants was found to be 110, 20 points higher 
  than the average IQ of comparable children being reared in the local Black 
  community and similar to the estimated IQs of their adopted parents. This 
  effect is consistent with the position that genes associated with IQ are 
  expressed differently in different environments, yielding substantially 
  different phenotypes. (p.81)
The authors then go on to argue that both genetic 
and environmental factors are important in determining IQ. To me this 
suggests that taking the peasants out of the potato patch or the slaves out of 
the cotton field and sending them to school has a large effect for human 
betterment.
Ever so much depends on what people do with their 
IQs, or perhaps more accurately, how important IQ is to determining what an 
individual mind is capable of. I recall reading that an American woman 
with a phenomenal IQ, over 200, has a job answering mail for a fashion magazing, 
that an Americanman who recorded another very high IQhas become a 
middle-aged bouncer, and that yet another became a biker. On the other 
hand, a brilliant physicist, Richard Feyman I believe (?), did no better than a 
little over 120 when he was growing up. This suggests that there is far 
more to the mind than intelligence, whatever that is.
Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Keith 
  Hudson 
  To: Ed Weick 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 6:43 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Thoughts on IQ scores (was 
  Re: [Futurework] Talmud vs. Science (or Censorship thereof)
  Ed,Ah! I must have the last word 
  (unless you think otherwise):At 06:28 28/11/2003 -0500, you 
  wrote:
  Great 
stuff and a good debate, Keith, but I don't think we can come together on 
this. As good Talmudic scholars or whatever, we should now go our 
separate ways. As I'm sure you've gathered, my own view is that 
manifest intelligence depends very much on what people have to do, how many 
of them there are, and what they have to work with. I keep thinking of 
the poor Tasmanians Jared Diamond describes in "Guns, Germs and Steel", cut 
off completely from any cultural diffusion, down to some 4,000 people at the 
time of European contact and having lost pretty well all of the skills they 
had when they were cut off from the Australian mainland some 10,000 years 
ago. I doubt very much that they would have done well on the Stanford 
Binet. They were easily wiped out by Europeans, mostly convicts from 
Britain.You're quite right. The aboriginal Tasmanians 
  wouldn't have done well on a Stanford Binet IQ test. *But* they probably would 
  have done quite well -- perhaps very well -- on a perception-reaction time 
  test. This is known to be highly correlated with IQ scores on standard IQ 
  tests -- that is, in those cultures where the people are able to read, 
  understand basic numbers, etc. I venture to think that the Tasmanians 
  might have done quite well on a culture-free test (using pictures only). In my 
  book, this means that their rear cortices would be quite well stocked and 
  networked as regards perception-based skills based on the environment around 
  them. *But*, because of the primitive level of skills/culture handed down to 
  them there would be little or no cultural 'set', nothing to carry forward, 
  into their post-puberty world as their frontal lobes developed and in which 
  they would establish outward signs of rank order (embellishing themselves in 
  various ways as almost all societies do), make new discoveries, etc, 
  etc.Keith 
  Ed 

  - Original Message - 
  From: Keith Hudson 
  
  To: Ed Weick 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 2:49 AM
  Subject: Re: Thoughts on IQ scores (was Re: [Futurework] Talmud 
  vs. Science (or Censorship thereof)
  Ed,
  This is becoming as complicated as two Talmudic scholars arguing 
  against each other -- except that, in older days, the exchanges would be 
  months apart. With this new device, we have the chance of solving the 
  world's problems in double-quick time. I'll extract pretty drastically, 
  whatever the colours, in what follows:
  At 16:51 27/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
  
  
Keith, what I'm referring to is the 
migration of Jews eastward from We

Re: [Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex marriage

[Ed Weick]

Sarcasm Ed. I 
thought Lawry was funny. 
REH 

My problem is that I get entirely to serious at times, 
and perhaps with good reason - I'm in my early 70s and when anyone suggests the 
possibility of avoiding death, I sit up and take notice.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ray Evans Harrell 
  
  To: Ed Weick ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Harry Pollard ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 10:36 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's 
  impossible problem of same-sex marriage
  
  Sarcasm Ed. I thought Lawry was 
  funny. 
  REH 
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Ed Weick 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Harry Pollard ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 6:34 
AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Bush's 
impossible problem of same-sex marriage

I find this a little strange. Don't all lives 
end in death? And in the case of marriages, surely they end when one 
spouse dies unless they've already ended in divorce. Or am I missing 
something?

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lawrence DeBivort 
  To: Harry Pollard ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 
  8:58 PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] Bush's 
  impossible problem of same-sex marriage
  
  I did some research -- the numbers are available if you are willing 
  to really look for them -- and the news is really a lot worse. The simple 
  truth is that most lives end in death, I calculate about 98%, plus or 
  minus 4%. This is based on careful sampling, and, though it may seem 
  counter-intuitive, seems to be true of all cultures. Also, I found 
  out that Eskimos have many words for death, if you include 
  euphemisms.
  
  There is also some research that suggests that if enough people 
  die, then more will die -- a sort of 100th Monkey 
  effect.
  
  Cheers,
  Lawry
  
-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Harry 
PollardSent: Thu, November 27, 2003 3:14 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: 
[Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex 
marriage
Bill,

Good!

What I was reacting to - as you know - is the 
deliberate attack on marriage as a sometime thing. Marriages and 
divorces in a year are supposed to show that marriage is on the 
rocks.

You seem to adopt my attitude. When in doubt, 
count.

Since you came in to the discussion so well, I 
think I am going to broadcast the appalling statistic that half of all 
marriages end in death!

That should stop people from getting 
married.

Harry

 
Henry George School of 
Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 
Tel: 818 
352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
  



From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:45 
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
[Futurework] Bush's impossible problem of same-sex 
marriage



Harry, you are correct if you consider ever divorced, viz:

Young Adults Were Postponing 
Marriage
_
The proportion 
of divorced persons increased markedly at
the national 
level in recent decades, but the increases 
were
not the same 
for all areas of the country. In fact, by 
1990,
sharp regional 
and State differences were noted in the
prevalence of 
divorce (see map).
_
One measure 
often used to highlight the differences in 
the
level of 
divorce is the divorce ratio, defined as the 
number
of divorced 
persons per 1,000 married persons living 
with
their 
spouse.
_
The West had 
the highest divorce ratio of any region
in 1990, with 
182 divorced persons per 1,000 persons
in intact 
marriages. In contrast, the Northeast had 
the
lowest ratio 
(130 per 1,000). The ratios for the South 
and
Midwest were 
156 and 151, respectively.
_
Not 
surprisingly, Nevada led the States in 1990 with 
the
highest divorce 
ratio (268 per 1,000), more than double
the ratio

Re: Thoughts on IQ scores (was Re: [Futurework] Talmud vs. Science (or Censorship thereof)

[Ed Weick]

A few comments, Ray.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ray Evans Harrell 
  
  To: Ed Weick ; Keith Hudson 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 10:35 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Thoughts on IQ scores (was 
  Re: [Futurework] Talmud vs. Science (or Censorship thereof)
  
  Why would you think convicts from Britain would 
  know anything about the people they destroy? Especially if they couldn't 
  speak the language. Would you trust an American soldier in the 
  second world war to describe the culture of the Japanese or even the 
  Germans? Perhaps you should see the movie about the 
  interrogation of Wilhelm Furtwangler after the war if you don't understand of 
  what I speak. The winners are often the ones who are the least 
  sophisticated. Then some academic comes along years later and uses 
  them or someone like Anne Coulter who has a political agenda revises history 
  about people like Senator McCarthy even when his abuses are well documented in 
  the society. My education gave me a healthy skepticism about such 
  things as did my family about "tests."
  
  The British convicts didn't just destroy, they did it 
  in the most brutal of all possible ways. They are alleged to have done things 
  like dash kids' brains out, cut bodies up for dog meat,hunt people from 
  horesback, tie people to trees and use them for target practice, andset 
  steel traps and poison food out for them. Of course all of this happened 
  very far away, at the ends of the earth, so it would not have got much 
  attention at the time. Even if it had, so what, the Tasmanians were 
  regarded as animals, nothing more.
  
  I've heard stupid folks in the midwest say that 
  Indian people had languages of just a few words and that they didn't speak 
  much English either. (a single Cherokee verbcan 
  havethousands ofvariants and the language is verb 
  rich.) But the ignorant folks thought theywere stupid 
  because they were in a lower class and therefore hadfifteen or twenty 
  word total vocabularies. I would also point out that stupidity 
  amongst the wealthy intellectuals is just as hard to eradicate as amongst the 
  other classes. Note that it was Princeton graduates that had 
  the highest rate of prejudice in businessagainst minorities of any 
  University inAmerica a few years back and Jack Kennedies academics gave 
  usVietnam. Reminds one of the roots of the word 
  "barbarism." It came from the super "intelligent" 
  Greeks.
  
  I know a little about the richness of aboriginal 
  American languages. I also know about the tragedy. In northern 
  Canada, languages which have been spoken for thousands of years are dieing out 
  (have died out for all practical purposes) because nobody uses them any 
  more. The Athabaskan languages (Navajo, Apache, and the various northern 
  Dene languages) are still formally known as the Athabaskan-Eyak 
  languages. Try to find and speakers of an Eyak language 
now.
  
  But how can we make such a mistake in the 21st 
  century. Thatcould constitute proof in itself of a lack of 
  progress in human thought across the millennia. But that is nonsense as 
  well.Children can learn prejudice in a generation and 
  ignorance isthe beginning of every human individual. If they 
  write or some academic listens to them and sticks it in his paper then we have 
  prejudice and ignorance codified as knowledge. I prefer the Aztec 
  solution to such things. If a person represented themselves as 
  Tlamatanime (an educated person) and they weren't, it was a capital offense 
  for education was the future of the nation. They toowere 
  brutal, intelligent and stupid about the emotional life of people with so much 
  blood on their hands but they were not good at tolerating nonsense that hurt 
  their own for short term gains. Physical tools are often refined 
  or done away with when language becomes extremely complex. 
  For example the Chinese who tied their hands and feet were not very good tool 
  users but they wereerudite and rich and could make others do it for 
  them. This is the perfect example of Harry's "people doing what 
  they need with the least effort." But Keith's need for novelty 
  always kicks in and people develop their minds according to the 
  necessities. I believe that it is more an issue of 
  complexity.
  
  Nothing is complexif you learn how to do 
  it. Complexity diminishes in the first generation after newborns 
  come if they are taught. What happened in Russiaunder the 
  Communistsand with your ancestors can be explained just as well by the 
  studies of educational psychologists too numerous to mention, but you could 
  start with Piaget. That does not mean that I believe that 
  psycho-metric research is unimportant. My father's doctor's degree 
  was in psycho-metricsand I found that their tests were both 
  self-limiting and that they had an investment over time in proving that

Re: [Futurework] Talmud vs. Science (or Censorship thereof)

[Ed Weick]

Keith, a couple of points. One is about the 
influence of the Khazars on the Ashkenazic population of eastern and central 
Europe. As you know, the Khazars were a Turkic people in the southern 
Ukraine who converted to Judaism in about the 7th Century. Apparently, 
theyused Jewish personal names, spoke and wrote in Hebrew, were 
circumcised, had synagogues and rabbis, studied the Torah and Talmud, and 
observed Hanukkah, Pesach, and the Sabbath. They have been described asan 
advanced civilization with one of the most tolerant societies of the medieval 
period. By about the 11th or 12th Centuries, they seem to have 
disappeared, and nothing I've read suggests that scholars are quite sure of what 
happened to them. I've often wondered if they might have blended 
intomigrant Jewish populations from the west.

The other point concerns your use of IQ as something 
that tends to be relatively fixed for particular ethnic or 
racialgroups. Thus diaspora Chinese typically have IQs of 106, 
Ashkenazic Jews typically 110 to 115 and Middle Eastern Jews 90. I've 
never seen anyone use as vague a concept as IQ with such certainty, and, in 
fact, anything I've read on intelligence in general suggests that it is a very 
illusive concept. How people think must surely depend greatly on what they 
have tothink about. While some people do much of their thinking 
about numbers and other abstract concepts, others may have to think about 
getting out to the potato field or cotton patch as fast as they can if they want 
to live another year. The former would probably do very well on 
standardized IQ tests while the latter would likely fail. 

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Keith 
  Hudson 
  To: Christoph Reuss 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 2:54 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] Talmud vs. 
  Science (or Censorship thereof)
  Very interesting. It's been thought for some time 
  that Middle East Jews, Palestinians and other ethnic groups in that region had 
  very similar genes (from interbreeding over centuries/millenia), and these 
  studies are further evidence. It's the Ashkenazi Jews who seemed to have 
  changed significantly by inbreeding from about 1400 onwards in central Europe. 
  This has not been "excessive" inbreeding by any tendentious use of the term, 
  but it has certainly meant that their IQ scores are significantly higher 
  (about 110-115) compared with Middle-Eastern born Jews (IQ scores about 90), 
  and also that the former have acquired fairly high levels of a few harmful 
  genes, such as Tay-Sachs. (I would infer from the original paper talked about 
  in the Guardian article below, that Middle-East-born Jews don't have any 
  pronounced tendency to Tay-Sachs.) I'm now inclined to think that 
  Steven Pinker went too far in stressing the genetic contribution to ability in 
  The Blank Slate. The several hundred genes that are involved in the 
  formation and development of the human brain are indeed important and I 
  wouldn't quarrel with the "70-80% contribution" as being a rough-and-ready 
  description when thinking of the abilities required in modern industrial 
  society. But what is being increasingly realised from neurological research is 
  the considerable shaping effect that takes place in the rear cortex during the 
  very earliest years of childhood (that is, the death of millions of brain 
  cells which are not used in the immediate environment and the subsequent 
  networks that are left). This is something that schools can't really 
  influence. Some recent studies in England suggest that young middle-class 
  children of low-to-moderate ability at 4/5 years age are already starting to 
  pull away in performance from 'working'-class children of moderate-to-high 
  ability. By the age of 10/11 the difference is considerable. There appears to 
  be a very strong two-away effect going on between the 'basic brain kit' that 
  the genes contribute to the new born child and the 'basic kit' (of the fairly 
  fully-developed rear cortex) that the child is left with at puberty -- as the 
  individual starts his long march to fairly full brain maturation (by the 
  subsequent full development of the frontal lobes in which brain cells continue 
  to be formed) at 25 or so. The "scholastic" or "informational" shaping effect 
  of Ashkenazi Jews in their very earliest years of life therefore seems to more 
  fully potentiate the original genetic inheritance -- and was then shaped even 
  further by the tradition of arranged marriages, preferentially directed by 
  parents towards males of obvious intellectual ability. The effect of this 
  between about 1400 and 1870 (when large-scale emigration of Ashkenazi Jews to 
  western Europe and America started occurring -- thus exposing their relative 
  high ability to a wider world) has obviously been considerable and is further 
  supportive evidence of the realisation of evolutionary biologists from 

Re: Thoughts on IQ scores (was Re: [Futurework] Talmud vs. Science (or Censorship thereof)

[Ed Weick]

:

  “Recently Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen have 
  presented evidence that differences in national IQ account for the substantial 
  variation in national per capita income and growth. This article challenges 
  these findings and claims that, on the one hand, they simply reflect 
  inappropriate use and interpretations of statistical instruments. On the other 
  hand, it is argued that the models presented by Lynn/Vanhanen are 
  under-complex and inadequately specified. More precisely the authors confuse 
  IQ with human capital. The paper concludes that once control variables are 
  introduced and the models are adequately specified, neither an impact of IQ on 
  income nor on growth can be substantiated.”
I simply don't accept the Lynn and Vanhalen 
thesis. Applying a single standardized test to a large, economically and 
culturally diverse, variety of peoples does not make much sense to me. 
Ever so many factors enter into human productivity and development, especially, 
as the foregoing points out, the development of human capital. At the most 
basic level, however, if people are treated like dogs and forced to live like 
dogs, they will behave like dogs. If they are treated like human beings, 
they will behave fully human.

Ed


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Keith 
  Hudson 
  To: Ed Weick 
  Cc: Christoph Reuss ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 2:19 
  PM
  Subject: Thoughts on IQ scores (was Re: 
  [Futurework] Talmud vs. Science (or Censorship thereof)
  Ed,At 07:55 27/11/2003 -0500, you 
  wrote:
  Keith, 
a couple of points. One is about the influence of the Khazars on the 
Ashkenazic population of eastern and central Europe. As you know, the 
Khazars were a Turkic people in the southern Ukraine who converted to 
Judaism in about the 7th Century. Apparently, they used Jewish 
personal names, spoke and wrote in Hebrew, were circumcised, had synagogues 
and rabbis, studied the Torah and Talmud, and observed Hanukkah, Pesach, and 
the Sabbath. They have been described as an advanced civilization with one 
of the most tolerant societies of the medieval period. By about the 
11th or 12th Centuries, they seem to have disappeared, and nothing I've read 
suggests that scholars are quite sure of what happened to them. I've 
often wondered if they might have blended into migrant Jewish populations 
from the west.I'm puzzled about these people, too. I 
  don't understand by what you mean in the last sentence. As I understand it, 
  there were only isolated pockets of Jews to the west in those days -- though I 
  might be mistaken.
  The 
other point concerns your use of IQ as something that tends to be relatively 
fixed for particular ethnic or racial groups. Thus diaspora Chinese 
typically have IQs of 106, Ashkenazic Jews typically 110 to 115 and Middle 
Eastern Jews 90. I've never seen anyone use as vague a concept as IQ 
with such certainty, and, in fact, anything I've read on intelligence in 
general suggests that it is a very illusive 
  concept.The numbers are pretty reliable -- they're the 
  results of many tests. (Summarised in IQ and the Wealth of Nations by 
  Lynn and Vanhhanen. IQ scores don't have absolute value but there's a high 
  correlation between the main varieties of tests and results are consistent 
  when subjects are re-tested. All high IQ people don't necessarily become 
  successful in material or creative terms, but all highly accomplished people 
  in the arts or sciences (except perhaps a few idiots savants) score 
  highly on IQ tests.
   
How people think must surely depend greatly on what they have to think 
about. While some people do much of their thinking about numbers and 
other abstract concepts, others may have to think about getting out to the 
potato field or cotton patch as fast as they can if they want to live 
another year. The former would probably do very well on standardized 
IQ tests while the latter would likely fail.Yes, I 
  sympathise with your point but will the future of manking depends upon our 
  skills in growing potatoes or at other things? If it's other things, then IQ 
  scores are probably the best method yet of selecting people who perform them 
  well.Keith
  

  - Original Message - 
  From: Keith Hudson 
  
  To: Christoph Reuss 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 2:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] Talmud vs. Science (or Censorship 
  thereof)
  Very interesting. It's been thought for some time that Middle East 
  Jews, Palestinians and other ethnic groups in that region had very similar 
  genes (from interbreeding over centuries/millenia), and these studies are 
  further evidence. It's the Ashkenazi Jews who seemed to have changed 
  significantly by inbreeding from about 1400 onwards in central Europe

[Futurework] Fw: [ow-watch-l] Sunset of the Sally Ann

[Ed Weick]

From another list. It seems that even God isn't 
safe from the neo-cons.

Ed



 ---  
http://www.kootenaycuts.com/archive/?5380  Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:31:18 -0700 From: 
moe [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: [KCUTS] Sunset of the Sally Ann  http://www.rabble.ca 
 Sunset of the Sally Ann  Donations to the Sally Ann 
have dwindled, and the Army is closing many doors on the destitute all 
over. Sally Ann blames the economy.  by Susanne Shaw 
 August 18, 2003  Since 1865, the Salvation Army has 
championed the downtrodden and saved countless lives. The beloved "Sally 
Ann" evokes universal respect for its good works, from funding 
hospitals, to providing the down-and-out with cheap clothing, a hot 
meal, a clean bed and a message of Hope for a Better Next Life. 
 Sally Ann is the largest social service network in Canada, after 
the Canadian government. No wonder it has been the charity of choice for 
so many!  Until now.  Donations to the 
Sally Ann have dwindled, and the Army is closing many doors on the 
destitute all over.  Sally Ann blames "the economy" but Sally's 
birthplace, Victorian Whitechapel, wasn't rolling in dough, either. So 
what's the problem?  The research is dismaying. The Salvation 
Army is a multinational organization. Its Canada-Bermuda division alone 
owns $1.13 billion in assets, $400 million in investments and $237 
million in revenues exceeding its spending by $18 million. 
 Sally Ann even opened on the Nasdaq last summer - pictures and all 
- hardly the activity expected of a charity crying for cash. 
 Sally Ann doesn't seem to be hurting, so why is its Sunset Lodge 
in Esquimalt, B.C. being privatized? The lodge is operated by the 
Salvation Army and funded by the Vancouver Island Health 
Authority.  The residents of Sunset Lodge suffer from dementia 
and other disabilities. Incontinence is common; violence, occasional. 
Caretaking is challenging, for the residents have limited mobility. The 
work is heavy, sometimes nauseating and dangerous. Workers must follow 
stringent sterilisation procedures, often using carcinogenic cleaning 
aids.  Nevertheless, the unionized workers (HEU, BCNU and HSA) 
loved their jobs and their residents. Many of them were single moms, 
needing those union wages - especially in pricey Victoria. 
 When the employees learned that the Lodge was $200,000 in debt, 
they immediately brainstormed and found $202,000 in savings. But 
Executive Director Blake Mooney claimed the debt was actually higher. 
Employees found more savings, $221,000, only to find the debt had 
magically climbed again.  Alas, Mooney was after the 
Unholy Grail: privatization. Employees? jobs were to be sacrificed on 
the altar of profit-making, never mind debt-reduction.  
He told some of the employees they would be allowed to apply for their 
former jobs - at about half their present wages and no pensions - with 
Compass, a U.K.-based, for-profit multinational corporation that was to 
manage such support services as food service and housekeeping in the 
future.  Sunset Lodge dietary workers, for example, previously 
paid more than $17.00 an hour were told they'll be earning $9.25 as 
Compass employees.  Hirees were also required to join IWA-1 
3567, a union that enjoys no respect from the legitimate trade union 
movement, as it has been seen to negiotiate a race-to-the bottom deal 
for its members. Sunset Lodge workers were distraught, believing they 
had served the Army well. Sally Ann had received many donations from 
families, grateful for the tender care their loved ones received over 
the years.  Besides, paying workers poorly could not possibly 
improve care, and paupers could not afford courses or books to keep 
themselves current. Workers also wondered why Mooney's job or salary was 
not cut.  Sunset employees approached the top Salvation Army 
brass with their concerns, begging them to retain management of the 
facility and revert to having its Majors onsite to do so. 
 The brass deferred to Mooney, who had once said to MLAs, "We need to 
focus more on letting the market drive the value of our health 
employees, rather than letting the collective agreements drive 
them..."  In effect, Sally Ann's workers were "commodities", 
subject to ruthless marketplace-driven economic idiocy. Although the 
workers had contracts guaranteeing decent wages, Premier Gordon 
Campbell's Bill 29 vapourized them and the unions at the lodge were 
busted.  No effective appeal was possible. Campbell appointed a 
CLAC member to the B.C. Labour Relations Board. CLAC (Christian Labour 
Association of Canada) is criticized by most trade unions for its 
reluctance to keep up standards for wages and benefits, and for its 
refusal to use labour's traditional strengths to protect workers' 
rights. Eventually, Sally Ann's soul, its Lodge and its residents were 
transferred to Compass.  Army Divisional Commander Lt.-Col. 
Copple promised, "Any departing employee will be treated fairly and 

[Futurework] Fw: [ow-watch-l] The B.C. child labour law

[Ed Weick]

More from another list. It seems the kids aren't 
safe from the neo-cons either. By way of explanation, with the demise of 
the Tories in Ontario, the government of British Columbia is probably the most 
pro-business among Canadian provinces. It would privatize your grandmother 
if there was a way of doing it.

Ed




 http://www.learningchannel.org/external/?url="">  The B.C. child labour law by Mark 
Thompson   The government recently introduced 
amendments to the Employment Standards Act that effectively lower the 
minimum age for employment from 15 to 12 years.  
 The act currently forbids employment of children under the 
age of 15 without the permission of the director of the Employment 
Standards Branch. The director sets the conditions of employment for 
each child, including the consent of the child's parent and school if 
work is during the school year, hours of work, and other conditions 
of employment. Special and very protective regulations exist for 
child performers in the film and television industries. A handful 
of individual employers also have closely controlled permits to 
hire children. In 2001, approximately 400 child-labour permits were 
issued, about 50 for work at the Pacific National Exhibition. 
  The government proposes to permit any child between 
12 and 15 years of age to work with the consent of his or her parent. 
The director may establish conditions for employment of children for 
industries or classes of industries, thereby removing the individual 
attention to the child. The Employment Standards Act is enforced through 
a complaint, followed by an investigation. The number of staff 
to receive and investigate complaints is being reduced by 40%, 
further undermining the protection of children.  
 The amendments will allow employers to employ children under 
15 years of age with only limited supervision. The government has 
presented no rationale to justify its regressive policy, other than 
"cutting red tape."   The proposed 
changes dishonour Canada. Since the 1990s, this country has been an 
international leader in efforts to ban child labour in less-developed 
regions of the world. Only last year, the United Nations dedicated a 
special session to children, highlighting the dangers of child labour. 
Non-governmental organizations are urging Canadian companies to refuse 
to purchase goods made by children overseas. Should they impose boycotts 
on British Columbia products made by children?  
 Any parent or teacher knows that children are vulnerable when 
they enter the labour market. They seldom know their legal rights, and 
they have few skills to command a high wage. They face special 
hazards. Children do not have the attention span adults do, and they 
risk accident or injury at work sites designed for adults. The lure 
of income may cause them to neglect their education. When children 
under 15 are employed, they compete with older teenagers or young adults 
who are attempting to gain job skills and extra income. This added pool 
of inexperienced workers especially hurts older teenagers when 
all workers receive a sub-minimum wage for their first 500 hours 
of employment. Parents care for the well being of their children, 
but they should not be expected to verify the working conditions 
of 12-year-olds.   The social 
development and education of children should be of paramount concern to 
society in British Columbia. The United Nations Convention on the Rights 
of Children, ratified by Canada and virtually every country in the 
world, establishes this principle. The present Employment Standard 
policy enables the director to tailor working conditions to the need of 
the child in those very limited cases when work is necessary or 
appropriate. Parents should be involved in decisions about the work of 
their children, but society should put the needs of the children 
first.   The present standards of protection 
for children should be maintained. British Columbia should not be a 
society where elementary school pupils are encouraged to choose between 
a low-wage job and their education.   
Mark Thompson, UBC professor, served as commissioner of the 1994 report 
"Rights and Responsibilities in a Changing Workplace: A Review of 
Employment Standards in British Columbia." To change delivery options, 
subscribe, or unsubscribe from OW-Watch-List:  http://list.web.ca/lists/listinfo/ow-watch-l Visit the Workfare Watch Project Website at:  
http://www.welfarewatch.toronto.on.ca/ -

Re: [Futurework] Hobbes

[Ed Weick]

Something that has always puzzled me about Hobbes: 


In what way does the writing he does profit him? In 
what way does the fact of his being a writer, philosopher, generator of ideas, 
support and validate the philosophy he writes about?

Selma

It's a long time since I've read any history of 
thought, but I can see Hobbes' "organic automaton" (OA)fusing into several 
concepts that emerged later. I believe that Hobbes himself argued that to 
make life less nasty, brutish and short, hisOA had to give up some of his 
self-centeredness, and merge his interests with those of others, thus giving 
rise to something that might be called the state and the rule of law. This 
could have given rise to J.J. Rousseau's idea that the power to rule was 
conferred upon rulers by the people themselves and not something of divine right 
(if I have it right). This could then have led to things like Thomas 
Paine's "Rights of Man" and the emergence of the modern liberal state. If 
my history is at all accurate, I believe that Paine's thinking had a large 
influence on the American Constitution.

I believe the OA would also have played a role in the 
emergence of modern economic thought. The OA behaved in his self-interest, 
and initially this would have involved grabbing whatever he could away from 
other OAs. However, he might soon have realized that this was not the best 
way to go about things, so he may have recognized, dimly at first but with 
growing certainty, that if he drew the water and let someone else hew the wood, 
both would be better off.Out of this may have come, eventually, 
notions like enlightened self-interest and specialization and the division of 
labour, but I really have no idea of just how it all connected.

But perhaps what is most important about Hobbes, if I 
have it right,is that he believed people to be rational and essentially 
material in their interests. It would seem that he believed that man's 
fate was in the hands of man, not God. By the time he was born, the 
Renaissance had led to newways of thinking about man's place in the 
universe. Newton was born not too long after Hobbes, and the compulsion to 
explain everything, including economic and social behaviour, in 
rational,scientificand essentially mechanical terms followed. 
It's still with us today, though its been much softened by the realization of 
how terribly irrational man can be and how mysterious and unmechanical the 
universe really is.

Hope this helps, but more than that, I hope I have some 
of it right.

Ed



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Selma 
  Singer 
  To: Ed Weick ; futurework 
  Cc: Stephen Straker 
  Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 11:27 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] Hobbes
  
  Something that has always puzzled me about 
  Hobbes: 
  
  In what way does the writing he does profit him? 
  In what way does the fact of his being a writer, philosopher, generator of 
  ideas, support and validate the philosophy he writes about?
  
  Selma
  
  
  
- Original Message ----- 
    From: 
Ed Weick 
To: futurework 
Cc: Stephen Straker 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:49 
AM
Subject: [Futurework] Hobbes


Having glanced through it rather quickly when 
it was first posted, Ive just reread Stephen Strakers piece on 
Hobbes. I must say Ive never felt comfortable with Hobbes 
articulation of man in the "state of nature". It depicts man as 
solitary, acting only to satisfy himself, being nothing more than an 
"organic automaton". Personally, I dont think it was ever like 
that. First, we have always lived not by ourselves, but in groups, and 
groups were always governed by codes of behaviour. Second, groups 
interacted, and this again required codes of behaviour. Only in 
extreme cases would inter-group actions lead to physical strife. 
Third, since whenever it was that we became fully human, we have had an 
enormous capacity for invention and projection, including the invention of 
supreme beings that provide a supernatural overly to how we must behave and 
original states of being that remind us that we have behaved much better in 
the past. Gods and Gardens of Eden are ancient and have existed since 
time immemorial. Stories that govern morality, part myth but also part 
history, have been told and retold for many thousands of years. Noahs 
flood is an example. 
I caught a glimpse of how ancient some of these 
stories may be back in the 1970s when I attended a hearing in the 
smallcommunity of Aklavik in the Mackenzie Delta. One of the 
elders of the community, a Gwich'in Indian, was trying to explain to the 
presiding judge about how his people relate to their land. His story 
was essentially about mans courage in the face of a great flood that killed 
many people and animals and created several great rivers, the 

Re: [Futurework] Monday Yin and Yang

[Ed Weick]

One might look at it another way. With some six 
billion people on the face of a rapidly shrinking world, how else might we 
divide up work and meetneeds? It sounds cruel and inhuman, but for 
many millions, the alternatives may be far worse.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 11:30 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] Monday Yin and 
  Yang
  
  Good 
  posting.
  
  We 
  have people commuting robot-like to work in cars, buses or subways only to sit 
  down at a computer screen and continue in the same robot-like way, except of 
  course when they go for a walk and then yell into their cell phones at their 
  "friends" or colleagues.
  
  The 
  technology is an overlay on society. It amplifies the underlying 
  trends
  [Cordell, Arthur: 
  ECOM]-Original 
  Message-From: Karen Watters Cole 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 
  11:26 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
  [Futurework] Monday Yin and Yang
  

Here's a thought for a Monday morning, 
from another list, shared with me and then to you. 

This seems to reinforce that a computer 
and cell phone are not status 
goods but part of a master-slave 
relationship.
We have the Consumption Economy, The New 
Economy, The Restorative Economy, The Creative Economy, The Knowledge 
Economy. 
What's 
next?

The 
Cyberserfs
Technological 
innovation promised us more leisure time. 
But, asks 
Christine Evans-Pughe, are we now just in thrall to 
machines?

19 
November 2003

Around the 
world, people are sitting with one hand poised over a keyboard and the other 
going from keys to mouse. They're all staring at dull grey squares labelled 
File, Edit, View, Tools, Format, Windows and Help - "the ghastly spoor of 
some aesthetically-challenged Microsoft employee of the late 1980s," 
according to the teleworking guru and labour historian Ursula Huws in her 
new book of essays, The Making of a 
Cybertariat.

"For the 
first time in history," she says, "thanks to Bill Gates, we are all working 
with a common language in the form of an identical labour process." This is 
why, "having designed the creativity and skill out of their information 
processing jobs, companies can partition what's left into piecework tasks 
and shunt them around the globe". 

Huws is 
professor of international labour studies at London Metropolitan University 
and an expert on the global division of labour in the information business. 
As the director of the multigovernment-funded programme Emergence 
(Estimation and Mapping of Employment Relocation in a Global Economy in the 
New Communications Environment), she's also a leading commentator on the 
implications of the rush to outsource every job under the 
sun.

Her essays 
chart the transformation of technology and work since the late Seventies, 
with the theme that 
we're using technology to turn every part of our working and personal lives 
into commodities. On the 
one hand, she says, we're employing it to standardise paid work processes to 
squeeze the maximum labour from each other at minimum cost. On the other, 
we're plundering areas of life in which labour is carried out beyond the 
money economy (for example, housework, entertainment, communication and sex) 
to come up with more and more "labour-saving" products. The result is 
amazingly complex global systems of machines and people that are slowly 
spiralling out of our control.

"The first 
shift is typically to a service industry," Huws says. "Then, as technology 
develops, the service industry becomes automated and goods that are more 
complex are produced, which spawn new services to deal with the complexity. 
Then each of these services can be automated, allowing the creation of more 
new products in a continual cycle of 
innovation.

"Communication 
used to be people talking to each other," she says "Then it became writing, 
and then various electrical and electronic ways of transmitting, like the 
telegraph and telephone. Entertainment used to be somebody singing; the 
service industry grew minstrels and then orchestras, then technologies for 
recording music, which become the basis for mass commodities like the CD or 
pop music videos."

Mobile 
phones are a great example of the creeping "commoditisation" of our 
personal lives, Huws says. "We now walk down the road with friends while 
talking on our mobiles to other people. We're prioritising the distant 
person over the near one, which is exactly what the phone companies want us 
to do because it doesn't cost anything to talk to the person you're 

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman

[Ed Weick]

Pete, I am an amatuer at all of this, and you have 
obviously read more than I have. However, what I don't understand is why, 
if we had essentially modern brains 160kya, did it take us 80,000 to 100,000 
years to demonstrate that we had those brains. I'll have to do more 
reading.

Ed




- Original Message - 
From: "pete" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] 
David Ricardo, Caveman
 On Sun, 23 
Nov 2003, Ed Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 And I would take issue with you that we are now the same as we were 
 100/200,000 years ago. Stephen Mithen of the University of 
Reading, as  one example, argues that until about 70K to 80K years 
ago, our brains  were relatively compartmentalized; that is, we were 
a lot like cats who  think about mating and nothing else when 
mating, hunting and nothing else  when hunting, socializing and 
nothing else when socializing, etc. At the  time, our rather 
limited thoughts and actions were highly genetically  
determined. Then something happened. The wiring that controlled 
all  that began to fall away and we became, as Mithen puts it, 
"cognitively  fluid"; that is, we could think across all of those 
little compartments  and use them all at the same time. The 
result was an explosion in  creativity and also an explosion in our 
capacity for mischief. Not  everybody agrees with 
Mithen. Some argue that a "creativity gene" arose  some 50K to 
100K years ago.  Despite the substantial media coverage given to 
short-chronology champions like Klein, and to a lesser extent Mithen, 
these are not the majority view in paleo-anth regarding the rise of Homo 
sapiens. Molecular evidence is persistent in putting the start of the 
clock for our particular string of ancestors at around 150-200kya, and 
archaeology supports this with indications of transitional but mostly 
modern phenotypes in northeast africa @ 160kya, and tools along the 
Red Sea shore around 125kya. The thinking is that culture is a 
huge part of what we currently are, and the accumulation of this, in 
the form of sophistication in language, technology, and lore, takes 
a long time to develop. The effect is essentially exponential, rather 
 like population growth - we had the essential modern mental hardware, 
 but it took in the order of 100ky for our particular string of 
ancestors to build up their population to the point that they were able 
to develop and retain the necessary cultural tools to achieve 
the material trappings of modernity. Consider that the 
Neanderthals were in europe for perhaps 300ky with essentially the same 
toolkit, yet were able apparently to begin absorbing the refined tools 
of Homo sapiens as soon as they arrived on the scene. This 
indicates I think the essential mobility of culture, and its 
independence from creative intellectual capacity.   The 
strong objections to the 50kya figure also refer to the current 
indications of human migrations. The evidence is that we were out of 
africa by 100kya, and heading east and south, much more hospitable 
places at that time than europe, which resisted our incursion until we 
had developed the cultural solutions to cold weather living, perhaps as 
much as 40 or even 50ky later. By that time we had penetrated SEasia and 
were working our way northeast along the pacific rim. If Mithen's timing 
were correct, all these people would be deprived of his eurocentric 
genetic advance, which is  clearly not the case.   
Whatever happened, appears to have happened  to all of us alive at 
that time in just a few generations, and it would  seem that there 
weren't very many of us. As is suggested by the unique  
similarity of human DNA among primate species, there may only have been 
 some 2,000 of us, the survivors of some natural disaster barely 
managing  to stay alive somewhere in Africa.  The 
puzzle of our genetic lack of diversity is not resolved, as it appears 
to have developed while we were in africa. Apparently we chose not to, 
or were prevented from interbreeding with the extant Homo lineages in 
africa, and when we had developed a distinct gracile phenotype, we 
appear to have displaced, rather than absorbing into each other hominid 
type we encountered as we spread south into africa and north into the 
rest of the world, spreading our meager but potent genetic 
legacy.   -Pete Vincent   
___ Futurework mailing 
list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman (fwd)

[Ed Weick]

e: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman (fwd)
  At 09:15 25/11/2003 -0800, Pete wrote:
  On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Ed Weick 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Pete, I am an 
amatuer at all of this, and you have obviously read more than I 
have. However, what I don't understand is why, if we had 
essentially modern brains 160kya, did it take us 80,000 to 100,000 
years to demonstrate that we had those brains. I'll have to do 
more reading. It's all about the rate of accumulation 
of culture. Newton famouslysaid if he saw further than most men, it was 
because he stood onthe shoulders of giants. The giants he refered to are 
easy toidentify, but in fact there are a cadre of giants whose 
namesare lost in prehistory, to whom we all owe a great debt forthe 
life we live. It is hard to realize, but such things asfish hooks, 
needles and thread, baskets, nets, wooden huts,and many more, were 
revolutionary ideas, which had to waitfor someone bright enough to not 
only conceive of them, andpersist in working on them til they were 
effective enough toattract wider adoption, but I think most importantly 
to realizethat innovation was a possible option, when most of the 
hardwarewhich persists in the archaeological record appears to have been 
unchanged for _hundreds of thousands_ of years prior. The frequency 
of innovations at first must have been so low thateach innovator would 
be essentially working without any livingexample that it was possible, 
particularly as the social unitwas probably a small band of one to two 
hundred individualsat most. It is very much a "critical mass" issue, and 
was coupledto the total population size. What ever it was that brought 
ourpopulation down to 10,000 individuals or less, may have 
persisted,limiting population growth and thus the size of the "brain 
trust".And as I also mentioned, language and lore had to develop. 
Youcan't have creative technological ideas if you don't have 
acultural milieu which provides the excercise in 
manipulatingconcepts, something which requires a robust vocabulary. 
Allthese things take time, and it's hard to grasp how much time,when 
we now learn much more about many aspects of the worldbefore the age of 
two than these people would have known atfirst as adults. 
 
-PeteBrilliantly 
  described. Working backwards from now, if one could plot "standard" 
  innovations (happening today at, say, one a month), they would probably fit on 
  a pretty smooth exponential curve Keith 
  - Original 
Message - From: "pete" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 
11:56 AMSubject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David 
Ricardo, Caveman On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Ed Weick 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  And I would take issue with you 
that we are now the same as we were  100/200,000 years 
ago. Stephen Mithen of the University of Reading, as  one 
example, argues that until about 70K to 80K years ago, our brains  
were relatively compartmentalized; that is, we were a lot like cats who 
 think about mating and nothing else when mating, hunting and 
nothing else  when hunting, socializing and nothing else when 
socializing, etc. At the  time, our rather limited 
thoughts and actions were highly genetically  determined. 
Then something happened. The wiring that controlled all  
that began to fall away and we became, as Mithen puts it, "cognitively 
 fluid"; that is, we could think across all of those little 
compartments  and use them all at the same time. The 
result was an explosion in  creativity and also an explosion in 
our capacity for mischief. Not  everybody agrees with 
Mithen. Some argue that a "creativity gene" arose  some 
50K to 100K years ago.  Despite the substantial media 
coverage given to short-chronology champions like Klein, and to a 
lesser extent Mithen, these are not the majority view in paleo-anth 
regarding the rise of Homo sapiens. Molecular evidence is persistent 
in putting the start of the clock for our particular string of 
ancestors at around 150-200kya, and archaeology supports this with 
indications of transitional but mostly modern phenotypes in 
northeast africa @ 160kya, and tools along the Red Sea shore around 
125kya. The thinking is that culture is a huge part of what we 
currently are, and the accumulation of this, in the form of 
sophistication in language, technology, and lore, takes a long time 
to develop. The effect is essentially exponential, rather  like 
population growth - we had the essential modern mental hardware,  
but it took in the order of 100ky for o

Re: [Futurework] Debt

[Ed Weick]

Title: Debt



Yes, Harry, Canada does look bad, but we have been 
achieving budgetary surpluses lately and trying to pay down the 
debt.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: "Futurework"  
  Cc: 'Keith Hudson' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; 'Ed Weick' 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 1:31 
  PM
  Subject: [Futurework] Debt
  
  Hi! 
  From the Economist: 
  "However, embodied in current tax and expenditure 
  policies are a lot of obligations for 
  which governments have not yet had to make explicit provision. This implicit liability 
  arises mainly from future 
  increases in spending on pensions and health care. Include it, and total debt vaults to levels last seen (for explicit 
  debt) in wartime. Governments often fall 
  into bad habits when their debts are so high, usually by resorting to the printing 
  press and using inflation to cut the real 
  value of their liabilities." 
  Here abstracted from a bar graph and therefore not 
  absolutely precise are the numbers that may give us cause for concern. There 
  are great uncertainties but governments tend to look 2-3 years ahead rather 
  than 10 or 20. They incur "credit card debts" passing laws now that must 
  be paid for later.
  Davis, the erstwhile California Governor, spent the 
  last weeks of his administration signing into law costly legislation - even 
  though we are broke, This included compulsory employee health services for 
  smaller business - a disaster in the making. He can take credit for this now - 
  while being long gone when the impact strikes.
  Then there is the law of unintended consequences, 
  something that comes up and bites the careless legislator. Long before Iraq, I 
  was concerned at the way Bush was flinging money around - "A billion here, a 
  billion there . . . " There is something that 
  gets into politicians that makes them extraordinarily generous with our 
  money.
  US diplomacy is pretty good, so long as greasing a 
  few palms works better than argument. But, perhaps sooner rather than later 
  there will be no money with which to be lavish! 
  The URL for the article ("In the long run we are 
  all broke") is: 
  HYPERLINK http://tinyurl.com/whew http://tinyurl.com/whew 
  But if you are not a subscriber, you won't be able 
  to get it. I'll be happy to send the whole article if FWs want it. 
  
  These are the explicit AND implicit net government 
  debt 2002 as a % of GNP. 
  The lowest is the Brits - which surprised 
  me. 
  UK 
  102 Denmark 175 
  Germany 
  200 France 
  230 US 
  270 Nether. 
  295 Belgium 305 
  Spain 
  350 
  And at the top (or bottom of the list): 
  Canada 
  423 
  I guess, friends, you'll just have to get rid of 
  your Health Service. 
  (Only kidding - I think.)  Harry 
   Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 
  655 Tujunga CA 91042 
  Tel: 818 352-4141 
  -- Fax: 818 353-2242 HYPERLINK 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
   
   
  ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus 
  Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.541 
  / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003 

Re: [Futurework] Downshifting to a better work-life balance

[Ed Weick]

Keith, I just want to make a brief comment on one of 
your points because it's always bother me a little. The point 
it:

  new consumer goods throughout the whole course of our economic history 
  have been bought mainly for reasons of status, not need. However, as the 
  repertoire of bought goods rises, we become entrapped in the way of life that 
  they have moulded;
I'm never quite sure of how to make the 
distinction between status and need. IMHO they overlap enormously. A 
decade ago, I had a job that took me across Canada and into the Yukon every 
couple of weeks or so. Across Canada, a four or five hour flight depending 
on direction, I travelled business class. I enjoyed the status, but, also, 
travelling that often and needing to feel rested, I felt there was a genuine 
need. There is also the case of my house. I need the house. I 
and my small family fill every part of it to excess. However, the house is 
on a hill and I can look down on my neighbours. Status or need? Cell 
phones came into our family recently. My daughter and I both have one; my 
wife doesn't feel she needs one. I guess I don't really need one either 
even if it feels good to have one. It also comes in handy at times because 
daughter, a first year student at a local university, has late evening classes 
and it's nice to know she can get in touch with me wherever I am and let me know 
when to pick her up at a dark and lonely transit stop on her way 
home. Status or need?

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Keith 
  Hudson 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 3:32 
  PM
  Subject: [Futurework] Downshifting to a 
  better work-life balance
  May I very briefly recap (three paragraphs) on 
  what I think evolutionary economics is saying to us today?-1. 
  It says that new consumer goods throughout the whole course of our economic 
  history have been bought mainly for reasons of status, not need. However, as 
  the repertoire of bought goods rises, we become entrapped in the way of life 
  that they have moulded;2. The present sort of industrial economy which 
  necessitates successive chain-reactions of consumer spending and investment 
  will be brought to an end when those who initiate the consumption process (the 
  trend-setting middle-class with sufficient disposable income) have no more 
  time left in which to use new goods. The only goods they will buy in the 
  coming years are those which are fashionable replacements/embellishments of 
  existing goods, goods or services which cannibalise on the sales of other 
  existing goods, and goods and services which do not require any additional and 
  regular use of time;3. The existing industrial economy, being totally 
  dependent on very cheap fossil fuels, will gradually be brought to an end 
  unless some miraculous new energy technology is invented (none of the present 
  proposals being adequate either in volume or delivery 
  characteristics).-Which of the two constraints, 2. or 3. will 
  cut in first I cannot say, though I would put my money on 2. The constraints 
  of energy supply is likely to become serious only very gradually -- over 
  perhaps a century -- while 2. could have sudden effects at some critical point 
  as sufficient numbers of intelligent people start withdrawing their inputs 
  from the present system -- inputs on which the rest are increasingly 
  dependant.Another way of expressing the last sentence is to say that 
  many people will start to search for a better work-life balance or, using the 
  present fashionable term, they will downshift.I downshifted about 25 
  years ago after my children had become independent, though for different 
  reasons than most of those described in the article below. Also -- quite 
  differently -- I moved from a gentle pace of working to a very hectic, though 
  very interesting, one. Although I was earning a very good salary before 
  downshifting I was, quite simply, bored with my working life as a manager in a 
  multinational corporation (Massey-Ferguson) because it had no challenges. 
  Instead, I turned to setting up an organisation (Jobs for Coventry Foundation) 
  to train young unemployed people in my home town. Like most of those people 
  below who downshifted, I took a large drop in earnings and it took a long time 
  -- maybe a couple of years -- to finally make the adjustment.If I were 
  a right-wing think-tank, or a politician of senior rank (left-wing or 
  right-wing) in a developed country I would be exceedingly worried by the 
  following article and I would want to commission some deeper investigation of 
  what seems to be some serious alienation going on here. Keith 
  HudsonDESIRE TO TRADE PRESSURE FOR PEACE GROWS 
  Anna FifieldThe quest for a better work-life balance might 
  be more successful than estimated. A study published yesterday found a quarter 
  of people had "downshifted" their jobs over the past 
  decade.Exemplified by the 

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman (fwd)

[Ed Weick]

Keith, I miff easily but have a tremendous capacity for 
recovery. You hadn't even begun to enter the realm or the "to be forgiven 
if you kneel before me". I think that, as we've donemany times 
before,we have to end this at our usual impasse. I recognize the 
significance of the frontal lobes, etc., but, frontal lobes or not,am 
pretty convinced that no human species could do what we can with our 
brains. What Mithen and the evolutionary psychologists, including Pinker, 
argue about domain-specific and domain-general thinking seems plausible as an 
explanation of cognitive development. It may be abstract verbiage, but 
then isn't all verbiage abstract? Nobody who was around 70kya to 100kya 
was able to look at anyone else and say "Hey, man, cool, you're really 
cognitively fluid!" They just went on with what they had to do to keep 
themselves from going extinct, just as we may soon have to do too.

Best regards, Ed






  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Keith 
  Hudson 
  To: Ed Weick 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  ; pete 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 4:22 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman (fwd)
  At 15:40 25/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
  Thanks, Pete, but I'm not sure I 
really agree, especially with your argument about it all depending on the 
slow accumulation of culture and about it taking a long time to invent and 
diffuse things like fish hooks and needles. Sorry, but I believe Homo 
sapiens is brighter and faster than that.I was a bit miffed at 
Keith's dismissal of Stephen Mithen whom I mentioned in one of my earlier 
postings, so I decided to see where Mithen's ideas stand in the current 
literature. I'm sorry I miffed you -- I didn't mean 
  to. The trouble with Mithen and his ilk is that he is falling into the all too 
  common trap these days of using a whole new batch of verbalisations and 
  becoming hypnotised by them. All this stuff below is pretty gobbledegook 
  really. By all means invent a new concept. That's the way science proceeds. 
  But one at a time please. And then test it against experiment or 
  observation.Let's keep to tangible evidence whenever possible. Let's 
  just say that from about 3/4 million years ago the frontal lobes of the 
  hominid line grew at an enormously fast evolutionary pace. (We have about 80 
  more brain genes than the chimp and it was probably these that were involved.) 
  The frontal lobes are known to be involved in controlling emotions and this 
  must have been of tremendous survival help. It is also known that they deal 
  with novel perceptions -- those for which there are no adequate "templates" in 
  the rear cortex and therefore need to be puzzled over. We also know that the 
  frontal lobes are involved in the embellishment of normal gratifications into 
  exquisite pleasure (both of basic urges of sex, eating, etc but also, 
  importantly, of intellectual ideas). These three things (among others) are 
  fully proven basic facts from neurological research into pathways. It is not 
  too much to suggest that with these additional faculties, almost anything 
  could happen -- and, of course, did. We don't need to suppose anything else 
  for the time being until the neuronal circuits of the frontal lobes are 
  examined in finer and finer detail -- as they will be.Talking of 
  "domain general mechanisms", "domain specific mechanisms", and "cognitive fluidity" really get us 
  nowhere at all except to be useful conversational terms.I think 
  that Pete has described the process pretty well -- as well as anybody can do 
  given our existing knowledge. Keith 
  To do so, I 
went down to my university library and picked up a couple of books, one a 
book of readings, the other a text book. I'll refer to the latter in 
what follows. It's Bjorklund, D.F. and A.D. Pellegrini, The Origins 
of Human Nature, American Psychological Society, 2002. Like Thomas 
Homer-Dixon, Bjorklund and Pellegrini give a lot of credence to Mithen's 
concepts, most basically the concept that what distinguishes us from other 
primate species is the ability to have attained "cognitive fluidity" and 
thus being able to use the various modules of the brain 
simultaneously. Specifically:

  Mithen (1996) [proposed] that hominids 
  evolved powerful, domain-specific modules to deal with their natural and 
  social worlds, but it was not until the emergence of modern humans about 
  100,000 years ago that Homo sapiens were able to integrate the 
  information-processing abilities of these modules to produce a 
  general-purpose intelligence. In both cases, it appears that a 
  domain-general mechanism is proposed as the necessary addition for the 
  emergence of the modem human mind. (p.144)This, of course, begs the question of how a "dom

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Trouble with fixes, Harry, is that those who apply them 
always think they are the right ones.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ed Weick' ; 'Ray Evans Harrell' ; 'Keith 
  Hudson' 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 10:37 
  PM
  Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  Ed,
  
  The wrong fixes never work.
  
  Now, the right fix . . . 
  . . . . ?
  
  Harry
  
   Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 655 
  Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
    
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed 
  WeickSent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 1:58 PMTo: Ray 
  Evans Harrell; Keith HudsonCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
  Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. 
  Modern Trade
  
  Ray, brilliant! Not sure of how to respond, so 
  maybe I'll just back into the shadows and say nothing. You're right 
  about how I see the world. It's a thing of interveaving flow processes, 
  as though it were dough in the hands of some gargantuan baker who never puts 
  it in the oven, but just keeps twisting it this way and that. There's 
  nothing that ever stays the same for more than an instant or two. 
  There's nothing that we can ever be sure of. There are no fixes that 
  really work.
  
  Ed
  
  
  ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.541 / Virus 
  Database: 335 - Release Date: 
11/14/2003

Re: [Futurework] Iraq revisited

[Ed Weick]

Said on the spur of the moment, Harry. I tend to 
get a little emotional about Bush and his administration. They lied their 
way into the Iraq war, saying it was about WMDs and connections with Al 
Qada. They are holding hundreds, perhaps thousands, of young men in Cuba 
and elsewhere without any recognition of due process. They send people 
like Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, off to Syria to be tortured and, according 
to an ex CIA operative, to Egypt to be disappeared. Something I read 
recently suggested that only Edgar J. Hoover was able to match them in 
infringing on ordinary people's lives. And major players in, and advisers 
to, the administration have ties with the weapons industry and with firms that 
will benefit from the reconstuction of Iraq. I'm afraid it all leaves me a 
little angry.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ed Weick' ; 'Darryl and Natalia' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 10:37 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] Iraq 
  revisited
  
  Ed,
  
  Is that what you think?
  
  It seemed like a measured deliberate 
  response.
  
  So effective, indeed, that the military was 
  completely surprised byits success. (I think that this led to their 
  inability to handle the success.)
  
  Harry
  
   Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 655 
  Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
    
  
  
  
  From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 4:00 AMTo: Harry 
  Pollard; 'Darryl and Natalia'; 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] Iraq 
  revisited
  
  So, of course, Bush had every reason to charge in 
  like a wild cowboy.
  
  Ed
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Harry Pollard 
To: 'Ed Weick' ; 'Darryl and Natalia' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 4:09 
AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Iraq 
revisited


Ed,
I don't think Saddam's methods were 
distasteful, they were murderous.
The bringing together of these 
disparate groups had already been accomplished before he came to power (by 
kicking out the previous leader). He sent his secret police to East Germany 
to train in Staasi methods.They came 
backknowing what to do.
The tens of thousands killed, the tens 
of thousands tortured, the women who were decapitatedby a sword in 
the streetbefore the neighbors 
-- none of these could be called distasteful.
Unless, of course, it is in good taste 
to maintain stability by keeping 25 million people living in a climate of 
fear.
Harry

  ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.541 / Virus 
  Database: 335 - Release Date: 
11/14/2003

Re: Toward a spiritual renaissance (was RE: [Futurework] Be a good little beaver for Uncle Sam!)

[Ed Weick]

Although I'd have to read a lot of history to really 
feel secure about it, my gut feeling is that we seriously started to go off the 
rails with Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister from 1984 to 1993, whose government 
engineered NAFTA (1982). If you recall, Mulroney got on rather well with 
Ronald Reagan. Trudeau, his predecessor, did not seem to make it with US 
Presidents, especially Nixon.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ed Weick' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 10:37 
  PM
  Subject: RE: Toward a spiritual 
  renaissance (was RE: [Futurework] Be a good little beaver for Uncle 
Sam!)
  
  
  Ed,
  I think you should give me credit for 
  prescience. You may remember my previous post in which I said that back in the 
  50's I saw a great country that seemed to be losing its way.
  On sorry to say that that doesn't appear 
  to have changed.
  Harry
   Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 655 
  Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
   
  
  From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 3:58 AMTo: Harry 
  Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Toward a spiritual 
  renaissance (was RE: [Futurework] Be a good little beaver for Uncle 
  Sam!)
  
  
  My point, Harry, is that Canada is again moving in 
  the direction of not being able to take a stand that is independent from the 
  US. Chretien was able to do it even if it was on the basis of his own 
  ego, but he's leaving the scene.
  
  Ed
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Harry Pollard 
To: 'Ed Weick' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 4:09 
AM
Subject: RE: Toward a spiritual 
renaissance (was RE: [Futurework] Be a good little beaver for Uncle 
Sam!)

Ed,

Perhapsthe Congoshould be a Canadian 
priority?

Harry

 Henry George School of Social 
Science of Los 
Angeles Box 
655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 
352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed 
WeickSent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:23 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
Re: Toward a spiritual renaissance (was RE: [Futurework] Be a good little 
beaver for Uncle Sam!)



Hi Lawry, 
Yes, it was me that was wondering if Canada has lost 
its way. I'm no longer wondering. If we haven't lost it yet, I'm pretty sure 
we are on our way to doing so. I fear that in the next few years we are 
going to become increasingly insular, with major attention being given to 
patching up federal/provincial differences, which widened significantly 
under the Chretien government during the past few years. Chretien's attitude 
on matters of federal support to the provinceswas to put matters on a 
largely non-negotiable, take it or leave it basis. The result was growing 
discord and alienation between the federal and provincial governments. The 
incoming PM, Paul Martin, has given ever so many signals that he wants to 
turn this around and to bring about a much friendlier level of interaction 
with the provinces and cities. 
All this seems well and good. On first appearances, 
it would seem nice to see the various parts of the country pull together. 
But it raises the question of who will do the pulling. In any country, the 
farther you get from the topmost level of government and the closer you get 
to the ground level, the more you have to give up higher morality and 
principles and the more you have to pay attention to gut-level bread and 
butter issues. At the topmost level you can think, like Trudeau did, about 
Canada being a bilingual country, about a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 
and about the inherent rights of Aboriginal people. Or, like Pearson, you 
can think of Canada's role in the world and making Canada a leader in 
peacekeeping. However, the more you move toward the bottom, the more you 
have to give priority to British Columbia's concerns about softwood lumber 
exports, Alberta's concerns about oil and gas and beef exports, Ontario's 
concerns about remaining a vital part of the automotive industry, Torontos 
and Montreals ties with continental financial markets, and ever so many 
other bread and butter issues. And, our economy being what it is, the more 
you have to recognize a large correlation between Canadian regional and 
local

[Futurework] Hobbes

[Ed Weick]

Having glanced through it rather quickly when it 
was first posted, Ive just reread Stephen Strakers piece on Hobbes. I 
must say Ive never felt comfortable with Hobbes articulation of man in the 
"state of nature". It depicts man as solitary, acting only to satisfy 
himself, being nothing more than an "organic automaton". Personally, I 
dont think it was ever like that. First, we have always lived not by 
ourselves, but in groups, and groups were always governed by codes of 
behaviour. Second, groups interacted, and this again required codes of 
behaviour. Only in extreme cases would inter-group actions lead to 
physical strife. Third, since whenever it was that we became fully human, 
we have had an enormous capacity for invention and projection, including the 
invention of supreme beings that provide a supernatural overly to how we must 
behave and original states of being that remind us that we have behaved much 
better in the past. Gods and Gardens of Eden are ancient and have existed 
since time immemorial. Stories that govern morality, part myth but also 
part history, have been told and retold for many thousands of years. 
Noahs flood is an example. 
I caught a glimpse of how ancient some of these 
stories may be back in the 1970s when I attended a hearing in the 
smallcommunity of Aklavik in the Mackenzie Delta. One of the elders 
of the community, a Gwich'in Indian, was trying to explain to the presiding 
judge about how his people relate to their land. His story was essentially 
about mans courage in the face of a great flood that killed many people and 
animals and created several great rivers, the Mackenzie, the Yukon, the 
Porcupine and the Mississippi among them. I happened to be sitting next to 
a geologist who knew the geological history of the region, and I asked him 
whether the story might have had any basis in reality. He answered in the 
affirmative, saying that, toward the end of the last ice age, a huge wall of ice 
that had confined a enormous amount of meltwater suddenly gave way and flooded 
the whole of the Porcupine Basin. I asked him how long ago that might have 
happened, and he said perhaps eight to ten thousand years ago. A thing 
told and retold over the millennia to remind people of who they were, where they 
came from, and how they should behave.
Yet, having said the foregoing, I must admit that 
Hobbes may have a point. Last night I watched a TV special on the role of 
journalists, mostly embedded, in the invasion of Iraq. Many of the scenes 
suggested a complete breakdown of civil institutions and of personal 
morality. The American soldiers the journalists were traveling with were 
clearly frightened, and their only thought was 'to get the motherfuckers before 
they get us'. They were jubilant when they knocked out an Iraqi position, 
killing several people. Given their superior fire power, it was not a fair 
fight, but of course fairness was the last thing in their mind. Other 
scenes depicted Iraqi civilians carrying off loot, much as Hobbes "organic 
automaton" would have carried off loot. But there were some scenes that 
suggested that Hobbes may not have had it right, scenes of medical staff in 
hospitals desperately trying to look after the wounded and dying under 
impossible conditions, and the faces of women who mourned but refused to break 
down because they had seen all this many, many times before over many thousands 
of years. 
Ed Weick

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Keith:
Oh dear! I am disappointed. What you're saying above is that you 
are giving up in trying to understand the world. The fact is that our genes, 
instincts and predispositions are exactly the same as 100/200,000 years ago. (In 
my opinion we are probably a little less intelligent, but's by the way.) Also, 
most of the main events and features -- migration, warfare, savagery, trade, 
oppressive government, etc -- are also exactly the same. The original 
processes of living have just been placed in different contexts (1.the natural 
world, 2.the agricultural world, 3. the industrial world) each with its own 
basic energy technology, and each embellished with its own unique weapons of war 
and other innovations. Ed:

No, Keith, I'm not giving up trying to understand the 
world. All I'm saying is that I understand it as a series of dynamic 
interweaving and interactingprocesses, some of which are understood and 
many of which are not. Who could have predicted 9/11 and its 
fallout? Who can tell us where we will be a year from now? All we 
can do is, like a surfer, try to stay upright in it, but that doesn't always 
work, and the sharks may be waiting below. 

But, being at least partly rational creatures, we are 
forever trying to get a fix on things. Bring back the gold standard (Hey, 
real value!), that'll fix it! Git rid of Saddam, that'll fix it! 
Legislate corporate governance, that'll fix it! But nothing ever really 
seems to work more than momentarily. My gargantuan baker just keeps 
weaving the dough in and out, in and out, and never puts it in the oven. 
It never bakes.

And I would take issue with you that we are now the 
same as we were 100/200,000 years ago.Stephen Mithen of the 
University of Reading, as one example, argues that until about 70K to 80K years 
ago, our brains were relatively compartmentalized; that is, we were a lot like 
cats who think about mating and nothing else when mating, hunting and nothing 
else when hunting, socializing and nothing else when socializing, etc. At 
the time, our rather limited thoughts and actions were highly genetically 
determined. Then something happened. The wiring that controlled all 
that began to fall away and we became, as Mithen puts it, "cognitively fluid"; 
that is, we could think across all of those little compartments and use them all 
at the same time. The result was an explosion in creativity and also an 
explosion in our capacity for mischief. Not everybody agrees with 
Mithen. Some argue that a "creativity gene" arose some 50K to 100K years 
ago. Whatever happened, appears to have happened to all of us alive at 
that time in just a few generations, and it would seem that there weren't very 
many of us. As is suggested by the unique similarity of humanDNA 
among primate species, there may only have been some 2,000 of us, the survivors 
of some natural disaster barely managing to stay alive somewhere in 
Africa.

I'm also inclined to disagree with your argument that 
"most of the main events and features -- migration, warfare, savagery, trade, 
oppressive government, etc -- are also exactly the same. The original 
processes of living have just been placed in different contexts (1.the natural 
world, 2.the agricultural world, 3. the industrial world) each with its own 
basic energy technology, and each embellished with its own unique weapons of war 
and other innovations." It places a fixity on things which IMHO was never 
really there. Since we walked out of Africa some 50K years ago and various 
groups of us went this way and that, our experiences as a species have been 
hugely varied. Some of us never left the bush, others became pastoralists, 
still others built cities along rivers and trade routes. In some cases, 
there was a progression from one type of activity to others; in other cases, 
people continued to do what they had done for millennia. I will never 
forget the shock I experienced when I first saw northern Athapaskan Indians 
wearing hard hats working in a mine. For some 20K to 30K years they had 
not known anything about hard hats or mining, and here they were, going 
underground as though it was perfectly natural to do that!

But getting back to my dynamic view of the world, I 
wouldsuggest that the more we have left the natural world behind, the more 
we have put ourselves in the hands of my gargantuan baker weaving 
dough.There is a determinism andyear to year predictability in 
the lives of hunters, gatherers and pastoraliststhat people who live in 
densely populated industrial economies simply do not have. We've tried to 
build in a predictability by creating institutions of governance and by 
pretending to be able to measure everything with aggregative statistics, but 
then a few chits in Florida can say it's Bush, not Gore, and a few hijacked 
aircraft can blow the roof off. 

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Keith 
  Hudson 
  To: Ed Weick 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Re: Toward a spiritual renaissance (was RE: [Futurework] Be a good little beaver for Uncle Sam!)

[Ed Weick]

My point, Harry, is that Canada is again moving in the 
direction of not being able to take a stand that is independent from the 
US. Chretien was able to do it even if it was on the basis of his own ego, 
but he's leaving the scene.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ed Weick' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 4:09 
  AM
  Subject: RE: Toward a spiritual 
  renaissance (was RE: [Futurework] Be a good little beaver for Uncle 
Sam!)
  
  Ed,
  
  Perhapsthe Congoshould be a Canadian 
  priority?
  
  Harry
  
   Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 655 
  Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
   
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed 
  WeickSent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:23 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: 
  Re: Toward a spiritual renaissance (was RE: [Futurework] Be a good little 
  beaver for Uncle Sam!)
  
  
  
  Hi Lawry, 
  Yes, it was me that was wondering if Canada has lost 
  its way. I'm no longer wondering. If we haven't lost it yet, I'm pretty sure 
  we are on our way to doing so. I fear that in the next few years we are going 
  to become increasingly insular, with major attention being given to patching 
  up federal/provincial differences, which widened significantly under the 
  Chretien government during the past few years. Chretien's attitude on matters 
  of federal support to the provinceswas to put matters on a largely 
  non-negotiable, take it or leave it basis. The result was growing discord and 
  alienation between the federal and provincial governments. The incoming PM, 
  Paul Martin, has given ever so many signals that he wants to turn this around 
  and to bring about a much friendlier level of interaction with the provinces 
  and cities. 
  All this seems well and good. On first appearances, it 
  would seem nice to see the various parts of the country pull together. But it 
  raises the question of who will do the pulling. In any country, the farther 
  you get from the topmost level of government and the closer you get to the 
  ground level, the more you have to give up higher morality and principles and 
  the more you have to pay attention to gut-level bread and butter issues. At 
  the topmost level you can think, like Trudeau did, about Canada being a 
  bilingual country, about a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and about the 
  inherent rights of Aboriginal people. Or, like Pearson, you can think of 
  Canada's role in the world and making Canada a leader in peacekeeping. 
  However, the more you move toward the bottom, the more you have to give 
  priority to British Columbia's concerns about softwood lumber exports, 
  Alberta's concerns about oil and gas and beef exports, Ontario's concerns 
  about remaining a vital part of the automotive industry, Torontos and 
  Montreals ties with continental financial markets, and ever so many other 
  bread and butter issues. And, our economy being what it is, the more you have 
  to recognize a large correlation between Canadian regional and local interests 
  and the need to remain friends with the US. Economically, we are very 
  dependent on American goodwill. And as the US has demonstrated in softwood 
  lumber and other cases, it can hurt us if it feels we are not playing ball to 
  the extent that we should. 
  Having put himself forward as a listener, negotiator 
  and joint problem solver, Martins role is not going to be an easy one. The 
  provinces will be after him to take up their causes and solve their problems. 
  And since ever so many of these problems are trade related, good relations 
  with the US will be a prime requirement, no matter who heads up the 
  Administration and no matter what that Administration does. For the next few 
  years, I don't really see much hope of Canada taking much of an independent 
  stand on major global issues. The Romeo Dallaires of this world can point to 
  the horrors underway in the Congo, and suggest that we could stop that 
  bloodbath and others by sending in a few thousand troops, but if it's not on, 
  meaning if it's not an American priority like Afghanistan and Iraq, forget 
  it. 
  Times are very difficult, and require a surer, more granular, and more 
  disciplined treatment than is normally the case. Missteps at this time can 
  create very bad results. I would hope that Canada's historical ability to see 
  the moral light and policy essentials will again prevail, and that Canada may 
  be able to help the US learn what it must, but by ignoring the US's mistakes, 
  but by guiding the US to their resolution.
  
  ---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by 
  AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com

Re: [Futurework] Iraq revisited

[Ed Weick]

So, of course, Bush had every reason to charge in like 
a wild cowboy.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Harry Pollard 
  To: 'Ed Weick' ; 'Darryl and Natalia' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 4:09 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [Futurework] Iraq 
  revisited
  
  
  Ed,
  I don't think Saddam's methods were 
  distasteful, they were murderous.
  The bringing together of these 
  disparate groups had already been accomplished before he came to power (by 
  kicking out the previous leader). He sent his secret police to East Germany to 
  train in Staasi methods.They came 
  backknowing what to do.
  The tens of thousands killed, the tens of 
  thousands tortured, the women who were decapitatedby a sword in 
  the streetbefore the neighbors 
  -- none of these could be called distasteful.
  Unless, of course, it is in good taste to 
  maintain stability by keeping 25 million people living in a climate of 
  fear.
  Harry
   Henry George School of Social 
  Science of Los 
  Angeles Box 655 
  Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 
  http://haledward.home.comcast.net 
   
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed 
  WeickSent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:33 AMTo: 
  Darryl and Natalia; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: 
  [Futurework] Iraq revisited
  
  
  It's appreciated, Darryl, but I think we are 
  beginning to suffer from Iraqi overload. I'm sure that many Americans 
  must now feel that what once seemed relatively 
  simple has now become a quagmire threatening to swallow them up. And, 
  personally, I think that comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are false. 
  In Vietnam there was a government, albeit communist,ready to take over 
  and restore law and order the moment the Americans withdrew. There is no 
  such thing in Iraq. The Provisional Authority created by the US has 
  absolutely no teeth and both a legitimate constitution and valid elections 
  seem a long way off. If Paul Bremer and the American occupiers left, all 
  hell would break loose among the various factions and another Saddam, perhaps 
  an Islamic fundamentalist this time, would probably emerge. So, if the 
  Americans keep trying to run the show alone, they are going to have to accept 
  the fact that they are sinking, and that the quagmire may be bottomless. 
  Being honest with themselves and bringing in the UN might be an option, but by 
  doing that the Americans would have to eat crow or something far more 
  distasteful.
  
  You cannot put something as broken as Iraq together 
  again easily. But I for one am beginning to appreciate Saddam 
  Hussein. As distasteful as his methods were, he was able to sit on the 
  various Iraqi factions and begin to carve a secular state out of a country 
  that, like its neighbours, was dominated by Islamic clerics. The man 
  obviously knew the culture he was dealing with.
  
  Ed
  
  
  
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Darryl and Natalia 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 11:08 
AM
Subject: [Futurework] Iraq 
revisited


An article that may or may not be appreciated by those on the list. 
But, I hope it evokes some controversy.

Darryl



- Original Message - 
From: PINR Dispatch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 11:05 AM
Subject: [PINR] Nov. 12, 2003: Iraq

 ___ Power and Interest 
News Report (PINR)   http://www.pinr.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
--  November 12, 2003: 
 The Power and Interest News Report does accept exclusive outside 
 submissions. If you are interested in having an analysis 
printed, please  contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Be sure to 
include links to, or a history of,  your previous published 
writings. Our readership consists of influential  academics 
and public policy advocates located in a variety of different  
countries throughout the world.  
--  "U.S. Occupation of Iraq 
Entering Critical Phase" Drafted by Erich Marquardt on November 12, 
2003  http://www.pinr.com 
 In many respects, the current political 
conditions in Iraq are very similar  to that of Vietnam forty years 
ago. In Vietnam, one of the major goals of  the various U.S. 
administrations, from Truman's to Ford's, was to create a  viable 
government in South Vietnam that had the support of the Vietnamese  
people but would also be a proponent of U.S. interests in Southeast Asia. In 
 order to achieve this goal, Washington supported a handful of South 
 Vietnamese leaders, from Bao Dai to Nguyen Van Thieu. Yet all of 
these  leaders were corrupt and did not represent the

Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Keith:
 Today, currency has no value, except as much as the confidence 
that people have in  their respective governments to maintain printing 
to sensible quantities.  Exchange rates and trade balances are thus now 
complicated by all sorts of  political factors besides trade. Hence we 
have currency speculators (rather  than the more benign currency 
arbitragers.) 

I know we've been over this again and again and again, but I guess we need 
one more round. How can you say currency has no value when it very clearly 
has value against other currencies, which is why we have speculators, and 
against all goods and services, which is why my local grocer will give me 
something for it? Like everything else, its value changes, but value is 
there. Your real complaint may be that value has become 
muchtoofluid, that you can't count on somethinghaving the same 
value tomorrow as it has today, and that this buggers up all kinds of 
transactions. This can be worked on (and central banks do work on it) 
without reverting to something as archaic and inherently unworkable as the gold 
standard.

Ed





- Original Message - 
From: "Keith Hudson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Ray Evans Harrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Christoph Reuss" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 1:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade 
vs. Modern Trade
 Ray, 
 At 19:43 21/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: Thanks for 
this. Would that more common sense or more readers of the old 
economists who turn out not to be so non-sensensical as they seem 
from others who have an agenda and mis-quote them. 
 I would be curious from the others on the list about 
this.  Ray   
Excerpt from the New Internationalist's "No-Nonsense Guide to 
Globalization": (NI Publications Ltd, UK 2002, pp. 14-15) 
 When people talk about globalization today they're still 
talking mostly about economics, about expanding international trade in 
goods and services based on the concept of comparative advantage. 
This theory [of free trade] was first developed in 1817 by the 
British economist David Ricardo in his "Principles of Political economy 
and Taxation" . Ricardo wrote that nations should specialize in 
producing goods in which they have a natural advantage and thereby find 
their market niche. He believed this would benefit both buyer and 
seller but only if certain conditions were maintained, such as 
(1) that trade between partners must be balanced so that one country 
 doesn't become indebted and dependent on 
another   He never said this. He 
said that "that trade between partners becomes  balanced " -- that is, 
automatically. But, in Ricardo's day, currency had  value (that is, was 
backed by gold). He would never have dreamed of the day  that government 
central banks would decline to back their currencies money  with value 
on demand (it doesn't necessarily have to be gold). Today,  currency has 
no value, except as much as the confidence that people have in  their 
respective governments to maintain printing to sensible quantities.  
Exchange rates and trade balances are thus now complicated by all sorts of 
 political factors besides trade. Hence we have currency speculators 
(rather  than the more benign currency arbitragers.) Even so, trade 
 deficits/surpluses will always correct themselves sooner or later 
anyway  (as America's present large trade deficit will have to) or a 
country's  currency will seriously deflate/inflate sooner or later or 
there'll be a  mixture of the two. Reality (that is, of a fair 
comparison of value) is  always restored. America is poised on that 
dilemma right now and its  deficit may end relatively smoothly (albeit 
with major effects on patterns  of employment) or more drastically (with 
major effects on unemployment).   
 and (2) that investment capital must be anchored locally 
and not allowed to  flow from a high wage 
country to a low-wage country.   
He would never have said this. It is quite at variance with everything he 
 wrote. He would, of course, have suggested that it is better for a 
country  if its inhabitants invested at home -- but only if the rate of 
return was  good enough.  However, I have great sympathy 
with New Internationalist's worries because  I, too, believe that modern 
economies are in danger of ending in stalemate  with extremes of 
prosperity between different countries. But this will not  be due to 
free trade. It will be due to the fact that as one country loses  some 
of its skills to another it must either upgrade its existing skills to  
a new levels or find new skills (making products or supplying services  
which are tradable). Not all developed countries will necessarily be able 
 to do this.  If we stop free trade and adopt 
protectionism then all countries will  suffer economic recession -- as 
happened in the case of all the developed  countries the 1920/30s. We 
will all spiral downwards quite quickly -- that  is, many millions of 

Re: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade

[Ed Weick]

Ray, brilliant! Not sure of how to respond, so 
maybe I'll just back into the shadows and say nothing. You're right about 
how I see the world. It's a thing of interveaving flow processes, as 
though it were dough in the hands of some gargantuan baker who never puts it in 
the oven, but just keeps twisting it this way and that. There's nothing 
that ever stays the same for more than an instant or two. There's nothing 
that we can ever be sure of. There are no fixes that really 
work.

Ed

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ray Evans Harrell 
  
  To: Keith Hudson ; Ed Weick 
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 12:51 
  PM
  Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re: 
  [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
  
  It seems to me that you all are arguing the 
  superiority of your own particular systemas nature. Keith 
  claims nature for trade and demands a rock bottom (gold) while Ed talks 
  relativity and processes (flow model) on the other hand Keith gives Ricardo a 
  sort of environmentalist bent where everything will take care of itself if you 
  just remove all the dams from the river. Except modern nation 
  states that deal with civil authority as a balance to diversity and that 
  accords strength to civil contracts based upon equality rather than authority 
  pleads the case for dams to remove floods and make cities and housing 
  possible. Chris claims that Ricardo was misunderstood. 
  Then we get a fight over interpretations. It is all so biblical. 
  
  
  I suspect Ricardo, Smith, Georgeand others 
  who talked about invisible hands were speaking as Egyptians who had a natural 
  ebb and flow in the Nile that served them well for the longest single state in 
  the history of the world. But that doeslittle for the 
  complexity of the present. We live in a world where wealth is 
  accruing in the hands of the elite and where they are also struggling to 
  gather the finest of everything to themselves and giving to the church the 
  egalitarian purpose of serving the cultural and welfare needs of the 
  poor. "Ifyou want music, go to church!" as was said by 
  a policeman in a recent comedy. We might remember that it 
  was Alfred North Whitehead that said that it was the "Ultimate Abstractions 
  that taught us the meanings of things" and music as well as math are one of 
  those "ultimate abstractions." 
  
  The Scandinavian states are more secular or 
  perhaps just less diverse so their overall secular instrument serves the needs 
  of the whole population better. The same is true of their cultural 
  institutions which were marveled at not long ago when their state sponsored 
  orchestras visited New York. All of the complaints about the decay 
  of the state as advanced by both Keith and Harry does not seem to be the case 
  in a smaller population and a less diverse one. Remember 
  where Harry is in California is a ferment of diversity, cultural and economic 
  change. Hence "give us a hero." 
  
  I think the real point here is that Canada and 
  the US are special cases nothing like England or elsewhere except maybe in the 
  beginning throes of the European Union which is beginning to resemble 
  pre-Bismarck Germany. We forget that Germany was a series of small 
  states at war with each other and that they didn't want to join any more than 
  Norway wants to join Europe today. The issue here is more 
  complicated than Ricardo or any of the economists have thus far dealt 
  with. Canada and America is extremely irresponsible to its 
  citizens preferring to replace them with immigrants who show them what "shits" 
  they are for complaining about such things as healthcare and 
  education. Immigrants who were trained in the schools of America's 
  old enemies and who carry the cultural bug of that system in their 
  training. Not logical at all but myths are hard to 
  shake.
  
  Isuspect that they are reacting to their 
  cultural myths out of fear. It seems thatmost of them suffer 
  from a Judeo Christian inability to think logically about big systems while 
  making peace with the everyday life. Christianity has the same 
  problem when they confess their sins, lay them off on God, get forgiveness and 
  continue to be irresponsible. They then state the ideal as the 
  goal while ignoring it in their lives and getting forgiveness for ignoring 
  it. So nothing is ever seriously tested, especially the 
  ideals. No one ever deals with the possibility of an ignorant, 
  angry God who has lost control of his creation. Or how illogical 
  that is in the contemplation of eternal realities and transcendent 
  omniscience. Their description is not of an omniscient, 
  benevolent being by any means. Petulant might be a better 
  description. 
  
  Abortion is a perfect example.The 
  ideal of life.So perfect that even masturbation is killing. 
  Birth control is ou