Time to work toward implementing a Second Income Plan. The idea originated with the late Louis O. Kelso, father of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan used by 11,000 companies. It does not depend upon jobs or savings. See SECOND INCOMES at www.aesopinstitute.org for the most recent version.
Kelso saw automation coming. He believed it could liberate humans from toil, work we do not choose to do. He believed that by about age 50 almost everyone in America could receive sufficient income from diversified investments to allow toil to drop to perhaps 20 hours per week. That achievement could make possible the first genuinely free society in human history. If we are wise, we will bring it into being as rapidly as is humanly possible. Here is a link to an excellent article about Kelso’s ideas: We Are For Economic Justice by Gary Reber http://foreconomicjustice.org/11/economic-justice/#comment-2388 Poverty would be eradicated and inequality dramatically reduced in a manner totally consistent with our highest ideals. "Enact the Capital Homestead Act to create new owners of future productive capital investment in businesses simultaneously with the growth of the economy and thereby broaden private, individual ownership of America's future capital wealth. The CHA would enable every man, woman and child to establish a Capital Homestead Account or "CHA" (a super-IRA or asset tax-shelter for citizens) at their local bank to acquire a growing dividend-bearing stock portfolio to supplement their incomes from work and all other sources of income." This link provides a video introduction to this plan: http://youtu.be/odDGX8q2o3I Mark Mark Goldes Co-Founder, Chava Energy CEO, Aesop Institute www.chavaenergy.com www.aesopinstitute.org 707 861-9070 707 497-3551 fax ________________________________________ From: Randy wuller [rwul...@freeark.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment Call it social security, call it a citizen dividend, call it whatever you want, if world productivity continues to increase (ie, more is available to distribute) so will the give away to those living and not producing or not producing much. Even if no one is working we will find a way to allocate the goods to those living on this planet, unless you want to give it to the robots who are doing the work. In essence funding is unnecessary, allocating the productions is all that is needed. Many of you are missing the point of the article on automation, the only thing that really matters is whether the pie increases and it is, dividing it up is never easy but will always be resolved by some method. However as to the method, what I am hearing is this antiquated notion that Human Beings are really productive today or ultimately needed for production. That may be true of some of us but far fewer then in the past and far more today then will be needed in the future. Most of us even now are just entertaining each other. It is made up work. Everyone needs to get used to it and we really do need to find a better way to allocate the productivity of the world. The problem in a service society is average ability is practically unwanted. We all want the services of those on the edge of the bell shaped curve (those with something exceptional to give), so those are the ones who get paid a lot. Everyone else is interchangeable and not worth spit and paid accordingly. So is that how you all want to allocate resources in the future? A tiny portion of the world population have 99% of what is produced and everyone else lives poorly (keeping in mind that we will be able to produce enough to allow everyone to live like the kings of the past if we want.) I don't think that is such a good idea, We need a better way to allocate production. We also need to expand beyond this planet to give us something to do before we go stir crazy. ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Zell<mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:38 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment Business Insider recently reported that Krugman may be discreetly admitting that he has made a serious oversight with regard to the viability of Social Security. Automation is eliminating jobs at such a rate that the payroll tax funding source may be in peril. ________________________________ From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Ed Storms wrote: Thanks Mark. Their view of reality differs significantly from what the people I read describe. I tend to believe my people because they predicted the 2008 collapse while Krugman did not. . . . Krugman did predict it, and warned against it several times. Such as here, in 2005: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=0 He repeatedly described the banks' investments in real estate as junk. Jed, I read this article and I see no concern except the usual generalities. He observes that a bubble was being created in the housing market. He even observed, apparently approvingly, that the government would create another after this one bursts, although he did not anticipate the way this is presently being done. He made no mention that this bubble would almost bring down the entire world ecconomy. I will give him some credit, He was not as calm about the problem as was Sir Greenspan. Meanwhile, other people were very exact about what would happen and when - three years later from this article. In fact the difference is frightening similar to that earlier. Krugman sees no problem with the status quo while the people I read are in a panic. Wrong again. He is very much against the status quo. He is not in a panic for the same reason I am not, and my mother would not be. It is a personality thing. I also do not like to be in a panic. As a result, I lost a lot of money during the 2008 collapse by not taking the panic seriously. I do not intend to let this happen again. Ed We don't get into a tizzy, perhaps even when we should. Case in point: my mother was riding a trolley car past the Blair House on November 1, 1950. President Truman was living there while the White House was being rebuilt. There was a series of loud bangs. Someone said, "they're trying to assassinate the president!!" My mother said, "don't be silly; it is just a car backfiring" and went back to her newspaper. It turned out someone was trying to assassinate the president. - Jed No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2639/5565 - Release Date: 01/29/13
