"No more mesages"
----- Original Message -----
From: "TAHIR WOOD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 3:37 AM
Subject: Re: [CrashList] no mas mensajes
> I would appreciate it if someone could translate this for
> me, since it appears to be asking something of me, but I
> don't know enough Spanish to understand what exactly.
>
> Thanks
>
> Tahir
>
> >>> "Aieti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/06 5:53 PM >>>
> POR FAVOR NO SIGAN MANDANDO MENSAJES.
> SE LO RUEGO
> gRACIAS.
> aieti-direcci�n
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: TAHIR WOOD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Fecha: mi�rcoles, 06 de septiembre de 2000 17:42
> Asunto: Re: [CrashList] Go ahead regardless?
>
>
> >Barry, I was very interested to read your post below,
> >because it is challenging, but also because it is in a way
> >diametrically opposed to what I have been emphasising
> >(basically "each according to his/her work). I don't have
> >much time to respond right now, but I do hope that you will
> >continue the engagement nevertheless.
> >
> >I think many people on this list would agree that there is
> a
> >labour surplus, but without necessarily agreeing with the
> >conclusions that you derive from this. For example, I find
> >it hard to regard as a 'solution' your radical separation
> of
> >production from distribution. The idea of dividing humanity
> >into a group of producers and a large unproductive group
> >while relying on technology to keep up a high level of
> >productivity seems a rather contrived and unbalanced
> >solution to me. Instead of focusing on the productive and
> >creative powers of humanity as part of the solution, it
> >reckons that a small group of productive and creative
> >individuals will design the life support for the majority
> >who will then play no further role in the production
> >process. They will simply be the recipients of a certain
> >distributed product. What will be the politics of this sort
> >of society? In such a radical division of humanity what
> >sorts of consciousness will define the doers and the
> >receivers? Will it be egalitarian in any way? This is hard
> >to imagine.
> >
> >Sentences such as the following seem curiously to take
> >certain historical phenomena as given, whereas there surely
> >is some basis for questioning them: " when we create nearly
> >full employment our powerful technology and out large
> supply
> >of workers will always consume far too many resources for
> >such hyper-activity to be sustainable." Is technology then
> >some external force which impinges on humanity in a one-way
> >determinism, as your formulation suggests to me, or is it
> >something that we can create and control?
> >
> >Obviously you do not subscribe to the labour theory of
> >value. What sort of economic theory supports statements
> such
> >as the following: "Our present views rarely include any
> >awareness that wealth comes from nature and inheritance
> more
> >than from any work we do."
> >
> >But above all for me the stress that you put on unearned
> >income is most bizarre, even while your critique of growth
> >can and should be accepted. Also I think that your approach
> >of starting from the labour surplus and then not adopting a
> >position on population is strange, because if you are
> >assuming a static population, against the current and
> >empirically observable pattern - in other words stasis is
> >something to be achieved - then why would you not try to
> >achieve negative population growth, which would seem to be
> a
> >more direct and more coherent way of addressing your
> problem
> >of economic growth and labour surplus, no? If you are
> >putting so much stress on highly productive technology,
> >which is somehow taken as an extra-human given, why don't
> >you look at the technology of reproduction? In both cases
> >they are matters of human choice and agency. Neither the
> >population level nor the level of productivity is an
> >external fact of nature - they are effects of human
> >relations and actions.
> >
> >Tahir
> >
> >
> >
> >>>> "Barry Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/06 6:11 AM
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > We need to find what kind of economy can provide
> people's
> >needs without making too much pollution and without running
> >out of resources rapidly. Our present consumer economy has
> >many nice features, yet it is basically at odds with
> >resource stewardship.
> > Labor has been surplus relative to local natural
> >resources for a long time. In today's crowded world
> >migration can no longer provide an escape from depleted
> >local resources, and imported resources are no longer
> >abundant and cheap. Even though we face a growing shortage
> >of resources we still pretend that labor shortage is
> >limiting production. Our fear of labor shortage is
> >obsolete. Since the dawn of the industrial age it has been
> >necessary to constantly find ways to increase consumption
> in
> >order maintain full employment.
> > The left and the right agree that jobs are the only
> >acceptable way to dole out money to the masses. Yet, when
> >we create nearly full employment our powerful technology
> and
> >out large supply of workers will always consume far too
> many
> >resources for such hyper-activity to be sustainable. Only
> in
> >our dreams is there no conflict between expanding the
> >economy to make jobs and contracting the economy to
> conserve
> >resources.
> > Our present views rarely include any awareness that
> >wealth comes from nature and inheritance more than from any
> >work we do. To make our system work under present
> conditions
> >we must admit that human labor is no longer scarce because
> >machines with computer control can replace most paid labor,
> >even in services. We should expect to shift our dependence
> >from wages toward unearned income as automation replaces
> >more human labor. Our system already has unearned income,
> >but for now it is only for a few. Changing that is the key
> >to becoming sustainable. Unearned income can end our
> >dependence on jobs and growth.
> > Whether our goal is to preserve the present pecking
> order
> >or to help improve the lives of the poor, we must have a
> >sustainable system for anything to really matter to anyone.
> >Excess growth is the cause of our high consumption, and
> high
> >consumption is the reason our economic system is not
> >sustainable. Growth is the common problem of all classes!
> > True conservation cuts consumption and that cuts
> >production and that cuts real paying jobs and profits. No
> >one supports a sustainable economy. Without true
> >conservation we can continue to squander scarce resources
> to
> >exercise all our surplus labor. Without conservation we
> can
> >have our giant SUVs. That is our plan, left or right.
> > There are four basic ways, I can think of, to conserve
> >resources: increased efficiency, increased durability,
> >recycling and by doing less. Durability allows doing less
> >without having less. Efficiency allows using less in what
> we
> >are doing. We can make deep cuts in consumption without
> >sacrifice by designing new products to maximize their life
> >time, efficiency and reparability.
> > Durability will make it possible to stop the waste and
> >pollution that are making our economy unsustainable.
> >Because durability has been neglected we have a lot to gain
> >when we starting using durability to conserve.
> > Conservation of perishables using recycling and
> >efficiency are already our goals, but the use of durability
> >to conserve has had little notice. Yet, a stable population
> >could use a general increase in durability to cut its
> >resource consumption to very low levels while maintaining
> >high living standards.
> > If we could somehow accept unearned income for all
> >classes then we could adjust the dole to stabilize wages.
> >(No more tight money.) This will provide a mechanism
> >allowing us to match the labor force to the real need for
> >labor, instead of making jobs to match the labor force,
> >regardless of the consequences.
> >
> >Barry Brooks
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Crashlist resources:
> http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
> >To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crashlist resources:
> http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
>
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
