>
> Thomas: It is not that the
> metaphoric pie has to grow, which usually means a small group controls more
> and more,
That is not the meaning I understand. "the pie" is the usable resources
both renewable and non-, and the products which *depend* upon resources and
energy. My point is that the pie *cannot* expand except on a temporary
basis.
> rather I think assets have to circulate more freely.
What assets? Tokens, or the goods & services which are consumed? You seem
to believe that there is a cornucopia of hoarded or undiscovered resources.
Scientists say untrue.
> The demand
> is there but cannot be fulfilled because the poor do not have cash. Give
> the poor cash and there will be a demand for what they need.
Demand (cash or otherwise) doesn't magically create non-existent resources.
> The market
> then is responding to demand. The idea of limiting wealth is to create a
> circularity rather than two positions, one very rich and one very poor. I
> have no real problem with wealth. I have a problem with excessive wealth
> that curtails the circular flow of money. In this sense, I think
> circularity fulfils your criteria of "perpetually available" by putting a
> floor on poverty and a ceiling on wealth.
Nature limits *real* wealth. People divide it. People can & do add value
and efficiency.
I'm not suggesting we are not part of nature; quite the contrary. But we
are necessarily limited by finite physical systems. Increased flow of
tokens speeds the depletion of natural wealth.
SK:
> >I agree that the extent of concentration of monetary and natural wealth is
> >a negative for a sustainable future. However, a redistribution is not
> >likely to rectify matters by itself. Some *responsibilities* to the "whole
> >of society and the global Commons" seem to me to be a form of individual
> >"work" which might be sought by society.
> Thomas: What responsibilities are being shown by the current market
> economies towards society and the Global Commons? Damn little, I would say.
Agree!
> Again, I would ask you to ask yourself, "Why this preoccupation with "work"?
I used "responsibility" as a substitute for "work" in my example.
> What is wrong with a society that enjoys leisure or creativity or learning
> or companionship as worthwhile ways to spend time.
Nothing, once basic necessities have been procured on a sustainable basis!
> It seems to me that you
> might be in the Church of the "work ethic".
Atheist!
>
> Steve said:
>
> This could include reproductive
> >dis-incentives *for all members of society*, as well as policies to
> >minimize negative impacts of human activities on others and on the Commons.
>
> Thomas: If you are concerned about the "negative impacts of human
> activities on others and the Commons", then I would suggest by any objective
> criteria that our society with it's arms races, wars, stock markets,
> unemployed, and on and on should be your primary concern.
You use the word "unemployed". Why are you preoccupied with work? :-)
Every negative you mention is human behavior. You fail to understand how
natural scarcities contribute to war, violence, insecurity, suffering. See:
http://library.utoronto.ca/www/pcs/eps.htm#Project
> The elite of this
> world are having no qualms about creating negative impacts on everyone they
> can as long as they profit.
Nearly everyone ignores the externalities resulting from their behavior;
not just the elite (really only 400-500 superrich owning 40+% of ALL assets
who play monopoly with the planet, Toronto Globe & Mail, 1997)
Steve
