To: Frequent posters, lurkers, and innocents on several mail lists Hi Folks, Like the flapping of a butterfly's wings (as in CHAOS, Making A New Science, 1987, by James Gleik), every post to list futurework probably affects and influences each following post such that there is a slow but certain growth and deepening of consensus among the list members regarding The Optimum Policy (TOP) for creating a new social order. Now I submit to you that this "new social order" cannot really be new because the nature of the primary elements in the social order; the environment, the capital improvements on (or injury to) the environment, and the people have not changed much in the last 10,000 years. OK, so the technology has advanced much more than our knowledge of human nature. But this advance of science over politics has been accomplished over just the last 200 years and the gap between the two is widening faster than the gap between the incomes of the comfortable class and the incomes of the financially impaired class. The former of the two classes sometimes appear to believe that the latter are of a different species than themselves, if we judge by the legislation enacted in the U.S. during the 20th century. I thank Paul Dumais, John Courtneidge, and John Turmel for their thoughtful comments on my last post and for reiterating their position on the best way to TOP. Paul Dumais was not sure that he had all of the answers and left the door open for further dialog. John Courtneidge is a true believer in Tony Blair's aim of: " . . . a strong, united society which gives each citizen the chance to develop their potential to the full . ." by way of a co- operative socialist approach to the new social order. But we can't sell that approach in the States. And John Turmel states his position in a recent post: >> JCT: My whole point is that the development of LETS (Local Employment Trading Systems) is way past the point of no return. Governments could squelch any incipient Technocracy Energy Certificate systems, they could squelch any Social Credit systems but it's too late to squelch the many thousands of government-endorsed LETSystems around the world. << ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I cannot share John's confidence in the idea that "government-endorsed LETSystems around the world" have advanced beyond the point of no-return, or beyond the point of no-repeal by the same government which endorsed them. Recall, for example, the history of children's and family allowances which were established during the 1940s. That "family wage" structure was adopted by every advanced industrial nation that fought in World War II, except the United Kingdom and the United States, according to the works of such authors as Stuart Chase, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Robert Theobald, and John LaCerda. In his 1946 book, THE CONQUEROR COMES TO TEA, Japan under MacArthur, LaCerda confirms that Japan also adopted the same family wage structure that was established in Western Europe, over the objections of MacArthur's sixteen-man labor advisory board headed by Paul Stanchfield, formerly with the U.S. Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion (see page 133). Here we are, 50 years later, and that whole three decades of world history, 1946 to 1970, during which Japan and western Europe overtook the U.S.A., as measured by GNP/capita, has been wiped out of the public mind. In my five years on the internet, I have yet to find a citizen of the Commonwealth Nations who will disclose any knowledge of that three decades, and how the family allowances were swamped and rendered ineffective, as the U.S. money supply expanded to cause the worldwide inflation of the 1970s and 1980s. I fear the same thing could easily be done to existing LETSystems. The Determined Defenders of the Status Quo (DDotSQ) from Chatham House and Pratt House will simply have the media call LETSystems a "Socialist" notion, a threat to free enterprise, a threat to personal liberty, and a threat to American values and before you know it, LETSystems will be as scarce as copies of Thomas Paine's Agrarian Justice, copies of his RIGHTS OF MAN, part 2, or copies of Moses' Twelve Moral Commandments. Since the above three respondents did not address any particular aspect of the Global Model at URL <http://www.freespeech.org/darves/bert.html> I would like to respond to a private e-mail that was not posted to list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. A list owner, who thinks that my posts contain too much red meat for the delicate tastes of the list membership, writes: >> Can you possibly tell me over which time period you see Sterling "going down" and Dollar taking its place? Can you illustrate or "prove" it? If yes, with which data? The trouble is that EURO is fashioned totally after the Dollar and nobody sees it...<< ~~~~~~~~~~ End list owners request ~~~~~~~~~~~~ My thesis is: that Sterling (the British Empire) reached its apogee of wealth and power somewhere between 1900 and World War I, that the U.S. Dollar (the American Empire) reached its apogee of wealth and power somewhere between 1945 and 1960, and that the Euro and the Yen will replace both Sterling and the Dollar as the world's currency during the twenty-first century, if present trends continue. I expect to find, when comparative data is published, that the mechanics of the Euro, the Dollar, and Sterling are quite alike, and scarcely different from the mechanics of the Yen. Each will have a central bank, fractional reserve banking, and use the interest rate plus open market operations to regulate their respective national economies. The folks at Pratt House and Chatham House are indeed, "free to choose," but only, whether their respective economies will be unstable and hard to regulate as they have been for the last hundred years, or, stable and easy to regulate as in Switzerland and Japan. The works of English Authors Lord William Rees-Mogg, Paul Johnson, and Paul Kennedy together with American authors James Dale Davidson, Peter F. Drucker, Haynes Johnson, and William Greider seem to be in fair agreement on the the timing of the apogees of British and American power and influence on world affairs. My opinions reach only to the technical aspects of the question based on published data from the UN. the World Bank, and the U.S. Federal Reserve System as shown in the following tabulations of data in support of Fig.1 and Fig.2-3 of the Global Model at URL <http://www.freespeech.org/darves/bert.html>. Fig.1, at the URL, maps the present (1994) condition of the major industrial nations. The following table shows how Fig.1 would have looked, with regard to GNP/capita, in 1961 and again in 1949, only three years after LaCerda wrote, THE CONQUEROR COMES TO TEA. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TRENDS OF THE RECENT 45 YEARS, shown as % of Swiss GNP/capita (Source: 1949 & 1961 United Nations, 1994 World Bank ''96 ATLAS) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- The Optimum Policy Nation/year >>>>> 1949 1961 1994 >> TOP << Swiss GDP/capita 849 $/yr 1,463 $/yr. 37,180 $/yr. 90% % of Swis 100% 100% 100% Japan GDP/capita 100 $/yr. 402 $/yr. 34,630 $/yr. 85% % of Swi 12% 27% 93% U.S. GDP/capit 1,453 $/yr. 2,308 $/yr. 25,860$/yr. 40% % of Swiss 171% 158% 70% U.K. GDP/capita 773 $/yr. 1,149 $/yr. 18,410 $/yr. 40% % of Swiss 91% 79% 50% USSR GDP/capita 308 $/yr. 800 $/yr. 2,650 $/yr. 25% % of Swiss 36% 55% 7% Nation/year >>>>> 1949 1961 1994 >> TOP << ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The right hand column is my best guess of how close those nations came to implementing TOP. Moses discussed the principles of TOP and consequences of neglecting those principles in the Pentateuch and Plato discussed them again in his Republic in the original Greek version. Why can't they be discussed in English on the internet and by the media? If there is no discussion, and since the subject is not taught in the UK and US schools, the odds are that Switzerland, Japan, and the smaller nations will slowly revert to the second best public policy, as public memory of the principles fades away. And the whole world will follow the British and American Empires back to the pre World War II condition with sustained 2-3%/year inflation, with 4-10% unemployment, and with an expanding "underclass" on workfare or welfare in each nation. At this point, before pushing too hard for monetary reform, we might ask the folks at Chatham House and Pratt House to look at the current trends and decide whether they are 40% better off than their counterparts in Japan and the continental nations. I am quite certain that a good systems analyst could plot the sigmoid curve of national transition (progress) from third world status to first world (TOP) status (on the vertical axis) against the technical requirements to be satisfied (on a 0 to 100% horizontal axis). Everyone agrees that the first half of the requirement is a good universal system of education which develops the full potential of each child. But, after five years on the internet, I have yet to find anyone who believes that there is a second half to the technical requirement, or anyone who believes that every industrial nation except the U.K. and the U.S. has satisfied that second half of the requirement, in some degree, since the late 1940s. In contrast to our political condition, every well managed corporation in the world, including those operating in the U.K. and the U.S. routinely satisfy the whole technical requirement for their developing capital assets. Now the reason for this blind spot in our thinking, IMHO, is that a plot of the return to usury (% of GDP) (on the vertical axis) actually peaks when the requirements for TOP are about 50% completed, and then the return to usury may drop slightly as the technical requirements of TOP are fully satisfied. Only the Swiss members of the thirteenth tribe know how much usury income they have sacrificed, if any, to raise the GDP/capita of the Swiss workforce up to 140% of the American GDP/capita. --sigmoid curve (an S shaped path of transition from one position to another position, with minimum applied force or acceleration). Again, Lets use the American economy as an example of how much usury income can be exacted from a nation that satisfies only the public education half of the requirements for TOP. The following tabulation of public data comprehends the work of Nobel prize winner Wassily Leontief in his 1966 book, INPUT/OUTPUT ECONOMICS, and shows that the U.S. physical economy of 1995 has two parts, the GDP which we consume or save each year, and, the purchased material transactions (PMT) which is work in process for future GDP, as follows: U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), July 1995, the sum of government and household spending. Fig.6 (0 to A).....................................$7,024.9 Billion/year. U.S. business to business purchased material transactions (PMT), July 1995, Fig.6 (A to B)...................................$10,537.4 Billion/year. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- Total physical economic transactions by non-financial public and private sectors, July 1995 U.S. (excludes financial speculation) ..........$17,562.3 Billion/year With an economy of that size , the FEDERAL RESERVE BULLETIN, November 1995 issue gives the following July 1995 U.S. Money measures, Debt measures, and Prime rate = 8.8%. M1 is the Medium of Exchange and turns over 15.3 times per year to generate the $17,562.3 Billion/year of physical economic transactions above. That is, to produce the GDP (value added) which we consume or save each year. M1.........................$1,144.9 Billion @ 8.8% = 1.43% of GDP M2, excluding M1....$2,569.4 Billion @ 8.8% = 3.22% of GDP M3, excluding M2.......$773.1 Billion @ 8.8% = 0.97% of GDP L, excluding M3....$1,056.6 Billion @ 8.8% = 1.32% of GDP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ L = Total money......$5,544.0 Billion @ 8.8% = 6.94% of GDP ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ End money measures ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1995 GDP = $7,024.9 Billion/year Federal debt............$3,614.4 Billion @ 8.8% = 4.53% of GDP Non-Federal debt.......9,794.2 Billion @ 8.8% = 12.27% of GDP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------ Debt aggregate .... .$13,408.5 Billion @ 8.8% = 16.80% of GDP Notice that the circulation of M1 produces the Gross Domestic Product which we consume or save, and costs only 1.43% of GDP to perform the most essential function of the banking system. That's more efficient than the social security system. So all the rest of the debt service (6.94% of GDP less 1.43% for M1 plus 16.80%) amounts to 22.31% of GDP, all of which results from free transactions which redistribute the goods and services already produced. If fully implemented, a global LETS would eliminate all of that 22.31% of GDP debt service. But there are not enough Honest John Turmels in the world to run such a global LETsystem, so it would be run by the same members of Chatham House and Pratt House who run the present banking system. How long would it take for the lets fees and charges to rise back up to 22.31% of GDP? Think about it, and try to picture how a global LETS would look on Fig.8, "The U.S. Systemic Defect of Omission," at URL <http://www.freespeech.org/darves/bert.html>. WesBurt
