Dear Lurkers on list Future-Work, Here is a recent post, prior to my rejoining list Future-Work, which will help fill the silence which has settled on the list's frequent posters. Cheers, WesBurt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Begin recent post <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Subj: The Global Model at URL <.http://www.freespeech.org/darves> Date: 99-02-02 17:01:16 EST From: WesBurt To: Frequent posters, lurkers, and innocents on several mail lists. Hi Folks, In my 75 years, I have never met a mean-spirited member of the English speaking Wealthy, Healthy, Intelligent, and Powerful people (the WHIPs), nor have I ever met a stupid member. Perhaps I have just been lucky. So why don't they see the urgent need for some "damage control" to arrest the growing income gap between themselves and rest of the public? On the other hand, why don't the Protestant, Jewish, and Moslem religions give as much lip service to the need for restoring a "family wage" as is given in the 1891, 1931, 1981, and 1991 encyclical letters of the Catholic Church? Or is there a minor faction of the WHIPs which regards the congregations of all religions as its natural prey, and truly believes what is written (Sanhedrin (59a), Page 400): "Moses commanded us a law for our inheritance, it is our inheritance, not theirs." They say, one to another, that the law which commands a "family wage" is not for the Catholics, not for the Jews, not the for Moslems, not for the Protestants, not for the Quakers, and not for the Mormons. By the process of elimination, we may fairly conclude that over the 2974 years since the twelve tribes of Biblical Israel abandoned the law in B.C. 975 (I Kings 12), the law has been considered to be the inheritance and private property of the Thirteenth Tribe (the Levites, Num. 1:47-47; 18:26, Ezra 7:24-26), exclusively. Perhaps this minor faction of the WHIPs, this Thirteenth Tribe, believes that withholding the "family wage" (like restricting the living space and food supply of the rats in the biological experiment) is the best way to reach that one billion person sustainable global population goal without getting blood on their hands. They are mistaken in that belief. The poor people in the wealthy nations, no less than the poor people in third world nations, all have birth rates well above the replacement level, while the "best and the brightest" members of society are not replacing their numbers. The WHIPs will "die-off" before the poor people do. Those of us who have invested some time and effort in this line of inquiry may be able, if we reason together, to prove to our employers and other WHIPs that restoring the "family wage" will expand the American market for their products from the present 70%, or less, back up to the market's natural size for a population of 270 million people. Think of what wonders the public might perform with a 43% increase in net sales, a 43% increase in GDP, and a 43% increase in tax revenue. With that much money to invest, we might even be able to circumvent Peter H. Rossi's 1978 "Iron Law" of social programs and persuade the poor people of all nations to moderate their birth rate. Our 2974 years of experience in being without the law (Mal. 3:7-15 and HEB.. 7:11-22), plus the coercion, oppression, two world wars, the Holocaust, and the practice of genocide during the 20th century have not moderated and reversed the upward trend of the global population. Isn't it time to at least discuss applying to our developing human assets the same financial structure that we consistently apply to our developing capital assets? I know this approach is "counter-intuitive," as the systems analysts from the Club Of Rome put it, but we have everything to gain and little to lose if we explore this approach. It is not as if we were introducing "new thinking." Why then is there such determined opposition to a public discussion of this basic financial structure, or "family wage," which Thomas Paine proposed to England and France in 1792-7 and Bertram Russell described in his 1915 book, PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION? This question lies stark naked behind a clear glass window, and the English speaking public averts their eyes in shame as they pass by the window. They act like vicious mother-in-laws who had a hard life, and don't want her daughter-in-laws to have it any easier, so they defend the status quo! For the last 2974 years our poets, prophets, and philosophers have filled our public squares with words and filled our public libraries with books without making this Teflon Topic visible to the public. They appear to constitute a conspiracy to keep the public ignorant of the most simple facts of life, like the fact that people have a long period of development before they become productive. Perhaps our best hope of developing this common ground, which is common to every religion and ideology on earth, may be found by questioning the technical validity of the life support system illustrated by Fig. 6, 7-9, 8, and 10 at URL <http://www.freespeech.org/darves>. Technical validity in the social sciences, of course, is insufficient and incomplete without public approval, so let me say a few things about those four visual-aids that were not made public in previous posts. Fig.6 shows the flow of money (M1) to the right and the corresponding flow of life supporting goods and services to the left. Human nature, as defined by Spinoza's 1670 universal law, preserves the identity between the flow of value-added and the flow of the medium of exchange M1. Kirchhoff's laws of zero-sum flows into a node and zero-sum potentials around a closed loop will also apply within the model. The proportions of GNP (40%), purchased material (60%), and speculative transactions (???%) are typical for any advanced industrial economy but are scaled to show the American economy as it would look if it were producing the same $37,180/capita GNP, or value-added/year, which the Swiss produce. One check on the technical validity of the model is to consider how a 1994 M1 of $1,473 billion happens to produce a 1994 real economy of $8,428 b/yr. plus $12,643 b/yr. = $21,071 b/yr. in life supporting goods and services plus an additional $135,626 b/year in financial speculation? There is an infinite supply of M1 available to any business that can post a reasonable business plan for a new service or product, so why a 1994 M1 of $1,473 b/yr.? Why not an M1 of $2,946 b/yr.? Why not an M1 of $736.5 b/yr.? The speculative financial transactions require only a very small flow of M1 because most speculative transaction are book entry transactions, so we can leave that to last. If the business to business transactions are billed monthly, the minimum of M1 required in the checking accounts of purchasing managers at the end of each month will be $12,643 billion divided by 12 = $1,054 billion. If wages and salaries are paid every two weeks, the minimum of M1 required in the checking accounts of pay masters on each pay day will be $8,428 billion divided by 26 = $324 billion. The purchasing and payroll functions together, then require a total of $1,378 billion, or 93.6% of the actual M1. This leaves the other 6.4%, or $95 billion, for cash balances and financial speculation through out the economy. Now 93.6% is a little outside of required engineering accuracy (+or- 5%), but it is plenty good enough for social science work. Another check on the technical validity of the model concerns an old wives tale of the business community to the effect that: the development (design and construction) budget of a mature corporation should be about 10% of net sales. And if we go along with Adam Smith and agree that the expense of government is like the expense of management, we find that the expense of public education and the expense of supporting children are each about 5% of GNP, and have been in that proportion since I first became aware of the numbers in 1969. Now then, following the 100/40 ratio of net sales to GNP shown on the model, capital investment by the capital plant at 90 degrees on the model should be 25% of GNP. The 1994 capital investment rates (% of GNP) were: 43% for China, 30% for Japan, 22 % for Germany, 18 % for France, 26 % for Luxembourg, 20% for Norway, 22 % for Switzerland, and only 13%, 15%, and 16% respectively for Sweden, the U.K., and the U.S. So the model confirms which national economies are below their normal size and therefore suffer the English Disease of below normal investment opportunities. Notice that on Fig.6, the 5% of GNP investment in education is shown as government spending, while the 5% of GNP investment in support of dependents is shown as personal spending which is subsidized by the public revenue between lines E and B. That is the structure of the first tithe which would produce the economy shown in the model. But the present condition in the U.S. still leaves the expense of supporting dependents in the after tax budget of parenting families between lines A and E. Can 5% of GNP in one place or another be that important? This Fig.6 is the macro representation of the model, it cannot persuade the innocents that a misplaced 5% of GNP could depress the U.S. GNP from 171% of Swiss in 1949, down to 70% of Swiss in 1994. But the other visual-aids, Fig.7-9 and 8 provide a micro representation of the flow through the model, and the depressing effect of the misplaced 5% of GNP on the flow of M1 through the workforce is clearly illustrated in Fig.8. Lets look at Fig.8 in the next post, after the frequent posters and intellectual gladiators have worn themselves out looking for technical defects in the model at URL <http://www.freespeech.org/darves>.. Kind regards to all, WesBurt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> End recent post <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
