Dear Friends and DDoTOO,
There will be no more of this fancy "Friends, Innocents, Lurkers, and DDotSQ"
salutation on Burt's messages. Two classes of people are sufficient to
identify the conflict of interest in our present condition and in most of our
near future conditions as well. Poor and wealthy, friends and DDoTOO, the
many and the few, and eventually; either we have one global society with
liberty and justice for all, or, we have Jay Hanson's "Die Off." This note
mentions a few lessons on the shortest path to one global society, which were
provided by contributors to these several e-mail lists from all over our
world-wide laboratory of 200 nations.
In reply to my 99-06-09 note, Which way?:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (sheherzad tsar) wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> i am not referring to photosynthesis
(Snip)
.i also disagree with my colleague' s note sent in response
to my mail.....the one mentioning the swiss and the american
models......
dr. czar <<
(WSB: We'll have to wait for a more specific explanation from Dr. Czar. WSB)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christine Pagnoulle) wrote to list [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> Would the Swiss model work on a larger scale? <<
(WSB: This whole topic is concerned with the relation of the individual
person to his community, state, or nation; and the effect of that
relationship on the performance and wellbeing of the individual. Therefore,
I can see no reason why what works well for a local community would not also
work well for the state, the nation, or the world. Globalization is the
process we are talking about, we are converging on a common structure of
society, worldwide. We must debate and affect the the desired end point of
that process to the best of our ability, WSB)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There was an interesting overlap of replies to the above 99-06-09 note, Which
way?, with the posting of my last note of 99-06-11 19:09:03 EDT, "On our
discussion of the Global social crisis," to Yves Bajard. For what ever
amusement it affords, let me designate 99-06-11 19:09:03 EDT as time = Zero,
and review the subsequent replies to both notes in the order and time in
which I received them.
At 01:30 hours, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Pozzi), founder of the
GLOBAL RESOURCES BANK, replied to the previous note, "Which way?," and wrote
on list [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> Your global model at http://www.freespeech.org/darves/bert.html accurately
depicts the condition of the current zero-sum industrial model.
You're three regulating principles that support the validity of your model
offer a beginning to my dialog that supports the Global Resource Bank (GRB)
alternative.
(Snip John's analysis of the three principles)
Thank you for engaging us in a constructive dialog to find a sustainable
alternative.
Best regards,
John <<
(WSB: I thank John for his thoughtful evaluation of the global model and for
his concise enumeration of the ways in which his global resources bank,
because its "universal basic income eliminates the financial dependency of
one individual on another," would correct the systemic defect of omission in
our present condition and eliminate all of the symptoms generated by the
defect.
But the idea of a "universal basic income" has been around since long before
Bertram Russell listed the four stages of a UBI in his 1915 book, PRINCIPLES
OF SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION. The UBI, taken as a whole, because of its great
expense, seems to me like a monkey wrench which people throw into the gears
of progress to preserve the status quo. It kills the topic for most
conservatives who might otherwise be interested in supporting the Global
Resources Bank. Russell's four stages of a UBI in 1915, in order of their
occurance in the life-cycle of an individual, were:
1, Education and support of dependent children ~~ 10% of GNP. The 5% for
education is already in place, so 5% ($5,000/head) is needed to compensate
parenting families for their expenditure on support of their children in the
U.S.
2, A stipend for mothers who stay out of the workforce to care for their
children ~~ ?~2%~? of GNP.
3, A distribution to all members of the workforce, of a poverty level
($5,000/head) income. ~~ 14% of GNP.
4, Old age pensions (social security) for retired people ~~ 5% of GNP,
established in 1936 by U.S. President F.D.R., and funded from a payroll tax
with a15% tax rate on all income below $63,000/year, and a 0% tax rate on all
income above $63,000/year.
The first two stages of the UBI will correct the basic defect of industrial
society (the perennial 5% of GNP deficiency of purchasing power, due to the
$5,000/year head-tax on dependents of parenting families). It seems counter
productive, during the development phase of the Global Resources Bank, to
make the Bank carry the burden of the third stage (14% of GNP) of Russell's
four stages. If F.D.R. had established stages 1 and 2 in 1936, instead of
stage 4, the great depression would have ended in 1938, World War Two might
have been avoided, and members of the American workforce would have, since
1938, been able to save and invest for their own retirement in a full
employment economy. IMHO, we need more debate on the merits of the universal
basic income. WSB)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 02:30 hours, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (LarryF) wrote to list [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> "What's up with this persistent "innocents" and "lurkers" salutations from
a
particular poster? It's too bad to get hung up on the first line of a post
when
the rest merits consideration.
I'm 'guilty' of receiving these messages (lurking I guess), but that's my
choice,
and I am not sure how to interpret the term, but generally in Internet
parlance it
is not flattering, and I consider both unnecessarily disparaging in the
context of
this list.
Innocents? Hey, if people are 'innocent' (of what, I'm not exactly sure, but
I'll
assume economic ignorance), here's a news flash: it's unlikely they are on the
lists. And, I don't blame people for their "innocence." Indeed, it is our
task and
challenge to turn the tide of "informed ignorance" (Chomsky's "manufactured
consent") among the masses to an enlightened, educated people. I know people
who
have been working toward this for _decades_ are growing impatient as things
worsen.
I don't presume to speak for anyone else, and frankly I am unconcerned with
what others think. But, for me, quit with the imperialistic nonsense; argue
your point
concisely and intelligently, shut up and sit down. If not, wesburt goes
directly
to the trash.
Cheers,
LarryF" <<
(WSB: It would seem that Larry has put the last four of wesburt's notes in
the trash, and would have put this one in the trash also, if he had not been
alarmed by the prospect of wesburt and John Pozzi finding some common ground
to stand on, and thereby possibly disturbing the status quo by outnumbering
the DDoTOO. WSB)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 21:00 hours, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Sloan) wrote to list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> "----- Original Message -----
From: LarryF
> What's up with this persistent "innocents" and "lurkers" salutations from a
> particular poster?
Quite right.
I'm getting worried I might be a DDdotSQ, now.
Thank you John for the succinct discussion of GRB principles. I doubt
anyone will disagree with the purpose or principles , but in practice there
are questions of incentive and valuation to work out.
The sucessful operation of the GRB being based on global eco-productivity
requires ultimately a return to the condition of Eden. From this premise
runs further questions;
a) The development of a supportive and people friendly ecosphere raises
questions of inter species ethics which are far from simple. It may seem
academic, but it is a matter of some importance from the point of view of
the GRB; Does the ecosystem have a value in its own right, or is it simply
a human life support system? I suggest that the latter is the only possible
attitude to take at this point in time.
b) The foundation of a global eco-productivity does not automatically mean
that local problems will be solved. We need a way of relating real estate,
product, and services values to ecological quality values rather than
homocentric values like communications, power and prestige etc. The market
will inevitably tend toward the latter; yet the GRB has to orient the other
way. Apart from the commercial account charges, what counterbalance to
market forces if any can we build in to encourage the former? In this
context it is the impact of individuals and small businesses which are the
most critical, for Big Business will be equipping itself with eco-audit
systems in readiness for eco taxes in the future.
Alan Sloan" <<
(WSB: Alan has been reading my notes for about a year, and seems to have put
them all in the trash. It is written in my Yankee Bible: You can always tell
an Englishman, but you can't tell him much. WSB)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 23:00 hours, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aart Roukens de Lange), author of
the 'GUINEA FOWL' Scenario for South Africa, wrote to list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> "Dear Wes Burt, Yves Bajard and others
Even if you haven't heard from SANE forum participants that doesn't
mean we don't care or disagree. Yes, our system is designed to drive
the world to destruction. I agree with your observation of the need to
correct the defect in our economic system that drives good people to:
1, incur more debt service than they can carry.
2, impose excessive damage on the environment.
3, sell the public interest of the nation to the highest bidder."
In South Africa we have not only this First-World, materialist society
problem of debt and greed that is destroying the national and global
environment, but we also have a Third-World problem of destitution and
social under-development. Most people in our country are too poor to
incur debt of any significance. Yet they are contributing in a major
collective way to damaging the environment.
The only way we can effectively deal with this reality is to help to
raise the socio-economic conditions, consciousness and morality of
people. That is a mammoth task. Any hope? Not in logical human terms
but we must nevertheless continue with our noble cause of giving our
best efforts and energy towards transforming the world around us. Our
rational logic tells us that is useless. But we carry on regardless.
We work to our best ability and can but pray that a major miracle will
do the real transformation for us.
Aart Roukens de Lange
South African New Economics (S A N E) is an auto-
nomous network and research foundation for the
creation of a sustainable, humane, just and culturally
appropriate economic system in South Africa" <<
(WSB: Aart, you sound as discouraged as Yves Bajard sounded in his three
recent posts to list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and small wonder. Some of the best
minds alive today are devoting their considerable talents to keeping you,
Yves, and many others discouraged. English author Paul Johnson called those
best minds, "enemies of society," in his book of similar title, a few years
back. Like the poor, they have always been with us, but in the end, they
can't win! There are too many of us!
Your task of reconstruction in South Africa is certainly a most difficult
one, as you said. But history and the post W.W.II experience of our
worldwide laboratory of nations provides examples of both rapid and slow
reconstruction. United Germany is an example of rapid reconstruction. They
decided on one law, one currency, and equal benefits for East and West
Germans, alike, to restore one nation. The United States, on the other hand,
provides an example of slow reconstruction. In 1850, Frederic Bastiat (THE
LAW) saw only two defects in the U.S. social order, the tariff and slavery.
The Civil War decided we would be one nation. But we are still chipping away
at those two defects, and Rosa Parks, founder of the Civil Rights movement,
has received the Congressional Medal Of Honor for her contribution to that
slow reconstruction.
If we could raise the debate up to the next higher level of the system, that
is to the global level, we would find that the nations all look alike. Each
one owns a patch of the earth and has cultivated this patch with capital
improvements of every kind. The output of that patch is delivered to the
nation's population and to as many foreign customers as have the money to buy
some of that output. To keep from running out of money, adjacent nations
must sell an equal value of their output to our nation. And the national
population of each nation is divided into many groups; one large group, the
workforce, which produces the output (Harry Pollard's wealth) by operating
the capital plant, and, many smaller groups of dependents who either do not
work, or, who produce output (Harry Pollard's wealth?) which is not sold to
the workforce. It follows that the conceptual framework needed to formulate
a technically valid model of a global economy is the same framework one would
use to formulate a technically valid model of an interconnected electric
power system with its many sovereign corporations, each supplying their
output to the customers on their patch of earth plus some interchange of
power with their neighbors. Picture, if you can, an interconnected power
system in which each corporation tried to produced 5% more power than its
customers could buy. That is impossible on a physical system, and it doesn't
work worth a damn on our national human systems.
Thanks for the helpful comments Sheherzad, Christine, John, Larry, Alan, and
Aart. Nothing improves the product faster than feedback from potential
customers, and you are all potential consumers of the very robust global
model at URL: <http://www.freespeech.org/darves/bert.html>.
Sincerely,
WesBurt
