To: Yves Bajard on list ATTAC, John Courtneidge on list LETS, and other
defenders of the Commonwealth.
Dear Yves,
I owe you an apology for a recent statement of mine which was offensive
because it was poorly phrased and incomplete. In reply to your 99-06-19 post
to list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I wrote:
(WSB: Yves, you have covered every aspect of our global problematique except
for the most important possibility, that is, the possibility that you might
be mistaken. (Snip)
Now I have visited your web site at URL <list [EMAIL PROTECTED]> and saved
all of your recent posts to list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and nothing you have
written can be called mistaken from my point of view. What I wanted to say,
and should have written, was:
(WSB: Yves, you have covered every aspect of our global problematique except
for the most important possibility, that is, the possibility that the simple
solution, identified as option 4 in my post of 99-06-16, might be the
shortest path to the solution of the global problematique. Being simple,
more of the public can understand and support it, Having its historical
roots in the Pentateuch and its contemporary roots in corporate financial
policy, more of the public can verify it from their own religious beliefs and
their own working experience. But the simple solution does have this serious
disadvantage, it will under-cut the monopoly of knowledge presently enjoyed
by the Wealthy, Healthy, Inteligent, and Powerful members of society (the
WHIPs), but as compensation, it will also secure their status at the top of
society if the public knows that they support and promote it.
.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> End conversation with Yves Bajard <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Dear John Courtneidge,
In your 99-06-28 note to list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> "Within the following, our friend Wes uses the words "the defect of the
whole
system"
Can he and we define in, say, ten/twenty/which-ever words or less what "the
defect of the whole system" is?" <<
John, to define "the defect of the whole system," even with a few million
words, requires that the audience share a common conceptual framework with
the writer, a framwork which can comprehend the normal (as designed)
operation of the whole system, so we will know a defect when we see one. To
date, only one or two members of my audience have even admitted to looking at
URL <http://www.freespeech.org/darves/> where my global model has been posted
along with the writings of Noam Chomsky of M.I.T. and other distinguished
contributors to this topic, so we do not, as yet, have a shared common
conceptual framework to work with. But I can define in a few words the
simple technical principle, the neglect of which creates the "defect," where
ever the defect is found in societies with an advanced division of labor and
a circulating medium of exchange.
In 1953, I inadvertantly included in my technical proposal to a small
Mid-West Power Company a chart of unit cost ($/KWH) versus output (KW) in
which the unit cost declined as the output of the Boiler/Turbine/Generator
plant increased from no-load up to design output. My potential customer, the
Chief Electrical Engineer, pointed out my mistake, saying:
"you cannot compute a Pareto optimum dispatch with fixed costs included in
the cost data of your plants." (17 words)
I corrected my mistake the way our bankers create money, with the stroke of a
pen, by drawing a straight line on the chart from the unit cost ($/KWH) at
design output, back to a slightly lower unit cost ($/KWH) at the no load or
minimum output on the chart. That change on the chart (control
charactoristic of each plant) put my customer's mind at ease. With that
correction, every thing in the proposal was in accord with the current
standard operating practice (SOP) of the Mid-West Power Company, and every
other power company, so my manufacturing company was awarded the contract for
an automatic dispatching system to compute and execute the optimum dispatch
of production from nine Boiler/Turbine/Generator plants by simulating the
operation of a classical free market price mechanism.
Consumers of electric power cannot perform that classical free market
function for electric power, as they can for other products, because they can
neither select which plant to get their power from, nor can they know what
the cost of power is from each plant. And if they could, they would not want
to be bothered with evaluating nine (or more) variables all day long as the
demand for power varied from boom to depression during every 24 hour period.
I am sure that power systems are dispatched on the same principle everywhere
in the world. But to see how the neglect of that principle impairs the
performance of a corporate, national, or global system; a shared common
conceptual framework to focus the discussion is essential. Without the
shared conceptual framework, we get decade after decade of words, but no
solutions.
It might help to make the global model more interesting if a few well chosen
words were used in my next post to add to Fig. 8, The U.S. Systemic Defect Of
Omission, the data on who in the workforce pays interest, and, who in the
workforce receives interest, without increasing or decreasing the amount of
money (M1) in circulation.
Kind regards to all,
WesBurt
