----------
From: tom abeles
To: Cordell, Arthur: DPP
Cc: Ed Weick; 'futurework'; Ian Ritchie
Subject: Re: Beyond Rifkin?
Date: Thursday, July 15, 1999 2:28PM
Cordell, Arthur: DPP wrote:
>
> My view is a function of things that I believe-- note I can't
'prove
> them' just believe them:
>
> 1. That western capitalist society has solved the production
> problem.
I don't think this is true from a systems perspective- one example is
the environmental ineffeicienes. This means that the amount of
entropy/unit of useful goods is still not within balance. I think we
have not seen the start of production options from bio and nono tech and
this is not future dreams but near term
Cordell
We can produce lots and lots of things. Not forever and not
without limits-- of energy (probably), resources( probably), population
pressures, etc. We know how to produce things -- it is in this sense
that the production problem is solved, we are off the basic learning
curve extending from the industrial revolution. Most efforts are now
into sales and marketing,etc.
>
> 2. That we have not solved the distribution problem.
I agree here and think that this is a key in all segments from products
to services
>
> 3. That good jobs for the broad middle class are less to be
> found these days than in the past and will be less so in the
> future.(because of IT and globalisation)
you seem to see a bifurcation in the job/income distribution- more of
those with less and a smaller hump of a few with a lot both chewing up
the middle hump- conversion of a Dromedary into an asymetrical Bactrian
camel?
Cordell
Call it the disappearing middle, winner take all, bi-modal
distribution of skills and incomes...most refer to the same sort of
outcome.
>
> 4. That effective demand has to be maintained if we are to
> avoid an economic meltdown.
this has been the argument of business to increasing the consumption. If
someone snaps their fingers and says that absolute consumption has to be
diminished and what is left redistributed we are afraid that our worlds
will collapse- we don't yet buy a non-material consuming economy
regardless of all the hype of the information age and the service
economy- rhetoric and reality seem to lack congruence?
Cordell
This is also a Keynsian statement. How to maintain
effective demand.
Our economy is predicated on growth. Unfortunate, but there
it is. Until we sit down and agree to the terms and condtions
surrounding the transition to a stable state economy, one where growth
is a by product of human activities and is not at the core of all
actions and plans, then the sword of collapse will hang over the heads
of those who urge consumption restraints. It is a kind of a cold war.
>
> 5. That money will be found (from a bit tax, a tobin tax,
> some other form of turnover indirect tax) to provide a basic income,
or
> to provide spending for some other type of workfare activivities in
the
> third sector.
when I ran futures scenarios with students from freshman to senior
citizens, the only answer they could find to create a perfect world was
a Deus Ex Machina- God would appear, pick us up clean up the sandbox and
put us back in to play- Some benevolent dictator in pragmatic terms.
Solomon would appear and all would be made right
Cordell
Seems to easy doesn't it. Before WW2 the western countries
were in debt and worrying about nickels and dimes. Suddenly war broke
out and we printed money and sterilized much of it through bonds and
wage, price and rationing controls. Not calling for this but am
calling for thinking about what we know and what novel policy solutions
can be devised to ensure the orderly transition to a post (whatever)
economy.
How to get income to those who no longer work in the money
economy ( or to those who work for very low wages) so that they can
maintain self-esteem, dignity and purchasing power.
And the downside?
Cordell
Governments are looking on the business as usual scenario as
a kind of Maginot Line. Nothing can go wrong. Why? Because we are not
planning for any problems. I know that in my personal life I have car
insurance, fire insurance on the house. Not that I am wishing for these
outcomes, but am ready should the worst happen. Governments are not
planning for alternate futures, they are not (for a variety of reasons)
considering any sort of future but 'business as usual.' I think this is
an error on the personal level and doubly an error on the national level
-- here, especially, since so many people think that some elected
representativie is guiding the ship of state.
The downside of not imagining possible futures is -- well
its kind of obvious, just watch a few Allstate or State Farm
commercials.
>
> 6. That governments will argue about debt this and deficit
> that but when the crunch comes, new money will be found.
yes, we have found that in VISA which constantly mints money with their
debit cards- it is a question of who has the power and whose money are
we using. VISA is beyond the control of the US mint and no one knows how
much dollar deomoninated debt has been created globally without the say
of the US treasury- It seems to be a fact that there are more 100dollar
bills circulating around the globe than there are in the US- maybe more
paper currency in large demoninations?
Cordell
We have allowed a private group to provide a sort of
currency at an over all cost of 3 to 5 percent on top of purchase price.
Something I would have voted against, but then again who had the choice.
Where were the options thought through or debated.?
thoughts?
tom
>
