To: Douglas P. Wilson and other facilitators of an optimum dispatch of
nations on several mail lists.
I am always delighted when one of my posts provokes a constructive comment
from my host on list SocialTechnology. As a guest on his list, I thank him
again for running an open list which facilitates a diversity of approaches to
creativity, even though he has suppressed the WHO command. In his previous
comments of 99-07-04, five months ago, Mr. Wilson wrote:
>>
I found your comparison between power-companies and national
economies quite persuasive, but I could not tell if that is a central part of
your argument or not. When I have trouble reading something I often
look for key words and phrases. Some of yours are excellent phrases
that immediately attract my interest -- for example you use the phrase
"stable control characteristic" which is good engineering language,
something I can understand. Much of my own work consists of an
attempt to apply solid systems engineering methods to human society,
so when you used that phrase I immediately felt I had something in
common with you.
<<
On this occasion, let me take a lesson from Phil Bartle's brainstorm
facilitators web site at <http://www.scn.org/IP/cds/cmp/brainsto.htm>.
Please find below, Mr. Wilson's concise comments in their entirety, with no
judgmental response from this facilitator, but with apologies to members of
lists SocialTechnology and Futurework who received Mr. Wilson's original post.
Some more of my thoughts on our common interests will conclude this post.
>>> Begin Douglas P. Wilson's comments on the simple solution <<<
Subj: please clarify Simple Solution
Date: 12/16/1999 6:55:03 PM EST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Douglas P. Wilson)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6:55:03 PM EST (0 min)
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7:07:02 PM EST
(12 min)
Wes Burt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about a "Simple Solution", and
as far as I can tell the substantive content of his message was
this single sentence.
> It is impossible to compute, or execute, an optimum dispatch of
> productive assets, capital or human, in a corporation or
> commonwealth until the fixed or sunk costs of acquiring the assets
> are separated from the variable costs of production, and the fixed
> or sunk costs are managed by the next higher level of organization.
If that's the "Simple Solution" it's not quite simple enough for me,
and is not formulated as a solution, either, so I've tried to digest
it a bit.
It is formulated as a law or universal truth, but I'm not comfortable
with sentences beginning "It is impossible to", unless mathematics or
theoretical physics is under discussion, so I'll skip that part and
break out the next one, which seems to be a problem statement:
PROBLEM: to compute, or execute, an optimum dispatch of
productive assets, capital or human, in a corporation or commonwealth
That's two problems really, but what I'm really concerned with is that
phrase "optimum dispatch." It seems an odd use of 'dispatch' to me,
but I imagine that is a technical term in the business world. Yes,
I just looked it up in the Dictionary of Business and Finance, and
it means:
The amount paid by a cargo ship's operator to a charterer if
loading or unloading is completed in less time than stipulated in
the charter party.
Not too helpful. Perhaps Mr. Burt could provide some explanation here.
Now what about the word 'optimum'? The meaning of 'optimum' is
usually given by the precise statement of goal, criterion, or target.
Is there some standard criterion being assumed here? Since this
clause was originally found in a statement of what sounded like
a law or universal truth, I wonder if it's meant to apply to any
goal, or any in some obvious range of goals. Perhaps Mr. Burt can
help with this one, too.
One more quick question "corporation or commonwealth" presumably
covers incorporated businesses, and perhaps states like the
"Commonwealth of Virginia." What about countries?
Anyway, the next part is what must be the solution:
SOLUTION: Separate the fixed or sunk costs of acquiring the assets
from the variable costs of production, and have them
managed by the next higher level of organization.
What is the next higher level of organization for an incorporated
business? The government? Surely you don't want the government
managing the fixed or sunk costs of assets from all the businesses
in the country. I don't think the Commonwealth of Virginia would
like that either. So I presume you only mean this to apply within
a corporation or commonwealth. Or do you? Mr. Burt?
Anyway, I think I can more or less grasp this idea as a way in which
nested units within an organization could function. Rather like the
use of variables in a language like Pascal which supports nested
procedure definitions. But why is this such a good solution?
Because it is simple? What exactly is simple about it? Does it have
any other advantages besides being simple?
I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse here. Everything Mr. Burt writes
suggests he knows something we don't, and from the length of his
messages I'm sure he must have something to say, but I just haven't
been able to grasp it yet.
dpw
Douglas P. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.island.net/~dpwilson/index.html
http://www.SocialTechnology.org/index.html
>>> End Douglas P. Wilson's comments on the simple solution <<<
Mr Wilson is not alone in his "attempt to apply solid systems engineering
methods to human society." But there are two ways to approach this essential
and seemingly well paid work.
The prevailing way leaves the present condition of society intact, that is,
the prevailing way defends and preserves the status quo, while reformers of
every stripe and attribute do research on, and propose unique solutions for,
the particular social pathology which their credentials qualify them to talk
and write about. This way enables a World Trade Organization (WTO), the
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and all of the
NGOs represented at the WTO meeting in Seattle to work side by side, with
minimum conflict, as long as the funding lasts and all discussions of a
general theory of society are effectively suppressed.
The other way puts the present condition of society at risk, that is, my
other way inquires into the natural laws and principles which have governed
the evolution of society to date. This other way searches for possible
systemic defects of omission in public policy which have caused our present
condition, and could be easily corrected whenever the "powers that be" are
persuaded that correction is necessary. The risk, of course, is that a
systemic correction of our present condition might over ride Peter H. Rossi's
"Iron Law" of social programs and reduce the funding and demand for social
scientists and politicians. Nothing less than the immanent prospect of Jay
Hanson's "Die Off" will persuade the "powers that be" to take that risk. By
that time, this writer will be long gone around the bend with Ronald Reagan.
We need to get ahead of the wave if we are to enjoy the ride.
But there are encouraging signs that the simple solution which Douglas
MacArthur and John J. McCloy allowed in Japan and Germany to facilitate the
recovery of those nations from the destruction of World War may recommend
itself to present members of the national establishments as a means of
closing the gap between first and third world nations. This simple solution
would allow all nations to converge, at their own pace, toward a sustainable
global social order. The emerging order, whatever it might turn out to be,
would be somewhat less affluent than Switzerland is today but more affluent
than the former colonies of Spain which were taught the principles of
Republican and Democratic government by the USA, a century ago.
For example, consider this statement from UNCTAD at the WTO meeting in Seattle
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Statement by
Mr. Rubens Ricupero
Secretary-General of UNCTAD
to the Third WTO Ministerial Meeting
Seattle, 30 November 1999
>>>>>>>> Snip all but last two paragraphs <<<<<<<<<<
(See <http://www.unctad.org> for full text)
There is no alternative to the multilateral trading system, but
this does not mean we have to resign ourselves to its current imbalance.
After the two decades of the Tokyo and Uruguay
Rounds, the vast majority of developing countries have ended
up with more trade deficits - 3 per cent more than in the 70s -
and less economic growth - 2 per cent less than before. This is
in part the result of inadequate domestic policies, although as I mentioned
earlier, most of those nations carried out serious
adjustment programmes and can no longer be called "free
riders" after the rapid opening of these markets. There are
other reasons: the sluggish growth of the economies and
import demand of advanced countries, the fall in commodity
prices and consequent deterioration in terms of trade. But a
significant cause of this worrying state is certainly the
asymmetries in the balance of mutual rights and obligations,
including market access, that must finally be set right.
There are only two options before us. The first is to persist
with the mercantilist approach of pressuring developing
countries to further open markets that will soon become
non-existent, as those nations will not be able to get through
exports the resources they need to pay for their imports. The
second is a "lift all boats strategy" that will allow developing
economies to export their way out of poverty and
underdevelopment, earning them the money to finance their
imports of capital goods and technology from industrial
countries, without increasing their debt. I hope that Seattle will
choose the second road, the only one that can close the
"legitimacy gap" and update the old UNCTAD slogan, "trade,
not aid", with two new formulas: "market access, not
speculative capital and debt; trade, not hot money".
>>>>>>>> End Mr. Ricupero's last two paragraphs <<<<<<<<<<
I encourage everyone who has read this far to visit Mr Wilson's two web sites
above, the UNSTAD site, Phil Bartle's site, URL
<http://plaza.powersurfr.com/Usalama/economics.html>, URL
<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/3142/IR/items/19990119WesBurtSustaina
bleFuture.html>, and URL <http://www.freespeech.org/darves/>.
At the last site, you will find "the only technically valid global model on
the Internet," along with an article by Noam Chomsky on Anarchism and Marxism
and a research piece by systems analyst Jay Hanson on potential system crash.
Two years ago, the micro-model Figure 7-9 of the ten figure global model was
Steve Kurtz's favorite illustration of the simple solution. He suggested
that the two missing moral Commandments would make better sense if modified
to read as follows:
#5, To each according to his needs, while in development.
#6, From each according to his ability, while in production.
(but not much more than 30% of what his ability produces)
Figure 7 shows that the human life cycle (development precedes production)
makes the two missing Commandments necessary to enforce a full implementation
of the first tithe, from production to development. Figure 9 shows how much
the human condition is constricted and depressed when the #5 Commandment is
only partially implemented, as in the English speaking nations and their
former colonies at the present time. Means-tested welfare is not a full
implementation of the first tithe.
Figures 7-9, as posted on the last two web sites, show only earned income
fairly proportioned to the value-added by each productive member of society.
As Ed Goertzen put it in his post of 12/17/1999, Tinbergen's Law, "the
interest cost burden in the economy" is a vital factor which may be most
clearly presented on Figure 8, or 8b, by adding the distribution over the
workforce (of who pays and who gets interest) as reported by Margrit Kennedy,
a German architect and urban planner, in her book, INTEREST AND INFLATION
FREE MONEY. I am deep in debt to Mr. John Courtneidge
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for this information on the distribution of debt
service and for a copy of Michael Jacob's book, THE POLITICS OF THE REAL
WORLD, 1996.
Don't presume to explain figures 7-9 to your local village idiot or your
sixth grade children. You would only hurt their feelings. Your presumption
would suggest you were making sport of their limited intellects by explaining
the obvious to them.
I am looking forward to more spirited comments on the simple solution, on
list
Kind regards,
Wesburt
