Thanks for the effort Keith. Kurtz sent this to me and you too seem to dovetail. He in the private market, you as the alienated ex-civil servant. America seems to be the worst of both of your philosophical politics. Here's what he said and here's what I wrote him. I could write the same post about ex-civil servants since I've seen it up close with a bitter brother-in-law who is a retired civil servant but who never made enough for his large family and had to work one to two jobs outside to pay the bills for his children. It was their church community that held the family together. That seems to be the big plus for Christians. They have a community that gives them what they need and that the society refuses to provide in the way of social networking. It worked and does work for them. It IS religion in terms of Systematic Theology "Ultimate Concern" but it is not transcendent in terms of a regular attempt to connect with the numinous. It is also very businesslike in its salesmanship of its way of life. Well here is what Steve wrote and here is what I said:
From: Steve Kurtz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 8:30 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Making work pay | The Spectator Why, as Ken Livingstone once asked, has he never been served coffee by a Londoner if there are 782,000 working-age Londoners <http://83.244.183.180/100pc/wa/ccstatgp/ccgor/a_carate_r_ccstatgp_c_ccgor_n ov09.html> on benefits? The answer lies in the perverted incentives of our welfare state, and our deplorable system of taxing the low-paid to further deter them. Why break your back picking berries, if a fifth of what you earn from it has to pass to the government. http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6146638/making-work-pay.thtml My comment: Are their 782,000 jobs available? Or would it mean that they had to leave their home in London and move out of town because they would lose their benefits with lower pay and not be able to pay their bills? Business once had a contract with the society to supply jobs when they could get by with less. That's the original reason for the advantage being given to the private sector through tax incentives like the Oil Depletion Allowance to the Oil companies. That was when business considered themselves members of a community. That was being a good citizen. They MADE work as well as a product. That is all changed in my lifetime and businesses sole purpose today is to provide profit to the shareholders. To that end they buy Supreme Court Justices just as they did in Oklahoma when I was a child. Being declared citizens by the court they have supra-right to move on or off shore with none of the responsibilities of a normal citizen. They don't even care much about the product ala BP in the Gulf. They have so neutered the government in America and made it an enemy that there is no longer a serious Bureau of Standards except for weights and measures. That means that there is an acceleration in the ravaging of the environment in competition for profit. You worked in that market and now complain about the environment but you rarely criticize the very institution that continues the ravaging. Your comment about taxes shows that you are not penitent in the least for what your profession did and continues to do to us still raising the specter of the Government devil when the government should be and actually is US. We are the ultimate lobbyists but our very own business is a conflict of interest to good government. And in spite of Peter Senge's book you still don't believe in system's theory. REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 5:48 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION Subject: [Futurework] Poachers turned gamekeepers Reading last night -- or trying to read -- The Future of Finance (a free downloadable book) written by some of the leading financially-savvy Great and Good of England, and then reading pessimistic comments in "An Unsettling End to Wall Street's Week" in the New York Times this morning, confirms my growing feeling that we are now at a significant turning point in the world's economic affairs. It is not that I think that anything dramatic will happen imminently, only that, as a preliminary, we will be finally entering the double dip that has been feared by many. Only historians in the future will be able to clearly see what are the real trends going on beneath the surface at the present time. But there are two clear facts about the present situation. The first is that financial experts in the Western part of the world are in total disarray as what to do for the best. Some countries have already chosen the path of austerity, others want more quantitative easing. At present the chief actor in the scene, America, is poised between the two, but will probably go along the money-printing route -- with the probable danger of runaway inflation sooner or later. In either event, the credibility of Western governments will decline at an even faster rate than it has been doing in recent decades and the danger of social upheaval is possible, even probable. The second is that three of the most powerful non-Western economic powers in the world -- amazingly disparate in their governmental structures and cultures -- are united in calling for a new world currency instead of the paper ones which came into existence a century ago and which became increasingly dominated by the American dollar since the Bretton Woods currency fix of 1944. The three powers are: (a) Russia, on whose gas and oil Western Europe now depends, (b) the Middle East, on whose oil America now depends, (c) China, on whose cheap consumer goods both America and Western Europe now depend. As it happens, these three blocs are also buying gold as part of their foreign exchange reserves. Could this be coincidental to their call for a new world currency? Hardly. Because Western nations were so successful in disparaging gold as a currency in the eyes of the public ever since Bretton Woods (and even earlier) then it may be surprising to know that Western central banks, far from continuing to sell their "junk" gold to the trinket market, are now hanging onto it grimly. Indeed, rumour has it that most of them are now buying gold against the 'Big Three' and it is a fact that the Bank for International Settlements, the so-called 'central bank of central banks', bought a very large chunk of it -- 300 tons -- recently. (Rumour has it that because this was almost precisely the amount of gold that Portugal possessed, then this is a last-ditch effort by that country to save itself.) Rumour has it that the big item -- perhaps the only item -- on the agenda for the next G20 meeting in November will be a new world currency based on a new paper currency along the lines of the present Special Drawing Rights -- whatever they're supposed to be in the real world of economics! But Russia, China and the Middle Eastern countries are hardly likely to go along with that because America will want the new currency, whatever it's called, to be a package of existing paper currencies dominated by dollars. Germany is unlikely to go along with it because its exporters are happy with the euro at present (but could easily change to its former deutschemark if the EMU collapses), the UK is unlikely to because it is still sentimentally proud of its pound, Switzerland is unlikely to because of the reputation of its franc, and Japan is unlikely to because China is now buying its yen debts and turning away from America's dollar debts. As an element there is nothing unique about gold. It emerged as the ultimate personal status symbol about 5,000 years ago. It wasn't even considered to be "wealth" as we know it today in those eras and early civilizations. It was kept in insecure rooms (of Aztek Kings) or buried in highly plunderable graves (as at Sutton Hoo and many sites in central Europe and Asia). Later (while retaining its high ornamental status), because it could be chopped up easily into pieces of many different sizes, it became a useful currency (alongside nails, cowrie shells, sheepskin squares, silver, etc). Only later still, in 19th century England, did it radiate outwards to become the main international currency. It was a case of the survival of the fittest material. It was only when England and many other industrializing countries wanted to pay for armies and expensive armaments that paper currencies, unbacked by gold, began to be printed -- and we've had inflation ever since. Because China, Russia and the Middle East -- at a crunch (albeit extremely stressful even for them) -- could survive the demise of the West (there are plenty more potential consumer markets in the world), the latter couldn't survive without the former. Unless we have universal warfare, this is why gold will resume its role as a world currency before too long -- as future historians will relate (with some amazement no doubt that America was so resistant). And it will probably occur when the likes of Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase decide to turn from poachers to gamekeepers for a bigger -- but more law-abiding -- future, not because of any particular G20 summit. Keith Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
