Yes, the foundations of it all are "what is the meaning of existence" and "what does the society value?" The renegotiated Drone Contract of the second Industrial revolution that replaced the pursuit of happiness and meaning with the possibility of a job in a factory or the original Secular Covenant that made everyone into "new beings." The 1300 opera houses of the farm state of Iowa with the current culture's single one left and the 66,000 thousand performances nationwide for 66,000 tenors, sopranos, basses and mezzos and the right of even the house slaves of New Orleans to be more sophisticated than most of today's westerners. The same was true of the Dutch, Portuguese, Italian, French, Spanish, Czech and Croatian serfs who came to America and built those opera houses in Iowa, Indian Territory, Kansas, Missouri and every place else but Texas. There was a sense of quality in our grandparents that today's children don't have. The Drone contract was refused by many of our families, mine included. The original Secular Covenant contained in the U.S. Constitution and especially the Preamble was the contract that we accepted. Better to work on your own farm or in the professions for a pittance of what the Robber Barons had than to give into their barbarity, lack of culture and turning your neighbor into an object. There is a show on Broadway today that struggles with those issues. It's called the "Death of a Salesman." The death of a Drone and his struggle with his son. Arthur Miller went much further in his play about his wife the actress Marilyn Monroe which he called "After the Fall." It's all there in the Art and theater of America. If you know the Art you know of what I speak.
REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of D & N Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 11:08 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] "Efficiency's Promise: Too Go od to Be True" "More Jobs Predicted for Machi nes, Not People" Noting the three comments below from 3 different minds (therefore 3 differing viewpoints, I can see the difficulty with understanding Keynes vision. How can we know what he intended with his words as they came from a different time with different issues and needs? Second guessing someone's intentions (usually from a very different perspective) can never achieve that which was first conceived. For example, Arthur's comment [On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Arthur Cordell <[email protected]> wrote: Keynes saw the world quite clearly. He saw a future where we wouldn't have create work and worry about unemployment.] Would that mean everyone had such a fine job that all one's needs were meet and there were no other wants (no advertising of useless, but according to some needed, items to show status -- thank you Tom - below)? Or, does it mean that the poor stay as drudges for the benefit of the lay-about wealthy? And how can we guess Keynes intent regarding banks (-- thanks Ed --below) (or those who would pull the strings of a country's future - whether bank, investor, or corporate pressure) if it was not specifically dealt with and talked about ad nauseam? As good as something may sound at the time, just as with life, ideas are fleeting and require constant revision and re-evaluation which is what this group is attempting to do. But, if there is a blackness (whether or not intended) surrounding the basic tenet, then I believe all one can do is take as a lead the one or two clear positives for the present time, throw the rest out and re-postulate an entirely new paradigm for the benefit of the entire population considered. But without any form of empathy from those who would rule for their own favour, ultimately the system of thought will be perverted. So long as the rapaciousness of greed is allowed to flourish by governments, there will be no stability and the total system of governance and the society will ultimately fail. Darryl On 13/04/2012 12:41 PM, Tom Walker wrote: ... The same objection can raised against this essay in prophecy that was raised against Keynes' earlier "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren": that it assumes that all material wants in the wealthy nations will be quickly saturated, and that it completely ignores the capital needs of the poor countries. In these respects Keynes was a child of his times. He did not foresee that technology would constantly create new products and underestimated the ability of advertising constantly to create new wants. Above all, he did not foresee the postwar population explosion in the developing countries. This factor, more than anything else, has rendered his prophecy academic. ... On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:12 PM Not sure that you have Keynes and Marx right here, Keith. When I studied economics, Keynesianism was still very much the vogue. I don't recall that his solutions were to be applied via the banks or printing money. Rather, the idea was to involve large scale public works etc. when the private sector ran out of steam and the public sector had to kick in. I suppose that borrowing and printing money might have been part of this, but it was not emphasized. As for Marx, the ideas were very good, but how would you ever do what he recommended. Well, as Lenin and Stalin demonstrated, the state would do it, and in doing it, they would convert a humane idea into a horror show. On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Arthur Cordell <[email protected]> wrote: Keith see the url below Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1930/our-grandchi <http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/1930/our-grandch i%0Aldren.htm> ldren.htm Keynes saw the world quite clearly. He saw a future where we wouldn't have create work and worry about unemployment.
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
