To: Ms. Patricia Keays at URL: http://www.prcn.org, a few friends, members of the DDotSQ (Devious Defenders of the Status Quo), and [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carnivore mail drop). Dear Ms. Patricia Keays: Your subject note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Open Development Consortium) concluded with the following excerpt: >> My experience over twenty-five years supporting training, learning, facilitation and change is that people tend to over-estimate the value of information, and under-estimate the complexity of the learning process that can make information (facts, data) a contribution to knowledge. My hope is that ODC will concentrate on the Patricia Patricia Keays << There seems to be a few words, or possibly a paragraph, missing from the excerpt. Whenever time permits, please send me the missing text. My own hope has been "that ODC will concentrate on the" technical requirements for each nation's development and stability within the global economy. But it is obvious that my hope will not be realized if the frequent posters to list [EMAIL PROTECTED] are successful in persuading the list moderator that posts addressed to these technical requirements of the development problem are "off topic." Since my previous post of 01/16/2001, "Principles Of Social Reconstruction," again, was blocked by the moderator of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] because it was "off topic" and "too long," please find below a shorter version which contains only the parts of the post which referenced ODC and your two subject notes of 01/16/2001, "building on J. Bywater's points about process links," and, "Information and its links to learning." >>>>>> Begin shorter version of previous post <<<<<<<< Subj: "Principles Of Social Reconstruction," again Date: 01/16/2001 4:48:47 PM EST From: Wesburt To: A few friends, members of the DDotSQ (Devious Defenders of the Status Quo), and [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carnivore mail drop) Good day folks, The following five items sketch a cross section of the current conventional wisdom concerning the knowledge which Bertrand Russell, in his 1915 book, called "Principles Of Social Reconstruction." This note will attempt to show what is still missing from our present understanding of that knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>>> Snip Items 1-4 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Item 5, an excerpt from Patricia Keays' 01/16/2001 comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Open Development Consortium), on the role ODC could play in the global development community. >> Creating a cumulative usage record in relation to information and knowledge in support of learning and change seems like an important contribution that ODC could make, that no network internal to or seen to be under the wing of a particular development agency could do. << >>>>>>>>> End five items <<<<<<<<<<< There is a critical lowest common denominator of knowledge which is not addressed by any of the five authors. That lowest common denominator is the impediment to social development which afflicts every community that depends on the division of labor and a circulating medium of exchange to assure the well being of its members. And that impediment to social development is the burden of educating, training, and supporting those members who are in the development phase of their lifecycle. The propensity of people to develop is instinctive, The knowledge of how development is repressed is not instinctive, except to those who regard the rest of mankind as their natural prey. That knowledge must be learned in school, or, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan said about calculus on Page 89 of FAMILY AND NATION, 1986, not learned at all. At some point we must part company with information, however well managed and standardized, and move up to knowledge and its usage in formulating and promoting a public policy for ending poverty everywhere and restoring the sovereignty of nations in a global economy of multinational corporations. Does anyone really want a single global Church, a single global government, or a single global corporation, which would naturally exercise a monopoly of force? >>>>>>>>>>> Snip discussion of items 1-4 <<<<<<<<<<< We can explore the question of what ails us by recalling the history of the "English Disease," as it was named during the post World War II decades. Begin with the English enclosures of the commons in the 16th and 18th centuries as interpreted by Oliver Goldsmith in the "Deserted Village." Continue through J. A. Hobson's IMPERIALISM, 1902, for the symptoms of what ailed every industrial nation, except the USA during the 19th century. Notice the successful hundred year run of the United States during the 19th century and the onset of the English Disease in the 1890s, as shown in Figure 10. The symptoms of that disease; 4-10% unemployment, 2-3%/year decline in the value of the dollar, and a 5% deficiency of purchasing power in the lower end of the workforce are now a century old in the United States. But World War II persuaded all of the industrial nations, except the US and the UK, to cure their English Disease by matching the Swiss fraction of GNP used to subsidize parenting households. That subsidy puts those parenting households on a competitive footing with Gay, Lesbian and Celibate households which do not incur the $5,000/year/dependent expense of raising children, but continue to demonstrate a strong work ethic. And still, the English Disease is sustained in the US by those who teach the public that subsidies to parenting families in the workforce are no different from welfare payments to society's dead wood, and will weaken the work ethic of the workforce. No! The real reason for withholding that subsidy is to drive the workforce deeper into debt. The same reason terminated the World War II GI Bill as soon as possible and replaced it with student loans at (Prime +) interest rates. The same reason capped the social security payroll tax at an income of $63,000 per year with a zero tax rate on all income above $63,000 per year. To the contrary, that subsidy to parenting families in the workforce is the cure for the English Disease. It brings the purchasing power of the workforce, at every level of income, into balance with the value-added by workers at every level of income. That step would validate Say's Law in the English speaking nations, and leave only the problem of excessive debt to be explained by economists. I am sure it would be no more than a half-hour learning experience for Ms. Patricia Keays to digest the contents of the graphical global model at URL: http://www.freespeech.org/darves/bert.html, and, if she were disposed to move from method to principles, only another half- hour to write a dissertation on the primary obstacles to sustainable global development within each nation. Or conversely, if disposed to preserve the status quo, write a dissertation to show why the financial structure of the General Motors Corporation, the General Electric Company, Walmart Stores, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, and most Western European nations is defective, and that "there is no alternative" to the financial structure of the English speaking nations, which are still "Losing Ground." I am delighted to be currently subscribed to odc-l as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kind regards to all, Wesley S. Burt >>>>>> End shorter version of previous post <<<<<<<< Just for the record, eleven other mail lists regularly distribute my posts with rarely a complaint about them being too long or off- topic. Some of my previous posts may be reviewed at URL http://www.treatyofnoordwijkaanzee.com/comments.php3 which aspires to invent a "new economic system" and at URL http://citiinco01.uuhost.uk.uu.net/discussion/index.shtml which aspires to establish a "Citizen's Income" to correct the defect of omission in the UK economy. Unfortunately, Ms. Patricia Keays, since I posted the above rude challenge for your consideration, all of the graphical pages of my global model, which has been hosted at URL http://www.freespeech.org/darves/bert.html since January 1999, have been deleted by persons unknown, leaving only the original text, which still fairly conveys the scope, content, and intent of my global model. When a national economy has only one serious defect of omission, a fairly simple model is usually adequate for illustrating that defect to the reader. Unless of course, the reader happens to be a Conservative, and the defect to be corrected happens to be in the US economy. Eventually, some prominent and newsworthy person in government, in the World Bank, in the IMF, in the UN, or in some other institution will be obliged to address the fact that the English speaking people are themselves still "Losing Ground," even while they labor to promote their public policy of deregulating industries and other suppliers which exhibit "increasing returns to scale." It was well known in 1887, by the founders of the American Economic Association that such industries and other suppliers to a free market cannot be properly regulated by the competitive action alone, and must be restrained from a "race to the bottom" by government regulation. Bertrand Russell described the proper corrective action in 1915, but not the technical requirements which support the action. So no action was taken. Again, Ms. Patricia Keays, I hope you will forgive my lack of talent as a facilitator of the learning process and recognize that this topic has not been taught in our schools since the late Nineteenth century. The topic is worthy of one or more skilled educators. Kind regards, Wesley S. Burt
