Dear friends
In order to suppress new ideas, the old economy will always represent
itself, unchanged, as the "New Economy".
I copy, below, the present drift of the *true, new economic developments* -
all a far, huge, and clear distinction from the old ones.
To achieve positive change public action needs to cause political outcomes:
- your letter to your elected Councillor, Member of Parliament, Senate,
House, Budesrat, whatever, is the start of that action for constructive
change.
I add, at the end, one that we are using in the UK( that touches upon the
key issue of money, banking and debt).
Please do use it, or others focussed upon the other key issues, if you feel
the need for positive action:
- all are necessary, none alone is sufficient.
John Courtneidge
The Fair World Project
- For a fair, safe and peaceful world.
***********
STARTS
Finding the right path of response to the events of 11th September is
difficult, but must be undertaken.
Both Social Stress and Social Hierarchy Theories suggest that increased
levels of inequality - growing social and economic unfairness - always
result in violent reaction: as the power, wealth and income gap grows,
violence always results.
Along with the events of 11th September 2001, it is also fair that due
comparison with the violent events in Oklahoma City be taken. There, the
growing alienation of the disempowered within the USA (the mountain men of
Montana and the Plains farmers of the Mid-West) resulted in a violence that
shows distinct parallels with the attacks of two weeks ago.
Accordingly, if an escalation of such violence is to be avoided, we urgently
need to find ways of reducing wealth, power and income inequalities: both
within the US and all other countries, and also between the US and the
rest of the world.
The last time that such pro-peace inequality reduction was attempted, the
Post-World War II consensus tried to use post-facto, redistributive economic
approaches: the Beveridge/Keynes inter-link of progressive taxation combined
with deficit, debt-based funding of public services. However (just as
Keynes anticipated) that approach was bound to founder in all democracies,
because of the growing political resistance of the less-affluent,
numerically-persuasive, lower middle-income voters to the tax costs involved
in supporting increased National Debts.
** Now, with such approaches now both economically and politically
bankrupt, we need to consider the pre-distributive alternative approaches to
those older re-distributive methods.**
Fortunately, such pro-active policies are already evolving, to include, for
example, considerations of guaranteed Citizens' Incomes, of Not-for-profit
banking and financial systems, of social business development, of Community
Land Trusts, and the growth of mutual, co-operative solutions to public
infrastructure and public service provision.
Put briefly, the long-term lessons of Oklahoma City, of New York and
Washington, and of all stress-induced violence elsewhere, must include work
to systemically reduce inequality: with clear and urgent social, political
and economic action to materially lessen inter-national and intra-national
inequality. Such work needs to combine, both, the short-term priority of
reducing the terror-inducing economic insecurity, along with efforts to
create sustainable individual and global security through maximised
structural economic equality.
Only in doing so, can we deliver a fair, safe and peaceful world for all.
Dr John Courtneidge
The Fair World Project:
13 North Road
Hertford
Herts SG14 1LN (UK)
Phone +44 (0)1992 501854
Mobile 07951 399 284
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
***********************
John Courtneidge
13 North Road
Hertford
Herts SG14 1LN
3 August 2001
Non-Debt, Non-Interest Bearing Funding for Public Services
I am writing to all of the Hertfordshire MPs to ask:
a) Have you read the James Robertson letter (text produced below)?
b) Do you have any reaction to it?
c) If so, please write to me with your own reaction to it.
Many thanks and best wishes,
'The Independent on Sunday' (20 May 2001) :
Alan Watkins is spot-on: the electioneering "battle of competitive
accountancy is a futile exercise ("The Euro may provide the Tories' path to
salvation", 13 May). It strains at a few billion pounds, but ignores a much
larger potential new source of public revenue. Changing the arrangements for
putting new money into circulation would make more than �40billion a year
available for reducing taxes, increasing public spending, and paying off
public debt. That finding of an international report - 'Creating New Money:
A Monetary Reform for the Information Age', published last year by the New
Economics Foundation � puts the nit-picking dispute in perspective.
Commercial banks are now allowed to print over 95 per cent of all new money
out of thin air as interest-bearing, profit-making loans to their customers.
If central banks were asked to take full responsibility for creating it,
they would credit it to their governments, which would then spend it into
circulation. As well as a new source of revenue, many wider economic and
social benefits would result from creating new money debt-free, instead of
as interest-bearing debt to banks.
All parliamentary candidates should be asked to undertake that, if elected,
they would get the new government to examine this seriously.
James Robertson Cholsey, Oxfordshire.'
