But, Harry, what do we do now?? -----Original Message----- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:46 AM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] Engineering the economy
Arthur, "Quick, lock the barn door - the horse has gone." I think, Arthur old lad, that you are coming late to the table. First, you allow a milking of the community - a process that heaps up giant fortunes, Then you want to take part of those fortunes to give back to the people enough to keep them quiet. Stop the hemorrhaging caused by privilege, so that people keep the wealth they create - then you won't have to contrive methods such as "Basic Income" to get a smidgen of it back. What ever happened to the radical left? Harry ---------------------------------------------------- Arthur wrote: >Lots of interesting stuff here. > >It seems that political will to allow people to think "the unthinkable" is >needed. That is that the production problem is solved. We now turn our >attention to distribution in the context of social cohesion. That this may >include basic income. > >But what about the "less developed world"? And what about globalization? >What happens to land values and financial markets when we say that our >obsession with growth is coming to an end? > >arthur > >-----Original Message----- >From: Barry Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2003 2:53 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [Futurework] Engineering the economy > > > >Barry, > >This is somewhat related to your "Why men succeed at work." > >The question, then, becomes whether it is possible to engineer a society >in which people are rewarded for non-capitalist and/or non-power seeking >(referring specifically to negative forms of power) behaviors. And, if >so, what would such a reward structure look like? > >Below is my view of what such a reward structure would look like. > >Barry > > >Good engineering uses evolution. Consider the Japanese >car designs that are improved, not replaced, whenever better designs are >available. It's not one or the other. In fact no clear lines can be drawn >between >evolution and engineering. > >Or, maybe I should have said, we can't wait for nature to guide us; planning >is required. >Yet, we should take advantage of the good things we already have. But, >which features of >our present economy should we keep? > >Here's an outline of goals and policies that I advocate. We have the >components of a successful >economy, as I define it below, already in place. Thus, no revolution will >be needed. > >In my humble opinion we want our economy to provide sustainability, an >abundance of goods and services, economic security for everyone, and >leisure. These goals are synergistic and are hard to separate or rank. > >Various economic arrangements could provide those wants, and the economic >designers, who ever they are, must choose between those alternative >arrangements. That is the hardest part of the design process. > >The easy part is knowing the things that can not work. To be sustainable an >economy must not need growth in scale, because any rate of growth in scale >will finally make that economy un-sustainable. All the sustainable >alternative economies will not need to grow in scale. > >Also, leisure will require the acceptance of automation into every possible >part of the economy. Economic arrangements that don't use technology can't >meet the want for leisure. All the alternative economies will use >technology, and they will not need to grow in scale. > >Economic security requires some arrangement to provide basic food and >shelter to everyone without qualification. Pure market capitalism, private >charity, and "opportunity" will not provide that. Some form of transfer >payments will be part of any economic arrangement that provides economic >security. All the alternative economies will use technology, they will not >need to grow in scale, and they will care for the poor. > >Caring for the poor in an economy that values leisure will not focus on >making jobs for them. Wage dependence leads to the need to make jobs, the >need to compensate for automation, and the need for growth in scale. >Unearned income is basic to capitalism, but it's not democratic capitalism >when most people are dependant on wages. A guaranteed income could be >adjusted to stabilize wages in an economy that doesn't need its full >productive capacity. > >The need for growth and waste of our consumer economy will finally make >providing an abundance of goods and services impossible. When we make jobs >and tolerate waste to be busy, or to avoid the need to provide welfare, we >are in denial about the power of today's automation to replace human labor, >and where we going. The waste of the consumer economy will not provide >abundance, security, or leisure; not for long. > >If it weren't for politics even today's economic arrangements could work, >for a while. We could stimulate demand so effectively that our wants for >abundance and security, at least for workers, could be meet. That's why our >want for sustainability is important. It's not enough to nurture the market, >to end corruptions, to implement the most advanced policies in pursuit of >unsustainable levels of hyper-activity. The short-term fix is not a >long-term fix, but any long-term fix applies now. For sustainability the >long-term fix is to cut resource consumption, not to increase it. > >When we combine the known requirements of our engineered economy we get >something that would seem unworkable without consideration of additional >details. For example, an economy that doesn't grow requires a stable >population, and an economy that is sustainable avoids waste. So, if we make >all products long lasting many goods can be provided by inheritance. >Long-lasting houses combined with population stability will provide houses >without much labor, without economic growth, without excessive resource >consumption, and without a need for large income. Security, abundance and >leisure are all supported by such arrangements. > >Last time I checked no revolution will be needed to institute inheritance, >or family planning, or automation, or even transfer payments. We already >have those things in our society. It may take a revolution to get the >message out about how those things can be used to provide the things we >really want. > >Barry Brooks **************************************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 http://home.attbi.com/~haledward **************************************************** _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
