FW: [Ananda] Lighten Up
Title: FW: [Ananda] Lighten Up -- -- From: M [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ananda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Ananda] Lighten Up Date: Thu, Nov 11, 1999, 5:08 AM DOWNSIZING HANDBOOK FOR EMPLOYEES As a result of the reduction of money budgeted for department areas, we are forced to cut down on our number of personnel. Under this plan, older employees will be asked to go on early retirement, thus permitting the retention of the younger people who represent our future. Therefore, a program to phase out older personnel by the end of the current fiscal year, via retirement, will be placed into effect immediately. This program will be known as SLAP (Sever Late-Aged Personnel). Employees who are SLAPPED will be given the opportunity to look for jobs outside the company. SLAPPED employees can request a review of their employment records before actual retirement takes place. This phase of the program is called SCREW (Survey of Capabilities of Retired Early Workers). All employees who have been SLAPPED or SCREWED may file an appeal with the upper management. This is called SHAFT (Study by Higher Authority Following Termination). Under the terms of the new policy, an employee may be SLAPPED once SCREWED twice, but may be SHAFTED as many times as the company deems appropriate. If an employee follows the above procedures, he/she will be entitled to Get HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel's Early Severance) or CLAP (Combined Lumpsum Assistance Payment) unless he/she already has AIDS (Additional Income From Dependents or Spouse). As HERPES and CLAP are considered benefit plans, any employee who has received HERPES or CLAP will no longer be SLAPPED or SCREWED by the company. Management wishes to assure the younger employees who remain on board that the company will continue its policy of training employees through our Special High Intensity Training (SHIT). This company takes pride in the amount of SHIT our employees receive. We have given our employees more SHIT than any company in this area. If any employee feels they do not receive enough SHIT on the job, see your immediate supervisor. YOUR SUPERVISOR IS SPECIALLY TRAINED TO MAKE SURE YOU RECEIVE ALL THE SHIT YOU CAN STAND.
no subject
Some thoughts on Aberattions I was trying to explain the other day, to my 9 year old daughter about wages, value, work and welfare. Quite a challenge. I found coming out of my mouth some interesting thoughts. Has it every occured that when you are on welfare, their seems to be a principle in which if you are single, you recieve one amount of money - while if you have dependants, you recieve more money. But, once you move into the waged economy, your income is based on the job, not on the number of dependants you have. Which creates and interesting anomaly. Take a job - truck driver - value of job $15 per hour. Now, if a single man does this job, he is allowed to keep the whole $15 for himself and spend it however he chooses. We accept that idea without a question - right. Now, what if his co-worker has 3 children and a wife and one of his children requires additional costs, let's say drugs. The system is set up so that he recieves the same $15, but is expected to spread that around to cover 5 dependants. Why would we chose to make the job the deciding factor rather than a persons needs in regards to dependants. Especially when in other areas of income, we have accepted the thought that those with more dependants require more money, such as welfare? Well, it is the difference between two ways of thought - isn't it. One is the thought of socialism and the other is the thought of capitialism. Take for a point of interest housing. We often see two middle aged people living in suburban splendor - 20,000 sq ft of tastefully decorated, heated and convienced comfort while we look at people raising kids who find themselves in limited space, restricted furniture, living one on top of the other. How do we rationalize that? Well, we do it through the capitalistic model, which says as you gain experience, get older and have more responsibility in the work world, you get paid more - in other words, by the job. Perhaps in a socialistic society, the family of children would be alloted the big house on the basis of their needs and as the children grew, the living quarters might be reduced as the needs grow less. Now, if you were put in the position of a new world and you became the economic god. How would you decide. The job is the determiner of wealth and use of resources - or the needs of people become the determinant of wealth and use resources? Might not a very rational and humane system be devised based on needs rather than qualifications? What would be the downside - well perhaps, some would say that all those lazy people who don't want to work, would just have a lot of children. Ha, anyone who thinks that has never had to deal with children 24 hours a day. A job is infinitely easier than being around 2 or 3 young children for ten years or so. On the other hand, one could argue that perhaps many of the problems of society would be eliminated if there was no poverty in families and children had adequate family resources, parents who might be able to spend more time in the family and that over time, many of the costs of the capitalistic society would just not be incurred. Of course, ruiminations like this come down to the hard fact, that those who benefit from the current situation, also hold the bureaucratic power, academic power, financial power and when in government the political power. Now the argument might be made that if this was truly wanted, then there would be a political movement towards this. But most who hold jobs, who have been brought up in the capitalistic way of thinking, cannot and will not engage in a discussions of this manner, nor provide the money or the structure which would allow an honest polling of the populace through a vote. Rather, the media, the academics, the rich, derail such thoughts and aspirations by sheer neglect - they won't talk about it, promote it, argue it or in any manner do anything but avoid it and riducule it. And so the world goes on, following a particular philosophy - without debate or experiment into other ideas. After I had went through this with my 9 year old, she sat quietly for awhile and finally said, "I understand what you mean Dad and it sounds really good. How come people don't pay you to talk about this? To which I could only reply - they don't want to hear. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde --
FW: Putting on the line - could you do it?
Title: FW: Putting on the line - could you do it? Thomas: You may have noticed - a little ego here - I have not been posting lately. Why! Because I came to the realization that ideas and talk are not going to solve our multiple problems and I felt I had to withdraw and rethink this whole situation. Tom Attlee, the author of the word co-stupidity which I posted an essay about to the list several months ago is perhaps feeling the same way - as are other groups he is working with. They finally moved out of their comfort zone in a very big way to make a point of incredible value. (see essay below) The image now in my mind is Tinneamin Square (sp?) - remember that image of the Chinese man standing in front of the tank and when the tank tried to go around him, he continued to move in front - in essence saying, listen and respond or take my life the choice is yours, I am just going to stand here (naked) and you make the decision. I'm beginning to think that the only way we can slow and stop this insanity around us of poverty, Y2K, the effects of capitalism on the Earth and future generations is to take our clothes off and stand in front of the tank. Instead of starving us, lying to us, tricking us, decieving us - just go ahead and kill us - we stand here naked before you. Revolution is not the answer. Dramatic helplessness may be. I watch the news and see the people of Serbia, begging daily for Milosovic to just go away. They are not crying for punishment or justice, they are just saying Please, go away, allow us to regroup and rebuild and restructure our country. That is what most of us want - for the existing structure to just go away and allow the rest of us to regroup, rebuild and restructure. Take the damn money you have stolen, just go away. Perhaps we have to give them the alternative - kill us or just go away, it is your choice and stand there in front of them - naked. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde When you think about what you have to do in this culture to get your priorities straight, it just boggles the mind!! But it is always heartening to hear about someone doing it. I wonder if there will be any copycat demonstrations elsewhere... -- Coheartedly, Tom Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:03:06 -0700 (PDT) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Wendy Tanowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [y2k-nuclear] Nudes, not nukes! Our Y2K World Atomic Safety Holiday campaign people were at a forum on nuclear weapons last night. It was a ho-hum affair until Helen Caldicott and Patch Adams related a story about how they had called a press conference in Washington D.C. to talk about the possibility of extinction because of y2k as it relates to nuclear weapons and power. No one came. So last night, Helen said, What does it take to get their attention? Do I have to take my clothes off? Then Patch Adams asked the audience how many would be willing to take their clothes off. Dozens raised their hands. One of our Y2K WASH folks called the press, we all disrobed and marched down Van Ness Avenue chanting, disrobe for disarmament, and Nudes, not nukes! The SF Examiner and Channel 5 did fair coverage--no frontal nudity, however. They both get the story right about the reason we were doing this. This is the story which appeared in the San Francisco Examiner today, 10/4. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ examiner/hotnews/stories/04/naked.dtl Activists reveal naked truth about nuclear catastrophes By Ray Delgado OF THE EXAMINER STAFF Monday, October 4, 1999 50 people march nude on Van Ness to draw attention to Y2K dangers Some activists get arrested to draw attention to their cause. Others scream and rant in hopes that people will listen. Some nuclear activists, on the other hand -- well, they get naked. About 50 people who gathered Sunday night near City Hall for a conference on the potential dangers of Y2K-induced nuclear catastrophes ended the session with a mass nude demonstration along a block of Van Ness Avenue. Desperate for press attention for their cause, they opted to get covered by uncovering. The nude march was led by Patch Adams, an activist and doctor who inspired the movie based on his lifetime of unconventional approaches to adversity. Non-violent people like us really have so few tools to face a capitalist system, Adams told the crowd as they uncomfortably disrobed outside Herbst Theater in the War Memorial Building. All we really have are ourselves and our ideas. Our ideas have not done the job. With those words, the crowd whooped and hollered their way out of the building and onto Van Ness for a quick stroll down the street, chanting, Disrobe for disarmament, and, News, not nukes. Along Van Ness Avenue, some cars slowed to gawk and others honked at the protesters, who cheered in response. The night air was chilly enough to have a noticeable effect on some participants, but there was no shortage of enthusiasm among the participants. I'm glad to be a part of a community that is as passionate
FW - Interesting re-post
Title: FW - Interesting re-post From: Mark Graffis [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Our Lost Wealth: People + Natural Resources = Real Wealth THE UNITED STATES WASTES MORE THAN $2 TRILLION ANNUALLY `Our Lost Wealth' is excerpted from Paul Hawken's `Natural Capitalism' the cover story of Mother Jones magazine's April '97 issue. Hawken argues that business' focus on `using more resources to make fewer people more productive' has the perverse effect of eliminating jobs when labor is plentiful while depleting our limited natural resources. The result: immense resource waste and incalculable social waste stemming from a growing population of un- and underemployed people. Look for Mother Jones on your local newsstand or call 1-800- GET-MOJO to request a trial issue. Paul Hawken is an internationally known businessman and author. The United States prides itself on being the richest country in the world. yet we can't balance the budget, pay for education, or take care of the aged and infirm. How is it that we can have both a growing economy and a growing underclass? In politics, they say quot;follow the money.quot; What you find is that the waste in resources and people shows up in our overall gross domestic product (GDP). Of the $7 trillion spent every year in the United States, we waste at least $2 trillion. What is meant by waste? Money spent where the buyer gets no value. GET OUT YOUR CALCULATORS The World Resources Institute has found that roadway congestion costs $100 billion per year in lost productivity, not counting gasoline, accident and maintenance costs. Highway accidents cost $358 billion per year, including $228 billion in pain and suffering and $40 billion in property damage. We spend another $85 billion indirectly subsidizing free parking at shopping malls and workplaces. The hidden social costs of driving - hidden because they are not paid by motorists directly - also include disease and damage to crops and forests caused by auto exhaust. these charges total $300 billion. We spend $50 billion a year to guard sea-lanes and to protect oil sources we would not need if President Reagan had not gutted emission standards in 1986. We spend nearly $200 billion a year in supplementary energy costs because we do not employ the same energy efficiency standards for our businesses and homes as do the Japanese. We waste around $65 billion on non-essential or fraudulent medical tests and, by some estimates, $250 billion on inflated overhead generated by the current health insurance system. We spend $52 billion on substance abuse, $69 billion on obesity treatments, $125 billion on heart disease, and, some estimate, as much as $100 billion on health problems related to air pollution. Legal, accounting, audit, bookkeeping and record-keeping expenditures to comply with an unnecessarily complex and unenforceable tax code cost citizens at least $250 billion a year; what Americans fail to pay the IRS adds up to another $150 billion. Crime costs taxpayers $450 billion a year; lawsuits, $300 billion. These figures don't include disbursements for Superfund sites, monies to clean up nuclear weapons facilities (estimated to be as high as $500 billion), the annual cost of 25 billion tons of material waste, subsidies to environmentally damaging industries, loss of fisheries, damage from overgrazing, water pollution, topsoil loss, government waste, gambling, or the social costs of unemployment. Conceivably, half the GDP is spent on waste. If we could shift a portion of these expenditures to more productive uses, we would have the money to balance our budget, take care of those who cannot care for themselves, raise wonderfully educated and responsible children, restore degraded environments, and help developing countries. If, for example, we had simply adopted stricter energy standards in 1974 - standards in use by Japan - and had applied the savings to the national debt, we would not have a national deficit today. (Reprint, Earth Times, May, 1997 edition) Copyright copy; 1996. The Light Party. The Light Party, 20 Sunnyside Ave., Suite A-156 Mill Valley, CA 94941. Tel: (415) 381-4061 * Fax: (415) 381-2645 Dedicated to quot;Health, Peace and Freedom for Allquot;/CENTERYour Feedback is important to us. Please send us E-Mail. Our E-mail address is on our Home Page A HREF = http://www.lightparty.com/index.html [Unable to display image] Back to The Light Party Home Page... --
Re: Philosophy contemplated
Thomas: Yep, (Desire is a driving force for making things better.) and Greko said that greed is good. The results are all around us and growing all the time - the direct result of desire fanned by advertising. It appears that not only do you like to be controlled by your desires but your dog - the result of one of your desires also controls your activities. Now as to impulses ? The above is an attempt at humor - not sarcasm. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Philosophy contemplated Date: Wed, Aug 18, 1999, 3:14 AM Gee, when my dog wants to go pee, he drags me out the door. If we manage to acquire something on our outing, I blame it on him because he is big enough to haul it home on his own. Philosophies which demand that one get rid of desires offend me. Desire is a driving force for making things better. David
Re: Interesting - anti-Americanism or a point?
Thomas: Globalization is not necessarily an American issue - it is a business issue from a capitalistic viewpoint of ever expanding growth. The fact that it dovetails with the American myth of the endless frontier and is dramatized by the most powerful image machine of history as reflected in the media's of North America seems to point the finger at America. Historically, one can perhaps state that it is just another form of expansionist history. From Alexander The Great, to Rome, to the Vikings, to the British Empire, the Catholic Church, Budda and Mohamed, and many others in between, there seems to arise in history, movements that strive to globalize. All have ended up in the dustbin of history - as will globalization. What endures is family, sex, the need to eat and have shelter, the desire for entertainment, happiness and a search for the meaning of life through philosophy and religion and drugs. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M.Blackmore) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Interesting - anti-Americanism or a point? Date: Tue, Aug 17, 1999, 12:00 PM Copied from a discussion... any comments anyone? Is "globalisation" really an American issue? "Will we permit the future history of the world to become the history of America? Of the American Corporation - or more precisely the American-dominated financial system? And just how short a history will we allow it to be? For globalisation isn't really a world phenomenon - it is largely American organisations with their culture, outlook, strategies and philosophies, which define the lives more and more people lead - and the deaths they die. It is a phenomenon from a particular place and time imposed upon global place and time. At least for now. This America extends its frontiers into new worlds, and takes over old ones. It strides time and space in a simultaneous perversion and continuation of its peculiar historical psychology of conquest. It now seeks to extend these frontiers into the totality of the human mind (or was the American Dream always a conquest of the mind?) Unprecededented control of information via corporatly controlled media creates corporately made minds, a populace with limited understanding of the real world they inhabit, shaped by selected information and mythologies of freedom. An engineered world-view to override all other perceived possibilities - there can be no alternative, therefore there is no alternative. Their reality may be hell or an ersatz heaven for those (anxiously) within reach of the orbits of privilege. But the reality of possibility that can be mentally grasped by the "kept stupid" is filtered through mindsets selected, designed, packaged and presented for consumption and for specific purposes. Even in rebellion - for the people are not happy but know not what to do - rebellion is channeled into paths that simultaneously emasculate possibilities for unravelling power, allows useful release for the minority who fail to be passive, and the excuse to suppress those who push too hard. If alternative ways are either inconceivable or, the very act of being different can only be dreams without possibility of substance, challenge to dominant power becomes impossible. And that forthcoming history a short history? Indeed. For without turning from the current course of environmental and human degradation future world history - or the history of civilisation - may be very short".
Ruiminations on information
ir and this small and inconclusive essay. In fact, I would guess that if you were to examine some of your activities, you would find that impulse is quite a big player in the type and quality of information you get and a very serious generator of experiences that you live through. Is this the "invisible hand" of human experience? Respectfully, Thomas Lunde --
Re: [graffis-l] 'Smart' materials could soon revolutionize many products
Thomas: A little side article that gives us a more comprehensive look at where nanotechnology is starting to take us. What I would like to see, is a suit that keeps you warm in the winter - now that would be a smart material. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: Mark Graffis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright © 1999 Christian Science Monitor Service By ALEX SALKEVER (August 8, 1999 12:12 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - When a helicopter chatters loudly overhead in Boston, most people look up and see the police or a traffic reporter. Harry Tuller sees ceramics. That's because the Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist is working on a revolutionary type of helicopter rotor that can continuously change shape in midflight when zapped with electrical charges. These rotors, made of a new class of materials called electroceramics, could improve the performance and reliability of helicopter flight. Tuller's electroceramics are just one of a myriad of so-called "smart materials" that are increasingly emerging from labs and being used to enhance performance safety, and efficiency in a wide range of industries. Hybrid ceramic materials are embedded in snow skis to dampen vibrations and smooth out the ride on the slopes. JCPenney stores are using super-thin display signs that look like paper but contain words and numbers spelled out with thousands of pigment-filled capsules made of a new type of electrically sensitive plastic. These display signs, which can be reconfigured remotely, are a likely precursor to portable newspapers that are constantly updated with wireless data transmissions. Eyeglass frames made of "memory" metal alloys return to their original shape when a certain temperature threshold is passed. These gee-whiz materials are merely the start of a new era in which humanity will achieve stunning mastery over matter. "Only in the last decade, with the advent of more-powerful computers, have we started to acquire the tools for trying to predict in advance the relationship between a property and a structure," says Tuller. Knowledge is power Knowledge seekers have long coveted greater control over the materials that make up the world. Medieval alchemists futilely attempted to synthesize gold from lesser elements. And failure to understand the nature of matter and the chemical elements has proven disastrous. In the 19th century, physicians regularly prescribed heavy metals like arsenic as remedies, which sometimes proved fatal. But when people have gained some mastery of crucial materials, they have changed the course of history. Magnetic lodestones, for example, allowed Chinese sailors to create navigational compasses, which led to the first transoceanic explorations. But this pales in comparison to the threshold scientists stand upon today. For the first time ever, researchers can examine complex matrixes of molecules and predict how changing them will alter their properties. This new and far deeper understanding of how matter acts and reacts enables scientists to create materials that are not static but rather reactive and malleable in relation to factors such as temperature, electrical currents or physical stress. "A smart material can tell you something about a situation or a state of affairs by responding in a predictable way to some kind of stimulus," explains Art Ellis, a chemist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Smart and intuitive Unlike past advances in material science, which have been far more piecemeal, the current onslaught covers many fronts, from ceramics to metals to plastics. And it is churning out discoveries at an astonishing rate. Hand in hand with smart materials go recent advances in reducing the size of microprocessors and computers. Scientists are now hard at work integrating the two to create powerful systems that can be embedded in everything from clothing to performance-enhancing spark plugs. But some smart materials are so intuitive that they actually will eliminate the need for microprocessors that now generally control things like air bags or other mechanical processes. The U.S. Navy has created a diving wet suit with tiny wax capsules embedded in its material. The capsules melt at just below body temperature, taking heat from the skin of a diver who is putting on the dry suit and storing it. The heat is preserved in these capsules and later shields the diver against cold water and keeps the suit comfortable longer. The same method of regulating temperature is also used in boots. "When we put our finger on a hot stove, we pull it back from the stove. A really smart material system is like that.
Re: Co-stupidity (and the flaws that cause it, or context that nourishes it)
-- -- From: "Thomas Lunde" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Douglas P. Wilson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Co-stupidity (and the flaws that cause it, or context that nourishes it) Date: Thu, Aug 5, 1999, 8:56 PM I would like to mention WesBurt at the start of this post. I have just read his lengthy post and though I cannot follow all his economic arguments I can agree with his thesis. Society has totally neglected the investment in it's children by not providing additional income for those years of parenthood. The capitalistic idea of paying a single man the same as a married man with children is obscene and only penalizes the parent and society as a whole. WesBurt's analysis is correct as far as it goes in my opinion, but it neglects the ideas I present below through Pearce's quote - and he is not the only author making these statements - they just don't get good book reviews. Now, it turns out that our Prime Minister may actually bring in a National Day Care system and guess what, it amounts to $5000 per child per year up to the age of six. I would say that WesBurts math is pretty good. In light of what Pearce says though, that $5000 per child would be better spent allowing the mother to mother her children rather than send them to day care. If mother's mothered, we would not only get healthier psychological adults but their removal from the workforce into this highly specialized and natural employment would also lower the unemployment rate bringing some of our economy back into balance. Now to my answer to Douglas's points: -- Thomas wrote: You know, people are the problem. Why? My answer is because most of us are terribly dysfunctional. Why? Douglas wrote: Actually I don't think we are all that dysfunction by nature. How well or poorly people function depends on their social context or social environment -- the people they live, work, and make love with. Thomas: Ah, that I had a scanner or ten hours to type in a proper response to this statement. Given that I don't and I don't really want to paraphrase the power of the words in the following lengthy quote, let me say they come from the book Evolutions End by Joesph Chilton Pearce who has just spent two excruciating chapters talking about the childbirth practices in the United States and most of the Western World and how they have destroyed Natures birthing cycle which has created a lack of bonding, the first and most essential step in healthy child development. At the risk of boring everyone on the list senseless, I am going to pick up his thread on Page 125. Quote: No good comes from discussing any of this. An enormous literature has appeared over the years to no avail. These obscene practices have become not just acceptable but the model for childbirth. Our current generations are the unbonded victims shaped by the system, terrified of the thought of birth outside the medical umbrella, willing to pay any price to avoid personal responsibility for what is considered a dreadful experience. As my New Zealand physician friend, Stephen Taylor, put it, this is really a basic war of man against woman. In the male intellect's long battle with the intelligence of the heart, the real trump card was found in catching the woman when she is most vulnerable and stripping her of her power. Now, it seems we have her --- and are surely had. Beneath it all grows great anger: children angry at their parents; men angry at women because they didn't get what they needed from women at life's most critical point and still fail to get it; women angry at men for robbing them of their power and, identifying with their oppressors, rejecting motherhood and men in the process. This has caused a rising tide of incompetence and inability to nurture and care for offspring. The genetically encoded intuitions for nurturning have been shattered, and the results are cloaked by ever-so-practical rationalizations. The largest growing work force of the 1980's were the mothers of children under age three. Day care, an unknown phenomenon until recent years, is a major growth industry. Seventy percent of all children under age four were in day care by 1985, and major concerns of the nation are how to get them all into day care --- and who will pay for it. Our species has survived throughout its history by women caring for women in childbirth, yet midwifery in the United States has been virtually illegal for the last half century. Male surgeons are in charge and many of the female obstretricians follow their system andd are little better. Home birth under any circumstances is safer and more successful than hospital birth, by a six-to-one ratio. That is, the death rate is six times higher in hospitals than at home, regardless of conditions.. Male doctors' intellect has interfered with women's intelligence and in effect, destroyed a major se
Re: Co-stupidity
Dear Douglas: I have taken the time to read your Web Page, but not your Social Technology page. You have obviously put in an immense amount of "thinking time" on your ideas - and many of them I can heartily agree with. Friendships and relationships that are positive are very enriching and those that are not can be very destructive - who needs it? Same with jobs. Who wouldn't like to work with compatible people in a people structured environment rather than the competitive ratrace that is the current capitalistic model. So, at a superficial level, I find congruence with your outcomes and some unease with your methodologies - partly because I am math aversive by nature and I seriously distrust statistics and generalizations and approximations that are often drawn from statistics. You know, people are the problem. Why? My answer is because most of us are terribly dysfunctional. Why? No one answer covers such a simple question but one of my heroes is Joesph Chilton Pearce who wrote Crack in the Cosmic Egg and a more recent book I am reading called Evolutions End. Joesph's answer is that we haven't figured out the methodology to work with natures plan. We have made bad guesses about human psychology, child birthing, child development phases and we are working against nature, the result has been dysfunctional people. A leap of logic here, when you have dysfunctional people, you have dysfunctional society's, dysfunctional economic systems and dysfunctional relationships. Joesph's answer is to start trying to raise more people from pre-natal to adulthood who are not dysfunctional. These people, not being dysfunctional will then be able - from their more normal perspective, will be able to devise new systems that make people more of what they could be. Well, that's a pretty utopian plan but it has a logic in it that is difficult to deny. If you are a hog breeder and the hogs you are working with do not carry enough weight to make you a profit, you engage in a long term project to breed hogs that grow bigger - quicker. Now, I do not like my own analogy but it has a big truth in it. You can't make something better when your raw materials are flawed. You can't make a better people society when the flaws in the people that created the dysfunctional society are the very ones trying to design a new society. My guess, you will just get another version of a flawed society. I could go through your lengthy reply to my post and make some comments of agreement and defense. I would rather challenge this topic with some new ideas and get your response on them. So I will leave the rebuttals to another time and await your comments on this theme. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde --
Re: Co-stupidity
Thomas: Thanks for your detailed comments. On one point we have agreement Douglas, we have both got our dates set wrong on our computer. I was puzzeled that your message was at the bottom of my date ordered inbox - really, Friday, Feb 27, 1920 is further than I ever dared to err. You wrote: I'm not sure "our system" was ever designed, I think it just grew. Perhaps we could design a better system, but who is to do the designing? We don't work well together, as Mr. Atlee has pointed out, so how can we succeed in designing a better system? Thomas: I'm sorry that you seem to have given up on the best idea I've seen. The "who" of course is problematic if you limit yourself to a one shot try. I would prefer a more plural form, say "whom" of many aspirants can produce the "best" structure rather than system. (System: a complex whole; a set of connected things or parts functioning together) (Structure: a set of interconnecting parts of any complex thing; a framework.) Try the formula "Structure determines the form of the processes" in which structure is a defined state. Hard to get a grip on but perhaps an example. Representative Democracy is in my opinion a structure for political goverance selection. As a structure, it is predisposed to the concepts of political parties and political parties exist like corporations over a long period of time. So you get a model of government in which those selected are focused on the survival of their Party which is often at variance with those who selected them - the governed. You said: The same comment applies to "how good our process is". It isn't. But what process have we for improving our process? Not one that works, I suppose, or we'd notice the process improving. Hands up how many people see things improving. Thomas: I view process as a direct result of structure - the formula - structure determines the form of the process. Therefore, to improve process, then you make changes in structure. If your structure is electing government through the process of political party's and it is assessed by consensus that politcal party's do not give good governance, then it seems to me that a structure is needed that changes the process to something else. Now, at one time, we had as a structure, heriditary monarchy. Over time, it became apparent that we got a lot of stupid monarch's who created a stupid nobility which did really stupid things with the resources of a country. So we invented a new structure for the times - representative democracy. Now, the times have changed - we no longer live in a time constrained agricultural society in which it often took days or weeks for information to travel a few miles to one in which information is instantaneous. We need a new structure and from that will flow new processes which will produce different results. Now, this new structure can come on us willy nilly through historical movements like globalization or can come to use through the design of structures that allow a humane rather than capitalistic globalization in which a structure is being created by those who influence or control the market. Now, I agree, that this does not solve the problem of the "who" or "whom", but I think that they is we - yep, you and me and millions of others over the next 10 years who are going to be creating all this noise on the Internet - the new forum for change. Out of that discontent and collage of ideas will arise political leaders who can articulate the consensus of all this discontent. Much as the American and French Revolutions found leaders to articulate the discontent within the monarchical societies. Perhaps this time we can do it without a war or a gullitine (sp). Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- -- From: "Douglas P. Wilson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Co-stupidity Date: Fri, Feb 27, 1920, 11:46 PM Well 'co-stupidity' is certainly an interesting word. It seems somewhat similar to a word or phrase that I often use, 'error-covariance', but I prefer the latter because it carries a remedy along with it. "Co-stupidity" describes the collective inability of groups, communities, organizations and societies to see what's happening in and around them, and to deal effectively with what they find. ... We are not dealing with a universal truth here -- there are a few examples of groups, communities, organizations, and (perhaps) even societies that have functioned well, seeing problems and dealing with them effectively. But yes, it's mostly true, collective intelligence is much less common that collective stupidity. I can also agree with these statements: The know-how exists with which to dramatically improve our collective intelligence. We could build the capacity to be wise together instead of co-stupid. Yes, of course the know-how exists. I
RE: Y2K - Out of sight - out of mind - but stillthere
Title: RE: Y2K - Out of sight - out of mind - but stillthere Thomas: Doing some Web browsing, I came across this article. The media have not been focusing our attention on this problem, but as the following article explains in chilling detail, the problem is still with us - a time bomb, perhaps, that could not only destroy our economy but the lives of millions. For most of us, we are in the similar situation of a train going through an avalanche area. We all know that the noise of the train could trigger an avalanche which could kill us, but we are on the train and there is no way off. Perhaps lack of knowledge is the best placebo to fear. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- The Co-Intelligence Institute // CII home // Y2K home The Accidental Armageddon http://www.theage.com.au/daily/990620/news/news22.html By HELEN CALDICOTT The Y2K bug could trigger a nuclear holocaust. So what are the experts doing? Hoping for the best MANY of the world's chemical plants, nuclear reactors and nuclear-weapon systems rely heavily on date-related computer systems. So what will happen to them come the millennium bug? It is remarkable that the Pentagon, the United States Defence headquarters, computerised its nuclear weapons, delivery systems and early-warning systems, despite knowing there was a date-related problem. And it beggars comprehension that the nuclear power industry made the same mistake. There are 433 non-military nuclear power reactors in the world, 103 of them in the US. All depend on an intact coolant system. In most reactors, integral components of the cooling system are computerised. So if any date-dependent fixture breaks down, the reactor could melt down within minutes. How to deal with this? Even if the reactor is taken ``off line'' - that is, the fissioning process is stopped on 31 December and the cooling system fails on 1 January - it will still melt down within two hours. Indeed, even if the fission reaction were to be stopped today, the core would still be so hot in six months that it would melt down within 12 hours if the coolant system failed. But there's more. The circulation of coolant water is also dependent on an external electricity supply and an intact telecommunications system. If the millennium bug causes power failures and/or telecommunication malfunctions, reactors will be vulnerable. Because of this possibility, each US reactor has been equipped with two back-up diesel generators. But at best these are only 85 per cent reliable. So, in the event of a prolonged power failure, the back-up diesel generators will not necessarily prevent a nuclear catastrophe. And 67 Russian-built reactors are even more vulnerable, because they have no back-up generators. What is more, the Russian electricity grid is itself at great risk because, as one might expect, the political and economic turmoil in that country means the Y2K problem has hardly been examined. There are 70 old nuclear reactors on old Russian submarines moored at dock in the Barents Sea. If they were to lose the electricity grid powering their cooling systems, they would melt. About 80 per cent of France's electricity is nuclear generated. Its government has announced it will close its nuclear power plants for four days over the New Year. But this will not stop meltdowns if the external electricity supply is lost and the coolant fails to reach the intensely hot radioactive cores. Because the air masses of the two hemispheres do not generally mix at the equator, Australia is likely to be largely protected from the fallout from any catastrophic radioactive accidents in the northern hemisphere, where most reactors are located. But Russia and America maintain an arsenal of up to 3000 nuclear warheads, targeted at each other and their allies. These weapons are on hair-trigger alert, meaning only minutes are allowed for either side to determine whether an apparent attack is the result of a computer error. And Australia is home to several of the Russian targets, among them Pine Gap, Nurrunga, North West Cape and Tidbinbilla. In the event of a nuclear war - accidental or deliberate - they could expect to be on the receiving end of at least one hydrogen bomb each. The Pentagon, which maintains more computer systems than any other organisation in the world, is in disarray about Y2K. The Pentagon admits that it is physically impossible to locate all the embedded microchips within the systems. And even if a system is deemed Y2K compliant, each system interfaces with others, so that a faulty embedded chip or hardware problem in one system can infect another that is deemed Y2K compliant, and ``bring it down''. The US Deputy Secretary of Defence, John Hamre, was quoted in October last year as saying: ``Probably one out of five days I wake up in a cold sweat thinking (that the Y2K problem) is much bigger than we think, and then the other four days I think maybe
Re: Trail of Tears
Thomas: I have been deeply disturbed over the postings we have been engaged in. I have spent many hours of my walks ruminating on postings by Ed Weike and Ray Harrel and the themes of justice, injustice, governments, denial, cruelty to the Natives, etc. At the basis my unease is my inner sense of myself as a Canadian who has traveled a lot, read a lot and thought a lot about native governance, spirituality, relationships with the land and with the white man. I am not European and the culture of Europe that the school system and the political thought from Western civilization have tried to instil in me has failed. I am North American from the tribe of Canadians. We are a new grouping that has insinuated itself across the land called Canada. I am a hybrid being. The land itself has spoken to me in my lifetime with it's beauty, it's solitude, it's vastness and it's difficult climate and terrain. As I have searched for myself, I have had to include those who came before me in this land, The First Nations People, because we are sharing this experience and it has formed them as it is forming me and my children. We have taken from those before us, not only some of their land, but their understandings of life, governance and spirituality and incorporated these gifts into our tribe. The tribe of Americans have done the same. And yet, in a curious lack, we have failed to honour that which we recieved and found valuable. It is a denial of shame. We have not had the cathrarsis of freeing the repressed guilt of the Western European actions that our forebearers created by their actions against the land and it's original inhabitants. We are in collective denial and individual denial of accepting those gifts freely given by the people we have treated so badly. We also have denied the grandeur of the land and animals and plant life that we collectively share. We fear opening ourselves to the true possibilities that would evolve if we accepted the co-existence of this place with all that exists here. There is a need ... to allow ourselves to grow. To relinguish the European, the Asian, the Middle East from our identity. There is a need to incorporate what we are - where we are and stand alone on those truth's. Those who come from those other cultures - as my grandparents did, need to make the paradigm shift from being half breeds, honouring cultures which we no longer are part off and owning the cultures we have become and finally including those who are our brothers - those who were here first - not just the people, but the animals and the land and the fishes and the prairies and the oceans and the sky. For this place is different. The vibrations of this land are different and we collectively need to stop denying them by holding onto other truths and embrace our own. We are the New World and the Old World needs our unique contribution. The question is; can we accecpt our heritage and become what those before us - in their highest achievements exemplified and then add what we are to that potential? Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- The Co-Intelligence Institute CII home // Y2K home // CIPolitics home American Indians: The original democrats Many people think that our democratic tradition evolved primarily from the Greeks and the English. But those political cultures, steeped in slavery, aristocracy, and property-power, provided only a counterpoint to the real source of our federal democracy - the American Indians. In the following selections from his book Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World (Crown Publishers, NY, 1988), Jack Weatherford looks into the historic record to correct the mythology we have been raised with. -- Tom Atlee The most consistent theme in the descriptions penned about the New World was amazement at the Indians' personal liberty, in particular their freedom from rulers and from social classes based on ownership of property. For the first time the French and the British became aware of the possibility of living in social harmony and prosperity without the rule of a king. As the first reports of this new place filtered into Europe, they provoked much philosophical and political writing. Sir Thomas More incorporated into his 1516 book Utopia those characteristics then being reported by the first travelers to America More's work was translated into all the major European languages Louis Armand de Lom d'Arce, Baron de Lahontan, wrote several short books on the Huron Indians of Canada based on his stay with them from 1683 to 1694 [during which he] found an orderly society, but one lacking a formal government that compelled such order Soon thereafter, Lahontan became an international celebrity feted in all the liberal circles. The playwright Delisle de la Drevetiere adapted these ideas to the stage in a play about an American Indian's visit to Paris
Re: Co-stupidity
Title: Re: Co-stupidity Thomas: Sometimes, a new word cuts across previous arguments like a Bowie knife hacking a venison limb. Co-stupidity is such a word. No need to add my comments to this article - we are all living in the results of our collective -! Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- The Co-Intelligence Institute // CII home // Y2K home What I most want to communicate about Y2K If you only read one page on this site, let it be this one. -- Tom Atlee Everything has changed save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift towards unparalleled catastrophes. Albert Einstein Co-stupidity describes the collective inability of groups, communities, organizations and societies to see what's happening in and around them, and to deal effectively with what they find. It is the opposite of collective intelligence. But it is vital to understand that to say a group or society is behaving co-stupidly or co-intelligently says nothing about the intelligence of the individuals involved. Some of the most co-stupid groups are made up of brilliant people who use their brilliance to undermine each other so that together they add up to nothing -- or who are trapped in a dysfunctional group process or social system that erodes or wastes their brilliance or, worse yet, transmutes it into collective catastrophe. On the other hand, people of very ordinary or even low intelligence can, if they collaborate well within a well-designed system, generate a level of collective brilliance that far exceeds what they could do under the control of a brilliant leader. Once we are in a group or society, our collective intelligence or stupidity has little to do with how clever or slow we are individually -- and everything to do with how well our system is designed, how good our process is, how wisely we handle information, and how well we all work together. Y2K arose from a profound societal co-stupidity that does not reside within the specific people and institutions involved so much as within a system that calls forth actions which seem to make sense to the well-intentioned, smart people and organizations involved -- but which, when taken together, add up to potential catastrophe for all of society. Such co-stupidity is not limited to Y2K, of course. We see it all around us -- not only in business meetings and the halls of government, but in our collective social lives. For example: * We are collectively creating global warming by driving our cars and running our air conditioners. We don't intend to create global warming -- and most of us who are aware that we are doing it also fervently wish we weren't. But our society and economy are set up so that it is very difficult if not impossible for us to avoid participating in creating global warming. It is ultimately futile to blame and exhort individual citizens about their role in this when the system itself makes it so hard to behave any other way. * We are poisoning our children with the chemicals of everyday life. Again, we don't want to. But our society produces 75,000 synthetic chemicals, fewer than half of which have been tested for toxicity. As parents, we don't even know which of these chemicals are involved in the things our children do every day, in the air they breathe, in the things they touch. Our children's bodies are affected anyway, whether we know it or not. Childhood asthmas, cancers, brain problems, and other diseases are on a rapid rise. What do we make of this? * We are destroying our farmland. We are paving it over. We are poisoning our aquifers and watersheds with agricultural chemicals. We are removing nutrients from the soil by growing food and then not returning those nutrients through the composting of human and animal waste. Our use of chemical fertilizers undermines the natural fertility of the soil, so that it yields less and less each year unless more fertilizers are added (i.e., it is addicted to fertilizer). Tons of topsoil are washed or blown away by poor soil management practices. And now we (in the form of Monsanto and the USDA) are creating seeds designed to poison the next generation of seeds. And all this is happening while every individual and organization involved is doing their job, playing by the rules, and not intending to destroy the capacity of our nation to feed itself. As a culture, we don't see -- we don't really get it -- that we're doing these things. Individually and institutionally, we may or may not know something about all this -- but most of our attention is on other problems and other opportunities that are validated by the society we live in. Those individuals and organizations that do see what's happening have to struggle mightily against the current of a system whose design -- unless
Re: Canadian Indian Claims
Thomas: This is great stuff Ed and I thank you for taking the time to share it, I'm learning. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- -- From: "Ed Weick" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Canadian Indian Claims Date: Fri, Jul 30, 1999, 3:54 PM Brad: Another popular idea I find dubious is providing reparations to the living for the harms done to the dead. Should a [black, indian, etc.] M.D., lawyer, university professor, etc. be paid reparations for the harm done to his or her ancestors, who, being dead, are presumably beyond the ability of earthly things to affect them any more? In the case of the settlement of aboriginal claims in Canada, it is not a case of reparations to the living for what was done to the dead. It is a matter of recognizing longstanding rights which aboriginal people have held since time immemorial and which are now entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. The dead held these rights, unique to aboriginal people, and passed them on to the living. The living are now able to enter into a negotiating process in which the rights can be defined and distinguished from more general rights held by the Canadian population as a whole. In this process, certain things to which the special rights apply, such as land and resources, may be relinquished or become part of the public domain, and it is for this that monetary compensation is paid. Canadian treaties and claims settlements, which have acknowledged aboriginal rights, have a rather mixed origin. The earliest treaties in which England was the main colonial power, those in the Maritimes, did not deal with rights but were essentially treaties of peace and friendship. In colonial French Quebec, the process was similar. Initially, the French saw Canada as fully occupied, and apart from establishing centers for trade with the inhabitants, did not expect to settle extensively themselves. In both regions, Indian people were viewed as self-governing nations, and there was no question of having them relinquish their rights to land and self- government. However, both regions were in fact settled. While rights were not extinguished, aboriginal people were pushed to the margins of society. Subsequently, reserves in Quebec and the Maritimes were created in a variety of ways, including lands set aside by the Catholic Church or lands purchased by the Government of Canada. For much of the rest of Canada, more clearly defined constitutional and legal bases for settling aboriginal claims exist. Following the conquest of Quebec, what is known as the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued by King George III to establish a boundary between the colonies (including Canada) and Indian lands. The latter generally lay west of Quebec (excluding Rupert's Land) and the Appalachian Mountains (in what soon after became the United States). Whites who had settled in Indian lands were asked to leave (whether they did so or not is another question). On their lands, as defined in the Royal Proclamation, Indians should not be "molested or disturbed". Purchase of the lands could only be made by the Crown. If Indians wanted to sell their lands, they could only do so if via an assembly for the purpose. Only specially licenced whites could carry on trade with the Indians. Rupert's Land was excluded from the Royal Proclamation because it was already under Royal Charter held by the Hudson's Bay Company. The Royal Proclamation was reinforced in western and northern Canadian lands by negotiation by the 1870 Order in Council by which the Northwest Territories (originally the North-Western Territory, which then included the prairies) and Rupert's Land were admitted into Confederation. It again recognized aboriginal title and provided that such title could not be extinguished except by negotiation with the Crown. However, the precise legal meaning of this OIC, and what requirements and limitations it imposes on government in settling aboriginal claims, is a matter of some ambiguity. More recently, Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act (1982) recognizes two sources of Native rights. One is treaty rights, which consist of land ownership, harvesting, and limited environmental and wildlife management rights. It should be noted that Metis and non-status Indians are included as native people in the Constitution Act along with Indians and Inuit. While recognition of aboriginal rights has a long history in Canada, it is only recently that government dealings with these rights has been a process which might be termed "reasonable" or "fair and equitable". Initial rounds of treaty making in Ontario in the 1820s were essentially land grabs. Reserves granted to Indians at the time were small because they were viewed as being places of transition into assimilation. The "numbered treaties" which were signed with Indian people in western Canad
FW: The profit motif knows no conscience
Title: FW: The profit motif knows no conscience Thomas: This posting is from Graffis and re-posted from EnviroScan: -- RISING COAL USE INCREASES AIR POLLUTION Coal consumption in the U.S. has risen almost 16 percent since 1992, says a report by the Environmental Working Group and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG). Thomas: Coal used for generation of electricity has a lot of nasty byproducts. I find it interesting that despite Kyoto and (the name eludes me at the moment) the big global warming seminar in South America, I believe in 1992 on George Bush's watch in which the US refused to sign, we are now seeing the blatant effects of lobby groups for the coal industry's gain coming home to roost. Lest my American friends think I am picking on them, we in Ontario are about to embark on increased coal use also under the current neo-con government of Mike Harris. Many older coal burning power plants were exempted from Clean Air Act standards. When Congress deregulated wholesale electricity sales in 1992, these old plants became more profitable because they compete with more recently built plants required to install pollution control equipment. Thomas: Clearly stated - profitable - need more be said. The report, Up In Smoke, looks at federal data on 446 power plants across the nation, tracks the use of coal plants since the 1992 Energy Policy Act was passed, and calculates the resulting smog and global warming pollution. Increased electrical generation at coal burning plants emitted 755,000 tons of nitrogen oxide pollution and 298 million tons of carbon dioxide in 1998. By increasing coal generation, eight large utility companies, American Electric Power Company, Cinergy Corporation, Dominion Resources Inc, Duke Power Company, Edison International, The Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority and Associated Electric Coop each emitted as much smog pollution as one million cars. Thomas: Lest the eye skim read too quickly, note the statement, each emitted as much smog pollution as one million cars. Now, let's see 8 x 1,000,000 + 8 million! Not mentioned was whether this was per year or over the 7 year period of 92 to 99. Increased smog pollution from Illinois, West Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana and Georgia power plants each equaled that from two million cars. Thomas: Whoops, 6 x 2,000,000 + 12 million plus 8 million = 20 million car equlivalents - Now that's a lot of cars and that's on helleva lot of pollution. This summer, tens of thousands of Americans will go to emergency rooms due to smog, said Rebecca Stanfield, clean air advocate for USPIRG. Thomas: Let's see, tens of thousands is pretty vague, are we talking 10 thousand or 90 thousand. Oh well, a thousand here or there is just another number, unless you happen to be one of them gasping and wheezing and being frightened out of your wits that you may have caught some terminal disease. However, it is so comforting to know that the power utilities have turned a nice profit and that the Health Care system professionals are overworked and doing better than ever - for those who have insurance, that is. It's time for Congress to protect public health by closing the loopholes allowing old coal plants to pollute our air. * * * Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: Marx, Keynes and Ancestors
-- -- From: "Ed Weick" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Thomas Lunde" [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Keith Hudson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Marx, Keynes and Ancestors Date: Mon, Jul 26, 1999, 10:17 PM Just a couple of points on Thomas Lunde's response to Keith Hudson: Point one is that one should not romanticize American aboriginal people. Prior to contact, they were enormously diverse, many peaceable, many warlike, some with very advanced cultures, others comparatively backward. In many cases, they did not like each other. Warfare, exacting tribute and the taking of slaves was not at all uncommon. The conquest of Mexico by Cortez was as much a rebellion against the Aztecs by tributary states as a military victory by the Spaniards. Thomas: Given that I agree with most of this critique and I agree that I often speak as if the First Nations were a homogenous group, I know they were not and that there was continual warfare between Indians and Eskimos and various Indian groupings. And yes, I am guilty of jumping around from the highly developed and large groupings of Eastern Canada to the more sparsely settled and nomadic groups in areas more difficult to survive in. Ed wrote: Point two is that Nunavut is a territory defined by legislation. If it were a province, it would have to be entrenched in the Canadian Constitution, a much more difficult thing to do. Moreover, the Government of Nunavut is a public government, not an ethnic one. That it will be dominated by Inuit arises from the fact that some 80% of the population is Inuit. There is nothing preventing non-Inuit from becoming members of the legislative assembly if they can get enough votes. Much of the bureaucracy will, for some time to come, consist of non-Inuit, though Inuit will no doubt become more representative as they develop management and professional skills. Thomas: I, conversely, expect that in fifty years this territory will evolve with a distinct cultural identity that will reflect native experience rather than just another legal entity in Canada. Personally, I'm skeptical about Nunavut's future. It does not have much of a resource base, though there are potential diamond mines. Its population of some 20,000 is not very well educated by Canadian standards and there are many social problems. For quite some time, the major industry will be government, and the major source of government revenue will be transfers from the Government of Canada, and we know that he who pays the piper calls the tune even if he pretends not to do so. Anyhow, that is my take on the situation. Ed Weick Thomas: The social problems you allude to are real. They have been caused primarily by our imposition of the money system in trade, the blatant use of alchol and the interference from a southern bureacracy that knew little and learned less, to say nothing of the imposition of the Christian religion and it's effect through reservation schools and the destroying of the spiritual culture that existed among the Native peoples. Despite all this, I still have faith that a people that have thrived in one of the harshest portions of the Earth will overcome the handicaps we, the Canadians, the Hudson Bay Company, the Church's have imposed on them. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: Marx, Keynes and Ancestors second of II
Thomas: I will be cruel. Without experience there is not understanding. Without feeling there is no wisdom. Western man objectivies everything and very little touchs him. People study religion, they do not practise religion. People study anthropology, they do not sit in the woods and feel the world. People argue about abstractions, they do not test their arguments in reality. To know about nudity, you have to take your clothes off. To know about hunger you have to experience not eating. To know about spiritual experience you have to have some. To know about trade, you have to trade. In the west, we do not trade, we buy and sell. The difference is we objectify every value into the mathematics of money. The "trader" arguing with the native over the value of a beaver pelt imposed objectivity on the trade - discounting the experience of traveling through the woods, setting traps, removing the life of an animal, scraping the skin, feeling the texture and beauty of nature expressed in the fur. Discounting the stories of the beaver and their relationship with the native and the exchange of learning that each had from the spirit of the other. Trade is about the exchange of values. Western man imposes values based not on use or creation, but on potential profit. The capitalist defines the rules. The question is, "why should we play their game?" We play the game because the capitalist holds something we might value or aspire to own and he sets the terms of it's price. In most cases, the capitalist did not make the knive or the gun but was able to buy that labour and craftsmanship because they held the power of food and shelter. They did this through political systems that have the ultimate power of physical force behind them. Capitalism, as we in West know it, did not develop among indigeous people because the food supply was always free. Any native could set a snare, start a fire and harden a stick to make a spear, pick a berry or dig a root or catch a fish. Any native could sleep in a leanto, make a tent or brush shelter, build an igloo, drink water from the lake or stream. Yes, that food or shelter may not have met the standards of comfort we expect today but it allowed them that rarest of values - true freedom. Therefore, trade was about exchanges inherent in the object being traded - not objectified into an arbritrary monetary number enforced by force. As I watch Ray, twist and turn, trying to use references, scholarship and comments on his experiences to try and penetrate the objectivity of the Western mind, I feel his spirit contracting like a wild animal forced to come to terms with a cage. A the same time I sense the nobility of the spirit that tries to communicate values, relationships, experiences and histories that come from his experiences - from his families experiences, from his tribes experiences, from his race's experiences. We, temporarily, are the conquerers. That does not invalidate other truths, it just means that in the long wheel of history, at this moment our thought, our rules, our perspective is dominate. Like most conquerer's we have the arrogance of rightness - after all, science, rationalism, logic, capitalism, military prowess, legal traditions are the proof of our rightness - right? What don't we have? We don't have spirit - we study the cosmos, we don't experience the cosmos. We talk of freedom and rights - but we don't have freedom and rights except in the narrowest of definitions. You do not have the right to take food from the Earth or to use a portion of the Earth for shelter - except within the rules. Our government makes decisions for us, creates regulations that define our behavior, create mazes we must go through to recieve benefits, be they education or welfare. The native in the Council could listen and speak and then decide for himself whether to particpate. We do not have a standard of honesty, of respect for the truth. Our truth, is the truth of self service. We conceal what embarrases us, we distort what prevents our success - how many resumes do you think are truthful? I am going to close this posting with a Graffis posting that perfectly expresses the values of the West, that exemplifies the distortions we have created because we have moved out of balance with the Earth and because it points so succinctly towards the seeds of our civilizations downfall. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde From: Mark Graffis [EMAIL PROTECTED] New market for old farts ?? Free trade or protection? Observer (London) Sunday July 25, 1999 Q: What causes as much air pollution as power station chimneys? A: Pig farms ROBIN MCKIE on how scientists have found nitrogen produced by manure on animal farms is as damaging to trees as the smoke and steam from industrial sites They are as bad for the atmosphere as belching chimney stacks and emissions from power stations. Scientists have discovered a startling new source of air pollution: p
Re: Marx, Keynes and Ancestors
ms will arise in due course, and those will be respected, too. Thomas: Sad but true, in many cases. However there is hope. We recently divided the NorthWest Territories to create Nanoviuk (Sp) which is the first Province in the World, to my knowledge, which creates a political and physical state based on the ethnicity of First Nations people, probably because the North is too harsh for the whiteman. With Inuit and Natives in charge finally of their political destiny, we may see an adaption of their orginal understandings and the modern world create something very different that any of us could project. (PS) Though it took a hundred years, I would ask you to note that it was done peaceably. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde Keith At 09:27 25/07/99 +, you wrote: -- From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not so sure about all this. I used to think the same as Ed. I think, now, that this point of view romanticises our ancestors. I rather think that if their society had been as natural/stable/satisfying as is often implied then it would have been a great deal more robust when faced with modern society. Thomas: It is not that their society was not robust. It was, in my opinion, that disease knocked the robustness out of their society. I think we often skim over the effects of what might happen to a culture when %30 - %90 die. There was no way to fight the disease's of white culture - they mysteriously came, decimated families, tribal groups, specialized skills and left the remainder in a state of shock and forced to survive at the most primitive level. At the same time, a culture that valued land through ownership, disenfranchised their tradional ways, isolated them to reservations, made promise they did not keep and exploited them shamelessly. And finally, there was gunpowder. Keith wrote: True, in many places, indigenous society and modern settlers both needed the same land and couldn't possibly co-exist, but in many other places the original culture could have survived more or less intact if they'd wanted it to. Instead, when faced with all the gewgaws and temptations (including strong liquor) that modern man had to offer, then most indigenous societies folded up quite quickly -- voluntarily, as it were. Thomas: I find this most patronizing. Settlers did not "need" the land, they wanted the land to create wealth. The Indians, in many cases were willing to share but the white man wanted exclusive ownership. As to their susceptability to temptations, look in our own back yard at alcholism, drug abuse - not only among the poor, but among our professional classes as well, cocaine is not a poor man's drug. As to folding up, as you put it, I would choose to say overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Just as parts of England have been overwhelmed by immigration from previous colonial peoples. What I would say is that they often survived despite these crippling situations and in many cases have competed with us and succeeded. The culture of the Native North American Indians is growing, adapting, changing the ways of European immigrants today. I respect them immensely. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cdn brain drain confirmed - in National Article - Jul 21 (fwd)
desk for a quick side trip into an unproductive pursuit. Doesn't anyone in this world of airy fairy reports have any sense? Oops, I just felt a drop in my individual initiative. I will have to terminate these comments, I feel the pressure of the tax load bearing down on me and I feel I must protest by becoming unproductive. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. ** NOTE ** New E-Mail as of Sept. 1, 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ECBC/NSERC/SSHRC Associate Chair in the Management of Technological Change Director: Centre for Community and Enterprise Networking (C\CEN) University College of Cape Breton, POBox 5300, Sydney, NS, CANADA B1P 6L2 Tel. 902-563-1369 (o) 902-562-1055 (h) 902-562-0119 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ccen.uccb.ns.ca ICQ: 7388855
Some sanity Planning
Title: Some sanity Planning Thomas: This, to me, is an example of the right use of planning. Not only does it work economically by reducing the taxes through lower spending, but it provides a hands on experience for the students of proper environmental design at a most effective and impressionable time in the life of future adults. Much of our knowledge comes from books and teaching/learning - true. And much comes from the environment in which we grow up. I know that much of my sense of what's right comes from my childhood on the farm, traveling across North America on family vacations, playing in schoolyards, going to government parks and camping. I try to replicate some of my memories for my children, but for many kids, it is daycare while mom and dad work, eviction from schoolyards because there is no supervision, TV propagating mindless social values such as Friends and The Simpsons. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde EarthVision Reports 07/21/99 LOS ANGELES, July 21, 1999 - The enormously expansive Los Angeles Unified School District is giving itself an expensive facelift - tearing out thousands of acres of asphalt at hundreds of campuses and replacing it with grass and trees. Each school, according to an article published today in The Los Angeles Times, is developing its own landscaping plan. The district is footing the bill of about $190 million, money that is partly from a 1997 school construction bond and partly from the Department of Water and Power's Cool Schools program. Concurrent to all the greening, the district has also launched a program it is calling sustainable schools, a term meant to suggest that each campus should produce its own energy, collect its own water and feed its own students. Although those lofty goals are not likely to happen anytime soon, The Times said in the article that each school will work hard to become less of a drag on public resources. Some of the options currently being considered are solar panels on rooftops to generate electricity, and cisterns to capture rainwater for irrigation. The district is even considering building tunnels under classrooms to bathe the students in air cooled to the constant 55-degree underground temperature. According to the article, the main inspiration for the Los Angeles initiative is the sketchbooks of Scott Wilson, a landscape architect and environmental visionary who is the founder of North East Trees, an organization that has planted thousands of trees across California's Arroyo Seco basin in the last decade. Associated Link: [1]North East Trees 1. http://www.treelink.org/act/mem/netree.htm 2. http://204.255.211.112/ColdFusion/news_top10.cfm?start=1
How interesting NAFTA may be found to be illegal!
Title: How interesting NAFTA may be found to be illegal! Thomas: The things you find on the Internet are truly amazing. I have not seen one word of this in the press or magazines I often review - and yet here is a time bomb that has been building while we have been worrying about Princess Di and JFK Jr. untimely demises. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde From: Mark Graffis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thursday, July 22, 1999 Obscure Lawsuit Could Alter U.S. Trade Policy By EVELYN IRITANI, Los Angeles Times Trade advocates are bracing for a ruling by a federal judge in Alabama in a little-noticed lawsuit whose outcome could dramatically alter the way the U.S. has conducted its trade policy over four decades. Sometime in the next few weeks, U.S. District Judge Robert Propst is expected to rule in a labor-backed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the landmark North American Free Trade Agreement. The case has attracted the attention of some of the nation's top legal scholars. Although a finding of unconstitutionality would not undo the 1993 pact, it could make it more difficult for the United States to commit itself to future international endeavors and cast doubt on the legitimacy of a host of other global agreements, according to Bruce Ackerman, one of the nation's leading constitutional scholars. It would destabilize the existing system of international law, said the Yale University professor. It would be difficult to declare NAFTA unconstitutional without calling into question our commitment to the WTO, the World Bank and many, many other economic arrangements. Such a scenario would also put the U.S. in the uncomfortable position of being committed under international law to a trade agreement that its own courts ruled in violation of its founding document. This is a Rod Serling plot, said Robert Stumberg, an international law expert at Georgetown University's Harrison Institute for Public Law. We [would now have] entered the twilight zone, where an agreement that is binding on the U.S. vis-a-vis the rest of the world cannot be enforced internally. The case itself turns on the relatively narrow question of whether NAFTA, which links the economies of the U.S., Canada and Mexico in a giant free-trade zone, is a trade agreement or a treaty. That question has historically been decided on a case-by-case basis as legal scholars and politicians debated when a pact has a broad enough impact to meet the higher test of a treaty. During the first 150 years of U.S. history, most of this country's major foreign policy commitments were forged through treaties, according to Ackerman. But after World War II, when international trade exploded, leaders began relying more heavily on some form of congressional-executive branch agreement rather than treaties to facilitate more commercial growth. Between 1930 and 1992, the United States ratified 891 treaties and 13,178 international agreements, the government said. The plaintiffs--the Made in the USA foundation, a coalition of domestic manufacturers and unions, and the United Steelworkers of America--argue that NAFTA's scope qualifies it as a treaty that, under the U.S. Constitution, required ratification by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, instead of the simple majority of both houses of Congress that favored it. The Clinton administration insists NAFTA is not a treaty but a congressional executive agreement, a common tool in U.S. trade policy that requires the approval of a simple majority of both houses. The administration maintains that even if the plaintiffs win their constitutional challenge, NAFTA would remain in place because the U.S. is bound under international law to honor its commitments to foreign governments. Under international law, we are not allowed to say, 'Sorry, Mexico, sorry, Canada, we didn't do this right,' Justice Department attorney Martha Rubio argued in court earlier this year. Given the stakes, a successful challenge to NAFTA is likely to be tied up in appeals for years as it wends its way to the Supreme Court, according to trade lawyers--and to create a long period of uncertainty for U.S. trade policy. This legal skirmish is just the latest effort by globalization critics to slow the Clinton administration's campaign to open markets around the world. With the U.S. trade deficit headed for another record year, unions and other groups are counting on lawsuits, shareholder activism and old-fashioned protests to draw attention to their concerns over job loss and erosion of national sovereignty. In spite of the robust U.S. economy and near-record low unemployment, the Clinton administration has had a tough time convincing voters that free-trade agreements such as NAFTA are in their best interests. The administration gives NAFTA credit for boosting trade between the U.S. and its NAFTA neighbors by more than 44% and creating at least 311,000 jobs. But the Made in the USA Foundation contends the trade agreement has cost more than 400,000 American
Re: Durability as a means of conservation...
Thomas: Again, I find these comments having something to say that relates to Arthur's Posting on used clothes. -- From: tom abeles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Durability is an interesting idea, let me puzzle on it and get your thoughts First, non-durability or a short half-life seems to be a very recent invention along with the idea of the "modern". Probably starting in the late 30's along with the 1939 World's Fair as discussed so brilliantly by David Gelernter in his book, 1939, The Lost World of the Fair. We were to be blessed with technology to cure all our ills and bring utopia. Only utopia never came. But like the carrot tied to the milk horse, there was always the promise that the next version would be the final solution...and the next... and the next where most "nexts" were more cosmetic than actual changes... and still utopia eludes is Thomas: It seems from the above paragraph, we are in some science fiction timeline in which the reason why we keep doing what we are doing has been forgotten and no one has the time to think about it, we just have to keep replicating the formula - next, and next, and next till we collapse. Sort of like mice on a treadmill in a laboratory experiment. Tom Non durability is the Myth of the eternal hope that humans with technology can find the optimum solution Thomas: The optimum solution - the final solution - the mind wanders in this maze of what if... Tom: Durability is a smooke screen and a misdirection from the larger issue and the hard questions Thomas: I can see the insight in your statement. The solution of durability requires more definition - such as value of items - need, equity and future responsibility. And though Barry has mentioned these, they perhaps need to be emphasized even more. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde thoughts? tom abeles
Re: Charles Leadbetter
-- From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Steve Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think we need also to add the enormous entropy of the obsolescence of knowledge. This is sometimes stated more "positively" as a shortening "half-life" of knowledge, so that by the time an engineer has been out of college 10 years, 50% of what (s)he learned is no longer current (or whatever the exact numbers are in each case). (The especial affront of this is that it is not a consequence of "natural processes" outside human control, but of human symbolizing activity.) Thomas: I had just finished my reply to Arthur's Posting re used clothing and was rereading some of the Posts when your comments jumped off the screen. The problem as you have noted is greater even than just material goods, or waste. It is also within our knowledge base. Just recently, I was reading a posting about all the early computer tapes, discs, hard drives, etc that we are losing for two reasons, one the storage devices are deteriotating and two we are losing the disk drives, operating systems, formats, in which this knowledge was stored. Why is this happening? Like material goods, it seems to be a by product of capitalism and continual growth. We may very well become in a position of an advanced society in which there is very little knowledge of how we got there and should there ever be a discontinuity - such as an atomic war, plague or other catasrophe, we may have destroyed the very resources and knowledge we would need to regain our then current position. There is also the problem, as you pointed out of continual learning. It sounds great, but it ain't easy and as you get a little older, the idea is not to keep learning as it is to take what is learned and act wisely from it. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: Rifkin - some final words
-- From: "Cordell, Arthur: DPP" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Much of my thinking and angst is to develop ways in which the broad middle class can continue to be a broad middle class. Thomas: I would reference my answer here to todays posting on used clothing from you. The fact that the conditions of the article exist - result largely from your broad middle class. If the results of having that class are the conditions of waste and surplus described, then I would question whether a middle class is a good thing. What could go in it's place? Perhaps a much more equilitarian class so that there was no poor at the bottom, no rich at the top and the middle class became - at whatever level sustainable - the class. Arthur: It seems to be an admission of failure to turn to citizens in other, less developed, countries for lessons in life skills. Thomas: Previous to our colonization of much of the world, there were many societies that existed for long periods of time using life skills that allowed them to exist within their enviroment and find happiness, peace and personal growth. That most of our society does not have those things, might indicate that our society is the aberrant one - not theirs. Arthur: This, it seems, is something we wish to avoid. A middle class, replete with careers, etc. has been a core element in creating and maintaining social cohesion. Thomas: I would question this assumption. I would not think our society could be held up as one having social cohesion. First, it has existed for a very short period of time. Second, within our society are a great many stresses and strains which we do not seem to have solutions for. Arthur: A lot of workers gave up a lot so that citizens in the developed countries could have many aspects of universality. Sure, with globalization there will be continuing pressures to harmonize downward. I would question these pressures and argue that gloabalization is really about trying to get others to move upaward: in environmental laws, health and workplace safety, potable water, univeral literacy, etc. etc. etc. Thomas: To just give one small example of the negative effects of globalization, which I'm sure you are aware off. We buy agricultural products from Third World Countries at prices that make them use their land for export income at the expense of food for their own population. The high ideals you postulate just do not happen at the level of the marketplace - in my opinion. Arthur: There is a certain fatalism in Ed's posting, a certain feeling that market forces have brought us here and the same forces will bring some sort of resolution. If we know that a problem is developing, one for which there may be a menu of possible remedies, it is , I believe, incumbent on policy analysts to develop and maintain such remedies ready for thoughtful hearing and analysis when conditions are appropriate and when the political voice has identified the appropriate time and mustered sufficient courage. Thomas: While the learned gentleman, supping well and having an after dinner drink of fine wine, discuss the world, some mother in a third world country is watching her baby die from diarehha. This could be prevented with a saline solution, a sterile needle and a plastic bag. The problems are immediate, urgent, desperate and the answers are mostly available. We don't have a shortage of food, we have a rotten distribution system. And on and on. The courage you speak of - in my mind - exists in those who suffer and continually try, not in someone who is afraid to speak up because it may affect his career. A classic example of misdirection of resources has just happened this week with JFK Jr. Think of the resources that have been expended to find this young man's body so it can be buried. The airspace and TV time, the wages to reporters and anchormen, the learned pundits brought forth to wax sadly about the Kennedy family. Then think of all those Americans with Gulf War Syndrome, who cannot even get their own government to recognize their pain. Excuse my rant Arthur, it is not directed at you, but I think we have to stop being nice about injustice and incompetence. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde arthur cordell
Re: used clothes
Thomas: I thought I would immediately judge this as bad, given my predeliction towards simplicty. However, as I read it through, I found myself with conflicting pro's and con's. On the one hand, it is a classical example of Reagan's trickle down theory, in that somewhere down the line of excessive consumption, the poor actually benefit by having access to clothes that they could never afford. And if there was not this surplus, those lives would be more difficult and impoverished. On the other hand, one must question a system of production, advertising, distribution that is obviously so wasteful. At some level, my mind is stunned by these images the article described, even though I use second hand clothes. The only other image I can think of that has impacted me so strongly is waste disposal. In which pictures of barges filled with garbage are towed out to sea and dumped or semi trailers are taking garbage from New York to Virgina and filling massive landfills. In a recent book I was reading, there were graphic depictions of animal farms in Georgia and North Carolina in which animals are raised by the thousands and effluent ponds are so large and smelly that whole counties literally reek from the smell. In the concept of markets, being the best mechanism for supplying goods and services, one wonders were we leave the sane and responsible and enter into the netherlands of excessive and destructive. If this is happening in 1999, one has to ask what the situation might be like in 2030 or 2100? At some point there must be a place where intelligent planning is more effective than market forces. The question is; "How do we get from here to there?" Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: "Cordell, Arthur: DPP" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Futurework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: used clothes Date: Thu, Jul 22, 1999, 2:50 PM I am forwarding this piece from the NY Times. It says something about our economy and maybe globalization, but I am puzzled whether its 'good' or 'bad' or 'both'. arthur cordell = Monday, July 19, 1999 Prosperity Builds Mounds of Cast-Off Clothes The New York Times Publication Date: Monday July 19, 1999 National Desk; Section A; Page 1, Column 1 PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Hour by hour, cars and trucks back up to the Salvation Army's warehouse loading dock on the edge of the prosperous East Side here and disgorge clothing. Skirts and parkas, neckties and tank tops, sweat pants and socks, a polychromatic mountain of clothes is left each week, some with price tags still attached. Inside the warehouse, workers cull the clean and undamaged clothes, roughly 1 piece in 5, to give to the poor or to sell at thrift shops. They feed the rest -- as much as four million pounds a year -- into mighty machines that bind them into 1,100-pound, 5-foot-long bales. Rag dealers buy the bales for 5 cents a pound and ship them off to countries like Yemen and Senegal. Nearly a decade of rising prosperity has changed the ways that Americans view and use clothing, so much so that cast-off clothes have become the flotsam of turn-of-the-century affluence. Americans bought 17.2 billion articles of clothing in 1998 -- a 16 percent increase over 1993, according to the NPG Group, a market research concern in Port Washington, N.Y. -- and gave the Salvation Army alone several hundred million pieces, well over 100,000 tons. And because so few people make or mend their clothes anymore, among the changes has been this one, in 1998: The Bureau of Labor Statistics moved sewing machines from the ''apparel and upkeep'' category of consumer spending to ''recreation.'' The clothing glut is a boon to the many charities like the Salvation Army that sort and sell old clothes. ''You choke on sweaters,'' said Capt. Thomas E. Taylor, administrator of the Salvation Army's Providence center, one of the three or four busiest of the organization's 119 across the country. No one in the United States, Captain Taylor said, need ever go without being properly dressed. At the warehouse, Judy Keegan was unloading a cargo of dresses, jeans and shirts. ''I do this regularly,'' Ms. Keegan, who has four children, ages 6 to 15, said of giving away family clothing. ''I grew up with hand-me-downs, but if they need something, we go buy it.'' Joanna Wood, a social worker who was choking on linens, brought in a blanket and comforter. ''The frightening thing,'' Ms. Wood said, ''is I'm a nonshopper.'' Beyond clearing their closets, donors have a monetary incentive for giving away clothes here. They can claim a tax deduction if they ask for a form when they pull in. Ms. Keegan took one, Ms. Wood did not. ''The majority don't,'' Captain Taylor said. ''The majority of people just give.'' Clothing is easier than ever to buy, not only because incomes have gone up
FW: Welcome to the Future!
exploration in the Arctic, the last frontier, but at the same time one of the last crumbs on the global plate! one of the last crumbs on the global plate! Yep folks, that's the semi official statement! All the easy fields have been discovered - all the hard fields have been utilized, we are now down to the crumbs of petroleum energy reserves and you can guess what the cost is of discovering and opening up these kinds of resources. But the kicker still comes from Jay, what if it costs more energy to get that crumb than is in the crumb itself - God forbid we may actually have to start dealing with reality instead of economics here. Citizen: Since last December the price for a barrel of West Texas intermediate crude oil, the industry benchmark, has gone from $11.30 to the $20 range. Peak demand from motorists during the summer travel season is also pushing up prices at the pumps, Mr. Hawley said. But while the two factors might contribute to an upward trend in gas prices, they do not explain the radical jump in prices virtually overnight. Instead, the sudden increase is being attributed to the end of a price war among retailers. Thomas: radical jump in prices. I wonder what the reaction would be if there was a real radical jump in prices, let's say a doubling as all of a sudden we woke up to realize that the primary energy source of our civilization has been squandered due to low subsidized prices manipulated by oil companies and legislators for short term economic and politcal gain. The day that happens, I would not like to be the Party in power - think back to 1973 and the anger and the gas lineups. Only this time it won't be temporary. In fact, a vehicle without fuel is a pretty clumsy boat anchor and we don't even have horses to make Bennet buggies andymore. Citizen: It's part of the normal cycle of ups and downs, said Mr. Knipping, adding that he expects prices will go down again shortly. Indeed, consumer reprieve might be on the horizon. The price of crude oil fell five per cent in yesterday's trading. The decrease represented the biggest drop in two months, after a Venezuelan oil official said the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries should increase output if New York oil futures reach $22 a barrel. Thomas: Ah, the warm cozy reassurances from officialdom. And then the reality, the oil producing countries will probably allow more oil into the market if oil futures reach $22 per barrel. I would guess that it won't be long before those with reserves wake up and realize that $44 per barrel has a nicer ring in the cash register than $22. Capitalism thrives on shortages, that is where the biggest profits lie. Once it starts, we will probably find that governments cannot stop it, in fact, because they will profit as well, they will issue us placebo's while at the same time reap in the extra taxes. Gee, it's August, 1999. I wonder what gasoline will be worth in August of 2000. Just think if a few oil tankers and pipelines get sidelined via Y2K - perfect justification for price increases - right? Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: Getting Something for Nothing
Dear Tom: I have read this quote several times. Not easy to grasp the essentials but as I read it, the author is saying that the whole concept of wages for labour is based on a fallacy - that it cannot be so! The reason, as I grok it, is that the energy it takes to maintain a human life exceeds the amount of productivity that a persons labour will produce. The conclusion is that until we add in the externalities of the "free" energy which is more or less equally distributed on the Earth's surface as a fact, whether the life in question is a billionare or a panhandler, the concept of wages for labour is a shell game. Can I take this to mean that in a "true" economic system, a Basic Income of the equivalent free energy is given to every human being? And following from that any additional productivity can then be added to this monetized Basic Income so that those who produce something recieve additional too their Basic Income. Rather than the current situation as basically advocated by the neo-con mindset that if you don't work, you starve. In other words he is saying no one starves because everyone gets their share and some reduced amount who chose to devote time to producing goods and services then get more. In essence, then, this monetary payment for free energy would be added into every product or service and that sum would be set aside to pay the Basic Income? As I said, this is not easy to grasp in reality, though I like his debunking of the current explanations. Help me out Tom, Thomas Lunde GETTING SOMETHING FOR NOTHING "In the distribution to the public of the products of industry, the failure of the present system is the direct result of the faulty premise upon which it is based. This is: that somehow a man is able by his personal services to render to society the equivalent of what he receives, from which it follows that the distribution to each shall be in accordance with the services rendered and that those who do not work must not eat. This is what our propagandists call `the impossibility of getting something for nothing.' "Aside from the fact that only by means of the sophistries of lawyers and economists can it be explained how, on this basis, those who do nothing at all frequently receive the largest shares of the national income, the simple fact is that it is impossible for any man to contribute to the social system the physical equivalent of what it costs that system to maintain him from birth till death -- and the higher the physical standard of living the greater is this discrepancy. This is because man is an engine operating under the limitations of the same physical laws as any other engine. The energy that it takes to operate him is several times as much as any amount of work he can possibly perform. If, in addition to his food, he receives also the products of modern industry, this is due to the fact that material and energy resources happen to be available and, as compared with any contribution he can make, constitute a free gift from heaven. "Stated more specifically, it costs the social system on the North American Continent the energy equivalent to nearly 10 tons of coal per year to maintain one man at the average present standard of living, and no contribution he can possibly make in terms of the energy conversion of his individual effort will ever repay the social system the cost of his social maintenance. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that a distributive mechanism based upon so rank a fallacy should fail to distribute; the marvel is that it has worked as well as it has. "Since any human being, regardless of his personal contribution, is a social dependent with respect to the energy resources upon which society operates, and since every operation within a given society is effected at the cost of a degradation of an available supply of energy, this energy degradation, measured in appropriate physical units such as kilowatt-hours, constitutes the common physical cost of all social operations. Since also the energy-cost of maintaining a human being exceeds by a large amount his ability to repay, we can abandon the fiction that what one is to receive is in payment for what one has done, and recognize that what we are really doing is utilizing the bounty that nature has provided us. Under these circumstances we recognize that we all are getting something for nothing, and the simplest way of effecting distribution is on a basis of equality, especially so when it is considered that production can be set equal to the limit of our capacity to consume, commensurate with adequate conservation of our physical resources." regards, Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/worksite.htm
Re: short article on pop. devel.
Dear Peter: You have made many points, I hesitate to say good points because I disagree with some of them. Without going through all your comments, I would like to keep this at a general brainstorming rather than a nitpicking exercise. War exists. For many reasons - all of them justifiable to someone at sometime at someplace. War in all it's manifestations is the negation of the highest human ideals of family, community, safety, security and humaness. It destroys property, lives, environment, hope and sanity. At the end of the day, all wars end, so one might reasonably ask, if it is going to end anyway, why not stop before it begins. Reasons for war are many, but in most cases, there is oneindividual or several holding some particular political power, or control of a resource, or hereditary rights, who by using their position create the conditions by which the rest of a citizenery are convinced - or forced into military service and who do the actual fighting. The obvious place of intervention is against the one or few. Not against the military and citizenery in massive armed conflict. So what system, organization, methodology can be imagined that would provide intervention before we get to the state of armies and violence. I have postulated a "police force" which you seem to negate as having within it vices that are as bad or evil as war. I disagree. For the sake of exploration, what other means than law and police might we choose. Perhaps the religions of the world should submit a panel that looks at various countries and their leadership and brings the full weight of spiritual morality against a leader who is creating the conditions of war - but then what, if there is no force to enforce that validation. Perhaps, a Universal Agency which has the rights to meet with and dialog with any ruler and challenge their assumptions and bring into the light of public scrutiny their pathologys or in some cases legitimate reasons and the weight of public opinion can be brought to bear on their thoughts and plans. Perhaps a singular law against violence similar to the one in the Ten Commandments - Thou shalt not kill, should be used as justification for abeyance or removal from office of any leader so accused and found guilty. Perhaps, wars should be settled by champions, ie David and Goliath contests or by teams as it appears the Mayans did. Certainly more civilized than modern war. In the past many wars were caused by races, such as the Mongols or the Huns or the Vikings, literally appearing from nowhere, determined to conquer. Or by religous crusades whether Christian or Muslim. But now, we live in a Global Village, short of an invasion from outer space, the communications of the 20th Century eliminates those kinds of surprises. Many wars were territorial, but all the territories of the world are now filled, in fact even overpopulated by any reasonable standard. Would the world allow territorial expansionist wars - I think not. Iran tried it, we wouldn't let it, Serbia and Croatia tried it and we finally decreed that genocide and ethnic cleansing for territorial expansion is no longer acceptable. Of course, the elimination of war would cause the greatest depression in economic history - all those soldiers and military suppliers would have to shed workers like crazy which would probably collapse our economic system. But the irony of an economic system that can only exist by preparing for war, fighting wars and recuperating from wars, from any objective viewpoint has to indicate a mass psychological dysfunction. Well, those are some of my thoughts Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Marks) To: "Thomas Lunde" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: short article on pop. devel. Date: Fri, Jul 16, 1999, 5:01 PM Thomas, Given the carnage of war - the wasted use of resources - the brutalities of ethnic cleansing, torture, concentration camps, I am willing to entertain any suggestions except the one you postulate which is fear of change. We agree on the undesirability of the techniques and artifacts of war [we probably agree on many other things]. We just happen to disagree on the desirability of one particular tactic - an international police force - for eliminating them. If we get to the point where we let slogans rule our lives, I prefer Jesus's - Love thy neightbour as you love yourself. Regardless of either of our preferences, I am convinced that Lord Acton's has (for good or bad) withstood the test of time better than most others. Think of the ol west and the lawless frontier town with it's bully's, drunkeness, gambling and prostitution. You elect a marshal - or appoint and their job is to arrest and present a case for the court in which a judge makes a decision as to whether a law has been broken. But these elected marshals have become the police forces that, among other things, forcibly break up see
Re: Charles Leadbetter
Title: Re: Charles Leadbetter PS: I assumed on first reading that Ian had written this lengthy post, it was only after I had read it again and written my comments that I realized it was written by Charles Leadbetter, so rather than spend the time re-writng, please accept my apoligies Ian and to other readers please substitute Charles where I have assumed Ian. Dear Ian: Great essay, thought provoking and it ties in with a lengthy essay using similar thoughts and language as one I read by Rifkin just a few days ago on the net. I'm troubled with your combined visions. Though they have a logical consitency and hold ideas that I could certainly endorse, they are based on several presuppositions that I am beginning to question. In todays Citizen was a lengthy article on the immortality cell in which researchers have found ways to extend the replication of skin cells from their normal dividing life of approx 70 times to over 400 times. They indicate that this could increase healthy lifespan to 120 years within the lifetime of the researchers, who I would assume are in their 50's. Therefore, within 20 years, we may have a creme or a simple medical treatment that would literally double the lifespan of people. At 6 billion people, with a doubled lifespan, we are looking at the equivalent gain of another 6 billion people to the demographics with this development. On the net, I read about 6 employees of the Alaska gas pipeline saying that safety violations have created conditions for a major disaster - not a question of how, but when they maintain. This points to a critical problem the whole world over. Infrastructure is wearing out and their is no money to replace it, whether it is bridges, sewer systems, roads or pipelines that carry vital energy supplies to create electricity, fuel industry, and heat homes. Jay Hanson, continually supplies me with information in which oil will peak in 2005 while the conventional experts extend that a meagre 5 years. Now matter how pollyanish a person is, regarding alternate energy sources, the possiblity of retooling our world and refinancing an alternate source while dealing with the extra costs of the existing system, just boggle the mind. And then there is global warming in which much of our capital may be going into remedial work of repairing the damage caused by a weather system going mad. And then there is war. Which causes us to drop everything and focuses all our resources on the destruction of an enemy. The byproducts of that, damaged human beings, pollution, infrastructure damage, best brains redirected to finding more effective ways of killing and on and on. And then there is mutant germs, showing up in our hospitals, large germ warfare stocks, often in countries that can no longer be trusted to keep them safe, or other countries who may feel driven to use them. And then there is nuclear power, nuclear waste. And then there is shortage of drinkable water And then there is loss of agricultural land and topsoil. And then there is deforestation. And then And Now, none of these issues are assumed to be critical in your respective essays. Rather, there is the assumption that, yes, they are there but ---. In this case, I think we had better stay in front of the but. Ian wrote: It is no coincidence that all the three forces I have identified are intangible: they cannot be weighed or touched, they do not travel in railway wagons and cannot be stockpiled in ports. The critical factors of production in this new economy are not oil, raw materials, armies of cheap labour or physical plants and equipment. Those traditional assets still matter but they are a source of competitive advantage only when they are vehicles for ideas and intelligence. Thomas: Plainly stated in the above paragraph is the disclaimer traditional assets still matter. I would question that assumption very strongly. I would say that reality is stronger than knowledge and those items are the reality through which knowledge works and that without them, knowledge ain't worth a tinkers damn. Ian wrote: Knowledge is our most precious resource: we should organise society to maximise its creation and use. Our aim should not be a third way, to balance the demands of the market against those of the community. Our aim should be to harness the power of both markets and community to the more fundamental goal of creating and spreading knowledge. Thomas: Knowledge may turn out to be not our most precious resource, but the very thing that has created the conditions of the most terrible future. This article is an edited extract from Charles Leadbeater's Living on Thin Air: the new economy, published this month by Viking, £17.99 http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/199907120019.htm
Gwynne Dyer Article
Title: Gwynne Dyer Article This was in Saturday's Globe and Mail. I found it scary and enlightening and well worth a good slow read. If there is truth here, we all better be worrying more than we are - not that it will do a damn bit of good. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde The panic has passed. Long live the panic The world economy now depends on the American economy, which depends on Americans continuing to shop till they drop, which depends on the performance of the stock market ... Could it crash again? GWYNNE DYER Saturday, July 17, 1999 'We have come a long way, said Michel Camdessus, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, in April, only six months after U.S. President Bill Clinton described the global financial crisis as the worst in 50 years. So is the panic really over, then? The markets are certainly acting as if it is. The Dow Jones industrial average shook off the Russian default last October and powered on up through the 10,000 mark, 5,000 points higher than it was when Federal Reserve Bank chairman Alan Greenspan warned against irrational exuberance in late 1996. Even in Asia, where the crisis began with the devaluation of the Thai currency two years ago this month, stock markets are staging miraculous recoveries, and even the real economies have begun to grow again (albeit much more slowly). And then along comes that extremely long drink of cold water, John Kenneth Galbraith, 90 years old and as non-conformist as ever, to remind us all in the rural Ontario drawl he never lost that the most serious [problem] is the ancient and unsolved problem of instability -- of the enduring sequence of boom and bust. The speculative crash, now called a correction, has been a basic feature of the system. Damn. We thought the new economic paradigm had dispensed with all that. Speaking at the London School of Economics last month, the Harvard sage rained on everybody's parade: In the U.S., we are having another exercise in speculative optimism, following the partial reversal of last year. We have far more people selling derivatives, index funds and mutual funds (as we call them) than there is intelligence for the task. When you hear it being said that we've entered a new era of permanent prosperity . . . you should take cover. . . . Let us not assume that the age of slump, recession, depression is past. Double damn. Especially since Mr. Galbraith is the world's authority on the last great depression (which, it should be remembered, came out of a clear blue sky). In his seminal work, The Great Crash of 1929,Mr. Galbraith quotes one of the leading market analysts of the time, Professor Charles Amos Dice, who wrote just before the crash: Led by these mighty knights of the automobile industry, the steel industry, the radio industry and finally joined, in despair, by many professional traders who, after much sack-cloth and ashes, had caught the vision of progress, the Coolidge market has gone forward like the phalanxes of Cyrus, parasang upon parasang, and again parasang upon parasang. Prof. Dice's rhetorical flourish, which resonates oddly in the modern mind (haven't we heard this sort of talk somewhere else recently?), is a useful point of departure, because it lets us focus on what is the same, and what is different, between the current situation and that of early 1929. Not that a 1929 comes along very often, but even eight months ago some very serious players were scared that we were heading in that direction again. Some of them still are. Not all market crashes lead to depressions, or even recessions, but the present situation is worrisome for two reasons. First, because this will be the first time we have a speculative crisis in a fully fledged and almost completely deregulated global market where everything connects to everything else. What happens to the Chinese yuan can have a direct and immediate impact not only on the stock markets, but also on the economies of all the developed countries. Secondly, it is only the U.S. economy, still growing with astonishing speed eight years into the boom, that stands between the world and, at the least, a severe global recession. In a world where Europe has low growth, Japan has no growth, and the fragile recoveries in South-East Asia, Latin America and other emerging markets desperately need customers, the United States is the consumer of last resort. American consumers have risen gallantly to the task -- so much so that they are now spending 4 per cent more than they earn, and the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit doubled from $155-billion in 1997 to $310-billion last year. But their willingness to borrow and spend is intimately linked to the sense of prosperity they get from a rapidly rising stock market. So a crash could have much bigger effects than in normal times. We are in unknown waters here: As Mr. Greenspan's predecessor as Fed chairman, Paul Volcker, is alleged to have said, the world economy depends on the American economy, which depends
Re: short article on pop. devel.
-- From: Steve Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] POPULATION GROWTH IS PIVOTAL ISSUE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT by Georgie Anne Geyer WASHINGTON -- It's not working. For years, people who were against family planning could argue, and hope, and pretend, and weave tales about the glories of open grasslands in Kazakhstan as an answer to the world's population problem -- and some people listened. But now, in a sudden rush of new information about both population pressures and the Earth's sheer sustainability, we can clearly see how foolishly self-destructive that approach has been and continues to be. (snip) Hi Steve: I just read the article you suggested and what I found most interesting is: The fact is that we know now what works in developing peoples and countries to limit population growth: a reasonably non-corrupt representative government, appropriate forms of economic freedom, a just legal system, a wise diversification of economic resources and income, a high investment in education, women's rights AND family planning. Thomas: It would seem to me, that if we know what works and the above 7 points do not seem so drastic that we couldn't - through the UN decide that each country must re-align their political systems, create the structures mentioned above and solve the biggest problem facing mankind -overpopulation. Given the alternatives, wars, starvation, misuse of resources, the above changes seem quite benign. Quote: A prime example: Arab Tunisia on the northern coast of Africa had 4 million people in 1957 when it gained independence from France; with a strong family planning program, it now has 9 million people and is one of the fastest-developing countries in the world. Its neighbor Algeria also had about 4 million in 1957; today it has 30 million people and is ensnared in seemingly endless civil war and chaos. There are many such examples. Thomas: I know it has been postulated before, but I think it is time, perhaps evolutionary to make a conscious decision to outlaw war. If that requires a world police force, so be it. Law and order, good government, good use of unsustainable resources and deliberate use of sustainable resources only make common sense. Forget the economies of the marketplace in which we use a half a gallon of gas to go the the convience store to pick up a pack of cigerattes, it's time to bring in a higher level criteria other than just we can do it and keep the price down. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: interrelations between economic boom and simple living
Robert Neunteufel In Europe we hear a lot about the long lasting economic boom and the success in job creation in the USA. On the other hand we hear about the success of bestsellers like Your Money or Your Life or the simple living movement. I'd like to ask the members of this list how they see the interrelations and / or contradictions between the economic boom and the simple living movement. Dear Robert: A nice question. I see it as a clash of belief systems. On the one hand, you have those who have been through the educational system and have accepted the concept of careers, work and materalism as put forth by the Western worldview. For most of these people, they have not questioned the assumptions behind these beliefs and/or spent any time learning, reflecting on mass productions, environment, resource use, or the future except as one promising more and more. Just down the street where I live, there are homes for sale, 5 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, in which two people live. For them, in my opinion, their value system is one of showing the world a reflection of their percieved success. Others, in a variety of ways, thinking, personal choice, innate conservatism (not in the political sense) hold a differned world view. In their homes, of perhaps three bedrooms and one and one and a half bathrooms, you might see a garden in the back instead of swimming pool. An economical car in the driveway instead of a four wheel sports utility. They too like their materialism and comforts, but have tempered their use by common sense. Finally, you get antimaterialists, in truth a very small number, who ride a bike to work, have a small wardrobe, live simply and would like to be able to live simpler still. Finally, to get around to your first two sentences. What we hear is what the media want us to hear. The long lasting boom in the United States is given many reasons, but mine is simple. Money is a coward and a large chunk of the world has been and is going through some very rough financial times - therefore, money has flowed to the percieved safest place - the United States. It's like having a bunch of relatives send you their savings to use to make more money. When you have a surplus of money trying to make money you have a booming economy. The media find all this so fascinating - much like stories of the Royal Family or Lifes of the Rich and Famous - so appearances are deceiving. Co-existing with all that media hype are millions in the US and Canada who are reading, thinking and making small changes within their life style - very little of this impacts the media on a consistent basis. Of course, let us not forget the growing amounts of poor who are forced to a simpler lifestyle by the greed of the rich. Sort of a wandering answer, Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: Robert Neunteufel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Futurework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: interrelations between economic boom and simple living Date: Sat, Jul 10, 1999, 5:54 PM In Europe we hear a lot about the long lasting economic boom and the success in job creation in the USA. On the other hand we hear about the success of bestsellers like Your Money or Your Life or the simple living movement. I'd like to ask the members of this list how they see the interrelations and / or contradictions between the economic boom and the simple living movement. With best wishes from Austria / Europe, Robert Neunteufel
Re: Irish Workfare
Dear Melanie: The latest I read about, as if they haven't suffered enough, is women from the Balkans being lured to the Europe and England to work as prostitutes and your right, it goes on ad infinitum. It's disgusting, it's cruel and most of us are powerless as individuals to do anything because many of us in affluent countries who care are struggling to survive as well. And yes, I agree, it is "impossibly depressing" to know about which is why most of us, I think, in self defence choose not to read, or think about it. Thanks for posting your feelings on this matter. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde PS 99% of this could be eliminated with a Universal Basic Income -- From: Melanie Milanich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Irish Workfare Date: Fri, Jul 9, 1999, 6:14 PM Thomas, A few years ago on this list I quoted from a book I was reading, which I don't recall the author or title now, however, it took your premise a bit further, and suggested that the elite "haves" of the world were more or less desiring to kill off the unnecessary people on the planet. I don't want to dwell on it because it is impossibly depressing an idea, but more and more I see how the homeless are being treated, as well as refugees and victims of various disasters locally and around the world, and I do feel that we have lost the Judeo-Christian philosophy that once existed in the1950s about helping our fellowmen and doing good to others, all those kinds of things to believe in that the potential of all human beings was valued. Also I just bought a book from the bookstore, called Unwanted people, slavery today (or something like that I don't have it right here) about the thousands, literally hundreds of thousands of women, children, youth and adults who are in essense bought and sold for the sex trade, for beggars, for endentured labourers, and in African countries pure forms of slavery, buying and sellling people exists today. As many countries economies collapse people turn increasingly to any way of survival. And there are some 800 million people without enough food or clean water willing to do anything to get out of their plight. The Fortune 500 magazine put out its growing list of world billionaires last week, but I don't hear any concern about all the unnecessary dying people. Melanie Thomas Lunde wrote: -- From: "Durant" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Irish Workfare Date: Wed, Jul 7, 1999, 10:14 PM Thomas: First, this is not my writing, but a quote typed from a book - a book written by a popular author in 1912. They used different forms in writing than what we use today, so, sometimes you have to work a little to get the idea behind the cumbersome style. The problem turns, remember, upon the control of the means of production. Capitalism means that this control is vested in the hands of few, while political freedom is the appanage of all. It this anomaly cannot endure, from its insecurity and from its own contradiction with its presumed moral basis, you must either have a transformation of one or of the other of the two elements which combined have been found unworkable. These two factors are (1) The ownership of the means of production by a few; (2) The freedom of all. To solve capitalism you must get rid of restricted ownership, or of freedom, or of both. Eva asked: What political freedom?? (and what the *^%$* is appanage, the dictionary didn't find any means to connect it to your sentence.) Thomas: Yes, I stumbled on this word appanage too when I was transcribing and I was tempted to subsitute the word "appendage" but decided that perhaps I just did not have enough education, so I left it as written. Now, as to political freedom. Belloc maintains in greater detail in other parts of the book, but alludes to it here in the phrase, "this anomaly cannot endure" his perception of the basic contradiction between belief systems. On the one hand, the belief that democracy gives individuals freedom by allowing them to choose who represents them and how they will be represented by the political platforms of various parties - and I agree, this is a very questionable freedom - and the anomaly that allows those with capital to monopolize the means of production and thereby derive others of their economic freedom. Eva continues: Your premise is false. Capitalism doesn't mean political freedom, most of the time not even nominally. Economic unequality cannot provide political equality, when economic power means political power. Therefore there is no reason why non-capitalism should lead necessarily to non-freedom. Thomas: You have prefectly made Belloc's point. Capitalism is the antithesis of political freedom, which is why he argues that the dominance of capitalism will lead to slavery. The a
Re: [GKD] ICT and Jobs
Thomas: Today in the Ottawa Citizen Career Section was an article lamenting the fact the older programmers are having an increasingly difficult time getting hired as Companies find it better to hire younger/cheaper and perhaps help that has just learned the latest language. My brother and I were discussing a book review he had read about using the Internet to search for jobs and how, even though you may be posting many resumes a week to job postings most of them never even get a reply. Having at one time worked in a private agency, I know how daunting it is to have an employers job order and sit down and try and review 20 or 30 resumes. After awhile, you begin to not look for positives, but use negatives of the most minute kind as an excuse to eliminate a resume. Finally, when you are down to 2 or three, the ardous process of contacting, interviewing and deciding whether you want to try and "sell" this applicant to an employer has to be made. The Internet probably makes this process even worse. I can imagine coming into the Human Resource office on any given morning and having several hundred resumes in my E Mail. The sheer volume prevents any kind of fair assessment or comparison process to take place. I'm sure different people employ different strategies, the first one that fits, the one that has the highest education, the one that worked for the biggest name brand, the youngest one, the one with a degree from a good school, or throwing up your hands in dispair and asking someone in the office if they know someone who can do the job and by pass all the resumes. Personally, when I worked in Calgary for a year at this agency, I was fortunate to place three to four professional people a month for a variety of reasons. Some had to do with applicants who found other jobs by the time I got to them, some was with personnel officer who changed specs mid stream, or who were using multiple agencies, most had to do with time, it takes time to read a resume, phone a person, have an interview. And then of course, there was the other side in which I had to contact a company, arrange an interview, follow it up from the employees assessment and from the Companies assessment and then I often had to act as the broker to help the match along. Finally, a placement and a commission. By the way, I didn't make very much money. It seems to me, that the so called private sector with it's vaunted efficiency has not found solutions to the complex hiring process and it has become expensive, time consuming and probably still has a pretty low success rate. Anyone have any experiences or know of any solutions, I and millions of job seekers and needy employers would like to hear them. The following article makes some of these points and also points out that the pace of change has made it even more complex. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde [***Moderator's note: Members may recall that in August 1998, we posted a summary of the ICT-JOBS Working Group discussion, which EDC and ILO hosted in May-July 1998, and which had over 700 members. The article below is another excellent summary of the ICT-JOBS discussion, with a somewhat different emphasis.***] Philippine Journal October 9, 1998 Second opinion ICT: job creator or destroyer? by Roberto S. Verzola Are information and communications technologies (ICTs) a net creator or destroyer of jobs? This was the topic which more than a dozen scholars, consultants and union officials debated in an online conference sponsored by the International Labor Organization (ILO) from May to July this year. It is both As can be expected, the discussants all acknowledged that ICT was both a creator and a destroyer of jobs. That machines and computers are taking over work previously done by human beings was something nobody denied. All agreed that ICT was destroying some types of jobs. But all likewise acknowledged that ICT introduced new ways of doing things, creating in the process new types of work which did not exist before. Despite very strong opinions expressed by both sides, however, they could not agree which role dominated. A job creator Some discussants asserted that ICTs create new goods and services as well as new market opportunities and income sources. Thus, they stimulate general economic activity, which translates into more jobs. The new ICTs, they said, are no different in their effects from the industrial revolution, which enhanced our productivity and improved our living standards. Historical records since the 19th century, they added, showed that productivity, output and jobs have all risen together. Today, the argument goes, ICTs help businesses save money, which these businesses then invest elsewhere, creating new jobs. There is even a shortage of skilled ICT workers. ... and a job destroyer Other discussants claimed
Re: Irish Workfare
-- From: Bob McDaniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FutureWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Irish Workfare Date: Wed, Jul 7, 1999, 8:02 PM Just seeking some clarification here. Thomas Lunde wrote: From The Servile State Page 122 Now there is only one alternative to freedom, which is the negation of it. Either a man is free to work and not to work as he pleases, or he may be liable to a legal compulsion to work, backed by the forces of the state. In the first he is a free man; in the second he is by definition a slave. This does not seem to address workfare. Is it not true that a person must first apply for welfare in order to receive it? If some form of work is required s/he should be so informed. At that point the applicant may refuse to work presumably. No legal compulsion there. The person may then turn to non-governmental sources for aid (charity). Thomas: Good question Dan. Belloc's main idea is that capitalism monoplizes the "means of production" in the hands of the few and by doing that, disenfranchises those who might or could be productive by not allowing them to be productive. Now, consider someone going on welfare and for the sake of this answer, let's eliminate the handicapped, the addicted, etc and assume that the person going on welfare is doing so because they cannot find work, or the work they may be able to find does not give them enough money for their needs. Or they have specialist training and that they are entitled to choose their work in that area in which they had developed expertise. If I was the father of six, minimum wage jobs will not solve my problem. If I was a printer, taking a job as a dishwasher would negate my experience. The welfare recipients problem is that he cannot be productive in the workforce because he cannot find work or work that utilizes his previous experience or skills - ie those controlling the means of production cannot find a use for his labour that would allow them to siphon of a profit from his efforts. Now, capitalism in a pure form would state to that person - go starve. However, the state intervened with a concept of redistribution, which basically alleviated the harsh judgement of capitalism and created a degree of income for the unemployed. Up until about 10 years ago, that was considered fair and acceptable. The tacit understanding was that this minimal help was available to all - unconditionally as a "right" of citizenship. Then came workfare, which phonetically is heard as workfair, but it is far from fair in my opinion. The conditions of societal help then became the negation of a persons "right" to choose his work and he is coerced by the laws of the state to work at whatever the state chooses to demand of him. This was a quantum shift from a free man in a society that valued him to a slave in a society that was going to get it's pound of flesh. As the "capitalists" controlled property and capital, the person unable to work for them is moved into a form of serfdom by the government - who is supposed to protect his basic rights. Now as to your second point, the right to refuse the contract and allow someone of good heart to provide charity is another way of saying that those who are disenfranchised of the right to work by those who own and use the "means of production" for their own personal gain have no common responsibility. The State has moved from a position of supporting the idea of redistributing income through welfare - to one in which the conditions of welfare support is given through enforced labour. So, the State is now in the business of creating slaves. The Capitalists have no responsibility and are free to pursue their aims. Now, truthfully, the citizens should never have been forced to see Welfare funded from their income tax. They are not the ones who disenfranchised the worker by being unable to provide employment. Rather, those who own the means of production, should be taxed for those they disenfranchise - as it is through their system of creating profit that workers do not receive the full benefit of their labours. So, quite frankly, in my opinion it is the capitalists and property owners who should by law be required to provide the "charity" that you speak of. Thomas: ... it is the very business class, those who, as Belloc identifies as the small minority who control the means of production, who find the concepts of Socialism or Welfare state so abhorrent to their goals of personal wealth creation who are supporting the political moves that are leading the poor into slavery. While a definition of "business class" is needed here, we may _pro tem_ consider it the equivalent of business owners. In my limited experience those who are really ticked off by many welfare recipients is not the business class but the so-called working poor, those hard working individuals who barely earn mo
Re: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
Dear Eva:
Once again, you have cut through the BS of my thinking. On the one hand, I
can find rational answers such as the Basic Income which I am sure will
provide a corrective for the capitalistic system. I can also agree with
others answers, such as WesBurt's proposals or some of the thoughts of Tom
Walker.
Then I enlarge the problem by thinking/reading of population, energy,
resource depletion, or the book I picked up at the library today called Dark
Grey which deals with the demographics of an aging population and how
economics has no answer in providing a system in which we can save enough or
tax enough for a pension system for the elderly. This morning, I read how a
research team in California are onto what they call the immortality cell in
which they have been able to extend the life of a fruit fly up to three
times it's normal lifespan. A couple of days ago, I read an online book
called Can America Survive in which the author makes a very convincing case
that the Earth could support a sustainable population of only 5 million
hunter/gathers and 5 million living in an industrial/technological society.
Though we might quibble with the numbers, it seems rational to believe that
we can't keep 6 billion mouths and assholes functioning on this small planet
indefintely.
And yes, every state is debt and almost every person on the planet is in
debt to someone, somewhere. So what happens when a chain of non-payment
begins? It boggles my mind. Unlike you, though, I do have some small
comfort - death happens to us all and I chose to believe in an afterlife -
in fact many afterlives. I guess we'll have to each die before we find out
who is right on that belief.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
--
From: "Durant" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
Date: Wed, Jul 7, 1999, 10:14 PM
This is a utopia if based on capitalist
economics. (Or have I already mentioned this?)
Welfare capitalism was tried, and when the upswing
collapsed, it failed. Even the richest states are in debt,
even when they only spend pitifully small percentages
on welfare.
Eva
Thomas:
One of things I have always like about Galbraith is that he accepts that the
poor are entitled and deserve some joy and comfort and security in their
lives. Something which the majority of the moderate and overly affluent want
to deny. It is as if poorness is not enough, a little suffering is good for
the soul, especially if it someone elses suffering.
You know, being poor is not so bad, and most of us who experience it find
ways to still enjoy our lives. However, it is the constant pressure from
those more fortunate that somehow if we have sex, go to a movie, have a
picnic in the park we are violating our status in life. Give us a basic
income and get off our back, I think would be endorsed by the majority of
the poor. Allow us to have dreams for our children and we will live
modestly.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
--
From: "S. Lerner" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 9:52 AM
Much to my delight, the following appeared in today's Toronto Globe and
Mail: A13 ("J.K.Galbraith, who is 90, delivered this lecture last week on
receiving an honorary doctorate from the London School of Economics. It is
reprinted from The Guardian." )
Excerpt: "I come to two pieces of the unfinished business of the century
and millenium that have high visibility and urgency. The first is the very
large number of the very poor even in the richest of countries and notably
in the U.S.
The answer or part of the answer is rather clear: Everybody should
be guaranteed a decent income. A rich country such as the U.S. can well
afford to keep everybody out of poverty. Some, it will be said, will seize
upon the income and won't work. So it is now with more limited welfare, as
it is called. Let us accept some resort to leisure by the poor as well as
by the rich."
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Irish Workfare
I felt a considerable degree of freedom, in the second instance, the full weight of the state and my personal survival is dependant on doing any work I am directed to do. I agree with Belloc, in the first instance, I felt a free man, in the second instance, I feel a slave. When the only option is starvation for non-complaince, withholding my labour becomes a pointless option. Eva stated: The wast majority of us are wageslaves, whether we are happy with our particular situations/conscious of it or not. The state is an instrument of the status quo, it exist to enforce our status as wageslaves, and maintain the status of the owners of the means of production (private property). If we were free, no enforcement/state would be necessary, as we would work because we see the need for it or because we enjoy it, or both. Thomas: Again, Eva, I am total agreement with your statements. That is why I see, though my answer may not be the only one or even the best one, that the concept of a Basic Income is the device that would give me back my freedom from capitalistic slavery. Such a solution, the direct, immediate, and conscious reestalishment of slavery, would provide a true soltuioh of the problems which capitalism offers. It would guarantee, under workable regulations, sufficiency and security for the dispossessed. Such a solution, as I shall show, is the probable goal which our society will in fact approach. To its immediate and conscious acceptance, however, there is an obstacle. Eva comments: This is indeed, frightening. Especially as it seem to be repeated more and more often; the gist of it being, that democracy is mob's rule of the great unwashed, when clever, benevolent technocrats could govern us ever so well. Capitalism hasn't got the economic mechanism to provide continuous security for anyone - and last of all for the dispossessed. No form of government can change this. Hitler needed an artificial market (military/public work) and a war, to re-kindle the failing machinary. If you follow through your thread of thought, this is where you get. There is no capitalism with a human face, whether based on allegedly benevolent dictatorship or democracy. It hasn't got the economic machinary to support it other then for relatively short periods. That's why it is outmoded and all attempt of it's further zombification is madness, when we now have the conditions to do better. Thomas: True! Thomas: The following article is an example of a State moving slowly towards slavery. And as the article mentions, it is the very business class, those who, as Belloc identifies as the small minority who control the means of production, who find the concepts of Socialism or Welfare state so abhorrent to their goals of personal wealth creation who are supporting the political moves that are leading the poor into slavery. First, we can see that the plight of the poor has to increase in misery and finally as a sop, the authorities will bring forth as a panacea to the cruelty they have created, "under workable regulations, sufficiency and security for the dispossessed." Eva concludes: The whole of the middle-classes are sliding down to the uncertainties and statelessness insecurity of the underclass. This experience will sling them out of the stupor created by the virtual wealth of the last 50 years. Such awareness will bring the next revolution and the long awaited syncronisation of collective social relations with the collective and highly integrated work we already do: democracy, freedom and the shrinking and disappearing state. Convince me that I am wrong? Thomas: Again I agree. However, I am more pessimistic than you in that I believe externalities like climate change, the peak of oil production, overpopulation and war have and will overtake our collective will to change and that the current systems will remain in place, much like a dictator uses a crisis to maintain power. As these catastrophes strike us with increasing frequency, the state will get more draconian and capitalism will get more vicious. I did my best... Eva Thomas: Thanks Respectfully, Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Digital Monoculture
-- From: "Ray E. Harrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital Monoculture Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 10:07 PM Hi Tom, Sitting here with a computer that more resembles a "Hot Rod" and that makes me very sorry not to have taken the auto mechanics course that my mother insisted upon and I resisted. Sitting here with a machine that is not made by a big monopoly or with a decent warrenty. A machine that the small businessman, who sold it to me at an inflated price and then went bankrupt, had promised service and quality for four years. A machine that I must now spend time learning how to be an electrician, a mechanic and a programmer. A machine that takes more time then I can spend working on it. Thomas: I do detect a note of frustration here and I can sympathize. However, - this is the same as a "but", I would offer another explanation to support the monopoly theory I have been putting forth. Large companies, having the benefit of volume and profit in manufacturing, as well as profit from sales often make it difficult for a small retailer to have enough margin to stay in business. I would venture that if the person who sold you the computer could enter this conversation, his defence might be the same as mine. The large monopolies set the price so low for their product and give him such a small mark-up that it becomes impossible for the small business to survive. In other words, it is the large Company that has done you in. Now, if you had bought from Dell or Compact, there is no guareetee that you would be better off. I'm sure with a little inquiry, many posters could tell you the horror stories of dealing with a name brand. I never worked on "hot rods" I bought new cheap cars so that I could spend time with my dates or traveling the country rather than sitting in the shop. Thomas: My answer has often been to buy used. Not only do I not pay the big price and all the profits, the equipment has probably been broken in, is working fine and I usually get a pile of software thrown in. My two cents - go look for a used machine for a couple of hundred bucks or sometimes it just comes as a gift. Ray: The question today is whether developing new art is more important than learning the inner workings of this mongrel. Thomas: In my opinion, developing art is more important. So next time I will buy Dell or Gateway or some other big company product that has a more "economie of scale" attitude and will take less of my time. Those Russian airplanes are coming in at half the price and have a lot of goodies on them with less attitude. Does it work? That should be the answer before, will it sell? up with monoculture! REH Thomas Lunde wrote: What to me is surprising is the failure to recognize that the natural structure of capitalism is towards monopoly. Monopoly is attained and maintained by the concept of profit. Mergers, stock ownership, credit, all fall to those who have been the beneficiaries of large consistent profits which give them the surplus to absorb more of any given market area or product area or as in the case of stocks, holding massive amounts of wealth, much like a cow that can continually be milked. There is no social benefit to this, no moral value that can be extrapolated from this, it just is a nice byproduct of a system design. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: "Cordell, Arthur: DPP" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: Digital Monoculture Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 2:01 PM While not directly related to FW, this seems sufficiently interesting to pass along FYI -- From: Gary Chapman To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: L.A. Times column, 7/5/99 Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 10:30AM Friends, Below is my Los Angeles Times column for today, Monday, July 5, 1999. As usual, please feel free to pass this around, but please retain the copyright notice. -- If you have received this from me, Gary Chapman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), you are subscribed to the listserv that sends out copies of my column in The Los Angeles Times and other published articles. If you wish to UNSUBSCRIBE from this listserv, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], leave the subject line blank, and put "Unsubscribe Chapman" in the first line of the message. If you received this message from a source other than me and would like to subscribe to the listserv, the instructions for subscribing are at the end of the message. -- Monday, July 5, 1999 DIGITAL NATION Troubling Implications of Internet's Ubiquity By Gary Chapman Copyright 1999, The Los Angeles Times Early last month, institutions around the world were crippled for several days by a new computer v
Some Thoughts From Can America Survive
Unless a solution is found to the problem of disposing of nuclear waste, continued use of fission is causing an environmental disaster of large proportions. In fact, because the cost of eliminating the radioactive waste (or storing it for thousands of years) is not known, it is not known whether nuclear fission has an energy yield of greater than one. It may well be the case that the current generation is imposing on future generations an energy cost (for storage of radioactive waste from nuclear fission) that far exceeds the amount of energy that we are obtaining from nuclear fission. Mankind¹s current generation has clearly discounted the cost to future generations to essentially zero, or it would not use nuclear fission until a method was found for eliminating the radioactive waste. Of course, this would not be the first time that a human generation has totally disregarded the welfare of future generations. The present generation of human beings is in the process of depleting all of the world¹s natural gas and oil, and much of its coal. These fuels are obviously of high value and are irreplaceable once they are gone they are gone forever. The present generation does not care a whit about the fact that it is denying them to all future generations, forever. The same is true of species that it exterminates. They are gone forever. The current generation of human beings is in the process of making the planet totally uninhabitable for all future generations. The industrialized human species economic man is morally bankrupt. It is ravaging the planet, consuming all of its wealth as rapidly as it can, all in the interest of making a fast buck, regardless of the consequences to other species or even later generations of its own. It is a cancer on the planet, devouring its bounty and beauty, destroying an exquisite balance of nature that has lasted for eons, and leaving in its wake a ravaged planet infected with radioactive and toxic waste, polluted lakes, rivers, and seas, decimated forests, extinguished species, and a poisoned atmosphere. Thomas: My, my, he does wax eloquent - but is he right? It's a change of perspective isn't it. If your focus is on cheap energy then his are the ravings of an idiot who wants to curtail a vital civic need, ie cheap energy. If your focus is economic and cheap energy is needed for industrial growth, then his is a dangerous voice. But - what if his perspective is the correct assessment? Then cheap energy and industrial growth become ills equal to genocide or germ warfare. What if the correct viewpoint is sustainability rather than growth. Then, we are following Hitler, following policies that will exterminate the human race, rather than just the Jewish race. On FutureWork, our topic is work - which we, along with the rest of society assume is essential for survival. But what if work is the path to no survival? Are we then not philosophers arguing over how many needles can fit on the head of a pin, without asking what the purpose of the argument is? When we examine work, which surprisingly enough we do, in my opinion, in the most eclectic of fashions, all sorts of presuppositions, myths, assumptions, verities, facts and truths come to light before our collective minds and various experiences and learnings. The Internet gives the tradional and eccentric, the conventional and the doomsayer a forum for discussion. Is this not futurework? As each of us read - and agree or not with each posting, are we not retraining ourselves for some valuable but yet unseen futurework? I believe we are. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde ?
Re: FW Sennett on Insecurity, Feature from the Jobs Letter No. 102 ( 29 June 1999 )
A few comments on Sally's Posting of Sennetts material. Of course I and I'm sure most of us on FW would find alignment with Sennet's thoughts and conclusions and it would be redundant to go through this posting because he has said it as well or better than I could say it. The problem, as I see it, is how can we get those who are articulate in seeing the problem our way, is how to involve the media in such a way that a debate can be started between those who hold views such as the paragrapgh below. Like the ecology movement which often talks to the converted and is ignored by the mainstream, so the problems of work is often our articulate spokespeople are talking to the converted, rather than debating those making policy. "First, there is the "nevertheless" policy, which enforces full employment after the end of normal full employment. This "New Labour" policy believes that only work guarantees order and the inclusive society. In this view, waged work has the monopoly of inclusiveness. Thomas: The "nevertheless policy" which enforces full employment etc. Shades of "The Servile State", enforces! Belloc states that whenever you are forced by the full power of the state - or by the law - then your state is servile. Can we read these lines to mean that it is not the result of work to produce goods or services, rather that the result of work is to guareentee "order" and that through working we are included in our society but if we don't work at acceptable work then we are excluded! Can it really be stated that boldly! Have we reached the state of acknowledging our servile state as an atribute of citizenship - that we are only included if we work? "The second option is to rethink and redefine work as we have done with respect to the family. But this also implies rethinking how we deal with the risks of fragile work ... "Has work always had the monopoly of inclusiveness? If the ancient Greeks could listen to our debates about the anthropological need to work in order not only to be an honourable member of society but a fully valued human being, they would laugh. The value system that proclaims the centrality of work and only work in building and controlling an inclusive society is a modern invention of capitalism and the welfare state. "We need to see that there is a life beyond the alternatives of unemployment and stress at work. We need to see that the lack of waged work can give us a new affluence of time. We need also to see that the welfare state must be rebuilt so that the risks of fragile work are socialised rather than being borne increasingly by the individual. "I would argue for a citizen's (or basic) income. My argument is that we need a new alternative centre of inclusion -- citizen work combined with citizen income -- creating a sense of compassion and cohesion through public commitment. The decoupling of income entitlements from paid work and from the labour market would, in Zygmunt Bauman's words, remove "the awesome fly of insecurity from the sweet ointment of freedom". "We must, in short, turn the new precarious forms of employment into a right to discontinuous waged work and a right to disposable time. It must be made possible for every human being autonomously to shape his or her life and create a balance between family, paid employment, leisure and political commitment. And I truly believe that this is the only way of forming a policy that will create more employment for everybody ..." -- German sociologist Ulrich Beck, from "Goodbye To All That Wage Slavery" New Statesman 5 March 1999. Thomas: Can one of those "new precarious forms" become a fixed time or quality deficit required by every citizen ie 10 years of work or so many hours in a lifetime? Or can another be, as they have suggested a redefinition of work to include child rearing and care of family as a useful societal condition - shades of WesBurt here. What other criteria might we consider - to have given to us the state of inclusiveness? How about just being born? No criteria except we exist. This kind of thinking and these kind of questions need to brought before the public. These are the kinds of questions that a true demcratic society would consider of value to discuss. How do we bring the right problems before the populace? How do we contribute to those who are articulate so that they can espouse these questions. Now it is true, that the answers of society may be different from my view - or your view, but I think we could agree, that these are the ideas a democratic populace should evaluate and decide. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde C R E D I T S --- edited by Vivian Hutchinson for the Jobs Research Trust P.O.Box 428, New Plymouth, New Zealand phone 06-753-4434 fax 06-759-4648 Internet address -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Jobs Letter -- an essential informatio
Re: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
Thomas:
One of things I have always like about Galbraith is that he accepts that the
poor are entitled and deserve some joy and comfort and security in their
lives. Something which the majority of the moderate and overly affluent want
to deny. It is as if poorness is not enough, a little suffering is good for
the soul, especially if it someone elses suffering.
You know, being poor is not so bad, and most of us who experience it find
ways to still enjoy our lives. However, it is the constant pressure from
those more fortunate that somehow if we have sex, go to a movie, have a
picnic in the park we are violating our status in life. Give us a basic
income and get off our back, I think would be endorsed by the majority of
the poor. Allow us to have dreams for our children and we will live
modestly.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
--
From: "S. Lerner" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 9:52 AM
Much to my delight, the following appeared in today's Toronto Globe and
Mail: A13 ("J.K.Galbraith, who is 90, delivered this lecture last week on
receiving an honorary doctorate from the London School of Economics. It is
reprinted from The Guardian." )
Excerpt: "I come to two pieces of the unfinished business of the century
and millenium that have high visibility and urgency. The first is the very
large number of the very poor even in the richest of countries and notably
in the U.S.
The answer or part of the answer is rather clear: Everybody should
be guaranteed a decent income. A rich country such as the U.S. can well
afford to keep everybody out of poverty. Some, it will be said, will seize
upon the income and won't work. So it is now with more limited welfare, as
it is called. Let us accept some resort to leisure by the poor as well as
by the rich."
Re: [graffis-l] The Virtual Alchemists
The following lengthy article, I think is very important. I have long thought that the "replicator" used in the Star Trek space series was the ultimate invention. The creation of matter by basic molecular reconstruction solves that Starships food problem. On Earth, we may find that a "replicator" technology might supply needed resource material we have overused or perhaps even food that can be made as a manufactured product based on mathematically knowing all the molecular compounds and developing ways to combine them. What freedom that would bring - that each person might have the "means of production" as defined in Hilaire Belloc's book The Servile State - and perhaps more than just production, but also, the creation of all necessary and luxury items a person could desire - made from recombining at the molecular level. Is that a possibilitythat can be drawn from this article below? Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: Mark Graffis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: graffis-l [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Bob Sinclair [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [graffis-l] The Virtual Alchemists Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 3:15 PM From: Mark Graffis [EMAIL PROTECTED] TECHNOLOGY REVIEW MIT Bldg. W59-200 201 Vassar St. Cambridge, MA 02139 Tel 617-253-8250 Fax 617-258-5850 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CURRENT ISSUE July/August 1999 After a decade of calculations, the first wave of materials designed from scratch on the computer are ready to be made and tested. On the horizon: new substrates for optics and electronics. By [16]David Voss photo The first thing you notice about Gerbrand Ceder's materials science lab at MIT is that there are no crucibles, no furnaces, no crystal-growing instruments. Instead, you find a row of high-resolution computer displays with grad students and postdocs tweaking code and constructing colorful 3-D images. It's in this room, quiet except for the hum of fans cooling the computer power, where new high-tech ceramics and electronic materials that have never been seen or made before are being forged. They are taking form "in virtuo"designed from scratch on the computer, distilled out of the basic laws of physics. The next thing you're likely to notice is how young Ceder is. Quick to laugh but intensely passionate in explaining his work, the 33-year-old associate professor is one of a new breed of materials researchers, trained in traditional processing techniques, who have turned to discovering materials using computers. The dream is simple: Replace the age-old practice of finding new substances by trial and error, with calculations based on the laws of quantum mechanics that predict the properties of materials before you make them. You can, in theory at least, design metals, semiconductors and ceramics atom by atom, adjusting the structure as you go to achieve desired effects. That should make it possible to come up with, say, a new composition for an electronic material much faster. Even more important, tinkering with atomic structure on a computer makes it possible to invent classes of materials that defy the instincts of the trial-and-error traditionalists. It's an idea that has been kicking around for at least a decade. But with the explosion in accessible computer power, as well as the development of better software and theories, it's becoming a reality. Last year, Ceder and his collaborators at MIT synthesized one of the first materials that had actually been predicted on a computer before it existed. This new aluminum oxide is a cheap and efficient electrode for batteries. And while it may or may not lead to a better, lighter rechargeable battery, the success of Ceder's groupand related work at a handful of other labsis proving that useful materials can be designed from the basic laws of physics. Designing from first principles represents a whole new way of doing materials science, a discipline that Ceder describes as "a collection of facts with some brilliant insights thrown in." It's a transformation he's been aiming at since his undergraduate days in the late 1980s at UniversitÈ Catholique de Louvain in Belgium. "My background is heat and beat metallurgy," he explains. "But I always thought there should be more to it, some way to calculate things using all the great physics of quantum mechanics." Getting there, however, won't be easy. Scientists have known for decades that, according to the rules of quantum mechanics, if you could detail the position of the electrons swarming around atoms, you could then calculate physical properties of the material. Yet the sheer diff
Re: Media / Oral Literacy
-- From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Media / Oral Literacy Date: Mon, Jul 5, 1999, 4:40 PM Thomas Lunde wrote: -- From: Robert Rosenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems to me that the thrust of all this, if it continues, is away from a society in which everybody is (should be) reading and writing literate to one in which the overwhelming majority will be culturally-content with their daily entertainments (movies, sitcoms, music videos, award shows, specials), and manufactured news bits. In such a situation, there will be a privatization of knowledge, owned by the few and used for the benefit of the few - which is almost the situation, now. Thomas: A couple of thoughts on the above paragraph. Most listening, watching technologies are time specific. Brad wrote: But not all. Your can freeze-frame and replay as often as you wish a VCR or audio tape, or, a fortiori, a laser disk. Thomas: Yes but! Notice, that the while the "yes" agrees, the "but" negates. These technologies are far from easy to use or even in some cases to own. But the point I was making - perhaps not clearly, is that the message is time specific as decided by the sender. For example, if I sit down to read a book, I can skim, study, reread and my reading speed is under my control. Not only is the speed under my control, but so is the space, I can read in the bathroom, on the bus, in bed, before breakfast, while this versatility is often not possible to listening and watching technologies. While if I listen to you talk, the message speed is under your control, I cannot speed up your message. I also have to be available when you, or the program is being played. (or have the technological skills and capabilities, plus the equipment to store said information) Though you have mentioned several times the attribute of being able to listen while doing something else, I would comment that retention, reflection and musing get lost as the data stream continues uninterruped. The minute you take your attention from the TV, radio or other media, there is no going back to catch what was missed. It is much like riding on a train. As long as you sit at the window looking out, you can see the current scenery, but you can't replay that which has just went past, nor recapture that which happened while you glanced away or left your seat for a minute. The strength of reading as learning information medium is that you can go back and re-read or compare with other information and reflect on the juxtaposition of thought that has been presented. Similarly, with speaking. It is a spontaneous event, unless speaking from something memorized. For most people, speaking is not prethought, it is just a reflex action and the speaker is often surprised or delighted or ashamed of what came out of his mouth as is the listener. Also, speaking limits vocabulary to approx 5000 common words in the language. This may be true in a primary oral society, but literate persons should be able to deploy their larger vocabulary in secondary orality. While writing allows a greater vocabulary and language more specifically used. Writing, focus's the communicator specifically on his message, allows complex themes to be developed, fosters rational thought and specificity rather than the generalizations commonly used when speaking. Brad wrote: Yes, but Consider the architect or engineer designing something. Words, whether spoken or written, would be hard pressed to substitute for "mechanical drawing" and/or freehand drawing, etc. (See William Ivins, _Prints and Visual Communication_, MIT Press) Thomas: That is true but (again), I defy you to comprehend or explain the drawing without using words, either internally to yourself or externally to another. A large part of this is dealt with in great depth by Marshal McLuhan and his observations that TV and radio represent a sensory change from visual (reading and writing) to an oral society, which most of prehistory and history up until Guttenburg operated in. Oral societies are often tribal, ruled by emotion and passion, foster different lifestyles and focus on different aspects of reality than a visual society. Brad wrote: Perhaps it is more accurate to say that persons in primary oral cultures live in a *different reality* (See, e.g, Julian Jaynes, _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_, Houghton Mifflin). I think it is an open question the extent to which primary oral persons *are* persons in the way educated literate persons -- esp. after Descartes, Kant, etc. -- conceive of ourselves. Speculation: primary oral "people" may have a form of existence somewhere between that of higher apes and us. The ancient Greek notion that the line demarcating the human from the non-human does
Re: Media / Oral Literacy
-- From: Robert Rosenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems to me that the thrust of all this, if it continues, is away from a society in which everybody is (should be) reading and writing literate to one in which the overwhelming majority will be culturally-content with their daily entertainments (movies, sitcoms, music videos, award shows, specials), and manufactured news bits. In such a situation, there will be a privatization of knowledge, owned by the few and used for the benefit of the few - which is almost the situation, now. Thomas: A couple of thoughts on the above paragraph. Most listening, watching technologies are time specific. Though you have mentioned several times the attribute of being able to listen while doing something else, I would comment that retention, reflection and musing get lost as the data stream continues uninterruped. The minute you take your attention from the TV, radio or other media, there is no going back to catch what was missed. It is much like riding on a train. As long as you sit at the window looking out, you can see the current scenery, but you can't replay that which has just went past, nor recapture that which happened while you glanced away or left your seat for a minute. The strength of reading as learning information medium is that you can go back and re-read or compare with other information and reflect on the juxtaposition of thought that has been presented. Similarly, with speaking. It is a spontaneous event, unless speaking from something memorized. For most people, speaking is not prethought, it is just a reflex action and the speaker is often surprised or delighted or ashamed of what came out of his mouth as is the listener. Also, speaking limits vocabulary to approx 5000 common words in the language. While writing allows a greater vocabulary and language more specifically used. Writing, focus's the communicator specifically on his message, allows complex themes to be developed, fosters rational thought and specificity rather than the generalizations commonly used when speaking. A large part of this is dealt with in great depth by Marshal McLuhan and his observations that TV and radio represent a sensory change from visual (reading and writing) to an oral society, which most of prehistory and history up until Guttenburg operated in. Oral societies are often tribal, ruled by emotion and passion, foster different lifestyles and focus on different aspects of reality than a visual society. According to McLuhan, media shape the sensorium of individuals and his major theme was that we are creating new media which is reshaping the majority of the populations sensory intake which will have the effect of changing society in ways that are totally different from political philosophy's, economic theories and cultures. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
The Servile State
allowed to refuse the job on pain of losing his benefits. Both options, in my opinion lead to conditions of slavery. The same observations could be applied to our current nurses strike in Quebec, where the government, in this case the employer can legislate fines, imprisonment, back to work legislation on workers who are refusing their labour because of inadequate compensation. To avoid these penalities and go back to work is a form of slavery because the power of the state is used to force people to labour and denies them the right to remove their labour if they feel the terms and conditions of employment are not right. Well, that's enough for an E Mail, but it has been a good read and I would advise others that there is much to be learned from Belloc's thought. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: An Aside: On Rational Thinking
Hi Bob: Great answer and a good read. I have two comments to make. New information, whether through inductive reason, dreams, or pure creativity can obsolete known truths - a point your references have made. Going back to some of the previous discussions re the "soul" that have been posted. This body of knowledge whether from the insights of shamanism, pychotropic drug use experiences, general religous experiences, or the study of ancient religions such as Hindism, Buddism or North American Native cultures - has fallen off the horizon of modern thinking. This does not mean that the truths, experiences, techniques are invalid, it just indicates that they don't fit the current paradigm of the moment. And this could change in a moment - no matter what the rationalist, scientific, academic authorities posit today. The future is truly unknowable Second, and I will repost your quote to juxataposition it with my observation. Much of what we assume we know, is based on imcomplete information. You posted: (ibid., p. 74) "... we might consider the sentiments in early and mid-nineteenth century America that eventually led to the abolition of slavery in the United States. Many people of course participated in leading popular thought and action, but we can cite a novel, Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, and the impact of a political leader, Abraham Lincoln, as being among the major influences. The arguments for abolition arose from many facets of human experience and with varied kinds of religious and philosophical support. And in spite of counter-arguments and social inertia, a conviction that involved a change in assumptions about human lives did eventually carry the day. New social-industrial factors may well have been, as some have argued, a factor in the challenge. The humanist, in any event, can be responsive to the total situation of his times." Thomas: The above quote explains what most of us believe to be true about the abolishment of slavery. Nowhere in this account is the antecendents of the abolishment of slavery given it's economic background as a strategy between the two dominant powers of the early 1800"s, France under Napolean and England. The following quote gives the requisite information. Patriots and Profiteers by R.T. Naylor Page 12 For over 150 years, the two powers hd contended for control of the world sugar market. France won. By the turn of the nineteenth century, sugar from its West Indian colonies cost 25 percent of that from the older British plantations. The Napoleonic Wars gave the British a chance to strike back. First they attempted to capture St. Dominique (now Haiti), the source or destination of 75 percent of France's colonial trade. Unsuccessful, they turned to indirect means. In 1807 Britain declared the abolition of the slave trade. When the British captured the African slave trade posts and commited the navy to stopping "illegal" traffic, they succceeded in cutting off the supply to the French islands, which required several thousand new slaves per year. It was perhaps the world's first economic blockade rationalized by "human rights" rhetoric. And it worked. Thomas: As we muddle along with our rationalist explanations of many things, often using selective statistics, historical interpretations, learned insights of human behavior from the current academic theories as the rationale for our current decisions, we refuse to acknowledge how incomplete our background of insight really is. It is as if - we are playing cards in which the next card to be dealt is truly unknown and unpredictable and yet, we assume from the cards in our hands and the ones which have been played that we "know" or can explain what the next card will be. Of course, going around in this circle of destroying rational thought seems to leave us with no way to make decisions about the future - I mean - after all, if we can't trust the lessons of the past to provide predictability then we are truly in a mess. The antidote may come from less reliance on what we know - which we often don't really know - to decisions based on principles and values of what we hold to be our highest aspirations. This creates a discontinuity with all the past truths and allows us to creatively strike out with new answers to current problems. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: Bob McDaniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FutureWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: An Aside: On Rational Thinking Date: Wed, Jun 30, 1999, 3:54 AM Eva Durant wrote: Uncompromising means, not changing opinions even when presented rational reasons to do so. In the absence of such what can I do? What if my opinion is actually a good approximation to reality, snip Let's take a harder look at rational thought: "Rational thinking ... cannot predict the future. All it can do is to map out the probability space as it appears at
Re: Some more JG quotes
-- From: Steve Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Some more JG quotes Date: Thu, Jun 3, 1999, 12:48 PM Hi Thomas, If JG is really saying what you think he is, I think you say it more clearly. George Soros has expressed a similiar position in his recent book and articles. The pendulum will likely reverse, but when? Cheers, Steve Thomas Thought this would provide a little documentation to back up James Galbraith's ideas. As to when the pendulum will reserve - who knows! Respectfully, Thomas Lunde Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 12:42:27 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: STUDY PAINTS BLEAK JOB SCENE IN CANADA The National Post June 3, 1999 STUDY PAINTS BLEAK JOB SCENE IN CANADA 52% BELOW $15 AN HOUR Jobless figures don't measure underemployment, report contends By James Cudmore Canadian workers are underpaid and underemployed, says a report released yesterday by Ryerson Polytechnic University. The study, conducted by the Ryerson Social Reporting Net- work, observes that 52% of Canadians are paid less than $15 an hour, and that 45% of the country's workforce is engaged in "flexible" work, with people unable to find full-time or permanent jobs. The study, which was produced through an analysis of labour force surveys by Statistics Canada surveys, stands in sharp contrast with the oft-expressed claim that the growing Canadian economy is creating a stronger, more secure labour market. "We hear an awful lot about the new economic boom," said Dr. John Shields, the author of the study. "But, I think there is still a real question about what that means for people in the labour market. "This study clearly reveals a great wage differential between people who have stable jobs and those with flexible employment," Dr. Shields said. "The labour market is polarized between stable, secure types of employment and insecure, inadequately compensated employment." According to Dr. Shields, 45% of Canadian workers are en- gaged in flexible work (defined as part-time and non-permanent), earning an average of $5 to $8 less an hour than full time workers. The study goes on to suggest that these flexible workers have little chance of improving their wage. "All of the indicators show that this is the emerging trend," said Dr. Shields, "It's the new labour market." The Ryerson report also introduced a new employment-vul- nerability measure intended to reflect the amount of underem- ployment in the society, rather than just unemployment. "Looking at traditional unemployment isn't enough," Dr. Shields said. "It masks the tremendous underemployment in our economy, people who are working part time who don't want to be. They want more work, but just aren't able to find it." While the official unemployment rate in the country is 8.4%, the Ryerson study estimates that as many as 20.3% of Canadians are underemployed or otherwise lack employment security and an adequate level of wages. "If we look at the employment problem from that perspective, the real unemployment rate is two-and-a half times larger," Dr. Shields said. "What's really going on in the labour market is an increase in more-peripheral and more-vulnerable types of employment," Dr. Shields says. "I think that's very serious for families."
no subject
Re: A Digital Future for Kosovo?
Dear Colin: What a delightfully imaginative idea. It reminds me of an old joke, if you are going nowhere, start a war with the US, after a few token battles, surender. The US will then loan or give you the money to rebuild your country. Not only should we punish aggressors, we should reward the victims. This would go a long way to ensuring future dictators from abusing their population as they would get punished and their enemies would get the rewards - poetic justice - I say: Respectfully, Thomas Lunde Campaign for Digital Democracy A Digital Future for Kosovo? by Marc Strassman Half a century after it wrecked havoc in Germany, the U.S. Air Force has again reduced the infrastructure of a European nation to rubble. Again, the time has come to talk about rebuilding a country's devastated physical plant. Why not do what worked so well for the Allies after World War II and rebuild Kosovo, not as it was, but as it could be? Why not use the billions that will no doubt be appropriated and spent there to give its million people the technology to not just restore their level of subsistence, but to move them, en masse and now, into the 21st century, the internet century.
Some more JG quotes
This book has intrigued me more than almost any other book since reading Friendly Facism. As I read it, I made notations of things that seemed important. JG spent a lot of pages on the concept that the K-sector operates as a monopoly - that was a big idea and one I still am ruminating on. Another big idea was an intensive analysis of the C-Sector which actually produces goods. Page 126 Created Unequal It seems fair to conclude that in investment, consumption, protection and war, we have the four most important forces determining differences in the way industries have performed in America since 1958. Thomas This idea of isolating forces that have affected change is a way of analysing data differently - the same data that convention economics use but with different insights. Page 128 Once again, we have looked at the sources of change through time in American industrial performance. And what have we found? We have found the traces of the main macroeconomic and policy changes of the past generation. These are, first and foremost, the heightened instability and more rapidly churning business cycle brought on mainly by unstable monetary policy-by the actions of the Federal Reserve-in the years following 1970. Second, we find the effect of slower growth, and the squeeze on American wages and living standards, turning up in a pattern of poor performance for industries most sensitive to consumption demand. Third, we have found the effects of trade protection, albeit strongly affecting a handful of industries, which fluctuate with the exchange value of the dollar. And finally we detect the traces of military spending on industrial performance. Macroeconomic and political causes of change in wage inequality are mediated, at the industry level, by the filtering and polarizing forces of technology, scale intensity, trade sensitivity, and war. Government policy did not determine, for the most part, which industries would be most strongly affected by which forces. But neither can the industries themselves, once they have chosen a particular path of development, escape from the circumstances that government policies create. And in recent times, three of the four major forces have been losers. Only investment have been a winner in the industrial performance sweepstakes, and this accounts for the vast relative success of the K-sector firms over the past twenty-five years. Page 133 As it turns out, the causes of rising inequality are mainly macroeconomic. Thomas: To my understanding, JG is saying that the changes in economics and the resultant inequality we now experience came about - not through market forces or globalization, rather they came about by political decisions at the macroeconomic level. Rather than blaming the capitalists - to the extent that I personally have been blaming them in my own thought, JG is reframing my ideas to the concept that it was the political changes that have caused the problem. Though that may seem self evident, it also has within it the solution, political changes are reversible! If it was the market or globalization as we have been led to believe - then there is a sense of helplessness - we are at the mercy of forces beyond our control. JG challenges this by reinterpreting the data and basically says that it was the political decisions affected strongly by economic theory being used as a guide that has led to most of the current problems. Government - plural - have been dodging this answer because then the onus would then be on governance to readjust the current situation with different policies. Once government-s are forced to face up to this through the data presented - then meaningful and productive change can come about. We are not helpless in the face of impersonal market forces - the invisible hand does not exist - or rather the invisible hand, like the emperor with no clothes is in reality denial and the refusal of governance to change and accept responsibility. New political leaders need to arise and challenge current political thought with new policies based on a different reading of our past experience. Once this dangerous idea shows the promise of a political following, then leaders will come forth who adopt differ policy basics. Enough musing for the night. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
Sorry Jim, no specific references come to mind. However, if you are of a similar age to me, you must remember that at one time you needed 25% down to get a mortage. Now, you can borrow your down payment on a credit card and you need 5% or in some cases less. These changes have come about in less than 40 years. Something is definetly not right, either this is the way it should be or that is the way it should be but both conditions cannot co-exist. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: Jim Dator [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith Date: Mon, May 31, 1999, 7:28 PM Thank you very much for that explanation. It was not clear to me from what you originally sent that this was so, but now I see it could not have been otherwise. I will definitely have to get the book to read more now. Do you (or anyone else on this list) have additional sources to recommend about the role of consumer credit in both fueling the current economy, and skewing it in the way Galbraith/Lunde demonstrate? I, too, feel this is the big dark secret that is never discussed in these terms (to my knowledge) in the general press, or politics.
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
-- From: Steve Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Thomas, Your argument about "natural/material" value, rather than token value has some merit. I would appreciate your comments in the context of Galbraith (not in quote) who gives these figures. 10% are employed in the knowledge sector, 10% in the manufacturing of goods and 80% in the providing of services. Dear Steve: I truly appreciate your lengthy answer. Rather than going through it point by point and as I am probably, rather imperfectly trying to defend JG's ideas, it is probably more honest for me to take some time to transcribe his descriptions from which I made my comments. Page 90 from Created Equal As a first step, imagine a national economy entirely closed to trade. Such an economy will have three basic types of activity in it. Some workers, perhaps a fairly small number, will be employed as machine makers. Highly skilled, they build the instruments that others use and develop the technologies that lead from one generation to the next. We can call them K-workers, where K stands for knowledge, or equally, for "capital goods." K-workers are those who produce airplanes and machine tools and who write software, as well as the architects and engineers and some of the other professionals who give shape to the society in which we live. They include Reich's symbolic analysts, and then some. We can often usefully distinguish between the truly irreplaceable knowledge workers, those who actually control the keys to the kingdom, and their production-line subordinates within the knowledge-based industries. Depending on the nature of the production process, the latter may, or may not, be in a position to share the bonanza of a technological gold strike. But the K-sector as a whole is the conceptual entity to be reckoned with, right down to its janitors and secretaries in many cases. A large number of workers will be employed using the machines designed in the K-sector. They will produce the goods that the whole population actually consumes: food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and entertainment. They will do so in factories using machinery accumulated over the years from the K-sector output. Some of their equipment will be new, some older, some on the verge of retirement. We can call these workers, the machine users, the C-sector, where C stands for "consumption goods." The C-sector, which includes much run-of-the-mill machinery and intermediate goods production as well as all of the mass production of consumer goods, is no monolith. Some factories are new, technologically advanced, up and coming, and profitable. Others are old, run down, overstaffed, costly to maintain, and barely able to turn a profit. Some C-sector factories employ directly the amies of clerks, janitors, and secretaries they need to support their productive operations-and pay these service workers wages scaled to the C-sector norms. Others contract out their service functions and perhaps pay less for these easily replaceable supporting workers. This description of diversity within the C-sector is offered at the level of the factory, but it can be extended to the full range of companies and of industries as well. Companies are groups of factories. Industries are groups of firms. At each level of grouping up, we will find differences of efficiency, as unit cost, market power, and potential profitability at each level of demand. (To use a fancy phrase from a new branch of mathermatics, fractal theory, we can say that these entities are "self-similar at different scales.) The C-sector is highly hetrerogenous. Finally, there will be a large group of workers who use little or no capital equipment, and who do not produce machinery or goods and are not employed by companies that do. These are the service workers, the S-sector, who live by their labor alone. They are the janitors, clerks, cashiers, secretaries, hairdressers, nurses and orderlies, masseurs and masseuses who in the actual economy of the United States make up 80 percent of the working population, often employed in companies specialized to the provison of services and the distribution of goods. Thomas: As I reread your answer, I am struck by the difference between JG's main argument, that it is the inequality of wages that has created our current problems in society, while your answer moves more into a wider environmental aspect of the problems of our current industrial age. Both of you are right, it is just the JG's carefully constructed analysis and the terms he uses are designed to provide a proof that is different than that which current economic theory holds as true. Your information, in my opinion, is to prove that the current levels of population and their effect upon the earth resources is the real problem. I agree with both of you. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde Dear Thomas, TL: Your argument about "natural/material" v
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
Dear Jim: This, as I understand it is one of the main thesis's of the book. That a major redistribution of income has occurred since 1970 towards those who recieve income from interest rather than from labour. He also identifies the "transfer state" as the other area of change in income redistribution. I don't have the book in front of me know, but one of his most insightful graphs to me was the one that showed 16% of income is recieved from interest by the very rich and 16% of income is redistributed to the poor, the elderly, the handicapped for a total of 32%. In the 1960's, only 3% of income was earned through interest and 3% redistributed through transfers. This growth in "interest" income comes from the pocketbooks of the middle class, those who have credit. Following this logic is the angst of the middle class who still earn their income through labour and wages and find that interest and taxes which fund the transfer payments are both taken from their earnings. This leaves them with less. The neo-cons, with their call for tax relief are responding to only one half of the problem, high taxes which fund transfer payments while keeping the middle class in the dark about the other half of the problem, the amount of their income which is going to pay interest. His solution to the transfer payments problem is to go back to a full employment policy that he claims was in effect from 1945 till 1970. More people working means less transfers to those who are not working. His solution to the interest problem is to raise wages, the logic being that we cannot save or have disposable income when are wages are too low and we compensate by using credit which increases the wealth of those who use capital to gain interest rather than using capital for the investment in capital goods production. Rspectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: Jim Dator [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith Date: Mon, May 31, 1999, 5:23 AM Does Galbraith discuss the role of the rapid expansion of easy consumer credit during the time frame of his analysis?
Re: FWD: (1 of 1) Blueprint to the digital economy ;
Dear RF: Well, you have opened a Pandora's box with this question. I learn by reading and observing and making statements which others challenge or agree with, mostly on Lists. I have shied away from E Commerce so far as it just hasn't, in my opinion got a form - a definition and it seemed premature to try and assess what changes it will make in the Capitalistic Model. That it will have a major effect is undeniable. Will it change work patterns - will we stay at home and order everything in - can we stop building highways and cars? Will being a Courier driver be the growth opportunity for future employment? I don't know and in a way, I'm almost afraid to know - things are bad enough now without doubling the army of the unemployed by making most conventional distribution systems such as stores and clerks obsolete. I'm still trying to figure out what went wrong in the industrial age. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: "RF Pearse (716) 475-6010" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tom lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED], Eva Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FWD: (1 of 1) Blueprint to the digital economy ; Date: Mon, May 31, 1999, 8:44 PM Tom/Eva How will the new information age models (e-commerce - Digital Business) affect your industrial age economic models? (see attached)
A litle help please?
I have changed computers from Microsoft to Macintosh. While using Microsoft, I was happy with Explorer, their web browser but now I am using 4.5 Explorer on the Macintosh and I find it a very cumbersome browser, not so much for web surfing, but this version of Outlook Express is archaic in addressing along with several other features. Is Netscape any better or Eudora? Thanks, Thomas Lunde
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
-- From: Colin Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith Date: Sun, May 30, 1999, 10:36 PM To me the essence of this excellent Review is in the Summary paragraph While the problem is clearly stated; the potential remedy of Direct Democracy is unstated Colin Stark Dear Colin: Let me answer your implied question by quoting the first paragrapgh of an excellent book out from England called The Age of Insecurity by Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson - two writers who actually can make all this stuff interesting and exciting - I highly recommend it. Quote PageVII The central struggle of our time is that between laissez-faire capitalism, which represents the financial interest, and social democracy, which represents democratic control of the economy in the interests of ordinary people. These ideologies are incompatible, in that at the heart of social democracy is the one economic feature specifically and unashamedly ruled out by the resurgent free market: security. Social democracy offers nothing if it does not offer security; the free market cannot offer security (to the many at least) without ceasing to be itself. Instead it provides security to the financial interest at the expense of the majority, upon whom is shifted the entire burden of risk and "adjustment" whenever ther system hits one of its peiodic crises. Thomas: Whether we have a DD system or a Representative System, the will of the people is constant. Security is the goal of all people. People continually vote for more security, medicare, unemployment insurance, pensions and other supports. Elected governments continually promise security. And then - yes you guessed it, the ideology of laissez-faire capitalism subverts the politicians into other directions from which they recieved a mandate to act. We then turf the buggers out because the next group convincingly sings the theme song of security only to be subverted once again. The real question is which ideology should be dominant - democracy or capitalism. The people continually, whether marxists, socialists or capitalists, at their human individual level, continually opt for more security. The problem to me seems less in how we elect them, but rather in how we can make them produce the effects they promise. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde "Behind the battering rams, behind the decisions to use them in this way, behind the creation of the situations in which they could be used in such a way, were political figures and policy decisions-decisions, for example, to tolerate unemployment. The economy is a managed beast. It was managed in such a way that this was the result. It could have been done differently. It was not inevitable even given the progress of technology and the growth of trade. It was, in sense, done deliberately. That is the real evil of the time." * At 01:11 PM 5/30/99 +, you wrote: A lengthy book review by Thomas Lunde Lower taxes scream the headlines of the business press in Canada. We are not competitive shout the neo-cons and their corporate masters. These and similar mantras have been bombarding us with relentless waves of media support. In fact whole political party platforms such as Reform have made this their guiding light. snip Behind the battering rams, behind the decisions to use them in this way, behind the creation of the situations in which they could be used in such a way, were political figures and policy decisions-decisions, for example, to tolerate unememplyemnt. The economy is a managed beast. It was managed in such a way that this was the result. It could have been done differently. It was not inevitable even given the progress of technology and the growth of trade. It was, in sense, done delibertately. That is the real evil of the time.
Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith
Dear Steve: I couldn't agree more and of course it is not only immigrants but the massive entry into the labour force of women - not that women shouldn't work but that, in a large number of cases they didn't work in the 50's and 60's but were - in many cases - forced into work in the 70's by the deliberate sabotage of wages which made the one income family obsolete in most cases for a middle class lifestyle. These people wanted the best for their children and made the necessary adjustments in their family life to provide income, often at the very expense of that family life. Penny wise and pound foolish perhaps as we look at the social dysfunctions in our society. Respectfully Thomas Lunde -- From: Steve Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Created Unequal by James Galbraith Date: Sun, May 30, 1999, 9:46 PM Hi Thomas all, Thanks for the clear, informative review. I've interacted with JG, and he has shied away from my questions about the impact of the sharp rise in the size of the labor force since WWII. I'm *not* disputing any of the factors described in the review; I'm suggesting that at the same time that technology and globalization have empowered capital and entrepreneurship at the expense of labor, the sharp rise in population has added to the woes of the lower and middle classes. Demand for housing and services rise, while wages are supressed. Policy and values don't operate in a vacuum. Industries desire for a passive, compliant labor supply has resulted in a continual high level of immigrants. In the US, this has finally been grasped by many in the African American, Latino, and other minority communities. Their wages and opportunities for self-improvement are directly impacted by immigration policy. Of course much of the migration pressure stems from global overpopulation. But numbers are a factor in wellbeing in North America nonetheless. Consider also the recent explosion of sprawl articles and discussions. Cheers, Steve (excerpt from TL) All of these changes had the effect of breaking down the structures of solidarity that had held the American middle class together for the first quarter-century after the end of World War II. The new instability of macroeconomics gave a powoerful boost to investment and techology, both in absolute terms and as compared with consumption. With each recession, waves of older factories disappeared. With them went the hard-won, high-paying jobs of the traditional blue-collar workforce. But with each recovery, firms faced an imperative to replace lost capacity, and to do it in the most cost-saving, labor-saving, technologically advanced way available at that moment in time. Waves of layoffs were followed by waves of investment. But the new investments were never designed to relieve the distress of the previously unemployed. They were designed instead to substitutue entirely for them, and this they accomplished. At the same time, incomes policies were abandoned. The idea that all society should benefit equally from national productivity gains was replaced by an ideology of the market, in which winner-take-all and the devil-the-hindmost. Minimum wages were allowed to fall in real terms; safety net social expenditures came under assault. There began a cult of the entrpreneur,
Created Unequal by James Galbraith
A lengthy book review by Thomas Lunde Lower taxes scream the headlines of the business press in Canada. We are not competitive shout the neo-cons and their corporate masters. These and similar mantras have been bombarding us with relentless waves of media support. In fact whole political party platforms such as Reform have made this their guiding light. Raise wages states James Galbraith, son of the famous John K Galbraith and teaching economist at the University of Texas. What! Raise wages - what heresy. And yet there is a logic in this simple thought that is not being debated. Why have the rich been getting richer and the poor - poorer? JK's answer is that wages - the primary source of income for most Americans - and Canadians has been falling since the 70's while income from interest has been rising. This has created a major inequality in income distribution that has created many of the problems of our governments in terms of deficits and cutbacks to social programs. I could go on and on, but starting on page 162 to 167, his summing up provides a good overall summary of his major thesis without all the mind numbing explantions, graphs and paradigm shifts from conventional economic theory used to prove his new perspective. I will let him explain in his own words. Where I start is were he has finished his analysis of knowledge workers, consumption workers and service workers. Page 162 In the period since 1973, investment and investment above all has driven the interindustry wage structure. This is true within the manufacturing sector proper, and it is true between manufacturing and services, once the two are properly demarcated. The story of services, therefore, is that there is no separate story. Industries associated with capital investment, with the production of capital goods and particularly with the production of capital goods and particularly with the production of new technologies, have done comparatively well in modern times. Industries and activities that rely on any other source of prosperity, whether it be consumer demand or the national security state, have done poorly. The bottom has fallen away for the non investment sector. The implications of this finding go well beyond the analysis of the sources of rising inequality. They suggest that an entire civic mantra, on the virtues of saving and of investment and on the deficiencies of American society in this regard, has been misleading as both diagonsis and prescription. Comparatively speaking, we have not in lacked for investment. Therefore we cannot have lacked for the saving required to finance investment. To the contrary, private business investment is the singular activity that the American economy has continued to pursue, willy-nilly, at a high rate and in a state of frenetic self-renewal, within a general environment of stagnation and decline. We lack for everything else that accompanied rising private investment in the period from 1946 to 1973: rising living standards, rising wages, falling poverty, increased employment in the high-wage, nonmanufacturing sectors as government itself, and especially for the public investmensts that raise collective living standards and provide amenities that every citizen can enjoy. Thus, the floors that society had formerly placed under wages in the S(ervice) sector have been progressively eaten away. It is impossible to square this picture with the prevailing image of a country afflicted by declining savings and private consumer profligacy, though that image is relentlessly touted by a certain school of policy advisers and their allies in academic economics. The evidence presented here contradicts it. What we see from the movements of the wage structure leads to the opposite conclusion. Investment is the activity that has survived and prospered, at least in relative terms, in an otherwise declining economy. And those in position to profit from spending on investment equipment have done well, almost alone among manufacturing workers, in the distribution of wages. A surfeit of investment! An excess of technological change! But, on reflection, how could it be otherwise? Private business investment is the source of the technological revolutions to which we are repeatedly subjected. These revolutions would be hard put to occur in a society that was not investing; indeed they would not and could not occur in such a society. They therefore fit oddly into the picture of a savings-starved, investment-short, happy-go-lucky culture with which we are constantly fed. Investment brings us technology. And these technological revolutions are themselves the instruments of a massive transfer of wealth, away from technology users and toward technology producers. This pattern of transfers, following the rhythms of the business cycle and of the unemployment rate, is an ultimate source of rising inequality in wages. But, one may ask, aren't the comparative gains
Re: From a A Cathedral of Public Policy to a Public Policy Bazaar
Hi Ed: Good points but --- the whole idea of this information age and governance is not necesarily to compete with the experts but for the interested and - hopefully intelligent poster to give input and broaden the debate by sharing their opinions and viewpoints. I think the idea of the bazaar - and I am still trying to assimilate whether this is the correct label - is perhaps more like the Acropolis of ancient Greece - I hope my memory is right in these names or I will quite justly get flamed. A common area or arena where debate can take place in which those who have interests, ie the experts and policy wonks and lobbyists have to justify their choices by critique by the citizen. At the end of the day, they are the ones who will make the policy - no argument there - but now those decisions are made in the backroom and not even the stakeholders who will be affected by the decisions have input other than to present proposals which disappear into a black hole - hardly acknowledged - never debated. Your example of aboriginal issues is the result of your experience. What is being proposed is the creation of different experiences. This may be messy. It may step on toes that don't want to be stepped on - it may not even work, but for the first time since the invention of representative democracy, a technological methodology makes possible the idea of a blending of direct democracy with representional democracy. This is an experiment worth engaging in. And looking forward into the future and trying to envision how decisions in 2030 or 2100 might look, we have to admit that their will be changes and we - living now at the start of the Internet Age will be the pioneers who experiment. And that, to me is the key word - experimentation and when you experiment in the scientific sense, failure is an appropriate response which will eventually lead to success or other directions. Respectfully Thomas Lunde -- From: "Ed Weick" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "futurework" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: From a "A Cathedral" of Public Policy to a Public Policy "Bazaar" Date: Fri, May 28, 1999, 2:49 PM Mike, What your paper does not seem to recognize is that government does not usually respond to the public as a whole, but to particular groups and interests within the public. This is not inappropriate if one views democracy as being founded on two often contradictory principles: recognizing the public interest as a whole; and protecting the rights and interests of individuals and groups. Bringing the public as a whole into policy formulation via a medium such as the internet might, if the initiative were genuine and sincere, satisfy one of these principles but could violate the other. Much of my experience in government and outside of it as a consultant has been with aboriginal issues. The content of these issues is complex. One has to become very deeply immersed in them before one really gets to understand them to the extent of being able to make an effective contribution to policy. I would question the willingness of most of the public to put enough time into developing an appropriate level of understanding. Moreover, aboriginal people have a longstanding proprietory interest in aboriginal policy making. They would strenuously resist an encroachment on this interest by the public as a whole. I would refer to the recent angry babble out of British Columbia on the Nisga settlement to illustrate what I'm saying. Other fields of policymaking would encounter similar problems. Could a life-long Toronto urbanite really understand the problems of marginalized prairie grain grower or the social devastation currently being faced by communities based on mining? Perhaps the role of the internet here is to educate -- to put the farmer or miner into direct contact with the urbanite so that he can then go after his MP. But to expect the urbanite to be sympathetic or even objective without such education is expecting too much. The role of government as cathedral is to try to balance a great variety of often mutually exclusive and mutually incomprehensible interests. I've worked in the cathedral and like the idea of the bazaar, but I quite honestly can't see how it would work. I read parts of the paper on the development of the Linux system. I came away with the impression that widespread input to the development and debugging of that system worked because everyone who contributed had a pretty good idea of what it was about and how it worked. I honestly cannot feel the same way about the development of Indian policy or many other issues government must try to resolve. Ed Weick (This is a draft of a paper that I'm developing that might be of interest in this context. Contents, criticisms, "hacking" is welcomed. Distribution (with attribution) is encouraged.) Etc.
Re: From a Cathedral to a Bazaar
Title: Re: From a Cathedral to a Bazaar Dear Michael: This is a very interesting post. I participated in Galiganos government sponsored list re work - sorry I can't be more specific, I have changed computers and all my files are not easily available and memory fades. However, I do remember the excitement I felt in being able to input and the joy of meeting other citizen thinkers who had great experiences and ideas. The end result was silence from the government. No feedback - no official position - no indication of what the experts thoughts were on the information from the public particpators such as I. I met some nice people - in fact I think I found your list through references in this discussion. I have also participated on a European List re Governance and again was excited and educated by the participants and again let down that the official world did not contribute or respond in any way. Without having read your suggested references, I can only say that I want to be able to enter into dialog with my government, business and other agencies in which I have interests and opinions and I will look forward to your continuing pointing in those directions. Respectfully from a kindred spirit - by all means let's develop the bazaar model by becoming active enough to force the experts to communicate with the public. Thomas Lunde
Re Basic Income re JK Galbraith
Title: Re Basic Income re JK Galbraith Tom Walker wrote: JKG made a further contribution to economics by siring James K., whose book Created Unequal shows that carefully done equations and regressions can stand for something after all -- such as debunking the mythology of mainstream economists. regards, Tom Walker Dear Tom: I don't know if was you who posted James K's book, but I have been reading it. It's slow going but very insightful. I have been marking it and intend - time willing to provide a little summary of his essential points. If a few others would get it from their local library, it could become a source from which a good list discussion could ensue. What he is attempting - is to allow us to change perspective from which classical and monetarist economics have established explanations - to a different viewpoint using the existing data that other schools of economics have been using. I find it a little head wrenching at times because all I have read and thought about economics has come from established perspectives - I would imagine others may have a similar culture shock. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm
no subject
Title: no subject Good points Ed and I stand corrected. I have just being reading Chossodovsky's second posting on Albania which has brought to the forefront of memory just how different the real world is from CNN and CBC with their so called in-depth coverage. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: Ed Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Destruction of Albania (Part I) Date: Fri, May 14, 1999, 6:08 PM Hi Thomas, Nice to know you are alive. I don't see how my comments are irrelevant today. Ireland is part of Europe, and continues to be in a state of war or rebellion or whatever. Russia is part of Europe, and is a powder keg when it comes to inter-ethnic relations. When I was there four years ago, the Chechyn war got all the publicity, but there were others going on at the same time. The Balkans are part of Europe, and you know what is going on there. There are strong right-wing, meaning fascist movements in France and Germany. Just because the latter has behaved like a model democracy for the past few decades does not mean that the old Prussian model of superiority couldn't emerge again. German skinheads are causing all kinds of problems for non-German immigrants -- they can no longer go after the Jews because most of them have cleared out to Israel, but they are ever alert for new victims. Europeans have been notorious for getting along when times are good, but let them turn bad and all of the old hatreds emerge. Those hatreds are still there, latent for the moment, but by no means dead. What got me about Reuss's comments was their sheer smugness. The Swiss have been peaceful and stable for the past few centuries, but, as a safe haven for money, have gained from everybodies else's problems. They've held themselves nuetral and have got very very rich by turning a blind eye to whether the wealth that poured in for safe keeping came from the mouths of Jews killed in the gas chambers or some other vile source. Best regards, Ed -Original Message- From: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ed Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, May 14, 1999 9:46 AM Subject: Re: Destruction of Albania (Part I) Dear Ed: It's a good argument Ed but the first comment is current time and your comment is relevant 50 years ago. I'm inclined to give the Europeans the benefit of doubt and grant that many countries have been trying to address some of the social problems that our neighbour to the South ignores and which spills over into our culture. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: Ed Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: List Futurework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Destruction of Albania (Part I) Date: Fri, May 14, 1999, 12:32 PM Funny, but here in Europe we don't have an army that has bombed 21 countries during the last 50 years (without having been attacked once). We also don't have the high rates of murder and prisoners that your peaceful country has. Nor do we need metal detectors in our schools to protect the kids from each other, or security guards on our campus to prevent the kids from massacrating their peers on Hitler's birthday. We also don't have militia-men who kill dozens of civilians by blowing up a gov't building. Geez, we don't even have racial riots in large cities after some state officers have beaten up a citizen for his race. But I'm sure we'll have all that pretty soon if we follow the lead of your peace-loving and tolerant country, Ray. How beautifully smug! I understand that your bankers made quite a lot of money from the gold and jewelry that the Nazis took from death-camp victims. Europe, if you read its history, was a cesspool of wars, repressions and mass exterminations. And it was Europeans who brought diseases and enslavement to the Americas, accounting for the destruction of civilizations and the deaths of perhaps 100 million people. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get into this one, but on reading the above self-congratulatory puffery, I just couldn't help it. But perhaps I misunderstood. Perhaps you intent was some form of comic irony. Ed Weick
Basic Income re JK Galbraith
and corporation taxes, gets the money, and the cities, with everything from traffic to air pollution, get the problems. This is more acutelyt the case when the effects of population growth and urbanization are added. Various ways have been suggested for correctinbg this anomaly, most of them calling for subventions to the states and cities by the federal government. Undoubtly the best way would be for the federal government to assume the cost of providing a mimimum income and thus to free the cities from the present burden of welfare costs. (Actually, in Canada, with the discarding of CAP, (Canadian Assistance Plan), we went from a federally mandated set of minimum standards to a hodgepodge of provincial standards, most of them to low to live on. In fact in Ontario, our current neo-con government seemed to follow Galbraith's advise and take the most of the cost of welfare and education off the municipaitie's property tax base and move it to the Provincial taxation. As soon as this was accomplished, they reduced the Welfare payments by 21% four years ago with no increases for inflation and assuming inflation of 2% a year, the Welfare recipient now recieves a reduced amount equivalent to almost a 30% reduction. This is not including clawback legislation that takes money that the Federal Government has tried to put into the system to increase Welfare rates. So much for progress.) In these years of urban crisis we want a system that directs funds not to the country as a whole but, by some formula, to the points of greatest need, which, unquestionably, are the large cities. To transfer income maintenance to the federal government - to free big-city budgets of a large share of their welfare paymens - would be an enormous step in exactly the right direction. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: Basic Income re Galbraith circa 1966
government, through the income and corporation taxes, gets the money, and the cities, with everything from traffic to air pollution, get the problems. This is more acutelyt the case when the effects of population growth and urbanization are added. Various ways have been suggested for correctinbg this anomaly, most of them calling for subventions to the states and cities by the federal government. Undoubtly the best way would be for the federal government to assume the cost of providing a mimimum income and thus to free the cities from the present burden of welfare costs. (Actually, in Canada, with the discarding of CAP, (Canadian Assistance Plan), we went from a federally mandated set of minimum standards to a hodgepodge of provincial standards, most of them to low to live on. In fact in Ontario, our current neo-con government seemed to follow Galbraith's advise and take the most of the cost of welfare and education off the municipaitie's property tax base and move it to the Provincial taxation. As soon as this was accomplished, they reduced the Welfare payments by 21% four years ago with no increases for inflation and assuming inflation of 2% a year, the Welfare recipient now recieves a reduced amount equivalent to almost a 30% reduction. This is not including "clawback" legislation that takes money that the Federal Government has tried to put into the system to increase Welfare rates. So much for progress.) In these years of urban crisis we want a system that directs funds not to the country as a whole but, by some formula, to the points of greatest need, which, unquestionably, are the large cities. To transfer income maintenance to the federal government - to free big-city budgets of a large share of their welfare paymens - would be an enormous step in exactly the right direction. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
Dear Henry:
If you have been following the answers, including your own, there does not
seem to be any pattern or truth to emerge out of my question. "Where is the
demand for trained people, given the urgency of the problem and the funds
projected to be spent?" Rather than the answers providing a conclusive
answer, the none answer that emerges from conflicting answers - is an answer
within itself. I would sum it up as - "we just don't know". I recently
received a copy of a Canadian Government Report that equates Y2K with the
1st and 2nd World Wars and the Great Depression as one of the defining
events of the century. This is definitely in the big leagues as problems
go.
And yet in reviewing those events mentally, one has to ask, are we in 1936
or 1939 and what is the equivalency of 1915, 1933 and 1942, that we are yet
to experience? The future is always murky. There are a billion plans going
on, from building a new house, to reforming Social Security to picking next
years vacation date. The fact that there has been a linearity for the last
50 years in which the appearance of predictability was our operating norm.
Perhaps we are at the edge of the whirlpool, about to start that great
centrigal movement that goes faster and faster and as we near the vortex, we
will be shot out into a future so different from all our current logics and
assurances that the differences are unthinkable.
When I think this way, I must ask; is Y2K the triggering event, the march
into Poland, or is the final piece of the puzzle, like the attack on Pearl
Harbour that completed the chessboard of World War 2. Our leaders ooze
complancey, don't worry, be happy, the final ballroom dance on the Titantic
is all glitter - when we appear the strongest, are we the most vulnerable?
Well, so much for doom and gloom reflections.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
Subject: Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
Hi Thomas and all
Your apparent dilemma arises, in my humble opinion, out of a couple of
things:
- India has over the last 10 or so years, it may even be longer, set
itself up as a major exporter of code. During this time they have
built up a large core of very good programming skill who not only can
read programs specs but can also read write and test code.
- Other countries, SA, the USA, etc have a shortage of skills.
Systems are not always properly documented having been written over
a long period of time.
While many countries have large populations we have not, as a national
priority,
ensured that there is a large skills pool in the way that India, and
I think, Brazill have. In many cases free enterprise as ensured that
some kind of balance has existed between supply and demand.
Because its cheaper to import trained staff than to train them,
the USA has actively sort to recruit skiled staff from outside its
borders, as highlighted by its playing around with green card
quotas last year.
Interestingly enough though I had some correspondence with someone
from west Africa, I forget the state, who said they had many people
with computer skills but few jobs. Why are they not relocated? I
suspect because of language and background differences which make
them less usefull in a foreign country.
- Your analagy with the appliance repair business is a good one because
it serves to highlight the fact that untrained, in your case a year
if I read you correctly, technicians will take longer to ffind and
fix a problem.
We dont have time now to give people even a three month crash course
and let them learn on the job.
It is also true that a technician with documentation will be much
quicker and more certain, than one without.
Much of this code is old and the documentation dodgy in the extreme.
Hope this adds more to the debate.
Henry
"The old Chinese curse appears to be upon us,
we live in interesting times!"
=
Subscribe to the IT Digest, an information resource from Wits Univ.
Send e-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with SUBSCRIBE ITDIGEST
and {your_user_id} in the body followed by END on the next line.
--
Henry C Watermeyer 'Phone +27-11-716-3260/8000
Director - Computer Network services Fax+27-11-339-1225
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
P/Bag 3, Wits 2050, South Africa mobile +27-(0)82-800-8862
//SunSITE.Wits.ac.za //WWW.Wits.ac.za
==
Re: competition/contradiction
Dear Eva and friend: A very good argument and one in which I find more hope and possibilities than "the survival of the fittest" mentality of the capitalist model. I especially liked the comments re language developing because we are basically a cooperating species. It makes sense to me. In the realm of personal experience, I can say that if I was to analyze my day, both familial, working, and various relationships, the majority of my time is spent in cooperative ventures, raising children, working with co-workers, and even in my business dealings with the world, are much more cooperative than competitive. It is only when the accumulation of wealth enters the picture that a small percentage of the population becomes totally neurotic and puts their own desires and wants above others, even to the point of actually causing others pain, hardship, deprivation so that they can have more jelly beans in their jar. Personally, it would seem to me a predilection for the capitalistic model is either the result of propaganda and cultural programming or outright mental deviance. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde Subject: competition/contradiction I asked for a contribution in the above themes from a friend of mine who happens to be Hungarian, married to an English chap and a socialist, quite like me... Be sure - there are more useful work-related information here that in a lot of other posts! For some reason she started in Hungarian, my english summary follows these first paragraphs. Eva ... Termeszetesen semmi koze az erkolcsi normaknak ehhez. Az ellentmondas az abbol adodik, hogy a munkasosztaly termeli a javakat, de a munkaadok csak annyit adnak vissza ebbol amennyire feltetlenul a munkasnak szuksege van ahhoz, hogy eletben maradjon. Ez a munkaber, ami megfizeti nem a munkat hanem a munkaerot. (Not labour but labour power!!) Hogy mennyit fizetnek egy munkasnak az fugg sok mindentol, peldaul, hogy milyenek a piaci viszonyok, a termelekenyseg, mennyire erosek a szakszervezetek, milyen merteku a munkanelkuliseg stb., stb. Soha, de soha nem fugg attol, hogy mennyi erteket termelt a munkas, mert azt soha nem kapja vissza. Ha kapna, akkor a munkaadonak nem lenne haszna es bezarna a gyarat. (Ofcourse there is no link with moral norms. The contradiction is based on the working class producing the goods, but the employers only paying back as much as the workers need to survive. This is the wage; only pays for the worker, not for the work done. The amount of the wage depends from the markets, from the strength of the unions, from the level of unemployment, etc, etc, but never from the value produced. This is never returned, as then the employer would have no profit and would have to close the workplace.) Egyike a legalapvetobb ellentmondasnak az, hogy ha a munkas csak egy egesz kis hanyadat kapja vissza annak az erteknek amit megtermelt, akkor nincs eleg penze, hogy megvegye azokat a termekeket, amit o keszitett, de a gyartulajdonos ad el. Igy a tulajdonos nem tudja bezsebelni a hasznot, es igy is bezarja a gyarat. (One of the most basic contradiction is, that if the worker only gets back a very small portion of the value he produced, than he has not enough money to buy the necessities to live, sold by the owners of the factories etc, so these owners cannot make the profits and have to close down.) Egy masik ellentmondas az, hogy az evtizedek soran ahogy a kapitalista rendszer kezdett hanyatlani, a tendencia arra mutatott, hogy mindig tobbet kellett befektetni ahhoz, hogy egyre kevesebbet kapjon vissza haszonkent. "The tendency for the rate of profit to fall" Ez azert van, mert a toke ket reszre oszlik: (An other contradiction is that the system started to collapse, because there is a tendency, that more and more investment was necessary for less and less profit, thus "The tendency for the rate of profit to fall". This happens, because: ) the means of production (e.g. tools, land etc.) and labour. It is the interaction of these two that create new goods and the capitalist's profit. However, because it is only labour that creates profit, only labour that adds surplus value, in the modern epoch when more and more has to be spent on modernising the means of production, less and less will be produced in terms of profit for the same amount of investment. Crudely put: if every year you have to spend more and more on throwing away perfectly good machinery and buy new one, because that is the only way you can keep ahead of your competition, and therefore you pay less and less to your workforce, the organic composition of capital will shift in favour of the means of production, of capital goods and away from labour. However, it is only labour that produces the pofit, so you will rake in less and less. I know that this is a very difficult concept to grasp, but if you look around that is what is happening to British Industry. They have not invested and they are being
Re: Y2K Specialists
-Original Message- From: Neil Rest [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Y2K problems have been accumulating for almost 50 years. All reasonable efforts to deal with particular situations began one to five or more years ago. Practically all the adding of staff is over. Thomas: That may well be so and if it is so, I would like others in the industry to comment. However there seem to be a lot of credible "experts" who are saying just the opposite. My goal is try and find out the truth! Given that a number of surveys have posted estimates of over 30% of the Companies surveyed have not even done a Y2K evaluation seems to indicate that either the surveys are lying or your assessment is incorrect. I don't care who is "right", I just want to know what the hell is going on! One of the primary indicators of a true problem, it would appear to me, is the simple proof of a shortage of Y2K personnel. There does not seem to be an acute shortage. Therefore, one can conclude two things: (a) There is no problem to fix and therefore we don't need anyone to fix it, or, (b) everyone is planning on fixing it but no one has started yet and therefore there is no demand for qualified personnel. The third alternative would be your assessment. Everyone got on top of the problem four or five years ago and it is basically fixed and we can stop worrying. Well, which is it? And how do we find out which possibility is the "true" one? Respectfully, Thomas Lunde The Y2K problem is not the result of anything resembling a consipiracy; it is the result of a mindset. When the programmer told the boss in 1970 that this wouldn't work after 1999, the boss said, "It will have been replaced long before then!" When the programmer told the boss in 1985 that this wouldn't work after 1999, the boss said, "We have to make a better showing this quarter than last!" (The programmer may not have had the opportunity to tell the boss in 1995, since the department had been outsourced.)
Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
Thomas: Reluctantly, I will allow this thread to get a little more lengthy as holding the previous posts in memory often helps understand the current answers/questions. At 03:48 AM 2/10/99 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote: Now, assuming a shortage of qualified personnel, I would expect every training institute in the country to be offering courses in programming languages to get people up to speed to work on Y2K problems. As most of the work, I have read, requires no great programming skill, rather it is the reading of millions of lines of code looking for date sensitive code and then applying replacement code, it would seem to me that many people could be trained in a 3 month course to be a mini specialist in some aspect of a computer language. As I look at the ads of training schools, I do not see any offers for training to become a Y2K correction specialist and most courses in their outlines do not even mention the need to become expert in Y2K problems. Second question - what is going on in the training field to supply those capable enough to work on this problem. I would appreciate some thoughts on these questions. Thomas, -From: Abelito Tortuga Suizo [EMAIL PROTECTED] GKD] Training Y2K Specialists You assume correctly. There *is* a shortage of skills to address the Y2K problem. This has been an oft-repeated fact in many publications in the web and elsewhere (I'll have to scavenge my files if you really need refs). This shortage is very acute in Asia, which is what is worrying the advanced countries. This shortage, I believe, is artificial, because skilled Asians have moved to the advanced countries in response to the great demand in that part of the world. Thomas: Well, of course, if all those "Asian" personnel moved back to their home countries, then I assume there would be a manjor shortage in the United States. The question posed is not allocation, it is regarding the incongruency of up to a trillion dollars being budgeted for remedial work, which by it very nature (reading millions of lines of arcane computer language programs and making the appropriate changes) would seem to require massive numbers of people who are trained in those languages, and capable of making the appropriate changes. As we are down to the final 10 months before the event horizon smacks us in the face, I am trying to access whether there really is a problem or not by asking the obvious question - have we got the people to do the job and if so, how would that become apparent. Whatever the case, on the overall, the teachers left in training schools are those in the state-of-the-art hardware and software, areas which many would expect to be Y2K-safe. Understandably so, these schools would not be able to provide Y2K training courses since the veterans are already out there in the trenches. Thomas: Now this is really a worrisome statement. Even if we should need teachers, they are not available because they are focused on problems past the event horizon, the conclusion being that the Y2K event is already solved and the future is assured. If this is so, why can we not get definitive proof that this is so? Why are we still recieving many projections that the military, the energy sector, the transportation sector, the financial sector, etc still are not Y2K complaint? On the other hand, I would beg to disagree on your conception that there are what you termed "Y2K correction specialists." If you listen hard enough, the underpining feeling among Y2K remediators is still one of *doubt*. Truth is, no one is a Y2K expert since this is the first time we're facing this problem. Nobody in the Y2K business today can give a guarantee that their work will be fail-proof before, during and after the dreaded "event horizon." Ask them if they can tell what will exactly happen, and they will say, if they're honest enough, "I don't know." Now it seems to me that you are arguing from both sides of the problem. On the one hand, smile, be happy. On the other hand most of the "experts" just don't know. I'm sorry, I want a more conclusive answer than that for myself and my family. The best persons who can do Y2K risk assessment, contingency planning are those in the organization themselves. The "experts" can only help by asking us questions and allowing us to see other possibilities we may not have considered. Assumming that you have personnel within organizations who can handle the job, what happens to the work they are supposed to be doing but are not doing because they are busy handling Y2K? Or were they just there originally as sort of a corporate welfare for bright programmers? Now "risk assessment" and "contingency planning" are very fine skills, but then comes application and for that you need some guys to sit in front of terminals for months at a time, making corrections and hoping that they are not making the problem worse. I want to know
Re: The Prosperity Covenant
Dear Tom: A masterly analysis. Run for Parliament - the country needs these ideas. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: February 19, 1999 12:26 PM Subject: The Prosperity Covenant The prosperity covenant: how reducing work time really works to create jobs by Tom Walker A brief presented to the Operation JOBS Roundtable Vancouver, B.C. February 19th , 1999 (This brief is posted at www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm with updates and links to come.) "The harder we crowd business for time, the more efficient it becomes." -- Henry Ford It seems reasonable to suppose that if a company had ten employees who each regularly worked four hours a week overtime, the employer could pool those hours and hire an eleventh worker, thus increasing employment at the company by ten per cent. Likewise, if long hours are being worked throughout the economy, one would expect it to be feasible to spread out those hours of work and create new jobs. If this were true, unemployment could be abolished with the stroke of a pen. "Wrong!" the economists tell us, "that is the lump-of-labour fallacy, which assumes there is only a fixed amount of work to be done. And that is clearly a fallacy!" What is this strange sounding "lump-of-labour fallacy", which insists it would be uneconomical to redistribute work time? Why is there seemingly no alternative to the same old right-wing, "supply-side" nostrums that have brought two decades of rising inequality, enfeebled social programs and a crescendo of potentially disastrous financial speculation? What is the lump-of-labour fallacy? The lump-of-labour fallacy has been described as "one of the best known fallacies in economics." Whether or not that's true, it certainly is one of the least understood and the most misused. As conceived in 1891 by English economist David Schloss, the fallacy of "the theory of the lump of labour" had nothing to do "with the question of the length of the working day." Schloss was writing about something else entirely -- why workers didn't like piece-rate wages. The phrase, however, seems to have struck a chord with editorial writers and authors of introductory economics textbooks, who have borrowed it for use as a trump card in the debate over work time. The lump-of-labour fallacy simply says that there is not a "fixed amount of work to be done" and therefore one cannot share out such an assumed, fixed amount of work. End of story. The argument has nothing to say, in general, about whether jobs can be created by reducing the hours of work. It is a rebuttal only to a specific, popular simplification. The lump-of-labour theory is indeed a fallacy, but so is the use of the fallacy to make a case against the job creation possibilities of reduced work time. Technically, that common usage itselfs commits several fallacies: "hasty generalization", "straw man argument" and "non-sequitur of denying the antecedent". The productivity paradox A better case against relying on reduced work time to cure unemployment was argued -- also during the 1890s -- by another English economist, John Rae. That argument can be best summarized as the "productivity paradox". Rae argued -- and presented an impressive stack of evidence for the case -- that workers would probably produce as much or more in eight hours as they previously had in nine or ten hours and therefore reducing the hours of work would create no additional demand for labour. On the other hand, Rae cautioned, if the workers didn't produce as much as before in the shorter hours, labour costs would go up and that would reduce the demand for labour. Although it presents a broader argument than the lump-of-labour fallacy, the productivity paradox also has a fatal flaw. It deals exclusively with an either/or situation. Thus it presents a false dilemma -- another fallacy. In the actual economy, a properly-designed reduction in the standard hours of work would encounter some workplaces where total output per worker could be maintained or even increased while other workplaces would see a decline in per-worker output, although that decline would usually be less than proportionate to the decline in hours. How reducing work time really works It is precisely the difference between the effects on output in different workplaces that gives shorter work time its power to create jobs. The key concepts for explaining how this works are: 1. efficiency and 2. competition Efficiency and competition are two words that business people like to use. They might even seem somewhat off-putting to people whose priorities are equity and social justice. So their use needs to be carefully defined. Efficiency, in the sense we're using it here, means the efficient management of human resources. If the
Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists
Dear Sam: Thanks for the reply and websites. You will excuse my confusion in that when I went to these various addresses, I did not see even one request for an employee. In fact the only place there might have been some gold was at Y2K jobs and there was a place for employers to list jobs at $300 per listing and a place to post resumes, at $75 a pop - but I did not see one job listing or one resume. Instead, I got mostly the conventional pap we are reading all the time of which I have taken a few cut and pastes below to show you. http://www.year2000.com (quote from) "In 1997, 1998 most of IS will wake up and realize they need to increase staff by 30%, or some such number, over two years to complete the Year 2000 project. If we all require even a 10%-15% increase in skilled staff, supply cannot meet demand."* Thomas: This little gem using percentages gives no information. Until you tell me how many IT professionals there are, 30% or 10 - 15% more is meaningless information. As the dates are 97 - 98, it still leaves my question begging, where the hell are the ads for these personnel? http://www.itaa.org (quote from) 1999 National IT Workforce Convocation On April 12-13, 1999 in Austin, TX, hundreds of key practitioners in education, government, and industry will gather to gauge the nation's progress in dealing with the shortage of IT workers, highlight replicable programs that are expanding training recruitment opportunities, determine priorities for private sector government action and recognize excellence in innovative partnership Thomas: Now it would seem to me that a Convocation on April 12-13 is a pretty rediculous attempt to solve a problem that requires massive allocation of training, people and matching of skills and jobs. Perhaps, I am missing something, but it seems like the Officers of the Titanic are about to have a staff meeting after hitting the iceberg, but first they have serve tea. http://www.info2000.gc.ca/Welcome/Welcome.asp (quote from: Give your business a fully customized, hands-on assessment by one of our specially trained university or college students. He/she will go to your workplace, assess your computer system and software, and discuss ways that you can prepare your office for the Year 2000. Thomas: Gee, this is such a minute problem that we can take a University student away from his classes for a little part time work to solve your problems - I guess this is part of the 30% of personnel required that was alluded to in the first statement. http://www.can2k.com (quote from) of 200,000 COBOL programmers should be added to the existing pool (Under the assumption that 1999 would be used, for fire-fighting measures). Going by the Gartner estimates, the total cost to correct the entire COBOL code would be US $48-65 billion. All these only for COBOL. Add Assembler, PL/I, Pick, ... Thomas: Once again I see these astronomical projections for people and money and yet I cannot find one goddam ad for a Y2K personnel. Is this the biggest hoax since the tulip scandal in Holland or are we all in total denial and the Emperor really has no clothes on. I worry more about Western Civilization, the more I try and pin this problem down. Help me Please! -Original Message- From: Sam Lanfranco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: February 12, 1999 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [GKD] Training Y2K Specialists Since a Canadian (Thomas Lunde), having taken a preliminary look at Canada, has asked: where are all the workers and where is all the training, to deal with Y2K testing and correction?, it is only fitting for another Canadian to answer. I will not comment on the magnitude of the problem, the extent of the hype, the level of awarness, or the overall adequacy of trained personnel. I will comment on the supply side. First, the market for such talent is not found in the newspapers - it is (no surprise) found on the internet. Makes sense. Second, there is lots going on. Enough? hard to say. In Canada, for insights into y2k approaches, and for insights, the rapid training of front line testing skills, small scale correction skills, etc. see: http://www.can2k.com http://www.strategis.ic.gc.ca http://www.info2000.gc.ca/Welcome/Welcome.asp http://www.itaa.org http://www.year2000.com and for a partnership between Canada and the U.S. state of Pennsylvania see: http://state.pa.us/Technology_Initiatives/year2000/ The Canadian Year2000 Workbook is available (in Canada) in English and in French. What is missing here is the political will (elsewhere) for a lot more strategic partnerships built on what has already been done in Canada and done between Canada and Pennsylvania. The doing isn't difficult. The deciding is. Sam Lanfranco Bellanet, Distributed Knowledge and York University
Re: FW A very thought provoking paper
Thomas: This is a lengthy essay with many new ideas to absorb, I was fascinated and overwhelmed. There are some very new thoughts in here and some good interpretations of changes that we are all involved in but haven't really had anyone explain to us. For example, these incredibly cumbersome voice programs you get when you call a company for information in which you have to listen to a number of menu choices and may never deal with a real human is an attempt, according to the author, to move information that was once analog, two people talking to each other, to digital where your responses are immediately coded into bits and bites for more efficient storage and retrieval - a thought I had not encountered before and which explains my resistance to a major cultural change that new technology and business is forcing on us. Anyway, read it, I'm going to reread it. Quote: But there are two important differences. Employment in agriculture fell as employment in manufacturing was growing; employment in manufacturing fell as employment in the service sector was growing. And in both agriculture and manufacturing the slow pace of change made it easier for the growing sector to absorb the labor that was being cast out of the shrinking sector. The pace of technological change is much faster now. And there is no apparent sector that can absorb the labor that the knowledge sector casts off or the labor cast off by other sectors that the knowledge sector fails to absorb. When we finally get around to asking "What comes after knowledge work?" we have to admit that there is no answer. But there are two important differences. Employment in agriculture fell as employment in manufacturing was growing; employment in manufacturing fell as employment in the service sector was growing. And in both agriculture and manufacturing the slow pace of change made it easier for the growing sector to absorb the labor that was being cast out of the shrinking sector. The pace of technological change is much faster now. And there is no apparent sector that can absorb the labor that the knowledge sector casts off or the labor cast off by other sectors that the knowledge sector fails to absorb. When we finally get around to asking "What comes after knowledge work?" we have to admit that there is no answer. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: S. Lerner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED]@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca Date: February 4, 1999 1:23 PM Subject: FW A very thought-provoking paper Kit Taylor sent me this reference to a paper that strikes me as really important if we are to understand the future of work. Visit the website if you are interested - that's the best way to access the paper. Sally Conference paper on the technological unemployment of knowledge workers ( The Brief Reign of the Knowledge Worker: Information Technology and Technological Unemployment) which is at: http://online.bcc.ctc.edu/econ/kst/BriefReign/BRwebversion.htm The author's website is http://online.bcc.ctc.edu/econ/kst/Kstpage.htm
Re: Re:democracy
do not think there is much hope of changing people like that. As the French say, tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner. These people probably had a lousy childhood with parents knocking them around for nothing, and they've grown up to believe in knocking around the weak and helpless. The only hope I see is to work one at a time on the 70 per cent who are reasonably well-balanced to elect governments that promote the real long-term interests of citizens, and as we gradually get a better society, it will produce fewer people who are emotionally screwed up. Thomas: I gently beg to differ Victor. For reasons you have cited, the electorate cannot change the house rules of the governance gambling casino - it is always going to be weighted in favour of the house. To really make change we have to eliminate the vote. It is the concept of the vote that allows the populace to have some hope but the reality is different. The concept of the "vote" is the same as the concept of "winning" in a casino. With a vote you may get a local win, a small change but the political system will always revert back to power and the continuance of power. The only way to avoid that is to make a governance system in which power is automatically terminated and those in power cannot retain power passed certain arbitrary limits. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde Live long and prosper Victor Milne Pat Gottlieb FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/ LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/
FW - Debating goverance
Thomas: Good ol FW. It seems that interesting topics often find fertile ground among our various posters. Though I have not had much time to monitor all the viewpoints, I would like to suggest "governance" as a topic in which a polarity of viewpoints is evolving. On the one hand, Jay Hanson is suggesting a governance by scientists and other experts, while I on the other hand am suggesting a governance by non experts. Now as I have noted on FW before, when you start to examine the concept of Future-work, it soon passes beyond, shorter work weeks and other technical changes into a study of the ideas of economics and from there we find that it is the laws and directions of governments that actually will determine what the future of work will be. And so, I conclude that this is perhaps the proper forum for us to start - at the top of heap - governance, which will determine the economics - which will determine the redistribution of resources - which is currently done through work - specifically, paid work. And of course, the implicit question of FutureWork has always been, what is going to happen to all of us as the nature of work changes due to economic changes which are sanctioned by ideological changes enacted by governance. When we come to the overall concept of governance, we can see the polarities of democracy - ie every citizen having the power through a vote - to totalitarism in which no citizen has the power to affect government. Jay and I have proposed variations on these two polarities. I have suggested replacing the vote with the concept of a lottery, while Jay has proposed the selection of experts in science. In a sense, my option eliminates politics as we know it and now it becomes a matter of those selected by lottery to use their assumed innate abilities to provide for laws and regulations that will benefit all. In a sense, Jay's model also eliminates democracy as those being selected will be chosen through a form of meritocracy. Jay wrote: The logical way to proceed would be to the experts specific questions, and then "hire" -- not elect -- qualified "leaders" (CEOs) to lead us to explicit goals. If they fail to meet specific benchmarks, fire them and hire someone else. As I read this quote, Jay's system appears as a problem solving system by experts who are given a series of specific questions - problems and from them they will propose the steps of solutions which will in effect become the law. It will be a performance driven system and those who fail to perform are terminated and another is put in the hot seat. In this sense of governance, I see that the defined problems drive the rules of governance and people and resources are just units to be manipulated until desired ends are reached and then it is on to the next problem and the next manipulation. In my proposed system, I see a much messier and perhaps more inefficient model of governance. The distinguishing difference is that it is not problem driven but - for lack of a better term - accommodation driven. As those selected by lottery represent all - or most - of the variations of citizens, then I would expect that each selected individual would be looking at problems through the lens of their experience rather than through the discipline of a scientific field in which they have been trained. They will be thinking how each proposed solution will affect people like themselves and with the concept of partisan politics eliminated, I would assume that many of the votes of Parliament would be much different than the votes that are cast by Party members who often have to place the agenda of the Party over their personal experience. Without being an expert of any kind, I see this in the history of the ancient Greeks and the polarity of Sparta and Athens. It is a long debate that has seen many variations. For us, on this List, the question has to be explored within the context of our problems, population, resources, economic systems. It is interesting though, that these two great polarities still exist and no definitive "right" model has emerged. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: real-life example
Thomas: I have long puzzled over this question of democracy and I would like to propose the Democratic Lottery. For it to work, there is only one assumption that needs to be made and that every citizen is capable of making decisions. Whether you are a hooker, housewife, drunk, tradesman, businessman, genius or over trained academic, we all are capable of having opinions and making decisions. I suggest that every citizen over 18 have their name put into a National Electoral Lottery. I suggest "draws" every two years at which time 1/3 of the Parliment is selected. Each member chosen will serve one six year term. The first two years are the equivalent of a backbencher in which the individual learns how parliment works and can vote on all legislation. The second two years, the member serves on various committees that are required by parliment. The third and final term is one from which the parliment as whole choses a leader for two years and also appoints new heads to all the standing committees. This does away with the professional politician, political parties, and the dictatorship of party leadership of the ruling party and it's specific cabinet. It ensures a learning curve for each prospective parlimentarian and allows in the final term the emergence of the best leader as judged by all of parliment. Every parlimentarian knows that he will be removed from office at the end of the sixth year. We could extend this to the Senate in which parlimentarians who have served for the full six years could participate in a Lottery to select Senate members who would hold office for a period of 12 years. This would give us a wise council of experienced elders to guide parliment and because the Senate could only take a small increase of new members every two years, only the most respected members of parliment would be voted by parlimentarians into a Senate position. This would eliminate political parties - it would eliminate the need for re-election, it would eliminate campaign financing and all the chicannery that goes with money. It would provide a broad representation of gender, ethnic groupings, regional groupings, age spread and abilities - and though some may question abilities, the prepronderance of lawyers in government has not proven to be superior. If the idea of a representative democracy is for citizens to represent citizens, then a choice by lottery is surely the fairest and has the least possibility of corruption, greed or the seeking of power to satisfy a particular agenda. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: Colin Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: January 27, 1999 4:42 PM Subject: Re: real-life example At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: - Original Message - From: Edward Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED] and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent ones. However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic, allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited tenure. Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and xperience -- not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea. Jay Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be more likely to make a "stupid" choice. But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability of the leader". In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every 4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also! Hence the concept of Direct Democracy: " a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws" Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy Vancouver, B.C. http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv)
This nicely sums up the Capitalistic Mess
A nice little thought piece from Le Monde LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE - January 1999 LEADER Towards a new century by IGNACIO RAMONET As we approach the start of a new century, how best to sum up the state of the world in which we live? The United States now dominates the world as no country has done before. It has overwhelming supremacy in the five key areas of power: political, economic, technological, cultural and military. In the Middle East it has just given the world a threefold display of its hegemony: bombing Iraq and its people without serious cause, ignoring (if not dismissing) international legality embodied in the United Nations, and enrolling the once proud forces of Great Britain as simple auxiliaries. But this display of power is deceptive. The US does not have the option of occupying Iraq militarily, even if technically it can do so. Military supremacy does not automatically translate into territorial conquests which have become politically non-viable, too costly, and disastrous in media terms. The media now have a prime strategic role. As Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has put it, CNN has become the sixth member of the UN Security Council. What's more, in this neo-liberal age being a superpower doesn't guarantee a decent level of human development. The US has 32 million people with a life expectancy of less than 60 years; 40 million without medical cover; 45 million living below the poverty line; and 52 million who cannot read or write. And the European Union, with its euro and all its wealth, has 50 million people living in poverty and 18 million unemployed. All over the world, poverty is the rule and a decent income the exception. Inequality has become one of the abiding characteristics of our time. And it is getting worse, as the gap between rich and poor increases. The 225 largest fortunes in the world total more than $1,000 billion - equivalent to the annual income of 47% of the poorest of the world population (2.5 billion people). We now have individuals who are richer than whole countries: the wealth of the world's 15 richest people exceeds the total GDP of sub-Saharan Africa. Since the start of the 20th century the number of countries has grown from about 40 to nearly 200 (see Pascal Boniface's article in this issue). Yet our world continues to be dominated by the same seven or eight countries that were running it at the end of the 19th century. Out of the dozens of states that emerged from the dismantling of the old colonial empires, just three (South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan) have reached levels of development comparable with those of the information-economy countries. The others are stuck in a state of chronic underdevelopment. It will be extremely hard for them to break out of this since the raw materials on which most of their economies depend are falling dramatically in price. And some natural materials (metals and fibres) are now either falling out of use or being replaced with substitutes. In Japan for instance, consumption of raw materials by unit of production has fallen by 40% since 1973. The new wealth of nations is built on brains, know-how, research and the capacity for innovation, and no longer on the production of raw materials. You could even say that in the post-industrial age the three traditional measures of power - the size of a country, its population and its wealth in terms of raw materials - are no longer advantages but handicaps. Countries that are large, heavily populated and rich in raw materials - like India, China, Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Mexico and Russia - are paradoxically among the world's poorest. The United States is the exception that no longer confirms the rule. There is an increasing air of generalised chaos afflicting more and more countries with economic stagnation or endemic violence (since 1989, the end of the cold war, there have been around 60 separate armed conflicts, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths and more than 17 million refugees). It has got to the point where (in the Comoros and Puerto Rico, for instance) we are seeing people turning their backs on the struggle for independence and calling for a return of the old colonial power or absorption into the metropolitan country... The third world has ceased to exist as a political entity. All this gives a sense of the crisis of politics and the nation-state at a time when the second industrial revolution, the globalisation of the economy and major technological change are transforming the world as we know it. There is
More on the growing Gap
Thomas Lunde: Caspr Davies, who posted the original article, and has written a thoughtful essay as a follow-up. I find his conclusions in line with my own and taking the liberty of supporting a kindred soul, I am posting them to the Lists that I posted his original article too. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde This article gives a good description of the growing gap between the rich and poor, and of the shrinking middle class. I was taught and firmly believe that the health of a society is indicated most clearly by the size and well being of the middle group. After the second world war, there were almost 30 years of unprecedented prosperity during which the wealth (at least in the "developed" nations) was distributed more equally than at almost any time since tribal times. Since 1972, that trend has reversed. GDP, which measures economic activity regardless of its environmental or social consequences, counting the money spent on cancer treatment, oil spill clean up, divorce courts and prisons in just the same way as it counts the money spent on education or food, has continued to increase, but almost every other measure of well-being has declined, and the social consequences are very palpable. The author asks, "What is the relationship between equity and economic growth?" This is the central question asked by Henry George 120 years ago in Progress and Poverty. His answer was that all livelihood ultimately depended upon access to land (in which he included all natural resources, and ALSO such things as government-created monopolies (i.e. things like salt in Gandhi's India, taxi cab licenses, radio and TV licenses, and all patents). Where those resources, which were provided by nature as commons for the good of all, are held in a few hands, the holders of them can and do claim all the value of both labour AND capital, leaving the labourer or ordinary businessperson no more than they need for elementary subsistence. George's answer was for society to charge those who benefited from the exclusive use of land or any other part of the commons the full economic rent therefore, and to distribute the rent equally to all so that all might benefit. Since George's time, the enclosure of the commons has gone on apace. The electromagnetic spectrum has been given free of charge to the holders of TV and radio licenses; patent laws have been dramatically strengthened, and lately even life forms and genetic material have been privatized for private profit. Government funding, paid by the taxes of all, has been diverted from the needy to profitable corporations,either to help them become "more competitive" or often as outright bribes to induce them to locate facilities within or not to take facilities away from a particular jurisdiction. As Time magazine recently showed, they often take the (public) money and run. Therefore government revenues must be included in the modern definition of "land", as must the ability of the earth, air and waterier to absorb and neutralize pollutants. I have sent for the full report to see what the author's prescription is. I believe that Henry George's solution is still the best that I have seen, but whether I am right or not, it is clear that the Neo-Liberal "trickle down" theory results only in the sucking up and retention of wealth by those at the top. Casper Davis
Macabre Humor lightens the load
Thomas No problem about reposting. That's what its here for. Wayne AMERICAN NEWSPEAK. Hoarded at http://www.scn.org/newspeak Celebrating cutting edge advances in the Doublethink of the 90's On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, Thomas Lunde wrote: Dear Wayne: What a delightful collage of reading for Jan 1, 1999. I would like to repost this to a couple of lists that I belong too, any objections? Keep up the good work, though most people seem to be unable to appreciate the subtle humor of the insanity around us. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: Wayne Grytting [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Undisclosed recipients:;@animal.blarg.net Undisclosed recipients:;@animal.blarg.net Date: January 1, 1999 1:00 AM Subject: Top NEWSPEAK Stories of the Month #105 AMERICAN NEWSPEAK. Hoarded at http://www.scn.org/newspeak Celebrating cutting edge advances in the Doublethink of the 90's Written by Wayne Grytting #105 Winner-Winner Solutions Time Magazine surprised many by running an excellent series on "What Corporate Welfare Costs You" by Pulitzer prize-winning reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele. After depicting how typical households work two weeks a year to support $125 billion in subsidies and tax relief for "needy" corporations, editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine stepped in to assure readers that Time was not "anti-business." In fact, businesses would be derelict in their duties, he argued, "if they did not seek to avoid taxes and gain special subsidies" (try that argument substituting welfare mothers for corporations) "Ending corporate welfare as we know it is essential," intoned Mr. Pearlstine, but "Rather than give corporations uneven and unfair exemptions, it may make more sense to simply do away with both corporate welfare and corporate taxation." This would create a "level playing field." Perfect. We solve the problem of partial corporate welfare by having... total corporate welfare. Hello, is anybody home? (Time, 11/9/98) Old Wine in New Winebags The Environmental Protection Agency has modified a new brochure on pesticides due to be distributed nationwide in grocery stores this January. Thanks to help from food and pesticide industry lobbyists, they have made some notable improvements in their prose style. For example, the old version presented "Tips to Reduce Pesticides on Foods" which the new version amends to "Healthy Sensible Food Practices." The old version suggested consumers consider buying food labeled "certified organic" while the improved version suggests the grocer "may be able to provide you with information about the availability of food grown using fewer or no pesticides." And where the old version lists actual health problems caused by pesticides, like birth defects, cancer and nerve damage, the RSV simplifies it all as "health problems at certain levels of exposure." Much clearer thanks to yet another example of successful cooperation. (NYT 12/29/98) "Free at last, free at last..." Status conscious movie go-ers are now being offered new choices in theater complexes run by Cineplex Odeon, United Artists and General Cinema in the cities of Chicago, Baltimore and Milwaukee. For an additional $8 or so they don't have to mix with the unwashed masses. They can now go directly to private viewing rooms, receive valet parking, be personally escorted by a concierge, order drinks from a waiter and use a private bathroom. The Wall Street Journal describes this trend as "a way to express the affluence." But unlike luxury boxes at sports stadiums where seats can approach the thousand dollar range, the movie theaters have, says the Journal, "discovered affordable snobbery." It allows people of simple means to express their social superiority, if only for a few hours. The Journal, of course, was able to find a telling phrase to describe this trend, referring to it as "the democratization of status." Finally, we get "democracy" liberated from the baggage of "all men are created equal." (WSJ 12/11/98) Upstairs, Downstairs in Public Education Elite public schools across the nation are saying good-bye to auctions and cookie sales as a means to raise funds. Public schools like Brookline High School in Boston are simply raising $10 million permanent endowments from wealthy parents and alumni. This turn to large endowments comes, says the Wall Street Journal, "in reaction to broad trends in school finance that have hit affluent districts like Brookline especially hard over the last decade." But the means chosen by these "hard hit" schools to grow money has raised issues of fairness. Why should some public schools have piles of resources while others starve? "The equity issue, it's alw
Re: C4LDEMOC-L: Public Trust Treaty Petition
Thomas: To often when a lengthy and semi official posting like this comes up, I skim for awhile and then move on to more personal and debatable messages. Today, I took the time to carefully read this document and recognize that it is probably the most revolutionary statement I have ever read! I can think of no more important function for the worlds media than to devote considerable space to printing, publishing, showing, and providing access for dialog on this document. I think all of the schools of the World should declare a two day remission from the regular curriculum and that the students should read and discuss this Treaty. Each according to their ability, from kindergarten to University Doctoral students. I think the corporate world should enter into this discussion to defend their point of view and to answer to some of the charges implicit within this document. I think each Government should be required to make a public declaration of support - on what they are willing to support and that each political party should do the same. I believe every ethnic and indigenous group should be invited to give a opinion on this document and a declaration of what they will support. I think it is time for as many of the citizens of the Planet that can be reached - should be engaged in a point by point review of the information within this document. The week before the beginning of the new millennium would be the perfect time for a concentrated educational effort that would be world wide - to discuss the options for the 21st Century. It looks boring, but read it. It's great stuff and it should be discussed, reworked, supported and implemented for the good of the human race and each individual within it. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: CREDO [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Bob Levitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: January 1, 1999 7:34 PM Subject: C4LDEMOC-L: Public Trust Treaty Petition Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: moderator for [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 18:11:24 -0400 X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Slakov) Subject: Citizens' Public Trust Treaty X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mailhub1.interlog.com id SAA09554 Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 18:16:50 + From: Paul Swann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Citizens' Public Trust Treaty CITIZENS' PUBLIC TRUST TREATY A TREATY OF ETHICS, EQUITY AND ECOLOGY A PROPOSED United Nations General Assembly Resolution, to be circulated to governments by their citizens. _ THE CALL: We call upon the nations of the world to ensure the rights of present and future generations to genuine peace, social justice and ecological integrity by implementing the principles of this Citizens' Public Trust Treaty. We urge you to support the Treaty by adding your name to the petition, by passing it on, and by sending copies to heads of states and legislators. January 1st, 1999 _ WE, THE CITIZENS OF THE WORLD, DETERMINED * to create a world based on true participatory democracy within a framework of public trust principles; * to accept the inherent limits to the Earth's resources and to promote the peaceful coexistence of all nations, races, and species; * to develop a stable and peaceful international society founded on the rule of law; * to prevent the damaging consequences of unprincipled economic growth; * to ensure that the economy conforms to the limitations of the ecosystem; RECOGNIZING the interdependence of Peace Building, Human Rights, Environmental Protection, and Advocacy for Social Justice; NOTING that through more than 50 years of concerted effort, the member states of the United Nations have created international Public Trust obligations, commitments and expectations: 1. to Promote and fully guarantee respect for human rights including labour rights, the right to adequate food, shelter and health care, and social justice; 2. to Enable socially equitable and environmentally sound development; 3. to Achieve a state of peace, justice and security; 4. to Create a global structure that respects the rule of law; and 5. to Ensure the preservation and protection of the environment, respect the inherent worth of nature beyond human purpose, reduce the ecological footprint and move away from the current model of over-consumptive development; AFFIRMING that the freedom from fear and want can be achieved only if conditions are created whereby everyone is able to enjoy economic, social and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights); AWARE that the rule of law and the good
Re: Citizens on the Web: Growing Gap
Dear Ray: I have touched on some of the ideas you mentioned but I wonder if you could suggest a reading list on the Cherokee History and on Georgist Thought. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: Ray E. Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Caspar Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]; System Politics [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Future Work [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: December 31, 1998 11:07 PM Subject: Re: Citizens on the Web: Growing Gap This particular Georgist (Casper Davis) finally answered a question that I posed on this list a couple of years ago to one of his colleagues from California. In the 1880s the politician Henry Dawes visited the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma where there was no poverty and more than a little wealth as well as universal education, health care and suffrage. Not a person was in debt and everyone owned their own house.More than a few were mansions and some were millionaires, today they would be considerably more than millionaires. All of this in a population of under 50,000 people. Dawes reported back to Washington that they were followers of Henry George and would never progress further until the "common" was broken up and "every person learned the virtue of selfishness" which Dawes considered to be the root of all human progress.Ten years later the federal government used Dawes' report not only to justify breaking up the Cherokee lands but to dispossess all indigenous nations of their lands and self government. They created the state of Oklahoma and after giving a pittance to each Indian citizen they dispersed the rest in a land rush to the local European immigrants.After the state of Oklahoma was formed it was the Cherokee Lawyers who formed the Oklahoma Bar Association and not the immigrants the same was true for the medical doctors, teachers and the State's Baptist Newspaper which all came from the then defunct Cherokee nation and culture. I asked two years ago how we (my Cherokee ancestors) were followers of Henry George, and today Casper explained it. I would say that Henry George was "following" us considering that our structure was older but nonetheless it did seem to be the same. Dawes was at least right about that. I did not realize how hostile American Society was to George in the 1890s. I would suggest that it might behoove economist Angell to study the Cherokee Nation from 1846 to the Congressional Curtis Dissolution Act in the 1890s to understand why the TNCs and Information Revolution are such delicate affairs. It is the foreign policy of governments that has destroyed the best ideals of Utopian thought and schemes. Companies do not have that possibility even when they have yearly budgets that far exceed the budgets of most world governments. Indeed China has a limited GDP but its land and people mass could obliterate Bill Gates and friends small universe if they were placed in competition without outside governmental help going to Gates. Would the Soviet Union have collapsed if it had not had a virtual embargo by the West for almost the entire seventy years of its existence?How about Cuba?We have not had a fair competition with any of the Communist systems compared to the Capitalists without government embargo and military pressures applied on both sides thus far. There is very little that was practiced by any of the communist countries that was not practiced by this country in its first seventy years of existence. Would the U.S. have collapsed on itself if it had not committed genocide for its frontier expansion and had first an owned work force of human slaves from 1776 to 1860 and then an oppressing apartheid policy to protect the European minority in the South from 1865 to 1954? Would the South have been America's Chechniya (sp?) with legislatures elected by the Black majority across the South that were hostile and thus drove the Europeans both North and West? Would these reverse carpetbaggers have created a hostile underclass that would have devoured the democracy from within its white ranks and created the kind of cynical laissez faire attitude that is prevalent in Russia today but without the cultural glue thus driving the wealthy back to Europe from whence they came? Well, just some thoughts on these last few hours of 1998. I would suggest that another traditional process might be in order for many of the problems that have been discussed thus far on this list. Recently there has been a revival of religious programming in the U.S. with even the medical profession suggesting that prayer, even from a distance, can heal people who are connected to each other. Being both a pagan and a priest, this might seem strange to some that I would suggest a possible answer within such a thought but nonetheless I am offering the thought. It is said that meditation is the highest form of prayer amongst my people.
Re: The end of work?
Dear Mark: This is getting to be a lengthy E Mail, but I am becoming convinced by my own experience that continuing to repost and add to a thread has a learning and historical value. Of course it is nice to read my mail in paragragh bits of pithy quotes, intelligent rebuttals, and clever opinions. And yes, it is a bit of drag to re-read or skim a lengthy post such as this and update myself on what I have read before, but repitition is a form of learning. So readers be warned, I am going to repost a lengthy post from another list - you may have read it - or not, it is worth reading again or for the first time and then to review the comments that have already been posted to this thread. This post specifically, though in great detail answers Mark's question, "This may be late and off-topic, but it would be interesting to see whether it is possible (it may have already been done, I don't know) to produce a variant of the current international GDP accounting system where, as Mr Milne bluntly and correctly puts it, manufactured things are assets and human potential is a liability. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde The repost: -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:35:32 + From: Janet M. Eaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MAI-Math: Is there an alternative? Ron Colman-GPI Atlantic === This paper was delivered by Dr. Ronald Colman, Director of the GPI Atlantic Project in Nova Scotia, at the MAI Inquiry held in Halifax, Nova Scotia, November 28, 1998. Ronald Colman's GPI Atlantic is showing what's wrong with our current measures of progress and what we can do about it through his work on the Genuine Progress Index!! In this paper he shows how GDP/MAI type mathematics, which is the math that is the foundation of every Economics 101 text, is a math that misleads policy makers, rewards environmental destruction, elevates materialism to the primary social ethic, and, for the first time since the Industrial Revolution, makes it highly likely that the next generation will be worse off than the present one. He goes on to show that there is a better way!! GPI Atlantic is a non-profit research group that is currently constructing an index of sustainable development for Nova Scotia, a Genuine Progress Index, that measures the value of our natural resources, of unpaid work, of equity, of human and social capital, in addition to market statistics. And it subtracts rather than adds the costs of crime, toxic pollution and other activities that detract from well-being. By integrating social, economic and environmental variables into a comprehensive set of accounts, it becomes possible to find out whether welfare is actually being enhanced or diminished by current economic policy. It can send more accurate signals to policy makers and help them identify measures that can contribute to genuine progress, well-being and prosperity. Ron Colman and the team of advisors and researchers he has assembled are examining 20 social, economic, and environmental indicators, selected in consultation with Statistics Canada. Ron is quick to recognize and note that GPI Atlantic is building on the pioneering work of Redefining Progress in California, of the World Resources Institute, and of other leaders in sustainable development accounting. His greatest hope for the project is that it will result in an actual tool for the practical use of policy makers.. . Statistics Canada has designated this project as a pilot for the rest of the country -meaning Nova Scotia has a chance to take the lead in creating a new economy for the 21st century that will genuinely reflect the social, spiritual, environmental, and human values of our society. For a description of the project, complete background papers, and news releases see the GPI Atlantic Website address: www.gpiatlantic.org Ron Colman can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] The following paper is not on the GPI website so you may wish to save it in your files. All the best, Janet Eaton, Advisory Council, GPI -Atlantic. [EMAIL PROTECTED] = MAI INQUIRY, HALIFAX, 28 November, 1998 MAI MATHEMATICS: IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE? Ronald Colman, Ph.D, Director, GPI Atlantic Thank you for coming here today to listen to us. We have learned so much from you over many years. We appreciate that you are now here to hear us. Why is the MAI so important to some? We must begin by acknowledging that according to a certain kind of mathematics it is very attractive. It can be shown to increase production, to expand trade, to lower production costs, and to keep inflation low. It is the same mathematics that measures economic strength and social well-being according to GDP growth rates, and that focuses tremendous attention on related market statistics like interest rate changes, currency exchange value fluctuations, and gains and l
Re: Net Baud Rate
processes. What is happening when we see a bird in the sky, how to we see, how do we process and how do we react is a process - a series of steps. The particular content within the process may be different, but the process can and should be accurately described. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: working hours-visions
Hi Robert, you don't know me, I am Thomas Lunde's friend, Sherry Martin. He shares some e-mail with me and I was intrigued by your question. So, my reply: In five years I still see the expanding of "normal" work hours, not formally but just happening. I think the average employee feels threatened and driven to achieve or be replaced. I see people working 60 + hours per week. I remember when the business world switched from a standard 40 hour week to 37.5. It was supposed to be more humane. Ha, I think the employee lost something. As I remember it, we used to get paid for breaks and sometimes even lunch. I feel that in the 37.5 hr week we lost our hour lunch break, it's now standard 30 minutes. We mostly lost the 15 minutes coffee breaks. This took a little longer, around 5 years ago I noticed people stopped taking formal breaks and the smokers just ran outside every two hours for a cig, and the others just worked and looked like a better employee. Anyway, I see the pressure increasing and the hours extended. Then... Relief... I think in about 10 years the technology and peoples attitude will bring about a change, maybe not so much shorter hours, but the amount of work done in our homes will be greatly increased. When technology can assure the boss that the employee is really doing the work and not walking the dog, then we will be able to work at home more and more... then... In 15 years, I see finally the slow down of the driving pressure to perform in todays work world. By then if people are still working and not just robots, I would expect the emphasis to be on the task at hand rather than the amount of hours worked. Reward for completing the task is a broader view, think we can expand that way? Perhaps in 20 years we will be able to choose if we want to work or not, maybe it'll even be a considerable privilege to be chosen a worker! I think it would be grand if workers could choose their work, or contribution based on the fact that they want to do it, rather than just for survival. If in 20 years we could evolve to a society where the person was valued no matter what they did or didn't do, just because they were there, would this be my number one choice. I can see it laid out in different ways but the end result is the same. Peace on Earth. Sherry Martin -Original Message- From: Robert Neunteufel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: November 24, 1998 2:58 PM Subject: Re: working hours-visions Thomas Lunde wrote: Robert wrote: I'd like to ask you all for your visions for the development of the regular amount of working hours in the next 5, 10, 20 years! Thomas: It will depend on subsistence. If we become owners of intelligent robots, we may evolve into a non working environment, the best of the techies dream. If we face dieoff, subsistence may take extraordinary efforts in time and energy, the pessimist worst viewpoint. Dear Thomas, thank you for your comment. What is your opinion, which one of the two possibilities you mentioned above has greater chances to come true? With best wishes, Robert Neunteufel
Re: working hours-visions
Robert wrote: I'd like to ask you all for your visions for the development of the regular amount of working hours in the next 5, 10, 20 years! Thomas: It will depend on subsistence. If we become owners of intelligent robots, we may evolve into a non working environment, the best of the techies dream. If we face dieoff, subsistence may take extraordinary efforts in time and energy, the pessimist worst viewpoint.
Re: Synergy (was Heads Will Roll At World Bank IMF)
Great post Casper and one that points to a real alternatives. One could fantasize a world of play, in which adults became children in devising interesting and small microimprovements to their local environment and receiving sustenance in the form money or other subsistence goods such as food and shelter for working with nature rather than against it which is what so much of employment consists of today. A truly radical idea and in line with some of the Japanese cultural developments in terms of their gardening, tea ceremonies and respect for nature. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: rights/responsibilities
em at base as you claim. However, given that is the system at the moment, you are right, I am interested in the current system attempting to reflect a more equitable system of redistribution. What galls me is the deliberate management of the system to create unemployment and then to claim that those unemployed are lazy, unproductive, and feeding of the work/renumeration of other workers. Re Ed Weick, Eva, Jay, I suggest that they speak for themselves. I will not engage a subject at one level, when I hold that it is contingent upon a more fundamental physical base that is continually eroding and decreasing human options going forward. Thomas: Well, I guess I did let them speak for themselves, I just placed their words in my stream of thought. If they have a problem with it, I'm sure I'll hear about it. What I would be interested in is your ideas about "going forward" mean? Thomas: What is this "strong will power to hold oneself together to be diciplined and being serious" crap! Most people get up in the morning and go to work as a matter of course rather than using, "strong willpower'! Let's get real. You have now used a second bodily function in your 'analysis'. Your pronouncements of epistemology and ontology impress me not. (not my words quoted above BTW) Thomas: Well then, let the mystery poster answer for him/herself and keep your nose out of it. Thomas: Again, the purpose of work is not friends, it is to earn money - in our society. That is currently one purpose for work in this system. Do you think biological life depends on credits (ecology on economy) or the reverse? Thomas: I am not discussing "biological life". I am talking about certain choices made based on an economic theory, what their results have been and some observations on why I think those kinds of choices are made. That a person cannot have or perform valuable actions independant of "communitarian responsibilities." What are we, a bunch of sheep that have to be so constrained that any action outside of communitarian responsibilites should be punished by no rewards, acknowledgement or respect? Self-valued (subjective) actions can be in isolation, but only a hermit would exist without the interdependency of community (incl family, tribe). You are assuming either/or; I didn't claim that. An interdependence of 'subjects'(people) is a dynamic of rights responsibilities. Both are required IMO. Thomas: And I would agree. However my contention is that those who have accepted certain responsibilities have discharged them in a way that is detrimental to a fairly large portion of the community and as such, I content that they have acted in an irresponsible way. Now, what do we do about that as a community, accept, protest, invoke the law, wait for an election, publish, critique, are all valid expressions of the community and individuals within the community. Thomas: Non co-pooperative does not mean against, it may be to offer alternatives, to critique, to bring in new information, it may mean resistance to community infringement of personal rights. Community does not mean identical, it means balancing all the various needs of the members while hopefully respecting them as human beings with individual needs. That sounds like *responsibilities* to me!! I raised the issues of impacts of actions on others. You said that meant "perfection". Now you're indicating the work of living, as well as the work for money. Thomas: There are two or more areas of responsibility as I choose to understand them. Those who having accepted responsibility should work in the best interest of all of the community. Those who are at effect of those having accepted responsiblity have the responsibility of evaluating the actions taken. As to perfectability, you wrote: Idling a car motor, running water taps unnecessarily, or engaging in behavior which harms ones *own* health - since the community bears the total cost in socialized health schemes or insurance premium hikes. And I also claim that human fertility impacts the Commons and each current and future member of society. The impied suggestion here is that if there were rules or everyone was "responsible" according to some defined criteria such as the betterment or society or the Commons, then we would be supporting "each current and future member of society." In principle, I can find some agreement with this thought, but if in practice, it means a Confucian list of all the prescribed behaviors that one can engage in, then I am against it for the result it creates. Every behavior them becomes open to someone else's scrutiny and from that follows judgement and from that follows punishment. That kind of society is commonly known as facism. No set of rules is perfect, no set of rule enforcers are perfect, therefore to expect perfection is the quickest way to imperfection. Respectfully, Thoma
FW - Essay on Motivations
Dear List Members: After arriving back from Holland and the BIEN Conference (Basic Income European Network), I found this little gem from Tom Walker in my Inbox. I'm going to take this as a starting point to bring forth some observations. Most of the quotes I am using are pulled of my E Mail of the last few weeks. Tom Posted: The topic of basic income has come up on the "Third Way" Economic Policy debate list at http://www.netnexus.org/debates/3wayecon/ I personally find the tone of that third way debate stuffy and unrewarding. But there is an argument there calculated to raise the hackles of Thomas Lunde, among others. The objection to a basic income scheme centres on the issue of "moral hazard", which is to say that basic income offers an incentive to people to be idle. Thomas: "to be idle", what an evocative phrase. Somehow the fact that most Western governments have been following a "monetarist" economic policy for the last 20 - 30 years which has within it the concept of the "natural rate of unemployment", has been ignored. Linda McQuaig, The Cult of Impotence, Page 38. Quote: "This comes down to the monetarist position of having to choose between fighting inflation, or fighting unemployment. Quote: "The natural rate in his view (Milton Friedman), was the level of unemployment that was necessary to prevent an increase in the rate of inflation." Page 38-39 This give lie to the major argument against a Basic Income in which the unemployed will become idle. The poor have been deliberately made idle by the theories of economists, the policies of individual country's Central Banks, the compliance of politicians who have supported these ideas and practices. Let us address the concept of the idleness of the poor after we eliminate economist's theories, Central Bank policies and government policies that create idleness, not as a natural attribute of the poor but as the deliberate attack on the poor to preserve the wealth of the rich by limiting inflation. To give a graphic, though local example, in the Province of Ontario, Canada, the neo-con government of Mike Harris has recently passed legislation to initiate a Workfare Program that is quite draconian. As a response to that Act, an effort by a Union was initiated to unionize Welfare recipients to oppose some of the more offensive conditions of this legislation. This was countered by the government by a new Bill 22 which prevents Welfare recipients from organizing to lobby against the abuses (perceived) within the Act. Ed Weick, one of the regular contributors on the List Futurework, posted these two commentaries: As you know, the Government of Ontario has put Bill 22 (An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997) before the legislature in order to block any attempt to unionize people who are on WorkFare. This strikes me as being a step toward keeping the poor isolated from each other so that they cannot take organized collective action when in reality organized, collective action is what would probably be most helpful to them. Of course, Mrs. Ecker, who sponsored the Bill, says it is not directed at the poor, but rather at unions who are trying to subvert WorkFare and thereby deny the poor access to it. What the Bill suggests is a fear of the potential power of the poor. As long as solutions are imposed from above - like WorkFare - there is little to worry about. But if the poor were an organized political force proposing solutions of their own, there is no telling what might happen. Better to cut that possibility off. Ed Weick The Government of Ontario's Bill 22 raises two points. One is that the government does not want to see the poor organized into an effective political force able even to bargain with the autocrats, let alone develop a sense of ownership of, and entitlement in, their society. The poor currently have almost no political voice and almost no political allies. If they had the power to make the autocrats listen, who knows what conditions might have to be set around welfare and WorkFare. The other point is about the nature of unions. If the unions were able to organize the poor, they could be seen as reverting to their old role of agents of social change. At least with respect to the poor, they would be like the unions of old, and not merely bargaining agents. Ed Weick Thomas: This leads to another quote from FutureWork, were the discussion of rulers and ruled is defined by some new words: From: Eva Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's back to the game manager problem again. So who decides who takes the role of the gamekeeper and the role of animals? Thomas: Currently, we must assume that it is government, Central Banks and economists and their theories who are taking the role of the "game manager" But the question remains unanswered - "who decides"? Jay Han
Re: rights/responsibilities
bout taking a year or two off from your forty year work life to enjoy your children? How about getting involved for several years in a community project that interests you? Work doesn't seem to me so burdensome when I'm doing what I want to do rather than what I have to do. Idling a car motor, running water taps unnecessarily, or engaging in behavior which harms ones *own* health - since the community bears the total cost in socialized health schemes or insurance premium hikes. And I also claim that human fertility impacts the Commons and each current and future member of society. Thomas: "Why can't everyone be perfect" is the implied question here. Why can't everyone change their behavior to totally support the wise use of the resources of the community? I guess because we are not designed to be perfect but to be experiencing creatures and that not all experiences are beneficial against some absolute criteria, such as the Commons. But we aren't here to be perfect, it is an impossible criteria. We are here to experience. So, I leave it to you to decide if these types of 'responsibilities' constitute a part of the concerns of a list called "Futurework". Dissemination of credits, in itself, is work for the distributor alone. Thomas: And you have left us all with a question, "Do I consider that these types of responsibilities constitute a part of the concerns of the list called FutureWork? Well, it would be presumptious for me to answer for the list but as a Listmember, I can voice the opinion of one - myself. Frankly, I find the responsibilities argument unproductive. I have many concerns which I express on FutureWork but "responsibilites" are not one of them. I tend to think in terms of cooperation and sharing, rather than duties and responsibilities. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde Comments welcome. Steven Kurtz Fitzwilliam NH
Re: Tory Party Membership
Dear Mr. Blackmore: Thanks for your interest. In Canada we have traditionally had two political parties, the Liberals and Conservatives with the Conservatives, from the founding of Canada up until the second term of our last Prime Minister Brain Mulroney, being against the concept of Free Trade with the US. The argument has always been that tariffs protect us from our big neighbour to the south. Currently we have three additional parties, just for clarification. Anyway, the backlash against Mulroney in the last election devastated the Conservative Party and they only had two seats in the next election, a stinging rebuke. The Liberals won the election with the promise to re-open the Free Trade Agreement, which they have reneged on. Anyway, back to the Conservatives. They are now holding a leadership election for a new party leader. The previous leader saw fit to become a Liberal at the Provincial level in the hopes of blocking Quebec from separating from Canada. Wow, as I write this, I realize how convoluted our political landscape is. Well anyway, the Conservatives being banished by the electorate to a marginal party revised their Electoral Rules for electing a new party leader so that any member of the Party can cast a vote, rather than just delegates who had been selected from the local ridings. This is quite a daring innovation as it allows the public at large to pay a $10 membership fee to become a Party member and therefore you can have a vote on who becomes the Party leader - quite democratic actually. Now, as it turns out, one of the most vocal and effective individuals who tried to rally Canadians to reject Mulroney's Free Trade Agreement has entered the Conservative's leadership race. Talk about the fox in the hen house. At first the big wheel Conservatives were laughing at David Orchard but in a David and Goliath type of scenario, David is showing a remarkable ability to get people across Canada to fork over $10 for the privilege of voting for him to become the leader of the Conservatives. Unfortunately, not being a citizen of Canada, I would assume that you cannot become a member of a Canadian Political Party, however, you have done yeoman service by your question. If David succeeds in becoming the Leader of the Conservative Party, he will have a magnificent task ahead of him, the re-orientation of this party to it's traditional roots. In the process, he will have the satisfaction of purging the last of the Mulroney hanger on's and thus getting his ultimate revenge on those who defeated him when he was fighting against Free Trade. Even more important to Canada, in my humble opinion, we will finally have a Canadian leader who is not a lawyer, or insider or elite, who will have no trouble looking Uncle Sam in the eye and saying, "Sorry, I don't think we'll do that!" Canadians always being polite except when we fight and then we just become stubborn and tenacious and refuse to lose. Now, of course, the media, being in the pocket of who ever will support their monopoly on the news has kept this whole exciting development out of sight by not printing anything of note about the upcoming election. It is going to be very interesting and in fact could turn out to be one of those seminal political events that no one could foresee that will change the direction of the country in significant ways. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde PS: Here is David Orchards URL www.davidorchard.com. -Original Message- From: M.Blackmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 20, 1998 6:43 PM Subject: Tory Party membership - err, what's the position for expats? I was intrigued by your letter in FW - but know NOTHING about Orhcard or what he has been up to (Anti MAI - err, the Klu Klux Klan is anti MAI, and there is a line even I will draw..). Tell me more (or post a bit more to enlighten those not resident in the promised land). Convince me and I will join. Only trouble is I live in Oxford, England, and have done so for a long long time. I have never been on a Canadian electoral roll, though never taken another passport either. Be interested to see if I can join - and vote. Perhaps send me an address for the Orchard campaign???
Re: The Next IMF Loan to Russia
Dear Keith: I heartily endorse your analysis and I would like to point out that this may actually become a trend/direction in the future - to actually redistribute money from the highest level to the lowest level - to create a circularity of energy. Leaving aside all the excesses and stupidities of our current governments, the crisis in Russia, Indonesia, South Korea and the other trashed economies would respond almost immediately to grants given to people. There is no other method of aid that has the same probability of instant success as the infusion of a large amount of "good" money to the poorest. In many cases, this need only be a one time grant because a certain amount of that new money infusion will stay circulating among the poor while a certain amount will start making it's way into corporate and government coffers, allowing them to have an income source so they can start re-planning their own survival. This would avert the worst effects of the coming suffering of millions of people this winter and allow the poor to plan ahead for the spring in some measure other than the most immediate survival needs. At it's crudest form, I could envision long lines of people - similar to an Army pay parade in which individuals lined to receive an outright grant of $100 US per person or it's equivalent in local currency. Once this money, however unevenly distributed enters the economy of real goods and services, it will act like a blood transfusion to a dying person, alleviating shock, allowing the body to recover quicker without having to use up it's already reduced reserves trying to create a surplus for trade. (sloppy metaphor, but it's 5:30 in the morning) If you do some math on this, 1 billion dollars would give 10 million people a $100. Therefore, 10 billion would give a 100 million people income. If Russia and Indonesia were each supported in this way, 20 billion dollars of direct aid would probably kick start both these economies. We have already given more than this to both countries (I think) with little or no effect except to protect Western Investors. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 20, 1998 5:25 AM Subject: The next IMF loan to Russia It seems certain that, even if only for humanitarian reasons, the IMF will have to give a further tranche of money to Russia -- and pretty soon, too. However, no coherent policy has emerged from Primakov so far. If such a policy does emerge in the next week or two, which is unlikely, it is highly questionable whether it would be practicable and, indeed, whether the IMF could realistically appraise it. The two immediate dangers facing Russia are that: (a) Primakov is unable to form a government of ministers with the economic insight and courage to force through necessary changes; (b) the next tranche would be as completely wasted as before. It seems to me that the next tranche from the IMF should be based on one simple principle: It should be applied to the lowest possible level, in order to short-circuit the multiple layers of corruption, administrative and private. The only practical method of doing this is to lend it to the Regional Governors in proportion to their populations. In the first instance this would only be a percentage game, of course and a great deal of the money would undoubtedly be wasted. Some would be lost completely, some would be partially wasted, but some regional loans might find their way more directly to the population, improve local services and, with simultaneous regional de-regulation for small and medium business, stimulate enterprise. I suggest that there should be only one condition for the loans. This is that a small team of IMF observers should be based in every region in order to record the effect of the loan on price levels and public services. This would necessarily be a rough-and-ready estimate in the first instance, but the benefits (or non-benefits) of a loan in any particular region would be pretty quickly apparent. Further regional loans would then be given according to the effectiveness of the first one -- some regions, one would guess, not receiving any further help at all. Of course, this strategy would be interpreted as political interference in the internal affairs of Russia leading, as it would, to further administrative independence of the regions. This I see as inevitable anyway, but perhaps, as a sweetener, a proportion of the overall loan could be applied to the central government. However, once the conditions of the proposed loan were known to the regions, it would be politically impossible for the central government to resist. Such a strategy would also meet with objections from Western statesmen because it would appear to undermine the integrity of Russian nation-statehood -- and thus, by implication, their own amour propre -- and also weaken the central control
Re: Tory Party membership - err, what's the position for expats?
Dear Mr. Blackmore: Excuse my inability to understand your citizenship. I guess I don't know the answer to your question, however, I am going down to register as a Conservative Party Member this afternoon and I will inquire. You asked, "So, apart from MAI and a free trade bias (on what basis?", I assume you are asking on what basis is David seeking the Conservative Party Leadership? I don't know. However, I can give you my opinion and that is there exists an opportunity to enter politics at a high enough level to provide leadership and thence direction. Normally, David would pick a party, perhaps the Conservatives, campaign in a local riding and become another ineffectual Member of Parliament. Perhaps after several terms and with luck being in a Party that won the right to govern, he might even become a Cabinet Minister. Perhaps, if history favoured him, he might even be able 10 - 20 years from now run in a conventional leadership convention in which he would have to sell his soul to backroom deals to get a majority. By that time, I assume, like Joe Clark, a good and honest man and Hugh Segal another good and honest man, he would have compromised himself many times through Parliamentary politics that he could not honestly hold any leadership direction that was not compromised by previous exchanges of favours - not necessarily dishonest, just politically necessary. This new direction of the Conservative Party offers a unique opportunity for unconditional leadership to be asserted. Yes, he is a bit of a one trick pony, but it is a very big pony. The argument that Free Trade has put Canada on the road to practical if not actual domination and assimilation by the US is compelling. It is a bad deal and the promised advantages have not been forthcoming. It is time to renegotiate or get out before they take all our oil and gas and water under special clauses in this agreement that give the US certain proprietary rights. Because the media has been so neglectful in covering all the candidates, I would guess the average citizen has no facts on what David or the others would do regarding some of our current issues. I hope I have given you a little more info. And if I find out about your status, I will promptly E Mail you the information. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: M.Blackmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 21, 1998 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Tory Party membership - err, what's the position for expats? Hi Tom Err, re-read my query again - I *am* a Canadian, just been resident abroad for some 25 years and left at an age where I had never got around to be voter registered in Hamilton before going (met an English lass who would not leave her mother and the rest is history, as they say). I have followed events from afar with some interest, i.e. recall Kim Tankie's demise with satisfaction (my parents were staunch NDP'ers and Mum was seriously into Social Credit - *Real* social credit of the commonwealth variety, not the pastiche it became - so the idea of Tory's makes my skin literally crawl. What one does not hear, of course, is the fine grain information of events apart from elections and such like, so Orchard is someone I have never seen reported over here. So, apart from MAI and a free trade bias (on what basis? We have backwoods Torie's here who's only basis for being agin the EC is "we fought in the war" and "they aren't English (sic)"... And my question was ... can expatriatess of many year's abscence join up? Sounds like it could be interesting to throw my small handful of sand into the gears :-) Malcolm
Re: C4LDEMOC-L: Look who's Tory now
Dear Mr. Murphy: I am one of the lurkers on this list, living as I do in that remote outpost of Ontario called Ottawa. Yes, I agree, this is one of the most radical reforms that has occurred in the political process in my lifetime and for once, allows individuals a chance to short circuit the usual party politics that creates leaders for parties that then win elections, creating cabinets through which to rule us for the next 4-5 years. I like you, had made the decision to never - never vote Tory in my lifetime. And yet, one of my heroes is David Orchard and I have been seeking in vain for information about his quixotic quest for snatching the holy grail from the authorities. The Tory Party will be receiving my $10 and David will be receiving my vote. And yes, perhaps there is a tooth fairy in that we can initiate a bloodless coup and actually get an honourable man - a Canadians Canadian in the inner seats of power. I have no real issue with Joe Clark except that he has blended into the system so long that his form of honesty will not produce the radical choices which I and I think millions of other Canadians want. I'm tired of letting the ruling elite sell out the people of Canada. These guys, Harris, Chretien, Mulroney want to sit at the American's banquet table so bad that they betray in a thousand little ways and some very big ways the people like David, myself and others who have no wish to kiss the ass of anyone. So let me add my voice to yours and ask others to create a tsunami of support that arises out of the faith and hearts of working people, ordinary Canadians who drive trucks, teach school, sit on a tractor and go north for months at a time and leave their families. We are the Canadians who make Canada, not the suits who sit in offices, manipulate salaries so theirs are the largest and want to play with the big boys of the world. Let me state it plainly. We don't have to ask anyones permission to sit at the table, we, the ordinary Canadian have earned the right to sit at anyones tab le and even more, there are many in the world who would feel honoured to sit at our table - for ours is a generous table made up of decent people. Let's shock the complacency of those who court power to manipulate us, better a John Diefenbaker or David Orchard with the faults of honesty and inexperience than the faults of a Harris, Mulroney or Chretien who play the shell game. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -Original Message- From: M.J. Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 19, 1998 2:12 PM Subject: C4LDEMOC-L: Look who's Tory now As some people may know, the federal Torys are choosing a new leader on October 24th. To do this, they have initiated an interesting experiment in direct democracy. Anyone who pays the $10 fee to become a member of the party by Sept. 24th gets to vote on the new leader. That is, there will be no chosen delegates. There will be a polling station in every federal riding! You pay $10, walk down the street, and you too can decide the future of the Conservative Party of Canada. Now, what's really interesting is that anti free trade/MAI activist David Orchard has decided to run for the position, and has been signing up "instant Tory's" by the thousand. (Specifically, about 7,000 memberships in a party that a few months ago had only 20,000 members. Read this in the Globe, I think). The party "machine" is terrified that Mr. Orchard might actually win, and even if not his candidacy could turn the whole race into a rather surreal affair. On Friday, I mailed my $10 to the PC party headquarters. Hopefully, by next week I will be a Tory. The opportunity to remake these guys as Canada's only Center Left party in Canada (now that the NDP have officially sold out), or at least the opportunity to help create a bit of political mayhem, seemed more than worth the small fee. I intend write a few pieces in support of Mr. Orchard's positions. Can anyone provide me a list of good URLs on MAI, or the Tory leadership race itself? Also, anyone looking for more info on the Orchard campaign (and how to become an insta tory) can go to www.davidorchard.com. Together we can save this country from the Mulroney legacy! Cheers, M.J. Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Shapes of Things are Dumb. - L. Wittgenstein | |To unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], no subject, with the |following message (and no other text): unsubscribe c4ldemoc-l
Re: Re Basic Income
Dear Rob: A small correction on authorship. The quote was made by the columnist Weisman, the remarks ascribed to Mr. Krugman refered to "capital accounts". Thomas -Original Message- From: Rob Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Future Work [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 5, 1998 7:55 PM Subject: Re: Re Basic Income Thomas Lunde wrote the following quote from Mr. Krugman, economist at MIT: "subordinating the needs of finance to those of people" What a unique idea! It's a refreshing change after the '80's mantra "Greed Is Good, Greed Is God" popularized by Oliver's Gecko and the oil companies' Reagan. But will it catch on? rob robinson netperson / mark twain democratic club / whitter-la mirada, california
Re: collapse defined + Prigogine
-Original Message- From: Jay Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 5, 1998 8:12 PM Subject: Re: "collapse" defined + Prigogine Just imagine how fast the US would unravel if foreign oil were cut off. People in California who have to drive 40 miles to get a loaf of bread would starve. Entire cities in the desert would have to be abandoned due to lack of water. This is why the Y2K issue is grabbing the headlines: one screwup in the wrong place and the entire system grinds to a halt. Jay Thomas: The following article came of the net a few days ago. I think it corraborates Jay's observation rather well. The only other think I believe should be noted, is that Jan1, 2000 occurs in the dean of winter for those of us who live in Northern climes. Any distruption in power, transportation, food and heat leaves us doubly vulnerable. When the individual officers, who have access to the worst case scenerios start making investments to protect their families, I think it is time to pay attention. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 23:04:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FC: If the military is getting Y2K jitters... from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Further to Jacques Bernier's earlier posting of a Canadian Press release on the Canadian military's Y2k preparations, this article appeared in a regional newspaper last week, before the CP article. There is no URL available. - Halifax Chronicle-Herald August 29 1998 Military prepares to battle Y2K bug By Gordon Delaney, Valley Bureau Greenwood - Military personnel at CFB Greenwood and 12 other bases across Canada are preparing for the worst when the millennium bug hits computers on January 1, 2000. A plan is in place to buy large new generators, identify buildings as possible human shelters, test alternative communications systems, conduct emergency exercises and stockpile food, base officials say. "There is going to be a significant impact on military operations," Lt.-Col. William Legue, deputy base commander and logistics officer at Greenwood, said in a briefing to media and municipal officials this week. [...] The bases have been ordered to have a contingency plan prepared by October 15 and begin emergency exercises by the spring, Lt.-Col. Legue said. "The threat is from a wide range of problems, from a toaster not working to not being able to put food on the shelves in grocery stores." Some experts are predicting large-scale power outages and disruptions in telephone and other services as a result of the milennium bug, or Y2K (Year 2000) problem, as it's known in the computer industry. [...] Lt.-Col. Legue said the base wants to work with local communities to prepare for that ominous New Year's Day. Military personnel have been ordered not to take vacation or make travel plans around January 1, 2000. "We in uniform expect to be extemely busy at that time." He advised civilians in neigbouring communities to make sure they are self-reliant when the day comes. The base will be able to help local authorities if asked but resources will be limited, he said. The military will buy more generators to provide power to a few large buildings that could be used as shelters if needed. Some military personnel, like Capt. Bob Sealby, Greenwood's Year 2000 coordinator, are buying generators for their homes. Capt. Sealby is also stockpiling food. "There are going to be problems," he said. "No one knows to what extent, but you have to be prepared for the worst-case scenario." - One of my co-workers, who has in the past chuckled at my preparations, said that after reading this article, for the first time she is scared. I had to make several photocopies of the article for co-workers who wanted a copy to take to show a friend, neighbour or family member who they have been having a hard time convincing that Y2k is a serious matter. Kreskin -- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ --
Re: The X Files (deus ex machina excuses) Off topic....
Dear Mark:
Often there are posting I would like to reply to so I don't put them in a
file folder and forget them. This one of yours was one of them and it has
stood the test of time.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Measday [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: August 31, 1998 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses) Off topic
Er, chief, this is beyond me, are you the zen master? Who is the zen
master? I'm not a zen master, just a bad case of sinusitis and
consequently not expressing myself well. Whose arms are you going to cut
off and why do you want to do it?
Thomas:
I thought Brad's answer was pretty concise, the person asking a stupid
question should have a real life experience. You want to know what the
sound of "one hand clapping is" simple, whack off the arm, and you'll have
the answer you stupid jerk.
Alternatively, and more practically,
organize a real conference or debate simulating the futurework list
where the evas', jays', rays' etc can be made material. If people pay to
come, all the better.
Thomas:
One of the joys of electronic debating is the ability to reflect before you
answer. I'm not sure how we would come out in speech. The idea that we
should make some money off the things we do for fun strikes me as a great
example of turning your hobby into a business and then your business ruins
your hobby, I think I'll stay with my hobby.
Or set up a revolutionary cell teaching
non-exploitative transactional conversational exchange values, so people
can talk again without fear of having their pockets picked. Don't really
see the advantages of amputation or learning to say no in Russian
though. Please explain the depth and complexity of your thought.
It's called having a viewpoint or perhaps a personal philosophy - one we
have actually arrived by ourselves, then being vulnurable enough to expose
that viewpoint to the critiques - or rarely praises of others. What gets
you in crap on this list is playing the conventional party record. We can't
and won't ( I have no right to speak for others here) force anyone to have a
personal viewpoint, however we will gleefully challenge anothers viewpoint,
call it philosophical ping pong, no one gets hurt, everyone gets a little
exercise and we leave the game at the table.
Kind regards,
Mark Measday
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
Mark Measday wrote:
Yep, if that makes any sense, though I don't know about the zen bit.
So
can we expect a golden socialist future of mutual understanding
based on
some scientific knowledge tempered with wisdom? Or the same old
dialectic between opposite understandings?
MM
Thomas Lunde wrote:
In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of
communication?
Thomas: This question sounds like one of those zen koans where
you
feel
there should be an obvious answer and every time you put one
forth,
the
master answers "nyet".
[snip]
I've been thinking about these Zen masters lately, in
part based on thinking about how they exploit their students
as cheap labor. And I had an idea for an answer to
that famous Koan:
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
The student should simply amputate one of the master's
hands, so that the master could learn.
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
---
![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Mark Measday
UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167
France tel: 0033.450.20.94.92/fax: 450.20.94.93
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apoligies to Mark Measday
Re: Re: Basic Income
Dear Bob: I went to the URL you posted and I must admit that the testimonials were awesome. However when I tried to follow some of the suggestions in red, my browser went nowhere - so I'm left with testimonials not content. However, to show that this is an area where I have had some thoughts, I will use your comments to share them. -Original Message- From: Bob McDaniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FutureWork [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 6, 1998 1:49 PM Subject: FW: Re: Basic Income Hi all, Another approach to an income for all: I once made the simple extrapolation that, if the decision to automate remains the prerogative of individual firms, then the collective result may eventually be a totally automated economy (a version of "The Tragedy of the Commons)! Thomas: My thought was that every time a machine/robot/innovation replaces human labour, that labour is still factored into the product price and that savings to the producer is not passed on to the customer in the form of lower prices or too the shareholder in terms of increased profits, but is put into a general pool to pay all those whose work is eliminated by the technology. If one of our goals is to become more efficient, even to the point where nobody or only a very small number of people are going to work, we have to have someway of taking revenue out of the goods and service sector and redistributing it back into the demand side of the economy. In this I would say Jeff Gates and I are in agreement. Imagine if we benchmarked all labour costs in products now and had a set of standards to evaluate the cost of labour in new products. Lets imagine product x has a 40% labour component and the company through technology was able to reduce the labour costs to 15%, the remaining 25% could be put in an Unemployment pool to provide a Basic Income for displaced workers. Shareholders were making a return on investment before the innovation, and consumers were buying the product before the innovation. The only difference is that reduced money paid into labour results in reduced money on the demand side of the equation. When this happens often enough - as it has in the last 20 years, then you get overproduction, which is another way of saying, we can make it, but we can't sell it cause there ain't enough consumers. With noone having a job then who will buy the output (shades of Reuther)? Having read Louis O. Kelso and Mortimer J. Adler, The Capitalist Manifesto, and Peter F. Drucker, The Pension Fund Revolution, I wondered whether all people should be shareholders with government, if necessary, buying shares on their behalf. Thomas: Without having the benefit of Jeff's thought, the question then becomes do all the citizen who have been issued shares or have borrowed money to buy shares then spend the rest of their life trading shares as their only productive activity short of not trading and hoping that the shares you have will continue to provide you with a dividend. My guess is that over time, those with inside knowledge will end up owning all the shares and the poor will still be with us and the capitalists will just be so much richer. Now has appeared Jeff Gates's book, The Ownership Solution, detailing such an approach. http://www.ownershipsolution.com/ Whereas Tom Lunde's essay, Basic Income, seems to rely on government to issue and control funds, Thomas: Yes, I still see a role for government to control the mechanisms of fund distribution, though in my plan, it would be a fairly mechanical endeavor - everyone gets their $15,000 less the amount agreed on to fund defense, medicare and education and that is given over to the citizen through a vote mechanism based on a yearly budget proposal. A person could not lose the right to get their Basic Income, though they could still use credit in the marketplace and in that sense pledge it as security against immediate gratifications. the solution envisioned by Gates relies on the operation of business firms through ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Plans) and variants including other stakeholders, consumers, local communities, etc. Thomas: It nice to think that business would be honourable and altruistic in respecting it's shareholders. Current business practices do not always show this result as CEO's and other managers award themselves high salaries, stock options and perks. Secondly, the capitalistic system is a predatory system with each company working to actively eliminate the competition and gain more market share. Therefore someone is losing all the time, while someone is also winning. My guess is that in the long run, greed will win out. Thanks for your thoughts. Thomas Lunde Bob -- ___ http://www.geog.uwo.ca/mcdaniel1.html
Re: Question: Was there ever a Yugoslavia?
Dear Eva: Let me weigh in with a few comments. -Original Message- From: Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 6, 1998 3:59 PM Subject: Re: Question: Was there ever a Yugoslavia? I think that Jay and I are not so sure that democracy *can* work on a planet with 5 * 10**9 people whose needs need to be supplied, when every increment of quantity generally entails an exponential "delta" of complexification of coordinating mechanisms. I just cannot see how a dictatorship would lessen the complexity of solutions. Thomas: Eva, I totally agree with you, the complexity of the solutions would still be that same and instead of having a fairly independant and neutral bureaucracy to carry out solutions, we would instead end up with a bureaucracy that had no alternative except to move towards the will of the dictator. Eventually, probably quicker, we would lose the effectiveness of a neutral burearcracy which is one of the strongest features of a democratic governance. If authoritarian regimes were unstable before, why should they work better in the future? Thomas: They wouldn't. I am totally bewildered and frightened about so many people taking this idea as a serious alternative. Thomas: As I noted several posts ago, to me the failure of the democratic model is that the leaders are politicians who have as primary goal - the retention of power. If we are to assume the a leader elected democratically should express in 90% of the cases the will of the people and in 10% of the cases put forward for consideration by the people suggestions for change and solving problems, then a democratically elected leader should provide the best leadership. Instead, the democratic leaders, Clinton, Blair, Chretien, Kohl continually promise to pursue policies that reflect the will of the people while in actuality they are involved in putting policies in place that will gain them enough resources to be elected again. In most cases, these are policies that favour those with money who can contribute to their war chests and sway the population at the time of election. I think we need a higher class of leaders with more clearly defined roles, with greater limitations on their powers and my suggestion is that leaders should be trained in consenus building, conflict resolution, judgement criteria and morality. And probably other things I can't think of at the moment. When such potential leaders have finished this extensive training, then they should seek election for a particular philosophy that they feel would work best for the country. This would allow us to improve the quality of leadership. We wouldn't think of sending a general into battle who has not had a long and difficult apprenticeship within the military organization and expect competent military decisions. One only has to look at the leaders, kings and military commanders of the feudal ages to recognize that birth or patronage do not produce the qualities of leadership. Yet, in politics, in Canada for example, we had Brian Mulroney who was elected Prime Minister without ever holding a public office before - in Trudeau's case it was only for several years. What about all the "individuality" and stuff like that you like to brand about when the idea of (democratic) socialism is mentioned? Thomas: Again, I agree with you Eva, that some of the arguments that have been made are disengenuous (= having secret motives, not sincere) in regards to other positions that these individuals have taken. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde Eva
Re: Some Thoughts
Dear Heiner: Sorry for not including the original post of yours from which I got the URL to Peter's web page at www.metaself.org/. So here is your orginal post and the URL's should anyone else want to read them. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde YOU REALLY HAVE AN INTERSTING LIST THERE: "Culture and Future! I would like to make you aware of http://www.metaself.org/ maybe you start with: A Metaphor Model of the Self http://www.metaself.org/model/ Social Relationships and Virtues http://www.metaself.org/model/2realm.html this are the basics I fully subscribe to and can recommend after reading night and day. It is the basic building block also to my work and I would have loved to haveit 8 years ago. WE CAN BRIDGE NOW THE CANYON and GO BEYOND WORDS AND LANGUAGES! Heiner - SHARING FUTURES http://newciv.org/cob/members/benking/ WHAT IS NEW !?: ON CREATIVITY UNDERSTANDING http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/landscape.htm http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/visual/visualization.htm http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/isss98/house-of-eyes.htm ** Wisdom, imagination and virtue is lost when messages double, information halves, knowledge quarters,... ** -Original Message- From: Heiner Benking [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 6, 1998 11:04 AM Subject: Re: Some Thoughts which Peter do you refer to and which message from him, I feel I am in poyaesthetic multi-sensorial work and so I would love to follow up. Heiner Thomas Lunde wrote: Dear Peter: Your website was refered to me by Heiner Benking on a posting to FutureWork. I don't know if you are familiar with the work done by Bandler and Grinder and others with a discipline called NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming). If not, you might find some interesting ideas regarding people who view the world from different perspectives. A small number of classes have emerged such as tactile, feeling, visual, auditory and how in language, each class identifies itself with the predicates and metaphors it uses to describe reality. Don't have time to go into examples, but a web search on NLP will turn up a ton of resources. Good work, good observations, in my opinion you can contribute to work that has already progressed quite a way in this direction. If you have a mailing list for future observations, I would be interested in being included, perception is one of my strong interests. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- SHARING FUTURES http://newciv.org/cob/members/benking/ times, spaces, voices, views, values,.. in SHARED PERSPECTIVE Voice: +49 731 501 -910 FAX -929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Heiner BENKING, PoBox 2060,D- 89010 Ulm,GERMANY WHAT IS NEW !?:ON DIALOGUE http://ciiiweb.ijs.si/dialogues/page1.htm http://www.uia.org/dialogue/webdial.htm http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/dialogue-culture.htm http://www3.informatik.uni-erlangen.de:1200/Staff/graham/benking/voicetxt.h tml WHAT IS NEW !?: ON CREATIVITY UNDERSTANDING http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/landscape.htm http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/visual/visualization.htm http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/isss98/house-of-eyes.htm ** Wisdom, imagination and virtue is lost when messages double, information halves, knowledge quarters,... **
Re: Apoligies to Mark Measday
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Future Work [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: September 6, 1998 6:00 PM
Subject: Apoligies to Mark Measday
Dear Mark:
Before you flame me, let me apoligise, as I read this posting, the comment
"you'll have the answer you stupid jerk." was meant to indicate the person,
ie the Zen master asking the stupid question - not you. A case of being a
little to much in a hurry at that particular moment.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
-Original Message-----
From: Thomas Lunde [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Future Work [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: September 6, 1998 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses) Off topic
Dear Mark:
Often there are posting I would like to reply to so I don't put them in a
file folder and forget them. This one of yours was one of them and it has
stood the test of time.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Measday [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: August 31, 1998 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses) Off topic
Er, chief, this is beyond me, are you the zen master? Who is the zen
master? I'm not a zen master, just a bad case of sinusitis and
consequently not expressing myself well. Whose arms are you going to cut
off and why do you want to do it?
Thomas:
I thought Brad's answer was pretty concise, the person asking a stupid
question should have a real life experience. You want to know what the
sound of "one hand clapping is" simple, whack off the arm, and you'll have
the answer you stupid jerk.
Alternatively, and more practically,
organize a real conference or debate simulating the futurework list
where the evas', jays', rays' etc can be made material. If people pay to
come, all the better.
Thomas:
One of the joys of electronic debating is the ability to reflect before you
answer. I'm not sure how we would come out in speech. The idea that we
should make some money off the things we do for fun strikes me as a great
example of turning your hobby into a business and then your business ruins
your hobby, I think I'll stay with my hobby.
Or set up a revolutionary cell teaching
non-exploitative transactional conversational exchange values, so people
can talk again without fear of having their pockets picked. Don't really
see the advantages of amputation or learning to say no in Russian
though. Please explain the depth and complexity of your thought.
It's called having a viewpoint or perhaps a personal philosophy - one we
have actually arrived by ourselves, then being vulnurable enough to expose
that viewpoint to the critiques - or rarely praises of others. What gets
you in crap on this list is playing the conventional party record. We
can't
and won't ( I have no right to speak for others here) force anyone to have
a
personal viewpoint, however we will gleefully challenge anothers viewpoint,
call it philosophical ping pong, no one gets hurt, everyone gets a little
exercise and we leave the game at the table.
Kind regards,
Mark Measday
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
Mark Measday wrote:
Yep, if that makes any sense, though I don't know about the zen bit.
So
can we expect a golden socialist future of mutual understanding
based on
some scientific knowledge tempered with wisdom? Or the same old
dialectic between opposite understandings?
MM
Thomas Lunde wrote:
In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of
communication?
Thomas: This question sounds like one of those zen koans where
you
feel
there should be an obvious answer and every time you put one
forth,
the
master answers "nyet".
[snip]
I've been thinking about these Zen masters lately, in
part based on thinking about how they exploit their students
as cheap labor. And I had an idea for an answer to
that famous Koan:
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
The student should simply amputate one of the master's
hands, so that the master could learn.
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
---
![%THINK;[SGML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Mark Measday
UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167
France tel: 0033.450.20.94.92/fax: 450.20.94.93
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
