Dear Friends,
"This engineer has proposed and described a socioeconomic system (Socioeconomic Democracy) which (almost trivially) accomplishes what the engineer Douglas had in mind." (Robley George)
Could I ask Robley to elaborate on this please? I realize he has pointed to a book and a website,
I propose we go through your logical chain step by
step. At this point it is impossible to get beyond
step number 2 without additional information.
--1. Government levies taxes (economy-wide) in order
to allow a certain portion of society, engaged in
activities there is no market for, to
Jeff wrote:
Lucid, Curt.
Please elaborate on this section:
The President has the power, by executive order,
to convert all T bills to 30 year bonds.
In doing so, he could:
1. Reduce the probability of default on government
borrowings (debt)
That is, how is that possible
Good day to all,
I favour the name Economic Democracy which, if I remember correctly, was
suggested by Marielle. The trouble is that that name would also be hijacked
sooner than we think. So we might as well stick with what we have -- but
expose the thieves. I notice that even in local
Good day to all.
I believe it is proven that The real price that you are being asked to pay
for the things you use in your daily life is what you do in fact pay,
plus what the system says you ought to pay; and what you ought to pay is
the debt. Quoted by Michael.
In our country Pyramid Scemes
Okay, I've looked at it in the list archives at
http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/pkt/2003II/msg00174.html .
In that post you refer to the three fundamental
axioms below. But below I see sixteen steps.
Before that you say:
I believe that axiomatically setting the What,
Why, and Who The
So you continue to avoid the question.
What are the three basic axioms upon which you base
your step 2?
Unless you state what they are, step number 2 is the
fundamental axiom upon which you base everything that
follows.
--
- Original Message -
DATE: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:19:08
I will only briefly state something that I've said
to several lists.
No economy, social credit or not, can sustain itself
if it depends on growth.
The reason is quite simple. There is a level of
resource sustainabilility that bounds the problem.
I believe, for all discussive purposes, we
Dear Barry,
I have lost my copy of the book, so you may well be right
about the title. And the date of publication seems spot on. From
what I recall of it, she was addressing political movements that were informed
and motivated by ideas ofecology. I was surprised to see mention of
Social
On Sunday 01 Jun 2003 6:48 pm, Bill wrote:
I dispute the conclusion to the first sentence. But
if decrease in the levels of crime and [increase in]
attendance at schools is the only benefit, wouldn't
that alone be sufficient justification for the
dividend? Wouldn't all of us be less poor?
Having spent at least as many years among the anti-growth
crowd as I have with my original indignationover socioeconomic injustice,
I have settled in on the general outlook expressed by Ekky Irion.
Nevertheless, as it is conventionally defined and measured there can be no doubt
that
In a message dated 6/3/03 9:42:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Good day to all,
I favour the name Economic Democracy which, if I remember correctly, was
suggested by Marielle. The trouble is that that name would also be hijacked
sooner than we think. So we might as well
12 matches
Mail list logo
