To get a good idea of what we are missing by defending
the status quo, read Wally's message below and replace
the words "Social Credit" with the words "The Optimum
Policy" (TOP) as you read. Both sets of words, when
implemented, would produce the result that Wally and
all of us desire. But, "The Optimum Policy" requires only
one third as much money to implement, and would restore
and preserve the "work ethic" of the US workforce.
---------------------------------------
Wes, I've been enduring your stuff for what? - three
years now, and still don't have the slightest idea what
specifically it is you are proposing to do.
Tell us, finally - please please please - in simple
declarative sentences.
Whatever *it* is, you say *it* requires "only one third" as
much "money" to implement. But the social credit
proposals don't require any money at all, just simple
adjustments enabling demand to balance supply as a matter
of accounting.
So, it is the "work ethic" you want, is it? Find a time
machine that will take you back to Soviet Russia, or
perhaps to Auschwitz, where the sign on the main gate
proclaimed: "Arbeit Mact Frei."
--
--------- Original Message ---------
DATE: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:30:00 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: The wealthy, healthy, intelligent, and powerful folks,
the WHIPs, who insist on "The Optimum Policy" for
themselves and 50% of TOP for everyone else.
Good day folks,
To get a good idea of what we are missing by defending
the status quo, read Wally's message below and replace
the words "Social Credit" with the words "The Optimum
Policy" (TOP) as you read. Both sets of words, when
implemented, would produce the result that Wally and
all of us desire. But, "The Optimum Policy" requires only
one third as much money to implement, and would restore
and preserve the "work ethic" of the US workforce.
Foll owing Wally's post are two posts by Walter Hart, on
the same subject, to two different mail lists, with a
consequent loss of impact, IMHO. My sincere thanks
to Wally and Walter for wrapping fresh words around my
favorite topic. My apologies to Bill Ryan for posting to
several lists.
If there is any question about how long "The Optimum
Policy" has been practiced by the WHIPs and withheld
from everyone else, the attached file, Fig7-9d.gif, "The
Whole Divine Law," will provide a few clews.
Kind Regards,
Wes Burt
To further explore "The Optimum Policy" illustrated
at URL <http://www.epie.org/cyber-soc/default.htm>
send a blank e-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Wallace M. Klinck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:24:29 +0000
Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Social Credit and Planning
Dear Members of the Discussion Group:
Social Credit is opposed to the policies of central
economic planning and state ownership of the
means of production. Social credit asserts that
the essential problems of production have been
solved long ago and that the primary economic
problem is inadequate and faulty distribution.
Any problems of production that may exist are
primarily an inability to adequately respond
because of a faulty system of distribution. This
defect is considered to derive from a faulty
financial system which can easily be rectified
from a technical standpoint. Such rectification
faces, however, unrelenting political and legal
opposition by those who seek to centralize
power over mankind--whether for erroneous
reasons of misguided idealism, or the naked
(or concealed) desire for power.
Any system that util izes real capital (i.e., "tools")
to produce wealth is capitalist. The Soviet union
instituted the most capital intensive "economy"
in that it gave preference to real capital projects
over the production of consumer goods. The
communist fetish for "work" resulted in the most
oppressive form of "wage slavery" with little
return for effort (as I have been told, "We work--
but nothing seems to happen.") and the slave
labor camp or firing squad if you were deemed
to be an "anti-social" who questioned your
obligation to serve the State. The "capital vs
socialist" debate obscures the real issues and
sets one part of society against the other, just as
the "Left vs right" blinds and divides the people.
Social Credit asserts that the problem lies with
faulty finance which fails properly to deliver to the
consuming public the results that flow from the
productive system. The socialist s, those "knights
in rusty armour" have never really appreciated the
implications of the power age as it relates to the
financial credit system (and more recently to the
information revolution) which has provided a
stupendous actual and potential physical
abundance. Nor, (due to financial ignorance) have
the finance-capitalists, modern industrialists and
political leaders (those of good will and without
ulterior motives) understood how to deal with
distribution of the abundance which their activities
have created.
Government has a legitimate role to play--primarily
to provide a legal system and infrastructure in
which maximum individual initiative is allowed to
operate. The operative principle in Social Credit is
balance. The degree of government involvement
in the lives of the people should be optimal and
that should mean minimal in a successfully
functioning society--one that prov ides desired
economic results and maximal freedom of thought,
action, creativity, _expression_ and association. The
term optimal can have different meanings in that it
can shift in the context of particular historic,
economic or social circumstances--but from a
Social Credit perspective, it should involve a
progressive liberation of the individual from
external control and economic insecurity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~ Snip by Wes Burt ~~~~~~~~~~~
(See Wally's original email for his negative personal
experience with professors, central planning, and
living conditions in the late USSR)
~~~~~~~~~~ End snip, Wally continues ~~~~~~~~
When it comes to an abundance of genuine human
happiness and physical security and enjoyment,
there is no substitute for freedom--and this touches
the core of Social Credit philosophy regarding the
nature and purpose of the individual in human
society.
Sincerely
Wally
< BR>~~~~~~ End Wally, begin Walter's first ~~~~~~
From: Walter Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 05:12:16 -0800
Subject: Re: Final Comment on Social Credit by
Wally, Pat, & Bill.
Dear Wes,
I much appreciated this post, particularly the inclusion
of your previous from August 6, 2003 including the
description of Japan and Germany's concept of
"Family Wages." I must have missed this when it was
first posted.
For myself, I must confess that many of the references
in your writings are beyond my immediate recognition,
leading me to silence derived from a sense of
inadequacy and internal chiding for not having read
during my lifetime as much as I perhaps should have.
Alas, though I believe I am an analytical reader, I know
that I am not very fast at doing it. My own two children -
barely teenagers - go through books far faster leaving
me to wonder how they do it. And time, for me, is at a
premium these days. I have a busy law practice of
mostly poor clients that even combined with my wife's
salary as a university admissions supervisor is only
enough to keep us one step ahead of the credit card
companies.
In any event, it now seems to me that what you are
principally talking about is the failure of the American
consciousness fully to recognize or accept (1) the
plain fact that production requires both human capital
and other forms of capital (both of which constitute
real economic wealth) and (2) that neither form of
input to production springs into existence without
somebody first "investing" in the process of bringing
those inputs to the production process.
This is a topic that enlivens the imagination regarding
its implications and the potential effects of change.
Best regards,
Water Hart
< BR>~~~~~~~ Begin Walter's second post ~~~~~~~~
From: Walter Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:23:34 +0000
Subject: Declining U.S. Standards of Living
"Living on Borrowed Money" By BOB HERBERT,
NYTIMES OP-ED COLUMNIST
(Published: November 10, 2003)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/10/opinion/10HERB.html
Presidential Candidate John Edwards -
"The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers
and Fathers are Going Broke," by Elizabeth Warren and
Amelia Warren Tyagi - Credit Card Companies
Excerpts:
>"It has become increasingly difficult to get into or stay
in the middle class. In speeches, reports and interviews,
Senator Edwards has been pointing out that despite
income gains, most families have been unable to save
money and are dangerously vulnerable to setbacks like
job los ses and illnesses.
>Citing statistics from an influential recent book,
"The Two-Income Trap:
>Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers are Going
Broke," by Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren
Tyagi, he noted that over the past 30 years home
mortgage costs have risen 70 times faster than the
average father's income. So you end up with two
parents working like crazy just to keep the family
economically afloat.
>...
>The American Dream has morphed into a treacherous
survival regimen in which the good life a life that
includes a home, family vacations, adequate health
coverage, money to provide the kids with a solid
>education, and a comfortable retirement is
increasingly elusive.
Best regards,
Walter Hart
ps
Why is it so difficult for so many to draw the connections
between (1) stagnant/reduced household real median
incomes for younger generations; (2) grea tly increased
household real median incomes for older generations;
(3) drastically increased regressive payroll taxation of
younger generations to support Social Security and
Medicare; (4) reduced savings/investment rates; and,
(5) reduced rates of economic growth and productivity
growth for the period (at least) from approximately 1973
through 1997.
In short, our nation's old age support policies crippled
the productivity and prospects of an entire (huge)
generation, i.e., the Baby Boomers. And now the time
is drawing near when it will be necessary to support
that huge generation in their old age. And guess what,
the cupboard is bare because everything the Boomers
were required to pump into our flawed old age support
systems simply was spent on the relatively non-needy
elderly of prior generations.
Best regards,
Walter Hart
[Non-text portions of this message have been remov ed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
____________________________________________________________
Enter now for a chance to win a 42" Plasma Television!
AOL users go here
This offer applies to U.S. Residents Only
