----------
Hi all,
Robert Neunteufel (below) is very right, of course. The problem is how
to satisfy Harry's needy population with limited resources.
1. We clearly need to control our population, 'nuf said on that point.
2. We need to have a better distribution of the earth's collective
wealth.
Pure capitalism would allow unlimited concentration of resources. This
is not sustainable without massive brutalization.
Democracy, on the other hand, would give the power to redistribute
wealth more evenly.
What we have is a combination of the two that sort of works in some
places and fails in many others. Learning how to find the right mix
of the two in a way that encourages innovations without the extremes of
income distributions seems possible. The Mondragon experiment is an
example.
In my view, the wealthy use their wealth in the wrong ways. If they
they spent their resources buying jewelry, yachts and works of art,
things would work out fine.
Instead they buy politicians and votes. They also buy lawyers and
cpas to help them accumulate even more wealth. This is destructive
to the economic conditions of most of the less-than-wealthy.
I believe that we can change the laws so that rich people can be
consumers but not tyrants. We need:
1. A steeply graduated income tax
2. A steeply graduated inheritance tax
3. A tax credit on small (< $100) political contributions
4. Enforcement of anti-trust laws
BTW, this is just what existed in the US about 30 years ago! What do
we think of that!
It was the Reagan revolution that has revoked these laws and sent us
on our present path downwards towards another social restructuring.
Incidentally, I also strongly encourage the indexing of tax rates to
inflation. I also believe that only the excess of interest and capital
gains above inflation should be taxed.
Dennis Paull
Los Altos, CA (Silicon Valley)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Harry Pollard wrote:
>>
>
>> One of the major problems is the way we think. The problem is not in
>> any way overproduction - but underproduction.
>>
>> Overproduction implies that all consumers have everything they want -
>> an obvious error.
>>
>> It just looks like overproduction.
>>
>> Harry
>> --------------------------------------------
>
>Your answer is demonstrating, that the way we - or many of us - are
>thinking is really the greatest problem.
>
>What kind of future do you have in mind?
>What would our planet look like, if all human beings would use as much
>energy, industrial products, vehicles, land ... as the richest 5% of the
>inhabitants of the industrialized countries?
>
>An unlimited growth of consumption is connected to an unlimited growth
>of work and an unlimited destruction of the environment.
>Following this concept there will be no future for mankind and therefor
>no need for discussing the future of work.
>
>Robert Neunteufel
>
