|
Or
perhaps Clinton is a happy sociopath and Hillary is AC/DC.
Sorry Robert, I'm going into the metaphoric again.
Hi Ed and Keith.
Ed, the societies in the North are built around the
concept of water. Clinton was a water President (remember Dick
Morris's "sailing" metaphor in describing Clinton?). He was of
Cherokee descent and much of his ideas and way of acting in the world, were
Indian*.
Stone people on the other hand, are into hierarchy and
consider the fact that stone is "solid" and can be seen in relatively the same
condition for a long time is therefore "better." The Iroquois from
another place consider "stone people" to be strong but clumsy and not very
smart. There are also people of the fire (transformers) and people
of the air (inspired). Stone people consider the four
elements to be old out of date science. Water people
consider the four elements to be the four divisions of movement and divide the
strategies of mankind in their approach to life. Stone
people consider permanent artifacts to be proof of superiority, Fire
people consider transformation and renewal to be
superior. Air people consider creativity and dialogue to be
superior. Water people consider negotiation, patience and
clear vision with a stubborn drive to reach a goal to be superior.
These are ancient metaphors that touch the wisdom of our
ancestors. Today instead of a symmetrical synergy we get
competition for superiority. Instead of "walk in balance"
the "goodbye" of all native peoples in North America, we get "see
you tomorrow when we will fight again for Alpha dominance".
Wolves are war animals. Today we have the aesthetic of perpetual
war. Perhaps a reread of Kazantzakis and his Odysseus should be a
requirement for all who suffer from a theory of dominance rather than
balance. Or perhaps hardwiring is the rule and for most of the old
F.......s its just too late.
REH
*Cherokees consider women to be of equal status and
to be the owners of the property. It is therefore, up to the
woman to decide whether she will kick the husband out or not. If
so, then all she does is put his shoes at the door and he is
gone. Men lose everything if their wife kicks them
out. On the other hand multiple wives or a type of "concubine" is
possible to help the wife if she agrees. Men only carry what
is truly possible in the world and that is the mind. Women own the
things. If you look closely at the way the Clinton's handle
property and charity you will see an ethic that is not European or
Patriarchical. It is also one of the most attractive
and controversial elements of Hillery Clinton. Her freedom and
independence. Something that has gotten her into trouble with
the European based "conservatives" from the beginning. Their
history until the last 100 + years is "women as
property." REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 10:29
AM
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re:
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
Hi Keith,
I just consulted my dictionary to see what it says
about "status". It says two things that seem to fit what we are
talking about. One is position or rank [of a person] in the eyes of
others. The second is the position or rank [of a person] in a
hierarchy of prestige. I would agree that the first definition is
universal. Among hunters and gatherers, the most effective hunters or
gatherers are recognized and emulated by others. Among agricultural
people, good farmers are given similar recognition. No hierarchy is
required. Good is good, and that's about it.
The second definition requires a hierarchy and a
ranking system. Whether they have done something well or not, some
people are placed on prestigious pedestals while others march around
them. Perhaps there is a universal tendency toward such behaviour once
a society reaches a certain level of complexity, but there may be an almost
equal tendency to do away with rankings and hierarchies of the pedestal
kind. The discussion about Hobbes seems relevant here. People
merge their interests into societies of their own free will because it is
rational to do so. They appoint or elect people to govern because that
is necessary if society is to function. Yet the people that are
appointed or elected have no special rights under the law and can be removed
if need be. Some people may still want to put them on pedestals, but
that is not the intent of the society as a whole.
In any event, complexity seems to be the important
thing. The people I dealt with in northern Canada followed the first
definition, and did not have rankings and hierarchies until we imposed them
by making them follow our system of governance. What we did was
complicate their lives and their societies to the point that rankings and
hierarchies became a necessity. Once they were in place, status in the
sense of pedestals gradually crept in.
On the matter of a basic income, I don't think a
government could proceed without giving a lot of thought to why it was doing
it. Would it be a mechanism to facilitate adjustment to economic change, or
would it be a universal anti-poverty measure? It would also have to take a
thorough look at the costs and benefits. On the cost side, a basic income
would put an additional strain on government finances and might require a
more progressive tax system or some reallocation of existing expenditures.
The benefits could include matters such as a healthier population, kids who
are more able to cope with school, and probably a significant reduction of
the social costs associated with crime and the need to incarcerate people.
There would be problems, a major one being that the financial costs would be
perceived as being immediate while the benefits would only accrue in the
longer run. Equity would be another problem - how to design a system that is
basically fair to both those who pay and those who receive payments. And we
all know people cheat, so a policing system would have to be
devised.
Personally, I think a basic income program is
feasible in a rich country and may even be possible to initiate by
reallocating existing expenditures. In Canada we already have a variety of
programs, such as employment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan, the Child
Tax Benefit, and various Provincial welfare/workfare programs, that might be
rolled into a basic income. If the object were the facilitation of
adjustment to economic change rather than universal anti-poverty, a system
of premiums scaled to salary might be utilized. It would take a lot of work
and planning, but I believe it could be done.
Ed
----- Original Message
-----
Sent: Friday,
December 05, 2003 4:09 PM
Subject: Re:
Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs.
Modern Trade
Ed,
At 14:31 05/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Keith:
- A BI sounds wonderful but it is a theoretical
solution that runs absolutely counter to human nature. Human society
is about relative status. Not only human society, but primate society.
And not only primate society but any social mammalian society. We
really need to understand this first before we can suggest quite new
social structures that will satisfy our basic instincts -- and, if
possible, basic incomes also. But not before then. Extending welfarism
beyond what we have now in most developed countries, desirable though
it might sound (and I don't object to it on moral grounds), is already
running itself into the ground.
Keith, sorry, but you say the damndest things with
utter certainty! Human society is about all kinds of things,
depending very much on what people want it to be and agree that it
should be. Status may be very important in American and European
society, but I've dealt with small societies in northern Canada in which
a person's importance depended on what he or she could do for the
community. There were no contests around who could do the most for
the community and therefore had the most status.
You are misinterpreting me. I didn't say
there always had to be contests! You've just admitted above that some
people have "importance". If that's not status I don't know what is.
Native land claims negotiators were guys who had a better command
of English than most others in the community. But it wasn't a
status thing. It was because they had a better chance of
understanding what the whiteman was saying with his forked tongue.
Regrettably, once a land claim had been negotiated, those societies
became stratified because people had to fill jobs at various levels and
different rates of pay. That's when status began to move in and
longstanding egalitarian principles began to come
apart.
Notions of
fairness are as deeply in our genes as notions of status. (Perhaps not
quite as deeply but certainly deeply enough to be very obvious and
useful.)
I
mentioned the cooperative movement in an earlier posting. In that
movement, people cooperated because it was in the interests of their
communities and themselves to do so. There were no contest around
who was the best cooperator.
Of course, people cooperate. It's one of the chief
characteristics of man. Have I ever written anywhere that they don't?
There are many historic examples of people who gave away
everything to deliberately unstatisfy themselves, people like Francis of
Assisi and Peter Waldo in the 12th and 13th Centuries, who gave away
everything, but for spiritual reasons, not because they were in any kind
of race to the bottom.
I don't want to discuss exceptional examples (sometimes of
very idiosyncratic motives). Economics is about ordinary
people.
So
give us a break and allow us our complexity of
motives.
The
ordinary person also has complexity of motvies and I have never written
otherwise.
And besides, I feel that a Basic Income is entirely feasible
economically and would probably pay off.
Well, you may do so if you wish. I have
have read very few economists who believe this. I have certainly not read
any economists who can show how it can be achieved in a practical way
without a revolt from the middle class.
Any money received by the poor would likely be spent
immediately, and not be put into long term investments. It's a
question of political will. As long as we have neo-con
governments, it's far less likely to happen than Bush's tax breaks for
the rich.
Ed
I imagine that the closest any country has come to a Basic
Income has been the Soviet Union. Even the poorest could live very cheaply
indeed with very low expenditures on food, transport and houswing. Even
the poorest in Stalinist times had savings (but nothing to spend them on).
But the system collapsed nevertheless because there were no goods
available -- except status goods for the nomenclatura (the chocolatura is
what they called them when in shopping mode, I
believe).
Keith
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Keith
Hudson
- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:35 AM
- Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re:
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Cavema n Trade vs. Modern Trade
- Arthur,
- At 16:16 04/12/2003 -0500, you
wrote:
As my colleague who was
born in India says, the first picture of a Canadian child dying with
a distended belly will be the spark that ignites governments to end
this current (farcical) set of activities.
There will be no
starvation in Canada. There will be panhandlers on street
corners and panhandlers using the food banks. Dignity is lost
all around: Those who receive and those who give (although they feel
mighty righteous at the moment.)
We can end poverty.
There can be a basic income. Somehow there is little incentive
to change.
Unfortunately (or not), a Basic
Income would be impossible. All over the western world, taking all the
developed countries into account (that is, they are all welfare states
now to a greater or lesser degree), we have already reached the limits
of taxation. No government could ever be elected on this basis. And no
government could stand for a single day if it proceeded to bring it
about. Not only is there "little incentive", there would be the most
almighty outburst of anger -- not from the rich only, but the
midcdle-class (who do most of the sophisticated work that keeps the
flimsy thing we call civilisation together) and the de-skilled,
badly-educated working class who, in the last few decades, have only
just started to receive an income that satisfies them (while they're
in work). (Even so, this has declined in real terms in the last 20
years in the most developed country -- America.)
Indeed, with the declining birth rate in
developed countries, and the ageing population, we are already
proceeding towards a sort of BI and, as my piece + articles of
yesterday ("The poverty of nation-states") clearly shows,
nation-states cannot afford it -- not for more than a decade or so
longer, anyway, before total collapse ensues (unless the most amazing
reforms are made very soon).
A BI sounds wonderful but it is a theoretical
solution that runs absolutely counter to human nature. Human society
is about relative status. Not only human society, but primate society.
And not only primate society but any social mammalian society. We
really need to understand this first before we can suggest quite new
social structures that will satisfy our basic instincts -- and, if
possible, basic incomes also. But not before then. Extending welfarism
beyond what we have now in most developed countries, desirable though
it might sound (and I don't object to it on moral grounds), is already
running itself into the ground.
Keith
We live in a
democracy. As Amartya Sen said, there is no history of
starvation in democracies.
As I said in my earlier
posting, the current system may be remarkably stable.
arthur
-----Original
Message-----
From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 1:12 PM
To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re:
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern
Trade
So what if all the
righteous middle class people stopped sending their unused canned
goods to the food banks? Well the hungry people might just
vote in a government that promises radical change. Right
now everyone wins: political parties promise change and don't;
middle class feels good about sending food to the food bank; working
poor can supplement their foodstock by heading to the food
bank. The system may be quite stable. Maybe there really
is no wish to change.
arthur
I'm on the Board of a downtown
foodbank and have spent a little time there. The people who
came to pick up food fell into several groups. There were
older men, fifty plus, who had migrated to Ottawa because there was
nothing for them in the valley communities. Their education
and skills were limited, so there was nothing in Ottawa
either. There were young mothers, some with children, who gave
you every impression that they didn't want to be there; they hurried
in and they hurried out. There were a number of cocky young
people, some perhaps students, some living at the "Y", who acted as
though they were indulging the foodbank with their presence.
None of these people acted as though they wanted to change the
system. All they wanted was the food - except for the older
guys who also seemed to want to hang around and talk a
little.
There's an aura of powerlessness
about it. The churches that operate the foodbank know that if
they didn't do it, nobody would. So they keep doing it and
their members keep bringing the cans of tuna and the packages of
pasta. The churches might want to take an advocacy position,
but that might infringe on their charitable status. The
politicians get themselves elected and their promises become mere
promises, not commitments. Most of the people who use the
foodbank hate doing it, but they need to eat. Watching it
without having to depend on it, I wish it would all go away.
But it won't. It's what the world is like and how it will
stay. Perhaps Canadians, as people who live in the developed
world, should feel fortunate that they can afford foodbanks.
Ever so many parts of the world can't, and people
starve.
Ed
-----Original
Message-----
From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2003 9:08 AM
To: Thomas Lunde;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re:
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern
Trade
Thomas, very good posting.
Ontario has just raised the minimum wage from peanuts to
peanuts. Many of the poor are working full time and even
double time, but are still unable to meet the rent or buy enough
food, let alone get their kids the kinds of in toys ("status goods")
that are going around. They can try eating freedom and
justice, but they don't taste very good when you can't make ends
meet.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas
Lunde
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re:
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
They don't need money, Thomas. They
need justice and the freedom to enjoy it.
Harry
Thomas:
In a way, you are right. Being poor
and working with the poor as customers and neighbours let's me see
the many ways the poor are lacking justice. A recent article
in the paper made the outstanding statement that 37% of workers in
Canada are not covered by the Labour Code and laws. When wages
for the poor are kept artificially low, then the only way to
compensate to maintain a survival standard is to work more. Of
course, there are about 4 to 5% who are mentally incapable, or
physically disabled or in the case of single mothers, family
challenged. However, the work more solution has only produced
the working poor, who still have to use food banks and subsidized
housing, if thet can get it. Not only that, as you suggest,
they do not even have the freedom to enjoy what little they
have. I would agree, that justice and freedom would go a long
way to compensating for money - or as you might suggest, make the
earning and spending of money a by product of an effective system of
justice and the freedom and thereby create a surplus to enjoy.
Respectfully,
Thomas
Lunde
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
|
