Re: more from Johns Hopkins
-- Hi Jay et al, Jay, you have missed Hyman's point. True, nature may take thousands of years to regenerate soil, but some people know how to do it much faster. Composting is one very good method. Using ground up rock dust is another. Soil conservation with appropriate irrigation techniques is also important. Jay, you are not opening your eyes to all the possibilities, just like you have been complaining about how other people do not see the world as you do. You have made many good points in describing the problem. However the range of solutions is broader than your world view seems to allow. Dennis Paull Los Altos, California >From: Hyman Blumenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>What are our brains there for? Why the assumption that we must all sit >>like logs and let Nature takes its natural course? With our brains, >>without the totally obsolete concept of Cost, or any other Doctrinaire >>Economic shibboleth, with all our physical talents and technological >>prowess, can we not use our brains and machinery to reestablish the >>fertility of the soil world wide, poste haste? What is the obstacle to >>such a course of action, except by rote stupidity force fed into all our >>minds? > >IMHO, it's mostly a problem of psychological denial -- with a healthy dose >of vested interest to lock it in place. [ Take a look at >http://dieoff.com/page15.htm for Catton's NEW ECOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDINGS ] > >The first step would be for people to admit the problems real (even some >members of this list won't). The second step would be to admit that the >consumer society must now end. > >If we could overcome denial, we might have a chance. But I see it as the >"alcoholic" syndrome: the alcoholic can't overcome denial until he is lying >in the gutter drowning in his own puke. Of course, by then it will be too >late for us (e.g., it takes ~3000 to 12,000 years to develop sufficient >soil to form productive land). > >Jay > > >
Re: more from Johns Hopkins
What are our brains there for? Why the assumption that we must all sit like logs and let Nature takes its natural course? With our brains, without the totally obsolete concept of Cost, or any other Doctrinaire Economic shibboleth, with all our physical talents and technological prowess, can we not use our brains and machinery to reestablish the fertility of the soil world wide, poste haste? What is the obstacle to such a course of action, except by rote stupidity force fed into all our minds? Hyman Steve Kurtz wrote: > > Subject: Re: New paper on Malthus by Catton > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 06:22:57 -1000 > From: "Jay Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Future Work" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Spreading water scarcity is also slowing growth in the harvest. The > >fastest-growing grain import market during the 1990's is North Africa and > >the Middle East. In this region, which stretches from Morocco through > Iran, > > Thanks for the information Thomas. Almost 3 billion people are expected to > face water shortages: > > JOHNS HOPKINS REPORT: WATER AND POPULATION CRISIS LOOMS > > Nearly half a billion people around the world face water shortages > today. By 2025 the number will explode fivefold to 2.8 billion people -- > 35% of the world's projected total of 8 billion people -- according to a > new report from The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health. > TO SEE AN ADVANCE OF THE FULL REPORT GO TO: > http://www.jhuccp.org/popreport/m14edsum.stm > > - > > Moreover, the loss of productive land is more-or-less permanent: > > http://dieoff.com/page114.htm > > "Roughly 43 percent of Earth's terrestrial vegetated surface has diminished > capacity to supply benefits to humanity because of recent, direct impacts of > land use. This represents an ~10 percent reduction in potential direct > instrumental value (PDIV), defined as the potential to yield direct benefits > such as agricultural, forestry, industrial, and medicinal products. If > present trends continue, the global loss of PDIV could reach ~20 percent by > 2020." > > Typical soil formation rates are ~1 cm per 100 to 400 years. At such rates > it takes ~3000 to 12,000 years to develop sufficient soil to form productive > land. > > - > > Which job will experience the greatest growth in the 21'st century? > Gravedigger! > > Jay
Basic Income Page 5
In fact, it would also impose some change on the concept of shareholders equity and share value. For instance, the limit of 50 million might impose a severe dividend restriction if the Company has issued too many shares or the actual value of the Company is excessive creating a restricted dividend. These though would be applicable to all and new effective investment values would develop in the market that would still allow the creativity of the capitalistic system to work effectively. Now, between a flat tax and the influx of surplus accumulation, the economies of a Basic Income will not exceed and will probably reduce the amount now paid by everyone in taxes while accomplishing the creation of a system that has a ceiling and floor that is acceptable to 99.95% of the worlds population. As a secondary effect, it will have the ability to constantly replenish the demand side of the economy with money without restricting the accumulation side of the economy in any significant degree. So this is my answer to those who are offended by the concept of a Basic Income. As part of our evolution as a species, race, nationality, grouping or individual human, I believe it is possible to retain all the benefits we have created throughout our history and with a small adjustment, that could find favour with 99.95% of all humans, improve through redistribution the lives of all, to the detriment of none.
Basic Income Page 4
So what is the truth? Of course it would be reassuring if I knew it and could write it out simply and expose all the distortions. I assure you that I do not have that ability. What I can share with you though is my questions and to some degree, my answers, without the hubris of insisting that they are true. What question could I pose that would find agreement with 99.95% of the worlds population - what answer would become self evident from the proper question, for I believe that the question is more important than the answer. My question would be, "Do you want the most you can possibly have and still allow others to have enough for some of their wants and needs? The world has 6 billion people, Im told and .05% of 6 billion is a very small figure and yet even that small percentage amounts to 30 million people. (This is equal to the population of Canada.) I am optimist enough to believe that everyone except 30 million would answer "yes" to the above question, for who could want for more than they can possible have and still deny another a pittance. This leads to a following question, "What system could we devise that reduced no one, encouraged everyone (less 30 million) and provided a Basic Income sufficient for food, shelter, cleanliness and the possible opportunity of exploring some of their desires to every person within a nation. (or on the whole planet) My answer is simple, "Limit wealth!" Just as a Basic Income would provide a floor for all the peoples in nations, so would a limit on wealth impose a ceiling on personal accumulation. But wait, didnt the first question indicate that "the most you can possibly have" as the statement you would answer "yes" too? Indeed, it did. So now let us ask if there could be a relationship between the meaning "have" and "use"? For I think we might agree that "to have" what you cant possibly "use" is not necessary. So if - in this proposal I make regarding the reason for a Basic Income we can, for now, equate "have" and "use" as synonymous, then the next question is, "How much, in terms of wealth can you use?" So now we come to crux of my inquiry. How can we allow the most talented, the most acquisitive, the most creative, the most entrepreneurial, to be motivated to their maximum ability? I believe the answer is to pick some number as a dollar ceiling for wealth accumulation that far exceeds what a person can "use" in terms of goods and services. Let me pick the number that came to my mind as a response to that inquiry. It is 50 million dollars of wealth. I define wealth as the market valuation of any good or service or property or money that a person has command of and has a monetary value. So a person, i.e. family could own a 5 million dollar house, a 10 million dollar boat, a thirty million dollar airplane, five million in cash and other possessions as his personal wealth and surely, 99.95% of us would agree that is sufficient for anyone - no matter what their achievements. What then happens to the excessive wealth, that amount over 50 million dollars? It would be remitted to the state for redistribution through a Basic Income. Now there is one other extension that I would add to this solution and that is that Corporations be limited to 50 million in profit per year so that those institutions that make excessive profits such as, banks who make a billion dollars a quarter would remit their excess profit back into the demand side - rather than the accumulation side of the equation as a methodology of a constant rebalancing of the economic system. The difference between individuals and Corporations is that on individuals, it is their wealth as defined by "any good or service or property or money over which they have command", while for Corporations, it is applied only to their profit. For both these evaluations, we could state a yearly evaluation. This might lead to the situation that the individual has reduced his wealth through consumption over a years time to 45 million dollars and is able to engage himself and re-earn the additional 5 million he has consumed over the next year or following years.
Basic Income Page 3
So now, we finally come to the point of this essay. As I and others of like mind, speak of the idea of providing a Basic Income for everyone so that we can eliminate poverty, redistribute wealth, redirect human activities into channels other than those motivated by profit, we run into a most curious and strong resistance from those who are currently winning in this society through having paid work or profitable businesses. Behind their objections lies this idea that everyone should work and then everyone will then have a profit and because it works for them, no matter how unpleasant it may be personally, it is projected as the solution for everyone and any other solution is considered unthinkable. So then, the idea of a Basic Income invokes considerable resistance from those who work. The initial assumption is that those who would receive it do not want to work, will not work and/or want someone else to support them. It is a reflexive action based on their experience of feeling overtaxed, of carrying more than their fair share and to that degree, they are right. Secondly, work has become so stressful, so intense, so demanding that the thought of others receiving money for not working appears as a great injustice. These are some of the gut reactions of great intensity that arise from their perceptions formed through experience, common knowledge of peers, and the reasoning of common sense. In fact these reactions are so strong, they literally form a barrier to learning. The assumptions these workers hold seem so rational, so true, so self evident that the question of questioning them seems absurd. Not to be considered. These workers comprise what can be called the middle class, the majority of those who exchange time and skills for money, of which they never seem to have enough to fulfill all the desires that our society offers them through advertising, technology and availability. And while they dutifully get out of bed in the morning and prepare for their days tasks, they are aware that there are others who do not have the discipline of the workplace, who they assume are lying abed, living off their hard labour and indulging themselves with drugs, alcohol, sex and other entertainments which the worker feels denied from pursuing because of their responsibilities - which they take seriously while perceiving that others do not. Is this the truth? To say yes, requires no further thought, no examination of any reality, no study of money, economics, taxation, wealth distribution or citizen equity or the validity of some political decisions. And because there is some truth in their perceptions, it becomes generalized into making all their assumptions seem true. Powerful elements of society support this viewpoint. The Christian work ethic of the Protestants, the concepts of self sufficiency of the political right, the image of success as the reward of hard work, the media who find stories in exposing the frailties of the poor. And there is a small minority of the poor who do reflect the sins of expecting others to take care of them and of misusing the aid that is given to them. There are powerful cultural truths such as balancing the budget that provide a rational for denying any redistribution of wealth to the lower portions of society. The concept that everyone has a responsibility to take care of themselves and their family. The sense that helping only creates more dependency until it becomes generational. The belief that what I earn, I should get to keep as it is the product of my labour and this is unfairly taxed and taken away from me, the producer. That Companys should have lower taxes because they create jobs. The Darwinian rational that the world is evolutionary and that only the fittest, the strongest, the most intelligent deserve to survive.. And so the great bulk of workers agree with some or all of the above truths, as perceived by them, to make decisions to not learn, not investigate, not question in new and different ways. The conventional answers are so convenient, so believed by all as to assume an almost biblical truth and to question that truth has an aspect of heresy attached to it. Why should they begin to question what all know to be true? Especially when there is some obvious truth within all those reasons. And that, of course, is the real reason to question, to determine the difference between what is true and what is not.
Three articles from Martin Khor (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 17:14:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Weissman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Multiple recipients of list STOP-IMF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Three articles from Martin Khor Dear Friends: The following are three articles on the financial crisis. Two relate to the need for foreign exchange and capital controls. The other is a general article analysing recent developments, especially in Asia. With best regards, Martin Khor (director, Third World Network, [EMAIL PROTECTED] or fax 60-4- 2264505). KRUGMAN CALLS ON ASIAN COUNTRIES TO IMPOSE FOREGN EXCHANGE CONTROLS. Report by Martin Khor, Third World Network, Penang, Malaysia ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or fax 60-4-2264505). Date: 30 August 1998 The prominent American economist Paul Krugman has launched a high-profile campaign to get East Asian governments to introduce foreign exchange controls as the only way to get out of their economic crisis. Speaking last week (26 August) in Singapore at a seminar organised by Strategic Intelligence, an exclusive business leaders group, Krugman said foreign exchange controls of the type in place in China could be the answer to get troubled Asian economies back on track. Such controls would break the link between domestic interest rates and exchange rates, thus allowing governments to lower interest rates without sending their curencies into another downward spiral. Krugman is an internationally renowned mainstream economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a believer in free trade, and no wild-eyed radical. So when he made what he himself called the "radical proposal" of capital controls, he was almost apologetic and visibly pained for doing so. And that made his case even more persuasive. Whilst in Singapore, Krugman also gave interviews on CNBC cable television, and to a local business newspaper. In the same week, an article by him on the same topic was also published as a cover story in Fortune magazine. Krugman's advocacy of capital controls has already sparked a discussion in Malaysia and is likely to generate wide interest and debate in the Asian region. This is because some of the region's economists and policy makers have been attracted to the possibility of reintroducing some regulations and controls on capital flows to reduce financial volatility, but had been constrained from advocating it as capital control has till now been a "taboo" subject. This is the result of the dominance of the ideology of international agencies such as the International Monetray Fund and the Group of 7 countries that insist on free capital flows as a prerequisite for modern and emerging economies, and also as a condition for IMF-coordinated rescue loans. Krugman is certainly not the first person to advocate capital controls as a part of the solution to the Asian financial crisis. Indeed he is, as he admits, a new convert. But he is such a prominent part of the economics establishment that his proposal can carry enough weight to break the taboo against considering foreign exchange controls as a serious policy option. According to a report in the Malaysian daily, New Straits Times, Krugman in his seminar address said that Asian economies were reaching the end of the road and it was time to "do something radical", including implementing foreign exchange controls since pressures on the Asian economies were too high. He said that at the initial stage of the Asian crisis he thought the affected counties were following the right strategy, "but in the last few months I began to wonder whether Asia is on the right track." Krugman added that after having gone to the IMF and finding that its policies (which he called Plan A) did not work, it was time now for Asian countries to adopt what he termed "Plan B," which comprised foreign exchange control. He noted that China, which had not been fully caught in the regional crisis, had currency controls through the inconvertible capital account. "Chile too has capital inflow control and that is a good idea," he added. Krugman also said that reading articles about the inefficiencies of Asian economies "makes my blood boil." "The rhetoric now is reminiscent of 1932 in the US when there were calls to liquidate everything. But liquidation is not going to pay off unless there is expansion in demand." During a TV interview on the CNBC programme Asia in Crisis last Saturday (29 August), Krugman explained how he came to the "radical proposal" of Plan B. "We tried Plan A (the IMF prescription of austerity)...but it didn't work, then what do you do? It's hard for the IMF and the US Treasury to admit it was wrong and to do something different. But the time has come. "Why did I become a radical? I didn't want to be. But we are in a trap." Krugman added: "We cannot cut interest rates because the currency may fall and we can't get more IMF funds because the IMF didn't have enough.
FW Survey Foreword 1998
http://www.icftu.org/english/turights/survey1998/etusurvey1998Foreword.html -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Title: Survey Foreword 1998 ANNUAL SURVEY OF VIOLATIONS OF TRADE UNION RIGHTS - 1998 FOREWORD Fifty years after the International Labour Organisation (ILO) adopted Convention 87 establishing freedom of association in international law, this right is still being violated with impunity on every continent. Even more disturbing is that the trend which emerges from this 1998 survey of trade union rights violations around the world is one of increasing repression, provoked in part by trade union action to denounce the harmful effects of the globalisation of the economy. The rapid spread of export processing zones across Africa combined with the social impact of structural adjustment plans led trade unions in many African countries to go on the offensive against the ever greater exploitation of the workforce as well as, in many countries, growing delays in the payment of wages. Faced with mounting discontent, most governments refused to negotiate with workers’ representatives and some, such as Nigeria’s military dictatorship, simply stepped up their repression. Repression has also continued in Latin America where neoliberal policies have accentuated inequalities and proved totally ineffective in solving the problems of unemployment and underemployment. Colombia remains the continent’s black spot. 156 trade unionists were killed there in 1997, many the victims of paramilitary groups, some of which operate hand in hand with the security forces of the Colombian government. A lot of these murders took place while trade unions were in negotiation. And virtually all have remained unpunished. The dramatic fall of the Asian tigers, which only yesterday were seen as the motors of world growth, represents the most crushing defeat in 1997 of the advocates of unbridled capitalism. Because they dared warn of this crisis, because they dared point to the frailty of economies built on speculation, nepotism and corruption, many trade unionists found themselves behind bars. In countries such as Indonesia, where the independent trade union movement remains suppressed, the mass dismissals and widespread poverty caused by the crisis sowed the seeds of an unprecedented social explosion. Incapable of solving the unemployment crisis affecting more than 18 million people in Europe, some governments have shown themselves to be more adept at unravelling their social welfare systems or further curtailing trade union rights. In the transition countries of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as in the countries of the former Soviet Union, the payment of wage arrears has become one of the principal trade union demands. At a time when all too many are still refusing to acknowledge the link between world trade and social rights, our survey confirms the impact of the globalisation of the economy on the lives and rights of workers, as well as on the activities of the organisations whose job it is to make their voices heard. As national boundaries become blurred, rules established at the national level, often after years of social struggle, are becoming as irrelevant as they are ineffective. In this context, freedom of association, established by the ILO as a universal right, has never been so crucial to working people. As is the need to include social clauses in international trade agreements, in order to ensure that globalisation furthers the cause of social justice, and benefits those who create the wealth. It is driven by this cause that men and women trade unionists daily continue their struggle, often risking their freedom, even their lives. Their courage should inspire all those fighting for a fairer world. Bill Jordan General Secretary The violations of trade union rights reported in this survey took place in 1997. The survey was written by Kathryn Hodder of the ICFTU Trade Union Rights Department and edited by Bernie Russell. Back to Main Menu of ICFTU Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights - 1998
Basic Income Page 1
A Message to the Middle Class on the Financing of: The Family Basic Income Proposal by Thomas Lunde August 27, 1998 There once was a race of people of high achievement who believed that the value of their Civilization arose from their relationship with the Sun. They made the Sun their God and sought prosperity in terms of favourable conditions for crops by devising ways to please this God. What started, perhaps by coincidence, was the idea that the Sun required human blood as a sign of commitment and loyalty to the blessings which this God could bestow. In time, human sacrifice became accepted as the highest form of worship and priests of this idea would select sons and daughters to be led to a stone altar from which their heart would be ripped from their still living chests. Anyone, parents, philosophers, brothers and sisters who might have felt this was erroneous were punished as they violated the accepted wisdom of tradition. Of course, there seemed much truth in these ghastly practices and for hundreds of years this civilization grew and prospered and they took this success to mean that their understanding of reality was right and it was just a matter of sacrificing more to achieve more. Perfectly logical! In fact any other ideas to explain the success of this civilization were considered irrational and illogical. This race was the Aztecs of ancient Mexico. Today, we view those ideas as cruel, evil, and the result of faulty thinking based on poor assumptions. And yet, with those ideas, a mighty civilization was built and sustained, great works of art produced, impressive feats of agriculture and irrigation developed, stable government and systems of law were successful, armies motivated individuals to sacrifice their lives to defend or expand these ideas. What is our Sun God? What erroneous idea have we extrapolated, perhaps by coincidence, into our form of worship, our truth, which perhaps, is blinding us and causing us as a culture, a civilization, to excesses that will become the seeds of our downfall? I will suggest it is the concept of the "work ethic" which has become our religion and to which we sacrifice our young in terms of demanding excessive sacrifice to prepare for the advancement of our civilization. Education, which used to have as the function, the development of our reasoning and thinking facilities has been redirected into vocational training to feed the God of Work. Our religion is the work ethic, our God is profit, money is our faith and those who currently profit are the members of the Church. Our high priests are the rich, our politicians and all those who profit from an increase in wages or rental income, dividends and business profits. And hell is poverty to which we give a token tribute and avoid those who have it like the plague. As I view this world, that has the capacity of overproduction, incredible wealth and health, I find the most atrocious ideas being defended. The concept that everyone should work, that work defines the citizen and those who dont or cant work must be punished, sacrificed, ostracized and marginalized, even though our factories, our farmers fields, our mines and forests are producing in great abundance. Enough abundance for all. Of course, everyone works, what is valued though is paid work, work that is done for profit and that is sustained by the concept of a market system of exchange. Housework, thinking, problem solving, cleanliness, child rearing, spiritual practices are not considered work in our limited perceptions, and because no profit can be made, this type of work is not considered work. Everyone works! The act of living can be said to be the act of working, we eat, we sleep, we dance and talk, we are constantly engaged in activities of the body and mind and yet in our society only certain kinds of activities are considered work - the rest discounted. And as a society, we have decided that only activities of a certain kind can be rewarded with our medium of exchange - that illusion we all choose to believe in called money - that we are led into falsehoods of reality.
Basic Income Intro
To all FW'ers: I will be leaving for Amsterdam in a couple of days to present a paper I wrote entitled "The Family Basic Income Proposal" at the BIEN Conference. The genesis of this paper came from a challenge by a FW participant arising from some comments I made in a thread called "Some Hard Questions on Basic Income" last February. I tried posting my rebuttal to the challenge as an attachment several times but for some reason the server did not put the post through. After several months, I privately posted it to several list members asking for feedback but received consideration from only one individual. I then became aware of BIEN, a European organization that has been exploring the concepts of a Basic Income in Europe and of their upcoming Convention in Sept. I submitted my paper and it was accepted and I have been invited to present it. This summer, I had the opportunity to travel across Canada for 6 weeks and visit friends and family. In each instance I tried to open conversations on the concept of a Basic Income. In each and every conversation, the idea was ridiculed and conversely I had trouble explaining the whole concept because in conversation, it is difficult to fully develop a complex idea. Out of the frustrations of those conversations, I feel I learned a lot. Most important, I learned that those I spoke to, a farmer, a small business owner, a lab technician, a bus driver, an artist, a housewife, a government employee, that each was totally indoctrinated with the concept that work was so important that the thought of giving all Canadians the security of a Basic Income was basically unthinkable to them. Out of the anger my questions and explanations my subject had generated, I have come to a tentative conclusion that until the "middle class", primarily those who work by selling their time and skills can be convinced of the need for a massive change in the redistribution of income, the concept of a Basic Income will not become a reality. I found myself sitting down and writing a rebuttal to this attitude which I called "A Message to the Middle Class on the Financing of: The Family Basic Income Proposal". It is a long essay but sometimes it takes some time to develop a new viewpoint. I am going to post this by E Mail tonight in 5 separate posts, each representing a page of the complete essay. Today, I was investigating for the first time our new Web Page and it was with some surprise, that I read about BES, a Conference held in Ottawa on June 3 this year to explore the concept of "Basic Economic Security" for Canadians. Many of the questions raised at this Conference were questions that I wrestled with in putting together my paper. I had to make choices and develop an economic explanation of how my choices could be financed. The choices I made are not necessarily "right", only the choices that I made but they are a start from which a critique or support could rally around and as such, I believe they have value. Because my circle of friends do not include "experts" and my time and financial resources are very limited, there may very well be glaring errors in my assumptions. If so, I will try to accept criticism gracefully. I plan to put my original paper on the list in E Mail format on Thursday, allowing for some time for response to my first paper. This message is to inform those who may choose not invest the time to just file or delete the ten or so posts that I will be sending under the Subject heading - Basic Income. So, let the adventure begin. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Basic Income Page 2
This is our Sun God, it is called "Profit". And our priests are those who reflect the Gods blessing. And we follow them, for they have convinced us that without work and responsibility we cannot be part of the chosen, that we are deficient in some way, in terms of ambition or energy or skills. In fact, we have become so hopeless that it is useless to try and help us. Better the harsh lessons of nature the priests degree, put their back against the wall and let them learn self sufficiency or perish. If we ignore their handicaps, they will rise to the occasion, sure it will hurt, but better them than some part of my productivity. This then is our Sun God, it is called "Profit". And our priests are those who employ, market, promote that which makes them profit. And so we value a whole host of activities based on the assumption that they are good because they produce a "profit". We determine value, not based on the reality of virtues but on the exploitation of opportunity. I will give two brief examples: As I sit here and write, my friend Kathy, with whom I share a common interest as we both have two children aged 8 & 11 who have been friends since birth. Bright, creative, healthy and loving, and we and our mates have invested major portions of our life to achieve the possibility of these qualities they exhibit. At the moment, they are dancing in the living room to a popular group known as the Spice Girls and having a great time. Kathy stopped by and asked me if I had ever listened to the words of the song playing and I admitted I hadnt. "They are all about sex and fucking," she said and the vulgarity of her language shocked me into considering why this music was available to our children. This music is available because it is profitable to the group, the record company, the store owner who have no consideration for the effects of these lyrics, only that they can be packaged and sold for a profit. Each of these actors in the chain of production and distribution are doing it because it is a commodity that will produce a profit for themselves in terms of employment or corporate profit. If my 11 year old becomes curious and experiments with sex and has a child, they assume no responsibility that the activities that reward them may destroy the life of a very young woman. Secondly, as I drove across Canada with my children, I noticed that the majority of prairie farmers yards exhibited lawns of two and three acres - they looked like miniature golf courses, they were beautiful. When I got to my cousins farm, he had five acres of mowed lawn and every member of the family took turns riding the little tractor lawn mower around for hours to achieve this lawn. "How much do one of those cost?" I asked. "The cheapest is around two thousand but you can get them up to ten thousand dollars." my cousin replied. Now you have to step back and ask how this happens. Why would a civilization expend such incredible sums in machinery, fuel, and labour on something as non-productive as a lawn? I would maintain it is because of advertising, which creates the image of a large beautiful lawn as an attribute of wealth and culture. And because it is profitable to a group of actors who bear no responsibility for the wasting of resources used to create this false illusion. They create the machinery and the illusion for their personal gain, disregarding the greater effects such as the depletion of petroleum reserves, the pollution of our environment with engines that have no pollution requirements, the use of minerals which may be essential for future generations, the use of energy to mine, smelt, distribute the raw resources needed for production. All these good reasons for not having a five acre lawn are disregarded in the pursuit of profit. In fact, not only are they disregarded, there is a deliberate attempt to ridicule them as enemies to full employment, (the work ethic) and a healthy economy. (Profits, the equivalence of the Aztecs good crops) And when the crops, Im sorry, profits fail, then it is time to scapegoat those outside the established religion, the poor, the lazy, those who for whatever reason do not worship or are not allowed to worship in the religion of work.
Basic Income
A Message to the Middle Class on the Financing of: The Family Basic Income Proposal by Thomas Lunde August 27, 1998 There once was a race of people of high achievement who believed that the value of their Civilization arose from their relationship with the Sun. They made the Sun their God and sought prosperity in terms of favourable conditions for crops by devising ways to please this God. What started, perhaps by coincidence, was the idea that the Sun required human blood as a sign of commitment and loyalty to the blessings which this God could bestow. In time, human sacrifice became accepted as the highest form of worship and priests of this idea would select sons and daughters to be led to a stone altar from which their heart would be ripped from their still living chests. Anyone, parents, philosophers, brothers and sisters who might have felt this was erroneous were punished as they violated the accepted wisdom of tradition. Of course, there seemed much truth in these ghastly practices and for hundreds of years this civilization grew and prospered and they took this success to mean that their understanding of reality was right and it was just a matter of sacrificing more to achieve more. Perfectly logical! In fact any other ideas to explain the success of this civilization were considered irrational and illogical. This race was the Aztecs of ancient Mexico. Today, we view those ideas as cruel, evil, and the result of faulty thinking based on poor assumptions. And yet, with those ideas, a mighty civilization was built and sustained, great works of art produced, impressive feats of agriculture and irrigation developed, stable government and systems of law were successful, armies motivated individuals to sacrifice their lives to defend or expand these ideas. What is our Sun God? What erroneous idea have we extrapolated, perhaps by coincidence, into our form of worship, our truth, which perhaps, is blinding us and causing us as a culture, a civilization, to excesses that will become the seeds of our downfall? I will suggest it is the concept of the "work ethic" which has become our religion and to which we sacrifice our young in terms of demanding excessive sacrifice to prepare for the advancement of our civilization. Education, which used to have as the function, the development of our reasoning and thinking facilities has been redirected into vocational training to feed the God of Work. Our religion is the work ethic, our God is profit, money is our faith and those who currently profit are the members of the Church. Our high priests are the rich, our politicians and all those who profit from an increase in wages or rental income, dividends and business profits. And hell is poverty to which we give a token tribute and avoid those who have it like the plague. As I view this world, that has the capacity of overproduction, incredible wealth and health, I find the most atrocious ideas being defended. The concept that everyone should work, that work defines the citizen and those who dont or cant work must be punished, sacrificed, ostracized and marginalized, even though our factories, our farmers fields, our mines and forests are producing in great abundance. Enough abundance for all. Of course, everyone works, what is valued though is paid work, work that is done for profit and that is sustained by the concept of a market system of exchange. Housework, thinking, problem solving, cleanliness, child rearing, spiritual practices are not considered work in our limited perceptions, and because no profit can be made, this type of work is not considered work. Everyone works! The act of living can be said to be the act of working, we eat, we sleep, we dance and talk, we are constantly engaged in activities of the body and mind and yet in our society only certain kinds of activities are considered work - the rest discounted. And as a society, we have decided that only activities of a certain kind can be rewarded with our medium of exchange - that illusion we all choose to believe in called money - that we are led into falsehoods of reality.
Basic Income
To all FW'ers: I will be leaving for Amsterdam in a couple of days to present a paper I wrote entitled "The Family Basic Income Proposal" at the BIEN Conference. The genesis of this paper came from a challenge by a FW participant arising from some comments I made in a thread called "Some Hard Questions on Basic Income" last February. I tried posting my rebuttal to the challenge as an attachment several times but for some reason the server did not put the post through. After several months, I privately posted it to several list members asking for feedback but received consideration from only one individual. I then became aware of BIEN, a European organization that has been exploring the concepts of a Basic Income in Europe and of their upcoming Convention in Sept. I submitted my paper and it was accepted and I have been invited to present it. This summer, I had the opportunity to travel across Canada for 6 weeks and visit friends and family. In each instance I tried to open conversations on the concept of a Basic Income. In each and every conversation, the idea was ridiculed and conversely I had trouble explaining the whole concept because in conversation, it is difficult to fully develop a complex idea. Out of the frustrations of those conversations, I feel I learned a lot. Most important, I learned that those I spoke to, a farmer, a small business owner, a lab technician, a bus driver, an artist, a housewife, a government employee, that each was totally indoctrinated with the concept that work was so important that the thought of giving all Canadians the security of a Basic Income was basically unthinkable to them. Out of the anger my questions and explanations my subject had generated, I have come to a tentative conclusion that until the "middle class", primarily those who work by selling their time and skills can be convinced of the need for a massive change in the redistribution of income, the concept of a Basic Income will not become a reality. I found myself sitting down and writing a rebuttal to this attitude which I called "A Message to the Middle Class on the Financing of: The Family Basic Income Proposal". It is a long essay but sometimes it takes some time to develop a new viewpoint. I am going to post this by E Mail tonight in 5 separate posts, each representing a page of the complete essay. Today, I was investigating for the first time our new Web Page and it was with some surprise, that I read about BES, a Conference held in Ottawa on June 3 this year to explore the concept of "Basic Economic Security" for Canadians. Many of the questions raised at this Conference were questions that I wrestled with in putting together my paper. I had to make choices and develop an economic explanation of how my choices could be financed. The choices I made are not necessarily "right", only the choices that I made but they are a start from which a critique or support could rally around and as such, I believe they have value. Because my circle of friends do not include "experts" and my time and financial resources are very limited, there may very well be glaring errors in my assumptions. If so, I will try to accept criticism gracefully. I plan to put my original paper on the list in E Mail format on Thursday, allowing for some time for response to my first paper. This message is to inform those who may choose not invest the time to just file or delete the ten or so posts that I will be sending under the Subject heading - Basic Income. So, let the adventure begin. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: more from Johns Hopkins
From: Hyman Blumenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >What are our brains there for? Why the assumption that we must all sit >like logs and let Nature takes its natural course? With our brains, >without the totally obsolete concept of Cost, or any other Doctrinaire >Economic shibboleth, with all our physical talents and technological >prowess, can we not use our brains and machinery to reestablish the >fertility of the soil world wide, poste haste? What is the obstacle to >such a course of action, except by rote stupidity force fed into all our >minds? IMHO, it's mostly a problem of psychological denial -- with a healthy dose of vested interest to lock it in place. [ Take a look at http://dieoff.com/page15.htm for Catton's NEW ECOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDINGS ] The first step would be for people to admit the problems real (even some members of this list won't). The second step would be to admit that the consumer society must now end. If we could overcome denial, we might have a chance. But I see it as the "alcoholic" syndrome: the alcoholic can't overcome denial until he is lying in the gutter drowning in his own puke. Of course, by then it will be too late for us (e.g., it takes ~3000 to 12,000 years to develop sufficient soil to form productive land). Jay
Re: Basic Income
From: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >This summer, I had the opportunity to travel across Canada for 6 weeks and >visit friends and family. In each instance I tried to open conversations on >the concept of a Basic Income. In each and every conversation, the idea was >ridiculed and conversely I had trouble explaining the whole concept because >in conversation, it is difficult to fully develop a complex idea. Out of "Basic Income" is an idea whose time has come. It's one of the keys to solving our environmental crisis. I support "basic Income" 100%. Jay
FW: MONTHLY REMINDER - PLEASE SAVE THIS
-- From: S. Lerner To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca Subject: MONTHLY REMINDER - PLEASE SAVE THIS Date: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 8:15AM *FUTUREWORK LISTS MONTHLY REMINDER* FUTUREWORK: Redesigning Work, Income Distribution, Education FUTUREWORK is an international e-mail forum for discussion of how to deal with the new realities created by economic globalization and technological change. Basic changes are occurring in the nature of work in all industrialized countries. Information technology has hastened the advent of the global economic village. Jobs that workers at all skill levels in developed countries once held are now filled by smart machines and/or in low-wage countries. Contemporary rhetoric proclaims the need for ever-escalating competition, leaner and meaner ways of doing business, a totally *flexible* workforce, jobless growth. What would a large permanent reduction in the number of secure, adequately-waged jobs mean for communities, families and individuals? This is not being adequately discussed, nor are the implications for income distribution and education. Even less adequately addressed are questions of how to take back control of these events, how to turn technological change into the opportunity for a richer life rather than the recipe for a bladerunner society. Our objective in creating this list is to involve as many people as possible in redesigning for the new realities. We hope that this list will help to move these issues to a prominent place on public and political agendas worldwide. The FUTUREWORK lists are hosted by the Faculty of Environmental Studies at the University of Waterloo. To subscribe to FUTUREWORK (unmoderated) and/or FW-L (moderated) send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] saying subscribe futurework YourE-MailAddress subscribe FW-L YourE-MailAddress NOTE: To get the digest (batch) form of either list, subscribe to futurework-digest or fw-l-digest. To post directly to the lists (once you are subscribed), send your message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please include 'FW' or 'FW-L'in the subject line of your message, so that subscribers know the mail is from someone on the list. FUTUREWORK, the unmoderated list, is for discussion and debate. Subscribers often add a topic/thread identifier on the subject line (e.g. 'FW downward mobility') to focus discussion--a very good idea--but this is essentially an open list. FW-L, the moderated list, serves as a bulletin-board to post notices about recommended books, articles, other documents, other Net sites, conferences, even job openings, etc. relevant to the future of work and to the roles of education, community and other factors in that future. It serves subscribers as a calmer place to post andbrowse. Sally Lerner and Arthur Cordell serve as co-moderators for FW-L. Normally, posts to this moderated list should be limited to one screen. Archives for both lists are/will be available via the FW WWW Home Page (under construction) at the URL/location http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/Research/FW If you ever want to remove yourself from one of these mailing lists, you can send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe futurework (or other list name) YourE-mailAddress If you ever need to get in contact with the owner of the list, (if you have trouble unsubscribing, or have questions about the list itself) send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is the general rule for most mailing lists when you need to contact a human. We look foward to meeting you on the FUTUREWORK and FW-L lists. Sally LernerArthur Cordell [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (ICT-JOBS): ICT and corporations (fwd)
Dear Michael: While I have been navel gazing on some abstractions, I have let slide comments on some very good posts, yours among them. Robert Vazola has raised three very interesting questions which did not receive much feedback. -Original Message- From: Michael Gurstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: futurework <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: ict-4-led <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: August 21, 1998 7:27 PM Subject: (ICT-JOBS): ICT and corporations (fwd) > > >I'd like to take this final opportunity to raise three points on the ICT >and jobs issue: > >1. New technology or intermediate technology? It was E.F.Schumacher who >raised powerful arguments in favor of intermediate -- what are now called >appropriate -- technologies, those which improved on current ways of doing >things, but which created more jobs per unit investment than the latest >technologies. I believe Schumacher's arguments continue to carry powerful >force, although his message has been eclipsed by the current hype over >ICT, mostly by those who will earn a lot of money from it. > >Schumacher noted the "law of the disappearing middle", in which >middle-level technologies tended to disappear, leaving one with no choice >but the very old, or the very new. When I went to out to buy a black&white >monitor last week (which I preferred because they were more comfortable to >my eyes -- not to mention cheaper), I couldn't find any. They sell only >color monitors now. Today, I asked around for 30-pin memory chips to >upgrade my 386, and I couldn't find any either. Neither do they sell the >older non-PCI video cards anymore. So, I can't upgrade my old computer; I >have to buy the latest Pentium (and new software, presumably -- no 486s on >the market either). When my trusty 386 goes (no spare parts anymore...) I >either have to buy a Pentium or go back to the typewriter. > >The whole technology, it seems, was designed so you have to replace all >your hardware every several years or so. Very wasteful for us users, but >very profitable for the seller. Thomas: This is one of the by products of capitalism called growth. This list has commented many times on the concept of durability as value over innovativeness. Business cannot listen to this message because it implies a trend towards a steady state economy which is the anti-thesis of the capitalistic model. Wait until we run out of something like oil and all the experts will be there talking about conservation and durability. > >Which leads me to my second point. > >2. Should corporations control ICT? The moderators' summaries as well as >many of the panellists have hardly touched on the issue whether the >responsibility for ICT direction, design and deployment should be left to >corporations. This has been assumed -- to use Michael Gursteins' analogy >-- as "default" by some, and as "hardwired" by others. > >This is a major omission. Our analytical lenses should focus on >corporations, particularly those huge enough that their decisions and >actions impact on millions of people and on whole populations. Considering >that corporations have come under increasing scrutiny for their role in >ecological problems as well as in the current Asian financial crisis, and >considering that they have accumulated over the decades vast powers that >now exceed those of many states, their hold on ICT should not be taken for >granted. > >Other groups have raised more fundamental and possibly valid issues >against the corporation itself as a social institution. While it is >theoretically accountable to its stockholders, who are themselves members >of the public, the practice has become very different, as the development >of the stock market has further diluted stockholder interest in corporate >decision-making, and as institutional investors have become major >corporate stockholders themselves. > >Thus the global corporations of today have become increasingly detached >from human concerns and accountability, responsible only to themselves and >to the single measure of corporate fitness: how well they maximize >profits. While human beings can respond to emotions like love, pity, >guilt, fear, etc., corporations only respond to the profit-maximizing >motive (or what in human terms is called greed). I can neither upgrade nor >repair my PC because it is more profitable for corporations that I buy >myself a new Pentium instead. Thousands lose work because it is more >profitable to replace them with machines. > >I am raising this issue on this list: have corporations grown too large >and too powerful for the good of humanity? Shouldn't we take steps to >curtail their size and power -- particularly their control over very >powerful technologies including ICT -- and to subsume them under >human-scale, national- and community-determined goals. I question not only >"hardwiring" corporate control over ICT and other aspects of our lives, >but also accepting such control as the "default" mode of society. Thomas: Corporations have be
Re: New paper on Malthus by Catton
-Original Message- From: Jay Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: August 31, 1998 7:01 PM Subject: New paper on Malthus by Catton >Malthus: More Relevant Than Ever >by William R. Catton, Jr. >August 1998 > >http://www.npg.org/forums/catton_malthus.htm Dear Jay: Having once again read suggested URL and found it challenging, I thought I would copy a little information from Vital Signs, a publication by World Watch that gives some "hard" evidence to support the recommended essay. Grain Harvest Up Slightly by Lester Brown Page 28 The big news on the grain front is the apparent loss of momentum in the growth of the world harvest during the 1990's. Even though the 11 million hectares of cropland that were idled under U.S. farm commodity programs in 1990 (1.6% of the world grainland total) have been returned to production, the world grain harvest has grown barely 1% a year since 1990. The backlog of unused agricultural technology that farmers can use to raise yields appears to be shrinking. For some farmers, such as U.S. wheat growers and Japanese rice growers, there are simply not many unused technologies available to raise yields. Even farmers in some developing countries, such as wheat growers in Mexico and rice growers in South Korea, are having difficulty sustaining the rise in yields. Spreading water scarcity is also slowing growth in the harvest. The fastest-growing grain import market during the 1990's is North Africa and the Middle East. In this region, which stretches from Morocco through Iran, demand is driven by record population growth rates and by oil-generated gains in incomes. On the supply side, efforts to expand production in the region are being hampered by water scarcity. In 1997, the water required to produce the grain imported into this region was roughly equal to the annual flow of the Nile. The bottom line is that the world's farmers are now struggling to keep up with the growth in demand. Despite unprecedented advances in technology in fields usch as computers, telecommunications, and space exploration, the ancient struggle to make it to the next harvest is emerging as a major preoccupation of governments in many developing countries. (end of quote) This cheerful analysis should be front page news every day. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde PS: The thought occurs that with the major flooding in China, Japan, Korea plus the latent effects of El Nino in North America with climate changes and weird weather that the 1999 World Watch publication may be much grimmer. >
Re: New paper on Malthus by Catton
From: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Spreading water scarcity is also slowing growth in the harvest. The >fastest-growing grain import market during the 1990's is North Africa and >the Middle East. In this region, which stretches from Morocco through Iran, Thanks for the information Thomas. Almost 3 billion people are expected to face water shortages: JOHNS HOPKINS REPORT: WATER AND POPULATION CRISIS LOOMS Nearly half a billion people around the world face water shortages today. By 2025 the number will explode fivefold to 2.8 billion people -- 35% of the world's projected total of 8 billion people -- according to a new report from The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health. TO SEE AN ADVANCE OF THE FULL REPORT GO TO: http://www.jhuccp.org/popreport/m14edsum.stm - Moreover, the loss of productive land is more-or-less permanent: http://dieoff.com/page114.htm "Roughly 43 percent of Earth's terrestrial vegetated surface has diminished capacity to supply benefits to humanity because of recent, direct impacts of land use. This represents an ~10 percent reduction in potential direct instrumental value (PDIV), defined as the potential to yield direct benefits such as agricultural, forestry, industrial, and medicinal products. If present trends continue, the global loss of PDIV could reach ~20 percent by 2020." Typical soil formation rates are ~1 cm per 100 to 400 years. At such rates it takes ~3000 to 12,000 years to develop sufficient soil to form productive land. - Which job will experience the greatest growth in the 21'st century? Gravedigger! Jay
