Re: rights/responsibilities
Thomas Lunde wrote: > ( by the way, I see this as the > implied question, Does or should everyone have to work?) Since I define work as required human actions, my answer is YES. > ... to exist is to engage in work. A passive, vegetative human cannot survive for many days independently; so someone's work is required for existence. Eating and breathing are not work in isolation, but normally work is required for sustenance/survival. > a strong point was made that the economist's > valuation of work did not cover many activities such as housework, child > rearing, care of the aged or infirm, acts of charity and good will and > mowing the lawn. all are work IMO > You seem to indicate that you hold work as being the > result of wilful decision to act. I indicated that work necessitated those qualities, but not the reverse. > Would that include housework? Would it > include sex? Would it include thinking? Wouldn't each of these activities > be the result of "a wilful decision to act"? Yes. And some of the incidences of those acts constitute "work". > >I agree that it is desirable for communities to share when deemed > >necessary(within the group, and also with outsiders but probably less > >frequently), and that is the norm in my view of history. However, there are > >responsibilities demanded by these communities of their members. These > >require effort and will, as does work. The rewards are community acceptance > >and solidarity. > > Thomas: > > The key word here seems to be "responsibilities" and the implied question > is, "How, without renumeration could we expect members of society to work?" The "remuneration" is what I called "rewards" - "community acceptance and solidarity" Since the act of work has its own intentionality, that is reason enough! > I guess we are down to who will pick up the garbage if we give everyone a > Basic Income? ... This is a bogus problem in a community that has members with time to do that work. Rules will be determined and responsibilities allocated. History shows that it gets done. The how & who are societally determined. Human values, which vary somewhat individually, will result in decisions getting the dirty work done, basic income or not. Note that I didn't attempt to refute the B.I., but implied it was insufficient as a solution to the problematique. > Another tack on this, let us imagine that I belong to a community that > supports me through a Basic Income. And I, fool that I am, I follow my > interests, which happen to be walking my dog, a totally non-productive > activity. After several years of this, I awake from my unemployed stupor > and realize that I know how much exercise a dog needs to be healthy and so > because I like walking dogs so much, I offer to walk several of my > neighbours dogs so that they will stay healthy. Now, they can't pay me, (snip) > Now let's say my humble efforts, prevented a child from > being attacked and a worker from having a heart attack through reduced > stress. None of this is provable, though I'm sure statistics could be found > to justify almost anything. Did you ever consider trying your hand at creative writing? :-) > Have I performed a valuable service to my > community? Was it the result of responsibility or was it because I found it > interesting? Value lies in the eye of the beholder. If the community doesn't value your acts, you have acted independently of communitarian responsibilities. > >A basic income is not a bad thing IMO. However, what should the community > >expect from everyone as cooperative members? Why the avoidance of this > >issue? Just as second hand smoke, toxic waste spills, acid rain from > >smokestack emissions, nuclear leaks, water pollution... have become > >recognized as infringements on the common good, so should every seemingly > >innocent human action be considered. > > Thomas: > > However, what should the community expect from everyone as cooperative > members? How about expecting them to feel secure and trusting Manna from heaven? I don't believe in that stuff. Back to the cornucopian fallacy again. Every day that our species increases in number, it gets less secure: http://library.utoronto.ca/www/pcs/eps.htm > that through > an act of fate or accident they will not be disenfranchised from the money > economy? How about having the feeling that you can stop long enough to take > some extra training. That is a great idea. The community can decide, if excess resources (not only currency/credits) permit human actions (work)to provide the time, place and teachers. But the community decides, not you or I. Best case scenarios are always attractive. > How about taking a year or two off from your forty > year work life to enjoy your children? How about getting involved for > several years in a community project that interests you? Work doesn't seem > to me so burdensome when I'm doing what I want to do rather than what I have > to do. Best case scenarios ar
Re: rights/responsibilities
Dear Steve: So glad you answered with questions, the proper form of debate is not challenge or personal confrontation but questioning the information, rationale and assumptions that form the basis of anothers statement. -Original Message- From: Steve Kurtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: futurework <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: September 22, 1998 1:58 PM Subject: rights/responsibilities >Greetings, > >Rather than attempt a detailed refutation of parts of Thomas Lunde's post >of today, I'm merely going to point out a few things (once again) that this >list seems resigned to ignore. > >Work, a form of human action, involves intention, motivation, purpose. >Otherwise it would be described as "movement". Whether the process involves >monetary reward, barter, or self-subsistance via hunting, gathering, or >agriculture, a willful decision to act is made. Thomas: This question formed around the word "work" ( by the way, I see this as the implied question, Does or should everyone have to work?) was one that was dealt with at the Conference. You see, there is a gamut of understandings of the word "work", from one extreme, only that which produces renumeration, to the other extreme, that to exist is to engage in work. No particular answer was arrived at, though a strong point was made that the economist's valuation of work did not cover many activities such as housework, child rearing, care of the aged or infirm, acts of charity and good will and mowing the lawn. You seem to indicate that you hold work as being the result of wilful decision to act. Would that include housework? Would it include sex? Would it include thinking? Wouldn't each of these activities be the result of "a wilful decision to act"? > >I agree that it is desirable for communities to share when deemed >necessary(within the group, and also with outsiders but probably less >frequently), and that is the norm in my view of history. However, there are >responsibilities demanded by these communities of their members. These >require effort and will, as does work. The rewards are community acceptance >and solidarity. Thomas: The key word here seems to be "responsibilities" and the implied question is, "How, without renumeration could we expect members of society to work?" I guess we are down to who will pick up the garbage if we give everyone a Basic Income? That's like asking who will take the laundry to the washing machine? The answer is whoever agrees too, or whoever wants too, otherwise we will soon run out of clean clothes and someone will have to act. So far, I see very few people who voluntarily wear dirty clothes as a result of not being responsible or for any other reason except that they might be too poor to afford to wash their clothes, or perhaps even have a home to wash them in. Another tack on this, let us imagine that I belong to a community that supports me through a Basic Income. And I, fool that I am, I follow my interests, which happen to be walking my dog, a totally non-productive activity. After several years of this, I awake from my unemployed stupor and realize that I know how much exercise a dog needs to be healthy and so because I like walking dogs so much, I offer to walk several of my neighbours dogs so that they will stay healthy. Now, they can't pay me, at least not enough to make me self sufficient, but after another several years, I notice some things about how dogs socialize and learn through play from each other. I decide to become a dog trainer while I'm walking the dogs. No one can pay me enough for my efforts though all are appreciative of the healthy well behaved dogs they have. And because of this security in their lives, they don't feel so guilty about not taking their dogs for walks and therefore they don't have as much stress, in fact they actually have a little pleasure. Now let's say my humble efforts, prevented a child from being attacked and a worker from having a heart attack through reduced stress. None of this is provable, though I'm sure statistics could be found to justify almost anything. Have I performed a valuable service to my community? Was it the result of responsibility or was it because I found it interesting? > >A basic income is not a bad thing IMO. However, what should the community >expect from everyone as cooperative members? Why the avoidance of this >issue? Just as second hand smoke, toxic waste spills, acid rain from >smokestack emissions, nuclear leaks, water pollution... have become >recognized as infringements on the common good, so should every seemingly >innocent human action be considered. Thomas: However, what should the community expect from everyone as cooperative members? How about expecting them to feel secure and trusting that through an act of fate or accident they will not be disenfranchised from the money economy? How about having the feeling that you can stop long enough to take some extra training. How about taking a year or two off from your
fwd: Robert Kaplan describes the end of America.
fwd: Original message From: Edward DiBella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: P: Robert Kaplan describes the end of America. Greetings friends, I thought you would all like to see the recent interview with national disintegration guru Robert Kaplan in which he describes the coming end of the United States. http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/bookauth/ba980916.htm If you do not find this gloomy enough for your taste, be sure to pop out to your local newsstand to pick up the current issue of Harper's magazine for the cover piece by David Quammen, titled "Planet of the Weeds. Earth will soon support only survivor species-dandelions, roaches, lizards, thistles, crows, and rats. Not to mention 10 billion humans. A grim look into the future by David Quammen." Have a nice day! :)) Edward
Work-Family conflict: "the Daddy Trap"
>From the BLS DAILY REPORT, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1998 > >Many men are caught in the "Daddy Trap," says Business Week (Sept. 21, >page 56). In the last two decades, expectations of men at home have >intensified dramatically. Dads are more involved with their families, >and in general they enjoy that heightened role. Yet their jobs haven't >adjusted. Faced with pressure to take on more child-rearing and >household chores, fathers still find themselves locked into rigid >full-time jobs. Some of the tension is workplace-inflicted. A lot is >self-imposed. The result, in either case, is conflict, guilt, and >stress. It turns out that dads are no more satisfied than moms with >their work-family balance, according to a sample of 6,328 working >parents derived from Business Week's survey of corporate work and family >programs, conducted with the Center for Work & Family at Boston College. >... Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: LETS get serious - a result! (fwd)
The web page for the PDF file is: http://www.open.gov.uk/co/seu/bbt.pdf Malcolm
rights/responsibilities
Greetings, Rather than attempt a detailed refutation of parts of Thomas Lunde's post of today, I'm merely going to point out a few things (once again) that this list seems resigned to ignore. Work, a form of human action, involves intention, motivation, purpose. Otherwise it would be described as "movement". Whether the process involves monetary reward, barter, or self-subsistance via hunting, gathering, or agriculture, a willful decision to act is made. I agree that it is desirable for communities to share when deemed necessary(within the group, and also with outsiders but probably less frequently), and that is the norm in my view of history. However, there are responsibilities demanded by these communities of their members. These require effort and will, as does work. The rewards are community acceptance and solidarity. A basic income is not a bad thing IMO. However, what should the community expect from everyone as cooperative members? Why the avoidance of this issue? Just as second hand smoke, toxic waste spills, acid rain from smokestack emissions, nuclear leaks, water pollution... have become recognized as infringements on the common good, so should every seemingly innocent human action be considered. Idling a car motor, running water taps unnecessarily, or engaging in behavior which harms ones *own* health - since the community bears the total cost in socialized health schemes or insurance premium hikes. And I also claim that human fertility impacts the Commons and each current and future member of society. So, I leave it to you to decide if these types of 'responsibilities' constitute a part of the concerns of a list called "Futurework". Dissemination of credits, in itself, is work for the distributor alone. Comments welcome. Steven Kurtz Fitzwilliam NH
FW: financial crisis
fyi -- From: Michel Chossudovsky Subject: financial crisis Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 11:24PM FINANCIAL WARFARE by Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, author of "The Globalisation of Poverty, Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms", Third World Network, Penang and Zed Books, London, 1997. Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky Ottawa 1998. All rights reserved. To publish or reproduce this text, contact the author at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or fax 1-514-4256224 * * * "Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men". (Franklin D. Roosevelt's First Inaugural Address, 1933) Humanity is undergoing in the post-Cold War era an economic crisis of unprecedented scale leading to the rapid impoverishment of large sectors of the World population. The plunge of national currencies in virtually all major regions of the World has contributed to destabilising national economies while precipitating entire countries into abysmal poverty. The crisis is not limited to Southeast Asia or the former Soviet Union. The collapse in the standard of living is taking place abruptly and simultaneously in a large number of countries. This Worldwide crisis of the late twentieth century is more devastating than the Great Depression of the 1930s. It has far-reaching geo-political implications; economic dislocation has also been accompanied by the outbreak of regional conflicts, the fracturing of national societies and in some cases the destruction of entire countries. This is by far the most serious economic crisis in modern history. The existence of a "global financial crisis" is casually denied by the Western media, its social impacts are downplayed or distorted; international institutions including the United Nations deny the mounting tide of World poverty: "the progress in reducing poverty over the [late] 20th century is remarkable and unprecedented..."1. The "consensus" is that the Western economy is "healthy" and that "market corrections" on Wall Street are largely attributable to the "Asian flu" and to Russia's troubled "transition to a free market economy". Evolution of the Global Financial Crisis The plunge of Asia's currency markets (initiated in mid-1997) was followed in October 1997 by the dramatic meltdown of major bourses around the World. In the uncertain wake of Wall Street's temporary recovery in early 1998 --largely spurred by panic flight out of Japanese stocks-- financial markets backslided a few months later to reach a new dramatic turning-point in August with the spectacular nose-dive of the Russian ruble. The Dow Jones plunged by 554 points on August 31st (its second largest decline in the history of the New York stock exchange) leading in the course of September to the dramatic meltdown of stock markets around the World. In a matter of a few weeks (from the Dow's 9337 peak in mid-July), 2300 billion dollars of "paper profits" had evaporated from the U.S. stock market.2 The ruble's free-fall had spurred Moscow's largest commercial banks into bankruptcy leading to the potential take-over of Russia's financial system by a handful of Western banks and brokerage houses. In turn, the crisis has created the danger of massive debt default to Moscow's Western creditors including the Deutsche and Dresdner banks. Since the outset of Russia's macro-economic reforms, following the first injection of IMF "shock therapy" in 1992, some 500 billion dollars worth of Russian assets --including plants of the military industrial complex, infrastructure and natural resources-- have been confiscated (through the privatisation programmes and forced bankruptcies) and transferred into the hands of Western capitalists.3 In the brutal aftermath of the Cold War, an entire economic and social system is being dismantled. "Financial Warfare" The Worldwide scramble to appropriate wealth through "financial manipulation" is the driving force behind this crisis. It is also the source of economic turmoil and social devastation. In the words of renowned currency speculator and billionaire George Soros (who made 1.6 billion dollars of speculative gains in the dramatic crash of the British pound in 1992) "extending the market mechanism to all domains has the potential of destroying society".4 This manipulation of market forces by powerful actors constitutes a form of financial and economic warfare. No need to recolonise lost territory or send in invading armies. In the late twentieth century, the outright "conquest of nations" meaning the control over productive assets, labour, natural resources and institutions can be carried out in an impersonal fashion from the corporate boardroom: commands are dispatched from a computer terminal, or a cell phone. The relevant data are instantly relayed to major financial markets -- often resulting in immediate disruptions in the functioning of national economies. "Financia
FW - Essay on Motivations
Dear List Members: After arriving back from Holland and the BIEN Conference (Basic Income European Network), I found this little gem from Tom Walker in my Inbox. I'm going to take this as a starting point to bring forth some observations. Most of the quotes I am using are pulled of my E Mail of the last few weeks. Tom Posted: The topic of basic income has come up on the "Third Way" Economic Policy debate list at http://www.netnexus.org/debates/3wayecon/ I personally find the tone of that third way debate stuffy and unrewarding. But there is an argument there calculated to raise the hackles of Thomas Lunde, among others. The objection to a basic income scheme centres on the issue of "moral hazard", which is to say that basic income offers an incentive to people to be idle. Thomas: "to be idle", what an evocative phrase. Somehow the fact that most Western governments have been following a "monetarist" economic policy for the last 20 - 30 years which has within it the concept of the "natural rate of unemployment", has been ignored. Linda McQuaig, The Cult of Impotence, Page 38. Quote: "This comes down to the monetarist position of having to choose between fighting inflation, or fighting unemployment. Quote: "The natural rate in his view (Milton Friedman), was the level of unemployment that was necessary to prevent an increase in the rate of inflation." Page 38-39 This give lie to the major argument against a Basic Income in which the unemployed will become idle. The poor have been deliberately made idle by the theories of economists, the policies of individual country's Central Banks, the compliance of politicians who have supported these ideas and practices. Let us address the concept of the idleness of the poor after we eliminate economist's theories, Central Bank policies and government policies that create idleness, not as a natural attribute of the poor but as the deliberate attack on the poor to preserve the wealth of the rich by limiting inflation. To give a graphic, though local example, in the Province of Ontario, Canada, the neo-con government of Mike Harris has recently passed legislation to initiate a Workfare Program that is quite draconian. As a response to that Act, an effort by a Union was initiated to unionize Welfare recipients to oppose some of the more offensive conditions of this legislation. This was countered by the government by a new Bill 22 which prevents Welfare recipients from organizing to lobby against the abuses (perceived) within the Act. Ed Weick, one of the regular contributors on the List Futurework, posted these two commentaries: As you know, the Government of Ontario has put Bill 22 (An Act to Prevent Unionization with respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997) before the legislature in order to block any attempt to unionize people who are on WorkFare. This strikes me as being a step toward keeping the poor isolated from each other so that they cannot take organized collective action when in reality organized, collective action is what would probably be most helpful to them. Of course, Mrs. Ecker, who sponsored the Bill, says it is not directed at the poor, but rather at unions who are trying to subvert WorkFare and thereby deny the poor access to it. What the Bill suggests is a fear of the potential power of the poor. As long as solutions are imposed from above - like WorkFare - there is little to worry about. But if the poor were an organized political force proposing solutions of their own, there is no telling what might happen. Better to cut that possibility off. Ed Weick The Government of Ontario's Bill 22 raises two points. One is that the government does not want to see the poor organized into an effective political force able even to bargain with the autocrats, let alone develop a sense of ownership of, and entitlement in, their society. The poor currently have almost no political voice and almost no political allies. If they had the power to make the autocrats listen, who knows what conditions might have to be set around welfare and WorkFare. The other point is about the nature of unions. If the unions were able to organize the poor, they could be seen as reverting to their old role of agents of social change. At least with respect to the poor, they would be like the unions of old, and not merely bargaining agents. Ed Weick Thomas: This leads to another quote from FutureWork, were the discussion of rulers and ruled is defined by some new words: From: Eva Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> It's back to the game manager problem again. >> > >So who decides who takes the role of the gamekeeper and >the role of animals? Thomas: Currently, we must assume that it is government, Central Banks and economists and their theories who are taking the role of the "game manager" But the question remains unanswered - "who decides"? Jay Hanson another FutureWork contributor offers these thoughts in response: This is
LETS get serious - a result! (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 10:19:22 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: LETS get serious - a result! Econ-lets readers will be please to hear that LETS is getting right to the mainstream of UK Government policy. The UKs 'social exclusion unit' , a research and policy co-ordinating unit in the Prime Minister's office has a remit to devise new solutions and ways of working to fight social exclusion. Its just published its report "Bringing Britain Together - a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal' that proposes 17 pilot initiatives to test new ways of fighting social exclusion, and 18 cross departmental study teams to draw together a national strategy, find out what works, promote new ideas. Its quite breathtaking stuff, and for those of us who have been waiting with baited breath for something from a hitherto disappointing Blair Government, is shows promise. I was quite supprised to see LETS is way up there in the remit of the 'Getting People to Work - Jobs' team (one of the 18 cross cutting research teams). I'd expected it to be in the 'community self-help' section. LETS seems at last to have made it into the paradigm of 'hard economic development' rather than softer, social aspects its often consigned to. Its a real step forward! Its gratifying as we have been saying for a long time that LETS is an exceptionally powerfull tool for people who have not worked for a long time, and who frankly are not yet ready for a full time job to polish up the skills they have but are unused, raise their confidence, meet people from a wider social circle (research shows that unemployed people tend, in time, to know only other unemployed people as they don't have the money to socialise and do all the things those in work take for granted - and as many many jobs are got by friends of friends, its a real problem). Weve also at times got a reaction that 'serious' economic development is 'proper jobs' with 'proper wages' in the mainstream economy; and that things like LETS are in danger of settling unemployed people into a 'second rate' economy given that currently LETS units arn't as spendable as mainstream money due to the lack of business participation. Government recognising LETS is a way back into work, and not a 'social service' is therefore a real step forward. Pete _ Peter North School of Urban Development and Policy South Bank University, London Tel: 0171-815 7706 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(en) The Apartheid Debt (fwd)
--- Forwarded Message Follows --- >Southern Africa: Apartheid Debt >Date distributed (ymd): 980727 >Document reposted by APIC > >+Document Profile+ > >Region: Southern Africa >Issue Areas: +political/rights+ +economy/development+ >+security/peace+ >Summary Contents: >This posting contains a briefing "The Debt of Apartheid" and >excerpts from a report entitled Paying for Apartheid Twice, >from Action for Southern Africa (ACTSA) and the World >Development Movement (WDM). The documents are in aid of a >campaign to urge the cancellation of UKP28 billion in >apartheid-caused debt owed by the countries of southern >Africa. > >Printed versions of the briefing (50p each; 30p each for 10 or >more and the report (UKP1 each) are available from ACTSA, 28 >Penton St., London N1 9SA, UK (Tel: 171-833-3133; fax: 171- >837-3001; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]). The full text of >both documents will be available on the Africa Policy Web Site >(http://www.africapolicy.org/docs98/debt9807.htm). > >For additional on-line references on African debt, see >http://www.africapolicy.org/action/debt.htm > >+end profile++ > >Action for Southern Africa > >Action for Southern Africa (ACTSA) campaigns for the >international support vital to fulfil the hopes of change in >Southern Africa. Formed in 1994, it is the successor to the >Anti-Apartheid Movement. > >ACTSA lobbies decision-makers in Britain and Europe to win >better policies for all the countries of Southern Africa. It >keeps the concerns of the region in the public and political >spotlight. It builds links between people here and in Southern >Africa > >World Development Movement > >The World Development Movement is the UK's leading >organisation campaigning to improve the lives of the world's >poorest people. Through our national network of members and >local groups, WDM tackles issues including multinational >companies, debt, the arms trade and aid. > >WDM is not a charity. We do not give aid. But our campaigns do >change the policies of governments and companies which keep >people poor. > >** > >THE DEBT OF APARTHEID > >When Nelson Mandela walked out of prison, rich countries and >banks handed him and the people of Southern Africa a bill for >UKP28 billion. > >Apartheid wrought destruction across Southern Africa. Now it >is time to rebuild. But the financial institutions and >countries which lent during the apartheid war are demanding >repayment. The victims of apartheid are being asked to pay >again. > >Paying twice for apartheid > >The apartheid regime not only oppressed its own people, but >waged a full-scale war against Mozambique and Angola, made >raids into all the neighbouring states, and imposed an >economic blockade on Lesotho, Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe and >Malawi. > >The suffering was immense. This was a war against ordinary >people, in which schools and health posts were primary targets >and civilians were massacred on buses and trains. At least two >million Mozambicans and Angolans died in the war South Africa >waged against them; millions more had to flee their homes. > >The people of Southern Africa paid a terrible price in blood >and suffering. A whole generation never went to school because >of apartheid. Mothers and children died because the apartheid >state destroyed health centres in Mozambique, or never built >them in South Africa itself. > >Apartheid is ended, but the people of the region cannot >celebrate, because they are being asked to pay again. > >Making Mozambique poor > >Apartheid helped to make Mozambique the poorest country in the >world. South Africa's apartheid war cost Mozambique more than >UKP11 billion in damage and lost production. In an attempt to >smash Mozambique's economy, South Africa, and the Renamo proxy >army it backed, targeted sugar mills, tea-processing >factories, sawmills, and mines, which were blown up, burned or >ransacked. Half of all hospitals and schools were destroyed or >closed. > >Faced with a sudden loss of income and the need to protect its >people, Mozambique had to borrow for projects including >railways, electricity lines, and a major textile mill. Many of >these were later destroyed in South African attacks. > >Mozambique borrowed UKP4.5 billion because of apartheid. >International agencies like the IMF and the World Bank, as >well as rich countries' governments, have agreed to write off >some of Mozambique's debt. But they still insist Mozambique >pays back much of the debt. > >Mozambique has been forced to delay universal primary >education until 2010 because it has to repay the >apartheid-caused debt. > >Attacking transport > >The bridge over the Zambezi River is one of the longest in >Africa and once carried the railway from Malawi to the port of >Beira in Mozambique. South African-backed forces blew up the >bridge, as well as many smaller ones and also de
