Re: Bell: More corporate madness (fwd)

[David Burman]

He writes for the Toronto Star, a Liberal party organ.

At 10:56 PM 13/01/99 -0400, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>-- Forwarded message --
>Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:51:52 -0800
>From: Ed Deak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Bell: More corporate madness
>
>Dalton Camp could hardly be called a commie or pinko. A former advertising
>executive, he was once the President of the Progressive Conservative Party,
>who gave us the FTA under Mulroney. I got this without origins, but believe
>he writes for the Globe and Mail, basically another corporate front paper.
>
>Cheers, Ed (Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC, Canada)
>
>===
>>> January 13, 1999
>>> Bell hanging up on operators for corporate greed
>>>
>>>Bell Canada is in the news again as just another corporation to put
>>>profit before people. I suppose this is like saying Vince Lombardi was
>>>just another coach who put winning first. Winning, you'll recall the
>>>coach saying, wasn't just the best thing, it was the only thing.
>>>
>>>This week, Bell sold its telephone-operator business - the big 0 and the
>>>vital 411 numbers on your phone - to the Americans. Doing so, the
>>>corporation sold out 2,400 of its own operators.
>>>
>>>The explanation was the incontestable, inarguable, familiar one:
>>>Employing the operators was costing Bell money its shareholders could
>>>ill afford. In the corporate game, profit is not the best thing, it's
>>>the only thing.
>>>
>>>We should not assume Bell's 2,400 operators will instantly be
>>>reconnected with their new employer, Excell Global Services. The result,
>>>it is feared, will be fewer jobs at less pay, and some employees will be
>>>obliged to relocate.
>>>
>>>But none of this matters. Bell claims the new owners of the operation
>>>are more competent in this line of work: No doubt Excell Global will
>>>turn a higher profit. That matters.
>>>
>>>In 1995, Bell's president announced his company would be firing 10,000
>>>of its employees over an ensuing three years. The president explained
>>>the company had made a profit of $720 million in 1994, but was looking
>>>at a profit of only $500 million the following year. He pleaded for
>>>understanding. ``If we don't change now,'' he said, ``we'll let down
>>>both our customers and our country.''
>>>
>>>How does not firing 10,000 men and women from their jobs imperil the
>>>country? Of course, if it is really true that Bell had 10,000 employees
>>>who had nothing better to do than hang about the water cooler - that's
>>>the size of an army division - it's the president who should be fired.
>>>
>>>I suppose one must try to be realistic about this. Reference should be
>>>made to previous editorials and speeches touching the subjects of
>>>competitiveness, the need for, and inefficiency, the dangers of, and the
>>>unwisdom of raising the subject of humanity, the lack of. Still, most
>>>who preach this new gospel have jobs, at least during the time of their
>>>greatest enthusiasm, so that direct empirical knowledge confirms the
>>>theory of the primacy of profitability.
>>>

>>>The social scientists have a different view of what we might call the
>>>Bell Syndrome. The view is at odds with that of the economist; there is
>>>another way of looking at the practice of trading people for profit.
>>>
>>>Richard Sennett, of the London School of Economics, has written an essay
>>>on the subject, not about Bell per se, but about the syndrome. It is
>>>called The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in
>>>the New Capitalism.
>>>
>>>The title is amply descriptive of Sennett's thesis. What the professor
>>>means by the ``corrosion of character'' is the end result of a work
>>>career of instability and uncertainty.
>>>
>>>``A young American with at least two years of college,'' Sennett writes,
>>>``can expect to change jobs at least 11 times in the course of working,
>>>and change his or her skill base at least three times during 40 years of
>>>labour.''
>>>
>>>In the '60s, when Marshall McLuhan was our preferred guru, it was said,
>>>to the bemusement of some, that the average working career would involve
>>>changing jobs three or four times. That was then, this is now, and the
>>>magic number is now 11.
>>>
>>>The consequences should not be surprising. Working people today live in
>>>continuing states of career anxiety, often fearing ``they are losing
>>>control over their lives.'' Sennett believes the workplace is empty of
>>>the former values of loyalty, commitment, service, and trust. Those who
>>>wryly say, ``It's a jungle out there,'' are understating the reality of
>>>life in the modern corporation.
>>>
>>>The villain in all this trauma and tragedy is the ``blameless,''
>>>faceless corporation, trying only to make a buck and satisfy its
>>>shareholders. Sennett, however, identifies the problem more precisely.
>>>Downsizing has less to do with profit-mongering tha

Re: Fwd: Controversy over genetically modified organisms (fwd)

[David Burman]

I think the issues in genetic engineering are not whether it is moral or
diabilical, but the introduction of hitherto unknown elements into the
natural world - mixing genes from different species in one organism. It is
not at all far fetched to imagine new human genetic diseases being
introduced from donor species, in the process of "curing" human diseases.
In the quest for perfection - but more realistically in the quest for new
markets - many new problems (with which we will have no experience) will be
introduced to complement the old ones that we are familiar with.

David Burman
University of Toronto

At 08:38 AM 12/01/99 +, Eva Durant wrote:
>I found this post informative, so I forwarded
>it to you as the science is a bit lacking in fw.  
>Eva
>
>
>
>Kevin wrote:
>>I guess my first question is:  How is this diabolical genetic engineering
>>any different from the time-honoured practice of breeding?  Farmers,
>>cattlemen, ranchers, all intervene in the "natural" order of things in=
> order
>>to select for certain traits that are deemed desirable.  So how is directly
>>altering the gene different from getting your sow with pig from a certain
>>boar?
>
>Ludwig Krippahl wrote:
>[snip]
>> -In genetic engineereing you place 'foreign' DNA on an organism,
>> which does not occur in breeding
>> 
>> -To do that you need vectors, wich may be problematic in themselves,
>> and are unecessary in breeding.
>> 
>> I think that, as with any technological advance, it has its dangers
>> if not used carefully. However, I feel the dangers are being blown
>> out of proportion (this technology has been used successfully for
>> vacine production and general protein sinthesys for some time).
>
>Perhaps it would be good to add a few points.
>
>In the place of "engineering" should be the word "art" or "science".
>The only point where we can really speak of "engineering" is that
>we can make any kind of protein sequence or RNA sequence we wish.
>Exactly what it *does* -- if anything -- is typically another matter.
>Moreover, how to target an organism in the "engineering" sense, is
>still basically a guessing game. 
>
>Breeding is usually seeking a "phenotype" (selecting a particular
>"measurable" characteristic) as opposed to a genotype which my not
>even be "measurable".  By "measureable" I mean that it displays a
>characteristic like resistance to disease, a particular color of fir,
>etc.  Much of breeding is aimed a visible characteristics, but in
>agriculture, there are certainly plants that are breeded for
>resistance to infection etc.  In such cases, you might call "breeding"
>a crude form of genetic "science".
>
>Perhaps it is important to point out the benefits of such research,
>which are many I think.  
>
>* The AIDS, hepatitis C virus, and some other pernicious vermin will
>most likely be conquered only via genetic engineering (when it really
>becomes "engineering").  Hence, our best weapon against pathogens
>is knowledge, not fear.
>
>* Most cancers and chemotherapies will eventually turn to genetic 
>engineering (when it really becomes "engineering") to rid this 
>scourge.  Hence, our best solution to transcriptional corruption
>is knowledge, not fear.
>
>* Possibly when we really understand life cycles of cells, we may
>even be able to develop therapies for cell regeneration.  Hence,
>our best "alternative medicine" is knowledge, not fear.
>
>Of course, without some form of ethics, we might have reason to fear
>such capabilities, but once again, whether we are fundamentally
>theistic or a-theistic, the best form of ethics come from a desire to
>understand this world and seek to do right, not a blind fear that some
>utterly diabolical boggyman (with black hat) could succede in some
>nefarious scheme or a fear that some Cosmic Dictator who will become

>angry if we find out how the world works. We already have plenty of
>potential to destroy ourselves many times over if we want to hurry up
>the end of the world.
>
>Wayne
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>- End of forwarded message from Wayne Dawson -
> 

Fwd: FW: Faith & Economy (Canada)

[David Burman]

>Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 23:08:15 -0500
>From: joy kogawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: FW: Faith & Economy (Canada)
>Sender: joy kogawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Hans Bathija <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Burman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Sandra Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>joy kogawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>maureen chill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, john flanders
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Jessica Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"Leanne Gillard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>gail lacroix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Graham Mudge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Paul Povey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Larry Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>david walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dan white <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
>-Forwarded Message-
>United Church of Canada: Faith and the Economy
>>  United Church of Canada: Faith and the Economy
>>
>>
>>
>>PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY AMONG ECONOMIC ACTIVISTS- CDN AND WORLDWIDE
>>Dec. 5, 1998
>>
>>Dear activist friend,
>>
>>One of our COMER (Committee On Monetary and Economic Reform) Brian Dolby
>>chapter members, Roger Rice, is a retired United Church minister living
>>here in the Niagara area of Ontario.
>>
>>Roger corresponds regularly with the United Church of Canada's Moderator
>>The Right Reverand Bill Phipps. Moderator Phipp's controversial
>>theological views have been well reported by Canadian news media, but not
>>his deep concern about economic issues. For example, he has been publicly
>>critical of the MAI, although this attracted little or no media attention.
>>
>>By way of Rev. Rice, I recently received notification that the United
>>Church has just begun its "Moderator's Consultation on Faith and the
>>Economy", which will continue until Dec. 31, 1999. 
>>
>>I know that many of my activist friends will want to take this opportunity
>>to share their knowledge and insights with the United Church's leadership
>>and national membership. The materials being prepared for and the issues
>>which will be considered by the Consultation include:
>>
>>-Theology and Ethics
>>-Government Budget Priorities
>>-Local Experiences
>>-Corporate Ethics
>>-Church and Society
>>-Alternative Economies
>>-Employment/Unemployment
>>-Fair Taxation
>>-Child Welfare
>>-Health, Education and Social Services
>>-International Trade
>>-Least Developed Countries
>>-Green Revolution
>>-Global Financial Mobility
>>-Poverty
>>-Sustainable Development
>>
>>The organizers (Moderator Phipps and co-chair Walter Pitman) have
>>expressed their desire to promote active internet participation.
>>To learn more, or request a prepared brochure, please contact: 
>>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>Moderator's Conference on Faith and the Economy
>>2850 Lakeshore Blvd. W.   PO Box 80073
>>Toronto, ONM8V 4A1
>>
>>Thank youfor circulating this post widely to your activist friends
>>and colleagues.
>>
>>Sincerely yours,
>>
>>
>>James Wilson, chair
>>COMER Brian Dolby chapter (Hamilton-Niagara)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 

petition against corporate takeover

[David Burman]

Hi everyone, This is so important to the small independent bookseller, 
please take a moment to sign.

1) Please read this, and then
2) copy/ and paste (entire message with these instructions) to a 'new 
message' and send the petition back with your signature 
TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
and
3) CC: to all the people on your mailing list whom you think would be 
interested,
4) then if you are the 50th, 100th, 150th signature, please e-mail the 
petition to the AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS ASSOCIATION, e-mail address 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .


PETITION TO BLOCK BARNES & NOBLE ACQUISITION OF INGRAM
This petition will be sent to the Congress, Department of Justice and 
the Federal Trade Commission to block Barnes & Noble's proposed acquisition 
of the Ingram Book Company, the single largest supplier of books to small 
bookstores across the country. This acquisition, should it be allowed to take 
place, is just one more example of the large scale corporate consolidation
that 
has infiltrated every corner of our culture.

As the desire intensifies to increase bottom line profits, no matter 
what the other consequences, so does the concentration of power in the book 
industry. 

Consumers are left with an environment in which fewer and fewer people 
are deciding which books get published and ultimately, which books Americans
can read and buy. Barnes & Noble has already entered into an alliance with
the $14 billion
media giant, German-owned Bertelsmann AG. Now with Barnes and Noble's proposed
acquisition of the billion dollar Ingram Book Company, there can be little
doubt that the book industry is falling prey to the same anti-competitive
ills that currently plague computer software and other industries. This
deal would make independent bookstores virtually dependent upon their largest 
competitor for their books. (It is as if Burger King and Wendy's had to buy
their 
french fries from McDonald's)

We need your help. As a patron of independent booksellers, please sign 
the petition to help us lobby the government to stop this proposed merger. 
Please exercise your right as a citizen and tell the government how you feel. 

We sincerely thank you for your support.

1. Meg Gouraud, Canon City, CO 
2. Pat Wiles, Guffey, CO 
3. Chris Rivers, Guffey, CO 
4. Shiner Antiorio, Asheville. NC 
5. Toba Spitzer, Watertown MA 
6. Hannah Ashley, Philadelphia, PA 
7. Holly Pruett, Portland OR 
8. Sandy Polishuk, Portland OR 
9. Kathleen Saadat, Portland, OR 
10. Kristan Aspen, Portland, OR 
11. Melody DeMeritt, San Luis Obispo, CA 1 
12. Bob Banner, SLO, CA 
13.Alphaa Phoenix, Morrow Bay, CA 
14. Daniel Drasin, Sausalito, CA 
15. Louis T. Judson, Mill Valley CA 
16. Scott Catamas, Bel Air, CA 
17. Chris Toussaint, Valley Village, CA 
18. Cristina Berio, Agoura Hills, CA 
19. Michel Beluet, Valcourt, Quebec, Canada
20. David Burman, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Fwd: Request allowance to send email

[David Burman]

>Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 22:34:23 -0500
>From: joy kogawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>-Forwarded Message-
>
>From:  INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED], INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Hi 
>
>As the Keynote speaker at the money conference in Palo Alto during the
weekend January 30 / February 1 this year, I had the pleasure to meet
several leading characters in the local currency environment, specifically
Thomas Greco and Michael Linton.
>
>Three weeks after that conference you received a proposition from Thomas
Greco about the strategies for the further development of local currencies
in the world.
>
>At the moment of the conference and before receiving the propositions of
Thomas Greco and several sobering reactions that all of you must have
received from several recipients of Thomas Greco's work, the Monrobey
Corporation received already extensive infor!
>mation about the fast disintegration of the world's financial structure.
>
>In spite of all the great efforts of all those involved in local
currencies, we have not been able to avoid a nearly total collapse of the
world's money system.
>
>One of the experts who delivered testimony to the House Committee on
Banking and Financial Services on Capitol Hill in Washington, George Soros,
a well known financier, expressed with the following words his concerns
about the present financial situation in!
> the world:
>"A Gigantic Circulatory System comes apart at the Seams."
>This statement was made on Capitol Hill on the 15th of September and
extensively published in the Wall Street Journal.
>
>I decided to write an article, published on the web site with the title:
>
>"A Gigantic Circulatory System (our Monetary System) Comes Apart at
the Seams"
>
>analyzing a series of articles in the Wall Street Journal between the 15th
of September and the 15th of October.  The remarkable reality is that after
the 15th of October it was as if the Wall Street Journal had shut down
publishing such an avalanche of eye!
> opening authoritative statements that confirm the nearly demise of the
system.

>
>There is no doubt the article gives a very unpleasant picture about the
truth in the money environment.  As a consequence of this we decided to
develop a WORLDWIDE E-mail campaign to inform the public about the working
and possibilities of the Dynamic Capit!
>al Network.
>
>At the same time we opened the possibility of every local currency system
to integrate into the main stream economy by making free of costs use of
the unique features of the Dynamic Capital Network.
>
>Our daily activities have nothing in common with the usual structure of
local currencies. 
>However, by opening our network for local currencies, where the local
currency structure becomes a special business member of a local Consumer
Corporation, we open the possibility to strengthen local economies
operating with local currencies.
>
>We are seeking permission to send you important consumer information that
could have a significant impact on your private life as a consumer as well
as on your business life.  You may be interested to receive Opt-IN email
about a WORLDWIDE developing consum!
>er network.
>
>While the men and women on Capitol Hill in Washington and in the
Parliaments buildings in Europe leave little doubt that the world's
economy, including the economy of the United States, is extremely fragile,
there is at the same time a WORLDWIDE developing !
>wave of mega-mergers in banking, industry, mining and oil that could
threaten consumer interests on the long run.  The threat to become
confronted with totally new monopolies is real.
>
>We are now seeking permission to inform you about a WORLDWIDE developing
consumer network that has the capability to turn the tide and to protect
local economies and consumer interests.
>
>Even while this network is free of any membership fees, it allows totally
interest free financing of all consumer and business activities, anywhere
in the world where the network becomes active. 
>The network is everywhere fully controlled locally, by a Board of
Directors of local consumers.
>
>The enormous consequences of interest free financing and debt free living
are obvious.  It enables TAX FREE DOUBLING the consumer purchasing power
and it revitalizes economically every community.
>
>It has even far more effect on your standard of living than doubling your
income.
>
>It creates full employment and eliminates the economic instability that we
have experienced during this century.
>
>You can Opt-IN to receive email about Consumer Corporations simply with
the word, "SUBSCRIBE" in the subject line of an email sent to:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>for info on Consumer Corporations without the quotation marks " " around
the word SUBSCRIBE, and we will send you more detailed information about
the WORLDWIDE developing network of consumer corporations.
>
>Should you ever decide that you no longer wish to receive opt-IN email
regarding Consumer 

Fwd: Re: advertising barter feeding internet growth

[David Burman]

Dear futurework people. 
This is about a community response to the Y2K problem. Is this an important
issue? I admit to not having paid it much attention. 
David

>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (16)
>Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 09:05:56
>Subject: Re: advertising barter feeding internet growth
>From: Terry Cottam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave econ-lets' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: Terry Cottam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Greetings again, people in LETS dream land. 
>
>In the back of our minds, we know the dream is about to be either shattered
>or take a radical new direction. We know that barter will be part of the
>new dream. Will LETS, Microsoft or any other e-currency? If power, fuel,
>telecom, and/or computers become scarce or unreliable, they will either
>localize and go low-tech or die. This is what we will increasingly confront
>in 1999-2000.
>
>Please read the letter below. Is there such a group in your town or city?
>If not, it doesn't matter where you are, let me suggest you start one,
>pronto. There is very little leadership at the top, anywhere. It's all
>bottom-up. There many success stories, including Nelson, BC and Boulder
>Colorado (more at http://y2k.inode.org/prepare.htm ,
>http://cassandraproject.org ) but time is becoming very short. 
>
>For instance, we really don't know how much time we have before our
>currencies collapse from the "IMF-fluenza" that has felled Japan, Russia
>and Brazil. When it reaches the West, it will spread quickly, and community
>cooperation may be immensely more difficult. 
>
>We've always wanted to knit together our neighbourhoods. Now is the time to
>do it, block by block. The Utne Reader Y2K Citizens Action Guide tells you
>how (http://www.utne.com/y2k ). 
>
>My very best wishes to Richard, Michael, Andy, Mary and everyone else I've
>shared the dream with over the years on this list.
>
>Terry 
>
>
>
>Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 03:59:10 -0800 (PST)
>From: "John O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: URGENT
>To: Terry Cottam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
>URGENT!!
>Yesterday I  recieved a letter from Clancy Priest, who heads Chico IT
>dept. CP is in charge of the city's Y2K efforts and heads a Y2K Task
>Force, whose members include the Police Chief, Fire Chief, City
>Attnorney and Risk Manaager. This taks force "meets as needed to
>address specific problems regarding Y2K"
>
>CP "joined the City in January, 1996 The City has set aside
>$100,000 for replacement of systems which are found to be
>noncompliant. As you can imagine, Y2K testing and verification is a
>time-consuming and tedious task, which the City is currently in the
>middle of performing."
>
>So it has taken from 1-96 to 12-98 to get to the MIDDLE of the task?
>Does this mean they will have to squeeze another 35 months of work
>into 12 months?
>
>Meets as needed? Once a day? Twice a day? Or monthly? Bimonthly? How
>much time do those people have to study the issue, to plan for citizen
>action?
>
>$100,000 for replacement The City IT staff now has 6 persons; they
>are working like dogs right now. When will they discover noncompliant
>systems? When will they find time to install those systems and test

>them?
>
>"In response to your concern about educating the public, the City
>Manager has requested that we use the City's web page to inform and
>educate City residents. We are currently collecting information from
>various sources, and we will shortly have detailed information on the
>web page describing steps that citizens can take to ensure that they
>are adequately prepared for January 1, 2000. As this date draws
>nearer, there will be additional press releases and other education
>efforts to inform the broader public about what steps they can take to
>insure that Y2K occurs as safely as possible for everyone."
>
>#1: Who is spending the time to put up a redundant Web site? Wouldn't
>links to the many organizations do the same? Cassandra Project? Etc.
>Did the City every consider using Y2K Action Group as a resource? #2:
>Press releases just don't cut it. The "broader public" --ie the larger
>numbers of citizens who don't use the internet for info-- aren't going
>to pay much attention to a press release in the E-R, assuming they see
>it at all. #3: "As this date draws nearer..." it will be too late for
>the broader public, and the narrower, unprepared public, to take
>non-panic stricken steps to ensure their safety.
>
>This is NOT reassuring. Vague, non-specific pr like this is convincing
>only to those who believe that "THEY" will make everything okay, that
>there is no need to worry, feel uncomfortable, make any plans, or
>other wise assume responsibility for ensuring their own safety by
>taking rational intelligent steps toward same; these words cheat us
>all by ensuring that the reader feels no need to get to work on
>creating the safety of their community. 
>
>YOU NEED TO

LETS benefit concert

[David Burman]

Dear all, 
This Friday, at 7:30 Eastern standard time, a concert to raise funds for LETS
development, and for the launch of a new Toronto currnecy, the Toronto dollar,
will be braodcast over the web. 

the address is: 
www.syntac.net/imagecast/

The performers are: 
Long time LETS member, and world famous concert pianist, Anton Kuerti, and his
wife Elizabeth who is a cellist, a choir from the Republic of Georgia who were
sold out in last week's well puplicized performance, an address by activist
Ursula Franklin, and much much more, as they say. 

for those within easy striking distance of toronto, it's being held in the
Church of the Holy Trinity, beside teh Eaton's centre. Doors open at 7,
concert
starts at 7:30. Tickets $20 (50% local currency, green dollars).

Hope you enjoy the show.
Daivd Burman

Re: DANGEROUS CURRENTS

[David Burman]

I fear Ed, that you are trying to individualize a systemic problem when you
quote Pogo. Also, you fails to ask "why" the regulatory agencies are allowing
the oil companies to get away with such low costs. Is it lack of political
will, or is it that free trade agreements and the WTO etc give the oil
companies a huge bargaining advantage - at the very least reguating
govenrments
risk huge court challenges to regulatoins that go beyond the international
norm. Are governments willing to get together and hash out higher regulatory
standards? Well, we've seen what happens when governments try to enforce even
existing rules (the HPB - Monsanto story again). 

So, I submit that it IS the oil companies' fault. As part of a system that
will
fight every attempt to regulate it with all the resources at its disposal,
with
high ranking civil servants being interchangable with high level corporate
execs, with international trade agreements that impede even the most modest
attempts at regulation, the transnational corporations are indeed at fault for
looking to their bottom line before taking into account the true costs of
doing
business. It is these corporatoins which have engineereed and supported the
trade agreements which clearly act in their short term interests to reduce
government interference. It is hypocritical then to blame govenments for not
imposing sufficiently high costs of doing business. 

It's a bit like blaming the poor for being unemployed. 

David Burman

At 10:40 AM 25/10/98 -0500, Ed Weick wrote: 
>
>>
>> VIctor Milne: 
>>   
>> I quite appreciate that when we start off from a small base, a large
>> percentage rate of increase is insignificant. We are, however, talking
about
>> the Big Five in Canada. If they (and all the other big banks in the world)
>> were to achieve a 64-fold multiplication of profits in 50 years, the impact
>> would be far from insignificant. I agree that they are not going to do it,
>> but that is what they are trying to do with no regard for the effects it
>> will have on society and the environment. 
>>   
>> Weick: A couple of points here: One is that there is a difference between
>> trying and doing.  In the long run (which, as I'm sure you know, is not the
>> same as "a long time"), it is not likely that any type of business will be
>> able to increase its profits, or grow, more rapidly than the growth of the
>> economy unless, of course, it cuts into the growth and profits of other
>> types of businesses.  In the case of banks operating in any one country,
the
>> question I would ask is whether their growth and profitability is being
>> driven by rapid economic expansion - that is, the demand for the kinds of
>> products they provide - or whether it is driven by increasing market
share. 
>> In the case of Canada, I'm not sure of which is the foremost reason.  I
>> would, however, suggest that our growth has been relatively unspectacular,
>> so increasing market share must play a role. 
>>   
>> My other point is, where is government in all of this?  Surely one of the
>> outstanding functions of government is to ensure responsible business
>> behaviour.  It is the business of business to grow and be profitable. 
It is
>> government's responsibility to ensure that business does not grow at the
>> expense of the environment or consumers.  All too often, it fails to meet
>> that responsibility, and in fact abandons it.  I worked for a very large
oil
>> company years ago.  It hired some very good environmental scientists and
had
>> a much broader understanding of environmental issues than the government
>> agencies it had to deal with.  The government agencies had little data of
>> their own and were in fact relying on the industry to provide information
>> which would then form the basis for regulating the industry -- a little
like
>> trusting the fox to guard the henhouse.  Currently, at least in Canada, the
>> capacity of government agencies to ensure responsible business behaviour is
>> pretty close to zero -- witness the mess in the Health Protection Branch. 
>>   
>> Currently, the government of Canada is in trouble for pepper spraying some
>> protesting students at the University of British Columbia.  This is
probably
>> the best thing that could have happened for the government because it
>> focuses attention away from the fact that has arrived at a point where
it is
>> virtually incapable of doing anything but pepper spraying. 
>>   
>> Milne: I apologize for giving my comments a misleading focus on banking
>> alone, which I had not intended to do. As I see it banks are at the top of
>> the industrial food chain. All the other in

Fwd: URGENT: Forum on the UofT "Smart" Card

[David Burman]

This is an issue for the future of work - the human technology interface
David

>Date:  Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:51:31 -0500
>From: Eric Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: URGENT: Forum on the UofT "Smart" Card 
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>From: Andrew Clement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
>Open Forum on the University of Toronto "Smart" Card
>
>Hart House, Great Hall 
>  Monday, November 2, 4-6PM 
>
>The introduction of a chip-based smart card as the U of T student
>card (the "T-card") marks a new phase in the computerization of
>campus life. The T-card is a combination identity card and wallet
>which authorises access to various campus facilities, such as the
>library and gym, and allows you to purchase goods with the cash
>stored on the chip. The T-card raises a host of serious issues for
>individuals and the University community as a whole. 
>
>Here are some questions to ask: 
>
>What information is being collected? 
>Who has access to it and for what purposes? 
>Is personal privacy protected? 
>Has the anonymity of cash transactions been compromised? Were
>more privacy protective options (e.g. pseudonymity)
>considered? What are the costs and who pays them? Who gets the
>benefits? Might the T-card implementation jeopardize
>democratic elections on campus this year? Who made these cards
>a priority? Are "smart cards" more important than equity
>offices, proper funding of the ombudsperson or lowering
>tuition? How are decisions about technological developments
>made and by whom? 
>
>Seen as the forerunner of more widespread application of digital
>identity technologies in society, these issues take on a larger
>significance. Did you know that privacy groups and human rights
>organizations are actively opposing smart card implementations in
>many parts of the world? You might ask yourself: 
>
>Is the University showing appropriate civic leadership in an
>area of emerging and contentious public policy? What lessons
>do graduates take with them about how key social information
>technologies should be developed and used? 
>
>Come to the Open Forum to discuss these and related issues. 
>
>This public forum is intended to provide the University community
>with an opportunity to learn more about the implications of the
>use of smart card technologies and to encourage more open and
>inclusive processes for the development of new technologies in the
>university.
>
>Following brief introductory remarks by each of the invited
>speakers, the floor will be open for questions and lively
>discussion.
>
>
>Invited Speakers: 
>
>Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario
>Jack Dimond, University Commissioner for Freedom of Information
>and Privacy 
>Stephen Pender, President, Graduate Student Union (GSU) 
>Felix Stalder, Doctoral candidate, Faculty of Information

>Studies, (smart card researcher)
>Karel Swift, University Registrar, Chair of the T-card
>Implementation Committee
>+ a representative of the Student Administrative Council (SAC) 
>
>Moderator: 
>
>Andrew Clement, Information Policy Research Program, Faculty of
>Information Studies 
>
>Organized by:
>
>Identity Technology Working Group  http://www.utoronto.ca/itwg
>
>Sponsored by: 
>
>Graduate Student Union (GSU) 
>Information Policy Research Program (IPRP) 
>Students Administrative Council (SAC) 
>Hart House Debates Committee 
>Knowledge Media Design Institute (KMDI) 
>TAO Communications 
> 

Fwd: DEMOCRACY FOR SALE, Korten 17 Oct, 1998

[David Burman]

>Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 23:45:31 -0500
>From: joy kogawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: DEMOCRACY FOR SALE, Korten 17 Oct, 1998
something else that FWers might find interesting.
David

>Sender: joy kogawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>-Forwarded Message-
>   "democracy is now for sale to the highest bidder"
>
>   "The first positive step would be to dismantle the
>   World Trade Organisation"
>
>
>
>Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 08:04:39 +
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Paul Swann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Your Mortal Enemy
>
>Your Mortal Enemy
>
>Faceless bankers now move two trillion dollars around the world every day,
>searching for quick profits, breaking national economies and putting ever
>more pressure on natural wealth. What's to be done? Slay the beast of
>capitalism, says David C Korten, and return money to its proper role.
>
>An edited and ammended extract of David Korten's Schumacher Lecture in
>Bristol on October 17 1998.
>
>Published in The Guardian, October 21, 1998.
>   
>
>
>For those of us who grew up believing capitalism is the foundation of
>democracy, market freedom, and the good life it has been a rude awakening
>to realise that under capitalism, democracy is now for sale to the highest
>bidder, the market is centrally planned by global mega-corporations larger
>than most countries, denying one's brothers and sisters a source of
>livelihood is now rewarded as an economic virtue, and the destruction of
>nature and life to make money for the already rich is treated as progress.
>
>The world is now ruled by a global financial casino staffed by faceless
>bankers and hedge fund speculators who operate with a herd mentality in
>the shadowy world of global finance. Each day they move more than two
>trillion dollars around the world in search of quick profits and safe
>havens sending exchange rates and stock markets into wild gyrations wholly
>unrelated to any underlying economic reality.
>
>With abandon they make and break national economies, buy and sell
>corporations, and hold the most powerful politicians hostage to their
>interests. When their bets pay off they claim the winnings as their own.
>When they lose, they run to governments and public institutions to protect
>them against loss with pronouncements about how the poor must tighten
>their belts and become more fiscally prudent.

>
>In the United States, the media keep the public preoccupied with the
>details of our president's sex life and calls for his impeachment for
>lying about an inconsequential affair. Meanwhile, Congress and the
>president are working out of view to push through funding increases for
>the IMF to bail out the banks who put the entire global financial system
>at risk with reckless lending.
>
>They are advancing financial deregulation to encourage even more reckless
>financial speculation. And they are negotiating international agreements
>such as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment intended to make the
>world safe for financial speculators by preventing governments from
>intervening to regulate their activities.
>
>To understand what is happening we must educate ourselves about the
>nature of money and the ways of those who decide who will have access
>to it and who will not.
>
>As a medium of exchange, money is one of the most useful of human
>inventions. But as we become ever more dependent on it to acquire the
>basic means of our sustenance, we give to the institutions and people who
>control its creation and allocation the power to decide whether we shall
>live in prosperity or destitution.
>
>With the increasing breakdown of community and governmental social safety
>nets, our money system has become the most effective instrument of social
>control and extraction ever devised. The fact that few of us think of the
>money system as an instrument of control makes it more powerful and
>efficient as an instrument of wealth extraction.
>
>What of capitalism, the self-proclaimed champion of democracy, market
>freedom, peace and prosperity? Modern capitalism involves a concentration
>of wealth by the few to the exclusion of the many; it is more than a
>system of human elites. It has evolved into a system of autonomous rule by
>money and for money that functions on autopilot beyond the control of any
>human actor or responsiveness to any human sensibility.
>
>Contrary to its claims, capitalism is showing itself to be the mortal
>enemy of democracy and the market. Its relationship to democracy and the
>market economy is now much the same as the relationship of a cancer to the
>body whose life energy it expropriates.
>
>Cancer is a pathology that occurs when an otherwise healthy cell forgets
>that it is a part of the body and begins to pursue its own unlimited
>growth without regard to the consequences for the whole. The growth of the
>cancerous cell deprives the healthy cells of nourishment and ultimately
>kills both the body and itself.

Re: DANGEROUS CURRENTS

[David Burman]

While I agree with Victor's analysis and imagery, I do think that governments
can respond, before the Lamborghini crashes into the wall. Governments only
respond to threat -- either of the loss of  from business pullout/ flight of
capital, or from the fear of revolution from below.  To make good this threat
would require massive and persistent organization built around this
understanding.  Governments will respond when their home base is threatened. 

I support Linda McQuaig in this that governments can stop the juggernaught,
but
for them to do that they need to be pushed very hard against the tide.

David Burman

At 06:11 PM 22/10/98 -0400, Victor Milne wrote:
>
>While I have to agree with Ed Weick's earlier comment that people will
>inevitably "do economics"-- I do after a fashion, and I'm no professional
>economist -- nevertheless Jay Hanson may be right that it's time to start
>screaming and being abusive because the business community and their tame
>economists are just not hearing anything about LIMITS TO GROWTH.
>
>Jay Hanson writes:
>
>>Our present economic-political system is rushing full speed into the brick
>>wall known as LIMITS TO GROWTH (LTG). LTG assumes many forms: depletion of
>>nonrenewable resources, pollution and perturbation of natural systems, and
>>simply reaching a level of complexity that is too great for our energy base
>>to sustain.
>
>I used precisely the same metaphor in a short essay I wrote for my own
>website, and I think if we look at the assumptions of the business
>community, the situation is even scarier than Jay presents it to be. Here is
>part of what I wrote:
>
>Royal Bank blamed weak stock markets and narrowing interest rate margins for
>third-quarter profits of $464 million that were unchanged from the prior
>three months. However, those earnings were 8 per cent higher than the 1997
>third quarter. [my emphasis] Analyst Nick Majendie said, "It will be tougher
>to increase earnings overall 10 per cent for the group, the growth rate set
>by analysts for the banks."
>Do you see the incredible assumption? Unlimited growth. At the ten per cent
>growth rate that banks want their profits would have to double every 7.2
>years. Even at a "mere" 8 per cent it would only take nine years.
>
>Any high school student who has been introduced to the concept of geometric
>progression should be able to understand that this is impossible in the real
>world. When I learned about geometric progression many years ago, it was
>introduced by a fable from ancient India.
>
>The story goes that a young hero had performed a great service for the king.
>In gratitude the king offered to give him a large sum of gold. No, said the
>young man modestly, all he wanted was this: Take a chess board of 64
>squares, and on the first square put 1 grain of rice, on the second square 2
>grains, on the third square 4 grains, on the fourth square 8 grains, and so
>on. The king agreed with a smile at the simplicity of the young man, but his
>accountants soon informed him that he had promised more than the entire rice
>harvest of the kingdom.
>
>The profits of banks and businesses of all kinds can only come from
>providing products or services to people, and those people can only get the
>money to pay a bank or business from two sources, either from being
>wage-earning employees or dividend-earning stockholders of those same banks
>and businesses. To ask that their profits should double in infinite
>geometric progression is to demand more than the entire harvest of the
>kingdom.
>
>The bank presidents and stockbrokers and currency speculators who demand an
>unending geometric progression of profits are all multi-millionaires. Their
>real physical wants were long ago satisfied. The latest status symbol among
>many of them is a $230,000 wrist watch that keeps time no better than a $30
>Timex.
>
>What drives them on?
>
>No more eloquent and haunting words can be found than those penned by Samuel
>Johnson, poet, essayist, lexicographer and sage, to explain the building of
>the Great Pyramid: "It seems to have been erected only in compliance with
>that hunger of the imagination which preys incessantly upon life, and must
>always be appeased by some employment."
>
>The Great Pyramid must have been a terrible drain on the GNP of ancient
>Egypt for perhaps 20 years, leaving little enough for the welfare of the
>common people. However, the project of our modern pharoahs of the business
>world is far more frightening. The Great Pyramid was finite. Once the
>surveyors had staked out the sides, it was determined that a certain
>enormous amount of stone would finish the project. However, the scheme of
>doubling profits every 1

Fwd: US Withdraws Suppor for United Nations Population Fund

[David Burman]

This will be of interest - posted on the Health Promotion List
David

>X-BlackMail: 192.139.37.12, newmail.web.net, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SIZE=6153, 192.139.37.12
>X-Authenticated-Timestamp: 16:07:54(EDT) on October 21, 1998
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U)
>Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 16:04:13 -0400
>Reply-To: Health Promotion on the Internet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sender: Health Promotion on the Internet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Sam Lanfranco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: DKProj
>Subject:  US Withdraws Suppor for United Nations Population Fund
>Comments: To: Canchid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by newmail.web.net id
PAA27565
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
>
>Executive Director's Statement on the
>  Withdrawal of U.S. Funding from UNFPA
>
> NEW YORK, 20 October 1998 ­ Following is a statement by Dr.
>Nafis Sadik, Executive  Director of the United Nations
>Population Fund (UNFPA):
>
> UNFPA deeply regrets today’s news that the United States
>will not include funding for UNFPA in  appropriations for
>the coming financial year. The decision penalizes not only
>UNFPA but the  millions of ordinary women and men on whose
>behalf we work. It will inevitably reduce our ability  to
>implement vital programmes in the area of reproductive
>health and rights.
>
> The U.S. decision will mean the unnecessary death and
>suffering of women who are deprived of the  information and
>means to plan their families. It will deny many people in
>developing countries the  right that Americans take for
>granted ­ the right to individual freedom in regard to the
>size and  spacing of the family. It will weaken not only
>population programmes but programmes aimed at  better
>health, equal access to health and education for women, and
>economic security.
>
> The U.S. decision will hit especially hard the
>least-developed countries in Africa and elsewhere  whose
>population programmes are most dependent on external
>assistance. It will contribute to the  spread of sexually
>transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, which pose an
>ever-larger threat to  health, life and prospects for
>development. It is a step backwards from United States’
>leadership in  the population field and United States’
>support for internationally-agreed approaches to population
>problems.
>
> The United States’ decision is misguided from the point of
>view of all those, including UNFPA, who  seek to minimize
>abortion. At the very time when individual demand for family
>planning is rising all  over the world, it will weaken
>family planning programmes and increase the use of abortion
>to avoid  unwanted births.
>
> UNFPA-supported programmes have succeeded in raising the
>use of family planning and reducing  reliance on abortion.
>All UNFPA programmes are based on the principle that
>individuals have the  right to make their own decisions in
>regard to the size and spacing of the family and to the
>means  and information to do so. UNFPA reproductive health
>programmes do not promote abortion nor  provide assistance
>for abortion services.
>

> Falling birth and population growth rates in developing
>countries demonstrate beyond question the  practical
>validity of promoting reproductive health and rights as ends
>in themselves, as well as the  means to achieve smaller
>families and slower population growth.
>
> The decision to deny U.S. funding to UNFPA is also
>misguided from the point of view of all those  who, like
>UNFPA, wish to promote reproductive health and rights in
>China. The new UNFPA  programme in China, which is limited
>to 32 counties, was carefully designed to ensure respect
>for  the human rights norms agreed by 180 nations at the
>International Conference on Population and  Development in
>1994, including the vital principle of individual decision
>on the size and spacing of  the family. The new programme
>excludes all elements which might lead to lower standards,
>such as
> incentives and quotas for family planning and family size.
>It was approved early this year by the 36  nations that
>comprise UNFPA’s Executive Board, including the United
>States.
>
> Note for Editors:
>
> U.S. funding for UNFPA is $20 million in FY 1998. The total
>approved by the U.S. for UNFPA in  FY 1998. was $25 million,
>which was reduced by $5 million the amount expected to be
>spent in  China. Since 1984, no U.S. funds have been
>available for UNFPA expenditure in China. U.S.  funding for
>UNFPA was suspended in 1986 when its total pledge was $46
>million, and was  restored by President Clinton in 1993.
>UNFPA’s total resources in 1997 were $290 million.
>
> In one year alone, the impact of the United States’
>decision to withdraw funding from UNFPA will  be to deprive
>870,000 women of effective modern contraception. Over
>520,000 will end up not  using any method. Non-use and use
>of ineffective methods will result in:
>
>1,200 maternal and 22,5

Re: FW: BEWARE: Phone Scam

[David Burman]

I was about to forward this to everyone I know, then then thought about all
the virus warning hoaxes that I'd unwittingly spread around the planet. So,
I checked this with Bell Canada and although they have been getting
requests to verify this report, they say it is not applicable to their
phones. i.e another hoax!  Maybe in a centrex system where you have to dial
9 then 0 to get a long distance line ... ?
David

At 10:03 AM 14/10/98 -0400, Cordell, Arthur: DPP wrote:
>This is going around my government department, so thought I would pass it
>on.
> --
>From: Charette, Lynn: SITT
>To: -SITT Branch Coord; -DPP; -ECOM-TF
>Subject: FW: BEWARE: Phone Scam
>Date: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 7:47AM
>Priority: High
>
>FYI
> --
>From: Dube, Jacqueline: DGSE
>To: 'Anne'; Brien, Jean-claude: DGSE; bruneau; 'Céline'; Charette, Lynn:
>SITT; 'Christiane'; Fisher, Kathy: DGTP; Frolek Joanne: DGRB; Hall, Heather:
>DGRB; 'Jake J.'; KIMBERLY WACHTA; 'Mark'; 'Philippe'; Rebeccani, Susan:
>DGRB; s=BARBE;i=C;ou1=FAS.AO;o=NHQ;p=GC+DRHC.HRDC;a=GOVMT.CANADA;c=CA;;
>Victor L. Boersma
>Subject: FW: BEWARE: Phone Scam
>Date: October 13, 1998 1:51PM
>
>I'm a big believer in sharing information.See message below.
>
>J.
>
> --
>From:  Kwan, Andy: DGSE
>Sent:  October 13, 1998 1:40 PM
>To:Louis-Seize, Mariane: DSI; Beaudoin, Claude: DGSE; Mar, Henry: DGSE;
>Le, Tran Khiem : DGSE; Leafloor, Bob: DSI; Clemis, David: DSI; Fortin,
>Jean-Yves: DSI; Chow, Ada: DSI; Christensen, Michael: DGSE; Dube,
>Jacqueline: DGSE; French, Arthur: DGSE
>Subject:   FW: BEWARE: Phone Scam
>
>fyi
>
> -Original Message-
>From:  Jackson, Margot: DGSE
>Sent:  October 13, 1998 1:22 PM
>To:McCrum, William: DSI; Kwan, Andy: DGSE; Jasmin, Pierre: DEB Lab;
>'Zurakowski, George: DGSE'; Rawat, Veena: DGSE
>Cc:Cybulski, Sandy: DGSE; Ladouceur, Sue: DGSE; Cossais, Louise: DGSE
>Subject:   BEWARE: Phone Scam
>
>Suggest that you forward to all your staff.  DASM already has received it.
>
> -Original Message-
>From:  Phillips, Susan: DGSE
>Sent:  October 13, 1998 1:07 PM
>To:Jackson, Margot: DGSE
>Subject:   FW: Phone Scam
>
>FYI
>
> --
>From:  Simard, Jacques: DGSE
>Sent:  Tuesday, October 13, 1998 12:59 PM
>To:ALL DASM
>Subject:   Phone Scam
>
>I thought I'd give you all an "early warning" on this one.
>
>It just never ends does it?
>
>Jacques
>
> -Original Message-
>From:  Young, Al: SPCS
>Sent:  Tuesday, October 13, 1998 11:40 AM
>To:Simard, Jacques: DGSE
>Subject:   RE: Phone Scam
>
>YES THIS IS POSSIBLE AND CAN HAPPEN , I HAVE INFORMED DAN CARRIERRE IN
>SECURITY AND WE HAVE PASSED THIS ON TROUGH INTERNET  AS WELL
>AL YOUNG
>952-9225
> --
>From:  Simard, Jacques: DGSE
>To:Young, Al: SPCS
>Subject:   Phone Scam
>Date:  Tuesday, October 13, 1998 10:42AM
>
>Al; does this sound possible to you?  I originally received it from someone
>in Vancouver but it's also doing the rounds on the Internet.
>I would appreciate your views
>TIA  Jacques Simard - DASM
>Tel: 990-4803
>
>
>
>I received a telephone call today from an individual identifying himself as
>an AT&T Service Technician who was conducting a test on our telephone lines.
>He stated that to complete the test I should touch nine
>(9), zero (0), the pound sign (#) and then hang up. Luckily, I was
>suspicious and refused.
>Upon contacting the telephone company, I was informed that by pushing 90#,
>you give the requesting individual full access to your telephone line, which
>allows them to place long distance telephone calls billed to your home phone
>number. I was further informed that this scam has been originating from many

>of the local jails/prisons.
>I have also verified this information with UCB telecomm, Pacific Bell, MCI,
>Bell Atlantic, GTE and NYNEX.
>Please beware.
>DO NOT press 90# for ANYONE. The GTE Security Department requested that I
>share this information with EVERYONE I KNOW.  PLEASE pass this on to
>everyone YOU know. If you have mailing lists and/or newsletters from
>organizations you are connected with, I encourage you to pass on this
>information to them, too.
> 

Fwd: Re: BOUNCE transform@igc.apc.org: Approval required:

[David Burman]

This is an initiative which comes from an association of facilitators in
Washington State, and based on the work of futurist, Robert Theobold. Check
out the website - it's got definite possibilities.
David Burman
LETS Toronto

>X-BlackMail: igc7.igc.apc.org, igc7.igc.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
192.82.108.35
>X-Authenticated-Timestamp: 14:44:51(EDT) on October 02, 1998
>Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 09:34:59 -0700 
>From: Bob Stilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Approval required: 
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>
>It's been a busy couple of weeks for Resilient Communities!
>
>
>1.  Our website is "evolving".  Please visit
>http://www.resilientcommunities.org and check it out!
>
>
>2.  Dates are set for two live-satellite broadcasts in 1999.  These
>"bookend" programs will be on January 22nd and April 23rd.  We'll be
>supporting the building of local groups to view and use these broadcasts in
>conjunction with materials offered via the web.  We'll be starting
>registration next month.
>
>
>3.  Descriptions of what we're trying to do -- thanks to lots of good
>feedback and input -- are getting tighter.  The latest summary is avaialble
>off the web at http://www.resilientcommunities.org/Summary.htm.  If you
>can't read it, send me and e-mail and I will send it to you in another form.
>
>
>4.  The two-week "inquiry and dialogue" about Leadership and Resilience has
>been absolutely smashing.  About 40 people have participated and we will be
>sharing some of the "results" with you all.
>
>
>5.  Finally, I'm off next week to join Robert Theobald in Australia.  He's
>done three weeks of seminars, conferences and workshops and I will be
>joining him for more of the same.  We'll also be doing a three day dialogue
>with leading transformational thinkers and activists in Australia at the
>end of the month.  
>
>
>6.  We continue to need help in evolving and funding this effort.  Please
>pitch in wherever you can!
>
>
>Best,
>
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>Robert L. Stilger, Executive Director
>Northwest Regional Facilitators
>East 525 Mission Avenue
>Spokane, WA 99202
>
>Fax:  (509) 483 0345
>Phone:  (509) 484 6733
>E-Mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>NRF Home Page:  http://www.nrf.org
>Resilient Communities Home Page:  http://www.resilientcommunities.org
> 

Re: Basic Income

[David Burman]

Keith hudson describes in his first paragraph the rationale for local
currencies. A locally administered economy => networked with all others to
prevent isolation and permit global trade <= creates economic incentives
and rewards at a basic social level (maybe 5,000 people?) which allows for
social rather than bureaucratic control. People respond at this level of
community where the results fo their actions are immediately evident. The
global economy or even nation state are abstractions which require
tremendous ideological (read religious) reinforcement to make them work.

At 08:16 AM 02/09/98 +0100, Keith Hudson wrote:
>I refer to Thomas Lunde's proposals for a Basic Income.
>
>The idea of a basic income is appealing.  Indeed, I have no objections to
>it in principle.
>
>But it won't work because it ignores one basic fact of human nature: we are
>essentially a tribal species, the product of millions of years of evolution. 
>
>A basic income would work in a society of small governments because
>fairness and equality of transactions would operate visibly. Recipients
>would be seen to pay back their monetary incomes -- as much as they are
>able to do so -- by other forms of non-monetary help and service to the
>population paying the taxes. Malingerers could be readily identified and
>told to pull their weight or lose their basic income.
>
>We cannot institute a basic income when taxes disappear into a distant
>central government maw and are then redistributed (after huge
>administrative expenses have been paid) to people we do not know and cannot
>observe -- and which, besides malingerers, also contain substantial numbers
>of confidence tricksters in their midst. (The situation is bad enough
>already and the welfare state cannot be sustained for a great deal longer.
>In the UK there are twice as many national insurance numbers as the total
>population -- and I cannot imagine that we are unusual in this respect.)
>
>  
>
>___
>
>Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
>Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 

Basic Income

[David Burman]

Countries like Sweden which taxed their wealthy heavily, but allowed for
display of  wealth, propered, even though the very wealthy left for lower
taxed regimes. Countries which imposed equality, like the Soviet Union, did
not. There must be a way to reward high achievers in ways other than money,
although material benefits don't hurt. The advantage of monetary rewards,
of course, is that the recipient can express the reward in any way s/he
wants, whereas other rewards depend on the taste or interest of the
bestower. We need some creativity here, as well as a new god. (some might
say the old one was perfectly good before He/Her/It was usurped by the
false Marketplace god)

David Burman

>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.

Re: Basic Income

[David Burman]

I read with interest Thomas's sun god analogy, which I think is brilliant.
I would only add that perhaps our sun god is "the Marketplace" with its
"invisible hand." The work ethic is more like an archaic ritual habit in
service of this god. The habit, like all habits, formed when our northern
European culture was struggling to prosper agriculturally against
unfavourable climatic conditions. It took a lot of hard work and ingenuity,
which led to technological developments and industrial development. This
process was helped greatly by following the dictates of the Marketplace
god. And truly, those who prospered under this system, either by hard work
or ruthlessness and cunning, could point to their having been favoured by
God for their devotion. 

Does this help?

David

At 06:13 PM 01/09/98 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote:
>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: chimpanzeehood and human nature

[David Burman]

>
>Ray Evans Harrell
>
>Eva Durant wrote:
>
>> I think this must be the exception, in tribes
>> where the idea of surplus/private property
>> of the means of production such as land
>> and the separation of
>> of work did not occur. I don't remember any such
>> matriarchal structures mentioned in the inca
>> and other city-dwelling or nomadic ancient americans.
>>
>> Westerners yearn so much for an idyll of back to
>> nature, that they tend to re-create some of the
>> "ancient" customs that were disrupted by their
>> very arrival...
>>
>> Eva
>>
>> > Eva, how do you justify your opinion about all women everywhere as
property with
>> > the fact that in most Native American communities the women owned the
property
>> > and could put the husband out of the marriage by simply putting his
shoes in the
>> > door?  Power was vested in the clans and in the clan mothers who chose
and still
>> > choose the members of the council.  Only they can depose a leader and
in my
>> > nation only the "beloved woman" can declare war.  In my two divorces
the wife got
>> > all of the property and left me only with what they didn't want.  It
is not easy
>> > being in a traditional marital arrangement.  That is why we so rarely
leave
>> > them.   You seem a bit Eurocentric here.  REH
>> >
>> > Durant wrote:
>> >
>> > > (David Burman:)
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On the contrary. The evidence strongly suggests that our original
>> > > > foreparents were egalitarian in their practices, with agricultural
>> > > > surpluses and advanced cultural development, but with no signs of
>> > > > fortification that would suggests the need for defence from
others. This
>> > > > contradicts the commonly held patriarchal assumptions that
agricultural
>> > > > surplus was the necessary and sufficient condition for domination
and war.
>> > > > These societies valued the feminine power to create life over the
masculine
>> > > > power to take it.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I wonder on what sort of evidence such assuptions are based.
>> > >
>> > > > There is some evidence that climatic changes in central Asia
precipitated a
>> > > > gradual change to sky god worshipping, male dominant and
dominating modes
>> > > > of social organization. These changes are thought to have been
associated
>> > > > with loss of agricultural productivity which resulted mass
migrations and
>> > > > ultimate overrunning of the peaceful populations they encountered,
while
>> > > > taking on a modifyied form of the cultures they conquered. The
most recent
>> > > > of such invasions, and hence the only one in recorded history, was
Mycenian
>> > > > invasion of Crete. From this material, it seems that the history of
>> > > > conquest and domination that we assume to be human nature, is
really an
>> > > > historical blip of a mere 5,000 years.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > It makes more sense to me to assume, that women had more power while
>> > > gathering was a more guaranteed "income" then the other activities.
>> > > In flood plains where agriculture was "easy", it developed, where it
>> > > was not, nomad animal-rearing, thus wondering was the norm.

>> > > Both activities lead to surplus, private property, which required
>> > > heirs, thus women became part of the property ever since.
>> > > Conquest and domination was part of human life - as it was part
>> > > of animal life. However, I agree, it is not necesserily "human
>> > > nature", as human behaviour changes much more rapidly as to be
>> > > possible to define it.
>> > >
>> > > Eva
>> > >
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
> 

Re: chimpanzeehood and human nature

[David Burman]

Riane Eisler, in her books "The Chalice and the Blade" and "Sacred
Pleasure", which report and interpret up-to-date interpretations of
palaolithic archeology, shows that violence and domination are far from
being natural human traits. 

On the contrary. The evidence strongly suggests that our original
foreparents were egalitarian in their practices, with agricultural
surpluses and advanced cultural development, but with no signs of
fortification that would suggests the need for defence from others. This
contradicts the commonly held patriarchal assumptions that agricultural
surplus was the necessary and sufficient condition for domination and war.
These societies valued the feminine power to create life over the masculine
power to take it.  

There is some evidence that climatic changes in central Asia precipitated a
gradual change to sky god worshipping, male dominant and dominating modes
of social organization. These changes are thought to have been associated
with loss of agricultural productivity which resulted mass migrations and
ultimate overrunning of the peaceful populations they encountered, while
taking on a modifyied form of the cultures they conquered. The most recent
of such invasions, and hence the only one in recorded history, was Mycenian
invasion of Crete. From this material, it seems that the history of
conquest and domination that we assume to be human nature, is really an
historical blip of a mere 5,000 years.



At 03:44 AM 08/08/98 +0200, Tor Forde wrote:
>Jay Hanson wrote:
>> 
>
>> 
>> It does make a big difference.  But an observer from outer space would
>> classify humans as the Third Chimpanzee (see Diamond's book of the same
>> name).  The most important difference between us and chimps is our innate
>> technology: big brains, thumbs, and voice.
>> 
>> The ONLY scientific explanation for human behavior comes from the
>> evolutionary psychologists.  Evolutionary psychologists are
>> reverse-engineers -- they observe behavior and then try to understand how
>> that behavior led to survival.
>> 
>> If we reject their findings because we believe that humans transcend
nature,
>> then we are left with "unexplainable behavior".  If we continue to deny our
>> animal nature -- if we embrace superstition and ignorance -- then we
condemn
>> our grandchildren to certain death.
>> 
>
>
>I have read the book "The third chimpanzee" by Diamond. It was a nice
>book. What he writes is that some 7 or 8 million years ago the big rift
>valley in Africa began to evolve, and at that time, and because of that,
>our forefathers and the forefathers of the chimpanzees split.
>
>But humans are a new, may be not more than 100.000 years old, less than
>200.000 years. Our forefathers and foremothers living 100.000 years ago
>were very few, maybe only a few families. They were living a simple and
>difficult life at that time. But 50.000 years ago things had changed
>very much. Humans had a rich culture. They had become very clever
>hunters able to catch all kinds of game. They could make ropes and
>nets.   
>They developed art as  the cave paintings tell us. And from skeletons
>and bones from humans living at that time it is possible to see that
>they were never starving or suffering from malnutrition or sickness.
>But about 10.000 years ago a catastrophe happened: agriculture was
>developed. And from then on began humans to suffer from malnutrition,

>starvation and suppression. 
>
>What happened between 100.000 and 50.000 years ago that made the lives
>of humans so much richer? Diamond thinks the in those years language was
>developed, and language made it possible to accumulate skills and
>knowledge in a large scale, and to cooperate.
>
>Diamond says that there once was a garden of Eden, but he does not say
>that we are born sinners in any way, unlike what Jay Hanson says.
>
>On another list I read  that in Nature 11 june 1998 page 573-577 there
>is an article by Martin Nowak and Karl Sigmund that shows that deception
>strategies are doomed to failure for small and middle sized groups.
>
>And this should actually be obvious: you cannot fool people you are
>together with all the time, and you do not want to do it either.
>
>I think  that book by Diamond was rather promising: Most of the time
>until the last 10.000 years humans were living a good life, and 
>The only persons I have met who believe in an "original sin", that we
>are born sinners are old-fashioned christians, and Jay Hanson.
>In Norway that "inherited sin" is a joke.
>
>The notion about the orginal sin has been used to explain why people
>should be ruled by others, and why there should be no freedom.
>I don't like it, and it is very different from Diamond's book, which is
>an optimistic book.
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>All the best
>Tor Førde
> 

Re: FW: Re: Creation of Money, War Finance and Government Spending(fwd)

[David Burman]

In the last Canadian federal election, Paul Hellyer, former minister of
defence in the Trudeau cabinet, formed a party to argue exactly that: there
is always money to fight a war - why not fight a war on unemployment,
increase our tax base, and get prosperity going for the whole country,
increasing the level of services and benefits for all. It seemed so logical
that it had to be fringe. I was running for the Green Party in the same
riding, so I heard his speech at an all candidates meeting - made a lot of
sense. He had tried for years to get one of the main parties to listen, but
finally started his own (can't even remember the name). He lost, by a huge
margin, naturally.

At 10:20 AM 27/07/98 -0400, Michael Spencer wrote:
>Tom Walker quoted WF Hixson:
>
>> "The really important lesson of what happened between 1939 and 1946
>> is completely lost when economists repeatedly make statements that
>> imply, or at least leave the reader free to infer, that the war was a
>> necessary condition if the depression was to end.
>
>I've felt "free to infer" that war was the key feature because war is
>the only context in which we and the financial "power structure"
>[Hixson] find it acceptable to manufacture millions or hundreds of
>millions of tons of food, machinery, tools, fuel and weapons etc. and
>train 3 million men to methodically destroy it before it gets into the
>market.
>
>What do the Priests of the Market Ghod say about the competition
>offered by WW II and Korean military surplus goods, far better in
>quality and lower in price than any civilian products and available in
>good supply until about 1970?  I still use a 1945 Bantam Jeep trailer
>that never made it to the war.  What do the PotMG say about doing all
>that without a war?  We'll make all those sleeping bags, planes,
>shells, can openers, khaki shoelaces and vastly expensive experiments
>that might become secret weapons and just dump them into the recycling
>bin (or the Mariana Trench if recycling them costs some corporation a
>profitable market).  Talk about Future Work!  Without the need to
>actually fight a war, we could put a little more emphasis in "defense"
>spending on creating niches for artists, performers, dreamers and such
>unmarketable products as character, parenthood or integrity.  Paid
>work for all!
>
>Just what *do* the economists and PotMG say about depression (or
>recession or stagflation or bifurcation or whatever) recovery by
>simply throwing away (with or without a war) approximately a whole
>second GNP's worth of work and resources?
>
>(I know what Jay would say and he'd be right: totally insane to create
>fiat rivets to  pay people to double the rate at which *real* rivets
>get pulled just so the rivet bookkeeping will stay in balance and crew
>will be able to "pay" for their eats instead of going on Ship's
>Welfare.)
>
> - Mike
>
>---
>Michael SpencerNova Scotia, Canada
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html
>---
> 

Re: Nomadery and the Supreme Duality

[David Burman]

It's a pleasure to have Ray back as an active participant on the list. I'm
sorry you pulled your  back, but if it frees you up to lend us your
insights, it enriches my perspective. We immigrants to / invaders of this
country have so few roots to the land and its inhabitants that it's no
wonder that we have come to see the planet as simply a pool of resources to
exploit, without any intrinsic value. We desperately need to listen to
Aboriginal people who have not forgotten, or been forcibly cut off, from
their attachment to the land, to gain some sense of the consequences of our
actions -- and some insight into the absurdity of most of what we do.

All my relations

David

At 10:36 PM 02/06/98 -0700, Ray E. Harrell wrote:
>> Gee, I have the same sort of feeling about most TV, most
>advertising,
>>most 'new' products,
>>
>
>Hey, I never thought of that!  Maybe they knew more about us than I
>thought,
>and saw us coming!
>
>Ed Weick
>
>
>Or else it's all in the family.  As a Native American standing on the
>outside,  it often feels that way when the "Supreme Duality" gets to
>working.  Socialism!@!!  NO  Capitalism!@!! NO Socialism  N00!@!!
>
>It would be wonderful to see the kitschiness of most Western
>expressivity "owned" and "admitted."  One could start by admitting the
>familial relationships between the various groups that makes their
>kitschiness acceptable and even admired.
>
>For example the incredible cheapness of the wealthy Americans sitting
>around plotting how they can get the most mileage out of a charitable
>donation is very little different from the local Communist bureaucrat
>plotting how he can get a couple of days longer at the Dacha instead of
>being available to get the job done.  Or consider the practitioners of
>"valuable effort"  lamenting the defeat of a "Public Good" like
>education, public health or the arts because everyone wants to get a
>free ride and yet when it collapses blames it on the "Good" for not
>being "popular" enough with the consumers to get it produced.
>
>Of course how do you get that vaunted "popularity" with the consumers?
>You advertise!  That is how you let the consumers know of the quality
>that you offer.  Have you ever gone to a swimming pool in middle America
>and noticed how the predominant obesity resembles those terrible
>commercials that made fun of Russian State fashions with the fat
>"Svetlana" parading back and forth in her military uniform?   (Those
>were not the beautiful Bolshoi opera singers that I saw at that
>fundraiser in Manhattan two weeks ago.  Only the elder had that
>stereotypical body and she carried it with great power and she WAS old.
>These Americans are the parents of infants and they weigh above 300 lbs.
>each.)
>
>So if the advertisement was inaccurate then what was its purpose?  To
>enlighten?  To announce a new higher value?  Would the product have sold
>without it?  Was the product itself as shoddy as the advertisement's
>message?  What was (as the computernik physicists say) the
>"compressibility" of the message?  In other words, was the message as
>simple-minded as the audience?  Has the incredible "cheapness" of these
>societies finally created a consumer unable to comprehend his own
>health, education and cultural identity?
>
>I apologize for the polemic but I am a person recovering from a pulled
>back.  Like Tom Walker, at this point it is hard to equate vain bragging
>or flattery with positive reinforcement and psychological support for
>the current market.  It is hard to escape the feeling that the reality
>of the current diversity of structures and systems, that lie outside of
>the Supreme Duality model, spell a danger of eminent collapse.  If not a
>market vulnerability than one that lies deeper.  A truth that the
>problem of complexity lies not in externals but within the minds of

>those who are observing the situation.  That the current words and
>models that are comprehensible are just not up to the task of dealing
>with the diversity.
>
>Again and again we hear the words "it just can't be that hard" or "this
>is just too complicated."  I would suggest that the only model that is
>worth anything is one that covers all of the "bases" with a human
>generosity and an efficiency of effort.
>
>The architect Mies van der Rohe used to say "less is more."  Too little
>is however inadequate and the right amount is the right amount and
>Mies's spareness doesn't weather all that well in the long run.  I have
>a piece of his Seagram building that just dropped off leaving a
>noticeable hole.There are more than two sides to these issues and
>for that we should be thankful.   So my point about the Russians is
>still the same and has nothing to do with romance.  They are better than
>we are at certain things.  And we are better than them at others.
>Neither of those two things are enough to make a society and Russia's
>collapsed as a result.  I believe we are in danger of the same and for
>basically the same reason.

FWD: All Point Alert: NTM (MAI) LIVES!

[David Burman]

Dear all, 
This came across my screen from France. It may be of interest to all those
who have been battling the MAI at home.
David 

>X-BlackMail: venise.magic.fr, venise.magic.fr, [EMAIL PROTECTED], 195.115.16.4
>X-Authenticated-Timestamp: 11:58:55(EDT) on May 09, 1998
>Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 17:49:41 +0200 (MET DST)
>X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.3
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ecoropa)
>Subject: FWD: All Point Alert:  NTM LIVES!
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],

>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 19:48:00 -0400
>>From: LORI WALLACH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sender: LORI WALLACH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Organization: Public Citizen
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Asia Pacific Center), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Beth Burrows),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fondation Bellerive),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Corporate Europe Observatory),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Arden-Clarke),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rosanna Picillo), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Wiehoff),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alfred Eckes), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ecoropa),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eeva Simola),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Faith Weiss),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (German Watch),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Humberto Campodonico), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(IFG),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jaron Bourke),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeffrey Barber),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jozsef Feiler),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy R Madsen),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jock Nash), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Antonia Juhasz),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (KMies28561),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maud Johansson),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Schmitz),
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (M

Re: automation and jobs (minds and hands)

[David Burman]

I think that with concerns for personal autonomy vis a vis the collective,
especially given the "automated work" scenario that Rivkin proposes, local
economic systems which include personal money become more important. Rather
than deceptively simple concepts, personal money systems like LETS are
elegant in their simplicity. The effects of use, in our experience, do
indeed foster community and human interaction, exactly the oposite of state
intervention, while accomplishing many of the same goals.

At 02:41 PM 3/29/98 -0500, Ed Weick wrote:
>>Ed Weick wrote:
>>> 
>>> >
>>> >Where in our economic system are personal efforts given value? Why can't
>>> >we place a value on caring for an ill relative or a newborn child or a
>>> >wild animal.
>>> 
>>> Why would we want to place a social value on something that is so
>>> fundamentally personal?
>>> 
>Brad McCormick responded:
>>
>>I would think the beginning of an answer 
>>to this question is fairly "obvious":
>>To *fund* them.   etc.
>
>I believe it's a matter of perspective.  It depends a lot on the relative
>emphasis one gives to the personal versus the social, or the individual
>versus the collective.  Caring for other people or animals in distress is, I
>believe, a very personal thing.  If you intrude the social or collective
>into it, it becomes "depersonalized".  If the collective then funds it, it
>becomes even more so.  Rules get written around what you can do, who should
>be involved, and how much of it is allowable.
>
>Look at it this way: what is important is how people behave toward one
>another because they want to, not because the market or the government or
>the church, or whoever, has laid down rules and proscriptions.  Because
>there are many things that we have to transact at arms length, we must have
>a market, an economy, and a public sector.  But these things should not be
>needed for transactions that are directly interpersonal and done out of
>compassion - like caring for a sick relative or a new born child.  I see the
>market or the government as something that is superimposed onto our lives,
>something that is necessary but which should not dominate us.  I don't see
>it as something into which we should subsume our ability to be compassionate.
>
>When I was in Russia a couple of years ago, I saw a society in disarray.
>The state had lifted the burden of caring for sick relatives from people for
>seventy years.  But the state had collapsed and the burden had been put back
>onto a people who no longer knew how to carry it.  
>
>When I was in Brazil last November, I encountered a rather different
>situation, one in which the state had everything on the books - free medical
>care, welfare, free education - but was unable to deliver any of these
>things effectively. No one bothered to try to access most of the services
>that were supposed to exist simply because they weren't there in practice.
>Because they never had been able rely on the state, the people of the slums
>had created their own local support networks, often centered around a
church.  
>
>I would not want the state to value the time and energy that I have put into
>raising my children and to put it into some form of revised national
>accounts.  As long as I have not abused my children, what I have done with
>them and for them is my business, not the state's.  On the other hand, I do
>want the state to value the time I have spent in my arm's length
>contributions to the social collective via the market because that is
>important to the shared welfare of the collective.
>
>Ed Weick
> 

Fwd: Latest news from France

[David Burman]

>X-BlackMail: 195.99.86.4, venise.magic.fr, [EMAIL PROTECTED], 195.99.86.4
>X-Authenticated-Timestamp: 11:29:59(EST) on March 23, 1998
>Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:20:36 +0100 (MET)
apologies for cross postings. Here's some important news on MAI from France.

>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Unverified)
>X-Mailer: Eudora F1.5.3
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ecoropa)
>Subject: Latest news from France
>
>Dear France,
>
>Please find enclosed a short memo on possible OECD's scenario after April.
>As well as some details on the ongoing preparations for the 28th of April
>demonstration.
>
>WATCH OUT
>THE OECD HAS A BACKUP STRATEGY FOR THE MAI !
>
>AN ALERT FROM THE OBSERVATOIRE DE LA MONDIALISATION (GLOBALISATION
>OBSERVATORY), PARIS
>
>[We know the MAI as it stands may be in trouble. But the neo-1iberals are
>not going to give up so easily. Here, according to a friend from the French
>Society of Film Directors who recently shared a meal with one of the
>Director of the Investment Department at the OECD, is what they may try
>next].
>
>States negotiating the MAI can table reservations relative to the framework
>of future liberalisation of international investment.
>Some observers believe that these reservations will allow a government to
>sign the MAI and still protect certain sectors of its national economy from
>transnational takeover (e.g. the 'cultural sector' in France; natural
>resources in Norway / Canada, etc.)
>
>THIS IS A TRAP. Such 'protection' is highly problematic.
>According to the OECD officia1, vho let it slip, these reservations could
>well be removed from the final text of the Treaty. According to this
>official, the 'critical mass' States (US, Canada, Japan, Europe) could soon
>sign an agreement containing the basic principles of the MAI. The various
>national reservations would be annexed.
>Once the 'critical mass' vas assured, a second series of negociations wou1d
>be programmed. In such a case, vith the basic Treaty already signed, the
>rules concerning international negociations (Vienna convention) vould apply
>: only a two-third majority rule for taking decision would be required.
>
>National reservations would then be examined case by case: A NATIONAL
>RESERVATION WHICH DID NOT OBTAIN THE TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY IN ITS FAVOUR
>WOULD BE REJECTED.
>
>Sir Leon Brittan, Vice-President of the European Commission and
>Commissioner in charge of relations vith the United States, is using the
>same strategy in his bid for the NEW TRANSATLANTIC MARKET [NTM]. Various
>exceptions (agriculture, culture, audiovisual, etc.) would be welcomed with
>alacrity, so long as the underlying principles of the project were
>accepted.
>DRACULA IS NOT YET DEAD !
>KEEP UP THE PRESSURE !
>REMEMBER : IN ITALIAN, 'MAI' MEANS 'NEVER' !
>
>International Demonstration planned for April 28th. The title of the
>demonstration is :
>International gathering :
>For the definitive funeral of the MAI and the NTM...
>Against the neo-liberal agression,
>For the humans rights and the rights of the peoples.
>What is planned is a half day of forums, debats and cultural activities in
>a place close to the OECD, plus a suprise at the end of the day... We would

>like to know by tomorrow afternoon 16.00 if anybody from the network wants
>to support this demonstration.
>
>Of course for those of you who want to participate in the activities, there
>will be be plenty of opportunities, and we could have a strategy meeting
>the next day. So please let us know ASAP. Have a good day and see you soon.
>
>Etienne Vernet
> 

Re: Re FW Some hard questions about Basic Income 1

[David Burman]

As a dentist, I can't resist this one! Tooth decay is a product of
capitalist "civilization." While the results of tooth decay could be severe
(abscesses could lead to death), before there were refined carbohydrates
(like white flour and sugar) tooth decay was relatively rare. In fact,
before mass production, tooth decay was the "priviledge" of the rich, who
could afford such luxuries as white flour and sugar. Honey, raw sugar and
maple syrup were used in some cultures, and but not being produced
commercially, these were not readily available to most people. 

I'm sure there are better examples of anti-evolutionism!
David 


At 10:19 AM 3/1/98 GMT, Durant wrote:
>
>> So Brad, I disagree, it is not the perks of the office meeting or a
>> businessman's lunch that keeps capitalism going, it is the perverting of
>> life to a language that defines reality as a competition which of course is
>> reinforced with sciences current love affair with evolution.  Let me ask you
>> a question?  Why do humans have bad teeth?  If evolution was all it is
>> cracked up to be, surely we could have evolved out of tooth decay.  If you
>> have no teeth, it is pretty hard to chew grain or a hunk of meat.
>> 
>
>I had only time to glance through, but this caught my eye,
>as I cannot understand the gist of it.
>What's your problem with evolution?
>Before you knock it, read up on it, you seem to
>have the time... The few thousand of years
>since human lifespan started to be longer is
>bagatelle in evolutionary timescales. 
>People used to die by the time their teeth
>decayed. Besides, evolution is basically a random
>process, there is no "ultimate reason" for all
>the bits and pieces we have, if something not
>hindering survival, it may stay if it is related
>with an otherwise important gene. I haven't read up
>on it, but this is my impression. 
>Science has no "love affair" with anything;
>if the theory works, it is kept, if it found wanting and
>one found approximating reality better, it is chucked.
>This  is not a postmodernist crap of "changing paradigm"
>as the new theory often contains but updates the old one.
>
>Eva
>
>> Respectfully,
>> 
>> Thomas Lunde
>> 
>> 
>> 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Re: Satanic mills

[David Burman]

At 10:12 AM 2/10/98 -0500, Ed Weick wrote:

snip
>
>
>I believe we are now moving into something new and different.  We are not
>sure of what it is, but we have labeled it "globalization".  It too would
>appear to be the product of a critical change in technology - technology
>which has permitted overleaping of national boundaries and which permits
>production to take place and markets to be accessed almost anywhere in the
>world.  The assembly line and supermarket have become global.  There is no
>question but that this change favors capital over the individual as both
>worker and consumer and, moreover, takes away much of the power of the
>nation-state as intervener.  Monopoly capital is again ascendent.
>Nation-states will need to work cooperatively if they are to impose some
>semblance of order on the emerging international economy.  Whether they can
>do so effectively remains to be seen.  I must admit I am skeptical.

Perhaps the threat of monetary, or other global economic collapse might
encourage cooperation of some sort. Or the threat of environmental collapse
(despite denial in some quarters that such a possibility exists) might scare
some leaders into action. Perhaps not. As you say, we don't know because
we're in the middle of it.

Let's wish ourselves luck.

David

rich-poor gap

[David Burman]

Harry wrote:

>The more Capital we have, the more trade we have, the more wealth is
available for all of us. But it doesn't reach everybody, either in the US
or in the third world.

>For heavens sake, ask why?

OK, why?

David

Re: Response to Ed Weick

[David Burman]

ies in favour of
LETSystems. Since you brought it up, national currencies are very good at
trading on a national or international level. But they are very clumsy at
catering to local needs when there is a net outflow of resources from the
local to the centre, from poor to rich. The scarcity of national currency
reinforces this trend which has always existed ("them what has gets," "the
rich get richer," etc are not only proverbial sayings, but reflections of
how a scarce-commodity currency works, i.e. without political controls, the
structure of money dictates that wealth must flow from poor to rich). 

The experience of the town of Worgl in Austria during the 30's shows that
local currency can create prosperity when global conditions are working
against it (for a good description of that process, see Tom Greco's, "New
Money for Healthy Communities."  200 Austrian and German towns were on the
verge of issuing their own currencies before the Austrian central bank
stepped in and killed it.

Will we be
>happier?  Will it end domination by some of the many?  Will it do away with
>elites knowing what is best for all and insisting on conformance to their
>goals?  I seriously doubt it.

There is a direct relationship between personal control over one's
environment and stress. Similarly local control over decision making about
the use of resources leads to increased social cohesion, which Wilkinson
shows very convincingly is also related to reduced stress and improved
health. Indeed he points out that the wealthiest Briton is less healthy than
the least wealthy Swede, BECAUSE of the relatively greater gap in incomes in
those two countries. The gap itself is a measure of control of resources,
and is related to differences in social cohesion, over and above all other
mitigating factors, like immigration, for example.

Does narrowing the income gap do away with elites? Obviously not. Even the
most egalitarian societies have ways of rewarding merit or social class. But
it does reduce the amount of coercive power one group has over another.

There's no going back on the global economy either, as there was no going
back on the industrial revolution. But to say that we should therefore sit
back and take whatever damage is meted out to us is like asking the early
19th century workers in the black satanic mills of northern England to quit
complaining and be thankful they have a job.

But the current (non)system is terribly unstable (no secret there). I have
no doubt that some form of viable, centrally administered controls over the
global economy (by whom?) will emerge in order to save the international
banking and trading system from itself (Tobin tax etc.) But that in itself
will not stem the flow of resources out of communities (witness the
downloading of responsibilities to municipalities, along with cutbacks in
funding in our dear province of Ontario). In order for local communities to
survive these conditions, local economies will have to be fostered, nurtured
and expanded.  Why shouldn't municipalities issue their own currencies,
accept local taxes in local and pay for services in same, to save hard won
"hard" currency for "imports?" Experience indicates that those which
followed that route would prosper indeed.

I hope I've made my thinking a little more clear on this.

respectfully,
David  Burman

Re: Response to Keith Hudson

[David Burman]

At 05:41 PM 2/4/98 -0500, Ed Weick wrote:
>
>I'm not quite sure of what to make of this, but it strikes me as being a
>supreme example of assigning a single cause to a multi-faceted problem.
>Many populations have benefitted from increased trade.  Others have not -
>for example, Sub-Saharan Africa.  Natural resources are being exported from
>some Sub-Saharan countries and populations are being exploited and
>impoverished, but these populations have also faced other problems:
>depletion of soils, corrupt governments, civil wars, and inter-ethnic
>genocide.  Is it the fact that they are hooked into trading loops that is
>the primary problem?  Or is it that they are governed so ineffectively that
>large companies like Shell Oil can move in and walk all over them?

My understanding is that companies like Shell don't just happen, but are
part of the phenomenon. Free trade itself isn't a problem either, but rather
a tool in the concentration of wealth and power -- that is, as you ask
below, the monopolization of free trade.  However, the free trade agreements
were entered into partly in order to accelerate the ease of market
domination and partly by small countries like Canada to try and get some
market share. But I don't think the results have been great for the
non-elite in any country, although I don't have figures at my fingertips.
There may be positive results down the road -- as necessary controls on the
"wild west" stage of the global economy are enacted, some of the worst
excesses will be attenuated. But the fact remains that the income gap
between rich and poor is widening in all regions as concentration of wealth
continues unfettered. 
>
>When it comes to world poverty, where is the fault?  Is it free trade or the
>monopolization of such trade?  Or is it the incompetence and corruption of
>heads of governments willing to play along with monopolists and despoilers
>as long as they get their cut?  

Sure, but who keeps the incompetent heads of governments in power? Since
1953, in the CIA's Iran experiment, democratically elected governments have
been undermined and, if necessary overthrown, when they dare to enact
policies that are in the interests of their citizens and counter to the
interests of the transnational corporations. Iran, 1953, Guatemala, 1954,
Dominica, 1960, Ghana, 1963, Chile, 1973, and the list goes on. Each time
these governments were replaced by violent, corrupt goons who maintained the
lines of "trade" (read exploitation) open. This is not secret information,
but was the subject of a PBS documentary a few years ago.


Or is it the fact that various ethnic
>groups, ideologues or religious zealots simply cannot get along and want to
>cleanse the world of each other and, in so doing, totally disrupt everything
>that goes into making life liveable and normal?  

Having talked at great length with Rwandans about how genocide could happen
in such a formerly peaceful country, I understand that a climate of great
fear has to be engendered. Atrocities can be engineered, which are responded
to by further atrocities. It could happen here in Canada if Quebec were to
separate. It's not genetic. At the root is the exploitation of fears and
anxieties by some elite group. 

How does this tie into free trade? I think free, autonomous populations are
anathema to global, monopoly capitalism. The rhetoric of democracy is used
only to reinforce the ideology of individualism. It rarely is invoked
against right wing dictators, for example, who are supportive of consumerism.

Or is it the fact that
>women are repressed and children cannot get to school and therefore can
>never learn the skills that would enable a better and more productive life?
>I would suggest that it is a combination of all of these things, and many
>more.  But it is nothing short of downright silly to lay it all on the fact
>that I want to exchange something of value with someone living in some other
>part of the world so that we can both get more of what we want.

I think you oversimplify the global economy if all it is to you is the
ability to get something you want. The issue is not trade, but tarrifs. It
is the right of corporations to export cheap products to any country and
overwhelm whatever indigenous industry they think will be profitable.  It is
also a means to make sure that the Asian and African nations never rise to
dominate the West. 

For a more erudite analysis, read Walden Bello's "Dark Victory: the United
States, Structural Adjustment and Global Poverty", San Francisco, Food First
Books, 1994.

Response to Keith Hudson

[David Burman]

Keith Hudson wrote: 

>Well said. The "modern" debate about free trade, globalisation and so forth
>is merely today's equivalent of the debate about usury that went on for a
>thousand years in the Middle Ages (and before that in Greek and Chinese
>times). Every time free trade resumes and prosperity revives, some
>authoritarian body wants to lay their hands on the profits -- the Church,
>principalities, guilds, more latterly nation-states -- and so they start to
>impose restrictions on trade by taxing it. This succeeds for a while but
>inevitably fails as the general population sinks into increasing poverty.
>
The problem with free trade is not prosperity, although some few are
becoming enormously prosperous, but in fact impoverishment of the majority,
and of the planet itself. The GNP is a poor measure of prosperity, for while
billionaires are being created in unprecedented numbers, the numbers in
poverty are also increasing apace, as is the depth of poverty and its
attendant ills. However, the hugely disproportionate amount of wealth owned
by these few dangerously skews the data, leading to the perception that
society itself is becoming more prosperous through free trade and the global
economy. 

Frances Moore Lappe and Joseph Collins state the case very well in "World
Hunger: Twelve Myths," (New York: Grove, Weidenfeld, 1986), in which they
show how concentration of wealth and resources is detrimental to the economy
and the environment. 

We are seeing with globalization of trade a rapid increase in the gap
between rich and poor. And as Richard Wilkinson explains, with exhaustive
evidence, in "Unhealthy Societies," it is the gap itself which causes social
incohesion, stress, and ill health -- none of which are measurable by GNP,
and all of whic are inconsistent with any but the most narrow concepts of
"prosperity."

If you happen to be benefitting from the current situation, it's difficult
to imagine anyone who isn't. Perhaps Bath isn't the place to do it, but have
a look around you, Keith, at the increasing numbers of beggars on the
streets. They didn't appear because we are more prosperous.

Re: FW To David Burnam re Alternative Money

[David Burman]

Thomas, 
thanks for your reply. There are several sources worth checking out. One
that I've written appears as Chapter 5 in "Eco-city Dimensions: Healthy
communities, healthy planet," edited by Mark Roseland of Simon Fraser U (New
Society Publishers, Gabriola Is. BC, 1997).  Tom Greko has self published a
book on alternative currencies that I recommend highly for its readability
and good stories: "New Money for Healthy Communities."   Tom's address is:
P.O. Box 42663 Tucson, AZ 85733. Bernard Laitaer, an economist who was
instrumental in developing the Eurodollar (by way of establishing
credentials), is writing very strongly in favour of local currencies as a
necessary countervailing force to the global economy. And so on.  They are
popping up like mushrooms all over the place, as community responses to
globalization. Mushrooms may not be a bad metaphor, actually, because the
mycelia travel underground in all directions, and grow where ever the soil
is suitable, but remain connected. 

I could give you lots of anecdotes, but where do I start? Perhaps a good
place is a listserv on LETS in English (there's a comparable one in French
as well). Address is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and the joining command is
"join econ-lets "  

Let me know if I can supply more info.

David


At 09:25 AM 1/31/98 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote:
>Dear David Burnam:
>
>I read your post with interest and though I have only a cursory knowledge
of alternative money - what little I do know leads me to believe that it
could provide a number of solutions in the area of community employment,
local exchange of services and an increased quality of life that is
controllable by local communities.  I have read Hazelton and she speaks very
highly of LETS and other local currency initiatives.
>
>I am surprised that your posting did not elicit some comment from FW but we
seem to be in a bit of a lag here.  Perhaps if you could detail your
experiences and theoretical background references on this concept, I and
others could look at this in more depth.  The fact that it was well received
in South America surprises me, but then our news media is very limited in
what they publish, for example the recent Team Canada trip to Latin America
has hardly been mentioned in terms of content, contracts or effect.
>
>Theory is fine, but anecdotal stories are very important to flesh out
theory.  I look forward to reading some of the success of these ideas.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Thomas Lunde
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Dear David Burnam:
> 
>I read your post with interest and though I
have 
>only a cursory knowledge of alternative money - what little I do know leads me 
>to believe that it could provide a number of solutions in the area of
community 
>employment, local exchange of services and an increased quality of life
that is 
>controllable by local communities.  I have read Hazelton and she speaks 
>very highly of LETS and other local currency initiatives.
> 
>I am surprised that your posting did not
elicit 
>some comment from FW but we seem to be in a bit of a lag here. 
Perhaps if 
>you could detail your experiences and theoretical background references on
this 
>concept, I and others could look at this in more depth.  The fact that it 
>was well received in South America surprises me, but then our news media is
very 
>limited in what they publish, for example the recent Team Canada trip to Latin 
>America has hardly been mentioned in terms of content, contracts or 
>effect.
> 
>Theory is fine, but anecdotal stories are very 
>important to flesh out theory.  I look forward to reading some of the 
>success of these ideas.
> 
>Respectfully,
> 
>Thomas Lunde
>

Re: FW: Re Financial Times article on MAI

[David Burman]

The track record of governments resisting the transnational agenda has not
been good so far. Is there any evidence (besides this)  that the pendulum is
beginning to swing in the other direction?

At 01:42 PM 1/22/98 PST, pete wrote:
> Michael Gurstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> forwarded:
>
>>From: Andrea Durbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: [csdgen] Financial Times Article on MAI
>
>[...]
>
>
>>---
>>Source: Financial Times, Monday January 19, 1998 (page 5)
>>Title:  Worries over planned investment accord
>>Author: Guy de Jonquieres
>>---
>
>>Leading business organisations in the US and Europe are concerned
>>that a planned agreement to promote foreign direct investment seems
>>likely to dismantle few international barriers and may create costly
>>new ones.
>>
>[...]
>
>>But business representatives said they were disappointed the talks
>>had failed so far to achieve any real liberalisation and worried the
>>agreement might impose restrictive labour and environmental
>>standards on multinational companies.
>
>[...]
>
>>Many of the demands are supported by the US, which is pressing hard
>>for tighter environmental provisions in the MAI. Although business
>>groups say they can accept some US goals, they oppose a proposal to
>>require environmental impact assessments of certain planned
>>investments.
>
>>Some business lobbyists are worried that strengthening labour
>>standards provisions in the MAI could make it harder for governments
>>to adopt policies designed to create more flexible labour markets.
>
>This is the best news I've yet heard in this long sordid saga.
>If the eventual agreement is universally condemned by multinational
>corporate investors, I would regard that as an almost unassailable
>argument for its adoption.
>
>  -Pete Vincent
>
>
>

No Subject

[david burman]

On the subject of an 'Alternative Investment Code' Richard Douthwaite
argued that 'Net capital flows between countries, or even between one
part of a country and another, need to be completely prohibited if we
are ever to construct a sustainable world.'  

I think the time has come to serioiusly consider local currencies as a means
of bringing about the sustainable world that Richard refers to. They've been
used successfully during the Depression in Austria until the central bank
closed them down, (see Tom Greko's 1994 book: "New Money for Healthy
Communities") and now they're re-emerging in commuities world wide in the
form of  LETS , HOURS, Time dollars, etc. Just recently, they've opened up
in South America and Mexico (see Chris Hohner's latest submission in
econ-lets which I've copied below)


This is a one-way message from Buenos Aires - please do not respond to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (email anarchy on my return! - I can't easily clear my
mail for lack of telnet access on my home server).

LETS sneaked into the Team Canada mission to Latin America, under the
auspices of Community Software of Peterborough, Ontario, and the federal
government of Canada, which sponsored 4 "youth" delegates (out of 480
businesses), of which CSI is the only representative from Ontario. Chris
Hohner (myself) is the author and sole participant for LETS on this
mission.

Mexico (Mexico City)

The peso crash in recent years gave great mileage for LETS. My Mexican
counterparts were deeply impressed at the analogy that when money is
devalued, skills remain, and new mechanisms for credit are needed to
infuse the correction at local levels to address the chaos in labour and
earnings. We were a very late entrant to the trade mission, and I was
unable to contact Luis in time to arrange a meeting (my laptop died,
with all email correspondence, in mid-December). But I was heartened by
the focus of the Presedential address to delegates, which firmly
stressed the importance of socio-economic factors as the premise for
business, and the goal of inclusive prosperity to create the possibility
for participation of poor Mexicans in the life of the economy. I
mentioned liberally the project in April for LETS in Latin America (hope
that's O.k. Stephen!), and gave some demonstrations of LETS software
translated into Spanish.

Brazil (Brasilia and Sao Paulo)

This was a little harder, and confess little headway was made. The CEO's
and their high-powered local deals dominated, and the language barrier
was more extreme. I focussed on the domestic (Canadian) representatives.
A province-wide program for LETS is now being considered for one of the
Canadian provinces. Several others expressed interest, but there is much
work remaining to concretize any impression into action. But they're a
captive audience on the trip (as I am!), and one influential CEO (a
crony of finance ministers past and present) is now obsessed with LETS.

Argentina

Buenos Aires was the breakthrough. By chance, my LETS-obsessed CEO
nailed me for a lunch with some powerful Argentinians, and the talk of
financial markets, the Asian collapse, George Soros (third-largest
investor in Argentina), and then LETS, left them flabbergasted. I really
nailed that room - almost the entirety of the lunch focussed on LETS.
One of the Argentine power-brokers is arranging a special audience with
the likely future president of Chile on the next leg of the trip. By all
accounts, he is brilliant, young, and very open to innovative ideas.
I've been told he will be floored by the concept.

Time is very short on this dizzying array of meetings, schmoozings, and
dinners, so I have to go. As I mentioned, don't respond to me personally
until February - my mailbox is likely jammed already.

Sincerely,

Chris Hohner
Peterborough LETS
General Manager,
Community Software

David Burman[EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Toronto,  phone: 416-978-0536
19 Russell Street,  fax: 416-978-8511
Toronto ON, M5S 2S2