Capitalism: what it is, what we can do about it.
! hugs john courtneidge Networking The Fair World Project The whole Fair World plan follows: *** Creating A Fair, Safe and Peaceful World *** Can we consider that our shared goal is to create a fair, safe and peaceful world? If so, it seems that we need to transform the economic system in which we live, so that: o people, together, are in control of their lives, o where all work for the long-lived benefit of all: caring for the long-lived benefit of the whole global ecology, and all its inhabitants. To find the way forward, we need to have strategies for the three core features of present-day economics: o ownership of workplaces and knowledge used for profit, o ownership of land and natural resources, and their use for profit, and o the practice of money-lending for profit. To be able to deal with these three, core aspects, we must, first, return money to its proper use - as a lubricant of human activity, created by, and flowing through, nationally-owned, democratic, public service banking and financial systems. With them in place, we can, then convert workplaces into appropriate co-operative enterprises, such that each has respectful stewardship of land and knowledge resources: o ensuring that everyone receives a fair, guaranteed income, o ensuring that proper stewardship of the planet is our central task, This suggests the following Seven Point Action Plan¹: The Co-operative Way - A Seven Point Action Plan 1) Convert competitive, market-based activities into workplace co-operative partnerships and remodel monopoly activities as stakeholder co-operatives (see points two and five for the funding mechanism to achieve this); 2) Redistribute the added-value wealth from the workplace co-ops through nationally-collected corporate taxation, distributed into local, democratically-controlled, Community Banks: and, so, make money and credit available for responsible wealth creation and community development (and the conversions referred to above); 3) Maximise necessary service provision (health, education, libraries, transport and so on) on a free-at-the-point-of-use basis, retaining money as a mechanism for access to discretionary purchases. 4) Introduce guaranteed income for all, within upper and lower brackets and, so, do away with personal taxation; 5) Abolish money-lending for profit and, so, operate banking as a public service (see point two above); 6) Reintroduce international exchange controls as necessary; 7) Make capital grants (not loans) to developing countries. We hope this action plan gives us all a good basis for a practical, moral, sustainable and co-operative economics. Your Friends in peace, co-operation and equality: The Fair World Project 13 North Road Hertford SG14 1LN (UK) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (+44) 01992 501854 Please print and share this material with those not yet e-connected (The Fair World Project, once implemented, will ensure that they can be!)
pro-creative solutions (Was Re: Money and Energy... or PCBs)
Dear Friends, all, Our friend, J. Walter Plinge, encourages us to offer a set of solutions to deal with the power triangle: -money, land, corporate governance I've copied, at the end a copy e-correspondence that offers a solution set to these issues. Please do share it around. loads'a e-hugs john *** Copy e-correspondence at end -- From: "J. Walter Plinge" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: econ-lets [EMAIL PROTECTED], turmel-egroups [EMAIL PROTECTED], UNILETS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Money and Energy... or PCBs Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000, 12:00 PM Not long ago Cal wrote to the econ-lets list about the two ways to control people: Money and Energy. That's partly right I suppose... but Energy is a subset of Corporate Dominance, which is a subset of Money. I see it as a pyramid, something like this: 1) Money (the form of currencies used) is the Prime tool of control used by: A) Politicians i) National 'elections' a) War machinery monopoly b) Education monopoly c) Labor conrol monopoly d) Science monopoly/cartel d) Religion monopoly/cartel d) Law monopoly ii) State Politicians, etc iii) Local Politicians, etc B) Corporations i) Media monopoly/cartel a) TV... etc ii) Consumer products monopoly a) Energy b) Food c) Transportation d) Communications C) Banking i) Banking/Money 'services' monopoly/cartel a) Goal #1: Centralization via one world currency/ one bank (or a cartel of a few banks) ... anybody heard of a bank merger lately? The temptation is to put Bankers at the top of the list, but bankers don't call ALL the shots, nor do politicians nor corporations. The Type of money we now use was determined by a coalition of the three, Politicians, Corporations, and Bankers (PCBs) at Bretton Woods. And the PCBs have selected the Optimum form of money to secure their dominance. That is to say that if another form of money were used - a Sane one, for instance - their power would diminish. Well, that's the way I see it anyway. You can focus on energy or education; it doesn't matter, nothing changes. For instance, moving education from the public sector to the private sector changes little; indeed individuals still have Some control at the local political level, but no powers in the corporate level, so corporate schools will mean a loss of individual control. Not much is going to change until the root cause is eliminated, and right now the ONLY thing I see with real possibilities is local currencies. If anyone has suggestions or a different view, I'd be very interested in hearing about it. JWP Copy correspondence here: Dear John (John St John from john courtneidge) Thanks in abundance for sending this: I've tucked some comments in your nice essay at j: (I hope they help). I think that we are in complete agreement. In that regard, I copy the Fair World set at the very end: it is based upon increasing levels of 'right relationships' : i.e.: guaranteed incomes for all within upper and lower boundaries (implies no need for personal taxes) corporate restructuring into appropriate co-operatives realigning land ownership/stewardship (from for-profit owners into those co-operatives) profits recirculation from those co-operatives via community banks money and credit creation (by those not-for-profit, public service community banks rather than the present for-profit financial system) money lending and credit making (ditto) regulated inter-national economic activity gifting to those less fortunate (i.e. the guaranteed income point, delivered on a global scale) One question is what (we?) might do next. Spread this word around? Lobby politically for action? Whatever? e-hugs john (Fair World stuff at the end) ** From: "John H. St. John" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: essay Date: Tue, Nov 7, 2000, 3:36 AM Who Owns This Thing? By John H. St.John Page 1 We are aware that almost every material thing we own or covet is manufactured by corporations. If some mad Communist got rid of the corporations; what would we ever do without them? No Microwave, no Toyota, and no job. Still: what were once natural disasters, are being blamed on the corporate giants. Our televisions and radios bombard us with maddening loud aggressive hype. The popular culture is dominated by vulgarity and our political leaders have become the creatures of the corporation. Meanwhile nature is giving loud protestations because of her displeasure with the poisons being inflicted on her. Wealth should bring happiness, but instead it is cursing us with dope and despair. Something is wrong. Something is terribly wrong and ordinary people are beginning to realize that it stems from the insatiable greed of the corporation. I played the Marxist game in my
Re: CONVENTION LAW OR MARSHAL LAW
Dear Friends, all. Our Friend, John, makes revealing comments about the problem's of today's (sic) economics (recall that the greek word oikonimos = care of the household ! ) In the spirit of helping form a set of solutions, I add, at the end: - an action plan from The Fair World Project. I hope that it helps. co-operative hugs from, john courtneidge *** The full 'Fair World Project' text follows at the end: please share. Thanx ! *** -- From: "Johnny Holiday/John A. Taube" [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip In Hansons fourth paragraph, he contends that only by marshal law could the U.S. reduce its consumption by 95 percent. Hansons statement is over simplified. Whether we have marshal law or conventional law, by reducing consumption in our socioeconomic structure, our Price System, employment is correspondently reduced. Because 95 percent reduction in consumption will so drastically affect employment it will create a state of panic whether we have marshal or conventional law. It appears that Technocracy is alone in realizing that because we function with a Price System in our advanced technological age, the change in the time rate of doing work has forced us to be gluttons. Just why is this so? In primitive colonial times our nations production was strictly hand-tool. Think of this: For centuries metal ferrous and others was fashioned by the blacksmith with a sledge hammer and anvil, strictly hand-tool. Nobody uses that method today. It was replaced by a drop-forge and it turns out that drop-forges with a mere look-see skeleton crew has replaced the old hand-tool huge workforce that existed for centuries. In modern times, the work force need in metal fabrication per unit of production is trivial in comparison what it used to take. Im 87, born in 1912. While I dont remember the exact year, it probably was 1921 that our class went on a field trip to the telephone company and I have a vivid recollection of it. Banks of women at switch boards doing hand-tool, grueling, monotones, tedious work. Now what? Computers, with a skeleton look see force have replaced that multitude of hand-tool people who composed the old workforce. Our technology with a skeleton look see work force produces a plethora of goods. Our Price System requires that these goods are moved from inventory to consumer; failing this, the system collapses. In order to avoid a panic condition we have to be consumer gluttons. Where can one study this reduction of the work force and its effect on our society? Log onto Technocracys official web site, www.technocracy.org and, beside reading other articles, especially read M. King Hubberts Man-Hours and Distribution. Additionally log onto www.technocracysf.org and click on MENU and especially read A Commentary to Jim Lehrer. Before closing this piece, it will be beneficial to consider one other matter. There are a variety of groups that focus on the fact that not to distant in the future oil reserves will have reached such a low point that the existence of our scientific-technological age will be threatened. Everyone of these groups fails to realize that whatever is done to adjust to the shortage of oil but still leave intact our socioeconomic structure, our Price System, nothing has really been done to solve our problem. Hopefully, each one of these groups will study just how our Price System must be dumped if we are to have any future at all. *** *** Creating A Fair, Safe and Peaceful World *** Can we consider that our shared goal is to create a fair, safe and peaceful world? If so, it seems that we need to transform the economic system in which we live, so that: o people, together, are in control of their lives, o where all work for the long-lived benefit of all: caring for the long-lived benefit of the whole global ecology, and all its inhabitants. To find the way forward, we need to have strategies for the three core features of present-day economics: o ownership of workplaces and knowledge used for profit, o ownership of land and natural resources, and their use for profit, and o the practice of money-lending for profit. To be able to deal with these three, core aspects, we must, first, return money to its proper use - as a lubricant of human activity, created by, and flowing through, nationally-owned, democratic, public service banking and financial systems. With them in place, we can, then convert workplaces into appropriate co-operative enterprises, such that each has respectful stewardship of land and knowledge resources: o ensuring that everyone receives a fair, guaranteed income, o ensuring that proper stewardship of the planet is our central task, This suggests the following Seven Point Action Plan: The Co-operative Way - A Seven Point Action Plan 1) Convert competitive, market-based
Re: Sweatshops
The below is why The Fair World Project focuses on setting up co-operative economics, - rather than coercive (capitalist) economics. With community banks and interest-free credit, this can be done. e-hugs john ** -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sweatshops Date: Mon, Apr 17, 2000, 1:39 pm Trade unions had a rather rough and bloody beginning in the west. Weren't welcomed with open arms, especially by the elites.
Re: FWk:Re: BI: BI or GAI ? (fwd)
Dear Sally and F?W friends This question of guaranteed income within upper and lower bounds is at Number 4 of the 'Seven Point Action Plan' It can be delivered if the other six points are taken on board too! e-hugs john * ps Bill asked that I offer a week by week commentary on the Seven Point Plan - its coming soon !! (Thanks Bill!) More hugs * -- From: "S. Lerner" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FWk:Re: BI: BI or GAI ? (fwd) Date: Wed, Apr 5, 2000, 9:51 am A stimulating note from thre Basic Income list Sally Lerner X-Originating-IP: [193.60.131.100] From: "Conall Boyle" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: BI: BI or GAI ? Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 10:55:24 IST Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk I read most of our BI maillings but seldom reply. Robert Rosenstein unimaginative confusion over 'work' and 'jobs' has stung me into action! RR encapsulates the old industrial-age thinking which so grips our legislators, and , yes, perceptions of the public at large. "He that does not work, neither shall he eat" says the Good Book. But work and jobs are NOT the same thing, although many fall into the trap of thinking it. It's the ECONOMY that values the effort of say Tiger Woods playing games with stick and ball, and classifies caring for your children as 'unproductive'. There are even the truly farciacal campaigns to 'get mothers back to work'in both UK and US. Surely WE can think differently? I agree that the public at large is still in the grip of a job-equals-work psychosis, that paid employment is the Holy Grail for men, women, ethnics, disabled etc etc. We as a society have come to value one form of work - paid employment - however pointless and damaging, over all other necessary and useful effort. Basic Income would be the clearest signal that we value ALL useful effort. But Basic Income launched onto today's jobs-obsessed society would, as RR rightly points out be unpopular, be seen as a 'scroungers and shirkers charter', even seen somewhat ludicrously as anti-work. So we need to proceed with caution. Instead of Basic Income I would prefer to start with a label like 'Enterprise Allowance'. This would be given to all of working age (16-70 these days) who are actively engaged doing something useful. This could include business start-ups, but the main aim is to promote community activity of all kinds. (It worked once in the UK during the 1908's, and was so popular they abolished it!) I realise that 'Enterprise Allowance' introduces an element of conditionality into the pristine model of BI, but without it BI is unsalable. "You mean my tax $ or £ is going to featherbed young layabouts" is the killer comment. Now maybe instead is we raised tax by reclaiming for the community the value created by all our effortsResources Taxation, then we could claim that BI is an Entitlement Income, just like the dividend paid out to Aunt Maud on those bonds she inherited. But finding an appropriate way to raise the money to pay for BI is another story! (P.S. The British Chancellor Gordon Browne has gained £13 billion ($20 billion) selling fresh air! He is selling leases to use the airwaves. But who does that money belong to? Why shouldn't it be distributed as BI? Ah the joy of Resource Tax!) Conall Boyle, Birmingham, England (founder member, 1984, of UK Basic Income Research Group) From: Robert Rosenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BI: BI or GAI ? Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 09:51:23 -0400 Hello, all: Another question that must be discussed and decided is that of a Basic Income vs. a Guaranteed Annual Income. And still another issue is whether such an income should be given regardless of a person's income from other sources. Still another issue is whether all persons should receive this income, regardless of any other factors. In all of the above cases, an underlying issue is how the amount of the income is determined. This question, though, I believe should be reserved for last, because it is the character of the income that will determine the amount. BI vs GUI. So long as we have not made the transition from a work-oriented society, that is, from a society in which it is universally believed that a person who isn't working doesn't deserve to live as well as a person who is working, I believe a GAI is both necessary and desireable. It is psychologically necesary because because the receipt of a regular weekly or biweekly income will have a salutary effect on the large part of the population who can't work (or earn enough) for any of a variety of reasons. It is socially desireable, because it will initiate the transition from a society that has had a work-ethic drummed into them, to a society that recognizes that because of economic, technological and population factors, such an ethic is now untenable. 1. There is, at present, an external or social stigma in not
Re: Blaming the victors
Dear Friends The following seems relevant Hugs j ** THE FUNCTIONS OF POVERTY (From "Poverty in the United Kingdom"; Townsend, Peter; Penguin Books Ltd, London, England; 1979) "One application of the functionalist approach to the phenomenon of poverty allows us to draw general lessons. Gans has reflected at some length on the functions of poverty, taking up Merton¹s point that items which are functional for some sub-groups in society may be dysfunctional for others. Society, he argues, is so preoccupied outwardly with the costs¹ of poverty that it fails to identify the corresponding benefits, or rather, the groups or values who benefit. He describes fifteen sets of functions, as follows: 1. Poverty helps to ensure that dirty, dangerous, menial and undignified work gets done. 2. The poor subsidize the affluent by saving them money (for example, domestic servants, medical guinea pigs, and the poor paying regressive taxes). 3. Poverty creates jobs in a number of professions (e.g. drug pedlars, prostitutes, pawnshops, army, police). 4. The poor buy shoddy, stale and damaged goods (e.g. day-old bread, vegetables, second-hand clothes) which prolongs their economic usefulness, and similarly use poorly trained and incompetent professional people, such as doctors and teachers. 5. The poor help to uphold the legitimacy of dominant norms by providing examples of deviance (e.g. the lazy, spendthrift, dishonest, promiscuous). 6. The poor help to provide emotional satisfaction, evoking compassion, pity and charity, so that the affluent may feel righteous. 7. The poor offer affluent people vicarious participation in sexual, alcoholic and narcotic behaviour. 8. Poverty helps to guarantee the status of the non-poor. 9. The poor assist in the upward mobility of the non-poor. (By being denied educational opportunities or being stereotyped as stupid or unteachable, the poor enable others to obtain the better jobs.) 10. The poor add to the social viability of non-economic groups (e.g. fund-raising, running settlements, other philanthropic activities). 11. The poor perform cultural functions, like providing labour for Egyptian pyramids, Greek temples and medieval churches. 12. The poor provide low¹ culture which is often adopted by the more affluent (e.g. jazz, blues, spirituals, country music). 13. The poor serve as symbolic constituencies and opponents for several political groups (being seen either as the depressed or as welfare chiselers¹). 14. The poor can absorb economic and political costs of change and growth in American society (e.g. reconstruction of city centres, industrialisation). 15. The poor play a relatively small part in the political process and indirectly allow the interests of others to become dominant and distort the system. Gans denies that he is showing why poverty should persist, only that it survives in part because it is useful to a number of groups in society whether the dysfunctions outweigh the functions is a question that clearly deserves study¹. He points out that alternatives can be found easily enough for some functions. Thus, automation can begin to remove the need for dirty work, and professional efforts can be direct4ed, like those of social workers, to the more affluent, and those of the police to traffic problems and organized crime. But he argues that the status, mobility and political functions are more difficult to substitute in a hierarchical society, and though inequality of status might be reduced, it could not be removed. A functional analysis must conclude that poverty persists not only because it satisfied a number of functions but also because many of the functional alternatives to poverty would be quite dysfunctional for the more affluent members of society.¹ Gans believes that, unlike the Davis and Moore analysis of inequality, his argument is not conservative. By identifying the dysfunctions of poverty and discussing functional alternatives, the argument takes on a liberal and reform cast, because the alternatives often provide ameliorative policies that do not require any drastic change in the existing social order¹.
An e-flet: 'Delivering A Fair, Safe and Peaceful Society'
Dear Comrades On this fine day of action, I'd like to share the Seven Point Plan in the below - please do share it onward with your children, your grandchildren and all comrades. Abundant thanks and e-hugs john STARTS *** Delivering A Fair, Safe and Peaceful Society *** I consider that our socialist goal is to create a fair, safe and peaceful society, and, that, the key to delivering such a socially and globally ethical society is, undoubtedly, the economic system in which it is embedded. In a phrase, we need to create an economy where people are in control of their lives: working for the long-lived benefit of all, rather than for the profits of a few and the poverty of the planet. A world, in other words, where we live in trust and respect for, both, one-another and the planet . But how ? To find the elusive step, we have to have strategies for all three of capitalism's central features: ownership of the workplaces used for profit, ownership of land used for profit and ownership of money used for profit. To be able to deal with all three of these aspects of capitalism, we must, first, return money to its proper use - as a lubricant of human activity, created by, and flowing through, nationally-owned, democratic, Public Service Banking and Financial Systems - a set of 'National Wealth Services' perhaps? With that in place, we can, then convert share-holder workplaces into appropriate co-operative enterprises - each having due stewardship of land and knowledge resources - and all working for the commonweal: * ensuring that everyone receives a fair, guaranteed income. Engaged together, in networks of workplaces, which maximise, in William Morris' phrase: "Useful work, not useless toil." Given that strategy, how about these for tactics? *** Co-operative Socialism - A Seven Point Action Plan*** 1) Convert competitive activities into worker co-operative partnerships and remodel monopoly activities as stakeholder co-operatives (see points two and five for the funding mechanism to achieve this); 2) Redistribute added-value from workers' co-ops through nationally-collected corporate taxation, distributed into local, democratically-controlled Community Banks, thus making money available for wealth creation and community development (and the conversions referred to above); 3) Maximise necessary service provision (health, education, libraries, transport (?) etc) on a free-at-the-point-of-use basis, retaining (initially?) money as a mechanism for access to discretionary purchases. 4) Introduce guaranteed income maxima and minima for all, and, so, abolish personal taxation; 5) Abolish money-lending for profit, operating banking as a Public Service (see point two above); 6) Reintroduce international exchange controls as necessary; 7) Make capital grants (not loans) to developing countries. I hope this analysis forms a good basis for practical, co-operative (and sustainable!) democratic socialism. I'd enjoy receiving any comments. Your Friend in peace, co-operation and equality, John Courtneidge 13 North Road Hertford SG14 1LN (UK) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (+44) 01992 501854 ENDS ***
The True Tussle
My dear Future work friends, It's Saturday evening in England, close to midnight. I've just finished watching a BBC2 programme about the black Moses - Issac Hayes - spiced throughout by ythe theme from 'Shaft' and a whole lot of deep soul.. Part-way through, I thought that I'd have the courage to write, you all, the following: * The true tussle is not between: Men and women, Or between: Black or white, Or between: Young and old, Or between: Canada and the US, Or between: North and south, Or between, even (and, surprisingly) : Rich and poor. It *is* between: People and the planet against money. It is the contest between money's greed (usury) and the people and the planet's need (love). This is why the call for the three objectives, the seven point action plan and the one petition. For love conquers all - even our darkness. ** To my joy, our friend, Issac moves onward, for ever onward, to our common, shared ground, to identify the core problem: In his closing words, Issac Hayes pointed to his insight after forty years in the music business: That the dominant (at present) power (at present) - is that of finance. ** My love to you all, Sleep well, have a serene Sunday - and fruitful weeks. Keep at it !! Your Friend in peace, equality and co-operation, john ***
Re: Cooperative bookstore
Dear Friends I add at the end. j ** -- From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cooperative bookstore Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2000, 2:26 pm "M.Blackmore" wrote: THIS ain't such a silly idea Any thoughts on how one could go about it, either a good dot.com, or a physical site...? Perhaps we are going to have to start reinventing - for similar reasons - what our 19th century ancestors had to do in Britain with the cooperative movement... *From:* "john courtneidge" [EMAIL PROTECTED] [snip] Dear f/w friends Time to set up a co-operative bookstore (to stock the stuff that others hide away? Of course I sympathize as well as empathize with this idea. But I am curious about its practicability. Can someone tell me what are the "stuff that others hide away"? (I've gotten some pretty obscure things from Amazon -- which is a fact, not a feeling) Maybe I don't know what I'm missing? Other than chance encounters, You can only encounter in reality what you have previously encountered in fantasy. (--Gordon Hirshhorn) "Yours in discourse" +\brad mccormick -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA --- ![%THINK;[XML]] Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ ** My thoughts really were around a physical location (downtown Toronto? ) It seems that a good browsing red/green/co-operative bookshop could well be mightily valuable. 'Bookmarks' in London moved closer to central London about two years ago and seems to flourish (it is run by the Socialist Workers Party) and Octopus Books in the Glebe in Ottawa (a (socialist ?) co-operative, I think) also seems in good order. Agreed the point about Amazon (tho' their listing of titles found under a search for 'usury' as the keyword promised more than was fully delivered), but a physical site allows for serendipity, promotion of the best writing - in terms, I'd hope, of solutions rather than analysis - and to be accessible as a shared, *visible* space. My possibilities for doing this in London (England) are, presently, limited, but Canada might be a more plausible location. (And, perhaps, New York !!??) As always, my hugs to you all, Your Friend in peace, equality and co-operation, john **
Re: capitalism and health care quality
And, hence, my encouragement to read the opening and ending paragraphs of Richard Wilkinson's 'Unhealthy Societies' (Routledge, London 1998-ish). (Synopsis: the more unequal a society is, the more unhealthy its inhabitants - all of them!) Thus: reduced inequality = good (for every body !! ) e-hugs j * -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Reuss) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: capitalism and "health" care quality Date: Tue, Feb 22, 2000, 1:53 pm Harry Pollard wrote: You suggest that: "The still-increasing excesses of the medical-industrial complex in the West illustrate quite "well" that public health and profit-making is rather *inversely* related." In the US, medical and hospital services aren't bad at all. My experience has been very good over the 38 years I've lived in California. You're confusing public *health* with medical services. A high volume of medical services doesn't indicate good public health, rather the opposite. Ill persons need much more services than healthy persons, and treating symptoms is much more expensive than avoiding/preventing causes of illness. True health care maximizes public health, not profits. In the U.S., the medical sector has by far the highest percentage of GDP among all OECD countries: 14%, compared to e.g. 8.7% in Sweden, which doesn't have unhealthier people at all... Chris
Re: Re Knowledge society and values at work
Dear f/w friends Time to set up a co-operative bookstore (to stock the stuff that others hide away? e-hugs j *** -- From: Melanie Milanich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW:Re Knowledge society and values at work Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000, 3:04 pm In the last year in Toronto I perceive something happening to our knowledge society and values at work that disturbs me. First Britnell's book store closed (after some 100 years of service and knowing its devoted patrons), then the Children's bookstore, then the W.H. Smith's bookstore, then the Village bookstore, then the Third World Bookstore and last week Elderhostel Canada annouced it will be closing this spring--with them go the specialized collections and specialized service and knowledge not obtainable elsewhere, the staff that could know individual customers and tell them about authors, publishers and events that would be of interest to them. Staff that would take the time to value the people coming in their doors as unique individuals and sometimes even become friends sharing neighborhood anecdotes and current events (as well as gossip) and enlisting their support for shared causes. These were often the stores that would have bulletin boards with flyers and posters of local interest and related organizations. This was the place where you could take your flyer for your organization's event. Now of course there have come in the HUGE CHAPTERS STORES with their escalators and coffee shops and lectures on financial management and rows and rows of finance and management and business books and software, but try to find something from a small Canadian publisher or something a little esoteric or try to talk to someone about puppetry or Ontario politics or Indonesian religion or the local neighborhood and you get a blank stare and a fumble with the computer screen. Of course there are the " dot coms" taking over as well, but I don't see that they could ever fulfill the functions that were lost, they may have the technical knowledge but where is the wisdom? Melanie
Re: WorkForce Investment Act - A Report from the Field
Dear Tom (and f/w friends) Hurrah for your work. One weekly resource for your ced work might be the UK magazine 'Newstart' - launched last year - www.newstartmag.co.uk I've no direct involvement with it, but you might pick up some new UK-base angles. Another though is to suggest that you encourage new business starts to set up as co-operatives - new worker co-ops seem to have a better survival rate than conventional ones. I'm on two co-op listservs co-operative-bus and co-opnet both have a lot of grassroutes / grassroots material. HTH e-hugs j -- From: Tom Christoffel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: WorkForce Investment Act - A Report from the Field Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2000, 5:14 am Hello To the List: I don't remember exactly how I began receiving this list, but I've never posted to it. I'm offering a post I made to the Learning Org list hosted by Rick Karash [EMAIL PROTECTED] Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- http://www.learning-org.com. It includes some introductory material and a viewpoint on how the region I serve is using the regional resources to improve workforce quality and become sustainable. Dear LO list readers: I'm director of a regional Planning District Commission in Virginia. In other parts of the county they are Councils of Government, Development Districts, etc. You can get some orientation though the website in my signature block. The Northern Shenandoah Valley had been primarily agricultural - though marginal - since reconstruction. Being 60+ miles west of Washington, D.C., the Interstates and wealth of the 1960's spawned second homes and growth. We have become an increasing piece of the Washington, D.C./Northern Virginia housing market, though still fringe. People commute 60 to 90 miles one way for jobs. Our employment base is manufacturing and distribution, now growing because of the excellent mid-atlantic location. The metro area growth has driven up the cost of land and housing, but the local job base does not pay enough for new workers to get into the housing market, so they buy further west - West Virginia - or already live there. As a region, we import labor from the west and export to the east. Like most southern states, particularly rural areas, investment in education was low and remains so, relative to suburban areas. The local governments, in seeking to broaden their economic base, have learned from the existing industry and businesses of all sizes that they need a better workforce. To upgrade the skills of those already in the workforce, many with low literacy as a result of historical educational investment, and the job readiness of new high school graduates. Though the Regional Partnership program, the region's strategic plan set workforce development as its primary strategy. The Lord Fairfax Community College - which had been working with employers for years, found interest in the Work Keys program. Through Partnership Funds, they've been able to invest in the staffing for it and are working to leverage with corporate training budgets of the companies with plants in our region. We interviewed candidates the other day for the position and have, I think, a promising person who is currently a Quality Technician. He's completing his MBA and wants to get off the floor. In the interview he said he was the beneficiary of his employer's great training program. He said, "80% of the training in the U.S. is done by 20% of the companies." It seems that most of the readers of this list are in that market. These are the markets for learning organizations and knowledge based companies. The gap in a region like ours - or any area really, is that small, single site firms - 500 to 300 to 100 to way under 50 have no corporate training. My vision has been that the region become the corporate training department through the cordination of Community College, job skill training programs, private providers, corporate training departments, public schools - etc. The Workforce Investment Act which provides Federal funds for Job Training is intended to focus the now more limited Private Indusry Council programs on a local basis, though for training resources, a region is more reasonable. Virginia is using WIA as a base and focus for all training resources. It is encouraging a regional approach through out the state. The region for which I work is seeking to have a common board for the Workforce Investment Act and the Regional Parnership - which is also co-terminus with the Planning District. The alignment of resources has the makings of our becoming a "learning region." As long as the workforce quality in our region is on an upward curve, its people will be able to handle shifts in the industrial base and, ideally, create their own. This is the vision and the strategy. It will only take about 20 years. So - the Northern Shenandoah Valley is bootstrapping to grow its 90+% of median Adjusted Gross Income when our Northern Virginia neighbors
Delivering a 'Fair, Safe and Peaceful World' - A 'Seven Point Action Plan'
Dear F/W friends
There are many calls to define precisely what we want (and how to get it !
).
Reproduced, below, is a motion that has:
* a 'Seven Point Action Plan',
designed to deliver:
* a 'Fair, Safe and Peaceful World'.
I'd be grateful if readers could print, read and share with friends.
Without a plan we will continue to be re- rather than pro-active - and there
are too many people presently being hurt for us to not work for a better
future (if not better present ! )
Many thanks.
Abundant hugs,
john
Resolution To Welwyn-Hatfield Branch Co-operative Party
"a) That this Branch receive the following document entitled:
"Delivering A Fair, Safe and Peaceful Society -
Money, Work and The Economic Policy of A Labour/Co-operative Government."
b) That this Branch support, or modify before supporting, the aim of
working to create:
"A Fair, Safe and Peaceful Society",
c) That this Branch consider, with modification, or not, as it deems
necessary, the Seven Point Plan of Action¹ contained therein.
d) That this Branch forward this Resolution to the combined Hertfordshire
Party Council¹ for, possible onward passage to The Co-operative Party NEC."
STARTS
Delivering A Fair, Safe and Peaceful Society -
Money, Work and The Economic Policy of A Labour/Co-operative Government.
Paul Anderson ('Tribune,' 23 July 1999), asks that we create a plan of
action for Labour.
I consider that the goal is to create a fair, safe and peaceful society, and
that the key to delivering such a socially- and globally-ethical society is
the economic system in which it is embedded.
In a phrase, we need to create an economy where people are in control of
their lives: working for the long-term benefit of all. A world, in other
words, where we live in trust and respect both for one-another and the
planet .
Looking back over the past fifty years, we can see that, by leaving the
fundamentals of capitalism in place, each return of a reactionary government
has resulted in the roll back of many of our parents' achievements.
As a consequence, we need to take action that cannot be taken away.
We need, in other words, to find the nineties' equivalent of the NHS -
something that is so universally valued, that it will never be repealed.
To find this elusive step, we have to have find strategies for all three of
capitalism's central features: ownership of workplaces used for private
profit, ownership of land used for profit and ownership of money used for
profit.
To be able to deal with all three of these aspects of capitalism, we must,
first, return money to its proper use - as a lubricant of human activity,
created by, and flowing through, a nationally-owned, community-controlled,
Public Service Banking and Financial System - a 'National Wealth Service.'
With that in place, we can, then convert workplaces into appropriate
co-operatives - each having care, or stewardship of, their land and premises
and all working for the commonweal, ensuring that every-one receives a fair,
guaranteed income - a network of workplaces, which maximise, in William
Morris' phrase:
"Useful work, not useless toil."
Given that strategy, here is a Seven Point Plan of Action¹:
Co-operative Socialism - A Seven Point Plan of Action¹
1) Convert competitive activities into worker co-operative partnerships and
remodel monopoly activities as stakeholder co-operatives,
(see points two and five for the funding mechanism for this);
2) Redistribute 'added-value' from these co-operatives, through
nationally-collected corporate taxation, distributed into local,
democratically-controlled Community Banks, thus making money available for
wealth creation and community development,
(and the conversions referred to above);
3) Maximise necessary service provision (health, education, libraries,
transport (?) etc) on a free-at-the-point-of-use basis, retaining
(initially?) money as a mechanism for access to discretionary purchases.
4) Introduce guaranteed income maxima and minima for all, and, so, abolish
personal taxation;
5) Abolish money-lending for profit, operating banking and financial
services as a Public Service, 'National Wealth Service'
(see point two above);
6) Reintroduce international exchange controls as necessary;
7) Make capital grants (not loans) to developing countries.
In brief, transforming money - from master to servant - provides the way of
converting planet-trashing capitalism into locally-controlled, sustainable,
ethical co-operatives, each operating according to the 'Seven Co-operative
Principles' of The International Co-operative Alliance, all working
inter-dependently to deliver sustainable, 'responsible stewardship' of the
earth - for the long-lived well-being of all.
Dr John Courtneidge 13 North Road Hertford SG14 1LN
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 01992 501854
ENDS 31st January 2000
*
Re: A HEALTHY FAMILY IS KEY TO CRIME REDUCTION
"You cannot live peacefully in an unfair world." -- From: "Johnny Holiday/John A. Taube" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: A HEALTHY FAMILY IS KEY TO CRIME REDUCTION Date: Tue, Feb 1, 2000, 4:35 pm A HEALTHY FAMILY IS KEY TO CRIME REDUCTION A Fair Society is the key to a Healthy Society. A Healthy Society is comprised of Healthy Families. A Healthy Families is constructed from Healthy People. Thus: a) How does a society become unfair (unequal) ? And, then: b) How do we convert global inequality (global unfairness) into global fairness? (This is not hard to work out ! ) ps Check out Ken Galbraith's 'Anatomy of Power' as a starter to a). Then: a) = b) ie The solution follows from the analysis ! Abundant hugs j *
Any comments?
and work - from masters to servants - provides
the way of converting planet-trashing economics into locally-controlled,
sustainable, ethical co-operatives, each operating according to the 'Seven
Co-operative Principles' of The International Co-operative Alliance, so that
all work inter-dependently, to deliver sustainable, 'responsible
stewardship' of the planet - for the long-lived well-being of all.
( - and the greater glory of God ! )
**
Post-script:
If Friends would like a book list to help their considerations along, I can
supply one, to which, I am sure, others can add.
More succinctly, the 'Worship and Ministry: Two Thoughts for The New Year'
from Toronto Monthly Meeting's January 2000 News-letter, are from our
Friends William Charles Braithwaite ('Quaker Faith and Practice' 23.05,
Britain Yearly Meeting of The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), 1995)
and Margaret Fell (QF+P, 19.61).
Both are strongly relevant leadings from the heart !
John Courtneidge 13 North Road Hertford SG14 1LN
( Member of Hertford and Hitchin Monthly Meeting )
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 01992 501854
***
ENDS
What makes this world go around (Was Re: What's Been Powering the U.S. Economy?)
From: "Viviane Lerner" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: What's Been Powering the U.S. Economy? From The Left Business Observer The current (Nov) issue of ER, the monthly newsletter of COMER reiterates the comments below that the U.S. economy is being powered by increases in the money supply. Strictly, it is the (socially-given) possibility for money to make a return, that drives capitalism. Add onto money, the devil called compound interest, and this possibility becomes: The *need* for 'money' to make its maximum return, in the minimum possible time. This results in: monster fraggle for those in work, monster worries for those not in work, and mighty fearfulness for those living on pension income. Hence our Campaign ! Hugs j *
How capitalism works (sic!) (Was Re: Einstein: Time's man of the century [China] )
Title: How capitalism works (sic!) (Was Re: Einstein: Time's man of the century [China] )
Dear Friends
I snip from an exchange between our friends, and, then, comment.
--
From: Ray E. Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ed Goertzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Einstein: Time's man of the century [China]
Date: Fri, Jan 14, 2000, 2:23 AM
I asked and still am asking:
why a
sedentary China is considered less advanced than a predatory Europe?
(snip)
Ed's reply:I have made the point before, (perhaps generously ignored), that
the international trade that took place between nation states in antiquity
were facillitated with money. The anomaly of monetary systems created a
balance of payments imbalance. That imbalance required the armys of the
creditor nations (and their mercinaries, paid for with money) to collect
the debts.
True in Europe, I suppose but seems like it has to be more complicated
than that. Almost all professions have a theoretical framework for
the reason the world revolves around their view of it. Why should
economists be any different.
*
I'll try, at the end, to reproduce the essence of an analysis of the way in which the pie is cut up under capitalism.
The relevence to this discussion, is the fact that, once the owners of capital (land, knowledge/information and money) have received/appropriated part of the produced 'goods,' they have to find a buyer for it, if they are to convert those goods into a commodity (money) that is useful/valuable to them.
Once this had been done in the early phase of proto-capitalism ('Mercantilism') the proto-capitalists (the merchants) *then* had need of using these monetary surpuses for further gain/profit.
This was their greed and their self deception, since trading for profit was un-Christian (see The Gospel of Thomas Verse 64 for a clear statement of Jesus' view of trading.)
They. thus, pressurised the religious/secular authorities to trash, yet further, the Christian ethical code, by demanding the legitimation of usury (money lending for profit), which, in England, Henry VIII did for them in 1545.
(see Harry Page 'In Restraint of Usury' for historical background, and, also, see Verse 95 in The Gospel of Thomas for Jesus ' comment on usury:
If you have money, do not lend it at interest, rather, give it to some-one from whom you will not get it back.
- I particularly like the book 'The Gospel of Thomas' by Richard Valantansis - all Christians should be aware of the words there - at present they are not aware!)
The problem with usury (well, one of the problems with usury!) is its compound nature, and, thus, the exponential nature of the devilry that it creates - as we see in today's planetary mayhem.
The *only* solution to all the world's suffering is the abolition of usury - hence our Campaign for Interest-Free Money and its petition to Governments to a) abolish usury and b) the create Public Service, interest-free Banking and Financial systems.
(Please let others know this? Thanks.)
Now, that diagram (apologies if it doesn't e-transfer well):
__A
Wages
-
Salaries
-
Perks
___B
Interest on lent money
_
Dividends on shares ('owned knowledge')
_
Rent on owned land
__C
Proceeds of sale of energy, raw materials
___D
(The vertical scale from A - C is Surplus or Added Value on the cost of energy and raw materials.
The step A - B is the return on labour.
The step B - C is the return on the three factors of production (aka 'Capital')
(You can see from this, how conflict arises, how wages get pushed down in a competitive market and how the workforce never receives enough money to buy back its production, and, so, why inflation is caused.)
BTW - I'm a mechanistic organic chemist, rather (thank heaven) than a classically-trained economist, hence my diagrammatic representations.
HTH !
Many hugs
j
*
FW: Best News of 99 Arrives - just in time!
--
From: "john courtneidge" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Best News of 99 Arrives - just in time!
Date: Fri, Dec 31, 1999, 1:58 PM
Dear Friends, all,
(Apologies to any that dislike multiple cc's, but this news seems
mega-important.)
First of all, my love to you all.
Secondly: my thanks to all, for all their postings of the year.
Finally, the following is a Letter To The Editor about the news:
'that Pakistan's Supreme Court has ruled "interest un-Islamic" '
and
' "the country must introduce an interest-free economic system
by 2001." '
Wow!
Thanks to all who helped bring this about.
Abundant hugs
j
******
--
From: "john courtneidge" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: no subject
Date: Wed, Dec 29, 1999, 3:45 PM
Could you please consider the following as a Letter to The Editor?
Thanks
STARTS
Canada and the whole developed world should study the Reuters' news report
('The Toronto Star' A35, Friday December 24, 1999). This tells us that
Pakistan's Supreme Court has ruled "interest un-Islamic" and "the country
must introduce an interest-free economic system by 2001."
Since charging interest on lent money is a cost on production, and,
therefore, a barrier to job creation and economic well-being, Pakistan, and
all those countries which follow this lead, will have a significant economic
advantage.
The mechanism of compound interest ('riba' in the Muslim world) was, in both
Jewish and Christian traditions, entirely forbidden before its legalisation
by Henry VIII in 1545 ( Psalm 15 in the Old Testament, Luke Chapter 6 in the
New, and Verse 65 in the recently excavated Gospel of Thomas, are worth
reading in this context.)
The exponential nature of compound interest was recognised by both Napoleon
and by Einstein as the root cause of war, poverty and distress. More-over,
this exponential math diverts resources away, not only from the poor, but
from middle income families too. This is why 450 people in the world own
more than the 3billion poorest, and that the net effect of interest is to
impoverish all but the most wealthy 10-15%, even in a country as wealthy as
Germany.
If we in the Western world don't follow the Pakistani lead, we will find
ourselves falling prey to these ills in the Twenty-First Century, as the
economic advantages of interest-free economics show them selves: our present
life-styles will slip into mass poverty, insecurity, crime and fear.
However, the solution, for us, is straight-forward.
Our Public Libraries show that the community can operate an 'interest-free'
lending system where books, and so on, are available, free of loan charge
to responsible borrowers, all overseen by professionally trained, Public
Service librarians.
One can easily see a Public Service Banking system, lending interest-free,
overseen by Public Service Bankers. Such a service would retain global
competitiveness and create economic well-being for all.
Now, wouldn't that be a gift to the next generations!
ENDS
Dr John Courtneidge
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
107 Golden Avenue, Markham, Ontario, Canada
(905) 471 0320
Re: FW -- a solution? - The?/A? Grand Co-op Plan?
Dear Douglas and friends all, Douglas' fine outcomes need a suitable 'process' (or 'mechanism') for their delivery. I suggest that this process needs to be based upon a co-operative mode (since competitive/conflict modes necessarily deliver poorer relationships than cc-operative modes.) At the end of this posting, I've put a seven-point economic plan to achieve a co-operative commonweal for folk to discuss - particularly with their young folk (after the turkey ??!!) ( I'd be glad to hear comments - particularly about relationships that this plan fails to identify and/or nurture.) Hugs to all, j *** -- From: "Douglas P. Wilson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW -- a solution? Date: Fri, Dec 24, 1999, 6:11 AM If added to the Tentative Typology of Solutions mine would read: Make the world a better place, then use the other solution types. That may seem unrealistic, futile, annoying, or crazy, but I do have a very specific plan for making the world a better place, and it's that plan I was referring to when a mentioned a Genuine Solution. It starts with a simple idea: The key idea is to make it easy to find and maintain strong social relationships and other parts of a good social environment. * Co-operative Socialism - A Plan of Action o Convert competitive activities into worker co-operative partnerships and remodel monopoly activities as stakeholder co-operatives, (see points two and five for the funding mechanism for this); o Redistribute 'added-value' from these co-operatives, through nationally-collected corporate taxation, distributed into local, democratically-controlled Community Banks, thus making money available for wealth creation and community development, (and the conversions referred to above); o Maximise necessary service provision (health, education, libraries, transport (?) etc) on a free-at-the-point-of-use basis, retaining (initially?) money as a mechanism for access to discretionary purchases. o Introduce guaranteed income maxima and minima for all, and, so, abolish personal taxation; o Abolish money-lending for profit, operating banking and financial services as a Public Service, 'National Wealth Service' (see point two above); o Reintroduce international exchange controls as necessary; o Make capital grants (not loans) to developing countries. In brief, transforming money - from master to servant - provides the way of converting planet-trashing capitalism into locally-controlled, sustainable, ethical co-operatives, each operating according to the 'Seven Co-operative Principles' of The International Co-operative Alliance, all working inter-dependently to deliver sustainable, 'responsible stewardship' of the earth - for the long-lived well-being of all. Dr John Courtneidge 13 North Road Hertford SG14 1LN [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01992 501854 Anti-copyright applies - please feel fully free to share with others. More hugs j *
Re: FW Rachel #680 Money Rules
Good descriptor pete! -- From: pete [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: Re: FW Rachel #680 Money Rules Date: Fri, Dec 24, 1999, 4:16 PM Monetocracy. -Pete Vincent
Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system - on from Seattle?
Dear f/w friends
Time, perhaps for a next step in this.
My guess might be that few of us see capitalism as *the* last word in social
and global management ('That which has a start also has an end' and so on.)
I think, that, if we are to have any chance of defining a better system (at
least one, practically, that we could get to within our? life-times!), then
defining 'where we are now' is one fair place to start.
Ok, Ok, I accept that defining tangibles and intangibles is a slippery task.
tho' key to that is to try to untangle cause from effects:
(Dilbert: "Capitalism; The harder I work, the fatter my boss becomes." - a
description
of consequences rather than cause - this definition is equally true of other
heirarchy-based systems!)
Hence I accept, full well, that the operational level of definition that I
took from the Oxford Dictionary ("Private ownership of the means of
production and their use for private profit' - I paraphrase a bit) is a
start only, but this will get us along.)
(Consider, for example, the fact that the above has an 'ethical' component
behind it - that ownership of anything is realistically possible,which we
could challenge, *but* let's leave that to one side for while.)
So, the OD definition leads to the start of the following start to a table
of possibilities:
Economic systemOwnership of productive assetsOwnership of benefits
Capitalism Private Private
Communism PublicPublic
(Theoretical?)
OK, f/w friends, any others?
Hugs
john
***
Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system
Dear Bill and f/w friends,
Thanks, also, in abundance for this.
Firstly, I *absolutely* agree that we need to move from the concept (legally
enforced!) of 'Ownership' to one of 'Stewardship.'
("Possessions possess" and all that!)
Secondly, thanks Bill (Bill? William? Will?) for completing the Table
(below).
My thoughts had led me to name the third line as 'Totalitarianism' and the
last as 'Co-operative Socialism' with the thought around your stewardship
comment as being better than 'Ownership' there, tho' these are (?only?)
names.
Does this take us forward?
( "What, for example, practically are those 'Factors of production' that are
privately owned under capitalism?" might be one next question to ask, tho'
not necessarily the best one to ask next?)
More hugs
j
**
--
From: William B Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John, it would appear, if my thinking is correct, that we already have a
complete matrix [see end of the message below]. What we may need to do
is add some other intervening variables which deal with other than
ownership. For instance, AZT was developed with about a billion dollars
of public taxes but the profit goes to a private company. The web itself
is another example of public funding and private benefit to some extent.
This is somewhat in line with a bumper sticker I saw the other day about
Earth:
If you can't take care of it, give it back. Proud to be
a Cherokee.
Maybe we need to add stewardship in here somewhere.
Bill Ward
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
**
Economic system Ownership of productive assets Ownership of Benefits
CapitalismPrivate Private
Communism Public Public
(Theoretical?)
MonopoliesPublic Private
Charities Private Public
Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system
Dear Robert and f/w friends, all,
Thanks in abundance for this.
I strongly agree that a 'pre-design' analysis of values is worth doing.
(I've a values-selection list that I could e-send in this vein.)
A complimentary approach that I've played with is to craft a 'Needs-Based'
analysis, which might well lead to a 'Need-Based Politics' rather than the
'Rights-Based Politics' so beloved of many reformers.
(Again, I can e-send an essay on that - apologies that I've pre-worked on
these matters!)
At base of all, we need to dispense with the need for money to make its
maximum return in the minimum possible time, since this leads to the
following heirarchy:
Needs of money Needs of people Needs of the planet Needs of
good/god/the moral way/whatever
(Omit the last if this god-stuff fraggles you!)
I'm strongly of the view that we need invert this ordering, and, that to do
this, the abolition of usury is key - and that can only be achieved thro'
appropriate legislation.
Abundant hugs to you all,
j
**
--
From: "W. Robert Needham" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system
Date: Wed, Dec 22, 1999, 9:34 AM
re: your post of Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:43:52 -0500
A quick reponse.
What do you mean by communism? Is the organizational form or your communism
hierarchical as in the 'Etatism' of Stalin's Russia? What are the
operational sets of values that are at work in capitalism (how about
unconstrained liberty, inequality, and law of the jungle competition) and
in your communism (how about liberty constained by state in all dimensions,
inequality, and forced fraternity of war time trenches (see B. Crick,
Socialist Values and Time, Fabian Society)?
In defining an ideal system why not start with a base camp position that
what we humans are all about or ought to be all about is to create the
conditions for the free and full development of each person as the
conditions for the free and full development of all (Marx and Engels).
Subsequent logac may get one to the realization that the operational set of
values that seems likely to best do that is: liberty morally constrained by
not doing injustice to others; equality, defined as the eliimination of all
unjustifiable inequalities (something society can't get by any other means
would seem to be a justification for an inequality); and community
mindfulness.
The words of this 'trinity' of secular values seems preferable to the old
fashioned liberty, equality and fraternity. Negative freedom or "freedom
from something" fits in as freedom from injustice done to you by others.
Note this puts the emphasis on the positive developmental freedom to do or
to become of each that is missing in conventional liberalism, ie.,
capitalism (private bureaucracy governs, including the government) and in
etatism (state bureaucracy governs all) where unmorally constrained liberty
dominates the argument in each and developmental freedom is assured only to
those who dominate).
What is 'left', I think, is a flatter participatory democracy which can be
thought of as social democracy or a full democracy of human rights
consistent with the UN UDHR.
It helps to ask what sort of society do you want to live in and what sort
of society would you like to leave to your children and grandchildren.
Justice is impossible in both capitalism and etatism so we struggle,
however slowly, for social democracy. Having the definitions straight seems
to help in some sense.
Dear f/w friends
Time, perhaps for a next step in this.
My guess might be that few of us see capitalism as *the* last word in social
and global management ('That which has a start also has an end' and so on.)
I think, that, if we are to have any chance of defining a better system (at
least one, practically, that we could get to within our? life-times!), then
defining 'where we are now' is one fair place to start.
Ok, Ok, I accept that defining tangibles and intangibles is a slippery task.
tho' key to that is to try to untangle cause from effects (Dilbert:
"Capitalism; The harder I work, the fatter my boss becomes." - a description
of cansequences rather than cause - this definition is equally true of other
heirarchy-based systems!)
Hence I accept, full well, that the operational level of definition that I
took from the Oxford Dictionary ("Private ownership of the means of
production and their use for private profit' - I paraphrase a bit) is a
start only, but this will get us along.)
(Consider, for example, the fact that the above has an 'ethical' component
behind it - that ownership of anything is realistically possible,which we
could challenge, *but* let's leave that to one side for while.)
So, the OD definition leads to the start of the following start to a table
of possibilities:
Economic systemOwnership of productive assetsOwnership of benefits
Capitalism
Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system
Dear f/w friends
Time, perhaps for a next step in this.
My guess might be that few of us see capitalism as *the* last word in social
and global management ('That which has a start also has an end' and so on.)
I think, that, if we are to have any chance of defining a better system (at
least one, practically, that we could get to within our? life-times!), then
defining 'where we are now' is one fair place to start.
Ok, Ok, I accept that defining tangibles and intangibles is a slippery task.
tho' key to that is to try to untangle cause from effects (Dilbert:
"Capitalism; The harder I work, the fatter my boss becomes." - a description
of cansequences rather than cause - this definition is equally true of other
heirarchy-based systems!)
Hence I accept, full well, that the operational level of definition that I
took from the Oxford Dictionary ("Private ownership of the means of
production and their use for private profit' - I paraphrase a bit) is a
start only, but this will get us along.)
(Consider, for example, the fact that the above has an 'ethical' component
behind it - that ownership of anything is realistically possible,which we
could challenge, *but* let's leave that to one side for while.)
So, the OD definition leads to the start of the following start to a table
of possibilities:
Economic systemOwnership of productive assetsOwnership of benefits
Capitalism Private Private
Communism PublicPublic
(Theoretical?)
OK, f/w friends, any others?
Hugs
john
***
The two essential features of the capitalist system (Was Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck)
-- From: Ed Goertzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck Date: Mon, Dec 6, 1999, 7:35 pm From: "Ed Weick" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Subject: Re: torn Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 08:06:05 -0500 Part of Ed's post begs a reply. To obtain clarity, can we agree that capital as a stored value is a good thing. That Capitalizm, the monetary manipulation (percursor to individual appropriation of excessive capital value) is the essence of the problem? The incorrect definition of the problem begs an incorrect solution or response. Please add to or modify my definition of the problem! Dear F/w friends Here's a snip from my posted essays (of Nov 25) that helps (me at least ! ) Hugs j snip from earlier essays Dictionary definitions of capitalism highlight two essential features of the capitalist system: that the factors necessary for the production of those commodities necessary for human life are in private ownership and that these factors are used for private benefit (or 'profit'). ( ** Note the stress on two aspects: - ownership and where the benefits from use end up ***) This definition - focussing as it does on ownership of and profit from the resources necessary for production - suggests, therefore, the following Table: EconomicOwnership ofBenefits flow System:the means of to: production: CapitalismPrivatePrivate CommunismPublicPublic Co-operativePrivatePublic Socialism TotalitarianismPublic Private Clearly definition of some terms is necessary: * Private ownership can encompass ownership by individuals or groups of kin or otherwise (åthe family firm¼ and multinational, share-holder owned joint stock companies are examples of such private¾ ownership under capitalism, while, under co-operative socialism, various forms of co-operative - worker-cooperatives, consumer-cooperatives, stakeholder-cooperatives and so on - form the pattern of wealth-creating units, with the distinct objective of creating wealth for the Common-weal, rather than primarily for the individual). * Public benefits, too, needs analysis: who gets how much - and of what¾ is the essence of politics, and so considerations of income maxima and minima continue to be central, but since, as Churchill, in one of his most lucid moments, observed "Ninety percent of politics is economics," our focus here must remain sharply upon economics. ** This led to the Plan of Action ! *** More hugs j *
Re: FUTURE PLANNING AFTER SEATTLE
Dear Ole Fjord Larsen, Thanks for this. It is essential that people seeking a better world be as clear as possible about what they (we!) want. All previous 'revolutions' have failed because of a lack of prior definition of aims. I have such a list (below), but I do encourage others to consider theirs. Many hugs j BTW - Anyone(s) (eg Sustainabilty Review) who want to publish/pass on this Action List - please do !! Post-Seattle: A Plan of Action * Convert competitive activities into worker co-operative partnerships and remodel monopoly activities as stakeholder co-operatives, (see points two and five for the funding mechanism for this); * Redistribute 'added-value' from these co-operatives, through nationally-collected corporate taxation, distributed into local, democratically-controlled Community Banks, thus making money available for wealth creation and community development, (and the conversions refered to above); * Maximise necessary service provision (health, education, libraries, transport (?) etc) on a free-at-the-point-of-use basis, retaining (initially?) money as a mechanism for access to discretionary purchases. * Introduce guaranteed income maxima and minima for all, and, so, abolish personal taxation; * Abolish money-lending for profit, operating banking and financial services as a Public Service, 'National Wealth Service' (see point two above); * Reintroduce international exchange controls as necessary; * Make capital grants (not loans) to developing countries. In brief, transforming money - from master to servant - provides the way of converting planet-trashing capitalism into locally-controlled, sustainable, ethical co-operatives, each operating according to the 'Seven Co-operative Principles' of The International Co-operative Alliance, all working inter-dependently to deliver sustainable, 'responsible stewardship' of the earth - for the long-lived well-being of all. Dr John Courtneidge 13 North Road Hertford SG14 1LN [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01992 501854 *** -- From: Ole Fjord Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FUTURE PLANNING AFTER SEATTLE Date: Sun, Dec 12, 1999, 6:07 pm The IDEAL prerequisites for the resistance movement's victory over corporate rule by means of demonstration are - a completely peaceful, numerous demonstration with which all humanity outside the corporate headquarters can identify, and - a fair worldwide media coverage of the event. Basically, hooligans - whether paid by the corporations or subject to anarchist ideology - therefore are factual enemies of the people. However, since 99 % of the media are controlled by the capital, we normally do NOT get a fair coverage of our efforts, to say the least !! Silence normally is their very efficient weapon to protect their masters. To ensure that the event be covered at all, even in distorted version, some controlled degree of violence directed against precisely identified appropriate targets in some cases may be justified, in spite of the consequently reduced number of sympathizers. In Seattle the previous long preparations and focus on the event made any further attention unnecessary. The violence of the police furthermore ensured the big headlines in the media. The hooliganism in Seattle therefore must be strongly condemned, because it unnecessarily reduced the sympathy in the world population whom we represent, and considerably discouraged the vast majority of the demonstrators who up until then had been in great enthusiatic spirit. Additionally, the casual smashing of windows was directed against small as well as big stores and made it completely meaningless from our point of view. CONCLUSION FLEXIBILITY must be a key word in the planning of the coming demonstrations. The coordinating group of the participating organisations must to an even higher degree than this time prepare the demonstrators for knocking down and turning over to the police any anwanted hooligans. Even if a hooligan should be killed, it would be a very little loss as compared with the daily rate of 20.000 dead children due to corporate rule. The coordinating group must beforehand have arranged for contacts worldwide to report continually on the local media coverage. Only in cases where the previous focus on the event or the police brutality is insufficient to make the media cover the story, is a minimum degree of violence justified, and only directed precisely at easily understandable targets. Ole Fjord Larsen, member of United Peoples
Forward - co-operatively ?
I snip: I would grant you that we serve capitalism, but it also serves us. It has been responsible for the very high standard of living we have in the rich world. ** Friends - can we really hold to this, after this Century's misery - and the preceeding three Centuries' terrors (1545 onwards) - drug-saturated urban ennui, suburban boredom and insecurity, and rural poverty. It *is* time to move (co-operatively ?! ) on. Hugs j ***
Re: torn: Reply to Ed Wieck
-- From: "Cordell, Arthur: #ECOM - COMÉ"[EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems that the Czechs in 1968 tried to bring in Socialism with a human face. How about Capitalism with a human face? arthur cordell -- Not possible ! Hugs j
Re: FW New book on Basic Income
Dear Sally This looks good - I've been thinking of a line (for our Campaign for Interest-Free Money) something along the lines of: 'Interest-Free Money - *The* route to a guaranteed income for all.' Incidentally, our co-campaigner, Kevin Donnelly ( of the Christian Council for Monetary Justice ) has been/is North West England organiser for the BIRG/Citizen's Income efforts: the nets link ! So man y money angles ! BTW - Paulatte and I will be in Toronto from 15 Dec to 15 Jan-ish (with an Ottawa interlude.) Perhaps we might meet at some time - our phone inMarkam will be (905) 471 0320. Keep at it ! j -- From: "S. Lerner" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW New book on Basic Income Date: Fri, Dec 10, 1999, 3:45 pm FWers - Just to let you know - a primer on Basic Income is now available from Between the Lines books in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.. Authors are Sally Lerner, Charles M.A. Clark and W. Robert Needham. I take no royalties - the book is meant to be widely circulated and read to stimulate discussion. "Framing the idea for Canada, this new book makes a compelling case for the introduction of a universal Basic Income. Canadian workers face continuing turbulence as demands escalate for a "flexible" workforce. Globalization and rapid technological change are pressing in on all of us. The authors trace in detail the arguments for and against Basic Income, how it might befunded and delivered, the ways in which it could increase employment and offer varied life choice options. Seen as more than a cheque in the mail, Basic Income is evaluated as a policy strategy for dealing with the realities of the contemporary 'great transformation'." 120 pp. $16.95 ISBN 1-896357-31-8 Payment by check or VISA Between the Lines 720 Bathurst St. #404. Toronto, ON Canada M5S 2R4 (416) 535-9914 or 1-800-718-7201 fax (416) 535-1484 www.btlbooks.com Sally Lerner
Re: Torn
Dear f/w friends Many thanks to Michael and others off-list. I insert some comments in the below. -- From: Michael Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Torn Date: Tue, Dec 7, 1999, 3:08 am Is a simpler life style (snip) of lesser quality? Central to this oikonimos is our use of money. [full quote below] Let me see if I have this right: Because of the structure lent to the system by the presence and use of money, each act of an individual is is commoditized and becomes a transaction that either enriches or impoverishes him. So for the individual, the system has two agressive attractors at the extrema of the financial scale. Is that right? j: Yes, i think that that might be so. Certainly, in terms of outcomes, people are being sifted into two groups - in one, 450 or so people, own as much as 3billion. In the overall capitalist system, the one in which individuals are the components, there seems to be an attractor to a region of phase space where a few individuals (of which many are corporations) have vast financial assets and most have approximately nil. It has been said that this is the natural course of capitalism. j: And thus, so, we see. Has anyone proposed a phase space model of capitalist economy that that represents money in a way that that would let us test the effect of removing money or removing one or more of the purely financial components on the distribution of wealth? j; I'd love to see it ! Brian Arthur's work on positive feedback in the economy is now going on 10 years old. Has he or anyone else pushed this approach further, beyond the narrow cases that he describes? (I regret that I'm not keeping up -- it's been 4 years since I've been able to spend a whole day in a first class bookstore.) j: Sadly a component part of capitalism's outputsfor lots (ie most ! ) of us ! - Mike -- Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada j; Hugs to all - down home, and elsewhere ! * [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html --- "john courtneidge" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But ! Simplicity is a cusp that's unachieveable in a market economy, since, in such a madhouse, activity results either in (ever escalating) profit accumulation, or in (ever escalating) impoverishment. (This could be graphed, were e-mails there yet!) The solution is to invert the 'values' that lead to this cusp and, so, create the cusp as the default condition - to move, in other words, to an economics (an 'oikonimos') based on giving out, rather than accumulating in of, both, material 'goods' and spiritual 'bads.' Central to this oikonimos is our use of money.
Capitalists love workers! (Qua consumers?) (Was Re: FW Viviane Forrester -- L'horreur Economique (fwd))
-- From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Timework Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "S. Lerner" [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW Viviane Forrester -- L'horreur Economique (fwd) Date: Tue, Dec 7, 1999, 1:27 am Now! Now! Capitalists never have seriously proposed that workers are superfluous. Capitalists love workers! They even have "human resource" departments and "time and motion study" engineers to optimize their employment. Capitalists have only required that there always be *some* superfluous workers (Marx's: "industrial reserve army") to help keep down the wages of the rest. *** Perhaps, rather, the owners of capital love (??!!) us as *consumers* rather than as *workers* ? (But ! they haven't yet worked out how, sustainably, 'we' can be given the money that we 'need' to buy back our production - other, that is, than by plunging us all in debt !) Hugs 2 all j **
Re: Torn
First, thanks. -- From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "[EMAIL PROTECTED]":#ECOM - COMÉ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Torn Date: Mon, Dec 6, 1999, 11:34 am Is a simpler life style (snip) of lesser quality? Second: Dear f-w friends Simplicity lies on a scale somewhere between poverty and effluence : Poverty - - - - - Simplicity - - - - - Effluence But ! Simplicity is a cusp that's unachieveable in a market economy, since, in such a madhouse, activity results either in (ever escalating) profit accumulation, or in (ever escalating) impoverishment. (This could be graphed, were e-mails there yet!) The solution is to invert the 'values' that lead to this cusp and, so, create the cusp as the default condition - to move, in other words, to an economics (an 'oikonimos') based on giving out, rather than accumulating in of, both, material 'goods' and spiritual 'bads.' Central to this oikonimos is our use of money. higs (and hugs) j *
Re: torn
--
From: Andrew Straw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: torn
Date: Fri, Dec 3, 1999, 7:03 pm
Any other answers? Concerns?
***
Yes -
What's the need for all this trade (as if i didn't know !! )
Most/much trade involves trash - processed foods, guns, gas, drugs, the
grunge of capitalism - all to impoverish people, destroy families, exploit
animals, destroy democracy, trash the planet, (shut out god ?)
So . . . less trade, rather than more.
More giving, rather than more taking.
("All you need is love ?? !! )
Hugs
j
*
ps thanks, andrew for asking !
*
Knowledge - The New Frontier ( for exploitation ! )
Dear f-w friends I had two thoughts over the weekend. One concerns the Privatisation of Knowledge Agenda (the other I'm puzzled to recall - so here's the first ! ) The question as to who has any right to (financially) profit from a piece of knowledge prompts two thoughts: Firstly, all knowledge pre-exists our discovery of it, and, so, any individual or group claim upon it, is theft from the commonweal. (Issac Newton, for example, didn't invent gravity nor the various descriptions of it - they were all there to be found.) Secondly comes the question, 'How do you divide out the benefits of a piece of discovered knowledge? (Newton, again, pointed out (I paraphrase) that: "We can only see futher than our parents because we are priviledged to be able to stand on their shoulders." The empahasis seems reasonably placed upon the words 'priviledged' and 'able'. ) I've experience of doing academic research, where experience shows that, the dark motors of selfishness (the searches for fame and/or-ish fortune) quite clearly corrode our existence (and - ! - both serve to slow our discovery of 'truth' ! ) O, yes ! And that second, related, thought. At a meeting on Saturday, the matters of power relationships arose. Yesterday, walking out of Ely Cathedral - what a place ! - Ken Galbraith's book 'The Anatomy of Power' popped into my thoughts. That great (great, despite his, nor any? others of the US great minds having the balls to challenge usury) man, there gives a definition of power (again my paraphrases) as: "The ability to get another to do what (the more powerful) wants done." His taxonomy (?) of power is: Condign power - "Do it or I'll hurt you." Compensatory power - "Do it and I'll give you X, Y or Z." (I actually see this as the same as the first, since access to resources is the route away from the pains and fears of hunger, homelessness, loneliness and boredom. However . . . ) And: Conditioned power - where the power-less acts in the interest of the power-full, without giving the power-reinforcing action the slightest thought. In this taxonomy, the first relates to the power relatioships of feudalism, the second, those of capitalism, and the third, the power relationship of Toffler ( and etc)'s 'Third Age.' Since the first phases drew their possibility for action from theft from the common weal of tangible resources (land etc.), the theft of knowledge from the intellectual commonweal is equally that - theft. (And its use for private gain, the use of stolen goods ! ) HTH Hugs to all j *
Re: Why are we in debt? [Snipped Comment]
Dear Friemds, all, I snip from Ed's amd then comment below. -- From: Ed Goertzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why are we in debt? [Snipped Comment] Date: Wed, Nov 24, 1999, 8:53 pm The solution to the problem is to restrict the banks to the function they were intended to fulfill. That is to facillitate trade of goods over the short term and not use its credit creating authority to claim ownership of real property. The really biggest problem is to find a way to get back to a regulated system without destablising the economy. * The most original pupose of banks was, surely, as 'secure shelves.' The problem arose when the contents of those shelves were lent for profit (money-lending at interest, riba, usury.) At that point money was converted from its intended purose (as a medium of exchange) into a medium of exploitation (money is lent *from* those who have a surplus of it *to* those who have a scarcity of it.) The way of reverting banking to its core function is to reorganise banking as a public service (secure keeping of money in banks as a compliment to secure keeping of public security on the streets by community-controlled police forces) *along with* community creation of both money (for its purposes) and credit (for its.) As for the economic effects, I can only see change of this type as change for the better - the community would recover charge of its destiny and the multitude of troubles that compound interest (usury) bring would be removed. HTH Hugs j ***
Two Co-operative Essays (Re: The Jobs Research Website at the NZ 1999 Media Awards)
inable, 'responsible stewardship' of the earth - for the long-lived well-being of all. Dr John Courtneidge 13 North Road Hertford SG14 1LN [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01992 501854 *** The Way Forward: Co-operative Socialism Dr John Courtneidge [13 North Road Hertford SG14 1LN 01992 501854[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [This is a personal statement by the Author, who is a former Town Councillor, a Quaker Socialist, an active member of both Labour and Co-operative Parties, a Fabian Society member and a co-founder of The Campaign for Interest-Free Money.] In Fabian Pamphlet 565, Socialism,¹ Tony Blair describes ³ . . . the destination (as) - a strong, united society which gives each citizen the chance to develop their potential to the full . . .² The Fabian membership card tells us (from Rule 2) that ³The Society consists of Socialists.² As Socialists, therefore, how can we help Tony Blair achieve his objective of ³a strong, united society,²? Socialists come with various perspectives - I am a Quaker- and Co-operative-Socialist - but all end up agreeing that capitalism is the central and utterly unredeemable problem which the world presently faces. Dictionary definitions of capitalism highlight two essential features of the capitalist system: that the factors necessary for the production of those commodities necessary for human life are in private ownership and that these factors are used for private benefit (or profit¹). This definition - focussing as it does on ownership of and profit from the resources necessary for production - suggests, therefore, the following Table: Economic System: Ownership of Benefits flow the means of to: production: Capitalism Private Private Communism Public Public Co-operative SocialismPrivate Public Totalitarianism Public Private Clearly definition of some terms is necessary: ³Private² ownership can encompass ownership by individuals or groups of kin or otherwise (the family firm¹ and multinational, share-holder owned joint stock companies are examples of such ³private² ownership under capitalism, while, under co-operative socialism, various forms of co-operative - worker-cooperatives, consumer-cooperatives, stakeholder-cooperatives and so on - form the pattern of wealth-creating units, with the distinct objective of creating wealth for the Common-weal, rather than primarily for the individual). ³Public benefits², too, needs analysis: ³who gets how much - and of what² is the essence of politics, and so considerations of income maxima and minima continue to be central, but since, as Churchill, in one of his most lucid moments, observed ³Ninety percent of politics is economics,² our focus here must remain sharply upon economics. Practical experience shows that the three Capital ³Factors necessary for production² are: land, knowledge (physically embodied in the machinery and processknow-how necessary for production - Company hardware¹ andsoftware¹) and, money. (The energy and raw materials required for production are subsidiary factors derived from land ownership, while labour¹ is not a Capital resource) The three capital factors of production - land, knowledge and money - deliver their returns in the following ways: Ownership of: Delivers income as: Land Rent (along with sales of raw materials and energy) Knowledge Dividends (on share-holding in Companies which own machinery and process know-how) MoneyInterest (an
Re: Report takes on tax 'myths' (Canada)
Dear Friends, all, In regard to the following, I wonder how much canada 'spends' on interest on Federal, Provincial (and etc?) debts? Here in the UK: for every £1 spent on the National Health Service (the heath care provision for the over-whelming majority) 50 pence is paid out as interest on the National Debt. (HM Treasury figures 'Budget 1999' leaflet - Debt Interest £26billion, Health £61billion.) Is this nuts, or what ?? !! Hugs j ** A BTW at the end *** -- From: "S. Lerner" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Report takes on tax 'myths' (Canada) Date: Mon, Nov 15, 1999, 10:48 am "We spend $72 billion a year on health care. Opening that up to investment where profits could be made would certainly be in the interest of the corporations." . * And the BTW - !999 Corporation (ie Company Tax) collected at £30billion is almost the same as that paid out in Debt Interest !! **
Two Rules, The World ?
Dear Co-operators and future(of)work friends, Regarding the below. It is mind-boggling (tho' not really ! ) that guaranteed incomes for farm businesses are politically correct, while guaranteed incomes for citizens are not ! In Europe, we (and I truely mean *we*) pay 'farmers' to *not* grow food (the Set-Aside scheme in the EU's Common Agricultural - sic - Policy.) And then !!! pay them (even more!) to put the resultant weed-infested land back into production. And !! all this, while we (and do I mean *they* ? ) don't pay unemployed people a humane income until they are 'required' to work ! Hey, ho - let the co-operative commonweal come !! Love to you all, j -- From: Ron Levesque [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MEDIA RELEASE Date: Tue, Nov 2, 1999, 6:36 pm snip The NCBA release states: Farm communities across the United States are in an economic crisis. The lack of a safety net for farmers, along with rock-bottom commodity prices and unfair trade advantages for other countries in the global market, have created a disaster for America's farm families... (rest snipped) So who do we believe? Who do we blame - the Europeans? (only kidding). This is worth discussing... Ron Levesque
Re: FW Corporate Hospitality at the WTO (fwd)
*** And it wouldn't take a Professor of Rocket Science to guess that these Corporate 'Donations' are 'Tax Efficient.' But . . . Wait a minute ! Shouldn't we who pay the piper call the tune ??!! Hugs j -- From: "S. Lerner" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW Corporate Hospitality at the WTO (fwd) Date: Wed, Oct 27, 1999, 11:38 am Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:36:33 -0400 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk From: Robert Weissman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list CORP-FOCUS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Corporate Hospitality at the WTO MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Comment: Please see http://lists.essential.org for help Corporate Hospitality at the WTO By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman Tired of getting fundraising letters in the mail? Just imagine how hard it would be to be a corporate CEO. Not only does virtually every politician come hat in hand seeking a campaign contribution, but you are besieged by a long line of nonprofit organizations seeking support for their charitable endeavors. Then your fellow bosses hit you up for contributions to support one or another political lobbying effort. And now there is a new panhandler that CEOs must handle: the mega-intergovernmental conference. The latest example: The World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial meeting in Seattle, to be held in late November and early December. "I know you are on the receiving end of many requests for support from organizations and events, but the hosting of the WTO Ministerial is truly a unique opportunity," wrote Lawrence Clarkson, chair of the fundraising committee of the "WTO Seattle Host Organization" in a March 15 fundraising appeal to corporate executives. Host Organization co-chairs are Microsoft's Bill Gates and Phil Condit, CEO of Boeing. "The Seattle Host Organization is committed to ensuring that the private sector is an integral part of the events surrounding the Ministerial. We are working very closely with the USTR [Office of the U.S. Trade Representative] and WTO officials every step of the way to coordinate schedules and venues to maximize interaction between the officials and the private sector." The corporate-sponsored gathering in Seattle is no groundbreaker, as Susan Kruller, media and public relations director for the Seattle Host Organization, notes. When NATO gathered for its fiftieth anniversary blowout in Washington, D.C. earlier this year, a dozen companies contributed a quarter of a million dollars each to have their CEOs serve as directors of the NATO Summit's host committee. Others kicked in smaller amounts. Similar arrangements have been made at a recent G-7 meeting in Denver (presidents and top officials of a group of the world's most powerful countries meet at the G-7) and a Summit of the Americas in Miami. At a 1996 National Governors Association conference focused on education issues, each governor was paired with a CEO from their state. Corporate sponsorships of mega-event host committees are now routinely structured into event planning by the U.S. government, Kruller says. In agreeing to host the WTO meeting in the United States, the U.S. government obligated itself to pick up the incremental costs between holding the meeting in Geneva at the WTO's headquarters and locating the gathering away from the WTO's home, Kruller says. The U.S. government turns to the private sector to help defray resulting taxpayer expenses. The private sector is set to kick in $9.2 million to defray the ministerial's costs. When the news first broke of the Seattle Host Organization's request for contributions, a controversy ensued over Clarkson's letter's promise that high donors would be able to attend a conference at which "the private sector will meet senior U.S. trade officials to discuss priorities for the upcoming Round." That offer drew a rebuke from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the promised meeting was cancelled. Corporate contributors are not being denied all goodies, however. Those donating at the Emerald Level, a $250,000 contribution, are entitled to send five guests to the Host Organization's opening and closing receptions and to an exclusive ministerial dinner. They can send four guests to private sector conferences the Host Organization is arranging. They are provided with briefing updates on the ministerial's progress, assistance with room reservations, media assistance and hospitality service. Their logos are permitted to appear on the Host Organization's web site and they are given signage and display of corporate materials. Companies at the Emerald Level are Allied Signal/Honeywell, Deloitte Touche, Ford, GM, Microsoft, Nextel, Boeing, US West, plus the State of Washington. Lesser benefits are conferred on those making less generous donations. The Diamond Level supporters ($150,000 to $249,999) are Activate.com, UPS and
Re: Community allotment/LETS growing peroject- lessons learned...
My, Graham and co ! What an energetic bunch you are !! (I only wish that I were so !! ) Your posting, here, puts me in mind of a piece in Dolores Hayden's book 'Redesigning The American Dream' (I've lent my copy away) which speaks about a 'Community Greenhouse' project in the Mid-west USA (Chatanooga? ) where the ?local authority? set up a grenhouse with a paid ?superintendent? so that people could come and volunteer to do the work, under his guidance and to ?his? work plan. Seniors came and 'worked' a lot, and took a little of the produce home, while family folk came for shorter time, but helped eat up a greater part of the crops. Seemed like heaven on earth (all puns intended) to me !! (Was I dreaming it all ?) Keep at it all friends, j * -- From: "Graham Burnett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Community allotment/LETS growing peroject- lessons learned... Date: Mon, Oct 25, 1999, 6:52 pm This relates to a discussion going on over on the 'Kitchen Gardens' list, but I thought it might also be of interest/relevance here on 'Organic Steamradio', EconLETS the permaculture lists On the subject of community plots and suchlike; We've learned loads of lessons from the LETSGROW project we've been trying to set up, it was supposed to be a local organic food growing/distribution scheme operating through South East Essex LETS, but it hasn't really worked out- after 2 years myself and Steve, the other co-ordinator, have called it a day as despite all of our attempts to get others involved (including TV and local press coverage) nearly all the work was falling to the 2 of us, which meant we were neglecting our own plots. There were lots of reasons why this happened including poor quality soil (heavy clay- lots of lightening/organic matter required which we didn't have), non-supportive allotment committee, difficulties with access (only Steve myself were key holders), but mainly it was about the gap between peoples ideas initial enthusiasm and their actual commitment- there were lots of daydreams and big talk about putting in polytunnels, wind generators and aquacultures, etc, but try getting those same people to turn up to plant a row of onion sets but the idea hasn't been totally dropped, instead we've 'mutated' and joined forces with an already existing community growing project 'The Open Mind Plot', which was initially set up as a therapuetic project for people recovering from mental health problems, and we're now 'The Open Garden', providing a space for people who want to grow veg, or flowers, or just want to sit about chill out or socialise. We've also dropped the LETS component in terms of payment for work, now people are welcome to just turn up, grow stuff which they can take away, and if there is a surplus maybe distribute it via LETS. It's on 3 reclaimed allotments on an otherwise largely overgrown site, and we're hoping the Council will support us as an Agenda 21 project. Well, we'll see if it works out! For more info about our LETS allotment, check out our website, http://pages.unisonfree.net/gburnett/index-page15.html I'd be interested in hearing others experiences with community plots/ growing projects with LETS or similar- have they worked? How? Any other lessons learned/tales/inspiration? Graham Burnett 35 Rayleigh Avenue Westcliff On Sea Essex, UK SS0 7DS South East Essex LETS http://pages.unisonfree.net/gburnett/
Re: We Need Homeworkers!!
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: We Need Homeworkers!! Date: Sat, Oct 23, 1999, 3:32 pm Start earning Big Money in a short time * Why ? xx's j *
Re: FW Phony Tax Revolt: Murray Dobbin (fwd)
Dear futurework friends, Another capital scam ! Thus, is the importance of a coalition - to contest the lies *and* promote the solutions. Is that to be a Canadian or international coalition ? Hugs j * -- From: "S. Lerner" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW Phony Tax Revolt: Murray Dobbin (fwd) Date: Fri, Oct 15, 1999, 1:49 pm Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:13:27 -0700 From: Murray Dobbin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: phony tax revolt The crisis of high taxes is a phony crisis The crisis of high taxes is a phony crisis The crisis of high taxes is a phony crisis By Murray Dobbin Following on months of scare mongering by the National Post, Canadians now face the country's three largest business lobbies joining together in a deafening call for massive tax cuts. The call will be repeated and repeated in the hope that Canadians will gradually give in and accept the message. It is a repeat performance of the deficit hysteria of the early nineties and like that campaign based on carefully constructed myths. Let's examine some of them. First and foremost, is the myth about how high corporate taxes are in Canada. Examining OECD figures reveals that Canada's corporate tax regime places us in the middle of the pack of 29 industrialized nations. But what about our main competitors? The international firm KPMG has done several studies that show Canada's effective corporate income tax rate (the actual rate of taxes paid) is very competitive. In on such study, comparing Canada with Britain, the US, Germany, France, Italy, and Sweden, Canada had the lowest tax rate - 27.4% versus 40% for the US. In addition, respecting the two other major taxes affecting investment, payroll taxes and property taxes, Canada was significantly lower than the US and the other countries examined. The loudest calls for tax cuts are aimed at personal income taxes compared with the US. The argument is made that we have to remain competitive with the US in being able to attract high skilled workers and to reverse the brain drain. The brain drain argument persists even though the data shows that in fact Canada has a net brain gain - we lose 8,000 university graduates to the US while gaining over 32,000 from other countries. Most of those we lose are in the health field, forced to emigrate because of spending cuts. Two studies indicate that though our personal taxes are higher in Canada than in the US, when other factors are added in the differences disappear. A study by Standard and Poor's DRI revealed that when you take account of the money Americans have to spend in the private sector for health care and education, the so-called "tax burden" is virtually identical in the two countries. Supporting that conclusion is a study done by Michael Wolfson, the director general of Stastcan. It revealed that the average Canadian family has more take-home pay than their American counterpart: $30,200 versus $29,500. Only in the top one-fifth of income earners do Americans have a higher take-home pay - in the bottom four quintiles Canadian do better. It is ironic that the tax-cut advocates pitch their appeal on the basis of job creation when for the past ten years these same voices have lobbied hard to keep inflation low and unemployment high. But in any case the argument that tax cuts will actually increase tax revenue through economic stimulation doesn't hold up either - unless those cuts are given to the lowest income Canadians who are obliged to spend all they earn. According to the Ottawa firm Informetrica, the most stimulative tax cut would be the GST. A $100 million cut here would produce 55,000 jobs. But a $100 million in increased government spending on medicare or education would result in 70,000 new jobs, on child care, 130,000 jobs. Perhaps the most dubious part of the tax cut campaign is the myth that there is "tax rage" in the country, that Canadians are demanding tax cuts. In fact, Canadians have shown in poll after poll that they want more money spent on health care and education. The most comprehensive polling in the country, conducted by Ekos in its yearly "Rethinking Government" study, asked people what the federal government's priority should be. Tax cuts placed seventh, behind health care, education, child poverty, improving productivity, supporting children and families, and reducing the national debt. Even in Ontario, in the middle of the last provincial election, an Angus Reid poll revealed that 53% wanted the government to forget the tax cut and spend the equivalent amount of money on health care and education, while 22% said forget the cut and bring down the deficit. The purpose behind the tax cut campaign is clear and it has nothing to do with job creation, international competitiveness, or the brain drain. It has to do with permanently lowering the government's revenue so that its capacity to provide public services is diminished, clearing the
*The* Millenial Request
*** Firstly, our thanks to Mario Pianta and the meeting participants. Secondly, I have selected the following from the text of the document: * 3rd Assembly of the UN of the Peoples THE ROLE OF THE GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES FOR PEACE, AN ECONOMY OF JUSTICE AND INTERNATIONAL DEMOCRACY Final document of the 3rd Assembly of the United Nations of the Peoples Selected abstracts from the above, by john courtneidge [EMAIL PROTECTED] 14 October 1999 2. Redistribution means reversing the trend to growing inequality. The civil society demands to governments and parliaments: - to cancel the foreign debt of impoverished countries and promote the revision of the credit concession system that generates unsustainable debt, making sure that the resources made available are used against poverty; - to fight against poverty by adopting coherent politicies and local, national and supranational agreements, also involving local authorities, social and economic forces, and by supporting global development with agrarian reform, the transfer of knowledge and the opening of western markets; * 3. Co-operation means not to leave the future of our societies in the hands of the competition in a market without rules. The civil society demands to governments and parliaments: - the development of alternative financial institutions, such as ethical banks, microcredit, a credit system favouring the poor and women, and all the other financial instruments for an ethical management of savings; - the promotion of socially useful work; ** 4. to promote the reform and democratisation of international economic and financial institutions (World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation) bringing them back under the political control and effective co-ordination of the United Nations. *** 5. to promote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, creating a true culture of human rights, educating and strengthening the respect for social, economic, political and civil rights; ÄÝAbove all, peace Peace, as is proclaimed in Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is a fundamental right of every person and people. Without peace there cannot be development or democracy. Without justice there cannot be peace, which means respect and promotion of human and social rights, a balanced relationship to nature, building justice and democracy for all peoples. However, peace cannot be obtained solely through the actions of the United Nations and Governments. In fact, in the last few years all the limits and the responsibilities of these institutions have emerged so clearly as never before. The Campaign for Interest-Free Money works: to transfer the Banking and Financial system (the motor of present-day economics): *from* the for-profit sector *to*the Democratic, Public Service Sector. We see this as *key* to delivering Fair, safe and peace-full societies. Accordingly : Our Petition to MPs and other public representatives (just released !! ) says: *** CAMPAIGN for INTEREST-FREE MONEY Petition to __, MP. ( Constituency ) We, the undersigned, consider that money-lending for profit (usury, riba, money-making-money) is both wrong and the cause of in-numerable personal, family, social and environmental ills. We, therefore, call on the UK Government to repeal the legislation that permits money lending at interest and to create a Public Service, interest-free Banking and Financial System. We, as your Constituents, call on you to support this Petition, Name Address Please note - the signatories to this sheet will not be contacted by the Campaign or other organisations or individuals, nor will their details be shared with any-one other than the MP¼s and Prime-Minister¼s Offices. Please return full sheets to: The Campaign for Interest-Free Money, Global Cafe, 15 Golden Square, London W1R3AG (and, please, phone 01992 501854 or e-mail; [EMAIL PROTECTED] to advise of posting) * Please, friends, all,, do use this - internationally - as (?!) *The* Millenial Request ** **** Your Friend in peace, john courtneidge Networking The Campaign for Interest-Free Money ***
(Was Re: Cure for the cancer of capitalism (Korten)) - Is dealing with the U-Word !
Dear Friends, all, I snip then comment -- From: Bob Olsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cure for the cancer of capitalism (Korten) Date: Mon, Oct 4, 1999, 11:27 pm Over the nearly 600 years since the onset of the Commercial Revolution, we have as a species learned a great deal about the making of money and we have created powerful institutions and technologies dedicated to its accumulation. But in our quest for money, we forgot how to live. ** David Korten's contributions are excellent, and we can help his analysis forward. It is not clear that each generation opts to go on a "quest for money." Rather, each finds itself born into an economic system bequeathed by its parents (and one which they, largely also, had 'laid upon them.') I see capitalism as a systems fault. The fault is, firstly, philosophical: the belief that anything (Marx' 'means of production - land, money, knowledge found in productive facilities) *can* be owned. [ This is, palpably, is non-sense.] Secondly, that those owned resources can be: used for personal benefit (sic) [ Rather than for the commonweal (and within a care-full stewardship of the planet.) ] These thoughts, historically, have developed into the challenge to usury, a debate which has been effectively stifled in very recent times. Thus many (most) books don't (yet?) include 'The U-Word' in their indeces. So, I invite folk to check books (even dictionaries and encyclopeadias) for the u-word, and even notice the amount of weasling that goes on, in many that do have it, around the true meaning of this word. Dance onward, friends! hugs j **
FW: 35 hour week
Dear Melanie and futureworkfriends My reply, below went off too quickly - I hope it didn't feel abrupt - apologies. My extended comment is this: The whole move towards (co-operative) team working, in clusive, active communities, local democracy, school parent govenors and etc needs to be time-resourced. Earlier in the year, our Campaign hosted a group of people from New Zealand (the Human Rights 2000 Project) that seeks to bring to national governments' attention the legal requirement (or so i understand it) to resouce their citizens to be active human rights monitoring citizens. Thus my call for a less-than-35 hour (paid) working week. I envisage, for example, that paid work (bashing molecules and etc around) take place on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, and, that, wednesday be 'The Community Action' day - for all - when Council Meetings take place, community focusing goes on and etc. This, of course, has implications for the nature of 'work' during the four-day 'working' week - a call, therefore, for William Morris' "More useful work, less useless toil." And, hence my All Singing and All Dancing Co-operative Solutions Set (did I post that to f-work ?) Hugs 2,4,from all, j -- From: "john courtneidge" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Melanie Milanich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 35 hour week Date: Thu, Oct 7, 1999, 8:47 pm It's too long j -- From: Melanie Milanich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 35 hour week Date: Wed, Oct 6, 1999, 5:31 pm With all the protests by businesses (and the threats to lay off staff) against the 35 hour work week, its implementation next year seems shaky. Analysts say that France is going against the trend in the rest of Europe to part-time and temporary employment and will not be able to compete. What do you people think about the potential of the 35 hour week for paid permanent employment? Who is still advocating it and where? Melanie
'The' Solution Set (Was Re: Putting on the line - could you do it?)
Dear Frinds, all, In the following, Thomas Lunde writes: Revolution is not the answer. Dramatic helplessness may be. After his words, I've copied a posting to Quaker-B (a list-serve involving a bunch of Trans-Atlantic-ish Quakers.) The first part is a highly pointed critique of 'The Problem.' There follows my best attempt at 'The Solution.' To use Thomas' call - can we stand naked(-ish?) before *our* legislators and demand that they impliment *our* preferred solution ? I hope so ! Hugs j *** The Solution Set stuff is at the end ( there's no zen-type intrigue in that pointer !! ) -- From: "Thomas Lunde" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: Putting on the line - could you do it? Date: Tue, Oct 5, 1999, 11:05 am Thomas: You may have noticed - a little ego here - I have not been posting lately. Why! Because I came to the realization that ideas and talk are not going to solve our multiple problems and I felt I had to withdraw and rethink this whole situation. Tom Attlee, the author of the word co-stupidity which I posted an essay about to the list several months ago is perhaps feeling the same way - as are other groups he is working with. They finally moved out of their comfort zone in a very big way to make a point of incredible value. (see essay below) The image now in my mind is Tinneamin Square (sp?) - remember that image of the Chinese man standing in front of the tank and when the tank tried to go around him, he continued to move in front - in essence saying, "listen and respond or take my life" the choice is yours, I am just going to stand here (naked) and you make the decision. I'm beginning to think that the only way we can slow and stop this insanity around us of poverty, Y2K, the effects of capitalism on the Earth and future generations is to take our clothes off and stand in front of the tank. Instead of starving us, lying to us, tricking us, decieving us - just go ahead and kill us - we stand here naked before you. Revolution is not the answer. Dramatic helplessness may be. I watch the news and see the people of Serbia, begging daily for Milosovic to just go away. They are not crying for punishment or justice, they are just saying "Please, go away, allow us to regroup and rebuild and restructure our country." That is what most of us want - for the existing structure to "just go away" and allow the rest of us to regroup, rebuild and restructure. Take the damn money you have stolen, just go away. Perhaps we have to give them the alternative - kill us or just go away, it is your choice and stand there in front of them - naked. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde When you think about what you have to do in this culture to get your priorities straight, it just boggles the mind!! But it is always heartening to hear about someone doing it. I wonder if there will be any copycat demonstrations elsewhere... -- Coheartedly, Tom Dear Friends I'm grateful to Mona for the following, pithy account of the devilish world in which we live. Even more somberly, on the day of yet another rail smash in London (another !! ), and with my cash resources almost gone, I've produced the best plan, that I can, to ensure that this lunatic economic system is replaced - by one in which the ennui of youth is reduced and money for train safety systems (and other necessary works) *is* available. The essay follows at the end of the post. Let us find peace, finally, in our time. Your Friend, john courtneidge hertford + hitchin mm ps Please copy it on for others to share - thanks, j *** -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: A lot of thought for the day Date: Tue, Oct 5, 1999, 5:29 pm Hello, all. The following, written by a student at Columbine High School, is being circulated these days. I thought it might give us something to think about today. (For those abroad who may not know, Columbine was the site of a horrendous shooting incident in which two students fired on a crowd of their classmates.) Mona The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less. We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time; we have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, but more problems; more medicine, but less wellness. We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry too quickly, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too seldom, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom. We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often. We've learned how to make a living, but not a life; we've added years to life, not life to y
Values (Was Re: Greer's pertinent piece)
I snip from Arthur Cordell nice posting: Take your pick. Did I hear someone say 'values.'??? arthur cordell Have I ever posted the 'Values Game' ? Should I ? More hugs j * -- From: "Cordell, Arthur: DPP" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Peter Challen [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ed Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED], Futurework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Greer's pertinent piece Date: Thu, Sep 30, 1999, 3:25 pm -- From: Ed Weick (commenting on Challen) WHY WORK ( like all good work - unfinished ) Real work is mental or physical effort benefiting at once ourselves, others, and the delicate inter-dependence of the planet. Yes, yes, that is a very nice thought, and your poem is very nice too. If only it could be that way. But we live in a rather nasty and brutish world in which people are as likely to blow each or up as to cooperate. Ed Weick Cordell I see 4 possible responses to Ed's comment. 1. Right. The world is nasty, brutish and short and I want my place on the gravy train--where do I sign up for my MBA? 2. Right The world is nasty brutish and short and I find it appalling. I find it so difficult to live in this sort of world that I will make it a better place by working in my church and community alleviating pain through prayer and good works. 3. Wrong. It doesn't have to be this way. In fact a radical and rapid change to the existing order can bring about a better world. But revolutions seem not to work and revolutionaries are usually dispatched before thery have a chance to implement the changes. 4. Wrong. Humans have a host of genetic responses to situations. We have over-empasized some at the expense of others. We have given undue weight and emphasis to competition and getting ahead and have given decreasing emphasis to cooperation and community. We need to restore balance. Take your pick. Did I hear someone say 'values.'??? arthur cordell
Constitutional Differences? In practice or by intention ? (Was Re: Germaine Greer on N.Y. and Ottawa)
Dear Friends I snip, then comment below. -- From: Melanie Milanich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Germaine Greer on N.Y. and Ottawa Date: Wed, Sep 29, 1999, 2:02 pm Melanie Milanich wrote: The Globe and Mail, Saturday Sept. 25, 1999, p. D2 Dreary as Ottawa was, it was in the end a better place than New York by Germaine Greer snip Though I love New York, I disapprove of it. Dreary as Ottawa was, it was in the end a better place than New York. Canadians believe that happiness is living in a just society; they will not sing the Yankee song that capitalism is happiness, capitalism is freedom. Canadians have a lively sense of decency and human dignity. Though no Canadian can afford freshly squeezed orange juice, every Canddian can have juice made from concentrate. Thae lack of luxury is meant to coincide with the absence of misery. It doesn't work altogether, but the idea is worth defending. ** It's flattering that Germaine Greer sees more dignity and social justice in Canadian society..but along comes the new right and the Harris government rushing blindly to push us into the same thing --- I worked in Ottawa for two years and love it to pieces. One ?significant? comparison between the US and Canada lies inthe Constitutions: * The US focus on "Life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness." As compared to: * The Canadian focus on "Peace, order and good government." The former is the personal agenda, the second relates to our social needs (I've an essay about this, but i know that I speak and post too much already.) Whether this comparison over-rides (or perhaps? underpins) action-in-legislation I don't know, but the culture of the two countries is as marked as might be (perhaps the results of different banking systems/ethoses - is the plural of ethos ethoses?) Dance well, friends, j ***
Re: request for resouces - two goodly books
Dear Anne and Friends, all (I feel that the cc-s are worth-while in a lets-net-the-solutions-spirit ) First of all, I apologise for my multitude of postings to this list - it seems, by far, the most active of those I'm on, at present. Secondly of all, your request for resources. The one resource, upon a deal of reflection, that I'd whole-heartedly recommend, to all community developers, is a book called 'The Bermondsey Story' by Fenner Brockway (again, The Quaker Bookshop in London, UK has copies £4.95 plus postage - and I'm not on any commission here !!! ) It tells the story of Alfred Salter and his wife Ada' s work in Bermondsey - one of London's poorest, poorest areas in the 1920's to early 50's. They did (with their Independent Labour Party chums and their co-operative chums) truely wonderful work there. That work was the best, truely I think, the best, that *any-one* could have done. But. Came the war (and I could, almost, believe that the war was started to kill off their work) the project ended and Bermondsey was pushed back, yet again, into last place in the race. So ? What's the big message ? Well, I'm not sure. Perhaps . . . The task is eternal ( The Second Law of Thermodynamics and all that), but, also, perhaps, we have to, both: 'Think globally and act locallly.' And: 'Think locally *and* act globally.' In other words, as a step on, find the balance between local do-ing and global do-ing ? [Good-ly book, tho' ] hugs j *** Oh, yes, and Dolores Hayden's 'Redesigning The American Dream' is, also, a must-read. More hugs j *** -- From: "Anne Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: request for resouces Date: Thu, Sep 23, 1999, 3:36 pm Hello I'm an adult educator following a graduate program in Community Economic Development at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, BC. I'm hoping to hear some thoughts on good literature to help me address a question I'm posing. My question is grounded in rural communities in transition. The economies of small rural communities are often based upon single industries, which of late, have been collapsing in record numbers. These communities, struggling for survival, are eager to change their traditional livelihoods to something that promises to be more viable. CED interventions demonstrate that this transition from one economy to another [or others] has had varied success. CED strategies and models in themselves are not enough to ensure that an intervention will be successful. My question then is: What critical issues, factors and questions must be considered at this time of transition to enable a small rural community to make a successful transition to a new economy? If anyone has any ideas about particular resources- books, journals, articles, and resource people - I would appreciate hearing about them. Anne Miller
Re: workfare
Dear Friends I snip: But people still seemed to love the notion of it. Perhaps since so many hate their own work and wish the curse on others? Might we discuss this? j ** BTW Victor - i recieved your e-message in an odd format, as a sort-of picture that I couldn't highlight from ?? Thanks, tho' for sending it ! * -- From: "Victor Milne" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "futurework" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: workfare Date: Sun, Sep 26, 1999, 1:50 pm One fact can't be ignored: Workfare's a failure ``Practical politics consists in ignoring facts.'' - The Education of Henry Adams by Henry Brooks Adams, 1907 -- ABOUT A YEAR before the last Ontario election, communications aides in the Harris government attended a weekend seminar to identify their core constituency and to fine-tune their messaging. At it, they were told that far and away the single most popular government initiative to that point had been workfare. And when you think of it, that's astonishing. How many among us have ever actually witnessed a workfare crew or project in action? How many of us have seen or experienced the results of such labours? Probably very few. But people still seemed to love the notion of it. By then, the Conservative government was absolutely certain of what a backroomer told me it had learned during the 1995 campaign that brought it to office - that playing the welfare card was like shooting fish in a barrel, that the Premier simply couldn't be tough enough on social-assistance recipients to suit his supporters. How intriguing then to hear news yesterday that the government is now in receipt of a consultant's report that says Ontario's highly popular, but faltering, workfare program requires substantial spending (most especially on child care) if it's to produce real, as well as political, success. From the outset, the facts made this plain. But the facts were, in the words of Henry Adams, conveniently ignored. For as Michael Kinsley wrote in The New Yorker a week before Mike Harris was first elected, ``the passion behind Draconian welfare reform exceeds any rational assessment of what it is likely to achieve.'' There could be only three purposes for workfare. One, to cut costs; two, to create work for those needing it; three, to capitalize on its puritanical appeal by punishing welfare recipients and appeasing angry taxpayers. From the start, we knew workfare was bad economics. The cheapest way to provide social assistance is by mailing a cheque. A serious work requirement - one that wasn't just, as Kinsley put it, ``a euphemism for cutting people off'' - would cost more, not less, than existing systems, chiefly in child care and administration. We know that workfare has largely failed at creating work. We can safely conclude this because the government has been able to trot out only anecdotal evidence of success, the odd personal testimonial by individual clients and no statistics that support more extensive claims. We know this as well because of the Premier's pleadings lately for municipalities to help with his workfare program and his recent desperate threats to turn social-assistance recipients into farmhands. What he's apparently discovered is what most other jurisdictions who've tried workfare found earlier: that it is riddled with inefficiencies and contradictions, that at best it might lift people out of welfare but not poverty, and most particularly that, done right, it costs. For all that, there's no denying that workfare succeeded on the third score, the punitive aspect. Otherwise, how is it that a program so largely invisible and inconsequential to the general public, so obviously disappointing in results to its most ardent proponents, could remain so exceedingly popular? As old Henry Adams also said, ``knowledge of human nature is the beginning and end of political education.'' And beyond doubt the Harris government understood something of human nature. What it played to with workfare is what the New York Times Magazine last year called ``the new American consensus'' - ``government of, by and for the comfortable.'' In other words, it didn't much matter that the program didn't work - only that it produced benefits to the comfortable and/or made them feel better. In this, though, it might be prudent to again consult Adams, who said that ``simplicity is the most deceitful mistress that ever betrayed man.'' The simplicity of workfare, as retailed by the Harris government, was a deceit. This latest report will merely add to the body of evidence that it's a complicated and costly business. It will be interesting to see if the government is serious enough about making workfare work to spend the money required. But I think we already know the answer to that. For to invest would mean
Re: workfare
Dear Friends I snip and then comment. -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Reuss) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: workfare Date: Mon, Sep 27, 1999, 3:00 pm Victor Milne calculated: If a workfare participant works 8 hours each working day (22 workdays in the average month) for his welfare benefit of $520 a month, then he is being paid $2.95 an hour. Over here, the 'wage' is about 2-3 times higher. Considering that the workfare work is very easy work that can't be compared with the stressing work in private companies, and that it basically helps the candidates to maintain a regular activity (and possibly to find a 'real' job), I think this wage isn't too bad... Chris One intriguing aspect of wages under capitalism is that the people who do the crap jobs get the crap money. Given that, as income (and wealth) inequality grows, ill-health also grows (Richard Wilkinson's book) then we *have* to work out how to close the present, obscene factors of income inequality. Any ideas? j
Re: [lets] The Global Model, III
Dear Wes Thanks for this. In a nut-shell: * Capitalism is not the answer - it is the problem * Lending money for profit is the motor that drives capitalism * Capitalism - for *every body*, every creature and the whole planet - is like playing with a one-armed bandit - the machine (the money machine) *always* wins Thus we Campaign for Interest-Free Money, aim for a Public Service, non-interest based banking system (some would say, as a prelude to dispensing with money altogether!) I copy below a booklist - please forward, both on the net and, most particularly to those who are not. All in love, to, for and from, all, j *** *** Interest-Free Money - A Booklist *** The following is a collection that examines the history and effects of charging interest on lent money. I'd be glad to receive suggested additions that explain, not the ills of the present economic system, but which cover specific discussions of usury and descriptions for its replacement. John Courtneidge Networking for The Campaign for Interest-Free Money [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Margrit Kennedy 'Interest and Inflation-Free Money' New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, USA, 1995 (USA ISBN 0-86571-319-7 A good - almost unique book - explaining the effects of interest on daily life and the way it stops civilised life developing Available from us: £11, postage and packing free ** James Buchan'Frozen Desire: An Inquiry into the Meaning of Money' Picador, London, 1997 ISBN 0-330-36931-8 (paperback) A lyrical book, written by a novelist and journalist, that examines the history of money and our relationship with it. Widely available. ** Dorothy Rowe'The Real Meaning of Money' Harper Collins, London, 1997 ISBN 0-025-5329-5 (Also now available in paperback) An extensive examination of the interaction of individuals and money, written by a well-known and widely-published psychologist. ** Peter Selby 'Grace and Mortgage: The Language of Faith and the Debt of the World' Darton, Longman and Todd, London, 1997 ISBN 0-232-521700 (Paperback) Written by the Anglican Bishop of Worcester, this marks an important step in the Established Church's rediscovery of "Ancient wisdoms." ** Sir Harry Page 'In Restraint of Usury: The Lending of Money at Interest' Chartered Institute for Public Finances and Accounts, London, 1985 ISBN 0-85299-2858 Written by a former President of CIPFA and past Treasurer of the City of Manchester, this small book tells what most other historians leave out - the first legalisation of usury by Henry VIII in 1545. Sadly now out of print, this points out the disastrous effect that usury has on providing quality public services and the resulting misery caused. ** Christopher Hill'Reformation To Industrial Revolution' Pelican Economic History, Volume 2: 1530-1780 Penguin, London, 1969. Although this misses Henry's Act of 1545, it is a first-rate account of the struggles between Westminister and the City of London: particularly valuable is Chapter 6 'The Financial Revolution.' ** Bertrand Russell'A History of Western Philosophy' Allen and Unwin, London, 1946 Passes the 'U-test' - contains an excellent and concise examination of usury (via the index.) *** Chris Harman'Economics of The Madhouse: Capitalism and the Market Today' Bookmarks, London, 1995 ISBN 1-898876-03-7 (Paperback) Good, short, readable account of Marx' insights into the way usury-driven economics (capitalism!) works - easily recognisable to any who have been in business.) *** Gary Allen 'None Dare Call It Conspiracy' Concord Books, Seal Beach, California, 1971 (Also Britons Publishing Co, 1973) Some-times hair-raising account of the relationships between the banking communities accross the globe - the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, the Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House) in London and so on: the material here has been examined by G William Dommen 'Who Runs America Now' Touchstone Books. *** more xx's j From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The Global Model, III
Re: The 'Privatisation of Knowledge' agenda (Was Re: Bell Labs Pr edictions for 2025)
Dear Friends I'm delighted to see Maria's posting on this strand (thanks, too, to Carol for her encouragement ! ) I've snipped a few lines, below and then comment afterwards. -- From: Maria Lantin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Carol Gigliotti [EMAIL PROTECTED], 'john courtneidge' [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Gurstein [EMAIL PROTECTED], Faculty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: 'futurework' [EMAIL PROTECTED], 'CPI-UA' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: The 'Privatisation of Knowledge' agenda (Was Re: Bell Labs Pr edictions for 2025) Date: Thu, Nov 18, 1999, 11:52 pm Imagine sitting week after week in corporate meetings where all these weird gadgets are being scheduled for design and production and nobody stands up to say, "Hey, folks, let's face it. This stuff is just nuts!" Of course, the reason talented people are busily at work on all these absurd appliances and infrastructures is that there's likely tons of money in it. ** The above is a succinct comment. Tho' I see 'The Privatisation of Knowledge' agenda as *the* key issue of the next century, the key to its resolution are the questions left over from the present one. The three 'capital' resources needed for production (land, money and the knowledge tied up in the hard- and soft-ware of productive facilities, factories, offices and so-forth) are immensely over-concentrated. Now, tho' we can try to de-centralise those concentrations by, for example, converting share-holder owned companies into co-operatively-held organisations, the whole lot will still be driven by the need for money to make its maximun return in the shortest possible time. Further, i'd guess that the essence of this 'futurework' listserve is to discover ways of acheiving William Morris' objective of: "Maximising useful work and minimising useless toil." To that end, concerned folk need to seriously look at the key motor (compound interest) that drives the short-termism of present day 'useless toil.' It's my present view that, until we tackle this money-question, we'll always be playing catch-up tp capitalism's ills. So I hope that we'll all get tackling ! Hugs j *
The 'Privatisation of Knowledge' agenda (Was Re: Bell Labs Predictions for 2025)
Dear Friends all, 1) Thanks to Michael G for this posting 2) Its contents are of maximal importance for our 21st Century. * If * these developments are for the benefit of all (the Commonweal) then we might all be celebrating. However: The 'Privatisation of Knowledge' agenda is *the* one that we all need to get our heads around post-2000. Knowledge (aka 'Information') is power, and the recent MIicrosoft anti-trust events, along, in scale, with the partial closure and stock-erosion of your Local Library, and the impoverishment of your local community schools and colleges, are sympomatic of the trend. Many old-sytle socialists cracked on continuously about 'inequality.' I confess that I let this, largely, go, until I read (the intro and conclusion at least!) of Richard Wilkinson's 'Unhealthy Societies' where the evidence is presented, that inequality creates ill-health. (For al !! ) As to stategies, in light of this knowledge (!?) I'm not clear (yet?) Hugs to all, j *** -- From: "Michael Gurstein" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Faculty" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "futurework" [EMAIL PROTECTED], "CPI-UA" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: Bell Labs Predictions for 2025 Date: Wed, Nov 17, 1999, 3:36 pm Ready or not... MG - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 9:47 AM Subject: Bell Labs Predictions for 2025 For more information on this item please visit the CANARIE CA*net 3 Optical Internet program web site at http://www.canet3.net --- From Dave Farber's IPer list Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 00:51:52 -0500 From: The Old Bear [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bell Labs Predictions For 2025 Bell Labs predicts a "Global Communications Skin" by 2025 MURRAY HILL, NEW JERSEY, U.S.A., 1999 NOV 12 (NB) -- By Steven Bonisteel, Newsbytes. If you think you are plugged in now - with your Internet connection, your wireless phone and your Palm Pilot - just wait until 2025. By then, say experts at Bell Labs, the research arm of Lucent Technologies Inc. [NYSE:LU], you'll be wired into a global communications network through devices as small as a lapel pin. What's more, they say, that global network will be more like a "communications skin" capable of sensing everything from weather patterns to how much milk is in your refrigerator. "We are already building the first layer of a mega-network that will cover the entire planet like a skin," Bell Labs President Arun Netravali said today in a document loaded with prognostications from lab staff. "As communication continues to become faster, smaller, cheaper and smarter in the next millennium, this skin, fed by a constant stream of information, will grow larger and more useful." Netravali said that "skin" will include millions of electronic measuring devices - thermostats, pressure gauges, pollution detectors, cameras, microphones - all monitoring cities, roadways, and the environment. "All of these will transmit data directly into the network, just as our skin transmits a constant stream of sensory data to our brains," he said. "Such systems might be used for anything from constantly monitoring the traffic on a local road, water level in a river to the temperature at the beach or the supply of food in a refrigerator." Bell Labs spokeswoman Wendy Zajack told Newsbytes that the predictions for the future of communications technology were released, in part, to mark the approaching Millennium. In addition, she said, with Bell Labs facing its 75th anniversary, the prognostications underscore the organization's reputation for "brain power." And that's no idle boast. Bell Labs researchers have garnered at least two Nobel Prizes in physics (including one in 1956 for the 1947 discovery of the laser). Zajack notes that Bell Labs, bundled with Lucent when that company was spun off from ATT Corp. [NYSE:T] in 1996, files applications for more than three patents a day and has more than 30,000 inventions to it credit since it was formed 75 years ago. Netravali said some recent breakthroughs at Bell Labs, particularly in areas that are boosting bandwidth and reducing the size of electronic components, will help bring about their vision of communications in the new Millennium. Noting that Bell Labs researchers recently demonstrated the first long-distance (300 kilometer) transmission of data at a trillion bits per second over a single strand of optical fiber, Netravali said that, in 10 years, a single fiber will carry a quadrillion bits per second. "This will put nearly limitless amounts of bandwidth at users' fingertips," the document stated. "It is this plentiful and inexpensive bandwidth that will enable high-quality videoconferencing and faster, 'always-on' Internet connections in the next century." Netravali said the huge bandwidth will be able to support the massive amount of data required for all the
Deeper Places (Was: Earned !! ?? )
Dear Co-operators and friends, all, In response to: * -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.brian.) Terry Leahy (Chair, Tesco) earned £671,000 in 1998(Tesco is one of the UK's largest supermarket chains.) ** I wrote: ** !!! Earned ?? Or got ?? It was the night-shift (and etc) who did the earning. (And what of the shareholders cut ?? ) ** And, then, Carl wrote as below.: miaow! ;-) ** And, so: I now write: Firstly - thanks to Carl for this prompting. Secondly, I accept that my comments, above, might appear as The Politics of Envy. I hope, however, to take this to deeper places: a) Ineqality is bad for the physical, mental and spiritual health of *all* the members of a society (check the first and last paragraphs of Richard Wilkinson's 'Unhealthy Societies') b) The (unthinking?) pressure creating inequality is *the* automatic process of capitalism - what Vaclav Havel calls "auto-totality" - a totalitarianism where there is no physical dictator (see Sharif Abdullah's, recent, 'Creating a World Theat Works For All.') c) This "auto-totality" is, for me, the combination of capitalism's two linked drivers: firstly, wealth concentration and, then, further use of the profits that, then, flow from ownership of that concentration (These form the two components of power concentration) that, *when put together* is so frightening about capitalism - the "auto-totality of whic Vaclav Havel speaks.) Thus, we *must,* as co-operators, work to dissolve away the *two* elements of power concentration - the mechanisms by which wealth is concentrated *and* also the further use to which those concentrations are put. In other words, our task is to re-mutualise ownership of land and productive resources, which we *can do,* peacefully, by returning money to its proper use as a *shared* measuring device (see Alan Watts, quoted in the first chapter - The Absurdity of it all - in Peter Lang's 'LETs Work: Rebuilding the Local Economy.') Thanks, again, Carl ! Co-op-ly hugs, to, for and from, all, j BTWs: The best book I know on power is Ken Galbraith's 'The Anatomy of Power.' And, All this is the (??!!) reasoning for our Campaign for Interest-Free Money, since taking hold of money's power is *the* route to remutualising the other two. More hugs !!
