Re: [Futurework] Sayonara
Karen, this is the saddest posting ever to this list. Won't you stay? Ed - Original Message - From: Karen Cole To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 10:08 PM Subject: [Futurework] Sayonara Dear friends, When I met my second cousin Ray Evans Harrell for the first time as an adult in 1999 or 2000, he invited me to log onto FW and listen to what he promised was invigorating and exceptional debate among a variety of voices, separated by distance but gathered in their common curiosity and interests. I have enjoyed this relationship, learning a great deal about economics, science and the backstory and conflicts to our working world that I would never have discovered on my own. Additionally, the collective wisdom shared here provided me what could only be matched in graduate courses or seminars. The backgrounds and life experiences around this circle made this a place I wanted to listen, learn and contribute. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss and evolve in this circle. In fact, the Casey Reports are actually an outgrowth of my postings here on numerous topics, contributing what I hoped was relevant content for some, if not all, that would hopefully spark conversations. But it is time for me to leave. I will continue cyber-harvesting my weekly Casey Reports and write occasional Scanning the Horizon posts. If any of you not already signed on are interested in getting either of those private email lists, you know how to contact me. I made some true friends here, and learned from all of you. My best regards to all of you. Be Well. Karen -- ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] Sayonara
Dear Karen, it would be a big loss if you'd leave. Was it the lack of positive feedback to your constructive suggestions on how to re-structure the list traffic, which put you over the edge? Btw, doesn't this somehow mirror developments in the economy? Members spinning off their own lists instead of staying in the commons (Fwk)... Not necessarily a good development... Regards, Chris ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] Sayonara
I will continue to enjoy Casey Reports (yes, all five) and would welcome you back any time you feel that you need an FW fix. Cyber wishes and travel safely on the info highway. (also life's highway as well) Arthur From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Cole Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2007 10:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] Sayonara Dear friends, When I met my second cousin Ray Evans Harrell for the first time as an adult in 1999 or 2000, he invited me to log onto FW and listen to what he promised was invigorating and exceptional debate among a variety of voices, separated by distance but gathered in their common curiosity and interests. I have enjoyed this relationship, learning a great deal about economics, science and the backstory and conflicts to our working world that I would never have discovered on my own. Additionally, the collective wisdom shared here provided me what could only be matched in graduate courses or seminars. The backgrounds and life experiences around this circle made this a place I wanted to listen, learn and contribute. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss and evolve in this circle. In fact, the Casey Reports are actually an outgrowth of my postings here on numerous topics, contributing what I hoped was relevant content for some, if not all, that would hopefully spark conversations. But it is time for me to leave. I will continue cyber-harvesting my weekly Casey Reports and write occasional Scanning the Horizon posts. If any of you not already signed on are interested in getting either of those private email lists, you know how to contact me. I made some true friends here, and learned from all of you. My best regards to all of you. Be Well. Karen ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] Futurework Digest, Vol 44, Issue 20
on are interested in getting either of those private email lists, you know how to contact me. I made some true friends here, and learned from all of you. My best regards to all of you. Be Well. Karen -- ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/private/futurework/attachments/20070709/6e223766/attachment-0001.html -- Message: 3 Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:36:12 +0200 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Reuss) Subject: Re: [Futurework] Sayonara To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Karen Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear Karen, it would be a big loss if you'd leave. Was it the lack of positive feedback to your constructive suggestions on how to re-structure the list traffic, which put you over the edge? Btw, doesn't this somehow mirror developments in the economy? Members spinning off their own lists instead of staying in the commons (Fwk)... Not necessarily a good development... Regards, Chris -- Message: 4 Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:27:59 -0400 From: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Sayonara To: Karen Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I will continue to enjoy Casey Reports (yes, all five) and would welcome you back any time you feel that you need an FW fix. Cyber wishes and travel safely on the info highway. (also life's highway as well) Arthur From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Cole Sent: Sunday, July 8, 2007 10:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] Sayonara Dear friends, When I met my second cousin Ray Evans Harrell for the first time as an adult in 1999 or 2000, he invited me to log onto FW and listen to what he promised was invigorating and exceptional debate among a variety of voices, separated by distance but gathered in their common curiosity and interests. I have enjoyed this relationship, learning a great deal about economics, science and the backstory and conflicts to our working world that I would never have discovered on my own. Additionally, the collective wisdom shared here provided me what could only be matched in graduate courses or seminars. The backgrounds and life experiences around this circle made this a place I wanted to listen, learn and contribute. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss and evolve in this circle. In fact, the Casey Reports are actually an outgrowth of my postings here on numerous topics, contributing what I hoped was relevant content for some, if not all, that would hopefully spark conversations. But it is time for me to leave. I will continue cyber-harvesting my weekly Casey Reports and write occasional Scanning the Horizon posts. If any of you not already signed on are interested in getting either of those private email lists, you know how to contact me. I made some true friends here, and learned from all of you. My best regards to all of you. Be Well. Karen -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/private/futurework/attachments/20070709/96e14734/attachment.html -- ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework End of Futurework Digest, Vol 44, Issue 20 ** ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] Futurework Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19
Money, money, money? I have spent sometime thinking about this. In many ways I don't think money is the root of the problem, rather it is the particular economic system that we have created in the last few hundred years that is the problem - specifically the structure by which we can gain access to money - which is generally selling our labour. My theory of money - a story of value, a medium of exchange, a number system. Money used to be a concrete intrinsically valuable thing - gold, silver (other metals). There were cultures/societies that had a form of money that was not intrinsically valuable (wampum, shells, even Gengis Khan developed/extended the use of paper money, etc). But for the sake of brevity this first proposition is accurate enough. At some point money became a concrete symbol for something intrinsically valuable - coins (worth more than the metal they contained), paper, etc. Later money became a concrete symbol for a promise of value (e.g. paper and coin no longer backed by gold). Now the majority of money is no longer concrete, rather the majority of money is epheral and electronic bits. The subjective perception of Value A beanie babe at $5.99 is the same beanie baby even if it sells for $14.99. What makes the difference? An Olympic judge holding a score of 7.9 versus one holding up a score of 9.8. We don't actually know if the score of 7.9 is actually a higher score because the judge is a better and more experienced judge, we overcome the inaccessible assessment of the subjective perception of value by accepting the illusion of precision that a number system provides. The number system becomes a means of exchange. Money is theoretically meant to be a store of value (which is really meant to represent a quantity/quality of labour/work). But since all value inevitable is context dependent - relative to its own niche in its own ecology, it is impossible to fix a particular quantity of anything as a standard measure of value. So we rely on the precision that the number systems provides, which works well enough when scores, values are aggragated. So seven Olympic judges all have different subjective perceptions of value which they choose to represent as a numerical score on a range of 1-10 (or 1-100) and by aggregating/averaging we end up with a good enough measure. It strikes my that if enough people become assessor than anything can be given a number representing their subjective perceptions of value and in turn those perceptions can be aggregated/average for good-enough measure of the value of the thing(s) perceived. Anything can be translated (good-enough translated) into a monetary value. Now the problem is how to people access the means of exchange - the task is to create an economy where there are more way to access the means of exchange than selling one's labour to an employer. If any contribution to society, local or global, can be assess by enough subjective perceivers than a good enough measure of the value of their contribution can be made. Developing a type of stock market where contributions (art, the invisible work of homemakers and community builders, volunteers, etc) are valued than creating a tax/redistribution systems based on full-cost accounting of commercial activities is possible. This would create a type of guaranteed income structure. The above is just a concept, meant to move outside of the box. Any society/culture of significant size and complexity needs an economy. A market system does not need to be synonymous with capitalism, or completely dominated by an imbalance priviledge of any one or two of the 'three factors of land, labour and capital'. One can conceive of market socialism. a $0.02 subjective perception of input. :) john John Verdon Sr. Strategic HR Analyst Directorate Military Personnel Force Development Department of National Defence Major-General George R. Pearkes Building 101 Colonel By Drive. Ottawa Ontario K1A 0K2 voice: 992-6246 FAX:995-5785 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searching for the pattern which connects and to know the difference that makes a difference Sapare Aude -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 08 July, 2007 12:00 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Futurework Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19 Send Futurework mailing list submissions to futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Futurework digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Framing Resources (Charles Brass) 2. New job title: Usability professional (Cordell, Arthur: ECOM)
Re: [Futurework] Futurework Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19
My theory of money - a story of value, = Appropriate typo! ;-) Indeed, a storY of value is all that's left... Chris SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword igve. ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] More gloooooooom
Harry Pollard wrote: I don't now how much you pay for things but I guarantee that it's a lot more than we pay. And because things are cheap we are able to buy quality items and are not forced to buy poor quality by pinching pennies. When I'm in Europe I am horrified at the cost of everything. American prices are lower mainly because you guys are maximizing externalization of costs at all levels... from cheap gas to absent health insurance... you're literally living at the expense of the future, the past and the rest of the planet. But this also affects the quality of things. We talked about this earlier, e.g. how it's impossible to get genuine organic food in America because it all has to be cheapo. And it also affects wages, which limit people's purchasing power. So, as usual, you're living in an illusion, twisting things around, when you assert that people are able to buy quality items because things are cheap. Chris SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword igve. ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] More gloooooooom
Harry Pollard asserted: We don't like work. You'll recall the second assumption of Classical Political Economy: People seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion. Unless they're jogging to lose weight... or elaborating a fine masterpiece for the fun of working... or writing messages to discussion lists... The lazy notion of economists above is so sadly narrow and just describing themselves, but certainly not something to base a good economic or even social theory upon. Chris SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword igve. ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
[Futurework] (no subject)
Ed, Subprime foreclosure probably gives the lender less than the book value of the property. The 'owner' can simply walk away from the property. He has noting invested. If the bubble begins to leak, the same thing may happen to the regular mortgages. Foreclosure won't help the banks much. While a foreclosure may be profitable if the homeowner out down a worthwhile down payment, banks don't like (say) 5,000 foreclosures, so negotiation would be in order. One recalls that when the last land speculation bubble burst - the 'SL scandal' - the Bank of America sold off its $2 billion real estate portfolio for $1 billion. Whether many banks can afford to take a billion dollar bath is perhaps a bit doubtful. So, the bank's willingness to make a deal added to a homeowners reluctance to give up his home might work out. However, if the bubble really bursts all bets are off. In previous crashes land-values halved, but they had relatively free economies. Checks, balances, and other restrictions, along with massive government intervention might somewhat keep the economy precariously hanging on. However, those with cash will clean up as they always do. Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 8:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] More hope for today! Harry: The sub-primes are withering away already. The question is, as we move into the area where owners invested something worthwhile in their homes and will hold on to them even if their market price is dropping rapidly - will they stop the housing slide? Me: As I understand it, Harry, subprime borrowers bought houses that, as part of the American dream of home ownership, they probably couldn't really afford and are now getting out as fast as they can because of the slumping housing market. Many are defaulting on their mortgage payments. According to Bloomberg.com The share of U.S. subprime mortgages entering default in the first quarter [of 2007] was the highest in almost five years, according to the U.S. Mortgage Bankers Association, as the country suffers its worst house-price decline since the 1930s. Because of the way mortgages are packaged into investment funds (e.g. hedge funds), the subprime slump is having a negative impact on the broader economy: Defaults in subprime mortgages forced New York-based Bear Stearns Cos. last month to provide $1.6 billion in credit lines to rescue one of its hedge funds. (Blomberg.com) The problem would seem to be that Americans (and probably Canadians too) have moved from being savers to being borrowers. As savers many of them probably couldn't afford the houses they've bought as borrowers. Ed - Original Message - From: Harry Pollard mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Ed Weick' mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 6:09 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] More hope for today! Ed, An interesting point of view. Gloom from my point of view would be an expectation of the land-value collapse that is a collapse of what is called the housing bubble. This has been happening regularly for almost two centuries in the US and wiped out Japan for many years It is likely to happen again but there are some cogent differences. Georgist theory suggests that in a free market, when land prices become high enough, it becomes very difficult or impossible to create new factories and new jobs - even though old factories and old jobs are disappearing (a normal part of the thriving and progressive economy. Perhaps, however, people do not act towards their accommodation the way they might act with a factory. If a factory can't cut it, it is abandoned and the workers fired. In the case of your home, you don't abandon it - it's where you live. The sub-primes are withering away already. The question is, as we move into the area where owners invested something worthwhile in their homes and will hold on to them even if their market price is dropping rapidly - will they stop the housing slide? It will mean a lot of people will owe more than their homes are worth in the market. Maybe they won't care. The other problem is construction. Construction (including furniture and suchlike) is about a quarter of the economy, I understand. If much construction ends and their employees paid off, will that be devastating? We'll see. Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141
Re: [Futurework] Sayonara
Karen, Thank you for your dedication to this list, and far more so, thank you for the person behind the postings that created a singular energy we'll wish we didn't have to miss here. May wisdom and good fortune shower your new path. Natalia Karen Cole wrote: Dear friends, When I met my second cousin Ray Evans Harrell for the first time as an adult in 1999 or 2000, he invited me to log onto FW and listen to what he promised was invigorating and exceptional debate among a variety of voices, separated by distance but gathered in their common curiosity and interests. I have enjoyed this relationship, learning a great deal about economics, science and the backstory and conflicts to our working world that I would never have discovered on my own. Additionally, the collective wisdom shared here provided me what could only be matched in graduate courses or seminars. The backgrounds and life experiences around this circle made this a place I wanted to listen, learn and contribute. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss and evolve in this circle. In fact, the Casey Reports are actually an outgrowth of my postings here on numerous topics, contributing what I hoped was relevant content for some, if not all, that would hopefully spark conversations. But it is time for me to leave. I will continue cyber-harvesting my weekly Casey Reports and write occasional Scanning the Horizon posts. If any of you not already signed on are interested in getting either of those private email lists, you know how to contact me. I made some true friends here, and learned from all of you. My best regards to all of you. Be Well. Karen ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] Money, money, money?
I may be revealing my longstanding affinity with dinosaurs here, but I remember that a very long time ago I encountered the Quantity Theory of Money in Economics 101. The basic formula for the theory is MV=PT, where M is the quantity of money in circulation, V is its rate of circulation, P is the average price of all transactions, and T is the volume of transactions occurring during one period (all according to the very ancient macroeconomic textbook I still have on my shelves). What may have happened since ancient times(and here I'm speculating), say fifty years ago, is that the nature of some of the variables may have changed quite radically (or at least very considerably). A long time ago, T would have consisted largely of goods and some services. Nowadays, it would still consist of goods, but the services part has increased hugely over previous volumes. And by services, I don't only mean seeing a lawyer or a doctor. I mean a very large increase in the kinds of paper people are trading and selling to each other, stocks, bonds, funds of various kinds, derivatives, etc. Instead of consisting mostly of the ploddy things you buy at the store, T has become a rapidly spinning maelstrom of investment certificates and because T is spinning rapidly, so is V. M and P need not necessarily increase, but of course they have too. M consists of something you can put in your pocket, like coins or paper, and credit. What seems to have happened over the last few decades is that the credit part of it has increased greatly via instruments such as credit cards, mortgages and other methods of borrowing. With increases in M, V and T have come increases in P. What has probably not kept pace is something we might call W, wages or personal incomes, a matter which, if true, could pose some pretty big problems for people that are fulfilling their dreams on credit. There, I've said it as plainly as I can, perhaps having revealed that I'm nothing more than a dinosaur. Ed - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Futurework Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19 Money, money, money? I have spent sometime thinking about this. In many ways I don't think money is the root of the problem, rather it is the particular economic system that we have created in the last few hundred years that is the problem - specifically the structure by which we can gain access to money - which is generally selling our labour. My theory of money - a story of value, a medium of exchange, a number system. Money used to be a concrete intrinsically valuable thing - gold, silver (other metals). There were cultures/societies that had a form of money that was not intrinsically valuable (wampum, shells, even Gengis Khan developed/extended the use of paper money, etc). But for the sake of brevity this first proposition is accurate enough. At some point money became a concrete symbol for something intrinsically valuable - coins (worth more than the metal they contained), paper, etc. Later money became a concrete symbol for a promise of value (e.g. paper and coin no longer backed by gold). Now the majority of money is no longer concrete, rather the majority of money is epheral and electronic bits. The subjective perception of Value A beanie babe at $5.99 is the same beanie baby even if it sells for $14.99. What makes the difference? An Olympic judge holding a score of 7.9 versus one holding up a score of 9.8. We don't actually know if the score of 7.9 is actually a higher score because the judge is a better and more experienced judge, we overcome the inaccessible assessment of the subjective perception of value by accepting the illusion of precision that a number system provides. The number system becomes a means of exchange. Money is theoretically meant to be a store of value (which is really meant to represent a quantity/quality of labour/work). But since all value inevitable is context dependent - relative to its own niche in its own ecology, it is impossible to fix a particular quantity of anything as a standard measure of value. So we rely on the precision that the number systems provides, which works well enough when scores, values are aggragated. So seven Olympic judges all have different subjective perceptions of value which they choose to represent as a numerical score on a range of 1-10 (or 1-100) and by aggregating/averaging we end up with a good enough measure. It strikes my that if enough people become assessor than anything can be given a number representing their subjective perceptions of value and in turn those perceptions can be aggregated/average for good-enough measure of the value of the thing(s) perceived. Anything can be translated (good-enough translated) into a monetary value. Now the problem is how to people access the means of
[Futurework] Money, money, money
I may be revealing my longstanding affinity with dinosaurs here, but I remember that a very long time ago I encountered the Quantity Theory of Money in Economics 101. The basic formula for the theory is MV=PT, where M is the quantity of money in circulation, V is its rate of circulation, P is the average price of all transactions, and T is the volume of transactions occurring during one period (all according to the very ancient macroeconomic textbook I still have on my shelves). What may have happened since ancient times(and here I'm speculating), say fifty years ago, is that the nature of some of the variables may have changed quite radically (or at least very considerably). A long time ago, T would have consisted largely of goods and some services. Nowadays, it would still consist of goods, but the services part has increased hugely over previous volumes. And by services, I don't only mean seeing a lawyer or a doctor. I mean a very large increase in the kinds of paper people are trading and selling to each other, stocks, bonds, funds of various kinds, derivatives, etc. Instead of consisting mostly of the ploddy things you buy at the store, T has become a rapidly spinning maelstrom of investment certificates and because T is spinning rapidly, so is V. M and P need not necessarily increase, but of course they have too. M consists of something you can put in your pocket, like coins or paper, and credit. What seems to have happened over the last few decades is that the credit part of it has increased greatly via instruments such as credit cards, mortgages and other methods of borrowing. With increases in M, V and T have come increases in P. What has probably not kept pace is something we might call W, wages or personal incomes, a matter which, if true, could pose some pretty big problems for people that are fulfilling their dreams on credit. There, I've said it as plainly as I can, perhaps having revealed that I'm nothing more than a dinosaur. Ed ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
[Futurework] Apologies
Please ignore my second Money, money, money posting, sent by mistake (dinosaur brain, etc.) Ed___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] Sayonara
Karen, The list will be lessened by your leaving. I would like your reports. As I said, I have always read your postings and enjoyed them whether I agreed with them or not. They often go into my archives. Hasta la vista! Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Cole Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 7:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] Sayonara Dear friends, When I met my second cousin Ray Evans Harrell for the first time as an adult in 1999 or 2000, he invited me to log onto FW and listen to what he promised was invigorating and exceptional debate among a variety of voices, separated by distance but gathered in their common curiosity and interests. I have enjoyed this relationship, learning a great deal about economics, science and the backstory and conflicts to our working world that I would never have discovered on my own. Additionally, the collective wisdom shared here provided me what could only be matched in graduate courses or seminars. The backgrounds and life experiences around this circle made this a place I wanted to listen, learn and contribute. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss and evolve in this circle. In fact, the Casey Reports are actually an outgrowth of my postings here on numerous topics, contributing what I hoped was relevant content for some, if not all, that would hopefully spark conversations. But it is time for me to leave. I will continue cyber-harvesting my weekly Casey Reports and write occasional Scanning the Horizon posts. If any of you not already signed on are interested in getting either of those private email lists, you know how to contact me. I made some true friends here, and learned from all of you. My best regards to all of you. Be Well. Karen ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] More gloooooooom
You know so little about America. If I wanted organic food, I can get it everywhere. We are paying a high price for petrol - just over $3. Yet, my French niece tells me she pays over $7. In Britain it's about the same. I suppose paying those high prices means you are not living at the expense of the future. Yet, driving around the Paris Peripherie, or circling on London's M25 doesn't look to me like Europe is refusing to expense the future. The absent health insurance thing is in large part a myth. Lots of people don't want health insurance, mostly the young. Massachusetts has complete health insurance that anyone can join. Many, perhaps most, don't seem to want to join it. Less than 10% of Mass. residents are uninsured - that's some 460,000 people. Seems a lot, but 100,000 of them are already eligible for Medicaid. They simply are too unconcerned to sign up. Find out about Medicaid at: http://tinyurl.com/27v3tz Another 168,000 live in households with incomes above $55,000 so they could probably get more than adequate health insurance if they wanted it. So, that leaves about 200,000 poor people out of a total population of 6.4 million - not far short of the population of Switzerland. I suspect that many of these would not choose to join health insurance anyway - such as the younger ones. Anyway, the poor without insurance are about 3% of the population. Of course the Michael Moores aren't interested in 3%. They want big numbers of uninsured to support their political theories. I had occasion to see what a county hospital is like in California. These are for poor people. I found it always crowded, yet the treatment was excellent. The cancer patient was given - free - the latest and most expensive drugs, he always found a bed when it was required, the doctors were among the best in the area, the nurses were plentiful, efficient, and caring. Overwhelmingly, the patients were Hispanic Americans. I would think only the best hospitals in Europe and Canada would equal the standard of treatment. I know many County Hospitals are overwhelmed and the treatment is not so good - perhaps on par with the UK National Health hospitals that have trouble getting certified. But that can be handled by improving the County system. It would be better handled by removing the reasons for people being poor - but that's too much to hope for. The major criticism of the American health system is the enormous price we have to pay for drugs - and Bush is mainly responsible, though Congress is well fattened on contributions from the pharmaceutical companies. This will likely bring down Medicare if something isn't done. (As you know, I would end the patent system, which would deal with a lot of other problems too.) Medicare handles people over 65 with complete health care. About $80 a month is deducted from my Social Security payment to pay for it. My HMO - Kaiser Hospital - pays $15 of this. Although our 'life expectancy' and 'infant mortality' are said to be poor, if we look only at the white population things are more comparable. Black figures are much poorer, though there is continuous improvement in both whites and blacks. Figures for black mortality from stroke are 44% higher than whites, 20% higher for heart disease, 23% higher from cancer, and 774% higher from HIV. I haven't the latest figures, but 80% of violent crime victims were black and more than half the homicides are committed by blacks. Some courageous black leaders have had the courage to call for an end to blacks killing and hurting each other. The reasons for the mayhem are clear. As I have said on this list, I look at a class of bright-eyed and bushy-tailed black kids and I get heart-sick for I know that perhaps half of them will get nothing jobs, and the rest may never get any worthwhile job at all. It's no coincidence that when times are good and jobs are plentiful, crimes decrease. So, although health coverage looks spotty in the States, it isn't as bad as it is painted. As a final point, in both the US and Canada, distance is a problem with ensuring complete health coverage. We could put Switzerland in a corner of Texas and nobody would notice it. If you get ill, or suffer injury away from a town, you might well die and no National Health Service could help you. Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 10:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] More glm Harry Pollard wrote: I don't now how much you pay for things but I guarantee that it's a lot more than we pay. And because things are cheap we are able to buy quality items and are not forced to buy poor quality by pinching pennies. When I'm in Europe I am horrified at the
Re: [Futurework] Futurework Digest, Money, money
John, You wrote: Now the problem is how to people access the means of exchange - the task is to create an economy where there are more way to access the means of exchange than selling one's labour to an employer. If any contribution to society, local or global, can be assess by enough subjective perceivers than a good enough measure of the value of their contribution can be made. Developing a type of stock market where contributions (art, the invisible work of homemakers and community builders, volunteers, etc) are valued than creating a tax/redistribution systems based on full-cost accounting of commercial activities is possible. This would create a type of guaranteed income structure. We have many far more lucrative means to access money other than through labour. Most money exchanged today is via currency exchanges, possibly two-three $US trillion daily. These daily transactions far outweigh the annual GDP of the US alone. Some might call it labour, but a gambling habit of that size is more a lucrative hobby, I'd say. Next down the line of wealth building without (much actual) labour would be interest earned on sundry transactions. Again, one needs money to participate. Being a Federal Reserve owning/controlling Rockefeller reaping interest on every US tax dollar collected is advantageous. The greatest fortunes, and 90% of all nations' wealth is passed down and built upon, interest bearing assets aside. The remainder of any nation's personal wealth, some 10%, would come from the remaining 99.8% of the population of working classes, who might succeed at minor wealth building if their income is high enough. Within this now allegedly vital economic system of interest-earning, stock profits made capital, and the intriguing world of currency exchanges which are accompanied by little oversight or accountability, can we hope to establish compensation for the dispossessed through means other than governmental? Could this more realistically be born out of a government controlled bond market system, somehow evolving as an arm of the existing one, and thereby conferring monetary value to overall economic impact? Within a global system of (mostly) undeserved accumulated wealth, I think the world could even begin to find realistic financial roots within the framework of the existing system of assets. Natalia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Money, money, money? I have spent sometime thinking about this. In many ways I don't think money is the root of the problem, rather it is the particular economic system that we have created in the last few hundred years that is the problem - specifically the structure by which we can gain access to money - which is generally selling our labour. My theory of money - a story of value, a medium of exchange, a number system. Money used to be a concrete intrinsically valuable thing - gold, silver (other metals). There were cultures/societies that had a form of money that was not intrinsically valuable (wampum, shells, even Gengis Khan developed/extended the use of paper money, etc). But for the sake of brevity this first proposition is accurate enough. At some point money became a concrete symbol for something intrinsically valuable - coins (worth more than the metal they contained), paper, etc. Later money became a concrete symbol for a promise of value (e.g. paper and coin no longer backed by gold). Now the majority of money is no longer concrete, rather the majority of money is epheral and electronic bits. The subjective perception of Value A beanie babe at $5.99 is the same beanie baby even if it sells for $14.99. What makes the difference? An Olympic judge holding a score of 7.9 versus one holding up a score of 9.8. We don't actually know if the score of 7.9 is actually a higher score because the judge is a better and more experienced judge, we overcome the inaccessible assessment of the subjective perception of value by accepting the illusion of precision that a number system provides. The number system becomes a means of exchange. Money is theoretically meant to be a store of value (which is really meant to represent a quantity/quality of labour/work). But since all value inevitable is context dependent - relative to its own niche in its own ecology, it is impossible to fix a particular quantity of anything as a standard measure of value. So we rely on the precision that the number systems provides, which works well enough when scores, values are aggragated. So seven Olympic judges all have different subjective perceptions of value which they choose to represent as a numerical score on a range of 1-10 (or 1-100) and by aggregating/averaging we end up with a good enough measure. It strikes my that if enough people become assessor than anything can be given a number representing their subjective perceptions of value and in turn those perceptions can be aggregated/average for good-enough measure of the
