RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
Ray, You are good at throwing in emotive words. It doesn't help thinking, but is surely produces lots of mood and feeling. One of the descriptions of greed is Reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins). Did I ever suggest that? Never! In fact when I pointed out to Brad and your desire might be to produce the perfect poem, he got a little annoyed. He too saw only the worst. Yet, we needn't get so esoteric. We need to eat today and we need to eat tomorrow. We are likely to need to eat every day until the end of our lives. No matter the food we eat today - a desire for food continues throughout our lives. You would no doubt call that greedy. People' s desires are many. Probably the only one we can be sure all of is survival. If we do not survive the rest is silence. From thereon, our desires stretch in front of us. No doubt they form a hierarchy in which some desires are more attractive, or more necessary, than others. As we fulfill a desire, another one is likely to pop open in front of us. There is probably not much that is more attractive than Man's unlimited desires as he crests the hill and finds beyond it another hill -- and beyond that another. Incidentally, the hierarchy was an Ayn Rand contention. We call the brain damaged person a vegetable because he has no desires. Our desires are the motivating force behind our actions. I have no desire to put my leg up on a ballet bar. I do have a desire to play the violin, or piano, or any musical instrument. But, it is way down in my hierarchy of desires. I prefer to needle you because youre worth it. For young people to go through the agonizing stretching that goes with ballet, they must be a very greedy for fame and fortune. What a terrible thing! They should spend their time learning to cook doughnuts and a while they are opening the oven they should consider how much easier that is then accomplishing a balletic maneuver. I doubt I could get through an initial demi-pliƩ without breaking an ankle. I don't say we have unlimited desires. I observe it. Your major problem is that you subjectively see rather than objectively observe. As for our seeking to satisfy our desires with the least exertion this is so much a matter of common sense that almost it brooks no argument. Without this sensible attitude there would have been no reason to invent the wheel, or the yoke, or a better mousetrap. Also, the less time and exertion we spend on accomplishing something -- the more time and exertion we have to accomplish something else. Fits in well with the unlimited desires assumption, doesn't it? Ray, you don't get it. And while you allow emotional attitudes to obstruct your clear thinking, I fear you never will. Nevertheless, I'll keep working on your underbrush Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 6:42 AM To: Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites No Harry, you don't get it. It is in the attitude (mood + feeling = action)of the language. First you say people are unlimited in their greed and then you say that they try to satisfy their greed with the least possible effort. If the design is static that is one thing but if it is an issue of process and direction that is another. Your model is a 19th century mechanical static model rather than a 21st centurydynamic one.(Not your land use model by the way, just your model for human work.) If you had taken that ballet bar you would understand the issue of antagonist motion and intent. Two muscles move a bone to do work. The ideal is to have as perfect a balance between tension in both muscles to supply the energy to do the work. In a waythe specifics of what you say are left over from those incomplete bowing lessons on the violin. If you had completed them then you would have understood intent beyond the mechanics of the bones. Too much relaxation doesn't motivatelife while too much tension creates a Charley Horse or locked muscle. If the muscle is damaged and you must do therapy then you are forced to start from themost exertion and build tension or as the Therapists say strength. If the muscle is normal then you begin from an excess of tension and energy i.e. enthusiasm and relax and find the efficiency. But that is not the American system. The problem withthe Americansystem is not that it needs to relax but thatit is like a fragmented computer thatneeds defragging. That is like a nervous system that isn't connecting to the muscles. If you wish to use the relaxation routeto efficiencyyou must have
RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
Chris, Nothing wrong with heredity. It depends on how you got what you leave. Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Harry Pollard wrote: Considerable difference between land and buildings. Houses are usually bought together with the land they're built on (and surroundings). Now, if the land costs 10-100 times more than it should, just so a few heirs can reap billions, then this has a considerable impact on house prices (and also on everything else!). This is what makes the high subsidies to house construction necessary -- paying the excessive land prices instead of house construction itself! (which the people could afford _without_ subsidies) It seems that the issue of excessive heredity is a taboo issue even on this list... the BI proponents prefer to tinker with symptoms and band-aids instead of addressing the basic causes of injustice. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004 ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
No Harry, you don't get it. It is in the attitude (mood + feeling = action)of the language. First you say people are unlimited in their greed and then you say that they try to satisfy their greed with the least possible effort. If the design is static that is one thing but if it is an issue of process and direction that is another. Your model is a 19th century mechanical static model rather than a 21st centurydynamic one.(Not your land use model by the way, just your model for human work.) If you had taken that ballet bar you would understand the issue of antagonist motion and intent. Two muscles move a bone to do work. The ideal is to have as perfect a balance between tension in both muscles to supply the energy to do the work. In a waythe specifics of what you say are left over from those incomplete bowing lessons on the violin. If you had completed them then you would have understood intent beyond the mechanics of the bones. Too much relaxation doesn't motivatelife while too much tension creates a Charley Horse or locked muscle. If the muscle is damaged and you must do therapy then you are forced to start from "themost exertion" and build tension or as the Therapists say "strength". If the muscle is normal then you begin from an excess of tension and energy i.e. enthusiasm and relax and find the efficiency. But that is not the American system. The problem withthe Americansystem is not that it needs to relax but thatit is like a fragmented computer thatneeds defragging. That is like a nervous system that isn't connecting to the muscles. If you wish to use the relaxation routeto efficiencyyou must have two things. 1. an efficient connection from themind through the nervous system to the muscle with sufficient nutritional energy and 2. the ability to manipulate tension and relaxation in the antagonists. The intent can be to pull or to lengthen. In an alreadyprepared system if you wish to get any work done then you come from above in the levels of tension (enthusiasm) and relax down into it.From a higher tension down to the ideal not from an implied lower tension reaching up. In your model you use the word "unlimited" and "desires". The definition of "Unlimited Desires" is greed and greed is chaotic if unfocused and psychopathic if focused i.e. it has no morality. So your energy source is either chaotic i.e. fragmented or focused and criminal. That is why Martha Stewart is on trial as was Bill Gates and the economic community doesn't get it because they all suffer from a mild form of psycho-pathology induced by a philosophy of cynicism. They are basically Sociopaths getting away with what ever the system says they may. They are disconnected from their moral center and inducing chaos. Chaos is creative but so are Wolves in the environment. Chaos culls the herd as do wolves. Steven Hawking would have been culled in that model and Einstein would have never survived the first few years when he was gestating. Dancers say you use "extension tension" built in the specific focus of technique. As my first assumption states. "Everything in reality begins with the body" because everything we know about reality is through the filter of the body's perceptions and the history of culture. if either are incomplete then you don't have the tools to work much less think about work. The model for work and energy comes from the efficient kinetic structures of the body,. Your assumptions are static rather than dynamic. i have to go to work. You should go take a ballet class and I don't have time to train your perceptions. We both are running out of time. At our ages it would however help your brain if you picked up the violin again, took a ballet class (not yoga, you need rhythm) or even singing lessons. Join Keith in the choir. REH - Original Message - From: Harry Pollard To: 'Ray Evans Harrell' ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 4:51 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Ray, You still havent got it. The second assumption doesnt say do as little as possible. It doesnt imply: Trying to do just enough to get by is the road to laziness. It simply says we try to be efficient in satisfying our desires with the least exertion. But our unlimited desires keep driving us on, and if we are efficient we will be able to satisfy more of them. Youll get it eventually but you have a little underbrush clearing to do first. Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net From: [EMAIL PROTECT
RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
Charles, I didnt exactly say that. (he suggests that in order to get what we need and want we will need to work for ten thousand years.) I said the possibility of machines doing all our work for us is a fantasy that wont take place for a thousand or ten thousand years. I know people dont want to work because they stop working at every opportunity. Even if they are doing something they like doing they try to get it accomplished with the least exertion. In that way, they can accomplish more of what they like to do. Mental and physical exertion is all we have. If we dont husband it, we will become fatigued, or sleep. Then we cant do anything. So, it is quite sensible to learn how to use less exertion to do things. There is the influence of the Protestant Ethic that makes us feel uncomfortable if we get something worthwhile for nothing. We feel we aught to earn it. But, essentially, we try to avoid exertion if we can. Look around, observe, but also check yourself. Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Brass Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 11:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Harry Pollard said: People don't want to work. They want the results of working. Until all of us have everything we want, there will be a need for production and service - and satiety is a long time away. Service provision is the hallmark of an advanced economy. We are a long way from finding the services we would like. There should be a constant demand for people to work - a demand that is never satisfied. The idea of machines taking over requiring us to sit with folded hands is fantasy - and will be for a thousand or ten thousand years. This is a somewhat confused and contradictory position. On one hand Harry asserts that people don't want to work, then he suggests that in order to get what we need and want we will need to work for ten thousand years. I suggest people do want to work. They want to make a contribution, to be busy, to feel that they are engaged in something meaningful and useful. The problem is that most of what the Industrial Revolution provided under the name 'work' was meaningless, or dehumanising. We have come a long way, however, since the invention of the steam engine (though you might not know it they way much of the discourse happens today) - and we can now provide people with all the meaning and purpose they require, and all the goods and services they require. All we have to do is think a bit laterally, and stop believing that 'the marketplace' (and the institutions which flow from the marketplace) create wealth and value - and believing that the best people can do is capture some of this value for themselves by 'working' in the marketplace. Now, I know that there is much debate about the meaning and nature of 'the marketplace' on this list (yes I read it all even if I only comment occasionally). So I must say I have no problem with the notion of markets as places where prices are cleared - but I certainly do have a problem with our (mostly implicit) belief that marketplaces are critical to the wealth and value in the world in the twentyfirst century. Work is getting something done. A job is getting done what someone else wants. We could now organise ourselves to get done what we want, in ways we want - but we find it hard to confront the thinking errors we have made in the past. Charles Brass --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004 ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
Ray, You believe we like to work, but when we don't like to work, you call it drudgery. If we liked work, we would be doing things the same way we have always done them. We avoid work (actually exertion) and thereby get more done with less time and energy and then have time for music and suchlike. Ask the peasant who toils from dawn to dusk whether he likes work. He'll tell you. We like to satisfy our desires and that is why we work - because we must. If our work coincides with what we like doing then we get a greater reward from what we do. If we can be happy at what we do, that is good too. But, tell someone they can choose to get the same salary but have every afternoon off do you really think they will say no? Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net -Original Message- From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 8:02 PM To: Harry Pollard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Arthur, I believe this post makes clear the division between what Harry has been saying and what I believe so if I may simply say. I believe that people do want to work from childhood up. That the results of work are often a surprise, like Mountain climbing.That the problem is to plan for the human drive to work and to use it wisely and balance it with the other elements of life as well. But my daughter taught me that people love to work at what they want to work at. But wanting to work is instinctual. Wise work is grown.The work will tell you what the result will be as you do the work. Real significant work is usually a surprise and mistakes often open doorways into success.Drudgery is the pollution of the drive to work and we struggle to escape it but real work. We all love that unless we have been ruined by the world. REH --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004 ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
Harry, When you teach, is it work? Or play? Or both? Would you engage in that activity if you were not paid? arthur -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 5, 2004 7:54 PM To: 'Thomas Lunde'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Tom, You said: Though I applaud your stated goal, it sounds like the old survival of the fittest argument to me with slightly different rules. In other words, if a person produces nothing of value according the current market, or if for a year or two he is unemployed due to circumstances beyond his control - well, no bounties for you my friend - please go die somewhere If a person produces nothing of value, why should he able to claim anything from me. I would be happy (say) to provide him with food if he provides me with clothes. But, if he cannot produce anything I want, why should I give him anything of mine? Well, it might be charitable for me to work an extra few hours a week and give the result to him, but this has nothing to do with justice. It is perhaps charity. But, charity has nothing to do with justice. However, perhaps I won't give him anything (because I don't want to). He needn't worry. You will give him food, clothing and shelter. Won't you? If a person is unable to work because he is ill, or something, then that's all right because you will support him. If, however, he cannot find work because the economic system makes it impossible, I suggest we get to work to find out why work (which is always needed because there is so much to so) doesn't seem to be available. Of course if we spend all our time slapping palliatives on the problems, we won't have time to think about why some people are in trouble. Anyway, giving charity does give us a certain sense of well-being and perhaps even a trace of superiority. If you do nothing to find out why such societal problems occur, you are certainly maintaining injustice. If you force me to contribute to the unfortunate people in your examples you are also committing an injustice. Incidentally, the Basic Income as it is offered is an obvious palliative. It does nothing to lessen the injustice that spurs support for it, but worse, it diverts attention to the real causes of poverty and deprivation. Of course, there is no God of Work. However, nothing can be produced by us without exertion (or Labor, or Work). We don't like to exert and do so only because we must - if we are to get the things we want. That may be the psychological pressure for us to think longingly of machines doing all the work for us, or a Basic Income that will give us what we need without working. But, I'll leave the psychological analysis to those who love to do it. Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Lunde Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Tom, As you have probably gathered, I have been working for most of the last 50 years to obtain justice for all. Justice doesn't mean a chicken in every pot, or a BI. IT means no more than that a person will keep what he produces and shares equally the bounties of nature. Thomas: Though I applaud your stated goal, it sounds like the ol survival of the fittest argument to me with slightly different rules. In other words, if a person produces nothing of value according the current market, or if for a year or two he is unemployed due to circumstances beyond his control - well, no bounties for you my friend - please go die somewhere. So, the problem with some of your remarks is that there are consequences. Such as the threshold, something that occurs often in economics but is given a variety of names. If one gets $900 for no work - but $1,100 (net after taxes $800) if you work - why should you work? I might choose unemployment plus welfare as a preferred alternative (perhaps with some off-tax work under the counter). This is done everywhere now. Thomas: Ah, the God of Work, how will we ever dethrone him. I would work because I had aspirations to have more than the Basic Income. snip --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004 ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
Arthur, Change that to evidence and commonsense suggest that machines taking over requiring us to sit with folded hands is fantasy. Where is your evidence that something different may occur? Of course you can conjecture, But then you can conjecture about God. Where did I say organized work will last a thousand years? I think you are the theologian calling the non-theologian black. Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 7:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Bravo Charles. Harry's theology is that organized work will last a thousand years, maybe 10 thousand. A belief system. We have to begin the transition of society from one of full employment to one of full engagement (and this would include all sorts of work --including the arts) arthur -Original Message- From: Charles Brass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 2:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Harry Pollard said: People don't want to work. They want the results of working. Until all of us have everything we want, there will be a need for production and service - and satiety is a long time away. Service provision is the hallmark of an advanced economy. We are a long way from finding the services we would like. There should be a constant demand for people to work - a demand that is never satisfied. The idea of machines taking over requiring us to sit with folded hands is fantasy - and will be for a thousand or ten thousand years. This is a somewhat confused and contradictory position. On one hand Harry asserts that people don't want to work, then he suggests that in order to get what we need and want we will need to work for ten thousand years. I suggest people do want to work. They want to make a contribution, to be busy, to feel that they are engaged in something meaningful and useful. The problem is that most of what the Industrial Revolution provided under the name 'work' was meaningless, or dehumanising. We have come a long way, however, since the invention of the steam engine (though you might not know it they way much of the discourse happens today) - and we can now provide people with all the meaning and purpose they require, and all the goods and services they require. All we have to do is think a bit laterally, and stop believing that 'the marketplace' (and the institutions which flow from the marketplace) create wealth and value - and believing that the best people can do is capture some of this value for themselves by 'working' in the marketplace. Now, I know that there is much debate about the meaning and nature of 'the marketplace' on this list (yes I read it all even if I only comment occasionally). So I must say I have no problem with the notion of markets as places where prices are cleared - but I certainly do have a problem with our (mostly implicit) belief that marketplaces are critical to the wealth and value in the world in the twentyfirst century. Work is getting something done. A job is getting done what someone else wants. We could now organise ourselves to get done what we want, in ways we want - but we find it hard to confront the thinking errors we have made in the past. Charles Brass Chairman futures foundation phone:1300 727328 (International 61 3 9459 0244) fax: 61 3 9459 0344 PO Box 122 Fairfield 3078 www.futurists.net.au the mission of the futures foundation is: ...to engage all Australians in creating a better future... --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004 ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
Because, I think, we are frustrated. For many of us the facts are in and the next policy steps are clear. Res ipsa loquitor. But which levers do we push to begin the move toward BI? To begin the discussion of what future for work? Far easier to comment and throw darts at one or another politicians or political actions. How do you see things from your part of the world? Constructive suggestions are clealy needed as you can see. arthur -Original Message-From: Charles Brass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, January 5, 2004 1:48 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Arthur and Ray Harrell replied to my recent post about the difference between the future of work and the future of employment. As part of his reply Arthur said: We have to begin the transition of society from one of full employment to one of full engagement (and this would include all sorts of work --including the arts) What I muse about is why we are discussing the potential assassination of Tony Blair on this site, and not how to bring about the sort of transition which Arthur proposes - and I heartily endorse? Charles BrassChairmanfutures foundationphone:1300 727328(International 61 3 9459 0244)fax: 61 3 9459 0344PO Box 122Fairfield 3078www.futurists.net.au the mission of the futures foundation is:"...to engage all Australians in creating a better future..." ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
Tom, You said: Though I applaud your stated goal, it sounds like the old survival of the fittest argument to me with slightly different rules. In other words, if a person produces nothing of value according the current market, or if for a year or two he is unemployed due to circumstances beyond his control - well, no bounties for you my friend - please go die somewhere If a person produces nothing of value, why should he able to claim anything from me. I would be happy (say) to provide him with food if he provides me with clothes. But, if he cannot produce anything I want, why should I give him anything of mine? Well, it might be charitable for me to work an extra few hours a week and give the result to him, but this has nothing to do with justice. It is perhaps charity. But, charity has nothing to do with justice. However, perhaps I won't give him anything (because I don't want to). He needn't worry. You will give him food, clothing and shelter. Won't you? If a person is unable to work because he is ill, or something, then that's all right because you will support him. If, however, he cannot find work because the economic system makes it impossible, I suggest we get to work to find out why work (which is always needed because there is so much to so) doesn't seem to be available. Of course if we spend all our time slapping palliatives on the problems, we won't have time to think about why some people are in trouble. Anyway, giving charity does give us a certain sense of well-being and perhaps even a trace of superiority. If you do nothing to find out why such societal problems occur, you are certainly maintaining injustice. If you force me to contribute to the unfortunate people in your examples you are also committing an injustice. Incidentally, the Basic Income as it is offered is an obvious palliative. It does nothing to lessen the injustice that spurs support for it, but worse, it diverts attention to the real causes of poverty and deprivation. Of course, there is no God of Work. However, nothing can be produced by us without exertion (or Labor, or Work). We don't like to exert and do so only because we must - if we are to get the things we want. That may be the psychological pressure for us to think longingly of machines doing all the work for us, or a Basic Income that will give us what we need without working. But, I'll leave the psychological analysis to those who love to do it. Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Lunde Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Tom, As you have probably gathered, I have been working for most of the last 50 years to obtain justice for all. Justice doesn't mean a chicken in every pot, or a BI. IT means no more than that a person will keep what he produces and shares equally the bounties of nature. Thomas: Though I applaud your stated goal, it sounds like the ol survival of the fittest argument to me with slightly different rules. In other words, if a person produces nothing of value according the current market, or if for a year or two he is unemployed due to circumstances beyond his control - well, no bounties for you my friend - please go die somewhere. So, the problem with some of your remarks is that there are consequences. Such as the threshold, something that occurs often in economics but is given a variety of names. If one gets $900 for no work - but $1,100 (net after taxes $800) if you work - why should you work? I might choose unemployment plus welfare as a preferred alternative (perhaps with some off-tax work under the counter). This is done everywhere now. Thomas: Ah, the God of Work, how will we ever dethrone him. I would work because I had aspirations to have more than the Basic Income. snip --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004 ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
That's better Arthur. Another problem with Harry's second assumptionis thatit comes from the bottom up. Do as little as possible. Efficiency determines that one should have a balance of tension to relaxation in the doing of work and that under energy means garbage and that over tension means locking and eventual breakdown. But if you want to do something you have to start from above the product and not below it. Trying to do just enough to get by is the road to laziness and chaos. Coming from above and relaxing into the product creates a more efficient balance with a guarantee of the correct amount of energy to do the job. Being conservative about either end is also wasteful and chaotic. Too much or too little is destructive. The creation of a temperate balance is the goal in my mind. In voice teaching we say that voices are built from the top down and not from the bottom up. Some people use entropy as a metaphor. The scientists and Bohm experts on the list might explain that better than I can but it seems the same principle. REH - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 10:54 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Bravo Charles. Harry's theology is that organized work will last a thousand years, maybe 10 thousand. A belief system. We have to begin the transition of society from one of full employment to one of full engagement (and this would include all sorts of work --including the arts) arthur -Original Message-From: Charles Brass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 2:08 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Harry Pollard said: People don't want to work. They want the results of working. Until all of us have everything we want, there will be a need for production and service - and satiety is a long time away. Service provision is the hallmark of an advanced economy. We are a long way from finding the services we would like. There should be a constant demand for people to work - a demand that is neversatisfied. The idea of machines taking over requiring us to sit with folded hands is fantasy - and will be for a thousand or ten thousand years. This is a somewhat confused and contradictory position. On one hand Harry asserts that people don't want to work, then he suggests that in order to get what we need and want we will need to work for ten thousand years. I suggest people do want to work. They want to make a contribution, to be busy, to feel that they are engaged in something meaningful and useful. The problem is that most of what the Industrial Revolution provided under the name 'work' was meaningless, or dehumanising. We have come a long way, however, since the invention of the steam engine (though you might not know it they way much of the discourse happens today) - and we can now provide people with all the meaning and purpose they require, and all the goods and services they require. All we have to do is think a bit laterally, and stop believing that 'the marketplace' (and the institutions which flow from the marketplace) create wealth and value - and believing that the best people can do is capture some of this value for themselves by 'working' in the marketplace. Now, I know that there is much debate about the meaning and nature of 'the marketplace' on this list (yes I read it all even if I only comment occasionally). So I must say I have no problem with the notion of markets as places where prices are cleared - but I certainly do have a problem with our (mostly implicit) belief that marketplaces are critical to the wealth and value in the world in the twentyfirst century. Work is getting something done. A job is getting done what someone else wants. We could now organise ourselves to get done what we want, in ways we want - but we find it hard to confront the thinking errors we have made in the past. Charles BrassChairmanfutures foundationphone:1300 727328(International 61 3 9459 0244)fax: 61 3 9459 0344PO Box 122Fairfield 3078www.futurists.net.au the mission of the futures foundation is:"...to engage all Australians in creating a better future..." ___Futurework mailing list[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
Title: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Thomas, Now, the marketplace is the reason for our rotten system of government? Really, this gets better and better, and funnier and funnier. Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141--Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Lunde Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Ed: Well said! My orientation is much like yours. I see a Basic Income to be enabling in the development of a human being. I see governance that helps people achieve their goals as a benevolent government. And why shouldn't we have a benevolent government? We are the people who have to live under our representatives rules. Why can we not demand that those rules be benevolent rather punitive or restrictive. Oh, it's the economy! The god of marketplace will not allow a benevolent government! Well which is the dog and which is the tail. Try running a marketplace without a government. But through devices like the War Measures Act a government can sure run an economy. --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 12/15/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004 ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
Arthur and Ray Harrell replied to my recent post about the difference between the future of work and the future of employment. As part of his reply Arthur said: We have to begin the transition of society from one of full employment to one of full engagement (and this would include all sorts of work --including the arts) What I muse about is why we are discussing the potential assassination of Tony Blair on this site, and not how to bring about the sort of transition which Arthur proposes - and I heartily endorse? Charles BrassChairmanfutures foundationphone:1300 727328(International 61 3 9459 0244)fax: 61 3 9459 0344PO Box 122Fairfield 3078www.futurists.net.au the mission of the futures foundation is:"...to engage all Australians in creating a better future..." ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
Arthur, let me try it again: Drudgery is the pollution of the drive to work and we struggle to escape it by real work. We all love that unless we have been ruined by the world. REH - Original Message - From: Ray Evans Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Arthur, I believe this post makes clear the division between what Harry has been saying and what I believe so if I may simply say. I believe that people do want to work from childhood up. That the results of work are often a surprise, like Mountain climbing.That the problem is to plan for the human drive to work and to use it wisely and balance it with the other elements of life as well. But my daughter taught me that people love to work at what they want to work at. But wanting to work is instinctual. Wise work is grown.The work will tell you what the result will be as you do the work. Real significant work is usually a surprise and mistakes often open doorways into success.Drudgery is the pollution of the drive to work and we struggle to escape it but real work. We all love that unless we have been ruined by the world. REH - Original Message - From: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 10:05 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Arthur, Something must be done to stop us concentrating on making jobs. People don't want to work. They want the results of working. Until all of us have everything we want, there will be a need for production and service - and satiety is a long time away. Service provision is the hallmark of an advanced economy. We are a long way from finding the services we would like. There should be a constant demand for people to work - a demand that is never satisfied. The idea of machines taking over requiring us to sit with folded hands is fantasy - and will be for a thousand or ten thousand years. Incidentally, there was a good Jack Williamson science fiction story With Folded Hands written about 50 years ago. It was about machines handling our affairs and keeping us from harm. Maybe nothing much changes. Harry Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites Chris, Don't you think that at some point, at some time, there will be fewer workers needed in a highly productive economy? What then? How do we get income to those who are no longer employed? Shouldn't we begin to think about the transition to a new, new economy. One where the production problem is solved. It is here where basic income can play an important role. arthur --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.557 / Virus Database: 349 - Release Date: 12/30/2003 ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework