--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 13:53:03 -0400
Subject: Social Structure, A Continuum From Communism To A Free Market
Republic
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bcc: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: Juno 4.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=--__JNP_000_348f.5c40.6affTo: A few friends and many devious defenders of the status quo (DDotSQ) who have not yet asked to be removed from my copy list. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked and was removed yesterday. The very idea of a free market republic is anathema among intellectuals, both Left and Right. They want to manage mankind. Greetings to all who persevere, In the forwarded post below Wally Klinck has joined his common sense and his moral convictions with excerpts from C. H. Douglas to present his viewpoint on the continuum from communism to a free market republic. Four things in Wally's point of view evoke a warm feeling in my heart and hope in my soul: (1), his fear of administrative bureaucracies and confidence in the virtue of minimum government; (2), his observation that Socialcredit is about people and Socialism is about monopolizing the capital plant at 90 degrees on Fig4.3.gif; (3), his favorable opinion of Douglas' "aristocracy of producers;" and (4), his suggestion that centralized administration had a 72 year trial in the USSR and failed. So the obvious conclusion should be to move our social structure along the continuum towards the free market republic, which is only a little way beyond where we were in the Democratic early 1950s when I learned what little I know about social structure from GE's 1940s decentralization program and from the KCP&L's SOP in the US eastern electric power grid. But much more can be said about the continuum of our social structure, the truth of which may be confirmed with a few minutes reflection by anyone who cares. As you read Wally's post, reflect on the fact that most Americans in the 19th century enjoyed only one payday/year, the harvest, and were regulated by the "laws of nature and of Nature's God" more than by the circulation of a medium of exchange (M1) disbursed as twenty-six paydays/year. The development of an excellent monetary system during the 20th century does not excuse us from obedience to the "laws of nature and of Nature's God, and we should look to our failure to obey these laws, rather than to flyspecks in our money system, for the solutions to our present problems. Keep those biweekly paydays in mind as you read Wally's forwarded post, and I will comment on our money system to conclude this post. ~~~~~~~~ Forwarded Post ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: "Wallace M. Klinck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Social Credit Topica Discussion Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 09:34:53 -0600 Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Social Credit and "Co-operatives": Wally comments Message-ID: (Deleted by Wes Burt) Comments made to another site where the suggestion had been made that co-operatives are a superior "model" or form of business organization or structure: To All, As I previously stated, anyone who wants to belong to a "formal" co-operative is free to do so. I do not believe, however, that the co-operative in that sense is necessarily a superior model of efficiency or of product quality or delivery. There exist various levels to a productive enterprise and management is both an essential and critical component--and the more competent and "professional" in the non-pejorative sense, the better. As Douglas somewhere observed, "He who travels lightest travels fastest." I want quality product, delivery and service from industry and I am quite happy to leave the details of production to those who have the specialized experience and expertise, i.e., Douglas's "aristocracy of producers." My sanction is not to interfere with, or become involved in administration of management or productive processes. My sanction is in Douglas's words, "to atrophy a function" by withdrawing my support as a consumer, provided that I have adequate effective demand to withdraw. That is my proper function in Douglas's "democracy of consumers." That is the ultimate discipline and control of the policy of industry. That is genuine, meaningful economic democracy. This does not mean to say that optimal government does not have a legitimate position in the scheme of things. Optimal should mean minimal rather than maximal in a properly functioning (non-dysfunctional) society. I have, most likely (like others) objectives, goals, purposes and activities which may have nothing whatever to do with a given industry and I do not want to be encumbered by concerns or requirements that interfere with my chosen course in life-- concerns which may not interest me, which are fundamentally none of my business and in which I may not have, or not care to have, any involvement or expertise whatever. (Douglas, quoting: "Mind your own business. It is sorely in need of attention.") Having said all that, it is quite obvious that the more human "co-operation" in the carrying out of any given function, the more positive the results are likely to be. This is the source of the Cultural Heritage. To me formal or institutional co-operatives are a form of collectivism more geared to a primitive society or economy, having the potential to lack clarity of purpose or direction, to hamper maximum efficiency and to impose restrictions upon freedom of action and association. They tend, in my view, to subsume rather than to release human individuality because they are based more upon an "ideal" than practical considerations. That is, they are in a sense "Utopian." Douglas regarded the Utopianist as the greatest danger to society. Social Credit brings the results (the Increments of Association) of general co-operation among free individuals and organizations to each citizen, which emancipates rather than "conscripts." You can see that I am an individualist--but as a Social Crediter one who is (very different from the usual "Conservative" stereotype) decidedly distributive rather than primarily acquisitive. Social Credit can, I think, legitimately be described as a form of consumption socialism, as quite opposed to the concept of production socialism. Douglas went to great lengths to stress that the problem is not primarily administrative but rather one of policy and sanctions with realistic finance being the key solution to the problem. There is a tendency among many people not to have a clear understanding of these issues--and not having this understanding they are all too often inclined to jump into the collectivist frying pan which they are wont to imagine is somehow a solution if not a panacea. I think it is both fair and realistic to say that this, historically, has led to disappointment and disillusionment, and that it has done so is a matter of inexorable logical consequence. These are some of my thoughts. Sincerely Wally ~~~~~~~~~~ End Wally's post ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In his 1966 book, INPUT-OUTPUT ECONOMICS, Noblest Wassily Leontief presented a table of 42 industries, from #1 "Agriculture and Fisheries" to #42 "Households," showing how much each "industry" purchased from each of the other industries. #28 was "Finance and Insurance," the speculative transactions shown on Fig4-3.gif with a $ flow rate about ten times that of the GDP was not included in Leontief's table because it contributes nothing to the economy except uncertainty and fear. So all of Leontief's 42 industries are located along the real economy scale between 0% and 250%, with #1 at 0% and #42 at 250%. Here indeed is the model of our national wealth producing machine. It takes in natural resources at the #0 level and successively adds labor and capital process to the resources until the finished products are ready for consumption or investment by the workforce as GDP at $10,000 billion/year currently. As you can see, it would be difficult to illustrate all 42 industries in any useful way, and impossible to illustrate the real US economy with 185 million members of the workforce and their dependents at 270 degrees on the model, and several million sovereign corporations in the capital plant at 90 degrees. But that is no problem because the purpose of the macro model is to let us confirm that our understanding of the money system, which denominates all measured flow rates in the model, is technically valid. Only deceivers, politicians, and criminals find their advantage in an invalid model with a money system which the public cannot comprehend. Many frequent posters on the Internet would have the banks create money by a key stroke and then inject that free money into the economy, here and there under the direction of the frequent poster, to level the economic playing field and assure equal opportunity, liberty, and justice for all. This is the common delusion of communists, socialists, and other intellectuals who want to be "Masters of the Universe." The great majority of folks, with their 2.5/4.0 grade point average in school, would be content to earn their living in an economy where the rules and principles practiced in the private capital plant at 90 degrees on the model were also practiced in the in the public sector workforce at 270 degrees on the model. After having lived with 4 to 10% unemployment for more than a century, "the optimum policy" practiced in the private sector would be welcome in the public sector by all who fear the future promised by continuing the status quo. The Washington Consensus, or the 50% capitalization of the expense of developing the workforce, is killing the goose which lays the golden eggs, the prosperous middle class. Genocide done slowly, is just as effective as military conquest, and much less expensive for the victors in Europe and East Asia. If we lived with one payday/year, it would take $25,000 Billion of our medium of exchange (M1) to meet the payroll of our $10,000 Billion/year GDP economy; $10,000 Billion as working capital for C. H. Douglas' "A flow" between 150% and 250% on the real economy scale, plus, $15,000 Billion as working capital for C. H. Douglas's "B flow" between O% and 150% on the real economy scale. Fortunately, we have an average of 26 paydays/year, so the amount of M1 actively circulating in our $10,000 Billion/year GDP economy is about $962 billion, while the actual amount of M1 has been flat at $1,200 Billion since 1994 as plotted on fig2.3b.gif. My post of October 3, 2003 gave four reasons why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in the USA: 1, The social security payroll tax of 13% of earned income, capped at $76,000/year, with all earned income above $76,000/year and all other kinds of income exempt from the payroll tax. 2, Debt service on both public and private debt is a burden for the middle class, and is excessive because the WHIPs are not paying the same share of the cost of developing the workforce that they cheerfully pay of the cost of developing their capital plant. And yet, grass would grow on their capital plant without the workforce. 3, The absence of an adequate Children's Allowance at $5,000/year/head, which would compliment the $6.500/year/head we now spend for 1-12 universal public education. 4, We under fund the second tithe, executive compensation for our lawmakers, in the public sector to a greater extent that we under fund the first tithe, education and development of our workforce, in the public sector. Neither of these stupid policy mistakes are made in the US private sector, nor since the 1940s, in either the public or private sectors of the Japanese, German, and other western European economies. I have tortured my imagination for fifty years to find a rational explanation for our present condition, without finding one. But then, I am not really smart enough for this line of work. Of the thousand, or so, folks who read or deleted my 03-10-03 post with the four above mentioned reasons for our present condition, only Ekky Irion replied by changing the subject to a study of the growth of poverty, by John Vidal, in The Guardian. We need to eliminate poverty, not study it, and give the social scientists a taste of 6.1% unemployment. As Edmund Burke said, when discussing the French Revolution and "The Rights of Man" with Thomas Paine, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I owe Raleigh Myers for that quotation from Burke and for being a charter subscriber to list TOP. Kind regards, Wes Burt To further explore "The Optimum Policy" illustrated at URL <http://www.epie.org/cyber-soc/default.htm> send a blank e-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. --^---------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^----------------------------------------------------------------
<<Fig4-3.gif>>
