Subject: Doug Everingham 17 bits, John Hermann 0 bits on "The USA, After A Century of TDM Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 20:36:48 -0500 From: wesburt@juno.com Reply-To: cyber-soc@topica.com To: Discussion@globaljusticemovement.net, mai-not@globalproblematique.net Hello again, John Hermann, I gather from your off-list reply (none) to the post below that my several inserted comments were clear enough and that my analysis of our present condition was irrefutable. Thanks John, that smoothes the way for my reply to Doug. Dear Doug Everingham, Five e-mails ago on 1/2/05 I wrote: "I can't tell you how much I enjoyed wondering about each of the 17 bits you don't understand about "The Optimum Policy." If I took them one at a time and polished each one until you admitted that you understood it, I would be older than Methuselah before I got to bit # 8, which you seem to understand perfectly." This time, I stopped wondering about them when I got to #12, the Astrologically and Biblically significant number. If John will risk the competition of having another Australian around who knows as much about "The Optimum Policy" as he does, perhaps he will clarify the 17 bits for you, off-list of course. I've numbered the 17 bits so John can find them easily. Meanwhile, the attached "visual-aid," Fig12.0.gif, relates "The Optimum Policy" (TOP) to the 20 centuries of Left/Right promulgations of Kings, Priests, Politicians, Economists, and Corporate CEOs which always contain some truth and always evade the "laws of nature and of Nature's God" to divide and plunder their respective congregations. Notice, Doug, that Fig12 invokes the same symbolic structure used to represent the "Unfinished Republic" on the back of a one dollar Federal Reserve Note. if you Australians and Canadians adopted TOP along with Japan and Germany in the 1940s, and have been moderating your GDP and birth rate for six decades to spare the environment and slow global warming, you should help us Yanks to do the same, rather than letting us stew in our own juice. I'll know that the new visual-aid, Fig12 was helpful when you express its theme in a poem. And the sons of Mary smile and are blessed-- they know that the angels are on their side. They know in them is the grace confessed, and for them are the Mercies multiplied. They sit at the feet-- they hear the word-- they see how truly the promise runs. They have cast their burden upon the Lord, and-- the Lord He lays it on Martha's sons. Kind regards, Wes --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Doug Everingham To: ERANet@yahoogroups.com Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:56:39 +1000 Subject: Re: [ERANet] The USA, After A Century of TDMF Wes, Your words fail to inform me despite several tries with your earlier messages and web site. I remain obfuscated unless you explain in plain words the bits I've marked thus: ??? ... ??? - Doug Everingham ---- From: wesburt@juno.com Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 8:09:50 AM Australia/Brisbane To: Discussion@globaljusticemovement.net,mai-not@globalproblematique.net Subject: Re: [ERANet] The USA, After A Century of TDMF Reply-To: ERANet@yahoogroups.com Attachments: There is 1 attachment To: John Hermann, and all who likewise deplore the status quo. Many thanks, John, for your thoughts on market fundamentalism, forwarded below. The market fundamentalists on my ten favorite mail lists seem determined to preserve the status quo by obfuscating the systemic defect of omission which corrupts the operation of labor markets. That defect, however, is carefully corrected to assure the efficient operation of corporate markets. This obfuscation is not mindless. It serves a very specific purpose of forcing the lower and middle income folks into debt, and thereby maximizing the return to usury for folks with extra money to lend. We need not be too creative while searching for TOP (The optimum Policy) to promote your concept of economic democracy. Everything we need to know had been reduced to ???practice??? by (1) Japan, the Euro nations, and US corporations between 1946 and 1976, but the WHIPs of each nation keep it a secret from their respective publics, in order to maximize the return to usury for folks with extra money to lend. Necessary comments are inserted in your text, in this format: (WSB Comment WSB). Thanks, John, for opening this discussion. Wes Burt --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John Hermann To: ERANet@yahoogroups.com Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:15:34 +1030 Subject: Re: [ERANet] The USA, After A Century of TDMF At 06:38 PM 1/02/2005 -0500, Wes Burt wrote: > > My question is: why did so many of these > authors insist on a universal social dividend, > cradle to grave, when an adequate subsidy > of the development expenses only would > eliminate the 4.3% of GDP shortage of > purchasing power among parenting families? Bill Krehm, in one of his recent articles, said that " [C. H. Douglas] developed the idea of a social dividend, which would be a modest payment to all members of society. Not enough for them to live on completely, but that would help them survive the rat race, or even to pursue alternate life styles. That is not a complete alternative to the market or our mixed economy, but an important element in humanizing it somewhat, gearing down the drive towards exponential expansion that is clearly unsustainable." (WSB Every "economic hit man" who makes a living by writing and talking about economic problems presents a different version of what C. H. Douglas wrote and said. These folks have a vested interest in preserving the status quo, and no interest whatsoever in solving the problems that pay their salaries. As to the virtues of a modest social dividend, every income tax system, except the US SS payroll tax, provides a modest social dividend in the form of an exemption from taxable income for each dependant in the family. The last time I looked, the US exemption was $2,000/year, which pays $300/dependant for families in the 15% tax bracket and $560/dependant for families in the 28% tax bracket. High incomes are always treated with more respect than low incomes. The Alaska Fund, $400/year/dependent, is also a "modest dividend." The critical point is, that a modest social dividend does not change: 1) the 4.3% shortage of purchasing power, 2) the associated intense competition, 3) the poverty rate among children, nor 4) the under investment in infrastructure and capital plant. (2) An ???adequate??? subsidy for under age dependents and students only, would eliminate ???the??? (3) shortage of purchasing power and ???relatedB??? (4) symptoms of your unsustainable economy. WSB) I would say that parenting families, although very important, are not the only sector of society to be considered. All members of society are affected by the contemporary economic and financial rat race, the imposition of a phony and destructive culture rooted in materialism and consumerism, and a longterm program to commercialise and privatise everything that moves. (WSB I never think about anything less than the whole society and its history, as illustrated by the visual-???aids??? on the web site below. I (5) wholly agree with you that "all members of society are affected by the contemporary economic and financial rat race," etc. But when the US WHIPs of the 1890s limited the capitalization of human development to just the (1-12) public education system, no other result was possible a century later, except the "destructive culture rooted in materialism and consumerism" you complain of. The whole society is affected, to be sure, but the 4.3% of GDP shortage of purchasing power exists ???only??? among the parenting households, (6) while the corresponding 4.3% of GDP tax evasion is enjoyed by gay, lesbian, celibate, and WHIP households without children. In Biblical Israel, Aristotle's Greece, and Republican Rome the cost of developing the next generation of slaves was at the expense of the masters. Should the slaves allow the masters to evade that expense by declaring their country a Democracy? WSB) However the reality is that our present spread of technologies, inventions, and even our social practices would be unthinkable without the accumulated social heritage of philosophers, poets, musicians, martyrs, inventors, scientists and engineers, amongst others. This idea of a "social heritage" makes no sense at all to market fundamentalists, for such people have no understanding of social and cultural evolution. They also have no concept of economic democracy, nor do they possess a social conscience or compassion. And I would suggest that they also have no grasp of the dynamic interplay between social, religious and environmental forces and the instruments of economic and military power. (WSB John, I say to you what Oliver Cromwell is reported to have said to his opponents: "I pray thee, by the bowels of Christ, consider that thee might be mistaken." I wholly agree with you on the source of our "social heritage." But the public has not lost its memory of, and its access to, that "social heritage:" 1) because of a perverse human nature, 2) because corporations have no social conscience or compassion, nor 3) because market fundamentalists "have no grasp of the dynamic interplay between social, religious and environmental forces and the instruments of economic and military power." More hopefully, that "social heritage" is not accessible to the public because our public policy violates "???the??? laws of nature and of (7) nature's God" which have not changed since ???they??? were disclosed to Abraham by (8) Melchizedek. These laws of nature; fundamentalists can read in their Bibles, economists can read in their own literature, and governments can read in the ???SOP??? of our private sector corporations. Our (9) present condition is disgraceful because our WHIPs are a century late in teaching a valid ???theory of (10) markets??? in our public schools. The classical theory of markets is perfectly valid, as long as ???many??? suppliers to the market (11) operate with "decreasing returns to scale." That is with each supplier's; debt service on the cost of acquisition, and current fixed operating expenses, charged to a higher level of organization and then distributed in proportion over the income of; all suppliers under the protection of a corporation, or all households under the protection of their government. ???Here is that vital equivalence of (12) corporations and governments ??? which seemed straight forward to Adam Smith and the US founding fathers. As author Johann Hari said in his editorial on "Discredited Market Fundamentalism In Iraq:" "It's only when we understand the world we live in - without illusions - that we can build real alternatives." The world we live in becomes very ???simple, (13) orderly and predictable??? when we view it in a technically valid conceptual framework as ???presented??? in the attached Fig 4 & 8.gif, (14) which provides the macro and micro model on one page. Both models are necessary to ???show??? that there are no sustained (15) and steady state shortage of purchasing power and no debt at compounding interest at the macro level of analysis. The private sector corporations of Fig. 4 ???function??? perfectly (16) in the world market, and efficiently produce every good and service for which there is an effective demand. The disorder in our industrial economies results from the unbalance of purchasing power between the upper and lower ends of the income distribution on Fig. 8. A ???shortage among young parenting households (17) at the lower end and a surplus??? of purchasing power at the upper end of the income distribution. John, if you can't support this analysis of our present condition, please try to refute it. I would welcome either course of the discussion. WSB) -- John Hermann. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~