| Subject: | [socialcredit] Norm Kurland v. Economic Justice | | Date: | Friday, September 2, 2005 10:25:38 (-0700) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 2688 (written by Norman Kurland) |
Yes, this is indeed from the WSJ editorial regarding
Chalibi's proposed trust, but the editorial fails to
summarize Chalabi's proposal completely. The income
to the trust will in time derive not from oil revenue
but diversidied investments modeled after Alaska's
Permanent Fund. It is the diversified investment
aspect of Chalibi's program that the "Binarians"
vehemently oppose:
"Mr. Chalabi hopes that the 'equal measure' concept
will pave the way in practice for the creation of an
oil trust, under which Iraqis would from birth have
accounts established in their name. Iraqis would
receive their full and equal share of oil revenue and
the government would have to vote to tax it away. Mr.
Chalabi sees this as a way of breaking the 'oil curse'
that has turned so many oil-rich nations into corrupt
tyrannies."
---
This is Chalabi's actual concept of the oil trust
referred to in the WSJ editorial from the article by
Fawaz Saraf, Chalabi's advisor and drafter of the
plan, appended in full further down in the text
below:-
From Fawaz Saraf:
"Over the span of several years, and as Iraqi economy
is normalized, security and stability is restored,
democratic and civil society institutions are firmly
in place, and essential infrastructure projects are
funded, dividends payout from oil revenues could be
reduced and redirected towards the establishment of
oil royalty account or 'Iraqi Permanent Fund'. As
funds in the royalty account grow, dividend payouts
from oil revenues could be completely phased out and
replaced with dividends generated by the Iraqi
Permanent Fund trust."
This has no resemblance whatsoever to the "binary"
eggs in one basket approach pushed by Senator Gravel
and Norm Kurland that was soundly rejected in
referendum by the people of Alaska.
Deception piled upon deception by our friend Norm
Kurland.
----------------------------------
-------------------------------
From Norm Kurland, April 29, 2003, in a meassage still
remaining in the archive at
http://cog.kent.edu/archives/ownership/msg02942.html
Notice that Kurland here describes the Alaska program
as "politically corrupt." He infers that there is
something immoral to the Alaska program and says it is
the "approach of Karl Marx." Such is the utter
delusion of true belief if indeed he actually believes
it. I've previously described him as a con-man:-
-------
[In reply to an earlier message from Bill Ryan]
"I thought this is a discussion group on ownership,
not trickle-down profit sharing, as in the politically
corrupt Alaskan model. The issue of how to achieve
widespread citizen participation in Iraqi oil profits
is ultimately a moral issue and an issue or whether
economic power should be in the hands of the mullahs,
foreign owners, the state and its bureaucrats, or
democratically spread out as a right of private
property in the hands individually of every citizen.
Profit sharing that does not flow from the ownership
of capital leaves the recipients in a permanent state
of economic dependency on the whim of those in power.
That is the approach of Karl Marx. That's not
democracy."
-----------------------------------
The following is a recent essay from the Iraq
Foundation
http://www.iraqfoundation.org
recommending the establishment of an Iraq Permanent
Fund modeled on the Alaska Permanent Fund. After the
essay I append some corresponce regarding this matter
from the remaining list archive:-
-----------
Oil Dividend Paper
February 14, 2005
By Fawaz K. Saraf. P.E.
In the four decades preceding the Baath party's rise
to power in the late 1960's, Iraq's oil revenue added
up to less than $10 billion. During the single decade,
in the 1980's, Iraq's oil revenue amounted to more
than $100 billion. Yet today, after two wars, economic
sanctions, and an occupation, Iraq's infrastructure is
in shambles and Iraqis are facing harsh living
conditions brought about by a brutal insurgency,
terrorism, and rampant unemployment. Many older Iraqis
may well look back at the 1960's and long for the days
when Iraq, with a modest income from oil, agriculture,
industry, tourism and commerce was a relatively
prosperous country. These were good times, before the
oil boom when billions of dollars flowed in and out of
the Iraqi government' treasury.
In an article that originally appeared in the New York
Times, John Tierney wrote:
"Few Iraqis have heard of the 'resource curse', the
scholarly term for the economic and political miseries
of countries with abundant natural resources. But in
Tayeran Square, where hundreds of unemployed men sit
on the sidewalk each morning hoping for a day's work,
they know how the curse works.
"Our country's oil should have made us rich, but
Saddam spent it all on his wars and his palaces" said
Sattar Abdulla, who has not had a steady job in
years."
The list of miseries Iraq's oil wealth has brought to
Sattar Abdulla and other Iraqis is long indeed. With
its total control of Iraq's oil revenue, the Baath
party was able to finance a network of informers and
party loyalists, detention centers and torture
chambers that turned Iraq into police state of unequal
brutality. Real or perceived threats to the ruling
Baath party were swiftly and brutally eliminated.
Iraq's oil wealth allowed the regime to curry favors
with a myriad of benefactors, many of whom looked upon
the regime's abhorrent human rights record as merely
an irritant, an internal matter, to be tolerated in
the pursuit of the more important oil deal.
Journalists who could write a friendly word about the
regime were sought and rewarded. Countries, companies
and middlemen were solicited by the regime to offer
their wares of destruction, of the WMD variety and
otherwise. In the meantime, Iraqis were busy queuing
to buy eggs one week, forced to leave their work or
school to attend a party rally on another, spend a
summer vacation training at one "liberation" camp or
another, or sent to the front to fight a war with Iran
or Kuwait. Of course any Iraqi on any given day could
have been singled out by one of the many neighborhood
informers as an "unworthy citizen" to be thoroughly
investigated, roughened up, and perhaps just as likely
tortured and eliminated by the regime's efficient and
well financed network of secret police.
Is it any wonder then that Sattar Abdulla in Tayearn
Square proposed a simple solution instantly endorsed
by the other men on the sidewalk: "Divide the money
equally. Give each Iraqi his share on the first day of
every month."
This is certainly not a new concept for managing the
natural resources of a country. Nearly every Alaska
resident received $1,017 check in 2003 as their share
of the state's oil riches (a $433 drop from last
year's payout and an $857 decrease from the all-time
high of $1,964 in 2000). The dividend checks are
distributed every year from an oil royalty account
called the Alaska Permanent Fund, created in 1976
after oil was discovered on the North Slope; almost
600,000 people received a dividend in 2003.
"Without a permanent fund dividend program," said
former Alaska Governor Jay Hammond, "Alaska will face
the same fate as Nigeria." There, the World Bank
estimates that $296 billion flowed in and out of
government's treasury during its oil boom, "leaving
them worse off than they were before," Hammond said.
Iraqis certainly did not fare better than fellow
victims of the "resource curse" in Nigeria. Iraq
assumed a heavy debt burden during the Saddam Hussein
years, around $100 billion if debts to Gulf states and
Russia are counted, and even more if $250 billion in
reparations payments claims stemming from Iraq's 1990
invasion of Kuwait are included.
Tragically, misuse and mismanagement of Iraq's oil
revenue continued under the UN oil-for-food program
which in late 1996, under UN resolution 986, allowed
limited Iraqi oil exports in exchange for food and
other supplies. Overall, between December 1996 and
March 20, 2003, some 3.4 billion barrels of Iraqi oil
valued at about $65 billion were exported under the
oil-for-food program. During that same period,
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children perished due
to malnutrition and lack of necessary medical supplies
while spending on the construction of palaces and
funding of regime power base continued unabated.
In June of 2003, Paul Bremer, then top administrator
of the CPA, suggested that revenues from oil sales
"could be distributed to Iraq's citizens as
'dividends', along the lines of the system used by the
State of Alaska." When Iraq was under the
administration of the CPA, oil revenues went into an
Iraqi Development Fund.
Today, Iraqi crude oil output averages around 2.2
million barrels per day. With a $10 -$20 billion
investment in Iraq oil infrastructure over the next
four to five years, Iraq's oil production could reach
4 million barrels per day. At today's oil prices and
today's output, it is estimated that the oil industry
in Iraq will generate enough to give every Iraqi adult
roughly $1,000 to $1,500 a year, which is half the
annual salary of a middle-class worker.
Some say the government cannot afford to give up any
of the money directly to the people of Iraq. A number
of Iraqi politicians are saying: "there isn't that
much money now, and we need every penny for rebuilding
the country," and "giving away money would be
politically popular but we should not gain popularity
at the expense of the long-range interest of the
country. By giving away the money you may sacrifice
building more schools and hospitals. "
Iraqis should reject such arguments and insist on the
distribution of the oil money.
Deductions from monthly checks could made for
reinvestment in the oil infrastructure with aim of
boosting production, making payments towards Iraq's
significant national debt, and paying national and
local taxes to fund national and local government
budgets (at the end of each year and once tax on total
income, including income from oil dividend, is
calculated, an Iraqi may have to pay additional tax or
receive a refund).
Each month, along with the check, every Iraqi adult
could also get a check-stub itemizing deductions and
how they are disbursed. When the oil industry is
mismanaged or sabotage disrupts oil production or
exports, Iraqis will see it and feel it when the next
oil dividend check they receive is smaller. What
better way to induce a sense of ownership among
Iraqis?
Steven C. Clemens, executive vice president of the New
American Foundation, suggested using 40 percent of
Iraq's oil revenue to create a permanent trust fund
like the one in Alaska. The capital is invested and
each year a share of income is distributed. "A fund
like Alaska's is the best way to prevent one
kleptocracy from succeeding another in Iraq," Mr.
Clemens said. "It would go a long way to curbing the
cynical belief that Americans want Iraqi oil for
themselves, and it would give more Iraqis a stake in
the success of their new country..."
After decades of neglect, wars, mismanagement,
corruption and abuse, Iraq's needs in this period of
its history are too great, I believe, to permit the
immediate establishment of a permanent trust fund
tailored along Alaska's model. Iraqis need to see
immediate improvement in their very difficult
daily lives.
The oil dividend program could immediately replace the
ration card system currently in place. The ration card
system was introduced by the former regime to provide
Iraqis with minimum means of subsistence during
periods of wars and sanctions. Corruption and
kickbacks have contributed on many occasions to the
distribution of low quality rice, flour and cooking
oil.
An oil dividend program could help wean Iraqis away
from a subsidized and highly centralized economy where
public sector employment, in the form of either
government offices providing traditional government
services or State Owned Enterprises, represented and
continues to represent the largest employer in the
country. Artificially low priced commodities
encouraged black markets to flourish further
exacerbating the harsh economic conditions many
government employees with low fixed incomes face. For
example, since gasoline is highly subsidized, it is
sold to privately owned and government owned filling
station at not more than 5 to 10 cents a gallon.
Gasoline shortages are very common, not only due to
sabotage, but also because gasoline, purchased from
the government at the subsidized price, is often
either smuggled out of the country and sold at many
folds the retail price at Iraqi gas pumps, or is sold
directly to black marketers, who then sell it, at
exuberant profits, to those Iraqis who can afford the
higher black market price and do not want to queue at
the pump. Eliminating such subsidies and phasing out
dysfunctional state owned enterprises without
providing people an alternate source of income will
only further destabilize the country at this time. An
oil dividend paid to every Iraqi will help bridge the
income gap during such a transition period.
An oil dividend program will also help in keeping Iraq
united and avoid the pitfalls associated with having
those in power favoring one region, religious or
ethnic group over others. Iraq's natural resources
belong to all the people of Iraq. "Giving the money
directly to people is a splendid idea," said a leader
in one Iraqi political party. "In the past oil revenue
was used to promote dictatorship and discriminate
against people outside the capital. We need to start
being fair to people in the provinces."
Under an oil dividend program Iraqi women and men will
be equally empowered since each adult man and adult
woman would be receiving exactly the same dividend
amount. Three devastating wars over the last two
decades have left Iraq with a large number of single
mother families with non-existent or very limited
incomes or who depend for their survival on handouts
from relatives or religious charities. The financial
security provided by an oil dividend monthly payment
would be especially empowering to such households.
An oil dividend program will go along way in
undercutting those who are working hard to destabilize
the country. Iraqis will more likely help any new
government bring about stability to the country and
help in the fight against foreign terrorists and
former regime thugs when they see that their oil money
is being deposited into their bank accounts. Iraqis
will less likely help and support the new government
when they see corrupt government officials, and Iraqi
and foreign contractors usurping Iraq's resources
while they are impoverished. The sooner Iraq is stable
the sooner coalition troops can return to their homes.
Natural resources belong to the people and none should
be stolen from them. It is their money not the
government's. Government should be funded by taxes
paid by the people at rates that are determined by
representatives elected by the people. If the people
of Iraq want a large military, a grand airport, a
grand palace for their president, or a grand mosque,
the money needed to fund these projects is coming out
of their pockets.
"There is a direct proportional relationship between
bad government and oil revenue," said another Iraqi
political leader. "If the government performs well or
badly it doesn't matter, because the oil revenue
continues to flow. The government will use the oil
revenue to cover up mistakes."
A trust fund existed in Iraq during the 1950's, when
part of the oil revenue went not to the government's
budget but to a development fund whose reimbursements
were directed by Iraqi and foreign overseers.
On January 30, 2005, will elect an interim assembly
that will help write Iraq's new constitution. All
Iraqis, regardless of their ethnicity or religious
affiliation, should be united in demanding that
revenues from Iraq's vast natural resources (including
more than 250 trillion cubic feet of proven and
probable natural gas reserves) should be distributed
directly to the people of Iraq. Over the span of
several years, and as Iraqi economy is normalized,
security and stability is restored, democratic and
civil society institutions are firmly in place, and
essential infrastructure projects are funded,
dividends payout from oil revenues could be reduced
and redirected towards the establishment of oil
royalty account or "Iraqi Permanent Fund". As funds in
the royalty account grow, dividend payouts from oil
revenues could be completely phased out and replaced
with dividends generated by the Iraqi Permanent Fund
trust.
-------------
--------------------
-----------------
[Earlier correspondence relating to this matter from
the OWNERSHIP archive]
From: "Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org>
Reply-To: ownership@cog.kent.edu
To: ownership@cog.kent.edu
Subject: Re: OWNERSHIP: Alaska dividend model for Iraq
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:49:07 -0400
I thought this is a discussion group on ownership, not
trickle-down profit sharing, as in the politically
corrupt Alaskan model. The issue of how to achieve
widespread citizen participation in Iraqi oil profits
is ultimately a moral issue and an issue or whether
economic power should be in the hands of the mullahs,
foreign owners, the state and its bureaucrats, or
democratically spread out as a right of private
property in the hands individually of every citizen.
Profit sharing that does not flow from the ownership
of capital leaves the recipients in a permanent state
of economic dependency on the whim of those in power.
That is the approach of Karl Marx. That's not
democracy.
Norm Kurland
Center for Economic and Social Justice
CESJ web site: http://www.cesj.org
Global Justice Movement web site:
http://www.globaljusticemovement.org
--
From: "Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org>
Reply-To: ownership@cog.kent.edu
To: ownership@cog.kent.edu
CC: "Shakespeare, Rodney"
<Rodney.Shakespeare1@btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: OWNERSHIP: Alaska dividend model for Iraq
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:32:17 -0400
The confusion stems from the original plan advanced by
former Senator Mike Gravel to establish a General
Stock Ownership Plan that was designed to establish
share accounts for every citizen to become an owner of
the Alaskan pipeline. In that case, the dividends
would have flowed to each citizen based on their
participation in ownership. And it would then be
example of binary economics and be consistent with the
Kelso-Adler principles of economic justice.
Unfortunately, Senator Gravel's political enemies
strongly opposed this ownership proposal and convinced
the Alaskan voters to support the current dividend
plan, which is a traditional trickle-down welfare
state proposal to keep the Alaskan voters economically
powerless and dependent on the ownership elite and
their political cronies who control the Alaskan
economy. Today Alaskan dividends are disconnected from
direct personal ownership and are therefore an example
of socialism, not the just third way advanced by
Kelso.
----------------------
http://cog.kent.edu/archives/ownership/msg02949.html
To: "Gravel, Senator Mike" <sengravel@p2dd.org>, COG
Ownership - Dan Bell <ownership@cog.kent.edu>
Subject: [Fwd: OWNERSHIP: Re: Alaska dividend model
for Iraq]
From: "Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:38:58 -0400
Organization: Center for Economic and Social Justice
Reply-to: ownership@cog.kent.edu
Sender: owner-ownership@cog.kent.edu
Mike,
Do you care to comment on this critique of your
proposal? The writer is hostile to binary economics.
Norm
-------- Original Message --------
From: "William B. Ryan" <william_b_ryan@hotmail.com>
Subject: OWNERSHIP: Re: Alaska dividend model for
Iraq
To: ownership@cog.kent.edu
CC: socialcredit@topica.com
Gravel's proposal was to invest the state's royalties
in acquiring the pipeline, which would have been
putting all of Alaska's eggs into one basket. It
would have been a windfall for the bought-out owners
and the "advisers" who put the deal together.
Moreover, it would have been an investment into
infrastructure which would have dwindled in value as
Alaska's oil was depleted.
The Permanent fund--approved by the voters in
referendum--follows the prudential rule of
diversification, by investment in stocks, bonds and
real estate--which will directly provide income to the
people of Alaska forever.
--
To: sengravel@ni4d.us
Subject: OWNERSHIP: Rejoinder to Mike Gravel
From: "William B. Ryan" <william_b_ryan@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 16:19:06 +0000
Cc: thirdway@cesj.org, ownership@cog.kent.edu,
socialcredit@topica.com, rshakes@globalnet.co.uk
Reply-to: ownership@cog.kent.edu
Sender: owner-ownership@cog.kent.edu
I thank Mike Gravel for his contribution to our
discussion.
This was the wording of the AGSOC ballot initiative
which was rejected by the voters:
"This measure establishes a general stock ownership
corporation (AGSOC) in Alaska. It will be a private
corporation owned by Alaskans. Shares will be
distributed without charge to Alaska residents who
wish to become stockholders. The corporation will not
be subject to income tax and this is expected to
enhance its financial success. Shareholders will be
subject to taxes on their share of the corporation's
taxable income, whether or not it is distributed to
them, and may not deduct corporate losses, if any. The
corporation will borrow money for investment and
repay loans from income."
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ltgov/elections/initbal.htm
--
1. [Ryan] The wording appears to be confusing and
contradictory in several respects. It says "the
corporation will not be subject to income tax" but
that "shareholders will be subject to taxes on their
share of the corporation's taxable income..." But the
preceding sentence just said that none of the
corporation's income is taxable. Then follows this
kicker: "whether or not it is distributed to them..."
In other words, the purchasing power in the hands of
shareholders is to be decreased through taxation
against income which they may never have
received except possibly in the form of an unrealized
capital gain.
Is there any other way to interpret this? If not,
what is the logic behind it? It baffles me.
--
2. [Ryan] The Senator objects that I am "totally in
error." If I am in error it is error in precision. I
said that the royalties were to be invested in the
purchase of the pipeline. He describes the investment
process this way:
"My plan called for the purchase of British
Petroleum's (BP) 1/6 interest in the pipeline by
assuming their bonds and a cash payment, [which would
have been funded by] the proceeds of a loan or
additional bonds that would be secured with the
collateral of a 'take or pay contract' with the state
for moving its royalty oil through the pipeline to
Valdez."
It is true that the royalties are not directly
invested. But the loan is collateralized by the
contemplated tariff income to the pipeline through its
"take or pay contract" with the state. The state has
the option to take some of its royalties in kind,
which it does. That oil is transported through the
pipeline generating tariff income to the pipeline. I'm
not quite sure what "take or pay" means within this
context but I suspect that it means if the state
chooses to take none of its royalties in kind but all
of it in cash, the state would be obligated to pay the
pipeline the equivalent amount to what the tariffs
would have been if the state had opted to receive its
royalties in kind.
That money from state royalties is pledged as
collateral against the loans. It is what in finance
parlance is called an "offset."
--
3. "This arrangement would have produced a cash flow
sufficient to amortize all the debt and produce a
profit sufficient to initially pay out $300 to each
Alaska shareholder of the AGSOC."
[Ryan] Maybe. It had been a certainty there would
have been no need for collateral.
--
4. "The wealth in question was created by the
capital ownership in the pipeline through the use of
credit -- that's the way the rich folks do it."
[Ryan] The pipeline had already been created by
credit. All the GSOC would have done is transfer the
ownership of the already existing capital to new
owners. The original owners would have cashed out.
--
5. "It [referring to the Permanent Fund] also is a
dwindling asset depending on the nature of the funds
investments. All production tools a[re] dwindling
investments."
[Ryan] I'm not sure what to make of this. Bad
investments decline in value. Good investments
increase in value. The important point is that the
Permanent Fund is diversified and is prohibited from
spending principal. The oil that is the basis of the
pipeline's profits is a depleting resource. The
"production tool" is the pipeline which depreciates
and must be maintained. Unlike most tools, it
becomes worthless once the oil is totally depleted.
Future income is projected into the current value of
the tool when sold. There is nothing gained in
purchasing that tool from the present owners unless
you think you can do a better job with that tool than
the present owner and thereby extract additional
profit. Only that additional profit would be net
income to you. You would have paid the old owners
for the rest. And that is risk. And here is a
another problem with the proposal as I see it. The
GSOC wouldn't even have the opportunity to do a
better job because it was purchasing only BP's then
one sixth interest. That could not have been the
controlling interest in terms of managerial policy.
It could only have been a passive investment so there
would have been no opportunity for entrepreneurial
input. It's got "boondoggle" written all over it.
--
6. "The AGSOC would be controlled by
citizen/shareholders directly empowering each
individual economically. The Fund is controlled by
representative government -- with the entire
undemocratic shortcoming that entails -- a small
gaggle of politicians and their well paid investment
advisors."
[Ryan] This is not worthy of comment--particularly
in light of the actual history of the Permanent Fund
for the past quarter century. http://www.apfc.org/
--
---in reply to---
From: "Senator Mike Gravel"
To: <william_b-ryan@hotmail.com>
CC: <thirdway@cesj.org>, <ownership@cog.kent.edu>,
<socialcredit@topica.com>,"Rodney Shakespeare"
<rshakes@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject : Alaska General Stock Ownership Corporation
(AGSOC)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:46:49 -0400
Dear William B. Ryan:
I don't know the source of your information, but you
are totally in error about what I was trying to do in
the late seventies in Alaska with respect to a
portion of the pipeline in Alaska. I hope you will
make an effort to correct the dissemination of this
false information.
My plan called for the purchase of British
Petroleum's (BP) 1/6 interest in the pipeline by
assuming their bonds and a cash payment, [which would
be funded by] the proceeds of a loan or additional
bonds that would be secured with the collateral of a
"take or pay contract" with the state for moving its
royalty oil through the pipeline to Valdez.
This arrangement would have produced a cash flow
sufficient to amortize all the debt and produce a
profit sufficient to initially pay out $300 to each
Alaska shareholder of the AGSOC.
BP had informally agreed to the sale. Several years
later, a BP official told me that the sale would have
been a mistake for them since the pipeline revenue,
unrelated to the fluctuations in oil prices, was the
only guaranteed revenue they had in Alaska.
The AGSOC plan, develop by Louis Kelso and myself,
did not require an investment by any Alaska citizen
or the state. The state was moving its oil at the
tariff rate regardless of ownership. There was no
investment of state royalties ever contemplated. The
plan was a classic use of credit under Kelso's Two
Factor economic theory. The wealth in question was
created by the capital ownership in the pipeline
through the use of credit -- that's the way the rich
folks do it.
The royalty oil revenue is an entirely another
matter. The Permanent Fund was merely a set-aside of
that revenue to be invested and the profits from
which are to be distributed to Alaska citizens. It
also is a dwindling asset depending on the nature of
the funds investments. All production tools a[re]
dwindling investments.
The difference between the AGSOC and the Permanent
Fund (which I supported when it was obvious the state
was not going to make the proper capital
improvements) is a matter o[f] control. The AGSOC
would be controlled by citizen/shareholders directly
empowering each individual economically. The Fund is
controlled by representative government -with the
entire undemocratic shortcoming that entails -- a
small gaggle of politicians and their well paid
investment advisors.
There is a lot more to the political side of this
story, but time does not permit me to elaborate.
Senator Mike Gravel
U.S. Senate 1969-81
703-516-4056 fax 703-516-4056
SenGravel@ni4d.us
Web site: www.ni4d.us
-
--- Norman Kurland <thirdway@cesj.org> wrote:
> Normally I don't respond to anything Ryan
> contributes, because he
> doesn't understand binary economics or make any
> serious attempt to. He
> also doesn't understand property or its political
> significance, is
> therefore totally oblivious of the systemic causes
> of extreme
> concentration of capital ownership and the
> ever-widening economic power
> gap in the world. He spends most of his time trying
> to attack the
> motives of others who don't see the world his way.
> I don't have time
> for him or others who have closed their mind to the
> Just Third Way.
>
> However, Ryan demonstrates that he has a hard time
> reading closely,
> especially ideas outside of his narrow box. His
> posting contradicted
> his support of the trickle-down Alaskan Dividend
> Plan as an alternative
> for Iraq. His quoted source, without realizing it
> contained this passage:
>
> Ahmed Chalabi, a highly controversial figure in
> Iraqi
> politics, believes the government should create a
> national oil company that collects revenue from the
> development and sale of the country's oil and gas.
> Every citizen would own one non-transferable share
> in
> the company. The shares would pay dividends to
> citizens, who in turn would pay taxes to the
> government. "We would make the government reliant on
> the people for its revenue, rather than having an
> independent stream of revenue from the oil," says
> Sethna, Chalabi's energy policy adviser. "The
> government will be more responsive to the people,
> and
> the people will feel that they have a stake in their
> governance."
>
> Establishing a tax system in Iraq would be one way
> to
> sidestep the contentious debates Alaska has faced
> since it first created the Permanent Fund. Alaskans
> pay no state income tax. Oil royalties fund most of
> the state government; this money, for the most part,
> does not come from the Permanent Fund or its
> earnings.
> Instead, lawmakers can tap the fund's investment.
> earnings to pay for the business of government.
>
>
>
> Compare the above with our proposal
>
http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/paradigmpapers/iraq-nationbuilding.htm)
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
|
Norm Kurland v. Ec
Reply to this message