| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re:- Swanwick Princpiples | | Date: | Wednesday, December 22, 2004 10:58:36 (+0000) | | From: | Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk @........uk>
|
Dear Joe,
Trying not to clog up this board with psychology, but I will be as brief as
I can...
On 18/12/04 4:59 pm, "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Hello Tim,
>
> I'll comment below to various parts of your response.
>>
>> (Tim:-) It would be lovely if such payments could be made without a negative
>> effect on people. I think your examples of very northerly climes might skew
>> things a bit, though.
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> What 'negative effect', Tim? And why? I don't see anything particularly
>> different from the 'northern climes' of Alaska and a small part of Manitoba
>> in regards to the 'climes' of anywhere else when it comes to this issue.
>>
The negative effect is what I said originally - sloth followed by a feeling
of resentment at how little the dividend gets them then followed by a
movement to increase the dividend to unsustainable levels. What standard is
enough? One car? New car? Two cars? Holidays? Foreign holidays? What is
enough?
As to climes, if you have an example from temperate and tropical zones then
we can discuss.
>> Disregarding Manitoba, where the provision of an 'unearned income' was very
>> definitely a short-term experiment, there is no evidence of anything other
>> than an increased 'prosperity' in Alaska as a result of the 'oil dividend'.
>> There, the standard of living of the vast majority of its citizens is equal
>> to anywhere else in the USA, though the 'cost' of living is undoubtedly
>> higher. Something that was the case even before 'dividend' payments started,
>> and is still the case today.
>>
>> Alaskans, through their other various 'economic activities' have long been
>> able to reconcile the two. (Most Alaskans don't live in 'log cabins in the
>> wilderness', or igloos. Nor have they since the goldrush ''Days of '98.")
I thought their boots were also made of liquorice... :-)
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------- (Tim:-) Even if it
>> does seem to work in the short term one cannot base the economic model on it
>> having to work by relying on something as fickle as the human psyche which
>> may take 3 generations to work out its long term response. I believe we
>> already have the beginnings in our social services, but not viewed as a form
>> of economic stimulant. DFM used to fund this?
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> Suppose the UK Government had asked all British citizens if they would prefer
>> to receive the income from the invested royalties from North Sea oil,
>> distributed to each individual Briton as a annual or other periodic
>> 'dividend', paid to them directly. To do with as they so chose
>> 'individually'. Or whether they'd prefer the present method of allowing the
>> Government to do with these royalties as it so chooses. In the hopes that
>> whatever that was it would somehow benefit them 'collectively'. Which do you
>> think most Britons, had they been given the choice, would prefer? Alaskans
>> were given that choice. And seem to be quite happy with it.
>> --------------------------------------------------------
I am sure they would and I would, but I expect the socialists would howl in
protest as "the rich" would also get it. Royalties from a state industry is
one thing, printing money is another.
>>
>> (Tim:-) As to rights. Everyone has a right to MAKE a living, but not a right
>> to GET a living IMHO.
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> Have you ever 'MADE' money, Tim? (I take it you're not an employee of the
>> Royal Mint, nor a Banker. If not, the only other way for YOU to MAKE money
>> may get you an extended residence in one of H.M.'s Prisons!) We ALL, save
>> for those three exceptions, GET the 'money' we now need to secure a living
>> from elsewhere. If you had a sizeable garden and grew a ton of potatoes in
>> it, have you 'made' any money? You may have produced an 'asset' that can be
>> 'priced' in money, but your horticultural activities haven't added one single
>> penny or pound to the UK's supply of money. Should they have?
I did not say make money but make a living. Please do not distort it then
ride off on a thread of your own manufacture. People DO make a living by
creating out of their own labour, insight, contacts, skills, thoughts,
vision, feelings, time. This is exchanged for money.
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> (Tim:-) If they do have such a right, then I have an equal or even GREATER
>> right to abdicate from paying taxes of any kind. If one person can
>> unilaterally decide to contribute nothing then so can I, and I have a greater
>> right to do that as I am only not paying as opposed to both not paying AND
>> receiving.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------I'll have to come back to this later, Tim. Out of time right now.
>> Cheers,
Understood - sorry if this exchange is taking up a lot of your time. Your
views are appreciated if not always agreed upon :)
Tim
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> <http://leader.linkexchange.com/X1727123/clickle>;
> <http://leader.linkexchange.com/X1727123/clickle>;
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> You're subscribed to this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.eListas.com/
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message