|
Message 6760
|
|
< Previous | Next >
|
|
|
| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments, Part I) | | Date: | Saturday, May 23, 2009 14:45:19 (EDT) | | From: | GeorgeCSDS <GeorgeCSDS @...com>
|
Social Crediteers,
I would like to express my thanks for, and briefly respond to, a variety of comments on my initial, admittedly unexpected and perhaps somewhat lengthy, original "Introduction to a Democratic Socioeconomic Platform" on this Social Credit Listserv. A time-sequencing proceeding downward will be followed, in hope of maintaining some logical continuity (as w/Major Douglas, I am another engineer working to better the lives of all humanity, ASAP). Only my original article will not be reproduced here; it is available in my original email and all are invited to seriously read and seriously consider its content and implications, if so interested. I would further ask that if anyone does have any comments on the article or Socioeconomic Democracy in general, or on these remarks I make here, that she (any shes, besides Ellen?) contact me personally, off this list mailing. No need to bother or confuse disinterested others.
I will use red type for all my comments to everyone else's black type messages. No subtle, or otherwise, implications intended; strictly for convenience and clarity. Actually, I'd much prefer to use blue, which reminds me of the oceans, which I love for a variety of reasons, and which are becoming filthier, fouler and more poisoned because of personal profit motivated, individual wealth maximizing people, processes and products. But since I have yet to read a single comment on this socialcredit list regarding the status of any dimension of the environment, and am therefore led to assume that the environment is of little interest to the list members, I shall not use blue for my remarks.
Since a number of you have commented, some a number of times, on what I innocently started, this will have to be done in two parts. I do not seek further comments on my work on this listserve. You all (well, most of you) seem narrowly focused on your various interpretations of what Douglas was really trying to do, though, of course, was not able to complete in his lifetime. I shall respect (though certainly don't fully understand) your narrow interest.
Best,
Rob George
~~~~~~~~~~
In a message dated 5/11/09 9:51:30 AM, GeorgeCSDS@aol.com writes:
Dear Ellen Brown, and all you Social Crediteers,
Just as Karl Marx, in his mature age, had only contempt for most "Marxists," so C. H. Douglas must be spinning and swearing in his grave at the quibbling and nit-picking of many members of this list for month after month after month, while essentially all of humanity suffers or starves needlessly.
There are two fundamental shortcomings of economic theory and practice. One is the Definition of wealth/money/whatever. The other is the Distribution of same.
It is submitted that Socioeconomic Democracy can and does significantly (and democratically, though that may or may not be of interest to some particular members of this list) resolve or reduce a "wealth" of contemporary serious societal problems caused by the flagrant maldistribution of wealth. It would also facilitate more meaningful and useful definitions of wealth, rapidly.
Following is how this is done.
Introduction to a Democratic Socioeconomic Platform
Robley E. George
Center for the Study of Democratic Societies
www.CenterSDS.com
15 February 2009 >>>>>
In a message dated 5/11/09 2:28:51 PM, johngrawson@hotmail.com writes:
Replying to George, Social Credit is about improving the situatiojn of all, from the legitimately rich to the present poor.
It is NOT about redistribution of artificially scarce wealth.
Regards.
John R.
From my reading of the twists and turns of Douglas' writing and thought, the above is also my general impression of his desire and lifework. And, as with Douglas, I am also concerned with the illegitimately, obscenely and societally harmful rich, as well as with the unnecessarily and unjustly poor. One way or another, all these concerns, to be satisfactorily rectified, will require and result in a redistribution of both "artifically scarce" and actually quite limited planetary wealth and resources.
There once was an old beggar man
Who dined from a ripe garbage can.
But they chased him away
From his elegant cafe;
He embarrassed the Economists' Grand Plan.
In a message dated 5/13/09 3:57:27 PM, wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz writes:
What you propose is not democracy but a socoialist dictatorship. i.e. Communism. This is based on the present monetary system which has failed hence your system will fail too.
Bill McG
On the assumption "socoialist" was intended to be "socialist" (otherwise I am at a loss as to what you are talking about), the following. First, may I attempt to point out that you are incorrect when you write that Socioeconomic Democracy "is not democracy." It is, rather, the essence of democracy -- which is, admittedly, also scary to some, including, evidently, some Social Crediteers. A rereading (or perhaps an initial reading) of my article and referenced material should clarify your confusion.
Secondly, regarding "socialist," it seems there is considerable confusion about the meaning of that term also -- hence, for example, in the USA the Repuglican's indecision as to whether or not to refer to the Dumbocrats as "Socialists." And some, I suppose, would refer to "democracy" as a "dictatorship." Small wonder humanity's in such a mess! As for "communism," where (the hell) did that come from? To be sure, many have observed that Jesus' suggestions anticipated "communism" by a couple millennia, but I don't go there. It would appear that:
The problem is shaping societies
In ways with proper proprieties.
Should it be Capital-ISM,
Or another Barbar-ISM,
Like Social-ISM's 57 Varieties?
As an aside, when my book, Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced Socioeconomic System (Praeger, 2002) came out and was being reviewed by many people with many perspectives, it received only two somewhat "unfavorable" reviews. Both were from "Socialist" organizations, who, clearly just couldn't comprehend what the book and the ideas were all about. It figured.
Finally (I hope), Socioeconomic Democracy is not, necessarily, "based on the present monetary system," and in fact would encourage and facilitate a rapid and fundamentally just redesign (what we engineers like to do) of the various monetary systems confusing and confounding humanity's healthy development. I attempted to (all too briefly) allude to that fact at the beginning of my initial email.
The thing is, it's just "safer" to talk about changing the monetary system than it is to talk about changing the distribution of income, and especially the distribution of wealth in the world, desperate as that is needed. We understand.
In a message dated 5/14/09 4:01:14 AM, terence@pristinelife.com.au writes:
Dear GeorgeCSDS,
Bill McG, I believe, is correct in challenging you on this, but I thought
that you might appreciate an explanation:
I think I speak for all Social Creditors when I say I wholeheartedly
embrace your desire for a minimum amount of purchasing power for each
individual, and indeed that this value should be derived at by a method
which includes democratic approval.
You have correctly inferred that the fair distribution of purchasing power
is the main thing which is missing in our economic systems, and is an
important goal to be pursued in the desired economic reform.
However, this significant part of the solution is only one element of
which the current financial system is well buttressed against.
The distribution of money is one thing, but the nature of money, the
ownership of it, the right to exploit every transaction, the right to
withhold it, and the right to control the industries of the nations
through it (and hence the standard of living of all people), is another
and is more fundamental.
I say MORE fundamental - not to minimise its importance, but to identify
that we are where we are due to the stacking up of a number of layers of
errors, and that the issues regarding the distribution of money are
dependent upon a correct understanding of the nature and ownership of
money.
This, from what I can interpret from your post, has not been addressed here.
I have a question in a similar field for your consideration:
What is the use of canceling the debts of an entire 3rd World nation, if
the mechanism which put them into debt in the first place is not
dismantled?
This will quite likely impose extra sanctions against the 'freed' nation,
and will not correct the underlying, fundamental issue of indebtedness.
The nation will continue to plunge in a negative direction from zero.
The idea that a MAW would help is, I believe, based upon the popular
fallacy that "The poor are poor because the rich are rich."
The governments and media of the industrialized nations have used that one
just recently in their attempt to distract us from the true reasons for
the current financial crisis - by pointing the blame at excessively
overpaid CEOs.
This represents such a minute drop in the ocean that I am surprised both
at the gullibility of the public to swallow it, and at the brazenness of
the 'authorities' to suggest it!
In addressing one of your comments specifically -
If you really think "Automation, computerization and robotization" are
problems, then please, please try to understand that these things are ONLY
problems within the context of the current financial system, where the
only form of the distribution of purchasing power is directly and
indirectly through labour (wages, salaries and dividends), and this
concept was borne of the Marxian fallacy that All wealth is derived
through labour, and the principle erroneously pulled out of context from
the New Testament that "He who does not work, should not eat."
Poverty, as you have correctly suggested, is a distribution problem - NOT,
may I remind you, a problem created by technology (which in actual fact,
has extinguished scarcity - if it ever really existed).
For instance, how can the improvement over 100 years from the cost of
a) 100 days of labour to produce 200 days of food, to
b) 20 days of labour to produce 500 days of food, be considered a problem?
The potential of greater leisure time has been reversed into the term
'unemployment' by restricting the distribution of wealth to only those who
are involved in the production.
Your version of utopia demands from the individual that which he may not
wish to relinquish - it is another Draconian system which does 'good to
you' whether you asked for it or not, and demands you to do good to others
whether you are inclined or not.
This removes the initiative and responsibility away from the individual
and invests it with the State.
This is anti-Christian, anti-democratic, anti-freedom, and treats every
person as incapable of exercising their own judgment. it does not reflect
the reality of human nature or even of nature itself.
Personally, I can appreciate your sentiment that sometimes this listing
tends to get bogged down in nit-picking details, but please excuse us for
being imperfect!
C.H.Douglas understood very well the need for a minimum level of
purchasing power, but showed clearly that all wages were never enough to
buy all production, and that there are other elements of wealth like the
increment of association and the cultural inheritance which we are all, as
members of the human race, entitled to a share.
I encourage you to read further than this list in your endeavor to
understand Douglas, who, in my humble opinion possessed one of the
greatest minds and hearts for social justice since the Incarnation.
regards
Terence Holmes
Terence, your articulate and clarifying comments are sincerely appreciated. As to what "has not been addressed" in my initial introductory (but still lengthy by this list's standards) article on SeD, I fully agree and would reemphasize that you are absolutely correct. "Guilty as charged!" It takes whole books to do otherwise.
You insightfully inquire: "I have a question in a similar field for your consideration:
What is the use of canceling the debts of an entire 3rd World nation, if
the mechanism which put them into debt in the first place is not
dismantled?
This will quite likely impose extra sanctions against the 'freed' nation,
and will not correct the underlying, fundamental issue of indebtedness.
The nation will continue to plunge in a negative direction from zero."
I would satirically respond that about the only purpose I can think of for such action you hypothesize might be to attempt to display to the rest of the world the generosity and "magnanimosity" of the debt-forgiving organization(s), while simultaneously and surreptitiously attempting to increase the stranglehold ever more tightly.
I would also appreciatively respond to your sincere "pleading" implied in your "In addressing one of your comments specifically -
If you really think "Automation, computerization and robotization" are
problems, then please, please try to understand ..."
To this, I would, not satirically but sincerely, reply by reemphasizing what (all) I said in the article, which was: "These problems include (but are by no means limited to) those familiar ones involving [emphasis added]: automation, computerization and robotization ...". I did not say or imply that "auto..., comput... and robot..., as such are necessarily problems, but only that there are problems associated with those aspects of human development. And in fact, it is the harmful economic incentive created by contemporary (yuk) politicosocioeconomic systems that can and do cause the harmful present developments in A,C&R. Your legitimate concern here is one example of the problem. To repeat, both Douglas and I are engineers, and I think it safe to say we are both proud of it. I fully agree with your related following observations.
The tragedy is it's so needless.
To facts, Economists seem heedless.
The technology is there,
With ample to spare,
Yet millions of people go feedless.
Merrily proceeding, you do say "Your version of utopia [I don't consider SeD a 'utopia' by any means, but rather the politicosocioeconomic system just around the corner of expanding human consciousness] demands[?!] from the individual that which he may not wish to relinquish...", to which I would point out that in my introductory article, which evidently put everyone to sleep after (or before) the 10th paragraph, I observed that:
"Variations of SeD. Note that any participant in the democratic political process, who might be opposed to any amount of UGI, for any reason at all, could vote to place the lower bound on universal, societally guaranteed financial assistance at zero. If a majority of voters so voted, it would be the democratic desire of that particular society, at that particular time, to have no UGI.
"Likewise, anyone who might be opposed to some finite limit on allowable personal material wealth, for any reason(s) whatsoever, could and should vote, at election time, to place the upper bound of MAW at infinity. If, for any of a variety of reasons, a majority of the voting public were to prefer and vote to place MAW at infinity, then it would be the democratic desire of that society, at that time, to have no upper bound on personal material wealth.
"Socioeconomic Democracy is thus seen to embrace, present and facilitate all four of the generic variations of democratic socioeconomic systems. That is, there can be democratic societies wherein there is a nonzero UGI and a finite MAW (the standard and most effective form of SeD); zero UGI and finite MAW (a system with many merits!); nonzero UGI and infinite MAW (legendary problems: how and how much to finance the UGI, and who says so?); and finally, zero UGI and infinite MAW (similar to the current situation, but at least then democratically approved, with such skewed and problem-producing wealth maldistribution apparently acceptable). Beyond these four theoretical and fundamental variations of Socioeconomic Democracy are, of course, the wide ranges of particular magnitudes of the UGI and MAW levels, both to be democratically established. ..."
Look; all I'm doing, and have been trying to do for over the last 40 years after I dropped out of a very high tech, highly paid supersecret and "vital" defense "job" is present a democratic way to reduce or resolve a wide variety of very real, painful and utterly unnecessary societal problems confronting a befuddled humanity composed of apparently idiotic and unrepentant capitalists, socialists, libertarians, anarchists and other assorted guys and dolls. Perfection is neither my goal nor humanity's near term destiny, imho. Rapid reduction of unnecessary and loomingly lethal societal problems is.
Let me simply conclude, here, by saying I am happy to see that you folks, or at least some of you folks, seek social justice, to be realized democratically. That's encouraging.
In a message dated 5/14/09 10:40:15 AM, kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
In-Reply-To: <45197.210.1.209.75.1242270962.squirrel@www.pristinelife.com.au>
Hi Terrance.
I cannot tell you the arguments I have had over many years that the
quotation is not " Does not " but "Will not".
And that distortion alone arms the authoritarian with a mighty weapon that
would have us all dig rail tunnels with tea spoons :-(((
And do you really mean a minimum amount of purchasing power, or something
approaching an adequate amount ?
Ken.
After the above extended outburst, let me respond here to Ken by simply observing that it would indeed be "nice" if a democracy would decide what is, and then vote to realize, "an adequate amount" "of purchasing power" for each and every human being. Of course, different folks have, at present, different ideas of what constitutes "an adequate amount." And Lord knows, we don't want to be "socoialists" and deny individual freedom to those who might estimate that an adequate personal income for themselves might be half a billion $/yr or an adequate personal wealth might be $10 billion. Let freedom ring! And let us all attempt to deny the Universal Law of Nature that "Anything, taken to extreme, turns into its opposite."
Folks came from afar just to see
Two Economists who'd agreed to agree.
While the event did take place,
It proved a disgrace.
They agreed one plus one adds to three.
In a message dated 5/14/09 9:22:12 PM, wmklinck@shaw.ca writes:
I do agree that Bill McG. is entirely justified in rejecting the
proposals of Mr. Robley George and the Center for the Study of
Democratic Societies which do not accord with those of C. H. Douglas
and Social Credit. Terence Holmes has done a most creditable work in
providing an explanation of why the two policies are incompatible.
The only point I would like to emphasize is that Douglas did not
provide for a "minimal" amount of purchasing-power but rather for a
sufficiency to allow the consumer fully to access the flow of consumer
goods as they emerge from the productive system. This is a
mathematical issue and is not to be determined by "moral" or
subjective considerations. A minimum annual wage (MAW) is no
solution whatsoever and does not deal with the fundamental defect in
the price system wherein costs and prices are increasingly generated
in excess of purchasing-power. Mr. George gives no indication of
having explored this aspect of the problem and the Social Credit
approach to it. He seems only anxious to introduce his own approach
to these issues. Inasmuch as this is a Social Credit group it would
seem more appropriate if he were to become versed in Social Credit
before advocating for something quite different from it and
incompatible with it.
Sincerely
Wally Klinck
Sigh. As briefly as possible: (1) Douglas did not "provide" either "a minimal amount of purchasing-power" or "a sufficiency to allow the consumer fully to access the flow of consumer goods as they emerge from the productive system." He wanted and strove to realize such, certainly, but was unsuccessful in his lifetime, and never figured out just how to accomplish that. (2) A "minimum annual wage" can be a not unreasonable approximation to sufficient purchasing power for every human being, blah, blah, blah. But a "MAW," as I used in my evidently unread or uncomprehended article, has nothing to do with any of that (except, of course, in that all things are related, and therefore multiply related). A "MAW," as was carefully defined, described and repeatedly used in my article, was and remains a Maximum Allowable Personal Wealth limit, democratically set. (3) Never mind.
No two Economists can think quite the same.
To uniqueness they each stake a claim.
Different Theories abound,
Each peddled as profound.
Unfortunately, they're all a bit lame.
In a message dated 5/15/09 8:18:36 AM, wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz writes:
HI WAllace
Thank you for your support on this issue. The problem as I
see it is a Philosophical one ie the maxim that unless you work at a
recognised "job" and get paid for it then you don't deserve to share in the
plentiful; and manifold "benefits" due to technological advancement. Until
that attitude changes the problem is insolvable as we are seeing at the
moment with the recession which is throwing thousands of people out of work,
thus robbing them of the ability to access the necessities of life by means
of salaries or wages. This would not happen if they had a dividend under an
SC system. I agree with you that we cannot accept any system of government
that assumes it knows better than we do as to what is best for us. We have
to have the freedom to "stuff things up" in our lives because it is only out
of adversity that solutions to problems are developed and obtained.
Bill McG
I almost agree, though just how and where, precisely, that "dividend" comes from is clearly unclear.
Said the Economist with head up his ass,
As he lectured in front of his class:
"My Theories are great;
They seal mankind's fate."
Others said he simply passed gas.
In a message dated 5/15/09 8:19:00 AM, wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz writes:
HI Ken
That point is important Ken. "Will not change" rather than
"Cannot change" is the operator. Our main problem is that there are none so
deaf as them who do not want to hear and none so blind as them as does not
want to see [a north of England saying]. I have no answer to that problem.
Bill McG
What's to do?
There really is no paradox,
Said the man while buying some locks.
"I'll secure all the doors
On both of my floors,
Since my home's a split-level cardboard box."
In a message dated 5/15/09 8:19:18 AM, kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
In-Reply-To: <734A856D-1026-4E21-9F9E-DE857C899FF4@shaw.ca>
Hi Wally.
I agree with you that the amount requiring to be distributed as income is
a product of the quantity of wealth requiring to be distributed, at any
time.
My own debates with those who seek a minimum income have fallen foul of
those who would not countenance any disturbance of the current methods of
money creation, which a proper national dividend would.
For them, one reform possible, Two reforms a change too far :-(((
Ken.
Again, "There are two fundamental shortcomings of economic theory and practice. One is the Definition of wealth/money/whatever. The other is the Distribution of same." And of course wealth and money are not the same.
Politicians are fools, we all know.
We don't like it yet still it seems so.
But an Economics Ph.D.
Gives one license to be
Dumber by far than politicians would go.
~~~~~~~~~~~
For conclusion of these "Comments on Comments," please see:
Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments, Part II)
**************
Recession-proof vacation ideas. Find free things to do in the U.S. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002)
|
Reply to this message