eListas Logo
   The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
Home > My Lists > socialcredit > Messages

 Message Index 
 Messages from 6721 to 6780 
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
RE: 100 percent re John G R
Re: 100 percent re Franšois
Re: Re: 100 percen Graeme T
RE: 100 percent re John Her
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
Re: question regar Jamie Wa
RE: 100 percent re John G R
Re: 100 percent re William
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: 100 percent re William
Re: Re: 100 percen Graeme T
Re: 100 percent re John Her
Re: 100 percent re Kenneth
Re: question regar Kenneth
Re: Signs of the T Kenneth
Re: Re: 100 percen Joe Thom
RE: question regar John G R
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
Re: Re: 100 percen Graeme T
Re: question regar Jamie Wa
Re: question regar Jamie Wa
Re: 100 percent re william_
RE: question regar John G R
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
Re: 100 percent re William
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Signs of the T GeorgeCS
Re: Signs of the T GeorgeCS
RE: Signs of the T John G R
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Signs of the T Kenneth
Re: True belief ra William
The Heart of Frede Arian F.
Re: Signs of the T William
Student Debt in Ca Wallace
Student debt in Ca Wallace
Re: Signs of the T William
RE: Signs of the T John G R
RE: Student Debt i John G R
Re: Student Debt i William
Re: Student Debt i Kenneth
a "well-researched william_
RE: a "well-resear John G R
Re: a "well-resear Jamie Wa
Re: a "well-resear william_
Re: 100 percent re Brock Mo
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Student Debt i Wallace
Re: Student Debt i William
Re: Student Debt i William
Re: Signs of the T Kenneth
Why jobs disappear Per Almg
Re: Why jobs disap Wallace
Re: Why jobs disap william_
RE: Why jobs disap John G R
RE: Re: Why jobs d John G R
Re: Why jobs disap terence
 << Prev. 60 | Next 28 >>
Main page    Messages | Post | Files | Database | Polls | Events | My Preferences
Message 6747     < Previous | Next >
Reply to this message
Subject:Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times
Date:Monday, May 18, 2009  13:46:00 (+0100)
From:Kenneth Palmerton <kenpalmerton @................uk>

In-Reply-To: <001f01c9d77c$ca812e70$c882c67c@HomePC>
Hi William.

My rejection of Socialism is not on the basis that it cannot work, but 
that the price in Human liberty is too high.

As for the failure of MOST Governments to regulate our finance, I believe 
that is down to too many of our legislators being bought and paid for by 
the money power :-(


-------- Original Message --------

From: "William Hugh McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 17:52:11 +1200

HI Ken
     I don't have any quibble with your arguments, but I do have a long 
standing objections to :Socialism because I believe it is unworkable, and 
gives the impression that everyone should have free access certain 
necessities of life without contributing to society as a whole. I, like 
have an inbuilt resistance to government "control" over every aspect of 
lives particularly its ineffective management of finance.
   Bill McG
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kenneth Palmerton" <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Cc: <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times

> In-Reply-To: <000e01c9d68e$420a2130$4982c67c@HomePC>
> Hi William.
> I agree with you that in a civilised society a sustainable claim to our
> sufficient, if not equitable share of what we are able to produce, is one
> of the marks of that civilisation.
> The eternal constraint upon that sufficiency is the effort made by
> humanity in converting natural resources into consumable goods and
> services.
> The question needs to be asked, how can we guarantee any particular level
> in advance of knowing what it is we have available to distribute ?
> One valuable contribution to this debate for me was the idea that in fact
> a large proportion of what we had available was never monetised and made
> available. An old SC insight, shared in medieval times even by some of 
> bookmen.
> The reason why I personally prefer the name "Dividend" is because it
> implies something an individual is entitled to, not any sort of 
> Though I fail to understand why some people, and now you seem to ally
> yourself with them, who totally denigrate the place of Government in our
> attempts to make our individual needs constitute a market. Government
> "owns" nothing, it is an essential link that is, or should be, of our
> making.
> Although I think I understand the point you make about unscrupulous
> employers ability to exploit a basic income, I believe you to be wrong.
> Though it might take a little time for employees to throw off their 
> attitudes, a basic income would in fact hand them the most powerful anti
> discrimination tool they have ever had.
> For the first time it will allow a worker to refuse any employment on
> conditions or remuneration that is not to their liking. For the first 
> ever it will allow the classical theories of a market to apply. It will
> allow the theories of supply and demand to apply without crushing the 
> weak.
> This depends of course upon our money system being reformed in a manner
> that reflects our ability to produce. Without debt. For we must remember
> that the product of industry is goods and services, not money. So how can
> you argue that such reforms would mean that all this would belong to
> Government ?
> To repeat, Government own NOTHING. And how you can call such a 
> "Socialistic" I do not know. For this argument destroys the bedrock of
> Socialism totally, the Labour theory of value.
> Such a possibility requires a political reorientation that is NOT being
> proposed here.
> One of the issues that I have had to counter over many years is the one
> about "Handouts". Since at least the 1940s in my own party there have 
> some who have agonised about the effect upon production if all had enough
> to live on through their dividend.
> Time has allowed us to hammer out the likely realities, Some WILL laze
> their time away, the effects I feel would not last, for some do that now.
> Most will turn to work that they find rewarding, with society probably
> being better off with better quality goods, and more contented workers,
> for what we propose prevents no one from topping up their dividend with
> whatever the market can provide by way of opportunities.
> The argument about who will do the dirty jobs also engaged our thoughts.
> With a reformed money system it would be possible to offer financial
> rewards sufficient to make it attractive, and until someone came forward
> to do them under conditions that were acceptable. Why should a brain
> surgeon be paid more that a road sweeper? as society needs both of them,
> and with an enhanced financial reward for keeping our roads clean we may
> even come to respect them more :-))
> Its a complicated debate William, and I don't think we have exhausted all
> the possible ramifications such reforms could bring, good and bad.
> Ken.
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: "William Hugh McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 13:24:14 +1200
> HI Ken
>          Good points, but under SC everyone will have acess to a National
> dividend which should give them some income. However this will not be
> sufficient to provide all the necessities of life I am still workiong on
> the
> problem of ensuring that everyone has a minimum sustainable income. This
> cannot be a gauranteed minimum income provided by the government, that
> cannot be accepted because it is too easy for unethical employers to
> exploit. That was proven in the early days of the industrial revolution
> when
> there was provision for those who could not obtain an income sufficient
> for
> subsistance living to be compensated from a " Poor fund" maintained by 
> local authorities from rates etc. All that happened was that employers
> simply reduced wages to a minimum level so that all employees were forced
> to
> get subsidies from that fund. Local authorities just increased rates to
> provide for that fund. It was a blatent case of exploitation and
> eventually
> the government stepped in and abolished the system under pressure from
> manufacturers who were being assessed at ever increasing local rates. The
> greed of the
> early industrialists undermined the whole system. No government could 
> accept any form of gruaranteed income unless every bit of earnings from
> every industry and commercial enterprise was considered GOVERNMENT INCOME
> and the government than allocated this income to the enterprises on the
> basis of earning capacity after taking a percentage from the bulk of the
> income for its own purposes that would include allocating an income to
> every
> citizen from those profits. I certainly could not accept this form of
> socialist behavior because of its long term effects on the will of the
> general population to work efficiently for the good of all. I don't have 
> solution to the problem you have set me yet, perhaps some of the other
> people in the forum can offer one.
>       Bill McG
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Kenneth Palmerton" <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Cc: <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 8:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times
>> In-Reply-To: <002801c9d5fa$0c4c5840$8b82c67c@HomePC>
>> Hi William.
>> Certainly the "Compensated price" has not been fully explored as a means
>> of augmenting a deficient income. But it will not work where there is no
>> income at all :-(
>> As for orthodox economists, in general they go bananas when it is
>> suggested that goods can be sold at less than cost, which is what we
>> "risk" if it is suggested that we have retail prices reduced.
>> They generally have pat answers like the overriding need for "Hard
>> currency" that some east european nations had when they sold us cars at
>> less than cost for instance.
>> Radical solutions to common problems are hard for some to take in I fear
>> :-(
>> Ken.
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> From: "William Hugh McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>> Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 19:43:40 +1200
>> HI Wallace
>>           There is a perfectly valid alternative to the dividend system
>> that was touched on by Douglas namely a supplementary price subsidy to
>> keep
>> prices down  paid from the same source that would furnish the National
>> dividend. This of course would be outlawed by GATT, but nevertheless I
>> believe that GATT would find it difficult to oppose the move if it
> applied
>> to foodstuffs. Even GATT agreements cannot be enforced if a subsidy is
>> designed to alieviate starvation among people who cannot afford socalled
>> "market force prices " for food. I sincerly believe that Douglas 
>> that both a dividend and subsidies should be used to enable people to
>> access
>> the necessities of life like food, shelter and clothing if necessary. do
>> you
>> have any opinion on that aspect of SC
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Wallace Klinck" <wmklinck@shaw.ca>
>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 10:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times
>> 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
>> On 13-May-09, at 9:16 PM, terence@pristinelife.com.au wrote:
>>> 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  
>>> 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  
>>> 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  
>>> 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  
>>> 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  
>>> 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  
>>> and invests it with the State.
>>> This is anti-Christian, anti-democratic, anti-freedom, and treats  
>>> 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  
>>> 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  
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>>>  From: GeorgeCSDS@aol.com
>>>>  To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>>>>  Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 7:14 AM
>>>>  Subject: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times
>>>>  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  
>>>> 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
>>>>  Introduction
>>>>  The purpose of this communication is to introduce a Democratic
>>>> Socioeconomic Platform, in search of a Democratic Political Party.
>>>>  The purpose of this Democratic Socioeconomic Platform is to put  
>> a
>>>> new, fundamentally just, democratic and systemically consistent
>>>> political platform capable of, when democratically implemented,
>>>> satisfactorily resolving or significantly reducing a wide variety of
>>>> contemporary serious societal problems, as well as effectively
>> enhancing
>>>> the General Welfare of All Citizens of a Democratic Society.
>>>>  Socioeconomic Democracy, which is the essence of the proposed  DSeP,
>> can
>>>> be viewed as engaging in Transformational Politics, that is, an
>>>> evolutionary politics that consciously, openly, honestly,
> forthrightly,
>>>> publicly, peacefully, democratically and successfully works to  
>>>> Synergetic Inclusive Societal Improvement.  It will be seen that
>>>> Socioeconomic Democracy contributes significantly to the Positive
>>>> Empowerment and Healthy Development of all Participants of a
> Democratic
>>>> Society.
>>>>  Specifically, Socioeconomic Democracy (SeD) is a theoretical and
>>>> practical socioeconomic system wherein there exist both some form and
>>>> amount of locally appropriate Universally Guaranteed Personal Income
>>>> (UGI) and some form and amount of locally appropriate Maximum
> Allowable
>>>> Personal Wealth (MAW), with both the lower bound on personal material
>>>> poverty and the upper bound on personal material wealth set and
>> adjusted
>>>> democratically by all participants of a democratic society.
>>>>  The definitive document describing Socioeconomic Democracy is the
> book
>>>> Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced Socioeconomic System (Praeger,
>>>> 2002) [1].  The website of the Center for the Study of Democratic
>>>> Societies provides a wealth of further information regarding
>>>> Socioeconomic Democracy [2].  The specifically defined idea of
>>>> Socioeconomic Democracy was first presented in this writer_s initial,
>>>> self-published book in 1972 [3].  A far more fully justified and
>>>> developed exposition of the Democratic Socioeconomic Platform
>> introduced
>>>> here was first presented in the Pelican Web [4], and is now
>> conveniently
>>>> available on the CSDS website [5].
>>>>  The subject of Socioeconomic Democracy is discussed on a growing
>> number
>>>> of websites, Internet newsletters, e-journals, and social and
>>>> professional networks, locatable by the usual procedures.  See, for
>>>> example, [6 _ 22].  A sampling of supportive or related material for
>>>> the various ideas of Socioeconomic Democracy may be found in the much
>>>> abbreviated further reading list [23-40].
>>>>  In this material and elsewhere will be found anthropological,
>>>> historical, philosophical, psychological, religious and human rights
>>>> justifications for various locally appropriate forms of Socioeconomic
>>>> Democracy.
>>>>  Numerous practical political approximations to the ideal theoretical
>>>> democratic socioeconomic system model have already been outlined or
>>>> detailed.  One simple, obvious and meritorious practical political
>>>> approximation is characterized by different political parties
>> advocating
>>>> different amounts for the two crucial socioeconomic boundary
>> parameters,
>>>> with the _winning_ political party or coalition then implementing
>>>> their particular understanding of the General Will of the democratic
>>>> society.  Another not-unreasonable political approximation to
>>>> universally guaranteed income might be guaranteed income for all
>>>> citizens over and/or under certain age limits.
>>>>  Striking similarities and two intriguing minor differences between
> SeD
>>>> and Zakat, one of the Five Pillars of Islam, that embodies the  
>>>> of Islami (Psycho-Politico-Socio-)Economics, have been indicated and
>>>> internationally discussed.  Simply developing this relationship
>>>> logically could facilitate considerable progress.
>>>>  Relative costs and benefits studies for the four basic forms of  SeD,
>> as
>>>> well as important considerations of the effect of variations in the
>>>> particular magnitudes of the democratically set tolerable bounds on
>>>> personal material poverty and personal material wealth have likewise
>>>> been provided.  System realizability, feasibility and implementation
>>>> requirements have also been identified and shown to be quite
>>>> satisfiable.  Again, essentially all that is required is a thoughtful
>>>> democratic society.
>>>>  Essential Aspects of Socioeconomic Democracy
>>>>  We begin by examining each of SeD_s democratically set bounds, i.e.,
>>>> UGI and MAW.  Following that is an important yet simple
> differentiation
>>>> between Qualitative Democracy and Quantitative Democracy.  The  
>>>> justified by elementary Social or Public Choice theory, is used to
>> allow
>>>> society to democratically decide the amounts of these two fundamental
>>>> economic bounds, UGI and MAW.  Some of the many possible theoretical
>>>> variations of SeD are then outlined.
>>>>  After this introduction to the essential elements of SeD, Economic
>>>> Incentive and Self-Interest within and induced by such a system are
>>>> considered.  Following a brief review of the strong, positive and
>>>> societally beneficial economic incentive created by Socioeconomic
>>>> Democracy, we then consider the possibilities of democratically
>>>> resolving, or at least significantly reducing, simultaneously,
>>>> humanity_s many painful, interrelated and utterly unnecessary
>>>> socioeconomic problems.
>>>>  UGI.  With Socioeconomic Democracy, each Participant of the
> Democratic
>>>> Society would understand that some form and amount of a  
>>>> determined minimum amount of societally guaranteed personal income or
>>>> financial support would always be available.  Put another way,  
>>>> would guarantee each citizen some minimum amount of purchasing power,
>>>> one way or another.
>>>>  To be sure, this basic idea dates back at least to antiquity, and
> has,
>>>> in recent decades, been increasingly explored and richly developed by
>>>> numerous individuals, organizations and governments at all levels.
> The
>>>> Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) and the United States Basic Income
>>>> Guarantee (USBIG) organizations are but two of many dedicated and
>>>> productive groups exploring, advocating and introducing the general
>>>> concepts around the world.
>>>>  Depending upon available resources and the degree and direction of
>>>> technological development, this democratically set, societally
>>>> guaranteed minimum income for all could be sufficient to satisfy the
>>>> typical individual's minimum subsistence and/or personal healthy
> growth
>>>> needs.  Alternatively, other societies might democratically decide to
>>>> set the guaranteed amount at a partial subsistence level, for a
> variety
>>>> of legitimate reasons usually generated by particular circumstances.
>>>>  There are, of course, as many different names and forms of UGI
>> (ranging
>>>> at least from Basic Income (BI) to Negative Income Tax (NIT) and
>>>> including Guaranteed Livable Income (GLI)) as there are reasons to
>>>> establish some form of UGI, or, for that matter, as there are ways
>>>> proposed to fund different forms of UGI.  Indeed, a democratically  
>>>> UGI could logically be called and considered Guaranteed Sustainable
>>>> Development for All.  An increasingly popular public policy
> perspective
>>>> referred to as _Socioeconomic Affirmative Action_ is clearly
>>>> related.
>>>>  MAW.  Further, with Socioeconomic Democracy, all participants of the
>>>> democratic socioeconomic system would understand that all personal
>>>> material wealth above the democratically determined and established
>>>> maximum allowable amount would, by due process, be transferred out of
>>>> their ownership and control in a manner specified by the
> democratically
>>>> designed and implemented laws of the land, and transferred in
>> accordance
>>>> with other laws of the land to fund, say, various forms of  
>>>> Development for All.
>>>>  Do note that all the wealth above the democratically determined
>> maximum
>>>> allowable amount, now to be devoted (after SeD is established) to the
>>>> sustainable development of all, could be either transferred in some
>>>> sense directly to a democratically elected government to be  deployed
> as
>>>> democratically determined, or be dispersed and deployed as the  
>>>> wealth owners desire and think best, satisfying, of course, a few
>>>> reasonable laws, rules and regulations on the matter.
>>>>  This latter procedure has many merits, of which one would be that  
>>>> present wealth holders might in general be expected to more fully
>>>> appreciate their _earned_ opportunity to direct their democratically
>>>> determined excess wealth toward focusing on specific societal  
>>>> that particularly interest and concern them personally.
>>>>  Yet again, this _privilege_ to personally deploy one_s
>>>> _excess_ wealth for the betterment of society, as personally
>>>> preferred, could be extended to all those who had personal wealth in
>>>> excess of the initially established, democratically decided MAW  limit
>> (a
>>>> _Grandfather_ clause, as it were), while all excess personal wealth
>>>> periodically trimmed off after the system is well established could  
>>>> directed toward a democratic government_s General Welfare Fund.
>>>>  Perhaps needless to say, the primary benefit of Socioeconomic
>> Democracy
>>>> to enhance societal well being and the General Welfare is the  result
> of
>>>> the economic incentive the democratically set MAW limit creates,  and
>> not
>>>> the amount of wealth periodically trimmed off and donated toward the
>>>> worthy cause of insuring sustainable development for all.  (But
>>>> everything helps.)  This Economic Incentive is discussed below.
>>>>  Democracy.  There is a simple procedure by which each individual
>>>> participant in a democratic society (or each member of a democratic
>>>> legislative body or committee) can directly vote her or his  
>>>> preference for an amount, magnitude, or quantity of something in
>>>> question, with the democratically determined, societally or
>>>> legislatively desired amount unequivocally resulting.  As if to
>>>> emphasize the significance of the discovery, Duncan Black and
> Economics
>>>> Nobelist Kenneth Arrow independently and more or less simultaneously
>>>> established the important yet simple mathematical result and  
>>>> more than a half century ago.
>>>>  Their now-classic Social Choice contributions have provided the
> theory
>>>> which shows that the Median Value of the participants' (citizens' or
>>>> legislators_) Personal Preference Distribution is the amount the
>>>> democratic society or body, as a whole, is "for" -- assuming the
>> minimal
>>>> operational _one participant, one vote; majority rule_
>>>> decision-making process.  Roughly speaking, this means that the
>>>> democratically determined amount is such that half the voters want
> that
>>>> much or more while the other half want that much or less.
>>>>  Note that the objective is not, definitely not, and should never be
>>>> _equality, in and of everything_ (whatever that might mean, and
>>>> neglecting its impossibility of realization), but rather acceptably
>>>> bounded inequality of essentials, with the particular democratic
>> society
>>>> democratically determining the degree of inequality it will  tolerate
> or
>>>> does desire.
>>>>  In passing, we note that Rush Limbaugh, the popular self-designated
>>>> _Doctor of Democracy,_ will undoubtedly meet this concept of an
>>>> advanced functioning democracy with high approval.  This should be
>>>> especially the case considering Rush_s long-expressed concern
>>>> regarding his apprehension about public discussion of excessive and
>>>> innovative CEO _Compensation Packages_ and the many embarrassing
>>>> problems such pumped-up public attention exposes.
>>>>  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  
>>>> 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  
>>>> and who says so?); and finally, zero UGI and infinite MAW (similar to
>>>> the current situation, but at least then democratically approved,  
>>>> such skewed and problem-producing wealth maldistribution apparently
>>>> acceptable).  Beyond these four theoretical and fundamental  
>>>> of Socioeconomic Democracy are, of course, the wide ranges of
>> particular
>>>> magnitudes of the UGI and MAW levels, both to be democratically
>>>> established.
>>>>  Perhaps needless to observe, the same voting procedure (Quantitative
>>>> Democracy) can be used to democratically resolve a wide variety of
>> other
>>>> serious societal questions concerning magnitudes of important  
>>>> parameters, arising in many different realms and levels of society.
>>>> These might include, for example, a societally set upper bound on
>>>> allowable personal income and/or an upper bound on the allowable  
>>>> of maximum-to-minimum income, or wealth, whether in a company,
>>>> corporation, or country.  Thus, many societies, all fundamentally
>>>> democratic, could nevertheless display their individual democratic
>>>> differences.
>>>>  Economic Incentives Created by Socioeconomic Democracy
>>>>  Consider first the economic incentive created by a democratically  
>>>> Maximum Allowable Personal Wealth limit.  We have observed earlier
>> that,
>>>> with SeD, all wealth above the democratically set upper bound on
>>>> personal material wealth could either be given to the government as
>>>> taxes (to either enhance the General Welfare Fund or be mandated for
>>>> specific projects and purposes) or be disposed of as the present
> wealth
>>>> _owners_ so choose (again, satisfying reasonable, democratically
>>>> established societal restrictions, suggestions and opportunities).
>>>>  In either case, all rational, self-interested and insatiable (as the
>>>> current dominant-though-fading neoclassical economic assumptions/
> theory
>>>> goes), extremely wealthy, and certainly law-abiding, participants  in
>> the
>>>> democratic society with its democratic socioeconomic system, who  
>>>> desire increased personal material wealth, would be economically
>>>> motivated, that is, have economic incentive, to actively and  
>>>> work to increase the welfare and well-being of the less well-off
>> members
>>>> of society.  Only in this manner can these (still-wealthiest)
>>>> participants persuade a majority of the citizens/participants of the
>>>> democratic society to see the wisdom in and democratically vote to
>> raise
>>>> somewhat the legal upper limit on allowable personal material  wealth
> --
>>>> everything considered.
>>>>  There is, in fact, strong economic incentive for those who are at or
>>>> near the democratically set upper bound on allowable personal  
>>>> wealth to be successful in improving the General Welfare.  For if the
>>>> current level of MAW is not producing sufficient improvement in the
>>>> General Welfare, as democratically determined, there is the
> possibility
>>>> and probability that the democratic society will democratically  
>>>> to reduce the MAW limit even more, in order to enlist even more
>>>> still-wealthy participants (with their unique and valuable know-how,
>>>> contacts and _can-do_-ness), and their extra wealth, in the proper
>>>> and noble task of seriously improving the welfare and well being of
> all
>>>> society, humanity and posterity.
>>>>  The ultimate effect of such economic incentive, as experienced by
>> those
>>>> at or near the democratically set upper bound on MAW, will be to
>>>> transform their very real, primitive and originally quite justified
>>>> (individual survivability) concept of _self-interest_ to instead,
>>>> and in effect, interpret and include larger and larger segments of
>>>> society and humanity as _self,_ insofar as calculations of
>>>> _self-interest_ are concerned.
>>>>  This is because such a perspective will be appealing to that
>>>> still-functioning, primitive, individual-ego-informed self-interest.
>>>> Put another way, global and higher consciousness will be increasingly
>>>> appreciated, encouraged and demonstrated with the emerging  
>>>> of the very real benefit to personal self-interest that results from
>>>> considerations of inclusive _self-interest._
>>>>  Note also that a not-insignificant amount of this effect would be
>>>> manifest, even if some particular democratic society democratically
>>>> decided and voted to initially establish the upper limit on allowable
>>>> personal material wealth (MAW) at, say, twice the amount of wealth
>>>> presently possessed by the currently Richest of the Rich.
> Verification
>>>> of this observation is an amusing exercise.
>>>>  Another informative and amusing exercise is to consider the  effects
>> and
>>>> ramifications of many different levels of MAW, democratically set in,
>>>> say, contemporary United States of America -- though the general idea
>>>> is, of course, applicable everywhere. For example, consider what
>>>> different situations would obtain in the USA (as well as globally,  
>>>> that matter) if the personal MAW limit in the USA in 2012 were
>>>> democratically set at, say, $1tn, $700bn (an acknowledgement of  
>>>> contribution to public discussion), $100bn, $50bn (an  acknowledgement
>> of
>>>> Bernie_s contribution to public discussion), $10bn, $1bn, $500m, and
>>>> even $100m (also known as a _Texas Unit_).
>>>>  A further question might be: Just what does the Gentle Reader
>>>> think/feel
>>>> the MAW limit should be in the USA?  Still another, as instructive,
>>>> question is: Just what does the thoughtful reader think/feel the MAW
>>>> limit ultimately would be, if democratically established in the USA  
>>>> 2012?
>>>>  The economic incentives created by various forms of UGI have long
> been
>>>> theoretically examined, practically tested and adequately documented.
>>>> The results are easily available, though anyone not familiar with the
>>>> subject could conveniently begin with BIEN and USBIG.  And, of  
>>>> there_s the good ol_ Alaska Permanent Fund!
>>>>  Certainly, except for Tom Paine and, actually, Thales, no proposal
> for
>>>> some form of UGI has ever yet been seriously linked directly to  
>>>> democracy or some form of upper bound on allowable personal material
>>>> wealth.  Hence, in spite of its promise and potential, the present
>> state
>>>> of this biologically and psychologically very sick planet.
>>>>  Insights parallel to those regarding the democratically set MAW
> limit,
>>>> above, can be obtained by considering implications and  ramifications
> of
>>>> various possible specific, democratically set UGI amounts and
>>>> approximations, in the USA and elsewhere, again in 2012.  If one were
>>>> _totally_ against any universally guaranteed income for all, one
>>>> could/would/should vote to place the UGI at $0/yr.  For different
>>>> reasons, different arguments could easily be produced to justify
>>>> consideration of, say, numerical values of personal UGI ranging from
>>>> $0/yr, $1/yr, $1/mo, $1/d (amount one-sixth of humanity tries to live
>>>> on), $100/mo, $200/mo (roughly comparable to the Alaska Permanent  
>>>> dividend), $10k/yr, $100k/yr, $1m/yr, and, say, $657m/yr (which was
> the
>>>> average _compensation_ of the _top_ 20 private equity and hedge
>>>> fund managers in 2006, according to the continuingly informative and
>>>> delightfully read Rosa Brooks).
>>>>  The incentives, economic and otherwise, created by establishing  
>>>> two crucial economic bounds, i.e., UGI and MAW, democratically, will,
>>>> among many other desirable developments, significantly encourage and
>>>> enhance the informed political participation of all citizens in their
>>>> finally meaningfully democratic society -- here assumed a positive  
>>>> progressive political development.  This, again, is basically  because
>> of
>>>> very real and undeniable self-interest in all of us.  After all, the
>>>> only way to democratically establish the UGI and MAW limits is to
>>>> participate in the political process that would change the de facto
>>>> settings from zero and infinity, respectively, to magnitudes more
>>>> suitable to a sustainable democratic society.
>>>>  Democratic Resolution of Socioeconomic Problems
>>>>  As is sketched above and described at length in the referenced
>>>> material,
>>>> Socioeconomic Democracy would thus create economic incentive and
>> provide
>>>> necessary funds to encourage and effect significant reduction in an
>>>> almost surprisingly diverse array of unnecessary yet painful,
> expensive
>>>> and lethal individual, societal and global problems.
>>>>  These problems include (but are by no means limited to) those
> familiar
>>>> ones involving: automation, computerization and robotization; budget
>>>> deficits and national debts; bureaucracy; maltreatment of children;
>>>> crime and punishment; development, sustainable or otherwise; ecology,
>>>> environment, resources and pollution; education; the elderly; the
>>>> feminine majority; inflation; international conflict; intranational
>>>> conflict; involuntary employment; involuntary unemployment; labor
>> strife
>>>> and strikes; sick medical and health care; military metamorphosis;
>>>> natural disasters; pay justice; planned obsolescence; political
>>>> participation; poverty; racism; sexism; untamed technology; and the
>>>> General Welfare.
>>>>  It should be kept in mind that these highly desirable outcomes of
>>>> reduced societal problems are not simply _Goals for a Better World._
>>>> Rather, they are the direct and predictable ramifications of adopting
>>>> various forms of locally appropriate Socioeconomic Democracy.
>>>>  As indicated earlier, the individual, extremely wealthy people (all
>>>> those democratic participants in the democratic society who are at or
>>>> near the democratically set personal MAW limit), with their different
>>>> skills and knowledge sets, if serious about their self-interest
>>>> maximization, can all be expected to utilize and apply their
>>>> gifts/talents toward reducing or resolving the problems of others.
> And
>>>> wanting to do so efficiently and effectively, these individual, still
>>>> extremely wealthy participants of their particular democratic
> societies
>>>> can further be expected to devote their gifts/talents to reducing
> those
>>>> classes of problems that particularly interest them -- for any of a
>>>> variety of reasons.
>>>>  This is one of a number of reasons why so many different societal
>>>> problems will all be seriously addressed and significantly reduced,
>>>> because they will all be addressed simultaneously, synergistically  
>>>> therefore successfully.  Whatever societal problems are not addressed
>>>> adequately by the publicly motivated _private sector,_ as
>>>> democratically determined, can and should be successfully addressed  
>>>> the democratic government, which will now have available sufficient
>>>> funds and motivation to do so, appreciatively provided by the
>>>> democratically set MAW limit.
>>>>  This might appear, at first glance, revolutionary.  But remember;
> only
>>>> in this way can these still wealthiest members of society persuade a
>>>> majority of society to democratically raise the upper limit on
> personal
>>>> MAW, which the law-abiding wealthiest of society presumably still
>>>> desire.  Far more common, it is predicted, will be the increasing
>> number
>>>> of those who now see the undeniable and inviting light of a  glorious
>> new
>>>> day beckoning from, dare it be said, the end of humanity_s
>>>> terrifyingly dark Tunnel of Conscious Transformation.
>>>>  References and Links
>>>>  [1]          Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced Socioeconomic
>> System.
>>>> Westport: Praeger, 2002. (Praeger Studies on the 21st Century.)
>>>>  [2]          Center for the Study of Democratic Societies:
>>>>       <http://www.CenterSDS.com>;
>>>>  [3]          Common Sense II: On the Further Design of Government in
>>>> General. Jericho (NY): Exposition University Press, 1972.
>>>>  [4]          An earlier draft of this DSeP was first published on  
>>>> PelicanWeb (July & August, 2008), in its two parts.
>>>>       DSeP, Part I
>>>>       <http://pelicanweb.org/solisustv04n07george1.html>;
>>>>       DSeP, Part II
>>>>       <http://pelicanweb.org/solisustv04n08george2.html>;
>>>>  [5]          _A Democratic Socioeconomic Platform, in search of a
>>>> Democratic Political Party_ (the complete, single pdf version)
>>>>       <http://www.CenterSDS.com/DSeP.html>;
>>>>  [6]          _Socioeconomic Democracy and Sustainable Development_
>>>>  Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence, v.3, n.12 (Dec. 2007).
>>>>       <http://pelicanweb.org/solisustv03n12george.html>;
>>>>  [7]          _Socioeconomic Democracy and Sustainable Development_
>>>>       <http://www.development4all.org/frameset-4.html>;
>>>>  [8]          _Socioeconomic Democracy & Energy_
>>>>  Synthesis/Regeneration.  No. 43 (Spring 2007).
>>>>       <http://www.greens.org/s-r/43/43-17.html>;
>>>>  [9]          _Share the Wealth _ with Socioeconomic Democracy_
>>>>  Physics _ Economy _ New Energy.  (Mar. 2007).
> <http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/03/share_the_wealth_with_socioeco.html
>>>> >
>>>>  [10]     _Socioeconomic Democracy_
>>>>  New Paradigm. v.1, n.2 (Sep. 2006).
>>>>       <http://www.newparadigmjournal.com/Sept2006/socioeconomic.htm>;
>>>>  [11]     _Socioeconomic Democracy: A Democratic Basic Income
>>>> Guarantee._ Paper presented at the USBIG (US Basic Income Guarantee)
>>>> Congress. New York, March 2005.
>>>>       <http://www.usbig.net/papers.html>;
>>>>  [12]     _Utopia or Oblivion_
>>>>  Future Positive. (Mar. 2004).
>>>>       <http://futurepositive.synearth.net/2004/03/05>;
>>>>  [13]     _SOCIOECONOMIC DEMOCRACY: A Realizable Democratic
>>>> Socioeconomic Utopia._ Utopian World Championship 2004.
>>>>       <http://www.soc.nu/utopian/competitors/prop_final.asp?ID=227>;
>>>>  [14]     _Socioeconomic Democracy._  ahp Perspective,  Association
>>>> for Humanistic Psychology,  Dec. 2003/Jan. 2004 (17-19).
>>>>  [15]     _Futures of Socioeconomic Democracy._  Journal of Futures
>>>> Studies, v.5, n.4.  Tamsui (Taiwan), Center for Futures Studies, May
>>>> 2001 (31-48).
>>>>  [16]     _Socioeconomic Democracy and the State of Welfare._
>>>> Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy,
>>>> v.5, n.3.  London, Carfax Publishing, Nov. 1999 (469-484).
>>>>  [17]     _Socioeconomic Democracy: A Synergetic Amalgam of New and
>>>> Ancient Ideas in Political Economy._  Paper presented at the 5th
>>>> International Congress of the International Society for
>>>> Intercommunication of New Ideas (ISINI), Mexico City, August 1999.   
>>>> Ortiz, Edgar and Alejandra Cabello (eds.), Economic Issues and
>>>> Globalization: Theory and Evidence I: Universidad Nacional Autonoma  
>>>> Mexico, 1999.  Article essentially reproduced at CSDS website:
>>>>       <http://www.centersds.com/briefintro.htm>;
>>>>  [18]     _Socioeconomic Democracy and Islami Economics._ Some
>>>> Significant 21st Century Trends and Issues: Poverty, Population,  
>>>> and Sustainability, Dr. Ikram Azam, ed. Islamabad: Pakistan
> Futuristics
>>>> Institute (PFI), 1998.
>>>>  [19]     "Socioeconomic Democracy." In Pak Futurist 6. PFI, Sep/Oct
>>>> 1992.
>>>>  [20]     "The Developing World and Socioeconomic Democracy." Paper
>>>> presented at First International Pakistan Futuristics Institute
>>>> (PFI)/World Future Studies Federation (WFSF) Conference entitled The
>>>> Future of Democracy in the Developing World, Islamabad, October 1992.
>>>> Later in PFI/WFSF First International Conference Special Souvenir.
>>>> Islamabad, October 1992.
>>>>  [21]     _An Introduction to Socioeconomic Democracy._ Journal of
>>>> World Education, v.16, n.3. Association of World Education, July 1985
>>>> (7-10).
>>>>  [22]     For a more complete historical development and  presentation
>> of
>>>> the ideas of Socioeconomic Democracy, starting in the early 1970s,
>>>> please see CSDS/Bibliography:
>>>>       <http://www.centersds.com/biblio.htm>;
>>>>  [23]     Paine, Thomas.  Everything you can get your hands and  eyes
>> on.
>>>> He remains at once current, prophetic and empowering.
>>>>  [24]     Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,  2nd
>>>> Edn.
>>>> Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1970.
>>>>  [25]     Black, Duncan, The Theory of Committees and Elections.
>> London:
>>>> Cambridge Univ. Press, 1958.
>>>>  [26]     Arrow, Kenneth, Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd
> Edn.
>>>> New York: Wiley, 1963.
>>>>  [27]     Ulatowska, Lisinka, FEARless: Ordinary people doing
>>>> extraordinary things in a world gripped by fear. Bloomington:
>>>> AuthorHouse, 2005.
>>>>  [28]     _Health and Illness in Relation to Dignity and  Humiliation
> in
>>>> Times of Global Interdependence_ by Lindner, Evelin G.
>>>>       Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence, v.4, n.6 (June,
>>>> 2008).
>>>>       <http://pelicanweb.org/solisustv04n06lindner.html>;
>>>>  [29]     _About Altruism_ by Lichtenberg, Judith. Philosophy &
>>>> Public Policy Quarterly, v.28, ns.1/2. Univ. of Maryland: Institute
> for
>>>> Philosophy and Public Policy, Winter/Spring 2008 (2-6).
>>>>  [30]     _Can Democracy Save the Planet?_ by Elkington, John &
>>>> Lotherington, John.
>>>>  Open Democracy: free thinking for the world. (21 April 2008).
>> <http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/can_democracy_save_the_planet
>>>> >
>>>>  [31]     _Wall Street_s crybabies_ by Rosa Brooks
>> 22.column
>>>> >
>>>>  [32]     DoWire/Democracies Online
>>>>       <http://dowire.org/>;
>>>>  [33]     Democratic Governance Practice Network (MDG-Net)
>>>>       <http://sdnhq.undp.org/wiki/DGP-Net_Ongoing_E-discussion>;
>>>>  [34]     _Too Much: A Commentary on Excess and Inequality_
>>>>       <http://www.toomuchonline.org/>;
>>>>  [35]     Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN)
>>>>       <http://www.etes.ucl.ac.be/bien/Index.html>;
>>>>  [36]     U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network (USBIG)
>>>>       <http://www.usbig.net/>;
>>>>  [37]     Livable Income For Everyone
>>>>       <http://www.livableincome.org/>;
>>>>  [38]     Alaska Permanent Fund
>>>>       <https://www.pfd.state.ak.us/>;
>>>>  [39]     Income Security Institute, Washington, DC
>>>>       <http://www.incomesecurityforall.org/>;
>>>>  [40]     Maslow, Abrahm H. and Honigmann, John.  _Synergy: Some  
>>>> of Ruth Benedict._  American Anthropologist 72, 1970.
>>>>  **************
>>>>  Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now.
>>>>  )
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list  are
> at
>>>> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
>>>> You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
>>>> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list  are
> at
>>>> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
>>>> You're subscribed to this list with the email
>> terence@pristinelife.com.au
>>>> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are  
>>> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
>>> You're subscribed to this list with the email wmklinck@shaw.ca
>>> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
>> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
>> You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
>> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
>> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
>> You're subscribed to this list with the email kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk
>> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email
> kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit

Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
You're subscribed to this list with the email 
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit

Services:  HomeList Hosting ServicesIndustry Solutions
Your Account:  Sign UpMy ListsMy PreferencesStart a List
General:  About UsNewsPrivacy PolicyNo spamContact Us

eListas Seal
eListas is a registered trademark of eListas Networks S.L.
Copyright © 1999-2006 AR Networks, All Rights Reserved
Terms of Service