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 6759     < Previous | Next >
Reply to this message
Subject:Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times
Date:Wednesday, May 20, 2009  19:12:35 (+1200)
From:William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
In reply to:Message 6747 (written by Kenneth Palmerton)

         Thank you for clarifying that for me Ken.
           Bill McG
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kenneth Palmerton" <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Cc: <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times

> 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 :-(
> Ken.
> -------- 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
> you,
> have an inbuilt resistance to government "control" over every aspect of
> our
> 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
> the
>> bookmen.
>> The reason why I personally prefer the name "Dividend" is because it
>> implies something an individual is entitled to, not any sort of
> "handout".
>> 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
> victim
>> 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
> time
>> 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
> possibility
>> "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
> been
>> 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
> the
>> 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
> ever
>> 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
> a
>> 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
> intended
>>> 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
> 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
>>>>> 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
> 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
>>>>>  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
> forth
>>> 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
> realize
>>>>> 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
> essence
>>>>> 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
> latter,
>>>>> 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
> democratically
>>>>> determined minimum amount of societally guaranteed personal income or
>>>>> financial support would always be available.  Put another way,
> society
>>>>> 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
> set
>>>>> 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
> Sustainable
>>>>> 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
> present
>>>>> 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
> the
>>>>> 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
> problems
>>>>> 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
> be
>>>>> 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
> particular
>>>>> 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
> procedure
>>>>> 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
> 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.
>>>>>  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
> societal
>>>>> 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
> ratio
>>>>> 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
> set
>>>>> 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
> still
>>>>> desire increased personal material wealth, would be economically
>>>>> motivated, that is, have economic incentive, to actively and
> seriously
>>>>> 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
> material
>>>>> 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
> decide
>>>>> 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
> realization
>>>>> 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,
> for
>>>>> that matter) if the personal MAW limit in the USA in 2012 were
>>>>> democratically set at, say, $1tn, $700bn (an acknowledgement of
> Hank_s
>>>>> 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
> in
>>>>> 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
> course,
>>>>> 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
> either
>>>>> 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
> Fund
>>>>> 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
> these
>>>>> 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
> and
>>>>> 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
> and
>>>>> therefore successfully.  Whatever societal problems are not addressed
>>>>> adequately by the publicly motivated _private sector,_ as
>>>>> democratically determined, can and should be successfully addressed
> by
>>>>> 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
> the
>>>>> 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.
> In
>>>>> Ortiz, Edgar and Alejandra Cabello (eds.), Economic Issues and
>>>>> Globalization: Theory and Evidence I: Universidad Nacional Autonoma
> de
>>>>> 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,
> Peace
>>>>> 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
> <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/la-oe-brooks12-2009feb12,1,4887
>>> 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
> Notes
>>>>> of Ruth Benedict._  American Anthropologist 72, 1970.
>>>>>  **************
>>>>>  Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now.
> (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006
>>>>>  )
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
> at
>>>> 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
> 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

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