Re: Human Success in a Free Market

Many thanks, John Gelles, for your prompt and encouraging 
reply to my note of 03-18.  

Seven of the eight lists on my "list of lists" distribute my 
posts reliably.  The eighth list, social credit has recently 
been blocked by the owner, Bill Ryan.  It seems I have 
been subscribed to list <Debt@csf.colorado.edu, but have 
not posted to the list recently, so I have added list Debt to 
my "list of lists."  Perhaps Debt subscribers will be more 
interested in our subject than socialcredit subscribers 
have been.

To get the maximum exposure for my favorite subject, I 
reply to, or forward, the full text of emails responding to 
my posts, with my comments appended or inserted where 
appropriate.  In this way, all of my favorite lists and 
members of my blind copy list will receive both sides of 
the dialog.  With this practice, copying your responses to 
my posts to one or two of the same mail lists may seem 
redundant.  But, such copies do assure those lists that I 
have not modified your response in my reply.

As you know, only two Netizens have posted my visual-aids 
on a web site.  Derek Darves on the Free Speech web site 
in 1999 and Curtiss Priest on the web site below in 2002.  
But in neither case did my benefactor actively participate 
in discussing the content and validity of the conceptual 
model presented by the several visual-aids.  Hopefully, 
John, our exchange will make these visual models more 
useful to serious dissenters.

Where you did not clearly restate what I thought I said, 
there are (WSB correction WSB)s inserted in the text of 
your note; followed by a concluding comment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:12:14 -0800 "John Gelles"
<indexed-savings@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> [Note: Several addressees of Wes Burt's message today 
> are privileged to him and not to all others who might reply 
> to this effort to improve the lot of ordinary people living 
> with a free market as we know it.  So Wes will have to 
> forward this message to addressees not sent this reply 
> by me: My addressees are  <Cyber-soc@topica.com>; 
> <TheNewForum@yahoogroups.com>;   which leaves 
> the following six for 
> his action:  <CCMJ@copsewood.net>; <ERANet@yahoogroups.com>; 
> <FixGov@yahoogroups.com>; <socialcredit@topica.com>; 
> <TOP@topica.com>; <VOW@topica.com> ]
> 
> 
> 
> Wes Burt asks:
> 
>         . . . The questions is how to establish a sustainable
>         and fair economy (SAFE) and what are its technical 
>         requirements  ? . . .
> 
> Wes goes on to fault critics who want such a political
> economy but fail to help define it in a way to promote 
> democratic change to bring it about in whole or in part.
> 
> Wes defines the problem in terms of subsidizing 
> parenting families. As he sees it, the business community 
> is subsidized to acquire capital assets, and pay R&D costs, 
> as well.  But families are not. 
> 
>         He says: Both human and capital assets have develop-
>         ment costs, and subsistence costs or "no load losses."  
>         So both types of productive assets require the same 
>         financial structure to compete successfully in a free 
>         market.  
>                     [This is where message subject comes from.]

> (WSB  On reflection, the term "free market" seems 
inappropriate for a market, such as the US labor market at 
180 degrees on the macro model Fig4.7, in which many of 
the sellers are priced out of the market by the fixed costs of
development and subsistence.  My point was that the 
corporate financial structure prevents small sales volume 
product lines from being priced out of the world market at 
0,360 degrees on the Macro model Fig4.7.  Notice that this geometrical
relationship between fixed and variable costs is invisible to large
productive assets, but devastating to small 
(start up) productive assets.  Here is the structural reason 
why the world market may be called free, but the local labor 
market is not free until the corporate financial policy is 
applied by government to the public sector of each 
nation.  This is what Germany, Japan, and most of Western 
Europe did to enable their post World War II miracles.  But, 
Europe and Asia have no intention of promoting that 
practice in the English speaking nations, until after they 
own and occupy us.  WSB)
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> 
> 
> (Wes may have to correct my re-statement of his desire.) 
> 
> I agree that families ought to enjoy a great many benefits 
> provided by society where breadwinners cannot afford 
> them. The reason is simple: society needs children whose 
> youngest years have been enriched by good housing, 
> nutrition, treatment, training and education. Such children 
> will enrich their own children's youngest years, and so on, 
> as we make progress toward a better world. 
>         If this were not so, exemplary parents would
>         not exist and we would be as we were in pre-
>         historic times.
> 
> The only thing missing for this enrichment may be presumed
> to be money. Accordingly, babies not born to very rich people
> should be endowed at birth with credit to buy enrichment
> items selected by parents from among items offered by 
> qualified insitutions. 

(WSB  If the fixed cost of development were adequately 
subsidized in the first place, both markets would be free, 
the economy would expand to its natural size, and there
would be no need to micro manage the whole production 
facility, like the USSR tried to do for 72 years.  Free 
enterprise would supply all needs with a minimum input 
of labor and material to the whole system.  WSB)

>         These institutions would be subject to audit and 
>         inspection to prevent fraud and abuse. They would
>         be non-profit affiliates of virtually all our institutions 
>         of higher learning -- including Notre Dame, Brandeis 
>         and other God fearing schools. What parents ordered 
>         and received would be transparent to a free press (as 
>         examples that did not identify specific families or tend 
>         to engender hatred of minority groups.)
> 
> Beginning to sound complicated -- not likely to be endorsed
> by enough voters. Probably.
> 
> 
> I prefer to start the changes we need with things that states
> and municipalities include in their budgets. Say the federal
> government agreed to pay for half of every state budget.
> It would do this with debt-free money (DFM) like DFM
> advocates describe in their critique of the Washington 
> consensus. 
> 
> In addition, however, to be sure that no family was left 
> behind, anyone looking for work would be guaranteed
> a job or self-employment at a living wage. This, too, 
> would be paid with federal DFM.

(WSB  Either DFM or tax revenue would work equally well 
if both markets were stabilized for minimum unemployment 
of productive assets.  Tax revenue, properly invested, will 
be better than DFM spent as Republicans and Democrats 
have spent tax revenue since Henry Carter Adams 
discussed this subject in 1887, and was rewarded with a stiff 
dose of unemployment.  WSB)

> 
> Beyond the above, I say we need to end the income tax. 
> If we study the DFM arguments it becomes apparent that 
> we need no income tax. Luxury taxes and lotteries can 
> take all the dangerous purchasing power away from the 
> rich and the poor, respectively.  These tools can prevent 
> hyperinflation. 
>         Some "good" investments may be required to 
>         ensure supply of necessities -- but these, too, can 
>         be made with DFM.
> 
> I guess I'm for DFM ahead of Wes' remedy -- but I support 
> any plan he may have to enrich the youngest years of life 
> for all who may not be presently endowed.
> 
> John Gelles
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ End John's response ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for your support, John.  We urgently need to 
increase our 5% of GDP feedback, from folks in production 
to folks in development; to the optimum 10% level.  Now it 
is up to the powers that be to choose between DFM and 
income tax revenue for doing the necessary.  

Wes Burt

            The Optimum Policy (TOP) or The Whole Divine Law 
                 for either Human or Capital Productive Assets is 
        illustrated at <http://www.epie.org/cyber-soc/default.htm>
        and discussed on list <TOP@topica.com>, and elsewhere.


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!