|
COG
|
Homestead Discussion |
|||||||||
| |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] HOMESTEAD: 10,000 Binarians
----- Forwarded by Thomas Brandt/DBEDT on 05/17/01 07:16 PM -----
Thomas Brandt
To: rstutsman@worldworks.org
05/17/01 07:16 cc: ownership@cog.kent.edu
PM Subject: 10,000 Binarians(Document
link: Thomas Brandt)
Mr. Stutsman,
Since the email from Alan Zundel you reply to below is similar to an email
I sent you (which you didn't respond to), the following is based on your
reply to Alan.
First of all, let me state that I think a binary economy would be superior
to any other system past or present. And I, too, would prefer sweeping
change to piecemeal reform. I also tend to sympathize with those who
think an economic crisis similar to the Great Depression is not only
possible, but likely, and I realize that many think the crisis is already
here. Moreover, the very dismantling of the Keynesian welfare state and
organized labor we are witnessing to varying degrees in the major
post-industrial democracies may--for better or worse--increase the
likelihood of such a crisis and the possibility of comprehensive binarian
reforms.
But short of a major crisis (like the Great Depression), I think sweeping
change is unlikely. Furthermore, I don't think the majority of the
world's populations--at least in the First World--perceive such a crisis at
present. And even though I agree with your eloquent summary of the
multi-faceted global "problematique" we face (which you described in a
recent email) and what binary economics might do about it, I think the
lesser--informed perceptions of the bulk of humanity are greater than the
"reality" you describe. I think most people are pre-occupied with there
own immediate well-being, and to the extent they think and act beyond this,
it is primarily for the purpose of improving their own personal future
well-being and that of their children.
I realize that binary economics can be presented to appeal directly to the
self-interest of individuals and their families I described above, as well
as a solution to the problems of humanity at large. In fact, I've done
the former in my own writing on this subject (including a very recent
letter to the editor of my local paper about COG alternatives to the
British "baby bond" proposal). But my question to you is similar to one I
recently posted to the COG: Ownership group, i.e. what political strategy
for broadening capital ownership do you think binarians and non-binarians
can agree upon, bearing in mind piecemeal reform may be the only
politically feasible option short of such a crisis?
More specifically, I'd like to know what you think Norm and Shann's army of
10,000 (if it ever materializes) can and should do other than to continue
to debate their differences? Based on the amount of thought I've put into
it so far, I don't think 10,000 advocates could do much more than write
lettters to their political representatives and newspaper editors,
participate in Internet chat groups, and speak to their fellow citizens in
any forum possible. While I don't think that would be insignificant, I
think such a group would still lack the votes and financial clout necessary
to lobby for major policy changes. Even if binarians could get another
Russell Long elected to the U.S. Congress, or another Abraham Lincoln
elected president, could he or she single-handedly convince the nation to
make all the changes seen as essential by binarians? Maybe, but short of
a crisis, I wouldn't bet on it.
For all of these reasons, this is why I've suggested in the past that Norm
try to get the attention of organzations that have more clout and which
might see binary economics in their own best interests, e.g. the American
Association of Retired Persons, because I think the need for Social
Security reform is the closest thing perceived as such a crisis at present
in the U.S. (but also in other post-industrial democracies, all of which
have aging populations putting more pressure on their versions of Soc Sec).
Other than that, I think the best thing binarians might do on the national
level is to lobby for campaign finance reform first, because short of
another Great Depression, I don't see any way to cobble together the kind
of coalition necessary to enact binary changes as a package (unless, for
example, binarians can form alliances not only with groups opposed to
privatizing Social Security, but with flat tax and fixed interest rate
advocates as well) which could overcome the power of those with a vested
interest in the status-quo. (Binarian advocacy of more progressive
inheritance taxes would also be an uphill battle at present.)
As a result, I have to agree with those who think that piecemeal reform on
the international, national, and subnational levels is not only more
feasible at present, but not nearly as useless as you feel. For example,
I agree with those in COG who feel that much could be done in each state to
increase and improve the number of ESOPs and OTCs, and then--if and when a
critical mass is achieved--to form intra- and/or inter-state Mondragon or
labor union-type mutual support organizations, which could include their
own banks and the creation of mutual funds to pool employee-owned (and
other local stakeholder-owned) stock to spread risk.
However, if you feel more can be done to promote binary reforms as a
package on the national level, I would like to be persuaded. So please
let me know if and how you disagree if you see fit. I also welcome the
comments and criticisms of anyone else who is motivated to respond.
Mahalo and Aloha!
Richard Stutsman
<rstutsman@worldwo To: ownership@cog.kent.edu
rks.org> cc: ownership@cog.kent.edu
Sent by: Subject: Re: OWNERSHIP:
Utopia or
owner-ownership@co Oblivion? Binary or Malthusian
g.kent.edu Economics?
05/16/01 03:44 AM
Please respond to
ownership
On 5/15/01 at 9:09 PM -0400, IPGmail@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 5/15/01 rstutsman@worldworks.org writes:
>
>> As for Alan Zundel, if you think you can mix Keynesian economics with
binary
>> economics, I urge you to think again. The two are mutually incompatible,
and
>> the implementation of either set of prescriptions would undermine those
of
>> the other. You either distribute capital according to libertarian
principles
>> (free market with a level playing field), or you confiscate some
people's
>> wealth and give it to others while pretending that labor "earns" 70
percent
>> of the total output.
>
>Real markets combine free market principles with some degree of
>redistribution, so obviously it is not impossible.
I assume you are implying that our "mixed economy" is working
satisfactorily? I would disagree. We may be complacent about the status quo
only by ignoring (or being ignorant of) the much better possibilities.
>Leveraged ESOPs currently
>use credit to broaden ownership, and the presence of non-binarian policies
>doesn't stop them.
The presence of non-binarian policies does stop ESOPs from effectively
broadening ownership, doesn't it? Ownership is most often broadened only
temporarily, and often at the expense of diluting existing shares, as
others have pointed out. Until we get interest-free or low-interest
financing of binary capital expansion on a grand scale with the cooperation
of the Federal Reserve (or some alternative money system), we will not see
any significant broadening of capital ownership, and we will have little
hope of being able to abandon social security and redistributive policies
which many, of not most, people see has "unfree" and coercive, and as
undermining the institution of property rights.
>If you would give some reasons for your assertion, I
>would think about them. Otherwise, you haven't given me much to think
about.
In addition to the effect of redistribution on undermining the property
rights that would be essential in assuring the possibility that the income
from broad capital ownership could sustain retirees and free most people up
from a life of drudgery (working too hard and for too long producing
surplus goods and wasteful military hardware), limiting most companies
methods of financing growth to borrowing from banks or reinvesting profits
would further reduce the rate of transition to wide ownership as well as
the amount income such capital could provide to its owners.
That's why I believe that binary economics must be considered as a package
deal. The implementation of any one binary prescription would be
ineffective and counterproductive without all the others.
Remember that the New Deal was also pretty much a package deal. Most of it
was implemented by a single Presidential administration. I believe the
minimum wage laws came later.
I have concurred with Karl Popper that "piecemeal social engineering" is
safer and more likely to "work" than utopian revolution (as happened in the
Soviet Union under Stalin and Lenin and in China under Mao Tse Tung). Yet
in this case I can see where piecemeal implementation of binary
prescriptions, as begun in the 1970s with ESOPs, has not been a success and
has undermined the impetus for implementing the rest of the program. It has
not been a success for the reasons I outlined above. ESOP legislation has
been used and abused for purposes other than distribution wider permanent
ownership as often as not, and without the implementation of a two-tiered
interest rate (the lower rate for binary capital expansion), the ESOP
demonstration has not been a success.
<<Richard>>
--
Richard A. Stutsman, Director
WorldWorks Symposium: An inquiry into how the world works
URL <http://www.worldworks.org>
|