Re: To Rodney: Yes, Binary Growth is Theory

[Norman Kurland <nkurland@ex-pressnet.com>]

Keith,

This is being sent to all COG discussion groups who are grappling with
competing approaches to solving the problems of poverty and unemployment
through the democratization of capital.

After many months of denigration and mud-slinging by COG participants
against the proponents of Kelso's binary economic theory as a unified
economic system and new paradigm, your statement gives me a ray of hope
that COG and those who think that Kelso offered revolutionary insights
to the field of economics can begin to be reconciled.  A good test of
this new possibility is whether COG will propose that the Ford
Foundation and government fund an econometric model based on binary
growth theory to be constructed by a team that will include, but not be
limited to, binary economists approved by the Kelso Institute for the
Study of Economic Systems and CESJ.

If COG can take this modest step and, as a result, verifiable
projections can be estimated on the potential impact of binary growth
theory on closing the income gap between the rich and the poor and on
overall non-inflationary growth rates under binary growth assumptions,
then the specific Kelsonian reforms recommended under CESJ's proposed
"Capital Homestead Act" will have the scholarly foundation needed to
mobilize the political support for comprehensive overhaul of any free
enterprise market economy.  You and others in COG can compare Kelsonian
reforms with those now being advocated by others by clicking on
http://www.cesk.org/library/homestead/cha-full.pdf.  To understand the
Kelsonian tax philosophy behind these reforms, please click on
http://www.cesj.org/library/reforms/taxsystem/taxjustice.html.

Note that I'm not insisting, as Deb insists, that it's "my way or the
highway."  I have no objections to COG pursuing ideas that binary
economists disagree with or that I think will never gain widespread
understanding and support for reasons fully explained in the writings of
Kelso and those who have seriously and open-mindedly studied Kelso and
think he's right.  I'm sure you would agree, there are many roads to new
truths.  Some are more direct and some lead to dead-ends.

Incidentally, while I agree that Kelso's overall concept is in the realm
of political economy, I still can't understand why you seem to reject
his contribution to the field of economics.  Is not economics (as well
as moral philosophy, law and political science) a subset of political
economy, as that term was once understood?

Norm Kurland
Center for Economic and Social Justice
P.O. Box 40711
Washington, D.C. 20016
E-mail: thirdway@cesj.org
Web:    http://www.cesj.org