Re: Kurlands false accusation

[Shann Turnbull <sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>]

Dear all

In my private e-mail to Norm of September 26th, set out below, I requested
that he did NOT broadcast to lists members his false accusation about my
position.  I very much regret the need to burden all members of ALL lists
with a rebuttal.

I have never "admitted" that I do not agree with binary economics as
claimed by Norm.  I support much of the economic analysis of Kelso but not
the inconsistency in the Kelso Kurland kind of thinking in wanting to
maintain monopoly corporate property rights.  I advocate the spread of
corporate ownership along the lines Norm describes for land in point 10 of
his message.  It is not a matter of accepting or rejecting Kelso as
proposed by Norm or if Kelso is right or wrong or if one paradigm is
"superior" to another but of what is accepted and works.  I use my own
analysis to support the mission of COG, Kelso plans and the democratisation
of credit and wealth as set out in my paper:

'New Strategies For Structuring Society From a Cashflow Paradigm',
presented to the Fourth Annual Conference of the Society for the
Advancement of Socio-Economics held at the Graduate School of Management,
University of California, Irvine, California, U.S.A. in a "track" on the
Third Way, Friday, March 27, 1992 

I have requested the COG list editor to make this paper available in the
COG archives so it may be downloaded by interested parties or I can send it
as an attachment on request.  It was later used in the MBA program of the
University of California at Irvine.  It was written to provide an
intellectual bridge between business/Kelso like thinking and mainstream
economic analysis.


At 02:06 PM 26/9/1999 -0400, OWNCO@aol.com wrote:
>Dear Tom,
>
>Thank you for your kind comments on the debate I'm having with Shann.  I'm 
>glad that he's finally admitting after 25 years that he doesn't agree with 
>binary economics, the heart of the Kelso paradigm.  Now I'm trying to get 
>Shann to debate me openly on the Kelso paradigm so that he can say precisely 
>why Kelso is wrong and then articulate clearly what paradign he thinks is 
>superior to that of Kelso for democratizing capital and economically 
>empowering the people.  Would you be interested in joining a new COG 
>discussion group on A New Paradigm for the New Milleniu?  Several other 
>people have indicated an interest in that subject, a subject which affects 
>all the other discussion groups.
>

COPY OF PRIVATE MESSAGE OF SEPTEMBER 26

Dear Norm

Our technical disagreement is over the nature of property rights.  You and
Kelso object to my proposals to change the nature of ownership. I want to
limit monopoly real property rights in a like way that every nation in the
world accepts for all intellectual property.  Kelso and you want to
preserve the existing system and yet still claim to be against monopolies
and greed.  I view the Kelso Kurland kind of thinking in this regard as
inconsistent.  

I accept your right to take a different view, please accept my right to
differ.  Live and let live.
Let a thousand flowers bloom.  If you are sincerely interested in making
the world a better place you should support any alternative and/or
complementary proposals to this end.

I agree that many conventional economists have missed many insights of
Kelso.  I have always supported Kelso techniques as is evident from my book
"Democratising The Wealth of Nations" which is dedicated to Louis.  I
believe that my approaches are complementary to Kelso and supports his.  I
have always supported and promoted his proposals and still do. I find it
exasperating that you impute that I do not.    So please stop being a pain
in the butt about it.  You told Deb that you did not want to be a "party
pooper" so why argue against her and me when we have such similar goals?  I
have never mentioned binary economics to promote Kelso techniques and I
have never said anything against it because I have completely ignored it
and used my own analysis partly inspired by Kelso as set out in my academic
papers.  So your imputations about me in this regard are also false.

Please do not distribute to other members of the lists your false
imputations about my position as you proposed at the end of your message.

Regards

Shann
Shann Turnbull
P.O. Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia, 1350
Phone: 02 9328 7466 office; 02 9327 8487 home
Fax: 02 9327 1497 home & office.  Mobile 0418 222 378
Outside Australia, replace first "0" with "61" after international access code
Life long E-mail: sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu
http://www.mpx.com.au/~sturnbull/index.html