MONETARY: Politics and Economics

[Keith Wilde <kwilde@ca.inter.net>]

This responds to comments by Dan Parker in response to mine of yesterday:

I tried to catch up on my reading under this head earlier this week, and
found that I seem to have missed parts of the discussion. From what I have
seen, however, I infer that you, Dan, are a skilled (and indefatigable)
political rhetorician and are in fact active in politics under the Social
Credit label (and are probably located geographically in or near Edmonton).
I take that as an explanation for the flavor of your postings, which seem
designed to minimize argument over technical details in the interest of
building a political faction for reforms that depend on a significant
augmentation of general understanding about monetary and financial topics.
The specific nature of the reforms you favor are those associated with the
label "Social Credit". That is fully consistent with the functions of a
politician and gets no argument from me. 

Furthermore, if it is the wish of you, Rodney, and other participants to
use this particular forum as a place to propagate your ideas for the
consolidation of a political faction, that is also a purpose which is fully
acceptable to the sponsors of this facility as understand them. They will
even go so far as giving the moderator power to block postings that he
believes will be offensive or simply tiresome to other participants. It is
quite feasible, therefore, to turn this list into a forum for believers
only. The immediate difficulty presented by that prospect, however, is
"believers in what?" I imagine that monetary reformers must reminisce
wistfully on the simplistic ideological campaign mounted against the
political consensus of the thirties, forties and fifties by organizations
like the Foundation for Economic Education (i.e. market fundamentalism)--a
campaign which took over the field by the end of the seventies and its
opposition remains scattered in disarray. A political party, like a
religion, does need some idea or person as a universal rallying point and
some inviolable criterion of membership. A successful faction, it seems to
me, need not be so tightly circumscribed emotionally, but it depends
all the more on a common understanding that is based in reason and
therefore in the collective pursuit of truth by empirical and logical means.  

With that expression of my general understanding and attitude, I address
your comments specifically:  


>I don't know enough about binary economics to make a 
>good judgement, but while you raise some valid points Keith,
>I think you may have overstated your case regarding the
>'religousity' of binary economics adherents.  That Rodney
>Shakespeare's and Norm Kurland's models differ in at 
>least one significant matter, and they still work together well,
>belies a charge of excessive rigidity, in my opinion.


Since I doubt that you could justify this comment on a reading of the
papers I cited, I infer that it is based on other texts. In particular, I
think it would be difficult to justify from any of my writings that
"excessive rigidity" is the feature that prompted my  observation that
binary economists take a religious approach. Thus, while it serves your
purpose of building bridges and allies, I  don't see that this comment of
yours has any relevance to my intervention of yesterday. (It sounds more
like preaching.)

Your next comment sounds as if you are worried that you opened up a hornets
nest.

>The psychological approach I did some blueskying on
>would seem to be something best presented outside of 
>the 'mechanics' of binary economics I think.  

But I don't really understand what you mean in this next sentence.???

> Even to
>the extent of coming from a different organization that 
>might or might not leverage resources with the more 
>technical side of the change efforts.    
>
>> Do you mean to imply that Social Credit avoids the problem?
>
>Social credit is designed to decentralize control, and by the 
>National Dividend, would greatly diminish the opportunity
>for coercion.  The proponents of course are susceptible
>to a greater or lesser degree to the human condition via
>the selfish gene; and that is exacerbated by our currenct 
>economic system.  There were many power struggles, within
>and without the Douglasite faction.
>
>Anyways, much food for thought on what might be promising 
>avenues to proceed down.

I wonder if you mean that technical arguments about the institutional,
financial and economic aspects of monetary reform should be discussed
separately from the nature of the human beast?


The quotation by Douglas on Utopia is interesting, and fits with those of
other critics that are cited in my paper. As a point of interest, however,
Douglas and the other critics do not seem to have been expressing views
that reflect a very accurate view of the classic text by Thomas More.

I am not quite finished what I intended under the label, but am out of time. 




Keith Wilde
Executive Secretary
Symposium on Biodiversity and Health

An Initiative of Tropical Conservancy (Charitable Scientific Organization)
Ottawa, Canada
URL: http://www.tc-biodiversity.org

To reach me personally:
kwilde@ca.inter.net
(613) 990-8125 (office)
(613) 993-2120 (FAX)