Re: MONETARY: Politics and Economics

["Dan Parker" <danparker@socialcredit.com>]

---- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Wilde" <kwilde@ca.inter.net>
To: <monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 4:01 PM
Subject: MONETARY: Politics and Economics


> 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.

Keith, my reason to not spend much time on specific details,
is because I don't think these can be predefined that far ahead
in a complex adaptive system.  There are certain mathematical
and thermodyanamic laws that must be obeyed on the one hand,
and there are certain, difficult, ethical considerations to be obeyed
on the other.

However, the details that would come next, in my opinion, would
be how to choose a team, design a model/prototype feedback
system, develop transducers to mimic the interaction
of the prototype with the larger economy, determine options
on how to adjust and finetune the entire information processor,
and so on. From that, the details of a viable new system will
start to emerge, and even then be subject to constant adjustment
of course.  The details of various sytems, from social credit,
to binary econmics will all be valuable stores from which to
try out concepts for various problems or optimizations.

I am familiar with the reputed causes of such as the LTCM
meltdown, but still think only the surface is being scratched.  W.
Michael Blumenthal was one of many to hint at this when he stated,
somewhat faciteously, that economists rarely understand what
happened, before and after the fact (one of Toffler's books - sorry
I don't have a reference).

I do think that discussing the psychological implications regarding
the current money system would be more usefully carried on in
a forum separate from one concentrating on technical matters;
and that any leading practioner will follow both to some degree.
(A generalist, multidisciplinary mindset is necessary I think to
help bring the parts together).

> 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.

Official social credit explicity forbids the formation of political
parties.  Even then, if I wanted to be a professional politician, I
would certainly not join a party that had serious monetary reform
as a plank.  When Paul Hellyer was getting converted by the
Socreds, he admitted he didn't discuss it, because he knew what
would be the result via the controlled press.  He's done some
good work in the field since his retirement as a result of his
earlier discretion  I think.

> 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?"

To help with an answer on that, I would say a hint would be, what
is your gut feeling when Jeffery Sachs sponsors Paul Hewlett to
propagate that there is a systematic transfer of wealth from desparately
poor people, to the rich.  Never mind the means for now, or the
historical record.  What is your gut feeling on hearing this news?

>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.

Not as far as know. Most monetary reformers see right and
left philosophies of the day as two arms of the same entity.

>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.

I think we have to also bring the spiritual into this (as per my gut feeling
question above).  I hope I didn't miss any questions you asked below
in my post above and will stop here, to keep this post from becoming
too long.

rgds
Dan Parker

> 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)
>
>
>
>
>