Re: MONETARY: Politics and Economics

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

Correction.  Should be Paul Hewson, not Paul Hewlett
re: speech at Harvard with Sachs.

dp

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Parker" <danparker@socialcredit.com>
To: <monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: MONETARY: Politics and Economics


> ---- 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)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>