Re: MONETARY: Politics and Economics

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

Dan, it seems you have misunderstood the nature of my question about your
"agenda". Your previous comments had given me the impression that you
wanted to build some kind of social or economic model for use in
forecasting the response of selected dependent variables when others,
presumed to be explanatory, are altered. That, for example, is what Norm
Kurland wants to do in respect of the forecast of "binary growth" when the
Kelso monetary and taxation prescriptions are applied. Your answer suggests
that you have something quite different in mind.

I infer from the subtended text, plus your suggestion that I think about
the difference between jobs and work, that you are in fact groping for
better means of getting across the message that wage slavery is not a
social necessity. That is no doubt an important objective in the general
process of getting to a better policy environment, and it does entail a
shift in perception by a critical mass of the voting public. Important as
it is for general understanding, however, it is not a difficult concept to
grasp, and it seems to me that you may be repeating a mistake of binary
economists in speaking as if you believe it were. (BTW, this idea is the
only strictly analytical or speculative content in "binary economics",
which is otherwise the ingenious design of techniques for redressing the
unhappy implications of the widespread acceptance of wage slavery.) From
what I have seen recently of Social Credit literature it does a better job
of this than the rather wooden insistence of Kelso and Adler on the 90-10
and 30-70 atrocity. Nevertheless, I believe that enthusiasts for both camps
would make more efficient progress in speaking with investigators if they
would resist the impulse to assume that any disagreement stems from
inability to grasp the point that embodied technology and social
infrastructure magnify immensely the productive contribution of puny human
actors. It is hardly a new idea in the literature of economics and sociology.

Much more difficult to grasp, and therefore more important to streamline
and support with graphical and anecdotal expository devices, are
explanations like the A+B theorem for designing remedial measures. At least
that is the way the hurdles appear to me.

Keith




At 03:43 PM 10/26/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>Keith, agenda may be overstating a one word impetus,
>which is inborne in everyone, but not always acted on.
>
>I think you are correct in the assessment that human nature
>can not really be encapuslated in models.  Advertising
>programs that proclaim success on this front have not
>yet confronted the idea of the survival of the host.
>
>I also think mental exercises could be needed to work
>on the future, ala Einstein's proclaimation that problems
>cannot be solved at the level they were created at.
>Here is a bit that explores this concept.
>
>Paradigms
>
>
>The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend. - Henri Bergson
>
>
>
>A paradigm is considered a self-evident truth that helps the efficiency with
>which people think and act day to day.  It can be regarded as an obvious
>fact by a profession, a political faction or an entire culture.  As the flat
>earth paradigm proved, general acceptance and truth are not the same things.
>
>
>
>Sometimes paradigms come full circle.  An ancient reverence for the power
>and beauty of nature was thrown out when it was thought that industrial
>society had conquered the natural world.  People are again coming to the
>obvious conclusion that we are a part of nature, and risk destroying
>ourselves by indulging in this conceit of the early industrialists.
>
>
>
>Author Stephen Haines has assigned the following characteristics to
>paradigms:  they are rules that regulators use to establish the definition
>for success; data and facts tend to be ignored if they don't agree with a
>paradigm; when there is a paradigm change "we all go back to zero"; a
>successful past blinds one to the requirements for the future; and what is
>impossible to do with one paradigm is relatively easy to do with another
>paradigm.
>
>
>
>Past illusions are easy to see once a general culture has undergone a
>paradigm shift.  It is tempting for modern society to scoff at previous
>generations who believed in a flat earth, the science of alchemy, the evil
>of witchcraft and the unsinkability of the Titanic.  However, it will be
>shown here that illusory knowledge is no less prevalent today.  Fact as
>fiction continues to flourish, with a primary reason being that individuals
>are still involved in a fiercely competitive milieu.
>
>
>
>What makes paradigms so efficient and so hard to change is that the brain
>itself physically optimizes the mental associations made in response to
>basic beliefs.  New thread-like connections grow between neurons, while
>others are strengthened, and yet others are weakened or discontinued.
>Certain brain cells also shrink or grow.  Researcher Leslie Ungerleider
>showed how the process is ongoing by expanding small sections of the brains
>of volunteers who practiced picking out a tiny pattern against a confusing
>
>background.  Repeated exposure to a valid idea can overcome an obsolete
>paradigm.
>
>
>
>rgds
>
>Dan Parker
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Keith Wilde" <kwilde@ca.inter.net>
>To: <monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu>
>Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:29 PM
>Subject: Re: MONETARY: Politics and Economics
>
>
>> Dan, thanks for the additional light on your background and agenda. I
>still
>> have some questions about the modeling activity you have in mind.
>>
>> To my conjecture that
>> >> ...you have in mind a primarily
>> >> physical model, based possibly on energy sources and flows, but
>building
>> >in
>> >> some mechanisms to illustrate the conversion of physical relationships
>and
>> >> magnitudes into monetary signals. With this model of "reality" you
>would
>> >> then be able to plug in various policy alternatives and generate their
>> >> implications.
>>
>> you responded that
>> >
>> >"... my background...puts me more in the hands-on area than
>> >academia or political maneuvering I think (although all of these
>> >skills would of course be necessary for a successful team)."
>>
>> Furthermore, that your
>> >"primary interest would be in constructing models, and strictly
>> >speaking, it would be the population generating the implications in
>> >a prototype.  Something along the lines of Jacksonville Quality
>> >Indicators for Progress, where researchers hit the coffee shops
>> >and so on, to ask people what they wanted to measure as wealth;
>> >only more work on the other side, of how to generate the results
>> >the population wanted. So the monetary signals would be tied
>> >to the signals from what the people had expressed a desire for.
>> >Some of this would be through a guaranteed income where there
>> >dollars would vote -- but how to manage the 'commons' would
>> >require something more of course.
>>
>> The emphasis this suggests on a kind of opinion or preference polling
>seems
>> to refute my previous conjecture that
>> >> your concept of an economy is primarily a physical one, leaving human
>> motivations >>essentially on the side.
>>
>> I am still scratching my head, however, for your next comments repeat the
>> embrace of identifying and quantifying human values, but also reinforce
>the
>> exclusion of those aspects of human nature that inhibit progress toward a
>> better world.
>>
>> >This list is mainly on technical matters, and I would be interested in
>> >discussing the other in a separate forum, if I have time.
>>
>> This seems to say that work on progress indicators is "technical" (related
>> to the model building you have in mind), but that the aspects of human
>> nature that resist efforts to build, implement and respect the results of
>> such a model are not themselves capturable in models. Does that come close
>> to what you mean in the remainder of this statement?
>>
>> >The human
>> >motivations are integral in such things as Genuine Progress Indicators,
>> >Quality Indicators for Progress, Local Indicators For Excellence and
>> >so on; but I think there is a lot more regarding, why won't the powers
>> >that be let some of this work proceed. Some time ago I made a proposal
>> >along these lines, and through the course of a side conversation on
>quantum
>> >physics got an offer to study this issue (without having any formal
>training
>> >yet),
>> >but not even an answer on studying alternative economics.  At that point,
>> >I focused on publicizing money reform.
>> >
>>
>> Keith Wilde
>> Ottawa
>> kwilde@ca.inter.net
>> 613 990-8125
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Keith Wilde
Ottawa
kwilde@ca.inter.net
613 990-8125