Re: OWNERSHIP: checking out

["Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org>]

To COG and all Economics of Ownership Discussants,

It should be pointed out that Keith Wilde did not pay for and does not "own" the
"social technology"  of this internet discussion site.  There were no rules of
civility or fair debate developed by Wilde.  His mishandling of the discussion
process became increasingly like jungle warfare because of the acquiescence and
"laissez-faire" attitude of COG, which should have removed him long ago or
subjected him to a recall vote by participants.

Those who remain after he and others abandon the turf  have an equal ownership
stake in this forum and can clean up the mess Keith left behind.  If Richard
Stutsman or someone with Richard's intellectual integrity agree to take over the
role of moderator, and I hope Richard will, those participants remaining will,
by "squatters' rights" assume all the rights and responsibilities of continued
"joint ownership" of  the forum.  This is what Dan Bell offered Richard and
Keith has no right to determine the fate of the forum after his disgraceful
performance as self-proclaimed judge, jury and prosecutor of binary theory.

I came to the conclusion some time ago that I would no longer dignify his
poisonous form of pseudo-intellectualism with any direct response to his
unrelenting and highly transparent invective against the character of those of
us who have carefully compared binary economics with traditional schools of
economics.  His claim of superior intellectual credentials for judging the
proponents of binary economics is almost laughable when compared to the stellar
academic credentials of those advocating binary economics as a worthy addition
to (not as he falsely claimed, a displacement) of conventional economics.  I
strongly doubt that Wilde would have been awarded full tuition scholarships and
prizes from such world-class academic centers as the University of Chicago,
Cambridge, Harvard.  In fact, his obvious rigidness of mind and disrespect for
others would probably have been the basis for rejecting him from even entering
such centers of learning.  Besides his colossal and seemingly unlimited
intellectual "chutzpah", I know of nothing Wilde has accomplished in the field
of ownership economics (or any other field, for that matter) that would have
earned Wilde the right to assume the role of the moderator of the Economics of
Ownership forum, except for getting a degree that allows him to call himself an
"economist."

Wilde also falsely asserts that winning over support of conventional economists
was the primary objective of this forum.  That's not true.  The original basis
for forming the group was to examine, critique and try to understand all
theories of economics in which universal access to capital ownership was a
fundamental tenet, and it was understood by Deb Olson and Dan Bell that binary
economics was held out as such a theory and was worthy of study and debate.  To
the extent it could attract and persuade more economists to embrace binary
economics was, of course recognized as desirable but was of secondary
importance.  Furthering understanding of the definitions, assumptions and
systems logic of any theory of economics based on universal access to ownership
was primary.  Unfortunately, the process engendered by Wilde was contrary to all
rules of fair consideration of any new theory, where the basic writings and
books of the proponents would be carefully studied by the theory's proponents in
order to understand the definitions, principles, assumptions and logic of the
theory being offered.  Instead of asking questions based on the writings
suggested by the binary proponents, Wilde permitted and hominem and diversionary
arguments from the critics, who, with the exception of Shann Turnbull, never
offered a comprehensive economic theory based on transforming income
distribution patterns through widespread sharing of equity ownership.  In other
words, Wilde never allowed binary economics to get the full hearing that it so
richly deserves.  Now COG can take the keys to the forum from Keith Wilde and
hand them over to Richard Stutsman so that we can make up for the time wasted by
Wilde over the last year and a half.

He also falsely charges binary proponents with hostility to academic
economists.  That's not true.  Rather, we are disappointed that many academic
economists are indifferent to the vacuum of economic theory explaining the
growing asset ownership and economic power gap between those at the top and
those at the bottom of all economic systems of the world, and, as a result of
this indifference, the economics profession as a whole has failed to seriously
study binary economics or come up with a more rational systems theory.  Those of
us in CESJ also are disappointed that the field of economics, in its quest for
amoral "scientific" respectability, has failed to see the connection between
economic justice and economic efficiency, thus driving moral philosophy from
consideration in the studies of economics as a science of life.

What binary proponents have been seeking in the COG discussions are open-minded
people with the moral imagination to see the inherent connection between moral
theory and economic theory.  Wilde is not such a person.  Nevertheless, I really
hope that in his well-deserved retreat from the forum, he will somehow discover
within himself a way to make positive contributions to the cause of economic
justice in the world.

Now those of us seeking positive change are free to attract true scholars into
the debate on the value of binary economics as an addition to conventional
economic theory.  Again, I hope that Richard will agree to be moderator of this
group.  For the many good people who have been watching from the sidelines and
had no time or inclination to get splattered with the mud thrown by the binary
critics, it looks like the atmosphere will soon be more friendly for intelligent
and respectful debate and search for understanding of binary economics.  Contact
COG for instructions on how to join the fun by going to the COG web site at
http://cog.kent.edu.  In my mind, there is no more important debate going on in
the world.

Norm Kurland
Center for Economic and Social Justice
Web Site: http://www.cesj.org

Keith Wilde wrote:

> As Alan makes his departure, I want to thank him on behalf of all who
> support the expanded ownership idea for his outstanding contribution to this
> particular forum.  He has been an unfaltering model of what careful
> truth-seeking is about in the domain of social policy, and his questions and
> explanations have been invaluable in eliciting from some of its most voluble
> and experienced proponents the nature of weaknesses in the belief system
> invoked to promote the Kelso policy prescriptions.  At the same time his
> presence in the forum as a non-economist has been a daily refutation of the
> still unremitting whine that it is economics which poisons careless minds to
> the beauties of the binary rationale.  If the binary advocats could learn
> from his example and precepts, they might be able to resurrect the prospects
> of their doctrine, by following the lead opened up by Stephen Kane. Alan's
> experience probably inclines him to agree with Stephen's expectation,
> however, that the paradigm shift to binary economics really entails the
> death of the generation of its enthusiasts who failed to understand what it
> is about.
>
> Alan's departure, preceded by that of David Ellerman, seems to me to mark
> the exhaustion of our subject.  As I said in my most recent report to COG,
> we have quite clearly failed in our mission statement to expand the number
> of economists who take an interest in capital ownership distribution,
> judging by the drop in that number since we began.  We have generated a
> valuable archive, but I believe that it should be closed.  I have openly
> supported the opening of a new discussion group, with a new title and a new
> moderator, where the binarians can talk to themselves, but it should not be
> an extension of this one (for reasons I will detail in another place).
>
> Keith Wilde
> Ottawa, Canada
> kwilde@magi.com
> 613 990-8125
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IPGmail@aol.com <IPGmail@aol.com>
> To: ownership@cog.kent.edu <ownership@cog.kent.edu>
> Date: Thursday, May 17, 2001 2:33 AM
> Subject: OWNERSHIP: checking out
>
> I am planning to check out of the Ownership group, and just wanted to say a
> word about my reasons before disappearing.  I've mentioned before that my
> daughter has a serious chronic illness--she has been going slowly downhill
> and it has been hard on the whole family.  For a while participating in this
> group had been a way for me to escape from time to time and think about
> something else, but lately it seems the discussion gives me more aggravation
> than illumination.  Maybe I am just emotionally overwrought and more touchy
> than usual--maybe; but it also does seem to me that little useful
> conversation is going on.  In any event, my cost-benefit calculus tells me
> that it's time to leave.
>
> Alan Zundel
> For the Public Good
> http://www.publicgood.org