SOCIAL_INS: Re: OWNERSHIP: Shakespeare's errors

[Mbindnerdc@aol.com]

Rodney,

I will address points below.

In a message dated Wed, 18 Sep 2002 21:07:06 +0100, "Rodney Shakespeare" 
<Rodney.Shakespeare1@btopenworld.com> writes:

>Mike,
>    Thankyou for giving me a detailed reply on your proposal.  Any proposal
>which increases wide capital ownership is welcome but your proposal will, I
>think, have limited effect.
>
>    Here are a few matters upon which I invite your comment:--
>    a)   poorly paid workers will be having  forced saving when , at the
>moment, in the US there are enough problems  with inadequate health
>insurance.

They already have forced savings through FICA.  Also, while people like to say 
that their wage is their gross, their payt is really their net.  I would deal 
with this by paying crediting each worker with the same employer contribution 
based on the average contribution of full-time workers.  In time, I would 
transfer the entire FICA contribution to the employer (and decrease gross, but 
not net, wages appropriately).  

>    b)    those not in conventional employment cannot benefit from the
>scheme

There are many non-conventional employment schemes - and indeed there are 
people who work for non-stock companies.  These would continue to pay into a 
general fund, possibly with Wall Street investment, and would likewise have an 
equal employer contribution if full-time or high-wage part time.  If they are 
self-employed, they will continue to pay a self-employment tax (part of which 
under the Bush plan will be invested in Index funds equities and bonds).  Of 
course, my thought is that in the long run workers will seek out firms where 
the arrangement I describe is offerred, or firms will adopt policies consistent 
with it to retain workers.

>c)     those in, say, public employment, can not benefit from the scheme
>
This is true, although lower wage public workers will benefit from a fixed 
employer contribution.  Some public employees are already heavily invested, 
either through the Federal Thrift Savings Plan or through state level public 
employee retirement funds.  Under the plan I propose, firms will tend to go 
private as the ESOP ownership grows and the use of Wall Street declines.  In 
the end, public employees will likely opt for an old style pension system, 
possibly one which includes both federal and state government employees and 
which holds federal, state and munipical bonds as assets.  Such a fund might 
even include the workers under question b (at least the low wage ones in need 
of subsidy).

If you wish to continue this, please respond to social_ins@cog.kent.edu rather 
than the Ownership group.

As to your other comments, I have read some of the CESJ web site, and plan to 
read further, as well as reading the book which you most generously sent to me 
and a copy of the Capitalist Manifesto which I ordered from Amazon.

Mike

>    And here I would like to say that I think it possible that you have not
>had a good look at Norm's cesj website or read Binary Economics.  I say that
>becasue you do not seem (I could be wrong on this) to understand the use of
>interest-free money for wide ownership private capital investment.  The
>state/central bank creates the money and it goes out via the present banking
>system, on market principles (e.g. the asset must be capable of paying for
>itself etc) as long as wide ownership is created at the same time (via the
>various binary mechanisms). Over time, the interest-free money is repaid to
>the bank and then paid on back to the central bank where it can be
>cancelled.  The result is the money has gone but there remains in existence
>a wealth-creating asset with new owners WHO HAVE BECOME MORE POWERFUL
>CONSUMERS (because they will have a capital income as well as their labor
>income).  This can only be COUNTER-INFLATIONARY -- the money has gone and
>the wealth-producing assets remain in existence.
>
>    The binary proposal is intended to get everyone in the population owning
>weatlh-creating assets whereas your proposal, I feel, is much more
>limited -- but all proposals to extend capital ownership are welcome.
>
>Rodney Shakespeare.
>
>
>
>