No doubt poverty and joblessness can be eliminated in our time. Martin Luther King said:
The problem indicates that our emphasis must be two-fold. We must create full employment or we must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed in this position, we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted. New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional jobs are not available."[
Here are a few models:
Worker Self-Management: Each productive enterprise is controlled democratically by its workers.
The Market: These enterprises interact with one another and with consumers in an environment largely free of governmental price controls. Raw materials, instruments of production and consumer goods are all bought and sold at prices largely determined by the forces of supply and demand.
Social Control of Investment: Funds for new investment are generated by a capital assets tax and are returned to the economy through a network of public investment banks and other industries.
These can be developed in the form of Municipal Enterprise, Co-operative Enterprise, Sustainable and Ecological/Green Enterprises. HighTech/Low Tech, Sustaining and infrastructure for Sustainable/Livable Communities.
Here is an example. If a too big to fail bank fails. It should be Nationalized, and broken up. Than given to the employees with the government as a silent partner. The workers control the banks, even voting out corporate officers if they fail or have moral issues. The government, who regulates, gets s split if the profits. The people get a living wage and empowerment. The Executives are no longer allowed to have big paychecks, no get corporate welfare or bonuses. Regulations work where Banks make for Savings and loans. This offsets taxes to being lowered and no tax abatement. More money goes to the community.
Here is a link to a good site:
http://www.careerplanner.com/Career-Articles/Top_Jobs.cfm
Since the manufacturing jobs are not coming back the answer is creating high and low tech jobs that pay a living wage. Maybe starting a Eco Industrial Park.
An eco-industrial park (EIP) is an industrial park in which businesses work in tandem and with the local community in an attempt to reduce waste and pollution, efficiently share resources (such as information, materials, water, energy, infrastructure, and natural resources), and help achieve sustainable development, with the intention of increasing economic and social gains and improving quality of life. An EIP may also be planned, designed, and built in such a way that it makes it easier for businesses to work in tandem, and that results in a more financially sound and beneficial, environmentally and socially friendly project for the developer.
There are many opportunities for Public Works and other Community details.
Co-operatives are one way to go. And we must not forget the importance of the Universal Income/ Basic Income Grant.
In The book, “Toward Useful Unemployment” it describes things people can do to make their own work. (Or not). George Bush was only partly right in his tax return stimulus. The Notion is spending power creates more jobs and consumerism. THE UI/BIG allows everyone to be “Self Employed”. An artisan can practice his hobby, invention, or craft and make market from that creativity. In a regular job situation this si impossible at times.
It is considered that there is a difference between a job and work. People may work harder in there personal lives than at work, while some jobs do not require much work. (I have seen this with my own eyes. It is true)
Also, re-architecture of communities and re-designing towns to a more futurist model will re-invent the small town and home towns into bustling communities with many futuristic jobs. The dependence on Automobiles and long arrivals to work will be eliminated . Communities would be more compact and populous, leaving many green spaces.
Jobs and the workplaces evolves. The Blacksmith, local tinker, milkman, and spinner are all gone. These are casualties of Occupational Evolution.
There are also something coming up called Telecommute jobs, where people can make work from their home computers. Through technological evolution, Robotics, cyborgs, and automation 20th century jobs will disappear. In the 21st Century new work and a new life will be coming. This is a situation that must be fostered right away.
The possibilities are endless, but we will control our own destinies. As Frank Loydd Wright once noted, “A free America... means just this: individual freedom for all, rich or poor, or else this system of government we call democracy is only an expedient to enslave man to the machine and make him like it. “
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Full Employment
The active pursuit of full employment through varied government policies is associated with Keynesian economics and marked the former agenda of many Western nations, until neo-liberalism took hold.
Australia was the first country in the world in which full employment in a free society was made official policy by its government. On May 30, 1945, The Australian Labor Party Prime Minister John Curtin and his Employment Minister John Dedman proposed a white paper in the Australian House of Representatives titled Full Employment In Australia, the first time any government apart Communists had unequivocally committed itself to providing work for any person who was willing and able to work. Conditions of full employment lasted in Australia from 1941 to 1975. This had been preceded by the Harvester Judgment (1907), establishing a living wage; while this earlier case was overturned, it remained influential.
The Job Guarantee (JG) is an economic policy proposal aimed at providing a sustainable solution to the dual problems of inflation and unemployment. Its aim is to create full employment and price stability. It is also referred to as employer of last resort (ELR)
The economic policy stance currently dominant around the world uses unemployment as a policy tool to control inflation; when cost pressures rise, the standard monetary policy carried out by the banks) tightens interest rates, creating a buffer stock of unemployed people, which reduces wage demands, and ultimately inflation. When inflationary expectations subside, these people will get their jobs back. In Marxian terms, the unemployed serve as a reserve army of labor. By contrast, in a job guarantee program, a buffer stock of employed people (employed in the job guarantee program) provides the same protection against inflation without the social costs of unemployment, Fulfilling the dual mandate of full employment and price stability
full employability whereby governments engage in programs to prepare the unemployed for work without guaranteeing that work will be available towards a focus on creating enough work. The full employability agenda has come under fire from a number of sources in recent years
Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person is dependent for a livelihood on the wages earned, especially if the dependency is total and immediate. The term is used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor. Some uses of the term may refer only to a situation of inequality between labor and capital," particularly where workers are paid unreasonably low wages . More controversially, others equate it with a lack of workers' self-management or point to similarities between owning and employing a person, and extend the term to cover a wide range of employment relationships in a hierarchical social environment with limited job-related choices (e.g. working for a wage under threat of starvation, poverty or social relegation).
Working poor is a term used to describe individuals and families who maintain regular employment but remain in relative poverty due to low levels of pay and dependent expenses. The working poor are often distinguished from paupers, poor who are supported by government aid or charity.
Living wage is a term used to describe the minimum hourly wage necessary for shelter (housing and incidentals such as clothing and other basic needs) and nutrition for a person for an extended period of time (lifetime). In developed countries such as the United Kingdom or Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford a specified quality or quantity of housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and recreation.
This concept differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and may fail to meet the requirements of a living wage. It differs somewhat from basic needs in that the basic needs model usually measures a minimum level of consumption, without regard for the source of the income.
basic income is granted independent of other income (including salaries) and wealth, with no other requirement than citizenship. This is a special case of BIG/UI, based on varied goals. While most modern countries have some form of guaranteed minimum income, a basic income is rare. Only the Alaska Dividend exists here, and pays $1000 a year. It is not very sufficient.
A basic income is a proposed system of social security, that periodically provides each citizen with a sum of money that is sufficient to live on. Except for citizenship, a Basic Income is entirely unconditional. There is no means test; the richest as well as the poorest citizens would receive it. In The USA it is possible to give each person $30,000
A basic income is often proposed in the form of a citizen's dividend (a transfer) or a negative income tax (a guarantee). A basic income less than the social minimum is referred to as a partial basic income. (there should be one for poor teens who have no access to a part time job.)
A worldwide basic income, typically including income redistribution between nations, is known as a global basic income.
In many ways a BIG or Universal Income would change social situations and circumstances so no one is stuck in an adverse situation. It would also help people create there own jobs and business thusly stimulating the economy.
In essence, a Living Wage, 32 hour work week. The end of mindless mind numbing jobs replacing with meaningful jobs should be the agenda of all political forces. These forces are being widely ignored even by liberal elements. In which case the Conservative elements of slave labor and wage slavery still exist. With a restructuring society for affordability rather than the corporate profits, only then can the world change
Australia was the first country in the world in which full employment in a free society was made official policy by its government. On May 30, 1945, The Australian Labor Party Prime Minister John Curtin and his Employment Minister John Dedman proposed a white paper in the Australian House of Representatives titled Full Employment In Australia, the first time any government apart Communists had unequivocally committed itself to providing work for any person who was willing and able to work. Conditions of full employment lasted in Australia from 1941 to 1975. This had been preceded by the Harvester Judgment (1907), establishing a living wage; while this earlier case was overturned, it remained influential.
The Job Guarantee (JG) is an economic policy proposal aimed at providing a sustainable solution to the dual problems of inflation and unemployment. Its aim is to create full employment and price stability. It is also referred to as employer of last resort (ELR)
The economic policy stance currently dominant around the world uses unemployment as a policy tool to control inflation; when cost pressures rise, the standard monetary policy carried out by the banks) tightens interest rates, creating a buffer stock of unemployed people, which reduces wage demands, and ultimately inflation. When inflationary expectations subside, these people will get their jobs back. In Marxian terms, the unemployed serve as a reserve army of labor. By contrast, in a job guarantee program, a buffer stock of employed people (employed in the job guarantee program) provides the same protection against inflation without the social costs of unemployment, Fulfilling the dual mandate of full employment and price stability
full employability whereby governments engage in programs to prepare the unemployed for work without guaranteeing that work will be available towards a focus on creating enough work. The full employability agenda has come under fire from a number of sources in recent years
Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person is dependent for a livelihood on the wages earned, especially if the dependency is total and immediate. The term is used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor. Some uses of the term may refer only to a situation of inequality between labor and capital," particularly where workers are paid unreasonably low wages . More controversially, others equate it with a lack of workers' self-management or point to similarities between owning and employing a person, and extend the term to cover a wide range of employment relationships in a hierarchical social environment with limited job-related choices (e.g. working for a wage under threat of starvation, poverty or social relegation).
Working poor is a term used to describe individuals and families who maintain regular employment but remain in relative poverty due to low levels of pay and dependent expenses. The working poor are often distinguished from paupers, poor who are supported by government aid or charity.
Living wage is a term used to describe the minimum hourly wage necessary for shelter (housing and incidentals such as clothing and other basic needs) and nutrition for a person for an extended period of time (lifetime). In developed countries such as the United Kingdom or Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford a specified quality or quantity of housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and recreation.
This concept differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law and may fail to meet the requirements of a living wage. It differs somewhat from basic needs in that the basic needs model usually measures a minimum level of consumption, without regard for the source of the income.
basic income is granted independent of other income (including salaries) and wealth, with no other requirement than citizenship. This is a special case of BIG/UI, based on varied goals. While most modern countries have some form of guaranteed minimum income, a basic income is rare. Only the Alaska Dividend exists here, and pays $1000 a year. It is not very sufficient.
A basic income is a proposed system of social security, that periodically provides each citizen with a sum of money that is sufficient to live on. Except for citizenship, a Basic Income is entirely unconditional. There is no means test; the richest as well as the poorest citizens would receive it. In The USA it is possible to give each person $30,000
A basic income is often proposed in the form of a citizen's dividend (a transfer) or a negative income tax (a guarantee). A basic income less than the social minimum is referred to as a partial basic income. (there should be one for poor teens who have no access to a part time job.)
A worldwide basic income, typically including income redistribution between nations, is known as a global basic income.
In many ways a BIG or Universal Income would change social situations and circumstances so no one is stuck in an adverse situation. It would also help people create there own jobs and business thusly stimulating the economy.
In essence, a Living Wage, 32 hour work week. The end of mindless mind numbing jobs replacing with meaningful jobs should be the agenda of all political forces. These forces are being widely ignored even by liberal elements. In which case the Conservative elements of slave labor and wage slavery still exist. With a restructuring society for affordability rather than the corporate profits, only then can the world change
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The Un Real Revolution
The Left has seemed to die after the 1940’s. Back in the day the Left as very sincere and had much influence on people.
Franklins New Deal, and Johnsons Great Society programs where watered down versions of socialism. But they where effective. Only slightly. FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has been passed away from History and the Democratic Party has never fulfilled its promise.
America embrace of the two party system has hurt democracy in America.
The Hippy Revolution was well meaning, but artificial. The Hippies had no attention of getting rid of the two party system. In fact, the hippies where artificial in there Revolution. There excuse wasn’t to get rid of the two party system. It was to maintain, reform and bring it in to enlightenment. And this was to be done by young people who where wet behind the ears themselves.
At least youth stood for something and had a little substance. But even Frank Zappa noted, these people where no different from there parents. I remember one hippy saying they where going to show them how. How to what?
Even today, the Left is stuck in a Clueless Revolution. Still stuck with a 1960’s mentality, they cling to 1960’s values. There is no attempt to obtain Solidarity. One Party tries, The Workers World Party, they include, blacks, whites, latino’s, gays, bi, trans.
There is no strategy, still they are denied access to media, Socialist Parties are still not effective.
Like most, leftists cannot get past the last protest. One can go to many protests and ask people why they are not at least supporting a movements that would be elected and foster change. There is a stupid notion that people can change the world through there organizations. How many peace organization? How many Environmental Organizations? How many fist-waving organizations. And after all that, the world goes on to be the same as it ever was.
Democracy isn’t failing because of the Democrats and Republicans. It is failing because Leftists in America are either in protest groups or fist waving groups, or Fan Clubs like The Democratic Socialists of America or the Labor Party.
The Greens had real possibilities, even Communist and far Left groups had endorsed them. But than Called the Socialist Party USA bourgeois Socialism.
The Greens could have had huge success, but they did not realize. Most Americans indulge themselves for the movement for the moment.
I told the Green to enjoy there moment in the sun. There 10 minutes of fame. Not because I wanted the Greens to die. It is just the way America is, America is country of fads.
America Leftist lack leadership because no one remains true to form. No group reflect democracy, none practice it. In addition, those who are proponents of Democracy are the least to reflect it.
If Americans where truly interested in fostering a genuine Left, they would be doing so right now. That is not happening. A Socialist Strategy must contain recipes for real change and reflect there values true to form.
It is really sad because Americans will completely let go of there democracy and do nothing to protect it. They will go on and on, complain, and never start a real revolution.
The Solution we need is for a major leftist party to be elected to the state house and overturn restrictive election laws. Ballot Access should become easy. Than start a media. MINDTV/WYBE Liberty media in Philly is a great example. That can be put on National Cable. We should also foster a Revolution of Civil Disobedience.
With out advertising, media, and weapons that promote such a thing, such a thing is impossible. Howard Zinn and Michael Moore are wrong. We need a good third party that has sincere people who will win the day. In addition, it must be bigger than the Greens.
We must declare war on poverty, privatization, for Labor and human rights/ we must foster a better society and civilization. This is Socialism. In addition, it is Democracy.
Unlike other countries, even socialist can be mean spirit control freaks that do not see their fellow freedom fighters as brothers. It is all about popularity, control, and self-promotion.
Look at how many parties have power struggle and split. Look how many Democracy Committee seem like Polit Bureaus.
People min these parties will allow there buddies to abuse other members, built you can be thrown out for exercising you free will and mind if you are not a buddy of the control freak in question.
Moreover, the left breaks off into competing interest groups and sells out its credos ever chance it gets…
European Socialism has failed. Nevertheless, is also ahs some incredible successes. This many American Socialist ignore. Funny how so many Socialist have never been to Europe, yet they have uninformed opinions about how things operate.
European Socialist are in the grips of a capitalist, elitist compromise. The parties are lead buy people who forget the poor and workers movement. But at least there are sincere revolutions from below and people are hopeful their parties will one day be genuine socialists.
The Revolution must be lead buy people who are humane and have vision. Socialism and the struggle for democracy. Real Democracy, not democratic centralism. The unreal revolution with the hippy mentality of change the world through organizations and fist waving is the road to failure. The Hippy path failure has lead to the Reagan Era, and The Long Mean Season. The Coolest Generation who thought our generation would save the world was nonsense. Look where that mentality has gotten us today. Reaganomics repeats.
There is surely a plan in Washington to destroy Democracy. We will do nothing about it. let it happen and say what we always say? “Oh well.” We are that apathetic .
If we demand democracy, we may actually be met with a Chinese Democracy situation, where we will be run over by tanks and killed. We are too warm and comfortable for that aren’t we.
Franklins New Deal, and Johnsons Great Society programs where watered down versions of socialism. But they where effective. Only slightly. FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has been passed away from History and the Democratic Party has never fulfilled its promise.
America embrace of the two party system has hurt democracy in America.
The Hippy Revolution was well meaning, but artificial. The Hippies had no attention of getting rid of the two party system. In fact, the hippies where artificial in there Revolution. There excuse wasn’t to get rid of the two party system. It was to maintain, reform and bring it in to enlightenment. And this was to be done by young people who where wet behind the ears themselves.
At least youth stood for something and had a little substance. But even Frank Zappa noted, these people where no different from there parents. I remember one hippy saying they where going to show them how. How to what?
Even today, the Left is stuck in a Clueless Revolution. Still stuck with a 1960’s mentality, they cling to 1960’s values. There is no attempt to obtain Solidarity. One Party tries, The Workers World Party, they include, blacks, whites, latino’s, gays, bi, trans.
There is no strategy, still they are denied access to media, Socialist Parties are still not effective.
Like most, leftists cannot get past the last protest. One can go to many protests and ask people why they are not at least supporting a movements that would be elected and foster change. There is a stupid notion that people can change the world through there organizations. How many peace organization? How many Environmental Organizations? How many fist-waving organizations. And after all that, the world goes on to be the same as it ever was.
Democracy isn’t failing because of the Democrats and Republicans. It is failing because Leftists in America are either in protest groups or fist waving groups, or Fan Clubs like The Democratic Socialists of America or the Labor Party.
The Greens had real possibilities, even Communist and far Left groups had endorsed them. But than Called the Socialist Party USA bourgeois Socialism.
The Greens could have had huge success, but they did not realize. Most Americans indulge themselves for the movement for the moment.
I told the Green to enjoy there moment in the sun. There 10 minutes of fame. Not because I wanted the Greens to die. It is just the way America is, America is country of fads.
America Leftist lack leadership because no one remains true to form. No group reflect democracy, none practice it. In addition, those who are proponents of Democracy are the least to reflect it.
If Americans where truly interested in fostering a genuine Left, they would be doing so right now. That is not happening. A Socialist Strategy must contain recipes for real change and reflect there values true to form.
It is really sad because Americans will completely let go of there democracy and do nothing to protect it. They will go on and on, complain, and never start a real revolution.
The Solution we need is for a major leftist party to be elected to the state house and overturn restrictive election laws. Ballot Access should become easy. Than start a media. MINDTV/WYBE Liberty media in Philly is a great example. That can be put on National Cable. We should also foster a Revolution of Civil Disobedience.
With out advertising, media, and weapons that promote such a thing, such a thing is impossible. Howard Zinn and Michael Moore are wrong. We need a good third party that has sincere people who will win the day. In addition, it must be bigger than the Greens.
We must declare war on poverty, privatization, for Labor and human rights/ we must foster a better society and civilization. This is Socialism. In addition, it is Democracy.
Unlike other countries, even socialist can be mean spirit control freaks that do not see their fellow freedom fighters as brothers. It is all about popularity, control, and self-promotion.
Look at how many parties have power struggle and split. Look how many Democracy Committee seem like Polit Bureaus.
People min these parties will allow there buddies to abuse other members, built you can be thrown out for exercising you free will and mind if you are not a buddy of the control freak in question.
Moreover, the left breaks off into competing interest groups and sells out its credos ever chance it gets…
European Socialism has failed. Nevertheless, is also ahs some incredible successes. This many American Socialist ignore. Funny how so many Socialist have never been to Europe, yet they have uninformed opinions about how things operate.
European Socialist are in the grips of a capitalist, elitist compromise. The parties are lead buy people who forget the poor and workers movement. But at least there are sincere revolutions from below and people are hopeful their parties will one day be genuine socialists.
The Revolution must be lead buy people who are humane and have vision. Socialism and the struggle for democracy. Real Democracy, not democratic centralism. The unreal revolution with the hippy mentality of change the world through organizations and fist waving is the road to failure. The Hippy path failure has lead to the Reagan Era, and The Long Mean Season. The Coolest Generation who thought our generation would save the world was nonsense. Look where that mentality has gotten us today. Reaganomics repeats.
There is surely a plan in Washington to destroy Democracy. We will do nothing about it. let it happen and say what we always say? “Oh well.” We are that apathetic .
If we demand democracy, we may actually be met with a Chinese Democracy situation, where we will be run over by tanks and killed. We are too warm and comfortable for that aren’t we.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Our Economic Down Fall
Back in my day, we had a notion called the peace dividend, which was supposed to foster a new world of opportunities and improved quality of life. Of course, this never happened.
Automation is making way for reduced employment and the de-skilling of labor in the blue-collar community. Many of the manufacturing jobs go to illegal immigrants because they will not unionize and they are easily underpaid. There is a mission among corporate CEOs to reduce salaries and work hours. This prevents wage increases, unionizing and benefits.
The average CEO makes 800 times more than the average employee. Many get million-dollar bonuses a year and pay fewer taxes than most workers.
Back in the day, we were supposed to have something called the peace dividend. After the Cold War, there was supposed to be good-quality, paying jobs and a goal of full employment. The meaningful jobs, such as maintaining infrastructure, the so-called green jobs (recently outsourced to India) and many other sustainable and livable community jobs that paid a decent wage, never happened. Instead, we got George Bush I's global hegemony, Clinton's NAFTA and GATT and George Bush II's endless wars, which cost us billions of dollars.
The notion of full employment comes from the universal income and public works jobs. The universal income or basic income grant would have stimulated the economy and produced more jobs for everyone who wanted to work. This also would pay for volunteering and public works programs, not just handouts.
This was a farce since the 1970s. Our lives have been undermined by shortages and inflation, Reagan's war on workers and the poor, and decades of presidents, congressmen and senators who have betrayed us. We have the best government money can buy, and the government gives to the rich nine ways to Sunday.
The prosperity of the 1980s brought in a wave of insensitivity, uncaring and elitism by the yuppies who had no respect for anyone below their income, creating a new caste system, rather than a democracy where everyone is free and equal.
Even today we see even the Democrats don't understand us or even know who we are. The struggle of workers means people fall through the cracks with a temporary and horrible safety net.
The long mean season continues today, and the liberals in office are only offering half measures and bury anything and any idea that can save us.
So, you see, that is why good-paying jobs are disappearing.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Letter to Jay
Dear Jay Blumberg. You asked about Quality jobs and good pay. I am about to tell you why that is not happening.
Back in my day we had a notion called the Peace Dividend.
The Peace Dividend was suppose to foster a new world of opportunities and improved quality of life. Of Course this never happened.
We are melded to the notion of manufacturing jobs. We refuse to acknowledge these jobs are being evolved out of. This is like the Local Black Smith, Tinker, Spinners, and Sawyers.
Automation is making way for reduced employment and de-skilling of labor in the Blue Collar Community. Not to mention many of these jobs go to aliens because they will not unionize and they are easily underpaid.
There is a mission amongst Corporate CEOs to reduce salaries and work hours. This prevents wage increases, unionizing, and benefits.
The average CEO makes 800 time more than the average employee. Many get $54,000,000 a year bonuses and pay less taxes than most workers.
Back in the day we where suppose to have something called the Peace Dividend. After the Cold War there was suppose to be good quality paying jobs and a mission toward full employment. The Meaningful Jobs, such as maintaining infrastructure, the so called Green Jobs, (Recently outsourced to China) and many other Sustainable and Livable community jobs that paid a decent wage never happened. Instead, We got George Bush I’s global hegemony, Clinton’s NAFTA and GATT, George Bush II’s endless wars which costs us billions.
The notion of full employment comes form the Universal Income and public works jobs. (Many people work outside the workplace, in which this was suppose count as work and work is a Job) The Universal Income or Basic Income Grant would have stimulated the economy and produced more jobs for everyone who wanted to work at a regular job. This would also pay for volunteering and public works programs, not just a handout. However there would be a dictatorship of the job.
This was a farce since the 1970’s our lives had been undermined by Ford’s shortages and inflations, Reagan’s war on workers and the poor and decades of Presidents, Congressmen, and Senators who have betrayed us in behalf of there sponsors. We have the best Government money could by and the government gives to the rich nine ways to Sunday. 80’s prosperity brought in a wave of insensitivity, uncaring, and elitism by the Yuppies who had no respect for anyone below there income creating a new caste system, rather than a Democracy where everyone is free and equal.
Even today we see that even the Democrats, our social party, doesn’t understand us or even know who we are. The struggle of workers means people fall through the cracks with a temporary and horrible safety net.
The Long Mean Season continues today and our Liberals and office are only offering us half measures and bury anything and any idea that can save us. So you see, that is why we are not getting good pay or good jobs.
Back in my day we had a notion called the Peace Dividend.
The Peace Dividend was suppose to foster a new world of opportunities and improved quality of life. Of Course this never happened.
We are melded to the notion of manufacturing jobs. We refuse to acknowledge these jobs are being evolved out of. This is like the Local Black Smith, Tinker, Spinners, and Sawyers.
Automation is making way for reduced employment and de-skilling of labor in the Blue Collar Community. Not to mention many of these jobs go to aliens because they will not unionize and they are easily underpaid.
There is a mission amongst Corporate CEOs to reduce salaries and work hours. This prevents wage increases, unionizing, and benefits.
The average CEO makes 800 time more than the average employee. Many get $54,000,000 a year bonuses and pay less taxes than most workers.
Back in the day we where suppose to have something called the Peace Dividend. After the Cold War there was suppose to be good quality paying jobs and a mission toward full employment. The Meaningful Jobs, such as maintaining infrastructure, the so called Green Jobs, (Recently outsourced to China) and many other Sustainable and Livable community jobs that paid a decent wage never happened. Instead, We got George Bush I’s global hegemony, Clinton’s NAFTA and GATT, George Bush II’s endless wars which costs us billions.
The notion of full employment comes form the Universal Income and public works jobs. (Many people work outside the workplace, in which this was suppose count as work and work is a Job) The Universal Income or Basic Income Grant would have stimulated the economy and produced more jobs for everyone who wanted to work at a regular job. This would also pay for volunteering and public works programs, not just a handout. However there would be a dictatorship of the job.
This was a farce since the 1970’s our lives had been undermined by Ford’s shortages and inflations, Reagan’s war on workers and the poor and decades of Presidents, Congressmen, and Senators who have betrayed us in behalf of there sponsors. We have the best Government money could by and the government gives to the rich nine ways to Sunday. 80’s prosperity brought in a wave of insensitivity, uncaring, and elitism by the Yuppies who had no respect for anyone below there income creating a new caste system, rather than a Democracy where everyone is free and equal.
Even today we see that even the Democrats, our social party, doesn’t understand us or even know who we are. The struggle of workers means people fall through the cracks with a temporary and horrible safety net.
The Long Mean Season continues today and our Liberals and office are only offering us half measures and bury anything and any idea that can save us. So you see, that is why we are not getting good pay or good jobs.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
EXPENSE OF SOCIAL PROGRAMS
ThI am frequently told that we cannot have a social system as they do in Scandinavia or Europe. I feel the need to dispel that because there have been too many distortions on what we can afford. With in year 2004 and 2009 The top 1% received a huge handout in the Trillions. Bush’s welfare for the rich and Obama’s Economic Stimulus and Bailout
As an advocate of the Universal Income and social programs, I had to check the facts.
The items that steal the most money are:
Corporate welfare
Pork Barrel Spending
Tax Havens
Tax Abatement
Socialism for the Rich
Lets look at War at it cost to date:
Cost of U.S. Wars Since 2001
$963,307,450,494 Totaled from below.
Cost of War in Iraq
$708,178,665,506
Cost of War in Afghanistan
$255,128,784,848
Secret Governments
$35,000,000,000
Corporate Welfare
$2,300,000,000,000
$2,000,000,000,000 economic stimulus
GWB 2004 hand out 1,000,000,000,000 (trillion)
Pork Barrel Spending
$410,000,000
Secret Governments
CIA
1,100,000,000,000
Pentagon
$43,900,000,000
Grand Total: $64,442,617,450,494
For Social Spending:$2,002,076,410,463
Socialism for the Rich
N/A: According to 60 Minutes, the wealthy get free homes, beach front homes, SUVs, and other free items. Maybe in the Billions
Tax Abatement: N/A Again, in the Billions
Tax Havens mostly in the Millions. Not Calculated.
http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/2006/04/i_want_my_money_back.htm
http://www.warresisters.org/node/457
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost
http://evidencebasedprograms.org/wordpress
Taxpayers in the United States will pay $907.3 billion for total Iraq & Afghanistan war spending since 2001. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
267,406,630 People with Health Care for One Year
19,596,112 Public Safety Officers for One year
15,559,271 Music and Arts Teachers for One Year
140,275,201 Scholarships for University Students for One Year (eventual free education)
163,477,477 Students receiving Pell Grants of $5550 (See above)
7,057,801 Affordable Housing Units
399,894,220 Children with Health Care for One Year
124,509,400 Head Start Places for Children for One Year
14,904,312 Elementary School Teachers for One Year
939,289,301 Homes with Renewable Electricity for One Year
*2,000,000,000,000 for Universal Income for every person.
* Actually, the BIG/UI would be a faction since this calculates every living persons included infants. Calculated at $30,000 a year per person. For adults and teens this could be cut down by 1/3.
**Also, with installment of many programs the government would be billions if not trillions in downsizing administrations. In effect urban
renewal would be sustainable reducing cost of deteriorating infrastructure and blight. Preventative measures and Social Programs that work and cultivate self ability and free from dependence. Affordability of other social programs.
***Also investment in urban and municipal and social enterprise, reversing the tide of Privatization and creating public enterprise would give the Government in un-totaled Billions (If not Trillions). This would even reduce taxes.
**** We must also stop Democrats and Republicans from throwing money at programs that do not work. Government accountability is a must.
Dedicated to Bill Pelz, Eric Schuster, Cassidy Martinez, Dave Howell, Karl Widerquist, Sandro Gobetti, Mike Marino, Jim Davis,Vitov Munoz, and Mike Spinosi
As an advocate of the Universal Income and social programs, I had to check the facts.
The items that steal the most money are:
Corporate welfare
Pork Barrel Spending
Tax Havens
Tax Abatement
Socialism for the Rich
Lets look at War at it cost to date:
Cost of U.S. Wars Since 2001
$963,307,450,494 Totaled from below.
Cost of War in Iraq
$708,178,665,506
Cost of War in Afghanistan
$255,128,784,848
Secret Governments
$35,000,000,000
Corporate Welfare
$2,300,000,000,000
$2,000,000,000,000 economic stimulus
GWB 2004 hand out 1,000,000,000,000 (trillion)
Pork Barrel Spending
$410,000,000
Secret Governments
CIA
1,100,000,000,000
Pentagon
$43,900,000,000
Grand Total: $64,442,617,450,494
For Social Spending:$2,002,076,410,463
Socialism for the Rich
N/A: According to 60 Minutes, the wealthy get free homes, beach front homes, SUVs, and other free items. Maybe in the Billions
Tax Abatement: N/A Again, in the Billions
Tax Havens mostly in the Millions. Not Calculated.
http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/2006/04/i_want_my_money_back.htm
http://www.warresisters.org/node/457
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-system-cost
http://evidencebasedprograms.org/wordpress
Taxpayers in the United States will pay $907.3 billion for total Iraq & Afghanistan war spending since 2001. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
267,406,630 People with Health Care for One Year
19,596,112 Public Safety Officers for One year
15,559,271 Music and Arts Teachers for One Year
140,275,201 Scholarships for University Students for One Year (eventual free education)
163,477,477 Students receiving Pell Grants of $5550 (See above)
7,057,801 Affordable Housing Units
399,894,220 Children with Health Care for One Year
124,509,400 Head Start Places for Children for One Year
14,904,312 Elementary School Teachers for One Year
939,289,301 Homes with Renewable Electricity for One Year
*2,000,000,000,000 for Universal Income for every person.
* Actually, the BIG/UI would be a faction since this calculates every living persons included infants. Calculated at $30,000 a year per person. For adults and teens this could be cut down by 1/3.
**Also, with installment of many programs the government would be billions if not trillions in downsizing administrations. In effect urban
renewal would be sustainable reducing cost of deteriorating infrastructure and blight. Preventative measures and Social Programs that work and cultivate self ability and free from dependence. Affordability of other social programs.
***Also investment in urban and municipal and social enterprise, reversing the tide of Privatization and creating public enterprise would give the Government in un-totaled Billions (If not Trillions). This would even reduce taxes.
**** We must also stop Democrats and Republicans from throwing money at programs that do not work. Government accountability is a must.
Dedicated to Bill Pelz, Eric Schuster, Cassidy Martinez, Dave Howell, Karl Widerquist, Sandro Gobetti, Mike Marino, Jim Davis,Vitov Munoz, and Mike Spinosi
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Economic Democarcy
Economic Democarcy(Information Supplied by Varied Sources)
Economic democracy is a social and economic philosophy that suggests an expansion of decision-making power from a small minority of corporate shareholders to a larger majority of public stakeholders. Example can be found in Co-ops and ESOPs and even Municipal BusinessesCentralized corporate monopoly of common resources typically forces conditions of artificial scarcity upon the greater majority, resulting in socio-economic imbalances that restrict workers from access to economic opportunity and diminish consumer purchasing power. Also diminishes workers rights and attacks the impoverished.Economic democracy promotes universal access to common resources that are typically privatized by corporate capitalism . Assuming full political rights cannot be won without full economic, social, or political rights, economic democracy suggests alternative models and reform agendas for solving problems of economic instability and deficiency of effective demand. As an alternative model, both market and non-market theories of economic democracy have been proposed. As a reform agenda, supporting theories and real-world examples include democratic cooperatives, fair trade, social credit, and the regionalization of food production.
Worker self-management
According to Schweickart’s model, each productive enterprise is controlled by those who work there. Workers are responsible for the operation of the facility, including organization, operations, production, and the nature, price, and distribution of products. Workers control the means of production and management.Decisions concerning proceeds distribution are made democratically. Problems of authority delegation are solved by democratic representation. Management is not appointed by the State nor elected by the community at large, nor selected by a board of directors elected by stockholders. Whatever internal structures are put in place, ultimate authority rests with the enterprise’s employees.Workers control the workplace, they do not “own” the means of production in Schweickart’s model. Productive resources are regarded as the collective property of the society. Workers have the right to run the enterprise, to use its capital assets as they see fit, and to distribute among themselves the whole of the net profit from production. Societal “ownership” of the enterprise manifests itself in two ways.All firms must pay a tax on their capital assets, which goes into society’s investment fund. In effect, workers rent their capital assets from society.Firms are required to preserve the value of the capital stock entrusted to them. This means that a depreciation fund must be maintained. Money must be set aside to repair or replace existing capital stock. This money may be spent on whatever capital replacements or improvements the firm deems fit, but it may not be used to supplement workers’ incomes.If a firm is unable to generate even the nationally-specified minimum per-capita income, then it must declare bankruptcy. Movable capital will be used to pay creditors. The workers must seek employment elsewhere. In such economic difficulty, workers are free to reorganize the facility, or to leave and seek work elsewhere. They are not free to sell off their capital stocks and use the proceeds as income. A firm can sell off capital stocks and use the proceeds to buy additional capital goods. Or, if the firm wishes to contract its capital base so as to reduce its tax and depreciation obligations, it can sell off some of its assets, but in this case proceeds from the sale go into the national investment fund, not to the workers, since these assets belong to society as a whole.
Inclusive democracy
The proposed system aims to meet the basic needs of all citizens (macro-economic decisions), and secure freedom of choice (micro-economic decisions). Therefore, the system consists of two basic elements: democratic planning, which involves a feedback process between workplace assemblies, demotic assemblies and the confederal assembly, and an artificial market using personal vouchers,a proposed system of vouchers.As with the case of direct democracy, economic democracy today is only feasible at the level of the confederated demoi. It involves the ownership and control of the means of production by the demos. This is radically different from the two main forms of concentration of economic power which ensures freedom of choice but avoids the adverse effects of real markets. Although some have called this system “a form of money based on the labour theory of value”, it is not a money model since vouchers cannot be used as a general medium of exchange and store of wealth.Another distinguishing feature of inclusive democracy is its distinction between basic and non-basic needs. Remuneration is according to need for basic needs, and according to effort for non-basic needs. Inclusive democracy is based on the principle that meeting basic needs is a fundamental human right which is guaranteed to all who are in a physical condition to offer a minimal amount of work. By contrast, participatory economics guarantees that basic needs are satisfied only to the extent they are characterized public goods or are covered by compassion and by a guaranteed basic income for the unemployed and those who cannot work .Within the inclusive democracy project, economic democracy is the authority of demos (community) in the economic sphere — which requires equal distribution of economic power. Therefore, all ‘macro’ economic decisions, namely, decisions concerning the running of the economy as a whole (overall level of production, consumption and investment, amounts of work and leisure implied, technologies to be used, etc.) are made by the citizen body collectively and without representation. However, “micro” economic decisions at the workplace or the household levels are made by the individual production or consumption unit through : capitalist an ’socialist’ growth economy. It is also different from the various types of collectivism , such as workers’ control and milder versions suggested by post-Keynesian social democrats. The demos, therefore, becomes the authentic unit of economic life.For economic democracy to be feasible, proponents of inclusive democracy suggest three preconditions must be satisfied: Demotic self-reliance, demotic ownership of the means of production, and confederal allocation of resources.Demotic self-reliance is meant in terms of radical decentralization and self-reliance, rather than of self-sufficiency.Demotic ownership of productive resources is a kind of ownership which leads to the politicization of the economy, the real synthesis of economy and polity. This is so because economic decision making is carried out by the entire community, through the demotic assemblies, where people make the fundamental macro-economic decisions which affect the whole community, as citizens, rather than as vocationally oriented groups (e.g. workers, as e.g. in participatory economics ). At the same time, workers, apart from participating in the demotic decisions about the overall planning targets, would also participate (in the above broad sense of vocationally oriented groups) in their respective workplace assemblies, in a process of modifying/implementing the Democratic Plan and in running their own workplace.Co federal allocation of resources is required because, although self-reliance allows many decisions to be made at the community level, much remains to be decided at the regional/national/supra-national level. However, it is delegates (rather than representatives) with specific mandates from the demotic assemblies who are involved in a confederal demotic planning process which, in combination with the proposed system of vouchers, effects the allocation of resources in a confederal inclusive democracy.
Rather than an economic shortfall, many analysts consider the gap between production and purchasing power a social dividend. In this view, credit is a public utility rather than debt to financial centers. Once reinvested in human productive potential, the surplus of societal output could actually increase Gross Domestic Product rather than throttling it, resulting in a more efficient economy, overall.
National dividend
In this view, many proponents advocate Basic Income Guarantee (“B.I.G.”) Or Universal Income (UI), previously proposed in the United States by economists, politicians and reformers, including Thomas Paine, Milton Friedman, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and John Kenneth Galbraith. Friedman originally proposed a negative income tax to support this system, but then opposed the bill because its revised implementation would have merely supplemented existing tax-structures rather than replacing them. In 2006, the basic income guarantee was again proposed on the national level by State Representative Bob Filner (D-CA) as H.R. 5257, supported by author Matthew Rothschild.According to the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network:“The basic income guarantee (BIG) is a government insured guarantee that no citizen’s income will fall below some minimal level for any reason. All citizens would receive a BIG without means test or work requirement. BIG is an efficient and effective solution to poverty that preserves individual autonomy and work incentives while simplifying government social policy. Some researchers estimate that a small BIG, sufficient to cut the poverty rate in half could be financed without an increase in taxes by redirecting funds from spending programs and tax deductions aimed at maintaining incomes.”* What maybe problematic about this is the fact that Democrats and Republicans may distort political facts about poverty and place people into another management scheme taking away freed, liberty, and affordability.Likewise, Richard C. Cook suggests existing surplus in United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could support such a system, as GDP of $12.98-trillion minus $9.21-trillion in purchasing power (“wages”) equals a difference of $3.77-trillion. Divided equally amongst United States citizens, Cook estimates a “National Dividend” of approximately $12,600 could be provided annually to every U.S. citizen. A primary function of monetary reform is to “provide sufficient individual income” — not merely “create jobs” — for American workers displaced by technological advancement, outsourcing, and other economic influences beyond their control. Funding of the National Dividend would be drawn from a national credit account, which would include all factors that generate production costs and create new capital assets. The national credit account could also be used for price subsidies to discourage manufacturers from cutting costs by shipping jobs overseas.Rather than Federal Reserve Notes, circulated only through debt payable to a bank with interest, the National Dividend would be “real money”, based on the productive capacity of the economy expressed as GDP. Cook says, “it’s important to realize that Social Credit is not a socialist system. Rather it is ‘democratic capitalism,’ in contrast to the ‘finance capitalism’ that has become so damaging”. Rooted in the ideals of Social Credit, proposed by C.H. Douglas in the 1920s, Cook explains:“The difference between a National Dividend and a basic income guarantee is that the dividend is tied to production and consumption data and may vary from year to year. During years that the dividend falls below a designated threshold, the balance of a basic income guarantee could be provided from tax revenues. But in a highly-automated economy such as that of the U.S., the National Dividend would normally be where all players start with a fair distribution of financial opportunity to succeed, and try to privatize as much as they can as they move around “the commons”. Distinguishing the board game of Monopoly from contemporary real-world business, . Contrasting “redistribution” of income (or property) with “pre-distribution”, (without corporately privatizing) “the commons” to spread ownership universally, without taking wealth from some and giving it to others. His suggested mechanism to this end is the establishment of a “Commons Sector”, ensuring payment from the Corporate Sector for “the commons” they utilize, and equitably distributing the proceeds for the benefit of contemporary and future generations of society.One real-world example of such reform is in the U.S. State of Alaska, where each citizen receives an annual share of the state’s oil revenues called, “Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend”. Barnes suggests this model could extend to other states and nations because “we jointly own many valuable assets”. As corporate pollution of common assets increase, the permits for such pollution would become more scarce, driving prices for those permits up. “Less pollution would equal more revenue”, and over time, “trillions of dollars could flow into an American Permanent Fund”.However, none of these proposals aspire to the mandates recommended by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:Two conditions are indispensable if we are to ensure that the guaranteed income operates as a consistently progressive measure. First, it must be pegged to the median income of society, not the lowest levels of income. To guarantee an income at the floor would simply perpetuate welfare standards and freeze into the society poverty conditions. Second, the guaranteed income must be dynamic; it must automatically increase as the total social income grows. Were it permitted to remain static under growth conditions, the recipients would suffer a relative decline. If periodic reviews disclose that the whole national income has risen, then the guaranteed income would have to be adjusted upward by the same percentage. Without these safeguards a creeping retrogression would occur, nullifying the gains of security and stability.Moreover, proponents of Economic Democracy generally deem any such reform unlikely under the dominance of contemporary command economies. While Thomas Paine originally recommended a National Dividend to compensate for the brutality of British Enclosures, no such large-scale disbursement has materialized in over 200-years since.Since times have changed, there should be a consideration of a Living Wage and a Universal Income comparable with a Living Wage.Monopoly power versus public utilityMain article: J. W. SmithRather than superficially compensating for legalized inequities, many analysts recommend the “enclosures” themselves—property rights laws—should be either abolished or redefined with particular respect for “the commons”. According to J.W. Smith, exclusive title to natural resources and technologies should be converted to inclusive conditional titles –- the condition being that society should collect rental values on all natural resources. Smith suggests the basic principles of monopolization under feudalism were never abandoned, and residues of exclusive feudal property rights restrict the potential efficiency of capitalism in Western cultures. Estimating roughly 60-percent of American capital is little more than capitalized values of unearned wealth, Smith suggests elimination of these monopoly values would double economic efficiency, maintain quality of life, and reduce working hours by half. Wasteful monetary flows can be stopped only by eliminating all methods of monopolization typical in Western economies.J.W. Smith divides “primary (feudal) monopoly” into four general categories; banking, land, technology, and communications. He lists three general categories of “secondary (modern) monopoly”; insurance, law, health care. Smith further claims that converting these exclusive entitlements to inclusive human rights would minimize battles for market share, thereby eliminating most offices and staff needed to maintain monopoly structures, and stop the wars generated to protect them. Dissolving roughly half the economic activity of a monopoly system would reduce the costs of common resources by roughly half, and significantly minimize the most influential factors of poverty.In Smith’s view, most taxes should be eliminated, and productive enterprise should be privately owned and managed. Inventors should be paid well and all technology placed in the public domain. Crucial services currently monopolized through licensing should be legislated as human rights.Smith envisions a balanced economy under a socially-owned banking commons within an inclusive society with full and equal rights for all Federated regions collect resource rents on land and technology to a social fund to operate governments and care for social needs. Socially-owned banks provide finance capital by creating debt-free money for social infrastructure and industry. Rental values return to society through expenditure on public infrastructures. Local labor is trained and employed to build and maintain water systems, sewers, roads, communication systems, railroads, ports, airports, post offices, and education systems. Purchasing power circulates regionally, as labor spends wages in consumption and governments spend resource rent and banking profits to maintain essential services.According to Smith, all monetary systems, including money markets, should function within fractional-reserve banking. Financial capital should be the total savings of all citizens, balanced by primary-created money to fill any shortfall, or its destruction through increased reserve requirements to eliminate any surplus. Adjustments of required reserves should facilitate the balance between building with socially-created money or savings. Any shortage of savings within a socially-owned banking system should be all eviated by simply printing it. The Universal Income should be favored over all, But it must equal the to living wage. Other wise it will be just another poverty management program'
Democratic Economics is the mission of Democratic Socialists simply for the reason that these would present democratically controlled institutions, employment. Some would dispell these as Capitalism and the Government should own everything. This is not true Democratic Socialism.
Economic democracy is a social and economic philosophy that suggests an expansion of decision-making power from a small minority of corporate shareholders to a larger majority of public stakeholders. Example can be found in Co-ops and ESOPs and even Municipal BusinessesCentralized corporate monopoly of common resources typically forces conditions of artificial scarcity upon the greater majority, resulting in socio-economic imbalances that restrict workers from access to economic opportunity and diminish consumer purchasing power. Also diminishes workers rights and attacks the impoverished.Economic democracy promotes universal access to common resources that are typically privatized by corporate capitalism . Assuming full political rights cannot be won without full economic, social, or political rights, economic democracy suggests alternative models and reform agendas for solving problems of economic instability and deficiency of effective demand. As an alternative model, both market and non-market theories of economic democracy have been proposed. As a reform agenda, supporting theories and real-world examples include democratic cooperatives, fair trade, social credit, and the regionalization of food production.
Worker self-management
According to Schweickart’s model, each productive enterprise is controlled by those who work there. Workers are responsible for the operation of the facility, including organization, operations, production, and the nature, price, and distribution of products. Workers control the means of production and management.Decisions concerning proceeds distribution are made democratically. Problems of authority delegation are solved by democratic representation. Management is not appointed by the State nor elected by the community at large, nor selected by a board of directors elected by stockholders. Whatever internal structures are put in place, ultimate authority rests with the enterprise’s employees.Workers control the workplace, they do not “own” the means of production in Schweickart’s model. Productive resources are regarded as the collective property of the society. Workers have the right to run the enterprise, to use its capital assets as they see fit, and to distribute among themselves the whole of the net profit from production. Societal “ownership” of the enterprise manifests itself in two ways.All firms must pay a tax on their capital assets, which goes into society’s investment fund. In effect, workers rent their capital assets from society.Firms are required to preserve the value of the capital stock entrusted to them. This means that a depreciation fund must be maintained. Money must be set aside to repair or replace existing capital stock. This money may be spent on whatever capital replacements or improvements the firm deems fit, but it may not be used to supplement workers’ incomes.If a firm is unable to generate even the nationally-specified minimum per-capita income, then it must declare bankruptcy. Movable capital will be used to pay creditors. The workers must seek employment elsewhere. In such economic difficulty, workers are free to reorganize the facility, or to leave and seek work elsewhere. They are not free to sell off their capital stocks and use the proceeds as income. A firm can sell off capital stocks and use the proceeds to buy additional capital goods. Or, if the firm wishes to contract its capital base so as to reduce its tax and depreciation obligations, it can sell off some of its assets, but in this case proceeds from the sale go into the national investment fund, not to the workers, since these assets belong to society as a whole.
Inclusive democracy
The proposed system aims to meet the basic needs of all citizens (macro-economic decisions), and secure freedom of choice (micro-economic decisions). Therefore, the system consists of two basic elements: democratic planning, which involves a feedback process between workplace assemblies, demotic assemblies and the confederal assembly, and an artificial market using personal vouchers,a proposed system of vouchers.As with the case of direct democracy, economic democracy today is only feasible at the level of the confederated demoi. It involves the ownership and control of the means of production by the demos. This is radically different from the two main forms of concentration of economic power which ensures freedom of choice but avoids the adverse effects of real markets. Although some have called this system “a form of money based on the labour theory of value”, it is not a money model since vouchers cannot be used as a general medium of exchange and store of wealth.Another distinguishing feature of inclusive democracy is its distinction between basic and non-basic needs. Remuneration is according to need for basic needs, and according to effort for non-basic needs. Inclusive democracy is based on the principle that meeting basic needs is a fundamental human right which is guaranteed to all who are in a physical condition to offer a minimal amount of work. By contrast, participatory economics guarantees that basic needs are satisfied only to the extent they are characterized public goods or are covered by compassion and by a guaranteed basic income for the unemployed and those who cannot work .Within the inclusive democracy project, economic democracy is the authority of demos (community) in the economic sphere — which requires equal distribution of economic power. Therefore, all ‘macro’ economic decisions, namely, decisions concerning the running of the economy as a whole (overall level of production, consumption and investment, amounts of work and leisure implied, technologies to be used, etc.) are made by the citizen body collectively and without representation. However, “micro” economic decisions at the workplace or the household levels are made by the individual production or consumption unit through : capitalist an ’socialist’ growth economy. It is also different from the various types of collectivism , such as workers’ control and milder versions suggested by post-Keynesian social democrats. The demos, therefore, becomes the authentic unit of economic life.For economic democracy to be feasible, proponents of inclusive democracy suggest three preconditions must be satisfied: Demotic self-reliance, demotic ownership of the means of production, and confederal allocation of resources.Demotic self-reliance is meant in terms of radical decentralization and self-reliance, rather than of self-sufficiency.Demotic ownership of productive resources is a kind of ownership which leads to the politicization of the economy, the real synthesis of economy and polity. This is so because economic decision making is carried out by the entire community, through the demotic assemblies, where people make the fundamental macro-economic decisions which affect the whole community, as citizens, rather than as vocationally oriented groups (e.g. workers, as e.g. in participatory economics ). At the same time, workers, apart from participating in the demotic decisions about the overall planning targets, would also participate (in the above broad sense of vocationally oriented groups) in their respective workplace assemblies, in a process of modifying/implementing the Democratic Plan and in running their own workplace.Co federal allocation of resources is required because, although self-reliance allows many decisions to be made at the community level, much remains to be decided at the regional/national/supra-national level. However, it is delegates (rather than representatives) with specific mandates from the demotic assemblies who are involved in a confederal demotic planning process which, in combination with the proposed system of vouchers, effects the allocation of resources in a confederal inclusive democracy.
Rather than an economic shortfall, many analysts consider the gap between production and purchasing power a social dividend. In this view, credit is a public utility rather than debt to financial centers. Once reinvested in human productive potential, the surplus of societal output could actually increase Gross Domestic Product rather than throttling it, resulting in a more efficient economy, overall.
National dividend
In this view, many proponents advocate Basic Income Guarantee (“B.I.G.”) Or Universal Income (UI), previously proposed in the United States by economists, politicians and reformers, including Thomas Paine, Milton Friedman, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and John Kenneth Galbraith. Friedman originally proposed a negative income tax to support this system, but then opposed the bill because its revised implementation would have merely supplemented existing tax-structures rather than replacing them. In 2006, the basic income guarantee was again proposed on the national level by State Representative Bob Filner (D-CA) as H.R. 5257, supported by author Matthew Rothschild.According to the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network:“The basic income guarantee (BIG) is a government insured guarantee that no citizen’s income will fall below some minimal level for any reason. All citizens would receive a BIG without means test or work requirement. BIG is an efficient and effective solution to poverty that preserves individual autonomy and work incentives while simplifying government social policy. Some researchers estimate that a small BIG, sufficient to cut the poverty rate in half could be financed without an increase in taxes by redirecting funds from spending programs and tax deductions aimed at maintaining incomes.”* What maybe problematic about this is the fact that Democrats and Republicans may distort political facts about poverty and place people into another management scheme taking away freed, liberty, and affordability.Likewise, Richard C. Cook suggests existing surplus in United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could support such a system, as GDP of $12.98-trillion minus $9.21-trillion in purchasing power (“wages”) equals a difference of $3.77-trillion. Divided equally amongst United States citizens, Cook estimates a “National Dividend” of approximately $12,600 could be provided annually to every U.S. citizen. A primary function of monetary reform is to “provide sufficient individual income” — not merely “create jobs” — for American workers displaced by technological advancement, outsourcing, and other economic influences beyond their control. Funding of the National Dividend would be drawn from a national credit account, which would include all factors that generate production costs and create new capital assets. The national credit account could also be used for price subsidies to discourage manufacturers from cutting costs by shipping jobs overseas.Rather than Federal Reserve Notes, circulated only through debt payable to a bank with interest, the National Dividend would be “real money”, based on the productive capacity of the economy expressed as GDP. Cook says, “it’s important to realize that Social Credit is not a socialist system. Rather it is ‘democratic capitalism,’ in contrast to the ‘finance capitalism’ that has become so damaging”. Rooted in the ideals of Social Credit, proposed by C.H. Douglas in the 1920s, Cook explains:“The difference between a National Dividend and a basic income guarantee is that the dividend is tied to production and consumption data and may vary from year to year. During years that the dividend falls below a designated threshold, the balance of a basic income guarantee could be provided from tax revenues. But in a highly-automated economy such as that of the U.S., the National Dividend would normally be where all players start with a fair distribution of financial opportunity to succeed, and try to privatize as much as they can as they move around “the commons”. Distinguishing the board game of Monopoly from contemporary real-world business, . Contrasting “redistribution” of income (or property) with “pre-distribution”, (without corporately privatizing) “the commons” to spread ownership universally, without taking wealth from some and giving it to others. His suggested mechanism to this end is the establishment of a “Commons Sector”, ensuring payment from the Corporate Sector for “the commons” they utilize, and equitably distributing the proceeds for the benefit of contemporary and future generations of society.One real-world example of such reform is in the U.S. State of Alaska, where each citizen receives an annual share of the state’s oil revenues called, “Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend”. Barnes suggests this model could extend to other states and nations because “we jointly own many valuable assets”. As corporate pollution of common assets increase, the permits for such pollution would become more scarce, driving prices for those permits up. “Less pollution would equal more revenue”, and over time, “trillions of dollars could flow into an American Permanent Fund”.However, none of these proposals aspire to the mandates recommended by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:Two conditions are indispensable if we are to ensure that the guaranteed income operates as a consistently progressive measure. First, it must be pegged to the median income of society, not the lowest levels of income. To guarantee an income at the floor would simply perpetuate welfare standards and freeze into the society poverty conditions. Second, the guaranteed income must be dynamic; it must automatically increase as the total social income grows. Were it permitted to remain static under growth conditions, the recipients would suffer a relative decline. If periodic reviews disclose that the whole national income has risen, then the guaranteed income would have to be adjusted upward by the same percentage. Without these safeguards a creeping retrogression would occur, nullifying the gains of security and stability.Moreover, proponents of Economic Democracy generally deem any such reform unlikely under the dominance of contemporary command economies. While Thomas Paine originally recommended a National Dividend to compensate for the brutality of British Enclosures, no such large-scale disbursement has materialized in over 200-years since.Since times have changed, there should be a consideration of a Living Wage and a Universal Income comparable with a Living Wage.Monopoly power versus public utilityMain article: J. W. SmithRather than superficially compensating for legalized inequities, many analysts recommend the “enclosures” themselves—property rights laws—should be either abolished or redefined with particular respect for “the commons”. According to J.W. Smith, exclusive title to natural resources and technologies should be converted to inclusive conditional titles –- the condition being that society should collect rental values on all natural resources. Smith suggests the basic principles of monopolization under feudalism were never abandoned, and residues of exclusive feudal property rights restrict the potential efficiency of capitalism in Western cultures. Estimating roughly 60-percent of American capital is little more than capitalized values of unearned wealth, Smith suggests elimination of these monopoly values would double economic efficiency, maintain quality of life, and reduce working hours by half. Wasteful monetary flows can be stopped only by eliminating all methods of monopolization typical in Western economies.J.W. Smith divides “primary (feudal) monopoly” into four general categories; banking, land, technology, and communications. He lists three general categories of “secondary (modern) monopoly”; insurance, law, health care. Smith further claims that converting these exclusive entitlements to inclusive human rights would minimize battles for market share, thereby eliminating most offices and staff needed to maintain monopoly structures, and stop the wars generated to protect them. Dissolving roughly half the economic activity of a monopoly system would reduce the costs of common resources by roughly half, and significantly minimize the most influential factors of poverty.In Smith’s view, most taxes should be eliminated, and productive enterprise should be privately owned and managed. Inventors should be paid well and all technology placed in the public domain. Crucial services currently monopolized through licensing should be legislated as human rights.Smith envisions a balanced economy under a socially-owned banking commons within an inclusive society with full and equal rights for all Federated regions collect resource rents on land and technology to a social fund to operate governments and care for social needs. Socially-owned banks provide finance capital by creating debt-free money for social infrastructure and industry. Rental values return to society through expenditure on public infrastructures. Local labor is trained and employed to build and maintain water systems, sewers, roads, communication systems, railroads, ports, airports, post offices, and education systems. Purchasing power circulates regionally, as labor spends wages in consumption and governments spend resource rent and banking profits to maintain essential services.According to Smith, all monetary systems, including money markets, should function within fractional-reserve banking. Financial capital should be the total savings of all citizens, balanced by primary-created money to fill any shortfall, or its destruction through increased reserve requirements to eliminate any surplus. Adjustments of required reserves should facilitate the balance between building with socially-created money or savings. Any shortage of savings within a socially-owned banking system should be all eviated by simply printing it. The Universal Income should be favored over all, But it must equal the to living wage. Other wise it will be just another poverty management program'
Democratic Economics is the mission of Democratic Socialists simply for the reason that these would present democratically controlled institutions, employment. Some would dispell these as Capitalism and the Government should own everything. This is not true Democratic Socialism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)