"The RICH Economy" by Robert Anton Wilson
>Date: Sun Jan 17 03:36:17 1999 >From: firstname.lastname@example.org ("Mary Therise Gleason") >Subject: Robert Anton Wilson "The RICH Economy" >To: SystemPolitics@onelist.com, JunkEconomics@onelist.com >Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
>http://freespace.virgin.net/sarah.peter.nelson/pages/rawilson.html >"People can spend only so much time fucking, smoking dope, and >watching TV; after a while they get bored ..." >The Rich Economy by Robert Anton Wilson from The Illuminati Papers >If there is one proposition which currently wins the assent of nearly >everybody, it is that we need more jobs. "A cure for unemployment" is >promised, or earnestly sought, by every Heavy Thinker from Jimmy >Carter to the Communist Party USA, from Ronald Reagan to the head of >the economics department at the local university, from the Birchers >to the New Left. >I would like to challenge that idea. I don't think there is, or ever >again can be, a cure for unemployment. I propose that unemployment is >not a disease, but the natural, healthy functioning of an advanced >technological society. JCT: As Real Caouette, the Great Quebec Social Credit leader, once explained: "If you want jobs, I can give you jobs. Take out the bulldozer and put in 50 men with shovels. If you want more jobs, take away their shovels and give them spoons." He used this to explain that it wasn't the toil that people wanted but rather the paycheck that people wanted. That's why when there's a National Dividend, a share of the robot paycheck, no one will worry about being replaced by a robot when their dividend goes up.
>The inevitable direction of any technology, and of any rational >species such as Homo sap., is toward what Buckminster Fuller calls >ephemeralization, or doing-more-with-less. For instance, a modern >computer does more (handles more bits of information) with less >hardware than the proto-computers of the late '40's and '50's. One >worker with a modern teletype machine does more in an hour than a >thousand medieval monks painstakingly copying scrolls for a century. >Atomic fission does more with a cubic centimeter of matter than all >the engineers of the 19th Century could do with a million tons, and >fusion does even more. >Unemployment is not a disease; so it has no "cure." JCT: When there are things to be done, involuntary unemployment is a mental disease for which there is a cure.
>This tendency toward ephemeralization or doing more-with-less is >based on two principal factors, viz: > 1.The increment-of-association, a term coined by engineer C.H. >Douglas, a meaning simply that when we combine our efforts we can do >more than the sum of what each of us could do separately. Five people >acting synergetically together can lift a small modern car, but if >each of the five tries separately, the car will not budge. As society >evolved from tiny bands, to larger tribes, to federations of tribes, >to city-states, to nations, to multinational alliances, the >increment-of-association increased exponentially. A stone-age hunting >band could not build the Parthenon; a Renaissance city-state could >not put Neil Armstrong on the Moon. When the increment-of-association >increases, through larger social units, doing-more-with-less becomes >increasingly possible. > 2.Knowledge itself is inherently self-augmenting. Every discovery >"suggests" further discoveries; every innovation provokes further >innovations. This can be seen concretely, in the records of the U.S. >Patent Office, where you will find more patents granted every year >than were granted the year before, in a rising curve that seems to be >headed toward infinity. If Inventor A can make a Whatsit out of 20 >moving parts, Inventor B will come along and build a Whatsit out of >10 moving parts. If the technology of 1900 can get 100 ergs out of a >Whatchamacallum, the technology of 1950 can get 1,000 ergs. Again, >the tendency is always toward doing-more-with-less. > Unemployment is directly caused by this technological capacity to >do more-with-less. Thousands of monks were technologically unemployed >by Gutenberg. Thousands of blacksmiths were technologically >unemployed by Ford's Model T. Each device that does-more-with-less >makes human labor that much less necessary. >Aristotle said that slavery could only be abolished when machines >were built that could operate themselves. Working for wages, the >modern equivalent of slavery -- very accurately called "wage slavery" >by social critics -- is in the process of being abolished by just >such self-programming machines. In fact, Norbert Wiener, one of the >creators of cybernetics, foresaw this as early as 1947 and warned >that we would have massive unemployment once the computer revolution >really got moving. >It is arguable, and I for one would argue, that the only reason >Wiener's prediction has not totally been realized yet -- although we >do have ever-increasing unemployment -- is that big unions, the >corporations, and government have all tacitly agreed to slow down the >pace of cybernation, to drag their feet and run the economy with the >brakes on. This is because they all, still, regard unemployment as a >"disease" and cannot imagine a "cure" for the nearly total >unemployment that full cybernation will create. >Suppose, for a moment, we challenge this Calvinistic mind-set. Let us >regard wage-work -- as most people do, in fact, regard it -- as a >curse, a drag, a nuisance, a barrier that stands between us and what >we really want to do. In that case, your job is the disease, and >unemployment is the cure. JCT: Let's call it leisure rather than unemployment since the only difference between unemployment and leisure is that when you're unemployed, you don't have enough money for a comfortable existence and when you're in leisure, you do have enough life-support tickets.
>"But without working for wages we'll all starve to death!?! >Won't we?" >Not at all. Many farseeing social thinkers have suggested intelligent >and plausible plans for adapting to a society of rising unemployment. >Here are some examples. > 1.The National Dividend. This was invented by engineer C. H. >Douglas and has been revived with some modifications by poet Ezra >Pound and designer Buckminster Fuller. The basic idea (although >Douglas, Pound, and Fuller differ on the details) is that every >citizen should be declared a shareholder in the nation, and should >receive dividends on the Gross National Product for the year. JCT: Major Douglas was the founder of the Social Credit movement and gave me my first inkling of the evil of banking system and its controllers. It helps to think of the Dividend as a share of the robot paychecks so that instead of a few people owning all the robots and the others surviving on the taxes we get out of them, most robots are owned by the state and everyone owns a share of the robot's paychecks.
>Estimates differ as to how much this would be for each citizen, but >at the current level of the GNP it is conservative to say that a >share would be worth several times as much, per year, as a welfare >recipient receives -- at least five times more. JCT: When one considers that in Canada, just the debt service is $10,000 per capita per year, it's easy to see how a family of five could live a life of luxury when this is added to the average take- home pay.
>Critics complain that this would be inflationary. Supporters of the >National Dividend reply that it would only be inflationary if the >dividends distributed were more than the GNP; and they are proposing >only to issue dividends equal to the GNP. JCT: Of course, they are correct that if new chips issued are backed up by new collateral in the cage, there cannot be inflation. Unfortunately, economists and most people who are exposed to media, are conditioned to believe that any increase in chips would cause inflation. To any gambler aware of how casino cashiers run their cages, this is silly, but unfortunately, economists are never taught the link between new money and new collateral and look at money all alone which explains why they decry all new money as inflationary.
> 2.The Guaranteed Annual Income. This has been urged by economist >Robert Theobald and others. The government would simply establish an >income level above the poverty line and guarantee that no citizen >would receive less; if your wages fall below that level, or you have >no wages, the government makes up the difference. This plan would >definitely cost the government less than the present welfare system, >with all its bureaucratic red tape and redundancy: a point worth >considering for those conservatives who are always complaining about >the high cost of welfare. It would also spare the recipients the >humiliation, degradation and dehumanization built into the present >welfare system: a point for liberals to consider. A system that is >less expensive than welfare and also less debasing to the poor, it >seems to me, should not be objectionable to anybody but hardcore >sadists. JCT: I personally don't like this because it is charity. I prefer everyone have an interest-free credit line and the rest of their lives in order to try to pay it back and only once they're dead would that charity take place.
> 3.The Negative Income Tax. This was first devised by Nobel >economist Milton Friedman and is a less radical variation on the >above ideas. The Negative Income Tax would establish a minimum income >for every citizen; anyone whose income fell below that level would >receive the amount necessary to bring them up to that standard. >Friedman, who is sometimes called a conservative but prefers to title >himself a libertarian, points out that this would cost "the >government" (i.e. the taxpayers) less than the present welfare >system, like Theobald's Guaranteed Annual Income. It would also >dispense with the last tinge of humiliation associated with >government "charity," since when you cashed a check from IRS nobody >(not even your banker) would know if it was supplementary income due >to poverty or a refund due to overpayment of last year's taxes. JCT: Yes, but you would still know that you were a recipient of charity. I'd rather just owe knowing that I might win a lottery some day before I die and be able to settle up and end up a winner with a positive number in my account when I die. Besides, once the National Dividend starts being added to everyone's account, there won't be many people who won't have been able to settle up their pre-dividend debts.
> 4.The RICH Economy. This was devised by inventor L. Wayne Benner >(co-author with Timothy Leary of Terra II) in collaboration with the >present author. It's a four-stage program to retool society for the >cybernetic and space-age future we are rapidly entering. RICH means >Rising Income through Cybernetic Homeostasis. > Stage I is to recognize that cybernation and massive unemployment >are inevitable and to encourage them. This can be done by offering a >$100,000 reward to any worker who can design a machine that will >replace him or her, and all others doing the same work. In other >words, instead of being dragged into the cybernetic age kicking and >screaming, we should charge ahead bravely, regarding the Toilless >Society as the Utopian goal humanity has always sought. JCT: Sure, as long as all the others who are replaced by the robots benefit by getting a share of more money too.
> Stage II is to establish either the Negative Income Tax or the >Guaranteed Annual Income, so that the massive unemployment caused by >Stage I will not throw hordes of people into the degradation of the >present welfare system. JCT: Better the LETS interest-free credit line with which the newly unemployed may either purchase new education and life-support while they're in their studies or may purchase new capital tools in order to get into a business that society has deemed desirable enough to want to pay for.
> Stage III is to gradually, experimentally, raise the Guaranteed >Annual Income to the level of the National Dividend suggested by >Douglas, Bucky Fuller, and Ezra Pound, which would give every citizen >the approximate living standard of the comfortable middle class. JCT: This can still be done whether people have been surviving and living on interest-free credit or whether on the negative income tax or guaranteed annual income.
>The reason for doing this gradually is to pacify those conservative >economists who claim that the National Dividend is "inflationary" or >would be practically wrecking the banking business by lowering the >interest rate to near-zero. JCT: Doing something to pacify people who have mistaken impressions of how inflation works is not a good enough excuse. Since the National Dividend will not cause inflation, it should be introduced as fast as new robot collateral is created and no slower to satisfy the slower intellects in our society.
>It is our claim that this would not happen as long as the total >dividends distributed to the populace equaled the Gross National >Product. But since this is a revolutionary and controversial idea, >it would be prudent, we allow, to approach it in slow steps, raising >the minimum income perhaps 5 per cent per year for the first ten >years. And, after the massive cybernation caused by Stage I has >produced a glut of consumer goods, experimentally raise it further >and faster toward the level of a true National Dividend. JCT: And again, I want as much free dividend as the system can deliver without causing inflation. I don't want less money just to satisfy idiots who can't see that we're all sharing in increased robot production but who want it spread out slowly to satisfy an archaic and anachronistic belief that inflation is an increase in the money supply when empirical evidence has shown that the inflation our high- production world has been suffering has been shift B inflation, the decrease in value for the existing purchasing power.
> Stage IV is a massive investment in adult education, for two >reasons. > 1. People can spend only so much time fucking, smoking dope, and >watching TV; after a while they get bored. This is the main >psychological objection to the workless society, and the answer to it >is to educate people for functions more cerebral than fucking, >smoking dope, watching TV, or the idiot jobs most are currently >toiling at. JCT: The great book "The Grasshopper" taught me years ago that mankind will always play games, whether those games pay off in financial remuneration or only in physical or intellectual satisfaction.
e> 2.There are vast challenges and opportunities confronting us in >the next three or four decades, of which the most notable are those >highlighted in Tim Leary's SMI2LE slogan -- Space Migration, >Intelligence Increase, Life Extension. JCT: I think the vast opportunities will arise in the next two years. On the day the world banking system announces that interest- free accounts are available, the inevitable spending spree feeding the inevitable industrial surge will take off exponentially until we hit maximum clean industrial production.
>Humanity is about to enter an entirely new evolutionary relationship >to space, time, and consciousness. We will no longer be limited to >one planet, to a brief, less-than-a-century lifespan, and to the >stereotyped and robotic mental processes by which most people >currently govern their lives. JCT: That's for sure. The paradigm shift of going from a financial mort-gage "death-gamble" war where not all can survive and where the losers are foreclosed into deadly poverty to a financial LETS game where the winners win big and the losers win small will be considered the greatest revolution in the history of mankind. Going from a thousands-year-old system of debt slavery to a brand new system of financial liberation will addle the brains of most who have been conditioned by the present system to believe that there must always be greed and poverty. Most cannot even conceive of the upcoming world of love and abundance though it shouldn't take long for everyone to get used to it once the global banks offer LETS accounts in the new millennium.
>Everybody deserves the chance, if they want it, to participate in the >evolutionary leap to what Leary calls "more space, more time, and >more intelligence to enjoy space and time." JCT: The day everyone gets their credit line for life-support will be the day such Heaven on Eden will have arrived. I'm betting before the year 2001. Tom Kennedy says 2010.
> Delve the GALACTIC ARCHIVES for an amusing tale from the future: >"President Hubbard's first step in establishing the RICH Economy was >to offer a prize of $50,000 per year to any worker who could design a >machine that would replace him or her." >What I am proposing, in brief, is that the Work Ethic (find a Master >to employ you for wages, or live in squalid poverty) is obsolete. A >Work Esthetic will have to arise to replace this old Stone Age >syndrome of the slave, the peasant, the serf, the prole, the >wage-worker -- the human labor-machine who is not fully a person but, >as Marx said, " a tool, an automaton." Delivered from the role of >things and robots, people will learn to become fully developed >persons, in the sense of the Human Potential movement. They will not >seek work out of economic necessity, but out of psychological >necessity -- as an outlet for their creative potential. JCT: And when there's no work to be done, they'll play games. Then again, the more games, the more need for referees, officials, photographers, reporters, so there will always be more and more work to be done though it will be shared out efficiently with rewards commensurate with both the effort put in and the skill needed. It's the reason the sewer cleaner will be paid so much more than the bus driver, maybe even the doctor. Though a bus driver may earn an Hour per hour and a cardiac surgeon may be able to command 10 Hours per hour to use his rare skills in an operation, when the sewer plugs up, an announcement will go up on the municipal government LETS bulletin work board offering 5 Hours per hour for shovelling the shit out of the blocked sewer. If no one accepts, they'll up it to 10 Hours per hour. If no one accepts, they'll offer 20 Hours per hour. If no one accepts, they'll offer 30 Hours per hour and so on until someone finally decides that 50 Hours worth of spending power is worth spending an hour in the sewer shovelling the waste and he sends in his bid accepting that chore. Capitalism at its best via the electronic agora. So whereas in today's world where those with the dirtiest jobs earn the least and where those with the parasitic and valueless jobs like financial owners receive the most, in the world of the future, earnings will be based on skill required and unpleasantness experienced.
>("Creative potential" is not a panchreston. It refers to the inborn >drive to play, to tinker, to explore, and to experiment, shown by >every child before his or her mental processes are stunted by >authoritarian education and operant-conditioned wage-robotry.) JCT: Absolutely, though many can't conceive of life without a slavemaster lashing them to their toil. For those who ask "What will we do when there's no work?," it won't take long for them to realize that they'll do the same things rich people with lots of money do today such as arts, sports and play.
>As Bucky Fuller says, the first thought of people, once they are >delivered from wage slavery, will be, "What was it that I was so >interested in as a youth, before I was told I had to earn a living?" >The answer to that question, coming from millions and then billions >of persons liberated from mechanical toil, will make the Renaissance >look like a high school science fair or a Greenwich Village art show. JCT: Yes, delivery from debt and wage slavery will be the greatest Renaissance in the history of mankind.
>Extracts from The Illuminati Papers, Robert Anton Wilson, 1980, >Ronin Publishing, Inc., P.O. Box 1035, Berkeley, CA94701. >The Leisure Party web site was created by Sarah Nelson at: >email@example.com >URL: http://www.leisureparty.org/sarah.peter.nelson JCT: Nice stuff. I don't think I had any major disagreements other than preferring interest-free credit to charity.
>Date: Mon Jan 18 23:10:25 1999 >From: firstname.lastname@example.org ("Mary Therise Gleason") >Subject: Re: Robert Anton Wilson "The RICH Economy" >Do we need more jobs??? Or do citizens need a decent income so they >can handle today's expenses? >Or better still, Technocracy's energy accounting system of >ECO*nomics to better account the QUANTITY being mass-produced to >balance it with the current populations -- instead of pricing people >by the clock as if they are merely commodities like apples and bread. >JQSCOTT: http://www.technocracy.org JCT: Technocracy is another group who have their banking systems engineering right. Their energy certificates operate just like a LETS which accepts not only manpower energy, labor, but also other forms of energy, goods etc.
>They act as if "unemployment" is like an illness to be 'cured.' After >65 years of more and more automation, wouldn't we anticipate that >humans would no longer have to "work" hard as they did in the farming >and factory families of the 19th century -- prior to KWTS ? >And in days of monks tediously copying scrolls in chilly dank rooms, >just think how often they copied something that may or may not have >been true! Today, if something is false it gets copies multiple times >before someone corrects it -- but at a much faster rate than >yestercentury. In support of this posting: >"When intelligence and energy meet -- >there is great manifestation of good." >And when we as an enlightened humanity ABOLISH DOLLARSIGNS AND DEBT, >and employ 20th century "energy" instead to do the "work" once >accomplished by muscle, then we will have reached the evolutionary >level where "Information is our medium of exchange!" JCT: Of course, money is nothing but a promise to pay energy and an energy certificate is a perfect monetary instrument.
>Thus, as much less labor is needed in 1999 than in 1939 - why does it >require more hours on the job just to get a paycheck??? And require >both adults of a household to commute two hours a day without pay. JCT: Why could my grandfather afford to own a home and raise 6 kids and today, that is out of reach of most people?
>A Jan 6 editorial in the Albany Democrat herald asks: >"Do both adults in a household now HAVE to work because wages have >lagged, or have wages fallen mainly because the work force doubled in >the last 30 years when both adults went to work? [we might mention to >pay the rent or the mortgage and the taxes so Congress could pay >itself $65 /hr.] JCT: And of course, the reason is that we've been conned into wanting more money for our food instead of more food for our money. I've explained often enough how interest-free currency buys more and more over time which is preferable to getting money in interest which buys you less and less over time. Getting people to demand more and more money for their food when they could be getting more and more food for their money is the scam.
>"If it's the latter, it would be tempting -- though impractical and >futile, of course -- to tackle the problem by passing a law: >"One job per household." JCT: We often hear this idiotic idea of sharing work being spread by people who don't realize that what they're sharing is not insufficient work to be done but insufficient money to be paid for it.
>And please note that today it's always "household income," quoted. >And the statement "working for wages" is not complete without working >for taxes and working for rents. >Wiener's forecast as well as Technocracy's didn't happen and give us >FEWER hours of work -- not because the technology wasn't available, >but because the PRICE/PROFIT/DEBT SYSTEM was perpetuated on IOU's. >Robert Theobald, of course, proposes that we should have full >unemployment and Bucky Fuller proposed that 70% of the commuters >clogging roadways and going to jobs that produce zero life support, >could properly be kept at home, relieve the traffic congestion, and >be put on fellowships and still save millions. JCT: I've often said this myself. When people object that LETS would be putting almost all bankers, insurance company agents, welfare employees out of work, I'd point out that if we paid them the same money but let them stay home, we'd at least be saving on the gas they would have spent going to do work that is no longer necessary. I'd guess that only a small fraction of our workforce actually do useful work and if those who do non-useful work could diverted into useful work, we'd really have abundance in paradise.
>Theobald spoke of 'right livelihood.' and 85% of the workers hate >their jobs. In a Technate of Tomorrow they would only be required to >work four hours a day / four days a week for a new sixteen hour >workweek and still have time to be home to raise their children and >prevent crime in the future by spending more quality time with their >family instead of paying someone else a minimal wage to care for >their most prized jewels. JCT: Or they could choose to live on their Dividend and let those who enjoy the work do more than 16 hours per week.
>And in the Technate, they wouldn't have to hate their job, but would >work enjoyable in occupations they are well-qualified for... JCT: And if it was not enjoyable, they'd be getting a real premium on their salaries.
>I have not studied the national Dividend of C. H. Douglas but had >another gentleman with an easel and charts come visit in my residence >on a Sunday to promote his solution -- which was still monetary. >As well as many others who want to put a PRICE on what a human >produces or is worth in a lifetime, and then pro rate it -- still a >type of pricing. >Whereas MEASUREMENT of the quantity produced by automation based on >KWTS or other energy [non human muscle or brain] in an advanced >post-industrial era of 1999 where we're now PRODUCING MORE than our >population can consume -- we already have the production and need >only a better medium of distribution that is more equitable for all >citizens without putting a price on their head. And what we are >producing must be less detrimental to the Planet we all live on. >Re a dividend as a shareholder amount being FIVE TIMES what a welfare >recipient receives, after jumping through many levels of >applications, we might mention that our Congress has always paid >itself TEN TIMES the average wage worker. JCT: Still, the Dividend means that it is a share in the production which you are due without having to work for it. The other schemes are forms of charity. The Social Credit Dividend is clearly the best.
>Technocracy's energy accounting system works from the opposite end of >the spectrum -- from the quantity produced to match the population as >a whole. And stop evaluating each human in terms of worth of price. >By adopting a Technocracy accounting system based on the resources >instead of prices, it has long been estimated we could be enjoying >for 65 years the equivalent of what $100 a day would buy us each in >consumables. People get wrapped up in wanting to spend the $6,000 a >month worth of products on all sorts of things for themselves, versus >considering who and what has made the economy as a WHOLE and how we >would each benefit from enjoying our share instead of an uneven >apportionment via the wage gauge which rations all this abundance so >that most people want to immediately break the tenth commandment and >go into DEBT and pay extra in interest just to satisfy what their >eyes see in today's flamboyant advertising medium. JCT: Unfortunately, most people in debt aren't there for frivolous spending but mainly for basic life support spending.
>There is more to the posting, yet mostly to look at all the various >proposals which would hover around the PRICED ECONOMY. So, I'll close >here for now, and allow the list to "grok" this much, as Heinlein >worded it. >For getting into negative Income Tax and all the rest is still >monetary, and we have outproduced any monetary system on the planet, >as Fuller pointed out at the time we put man on the Moon. >So even "returning to a gold standard is impracticable." >Regards to all, >JQSCOTT http://www.technocracy.org >"The toilless economy as the utopian goal humanity has always >sought..." could be enjoyed by all tomorrow as soon as we the >citizens unify our efforts to simply ABOLISH THE MONEY/DEBT SYSTEM >and adopt the energy accounting system of ECO*nomy that an energetic >team of engineers and scientists worked on 14 years, before most of >today's engineers were born, as the most sensible way to allocate what >our machines are producing for our population's consumption of the >highest quality instead of settling for less due to dollarsigns >dictating. JCT: Again, the Technocracy energy accounting system is a 1/s LETS currency which cannot but work perfectly if given the chance.
>Why is that so horrendous for most people to "grok?" When they can >debate convoluted philosophical avenues endlessly, yet seldom >consider the REAL FACTS of where we are today, how many people there >are today, how many babies are going to be born by Y2K and how much >food and fiber is being produced NOW to care for all these additional >humans -- instead of debating politics. >Do the math. At the rate that 3 billion now in their reproductive >years will be making babies, we'll add another population the >magnitude of CHINA or INDIA in the next twelve months. >So while people are discussing everything under the SUN, why not get >realistic about how we're going to feed another billion babies >onboard this Spaceship Earth. JCT: Because they've been led to debate "how we rule ourselves" as opposed to "how we save ourselves." I keep imagining how many Canadians will answer when they're asked by their grandchildren in 50 years what they were doing when faced with global ecological disaster: 1) "I was fighting for bilingualism." 2) "I was fighting for multi-culturalism." 3) "I was fighting for an elected senate." 4) "I was fighting against racism, sexism, or any other ism." Given success in these endeavors, none would help save the planet from the disasters facing us. Only facing the monetary shortage in order to come up with enough paychecks to put people to work saving ourselves is the answer. If not, let our planet's epitaph state: "A society which couldn't print up enough money to pay themselves to save themselves."
>So, if it's true that for centuries people have yearned for a >Utopia, what are we waiting for? JCT: Actually, we're but an instant away from the Heaven many of you see. Once the large Rothschild and Rockefeller controlled banks start offering interest-free Greendollar or Timedollar accounts, the planet will be saved. Interesting isn't it that the scions of the usurers who got us into such dire predicaments will have to be the ones to get us out. I don't think it can be done in time without their approval and assistance. So just as bankers have led us into disaster by steering credit into war and destruction, so too, they will have to lead us to safety. If the planet dies, only the bankers who financed its destruction and refused to finance its survival will be to blame.
>We were handed this planet free and clear, with plenty of space for >everybody when we were only one billion in 1850. Two billion by 1930 >and 5.9 billion in late 1998. So you can see for yourself we're not >getting smaller. >If we all want to live well and secure and want our children and >grandchildren to not inherit out trillions in IOU's when this >generation cannot pay off its debt from WW II -- >It wouldn't hurt to learn how an Energy Accounting System would >nicely replace all this pricing and debt and compound interest that >seems to be the siren song for those who don't have to work for a >livelihood. JCT: More and more people are learning how interest-free money works by joining LETSystems. Unfortunately, most still don't see the big picture. Though they love how it works on the small database, how it would work nationally or internationally still eludes most. But they won't stay slow forever.
>Gambling has become our way of paying for schools. What message does >that accord our children? And what about the addiction of casinos as >was shown by one man who lost millions at the gambling tables and now >wants to SUE them for ignoring his letters, saying that he has an >addiction and should no longer be welcome. And whole states that are >co-dependent on gambling and glitz for its revenues. JCT: Of course, once money had been stabilized and everyone will be quite well off, no one will care that me and my friends like to gamble.
>When, by merely voting for a different bookkeeping system, we could >all enjoy U.T.O.P.I.A. which is Utilizing Techno-logical Operating >Practices Integrating Abundancy we already have -- and cannot sell >$14 billions worth each month to anybody else. JCT: Unfortunately, most people just cannot believe that the Hell we're stuck in can be turned into Heaven by the simple switch of banking software.
>We're already here folks -- no need to argue and debate all the >various money and dividend systems proposed. They are all related to >THE PRICE SYSTEM that perpetuates poverty in the midst of PLENTY FOR >ALL. Mary Therise -- if you receive this, I just got an email from >Junk Economics that they could not take my posting. Nor probably this >one. JQSCOTT, email@example.com JCT: Dear JQ. Are you any relation to Howard? If so, I'm sure he'd be proud of you. -------------------------------
"The RICH Economy" by Robert Anton Wilson #2
>Date: Tue Jan 26 17:55:42 1999 >From: PWCordsmeyer@webtv.net (paul; cordsmeyer) >Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, >firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com >I believe this exact posting, more or less, was made to the >Technocracy list once before. >What is its relevance to Technocracy? JCT: LETSystems around the world use an man-energy-based currency system. Is this not the same as Technocracy's Energy Certificates? And the Laplace Transform of the technocracy and LETS currencies are both 1/s.
>This is a discussion on how to make a kinder more gentle Price >System. As I stated before, this compairs with discussions on how >many angels can dance on the head of a pin. JCT: This is much more than a discussion of the kinder more gentle Price System. LETS are models being used. Show me some actual angels dancing on the head of a pin and I'll accept that it has passed the discussion phase. LETS is passed the discussion phase so it does not compare at all with philosophical discussion. It compares to engineering analysis.
>The Price System Preditor, Business man, is not interested in >providing workers with jobs, adaquate pay, health care, nor are they >truly interested in protecting the environment. JCT: Nor are the opposed to "providing workers with jobs, adequate pay, health care, protecting the environment." None of them actually wants to destroy the environment. It's just that to pay their bankers, they must maximize their profits by using the cheapest methods possible. Once the bankers are not threatening them and there is sufficient market to purchase their more expensive but cleaner products, they'll offer no resistance to providing workers with jobs, adequate pay, health care, and protecting the environment.
>The Stockholders, the bottom line, their owm compensation package, >and their own golden parachute are all that the modern executive >cares about. This is a fact of life, JCT: This is a fact of life under the "mort-gage" death-gamble currency systems. Just as adding an extra chair to the musical chairs death-gamble changes the paradigm, so too, using an interest-free non- death-gamble LETS currency changes the paradigm permitting them to secure their own survival and security but not at the expense of everyone else.
>the Price System must be discarded or we may live to see the human >species eliminated by nature. JCT: There is nothing wrong with a properly functioning Price system. I myself, given the choice of a Timedollar LETS system where everyone's Hour of labor is worth everyone else's or the Ithaca Hours LETS system where some earn more Hours per hour than others, would choose the more "capitalist" Ithaca Hours system than the equally well-functioning "equallist" Timedollar system. I want those whose contributions are more valuable to merit more as long as their increased share may not be hoarded at the expense of those who earn less. LETS permits those who gather much to enjoy much while at the same time ensuring that their abundance supplies to needs of those who gathered little so that they don't have too little. The perfect blend between capitalism and socialism.
>It's long past time to wake up and look at reality, so pull yourself >out of this philosophical baffelgab. JCT: I am an engineer, at the top of the technological philosophical totem pole and might accept your criticisms if there were not thousands of LETS models for your examination and if there were not the endorsements of not only the British, Australian, New Zealand but also many U.S. state governments. And it's only a matter of time until all these politicians who endorse local currencies on the local levels see the same advantages on the national and international levels. I, The Engineer, certainly do.
>Here is reality in a well written and to the point by >L. W. Nicholson, posted this very morning. >Subject: Economic Design - A NEW ECONOMIC DESIGN REQUIRED >Economists and politicians can't make accurate predictions concerning >future economic events because their understanding of economic >fundamentals is close to zero. JCT: I have no disagreement with this statement though as a banking systems engineer and a Guinness World Record politician, I must point out that we're not all financially incompetent.
>When one applies the methods of science in an investigation of the >economic system one can only conclude that the system is not a >scientific subject. JCT: I have applied engineering mathematics from algebra, exponential functions, differential equations, Taylor Series, Laurent Series, Laplace Transformations, and control systems techniques to the banking system and have found that they apply as well to it as to every other mechanical system. See http://turmelpress.com/bankmath.htm.
>It is not based on physical reality but on traditions, beliefs, >opinions, superstitions and human confidence. So accurate >predictions concerning future economic events cannot be made from >studies in the traditional field of economics. JCT: Sure but you're talking about the pseudo-science of Economics which tries to do its measurement with a variable, a quite insane methodology. Running LETS banking is based on physical reality and not on traditions, beliefs, opinions, etc. and accurate predictions can be made.
>Accurate predictions can only be made as a result of scientific >research concerning physical events which determine economic >activities. JCT: And the LETS 1/s banking system is the result of scientific research. Michael Linton who first created the LETS and I are both engineers and you can't expect something created by qualified engineers to be as bad as something created by economists who measure their results with a variable. The first thing Michael and I did was use a stable Hour of labor as unit of measurement which cannot vary.
>The world's economists have not been trained to do this type of >research, and neither have politicians. So -- few accurate >predictions can be expected from these sources. JCT: Not all politicians. And I'd point out that the founder of the Social Credit movement, Major Clifford Douglas, also was an engineer and his Social Credit compensating feedback financial principles, now made obsolete by the zero-feedback LETS, would nevertheless have worked fine. Finally, I'd point out that that Technocracy's Howard Scott was also a qualified technologist so it's no coincidence that technically qualified individuals who tackle the financial system end up choosing energy based interest-free systems.
>When one is trained to do scientific research and is willing to apply >this training in the "economic" field, he soon learns that the entire >monetary system and its political supporters, as they have been known >throughout the past several thousands of years, is only an age-old >mess of superstitious nonsense and is not worthy of an intelligent >society. JCT: Yes and if you read my debates on the subject, you'll also find out where they economists have been brainwashed. My ability to catch the Internet's foremost economist, Prof. "The Weasel" Flaherty, in contradiction after contradiction is the best testament to how they have been conditioned to not only not learn about but also to not accept interest-free banking models. See Essence of Money at: http://turmelpress.com/lp.htm or debt virus debates at: http://turmelpress.com/dvirus.htm
>No intelligent society which can produce as much as this country can >would allow any of its own people to be hungry. Even farmers who grow >our food are on the verge of bankruptcy. JCT: Yes, economists have created a quite insane money-mad society.
>The only scientific conclusion we can reach is that an intelligent >economic system does not presently exist on this planet. JCT: You are just unaware that the perfect 1/s banking system does exist and has thousands of working models all over the world to demonstrate its superiority over the world's 1/(s-i) interest-bearing system.
>However, one must be designed and installed before the present system >kills us all with its wars, crime, debt, poverty, and ecological >degradation. JCT: It's already been done. Many times. Linton and I have done it, Howard Scott did it, Major Douglas did it, Mohammed and Christ and all the saints in the Good Books have done it. It's just up to you to find out about it for yourself. >Scientific research was made in the "economic" field over 70 years >ago by the scientists of Technocracy Inc. And, of the 15 major >predictions made as a result of this investigation since 1921, 14 >have happened on schedule and the 15th is not yet due. JCT: Since he does agree that the Technocracy 1/s system advocates have been right about their predictions, why should it be so hard to believe that other 1/s money advocates couldn't also be right and that today's high-tech 1/s money advocates couldn't already have completed the required banking computer software?
>So -- the method works even if the economists and politicians still >refuse to admit it. L.W. Nicholson JCT: And therein lies the real problem. Economics conditionees infect every level of government with their insane beliefs. We just have to read Prof. Flaherty's umpteen contradictions to realize what we are up against. It won't be an easy chore deconditioning them from their false beliefs.
Send a comment to John Turmel