Ladies and Gentlemen:
The following old post may help someone to break the silence. It says
several things about the Teflon Topic which I have not mentioned in recent
posts.
Waiting for that bolt of lightning to strike,
WesBurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Begin an old post <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
Subj: Does the market need a policy?
Date: 97-04-16 11:15:33 EDT
From: WesBurt
CC: WesBurt
BCC: Ftr_Cities@websightz.com (97-04-16 11:38:19 EDT) (23 min)
BCC: CONSTITUTION@websightz.com (97-04-16 13:43:44 EDT) (2 hrs, 30 min)
BCC: futurework@csf.colorado.edu, () ()
BCC: fastnet@igc.apc.org () ()
BCC: Sysval-l@netcom.com, (97-04-16 14:27:24 EDT) (3 hrs, 17 min)
BCC: Wisdom-l@rain.org (97-04-16 15:40:11 EDT) (4 hrs, 25 min)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Balance of Burt's blind list deleted <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To: Walter Fritz >walt@anice.net.ar <, "Intelligent Systems and their
Societies"
>http://www.anice.net.ar/intsyst/<
Many thanks for your continued support of this line of inquiry. I sincerely
appreciate it, and hope the exchange has been useful to you.
Our recent notes on the role of markets in societies composed of dynamic
populations of "intelligent systems" have been helpful, but inconclusive. I
think my experience with automated power systems and the idea of applying that
experience to a global economy of nations may have lead us into a time wasting
detour. It is not that the experience is not applicable, it is. But rather
that the path to a shared opinion on the subject would be much shorter if we
directly address only the active elements in any economy, the human element.
In your last note of 97-04-15 you wrote:
>> Automatic Dispatching system (a classical free market economic
>> solution)
> Could you send me more information on this system and how it could be
> applied to nations?
> From what you wrote, my concept of this is not clear. You take much
> knowledge for granted, and not having it, makes understanding
> difficult.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That Automatic Dispatching system as applied to electric power systems is
useful only as a teaching tool because it demonstrates during each 24 hour
period the logic that businessmen everywhere follow to allocate the required
total production among their several sources of supply in the order of
increasing unit costs at each source of supply, so as to produce any required
level of production with a minimum input of resources. Because electric power
cannot be stored in sufficient quantities, supply must be equated to customer
demand in real time. Consequently, the minute by minute cost of power sweeps
over the full range of unit cost, as measured at the various plants, during
each 24 hour period. My reason for thinking I may have lead this dialog into
a long detour is that two more conceptual jumps are necessary to move the
"logic of efficient production" from the system of interconnected sovereign
power companies to a system of interconnected sovereign national economies.
The first conceptual jump is to extend the "logic of efficient production" to
all other industries where production for inventory can be stored and then
drawn down to supply the consumer during periods of peak demand. In these
other industries the Automatic Dispatching System would never move from its
position on the cost index scale that described the most efficient average
level of production, except for possible weekly or seasonal movements and
movements during the start-up or shut-down of a product line. All plants with
unit costs in excess of this most efficient cost would have been removed from
service much earlier and the dynamics of the whole system operation would be
handled under Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP), without an
Automatic Dispatching System with its hard-wired market price index
transmitted to all sources of supply.
The second necessary conceptual jump is to extend the "logic of efficient
production" from boiler-turbine generator plants, with large directly variable
inputs of fuel, to productive human assets, which have no directly variable
inputs of any kind except taxes on income, but do have rather large sunk and
fixed costs of acquisition. By the time a human asset enters the workforce,
he/she represents an investment to date much larger than the capital
investment per employee in most industries.
With these two conceptual jumps we have moved from interconnected power
systems, which are transparent to the public (to get light, throw the switch),
to societies of "intelligent systems" or human entities, which are equally
transparent to the public (to change things, pass a law). We might as well
focus our attention entirely on the human entity, because it is the only
entity in our universe that changes its environment, remembers what it
changed, and thinks about what changes it will make tomorrow. There is nobody
here but us. And if we don't like our "present condition,'" we can change it
for the better, if we only knew what defect of omission in public policy
caused the "present condition" that we don't like.
My previous 97-04-06 note on "The Root Cause Of Inflation" prompted five
thought provoking replies from Messrs. John C. Cherniavsky, Peter L. Sroufe,
Franklin Wayne Poley, and Biophilos, and, Ms. Nora Galenzoski). While I
sincerely appreciate their interest, it seems to me that their replies, and
indeed all of our public dialog on the Internet and in the Media, reflects as
many topics as there are participants in the dialog. There is no common
interest in, or shared vision of, why human beings behave as they do in a
society that has experienced a sustained net deficiency of effective
purchasing power since the 975 B.C. tax revolt in biblical Israel (I Kings
12).
As a consequence of that ancient tax injustice and the resulting revolt, Ten
Tribes of Israel were lost to history, leaving only the two tribes of Judah
and Benjamin together with the Levites (the thirteenth tribe of Moses), along
with the Greeks and the Romans, to lay the foundations of Western
Civilization. You may have followed with some interest, as I have, the effort
of the late Herbert W. Armstrong to bring these "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel"
back into history as today's English speaking nations. But this effort,
heroic as it was, has not corrected the net deficiency of effective purchasing
power in today's world because the teachings of Mr. Armstrong have not yet
been extended to include the biblical evidence in support of the optimum
financial structure that is today ubiquitous among the world's corporations
and slowly becoming quite common among the world's more stable and prosperous
Commonwealths. When we recall that the founding fathers of the United States
traveled at the same speed and communicated over the same distances as the
characters in I Kings 12, surely we can claim that our efforts to correct this
"deficiency of effective purchasing power" have made more progress in the last
two hundred years than in the previous 27 centuries. But when we notice that
the GNP/capita of the United States was 171% of the Swiss productivity in
1949, and had declined to 70% of Swiss by 1995, it should be obvious that our
public policy is still second best, at best, and we are not yet in possession
of the Whole Truth about what governs and regulates human affairs.
This question: What regulates the human species?, has been the central
subject of prophets and philosophers in every age, and was most recently
explored by Adam Smith 1723-1790, Jean Baptiste Say 1767-1832, Parson Malthus
1766-1834, David Ricardo 1772-1823. The debate has been continued by every
economist who has practiced the art since Sir Robert Peel repealed the last of
the Corn Laws in 1846. A technically valid model for evaluating the
performance of a set of reproducible productive assets (capital or human),
that is, the model of a flow of resources (feedback) from the productive
assets of a society to the developing assets of that society, which enables a
corporation or nation to satisfy Say's Law ($ production = $ consumption) with
a minimum of inflation and unemployment, became the keystone of public policy
in Japan and Europe after world War II, but among the English speaking publics
the principle of that essential feedback still remains today a SECRET OF THE
TEMPLE.
If this conceptual model, this way of looking at things, is not being taught
today in Japanese and German schools, the next generation of those nations
will find themselves back on the same trend path as the people who won World
War II. In those English speaking nations, the feedback model was made taboo
shortly after Henry Carter Adams wrote in his essay, RELATION OF THE STATE TO
INDUSTRIAL ACTION 1887, ``-- the important thought in this connection is, that
where the law of increasing returns works with any degree of intensity, the
principle of free competition is powerless to exercise a healthy regulating
influence."
In a note of 97-04-13 (Subj: Control and feedback) Ross Dickson
>rdickson@achilles.net< put this topic in a different, and perhaps clearer,
perspective when he wrote:
> Perhaps, the resource (and client?) management concepts pioneered
> by the electric power industry are applicable to nations and collections
> of nations. The reluctance of Britain and the US to participate in the
> process of relinquishing control of internal issues to the greater good is
> understandable. After all, they each know that they are the source of
> everything that is good in this world. Change that and you risk the world
> as we know it.
Here is the primary defect of our emerging global economy. Britain and the
United States are not presently in control of their internal issues. If they
had control of their internal issues, there would be no need to relinquish
that control to a higher international authority. They (Britain and the
United States) rode the industrial revolution to positions of world leadership
with incomplete public policies and fully developed private corporate policies
that were superior to the policies of their competition. Now the competition
is bringing their policies to completion in both the private and public
sectors, and the English speaking nations are stuck with second best public
policies.
Fail to change that and we lose the world as we know it.
Thanks again, Walter Fritz, for focusing our attention on the market, its
adverse influence, and its requirements for stable and equitable operation.
WesBurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> End an old post <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by socrates.netnexus.org (8.8.3/8.8.3) id QAA26491; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:25:07 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:25:07 +0100 (BST)
From: owner-uk-policy@netnexus.org
Message-Id: <199810011525.QAA26491@socrates.netnexus.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: socrates.netnexus.org: majordom set sender to owner-uk-policy@netnexus.org using -f
To: owner-uk-policy@netnexus.org
Subject: BOUNCE uk-policy@netnexus.org: Approval required:
Status: O
>From owner-uk-policy Thu Oct 1 16:25:04 1998
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by socrates.netnexus.org (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id QAA26482; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:24:57 +0100 (BST)
From: WesBurt@aol.com
Received: from WesBurt@aol.com
by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2RPOa02317
for <WesBurt@aol.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:23:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <475e00b4.36139e89@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:23:53 EDT
To: WesBurt@aol.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Does the market need a policy, or have legislatures replaced markets?
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To: Members of two lists; Outpost of Freedom list and WesBurt's list.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The following old post may help someone to break the silence. It says
several things about the Teflon Topic which I have not mentioned in recent
posts.
Waiting for that bolt of lightning to strike,
WesBurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Begin an old post <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
Subj: Does the market need a policy?
Date: 97-04-16 11:15:33 EDT
From: WesBurt
CC: WesBurt
BCC: Ftr_Cities@websightz.com (97-04-16 11:38:19 EDT) (23 min)
BCC: CONSTITUTION@websightz.com (97-04-16 13:43:44 EDT) (2 hrs, 30 min)
BCC: futurework@csf.colorado.edu, () ()
BCC: fastnet@igc.apc.org () ()
BCC: Sysval-l@netcom.com, (97-04-16 14:27:24 EDT) (3 hrs, 17 min)
BCC: Wisdom-l@rain.org (97-04-16 15:40:11 EDT) (4 hrs, 25 min)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Balance of Burt's blind list deleted <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To: Walter Fritz >walt@anice.net.ar <, "Intelligent Systems and their
Societies"
>http://www.anice.net.ar/intsyst/<
Many thanks for your continued support of this line of inquiry. I sincerely
appreciate it, and hope the exchange has been useful to you.
Our recent notes on the role of markets in societies composed of dynamic
populations of "intelligent systems" have been helpful, but inconclusive. I
think my experience with automated power systems and the idea of applying that
experience to a global economy of nations may have lead us into a time wasting
detour. It is not that the experience is not applicable, it is. But rather
that the path to a shared opinion on the subject would be much shorter if we
directly address only the active elements in any economy, the human element.
In your last note of 97-04-15 you wrote:
>> Automatic Dispatching system (a classical free market economic
>> solution)
> Could you send me more information on this system and how it could be
> applied to nations?
> From what you wrote, my concept of this is not clear. You take much
> knowledge for granted, and not having it, makes understanding
> difficult.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That Automatic Dispatching system as applied to electric power systems is
useful only as a teaching tool because it demonstrates during each 24 hour
period the logic that businessmen everywhere follow to allocate the required
total production among their several sources of supply in the order of
increasing unit costs at each source of supply, so as to produce any required
level of production with a minimum input of resources. Because electric power
cannot be stored in sufficient quantities, supply must be equated to customer
demand in real time. Consequently, the minute by minute cost of power sweeps
over the full range of unit cost, as measured at the various plants, during
each 24 hour period. My reason for thinking I may have lead this dialog into
a long detour is that two more conceptual jumps are necessary to move the
"logic of efficient production" from the system of interconnected sovereign
power companies to a system of interconnected sovereign national economies.
The first conceptual jump is to extend the "logic of efficient production" to
all other industries where production for inventory can be stored and then
drawn down to supply the consumer during periods of peak demand. In these
other industries the Automatic Dispatching System would never move from its
position on the cost index scale that described the most efficient average
level of production, except for possible weekly or seasonal movements and
movements during the start-up or shut-down of a product line. All plants with
unit costs in excess of this most efficient cost would have been removed from
service much earlier and the dynamics of the whole system operation would be
handled under Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP), without an
Automatic Dispatching System with its hard-wired market price index
transmitted to all sources of supply.
The second necessary conceptual jump is to extend the "logic of efficient
production" from boiler-turbine generator plants, with large directly variable
inputs of fuel, to productive human assets, which have no directly variable
inputs of any kind except taxes on income, but do have rather large sunk and
fixed costs of acquisition. By the time a human asset enters the workforce,
he/she represents an investment to date much larger than the capital
investment per employee in most industries.
With these two conceptual jumps we have moved from interconnected power
systems, which are transparent to the public (to get light, throw the switch),
to societies of "intelligent systems" or human entities, which are equally
transparent to the public (to change things, pass a law). We might as well
focus our attention entirely on the human entity, because it is the only
entity in our universe that changes its environment, remembers what it
changed, and thinks about what changes it will make tomorrow. There is nobody
here but us. And if we don't like our "present condition,'" we can change it
for the better, if we only knew what defect of omission in public policy
caused the "present condition" that we don't like.
My previous 97-04-06 note on "The Root Cause Of Inflation" prompted five
thought provoking replies from Messrs. John C. Cherniavsky, Peter L. Sroufe,
Franklin Wayne Poley, and Biophilos, and, Ms. Nora Galenzoski). While I
sincerely appreciate their interest, it seems to me that their replies, and
indeed all of our public dialog on the Internet and in the Media, reflects as
many topics as there are participants in the dialog. There is no common
interest in, or shared vision of, why human beings behave as they do in a
society that has experienced a sustained net deficiency of effective
purchasing power since the 975 B.C. tax revolt in biblical Israel (I Kings
12).
As a consequence of that ancient tax injustice and the resulting revolt, Ten
Tribes of Israel were lost to history, leaving only the two tribes of Judah
and Benjamin together with the Levites (the thirteenth tribe of Moses), along
with the Greeks and the Romans, to lay the foundations of Western
Civilization. You may have followed with some interest, as I have, the effort
of the late Herbert W. Armstrong to bring these "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel"
back into history as today's English speaking nations. But this effort,
heroic as it was, has not corrected the net deficiency of effective purchasing
power in today's world because the teachings of Mr. Armstrong have not yet
been extended to include the biblical evidence in support of the optimum
financial structure that is today ubiquitous among the world's corporations
and slowly becoming quite common among the world's more stable and prosperous
Commonwealths. When we recall that the founding fathers of the United States
traveled at the same speed and communicated over the same distances as the
characters in I Kings 12, surely we can claim that our efforts to correct this
"deficiency of effective purchasing power" have made more progress in the last
two hundred years than in the previous 27 centuries. But when we notice that
the GNP/capita of the United States was 171% of the Swiss productivity in
1949, and had declined to 70% of Swiss by 1995, it should be obvious that our
public policy is still second best, at best, and we are not yet in possession
of the Whole Truth about what governs and regulates human affairs.
This question: What regulates the human species?, has been the central
subject of prophets and philosophers in every age, and was most recently
explored by Adam Smith 1723-1790, Jean Baptiste Say 1767-1832, Parson Malthus
1766-1834, David Ricardo 1772-1823. The debate has been continued by every
economist who has practiced the art since Sir Robert Peel repealed the last of
the Corn Laws in 1846. A technically valid model for evaluating the
performance of a set of reproducible productive assets (capital or human),
that is, the model of a flow of resources (feedback) from the productive
assets of a society to the developing assets of that society, which enables a
corporation or nation to satisfy Say's Law ($ production = $ consumption) with
a minimum of inflation and unemployment, became the keystone of public policy
in Japan and Europe after world War II, but among the English speaking publics
the principle of that essential feedback still remains today a SECRET OF THE
TEMPLE.
If this conceptual model, this way of looking at things, is not being taught
today in Japanese and German schools, the next generation of those nations
will find themselves back on the same trend path as the people who won World
War II. In those English speaking nations, the feedback model was made taboo
shortly after Henry Carter Adams wrote in his essay, RELATION OF THE STATE TO
INDUSTRIAL ACTION 1887, ``-- the important thought in this connection is, that
where the law of increasing returns works with any degree of intensity, the
principle of free competition is powerless to exercise a healthy regulating
influence."
In a note of 97-04-13 (Subj: Control and feedback) Ross Dickson
>rdickson@achilles.net< put this topic in a different, and perhaps clearer,
perspective when he wrote:
> Perhaps, the resource (and client?) management concepts pioneered
> by the electric power industry are applicable to nations and collections
> of nations. The reluctance of Britain and the US to participate in the
> process of relinquishing control of internal issues to the greater good is
> understandable. After all, they each know that they are the source of
> everything that is good in this world. Change that and you risk the world
> as we know it.
Here is the primary defect of our emerging global economy. Britain and the
United States are not presently in control of their internal issues. If they
had control of their internal issues, there would be no need to relinquish
that control to a higher international authority. They (Britain and the
United States) rode the industrial revolution to positions of world leadership
with incomplete public policies and fully developed private corporate policies
that were superior to the policies of their competition. Now the competition
is bringing their policies to completion in both the private and public
sectors, and the English speaking nations are stuck with second best public
policies.
Fail to change that and we lose the world as we know it.
Thanks again, Walter Fritz, for focusing our attention on the market, its
adverse influence, and its requirements for stable and equitable operation.
WesBurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> End an old post <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by socrates.netnexus.org (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id QAA26482; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:24:57 +0100 (BST)
From: WesBurt@aol.com
Received: from WesBurt@aol.com
by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 2RPOa02317
for <WesBurt@aol.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:23:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <475e00b4.36139e89@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 11:23:53 EDT
To: WesBurt@aol.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Does the market need a policy, or have legislatures replaced markets?
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58
Status: O
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To: Members of two lists; Outpost of Freedom list and WesBurt's list.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The following old post may help someone to break the silence. It says
several things about the Teflon Topic which I have not mentioned in recent
posts.
Waiting for that bolt of lightning to strike,
WesBurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Begin an old post <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
Subj: Does the market need a policy?
Date: 97-04-16 11:15:33 EDT
From: WesBurt
CC: WesBurt
BCC: Ftr_Cities@websightz.com (97-04-16 11:38:19 EDT) (23 min)
BCC: CONSTITUTION@websightz.com (97-04-16 13:43:44 EDT) (2 hrs, 30 min)
BCC: futurework@csf.colorado.edu, () ()
BCC: fastnet@igc.apc.org () ()
BCC: Sysval-l@netcom.com, (97-04-16 14:27:24 EDT) (3 hrs, 17 min)
BCC: Wisdom-l@rain.org (97-04-16 15:40:11 EDT) (4 hrs, 25 min)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Balance of Burt's blind list deleted <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To: Walter Fritz >walt@anice.net.ar <, "Intelligent Systems and their
Societies"
>http://www.anice.net.ar/intsyst/<
Many thanks for your continued support of this line of inquiry. I sincerely
appreciate it, and hope the exchange has been useful to you.
Our recent notes on the role of markets in societies composed of dynamic
populations of "intelligent systems" have been helpful, but inconclusive. I
think my experience with automated power systems and the idea of applying that
experience to a global economy of nations may have lead us into a time wasting
detour. It is not that the experience is not applicable, it is. But rather
that the path to a shared opinion on the subject would be much shorter if we
directly address only the active elements in any economy, the human element.
In your last note of 97-04-15 you wrote:
>> Automatic Dispatching system (a classical free market economic
>> solution)
> Could you send me more information on this system and how it could be
> applied to nations?
> From what you wrote, my concept of this is not clear. You take much
> knowledge for granted, and not having it, makes understanding
> difficult.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That Automatic Dispatching system as applied to electric power systems is
useful only as a teaching tool because it demonstrates during each 24 hour
period the logic that businessmen everywhere follow to allocate the required
total production among their several sources of supply in the order of
increasing unit costs at each source of supply, so as to produce any required
level of production with a minimum input of resources. Because electric power
cannot be stored in sufficient quantities, supply must be equated to customer
demand in real time. Consequently, the minute by minute cost of power sweeps
over the full range of unit cost, as measured at the various plants, during
each 24 hour period. My reason for thinking I may have lead this dialog into
a long detour is that two more conceptual jumps are necessary to move the
"logic of efficient production" from the system of interconnected sovereign
power companies to a system of interconnected sovereign national economies.
The first conceptual jump is to extend the "logic of efficient production" to
all other industries where production for inventory can be stored and then
drawn down to supply the consumer during periods of peak demand. In these
other industries the Automatic Dispatching System would never move from its
position on the cost index scale that described the most efficient average
level of production, except for possible weekly or seasonal movements and
movements during the start-up or shut-down of a product line. All plants with
unit costs in excess of this most efficient cost would have been removed from
service much earlier and the dynamics of the whole system operation would be
handled under Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP), without an
Automatic Dispatching System with its hard-wired market price index
transmitted to all sources of supply.
The second necessary conceptual jump is to extend the "logic of efficient
production" from boiler-turbine generator plants, with large directly variable
inputs of fuel, to productive human assets, which have no directly variable
inputs of any kind except taxes on income, but do have rather large sunk and
fixed costs of acquisition. By the time a human asset enters the workforce,
he/she represents an investment to date much larger than the capital
investment per employee in most industries.
With these two conceptual jumps we have moved from interconnected power
systems, which are transparent to the public (to get light, throw the switch),
to societies of "intelligent systems" or human entities, which are equally
transparent to the public (to change things, pass a law). We might as well
focus our attention entirely on the human entity, because it is the only
entity in our universe that changes its environment, remembers what it
changed, and thinks about what changes it will make tomorrow. There is nobody
here but us. And if we don't like our "present condition,'" we can change it
for the better, if we only knew what defect of omission in public policy
caused the "present condition" that we don't like.
My previous 97-04-06 note on "The Root Cause Of Inflation" prompted five
thought provoking replies from Messrs. John C. Cherniavsky, Peter L. Sroufe,
Franklin Wayne Poley, and Biophilos, and, Ms. Nora Galenzoski). While I
sincerely appreciate their interest, it seems to me that their replies, and
indeed all of our public dialog on the Internet and in the Media, reflects as
many topics as there are participants in the dialog. There is no common
interest in, or shared vision of, why human beings behave as they do in a
society that has experienced a sustained net deficiency of effective
purchasing power since the 975 B.C. tax revolt in biblical Israel (I Kings
12).
As a consequence of that ancient tax injustice and the resulting revolt, Ten
Tribes of Israel were lost to history, leaving only the two tribes of Judah
and Benjamin together with the Levites (the thirteenth tribe of Moses), along
with the Greeks and the Romans, to lay the foundations of Western
Civilization. You may have followed with some interest, as I have, the effort
of the late Herbert W. Armstrong to bring these "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel"
back into history as today's English speaking nations. But this effort,
heroic as it was, has not corrected the net deficiency of effective purchasing
power in today's world because the teachings of Mr. Armstrong have not yet
been extended to include the biblical evidence in support of the optimum
financial structure that is today ubiquitous among the world's corporations
and slowly becoming quite common among the world's more stable and prosperous
Commonwealths. When we recall that the founding fathers of the United States
traveled at the same speed and communicated over the same distances as the
characters in I Kings 12, surely we can claim that our efforts to correct this
"deficiency of effective purchasing power" have made more progress in the last
two hundred years than in the previous 27 centuries. But when we notice that
the GNP/capita of the United States was 171% of the Swiss productivity in
1949, and had declined to 70% of Swiss by 1995, it should be obvious that our
public policy is still second best, at best, and we are not yet in possession
of the Whole Truth about what governs and regulates human affairs.
This question: What regulates the human species?, has been the central
subject of prophets and philosophers in every age, and was most recently
explored by Adam Smith 1723-1790, Jean Baptiste Say 1767-1832, Parson Malthus
1766-1834, David Ricardo 1772-1823. The debate has been continued by every
economist who has practiced the art since Sir Robert Peel repealed the last of
the Corn Laws in 1846. A technically valid model for evaluating the
performance of a set of reproducible productive assets (capital or human),
that is, the model of a flow of resources (feedback) from the productive
assets of a society to the developing assets of that society, which enables a
corporation or nation to satisfy Say's Law ($ production = $ consumption) with
a minimum of inflation and unemployment, became the keystone of public policy
in Japan and Europe after world War II, but among the English speaking publics
the principle of that essential feedback still remains today a SECRET OF THE
TEMPLE.
If this conceptual model, this way of looking at things, is not being taught
today in Japanese and German schools, the next generation of those nations
will find themselves back on the same trend path as the people who won World
War II. In those English speaking nations, the feedback model was made taboo
shortly after Henry Carter Adams wrote in his essay, RELATION OF THE STATE TO
INDUSTRIAL ACTION 1887, ``-- the important thought in this connection is, that
where the law of increasing returns works with any degree of intensity, the
principle of free competition is powerless to exercise a healthy regulating
influence."
In a note of 97-04-13 (Subj: Control and feedback) Ross Dickson
>rdickson@achilles.net< put this topic in a different, and perhaps clearer,
perspective when he wrote:
> Perhaps, the resource (and client?) management concepts pioneered
> by the electric power industry are applicable to nations and collections
> of nations. The reluctance of Britain and the US to participate in the
> process of relinquishing control of internal issues to the greater good is
> understandable. After all, they each know that they are the source of
> everything that is good in this world. Change that and you risk the world
> as we know it.
Here is the primary defect of our emerging global economy. Britain and the
United States are not presently in control of their internal issues. If they
had control of their internal issues, there would be no need to relinquish
that control to a higher international authority. They (Britain and the
United States) rode the industrial revolution to positions of world leadership
with incomplete public policies and fully developed private corporate policies
that were superior to the policies of their competition. Now the competition
is bringing their policies to completion in both the private and public
sectors, and the English speaking nations are stuck with second best public
policies.
Fail to change that and we lose the world as we know it.
Thanks again, Walter Fritz, for focusing our attention on the market, its
adverse influence, and its requirements for stable and equitable operation.
WesBurt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> End an old post <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted to 3way, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing