[GJM] Sustainibility Index, Ecological Safety, Transfinancial Economics and Monotheistic Framework and

[Muhammad Mukhtar Alam]

Dear Robert,
   
  Greetings for peace,
   
  I was reading you proposals again and I have following objections:
   
  Ecovillages do not funds..There are many villages in India where barter is still practiced and it had been there for eons..People needed to change agricultural produce and forest produce for the essentials such as salt and others..All the villages that are targets for nonrenewable resource based consumption are and were ecologically sustainable village all over the world..I do not understand therefore the need of meney for creation of eco-villages..However, that is relevant for the non-renewbale resource based behemoths with skyscrappers that need to be transformed in ecologically sustainable spaces..I will appreciate if you could see the attached paper for the same as I have used my concept Sustainability Index for examining the history of consumption and production pattern across the world and then called for global adoption of culture of prayer for getting in teh required transformation..We need this to be done quickly. I have suggested this to many  and there are
 agreements for the same as we need to prepare ourselves from the man made ecological and nuclear disasters..
   
  Dr.Muhammad Mukhtar Alam

robert searle <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
  Note: forwarded message attached.


Dear All,

I hope this message has been transmitted.

R.Searle




___________________________________________________________ 
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of Vi at gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.htmlDate: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:56:11 -0400
To: meetingplace at imagicomm.com
From: Miles Michael <mmiles136 at comcast.net>
Subject: [Easier-Fundraising] Transfinancial Economics

As they say, this is like deja vu all over again. Mr. Searle, except for the opening paragraphs, posted exactly the same piece in a previous forum.

I wish he had condensed it to include (and perhaps amplify) those sections which applied directly to this forum. Oh well!

At 8:29 AM +0100 7/21/06, robert searle wrote:

>Dear All,
>
>I believe in the next two to three decades or so that NGOs would be partly, or largely funded with new unearned money. This would be created responsibly without the need for fundraising. Inflation would be controlled by advanced computer technology. This I know sounds completely new, and alien to all of you.

As you will see, while I think there may be some promise in the idea of "printing" money to satisfy "worthy" needs, it is often said that the devil is in the details--and I have some serious questions about the details. Based on his own presentation, it appears that he has serious questions as well about as yet un-resolved details, the resolution of which may render the whole paradigm unworkable.

>This is a summary of a research, and development project concerned with Transfinancial Economics,or more simply TFE. Essentially, it revolves around the concept that new unearned money could be created responsibly where there is a genuine need.

There is no question about there being many genuine needs. The unanswered question is who makes the decision about what is and is not a genuine need. Looking at the governmental budgets now, it is clear that the decision making process if flawed -- although we may disagree on what is genuine and what is not.

>What follows is a deliberately simple, and non-technical account of how this could be achieved without hyper-inflation. So-called "facts and figures" are not included here but ones own independant intelligence should be able to see the massive social,economic, and political implications of TFE.. which incidently is also known as Non-Taxation in this context, or Non-Taxation Monetary Reform.

Perhaps we need to distinguish between taxes and fees for service. I'm of the general opinion that people should pay for the goods and services they receive, no matter which individual or agency provides them. It may be that we can evolve to the point where all that's needed by any person can be produced entirely without labor as an input. In that case, money might not be necessary. Until then?
>1.LEGAL ACCESS TO FINANCIAL POWER, AND
>DECENTRALISATION.
>
>There are three types of organizations that could benefit from the responsible creation of new unearned money. They are:-
>
>i) National Democratic Governments: Instead of raising direct, and indirect taxes AN INDEPENDANT PUBLIC AUTHORITY, OR EVEN SOME KIND OF A PRIVATE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION KNOWN AS A CENTRAL TREASURY BANK would have powers to create new unearned money in a measured way.

If I remember, I'll take the liberty of capitalizing phrases which indicate just how incompletely formed this concept is. Here he recommends another kind of agency, although he's not quite clear what it would look like, and seems to assume that it would be more effective in making economic allocation decisions than the mechanisms we now have. From when this certainty?

>Thus, cost-cutting would no longer matter. However, the Central Treasury Bank under Law would make appropriate checks to ensure that finance orders from a democratic government are absolutely neccessary, and beneficial. In other words, transparency is vital to control, or curb the misuse of any funding.

What's different here except perhaps the names of the responsible agencies?

>Furthermore, unlike the past governments would no longer have one massive lump sum of tax money to draw on. It would be responsibly created, and thus, make overspending unlikely to occur.

Same comment.

>ii) Local Democratic Governments: As with the above new unearned money could be created in a measured way by a CENTRAL, OR LOCAL TREASURY BANK. Hence, local taxes would no longer be necessary.

If you no longer have to pay for services, what's to prevent you from demanding more and more? What's to prevent you from demanding more services than the labor supply can provide?

>iii) Non-Governmental Organisations,or NGOs: Many of these would be FINANCED IN FULL, OR IN PART by new unearned money without the need of fund-raising, or large charitable donations from wealthy people. Essentially, we are discussing in the main here charitable humanitarian NGOs, AND THEY WOULD BE FULLY FUNDED IN MOST CASES PROBABLY. They would not need any finance from governments,big business,religious movements, and/or sects. THERE ARE THOSE THAT OFCOURSE DO, AND THEY COULD POSSIBLY STILL BE PARTLY FUNDED BY NEW UNEARNED MONEY. The origination of such capital would emanate from Grant Generating Banks. THESE COULD BE INDEPENDENT PUBLIC AUTHORITIES, OR ALTERNATIVELY EXIST AS A PRIVATE COMMERCIAL VENTURE.
>
>Direct, or participatory democracy could also be carefully developed. This would represent a vital step forwards as big governments cannot be trusted by the public. However, this does not mean that they are totally unreformable. Ofcourse, they are, and if there was a degree of Centralised TFE at least certain NGOs would be financed as never before to counteract any excesses of power.

Again, it's just different agencies and questionable that you're able to make them any more responsible--and if they can just print money it may be even harder to exercise control.

>Critics would regard the Human Financial System as being something akin to a free lunch, and hence, untenable! Yet, they fail to understand that such a thing already exists. Democratic governments already do it by supplying free non-repayable grants to their departments concerned with social,economic, and political administration. This is naturally true of the local authorities too. But it is also right to say that the money involved is not newly created but is simply the taxpayers, and hence, earned. Still, it is given as something gratis. Likewise capital received by a beneficiary of a will is also a free lunch even though it was earned in the first place. No doubt other similiar examples could be cited.

I'm unclear about how this is a probative example.

>2. ELECTRONIC CONTROLS OVER INFLATION.
>
>
>
>The creation of new unearned money if unchecked would obviously lead to hyper-inflation. The effective way to avoid this is to carefully programme supercomputers which would track financial transactions. Naturally enough, such an electronic system of controls would be legally accountable. It is not our intention here to go into great detail as to how this would probably work. What is presented now is very basic, and easily understandable. There are three key controls over inflation.
>
>i) Super-Price Flexibility: Most products, and services would by Law have to be registered by the Inflation Authorities, or IA(WHICH COULD BE CENTRALISED, OR EVEN DECENTRALISED TO A HIGH DEGREE).

Do you want to cede this degree of control to anyone, let alone the programmers who guide these super-computers?

>At first this may be unpopular as it would be compulsory like Income Tax but businesses would soon realize that it is to their own advantage because it would mean a)taxes would no longer need to be paid, and b) interest on loans would no longer exist as explained later.

The lack of interest (as opposed to service charges) on loans might well be a significant improvement.

>
>Anyway, a businessman would set the retail price of his product. A range of higher costs for it would also be presented until the maximum level is reached. This "maximun level" is the highest price for his product, and infact, it would be commercially unviable for him to sell. Thus, he has to limit himself to the lower price ranges which allow for Super-Flexibility which would be unimaginable under the old prices, and wages policies. If however he goes beyond the "maximum level" just mentioned then he is automatically fined, and this would appear on his bank account, and/or his computer.

So, we have price control. Is that desirable as opposed to market forces? Why?

>IT MUST BE REPEATED HERE THAT WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED IS VERY BASIC. THERE ARE OTHER ASPECTS OF INFLATION CONTROL NOT DISCUSSED. THEY ARE STILL SUBJECT TO RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT, AND WOULD ULTIMATELY REQUIRE THE AID OF ECONOMISTS,AND COMPUTER EXPERTS TO BECOME A CREDIBLE PROPOSITION.
>
>
>
>3. THE PROBLEM WITH REDISTRIBUTION IN OUR PRESENT AGE.
>
>
>
>It is an economic fact that huge sums of money can be raised via taxes,and fund-raising. Unfortunately though they do not always satisfy the needs of state,or NGOs. The reasons can be various.
>
>With Transfinancial Economics we have quite a different ball game. Money is seen as being an artificial creation which can be created ad infinitum in some form,or other. As such there are always funds that can be used by democratic governments,and NGOs wherever, and whenever there is a genuine need. The only limits are natural ones (ie. effective creative planning, plus relevant resources).

The weakest point, imo. How does this change in the money paradigm make more effective planning happen? Even with differing access to money, unless you're paying better planners, will it improve? We already have access to the best planners and it's questionable about whether we have good planning.

>Critics would say that there is more than enough money to change the world for the good. They are probably right ofcourse. The problem though lies with LEGAL ACCESS to it as it is clear that financial wealth is not properly redistributed at the present time unlike a genuine socialist system.

Agree about the distribution to the extent that the common wealth has been commandeered by a relatively small percentage of the population.

>4. THE KEY ANTI-TAX ARGUMENTS.
>
>
>There are profound moral arguments why taxation (no matter how fair) is no longer necessary in the 21st Century. They can be briefly listed.
>
>i) Everyone has the right to all his,or her money as a moral, or human right. The technology exists to see the abolition of direct,and indirect taxation.

Again, except for the distinction between taxes and fees for service. You have the right to do with your money as you see fit but you also have the obligation to pay for the goods and services you use.

>v) It is extremely unethical to fund the abuse, and corruption of governments via taxes.

It is extremely unethical (and also stupid) to fund abuse and corruption in ANY way.

>vi)It is becoming increasingly difficult to get the rich, and the super-wealthy to pay up their fair share of taxes by legalised evasion (or avoidance) schemes. As a result people earning reasonable incomes are having to "subsidize" them which is totally unacceptable. Moreover, the work of tax investigators is becoming very difficult as money can easily be transmitted from one account to another across the globe.

But, those super-computers you advocate should be able to handle this, especially if all financial transactions are merely the movement of electrons.

>5. THE HUGE POTENTIAL POPULARITY OF NON-TAXATION MONETARY REFORM.
>
>It will no doubt become obvious that the policy of Non-Taxation, or Transfinancial Economics would be extremely popular with most people. Essentially, it is a vote winner.

It probably would be and remain so until or unless it created some form of havoc.

>Many have become disillusioned with politics,and politicians..along with their connections to big business. Yet, something that is brand-new, and full of promise like TFE could really turn heads.

Especially when made part of the campaign rhetoric of politicians.

>But, there would be no redistribution of financial wealth. Infact, the best way probably of achieving that would be to legally put serious limits on how much the rich could earn. Such a "draconian" Law though would have to be introduced democratically possibly via an informed referendum.

Anything draconian should be impermissible even if "democratically" promulgated. You've heard of the bill of rights--you've heard of the reason to fear the tyranny of the majority.

>
>In the future these commercial organizations should ideally be replaced by independent public authorities, or as mentioned still continue as private banks but operating with a hugely reduced profit unlike their modern day equivalent. They could issue loans interest free (but an operating charge may, or may not be made). This would be beneficial for business, and private individuals.

This is a plausible and, imo, reasonable change.

>
>In order for such a reform to become a reality it is believed that Interest Free Monetary Reform by itself would make little headway unless it unites with Non-Taxation Monetary Reform, or Transfinancial Economics which would give it far greater vision. The reason is simple. The social,economic, and political implications are stupendous compared to Interest Free Monetary Reform which in comparison is somewhat limited.

I don't understand.

>Non-Taxation Monetary Reform, or Transfinancial Economics would be regarded as being anathema to Sustainable Economics because it involves a high, or rather higher growth in the economy. But it would also of course mean that NGOs concerned with green issues would be financially empowered as never before to actually bring about the rapid introduction of alternative technologies.

Possibly.

>
>So-called eco-villages could be more easily set up with grants. As soon as they become self-financing in some way they would become eligible to interest-free loans.
>
>Research, and development into something like nanotechnology could also be funded independently of governments, and of course, the Transnational Corporations. The science just mentioned if it were safely, and effectively created could among other things actually create new resources "out of thin air" by combining atomic structures.

Yes, and I do believe such a future is both desirable and possible.

>
>Democratic governments would have to get in on the act and could empower businesses via generous grants, or subsidies to create eco-friendly products vital for the survival of the planet such as solar panels, re-cycling, or clean renewable devices, and the like. Funds too would always be available for space research which could find new resources such as water which is fast becoming a scarcity on mother earth..
>
>With the new understanding of money huge but vital projects would become a serious possibility. For instance, as the population expands it may be necessary to build underwater cities, or ones on artificial landmasses,or in space, or on a planet. All this, and more becomes possible with Transfinancial Economics as it offers the basis for unprecedented human progress. AGAIN, THE ONLY LIMITS ARE EFFECTIVE CREATIVE PLANNING, AND RELEVANT RESOURCES.
>
>8. POVERTY ALLEVIATION IN RICH COUNTRIES.
>
>In spite of a varying degree of social security in many rich countries of the world there is still much which can be done in the way of poverty alleviation. In TFE, NGOs concerned with such matters would be financially empowered as never before. Many clever ideas exist, and would at long last come to rapid fruition.

My personal feeling is that much of the problems can be eliminated through wise entrepreneurship without the need for NPO's or NGO's and a lot less government.

>In the future democratic governments would responsibly create new unearned funds to properly aid hard-working people. Thus, those who have been living on low wages would not have to fear undue poverty.

That's one way. It would be security. I like the sharing of the common wealth as a better way and would probably throw in the idea of Capital Homesteading which has been discussed during so many of the previous forums in which I've participated.

>Here again real financial empowerment of the Third World, and Corporate Reform NGOs would benefit hugely with Transfinancial Economics. In the former case, the useless deaths of millions of mainly children on a yearly basis would become a thing of the past. Grassroots help for the really poor would also be increased as never before.
>
>On the other the hand, the Transnational Corporations in the Third World would have at long last met their match with financially empowered NGOs. They would no longer be able to destroy,or seriously damage the environment out of impunity for profits, or rip off poor workers. Various business tactics could be used against these "giants" of industry such as the buying up of shares on a large scale thus making them more ameanable to corporate responsibility, and ethical investment. The implications of all this are quite staggering for a fairer world...

Sounds interesting--maybe it will work.

>THE PROBLEM OF THE THIRD WORLD, AND POVERTY IS COMPLICATED BY MANY FACTORS SUCH AS CIVIL WARS, THE ARMS TRADE, CORRUPT AUTHORITIES, MISUSE OF AID FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, AIDS, ET AL.
>
>
>1O.THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION OF NON-TAXATION MONETARY REFORM.
>
>
>
>Certain communities, and nations have existed past, and present with little, or no taxation. This is due largely to their self-sufficiency.

But, I wonder which you could use as examples and what is meant by "self-sufficiency?" I suspect it means the willingness to live without many of the amenities which we have come to accept.

Miles
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
http://globaljusticemovement.net/mailman/listinfo/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net


 				
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on  Yahoo! Small Business. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20060722/8d0293d9/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Global Ecological Safety and One Governance	Protocol.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 100864 bytes
Desc: 140136725-Global Ecological Safety and One Governance
	Protocol.doc
Url : /pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20060722/8d0293d9/attachment-0001.doc