[GJM] Fwd: [Easier-Fundraising] Transfinancial Economics

[ram prasad]

Dear Mr Searle,

We have already discusse the importance of
Dhumakot/Sangliya experiment in Uttaranchal as a
practical case where your research could be applied.
Jawaharlal Nehru had provided one per cent of the
budget to scientific research outside the orbit of
education to foster industrial development.

I am waiting for your reply about the role of research
funds in the new system proposed by you.

Ram Prasad
--- 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.html> Date: 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 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
>
http://globaljusticemovement.net/mailman/listinfo/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net
> 



		
__________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/