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

[Muhammad Mukhtar Alam]

Dear Robert, 
   
  Please  do an energy audit for this so called eco-villages. Do they last the petromodernity?...what happens to them after we have exausted petroleum ?..

  I look for a future with renewable resource based livelihoods...
   
  I am quite wary of technoethusiasts..who just wish to continue exhibitionist consumption with dancing bars, resorts, dens of gambling ,adultery ,usury and homosexuality..
   
   
  Dr.Muhammad Mukhtar Alam
  
earle <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
  Dear Muktar,

In the article I am referring to what might be
termed HI-TECH eco-villages. These could involve
bartar, or not. I would also suggest like the rest of
the people here to visit the following website.

www.thevenusproject.com


It contains images of futuristic designs, and
eco-friendly communites. It is absolutely fascinating.



Regards

R.Searle





--- Muhammad Mukhtar Alam 
wrote:

> 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 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 
> 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 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
>
http://globaljusticemovement.net/mailman/listinfo/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net
> 




___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


 		
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20060725/cb218aab/attachment-0001.html