[GJM] [Easier-Fundraising] Transfinancial Economics

[robert searle]

--- robert searle <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk


 My response to another discussion forum about TFE.

> 
> 
> 
> --- Miles Michael <mmiles136 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REPLY. Well, ofcourse government fees for any
> service
> could indeed be phased out. There is certainly a
> possibility here. And I do feel that in the future
> rather like the resource economy of the Venus
> Project
> money in the end will be superflous. Automation for
> most things will undoubtedly come about, and TFE
> will
> have role here as explained in the former forum
> concerned with a "jobless future" especially in
> connection with auto-profit companies.
> 
> 
> > >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?
> 
> 
> REPLY. Remember TFE is still a research project not
> yet full formed but the key concepts will probably
> remain the same.
> 
> 
> 
> How efficient the Central Treasury Bank is a good 
> criticism but I do not envisage it as causing much
> if
> any problems as far as the economy is concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > >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?
> 
> 
> REPLY. The answer is that it would be more rigorous
> than what exists now.
> 
> 
> > 
> > >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 comme
> 
> > 
> > >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?
> 
=== message truncated ===



		
___________________________________________________________ 
All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of Vi at gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html