[GJM] Working with Banks and Corporations to Achieve a High Degree of Global Justice?

[robert searle]

Dear Steve Consilvio,

             Thank you for your detailed response.
Having read what you have said,and indeed, your
interesting link it is clear that though your 
"evolving" ideas do not  go far enough.Thisis also
true of most if not all kinds of monetary, and
economic theories here onsite, and ofcourse elsewhere.
Certainly, small changes can achieve much but at the
end of the day it is the big ones which will achieve
everything. Time is not on our side. Big Changes
require Big Ideas, and they must come about......

It is good to see a businessman contributing to this
forum even if we agree to disagree.

Regards,

Robert Searle.



--- Steve Consilvio <steve at behappyandfree.com> wrote:

> 
> On Feb 22, 2007, at 1:39 PM, discussion- 
> request at globaljusticemovement.net wrote:
> 
> > Dear Steve Consilvio,
> >
> >                Thank you for your critique. I will
> > try, and explain in listed form how TFE counters
> your
> > basic comments.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Yes, the ideas of TFE appear to be
> contradictory.
> > They only make sense when you see the whole
> picture.
> >
> >
> 
> Perhaps they are actually contradictory? Doublethink
> is pretty  
> common. I have had to work hard to root it out of my
> thinking, and  
> inevitably it still exists somewhere, but I am
> pretty sure that your  
> "whole picture" is not as unique as you think it is.
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. It is unlikely that a high moral stance for
> > interest free monetary reform will work as an
> actual
> > campaign because:-
> >
> >
> > i) The present capitalist system is too powerful
> > especially in connection with banks.
> 
> I do not know of a single incidence in history where
> reform of  
> anything occurred because of the intellectual merits
> of the new idea.  
> Change is preceded by the weight of a self-created
> crisis. If true,  
> your reform is as doomed to failure as my reform at
> a time of  
> complacency. However, at a time of crisis my ideas
> may actually  
> improve things, rather than simply reconstruct the
> same house of cards.
> 
> I think a valid parallel is the Bill of Rights which
> was created by  
> the efforts of wise people of colonial times after
> the stupid people  
> were finally done killing each other and
> reconsolidating power. My  
> "Contract for Mutual Responsibility" does in the
> economic sphere what  
> the Bill of Rights does in the political sphere. Iw
> rote it a few  
> years ago, and my ideas have evolved since then, but
> the basic  
> framework is still valid. A system of competition is
> doomed to  
> failure, what we need is a system of cooperation.
> >
> >
> > ii) It is unlikely that enough public susport
> could be
> > mustered to achieve real change especially in the
> rich
> > countries like Britain, and USA. However, in Latin
> > America (eg. Hugo Chavez)there has been a big
> swing to
> > the left. The reason in part is due to the huge
> amount
> > poverty. This gives people a greater incentive to
> > achieve change via "revolutionary" means......
> 
> Chavez is a moron, like Washington is a moron. His
> lust for power  
> comes first. He creates demons so he can claim to
> protect people, and  
> uses fear as his calling card.
> 
> I don't think you actually have a theory of poverty
> and wealth, only  
> a belief that the rich have somehow done something
> that is "unfair."  
> In fact, the system is rigged this way. Somebody has
> to win and  
> somebody has to lose when the economy is structured
> as a competition.  
> The same is true of politics. Elections are actually
> destroying  
> democracy because they are based on competition and
> not on finding  
> solutions to problems. Now we see elections
> (counting votes) as the  
> problem, and this was after making sure everybody
> could vote, which  
> has similarly yielded no practical effect. Why?
> Because an economic  
> problem needs an economic solution. You cannot solve
> what is  
> essentially a mathematical problem with a popularity
> contest.
> 
> >
> >
> > iii)The pace of financial (ie TFE) change could be
> > alot easier, and QUICKER if we work with banks,
> and
> > corporations for a sustainable future. By legally
> > "bribing" the latter safe,cleaner, and
> environmentally
> > friendly products, and services could be mass
> produced
> > with mainly renewable resources. Profits could be
> > hugely subsidized with new unearned money from the
> > Central Banks of the rich world. Likewise the
> wages of
> > Third World workers could also be heavily
> subsidized
> > along with other relevant matters.
> >
> 
> Of course we need to work with banks, the question
> is what do we  
> expect the banks, borrowers and depositors to do?
> Everybody needs to  
> change their expectations and their behavior, not
> just the banks. The  
> banks are just a middleman, and are essentially a
> franchise of the  
> Federal Reserve. They have a lot less power than you
> realize.
> >
> > iv)A moral campaign for monetary reform would take
> too
> > long, and probably require much funding to have
> any
> > affect. Most important of all the world, and
> humanity
> > may NOT have enough time. So, moral issues such as
> > fairer distribution, utopian socialism, et al MUST
> be
> > put on the backburner for the time being. What
> matters
> > is NOW, and the present corrupt system, and how
> best
> > to modify it into something better.
> 
> Funding is not an issue at all, it is behaviors and
> expectations that  
> need to change. The marketplace theory that runs the
> world is false.  
> A government decree isn't going to change what
> people believe, just  
> as I couldn't pass a law telling you what to
> believe. Before laws can  
> change beliefs must change; this is true for any
> law.
> 
> The system actually isn't corrupt. It works
> perfectly at amplifying  
> errors. Just because a system is flawed does not
> mean it is corrupt.  
> Just as you are sincere in your belief (though I
> think you are  
> mistaken,) others are equally sincere in their
> mistakes. And that is  
> without introducing the elements of fear and pride,
> which  
> dramatically alter people's views of reality.
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 3) TFE can be seen as a "TRANSITIONAL" system. It
> is
> > not the be-all, and end-all of economics. When in
> > place NGOs concerned with advanced, and fairer
> > social,economic, and political thinking would be
> > better funded as never before. Thus, they would
> have a
> > more powerful influence on public opinion.If they
> can
> > convince the masses, and governments to change
> from a
> > "...predatory-prey system.." then that is all
> fine,
> > and good.
> 
> A transitional approach is a good idea, but
> "bribing" people is what  
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
>
http://globaljusticemovement.net/mailman/listinfo/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net
> 



		
___________________________________________________________ 
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html