On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, DDeBar wrote:

> OK, let's have this discussion. Is it possible that Harry's right...that
> all it takes is to seize control of the printing press, and the
> "democratic" (or whatever) control of the curreny will remedy our vast
> social/economic/political problems?

No, nothing is ever that simple. ;)

But hopefully it might shed some light on the *origins* of some of
our problems.

Harry Veeder


>
> Let's hash this out.
>
> DDeBar
>
> ----------
> > From: Harry Veeder <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] overproduction
> > Date: Thursday, July 03, 1997 9:13 PM
> >
> > Tresy Kilbourne and Steve Tomljenovic
> >
> > > You, Lawrence Libby, wrote:
> > >
> > > >I don't care a whit if
> > > >someone sits in front of the TV all day, courtesy of my labor.  Better
> that
> > > >than producing or profiting from weapons, or financial wheeling and
> dealing
> > > >(or any number of odious occupations).
> > > Isn't this a spurious dichotomy? I mean, it's not like it's EITHER
> legal
> > > shirking OR the military-industrial-Wall Street complex, is it?
> Besides,
> > > I thought socialists sought guaranteed employment, not simply a
> > > guaranteed income?
> >
> > A guaranteed income would not have to depend on taxation. Socialists
> > should turn their attention to the creation of a socially progressive
> > banking system rather than a socially progressive taxation system.
> > Nobody today is happy about having their "earned" money going to pay
> > for some elses bread and clothing. The easiest and least antagnostic
> > solution is to simply provide *everyone* with a secure income
> > based on the creation of *fresh* money.
> >
> > This would require the democratic participation of everyone in
> > determining the essentials of living. (Just a thought...everyone might be
> > issued a smartcard for essential living costs). People would still be
> > allowed to pursue luxury (non-essential) goods and services, but only IF
> > other people were still prepared to provide them!
> >
> > >
> > > I also tend to think you would feel differently if you found yourself
> in
> > > the society you envision, working 8 hours a day for bupkis, because
> 9/10
> > > of what you make is being consumed by unemployed fans of "The Noam
> > > Chomsky Variety Hour." My belief is that no "sane society" would
> organize
> > > itself this way, democratically or otherwise, so discussion of the
> issue
> > > is entirely hypothetical.
> > >
> >
> > In a world where people had a such a guarenteed income for essential
> goods
> > and services, people would work at what they like to do. (What a
> > disturbing idea!) This means people would be producing and supplying what
> > they are happy to produce and supply in a working environment they enjoy.
> > They would rightfully be able to demand respect from their employer AND
> the
> > consumer. Individuals would be able to chose meaningful work and not
> waste
> > THEIR time and labour producing products and services to satisfy someone
> > else's fantasies which they personally find objectionable. eg. Producing
> > war toys for the big boys or keeping the grass cut around
> > Donald Trumps estate.
> >
> > A system of guaranteed income would *help* to create an
> > economy where the notion of a free labour contract between employer and
> > employee actually had some moral legitimacy.
> >
> > Harry Veeder
>