Thursday, October 24, 2013

Your choice = fascism or Co-operative Socialism

Neo-liberalism was the liberals in Canada and Blair/Thatcher here.

The new game is Neo-conservatism - Stephen Harper in Canada - Ian
Duncan-Smith here.

The neo-cons are just fascism-lite - the real fascism is the full
integration of state and capitalism: which we haven't got yet, since there
are no designated concentration camps for the likes of you and me - yet.

This isn't assertive, but, rather analytical - see www.politicalcompass.org

At the latter you can find out where your political centre-of-gravity is -
mine is in the Gandhi quadrant.

Fortunately, there is an element of each quadrant in each of us - the best
place to map this is, that I've found, www.positivelymary.com (you have to
register bu the consequential e-newsletters are few and far between).

Finally, evidence that the political/values centres-of-gravity are
socially-produced and, thus, capable of being encouraged in the beneficial
direction (progressive and experiential, I'm quite clear) is to be found
via a search for Michael Adam's book 'Fire and Ice' and his Canadian
company, Environics: http://www.environics.ca/ Try the 'Find Your Tribe'
button on the right-hand side of the page.

Hope this helps and thanx! 4 the opportunity to write it.

For all

john
http://www.environics.ca/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/pot-banging-aside-quebeckers-are-unhappy-with-the-state-of-things/article4362075/

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Fracking = neo-facism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gt7kBfDx5s 

Canada's shame - 'Police' brutality again:

Elsipogtog and Mi'kmaq anti-fracking blockade.

http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canada's shame - and the same here, too (see the * ps, below, about Balcombe)

 Fracking = neo-facism:

Just as we wrote about in nonviolent direct action in about 2000 . . . :

http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/photo/west-coast-rally-mikmaq-weve-got-your-back/19363


Do you remember the video of the Quebec Surete agents provocatuers being hustled back across to the police side at the Three Amigos (Les Throis Conspirateurs) at Montebello - in about 2004 

  - they were even wearing their regulation issue boites! . . . ? 


 If 'they' - the praetorian guard - the 10% with p-jobs who are paid by the 2% -  'them': the 'owners'/thieves of economic resources  - are not watching us  (the aware and active part of the 88% - the worked class: including those of us who are worked through being unemployed to frighten the 10% and the unaware or too frightened to be active part of the 88%)

   -  then we must be doing something wrong! 

Now, since I'm a Christian Quaker, there is, of course no 2%, 10%, 88% - we are alll part of the all - it's only when we steal from the all, that we, as the Genesis story illustrates, cast ourselves into sin. 

So, its 'Time to ourselves get back to (as a whole-part of!) the Garden! 

By Tuesday! 

Woo-hoo! j xx

Try:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BBret%C3%A9_du_Qu%C3%A9bec 

and 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWbgnyUCC7M

xo's 

john 

* ps: Note that it's only 2minutes 50seconds into this CBC news report that the key word 'Fracking' is used.

    - the counter meme being forced now is 'Shale gas Extraction

At Balcombe it was noticed that Fracking is a sure sign that capitalism is desperate.  

No wonder that we promote the Co-operative Socialism alternative at:

www.sustainabilitynotcapitalism.blogspot.com 

and at 

www.interestfreemoney.org

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Hi all

One more wholistic thought on a Guaranteed Income Scheme

-----------------------------------------------------------

How about this add in:

Suppose that the social process decides that the income min/max ratio is 1:3 (the actual figures don't actually matter to this additional point) and that the base '1' unit is, say, £2000 per month.

So, everyone eligible (there's a pointer to a next iteration) would automatically have £2000 paid into their bank account.

Some people would then go into the paid work force and get up to an additional £4000 per month (so the maximum income would be £6000 per month and the smallest would be the guaranteed Livable Income of £2000, as above).

But there might be some people who decide to not take (for their own reasons, not some-one else's reasons) their monthly guaranteed 'LIFE' (Living Income for Everybody) payment.

They could then choose to deposit in a not-for-profit, interest-free community bank to be used as the bank thinks fit - offering, say, interest-free loans to social co-ops to start-up and/or expand business, or to solidarity co-ops as operating funds for their activities.

Hope that helps.

Co-operatively - for all!

john

16 October 2013

********   

Friday, October 11, 2013

Hi all

Since income equality creates peace, sustainability, all kinds of wellness - and gets rid of capitalism - by Tuesday! - I share:

Re: a LIFE not a BI

Quickly to say:

  a) The  mealy-mouthed approach - the 'Basic' Income approach , CIT in the UK or the October 2013 $2800 per month proposal in Switzerland - is a waste of time:

  --  the proper alternative is to propose a guaranteed, livable 'Living Income for everybody':

  --  socially-determined as the one-unit, livable base income to a socially-determined min/max income after-tax ratio

  --  for which the new Income Briefing video gives a guide:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOJ93tAbPP0&feature=youtu.be

  b) As to 'how to pay for it' - that's the legislature's role.

We may say that the five TRIP-Up* mechanisms create income-inequality (and income -inequity, too), but, if the elected legislature decides to ignore the socially-determined base and ratio by allowing any of the five TRIP-Up* mechanisms to persist - even if regulated, the electorate can decide as appropriate.

* The TRIP-Up mechanisms (all of which flow from the wealth-production and -distribution analysis are:

   T = Theft eg of the economic resources listed below plus direct banditry (eg Fractional reserve Banking, theft of public assets and their 'piratisation'/'profitisation' - which the thieves call 'privatisation'

   R = Rent - through the theft ('ownership') of land and land-related resources (buildings, elecromagnetic spectrum, position, wind, wave, water, minerals)

   I = Interest - through the theft of the Law (thanks Get-a-job-Rob for this clarity) - eg the legalisation of usury in 1545

   P = Profit - from the theft/'ownership' of knowledge - both frozen knowledge (machines) and fluid knowledge

   Up = Unequal pay for 'work' - from the ownership/creation/occupation of position - eg Professors paid over the odds to peddle lies in the monversities, policemen and prison officers needing to be pad over the odds (and thus creating more crime - see 'The Spirit Level'), etc.

Hope that helps

Oh, BTW - the way to achieve the social-determinations mentioned may well be the conversion of the House of Lords into a randomocracy 'Citizens Assembly' with members randomly selected, perhaps serving for three year terms and retiring in thirds.


No more TRIP-Up!!

Best - equally! - for all!

For all, in all, by all - co-operatively! **

john
** ps Google Co-operative Socialism - the True Socialism before Marx and the True Socialism After Marx - woo-hoo!!  And mull over the ICA Statement on The Co-operative Identity.  woo-hoo 2 !!

Saturday, September 28, 2013

From my FB friends:

http://themetapicture.com/things-are-somehow-different-in-canada/

Miss home!
 
Photo: Yay! sweet!  So here's what I shared with my OccupyLSX Economics Working Group:

> Hi guys
> 
> I rarely find my Facebook stream especially cheering*, then these two (following plus a third!)  come
> in on the same day:

*ps BTW friends, don't mis-read this! - I love you all - your shared and sharing smiles smile me up and that's good! Much of what I see is fun, worthwhile, but I need some real cheering up!!  This slogging away on my own - the lonesome socialist - trying to get rid of capitalism - replacing it with the inclusive, eco-great! co-operative socialist alternative, equalitarian, experiential, horizontalist, not-imposed-hierarchicalist, is hard sledding!! 

Oh! Do I need cheering up!!!

> 
> Hope u en-joy!
> 
> http://www.wimp.com/newdevice/
> 
> 
> http://9gag.com/gag/axN0Nr2?ref=fb.s
> 
> Love
> 
> john
> 
> *************

 And try this:

http://www.upworthy.com/2-monkeys-were-paid-unequally-see-what-happens-next?g=2

Laugh out loud!!

More!!

I love it!!!

xxxxxxx

**************

> 
> --
> 
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lsxcampeconomics" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lsxcampeconomics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
Yay! sweet! So here's what I shared with my OccupyLSX Economics Working Group:

> Hi guys
>
> I rarely find my Facebook stream especially cheering*, then these two (following plus a third!) come
> in on the same day:

*ps BTW friends, don't mis-read this! - I love you all - your shared and sharing smiles smile me up and that's good! Much of what I see is fun, worthwhile, but I need some real cheering up!! This slogging away on my own - the lonesome socialist - trying to get rid of capitalism - replacing it with the inclusive, eco-great! co-operative socialist alternative, equalitarian, experiential, horizontalist, not-imposed-hierarchicalist, is hard sledding!!

Oh! Do I need cheering up!!!

>
> Hope u en-joy!
>
> http://www.wimp.com/newdevice/
>
>
> http://9gag.com/gag/axN0Nr2?ref=fb.s
>
> Love
>
> john
>
> *************

And try this:

http://www.upworthy.com/2-monkeys-were-paid-unequally-see-what-happens-next?g=2

Laugh out loud!!

More!!

I love it!!!

xxxxxxx

**************

>
> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lsxcampeconomics" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lsxcampeconomics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
 

Thursday, September 26, 2013

To create equality - political, economic and income - and, thus freedom and sustainability

----------------------------

26 September 2013

Dear friends, all


After the account, below, of Ed Miliband's Labour Party 2013 Conference speech - is the following response from the US:

   "This is the sort of argument that must be won about what [peoples']assemblies should be for, beyond organising against cuts to Welfare and privatisation of the NHS. It is not sufficient to be merely defensive of the state, now is the time to take forward a positive vision of what sort of political economy (or constitution) is needed to take the whole political frame to the next level and to start promoting it and thinking up demands that would incentivise it vigorously throughout the land."

Accordingly I respond with two attached resources:

1) Since there are five mechanisms that both create inequality* (political, economic and income):

 - the attached is a set of proposals that abolish those inequalities

*(Which are: Theft, Rent, Interest, Profit and Unequal-pay for work: TRIP-Up)

For more, please see the papers' section at www.interestfreemoney.org

2) As far as the political/constitutional change to bring this about:

The replacement of the UK's House of Lords (and Senates elsewhere**) with 'Randomocracy Houses of People's Advice' (or some such far better name) based on selection by lot from every constituency of one representative, for service for three years, retiring by thirds:

  --  to advise the elected House on - principally - income ratio, then the message of The Spirit Level (see video lectures, etc on www.equalitytrust.org) becomes operational.

**Of course, an enlightened local government some-where, any-where could do the same as far as a local 'Citizen's/People's Assembly' is concerned.**

So:

The relevant, second attachment is such a petition:

 -  by our Bromley Income Equality Group (BIEG: see FB page for Bromley Income Equality Group),

    which, collected has 800 or so signatures, collected over the past year at Saturday street Stalls in Bromley High Street each first Saturday - and which the London Borough of Bromley's ruling group has tried to run out of town (see the News Shopper coverage) is a local model for action.

Watch out for details of its presentation at the Bromley Civic Centre at 11al Thursday 26th October . . .

Could be lively!

Hope this helps!

For all

john

********** 

This message is from the Google Groups "lsxcampeconomics" group.

> Extracted from
> http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/hsj-live/hsj-live-2492013-ed-miliband-pledges-to-rescue-the-nhs/5063583.article?blocktitle=Most-popular&contentID=-1
>
> *4.29pm* Here are some extracts from Ed Miliband’s speech,transcribed by
> Politics
> Home<http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/85377/ed_milibands_speech_to_labour_conference.html>
> .
>
> “There’s so much more our countries could be doing for our grandmas and
> granddads. Just putting a £50 grab rail in the home stops somebody falling
> over, prevents them ending up in hospital with the needless agony, and all
> of the money that it costs.
>
> “The 1945 Labour government raised its sights, even in tough times. I want
> the next Labour government to do the same: to raise our health in the NHS.
> Bringing together physical health, mental health, and all the care for the
> needs of the elderly: a true integrated National Health Service.
>
> “But we don’t just need to improve the health service, friends; we’ve got
> to rescue it from these Tories. And the Liberals too…
>
> “Before the election I remember the speeches by David Cameron; one where
> he
> said the three most important letters to him were NHS - he’s got a funny
> way of showing it hasn’t he? When they came to office they were still
> saying how brilliant everything was in the National Health Service. Have
> you noticed they’ve changed their tune recently? Suddenly they’re saying
> how bad everything is in the National Health Service.
>
> “…the reason David Cameron is running down the NHS is not because the
> doctors and nurses aren’t doing as good a job as they were before, it’s
> because they’ve come to a realisation, the health service is getting worse
> on their watch, and they’re desperately thrashing around finding someone
> to
> blame: doctors, nurses, the last Labour government - that’s what they’re
> doing!
>
> “…when you heard David Cameron casting around for someone to blame for the
> NHS, it’s as simple as ABC - Anyone But Cameron. We know who’s responsible
> for the needless top-down reorganisation that no one voted for or ever
> wanted, for the abolition of NHS Direct, we know who’s responsible for not
> just an annual A&E crisis but for an A&E crisis for all seasons: this
> Prime
> Minister. It’s the same old story; we rescue the NHS, they wreck the NHS,
> and we’ll have to rescue it all over again - that is what the next Labour
> government will do.”
> Some have already made the point, quite rightly that EM doesn't mention
> anywhere the privatisation of the NHS.
>
> Later in the excerpt, it goes on to say
>
> Sarah Calkin: “EdM: even in tough times we can raise our sights, like govt
> of 1945, and brig together physical health mental health & social care'
>
> Which is actually a repeat of Andy Burnham's message.
>
> I think we need to take the anti-privatisation fight and link it to a
> genuine bringing together of these 3 aspects of care, but also to include
> that aspect of health deprivation which is not possible to tackle in the
> present constitutional order, and which goes to the heart of what Occupy
> and Assemblies and Real Democracy and new economics are all ultimately
> about - namely equality.
>
> And also education, work life and our spiritual lives.
>
> Now real care on all these 7 fronts - all essential to a health culture -
> can only happen when we make and embed and ultimately make part of the
> constitution new institutions, seeded built and developed while the old
> one
> - to the extent that it doesn't work, changes or dies. New institutions to
> guarantee equality + social physical, mental, spiritual and educational
> well being, as well as a meaningful and rewarding work life for all.
>
> The Spirit Level makes it clear the impact of inequality on health so we
> need to encourage a political equality through peoples assemblies and a
> new
> constitution. Mere redistribution of economic wealth via state processes
> are neither sustainable (due to economic and political cycles),
> particularly effective but more importantly they are not based on human to
> human kindness care and solidarity.
>
> Peoples assemblies can ensure equality in decision making in a new
> constitution while also creating the platform for all the other aspects of
> care to be proposed, agreed, planned innovated, organised and
> administered.
>
> Aside from the curriculum the problem with schools is there are too few
> adults to every child, which means that vulnerable children and their
> vulnerable parents are not supported. How can we save children from the
> Russian Roulette of who they are born to?
>
> 'It takes a village to bring up a child' and we need to secure a Local
> Health Service on every front in every community to ensure no one -
> however
> well funded by the state - can ever get neglected left behind bullied or
> otherwise left uncared for.
>
> This is the sort of argument that must be won about what assemblies should
> be for, beyond organising against cuts to Welfare and privatisation of the
> NHS. It is not sufficient to be merely defensive of the state, now is the
> time to take forward a positive vision of what sort of political economy
> (or constitution) is needed to take the whole political frame to the next
> level and to start promoting it and thinking up demands that would
> incentivise it vigorously throughout the land.
>
> In solidarity
>
> Mark
>
>> From main OL list \
>>
>>
>
>> On 26 September 2013 09:33, A wrote:
>>
>>> "Obamacare" kicks next week.  What that means for me - I have to buy
>>> state sponsored health insurance.  For my income bracket (one of the
>>> lower
>>> ones) I can pay nearly $400 a month for a "gold" plan which I guess
>>> covers
>>> most shit.  I can't afford that though.  So most likely I will get the
>>> "catastrophe" level plan which only covers life threatening illnesses
>>> or
>>> disease.  That's $145 a month.
>>>
>>> If I don't get that I am fined.  Close to $90 a month, and I get
>>> absolutely nothing. That's "Obamacare."  That's "healthcare" in the
>>> states.
>>>
>>> Many of us, including me, organize in the abstract.  But this is real.
>>> This is what the ConDems (and Labour) want to do to your healthcare.
>>> You
>>> really need to understand the consequences of losing fights over the
>>> NHS.
>>> GA's and town halls and shit are not going to cut it.
>>>
>>> You are about to lose the NHS and forgive me because I no longer live
>>> in
>>> the UK, but where is the fucking resistance?
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lsxcampeconomics" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lsxcampeconomics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

Monday, September 16, 2013






Green Party September 2013 conference decision on money creation and response from John Courtneidge 17 September 2013

Re: new Green Party policy on money creation (as below) -- Next, urgent steps:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, good news! Green Party friends are to be congratulated!

The next step, of course, is to deal with the interest, etc aspects, since non-sustainability is a circumstance where human-created pollution exceeds Gaia's capacity to deal with it in an environmentally-equilibrating way.

In the attached - which is for free sharing and which I can send a paper copy, the key relevant to the above equation is on page 5:

(Raw) Materials + Energy --> Wealth + Pollution

This is because the four forms of usury (once money has been created in the first place - in the non-exploitative way proposed, below) - associated with the present 'economic' system (ie the incomes that flow from the theft of land, law, knowledge, position and which lead to money incomes in the form of rent, interest, profit and higher-than-average incomes for paid work) - serve to distract money from its wealth-creating and -sharing, just processes into the four money-seeking-more-money processes, usury processes I list above.

And hence the exponential growth in the pollution indicator, atmospheric CO2 as one example.

Gaia cannot wait another twenty-or-so years for us to faff around over the interest (and usury generally) question.

I hope that one, or more, mainstream political party/ies in this country will tackle that systemic problem as quickly, therefore, as possible.

The Greens first?

ps - I can happily attend to explain the above, more-or-less anywhere. The one prior author (other than Jesus) who touches on the above analysis is Frederick Soddy in his book, 'Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt' I have a copy in Canada, Bloomfield Books in Sudbury, Eassex used to sell copies - theonly one on bookfinder.com - where a number of Soddy's other books are listed is priced, used, at GBP160 - gasp! - the Bilderbergers must be buying them up!)

Hope this helps!

john

*************


> Clive, John
>
> I'm delighted to say that after much efforts the Green Party now has
> pretty good Monetary Policy. This was passed at conference yesterday.
>
> Autumn Conference 2013
>
> Amend the Economy section of the PSS as follows:

> i) Delete paragraphs EC661 to EC664 (inclusive) and replace with the following new paragraphs EC 661 to EC 664:

> EC661 The Green Party believes that, as the means of exchanging goods and services, the stock of money is a vital common resource which should be managed in the public interest. Yet only 3% of our money supply currently exists in the form of notes and coins issued by the Government or the Bank of England. 97% of the money circulating in the economy takes the form of credit that is created electronically by private banks through the accounting processes they follow when they make loans.

> EC662 The existing banking system is undemocratic, unfair and highly damaging. Banks not only create money, they also decide how it is first used – and have used this power to fund financial speculation and reckless mortgage lending, rather than to finance investment in productive businesses. Through the interest charged on the loans on which all credit is based, the current banking system increases inequality. It also regularly causes economic crises: banks create and lend more and more money until the level of debt becomes unsustainable, boom turns to bust, and the taxpayer bails out banks that are “too big to fail”Autumn Conference 2013 Agenda Page 15 Green Party of England and Wales. Finally, the need to service the growing mountain of debt on which our money is based is a key driver of unsustainable economic growth that is destroying the environment.

> EC663 The existing banking system has failed and is no longer fit for purpose. The Green Party believes that the power to create money must be removed from private banks. The supply of our national currency must be fully restored to democratic and public control so that it can be issued free of debt and directed to environmentally and socially beneficial areas such as renewable energy, social housing, or support for community businesses.

> EC664 A Green Government will therefore develop and implement a programme of banking reform based on the following principles:

> a) All national currency (both in cash and electronic form) will be created, free of any associated debt, by a National Monetary Authority (NMA) that is accountable to Parliament;

> b) The 1844 Bank Charter Act will be updated to prohibit banks from creating national currency in the form of electronic credit. To finance their lending, investment or proprietary trading activities, banks will have to borrow or raise
> the necessary national currency from savers and investors;

> c) The NMA will be mandated by law to manage the stock of national currency so that it is sufficient to support full employment, while avoiding general inflation in prices, and taking into account the development of local currencies (Ref. paragraph EC 678);

> d) Any new money created by the NMA will be credited to the account of the Government as additional revenue, to be spent into circulation in the economy in accordance with the budget approved by Parliament;

> e) The members of the NMA will be appointed – for fixed terms - by a Select Committee of Parliament;

> f) The independence and integrity of the NMA will be assured by law requiring NMA members and staff to be free of any conflict of interest; mandating full transparency of NMA decisions; and prohibiting lobbying or undue influence of NMA members or staff by government, financial institutions, corporations or any other private interest.

> ii) Amend paragraph EC 665 as follows: Insert the following words at the start of the paragraph: “As an interim measure, before the programme of reform described in EC 664 has been implemented,”

> iii) Amend paragraph EC 676 as follows: Delete the following words at the start of the paragraph: “Since these restrictions on bank lending will severely restrict the money supply,” and replace with the following words: “As an interim measure, before the programme of reform described in EC 664 has been implemented,”

> iv) Amend paragraph EC677 as follows: Insert the following words at the start of the paragraph: “As an interim measure, before the programme of reform described in EC 664 has been implemented,”

> v) Amend paragraph EC 678 as follows: Delete from the paragraph the whole of the fourth sentence that begins with the following words: “Community Banks will be empowered to create credit in the same way that commercial banks currently do...”

> vi) Amend Paragraph EC 512 as follows: In the first sentence of the paragraph, after the words “...local economic activity” insert a comma and delete the words “and empowered to create credit at interest rates sufficient only to cover administration when”