Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [WorldCitizen] SBG example: New small company program

Expand Messages
  • partha saradhi thirukkovalluru
    Hi, This is T.P.Saradhi from india. The details of the programme  are no given in your message.  Please give full details of the programme.  I am interested
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 31, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,
      This is T.P.Saradhi from india. The details of the programme  are no given in your message.  Please give full details of the programme.  I am interested in it.
       
      Thanks,
      T.P.Saradhi

      --- On Sun, 29/3/09, James F. Newell <jfnewell7@...> wrote:

      From: James F. Newell <jfnewell7@...>
      Subject: [WorldCitizen] SBG example: New small company program
      To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Sunday, 29 March, 2009, 10:19 PM

      An example of something which would follow the Simultaneous Benefit Guideline would be a program to help individuals start 200,000 new small manufacturing companies per year, with all nations included in the program.

      The cost would be 300 billion dollars per year, plus administrative expenses. That would only be about 1% of the World Gross Domestic Product, so would be doable. It would also be a very efficient economic development program, because many of the new manufacturing companies would grow.

      Under this proposal, there would be 150,000 new small general manufacturing companies per year, and 50,000 new small companies producing wind, solar, and, hopefully in the near future, wave, power.

      Each person chosen to start a new small company would receive a zero interest loan equal to one million 2009 American dollars. About one million dollars would be for equipment and start-up expenses. About five hundred thousand dollars would be used to build or buy a small building. The building amount could vary somewhat, but the total would always be one and a half million. The loan would be repaid at 20% of gross receipts of the new company. This would be quite a lot of money in low income nations, but the point is that the small and medium size machines the new small manufacturing companies cost the same everywhere in the world.

      The reason for these special provisions is that getting production and sales going tends to be irregular the first few years. That means that many small businesses fail when they have fixed loan repayments and building rent, and sales temporarily fall below what is needed to make those payments and pay that rent. With the 20% of actual receipts, a poor period would not drive the new company into bankruptcy. After a few years, things tend to get going more smoothly for the companies. The zero percent interest is also there to help make sure the companies would survive and have a good chance of growing.

      People would be chosen to receive the loans by a test of business management knowledge. The program would develop a reading list of several college level textbooks. These books would be translated into every main language of every nation. Each year, there would be a test on that material, and the individuals who scored highest would receive the loans. Tests would be given in all the languages the textbooks were in. People who failed to score high enough could continue to study and take the test again in future years. A test people could study for would be fair, and anyone of average intelligence or more who worked hard enough could receive a high score sooner or later.

      Each year, the number of loans for each nation would be in direct proportion to the population of that nation. So if a nation had ten percent of the world's population, its citizens would receive 15,000 loans for general new small manufacturing companies per year, and 5,000 loans for small energy producing companies per year. A very small nation (as below about 600,000 citizens) would, however, not receive less than 15 general loans and 5 energy loans per year.

      This would help the economic development and/or economic health of all nations of the world simultaneously. For example, a 600,000 person nation in which 15 small new general manufacturing companies and 5 new small energy producing companies per year were established, would begin growing in quite a healthy way. It is therefore easy to see how much benefit would come from an expenditure of only about 1% of the Gross World Domestic Product.

      The money could come from United Nations assessments of member nations. Or a special small international wholesale level sales tax could be created which would fund the program. A wholesale level sales tax would be less expensive to collect than a retail level sales tax, because there are far fewer wholesale outlets than retail outlets in the world.

      Jim



      Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.
    • Gary Shepherd
      Hi Everything I said previously applies to this also. Where is the money coming from for this program? The United Nations has no power to require it s members
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment

        Hi

        Everything I said previously applies to this also. Where is the money coming from for this program? The United Nations has no power to require it’s members to pay anything. Who would impose such a tax and who would collect it?  What would be done with individuals or nations that refused to pay it? Who would administer the tests, and make sure the money was spent the way it was supposed to be spent, and not simply stolen?  Who would arbitrate in disputes between  nations who thought the loans were distributed unfairly? What would be done with those who refuse to pay back the loans or who simply default? Who watches over this system, and who will watch the watchers? Most importantly, how to get money for this, when we are still so busy spending  the equivalent of one trillion US dollars each year on killing one another?

         

        The devil is in the details.

         

        World Peace and Unity,

        Gary

         

        Gary K. Shepherd

        Editor,

        United World Magazine

        From: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James F. Newell
        Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:50 AM
        To: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [WorldCitizen] SBG example: New small company program

         

        An example of something which would follow the Simultaneous Benefit Guideline would be a program to help individuals start 200,000 new small manufacturing companies per year, with all nations included in the program.

        The cost would be 300 billion dollars per year, plus administrative expenses. That would only be about 1% of the World Gross Domestic Product, so would be doable. It would also be a very efficient economic development program, because many of the new manufacturing companies would grow.

        Under this proposal, there would be 150,000 new small general manufacturing companies per year, and 50,000 new small companies producing wind, solar, and, hopefully in the near future, wave, power.

        Each person chosen to start a new small company would receive a zero interest loan equal to one million 2009 American dollars. About one million dollars would be for equipment and start-up expenses. About five hundred thousand dollars would be used to build or buy a small building. The building amount could vary somewhat, but the total would always be one and a half million. The loan would be repaid at 20% of gross receipts of the new company. This would be quite a lot of money in low income nations, but the point is that the small and medium size machines the new small manufacturing companies cost the same everywhere in the world.

        The reason for these special provisions is that getting production and sales going tends to be irregular the first few years. That means that many small businesses fail when they have fixed loan repayments and building rent, and sales temporarily fall below what is needed to make those payments and pay that rent. With the 20% of actual receipts, a poor period would not drive the new company into bankruptcy. After a few years, things tend to get going more smoothly for the companies. The zero percent interest is also there to help make sure the companies would survive and have a good chance of growing.

        People would be chosen to receive the loans by a test of business management knowledge. The program would develop a reading list of several college level textbooks. These books would be translated into every main language of every nation. Each year, there would be a test on that material, and the individuals who scored highest would receive the loans. Tests would be given in all the languages the textbooks were in. People who failed to score high enough could continue to study and take the test again in future years. A test people could study for would be fair, and anyone of average intelligence or more who worked hard enough could receive a high score sooner or later.

        Each year, the number of loans for each nation would be in direct proportion to the population of that nation. So if a nation had ten percent of the world's population, its citizens would receive 15,000 loans for general new small manufacturing companies per year, and 5,000 loans for small energy producing companies per year. A very small nation (as below about 600,000 citizens) would, however, not receive less than 15 general loans and 5 energy loans per year.

        This would help the economic development and/or economic health of all nations of the world simultaneously. For example, a 600,000 person nation in which 15 small new general manufacturing companies and 5 new small energy producing companies per year were established, would begin growing in quite a healthy way. It is therefore easy to see how much benefit would come from an expenditure of only about 1% of the Gross World Domestic Product.

        The money could come from United Nations assessments of member nations. Or a special small international wholesale level sales tax could be created which would fund the program. A wholesale level sales tax would be less expensive to collect than a retail level sales tax, because there are far fewer wholesale outlets than retail outlets in the world.

        Jim

      • James F. Newell
        ... Jim::: This would be the standard political problem which has been solved in many previous developments in various nations. For example, when nations
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 3, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          That is an excellent set of questions, and each would have to be answered in the course of politically creating such a program. I will reply to each question individually, below, in a dialog format:

          --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Shepherd" <gshepher@...> wrote: Everything I said previously applies to this also. Where is the money coming from for this program? The United Nations has no power to require it's members to pay anything. Who would impose such a tax and who would collect it?

          Jim::: This would be the standard political problem which has been solved in many previous developments in various nations. For example, when nations adopted universal health care, the funds were not there at the beginning, but rather, the nations had to reorganize their tax system to create the funds. If nobody ever did anything because it looked like there would be a problem with funding, we would still be back living in a neolithic society. In general, getting the world's nations to agree to do this would require that they be convinced that the program would be in their national interests. That should not be difficult to do, because objectively, the program would really be in the national interest of other nations. The additional world economic growth would strengthen the economies of every nation. The more rapid development of renewable energy sources would prevent a major disaster to all nations.

          Gary:::What would be done with individuals or nations that refused to pay it?

          Jim::: If this were done by a wholesale sales tax, then payment would be enforced by the courts of that nation. If done by national assessments, it would be more voluntary. My personal feelings would be to just give nations which refused to contribute a pass, and let their citizens receive loans anyway. However, my feelings aren't very politically realistic. So a compromise between my feelings and political reality might be that if a nation refused to contribute to the program, it would only receive half the number of loans its citizens would receive it if the nation were contributing properly.

          Gary::: Who would administer the tests, and make sure the money was
          spent the way it was supposed to be spent, and not simply stolen?

          Jim::: It would depend on the mechanism. The logical administrator would be the United Nations - and more abstractly, the legal provisions themselves. For example, the legal provisions might require than 5 top world universities together administer the tests, being given the necessary funding. Or there might be a special United Nations commission appointed by the General Assembly which would do the test administration. Alternatively, the entire program could be done by a new international agency. I don't see any reason to do it that way, but present it just to be giving everyone as many options as possible to decide upon. The project could be done by just a few nations, in which case they would pay for everything, and administer the tests. For example, the United States and the EU might just do this as joint project. Or China, Japan, the United States and the EU might just do everything as a joint project. In such a case, the partner nations would still get back more than they spent in the long run, due to the larger international economy, the reduction of war which would result from all nations having a high standard of living, and the avoidance of global warming related disasters.

          Gary::: Who would arbitrate in disputes between nations who thought the loans were distributed unfairly?

          Jim::: My proposal was to distribute the loans proportional to population, which I think would be too obviously fair to lead to that problem. However, I could be wrong, and perhaps this needs to be discussed further.

          Gary:::What would be done with those who refuse to pay back the loans or who simply default?

          Jim:::Their equipment and buildings would be repossessed. However, that would happen, I think, only with people who became emotionally ill, and only sometimes then. First, since the loans would be zero interest and the repayment would be 20% of the companies receipts, so would be a variable repayment, it would always be fairly easy for individuals to repay the loans. In addition, anyone who went to the amount of work studying needed to score high on the test would psychologically be the type of person who would tend to be self-motivated and to do things like repaying loans. I don't think there would be vary many defaults.

          Gary:::Who watches over this system, and who will watch the watchers?

          Jim::: Once people had started their own companies, they would of course watch everything themselves from that time. During the start-up, the new owners could be required to submit requests for the purchase of equipment, supplies, and the building, and the program could pay the sellers of the equipment, supplies, etc. directly.

          Gary:::Most importantly, how to get money for this, when we are still so busy spending the equivalent of one trillion US dollars each year on killing one another?

          Jim:::As we have always seen with war, and have recently seen with the stimulus program, it is always possible for nations to find large sums of money if they wish to do so. In this case, however, the amounts would be very modest - less than one percent of the Gross World Product. I shouldn't be too absolute, but I think it should almost always be possible to come up with a little less than 1 percent. Actually, it would be possible in terms of their economies for either China or the United States, or the EU to fund this entirely by itself. The cost, if you will remember, would be 300 billion dollars per year plus perhaps another 100 million administrative costs (being generous) minus loan repayments as the program got rolling. It would be a good hefty expenditure for the United States to do it alone, but it could be done. It would be a burden, but easier for China to do the program by itself because China has about two trillion dollars in foreign exchange reserves plus a large trade surplus. In any case, it would be easy for a large number of nations to do this, all contributing part.

          Gary::: The devil is in the details.

          Jim::: Yes, of course, but sometimes the devil is really so close to being an angel that its not difficult.

          Jim
        • ro-esp
          ... Van: partha saradhi thirukkovalluru ... I don t think there really is a program , let alone a detailed one. Jim is simply telling us
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 7, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
            Van: partha saradhi thirukkovalluru <tpstvs@...>


            > The details of the programme are not given in your message. Please
            > give full details of the programme. I am interested in it.

            I don't think there really is a "program", let alone a detailed one. Jim is
            simply telling us about an idea of his

            As to garys "where would the money come from?": since money is no more
            than a few digits in a computer, it can be easily created...

            Now back to the plan:

            --- On Sun, 29/3/09, James F. Newell <jfnewell7@...> wrote:

            >An example of something which would follow the Simultaneous Benefit
            > Guideline would be a program to help individuals start 200,000 new
            > small manufacturing companies per year, with all nations included in
            > the program.

            where does this figure 200.000 come from? for how many years is it?

            what do you mean by "nation"?

            > Each person chosen to start a new small company would receive a
            > zero interest loan

            of course. But wouldn't things run more smoothly if the company is set
            up by more than one person?

            > The loan would be repaid at 20% of gross receipts of the new company.

            I'm not sure about what you mean by "receipts"

            > This

            that's 1.500.000 dollar

            > would be quite a lot of money in low income nations, but the point is
            > that the small and medium size machines the new small manufacturing
            > companies [need] cost the same everywhere in the world.

            > The reason for these special provisions

            paying back a percentage of the "receipts" rather than a fixed amount
            of money per time-unit

            > is that getting production and sales going tends to be irregular the first
            > few years.

            or when a war comes along, or a harvest get's lost...

            > That means that many small businesses fail when they have fixed loan
            > repayments and building rent, and sales temporarily fall below what is
            > needed to make those payments and pay that rent. With the 20% of
            > actual receipts, a poor period would not drive the new company into
            > bankruptcy.

            good point

            > After a few years, things tend to get going more smoothly for the
            > companies.

            tend....in general

            > The zero percent interest is also there to help make sure the
            > companies would survive and have a good chance of growing.

            Jim, you'd have EITHER survival OR growth. You can't have both.
            And I don't see how a loan can guarantee a company "survives".
            If there's too many competing companies, or if the people who could
            buy it's products need their money for more urgent needs, the company
            will shrink or go bankrupt - even if it is being run extremely well

            > People would be chosen to receive the loans by a test of business
            > management knowledge.

            hmm.... I think it's more important that they know how to do their work
            right..

            > The program would develop a reading list of several college level
            > textbooks. These books would be translated into every main language
            > of every nation.

            Suuuure, we would'n want any lingual minorities in charge of companies ;-)

            > Each year, the number of loans for each nation would be in direct
            > proportion to the population of that nation.

            maybe, but not necessarily.

            > This would help the economic development and/or economic health
            > of all nations of the world simultaneously. For example, a 600,000
            > person nation in which 15 small new general manufacturing companies
            > and 5 new small energy producing companies per year were established,

            I have the impression that many expect that production of electricity will
            soon become a lot more decentralised than that. A few solar panels here,
            a windmill there, a group of greenhouses...

            > would begin growing in quite a healthy way.

            Please be aware that this growth will have to stop at some point.
            Don't see jobs as a goal in itself. Don't think like the consumers have an
            infinite amount of money (purchasing power), and should have an
            insatiable appetite for consumption. If everybody has a TV, there's no
            point in opening up a few thousand addoitional TV-shops.

            Hoping these comments help you in some way

            groetjes, Ronaldo
          • James F. Newell
            ... Jim::: Yes, you are accurate in your understanding. I am casting bread upon the waters, hoping that some group will work to establish the program and
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 10, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Good questions. I will do this in dialog form below:

              --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "ro-esp" <ro-esp@...> wrote: -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
              > Van: partha saradhi thirukkovalluru <tpstvs@...> I don't think there really is a "program", let alone a detailed one. Jim is simply telling us about an idea of his

              Jim::: Yes, you are accurate in your understanding. I am casting bread upon the waters, hoping that some group will work to establish the program and before that, hoping that someone will be able to convey the idea to some group. I am not thinking in terms of being a leader of such a group myself because I am 65 and too ill to be able to do that kind of intensive political work. The current economic development methods haven't been adequately successful, so I am here trying to come up with something which would work better.

              [[[ --- On Sun, 29/3/09, James F. Newell <jfnewell7@...> wrote:
              > >An example of something which would follow the Simultaneous Benefit
              > > Guideline would be a program to help individuals start 200,000 new
              > > small manufacturing companies per year, with all nations included
              > > in the program.]]]

              Ronaldo::: where does this figure 200.000 come from? for how many years is it?

              Jim:::The 200,000 per year figure is an estimate of the minimum needed to increase the economic development of the world by a reasonable amount, while still not looking like the cost would be out of line. The 300 billion dollars plus administrative cost would be about 1% of the gross national products of the developed nations, which is the figure the United Nations set long ago for foreign aid. I do hope that once the program demonstrates that it is being successful, the number might be increased about 200,000 per year. As I see it, the program would continue until the poorest person in the world has an income equal to the current income of a middle class person in a developed nation.

              Ronaldo::: what do you mean by "nation"?

              Jim:::I mean the current members of the United Nations.

              > >[[[ Each person chosen to start a new small company would receive
              > >a zero interest loan]]]

              Ronaldo::: of course. But wouldn't things run more smoothly if the company is set up by more than one person?

              Jim:::Historically, many effective start-ups are done by, or led by, one person. It would also be best not to have the new company try to support too many owners, because they would tend to pull so much income out of the company that it would tend to fail. Then, since the leader of the company would have had to have passed the test, most people who worked that hard would like to be in control, so it would be hard to put together groups of them. That being said, the person could have some partners if he or she wished to do so. So your point is good, because that detail needs to be in the proposal. The new companies would be set up with one leading person, but the person could take on partners if and only if she or he wished to do so.

              > >[[[ The loan would be repaid at 20% of gross receipts of the new
              > > company.]]]

              Ronaldo::: I'm not sure about what you mean by "receipts"

              Jim:::Sales of product.

              > >[[[ that's 1.500.000 dollar
              > > would be quite a lot of money in low income nations, but the point
              > >is that the small and medium size machines the new small
              > > companies [need] cost the same everywhere in the world.
              > > The reason for these special provisions
              > paying back a percentage of the "receipts" rather than a fixed
              > > amount of money per time-unit
              > > is that getting production and sales going tends to be irregular
              > > the first few years.]]]

              Ronaldo::: or when a war comes along, or a harvest get's lost...

              Jim::: Yes. Whatever problem arose.


              > >[[[ That means that many small businesses fail when they have fixed
              > > loan repayments and building rent, and sales temporarily fall
              > > below what is
              > > needed to make those payments and pay that rent. With the 20% of
              > > actual receipts, a poor period would not drive the new company
              > > into bankruptcy.]]]

              Ronaldo::: good point

              [[[ After a few years, things tend to get going more smoothly for the companies.]]]

              Ronaldo::: tend....in general

              Jim::: Yes. There are two problems the first few years. First, it takes awhile to build up a customer base. Second, people usually make mistakes during the first few years that they don't continue to make in the long run.

              > >[[[ The zero percent interest is also there to help make sure the
              > > companies would survive and have a good chance of growing.]]]

              Ronaldo::: Jim, you'd have EITHER survival OR growth. You can't have both. And I don't see how a loan can guarantee a company "survives".
              If there's too many competing companies, or if the people who could
              buy it's products need their money for more urgent needs, the company
              will shrink or go bankrupt - even if it is being run extremely well

              Jim:::With 200,000 new manufacturing companies per year, some would mainly survive while others would grow. The companies that only survived would contribute to economic growth. The companies which grew would contribute in quite major ways to economic growth. Manufacturing companies which are small do better against competition from large corporations than retail stores and restaurants. That is historical, but in general, I think part of the reason is that large corporations accumulate fixed costs which put them at a disadvantage with respect to small manufacturing companies, and also, that large corporations are less flexible than an individual can be. Again, that isn't the case with retail stores, because they depend on a constant large flow of customers, which large retail chains have an advantage with due to advertising budgets, lower wholesale costs from buying in greater bulk, etc.


              > >[[[ People would be chosen to receive the loans by a test of
              > > business management knowledge.

              Ronaldo hmm.... I think it's more important that they know how to do their work right..

              Jim:::That's a good point because it brings up the need for a couple of provisions being spelled out. The set of business management books should make a point of teaching people how to learn ahead of time the way to do the work right. But it would be a good idea to take your point as specifically say that the books on which the test is to be based should include that knowledge. Secondly, the supervision at the beginning of the start-up by the program administrators should cover making sure the person knows how to do the world. But your point implies that this should also be spelled out.

              > >[[[ The program would develop a reading list of several college
              > > level textbooks. These books would be translated into every main
              > > language of every nation.]]]

              Ronaldo::: Suuuure, we would'n want any lingual minorities in charge of companies ;-)

              Jim:::That's a point to consider. The main language criteria would include most languages large enough for translation to be practical. There are a number minority languages with only a few hundred speakers, and I think translation into those languages would be impractical. However, there might be some languages with a couple of hundred thousand people which would be left out by my criteria. Perhaps, following your point, the criteria might be changed to something like every world language with over 10,000 speakers.

              > > [[[ Each year, the number of loans for each nation would be in direct
              > > direct proportion to the population of that nation.]]]

              Ronaldo::: maybe, but not necessarily.

              Jim:::Actually necessarily, because that would be part of requirements written into the program to begin with. A nation would only be left out temporarily if conditions made the program impossible to implement in that nation.

              > >[[[ This would help the economic development and/or economic health
              > > of all nations of the world simultaneously. For example, a 600,000
              > > person nation in which 15 small new general manufacturing
              > > companies and 5 new small energy producing companies per year were > >established,]]]

              Ronaldo::: I have the impression that many expect that production of electricity will soon become a lot more decentralised than that. A few solar panels here, a windmill there, a group of greenhouses...

              Jim::: If that were to happen, then the new energy company loans could be changed to general manufacturing loans. However, I don't see it happening soon because the equipment costs would be too high for most families in the world. An upper middle class American family could manage the equipment cost, barely, but anyone with a lower income couldn't afford such a unit.

              Ronaldo::: Please be aware that this growth will have to stop at some
              point. Don't see jobs as a goal in itself. Don't think like the consumers have an infinite amount of money (purchasing power), and should have an insatiable appetite for consumption. If everybody has a TV, there's no point in opening up a few thousand addoitional TV-shops.

              Jim:::Good points. With economic growth, customers become able to buy more. In addition, the people who started the small manufacturing companies would naturally tend to select areas in which they could sell product. That should probably be spelled out in the provisions for supervising the program. However, as you note, that growth must stop somewhere. For example, I don't think we could have a world in which everybody owned a jet airplane. When we did get to a stopping point, the program would be discontinued. So, what is the point at which economic growth would have to stop. I would say when the poorest person in the world has adequate housing, food, clothing, medical care, full Internet or equivalent access to all knowledge and cultural works in the world, and a guaranteed college education for young people able to do the work, and some form of high quality trade school for those less intelligent, and any other necessities. I think the world economy could give that much to everybody. First, it would be possible to have enough renewable energy for an economy which would provide everyone with that level standard of living. The manufacturing part of sustainability would also be doable because for most products, it is possible to substitute other materials for metals.

              The real problem area is food if the world population grows very much further. If that happens, we will have international famine with many nations having nuclear weapons. That combination would probably lead to the deaths of a large majority of humans, with all sorts of economic and political chaos.

              However, in our historical demographic experience, when the standard of living of a nation has risen enough, the population growth rate of that nation has fallen to a low level. Therefore, we still have a chance to halt population growth by bringing the developing nations quickly to a developed level. We actually should have done this several decades ago, but just barely, it might even now not be too late.


              Jim
            • ro-esp
              ... Van: James F. Newell ... thank you ... I d rather you http://www.learn.to/quote , so it would remain understandable if more comment
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 14, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
                Van: James F. Newell <jfnewell7@...>


                >Good questions.

                thank you

                > I will do this in dialog form below:

                I'd rather you http://www.learn.to/quote , so it would remain understandable
                if more comment is added
                >
                >--- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "ro-esp" <ro-esp@...> wrote:
                >> I don't think there really is a "program", let alone a detailed one. Jim
                >> is simply telling us about an idea of his
                >
                > Yes. I am casting bread upon the waters,

                I don't know the expression

                > The current economic development methods haven't been adequately
                > successful, so I am here trying to come up with something which would
                > work better.

                I hope you understand that "capitalism as we know it" is at fault

                >> >An example of something which would follow the Simultaneous Benefit
                >> > Guideline would be a program to help individuals start 200,000 new
                >> > small manufacturing companies per year, with all nations included
                >> > in the program.
                >
                Ronaldo:
                >> where does this figure 200.000 come from? for how many years is it?
                >
                > The 200,000 per year figure is an estimate of the minimum needed to
                > increase the economic development of the world by a reasonable
                > amount,

                naive question: why would you want toincrease *the world's* economic
                developement? To burn up resources even faster? To impose what you
                are used to upon the rest of the world?

                > The 300 billion dollars plus administrative cost would be about 1% of
                > the gross national products of the developed nations, which is the
                > figure the United Nations set long ago for foreign aid.

                yeah, well, the idea is nice. Although as far as I know the percentage
                agreed upon is 0.7 , and two or three countries even keep this promise.
                The real problem however is that the flow of money from those poor
                countries TO the rich ones is a lot bigger, paying interest and buying
                stuff the poor countries aren't allowed to make for themselves...
                (fetilizer, patenting living organisms....)

                > As I see it, the program would continue until the poorest person in
                > the world has an income equal to the current income of a middle
                > class person in a developed nation.

                could you make that level of wealth explicit/tangible for those on the list
                who never see any "middle class"?

                And would that be feasable? I mean, i did some ecological footprint-test
                a while back, and even my footprint (no smoking, no car, no microwave,
                no flying) was 1.8 times equal share

                >> > Each person chosen to start a new small company would receive
                >> >a zero interest loan
                >
                >> of course. But wouldn't things run more smoothly if the company is
                >> set up by more than one person?
                >
                >Historically, many effective start-ups are done by, or led by, one person.

                that doesn't say anything. In danish statistics, most babies are born
                when the amount of storks is the highest :-)

                > It would also be best not to have the new company try to support too
                > many owners, because they would tend to pull so much income out
                > of the company that it would tend to fail.

                I'm not talking about hundreds of shareholders who think that dividend
                is more important than either personnel or customers. I'm talking about
                a few co-owners for whom the company is their livelihood. So the
                company doesn't fail because of the whims of one or two persons.

                > Then, since the leader of the company would have had to have passed
                > the test, most people who worked that hard would like to be in control,
                > so it would be hard to put together groups of them.

                If being in total control is so important to them, they probably aren't the
                best candidates for the job - unless it's a one-person-company...

                >> > The loan would be repaid at 20% of gross receipts of the new
                >> > company.]
                >
                >> I'm not sure about what you mean by "receipts"
                >
                >Sales of product.

                I don't approve. That way you still have a chance that a healthy company
                has to stop. I think paying all employees the minimum-wage and buying
                the necessary goods to make the product is more important than paying
                off the debt. Debt pay off should be defined as a percentage of the
                *netto* surplus


                >>> After a few years, things tend to get going more smoothly for the
                companies.

                >> tend....in general

                > Yes. There are two problems the first few years. First, it takes a while
                > to build up a customer base. Second, people usually make mistakes
                > during the first few years that they don't continue to make in the long
                run.

                I'm pretty sure a company can go bankrupt without anyone making
                mistakes. Often enough, just a little bad luck will do the trick

                >> > The zero percent interest is also there to help make sure the
                >> > companies would survive and have a good chance of growing.

                >> Jim, you'd have EITHER survival OR growth. You can't have both.
                >> And I don't see how a loan can guarantee a company "survives".
                >>If there's too many competing companies, or if the people who could
                >>buy it's products need their money for more urgent needs, the company
                >> will shrink or go bankrupt - even if it is being run extremely well

                > With 200,000 new manufacturing companies per year, some would
                > mainly survive while others would grow.

                Nonsense. if the amount of bakers in a town grows, the bakeries
                themselve will have to shrink, because the town will not automatically
                eat/buy more bread. If the amount stays the same, but some bakeries
                grow, some others will have to shrink.

                > The companies that only survived would contribute to economic growth.

                > The companies which grew would contribute in quite major ways to
                > economic growth.

                How exactly? And what do you mean by "economic growth"?

                > Manufacturing companies which are small do better against
                > competition from large corporations than retail stores and restaurants.

                Maybe, unless it's countered by some semi-monopolies.

                The main advantage of small companies is, that they have roots in the
                neighbourhood. If I go to a local greengrocer I can buy half a pound of
                champignons and a quarter cauliflower. In supermarkets that's a lot
                more difficult.


                >> > Each year, the number of loans for each nation would be in direct
                >> > direct proportion to the population of that nation.
                >
                >> maybe, but not necessarily.
                >
                > Actually necessarily, because that would be part of requirements
                > written into the program to begin with. A nation would only be left out
                > temporarily if conditions made the program impossible to implement
                > in that nation.

                I'm not talking about leaving out, but about the phenomenon "enough".
                If in a certain country unemployment is very low, or if it's inhabitants
                feel
                that no extra companies are needed, you shouldn't force new companies
                upon them


                >> > This would help the economic development and/or economic health
                >> > of all nations of the world simultaneously. For example, a 600,000
                >> > person nation in which 15 small new general manufacturing
                >> > companies and 5 new small energy producing companies per year
                >> > were established,
                >
                >> I have the impression that many expect that production of electricity
                >> will soon become a lot more decentralised than that. A few solar
                >> panels here, a windmill there, a group of greenhouses...

                > If that were to happen, then the new energy company loans could be
                > changed to general manufacturing loans.

                I've no idea what you mean. please explain

                > However, I don't see it happening soon because the equipment costs
                > would be too high for most families in the world. An upper middle class
                > American family could manage the equipment cost, barely, but anyone
                > with a lower income couldn't afford such a unit.

                I'm not talking about *families*, let alone *american*. If you get outside
                exagerated individualism, you could do it as a street/school/hospital/etc.
                I have the impression that the main hurdle is getting a decent price for
                the electricity you produce. In germany the government has fixed such
                (feed-in)prices for a period of 20(?) years, so everyone who starts
                producing electricity at home knows they will get their investment back.

                > With economic growth, customers become able to buy more.

                is that necessarily a good thing?

                > In addition, the people who started the small manufacturing companies
                > would naturally tend to select areas in which they could sell product.

                what do you mean by that?

                > That should probably be spelled out in the provisions for supervising the
                program.

                why? it's selfevident you won't sell sand in the sahara..

                >. So, what is the point at which economic growth would have to stop.

                the point where mother nature says she can't keep up with us anymore?
                (yes we've passed it already)

                > I would say when the poorest person in the world has adequate
                > housing, food, clothing, medical care, full Internet or equivalent access
                > to all knowledge and cultural works in the world, and a guaranteed
                > college education for young people able to do the work, and some form
                > of high quality trade school for those less intelligent, and any other
                > necessities. I think the world economy could give that much to everybody.

                if we don't pamper the rich...


                >The real problem area is food if the world population grows very much
                > further.

                we could all turn vegan ;-)


                > However, in our historical demographic experience, when the
                > standard of living of a nation has risen enough,

                "standard of living", as if the ways you can live can be found on a
                one-dimensional scale...

                > the population growth rate of that nation has fallen to a low level.
                > Therefore, we still have a chance to halt population growth by bringing
                > the developing nations quickly to a developed level.

                I think we can't stop it by industrial developement, but we can by making
                girls go to school

                > We actually should have done this several decades ago

                no argument about that
                groetjes, Ronaldo
              • James F. Newell
                ... I think I ll leave out some of what was said earlier, and hope everyone remembers it. ... Ronaldo::: I hope you understand that capitalism as we know it
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 17, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "ro-esp" <ro-esp@...> wrote:
                  I think I'll leave out some of what was said earlier, and hope everyone remembers it.

                  > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
                  > Van: James F. Newell <jfnewell7@...>

                  Ronaldo::: I hope you understand that "capitalism as we know it" is at fault

                  Jim:::But of course. It is difficult because we have to start with the capitalism we have now and transform it into something better. We can't just dismantle all the factories, banks, etc. and start new at a stone age level, with no farm equipment, no medical drugs and equipment, no communications equipment, etc. Actually, just a few messages isn't enough to cover much of what needs to be covered. We really should be living together with a number of other thinkers, and working full time on developing ideas for the necessary transformation. However, I don't see how that could be possible.

                  Ronaldo::: naive question: why would you want toincrease *the world's* economic developement? To burn up resources even faster? To impose what you are used to upon the rest of the world?

                  Jim:::Your question is not naive. The problem is that the world situation is so massively complicated, that a lot must be coordinated together to transform the world into something better. So, for example, we need to bring the rest of the world up to a developed level, because that is the only way to stop population growth without coercion. But - complexity - we must bring the rest of the world up to a developed level WITHOUT burning up resources faster. That means many things. For example -complexity- we need to install renewable energy much faster than we are doing now. As for metals, we already have a number of substitutes, but some additional emergency research to develop new substitutes, and improved substitutes, needs to be done as well.

                  What I am personally used to is much less than the average standard of living in developed nations. I did chose that in order to study and think in an attempt to come up with helpful ideas for humanity, and I am happy with my low standard of living. However, I am realistic enough to know that most people want more than I have, both in the developed and developing nations. So I have looked at this.

                  I myself am 65 and ill, with zero access to medical care, but I think it would be a good idea for everyone in the world to have good medical care. Now the important point is that medical care doesn't use much energy or rare raw materials. Giving everyone in the world good medical care would not be a drain on resources. Similarly, providing everyone with the world's knowledge and culture wouldn't be a drain on world resources. Everyone has to wear clothing anyway, and it is being produced. However, for no additional drain on the world's resources, everyone's clothing could be made with museum quality design. It would use no more resources to dye clothing with a poor design, as now, than to print clothing with museum quality patterns. I don't care all that much about clothing myself, but other people do care, and beautiful clothing could be part of a future world economy.

                  If one goes through goods and services, one finds that only a few will need to be given up. The rest are not a drain on the world's resources.

                  Ronaldo::: yeah, well, the idea is nice. Although as far as I know the percentage agreed upon is 0.7 , and two or three countries even keep this promise.

                  Jim::: I don"t really want to be picky, so your response is OK in being in the general ball park. The original agreement was 1%. More recently, that was reduced to the lower figure by the world community. I think we should go back to the original 1%. And yes, most nations don't even come close to either agreed upon number.

                  Ronaldo::: The real problem however is that the flow of money from those poor countries TO the rich ones is a lot bigger, paying interest and buying stuff the poor countries aren't allowed to make for themselves... (fetilizer, patenting living organisms....)

                  Jim:::Yes, I know the problem, although I didn't mention it because it is necessary to keep messages fairly short - not the length of a book. The creation of new small manufacturing companies proposal is meant to be an end run around the problem you mentioned above. The zero interest aspect of my proposal would also keep the program from increasing the interest burden of the developing nations. The idea is to get economic development going well in the developing nations regardless of what people are doing in the area you mentioned, above.

                  Ronaldo:::could you make that level of wealth explicit/tangible for those on the list who never see any "middle class"?

                  Jim::: Sure. I think we could do 50 to 100 square meters of housing per person in the world, if the housing were very well insulated. But that should be further looked at. We could give full medical care to everyone in the world. We could, with the current population, provide everyone in the world with gourmet quality food. The gourmet part is achievable via preparation methods on the basic ingredients. We could provide everyone in the world with clothing of museum quality design. Also, enough museum quality furniture of the 50 to 100 square meter per person housing. We could provide everyone in the world with enough soap, toothpaste, etc. We could provide everyone in the world with a guaranteed university education for their children (or high quality trade school for those not intelligent enough for a university education). Education does not require much of the world's physical resources. We could provide everyone with paintings in their homes. Artists don't use much in terms of rare raw materials. Even paints made with things like cobalt don't use very much cobalt overall. We could provide everyone in the world with a few sculptures in their front yard, a few roof sculptures, and a few sculptures in their homes. We could provide everyone in the world with plates, cups and other ceramic wear of museum quality design (again, glazes are being used anyway - it is just a matter of using better patterns). We could provide even every small size town (more for larger cities) with a symphony orchestra, a couple of chamber music groups, a couple of theater companies, a ballet company. And some other things.

                  I don't think we will be able to have a car for everyone, although I am not sure. We certainly can't have a private jet airplane for everyone. We can't have a large mansion for everyone. etc.

                  Ronaldo::: And would that be feasable? I mean, i did some ecological footprint-test a while back, and even my footprint (no smoking, no car, no microwave, no flying) was 1.8 times equal share.

                  Jim::: If we went entirely to wind, solar, and hopefully wave, power, you would no longer have an energy footprint. There are limits somewhere to how much energy per person we could produce with wind, solar, probably wave, power, but I am sure we could have enough energy for the standard of living for everyone in the world I outlined above.

                  Ronaldo::: I'm not talking about hundreds of shareholders who think that dividend is more important than either personnel or customers. I'm talking about a few co-owners for whom the company is their livelihood. So the company doesn't fail because of the whims of one or two persons.

                  Jim:::I would actually not be opposed to having several owners of a new company if they all scored adequately high on the test. A one and a half million dollar new company would usually not be enough to support several owners. However, I could go with a modification that if several people scoring highest in the test wanted to go together to start a new small manufacturing company, the zero interest loan could be for one and one-half million dollars per owner.

                  Ronaldo::: If being in total control is so important to them, they probably aren't the best candidates for the job - unless it's a one-person-company...

                  Jim:::Actually, single owners have been successful an immense number of times in the past. In many cases, one and a half million dollars would only be enough for a one person company. Production machinery is very expensive.

                  Ronaldo::: I don't approve. That way you still have a chance that a healthy company has to stop. I think paying all employees the minimum-wage and buying the necessary goods to make the product is more important than paying off the debt. Debt pay off should be defined as a percentage of the *netto* surplus

                  Jim::: Personally, I would be happy with this being a gift program, with no loan repayments at all. However, realistically, the world public would not agree, I think, to make this a gift program. 20% would not be overly high. Remember, the company would have no rent, no interest bearing loans for the equipment, etc.

                  Ronaldo::: I'm pretty sure a company can go bankrupt without anyone making mistakes. Often enough, just a little bad luck will do the trick.

                  Jim:::That is the very thing I am trying to correct for with the loan repayments having no interest and being repaid at only a percentage of receipts. The "bad luck" is most often because most people, when they start a new small business, must obtain interest-bearing loans and rent a space. The interest-bearing loans have a fixed rate of payment every month, and the rent is a fixed amount per month. A temporary reduction in sales for whatever reason then causes income to be less than the loan repayments and rents, so the business fails. This is assuming the person has adequate knowledge of how to successfully run a company. Many people start businesses without adequate business knowledge.

                  Ronaldo::: Nonsense. if the amount of bakers in a town grows, the bakeries themselve will have to shrink, because the town will not automatically eat/buy more bread. If the amount stays the same, but some bakeries grow, some others will have to shrink.

                  Jim:::That kind of thing is what the test and supervision are intended to prevent. If a town has enough small bakeries, the person eligible for the zero interest loan, having studied the college level material, would know enough not to choose to start a new bakery in such a situation. She or he would start something else. The program supervisors would also not allow someone to start a new bakery in such a situation. However, if the towns baked goods were being supplied by a large, distant corporation, then a new small bakery in a town that didn't have one could be successful. Or, if there were enough small bakeries for sale of fresh baked goods, a bakery to produce packaged backed goods for sale anywhere outside the small town would also work.

                  Ronaldo::: Maybe, unless it's countered by some semi-monopolies.

                  Jim::: In part, that is a matter for additional planning and legislation. New small companies do have certain advantages over large corporations, but not enough. I haven't gotten into my thinking in that area and this message is getting seriously long. However, one proposal I will mention would be a law that wholesale supplies, energy, etc. be the same cost for both large corporations and small companies. That would remove an artificial advantage of large corporations over small businesses, in that they can obtain their supplies, energy, etc. more cheaply by buying in larger bulk.

                  Ronaldo::: I'm not talking about leaving out, but about the phenomenon "enough". If in a certain country unemployment is very low, or if it's inhabitants feel that no extra companies are needed, you shouldn't force new companies upon them.

                  Jim::: Of course, any nation could opt out of receiving loans. I would be extremely surprised if any nation did opt out.

                  Ronaldo::: I've no idea what you mean. please explain

                  Jim::: If we reached a point where all electricity were being produced by alternative methods (no fosil fuel buring at all) and there were enough electricity for the final world economy, then the loan program would no longer include creating new small energy companies.

                  Old Jim::: With economic growth, customers become able to buy more.

                  Ronaldo::: is that necessarily a good thing?

                  Jim::: Until we reach a world economy in which the poorest person in the world has an adequate standard of living (defined a few paragraphs above) it is a good thing. It is also a main argument politically to use with the emerging international oligarchy. At the moment, the push is towards a world of a few wealthy families, with everyone else extremely poor and working for the lowest possible wages. But the people working to develop the international oligarchy are missing the point that in such a world, the corporations which were part of the oligarchy would not have enough customers to do well. Hence, the wealthy will harm themselves if they push everyone else down to the lowest possible standard of living.

                  The poltical situation is very difficult. The wealthy and their corporations have enough income stream to successfully bribe every government in the world. They also own most of the world's print and television media. Therefore, in the long run, they are almost overwhelmingly powerful.

                  Ronaldo:::So, what is the point at which economic growth would have to stop. the point where mother nature says she can't keep up with us anymore? (yes we've passed it already)

                  Jim::: I agree with you. That is the reason for one quarter of the new companies to be ones which produced renewable energy. I have for some years been proposing another idea, which has never caught on. But I will repeat it here.

                  The United States, or the European Union, or a combination, could put several hundred billion dollars per year into a program to create new large renewable energy companies which would throughout the world build solar, wind and perhaps wave facilities. These companies might be set up at 10 billion dollars each. So, let us say, 300 billion dollars would create 30 such companies that year. Then, once each company were functioning, it would be sold on the stock markets to investors, and the money put back into the program to create additional renewable energy companies. After a few years, even with the same perhaps 300 billion dollars per year input from the governments, the program would therefor, from the recycling of capital, be creating perhaps a trillion dollars per year in new renewable energy companies. We could in that way switch out of fossil fuel very fast.

                  Ronaldo::: we could all turn vegan ;-)

                  Jim:::There is still an absolute limit to how large the human population could be. Probably about 20 billion people or so. But if we go all the way to the limit, we will end up destroying the rest of the natural ecosystem. We really need to stop population growth before we even reach 10 billion.

                  Jim
                • ro-esp
                  ... Van: James F. Newell ... fault ... some primitivists will disagree, but you re talking modernity instead of capitalism: an economy
                  Message 8 of 10 , Apr 18, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
                    Van: James F. Newell <jfnewell7@...>

                    >>Ronaldo::: I hope you understand that "capitalism as we know it" is at
                    fault
                    >
                    >Jim:::But of course. It is difficult because we have to start with
                    > the capitalism we have now and transform it into something
                    > better. We can't just dismantle all the factories, banks, etc. and
                    > start new at a stone age level, with no farm equipment, no medical
                    > drugs and equipment, no communications equipment, etc.

                    some "primitivists" will disagree, but you're talking modernity instead
                    of capitalism: an economy based on private property of production
                    means, and on the principle of chasing profit - with the effect that rich
                    become richer, even if poor have to become poorer for that.




                    >> naive question: why would you want to increase *the world's*
                    >> economic developement? To burn up resources even faster?
                    >> To impose what you are used to upon the rest of the world?

                    >Your question is not naive. The problem is that the world
                    > situation is so massively complicated, that a lot must be
                    > coordinated together to transform the world into something better.
                    > So, for example, we need to bring the rest of the world up to a
                    > developed level, because that is the only way to stop population
                    > growth without coercion.

                    small nuance: that won't require "a developed level". It requires an
                    end to poverty, and having girls go to school

                    > But - complexity - we must bring the rest of the world up to a
                    > developed level WITHOUT burning up resources faster. That
                    > means many things.

                    like a "shrinking" economy in the rich countries


                    >
                    >> could you make that level of wealth explicit/tangible for those on the
                    list who never see any "middle class"?
                    >
                    > Sure. [snip]

                    okay, so I'm not middle class. By the way you forgot that
                    everyone should have a bicycle


                    > > And would that be feasable? I mean, i did some ecological
                    >> footprint-test a while back, and even my footprint (no
                    >> smoking, no car, no microwave, no flying) was 1.8 times
                    >> equal share.
                    >
                    > If we went entirely to wind, solar, and hopefully wave,
                    > power, you would no longer have an energy footprint.

                    No wordplay please... there's a lot more to *ecological* footprint
                    than just energy-use. For instance the amount of soil needed to
                    grow food and construction/clothing materials, water needed to
                    produce computerchips...



                    >> I don't approve.

                    fixing the amount of payoff for a loan as 20% of sales

                    >> That way you still have a chance that a healthy company has
                    >> to stop. I think paying all employees the minimum-wage and
                    >> buying the necessary goods to make the product is more
                    >> important than paying off the debt. Debt pay off should be
                    >> defined as a percentage of the *netto* surplus

                    > Personally, I would be happy with this being a gift program,
                    > with no loan repayments at all. However, realistically, the world
                    > public would not agree, I think, to make this a gift program.
                    > 20% would not be overly high.

                    I'm not talking about the percentage, I'm talking about the
                    percentage of *what*. I think it should be of the *net* profit.
                    You could in that case make it 100%, but then it wouldn't be
                    capitalism anymore

                    > Remember, the company would have no rent,

                    and no taxes on the housing?

                    > no interest bearing loans for the equipment, etc.

                    I was thinking of resources, salaries etc




                    > one proposal I will mention would be a law that wholesale
                    > supplies, energy, etc. be the same cost for both large corporations
                    > and small companies. That would remove an artificial advantage
                    > of large corporations over small businesses, in that they can
                    > obtain their supplies, energy, etc. more cheaply by buying in larger bulk.

                    good point. In fact here in NL big supermarketchains are big partly
                    because they are so big, that they can force farmers to sell their
                    products for a price below production costs...

                    Are there any "transition town" or "community supported agriculture"
                    groups in your village? (rethorical question - no need to reply)

                    >>> With economic growth, customers become able to buy more.
                    >
                    >> is that necessarily a good thing?
                    >
                    > Until we reach a world economy in which the poorest person
                    > in the world has an adequate standard of living (defined a few
                    > paragraphs above) it is a good thing.

                    if it benefits the poor and the ecology, it's a good thing. If it
                    makes the relatively rich so rich that they consume more
                    unnecessary luxuries, it's a bad thing.


                    >The United States, or the European Union, or a combination, could

                    Let's discuss that in a separate thread, once it gets quiet on the list ...

                    groetjes, Ronaldo
                  • James F. Newell
                    ... Ronaldo::: some primitivists will disagree, but you re talking modernity instead of capitalism: an economy based on private property of production
                    Message 9 of 10 , Apr 24, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com, "ro-esp" <ro-esp@...> wrote:

                      Ronaldo:::> some "primitivists" will disagree, but you're talking modernity instead of capitalism: an economy based on private property of production means, and on the principle of chasing profit - with the effect that rich become richer, even if poor have to become poorer for that.

                      Jim:::Yes. One of the criteria I follow in developing ideas is that they not produce a situation where the poor become poorer. That would reduce the profits of the rich somewhat, though less than the people in control of various nations think.

                      The new small company program is also --- TRANSITIONAL.

                      Technology is rapidly moving us towards a fully automated economy which would be green if only renewable power were used, and which would substitute various new materials and processes for many uses of metal, which is limited. But to switch to a fully automated economy, every nation will have to have an adequate industrial base. One point of the new small company program is to spread the industrial base among a lot of people, rather than having it all be in the hands of corporations larger than many of the nations in the UN.

                      Ronaldo::: small nuance: that won't require "a developed level". It requires an end to poverty, and having girls go to school

                      Jim:::Yes. In addition to the end of poverty, I think it also requires that every nation have adequate old age pensions. The reason is that when there are no old age pensions, parents partly have children in order to have someone to support them in old age when they can no longer work. Since children can sometimes die, and some may be too selfish to support their parents, parents want several children to be on the safe side. That pushes population growth. However, with a good quality old age pension, parents no longer feel they must have extra children just to make sure they can be supported in old age.

                      Ronaldo::: like a "shrinking" economy in the rich countries

                      Jim:::Over history, only a small percentage of any population has been willing to behave in an unselfish way. Reform movements start, and several percent of the population enthusiastically rally to their support, but then, the movements stop growing - with the exception of movements which become corrupt in order to appeal to more people. I don't expect anything different here. A majority of the public in each of the rich countries simply will not agree to let their economies shrink.

                      That is one reason I am working with changing the mix of a developed economy, rather than shrinking it. That is to say - WITHIN AN ECONOMY, REPLACING HIGH RESOURCE IMPACT PRODUCTS WITH LOW IMPACT PRODUCTS AND SERVICES WHICH PROVIDE AN EQUAL OR BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE AS THE HIGH RESOURCE IMPACT PRODUCT WHICH IS REPLACED.

                      The above is a very key guideline for thinking. In that way, we can present to the voters of rich countries not a decline in their standard of living, but rather a mere change in the mix of products and services which will provide them with the same standard of living. The voters would be much more likely to agree to that.

                      Ronaldo::: okay, so I'm not middle class. By the way you forgot that
                      everyone should have a bicycle

                      Jim::: Neither is anyone else. I did define a middle class of one possible future.

                      Ronaldo::: No wordplay please... there's a lot more to *ecological* footprint than just energy-use. For instance the amount of soil needed to grow food and construction/clothing materials, water needed to
                      produce computerchips...

                      Jim:::The essence of the footprint is how much one increases the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because that is the danger involved. So if energy comes from renewable sources, no amount of energy used will increase the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere, so there is in reality no footprint. There are limits of course. As long as we are confined to living on earth, there is only so much sunlight that falls on the earth, and we must keep land set aside for things like food production. So there is a limit to the amount of solar energy we could produce. Similarly, there is only so much wind, and only so much energy in waves. However, there is enough potential renewable energy to fund all the economic activity we need for the current population.

                      Continuing to your next sentence, the amount of water needed to produce computer chips is too small to be important. The place where we have a water crisis is in the growing of food. My old suggestion here is that we develop trees which produce grains, legumes, cotton, etc. (small products like wheat grains would be produced in large clusters so as to be easy to harvest). The trees would require less irrigation due to their deep roots. Converting all the fields now used to grow crops to orchards of trees growing the same crops would also lock a lot of carbon away into trunks, limbs, and thick roots of the trees. However, this still depends on getting population growth halted very very quickly.

                      Ronaldo:::and no taxes on the housing?

                      Jim::: I think the new companies could handle the taxes, but if not, a provision would be made there, of course. Any problems which might come up in the future would be corrected by adjustments.

                      Ronaldo::: I was thinking of resources, salaries etc

                      Jim:::Working capital would be included in the loan, but would be quite small compared with building and equipment costs because production would be started up quickly.

                      Old Jim::: With economic growth, customers become able to buy more.

                      Ronaldo::: is that necessarily a good thing?

                      Jim:::It is a good thing if the customers move from being poor to being not poor. The rest is an argument to use with the wealthy, who have so much political power. Essentially, the giant corporations, many larger than half the nations in the United Nations, now have enough cash flow to be able to bribe every important government official in the world on any issue that is important to them. So no reform could be gotten through if the wealthy opposed it. Therefore, an argument that if the poor of the world were raised to a middle class income, the corporations which provide the income of the wealthy would do well, is part of making this acceptable to the wealthy. So is my definition of a future middle class lifestyle with museum quality clothing, roof and yard sculptures, etc. When the wealthy travel outside their houses, a world with people in museum quality clothing walking the streets, roof sculptures on people's houses, etc. would be a much more pleasant experience for the wealthy than traveling through the kinds of poor areas which exist now. It would also be more pleasant for everyone else, of course.

                      Ronaldo::: if it benefits the poor and the ecology, it's a good thing. If it makes the relatively rich so rich that they consume more unnecessary luxuries, it's a bad thing.

                      Jim::: It depends on the luxuries. It does no harm to the environment, for example, for the wealthy to buy and sell expensive old paintings to one another, to buy and sell expensive jewelry with large stones to one another, to eat gourmet food, etc. There are some luxuries that are no problem.

                      Once we reach a fully automated green economy, it can be mainly those kinds of safe luxuries which can make up most of the standard of living of the wealthy. As long as ordinary people have all the basic necessities they need, it won't be any problem if the wealthy concern themselves with things like owning original Picassos, Corots, etc. Ordinary people who have all the necessities can get along with those things. So that would leave the wealthy with something special they could have and do. That would help get their political cooperation for the reforms needed.

                      Jim
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.