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

"Apathy Begone: Activating Minds and Voices" (was: Re: introduction of my blog)

Expand Messages
  • Ardeshir Mehta
    ... Hello David, Excellent initiative, your ESD Party! Congratulations. I had not realised you were so old. You are even older than I am (and I am 66)! Sign me
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      On 1-Jan-10, at 7:40 AM, D Boese wrote:

      > Dear Friends and Acquaintances
      >
      > Happy new year everyone. I am happy to bring you greetings and to
      > inform you, of the launch of my blog "Apathy Begone: Activating
      > Minds and Voices." The website address is: http://
      > boeseblog.wordpress.com/
      >
      > I invite you to take a look, with the hope that it will inspire you
      > to activate your mind and give me your support/input, either
      > positive or negative. I have to thank my wife Shirley and my editor/
      > tech support Ashley Clayton, for without their contribution, this
      > blog would not have been created.
      >
      > Regards
      >
      > David Boese
      > 2A Wood St.,
      > St. Catharines, On. L2N 2A9
      > 905 646 9143


      Hello David,

      Excellent initiative, your ESD Party! Congratulations.

      I had not realised you were so old. You are even older than I am (and
      I am 66)!

      Sign me up, anyway, to join the ESD Party. Maybe we can both do
      something constructive before we kick the bucket.

      I have a few problems with what the ESD Party's platform (at <http://
      boeseblog.wordpress.com/the-esd-party/>) DOESN'T say. Don't you think
      one of the points in the platform should be that private banks should
      be strictly prohibited from CREATING money?

      If that were done, there would no need for ANY taxes - save, perhaps,
      to recall excess money in circulation and thereby prevent inflation.
      (But that would be seldom, since any additional money created by the
      Bank of Canada for public projects would generally speaking be
      compensated by the value of the projects themselves.)

      Also, should not there be a definite figure for the guaranteed annual
      income? Say, so many dollars per year, or (more appropriately) a
      certain percentage of the GDP, when calculated according to a clearly
      specified method? I would recommend at least 10% of the GDP, better
      20%, or even 30%, as a guaranteed annual income for all the people of
      Canada, divided equally per capita.

      In addition, why should not children under the age of 18 also get a
      guaranteed annual income? After all, it is not as if they don't exist
      as consumers. If only people over the age of 18 get a guaranteed
      annual income, would not families with a large number of children be
      penalised?

      These are just a few thoughts: I have many others, but I would like
      to get your input on these few to begin with.

      Cheers,

      Ardeshir Mehta
      Ottawa, Ontario
      New Year's Day 2010.
    • Ardeshir Mehta
      ... Thankfully! ... You re welcome. ... Where exactly is this material? ... Good. With money creation being in the hands of the People, rather than private
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On 2-Jan-10, at 9:08 AM, D Boese wrote:

        > On 1-Jan-10, at 1:35 PM, Ardeshir Mehta wrote:
        >
        >> On 1-Jan-10, at 7:40 AM, D Boese wrote:
        >>
        >>> Dear Friends and Acquaintances
        >>>
        >>> Happy new year everyone. I am happy to bring you greetings and
        >>> to inform you, of the launch of my blog "Apathy Begone:
        >>> Activating Minds and Voices." The website address is: http://
        >>> boeseblog.wordpress.com/
        >>>
        >>> I invite you to take a look, with the hope that it will inspire
        >>> you to activate your mind and give me your support/input, either
        >>> positive or negative. I have to thank my wife Shirley and my
        >>> editor/tech support Ashley Clayton, for without their
        >>> contribution, this blog would not have been created.
        >>>
        >>> Regards
        >>>
        >>> David Boese
        >>> 2A Wood St.,
        >>> St. Catharines, On. L2N 2A9
        >>> 905 646 9143
        >>
        >> Hello David,
        >>
        >> Excellent initiative, your ESD Party! Congratulations.
        >
        > Thanks
        >
        >> I had not realised you were so old. You are even older than I am
        >> (and I am 66)!
        >
        > Spent yesterday in emerg. but thankfully tests were negative but I
        > still have the pain I went in for.

        Thankfully!

        >> Sign me up, anyway, to join the ESD Party. Maybe we can both do
        >> something constructive before we kick the bucket.
        >
        > Thanks again

        You're welcome.

        >> I have a few problems with what the ESD Party's platform (at
        >> <http://boeseblog.wordpress.com/the-esd-party/>) DOESN'T say.
        >> Don't you think one of the points in the platform should be that
        >> private banks should be strictly prohibited from CREATING money?
        >
        > It's in my model, maybe just the wrong terminology or you skipped
        > by it. The most unique thing about this model is the two tier money
        > creation. First there isn't any money created for the essentials,
        > only "credits" which I might call "soft currency" which when spent
        > are then turned into "hard currency" or real money that can be
        > spent on anything.

        Where exactly is this material?

        >> If that were done, there would no need for ANY taxes - save,
        >> perhaps, to recall excess money in circulation and thereby prevent
        >> inflation. (But that would be seldom, since any additional money
        >> created by the Bank of Canada for public projects would generally
        >> speaking be compensated by the value of the projects themselves.)
        >
        > I'm advocating one tax only, that being income tax, but nothing is
        > written in stone. The tenets of my model are suggestions for
        > debate. I don't want to be a dictator so everything I'm proposing
        > will have to be approved through the democratic process. There are
        > however, parts like money creation which are the corner stone of
        > this model and platform of the party that can't be compromised.

        Good. With money creation being in the hands of the People, rather
        than private interests, taxes are NOT necessary, except if too much
        money is in circulation: money for spending on public projects and
        the common good can simply be CREATED by the people.

        >> Also, should not there be a definite figure for the guaranteed
        >> annual income? Say, so many dollars per year, or (more
        >> appropriately) a certain percentage of the GDP, when calculated
        >> according to a clearly specified method? I would recommend at
        >> least 10% of the GDP, better 20%, or even 30%, as a guaranteed
        >> annual income for all the people of Canada, divided equally per
        >> capita.
        >
        > The figures are in the model and are based on todays cost of living
        > at giving credits in dollar value to be 25,000 per person.

        Good. But don't you think that this figure should change with
        economic growth? In fifty years' time it may be a pittance!

        >> In addition, why should not children under the age of 18 also get
        >> a guaranteed annual income? After all, it is not as if they don't
        >> exist as consumers. If only people over the age of 18 get a
        >> guaranteed annual income, would not families with a large number
        >> of children be penalised?
        >
        > I believe that a guaranteed annual income of 50,000 for a family of
        > four should be enough to care for underage children and when they
        > reach 18 they can start saving for their college education.

        Why should education - up to any level - not be free for everyone?

        > Yes you could say that large families would be penalized, however,
        > it is my believe that for the world to be sustainable we must work
        > towards zero population growth, that be a 2 child family.

        What about those who don't agree with you? They would be penalised,
        would they not?

        >> These are just a few thoughts: I have many others, but I would
        >> like to get your input on these few to begin with.
        >
        > I see by the number of emails you sent with valuable information,
        > but it will take me a while to digest all this. While I do
        > appreciate you sending me this it is a little overwhelming but I'm
        > sure there is info in there that I can use in my blog. My chore is
        > to submit posts to my blog and I have to make sure that they're not
        > too long, as people won't read wordy submissions. I would
        > appreciate receiving responses from you through the blog so that
        > other people can read them too and make comments.

        How do I make my responses available through the blog?

        > Thanks again for your interest and support.
        >
        > Regards
        > David


        Cheers,

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