Dennis
Some points to expand and clarify.
Certainly knowledge is complex, it might well be the third infinity.
(A. Einstein - There are two infinities, the universe and human
stupidity . . . )
What is proposed is to show that there is some simplicity out there, or
at least make available to everyone instantly at the same time what is
now a 'secret' to a few people. Just now the extent of knowledge is
wondering who to vote for every once in a while. Nothing complicated
there, what I am suggesting is to extend this - knowing the quantitative
data of how people exchange goods and services.
Whereas most of us agree that capitalism has produced the goodies there
is a sense that it will either not last, to fail with catastrophic
results, or it will continue in true failure mode, beyond control, where
consuming resource and displacing workers, with dispossession, is the
only way to keep the system working.
I have notions of what the proposed system will give, however, like all
systems, as soon as it comes to life it will have goals of its own. I'd
say the data will be a revelation, is there any like this anywhere in the
world? Of course the practicalities of it are not so simple, the easiest
place on earth where it will work is in the US, but this is perhaps the
last place on earth where it is needed right now. What I mean is data
being available to people instantly so that policy can be understood, and
where criticism is based on facts. As the world becomes more complex, the
number of ways that decisions can go wrong is a function of the
complexity, and is inversely related to the number of people who are
making the decisions. That is, as time goes on, the number of people who
have a say in the decision making process reduces. Where a matter is left
to a consensus few if any people have the necessary information to make
valued judgement, this is why in my opinion few bother and say - 'this is
the way of it'. The great criticism of allowing everybody to make a
decision on detail is that they will get it wrong. There is one thing
that guarantees the political machine to go into panic mode is the word
referendum. Panic comes because the people might not vote the 'right
way'. Besides, and this is where C. J. Reid is asking, what do we 'need
to know' in order to make a valued judgement? One big issue is the common
currency for the EU. I never see any argument, I do get a lot of hot air,
what I do not see is a discussion on the mechanisms of scale of money
systems. I do not get any reviewed history, I do not see simulations or
predictions based on fact. If there are alternative smaller systems, they
are presented in the 'comedy zone' or the slots reserved for the crackpot
fringe. When I see this I can only figure out Europe is heading for a
disaster of monumental proportions. (Monuments in stone and the shape of
a cross.)
Added to that, I was told yesterday that the EU is now run by a council
of the 'unknown', the ERT I think they are called, and I have no idea
what that means. What happens if one member takes a bad turn or becomes a
'visionary'? Or convinces himself he is right?
I am not saying the system of public knowledge of economic fact is any
answer to anything, the answers will come when people see how the system
works in a simple fashion. It could well take a turn into resource
management, who knows, it all depends on how it is perceived by people
generally. I'll give two examples of resource management.
Two or three years ago one university in Scotland had developed
technology in 'powder silicon', that I think is how it was described, and
has the potential to replace the cathode tube. This only came general
news once the technology had been sold to some far east country, at a
price that was about one tenth of the development cost. Now why wasn't
this given the vote? When I say a vote in terms of resource management I
mean the people of the immediate community voting with money. Alright,
the consensus might well have been sell, who can say, but giving people
the vote is what I see to be democratic. This week I see a development
into the vacuum diode, being undertaken by a university in Michigan. This
is going to have dramatic consequences, when a current is passed through
the two electrodes, the negative warms up, and the positive one cools
down. So the fridge of the future will have no moving parts, no
compressor, no ozone layer destroying coolant, does not make a noise and
has a thermodynamic efficiency of about eighty per cent. Present
compressors have an efficiency of about thirty to forty per cent. The big
saving will probably come from air conditioning. Now, does the immediate
community have the opportunity to 'vote' for this? Can it benefit from
jobs, making and sharing in the profits? Or is this going to the east at
a knock down price?
Increasingly the problems that seem to be important are not addressed by
the political machine right now, less and less becomes political where a
vote can change the way things are done.
>But why not favor innovations in education, community services, sustainable economies, aesthetics and, yes, even politics?
I agree, and why not on a scale where it makes sense? Even on a scale of
the population of the UK none of these issues are matters for the public,
it is all left to experts. For the past thirty years education has gone
through a cycle to come back to the idea, that comes over almost as it
had been just invented, that it might not be a bad idea to teach children
to read and write. New Labour was elected on a ticket to improve
diminishing community services, principally to end the creeping
privatisation of the health service. What appears to be happening is the
'invisible hand' has come along, the actions stated before the election,
or what most people thought were the stated actions in the manifesto,
have been 'moderated' or are not quite so important. Wasn't there
something like this in the US when Clinton was elected? About reform of
the health services? It is easy to forget, and then 'things happen' so
that you begin to question if you did hear the fact. Or am I just
imagining this? Sustainable economy? This is all about sustaining big
business. Aesthetics are very important, there exists a mass of planning
regulation to ensure the roof tiles are the right shade of grey-blue, yet
when big business comes along they are allowed to put up buildings that
have all the appeal and charm of air-raid shelters. Also, big business go
for 'green-field' sites, then build air-raid shelters or 'advanced Nissen
huts' without windows.
Political reform is next to impossible. I live in Scotland, and last year
the option came up to vote for or against devolution, that is, the
assembly can do whatever it likes but will not have any control of the
economy. A waste of time. I decided there was no point in voting, and on
the day I found that most others were having the same thought. But, on
the six o'clock news we all see handbag lady saying that devolution is
bad, bad, bad for everyone. I instantly ran out to join the long queues,
and sure enough, it was the biggest turnout ever, and every region voted
for devolution. You see, when it comes to the crunch I'm just as daft as
the next one. I was tricked, I was robbed. But that's the way of it.
Since then all I have seen is the soap opera about where the new
parliament building will be sited, and just now the price is £40M, now I
didn't vote for that.
The madness goes on and on, the privatised railways are now a complete
shambles, no cash there, but the government spends huge sums on highway
'improvements'. All of this is good material for the media, it has
created a new industry in documentaries to let us all see what is
happening, such as spending hundreds of millions on highway improvements
to 'sustain the economy'. Added to this the EU hands out cash so who
cannot resist taking it? Anyone who shows displeasure, and the only way
to do that is take positive action, as in the Newbury by-pass and the
extension of Manchester Airport, to mention just two of many hundreds,
are 'listed' as 'enemies of the state'. They find out later on, for
reasons that are not clear to them, that they cannot get a mortgage, or
they never seem to get a job, unless they happen to be of celebrity
status; in short, they are marginalised. The system is not quite what it
pretends to be, it is advertised as some sort of enterprise community,
where really it is heading rapidly to one of coercion, obedience and
poverty.
What no one wants is a dramatic shift or a massive U turn, this is the
way when socialism implodes and when capitalism explodes, you end up with
a system ten times as bad as what you had before. All because the
community handed over the decision making process and the economy to
'experts'.
Isn't it about time that the communities generally had the chance to make
decisions? There has to be a system out there.
William Kirk.