Voodoo Economy (was modeling economy)

(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.24.17.532NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2011.07.22.1310 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2011.07.22.1050) ET. AL.

Where did it come from? If new money is created

via borrowing, paying the interest always requires
somebody,

somewhere, to borrow more. Printing your own money is
not allowed.

But if all debts were repaid, shouldn’t the total
amount of money go to zero?

There’s something here that doesn’t add up. Voodoo
economics.

I really does all add up,
and if all debts where repaid then the nature of economy would change
dramatically. We would not have something called economy.

And you have hit the crux
of the very issue you propose in PCT. The asymmetry of control.

This is exactly how an economy
works, so if I say to you why bother having reference signals (or its voodoo
theory) you would probably be very irritated with me.

If all debts are paid is
almost like saying if all reference signals where no more.

It’s really the
same in an economy. There is an asymmetry between debtors and creditors without
which NOTHING would happen.

When I sell product to my
customers I don’t expect them to pay me now they pay in the future, I
also have a asymmetrical relationship with my debtors and creditors (I am owed
more than I owe), if not I will run in trading difficulties. It’s the same
with money it’s also just a commodity, I have to keep the required stocks
of it for the system to work. Also I am required to borrow at times or when a
large asset is required. The relationship between borrowing and using ones own
capital is an important one, and is called the cost of capital, and forms a fierce
study under finance.

Debts and the notion of
obligation is an important one and relates to the nature of relationship with and
between property and people.

Most people starting out
in life are required to borrow for their first house because they don’t have
the total sum required unless they have rich parents.

One question to ask is
what would happen if everyone was rich and there would be no requirements for
any borrowing at all.

This would never happen
as it would be tantamount to saying if we got to the stage where we no longer
required a reference signal. No control, therefore nothing probably death.
Maybe our systems on earth would come to an end. Nothing no goals, no internal standards,
no intentions= zero.

Try looking at it this
way an economy is made of millions of entities that have obligations to each
other.

Kind regards

Gavin

···

[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 24 0344 MDT]

          (Gavin Ritz

2011.07.24.17.532NZT)

[From Bill Powers
(2011.07.22.1310 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2011.07.22.1050) ET. AL.

          Where did it come

from? If new money is created

          via borrowing,

paying the interest always requires
somebody,

          somewhere, to borrow

more. Printing your own money is
not allowed.

It all dates back to when banks just held peoples hard currency for

safe keeping. the certificates they issued to the depositors of
that gold or silver, circulated and were honored like they real
thing. Of course it would be a waste, almost immoral not to put such
assets to work, so they would lend the money out, but the people
they lent it to, didn’t want to carry around all that hard currency
either, so they accepted certificates of deposit as the funding of
their loans. Well the banks saw that these people they lent to
were fine upstanding people and were good for their promises to
repay, so the promisary loan agreements they signed were seen as
assets as well, so the banks felt it would be safe to lend more
money, and issue more certificates. Today that money they “issue”
is just entries in their accounting. Banks that had good credit
standards, rarely got into trouble, unless correlated events started
happening like runs, or defaults due to financial crisis, etc. The
amount of physical money that is actually in existence is only a
fraction of the money supply.

It is an unstable way to create money, even with the FDIC and

government guarantees of institutions “too big to fail”. That is
why I would gradually dial back the fractional reserve system as the
new more reliable method of printing money was implement. i’d raise
reserve requirements, and allow the market to set interest rates,
rather than keeping them artificially low and fueling speculative
bubbles and creating a hghly leveraged economy. Eliminating the
double taxation on dividends and capital gains would also help
reduce the pernicious incentives for leverage in the economy.

-- Martin L

Martin L.
···

On 7/24/2011 12:07 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

          But if all debts

were repaid, shouldn’t the total
amount of money go to zero?

          There's something

here that doesn’t add up. Voodoo
economics.

          I really does all add up,

and if all debts where repaid then the nature of economy
would change
dramatically. We would not have something called economy.

          And you have hit the crux

of the very issue you propose in PCT. The asymmetry of
control.

          This is exactly how an economy

works, so if I say to you why bother having reference
signals (or its voodoo
theory) you would probably be very irritated with me.

          If all debts are paid is

almost like saying if all reference signals where no more.

          It’s really the

same in an economy. There is an asymmetry between debtors
and creditors without
which NOTHING would happen.

          When I sell product to my

customers I don’t expect them to pay me now they pay in
the future, I
also have a asymmetrical relationship with my debtors and
creditors (I am owed
more than I owe), if not I will run in trading
difficulties. It’s the same
with money it’s also just a commodity, I have to keep the
required stocks
of it for the system to work. Also I am required to borrow
at times or when a
large asset is required. The relationship between
borrowing and using ones own
capital is an important one, and is called the cost of
capital, and forms a fierce
study under finance.

          Debts and the notion of

obligation is an important one and relates to the nature
of relationship with and
between property and people.

          Most people starting out

in life are required to borrow for their first house
because they don’t have
the total sum required unless they have rich parents.

          One question to ask is

what would happen if everyone was rich and there would be
no requirements for
any borrowing at all.

          This would never happen

as it would be tantamount to saying if we got to the stage
where we no longer
required a reference signal. No control, therefore nothing
probably death.
Maybe our systems on earth would come to an end. Nothing
no goals, no internal standards,
no intentions= zero.

          Try looking at it this

way an economy is made of millions of entities that have
obligations to each
other.

Kind regards

Gavin

(Gavin Ritz
2011.07.24.23.50NZT)

[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 24 0344 MDT]

···

On 7/24/2011 12:07 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote:

(Gavin Ritz
2011.07.24.17.532NZT)

[From Bill Powers (2011.07.22.1310 MDT)]

Rick Marken
(2011.07.22.1050) ET. AL.

Where did it come
from? If new money is created

via borrowing,
paying the interest always requires somebody,

somewhere, to
borrow more. Printing your own money is not allowed.

It all dates back to when banks just held peoples hard currency for safe
keeping. the certificates they issued to the depositors of that gold or
silver, circulated and were honored like they real thing. Of course it would be
a waste, almost immoral not to put such assets to work, so they would lend the
money out, but the people they lent it to, didn’t want to carry around all that
hard currency either, so they accepted certificates of deposit as the funding
of their loans. Well the banks saw that these people they lent to
were fine upstanding people and were good for their promises to repay, so the
promisary loan agreements they signed were seen as assets as well, so the banks
felt it would be safe to lend more money, and issue more certificates.
Today that money they “issue” is just entries in their
accounting. Banks that had good credit standards, rarely got into
trouble, unless correlated events started happening like runs, or defaults due
to financial crisis, etc. The amount of physical money that is actually
in existence is only a fraction of the money supply.

Nice rendition Martin, Niall Ferguson couldn’t
have put it better.

It is an unstable way to create money, even with the FDIC and government
guarantees of institutions “too big to fail”. That is why I
would gradually dial back the fractional reserve system as the new more
reliable method of printing money was implement.

Not much printing goes on today I think
only about 2% of the money supply is notes and coins.

i’d raise reserve
requirements, and allow the market to set interest rates, rather than keeping
them artificially low and fueling speculative bubbles and creating a hghly
leveraged economy. Eliminating the double taxation on dividends and
capital gains would also help reduce the pernicious incentives for leverage in
the economy.

Interesting.

Regards

Gavin

– Martin L

Martin L.

But if all debts
were repaid, shouldn’t the total amount of money go to zero?

There’s something
here that doesn’t add up. Voodoo economics.

I really does all add up, and if all debts where repaid then the
nature of economy would change dramatically. We would not have something called
economy.

And you have hit the crux of the very issue you propose in PCT. The
asymmetry of control.

This is exactly how an economy works, so if I say to you why bother
having reference signals (or its voodoo theory) you would probably be very
irritated with me.

If all debts are paid is almost like saying if all reference
signals where no more.

It’s really the same in an economy. There is an asymmetry
between debtors and creditors without which NOTHING would happen.

When I sell product to my customers I don’t expect them to
pay me now they pay in the future, I also have a asymmetrical relationship with
my debtors and creditors (I am owed more than I owe), if not I will run in
trading difficulties. It’s the same with money it’s also just a
commodity, I have to keep the required stocks of it for the system to work.
Also I am required to borrow at times or when a large asset is required. The
relationship between borrowing and using ones own capital is an important one,
and is called the cost of capital, and forms a fierce study under finance.

Debts and the notion of obligation is an important one and relates
to the nature of relationship with and between property and people.

Most people starting out in life are required to borrow for their
first house because they don’t have the total sum required unless they
have rich parents.

One question to ask is what would happen if everyone was rich and
there would be no requirements for any borrowing at all.

This would never happen as it would be tantamount to saying if we
got to the stage where we no longer required a reference signal. No control,
therefore nothing probably death. Maybe our systems on earth would come to an
end. Nothing no goals, no internal standards, no intentions= zero.

Try looking at it this way an economy is made of millions of
entities that have obligations to each other.

Kind regards

Gavin

[Shannon Williams (2011.07.24.0800 CST)]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.24.23.50NZT)

I really does all add up, and if all debts where repaid then the nature of
economy would change dramatically. We would not have something called
economy.

Interesting. So you are believing that people cannot use money unless
there is debt? Or you are beliving there is no way to enter money
into circulation except through debt?

If all debts are paid is almost like saying if all reference signals where
no more.

Based on this I think that you believe that the only way to enter
money into circulation is through banks. You believe that if all
debts were paid then banks would all go out of business and then there
would be no economy.

When I sell product to my customers I don�t expect them to pay me now they
pay in the future,

Correct. No need for debt here.

I also have a asymmetrical relationship with my debtors
and creditors (I am owed more than I owe), if not I will run in trading
difficulties.

Ok. You have this and you control for having it. You have not explain
why you go into debt in the first place. (In anticipation of a
flippant answer, can you answer address questions like the following
two: Can you make it on investment money? Can you keep your
enterprises small enough to make it on investment money?)

Thanks,

Shannon
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/2012/openthespillways

[Shannon Williams (2011.07.24.0900 CST)]

I wish I could recall the response that I sent earlier to Gavin's
message. I would make a distinction then between debt based on a
loan that must be repaid and all other concepts that he calls debt. I
am sorry . It is hard to concentrate with a two year old in your lap
trying to help you type.

Thanks,

Shannon
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/2012/openthespillways

[From Bill Powers (2011.07.24.0728 MDT)]

Martin Lewitt 2011 July 24 0344 MDT –

BP earlier:
Where did it come from?
If new money is created

via borrowing, paying the interest always requires somebody,

somewhere, to borrow more. Printing your own money is not allowed.

ML:[Borrowing] is an unstable way to create money, even with the FDIC and
government guarantees of institutions “too big to fail”.
That is why I would gradually dial back the fractional reserve system as
the new more reliable method of printing money was implement. i’d
raise reserve requirements, and allow the market to set interest rates,
rather than keeping them artificially low and fueling speculative bubbles
and creating a hghly leveraged economy. Eliminating the double
taxation on dividends and capital gains would also help reduce the
pernicious incentives for leverage in the economy.

BP: Printing money is what my father also recommended in his book,
“Leakage.” He showed from the historical record that the US has
never had inflation due to a mere excess of money.

I think what we need is a way to separate the useful properties of a
money economy from the perversions that appear when money itself becomes
a commodity, making it possible for people to focus on just getting more
money and thereby gaining excessive power and influence. The money
actually adds nothing of value to the economy but bookkeeping, and a
convoluted financial system makes the economy like a Microsoft operating
system: wide open to hackers, in constant need of updating and small or
large revisions.

We need to keep the bookkeeping system, but somehow keep it from being
hacked to funnel money into the pockets of bystanders and freeloaders who
do nothing but scheme to get more money. They are the spoilers who turn a
system operating for the benefit of all into a money-making machine for
their private use. In fact, if the bookkeeping were used just to keep
track of who is owed what, money would hardly be needed at all, outside
of computer memories. People would not suddenly forget how to run their
machines or operate their offices or raise crops or sing. The real
purposes of the economy wouldn’t change, nor would our ability to carry
them out be lost. Most of what we would lose would be the self-annointed
royals who live off the rest of us.

We would also lose most of the financial superstructure that makes the
whole system topheavy and unstable. There would, of course, be a lot of
objections and highly-paid sophistry intended to show that without all
that superstructure above decks, the ship would sink. The hackers would
scream the loudest, seeing unemployment looming, not to mention the loss
of all their extra social advantages.

I suppose that to make such a revised system actually work we would have
to resort to gradualism to avoid the horrible mistakes of communism and
other violent revolutions. That means bringing economic theory into the
21st Century, and the people who use it, too. It means education and
elevation of social customs – the things we support by admiring them.

One of those things is conflict – it’s hard to imagine a more pernicious
social disease than one that leads people to admire activities that
require conflicts to be won rather than resolved. Playful conflict is
fun, but not for most of us when it is a training exercise for how to
live a life. It’s never fun for the losers, either, and it is an
excellent way to spur them into becoming more competently violent.
Whether intentional or not, conflict is always on the edge of escalation;
just a little more gain and the whole thing blows up.

None of us was born with an instruction book telling us what will work
and what won’t. We have had to find that out the hard way and we still
have a lot to learn. Let’s keep trying to do something about all that,
the first step being to raise the standards for what we will accept as
facts about human nature. Let’s pass a sunset law: all human knowledge
expires as of yesterday. Before we let any of it back in, it will have to
justify itself by meeting requirements rather stricter than
heretofore.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2011.07.24.0830)]

Bill Powers (2011.07.24.0728 MDT)]

BP: Printing money is what my father also recommended in his book,
“Leakage.” He showed from the historical record that the US has
never had inflation due to a mere excess of money.

Paul Krugman just showed the same thing (for Japan) in a recent blog post. There are conventional economists (like Krugman, Reich,Stiglitz) who are really pretty good even if they don’t have a PCT based model of the economy. One thing that Krugman does that really helps is that he looks at the data; the same aggregate data I look at. So he comes to basically the same conclusions I do about what’s going on with the economy (I think it’s no coincidence that his birthday is the same as mine;-) He knows that the problems of the US economy are created by lack of demand, probably due to the huge wealth disparity.

I think what we need is a way to separate the useful properties of a
money economy from the perversions that appear when money itself becomes
a commodity, making it possible for people to focus on just getting more
money and thereby gaining excessive power and influence. The money
actually adds nothing of value to the economy but bookkeeping, and a
convoluted financial system makes the economy like a Microsoft operating
system: wide open to hackers, in constant need of updating and small or
large revisions.

I agree completely. Money was a great bookkeeping tool but it has become a commodity in itself for many people, which is what creates problems that may be worse than those that money aimed to solve. If we just stuck with barter (using cattle) we wouldn’t have the current wealth disparity problems that we have, I bet. Of course, we wouldn’t have the current wealth we have, either.

Ah, well. Off to enjoy nature.

Best

Rick

···

We need to keep the bookkeeping system, but somehow keep it from being
hacked to funnel money into the pockets of bystanders and freeloaders who
do nothing but scheme to get more money. They are the spoilers who turn a
system operating for the benefit of all into a money-making machine for
their private use. In fact, if the bookkeeping were used just to keep
track of who is owed what, money would hardly be needed at all, outside
of computer memories. People would not suddenly forget how to run their
machines or operate their offices or raise crops or sing. The real
purposes of the economy wouldn’t change, nor would our ability to carry
them out be lost. Most of what we would lose would be the self-annointed
royals who live off the rest of us.

We would also lose most of the financial superstructure that makes the
whole system topheavy and unstable. There would, of course, be a lot of
objections and highly-paid sophistry intended to show that without all
that superstructure above decks, the ship would sink. The hackers would
scream the loudest, seeing unemployment looming, not to mention the loss
of all their extra social advantages.

I suppose that to make such a revised system actually work we would have
to resort to gradualism to avoid the horrible mistakes of communism and
other violent revolutions. That means bringing economic theory into the
21st Century, and the people who use it, too. It means education and
elevation of social customs – the things we support by admiring them.

One of those things is conflict – it’s hard to imagine a more pernicious
social disease than one that leads people to admire activities that
require conflicts to be won rather than resolved. Playful conflict is
fun, but not for most of us when it is a training exercise for how to
live a life. It’s never fun for the losers, either, and it is an
excellent way to spur them into becoming more competently violent.
Whether intentional or not, conflict is always on the edge of escalation;
just a little more gain and the whole thing blows up.

None of us was born with an instruction book telling us what will work
and what won’t. We have had to find that out the hard way and we still
have a lot to learn. Let’s keep trying to do something about all that,
the first step being to raise the standards for what we will accept as
facts about human nature. Let’s pass a sunset law: all human knowledge
expires as of yesterday. Before we let any of it back in, it will have to
justify itself by meeting requirements rather stricter than
heretofore.

Best,

Bill P.


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

(Gavin Ritz
2011.07.25.11.40NZT)

[From Rick Marken
(2011.07.24.0830)]

Bill
Powers (2011.07.24.0728 MDT)]

I agree completely. Money was a great bookkeeping tool

Money is not a bookkeeping tool at all, oh
dear, nothing more to be said here.

but it has become a
commodity in itself for many people,

It has always been a commodity like any
other commodity right from the earliest times. Rather a special one with
special obligations.

which is what creates
problems that may be worse than those that money aimed to solve. If we just
stuck with barter (using cattle) we wouldn’t have the current wealth
disparity problems that we have, I bet. Of course, we wouldn’t have the current
wealth we have, either.

Ah, well. Off to enjoy nature.

Good idea while Washington burns,
let’s hope those very stubborn arrogant people in congress (both the
republicans and democrats) can sort something out something fast otherwise we
are all going to be unhappy campers.

Regards

Gavin

···

(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.25.10.55NZT)

[Shannon Williams
(2011.07.24.0800 CST)]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.24.23.50NZT)

I really does all add up, and if all debts where
repaid then the nature of

economy would change dramatically. We would not
have something called

economy.

Interesting. So you are believing that people
cannot use money unless

there is debt?

I’m definitely not
saying this. All I’m saying is debt is like an obligation so in any exchanges
there will always be some sort of obligation; this is how the asymmetry works
in an economy.

It’s also not a
belief system I hold, that’s how it works.

Or you are beliving there is no way to enter money

into circulation except through debt?

I’m not saying this
either, our monetary system is presently designed around a system of promises
and obligations unless you or someone else can come up with a better model that’s
all we have.

I also don’t hold a
belief about this, that’s how it’s done at present.

If all debts are paid is almost like saying if
all reference signals where

no more.

Based on this I think that you believe that the only
way to enter

money into circulation is through banks.

You make a lost of
assumptions about my beliefs of which I don’t base any of my comments on.

You believe that if all

debts were paid then banks would all go out of
business and then there

would be no economy.

Again, under our present
system if all obligations are met and no more are required then there is no
economy anymore, it’s over red rover.

When I sell product to my customers I don’t
expect them to pay me now they

pay in the future,

Correct. No need for debt here.

I also have a asymmetrical relationship with my
debtors

and creditors (I am owed more than I owe), if not
I will run in trading

difficulties.

Ok. You have this and you control for having it.
You have not explain

why you go into debt in the first place.

(In anticipation of a

flippant answer, can you answer address questions like
the following

two: Can you make it on investment money?

I don’t answer in
flippant ways, this type of comment is unnecessary.

Of course one can make it
only on investment money, but that doesn’t change the real nature of
obligation, the funders (investors) are still in an obligated state with the
business they invest in.

The businesses owe them a
return on their investment. This is a huge market world wide. So the business
is in debt to the investors the only thing is the businesses are not required
to pay interest and the nature of obligation is different.

And in many cases in business
owners lend the money to the company not in equity forms but debt.

Equity is a sort of liability
of a business. One that is never required to be paid back, but has other
obligations.

You can also get hybrids
called capital notes, both a debt and an equity.

Can you keep your

enterprises small enough to make it on investment
money?)

I can see from these
comments your understanding of money and obligation has no linkage.

Basically you don’t
understand finance, the building blocks of an economy.

The businesses that investors
invest in is for a return and that’s what they look for, so it’s
not much different to a bank although the cost of capital is different. Then
the business make a profit (or don’t) and return a yield to its owners
(or don’t). It makes money. By profit. See my earlier comments on how
money is made.

In the US
trillions of dollars in funds is available for this type of investment, both
from independent sources and internal funding sources.

Kind regards

Gavin

···

(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.25.11.56NZT

[Shannon Williams
(2011.07.24.0800 CST)]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.24.23.50NZT)

Can you keep your

enterprises small enough to make it on investment
money?)

Shannon
this is a problem all business owners face often every month but at least twice
to three times year.

When customers order say
three times the normal quantities
of products this has to be funded either through longer credit lines or bank overdraft
or from cash reserves. Or the owners pumping in more funds through equity or a
loan to the business. All methods of funding have their obligations both to the
business, the owners, the government (through taxes) and other stakeholders. They
all have different costs. Or just the availability of these sources of funding.

In my business the rule
of thumb is this when my turnover goes up by double I am required to have at
least three times of that incremental
sum in funds to cover the growth. And I don’t always have it, and often
it is required rather rapidly. If I don’t have the funds I go to the bank
and get an overdraft, or I stretch my credit lines (difficult at best and still
has to be paid).

Funds are like keeping a
dam at a level for optimal
use.

You can go broke by
making huge profits. Fast growth by many start-ups kills them right there and then.

One has to operate in the
financial Goldilocks Zone. No amount of ideals, values, beliefs whether Republican
or Democrats can change this fact.

Regards

Gavin

···

[Shannon Williams (2011.07.24.2130 CST)]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.25.11.40NZT)
It has always been a commodity like any other commodity right from the
earliest times. Rather a special one with special obligations.

Ok. But Bill is essentially saying that we need to change the rules
of your 'game'. If we changed the rules so that you cannot treat
money as a commodity, what do we need to do to ensure that you have
proper cash flow? For example, we could make the rules such that you
would be taxed very heavily on any savings that exceeds three times
your normal needs. How would that affect you? Or would it affect
you?

Thanks,
Shannon
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/2012/openthespillways

[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 24 2131 MDT]

[Shannon Williams (2011.07.24.2130 CST)]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.25.11.40NZT)
It has always been a commodity like any other commodity right from the
earliest times. Rather a special one with special obligations.

Ok. But Bill is essentially saying that we need to change the rules
of your 'game'. If we changed the rules so that you cannot treat
money as a commodity, what do we need to do to ensure that you have
proper cash flow? For example, we could make the rules such that you
would be taxed very heavily on any savings that exceeds three times
your normal needs. How would that affect you? Or would it affect
you?

Wouldn't that be treating money as a commodity, albeit perhaps like one on the cold war national security list?

Taxing savings that exceeds three times your normal needs, would probably greatly discourage savings, it would also encourage exaggeration of ones normal needs, it would make one depended upon FHA guaranteed loans, since you likely could not put even 5% down on a home, everyone would become dependent upon social security since they couldn't have savings to supplement their life style in old age, the wealth disparity in the US would go through the roof and approach that of third world countries like Cuba and Venezuela and N. Korea where the government has nearly all the wealth, there would be no venture capital funding for new startups, the economy would be based upon the plans of the few rather than the plans of the many.

-- Martin L

···

On 7/24/2011 8:23 PM, Shannon Williams wrote:

Thanks,
Shannon
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/2012/openthespillways

(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.25.17.50NZt)

[Shannon Williams
(2011.07.24.2130 CST)]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.25.11.40NZT)

It has always been a commodity like any other
commodity right from the

earliest times. Rather a special one with special
obligations.

Ok. But Bill is essentially saying that we need to change the rules

of your ‘game’.

That makes no sense to me
what rules. Financial concepts have been around for 400 years in its present form.

It’s not the rules
that are the problem they are just fine, it’s the people that break the financial
rules. Enron and the sub prime housing issue is a great example, these people
are breaking the iron clad rules of lenders and borrowers, debtors and
creditors. They are eating the big bear’s (from Goldilocks) hot porridge
and it eventually burns them.

If we changed the rules so that you cannot treat

money as a commodity,

It seems to me that the understanding
of money, finance and economy is very limited in this discussion.

what do we need to do to ensure that you have

proper cash flow?

I’ve just explained
in the last email that depends on the availability of the funds and the purpose
it’s put to use for.

In very large projects
there is just not the saving available to build such things (like the tunnel
between France and England),
so a portion is always borrowed. It’s how much to borrow that’s important.

For example, we could make the rules such that you

would be taxed very heavily on any savings that
exceeds three times

your normal needs.

Shannon,
this makes no sense to me at all, how can rules be made without really understanding
the how finance works in organisation and between them.

What are normal needs? People,
organisations (charities, governments, councils, business entities, clubs,
churches) all have different financial needs and within each of those categories
the needs vary widely.

How would that affect you? Or would it affect

you?

I would probably go
broke, because some months the cash balances are high at other times
they are negative and in a heartbeat they switch. Money is like life blood of a
business.

So if some drongo in government
just decides what normal needs are by sucking his thumb close to his social and
political beliefs without understanding how things really work we’d all
be f…d.

The problem is here that
money is viewed as some very strange commodity concoction.

Also what’s missing in this
discussion is what does the profit mean. Profit is just an historical notion
that tells me my energetic balances are right. Funds in a system are like the
air we breathe choke it off for an extended time
and the viability of the organisations drops into the dead zone. If I pump too
much air into my lungs I will die if I have too little I will die. It’s
got to be just right.

Regards

Gavin

···

(Gavin Ritz 2011.25.18.31NZT)

[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 24 2131 MDT]

[Shannon Williams
(2011.07.24.2130 CST)]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.25.11.40NZT)

It has always been a commodity like any other
commodity right from the

earliest times. Rather a special one with
special obligations.

Ok. But Bill is essentially saying that we need to change the rules

of your ‘game’. If we changed the rules so
that you cannot treat

money as a commodity, what do we need to do to
ensure that you have

proper cash flow? For example, we
could make the rules such that you

would be taxed very heavily on any savings that
exceeds three times

your normal needs. How would that affect
you? Or would it affect

you?

Wouldn’t that be treating money as a commodity, albeit
perhaps like one

on the cold war national security list?

Taxing savings that exceeds three times your normal
needs, would

probably greatly discourage savings, it would also
encourage

exaggeration of ones normal needs, it would make one
depended upon FHA

guaranteed loans, since you likely could not put even
5% down on a home,

everyone would become dependent upon social security
since they couldn’t

have savings to supplement their life style in old
age, the wealth

disparity in the US would go through the roof and approach that of third

world countries like Cuba and Venezuela and N. Korea where the

government has nearly all the wealth, there would be
no venture capital

funding for new startups, the economy would be based
upon the plans of

the few rather than the plans of the many.

I tried not being
political and slightly more robustish in my argument, but I could not have put
it better.

The basis of a capital
system is property ownership; freedom to make contracts (obligations) the very basis
of our economic system would be destroyed. Almost overnight.

With such a proposition.

I could add Syria to
that list they have a population the size of Australia (21
million) with a GDP less than
half New Zealand
(we have only 4 million people). These countries have very little private
ownership and almost no freedoms to pursue contracts with each other. Their governments
use most of the available funds for their own pleasures and military use.

Regards

Gavin

···

On 7/24/2011 8:23 PM, Shannon Williams wrote:

[From Bill Powers (2011.07.25.0015 MDT)]

Martin Lewitt 2011 July 24 2131 MDT --

[Shannon Williams (2011.07.24.2130 CST)]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.25.11.40NZT)
It has always been a commodity like any other commodity right from the
earliest times. Rather a special one with special obligations.

SW: Ok. But Bill is essentially saying that we need to change the rules
of your 'game'. If we changed the rules so that you cannot treat
money as a commodity, what do we need to do to ensure that you have
proper cash flow? For example, we could make the rules such that you
would be taxed very heavily on any savings that exceeds three times
your normal needs. How would that affect you? Or would it affect
you?

ML: Wouldn't that be treating money as a commodity, albeit perhaps like one on the cold war national security list?

BP: Yes, I think we have to find some other approach that doesn't try to gauge how much anyone "needs" but simply supplies the money necessary to keep the circular flow going freely. Printing it might be a way to do that. Putting it into the hands of the consumers rather than the producers would allow the producers to get their money by supplying goods and services in the usual way, but of course they'd need some to tool up and get into production or to expand to meet demand, so money would have to be available for doing that. Spending that money would help keep the flow going, relieving the printing presses and putting it into circulation (whether in tangible money or magnetic domains on hard disks).

One main thing I recommend is to find ways to make gaming the system difficult or impossible. That seems to me to be a main source of our current problems. Another recommendation is that we find a way to make the very rich spend their money instead of sitting on it or trying to use it to gain power -- a free flow of money might make capital investments less attractive, since there would be low interest rates or none at all and capital would be freely available as needed. It's like some ideas about the drug trade; making drugs legal and freely available, say some, would take the profit out of it and the huge supplies would dry up. See how well that has worked for alcohol? Um ...

We don't have to try to keep anyone from getting rich, but we have a problem similar to the one faced by the Founding Fathers of the USA. How do you allow the maximum freedom to live and prosper while preventing too much power from falling into too few hands, as is the case now? The framers of the constitution did it by setting up conflicts, so one group of selfish people tended to cancel out the efforts to grab power by other groups, while having their own canceled out in return. That kind of brute force solution has worked fairly well, but it's terribly wasteful of energy and resources. It worked when there were few of us and lots of untapped resources, but it won't work forever, and we may already be seeing the signs of its impending failure. Conflict paralyzes the system. The current congressional deadlock is a perfect example of that. And we're running ourselves out of resources (including patience) at an ever-increasing rate. We have to solve these problems pretty soon.

Of course the changes I imagine would meet with a lot of objections, similar to the ones I heard when told I had to give grades to those in a student-sponsored seminar I ran at Northwestern University in the early 70s. I said "Everyone has a B to start with. If you do something extraordinary, you get an A. I haven't got time for this grading crap." That went over like a duck buzzing a skeet-shooting club. How can you tell who is better than who, I was asked. Are you going to give someone a B who did half as well as I did? I'm working hard to get high grades so I can get the best jobs (or, I thought, so only the worst jobs would be left for others). If we all get B's why should we bother to learn anything?

Actually, they all learned quite a lot and gave me good reviews at the end, so I ended up handing out As and Bs as planned and to hell with the curve, and nobody complained (not even the University). Some of them even said that the seminar was the high point, so far, of their intellectual experience in college. So after all, as I thought all along, being better than other people is not the most important thing in life.

Isn't that what we need to return to? We need to learn how to have a good opinion of ourselves that doesn't depend on having others around for comparison who are worse off. Economics is, for people with any real interests in the world or the universe, a pretty dull subject. Making incredibly huge amounts of money is a form of mental illness, an obsession that takes the place of a real life. You can't really spend huge amounts of money unless you just throw it away on gold faucet handles or expensive fish eggs and fungi and such things. Or raise private armies or try to corner the market in air. Wierd things that people do when they have too much money.

But who's to say they have no right to be wierd? At least we can stop admiring them for being that way, so those who are doing it to be admired will have to think of something else to do. But those who are trying to get rich so they can control what the rest of us do are a very real problem and we have to figure out how to keep that from getting worse and maybe even to reverse the trend. Only a king has a right to control other people arbitrarily, without their permission, and there are no kings in this country. No real ones. There aren't many real ones left in the world and one day they'll all be gone.

If we give money the same role as lubricating oil, everything will run smoothly and there won't be much point in trying to have more lubrication than is actually needed. That will change a lot of motives. I don't know if it will cure any mental illnesses, but it might make them less dangerous to others.

Best,

Bill P.

···

On 7/24/2011 8:23 PM, Shannon Williams wrote:

[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 25 0315 MDT]

[From Bill Powers (2011.07.25.0015 MDT)]

Martin Lewitt 2011 July 24 2131 MDT --

[Shannon Williams (2011.07.24.2130 CST)]

(Gavin Ritz 2011.07.25.11.40NZT)
It has always been a commodity like any other commodity right from the
earliest times. Rather a special one with special obligations.

SW: Ok. But Bill is essentially saying that we need to change the rules
of your 'game'. If we changed the rules so that you cannot treat
money as a commodity, what do we need to do to ensure that you have
proper cash flow? For example, we could make the rules such that you
would be taxed very heavily on any savings that exceeds three times
your normal needs. How would that affect you? Or would it affect
you?

ML: Wouldn't that be treating money as a commodity, albeit perhaps like one on the cold war national security list?

BP: Yes, I think we have to find some other approach that doesn't try to gauge how much anyone "needs" but simply supplies the money necessary to keep the circular flow going freely. Printing it might be a way to do that. Putting it into the hands of the consumers rather than the producers would allow the producers to get their money by supplying goods and services in the usual way, but of course they'd need some to tool up and get into production or to expand to meet demand, so money would have to be available for doing that. Spending that money would help keep the flow going, relieving the printing presses and putting it into circulation (whether in tangible money or magnetic domains on hard disks).

Exactly. The federal reserve currently puts money into circulation by purchasing bonds. In a recession the money goes nowhere fast.

One main thing I recommend is to find ways to make gaming the system difficult or impossible.

People take more risk when playing with someone else's money rather than their own, that is why it is counter productive to double tax equity capital and highly leverage corporations, the decision makers are the equity holders but it is really the bond holders money that is at risk. The equity holder can't make much money because their earnings would be double taxed, so they take bigger risks going for the big win, instead of a solid business.

That seems to me to be a main source of our current problems. Another recommendation is that we find a way to make the very rich spend their money instead of sitting on it or trying to use it to gain power -- a free flow of money might make capital investments less attractive, since there would be low interest rates or none at all and capital would be freely available as needed.

When are you going to understand that the rich aren't sitting on money, they are sitting on stock, in order to spend money, they'd have to sell stock for money, taking as much money out of the economy before they spend it.

Corporations ARE sitting on money, but that is because the prospects for investing it are not good, the "rich" would probably love to redeploy that money, but it doesn't make sense to distribute it to the rich because it would get taxed again. Because of that big hit, they are better off sitting on the money until the prospects improve for internal investment. In the meantime those profits are sitting overseas instead of being repatriated.

It's like some ideas about the drug trade; making drugs legal and freely available, say some, would take the profit out of it and the huge supplies would dry up. See how well that has worked for alcohol? Um ...

We don't have to try to keep anyone from getting rich, but we have a problem similar to the one faced by the Founding Fathers of the USA. How do you allow the maximum freedom to live and prosper while preventing too much power from falling into too few hands, as is the case now?

I think von Hayek said it well, socialism substitutes the plans of the few for the plans of the many. Get the government out of the way so that the oil companies can make a contribution, would instantly create jobs in the US market and eventually reduce the money leaking to overseas. Abandon the plans of the few at the EPAs to control the US economy by regulating CO2 everywhere, and substitute the plans of many businesses to create wealth. Abandon the plans of the few at the FDA to continue to delay approval of drugs, and let them out on the market sooner with after market monitoring that the Cato Institute has shown to cost fewer lives overall than the delays do.

The framers of the constitution did it by setting up conflicts, so one group of selfish people tended to cancel out the efforts to grab power by other groups, while having their own canceled out in return. That kind of brute force solution has worked fairly well, but it's terribly wasteful of energy and resources. It worked when there were few of us and lots of untapped resources, but it won't work forever, and we may already be seeing the signs of its impending failure. Conflict paralyzes the system. The current congressional deadlock is a perfect example of that. And we're running ourselves out of resources (including patience) at an ever-increasing rate. We have to solve these problems pretty soon.

Actually, it failed to paralyze spending, and to keep government within its constitutional limits, that is why we are in this trouble. Winner take all geographical districts were probably a practical necessity at the time of the founding, but proportional representation would help produce parliamentary type compromise in the House, instead of big winner take all ideological swings.

Of course the changes I imagine would meet with a lot of objections, similar to the ones I heard when told I had to give grades to those in a student-sponsored seminar I ran at Northwestern University in the early 70s. I said "Everyone has a B to start with. If you do something extraordinary, you get an A. I haven't got time for this grading crap." That went over like a duck buzzing a skeet-shooting club. How can you tell who is better than who, I was asked. Are you going to give someone a B who did half as well as I did? I'm working hard to get high grades so I can get the best jobs (or, I thought, so only the worst jobs would be left for others). If we all get B's why should we bother to learn anything?

Actually, they all learned quite a lot and gave me good reviews at the end, so I ended up handing out As and Bs as planned and to hell with the curve, and nobody complained (not even the University). Some of them even said that the seminar was the high point, so far, of their intellectual experience in college. So after all, as I thought all along, being better than other people is not the most important thing in life.

For 200 thousand years being better than other people was the most important thing in life, since modern humans came out of Africa into occupied territory. It is the human way.

Isn't that what we need to return to?

Return to? Which history or anthropology texts have you been studying? Humans have a small effective population size because human groups were continually going extinct, either by being exterminated or being displaced to marginal resources where they couldn't make it.

We need to learn how to have a good opinion of ourselves that doesn't depend on having others around for comparison who are worse off. Economics is, for people with any real interests in the world or the universe, a pretty dull subject. Making incredibly huge amounts of money is a form of mental illness, an obsession that takes the place of a real life.

But it is also a service to your fellow man.

You can't really spend huge amounts of money unless you just throw it away on gold faucet handles or expensive fish eggs and fungi and such things. Or raise private armies or try to corner the market in air. Wierd things that people do when they have too much money.

Exactly, they can't spend it, they can only manage it, so why are you sweating it at all?

But who's to say they have no right to be wierd? At least we can stop admiring them for being that way, so those who are doing it to be admired will have to think of something else to do. But those who are trying to get rich so they can control what the rest of us do are a very real problem and we have to figure out how to keep that from getting worse and maybe even to reverse the trend. Only a king has a right to control other people arbitrarily, without their permission, and there are no kings in this country. No real ones. There aren't many real ones left in the world and one day they'll all be gone.

You are right, only a king or government can control people arbitrarily, if people want to be rich, they have to give other people what they want, i.e., they have to be controlled by other people, responsive to market demand and conditions, more efficiently utilize resources, etc.

If we give money the same role as lubricating oil, everything will run smoothly and there won't be much point in trying to have more lubrication than is actually needed. That will change a lot of motives. I don't know if it will cure any mental illnesses, but it might make them less dangerous to others.

Right now there is good reason to have more lubrication than is actually needed, ultimately the only way out of this debt is to either produce or inflate our way out of it, we'll be better off to the extent that production is a greater proportion of the solution. The first people to get access to the money in an inflationary environment are the ones that get the benefit of the printed money. That should be the consumers and not the bondholders.

-- Martin L

···

On 7/25/2011 1:48 AM, Bill Powers wrote:

On 7/24/2011 8:23 PM, Shannon Williams wrote:

Best,

Bill P.

[Shannon Williams (2011.07.25.0700 CST)]

[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 25 0315 MDT]

For 200 thousand years being better than other people was the most important
thing in life, since modern humans came out of Africa into occupied
territory. � It is the human way.

It is NOT the human way. I am human and I have no desire to be better
than you or for you to think that I am better than you. I want to
feed my daughter and educate my daughter. I want her to live and be
happy. I want her to have friends that she cares about and enjoys
being with and enjoys helping. And I want grandchildren. And I don't
want her to continually watch her back because people like you have no
respect for people who have different goals. In fact, you don't even
believe that such people exist. You probably believe that when you no
longer desire to compete then it is time to die. You probably believe
that when the time comes that you prefer over all else, to have good
clean air and to be able to sit on a park bench and watch children and
squirrels play, then it is time to die. Am I right? Is this what you
believe?

Shannon
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/2012/openthespillways

[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 25 0624 MDT]

[Shannon Williams (2011.07.25.0700 CST)]

[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 25 0315 MDT]

For 200 thousand years being better than other people was the most important
thing in life, since modern humans came out of Africa into occupied
territory. It is the human way.

It is NOT the human way. I am human and I have no desire to be better
than you or for you to think that I am better than you. I want to
feed my daughter and educate my daughter. I want her to live and be
happy. I want her to have friends that she cares about and enjoys
being with and enjoys helping. And I want grandchildren.

You are just anecdotal evidence. Besides, i didn't say that humans desired to be better, but that it was important for them to be better, and that would be "better" by the standard of evolutionary fitness. Humans are social animals, often competing in groups, cooperation, teamwork and sacrifice were important, but it would be purposely deceiving ourselves to ignore the roles of hatred, fervor, fanaticism, outgroup dehumanization, jealously and revenge. Humans may seem relatively domesticated in western society, but they often do until the next demonstration, cult, dictatorship or war, i.e., we are domesticated until we are not, we still have pretty much the same genes that we had when we wiped out the neanderthals and homo erectus and earlier races of modern humans.

   And I don't
want her to continually watch her back because people like you have no
respect for people who have different goals.

Already you are demonizing and dehumanizing someone that you perceive as different that you. You are displaying typical outgroup hostility.

  In fact, you don't even
believe that such people exist. You probably believe that when you no
longer desire to compete then it is time to die.

I do think that one point of divergence between humans and bonobos is that human behavior involves more striving, and doesn't settle as much for mere happiness.

You probably believe
that when the time comes that you prefer over all else, to have good
clean air and to be able to sit on a park bench and watch children and
squirrels play, then it is time to die. Am I right? Is this what you
believe?

I think you were wrong from the get-go, I have respect for people who have different goals, or at least I respect their right to have different goals, and I tend to respect them by default unless evidence is available that the respect for rights isn't mutual. If you are trying to identify people who don't have respect for people who have different goals, then look to those favoring high taxation and central planning, they impose their goals roughshod over the individual's goals.

I'm just realistic about human nature given our evolutionary heritage, and that realism isn't an embracing of human nature but a recognition of its degenerate tendencies in mass society, and the need to enforce checks and standards upon those in power.

Do you have respect for people who have different goals or do you seek to impose your goals upon others? Hmmm, I notice that you are advertising a link for donations to Obama, I guess I have my answer. Am I right?

-- Martin L

···

On 7/25/2011 6:18 AM, Shannon Williams wrote:

Shannon
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/2012/openthespillways

[Shannon Williams (2011.07.25.1130 CST)]

[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 25 0624 MDT]

It is NOT the human way. �I am human and I have no desire to be better
than you or for you to think that I am better than you.

You are just anecdotal evidence.

If a thousand marathon runners run past your house and say that they
have no desire to compete against anyone else, are they just anecdotal
evidence? If your mother hugs you and says "I love you Martin. You
don't have to try to be better than anyone else. I love you dearly".
Is she just anecdotal evidence? What would she need to do to not be
anecdotal evidence? (I am sorry if your mother has passed already. I
hope not, but I am trying to communicate with you)

it would be purposely deceiving ourselves to ignore the roles of hatred,
fervor, fanaticism, outgroup dehumanization, jealously and revenge.

These are emotions which result from controling variables. Your
statement is equivalent to saying "we would be deceiving ourselves to
ignore the roles of control".

we are domesticated until we are not

Right. We are domesticated until we can't find behavior that succeeds
in controlling our variables. 'Domestication' requires a society that
works together to provide an environment where our perceptions can be
controlled.

� And I don't
want her to continually watch her back because people like you have no
respect for people who have different goals.

Already you are demonizing and dehumanizing someone that you perceive as different that you.

No. You admit to not looking out for anyone else. If you are trying
to prove that you are better than my daughter, then are you looking
out for her interests? Do you expect her to play well or get off of
the field? If she cannot hold her own with you, do you have any
respect for her?

You probably believe that when you no longer desire to compete then it is time to die.

I do think that one point of divergence between humans and bonobos is that
human behavior �involves more striving, and doesn't settle as much for mere
happiness.

So if a man is happy to work at Macdonalds and then go home and watch
his daughter learn to crawl or walk or dress herself, has he become a
bonobo? If he is interested in striving to learn how to teach her
and calm her, does that count as striving?

Do you believe that if you were happy to sit on a bench and watch the
children and squirels play, then it is time for you to die?

Do you have respect for people who have different goals or do you seek to
impose your goals upon others? �Hmmm, �I notice that you are advertising a
link for donations to Obama, I guess I have my answer. �Am I right?

I actively work to find the middle ground for different people with
different goals. There are some behaviours that are not tolerated.
For example genocide, homocide, contamination of water supplies,
privately printing money, etc. I seek to identify what controlled
variables can reduce the level of intolerable behavior in the world.
To do these things I must 'strive' to understand what the people
around me are controlling for. Is this 'striving' enough to make me
human and not a bonobo in your eyes? Once I am done with this
'striving', there is no motivation to compete. There is only
motivation to build and help others build.

Thanks,
Shannon
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/2012/openthespillways

[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 25 1403 MDT]

[Shannon Williams (2011.07.25.1130 CST)]

[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 25 0624 MDT]

It is NOT the human way. I am human and I have no desire to be better
than you or for you to think that I am better than you.

You are just anecdotal evidence.

If a thousand marathon runners run past your house and say that they
have no desire to compete against anyone else, are they just anecdotal
evidence?

They are striving to make themselves better, to be physically fit, and to perhaps find their limits. That striving might make the better. Like i said, it was important to BE better throughout human evolution, not necessarily important to WANT to be better than OTHER people. The result may well be the same.

If your mother hugs you and says "I love you Martin. You
don't have to try to be better than anyone else. I love you dearly".
Is she just anecdotal evidence? What would she need to do to not be
anecdotal evidence? (I am sorry if your mother has passed already. I
hope not, but I am trying to communicate with you)

Yes, that would be anecodotal, and if she were to point out I would feel better if I lived with a bunch of group sex addicts she might well be right. But why do we want more? Why have we bothered to develop agriculture and other technologies?

it would be purposely deceiving ourselves to ignore the roles of hatred,
fervor, fanaticism, outgroup dehumanization, jealously and revenge.

These are emotions which result from controling variables. Your
statement is equivalent to saying "we would be deceiving ourselves to
ignore the roles of control".

PCT will have to accept that there are innate emotions influencing our decisions. The alternative is to argue that the same suite of emotions are invented denovo by each controlling entity.

we are domesticated until we are not

Right. We are domesticated until we can't find behavior that succeeds
in controlling our variables. 'Domestication' requires a society that
works together to provide an environment where our perceptions can be
controlled.

   And I don't
want her to continually watch her back because people like you have no
respect for people who have different goals.

Already you are demonizing and dehumanizing someone that you perceive as different that you.

No. You admit to not looking out for anyone else.

When did I do that?

  If you are trying
to prove that you are better than my daughter, then are you looking
out for her interests? Do you expect her to play well or get off of
the field? If she cannot hold her own with you, do you have any
respect for her?

In a nonlinear world there are lots of potential strategies to apply with your children. In a significant part of the world, children are put under high states pressure to succeed. Have you done your child a favor by letting them have a warm and supported childhood, where perhaps they don't get around to learning calculus, physics and biology? I chose the giving my children a childhood route, and counted on just imparting a love of learning and a sense of responsibility. It has been moderately successful so far.

You probably believe that when you no longer desire to compete then it is time to die.

I do think that one point of divergence between humans and bonobos is that
human behavior involves more striving, and doesn't settle as much for mere
happiness.

So if a man is happy to work at Macdonalds and then go home and watch
his daughter learn to crawl or walk or dress herself, has he become a
bonobo? If he is interested in striving to learn how to teach her
and calm her, does that count as striving?

He doesn't sound like the type that would have figured out agriculture or the wheel, but perhaps we don't need a high percentage of those. What would he do if his McDonald's started losing business to the burger king next door, would he look for ways to try to retain customers or lower costs so he could keep his job? If his country was invaded by a nation that used young girls for sex slaves, would he passively realized, that with the proper attitude his daughter might enjoy it, or would he want more for his daughter? Or perhaps like men in Afghanistan perhaps he would realize that he would get to have sex slaves too, and not even question the price his daughters would pay. What do humans want? We may settle into dead ends occasionally like the bonobos, but so far it seems enough of us have wanted more.

Do you believe that if you were happy to sit on a bench and watch the
children and squirels play, then it is time for you to die?

Do you have respect for people who have different goals or do you seek to
impose your goals upon others? Hmmm, I notice that you are advertising a
link for donations to Obama, I guess I have my answer. Am I right?

I actively work to find the middle ground for different people with
different goals. There are some behaviours that are not tolerated.
For example genocide, homocide, contamination of water supplies,
privately printing money, etc. I seek to identify what controlled
variables can reduce the level of intolerable behavior in the world.

And if terror based governance reduces those behaviors, such as a Tito, Stalin or Saddam that keeps the lid on ethnic strife, then is that something you accept?

To do these things I must 'strive' to understand what the people
around me are controlling for. Is this 'striving' enough to make me
human and not a bonobo in your eyes? Once I am done with this
'striving', there is no motivation to compete. There is only
motivation to build and help others build.

Arguing with me here is enough to show you are striving for more. But which of us will interfere with the non-coercive goals of other the least?

-- Martin L

···

On 7/25/2011 11:12 AM, Shannon Williams wrote:

Thanks,
Shannon
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/2012/openthespillways