Back in the late 1960s labor-statesman Walter Reuther
testified before Congress on the ideas of Louis O. Kelso, noted as the inventor
of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP).
Reuther noted that if workers relied on raising fixed wage to increase
consumption income, they would end up worse off than before. Raising wages simply adds to the cost of
producing marketable goods and services.
THE Global Justice Movement Website
This is the "Global Justice Movement" (dot org) we refer to in the title of this blog.
Showing posts with label Worker Ownership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Worker Ownership. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Monday, September 1, 2014
Happy Capital Day!, I: The Theories of Labor
We’re anticipating a little, but we think that today should
be celebrated as “Capital Day,” or (if you prefer) as “Widespread Direct
Ownership of Capital Day” (“WDOOCD”), which just rolls off the tongue. The only question in the minds of our
millions of viewers is . . . why?
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Pope Francis Writes Again, I: Jobs and Income
As we’ve been pointing out on this blog for some time,
people, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, liberal or conservative, Jew or
Greek, slave or free, . . . whatever . . . have a positive knack for
misunderstanding virtually everything that Pope Francis says. Of course, a lot of this is conditioned by,
one, the fact that most people (even doctors, lawyers, and Indian chiefs), have
never learned how to think critically.
Two, most people hear what they want to hear, or what they think they
want to hear. The combination is fatal.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
America Delenda Est?
The worse things get in American society, the more
frequently you hear comparisons with ancient Rome. Evidently unaware that (assuming you accept
the traditional date for the founding of the city) “Rome” lasted from 753 BC to
AD 1918, albeit much transformed (still a pretty good record), people today —
as they have for thousands of years — claim that these are the worst times that
the world has ever experienced, and there is absolutely no hope of
recovery. The world is doomed.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
How Steve Jobs Could Boot the Working Class
It seems the media are getting geared up for Labor Day next week. This is not easy to do, given the official v. unofficial unemployment rate, inflation, stock market gyrations, the Great Hotdog Hoodwink, and (with apologies to Grantland Rice and Miller, Layden, Crowley and Stuhldreher) the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Nevertheless, they're doing it. The plaints seem to be focusing on the failure of "the government" to "do something" and create jobs. A growing chorus, however, is highlighting the presumed greed of American corporations as evidenced by their hanging on to the $2 trillion or so in cash when they could be paying it out to workers in the form of higher wages and benefits.
Yesterday's posting explained why corporations might be hanging on to this money, but there is a better reason why the companies shouldn't be using it to create jobs or pay higher wages. For one thing, the money doesn't really belong to the companies. It belongs to the shareholders who, by natural right of private property should be able to receive that stored up cash in the form of dividends. They could then use the cash to satisfy their own consumption wants and needs, thereby stimulating the economy naturally without government intervention.
For another, raise wages and benefits without corresponding increases in real productivity, and a lot of workers are going to lose their jobs. All of a sudden, companies won't be able to afford to keep them on, not being able to make enough profits to cover the added costs. And this applies across the board to all companies. You can't raise costs to one company without doing it for all of them, and despite the fact that some companies are loaded, a lot aren't, and are operating on the edge.
What about the workers? Shouldn't they get some of the loot?
Well . . . yes. We've been saying that for years, if you've been paying attention. The problem is that you really can't justify taking away the rights of shareholders just because you think workers should get more money. What's the solution?
It's rather simple, really. It's so simple, they've thought of it before: make workers into shareholders so that they can get income increases from the bottom line as profit sharing, rather than increasing costs by raising wage and benefits. Charles Morrison recommended this in his 1854 Essay on the Relations Between Labour and Capital. William Cobbett also made noises along this line, as did William Thornton and Henry Fawcett — you know, all the guys. Louis Kelso and Mortimer Adler came along and showed how it could be done without redistribution or inflationary government spending.
That's why, in a way, it was so discouraging to read in today's Washington Post (Harold Meyerson, "How Steve Jobs Could Reboot the Working Class," The Washington Post, 08/31/11, A17) that Henry Ford is being held up as a model on what corporations should do with All That Cash. The story in brief: in 1914 Ford more than doubled the basic rate of pay at his factory, from $2.34 per day to $5.00 per day. At first this was intended to apply only to men with families, highly skilled mechanics, and widows with children. When everybody else threatened to go on strike unless they, too, were cut in on the plunder, Ford had to increase wages across the board. Riots broke out anyway among workers unable to convince Ford to hire them, and other automobile manufacturers took a serious financial hit.
This reminded us of something we'd read in Boswell's Life of Johnson some years ago. As Boswell related,
"Though by no means niggardly, his [Samuel Johnson's] attention to what was generally right was so minute, that having observed at one of the stages that I ostentatiously gave a shilling [twelve pence-about twenty cents] to the coachman, when the custom was for each passenger to give only sixpence, he took me aside and scolded me, saying that what I had done would make the coachman dissatisfied with all the rest of the passengers, who gave him no more than his due. This was a just reprimand; for in whatever way a man may indulge his generosity or his vanity in spending his money, for the sake of others he ought not to raise the price of any article for which there is a constant demand."
So, what should Ford have done rather than lock America into a permanent inflationary wage-price spiral? We'll let the late Walter Reuther of the U.A.W. field that question for us. As he said in testimony before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress on the President's Economic Report, February 20, 1967,
"Profit sharing in the form of stock distributions to workers would help to democratize the ownership of America's vast corporate wealth which is today appallingly undemocratic and unhealthy.
"The Federal Reserve Board recently published data from which it is possible to estimate the degree of concentration in the ownership of publicly traded stock held by individuals and families as of December 1962. Preliminary analysis of these data indicates that, despite all the talk of a "people's capitalism" in the United States, little more than one percent of all consumer units owned approximately 70 percent of all such stock.
"Fewer than 8 percent of all consumer units owned approximately 97 percent — which means, conversely, that the total direct ownership interest of more than 92 percent of America's consumer units in the corporation-operated productive wealth of this country was approximately 3 percent. Profit sharing in a form that would help to correct this shocking maldistribution would be highly desirable for that reason alone. . . .
"If workers had definite assurance of equitable shares in the profits of the corporations that employ them, they would see less need to seek an equitable balance between their gains and soaring profits through augmented increases in basic wage rates. This would be a desirable result from the standpoint of stabilization policy because profit sharing does not increase costs. Since profits are a residual, after all costs have been met, and since their size is not determinable until after customers have paid the prices charged for the firm's products, profit sharing as such cannot be said to have any inflationary impact upon costs and prices."
Maybe Reuther had something there.
#30#
Nevertheless, they're doing it. The plaints seem to be focusing on the failure of "the government" to "do something" and create jobs. A growing chorus, however, is highlighting the presumed greed of American corporations as evidenced by their hanging on to the $2 trillion or so in cash when they could be paying it out to workers in the form of higher wages and benefits.
Yesterday's posting explained why corporations might be hanging on to this money, but there is a better reason why the companies shouldn't be using it to create jobs or pay higher wages. For one thing, the money doesn't really belong to the companies. It belongs to the shareholders who, by natural right of private property should be able to receive that stored up cash in the form of dividends. They could then use the cash to satisfy their own consumption wants and needs, thereby stimulating the economy naturally without government intervention.
For another, raise wages and benefits without corresponding increases in real productivity, and a lot of workers are going to lose their jobs. All of a sudden, companies won't be able to afford to keep them on, not being able to make enough profits to cover the added costs. And this applies across the board to all companies. You can't raise costs to one company without doing it for all of them, and despite the fact that some companies are loaded, a lot aren't, and are operating on the edge.
What about the workers? Shouldn't they get some of the loot?
Well . . . yes. We've been saying that for years, if you've been paying attention. The problem is that you really can't justify taking away the rights of shareholders just because you think workers should get more money. What's the solution?
It's rather simple, really. It's so simple, they've thought of it before: make workers into shareholders so that they can get income increases from the bottom line as profit sharing, rather than increasing costs by raising wage and benefits. Charles Morrison recommended this in his 1854 Essay on the Relations Between Labour and Capital. William Cobbett also made noises along this line, as did William Thornton and Henry Fawcett — you know, all the guys. Louis Kelso and Mortimer Adler came along and showed how it could be done without redistribution or inflationary government spending.
That's why, in a way, it was so discouraging to read in today's Washington Post (Harold Meyerson, "How Steve Jobs Could Reboot the Working Class," The Washington Post, 08/31/11, A17) that Henry Ford is being held up as a model on what corporations should do with All That Cash. The story in brief: in 1914 Ford more than doubled the basic rate of pay at his factory, from $2.34 per day to $5.00 per day. At first this was intended to apply only to men with families, highly skilled mechanics, and widows with children. When everybody else threatened to go on strike unless they, too, were cut in on the plunder, Ford had to increase wages across the board. Riots broke out anyway among workers unable to convince Ford to hire them, and other automobile manufacturers took a serious financial hit.
This reminded us of something we'd read in Boswell's Life of Johnson some years ago. As Boswell related,
"Though by no means niggardly, his [Samuel Johnson's] attention to what was generally right was so minute, that having observed at one of the stages that I ostentatiously gave a shilling [twelve pence-about twenty cents] to the coachman, when the custom was for each passenger to give only sixpence, he took me aside and scolded me, saying that what I had done would make the coachman dissatisfied with all the rest of the passengers, who gave him no more than his due. This was a just reprimand; for in whatever way a man may indulge his generosity or his vanity in spending his money, for the sake of others he ought not to raise the price of any article for which there is a constant demand."
So, what should Ford have done rather than lock America into a permanent inflationary wage-price spiral? We'll let the late Walter Reuther of the U.A.W. field that question for us. As he said in testimony before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress on the President's Economic Report, February 20, 1967,
"Profit sharing in the form of stock distributions to workers would help to democratize the ownership of America's vast corporate wealth which is today appallingly undemocratic and unhealthy.
"The Federal Reserve Board recently published data from which it is possible to estimate the degree of concentration in the ownership of publicly traded stock held by individuals and families as of December 1962. Preliminary analysis of these data indicates that, despite all the talk of a "people's capitalism" in the United States, little more than one percent of all consumer units owned approximately 70 percent of all such stock.
"Fewer than 8 percent of all consumer units owned approximately 97 percent — which means, conversely, that the total direct ownership interest of more than 92 percent of America's consumer units in the corporation-operated productive wealth of this country was approximately 3 percent. Profit sharing in a form that would help to correct this shocking maldistribution would be highly desirable for that reason alone. . . .
"If workers had definite assurance of equitable shares in the profits of the corporations that employ them, they would see less need to seek an equitable balance between their gains and soaring profits through augmented increases in basic wage rates. This would be a desirable result from the standpoint of stabilization policy because profit sharing does not increase costs. Since profits are a residual, after all costs have been met, and since their size is not determinable until after customers have paid the prices charged for the firm's products, profit sharing as such cannot be said to have any inflationary impact upon costs and prices."
Maybe Reuther had something there.
#30#
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Worker Ownership Model in Argentina
From a law professor at the Catholic University of Buenos Aires we recently received an inspiring story about workers who, without expropriation or otherwise harming the property rights of others, took over a bankrupt company and turned it into a success. As she reports,
You will like the story of the Zanello Pauny company. This is one of the factories known here in Argentina as fábricas recuperadas ("recovered factories") as the result of a group of workers continuing to work at the factory even though it was shut down after a bankruptcy — an instance of a business tragedy that has a happy ending.
Don Pedro Zanello founded this metal fabrication plant in 1950. It was located in a small town called "Las Varillas" in the Province of Córdoba. The factory was virtually the only source of employment for the people of the town.
As you know, during Menem´s administration a drastic change in economic policies took place. Markets were opened to importations. As a result, previously subsidized national industries collapsed. One of the victims of this sudden change from a controlled economy to free market principles was Zanello, S.A. In 2001, after more than 50 years of development in the national industry, the company went bankrupt, and the factory shut down after the equivalent of what is known in the United States as a "Chapter 7" bankruptcy. That is, instead of reorganizing the company to keep it alive (as under a U.S. "Chapter 11"), the company was closed and its assets put up for sale to satisfy the creditors.
Argentine law, however, allows workers at a bankrupt company to continue operations provisionally. This benefits the workers through continued employment, and also provides a small chance that the company can be brought back to life. As a result, workers organized and came together in free association as a "Work Cooperative." This gave them legal standing to rent the plant and equipment of the Zanello factory and continue operations.
The key to the success of this endeavor was gaining access to capital credit — the principal means in a modern economy to acquire and possess capital. The workers were able to obtain credit from the Provincial Bank of Córdoba that gave them the cash to purchase the factory. In an unusual move, the workers had no money or other wealth of their own to use as collateral for the loan. Instead of collateral, the Bank of Córdoba became the "principal and privileged creditor," using the factory itself to secure the loan to the Work Cooperative. This was a result of all the company workers, both members of the cooperative and administrative personnel, coming together to present their case to the loan officers at the bank.
In consequence, a new corporation, "Pauny S.A.," was created. The new company bought the Zanello assets thanks to the credit supplied by the Provincial Bank of Córdoba, which was able to transfer its privileged credit position in Zanello to the new Pauny S.A. As a result, Pauny S.A. secured a long term line of credit from the Córdoba Bank, and became the new owner of the factory.
The shares of the company were divided equitably among all the stakeholders. Workers owned a 33 % share through the cooperative, the administrative personnel had another 33 %, the dealers (retailers) had 33%, and the balance (1 %) was held by the City of Las Varillas as a fiscal creditor.
The operation grew, and it soon increased the number of workers from 20 to 400 people. In order to add more capital, the dealers sold 31% of their shares to private investors, while the workers took a cut in pay to contribute to the increase in capital.
Today, the sales are very high, and the corporate expansion has allowed the company to add cartage and road building machinery to its line of agricultural products. The latest news showed that the factory released a special line of tractors called "Rino 3000." This is only one model of a complete line of tractors that have been put into production since the year 2002. The tractor is equipped with a 180 horsepower engine and, according to the manufacturers, "its price is very competitive."
Today, the town of Las Varillas is surviving the economic crisis. The rate of unemployment has fallen from 25 % in 2002, to 4% today. This example shows that it is possible to have a successful enterprise thanks to the effort and the willpower of the people involved on the development of a community project — as long as they can secure capitalization on good terms, and the business is otherwise viable.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Unions Forever?
Dinosaurs ruled the Earth until (as some paleontologists believe) a large comet or meteor hit the planet, causing massive climatic change that destroyed the great lizards' food supply, allowing mammals to gain a foothold and eventually dominate the world. Similarly, labor unions ruled the economic world until accelerating technology and cheaper foreign labor caused unions to seek State support to maintain their position. As State-imposed solutions rarely if ever work, union membership has declined to the point where only 7.9% of the private sector workforce was unionized in 2004, down from a high of 34.9% in 1949, according to statistics published by the Labor Research Association. That means that for the past half century, private sector union membership has declined by an average of 0.48% per year. Assuming the decline continues at a steady rate, there will be no private sector union membership by 2021.
That, of course, is unrealistic. One of two things will happen before private sector unions fade away like old soldiers. One, the government will step in and offer its protection. Backed up by the coercive power of the State, union membership will become a virtual mandate if anyone wants to secure a job in America's disappearing industrial base. Effectively socialism, this will allow the State to control both employers and employed in a self-defeating and panic-stricken effort to "save American jobs" and the remnants of the once-great industrial powerhouse.
By redistributing an increasing share of a shrinking pie to unions and their members, today's union leadership and the country's policymakers believe that they will somehow achieve progress and economic growth by undermining an essential aspect of human nature. That is, the only reason people invest and form capital is to derive the "fruits of ownership" from their productive assets. In a rational universe, people do not invest their time, effort, and ownership in something to secure an adequate income for others, especially when they and their dependents have not secured an adequate income.
This brings us to the other thing that could happen. Union leadership and the country's policymakers could wake up to the fact that human labor since the Industrial Revolution has been responsible for less and less of the total production of goods and services that takes place. "Capital" and "labor" are two independent variables in the production equation. Neither one can do without the other, but the coefficients of capital and labor have been changing as technology advances.
A "coefficient" is the number by which a variable is multiplied that expresses how the variables relate to one another. For example, in the equation 2x + y = z, there has to be twice as many "x"es as there are "y"s — regardless how big y or small x is — or the equation will no longer equal z. Over time, capital's coefficient has been getting rapidly larger, while labor's has been just as rapidly decreasing to keep the equation equal. (Of course, under the illogic of Keynesian economics, the equation has been distorted to such an extent by artificial manipulation of the system by the State that it is not equal, but that is a different issue, and is causing its own problems.)
Faced with the mathematical certainty that as the coefficient of capital increases, that of labor must decrease, the obvious solution is to cut labor in on some of the returns to capital. Keynesian economic policy does this by redistribution, inflation, job creation, and various other expedients that do nothing to increase the coefficient of labor, and, in fact, probably operate to increase the coefficient of capital at a faster rate, as owners of capital seek to replace increasingly expensive labor with more cost efficient capital.
A more direct means of getting some of the returns to capital legitimately to labor is to ensure that sellers of labor are also owners of capital. Workers would then derive the fruits of ownership (income and control) by right, rather than by expropriation or other coercive and illegitimate means.
If America's labor unions would grasp the reality of the situation, they would leap at the chance to expand their sphere of influence from mere labor, to ownership. Within an economy in which the rights of labor are becoming negligible due to the diminished importance of labor in the production equation, the rights of ownership are left without any organized movement to make certain that the ownership rights of ordinary workers are recognized, secured, and protected.
By concentrating exclusively on the rights of labor, unions are letting a much broader field of activity lie fallow. As the role of human labor decreases, there are fewer and fewer workers to protect, and thus less perceived need for unions. Potentially, however, as the role of capital increases, the number of owners whose rights need to be protected is limited only by the number of people. There can, after all, be only one person per job, but a single asset can be owned by an effectively infinite number of people.
There is only one obvious course of action for America's unions, and after them the unions of the world. They must transform themselves from organizations protecting the extremely limited and decreasing number of people who sell their toil, to the potentially infinite number of people who can own the means of production.
That, of course, is unrealistic. One of two things will happen before private sector unions fade away like old soldiers. One, the government will step in and offer its protection. Backed up by the coercive power of the State, union membership will become a virtual mandate if anyone wants to secure a job in America's disappearing industrial base. Effectively socialism, this will allow the State to control both employers and employed in a self-defeating and panic-stricken effort to "save American jobs" and the remnants of the once-great industrial powerhouse.
By redistributing an increasing share of a shrinking pie to unions and their members, today's union leadership and the country's policymakers believe that they will somehow achieve progress and economic growth by undermining an essential aspect of human nature. That is, the only reason people invest and form capital is to derive the "fruits of ownership" from their productive assets. In a rational universe, people do not invest their time, effort, and ownership in something to secure an adequate income for others, especially when they and their dependents have not secured an adequate income.
This brings us to the other thing that could happen. Union leadership and the country's policymakers could wake up to the fact that human labor since the Industrial Revolution has been responsible for less and less of the total production of goods and services that takes place. "Capital" and "labor" are two independent variables in the production equation. Neither one can do without the other, but the coefficients of capital and labor have been changing as technology advances.
A "coefficient" is the number by which a variable is multiplied that expresses how the variables relate to one another. For example, in the equation 2x + y = z, there has to be twice as many "x"es as there are "y"s — regardless how big y or small x is — or the equation will no longer equal z. Over time, capital's coefficient has been getting rapidly larger, while labor's has been just as rapidly decreasing to keep the equation equal. (Of course, under the illogic of Keynesian economics, the equation has been distorted to such an extent by artificial manipulation of the system by the State that it is not equal, but that is a different issue, and is causing its own problems.)
Faced with the mathematical certainty that as the coefficient of capital increases, that of labor must decrease, the obvious solution is to cut labor in on some of the returns to capital. Keynesian economic policy does this by redistribution, inflation, job creation, and various other expedients that do nothing to increase the coefficient of labor, and, in fact, probably operate to increase the coefficient of capital at a faster rate, as owners of capital seek to replace increasingly expensive labor with more cost efficient capital.
A more direct means of getting some of the returns to capital legitimately to labor is to ensure that sellers of labor are also owners of capital. Workers would then derive the fruits of ownership (income and control) by right, rather than by expropriation or other coercive and illegitimate means.
If America's labor unions would grasp the reality of the situation, they would leap at the chance to expand their sphere of influence from mere labor, to ownership. Within an economy in which the rights of labor are becoming negligible due to the diminished importance of labor in the production equation, the rights of ownership are left without any organized movement to make certain that the ownership rights of ordinary workers are recognized, secured, and protected.
By concentrating exclusively on the rights of labor, unions are letting a much broader field of activity lie fallow. As the role of human labor decreases, there are fewer and fewer workers to protect, and thus less perceived need for unions. Potentially, however, as the role of capital increases, the number of owners whose rights need to be protected is limited only by the number of people. There can, after all, be only one person per job, but a single asset can be owned by an effectively infinite number of people.
There is only one obvious course of action for America's unions, and after them the unions of the world. They must transform themselves from organizations protecting the extremely limited and decreasing number of people who sell their toil, to the potentially infinite number of people who can own the means of production.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
McCain Endorses Worker Ownership, Obama Remains Silent
Louis Kelso and I met for four hours with Senator Russell Long on November 27, 1973. The next morning Senator Long started the process of getting the ESOP officially adopted into law. Afterwards, the New York Times described me as a "one-man lobbying campaign for Kelsonian ideas."
Now, through the ESOP Association (a true Washington lobbying group with many members), and with 11 million American workers in over 11,000 U.S. companies benefiting from this social technology, we have a presidential candidate who endorses this radical populist innovation in leveraged corporate finance in his campaign.
Admittedly, most ESOPs have not yet matured to run according to principles of Justice-Based Management, this economic tool points in the right direction and offers a growing potential constituency for Kelso's "big picture": the Capital Homestead Act.
I wonder if Obama — who attacked the goal of an "ownership society" in his acceptance speech — will see the light and match McCain. Better yet, when will these candidates and their advisers wake up to the Just Third Way and our radical centrist overhaul of the Big Money/Big Government alliance controlling both parties that threatens a collapse of the American economy in ways worse than in the Great Depression?
Everyone who reads this posting should read the theoretical blueprint for making a market system work, "A New Look at Prices and Money: The Kelsonian Binary Model for Achieving Rapid Growth Without Inflation." If you like it, send it to every academic economist you know and every open-minded politician, banker, entrepreneur, and labor leader you can reach.
We are in a "War of Ideas." America and the people of the world cannot afford to lose to the power-concentrating ideas of the Big Money/Big Government elite who now rule the world. If you listen carefully, those in control of money power and economic policy follow the flawed paradigm of Keynes, which offers a wide array of fine-tuning gimmicks based on "full employment" as a national goal. This perpetuates concentrated ownership, wage slavery, and welfare slavery.
In sharp contrast, Louis Kelso's ownership-based paradigm (which Milton Friedman snidely described as "Marx turned upside-down") was geared to a new national goal of "full production" through a high-tech, just market economy, where every citizen's wage/welfare incomes would become supplemented by profits distributed through widespread ownership of society's ever-proliferating "energy slaves."
Now is the time for all Kelsonians and other architects for justice-based change to come together to win the war of ideas. Let's turn this crisis into the opportunity we've been looking for, in the words of futurist Buckminster Fuller, "to make the world work for 100% of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous cooperation and without ecological damage or the disadvantage of anyone."
As Edmund Burke said, "When bad people combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, April 23, 1770.
Own or Be Owned, Capital Homesteading Now.
Now, through the ESOP Association (a true Washington lobbying group with many members), and with 11 million American workers in over 11,000 U.S. companies benefiting from this social technology, we have a presidential candidate who endorses this radical populist innovation in leveraged corporate finance in his campaign.
Admittedly, most ESOPs have not yet matured to run according to principles of Justice-Based Management, this economic tool points in the right direction and offers a growing potential constituency for Kelso's "big picture": the Capital Homestead Act.
I wonder if Obama — who attacked the goal of an "ownership society" in his acceptance speech — will see the light and match McCain. Better yet, when will these candidates and their advisers wake up to the Just Third Way and our radical centrist overhaul of the Big Money/Big Government alliance controlling both parties that threatens a collapse of the American economy in ways worse than in the Great Depression?
Everyone who reads this posting should read the theoretical blueprint for making a market system work, "A New Look at Prices and Money: The Kelsonian Binary Model for Achieving Rapid Growth Without Inflation." If you like it, send it to every academic economist you know and every open-minded politician, banker, entrepreneur, and labor leader you can reach.
We are in a "War of Ideas." America and the people of the world cannot afford to lose to the power-concentrating ideas of the Big Money/Big Government elite who now rule the world. If you listen carefully, those in control of money power and economic policy follow the flawed paradigm of Keynes, which offers a wide array of fine-tuning gimmicks based on "full employment" as a national goal. This perpetuates concentrated ownership, wage slavery, and welfare slavery.
In sharp contrast, Louis Kelso's ownership-based paradigm (which Milton Friedman snidely described as "Marx turned upside-down") was geared to a new national goal of "full production" through a high-tech, just market economy, where every citizen's wage/welfare incomes would become supplemented by profits distributed through widespread ownership of society's ever-proliferating "energy slaves."
Now is the time for all Kelsonians and other architects for justice-based change to come together to win the war of ideas. Let's turn this crisis into the opportunity we've been looking for, in the words of futurist Buckminster Fuller, "to make the world work for 100% of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous cooperation and without ecological damage or the disadvantage of anyone."
As Edmund Burke said, "When bad people combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, April 23, 1770.
Own or Be Owned, Capital Homesteading Now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)