©2012-14  Phil Hyde, 66 rue de Carillon ste.3, Gatineau-Ottawa J8X 2P2 QUÉBEC, 617-620-6851 & POB 117 Harvard Sq PO, Boston-Cambridge, MA 02238, USA 617-623-8080 - HOMEPAGE
timesizing blog, aka 'oversharing' page
per: Blogger Blair(e) Koenig smacks oversharing parents, 4/19/2013 TG, L3.
Here we work out the language of the SWT (shorter worktime) movement and the new worktime economics,
& we (new verb) thought-experiment with the design of very long-term survivable economic systems. (This is all stuff I wish I'd thought of or been informed of at an early age, much of which is in areas other than economics. If you're prone to calling people "show-offs," fergawdsake quit reading! This stuff is for me, not you. You wanna eavesdrop? Fine! But only if this is something you can enjoy without gettin' bent outa shape.)

The universe continues via micro discontinuity enabling macro continuity.
F.ex., individual human discontinuity enables humanity's continuity
(and even introduces extra mutation for continuity-enhancing "selection" to operate upon, some of which is competition but most is just competition with one's narrowly and broadly defined past, by sheer continuing or not).

So does the acceleration of mutation and "selection" via continuity support the estimate that at least the physical universe is the only general type of physical universe that could possibly evolve because the estimated extreeemely long time involved (before any kind of celestial "clock") would allow sooo many mutations to be tried and mostly erred?
Or is this just another kind of silly anthropocentrism?

The problem in the age of artificial intelligence and robotics is not laziness but workaholism and self-righteousness about it. Our most important vanishing resource today is market-demanded human employment, and workaholics are just an insufferably naive and self-righteous group exhibiting the latest version of Chesterton's Pan-Utopian Flaw = wanting (and tending to get) more than your share of this increasingly scarce "natural" resource - "natural" relative to artificial intelligence- and robot-performed work.

The trial and error that went into our existence was beyond colossal. The building-upon-cumulated-accommodations, the elaboration-upon-continuity-by-bare-experience - it's sooo easy to overhumanize and say 'upon-success-by-experience' or to overdramatize and say 'continuity by sheer experimentation'... It's sooo difficult to extend our viewpoint and our self-interest, to avoid anthropocentrism or limited self-reference - impossible and OK not to avoid self-reference as long as not limited, e.g., for dramatic effect, or for our own little importance or morale boost...

In terms of the fourth book (dimensions1-6, soc-sci-eras, econ-desX5, human language acquisition), maybe different branches of our language family started off by telling the fingers-numbers-planets-days story in different ways. F.ex., simplest: hold up open hand (towards oneself?) and in natural tapping order, bring down each finger cumulatively starting with the baby finger: moon, tiw, thor, frigga and ending with closed fist= pump. Variations: moon=fullhandopen or babyfingerdown, towards or away from oneself, question of 1-5 or 1-6, question of howtodo 6-10 or 6-12 (6&12 being basis of hexagesimal system= 6x10 or 12x5= argument for both simultaneously?), what explains the most surviving linguistic fossils? or is there an evolution even in the major(=which?) branch(es)?... Did it describe the major activities of a typical night or night&day? Should we visualize millennia of story-telling around campfires using hands?
12/15/2014/ph3 after talking to Dianne about in Moca Loca @Victoria&Laval Gat.sec.Hull

It's fine to say "all men are created equal" - without for the moment, for historical-ranging-to-nostalgic reasons, worrying about the anachronistic complaints of sexism (all "men"??) or creationism - but if you want to believe that all humans all around the biosphere latitudinally or longitudinally are born with the same advantages, you better quickly design and implement a equaliizing or integrating mechanism that supposedly is keeping us equal across social-evolutionary stages (or more realistically, within a defined range of one another), because there isn't one now, either synchronically (eg: worktime, income, wealth, credit...) or diachronically (social evolution: tolerance for diversity - generality of integrating mechanism within each social-evolutionary stage).

  • With big boost in pension, many Massachusetts judges retire, 12/04/2014 Boston Globe, A1.
    [Today's supposedly efficiency- and productivity-obsessed economics is paying people for doing nothing - with a blank check depending on how long they live. And the longer they live, the greater the cost to society. This is a side effect of a covertly regulated workweek, frozen since 1940 at the pre-technology level of 40 hours a week, regardless of waves of worksaving technology and a standard CEO response of downsizing, nevermind the promise of "making life easier for everyone." Insofar as the workweek has any flexibility, it is ratcheted upward. Though now to avoid "fulltime" benefits, it is being reduced and pay prorated downward to the impoverishment of the consumer base and the shortage of marketable productivity to provide enough sustainable investment destinations to avoid one stock bubble after another. We are on a downward spiral staircase of popping stock & investment bubbles.
    Mandatory retirement of the old to open jobs for the young is only necessary when the workweek is frozen and there is no homeostatic "timesizing" relationship between unemployment and the workweek: unemployment up, workweek down, and vv. Mandatory retirement wastes our most experienced and skilled employees at a time when modern medicine has prolonged lives. Many suicides take place just before and after retirement.
    Mandatory retirement must go, and only Timesizing can make it so.

    A critical advantage of public-sector management over private-sector management in an open society (cosmetically "democratic") is that there are some restraints on top-management pay and perks. The only pay restraint in the private sector is activist stockholders. They also constantly carp about pay in the public sector, plus all the other types and income brackets of taxpayers, who are a lot more numerous and diverse than any given corporation's stockholders.

    Mon adresse nouvelle-angleterrien: 10 Carverstrasse Zoamerville Massatoonies BenightedstaatenvonAmerika Vesternhemisfear Plannadearth Solarcistern Sirianstarsis* Milkyweigh Lowcalcluster...Uneedverse...
    (*intermediate system to fill gap in increasing scale per Rodney Collin 1971) 12/04/2014/ph3
    (Pietjen's reaction: How long have you had this language barrier? 11/29)

    Alan Applebaum mentioned the phrase "helicopter drop" - apparently Milton Friedman said it would be better to drop money from helicopters to get it back into spending than carry on with today's economy-slowing concentration of the economy. This is the Right's version of Keynes's bottles of money: Half the population should be paid to bury bottles of money and the other half employed digging them up and spending it.

    Alan also said he's interested in the disconnect between employers complaining about shortage of skilled workers, and college graduates complaining about lack of job openings.

    The length of the workweek (and the start of overtime-to-jobs conversion) is the valve of labor supply.

    The idea of God really explains nothing. It just pushes all the big questions off one huge level and says, Don't Ask!

    Or as colleague Kate points out, based on the "turtles all the way down" anecdote, we should conclude, It just pushes all the big questions off one huge turtle and says, Don't Ask!
    Here's a book-based source for the turtle anecdote:
    "Bertrand Russell[?] once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy [or is there an intermediate center that the Sun orbits, possibly the superstar Sirus, because of the jump in scales, as suggested by Rodney Collins in his Theory of Celestial Influence?] At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: 'What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.' The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, 'What is the tortoise standing on?' 'You're very clever, young man, very clever,' said the old lady. 'But it's turtles all the way down!' " From Stephen Hawking's 1988 book A Brief History of Time.
    Of course, the turtle anecdote itself raises the question, "All the way down to what?" and, "Are turtles the same as tortoises?"
    Our postulation that the concept of continuity can explain it all is supported by a rebuttal for one of the major arguments for the existence of God, namely, Something cannot come from nothing; there must have been a Prime Mover to create something out of nothing.
    Science is now detecting numerous layers of smaller-ness below what we can see with the naked eye or with the ordinary microscope or even the electron microscope - things so tiny they can only be detected in collisions in cyclotrons or by their effect on slightly larger things. (As on the larger-ing side, many huge dark and distant astronomical bodies can only be detected by their effect on visible ones.) So we have already rebutted, several times over, the argument that something cannot come from nothing. In fact, there are now several layers of somethings that have come from progressively tighter definitions of "nothing." And with all the pre-time in the world (assuming time proper requires balanced or uniform motion = momentum) for slightly better continuability to emerge from poor continuability, why not? The problem is that this simple godlessness is so upsetting and insecurifying that it's a lot more comfortable for us to push it out of our minds than to contemplate the Impossibility of Us; that is, infinitesimal odds in favor of our own existence - a realization that first glimmers when our parents tell us how they first met and how casual it all was and therefore how uncertain and unreliable and accidental - terrifyingly so!

    A couple of wording experiments:

    From Gilles (Pilon of Aylmer QUE); the rule of thumb is that you get one percent less unemployment for every hour you cut from the workweek. (This held in the USA 1938 44hrs 19%, 1939 42hrs justover17%, 1940 40hrs under15% and in France 1997 39hrs 12.6%, 2001 35hrs 8.6% before the US-led recession hit in the summer.

    Despite his many contributions especially The Age of Uncertainty series, I'm afraid Ken (John Kenneth Galbraith) will be marginalized because for all his insights, he never realized how outstandingly important and deep-structural it was to convert chronic overtime into training and hiring and *incrementally* trim the workweek to create as much convertible overtime as required to achieve full employment and maximum consumer spending=moneysupply circulation=positive multipliereffect =maximum MARKETABLEproductivity =maximum sustainableinvestibility (money safestoragecapacity).

    The military industry is where plutocracy and stratocracy overlap.

    Economics has become an exercise in how many people can keep missing how obvious problems for how long.
    It's become a pollyanna ally, nay mercenary, of the self-cushioned, ie: insulated and isolated, topmost brackets.

    Complete this phrase: The Scottish Rite and the Irish ______.
    ("Wrong"? "Left"?)

    Review: Evolution is a big long-term trend from greater violence and drama to greater gentleness and variety. Which latter features are more sustainable and continuable, and Continuity is the basic game of the Universe/Reality. Economics' power was in its dedramatization of problems with numb-ers.

    Hey, shorter-hoursers! just thot of a great rebuttal to those who say that wartime prosperity comes from infinite demand for product to send overseas and consume (/blow up) and not from infinite demand for jobseekers to send overseas and consume =
    "Yeah but war also creates infinite demand for consumers to send overseas and consume, because the jobseekers are real or potential consumer-spenders, so that doubles the impact of the humans in the picture relative to the product." (So war is a lot less efficient as a job creator than workweek reduction.)
    9am, 10/25/2014/ph3

    This is an example of how non-academics can rebut hard-to-kill academic arguments in two sentences while academics can whack at them forever with polysyllables and quantification and tables and graphs and diagrams till the cows come home and still not dispense with them and move on, hamstrung as they are trying to protect their jobs with the niceynicey political games and navigation of the free-floating intimidation and threat-display hierarchy of titles. Academic degrees and ceremonies gradually replaced the body armour of warriors and knights and their battles and tournaments via the vestments and ceremonies and title-proliferating hierarchy of the Church.

    That's the trouble with the rich: they're wedded to an obsolete culture of begging... WGBH, symphony orchestras, 'good' causes, charity... instead of a culture of multidimensionally empowered organic extension, funded by widest-spread ownership.

    The sporadic rejoicing over how many new rich people we have is just a holdover from the age of stifling feudal pecking order.

    The goal of having an outstandingly excessive amount of money, alias being 'rich,' is no longer a macroeconomic system-friendly goal for individuals in a would-be intelligent species, if it ever was.

    And so in concluding this short series, we ask again: If you're so smart, why ARE you rich?

    Trying to get runny honey out of a pot with a knife by rotating the knife: that's a good analogy for the importance of uniform motion (rotation) to the definition of a separate "mass."

    Re: "...iPhones have already firmly attached themselves to the hands of nearly a quarter of the world's population. There is no way to pry them loose. They appeared suddenly in 2007 and multiplied with lightening speed. Now, throngs of humans stare glassy-eyed into the small rectangular devices, hypnotized by their throbbing, colorful glow. "Civilization is doomed," declared cyberologist Desmond Wikkins..." from article "New iPhone programmed to impregnate its hosts within one month" by Chris Hume on p.5 of 10/2014 Funny Times.

    People walking around constantly with iPhones etc. - like the Hoka(?) of the high Andes (BBC-TV camera crew allowed up into their mountain retreat for two weeks back in the 1990s{?} ) never walking around without their little mortars & pestles stirring/crushing what? coca? - it's like a portable alternate reality - like Carlos Castaneda's 2nd? book A Separate Reality which I always thought expressed the core function of religion - to provide detachment from the here&now, sometimes indeed an escape - or as Bill White(?) of Toronto's WoodGreen United Church in the 1960s said, "social cement" - by enabling you to put up with all the crap here&now cuz you have a safety valve, an out, an escape... - a book! - supports the etymology of relegere instead of religare for religion - these iPhones and their clamped-on humans are demonstrating portable religion!

    Ah, think of all those centuries of priests and ministers complaining about Sunday Christians! Now people have a religion they take-with every day of the week. 'Course, again, it's Too Much of a Good Thing because the here&now ain't bad all the time they're escaping it focused on their iPhone. In fact, it's fine or better than what's on the iPhone, like when they go to the Grand Canyon and stick on their iPhones, or ride the train through the Rockies and stick on their iPhones - their portable alternate reality, their "home" environments, that they have designed a chunk of - it's reassuring, orienting, next-step clarifying... - a portable womb, or college, or salon, a portable Madame de Stael...

    You've got to find, or rather find-the-next-step&keep-following, the emotional pathway to the thing you want, and at each step, 'make it as easy as possible for reality to give you what you want' (quoting Naida Denise Dyer Hyde in the 1960s), because you usually can't see the whole pathway from the beginning, it's too twisty, like human evolution.

    Same wavelength: "Except ye become as little children..." and "You can get too sophisticated for [eg:] democracy" - ie: thin lines between wanting to win and manipulation and cheating. Cf. Deming's opposition to contests and merit rewards, etc.

    Note tension between "he who testifies for himself, his testimony is not true" and "don't hide your light under a bushel."

    "Priority anxiety" = when you think of too many urgent "to do's" at once, or when you get too many ideas to note down at once.
    9/03/2014/ph3 9:30p

    As CEOs (corporate = micro-economic level) efficientize their own markets into extinction via kneejerk "leansizing" (downsizing), no economy yet has a core design that maintains macro efficiency.
    9/02 5:33p

    It seems particularly difficult for hominids to grok, but they're having a specially hard time with the New Malthusianism: the fact that with mechanization, automation and now robotics, productive capacity is leaping exponentially, while consumption capacity is either sinking by kneejerk downsizing, staying the same with worksharing, or at best, increasing mathematically by magic (e.g., by cooking the indexes; e.g., innocently padding the GDP). The only tried and proved form of that magic is labor shortage to raise wages and spending and engage the multiplier effect, and after repeated trials of plague and war, the only intelligent way to get that labor shortage is Timesizing: no-argument conversion of chronic overtime into training and hiring followed-up with as much gradual workweek reduction as required to generate as much convertible overtime as it takes to raise wages by market forces, decoagulate the money supply, and begin enjoying strengthening consumer markets and the business markets based thereon, and restore, once again, financial markets with fundamentals and not just anxiety to put it somewhere.

    Never realized it before but I mix up Donald O'Connor and Ray Bolger ("to relieve this pleasant ache...there is noth ing youcan take...you're not sick you're Just In Love [w/Vera-Ellen + EthelMerman w/Geo.Sanders in Call Me Madam]", "Once Inlove w/Amy[=Allyn Ann McLerie??!]..."), but I think of Raybolger (d.DorchesterMA) as more british for some reason (ah, cuz Where's Charley is set at Oxford) - they both dance... &sing... > store them in the same memoryslot - really fun to google Mitzi Gaynor - not as darkside as Monroe - and still alive, still fun, lower voice now, still sorta pretty...

    then there's Ado Annie in Oklahoma 1955 played by "Gloria Grahame" (a name I mix up with Virginia Graham-talkshow & Martha Graham-dancer! & possibly Gloria Steinem), the cute&funny sidekick to Laurey (Shirley Jones), whom I mix up with Shirley McLean as a cute&funny sidekick - am I thinking distortedly of The Apartment because of Edie Adams' brief but flashy appearance? or of Hot Spell tho Shirley Booth was 60 at the time & playing the romantic lead in Come Back Little Sheba when she was 54?! (but remember Anne Withan!) - unless I actuallythought Shirley McLean WAS the one who played Ado Annie!? (or mixed up Shirley Booth with Shirley Jones? Oy!)

    plus I store the GrandCanyonSuite (Grofé) the NewWorldSymphony (Dvorak) and the Moldau (Smetana) in the same or too-close slots

    Our civilization is based on guilt and vengeance (on the level above the basics of eat-sleep-cure) - we're burdened with the inertia/momentum of Puritanism. Free love has been squelched everywhere by a long-term concern, overpopulation. This must have been a major recurrent trauma for humanity in the very long term. The universal incest taboo is another major recurrent trauma due to the very long-term trauma of birth defects.
    Yet this is the major area where nature itself split short-term and long-term. So important is the long-term necessity of continuity via reproduction that long-term evolution has strongly weighted the short-term payoff of intercourse, at least for the male. And collectively, this has resulted infrequently but repeatedly and traumatically in overpopulation.
    But in an age of contraception availability, especially if the default can be changed from impregnation to contraception, it's possible and even likely that sex may become a favorite hobby for a lot more people, even female people.

    Antidote to suicide (post Robin Williams' tho Robin's turns out to have been an entirely sensible reaction to encroaching Parkinson's Disease): design for yourself the most convincing purpose you can = the most convincing reason to stay around.
    Best candidate: Identify, solve and implement as far as you can, the biggest human problem of your lifetime.
    And along with Bucky Fuller's addition: "that nobody else is taking care of", maybe we should add: that isn't getting all kinds of attention from other people already"
    (though if it's attention from TPTB = the powers that be, it may still qualify because so much of their attention is devoted to maintaining the status quo, with all current megaproblems "insoluble").

    Compare the best default pickup line: "Excuse me, are you in the mood for a compliment?"
    Do not waste it on a person in a hurry, and if neutral or negative response is received, turn with only a quick "Excuse me" and disappear, to avoid major energy leak.
    If any shade of positive: You're looking good. Are you in the mood for a coffee?
    (Have closeby coffeeplace in mind at start.)

    Bearing in mind that the basic purpose and plotline of the universe is simply, CONTINUE,
    and that there are many scales of bigness bigger than us and many scales of smallness smaller than us and, smaller than them, many scales of "nothing." the best Big Problems relate to human continuity and continuability, not to say, optional immortality, and mortality (suicide with minimal fuss).

    Sleep is a way for short periods of time to pass very quickly.
    Death is a way for very long periods of time to pass very quickly.

    radio spot:   puzzled by the economy? mystified by the mainstream narrative? like, what's the real chain of causation? like, how can we really get growth or UPsizing, by downsizing? - is it enough just to quote "Saint" Schumpeter and his sacred Gale of Creative Destruction? - what if there are different rates to consider and the destruction is happening faster and more cumulatively than the creation? need a more watertight catbird seat from which to critique the economy? try worktime economics dot com ... or TimesizingNotDownsizing.com will get you there ... and if all else fades from memory, but all your heroes don't seem to really have a plan...not the GOP, or the Dems, or the leftists or the rightists, or the thirdwayers, or the Greens, of the IMF or World Bank, or the CIA or KGB and not even the RCMP, not the Masons or the Club of Rome or the Illuminati ... try MissingPlan.com ...

    Ideally us hominids are points of curiosity - we have no one to learn from but ourselves - best we "become as little children" - in fact, a component in every bird's or animal's signal is probably curiosity - a general question - is everything all right? - is there anything I should notice? - will it tell me what's going to happen next? - is there danger, or food? ...

    The very people who would never date desperate people are pushing their country to permanently admit desperate people on the same basis as fully legal immigrants.

    Q: Who spends more money?
    A. The poor, B. The rich, C. Other pls. elaborate.

    Q: Who spends the highest percentage of their income?
    A. The poor, B. The rich, C. Other pls. elaborate.

    Q: Who spends the lowest percentage of their income?
    A. The poor, B. The rich, C. Other pls. elaborate.

    Q: Who therefore causes economic slowdowns?
    A. The poor, B. The rich, C. Other pls. elaborate.

    We humans are gambling with our survival.
    And despite Bucky Fuller's optimism, there are no guarantees.
    His phrase was "humanity is designed for success," but more accurate would be,we have a cumulative trial&error-based multi-dimensional adaptibility that has been extremely inefficient in the past (in terms of mortality) and that has had at least two really close calls.
    We are currently in the process of overspecializing in electricity and painting ourselves into a number of corners.
    We are definitely our own worst enemy.
    There are no guarantees.

    "CONTINUE" is the universe's non-purpose Purpose. It's a lot more open-ended and permissive and therefore interesting than the purposes proposed by any of the world's great religions. For example, "to laud and magnify the Lord forever" does sound crashingly boring. But if interesting, "CONTINUE" does run into that little problem embodied in "May you live in interesting times" which is usually described as a Chinese curse.

    What does it say about the world when half the scientists and artists are charity wards of a dead munitions millionaire (Alfred Nobel)?

    Surely on any list of the features of the Timesizing economic upgrade must appear:

    a (fluctuating) common workweek range

    which provides a basis of common interest to a maximum diversity of people

    (for example, 10-30 hrs\wk, the bottom set by referendum, the top set by the unemployment rate defined by the bottom),


    Definition of Depression (economic) =
    When the idle rich (or worse, the industrious rich)
    Have too much idle wealth.
    (and the entire financial sector is herewith defined as "idle rich" since they no longer do ANYthing productive or useful - they simply pump into the next bubble all the extra money the Fed keeps printing as they go QE1 QE2 QE3 QE4... )

    Is it not obvious that you're not really going to get representative democracy unless your representatives get representative pay, and unless the median, if not the average, citizen can afford to run for election.

    There are people who don't want to know the bad news, say, if they have cancer. I am not one of those. I want to know the truth because only then can I plan to avoid or soften its harshness. I think this is what Lao Tzu meant when he said, "If you would rule the Empire, you must experience the worst the Empire has to offer" - meaning not necessarily "experience" in the sense, obviously, of say, getting murdered, but certainly in the sense of being aware of the worst and not burying your head in the sand or covering your ears and shouting lalalalala to shut out surroundings.]

    Q "Would also think unions would have to be brought along [with the runup to timesizing]"
    hey UAW union chief Walter Reuther was the one who came up with the idea of fluctuating adjustment of the workweek against unemployment (1964 UAW Convention Atlantic City - but only half the unions have ever "got" the importance of avoiding labor surplus by worktime reduction, so we're sinking into evermore hidden unemployment* and weaker markets for our huge robotized production capacity (*uncounted 'discouraged workers', welfare, homeless, prison, suicide...) and basically running Keynes' famed "multiplier effect" in reverse ("divider effect"?) - a better feeling for what's going on would be given by the terms "maximizer effect" and "minimizer effect"
    Q "yrs ago, nurses wanted to time share (split one ft position into 2 pt positions) and unions balked....eventually gave in"
    I rest my case about union confunion
    Q "market forces sure haven't worked to push up wages for lo skill jobs thus far"
    market forces push wages down not up for surplus jobseekers of whom loskill are the most surplus and they sure have worked
    Q "but u think that's cause there is hi unemployment"
    hi unemp = surplus jobseekers = surplus labor = scarce employment = employers in the driver's seat getting begged for jobs and by anxious people willing to work for les$
    Q "but both canada and usa keep the immigration gates open don't they"
    yep, thus easing us down into the third world - who the heck is in charge of immig anyway? 'course with all the humaninterest dba tearjerking stories it would take a secret vote on a binding public referendum...
    Q "not to mention the millions of illegals in the US [and Canada]...cornering the market [and pummeling the pay] in almost all entry level jobs.....that factor supposedly has kept lid on [and clobbered down] wages....what sayeth thou on this aspect?"
    Lord Timesizing sayeth that we need to devote one of the five phases of the Timesizing Program to dealing with immigration and the other "population variables" which can easily undermine even the best econocore design (like population explosion did to India in the 1920s), so Phase Five deals with exports, outsourcings, immigrants and births on webpage...let's see... Timesizing.com/1pluglek.htm
    "Q" credit to Marion of Ottawa, 4/29/2014/ph3

    As Neil DeGrasse Tyson says (4/27/2014 Cosmos, on Fox!): humans are good at pattern recognition, and here's some recognition of patterns that I had not all put together before...

    The first and most wannabe escapist... Harper has severely damaged the myth of Canada - peace-making leadership, openness (Soros' "open society"), democracy/good gov't. Harper has given Canada militarism, government secrecy and parliamentary proroguings. There was some government secrecy under Chrétien too, but at least it was smaller and more secret, so Chrétien basically maintained the myth of Canada and allowed people to retain more to believe in. Canada was a standard 15 years behind the U.S. in general self-destruction, instead of today's 10 or 5 or caught-up or pulling ahead. Now more Canadians are asking, where can we go that's safer? because it's going to be harder for Canada, as a ship one-tenth the size of the U.S. "Titanic" and right next to it with more cables ("free trade" vertical vs. transCanada horizontal circulation) tying it to the suicidal giant gradually sinking on the sword-like iceberg of relatively frozen, unprecedentedly huge slice of the money supply, to stay out of the downdraft when the U.S. fills with enough "water" through enough bulkheads and makes the "plunge".

    too long sent. in middle

    But the US is experiencing a drought, so it's not so much filling with "water", it's more like a buildup of necrotic money-starved cells throughout the non-financial sectors that just begins to slow down everything: closed businesses and foreclosed houses, downsized and foreclosed citizens, homeless beggars everywhere, growing dependence and violence and crime and prisons and debt... And the odd thing is, this is the second time a big drought has accompanied a big depression. But this time 80 years later, the American groundwater and ecosystem is more stressed by a larger population.

    The concentrated media ownership strains to belittle it, ignore it, distract from it, ridicule its whistleblowers, generate happytalk, warn threateningly to DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY! and that anyone who mentions any serious problems is actually creating them cuz "it's all just psychology" = blame the messenger.

    But it's getting harder and harder for the media moguls to do the damage control and keep control of the narrative because they still don't grasp the problem and their own and their buddies' key role in creating it and its continued spread and escalation and entrenching.

    The core design of our economy is still in the dark ages, even the caves, waaay back behind our computer technology and our electric vehicle technology and our destructive military technology and our destructive GMO technology and our overpopulating flawedlife-preserving medical technology and our unregulated-migration technology etc. etc. in that we are still growing the wage&spending-depressing labor surplus, taxing our shrinking consumer spending instead of our bloating financial sector and super-rich, and thereby continuing and accelerating the concentration of unlimitedly large percentages of our money supply among an unlimitedly small percentage of our population, and thus coagulating it and ourselves into the dread Black Hole economy, where everything beyond Wall Street goes dark and the non-financial sectors necrotize, and thence, with no foundations, Wall Street gets gangrene and necrotizes, just as the poor region of Detroit penetrated beyond the long-held border of 8th(?) street to 12th to 16th? etc., farther and farther into the northern suburbs, as described in the independent film last night "Revenge of the Electric Car."

    We see the same advance of the disease (gangrene? leprosy?) prior or parallel with the shrinkage of the American auto industry (Detroit) in the shrinkage of American manufacturing (thanks to downsizing not timesizing) and the shrinkage of the American housing industry (thanks to free trade) and the shrinkage of American small business (thanks to the scary spread of Wal-Mart and other money-coagulating diversity-diminishing cancer/kudzu korporations) and the shrinkage of American pensions and the shrinkage of American postal services and passenger rail and airline services and seat size and the shrinkage of American public libraries and newspapers and magazines jand symphony orchestras and the shrinkage of American colleges and universities, which have become mere makework anyway to please just keep young people out of the stressed job market as long as possible because we can no longer afford to ease the jobseeker surplus on the other end with earlier retirement, and the constant burdening of American consumers with more sales taxes and bank account fees and creditcard fees and DIY bank-tellering, phone-receptioning, travel-agenting, gas-pumping, supermarket checkout... and then our self-insulating and -isolating CEOs have the innocence to ask, where are our markets? where are our consumers? quirky consumers! why are they holding back?! so they switch from growing their markets to buying other companies' market share in a frenzy of M&As, after each of which they see overlap, and possible "savings", and do mass layoffs aka "leansizing", and in short, switch from growing their markets to shrinking their markets...

    This is a dangerous self-contradicting development as common interest and mutual trust diminish, and hacking and crime spreads and deepens. We have no convincing myth of common interest, "the center cannot hold, the falcon cannot hear the falconer... The best lack all conviction [think Gore's Y2K copout = not voting for himself in the Senate] while the worst are full of a passionate intensity [think Bush Jr.'s strutting 'mission accomplished' and 'helluva job Brownie!' etc.]" - wording from Yeats' 1921 poem, "The Second Coming". Änd what rough beast, its hour come round again, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?" Artists are sensing the exciting foreboding. The movies are full of violence and doom, on and on. But what's The Plan? Does anyone have a plan? The only one we know of is here, and here, and here, in succession.

    America is so severely damaged by Bush and the crash (Clinton's failure to veto the repeal of Glass-Steagall) - and the failure to investigate and cleanup either - that it has entered the long red giant stage in the death of a star. Compare those dwindling centuries of the Roman Empire. But similarly, nowhere else yet is smart enough to step up.

    Negotiating skill: blends with anger management?
    Thinking ahead of negotiating: get beyond what you don't want, to identifying what you want, and arrange plans A,B,C... in order of minimum necessary departure from desirable status quo at each point (/plan).
    And if poss., get inside other side's head; eg: girl who was inappropriately touched at work by guy engaged to another girl in the office, guy who turned sour after she had limit-setting chat with him, and started treating her rudely & mockingly, and turning the rest of the office against her = guy suffering from rejection anger and vengeance wish and/or guy trying to control his attractedness to her by belittling and blackening her.
    So for example, Plan A to test whether it's de-attracting behavior alone might be dressing down as nerdy or ugly;
    then Plan B, get reassigned to other side of office, and then Plan C, go to HR, and then Plan D "from guilt to quit" = quit and get another job (admittedly getting more difficult as the restored labor surplus cum work&pay coagulation and renewed plutocracy takes over)...

    In a world of over 7,000,000,000 people, the discipline, rigidities and stress of the old forgive'em70x7times cuz you're stuckinthevillagesostickwith'em strategy are obsolete.
    Divorce as moving on from a non-blood relationship has hugely expanded.
    And it seems that moving on from blood relationships is also beginning to expand and appropriately so.
    How many murders and damaged minds are caused by not taking a timely Move On option, both in marriages, AND in sibling, filial or other blood relationships?
    So, not just "let it be" but also "let it go".
    If somebody is "challenged" in their ability to treat you respectfully, by your definition/understanding thereof, we move from asta mañana to asta nunca (where asta means hasten/seeya/until) = from "until tomorrow" to "until never."

    Any population, an Amer-/Canadian Indian reservation for instance, however depressed, can pull itself up by its bootstraps if those "bootstraps" represent Keynes' multiplier effect, running in the positive direction thanks to maximized and optimized value (eg: currency) circulation, thanks to balancing programs such as Timesizing, and its successors.

    The best representation of accelerated and optimized circulation is probably a complete pseudosphere, ie: two pseudohemispheres balanced face to face, one taking centrally from the other and the other taking peripherally from the first, like the Earth's gravitational field.
    So just as the Earth's orbit around the Sun (Gaia's around Sol) is best represented not by a circle or an ellipse or even completely by an elliptical spiral but by a completed pseudosphere tracing an elliptical spiral, so with smaller economies within larger economies.

    Triplet, at LEAST! -
    1. The Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis says that your language determines the class of ideas that you can get.
    2. Keynes said that your income source limits the ideas that you can get. [get exact quote & ref, ditto above]
    3. I say that the active disparities, the variables and their degree of disparity, in your society currently impose creativity thresholds on your society beyond which it is VERY difficult to move. Compare the Universe, where it would take 87,000 years for current spacecraft despite their huge speeds to reach even the closest star, alpha centauri, according to deGrasse Tyson on tonight's Cosmos.

    Redistributing upward engages the Multiplier negatively.
    Redistributing downward engages the Multiplier positively.
    Why? Because the poor spend 100% of their income and the rich spend some vanishing fraction thereof, and consumer spending is the fastest circulating and most participation&cooperation-generating reinforcer of the correspondence of the symbol, money, to its basis = THE currency base = human life time.]

    The great advantage of buying direct from individuals on the Internet is that most people don't value what they have - because their world is "normal" to them and they assume it's the same for everybody. So they may have a bunch of rare stamps but they assume everyone does so they post it at a low price.
    Same for Newton and fluxions. Same for me and a redesigned economic core.

    Second childhood is bad enough, but second infancy is worse, much worse (which may be what second 'childhood' is actually referring to) - mainly because of the diapers, wielded by strangers. There must be a way to avoid this acute embarrassment, indignity, humiliation, f.ex. the *Hemlock Society or *Dr. Kevorkian.
    Death too is embarrassing and humiliating but at least you're not 'there' (conscious) to suffer it and it's all over with and quiet within a few weeks or days, instead of going on unexpectedly for months...
    In November, just four months ago, Muti was walking around her apt., albeit occasionally falling down and not being able to get up. Now 'only' four months later, it's quite different... From that viewpoint it seems like a short time.
    But from another viewpoint it seems like a long time. We thought we'd get her through Xmas and New Years and her 94th birthday, and that would be it, all done in little over a month. But then it was Presidents Day and then February. So she reached Valentines Day. And then March! And then St.Patricks. And now the vernal equinox... When will this end? Apparently it's not easy to die - unless it's by accident. Our lives are on hold or at least hypnotizing ourselves that ... "we don't want to go on a trip", "we don't want to go out of town"...
    Notice the shift from "we'd get her through" to "she reached." It's mostly all her that's doing the heavy lifting of survival now, or rather her tough genes. We go over and pretend everything's normal, sortof.
    And it will still be a shock when she finally manages to "take the option." Which is seeming less like an option and more like an imposition from the impersonal and unsympathetic and invisible level of...genes.
    Meanwhile it's all so close. I gotta get the next rev of my book done before...

    Just saw Carl Sagan's widow's new Cosmos (not Lynn Margulis of cell-revolution fame but his second wife, name nobody can remember, wait, it's coming...Ann Druyan?), not preaching to the converted on PBS but on the conservative Fox channel! This is impossible! = too hard on my cynicism! And hosted by a black man!! You gotta be kidding! And talking about the age of the Universe in terms of 13? billions of years and life 4? billions of years and humans hundreds of thousands of years instead of 4004 BC with Archbishop Ussher?! Gimme a break! And talking about dogs first, that humans first unintelligently, then intelligently, designed into thousands of different breeds in only 15,000? years, and therefore, what could happen unintelligently in hundreds of millions of years, or billions? And zooming-in on a bear's ovaries to the cell level (how many cells in our bodies?) and then zooming in another scale to the molecule level, and another scale to the atom level of the four-"letter" DNA language that builds the millions of different bodies of funguses, plants, animals, and us, on this planet?! This is much much harder to believe than Creation! Creation says God did it, in six days, thereby pushing away all the big questions one big Big step and saying, Don't ask! Evolution is much much much x 10(10) harder to believe than Creationism in terms of the smaller and larger size scales involved and in terms of the muuuch longer time scales involved. The chief problem is: trying to imagine the differences that can build up given the tininess of each individual change and the hugeness of the overall time scales available for the changes to build up, and of course, remembering that they're not starting from scratch each time but building on all the build-up that's gone before. This is sooo much harder to imagine, and therefore believe, than Creation! And hosted by a black man?! This may make it harder for southern whites to accept or even watch. It's like trying to imagine the United States of America with a black man as President! Utterly inconceivable!
    I got nervous when he went extraterrestrial, prematurely, to Titan (a moon of Saturn) with its nitrogen-methane atmosphere and ice mountains, but it enabled him to come back to Earth from a fresh Titan-based angle, compared to which Earth is strange.
    I have been waiting for this show all my life, and I want more, much more. And I want Ken Burns to do a history of the American workweek, whose story seems almost as unimaginable for people as that of DNA and evolution - that it should ever have been different from a sketchily enforced Forty Hours as it's been for the last 2 1/2 generations.

    We are biodegradable organic marionnettes controlled by biochemical puppetstrings that we lavishly romanticize.

    Met Sheila Murray of CACOR unexpectedly on the train. She's reading "100 Ideas" by Club of Rome (COR) founder Aurelio Peccei. The reaction that finally burbled up to consciousness the next day was, how can you possibly effectively deal with 100 agendas? And now I'm thinking, if Aurelia published this around 1974, it was probably a major factor in COR's ineffectuality in preventing overshoot&collapse over the next 40 years that the British chap complained of (by TV from London) at our conference in Ottawa last September. Stephen Leacock spoke of "jumping on your white horse and running off in all directions." Thoreau advised, Let your affairs be as two or three, and not as 100 or 1000." The COR needs to "pick its battles."

    And it never connected the dots between its basic metaphor of overshoot & collapse vs. sustainability, and the major driver behind overshoot&collapse aka resistance to sustainability ... livelihood. The Club of Rome never graduated from the basic metaphor of Give a man a fish... vs. Teach a man how to fish... to the updated version of the metaphor: Robotize fishing and cut half your fishermen-fishconsumers... vs. Robotize fishing and cut half the time all your fishermen-consumers are spending on fishing.

    Cal Watkins (indoeuropean prof @ harvard) affected the breezy air of that french?man in one of van gogh's paintings by wearing broadbrimmed hats.

    It's not a recovery. It's a system trick where even the wealthy have tricked themselves into thinking it's a recovery because their numbers are going up so much and they've repeatedly desensitized their trouble monitors. But it's not a recovery. It's a luddite nightmare, where wave after wave of worksaving, potentially liberating technology has been turned into the curse of job insecurity by kneejerk downsizing instead of kneejerk timesizing.

    Just as a lucky investor can "live on the float" between borrowing a sum and having to pay it back, we life forms live on the float, the ripples in entropy.
    In mother's knee terms, we live between inhalation and exhalation, between drinking and peeing, between food and faeces.
    The Universe is in denial of everything it does. Everything it does, it undoes, almost...
    The Universe continues, self-denyingly...
    The bodies in it that are dense are denied/balanced/zeroed by the much more voluminous space between them.
    How many coagulations and big bangs did it take the Universe to build sufficiently in both (opposite) directions, thesis-antithesis, to get to the point where it could support life, let alone us?
    "The great things of this world must once have been small." Lao Tzu

    "Faith is the substance of things unseen"?
    Linguistic analysis: if unseen=immaterial and substance=material, then substance of things unseen is a contradiction in terms, unless we assume "unseen by naked eye" and admit as substance things seen through microscopes, yielding an alternative statement for comparison:
    Particle physics is the substance of things unseen.

    Faith can be an illusion.
    Take the faith that there's an afterlife.
    If there's no afterlife, is there no hope?
    Only if illusion is hopeful, which it isn't for me.
    For me, back to: "The truth shall set you free."
    Free from what? Free from having to remember, and persuade yourself of, lies, for one thing.
    Free for what? Free for discovering other uncomfortable but plan-for-able truths.
    For me, better this kind of freedom than that kind of hope.

    You think I'm cynical (at least it's in the context of a serious solution!) - how about all the ways we "encourage" children - or at least get them ready for bad news?! -
    How about The Little Match Girl, by Hans Christian Anderson I think: ten matches and she's gone, frozen to death...
    Then there's: Rockabye baby, on the treetop [why the TOP?!]; when the wind blows, the cradle will rock [oh yeah, near-rhyme]; when the bough breaks, the cradle will fall; down will come baby, cradle and all.
    Then there's: Now I lay me down to sleep; I pray the Lord my soul to keep; if I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take.
    And come to think of it, there's also: Jesus bids us shine, with a pure clear light,
    Like a little can-dle, burning in the night;
    In this world of darkness, so let us shine -
    You in your small corner, and I in mine.

    We can talk "balance side" economics, but why is demand side valid and not supply side? Think about the question, Is there a market for it? This means, is there a demand for it; not, is there a supply of it. Demand leads. But there have long been suppliers getting uppity, way back at last as far as Jean-Baptiste Say and Say's Law, then leaping ahead to "If you build it, they will come." Translation: if you produce it, it will sell. This leads to the arrogance of talking only about productivity and not observing the discipline of speaking only of marketable productivity. Note also Edison's early experience of inventing an honest vote-counting machine but finding so little demand for it, and being out all his time and money for develping the invention, he resolved to always check on demand for a product idea first before going to all the trouble of developing it into an invention, a supply. So this means that Say's Law of Markets is wrong, certainly in the tough form of "supply creates its own demand" but also in its softened-up version of "there can be no demand without supply." CEOs and inventors always make as sure as they can that there is a latent demand for something before they swan dive into a potentially empty pool. This concept of latent demand and businessmen's attempt to be as sure as possible of it before major investment in a new idea, tolls the deathknell for Say's arrogantly named "Law." But once Say's arrogance takes root, CEOs think they don't need everyone else but everyone else needs them. They don't need employees, they don't need jobs, they don't need customers, they don't need a consumer base, they don't need a non-financial business sector. They only need a financial sector, i.e., themselves.

    Another function of religion heretofore unappreciated by moi : if it promises an afterlife, it eases the end of life ("passing from this life") and avoids a looong costly goodbye.

    What a strange sick America, where we're all upset about bullying among children when throughout our economy, CEOs, spoiled by a flood of resumes, think it's macho to bully employees, and chop their livelihoods - nevermind that each employee whom they "leansize" or "rightsize" switches at least another half a consumer into slow motion. At least as yet, they haven't gone back from chopping livelihoods to chopping lives.

    In war, your greatest enemy is your own chain of commanders.
    [Recalling the deadly week that Grannie Dearborn left his men on ships in storms off Toronto in 1813.]

    Time is a tightly coiled spiral within a simillar spiral and enclosing a similar spiral.

    How bad do we want life in this country to get - that's the basic question - before we acknowledge the "elephant in the room" = jobs, and realize how easy it would be to adjust the workweek against unemployment - more unemployment, less workweek - and get busy converting chronic overtime into training and hiring? Workaholic individuals want to keep working? They CAN - IF they have deflationary and not inflationary incentive, as proven by their continuous reinvestment of 100% of their overwork earnings in hiring to make sure there's no skill bottleneck developing (and training whenever qualified candidates are unavailable).

    Today's anarchist "conservatives" continue to let money pile up uselessly but without limit on a tiny population of the richest, while the society, economy and ecology around their gated enclaves and private islands continues to deteriorate, and by allowing easy access to guns, they are absolutely begging for the biggest class warfare cum civil war in world history. Let us seek a playlist from The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, by my kinsman, Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon and puritanical Lord High Chancellor for seven years under the emphatically non-puritanical merrie monarch, Charles II.

    Nothing is so pathetic as dinosaur-brains like Sarkozy and Merkel trying to maintain an antique, frozen, pre-technology workweek in the age of robotics (and the anglophone economies are beneath mention).
    This increasingly strained effort is so outrageous, no one is getting any benefit from technological productivity including the wealthy who are scooping up sooo much of the money that isn't going to the overavailable working hours that money has become trivial and meaningless to them, and they are making more and more mistakes, like Bush Sr's ignorance of scanning at the supermarket register and Romney's casual mention of his home automobile elevator, giving rise to Granholm's wonderful *gibe, "In Romney's world, cars get the elevator and workers get the shaft."

    Life is a thousand tiny adjustments.

    Why, so often, does sadism creep in and class warfare begin, initiated, always, by outrageous behavior on the part of the wealthy?
    It's as if humans (or lifeforms in general?) have a thirst for hierarchy, pecking order. Which can be good - to have a leader, someplace where the buck stops (or rather, where the bag stops, as in, left holding the bag, or maybe, where the hot potato stops).
    But the danger so often realized is that the Top Men will get to a point where they have all they could possibly want and the only way to increase the distance between them and continue their illusion of personal progress is to increase the downward distance = make those under them suffer more, worsen their lives so one's own seems better by comparison.
    I wonder if this is how sadism creeps in and class warfare begins?
    It's when Bill Gates gets bored with throwing massive trifle$ to massive charities, and wants some more gut-grabbing action - invent a new coliseum. Make those poor buggers SUFFER! And pretend they CHOSE their lot.

    So when there is international warfare, some of the poor get killed but the survivors benefit from the shortage of labor and rising wages.
    But sometimes wealthy idealists try to tie nations together by trade to prevent war.
    But that just changes international warfare into class warfare: the poor no longer get dressed up in uniforms and killed but now their nation is in a race to the bottom, which worsens their lives.
    (This in response to today's story from Japanese Times: ‘Creative’ rules for work hours urged' (ie: "pay only a certain amount of salary regardless of working hours" - the Japanese are copying more and more of our suicidal worst practices - where's Ed Deming when they really need him? Come to think of it, where's Ed Deming when WE really need him?)

    Another potential title or subtitle (New Metaphors for an Old Economy -) Managing "Shortage" - of Labor
    I used to rebel against the idea that The Economic Problem is shortage, as per Heilbroner's book title, but putting it together with Dahlberg's insight that capitalism only runs well on an employer-perceived shortage of labor to maintain or raise wages and centrifugation/deconcentration/decoagulation/reactivation/reacceleration of the money supply (and runs poorly on a shortage of jobs), I guess I have to back off.
    This opens another strange application of Chesterton's pan-utopian flaw: some people, employers for instance, want more than their share of discounts, on wages for instance. Yet in this area, there are repercussions, because the more discount they, as employers, get, the less markets they, as merchants, get. And a negative multiplier effect can start up since the money they save on wages goes to them and their investors = higher on the income ladder, and not to their employees = lower of the income ladder. And no one seems to make much of this but there's an all-important corollary here = as money distributes up the income ladder it changes function from spending power to investing power. And investing power has two critical differences from spending power = it circulates in much larger chunks and it circulates relatively much less frequently. These considerations are the keys to the negative multiplier.
    The the larger the amounts of money (or credit) in circulation and the slower their circulation, the greater the negative multiplier effect. (And v.v.)
    The wealthy try to offset this by claiming that they "get it right back to work creating jobs" but a fad or fashion can come over the wealthy (and apparently does with Kondratieff-wave regularity) where they don't care about jobs, don't understand jobs' necessity in the foundation of their wealth, and start to drift off on soft clouds of insulation and isolation, with all kinds of arrogant assumptions growing like Topsy. At which times, the killer rebuttal to their wannabe-offsetting claim is, where are the jobs?
    And this is a self-feeding process because of the growing insulation and isolation of the wealthy, and the apparent lack of limits on the funneling and coagulation of the money supply, so the depression gets deeper and deeper with the dismissal or denial on the part of the wealthy getting stronger and deeper.

    The doomdujour section of my website is daily rebutting from many angles the critics of my political campaigns who called me a one-issue candidate - but this one issue affects EVERYTHING.

    Timesizing gets the multiplier effect going upwards whereas now it's going downwards due to the overconcentration of money supplies.
    Title: New Metaphors for Global and National Economies - Getting the multiplier effect working upward instead of downward

    Costs (such as medical) can never effectively be controlled in a labor-surplus M1-coagulating economy because those in the topmost bracket have relatively unlimited money and power and the Great Leak Upward is omnipotently voracious - the super rich are just playing a numbers game with no limits from labor shortage, and they will keep raising prices as high as some market niche or other will support, however vanishing. We must restore an employer-perceived labor shortage for capitalism to return to functionality. And the initial leverage point is the share per person per time unit of natural market-demanded employment; in other words, the workweek.

    Scholars/experts I've criticized: Thos. Kuhn for not having an index (and when one appeared, it sucked, and then of course I my lofty sacrosanct perfect brilliant and (g)utterly modest Self came out without an index in 1998 much to my pain and humiliation but whine, I just didn't have the time if I wanted SOMEthing by the Democratic primary and it seemed indexLESS or nought-at-all); Herman Daly for laying low (as I thot) instead of continuing his Big Splash regarding Steady State Economics; Juliet Schor for going "off issue" from The Overworked America to The Overspent American and John DeGraaf for going off from shorter hours to Happiness lalala, tho' both, especially Juliet, have got back "on issue"; and then of course, the Club of Rome, Bucky Fuller, Keynes, unionists, leftists, rightists and almost everyone else for never getting "on issue" in the first place.
    Who's had la Temeritay to criticized me, Moi the Great? Rick Berman(right name?) of Star Trek, for one, for presuming to know the general outlines of the future - if it turns out well.
    Also, some know-it-all NYT reporter/journalist (it'll come back to me LOL) who called me a conspiracy theorist, probably for entertaining doubts about the official narrative explaining (away) 9-11.

    There is something more important The Truth = what we agree on, here and now; and that is, What Continues.
    The question, "If a branch falls to the ground in the forest and no one is there to notice it, does it really still make a sound?" betrays the extreme lengths of human arrogance and naivete.
    99.999999999repeater percent of the universe does not have the equipment to "notice" or hear things, yet - THERE IT IS when some vanishingly minuscule part evolves such equipment and gets around to noticing it, and has the supreme unmitigated gall to think itself the sine-qua-non reality. Give the whole species a good gobsmack!
    Truly, "I am a biodegradable organic robot with attitude and illusion, AND TOO MUCH OF BOTH!"
    (12/01 fm bfr)

    I want to describe a series of books I wish someone else would write. The most important to start with is one that tells how to get the US economy (and by imitation, any national economy) sustainable = spiralling diagonally upward instead of diagonally downward - and gradually also the global economy, by cumulation of sustainable national economies and synergies across them all. (Btw, the proper metaphor for time is a spiral - within a spiral within a spiral - NOT a "time line".) Start with a short&sweet pamphlet with paragraph-sized "chapters" that can be enhanced as the spirit moves, just as DaVinci dabbed at the Mona Lisa as he passed it on the way in and out of his apartment.

    New Metaphors for the Economy
    (compare Sismondi, New Principles)
    eg: level playing field (most important one never mentioned = employers:employees), sports league's reset, ...
    Start with explanation and explanatory metaphors about the COAGULATION rather than circulation of the money supply (M1), regardless of M1's scale or artificially expanding it (QE1,2,3etc) = the key paradoxical easytonotget dysfunctionality we are daily sinking deeperinto - I did a squib on this in response to a TG article on inequality on 11/08/2013 #2.
    For example (11/25) -

    The most important consideration in observing the behavior of large economic systems is the long-term tendency of such systems to eutrophy like ponds filling with waterlilies and their detritus and gradually getting shallower and shallower until they evolve from wetlands into meadows. Similarly, a larger and larger percentage of the money supply coagulates among the topmost brackets and slows down in circulation until its circulation can no longer support the buying power of the componentized black hole of money turgidly slipping through the center of the economy like the mineral convection at the center of a Moon-sized planetoid or satellite.
    Convective circulation of a money supply depends on employment in terms of percentage of the population in market-demanded remunerated activity, however small a percentage of their overall activity this may require, and on the subsequent spending of that employed percentage, hopefully maximized.
    What stabilizes is the percentage of people who "buy in", who agree JC don Juan Matus, not the of their time that is controlled.
    And system integrity and stability and sustainability and survivability depends on the speed and diversity of that convective circulation.

    [Looking f ex @ Paul Krugman's attack on austerity in the NY Revu of Bks, there's a basic situation that his metaphors and attention ignore, dealing only with more trivial and superficial levels: the power&money gradient btw emplrs & emplees due to their relative supply&demand = there is more demand for emplrs than the supply of them, and there is less demand for emplees than the supply of them. But the supply and demand in each case is gated thru a rationing or sharing mechanism that is generally ignored these days, the restriction of emplrs to only 40hrs of each emplee's week.]13/24 Then it should point to the connection between decoagulation and labor shortage throughout history, and point out the dismal ways that labor shortage was usually achieved = plague and war, referencing Dahlberg's later chapter.
    Then it should direct attention to a smart way of achieving that magic labor shortage, worktime reduction, again referencing Dahlberg.
    Then a chapter on the history of the American workweek.
    ' Then 5 chapters on the 5-phase gov't version, gleaning best practice from historical experience.
    Then chapters on the positive private-sector runup.
    Then chapters on the current government halfway steps (state worksharing).
    Then a chapter on the negative private-sector runup = "it's happening anyway but not the best way" so let's get ahold of this.

    These are the generations of the ecological humans, who looked for satisfaction in competition with their past selves instead of with their present "others." This they defined as progress, while the others outdid one another in a race to the bottom. To end the stupidity of fostering suffering so they could strive for the minimal goals of "misery loves company" and "it could be worse" and "at least we're better off than them!" - and the thinness of the excuse that "they chose poverty" or "they're just lazy," they decided to move on not only from control mechanisms based on threatening lives to threatening livelihoods but away from external control mechanisms to internal common-interest anchors, and further, away from pecking-order ranking based on livelihoods to ranking based on versatility.

    The basic plotline or process&goal of the Universe, of existence, is continuity. But continuity can manifest, or be interpreted (by "intelligent" beings), in an extremely large number of ways.

    The Unmaking (& easy remaking) of America
    ca.11/15/2013 title idea

    I dreamt I was a messenger along a small curving peninsula (cf. York/early Toronto) and trying to get past slow people as in the passageways on the train, and I came up to a mansion, went in and over to other side and up into a sort of interior bridge over a small river with a strong current forward, and turned around dream-forward and watched as two others like me, with prestige, jumped one, then the other, into the torrent a ways above a falls, wanting me to also, the first going along the flat part and over the falls and the last stopping at a corner of the house and shouting "Don't even go over, just get stuck beside the current by the corner like me, and don't try too hard" ... for what purpose the whole exercise?? then a slight scene change to L front still looking back toward original viewpoint of messenger and peninsula, less pressure to fling myself in, thank goodness - then back? carrying something along the curved path again, trying to get past slow people gracefully, in part flying past, into mansion again, up 3-4 little steps, an attractive woman ahead of me reaches around and closes the oldfashioned carved wooden gate at the top of the steps behind me (the whole place is old dark carved wood), slightly presumptuously (possibly to keep me near her?), but I need to be downstairs again now that some new action has started, groups of musicians are gathering in different sections of the big floor below, I'm getting, music stands? for the various groups of musicians(=scientists)? no, bases(? = metaphors) for them to stand on, and these square black bases double as bathroom scales, to judge the musicians' relative weight (importance?) - and sometimes I'm flying past people to get it done efficienctly and quickly, and I sense that the woman is much impressed - here's someone who actually has a life, a worthy battle/goal - but wants to revive the falls dare or something similar and risk again - for her - but I say, Madam, I don't accept dares from women, and ladies don't ask.

    I too am caught in this thing called LIFE, and a large part of it is self-morale management, which goes a lot easier with a refocus on Beauty and Love, Peace and Harmony when their opposites intrude - but I studied the Bible in the original languages and discovered that the origin of the word "spirit" was the physical breath of a living body, in Hebrew "ruach" as in "ruach Elohim" (breath of God) and Greek "pneuma" as in "pneumatic tires," and in fact as in English-from-latin "respiration." The Hebrew trio of spirit-heart-soul was "ruach-lebhab-nephesh" which my Hebrew professor (Bill Staples, VictoriaCollege '60-61, Tor.) compared to sails-rudder-wholeship or direction-energy-wholeperson. Physiologically, sadness-expressing weeping is slow respiration, as in booo-hooo, and happiness-expressing laughter is fast respiration, as in hahahaha. Maybe raising one's respiration rate from weeping to laughter is where the phrase "raise your spirits" comes from (though they're the same basic process = breathing!), and since alcohol does that for many people, the word "spirits" gets applied to hard liquor.
    From: M-E
    I am looking at LIFE and spiritual Beauty and Love, Peace and Harmony as a necessary 'glue'...

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: RP Hyde
    To: M-E
    Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013
    Subject: Re: God Whispers

    I was always a theist (or deist?) all my life and I'm still open to that cuz, who knows? but now I'm trying evolutionism on the idea that the God idea just pushes all the big questions back one huge level and says, Don't ask! For me, facing all the big questions here and now helps my self-morale-mgmt, because at one and the same time I realize more of what is involved in my being here - I'm the beneficiary of 3 1/2 billion years of biological evolution and much longer of physical evolution - but I may be merely and completely a product of it too - with no entitlement to an easy life or an almighty Parent to run to and get comfort from or complain/whine to and get redress or vindication from. So back to being the beneficiary of this unimaginably long, unimaginably comples series of events, that strangely, I had nothing that I know of to do with - but by every oath in every language, I better appreciate and waste as little as possible. Thinking of the enormity of this responsibility is so overwhelming that I have to quickly come back to the banality of everyday life, but the enormity of facing it here and now rather than cordoning it off as "God" and questionlessly praising it on some high or low frequency seems much preferable and more appropriate to me.

    We know from microscopes and electron microscopes and particle colliders that there are levels and levels and levels smaller than what we can see and that we would regard as nothing throughout most of human history & prehistory. And with just one non-principle principle = "continue" - and whatever continues better continues better, we can explain all the stuff we see around us, ourselves, and all the stuff we see out in the night sky and through the electron microscope etc. So I'm currently interviewing/trying out a self-definition as a biodegradable organic robot with Attitude and Illusion...and too much of both!

    We often hear calls for structural reform of economies when persistent problems are listed, such as "slow" recovery or weak markets or mounting externalities. However, there is little clarity about what might constitute structural reform and we continue with fairly superficial measures such as central-bank bailouts or traditional investigations and cleanups.
    This quick presentation is designed to provide an idea of what an adequate structural reform might look like, so we have a fairly developed Plan B to fall back on if we get bored with the ongoing inadequacy of all the more familiar and traditional nostrums.
    The source of this presentation is a maverick subdiscipline of economics that might be called worktime economics. Its key feature is something that the mainstream today often paints as undesirable or problematic, namely, full employment, and using a tool that the mainstream today often ridicules, namely the adjustment of worktime per person. This is a long tradition in the mainstream, funded as it is by the "captains of industry," who, as Kalecki points out, sometimes go overboard in their fear of change and their love of control, even if it's just idle face time they're getting rather than real productivity. Its attraction, however, is that it resolves the biggest obstacle to the most environmental initiatives, namely fear of job loss (and occasionally, threat of job loss).

    Hmm, there are at least three Biblical references to the value of naivete:
    - out of the mouth of babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected truth
    - a little child shall lead them
    - except ye become as little children, ye shall not enter God's kingdom -
    I've never assembled these before, never realized there was so much affirmation of this concept from the Great Idea Hatrack.
    And then it's confirmed by Lao Tzu:
    - moderate your extreme brilliance, so that the people do not feel your weight
    - the sage knows how, by his words, to place himself behind the people (=lead from behind?), so the people all say, we have done it ourselves
    - the sage does nothing, and yet, nothing remains undone

    The fact is, the kind of facile electronic possibilities we've got (including snooping and phishing) demands a LOT more trust than is warranted. Online banking? You've gotta be a gullible Pollyanna! We need a much simpler and more general anchor of common interest than we have, and Timesizing provides one in terms of a common safe workweek range, and an accountably evolving definition of natural "person," after 3-4 balancing programs robust enough to retire the very dangerous admittance of corporations as artificial persons.

    Note these two outlier areas to include smoothly in story ifnot elevator speech: need lose corporate personhood as part of installation of running reset, and need change fundamental entitlement arrangements per thirdway.org.

    The Economist mag (Towards the end of poverty, 6/01/2013, p.11) has come out with another self-congratulatory article about ending poverty or rather "extreme poverty" with little (any??) mention of JOBS, let alone job design, and therefore little reliance on reset = entitlement/ownership change and much reliance on charity cum dependence/parasitism cum classism cum increasing instability and unsustainability.
    So I must remember this late-night program I saw a couple of nights ago on inventions called ... flailing pages of WGBH June mag to find where I scribbled this on the margins ... *Everyday Edisons of Charlotte NC, where a guy came up with a great new prosthetic hand not needing batteries for a friend of his with just a hook, and was helped by a company in Texas called...googling...*Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics Inc. in Austin TX.

    Why the mentions in the top left paragraph on the homepage of CIA and MI-6 etc.?
    Because countries are usually brought down by lethal internal flaws, and internal problems are most often precluded by democracy thanks to the volume of early-warning negative feedback, and most often exacerbated by some form of plutocracy, whether gift wrapped in aristocracy or plain unmarked envelopes.
    The websites of the CIA and MI6 and their many imitators rationalize all their secrecy and unaccountability and above-the-law-ishness by their claim to be protecting the interests of their country. This kinda throws the justification for all their secret license and liberty onto the lack of lethal internal flaws of their host nation.
    And these days, their host nations in general, US and UK, and their governments in particular, are in the process of shifting back from more democracy to more plutocracy.
    Ergo, the secret services are going to continue to be irrelevant in protecting the security and prosperity of their host nations as long as the governments of their host nations are shifting back

    CNN News headline: "America's Race Problem": 5:50pm 6/29/2013
    Race is a distraction, gender identification (gay rights) is a distraction, age is a distraction, religion or lack thereof is a distraction - all are distractions from the real problem, namely, diverging income-wealth-credit brackets,
    which has not proven addressable by loans, much as we'd like to believe that mega- or micro-lending is a silver bullet, because loans and credit, and that includes stocks and bonds and the whole ownership-freezing, entitlement-perpetuating financial sector, do not change the entitlement deep-structure, as amply diagnosed by the *Third Way thinktank. This is the killer answer to the limitations of Gilles' Tobin Tax or interest limitation, compared to worksharing and timesizing.
    And the easiest intervention-point to change the entitlement deep structure is not way down the river at low-income housing or food stamps or free laptops, but back at the money source, jobs, and that's where emergency worksharing and permanent timesizing come in.

    Great book or talk title: "What 'Thinking Outside the Box' Really Looks Like: Worktime Economics, Economists' 200-Year Old Cinderella"

    Belief in God is just a relatively easy way (relative to a trip to the Galapagos and the Burgess Shale, access to an electron microscope and a cyclotron) of getting the illusion that you've answered all the Big Questions, even though belief in God just pushes them all back one huge step and says, Don't Ask.

    Old Principal Earl S. Lautenschlager of Emmanuel Theological College in Toronto in the 1960s used to say, "For the first half of my ministry I was too young for anybody to listen to, and for the second half I was too old."
    Compare Kate's sagesse yesterday (or Sat?): "For the first half of your life you think it's all about what you do and say in life.
    But in the second half you realize it's all about what you don't do or say that allows you to get along with people."

    We constantly pay lip service to individuals under the guise of "entrepreneurs" for their innovation potential, but we constantly block them with our institutions and institutional politics, and all the job insecurity behind it, both in terms of advancement and the basic jobs' existence. We've advanced from threatening people's lives to threatening people's livelihoods.

    Does biology have more advancement potential than physics today? Or is this impression just an accident of pulling two interesting titles off Kate's bookshelf, finding in the first all kinds of arrogant confusion (Brian Greene's Elegant Universe) - which has made a virtue of enigma and mysteriousness of a sort that requires absolute belief in and trust in the speaker for proper interpretation exactly as priests throughout history and witch doctors before them operated - and turning in the second title (Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life) to pictures of my favorite sea creature from ancient times, here identified as Opabinia (p.126ff) with all kinds of (possibly bogus but there-it-is-in-print) wonder and humility about the importance of scientific correction, even at fundamental levels. For example,
    "...science is a process of correction..." (footnote, p.129), and
    "Continuous interest in Opabinia has not been accompanied by critical study of the specimens, so that fancy has not been inhibited by facts." (quote from Whittington on p.132),
    which can be paraphrased for application to physics like this -
    Continuous interest in the time dimension (the measurement of activity and/or inactivity) has not been accompanied by critical study of the underlying linguistic paradigms, so that fancy has not been inhibited by facts.
    Gould believes that "the transformation[?] of the Burgess Shale did have...a key discovery that can separate a before and an after" (p.130) and that this discovery was published by Harry Whittington in a technical monograph in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London) in 1975 called "The enigmatic animal Opabinia regalis."
    I believe that the transformation of the time dimension did have...a key discovery that can separate a before and an after" (p.130) and that this discovery was published by Harry Whittington in a technical monograph in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London) in 1975 called "The enigmatic animal Opabinia regalis."

    Einstein made three fundamental errors in the special and general theories of relativity. He (A) introduced a second unacknowledged viewpoint, which he slipped over to without notice at arbitrary moments (riding on the light beam and watching the ride). And that was possible because (B) he did not insist on using a whole-measuredmotion-comprehending, big enough clock to match the scale of the motion being measured, that of photons, which would require our galaxy or local cluster as a clock comprehending enough clock spirals to match all those being bypassed/passed-thru/dismissed/violated by the speeds and travel distances of the photons being described. And this was possible because (C) he took as the basic metaphor for both photon travel (form of energy = 6th dimensional) and "time travel" (form of momentum = 5th dimensional) was the line; not only the "time line" or "linearity of time" but also "light distance," when actually time on Earth surface is a rotating bead (day) moving around a necklace (year) = a spiralling around an oval (the oval of Earth-center's orbit round the Sun), which if we refocus up a level, itself becomes a spiralling around an oval (the oval of Earth-orbit's center's orbit around Milky Way center or an intermediate superstar-center such as Sirius).
    So Einstein plunged physics into a fundamental contradiction by attacking the constancy of time, whose whole usefulness to him as a measuring standard depended on ... the constancy of time.
    So at one and the same time he was confirming and denying Newton.

    Key sciences in our times have embraced huge fundamental contradictions and pushed them below the radar (because of job insecurity): physics and economics. But maybe biology (above) can come to our rescue and provide a model for restoring them.

    It's a time of sacrificing the center for the edges - consumers (high monetary velocity) for investors (low velocity) = sacrificing spending power for investing power,
    also sacrificing the consumer base (70% of GDP) for the trade sector (17%)

    And new way to control inflation now that interest rates are zero = impoverish the consumer base via the employment basement, thereby cut demand for products and services, thereby build deflationary pressures to counterbalance inflationary pressures from central bank's (Fed's) massive money printing - but weaker consumer spending = weaker consumer markets = less marketable productivity = less anchor/foundation for investment.

    The easiest for our minds to understand is that the small evolved before the large.
    Lots and lots (it would be a huge understatment to say this is a huge understatement) of small congregated into a megamongo teenytiny Big-Bangable black hole till it was easier to blow outward than inward, and blow outward it did, whoo-eeee!

    The universe is lazy - it always takes the easiest path.
    And the existence of God, an Entity Who must have evolved like everything/everyone else, is difficult.
    It's a lot easier to imagine that God was a byproduct of the evolution of language than that a separate more traditionally imagined/believed-in GOD evolved.
    And let's recall our basic confession of faith:   belief in God just pushes all the big questions back one huge level and says, Don't Ask!

    Loooong-term continuity and sustainability and survivability requires very long-term trial and error balancing, or shorter-term, great balancing skill on the part of the brains in a given social system. Balancing skill requires "knowing when enough's enough." The only variable where this does not apply is the non-variable variable, continuity. When a society has evolved into simplistically maximizing any given variable besides continuity as a societal or individual goal (eg: an alternative variable such as individual wealth), then it neglects the system requirement of Knowing When Enough's Enough and it deteriorates its own continuity.

    The key is knowing when enough is Enough (for sustainability), so that you change the game before you get into Too Much (for sustainability).
    This is the subsumed problem in the Chesterton pan-utopian flaw (CPUF) (the aspect that makes it a trap): granted that we cannot assume that no one will want (and tend to get) more than his/her share (and this phenomenon will be even more likely when share has not been defined or even its dimension and units identified).
    But assuming its key current dimension and units have been identified, the CPUF merges-converges with "not knowing when enough's enough," at least not since Mommy told us "OK, enough's enough!" The "share" concept's quintessential function is to define Enough (for sustainability).

    In the second half, the name of the game is stretching longevity, which means convincing the majority of your cells, or at least the major control cells, that they still have a chance at the basic game of the Universe: the only nongame game, continuity. Whatever continues, (trivially) continues; and whatever continues better, (trivially) continues better. So they should not trigger and engage their self-termination subroutinue.

    Lily Tomlin: "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up."

    Belief in God is a big self-flattery - to think that everything had to start or continue by the operations of "mind" &/or "deliberately" by design when almost everything is still happening by itself! - including all the processes in our own bodies that support our vaunted minds.
    God is a concept with which we have calmed and comforted and rationalized ourselves and reduced the huge awe and wonder +/- fear/anxiety of our situation.
    I want to KNOW if I have cancer and have only 6 months to live because I'm a control freak.
    And you can't have control without information - but belief in God just pushes all the big questions back one huge level and roars, "DON'T ASK!"
    I used to think, if I am a Person, God is certainly no less than me and therefore more of a Person than I am.
    But such assumptions! That I could not have arisen merely by the effects of "mere" Continuity over extreme expanses of time - and births and couplings and deaths. And "whatever continues better, continues better!"
    Complex me can arise from the cumulative effects of the simple principle of continuity over vast expanses of time.

    We have heard plenty from the shorter-hours pleaders and beggars and it hasn't worked.
    Now we need to hear from the economic cardiologists and oncologists about system requirements.

    On Tuesday 5/28 in response to an article called "Innovative approach needed to preserve jobs" by an Aussie in Narrabundah, I put together the most complete "elevator speech" yet, for the first time tying in the positive side-effect of reversing recession-causing overconcentration of the money supply and the positive side-effect of preventing the inflation due to full employment that economists fear:

    "Our two key design innovations (the second we trace back to Walter Reuther) are: (1) automatically converting chronic overtime into OT-targeted training and jobs, and (2) adjusting the workweek to create enough overtime conversion to achieve full employment. This will have the same "wartime prosperity" effect as World War II without the war, because (a) wages will be sustained and raised by the lack of anxious floods of jobseekers and (b) consumer spending will be maximized because the lower your income bracket, the higher the percentage of your income you spend (and v.v.), and that maximized spending will maximize in turn the marketable productivity needed for sustainable and potentially profitable investment. The full employment guaranteed by this overtime conversion and workweek adjustment will not trigger wage-push inflation because the proliferation of training and job openings will enable - and the workweek cap will incentivate - job mobility to earn more within straight time before convertible overtime cuts in, and job mobility will result in more people finding jobs they enjoy (deflationary) and not just doing them for the money (inflationary)."

    Then early Wednesday 5/29 in response to an email from BetterFutureProject.org that wanted me to subscribe to their newsletter focused on global warming, I outlined why timesizing is the priority of priorities:

    "Thanks for the invite-to-subscribe. However, we feel our economy will go critical before our ecology, or rather that onepercenters' unlimited funneling of the money supply to their own few powerful cushioned statusquo-preserving selves has &/or will critically obstruct all timely efforts to address looming sustainability-cascades throughout the biosphere, and that this needs to be addressed as The Priority of priorities. It's great you're working on climate change, which is a good candidate for #1 on the list of ecological priorities, but the "black-hole economy" of tightly coagulated money and power and solution-resistance is still the ink and paper of the list. In short, our current power structure being what it is, we are never going to get to serious consideration of your agenda, except in terms of "100 things you can do as an INDIVIDUAL to save the Earth," while hyperconcentrated wealth&power take massive SYSTEMIC steps, like terminator-seed development, that are exponentiating progress toward extinguishing all large life-forms in the biosphere, including us. However, our "timesizing not downsizing" agenda is a prerequisite systemic step. Additionally, people can't look even a year or two ahead to climate change when they're anxious about their job or desperate about their shelter or their next meal. And the self-cloaking and complicating and camouflaging clique on Wall Street require the millions of watchdogs that Timesizing's additional free time and spending money can unleash. We know of thousands of people diagnosizing the economic problems but we know of no one else who has designed a comprehensive strategic solution and is working on recognizing its ubiquitous protean proto-implementations and encouraging fuller implementations. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of organizations working on climate change, and following Bucky Fuller's advice to the effect that, if someone else is working on it, it's not the most important thing for you to work on, we'll "pick our battles" and politely decline your invite to subscribe."

    Then early today 5/30 I emailed Peter Sagan who has the PBS series on the U.S. Constitution:

    "Maybe the political designers who wrote the Constitution & helped separate Church & State hoped that ECONOMIC designers would build on their work and help separate State & Market, so economies would quit grinding into reces-/depres-sion from the wealthiest funneling unlimitedly large percentages of the money supply to unlimitedly small percentages of the population, themselves, who spend a smaller fraction of their money than any lower bracket, and thus lessen consumer spending, weaken MARKETABLE productivity and shrink the options they have for sustainable investment targets. And the longer a few of them take to 'get all that money right back to work creating jobs,' the longer millions in the 99% take to find a job and restore their previous level of consumer spending. The challenge of building on our political Constitution by designing an economic constitution would require diagraming our current economic design, pinpointing the minimal relevant core and designing the minimum modification (plus series of minimum necessary upgrades & transition cues?) needed to redirect upward our diagonally downward economic spiral, each of whose up-arcs is spun as 'Recovery!' with more & more creative accounting and 'externalizing' the bad stuff needed to support the rejoicing. Timesizing.com has an example of an upgradeable "economic constitution" on the web."

    Still too condensed but getting there?

    Here's the shortest, most complete presentation of Timesizing yet, for the first time tying in smoothly its positive side effect of reversing the recession-causing overconcentration of the money supply and its positive side effect of preventing the inflationary effect of full employment that economists fear:

    Our two key design innovations (the second we trace back to Walter Reuther) are: (1) automatically converting chronic overtime into OT-targeted training and jobs, and (2) adjusting the workweek to create enough overtime conversion to achieve full employment. This will have the same "wartime prosperity" effect as World War II without the war, because (a) wages will be sustained and raised by the lack of anxious floods of jobseekers and (b) consumer spending will be maximized because the lower your income bracket, the higher the percentage of your income you spend (and v.v.), and that maximized spending will maximize in turn the marketable productivity needed for sustainable and potentially profitable investment. The full employment guaranteed by this overtime conversion and workweek adjustment will not trigger wage-push inflation because the proliferation of training and job openings will enable - and the workweek cap will incentivate - job mobility to earn more within straight time before convertible overtime cuts in, and job mobility will result in more people finding jobs they enjoy (deflationary) and not just doing them for the money (inflationary).
    5/29/2013/ph3 (written today in response to article/letter by Ted Cole of Narrabundah, Australia)

    One good thing: Bernanke is at least slowing the plutocracy's further impoverishment of their own consumer base by fooling them with the ever-higher figures that roll past their dazzled eyes from all his money-printing & -nudging in their direction, not to mention his distraction of onepercenters from faster monetary funneling & decirculation with his irrelevant interest-rate pronouncements.

    Short cartoons that made long-lasting impressions -
    Little Toot
    Johnny Appleseed
    Johnny Fedora and Suzie Bluebonnet
    Pecos Bill and Suzie ___ (imprinted concept of the "bustle")
    (saw these last two on Sunday for first time in 60 years)

    "Austerity" may be defined as "pain for others" or "pain for the powerless" - and of course, that doesn't work because pain for them translates into monetary decirculation and unhealthy investments.

    Again, with regard to the kneejerk rejection-reaction to musings about the possible/probable uniqueness of a candidate for universal solution (because of the nature of generalization/despecification, eg, no matter how many sides to a pyramid, it only has one top), Stephen Leacock in the chapter "Has Economics Gone to Seed?" in his 1939 Too Much College: "When the world is in danger of collapse from the juxtaposition [our word (extremes, disparity between); he says dilemma (ultimatum, Hobson's choice) but it's not really a choice] of wealth and want, the college economists can shed no light - or only a multitude of crosslights that will not focus to a single bearm - in place of a lighthouse, wreckers' (mooncussers') signals, or at best, fireworks, elaborate and meaningless."
    [Compare Brian Greene's Nova episode called the "Illusion of Time".]

    Compare from his 1920 The Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice:
    "With all our wealth, we are still poor. After a century and a half of labor-saving machinery, we work about as hard as ever. With a power over nature multiplied a hundred fold...the machine age seems to leave the great bulk of civilized humanity, the working part of it, worse off instead of better."

    People often react to Timesizing as if the idea of something close to a panacea is ridiculous, but there is a universal solution that people accept today, without question, since to question such a thing would be taboo, and that is ... Education.
    It's the same with the universal goal of Wealth.

    It's interesting to see the same people who deplore what marketization has done to thirdworld countries that were formerly self-sufficient, in making them vulnerable to world market erraticness, with resulting mass poverty and starvation when their particular monoculture drops in market price -
    to see those same people arguing for the marketization of housework and childrearing.
    And then there's the marketization of the environment, where the argument is, stick someone with the responsibility - but the open-pit miners have the ownership and responsibility and look what they're doing to the environment;
    cattle ranchers in Brazil ditto ditto and ditto ditto;
    sheep and goat raisers in the ancient near east ditto ditto and look what they did to the environment (=>desert)...

    Another approach: the rising worry about "inequality" suggests a solution in terms of some new kinds of sharing.
    The ultimate worry is perhaps unequal money.
    But if we can't share the work = the source of money, we'll never be able to really share anything else, except via the unreliable condescension of charity. Sharing the work is basic. It's sharing a measured part of our lives, whether measured in time (wage work) or task (piece work).

    Diane remarks that "inequality" is moving into the DBC range (Discussable By the Comfortable),
    and maybe I could use it as a stepping stone to worksharing and timesizing, or at least a foot in the door,
    though previously I've only thought of "inequality" as an unactionable term and quickly to be translated into actionable "$concentration".
    Is it a really tough paradigm shift or just a really tricky paradigm shift, and are they really the same?
    So just pick the one that makes it easier = tricky?

    Is there a range of problems that comfortable people (eg: CACOR) are not comfortable talking about?
    And a subconsciously(?) restricted range of problems that they are comfortable talking about?

    Diane remarks that I need to quickly tie my subject (uncomfortable?) to the comfortable range (eg: ecology) to offset this phenomenon.

    The Economist has identified a cumulating systemic problem that has taken care of Limits to Growth in terms of the usually identified consumer spending (and resulting real growth), but not limits to false growth still counted in the GDP such as expansion of destructive (eg: military and financial) products and services.

    The destructiveness of military products and services is obvious. The destructiveness of financial products and services is obvious in the context of mounting labor surpluses on one hand and shortages of job and training options on the other, which cumulatively redistributes the money supply (M1) to fewer people and converts ever larger percentages of it from spending power to investing power - an unsustainable systemic shift that is masked by expanded financial products (such as derivatives, CDOs, etc.) and services (such as hedge funds, securitization, etc.)

    The goal should be to reverse the growthrates in these two areas because contrary to popular misconception, spending by consumers who are in a position to think ahead and avoid damaging the biosphere with their "consumption" can be expanded sustainably without limits. As Buckminster Fuller said, "Do more with less."

    So The Limits to Growth today is an overly blunt instrument that "throws out the baby with the bathwater," and is largely focused not on the bathwater but the baby, namely consumer spending. Consumer spending, as we saw, is in decline anyway due to labor surplus and M1 concentration, and so current efforts to limit growth are unnecessary. Similarly, Juliet Schor's second book, The Overspent American, was unnecessary and off-target because Americans who spend, have less money while those with the most money (the 1% and the 1% of the 1%, etc.) are certainly underspent, yet systemic redistribution to them continues unabated, and this results in the steepening and acceleration of the diagonally downward spiral of the economy, constantly whitewashed as a persistently "slow recovery." The situation is actually one of a deepening depression, with more and more of the negative evidence externalized (no official figures on homelessness, no followup on taxbreaks for job creation), disguised (bad stuff counting positive in GDP, "nation of immigrants" despite servicing costs and impact on minority wages and unskilled employment, no tracking of trumpeted creativity of immigrants or "doing jobs no American wants" without mentioning low pay or high US unemployment-welfare-disability-prison) or spun with reversed polarity (fighting for freedom in Afghanistan, mounting prison "productivity" and homeland security at home: all raising GDP "growth").

    Our CEOs and economists and B-schools have become suicidal fools. constantly teaching and practicing "eating their seed corn."
    They lay off and defund their customers' customers by the tens of thousands, and constantly reduce their own future.
    No farmer acts this way. No farmer eats his seed corn. But even a whole industry around Monsanto is destroying the possibiity of seed corn for immediate profit.
    They behave as if it's a game that they want to end to see if they "won" by getting "their share" = ALL of it, instead of a reality they want to continue, with spreading and extending balances in more and more areas.

    The age of immigration is over, now that all lands are exceeding the ecological carrying capacity by one measure or another.
    It is time to drop our persistent playing with population-level communism and take up population-oriented private property to protect the sustainability of the advanced and prudent, and contain the unsustainability of the primitive and careless.

    Metaphors will save the world.
    "It's all about the story, but the story's value lies in its metaphor.
    New metaphors will save the world. E.g.,
    It's not a time line. It's a time spiral within a spiral within a spiral, and a time spiral containing a spiral containing a spiral.
    It's not a space-time continuum. It's a space-mass-time continuum.
    It's not a four-space. It's a five-web.
    Time isn't the fourth dimension. (That would be mass.) Time, a special case of momentum adapted as a measuring standard, is the fifth dimension. (And energy is the sixth.)

    And speaking of spirals. Every economy in the world is spiralling diagnonally downward at gentler or steeper angles. To get those spirals heading diagonally upward will take time, because they are tunneling through human stupidity.

    And of course, we all need Our Internal Scotty. (The Star Trek Scotty, not the doggy Scotty.)
    The world needs our internal Scotty, our internal engineer or technocrat.
    "Jim, we dinna have enough power fer everrrrything. We need tae choose."
    Strategic Scotty engineering and prioritization, coupled with Roddenberrian Star Trek aspiration and mission, idealism and integrity,
    plus gigantic JamesBondian (technology &) cornercutting.

    Comment on India news website:
    "CITU is following France, which adopted a 35-hr workweek under in Feb/2000 to check rising unemployment (UE). While France’s example showed that unemployment fell initially, it rose sharply later." Actually it was in 1997 when their UE was 12.6% that French voters approved a 4-hour cut from the prevailing 39-hr workweek, and when fully implemented in spring 2001 before the US-led recession hit France, their UE was down to 8.6% = 4 hours cut from the workweek, 4% cut from unemployment, so each hour they cut from their workweek cut 1% from their unemployment rate = same results at the USA got 1938-40 in establishing a 44-hr wkwk and cutting two hours a year, from 44 to 40 hours/week - and going from 19.0% to 14.6% UE. See data on Timesizing dot com - So why did France's unemployment rise later? #1, because of the US-led recession - note the US has not cut its workweek since 1940 so its wages and consumer base have been slowly weakening since 1970 when the postwar babyboomers entered the job market and replaced the wage-depressing labor surplus of the Great Depression. #2, because there's nothing eternally curative about any arbitrary workweek however "low" when you're constantly injecting technology and downsizing in response to it.
    "Sarkozy had wanted it scrapped as early as 2004, when he was the country’s finance minister" - Sarkozy is not a positive reference. He's recently been voted out in disgust ifnot disgrace. He was one of the strange quartet (Sarko, Blair, Howard, Harper) who wanted to follow the most destructive administration in US history, Bush-Cheney, which mushroomed the size of government and national debt while talking the talk of smaller gov't & taxes, meanwhile dereg'd-corrupted-bailedout the financial sector, sold conflict of interest as synergy, and covered it all up while trying to divert attention & blame onto Europe. The CITU is right in advocating a 35-hour workweek but would be more right in advocating fluctuating adjustment of the workweek against unemployment and smooth overtime-to-training&jobs conversion. "Should we shave an hour off from 'full time' workhours each day to give employment to more people?" You should shave as many hours off as it takes to achieve full employment and maximum domestic consumer spending that you can count on, and there are no foreign markets you can count on these days. Besides, in the USA, trade is less than 20% of the economy while consumer spending is 70%. Why are we always worrying about trade competitiveness and thereby sacrificing 70% of our economy for 20%? And leftwingers have never had a monopoly on this approach. Smart CEOs for at least the last 100 years have realized that shorter hours are a system requirement in the age of machines-automation-robots. Lord Leverhulme of Lever Bros. in 1919, W.K.Kellogg "(Cereals) in 1930, Edward Filene (Filene's Basement) in 1932, James Lincoln in 1950 (Lincoln Electric), Richard Nixon in 1956!, Nucor Steel, SAS... - 1000s of companies reinvent this approach in every recession to save their skill set - 25 US states now have worksharing to help companies cut hours not jobs, Germany just breezed through the last downturn with its version "Kurzarbeit". So yes, India could lead the world with this approach. Website reference: Timesizing.com

    So, we're focussing on high strategy (what's the most influential, logical, masterstrategy to reverse today's pol-econ-ecol downward spiral?) and system requirements (need break the cycle of technologicalproductivity-downsizing-weakermarkets) and the unextended self-interest of the wealthy, which is entirely advanced by full employment via OT-to-training&jobs conversion and automatic fluctation of the workweek against underemployment, with wagepush-inflation control, workplace discipline (less featherbedding, pilferage & sabotage) and greater productivity via the spread of deflationary incentive via greater job mobility. And of course, greater marketability of productivity via more funding of small and fast spending at the bottom than big and slow "investing," most of which never exits the financial sector, at the top.

    So let's quit with the precious lifestyle arguments, quit with the unnecessary and fruitless battles against growth or consumption. Quit with the calls for pity and compassion, and the pleading - all this onandon arguing from a weak hand (oh please have mercy on the poor little worker and her family). AND JUST GO FOR THE JUGULAR = the frozen workweek is COSTING the wealthy campaign&college financing, stringpulling, puppeteering plutocrats (not only their personal and property security but also the profitability or even sustainability of their investments), not to mention retarding advances toward greater longevity that might remotely interest the more strategic among them.

    And we don't need to keep reviewing the history and origins, except where they yield important ammo (as in the history of CEOs who bucked the taboo and backed workweek reduction) or metaphors.

    Bob LaJeunesse's 2009 Work Time Regulation as Sustainable Full Employment Strategy has a fabulous title. Its current subtitle, however, "- The social effort bargain," involves an unfamiliar concept that sounds vaguely pleading - reminiscent of Obama's wasting his first two years trying to negotiate with religious and political fundamentalists - when the powerful position we need explored and explained at this time of logjam in social evolution would be reflected in a subtitle like "- An economic system requirement in the age of robotics." We have tried enough begging and pleading, and it hasn't worked. It's time to hear from the sysops and sysadmins, the econ cardiologists and psychiatrists, who can drop the "neglected history of labor struggles" and delve into the even more neglected history of businessmen and capitalists and investors and industrialists and entrepreneurs (like Leverhulme, Kellogg, the Lincoln brothers...) who "got" it and realized, with Edward Filene, that mass production demands mass consumption demands maximum consumptionfunding demands maximum employment. We need to pick our battles. We do not need to get into question-of-taste lifestyle issues or battles against consumption or growth, because the eco-objections to consumption and growth can and are being answered by Buckminster Fuller's principle of Doing More With Less, involving technological efficiencies that do not throw out the baby (jobs and consumers) with the bathwater (newly unnecessary workhours or workplace risks). How ironic that so many would-be progressives target (over)consumption but not (over)population, including prettymuch randomly set immigration quotas and illegal entry and spotty enforcement, as well as whole-system-dissing import and outsourcing and birth policies.

    hist.prof.Philip Scranton, Rutgers/CamdenNJ -
    thanks for informative article on the shorter workweek approach in bloomberg news online - you certainly "took your life in your hands" breaking the taboo on mentioning this but you apparently slipped it in by weighting the nays and presenting it as a wierd quaint ancient-history fluke - note Tom Walker's online book, ""Jobs, Liberty and the Bottom Line" with his question "why is the best remedy the forbidden one?" ( http://p2pfoundation.net/Jobs,_Liberty_and_the_Bottom_Line ) What a strange ignorant 1933 discussion you document when the USA had just been through nearly 100 years of sporadic workweek reduction - without triggering wage reduction...or "endg all freedom of commerce" or eliminatg "the power of the States over local matters"...
    but now we're "safely" back to trying to get Growth (upsizing) by downsizing,
    still comping for our weakening markets by talking the talk of Free Enterprise while walking the walk of as many gov't subsidies or tax breaks as possible,
    still pushing Work Hard to Get Ahead...in the age of robotics...with consequent chronic overtime and employment concentration, still spooked about inflation despite weakening consumption,
    still with only one growth-clobbering inflation-fighting tool=raising interest rates,
    still with only one solution to slow"recovery"=lowering rates tho now at virtual zero
    - I used to wonder at the mythopoeic mind in ancient Egypt: first land appeared above the primeval ocean at only one place but every temple claimed to be that place. Now I see millions of otherwise intelligent Americans with fuzzy parititioned minds harboring all these contradictions while sinking further and further down toward the third world straining the spindoctors' externalization of mushrooming welfare disability homelessness prison suicide... 'Course it took moi 25 years to fight my way out of this pile of wet paper bags...
    Phil Hyde
    (another Philip = bad Greek but faster than Phillip)
    economic design & debugging
    Trimming workweek, - not workforce &everything else along with it but Wall St 'compensation'

    Comment on Bloomberg 30-hr workweek story - 4/06/2013:
    Amazing - a major news service has discovered The Greatest Secret in American History = the US Senate actually passed a 30-hour workweek bill, the (Sen. Hugo) Black Bill, 53 to 30, on April 6, 1933, which would have solved the Great Depression in less than two years, making the private sector recycle its own discarded employees, and hire and fund its own markets. But shortsighted businessmen mostly from Philly and Chicago descended on FDR and said Block That Bill! So he called off Frances Perkins who was flogging it through the House with Bill Connery, and buried it in committee. But if you block private-sector sharework, you force public-sector makework. FDR had to get into the whole alphabet soup of taxpayer-funded makework campaigns: CCC, WPA, NRA, TVA... and the Four Big Socialisms: Min.Wage, SocSec, Workmans'Comp, Unempl.Ins., none of which would have been necessary if FDR had held the private sector's feet to the fire and made them fund their own markets with earnings from shorter-hour jobs appropriate to contemporary levels of technological productivity. FDR regretted it 2 years later, saying he should have got behind the 30-hr wkwk and pushed it thru when he had the chance, but then the best he could do was a 44-hr wkwk in the overtime section of the FLSA of 1938, to be reduced 2 hrs/yr for 2 yrs, yielding the 40-hr wkwk in 1940. It was too high, too late, but it STILL worked to cut unempl. 1% for every hour cut from the workweek! = 1938, 44hrs,19%; 1939,42hrs,17.2%; 1940,40hrs,15%(actually14.2%!). The closest we are in 2013 is, half the states have worksharing, meaning state support from unemp.ins.fund for cutting hours not jobs, but we need to move on to full Timesizing dot com with automatic conversion of chronic overtime into training&jobs, and automatic adjustment of the workweek against underemployment, as far down as it takes to restore full employment, rising wages, smaller coagulation of the money supply among the 1% and maximum consumer spending by the 99%. Today's downsizing workforce and wages, and funneling the money supply to the top brackets, is just slowing recovery because the top brkts spend (and donate) a smaller % of their money than any other bracket - the wealthy CAUSE recession by coagulating the money supply. Shorter hours is now an absolute System Requirement for any real recovery.

    The sin and forgiveness metaphor of Christianity is obsolete in the 21st century.
    We need to move-on to the: experiment and learn and adapt individual behavior or corporate strategy or government policy in favor of self-interest extended to the point of whole-system physical continuity and biological survival. (= a run-on sentence truly worthy of Buckminster Fuller!)

    [And I'll add, exactly one year later, that in a world of over 7 billion people, forgiveness itself, the exposing of yourself to repeat insult, and the whole shtick of forgiving up to 70x7 times etc. is obsolete, because we have 7 billion other options. It was a counsel of necessity in the small towns and immobile lives of the past but today it's just a masochistic anachronism. There is absolutely no reason to court masochism or dance with sadism or rudeness. Move on.
    Some populations may even assign children at birth to one parent, then the other, alternately, so that if divorce comes, each side can start an entirely new life without the friction and unpleasant baggage of the past.

    ...have developed some context for possible talk on High Strategy to add to previous email of questions defining HS:

    I announced I wanted to do a project-defining Gantt Chart following the "100% rule" and then to do a project-scheduling PERT Chart, both for the purpose of managing the project of Saving The World in terms of achieving a more sustainable socio-ecological system.

    colleague Kate said I have to begin at the end, or pick a good pausing-place along the way if we're trying to avoid The End, as we are when the goal is a global socio-ecological system of increasing sustainability - but she seems satisfied with using this goal as the "end" = a more sustainable socio-ecological system.
    there is some very helpful Wisdom From The Past when the goal was "the greatest good for the greatest number" (GGGN) (Jeremy Bentham, 1776 Fragment on Gov't, preface), or 100 years later, moving toward explaining How Achieve GGGN: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" (Marx, 1875 Critiq of Gotha Prog, Pt I)
    but the big criticism of Marx, which also applies to Bentham, is "he requires that all men be angels" - which translates into the criticism: he requires that all men have sufficiently extended self-interest, across more people (="common interest"), and have sufficiently extended it further into the future - this is essentially the issue posed by Figure 1 (p.24 in pktbk) of the original report to the Club of Rome, Limits to Growth = most people are pre-occupied with narrow self-interest and the short-term, like where's their next meal or dollar going to come from, or how to pay for their kids' college or their own retirement
    here's where the Chesterton Pan-Utopian Flaw, the CPUF (See Puff!), comes in, because in knocking H.G.Wells for his 1905 Modern Utopia - which also required all men to be angels with extended self-interest, G.K.Chesterton came up with this lovely whack in his Heretics:
    "The weakness of all Utopias is this, that they take the greatest difficulty of man and assume it to be overcome, and then give an elaborate account of the overcoming of the smaller ones. They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon." (my emphasis)
    This was basically JJ's (and my) beef with John "Mr.InternetSolution" Verdon. He assumed that the Internet would automatically bring about Nirvana all by itself. We could not extract from him How we get from here to there, or indeed, where's the Beef in Verdon's Nirvana, where's the part that actually substantiates the first assumption mentioned in the CPUF. Verdon just blithely assumed the Internet would take care of it, presumably because at the moment the Internet is still somewhat democratic though rapidly becoming less so as rich people pay to get their own less-relevant stuff at the top of your search results and poor people flood the Internet with criesforhelp & scams dba spam, ads, pop-ups, viruses, spyware & worms. This blithe assumption afflicted all the people who assumed over the past 73 years that technology would make life easier all by itself, or that technology would even mean shorter workweeks and longer vacations all by itself, with no special effort on anyone's part - even though all through this period we were being told the opposite, that "technology creates more jobs than it destroys." The blithe assumption came into the 1980s, when the income gap really started growing, in the phrase Don't worry, the money will trickle down (all by itself, with no special help from anyone, and the trickledown will be adequate, for whom? for everyone of course).
    Basically, the message from the CPUF and from subsequent economic experience with The Overworked American (Juliet Schor 1991) and the ever-widening inequality in America, is that nothing happens all by itself, especially Nirvana or the substantiation of the CPUF's blithe first assumption that "no man will want more than his share." In fact, people don't even know what their share is or should be. Getting a standard definition would really take special help from someone, special effort on someone's part, a deliberate solution.
    Now we come to the interesting part. Who better to take charge of this deliberate solution, this special helping effort than - daa dada daaaa - the Club of Rome in general and CACOR in particular?! Especially when decades of CACORians have been expecting this, have been assuming that CACOR or the speakers it invites are on the mainline of project-managing the world's transition from decreasing to increasing sustainability cuz after all, wasn't it the COR's first big project to sound the alarm with the Limits to Growth project, bringing the problem from ZPG and Silent Spring right into the economic Inner Sanctum containing the Growth idol?! And some CACORians have even dropped out in disappointment (Gail, Jamie...) cuz this mainline just wasn't materializing. CACOR, in Stephen Leacock's famous phrase, was like Lord Ronald, who "flung himself upon his horse and rode..off in all directions." Or paraphrased for utopians, who jump on their white horse and ride off in all directions.
    And it's not just a problem with wanting and tending to get more than one's share, or a problem with not knowing what one's share is, or should be, though all too often the answer is "I just want MY share = ALL of it!" - which of course would immediately crash most human systems and destroy most humans. There's also the problem, share of what? Power (in what terms?) Money? Material goods? Status symbols? Conspicuous consumption? Keeping up with the Jones's (def'n?)? Then if the solution involves some sort of averaging or equalization, there's the problem of Do we equalize on a point or a range? And the problem of Do we equalize all types of variables, or just per-person variables and not per-job variables with a nod to the free market? And, Do we equalize using inflationary or deflationary or balanced incentives (how balance?)?
    As it happens, CACOR has a resource who was on the scene in the Limits to Growth seminar in the early 70s and has faced and answered all these questions, and will be putting together a brief report to the Club of Rome on the matter, whose kernel is this email, because as Roberto's review of all the reports so far revealed, the reports themselves go off the mainline. After all, the mainline is so much a part of the woodwork, and generally not very visible or even at all defined. Any Gantt or PERT charting on very-long-term global sustainability management HAS TO prioritize the mainline before or while it's doing anything and everything else, or else the still-deteriorating mainline will fatally frustrate and slow down the rest. Neglecting the mainline so far has allowed unsustainability to continue and accelerate, witness the latest "good" news from Monsanto, lethal for humanity, that they can plant GM and terminator seeds even regardless of judicial stays.
    Once the Flight to Sustainability is Gantted, then PERTing it requires plugging all the COR reports into the mainline, making sure that the mainline is advancing/has advanced sufficiently at each socket to prevent backslide BEFORE each report agenda is plugged in. Yes, this could mean a longer period of concerted effort on the mainline. The concentration of power in terms of money is sooo huge these days that if Bill Gates or Warren Buffett suddenly "go over to the Dark Side" - or if billionaires like Marc Rich who are already on the Dark Side get creative - species survival is a joke. Note that what Wall Street has already done to millions of Americans and taxpayers with its new assumption that conflict of interest is actually synergy (and so far there's only been a couple of token investigations and cleanups) has made U.S. homeland security a joke, & the U.S. military is just starting to realize that global warming is a threat. But then, if you're wealthy, the system seems to be working OK to you, and "if it works, don't fix it." So with the Onepercent pushing against change and the 99% too busy and buzzed up to pay attention, most of the COR reports are falling on deaf ears. So, time to look into the woodwork-blending mainline of "high strategy"?
    Needless to say a presentation on this, building on Roberto's 3/19 Review of all the Reports to the Club of Rome, would make a nice piece of Beef (as in Where's the Beef?!) to provide solid "drill-down" in September, when there will inevitably be plenty of presentations that go off the mainline or more likely, are completely unaware of it in assuming, naturally (with unextended or narrowly extended self-interest per Limits to Growth Figure 1), that "elaborate accounts of overcoming of the smaller difficulties of man" will suffice, or even that certain technological features of the current deteriorating situation, such as the Internet (per Verdon), will take care of everything all by themselves.
    Thank you, Madeleine and J(-J), for providing a (theoretically anyway) listening ear, though maybe most of this is still too turbid to avoid glazed eyes. I thought it would be Rev.2 of my previous email but clearly it has been additional (excerpt below).
    economic design & debugging
    WorstCasePlan.com , or direct to Timesizing.ca (or .com)
    cell 617-620-6851
    excerpts from previous email to Madeleine (warning: this is more like a disorganized brainstorm) -
    In the 60s, I'd begun to feel sooo irrelevant in my undergrad course of ancient languages and history that I started planning to be sooo relevant and long-range in my thinking that i'd be regarded as radical by most of my contemporaries. Boy (or, Oy), have I succeeded!
    In the early 70s in response to the Limits to Growth seminar, I asked the questions, "How do we stop growth? How do we control growth rather than continuing to let growth control us?" - I decided we had to stop whatever's driving growth. What's driving growth? Models of more. What to do? Draw a line on 'more' above which there is no more. But if we're talking about money, I eventually resigend myself to the conviction that "they" would never allow us touch their money first. We'd have to find something else to touch first, something less threatening, something the touching/limiting of which would actually be in line with some other of "their" own values.
    People are constantly mistaking a list of priorities for High Strategy and indeed H.S. seems beyond most people's imagination, even in CACOR and the Canadian Research Council or the Bilderbergs or the Greens or whathaveyou - and once you slip and get started listing priorities, there is no end, and the Top Priority tends to be that of the last passionate speaker you heard at lunch, dinner, or on the CBC. Nothing is accomplished because there's always another float in the passing parade of urgent progressive causes to jump onto. To paraphrase Leacock, we jump on our white horse and ride off in all directions. Here's hoping the horse doesn't become a hearse 'ere we get to effective action.
    We have tens of thousands of economists in the world today, many making six-digit salaries, yet the big problems go on and on. This raises the suspicion that even if part of the problem can be traced to a vague obfuscation on the part of the economists' profession to protect their jobs, there must be something unnoticeably pervasive that all of us are doing on an everyday basis that allows the list of big problems to continue and multiply... - something we're all taking for granted.
    What we're looking for is not so much the prioritizing of the priorities on the list, but articulating something of the basicness and invisible obviousness of the ink & paper of the list itself. In other words, to facilitate all the listed priorities at once, we need something REALLY pervasive, something that objectifies under the microscope-alternating-with-telescope the challenge of modifying our own socioeconomy from within, which is like operating on our own retinas, something in the unnoticed, taken-for-granted woodwork of our lives. Is there a deeper level we're missing? Is there "an elephant in the room" that we're not confronting? Is there a master problem? A level of "higher" strategy? Possibly something glaringly obvious that we'd rather not notice, that we thought we'd got beyond? Something skewed or skewing? Something kindof uncomfortable and possibly confusing?
    Questions I came up with over the years (usually just 1-2 at a time) to nudge myself toward High Strategy ...
    Is there a spot on the 'snow mountain' where a finite push will start an avalanche to clear a maximum of snow 'problems' off the mountain and maybe off the whole mtn range?
    What's the most efficient, shortest-possible Bucky Fuller 'World Game' to solve the world's big seemingly everlasting problems - that no one has 'covered' yet?
    If we get more than one candidate-solution, which one satisfies Chomsky's criterion for choosing the better of two competing grammars: which one accounts for the most data with the fewest rules?
    Is there one solution that's going to make most other solutions easier? Does a solution under considertion do nothing along these lines, or maybe even make other solutions harder?
    And after the Limits to Growth book and the Star Wars movie: Is there a vulnerable point (Achilles' heel) in the tangle of megaproblems converging on humanity today, such as those mentioned in Limits to Growth (p.23: arms race, environmental deterioration, population explosion, economic stagnation)? Or is there a soft spot in the death star, referring to the scene in Star Wars where Luke flies in and blows the whole thing up with one little shot at just the right spot. This begs the Q: What's the architecture of the problem mass? Specifically, what's the economic core?
    What's the optimal world Gantt &/or PERT chart, the overall priority-project mgmt plan?"
    Clues: Why does Veblen trust the engineers more than the businessmen? Why does Leacock mention the man with over $1m/yr in today's $$ as feeling that he can't keep up with the rich? Why does Marx say capitalists try to foster labor surplus but Art Dahlberg says capitalism only runs smoothly under a labor shortage?
    In other words, we can keep listing "top priorities" and getting all upset about whichever one was targeted by the last speaker we heard - and accomplishing nothing. We can keep "jumping on our white horse and riding off in all directions" - and accomplishing nothing. Or we can start asking ourselves the questions above, and begin to sense a deeper level where a huge skew has tilted all the pictures on the wall throughout our economic edifice. We've been running around the house trying to straighten them all one by one - instead of asking why they're all going askew in the first place, and why when we straighten one, another tilts further and pretty soon the one we just straightened re-tilts. We've been running around straightening instead of noticing that the whole house is tipping ... maybe over the edge of some kind of cliff of unpredictability.
    The concept of economic design emerged hand in hand with questions like:
    Do economic designers have a Pearl of Great Price for the purchase of which they would gladly sell all they have? Is there a Holy Grail of economic design = a single all-sufficient regulation, so well designed and centrally positioned in the anatomy of the body economic, or the architecture of the economic core, that it would allow all (or nearly all) other regulations to be safely dismantled?
    What kind of regulation solves the most problems with the fewest moves, and has the least unintended consequences and collateral damage?

    New title idea - Saving the World with the Great Mavericks:

    Petty, Sismondi, Veblen, * Leacock, ** Galbraith

    * optionally HG Wells & GK Chesterton
    ** optionally Paul Rosenstein-Rodan

    Note that HG Wells wrote The Time Machine about the Eloi and the cannibalistic Morlocks.
    The scifi with the ancient, unsuspectedly powerful (intergalactic) spaceship was Arthur C. Clarke in Beyond the Fall of Night, and 2nd (worse, longer) version, The City and the Stars.

    The Leacock Riddle is answered theoretically-generally by Buckminster Fuller's focus, design (or in practice, redesign, since we're not starting from scratch). But more specifically-strategically, the Leacock Riddle is answered by the Chesterton Flaw, which indicates that the problem is, no matter how much we have, there's is nothing at the moment to tell us that it is enough, and so the more we have, the more we want. So the Chesterton Flaw is really the Chestertown Trap. And it begs the next question, How do you define, let alone enforce, fair share? or in other words, How do you know when enough is Enough? Leacock dramatizes the ignorance on this problem with his talk about the men with 10, 20, 50,000 a year each apologizing in turn for not being able to keep up with "the rich." The preliminary answer is, you draw a line on more, since as EF Clarke points out, humans always want about 25% more. This, btw, is the answer to the two Limits to Growth questions, Why is there growth? (cuz there's always 25% more for you to want and even when there isn't, you think there is because the more you have, the more you wall-off your world) and How do you limit Growth? (you draw a line on the infinite continuum of more).

    Humanity in general, and communism in particular, has always given a simplistic answer to this question, You equalize on a point. But further consideration reveals that this is unnecessarily restrictive and inflexible. You can equalize on a range instead. For example, you don't need everyone to work 35 or 30 hours a week. You just need no one to work less than, say, 10 hours a week or more than, say, 30 hours a week. In other words, you just need everyone to work within the 10-30 hour workweek range.

    Then you define the lower end of the range by regular referendum of the participating public = Timesizing Phase One.
    The upper end of the range by the lower end = Timesizing Phase Four.
    Add some bells and whistles, Phases Two, Three, and Five,
    and another program to move-on to, "Phase" Six.

    Now that we've got that straight, let's fill in the quotes.
    The Leacock Riddle comes from Stephen Leacock, Canada's Mark Twain, who in 1920 published a little book called, The Unsolved Riddle of Social Justice. And here is The Riddle in his own words from pages 22-23 of a 1920 edition, "With all our wealth, we are still poor. After a century and a half of labor-saving machinery, we work about as hard as ever. ... And more than this. There are many senses in which the machine age seems to leave the great bulk of civilized humanity, the working part of it, worse off instead of better." The compound riddle, of course, is, why and what can we do about it?

    As mentioned, the why is answered by the Chesterton Flaw, which basically says, almost no one is focused on the real questions or problems: what's a share and what do we do about it? In other words, the fact is we have no standard definition of fair share and we need one. We assume it's in the money dimension (though it may not be, and notice the assumption that there's only one money dimension) and since in that dimension, the problem usually called inequality, the answer is equality (and notice the assumption of point equality or equalization on a point).

    So what is the original G.K. Chesterton Pan-Utopian Flaw? (and note that it applies not only to utopians but reformers and progressives etc.). It's part of his appreciation and critique of "A Modern Utopia" (by H.G. Wells) in his1905 book, "Heretics"; on page 79:
    The weakness of all Utopias is this, that they take the greatest difficulty of man and assume it to be overcome, and then give an elaborate account of the overcoming of the smaller ones. They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motor-car or balloon.

    As we currently redistribute the money supply upwards ("Capitalist Redistribution!"), it circulates slower because the more money you have, the smaller the percentage of it you spend, or donate, or even invest...in job-creating productivity. It all becomes mere economy-miring pecking order and bragging rights. And a Timesizing-led labor "shortage" centrifuges that black hole of trillions and gets it back into rapid circulation - by flexible Market Forces.
    Shortened on homepage 3/31/2013/ph3

    INSERT fm 4/05 - Another way of asking the question is this:

    Rachel Carson was in 1961. The Whole Earth Catalog was 1970. Limits to Growth was 1972.
    It's now 2013 and the environment is deteriorating faster than ever. There are still powerful forces of resistance.
    Are we doing something wrong?
    Is there something we're overlooking, something too obvious to notice or too humble to bother with?

    The problem at the beginning of Limits to Growth still holds. Way most people are too buzzed up with immediate concerns and anxieties to look even five years ahead, let alone 25 or 50.
    Environmentalists are failing. They have been congratulating themselves over too-small victories.
    Ecologists are failing. They have given way to pessimism.

    What are we all missing?

    So now a first draft - thanks to Madeleine's soirée and Roberto's 3/19 review of reports to the Club of Rome:

    What one thing could we do that would make the most difference?
    We could not assume that the biggest problem of humanity had been solved - that no one would want more than his/her share, or that everyone even knew what his/her share was............
    Johnjohn's and my efforts to get Verdon to cut through the technowhizbang and citations and buzzwords to The Beef (aka The Plan = how we get from here to techno-nirvana), coupled with even Roberto's repeating slippages off the "third rail" of high strategy, led me to think back and realize my own struggles to achieve and maintain that level - I splashed it down in a response to to Peter's "Making Contact" email (see below) - and never before realized how many articulations were present in my cranium, collectively anchoring my concept of High Strategy.

    People are constantly mistaking a list of priorities for High Strategy and indeed H.S. seems beyond most people's imagination, even in CACOR and the Canadian Research Council or the Bilderbergs or the Greens or whathaveyou - and once you slip and start in with listing priorities, there is no end, and the Top Priority tends to be that of the last passionate speaker you heard at lunch, dinner, or CBC. What we're looking for is not so much as prioritizing the priorities on the list, but articulating something of the basicness and invisible obviousness of the ink & paper of the list itself. In other words, to facilitate all the listed priorities at once, we need something REALLY pervasive, something huge, a seachange, a paradigm shifter, something that delimits, distances and objectifies under the AC-micro/tele-scope the challenge of modifying our own socioeconomy from within, which is like operating on our own retinas.
    So what kind of questions did I come up with over the years (usually just 1-2 at a time), but mainly inspired by Buckminster Fuller between 1965 and 1975 to nudge/drive myself toward High Strategy? (And of course, I would NEVER have bothered if it hadn't been a condition of my existence to come up with a really convincing reason to break with the family tradition of my grandfather (May/1955) and father (Aug/1955) who killed themselves.)
    "What's the most efficient, shortest-path/shortest-lasting possible Bucky Fuller 'World Game' to solve the world's big seemingly everlasting problems - that no one has noticed/has 'covered' yet?"
    "If we get more than one possible solution, which one satisfies Chomsky's criterion for choosing the better of two competing grammars = which one accounts for the most data with the fewest rules?"
    "Is there some part of the woodwork of our lives, something we take for granted, something barely noticeable that we're doing everyday that allows the mounting list of mega problems to go on and on, something that would make solving most of the other big problems easier, or at least not make them more difficult?"
    "Is there a spot on the 'snow mountain' where a finite push will start an avalanche to clear a maximum of snow 'problems' off the mountain and maybe off the whole mountainrange?"
    "What solution(s) is going to make all other solutions easier, and what solutions aren't, or will maybe even make them harder?" "What's the optimal world PERT chart, the overall priority-project mgmt plan?"

    And after the Limits to Growth book and the Star Wars movie:
    "Is there a vulnerable point (Achilles' heel) in the tangle of megaproblems converging on humanity today, such as those mentioned in Limits to Growth?" = is there a soft spot in the death star, referring to the scene in Star Wars where Luke flies in and blows the whole thing up with one little shot at just the right spot. (resonance: one little shot at just the right spot)
    In the late 70s-early 80s, I resignedly gave up on prioritizing the money dimension(s) in favor of the worktime dimension in terms of answering the question, How do we stop growth? How do we control growth rather than continuing to let growth control us?" - because I knew THEY would never let us touch their wallets first. We'd have to find something else to tough first, something less threatening, something the touching of which would actually be in line with some of THEIR own values. So then the concept of economic design emerged hand in hand with the question:
    "Do economic designers have a Holy Grail, or a Pearl of Great Price to purchase which they would gladly sell all they have?" "Is there a Holy Grail of economic design?"
    "Is there a single all-sufficient regulation (or close), so well designed and centrally positioned that it would allow all (or nearly all) other regulations to be safely dismantled?"
    "Which one solves the most problems with the fewest moves, and the least unintended consequences, and the least collateral damage (Vietnam ref.)?"

    Dropping the double quotes -
    Is there a deeper level we're missing? Is there an 'elephant in the room' that we're not confronting? Is there a master problem?
    A level of high strategy? Possibly something glaringly obvious that we'd rather not notice, that we thought we'd got beyond? Something kindof uncomfortable, possibly confusing, possibly involving the time dimension?

    In other words, we can keep listing "top priorities" and getting all upset about whichever one was targeted by the last speaker we heard - and accomplishing nothing. We can keep "jumping on our white horse and riding off in all directions" to elaborate Stephen Leacock's phrase - and accomplishing nothing. Or we can start asking ourselves the questions above and begin to sense a deeper level where a huge skew has tilted all the pictures on the wall throughout our economic edifice. We've been running around the house trying to straighten them all one by one - instead of asking why they're all going askew in the first place, and why when we straighten one, another tilts further and pretty soon the one we just straightens re-tilts. We've been running around straightening instead of noticing that the whole house is tipping ... maybe over the edge of some kind of cliff of unpredictability.

    Madeleine's soirée and Peter's email inspired me to finally get all this stuff down on paper - I never realized how many articulations were cohabiting in my cranium, collectively anchoring my concept of High Strategy - so here's the brain storm:

    People are constantly mistaking a list of priorities for High Strategy and indeed H.S. seems beyond most people's imagination, even in CACOR and the Canadian Research Council or whatever - gotta figure out howta ejjeekate'em. Let's see. How did I come at it?
    "There must be something unnoticeable that all of us are doing on an everyday basis that allows the roster of problems to go on and on and on..." "Is there a spot on the 'snow mountain' where a finite push will start an avalanche to clear the max of snow 'problems' off the mountain and maybe the whole range?" "What's the world's PERT chart, the overall project mgmt plan?" 'What solution(s) is going to make all other solutions easier, and what solutions aren't, or will maybe even make them harder?" "Where's the Achilles' heel in the Death Star?" = referring to the scene in Star Wars where Luke flies in and blows the whole thing up with one little bomb in just the right spot.
    "Is there a Holy Grail of economic design?" Ïs there a single all-sufficient regulation (or close), so well designed and centrally positioned that it would allow all (or nearly all) other regulations to be safely dismantled?" "What's the shortest possible Bucky Fuller 'World Game' here?"
    Is there a deeper level we're missing? Is there "an elephant in the room" that we're not confronting? Is there a master problem? A level of high strategy? Possibly something glaringly obvious that we'd rather not notice, that we thought we'd got beyond? Something kindof uncomfortable, possibly confusing, possibly involving the time dimension?
    In other words, we can keep listing "top priorities" and getting all upset about whichever one was targeted by the last speaker we heard - and accomplishing nothing. We can keep "jumping on our white horse and riding off in all directions" - and accomplishing nothing. Or we can start asking ourselves the questions above and begin to sense a deeper level where a huge skew has tilted all the pictures on the wall throughout our economic edifice. We've been running around the house trying to straighten them all one by one - instead of asking why they're all askew in the first place, and why when we straighten one, another tilts further and pretty soon the one we just straightens re-tilts. And instead of noticing that the whole house is tipping ... over the edge of some kind of cliff of unpredictability.

    The prevailing High Strategy is "Out of sight, out of mind" = Externalizing the entrenched or growing problems and by all means, getting and keeping them OUT of the economic indexes.

    The basic goal of early life, that no one ever tells you in so many words, is to find a loyal partner before your biodrug incentives expire.

    The hardest thing to disentangle is upstream of your income. You'll accept the greatest contradictions from that quarter.
    [cf. Keynes' version of this thought]

    Wa-it ti-ll the sun shines, Nellie,
    And the clouds go drifting by.
    Wa-it ti-ll the sun shines, Nellie -
    Do-n't yo-u cr-y.
    Down lovers' lane we'll wander,
    Sweet-hearts, you and I....
    Wa-it ti-ll the sun shines, Nellie,
    B-y a-nd b-y.
    [=Song Grannie used to sing, Grannie being Louise Elizabeth Reppen Hyde, 1885-1969]

    The ultimate interview handler:
    Difficult as it is to fully accomplish, I've moved on from the mindset of sin/error/mistakes and guilt/regret and repentence/punishment, to experiment after experiment, and experiment within experiment, to learn what feels better, more comfortable or at least less uncomfortable.
    This interview started as an experiment for both sides to learn more.
    If you now want to change it to scanning for, and a focus on, mistakes and regret, that's a different interview and needs a separate request.

    Compare the ultimate pickup line, only for when you can't think of anything else organically related to the situation, like is s/he buying yogurt in the supermarket line or does s/he have a cute cat/dog ("The Organic" should always be preferred so you don't overuse The Ultimate):
    You: "Excuse me, are you in the mood for a compliment?"
    [other person must respond in some variation of positive, not neutral and certainly not negative or you just look beyond them, " 'Scuse-me" - turn on your heel and walk away - because the important thing is to preserve energy and not experience an energy loss, confidence leak, because someone was not in the mood or whatever]
    [a frequent response in the early '70s, plus modern texting, would be -]
    Her/him: "Omg, I could sure use one today!"
    [then you keep it light and just respond with =]
    "You're lookin' good - are you in the mood for a coffee?" [have a coffeeshop in mind before you start]
    [if s/he is too buzzed up at the moment, go into gallant (but quick) introduction mode dba try for contact info -]
    "My name's ______ - what's yours?"
    [If at any point s/he backs up, go back to "Excuse me"-turn-&leave. Else -]
    "Are you in the phone book?" or "Can I get your email?" ...
    That's it.
    There are over 7,000,000,000 of us. We should be getting further along in matchingness. But the most durable friendships-with-sex-option (forget "relationships"!) may still be based on upfront admissions that "You are not my type" - due to repeatedly self-leveraging ("bootstrapping") expectations - to restrain expectations and raise patience/tolerance levels.

    Start talking about "the prevailing contradictory paradigm" in response to DVD "Inside Job."

    Downsizing turns worksaving technology into a curse.
    Timesizing holds technology to its promise of making life easier for everyone and giving everyone more of the most basic freedom, financially secure free time (AND more money thanks to timesizing's avoidance of wage-pummeling layoffs and labor surplus).

    English has turned out to be a very serviceable language. Frankish lost it (its Germanic base) and crossed entirely from the Germanic to the Italic branch of IndoEuropean. German never had it - never had that influx of Italic like Frankish and AngloSaxon - and suffered Hitler's linguistic "purification." English managed to absorb the influx of Italic from Norman French without losing its Germanic base in AngloSaxon.
    And English got through all the usual historic traumas relatively easily - the unifications (Wales, Scots) the reformation, the inquisition dba witch hunts, the regicide, the civil war, the abolition of slavery, splits (Atlantic, North American) - of course, each of these was horrible, but not as horrible and sticky as for other languages, and English moved on. (Now it's faced with disgrace from the arrogant clowns of the financial, medical and military industries.)
    But people seem to enjoy English - Hong Kong headline: For law on working hours, the devil is in the details, 3/08/2013 scmp.com
    But we should definitely import more of the fun from French: frigo, (*frugo?), ado, resto, meteo, ecolo...

    Comment on 3/07/2013 Vietnam article about flextime in Hanoi to avoid traffic jams for commuters -

    Rearranging working hours to avoid traffic jams on the commute to work, or more efficient use of company facilities or equipment, is called flextime. The big recent example in the United States is last year's experiment by the State of Utah in rearranging the 40-hour total of the "standard" workweek from five 8-hour days to four 10-hour days for state employees.

    But thanks to our confusion about the concept of time and our tradition of "hard work to get ahead," inherited from the so-called Puritan or Protestant work ethic steaming out of the English Revolution alias English Civil Wars that culminated in the English Commonwealth of Oliver Cromwell (1650s), we forget that the 40-hour workweek itself is just an historical solution to unemployment in the Great Depression when Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), regretted that he had blocked the Senate's 30-hour workweek from passing the House in 1933 because of all the government job creation ("makework": WPA, CCC, NRA, TVA...) and detailed controls (minimum wage, social security, workmen's comp, unemployment insurance) that were then necessary.

    His too-late too-high but still successful response to his regret was to finally pass a 44-hour workweek in 1938 and cut it 2 hours a year for 2 years. He got 1% lower unemployment for each hour he cut: 1938=19.0%, 1939=17.2%, 1940=14.6%, same as France 1997-2001 before the U.S.-led recession hit in the summer: 39 hrs/wk to 35: 12.6% to 8.6% unemployment. So do not forget to go beyond flextime to workweek reduction if your unemployment rate is too high and as a result, your domestic consumer base is too weak and along with it, your economic foundation of consumer spending. Remember the whole world is struggling with the problem of the Ford-Reuther Paradox of ca. 1939 = Henry Ford (automaker): "Let's see you unionize these robots!" Walter Reuther (labor leader): "Let's see YOU sell them cars." Source website: Timesizing.com

    The major socialism: the eternal frozen central 40-hour workweek, increasingly unbalancing everything else, necessitating untold off-center balancing.

    Socialism is only necessary and motivated when the workweek is not automatically reduced to maintain low unemployment and when overtime is not automatically converted into training and hiring. Every advanced economy in the world has it ("mixed economy") because none have yet established an automatic fluctuation of the workweek against unemployment (or against too-low domestic consumer spending).

    Wesendank = existential gratitude?

    Question to info@angularmomentum.com (single-hand watches where the earth-center moves, not the dial or an hourhand):
    combien coute vos montres? your use of the word 'momentum' may imply some insight on your part into the currently neglected & obscured fact that time is a special case of momentum and therefore 5th-dimensional, not 4th, per this tidied-up paradigm: dotXlength=line,lineXwidth=area , areaXheight=volume , volumeXdensity =mass , massXvelocity' =momentum , momentumXvelocity" =energy... Replacing the two general velocities (angular & linear, or balanced & un-, or constant & in-, or repetitive & non-, or uniform & non-) with the specific speed of light: mXv'Xv"=e, mXcXc=e, mc(2)=e, e=mc(2), & fittingly you are located in Bern where Einstein thought up this outrageous absolutization of our fastest perceptual medium (sight) & cloaked this naive absolutization as "relativity" - best wishes to the most advanced democracy from definingtime.org

    Here I'll explain to myself some more about time. The problem of the unacknowledged, but unscientific, second viewpoint is everywhere confusing humanity and retarding the sciences. It really spreads out from Einstein's basic metaphor, riding on a light beam, but its probable origin and pervasive spreadout probably comes from the evolution of the concept of time.

    It's based of course in the geocentric to heliocentric shift, which, though the viewpoint "likes" to locate at the center, forced the viewpoint onto an imaginary location on the Sun, quite impossible to actualize forever or for a very long time because of the high temperatures and replacement of solid with plasmic surface. The shift was required to satisfy something like Chomsky's "better of two grammars" criterion: the better of two grammars is the one that accounts for the same data with fewer rules. In the heliocentric case, the motions of the seven wandering lights or "planets," except the Sun and Moon, were accounted for with fewer rules (dba exceptions) if those five planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) were postulated as circumambulating Earth via the intermediate center of the Sun, with the Sun and Moon still orbiting Earth. Immediately came the horrible realization that the whole picture would look simpler if Earth joined those five planets in circling the Sun. (Only later as our telescopes improved and our standards tightened did those perfect circles disillusion us as near-circular ellipses.)

    But before the heliocentric shift, the first mechanical clocks were making their analog appearance. They had one hand, a big hourhand, and a 24-hour dial, to represent a viewpoint at the center and model a person facing south at noon (shadow? no one) and pointing to the Sun, and following it with finger and arm as it circled rightwards (northern hemisphere, specifically London, England) toward the horizon, "set" (vb. past tense) and disappeared for a dig through the dark (Hoshek) aka night (no light), to rise again, on the left, to "dawn" (relation to down??) and reappear for a dig through light (dig dag day). We already have a confusion as to when to start the "day" - at dawn/sunrise/morning, at noon (no shadow) or at dusk/sunset/evening. Twilight only grouped the two appearances of the two biggest lights, Sun and Moon, and didn't help with this debate. The Hebrews decided in favor of sunset: wa-y(e)hi 'erebh, wa-y(e)hi boqer, yoam 'eHawd = &therewas evening, &therewas morning, day one. The clock makers decided in favor of noon, and most of us for daily life opt in favor of sunrise.

    The 24 was presumably right at the top of the first mechanical clocks and so immediately after it, "clockwise" motion of the single (hour) hand would start into counting the fractions of the first hour, ending at the figure one, in agreement with the Roman way of counting before the zero was borrowed from the Arabs. Indeed, Roman rather than Arabic numerals were often used.

    Complications multiply. At some point it was decided we needed more room for the fractions of each hour, which we could get by splitting the 24 hours into two 12-hour circuits, and since the Sun certainly didn't do that in its apparent daily voyage from east to west, the first major obscuring departure was made between the concept of time and its obvious physical foundation, the planet-surface-wide agreement that this was usually the first generally visible, most important AND CONSTANT, REPETITIVE and RELIABLE motion known to your human self and all your known neighbors and non-human life forms, to which all other motions on planet surface could be compared for easy comparison with one another, and with immobility. Any and all activity, and inactivity, however qualitatively different, could be quantified and compared, and linearized along a timeline that we now know (but ignore) to be a long continuous curve tracing a spiral within a spiral within a spiral as the historically accidental, arbitrary, standard viewpoint dba mark on Earth surface traces its daily, always 1/365 farther along, rough circle around Earth's rotational axis, which in turn is fat-ellipsing its "yearly" orbit around the Sun, which in turn is pursuing its super-orbit around either the center of Milkyway galaxy or some intermediate center such as superstar Sirius aka Dogstar, per Rodney Collins' suggestion, which larger center is pursuing its hyper-super-orbit, etc. etc. for ...spiral within spiral within spiral... motion as the best way to describe time, and NOT time "line" as if reversing direction is possible along this mere "line."

    But the heliocentric complications forced an imaginary "real" viewpoint on the Sun, without obviously being able to completely eradicate the grammatically, logically, mathematically less important real viewpoint where the human observer actually is, on or near Earth surface. Even astronauts on the Moon are near Earth surface relative to any position on or in the Sun (or even any position on Mercury at perigee).

    The unresolved, sneaky seconD viewpoinT bedevilled particle physics ever since thanks to Einstein transferring it sloppily via e=mc(2) to the upper levels of the dimensional hierarchy, which was and still generally is barely coherent even in the first three levels, volume = length x width x height, or to align more closely with e=mc(2) and demonstrate its outrageous, misleading flaws: volume =line x width x width, or more closely, volume = line x armsreach x armsreach, or volume = line x armsreach(2), as close as possible as you can come in the "lower" three measures to Einstein's shmoosh of the upper three: energy = mass x sightspeed(2). Arbitrary and relative to humanity = anthropocentric, anthropomorphic? Oh yes. But absolutized by Einstein and his followers as the fastest possible speed in the Universe (a claim impossible to verify scientifically if there ever was one, though several experiments claiming to do so have been constructed, each with BMO flaws = blindingly massive & obvious), and the fastest from any viewpoint going any speed relative to any arbitrary other viewpoint. Aha, the sneaky seconD viewpoinT. And Albert was willing to sacrifice the constancy of The Constant Dimension, TIME, to try to maintain this breathtaking leap of gullibility. So like our financial sector today, the results are chaos and serendipitous academic rockstardom.

    The wealthy CAUSE recession by concentrating and coagulating an unlimited percentage of the money supply. The "invisible hand" of economics (very visible in politics) only works when democracy is expanding as during the late 1700s, early 1800s, when voting rights were extending - but now the plutocrats are shrinking democracy, so the invisible hand is working the opposite way

    To Wall Streeters, it just a game, a numbers game.
    But it's destroying their economic habitat.
    Because they have no concept of system requirements,
    the possibility (actually fact) that the substance (currency) they amass to win their game
    may (actually does) have inherent requirements that they are violating,
    for example a requirement that not too few of them as a percentage of the overall population using that currency
    agglomerate too much of the currency as a percentage of the overall money supply.

    (The following paragraph assumes the following dimensional scheme: speck x length = line, line x width = area, area x height = volume, volume x density = mass, mass x velocity' = momentum (of which a special case is time), momentum x velocity" = energy; and a feature of money is that, though based on momentum (time), it can slide between the functions of energy {agreement-based acceleration of value}, momentum {stable value: zero inflation-deflation} and mass {storage of value}.)

    Monetary units are like little batteries (units of agreement that "yes, this is worth x amount of my (life) time") that get recharged by circulation = the repetition in terms of exchanges at diverse quantity levels and in diverse circumstances of these agreements = exchanges,
    and funneling money to a tiny population slows its circulation (and its recharging) although the intent is to speed up and enlarge its circulation when there get to be too many too passive wealthy people who want only to "clip coupons" and receive cheques/ETFs, or who want only to involve themselves in the financial sector (twice removed/derivative) and not in the business sector (with its government subsector) or even the consumer/customer sector.
    At some point in the passivization of the top brackets and the multiplication of the wealthy vaunted by the financial sector = "hundreds more billionaires!" with no mention of the additional millions below the poverty line), the game shifts, the effect of their style of playing shifts, from speeding up the circulation of the money supply (= operating on the energy side of momentum) to slowing it down (= operating on the mass side of momentum). The metaphor of the black hole economy fits well with the mass side. The thing making this harder to imagine and understand is that nothing here is complete. It's all flows and it's all partial. An economy is never completely black hole or mass and never completely energy. Everything is partial, everything is percentages of whole (M1?) and "whole" is changible by central bank moneyprinting but that usually gets rapidly agglomerated into the top brackets and if anything, has a worsening, slowing effect.

    So there are circulation requirements inherent in the concept of MONEY (or more etymologically informative, CURRENCY), circulation requirements in terms of volume and speed; in a word, momentum (special case=time).
    If the wealthy assume that little ol' them can without harm divert any amount of fundamental system-sustaining money flows (compare the rotation of Earth="day") like energy, you already get a potential weakening of the momentum, on their intention to speed up some portion of the money supply and then restore it to the stable repetitive momentum level/dimension in a way that enlarges the momentum = the stable repetitive circulation/dynamism of the currency = money supply. (Does Galbraith come up with any of this in his Money book?)
    Of course, they divert money to their relatively few selves on the assurance that they will not concentrate (coagulate, conglomerate, decelerate, slow) it but will "get it right back to work creating jobs"; i.e., restored to fundamental momentum in a way that enlarges and strengthens that momentum.
    But as time goes on it becomes apparent that this is not happening. They are not doing this.

    I sense these are extreeeemely valuable metaphors but I'm in Newton's situation where he invented "fluxions" in 1662(?) when in the country to avoid the plague but just used it as a personal tool (for his own personal convenience/orientation) and didn't release/publish it for years until somebody else's (Leibnitz's?) independent invention of it, called the calculus, "forced" his hand. But I don't know what to do with it and I'm in a worse case than Newton cuz he had the Royal Society and I'm alone. Maybe I can press CACOR into service here. OK, I've told Kate. She doesn't "get" it all but thinks it's "a promising analogy." Now to try Madeleine and Ted and Sheila and maybe announce at the meeting in September. Meanwhile, comment out.
    2/28/2013/ph3 10:45am

    Happiness is a skill. It can be learned. There are rules.
    Mostly it's about not saying things, or not bringing things up again and again.

    "Too big to fail," once the subject has come up, has already failed.
    Then when "too big to fail" asks for rescue, the failure is implicitly confirmed.
    But "fail" morphs into "correct" and "too big to fail" is really tacitly asking for correction.
    But when TBTF's request for rescue is answered solely in the money terms they explicitly asked for and not in the correction terms they tacitly asked for and need, it just gets worse, and turns into a huge coverup.
    If you rescue them only in their expressed money terms, only in a monetary bailout, without correction, without regulation, without inflicting specific pain with investigations and arrests and jailtime, no pain no gain = you approve of all the private financial sector has done, you approve of their turning conflicts-of-interest into "synergies."
    Further, you have extended the corruption into the public sector and extended the failure along with it. You have made America a failed state. And as "Big J" said, the things done in secret shall (sooner or later) be cried from the housetops. This stuff has a way of coming out. Think of the child abuse of the residential church schools in Canada's North. Think of the Vatican's comfortable departures from its lilywhite image that are behind the current pope's "sudden abdication," the first in 600 years. Think of Lance Armstrong. Think of Pistorius. And before that, OJ SImpson. And it spreads through the population, because people think, why shouldn't I take this shortcut - it's tiny compared to the theft of $700 billion by Wall Street!

    Their robopathic obsession with the mounting figures in their complex accounts finally morphs more and more completely into trying to find the limits. And the message from their actions turns ever more desperate as they cry out more and more clearly, STOP ME. PLEASE SOMEBODY STOP ME. And in their groping for limits they get more and more destructive, to see what kind of outrage, what degree of suffering they have to inflict on how many other people, to evoke stoppage, limits, boundaries. They try to insist on AUSTERITY, suffering for everyone else, hunger, inconvenience. The virtual monopoly known as PayPal calls itself "the most loved way to pay" - what a joke! - because all the while they're raising fees to fatten the superobese accounts of their CEO and executives, and flounce around on the financial pages - they're not even convenient, because they force you to pay with a credit card for the first $1000 purchases, but then they try to force you to pay by direct withdrawal from your back account, and if you want to continue to pay with your credit card they make it impossible to do by default, each and every time you have to watch and take at least one other step, and they hide the option as much as they can in tiny font and peripheral location - each step they make "for customer convenience" makes the creditcard option harder and harder and their dirty fingers in your bank account easier and easier. It's like you have to hurt people to prove your power to yourself. So amassing money morphs into finding ways to inconvenience or hurt people, even if you didn't hurt that many amassing the money. "No is the most powerful word in the English language." It's almost as if feudalism was better, because you forced people to come up and do homage. Now you just force inconvenience, or ruin, upon them to express your stupid wealth&power, nevermind your wealth(&power) depends on fast, high-volume currency circulation and the more of the moneysupply you coagulate and the more inconvenience and inefficiency and poverty you shove onto other people, the more you diminish your own wealth(&power).

    The banks have been doing this on mortgages for years, bunching interest payments earlier and pushing principal payoff later. The onepercenters have been doing it with the tax code, pushing off more and more taxes onto everyone else or onto debt = everyone else, they dream, though no one else has dough on that scale. Things get more and more complicated and burdensome for the 99% while onepercenters can just hire a few flunkies for peanuts to "take care of it for me."

    And even while it all stays quiet, those involved are living with partitioned minds. And they figure they can still do the same stuff again, and again, if they're careful, cuz they (did) it (sssssshhh) and ... nothing happened ... they got away with it, and even benefited from it, some HUGELY. So the public sector, admittedly cowed if not completely co-opted by the financial sector, by bailing them out not only approves their "synergies" but also encourages them AND extends them throughout the public sector. And then when the Vandals and Visigoths, the Philistines and Hyksos, attack Rome, or Israel, or Egypt, there's no resistance...because Rome(et al.) itself needs correction that itself can no longer supply.
    The problem is within themselves, the onepercenters, the financial sector, Wall Street, because they have partitioned their minds, and are asking themselves to believe, to have faith, in a lie, a huge lie, that everything is fine and honest and accountable, and not ruinous and destructive and impoverishing of the 99% on whom they depend for the $circulation that stabilizes the value of the pieces of paper and numbers on screens that they spend their lives amassing. They FEEL however that this paper is crap because they have sooooooooo much of it and it means sooooooooo little to them that they NEED more and more and more...without limit. "I just want MY SHARE = ALL of it!" And we get into the lethal G.K.Chesterton flaw (not asking how we should determine each person's share but just on the delivery mechanism), which is one of the most clarifying ways of articulating The Big Question like Stephen Leacock's unsolved riddle (we've got all this wonderful technology; how come we've still got so much abject poverty?).

    Note the contradiction, the partition, the partitioned mind. They treat their complex holding$$$ as mere adjuncts to their insecure selves, mere bolstering that can never be enough. And meanwhile they have spread this insecurity throughout the 99% and it grows and grows until, as Richard Wolff says, it boils over, since the 1% has captured and rendered inoperable all the orderly and peaceful ways of correcting it. The problem has also been in the 99% insofar as they bought the goal of riches, but when they realize how stupid and destructive this is, and fling it away, and feel the frustration and fury that's been building up in them... the result is violent and wasteful revolution where the fury of the 99% kills millions of themselves and most of the onepercenters à la French Revolution, or the Russian Revolution, which were much more internal than the American Revolution of 1776. What a waste.

    And then there is the 99%'s tenacious hold on the past. The "work hard to get ahead" carried into the age of robots. The, gee, it would be nice to have free, untaxed (untariffed), unprotectionist (protectionism is COWARDLY), unregulated trade. Why not?! or gee, it's nice to be an immigrant nation. Let's have more. We NEED them, their diversity, their hard work, (their desperation, their low pay). Nevermind our high official undercounted unemployment, welfare, homelessness, incarceration = partitioned mind = we need more immigrants - amnesties for the illegals! more immigrants, sweep away immigration restrictions, they're RACIST!

    It's like too much altruism is just as bad as too much selfishness.
    Too much altruism has no limits. Al Pesso would call it omnipotent altruism - no boundaries on the self.
    And these days "No Boundaries!" has even become a frequent commercial slogan.
    What did Al do with such omnipotence? He lay you on the mattress and got everyone else to hold you down and got you to try to get up, so that you could experience physical limits: you could not get up because everyone else, seven other people were holding you down with all their might if necessary, even sitting on you if they had to. It was a great relief to most people to experience limits in this way. A boundary! A definition of self!


    Comments on Bill Moyers' interview with Richard Wolff, 2/22/2013:

    I liked the opening quote from Dean Baker, who is the top DC 'educator' on Germany's success with Kurzarbeit =worksharing =emergency hourscuts for all to avoid layoffs & keep all employed & earning & spending.
    The looming 'sequester' is evoking furlough plans, which are day-sized hourscuts. Richard Wolff also mentioned the working hours issue later in the 2/22 program but apparently does not yet realize the potential, priority, strategy & centrality of what we call WorktimeEconomics.com, since he's still talking about raising minimum wages, an approach that has negative side effects in terms of its arbitrariness, its creation of a gap at the bottom of the wage ladder against new job-market entrants, and its violation of the principle that money per person (income) is the province of gov't & regulation while money per job (wages) is the province of the free market & gov't deregulation in line with a separation of state & market that builds on the separation of church & state.
    Richard also evokes unnecessary resistance by attacking The Market, instead of accepting the natural organic functioning of the market and attacking its non-level playing field or skewed (picture) framework and asking what is the easiest way of leveling or righting ... or balancing. Similarly, people attack technology and get dismissed as luddites instead of just attacking many CEOs' response to technological worksavings in terms of workforce downsizing instead of what we call Timesizing.com = trimming the workweek instead of the workforce & associated consumer spending.
    We like RIchard's flagging of the outrageous one-two punch of what our universities are doing to the economy: the economics depts provide rhetorical-mathematical cover while the mgmt schools teach Suicide, Everyone Else First. Their idea that they can get growth aka UPsizing by downsizing is their most jaw-dropping contradiction, when their worship of St. Schumpeter's creative destruction is wreaking a lot more destruction than creation... but they are all so self-insulated - the status quo seems to be working for them and "If it works, don't fix it."
    We are curious about Richard's solution. We're hoping its along the lines of Walter Reuther's fluctuating adjustment of the workweek against unemployment (and smooth conversion of overtime/overwork into training&hiring) = an organic approach, rather than socialism, which suffers from arbitrary makework and we suspect, despite Richard's blackening of Regulation, a stifling maximum of detailed controls.
    The worktime approach is our best candidate for a liberating minimum of general regulations, theoretically just one =the single all-sufficient contral, so well-designed & centrally positioned in the Body Economic that all other regulations and programs can safely be dismantled & taxes reduced accordingly.
    The imbalance of employment per person is easier to correct than any of the money-per-person imbalances, and can establish an educating precedent. Anyway, timesizing instead of downsizing is reinvented hundreds of times a day in every recession by companies that value their skill set and want to avoid training costs, but apparently few thinkers have really developed & run with this approach (our attempt is on tmsz.co/2ts.htm). But now shorter hours are happening anyway in the worst way - even before today's 1000s of Obamacare-evading hourscuts, UPS and other firms were mainlining "part time" to avoid benefits. So if we can't fight it, why not join it - and channel it toward timesizing.
    We always got prosperity the worst way. Plague, war, wasteful ways to get that magic employer-perceived labor ''shortage" without which capitalism runs poorly. Art Dahlberg in 1932 pointed out that capitalism only runs well under labor shortage, poorly under a labor surplus... smarter to get it from killing working hours instead of people aka potential customers/consumers.
    But the worksharing and shorter hours approach got hammered by the disgraceful sophistry of the Lump of Labor Fallacy sneer of the mainstream, and the Protestant-Puritan work ethic ("work hard/long to get ahead") and the general superstitiousness and confusion about the time dimension. Also fears that cutting hours would also cut pay, though the 25 state worksharing programs are designed to temporarily cushion this effect. Timesizing uses worksharing to cushion the gap until shorter-hours-borne labor shortages evoke rising wage levels. (This is our non-gap-creating alternative to minimum wages.)
    Then based on timesizing, we can balance the money disparities: income, wealth, credit = all per-person, not per-job variables.
    The timesizing approach has a built-in way of preventing the runaway inflation that conventional economists always fear from full employment. Apparently they prefer to clobber growth by fostering unemployment à la NAIRU = another mainstream contradiction! Timesizing balances the two economically relevant types of incentive, quantitative (monetary) and qualitative (job satisfaction...). Maverick economists have been so close to developing it for 200 years from Sismondi to J.S.Mill to Veblen to J.K.Galbraith. Even Keynes was close. And the AFL in the 30s. But the labor movement shot itself all the way up the leg by focusing on the wrong goal, higher pay instead of shorter hours. Shorter hours creates that magic labor shortage and harnesses market forces to raise pay = you get both. Higher pay tacks an artificially high price on a surplus, labor hours, and you wind up with neither goal.
    Enough of a sample. Keep up the good work, Bill! We greatly appreciated your 4/03/2009 interview with Bill Black! Any time you want to get further faster in an interview, lemme know. - Phil "MrTimesizing.com" Hyde

    Time may be said to be "relative" only in the sense that it is relative to the scale of the activity or inactivity, the motion or rest, that is being timed, meaning it is not optional to do the measurement by a clock of the same scale. It is obligatory. The constancy of time or momentum cannot be sacrificed on the altar of inconstant energy without all kinds of nonsensical results, as indeed we have produced with all our silliness about forward and backward time travel.

    And a clock is not just a regularly repetitive motion. It is a motion that is AGREED (=viewpoint-dependent) to be regularly repetitive and therefore a provider of a useful standard unit with which to compare = by which to "measure" other motions ON THE SAME SCALE. For example, if a motion grossly exceeds the scale of your clock, as the motion of photons exceeds the scale of the Earth Rotation or Revolution clock, you MUST change clocks or your results will be contradictory nonsense, like all the Einsteinian crap about arriving before you left, and all the forward and backward "time travel" that came in its train. (Which also suffers from the inappropriate, misleading, inadequate etc. metaphor of the time "line" - it is NOT a line! it is a spiral within a spiral within a spiral etc. ... a viewpoint on the surface of planet earth SEEMS to be completely repetitive in its rotation, and is NEARLY so, nearly enough to compare other earth-surface motion/rest, activity/inactivity to (or "measure by"). But at the scale-frontier quantities that Einstein got concerned about, the "seeming" has to be accounted for and the spiral within spiral within spiral... HAS TO BE included in the calculations or they are WRONG - as all this irresponsible crap about arriving before you leave, and therefore having to sacrifice the constancy of time, WHILE UPHOLDING IT by using it as the measure and not light for Earthscale motion, is false and gullibility-demanding.

    (And if light BENDS in its travel, its speed is NOT CONSTANT, and the fundamental concept of SPEED here is flawed anyway, because its velocity that counts. Speed is too artificially pure to be useful on these huge scales. It is an Earth-timescale concept inappropriately and reason/logic-violatingly applied at much huger and more general/inclusive levels/scales!)
    8:36 by the kitchenstove clock

    Einstein was arrogant and ego/anthropocentric. Just as we were once geocentric. In fact, Einstein's anthropocentrism was a new kind of geocentrism that universalized Gaia, the Earth, as a Universe-wide clock, completely invalid and inadequate. Because in the travel of a photon, we have at least two unresolved viewpoints: one viewing the star where the photon is starting, and one viewing its arrival somewhere else, Earth?, "lightyears" later. (In fact, the very concept/metaphor of "lightyears" is lethally flawed because it confuses these two viewpoints without resolving them in a single viewpoint by upgrading to a clock on the same scale as the photon's travel, e.g., the rotation of the center of the local galactic cluster or gluster.
    (I haven't even heard much discussion about whether our Sun is orbiting the center of the Galaxy (Milkyway) or whether that's too great a scale jump and there has to be an intermediate center for it to orbit, as Rodney Collins postulates in Theory of Celestial Influence, suggesting the giant Sirius (Dogstar) as the best candidate.)

    Einstein needed to, but failed, to extend his self-interest = broaden his viewpoint, to accountably include the tacit viewpoint on the other end of the lightbeam.

    Capitalism today has a dirty secret. For all its huffing and puffing against government regulation, it accepts and supports regulation that cripples it. This regulation is so central and strategic, that it weakens Growth to levels that are pathetic or completely phony. And yet it is so in line with an old-fashioned and now sacrosanct (though outdated) Value that CEOs go along with this uncritically and unconsciously. The old-fashioned Value, now obsoleted by robotization, is: "Work hard to get ahead," usually interpreted to mean "Work long hours to get ahead." The lethal regulation in which this obsolete Value finds its embodiment is the strict and absolutely rigid definition of Full Time Employment at the Forty Hour a Week level. In the largest-GDP economy, this was enshrined in the 40-40-40 Plan: 40c an hour minimum wage, 40 hours a week maximum workweek, in 1940 (Oct.24).

    So does the website still need "professionalization"? I'm worrying less about that as I see more and more professional-looking websites and ask, Where's the beef? Timesizing.com is unconventional-looking, maybe eccentric, but it grew organically from one page that John MacMillan set up for me in - I wonder if it was really '96 rather than '98? And I know where everything is. I can handle it, and I despair of pleasing everyone all the time. I can't even please ME ALL the time but it's a lot easier, and I find myself - in between frequently and occasionally - laughing out loud with delight at something that I'm typing into, or seeing that I've previously typed into, this website, and occasionally I blurt out, Damn, this is a good/great/FABULOUS website! Whatever it is now, it keeps me going. I can handle it, I can keep updating despite minimal encouragement adn money. I can keep watching for new opportunities, like the flagcounter discovered and installed in late Nov/12 and the idea of tracking/evaluating competition of ~Dec/12, or backing off in Jan/13 because there were sooooooooo many, or developing one into a webpage in Feb/13.

    So how is this going to play out? It may never go viral or be discovered. It may go viral decades after my death as when Stanley Jevons, one of the three roughly simultaneous but independent inventors of marginalism in the 1870s discovered Hermann Heinrich Gossen's eccentric 1855 book in a Belgian bookstall - and *gave him credit for prior invention (did I find out about this from Robert Lekachman's *history of economic ideas = the first of several I read starting in the 70s?).

    [And now for spiralling 2cents'worth from-more than-just 2 internal gemini personae:] I'm glad I finally remembered Gossen's name just now (wrongly as Herman Friedrich Gossens but close enough to correct from google) cuz God knows where Lekachman's book is after the Kyoko tsunami, and I certainly never read enuf of Jevons to find it there. It's somehow comforting to have a real example of posthumous discovery like this. (And while I've remembered one name, let's try for another: what was the name of the wonderful lady economist at BU in the late 70s who gave me first pick of her library?) Otherwise, you just have Bucky Fuller's admonition, "Do something no one else is doing. The Universe may never discover you. But just be ready in case it does." And then, looming over, or underlying, all is Lao Tsu's sage advice: "The sage knows his own worth, and makes no display." But then there's Peter Drucker's advice on the vital value of advertising, and Jesus' admonition about not hiding your light under a "bushel." (And against all this, Martin Joos's "Don't take the guests into the kitchen." But what if the kitchen is the warmest place and it's cold outside and you don't want to be revered off the face of the earth anyway?!)

    I see from its HTML title that I originally called this page (now a series of pages) a webpage nursery, not an idea nursery as I've since started thinking of it. And the item below has actually graduated from the nursery to its own webpage. So maybe I'll try again with the kernel of a page on the advantages of lowering the maximum workweek over raising the minimum wage.

    Union urges farmers to save jobs [despite raised minimum wages] 2/07/2013 Fin24.com
    Johannesburg, RSA - Farmers struggling with the new minimum wages should ask for government help and not retrench workers, the Food and Allied Workers' Union (Fawu) said on Thursday.
    "We still hope that those farm owners who are truly experiencing cash-flow challenges will take advantage of the call by the minister of labour to ask for a reprieve, based on financial information provided," said Fawu general secretary Katishi Masemola.

    "Fawu will seek to engage those farm owners earmarking retrenchment and hopefully reach... [an] understanding. If no agreement is duly reached... we will immediately co-ordinate [a] local consumer boycott and international retailer boycott."
    Earlier, TAU SA said farmers had no choice but to retrench workers and cut costs to survive.
    The farmers' union said at least 2 000 farmworkers had been notified of their impending retrenchment, mostly in Limpopo.
    "These retrenchments are the beginning. Farmers started restructuring immediately after the announcement of the new minimum wage," general manager Bennie van Zyl said.
    Labour Minister Mildred Oliphant announced a new minimum wage of R105 a day for farmworkers on Monday - up from the current R69 a day. It would take effect on March 1.
    Van Zyl said farmers had proposed an R80 a day wage, because of the "present state" of the agricultural sector.
    He said most of the retrenchments were due to farmers mechanising their operations.
    "The effect that this [minimum wage increase] would have on consumers and the country's food security are unimaginable."

    phil hyde's ramblin' review of Michael Sandel's public lecture at Harvard Law School, "The Perils of Thinking Like an Economist," Feb.7, 2013, now has its own webpage.

    Gotta get this old Victorian or Civil War mother song down on paper before it fades from memory - it was sung by a baritone? on an old Edison coil recording (and windup phonograph) that Grandpa (Philip Edward Hyde 1880-1955) got me at a country auction sale somewhere around Oak Ridges or Aurora, Ont., Canada when I was about 8 - after a couple of years I sold the whole kit for $6 and bought swimfins with the money (and now I wax wrothy about the Taliban blasting those two giant ancient buddas to smithereens?! = welcome to the brotherhood of Philistines (c1200BC), Visigoths (410AD sacked Rome) and (455) Vandals!):

    "So you're going to leave the old home, Jim. Today you're going away.
    You're going among the city folk to dwell."
    So spoke a dear old mother to her boy one summer's day.
    She spoke these words and then she said farewell,

    "The old home will be lonely. We will miss you when you're gone.
    The birds won't sing as sweet when...you're...not...nigh.
    But if you get in trouble, Jim, just write and let us know."
    She spoke these words and then she said...goodbye.

    "When sickness overtakes you, when old companions shake you,
    And through the world you wan..der ... all...a..lone,
    When friends you have not any; in your pocket, not a penny,
    There's a mother always waiting you ... at home ... sweet..home."

    Ten years later to the village came a stranger no one knew.
    His step was tired, and ragged clothes he wore.
    The leetle cheeldren loffed at heem as down the lane he trod.
    At lahst hee stopped before a cottage door.

    He knocked. There came no answer. And he thought, "Can she be dead?"
    But then...was...heard...a voice ... 'twas known to heem:
    What mother's voice did hail him with that silvery touch of time!
    She said ... "What did I promise...little Jim? - | That...

    Chorus (reprise)

    (I hope I never get asked to sing this on any talkshows cuz it turns me into a basketcase - but it may be the only way to actually preserve the music for it. Waitaminit, Johnny Cash seems to have a *version of it. ... OK, the tune varies in a lot of details and so do the words. I think my tune is more tear-jerking - Johnny would have like it.)

    While I'm at it, and putting off my daily update of Timesizing.com, why not do what little I remember of that shmaltzy Victorian mother poem (=racial oxymoron?), starting I believe at the second or third verse:

    Oh Mother, in my thoughtless youth,
    I often caused thee pain.
    Would that I could relive the past,
    Redeem myself again.
    Oh that I'd made the rocky road
    That leads to Heaven above
    More easy ... for thy dear feet
    By strewing...flowers of love.

    But the dark past is over now,
    And thy forgiving eye
    Lights on me [with the glow of love (?) ]
    Stilling my heart's loud cry.
    And [thy forgiveness hems me round
    And calms my aching heart (?) ]
    Oh Mother, could God e'er ordain
    That we should ever part?

    (This one does not appear to have any matches on Google, at least per "Oh Mother, in my thoughtless youth,
    I often caused thee pain" and as of 2/07/2013. Speaking of Victorian racial oxymorons, or oxymora? my dear Grannie, Louise Elizabeth Reppen (Hyde), born in 1885 in Nottingham, England, and only coming to Canada {Toronto} after Queen Victoria's death 1/22/1901 cuz she remembered all the bells in the city - Nottingham? or then, London? - "tolling the death of the old queen," Grannie saw a show, a sort of early musical I guess, in England called San Toy, and she remembered some words and music from it:)

    Chinaman had no money muchee allee allee long.
    When he think he stealee dollar many policee come...
    [missing lines]

    Ching ching Chinaman, velly velly sad.
    Me aflaid ... allee tlade ... velly velly bad.
    No joke, stony broke, made him shut his shop.
    Ching ching Chinaman, chop ... chop ... chop.

    (Linguistic features: The mention of "dollar" here argues for a performance in Canada rather than England, but maybe the show travelled {yes, at least to New York}. This musical was written after Gilbert & Sullivan's Mikado of 1885 because Grannie saw it around or after 1900 so it was post-Mikado and coat-tailing {especially since the composer, Sidney James, had an even earlier, more obvious Mikado-surfer called The Geisha}. Despite the dialect, which today's sensitivities find offensive (dwei buchi to any Jungwo ren), this excerpt definitely seems to empathize with the Chinese. Notice the occurrence here attested from back around 1900 of the phrase "stone broke" in the form "stony broke" for "totally bankrupt," and also, come to notice it, the phrase "no joke!" The only "ching" I know offhand in my limited Mandarin means "please." I think it has the rising tone, but there are three other tones it could have even among Mandarin's only four-tone-total that could mean something else. I think there were some gestures that went along with the song, at least with the chorus, but the only one I remember for certain is the "chop chop chop" gesture with, as you could guess, the flat of one hand heading thrice for the neck. I've phoned David Elliot of Harvard Radio (WHRB) about this "San Toy" musical when he's been playing a lot of oldies around Xmas but he's not familiar with it. For decades and maybe even centuries, the only common Chinese words in English were "hubba hubba," but most people never knew it came from Chinese. In public school in Toronto, the full phrase was "hubba hubba, ding ding!" said by boys when they saw a pretty girl. It comes from the Mandarin "hau buhau" meaning literally "good notgood" or colloquially "isn't that good!" said supposedly by men watching dancing girls in China and adopted and modified by Western traders in China. I haven't tracked down the "ding ding." The closest I know offhand would be "dung budung" meaning colloquially "you understand, don't you?!")

    (Whoops, just googled San Toy and Wikipedia *HAS it! I'd guess that Grannie's lyrics come from the "supplementary number", "Life is a mouse trap, open wide; man is the mouse what walk inside...")

    "Name droppings" (find approp. cartoon):

    My friend Kate Jurow worked at the Planck Institute in Seewiesen, Germany, on bee-dance research with Wolf Edrich ("Baba Nyuki" = Papa Bee) for about 3 months in the fall of 1969 and saw *Konrad Lorenz and his greylag geese going for their morning walk a couple of times. (This discovery just this morning triggered this mad miniproject.)

    Kate and I "made pilgrimage" out to visit Ernst Mayr at his apartment in Bedford in the early 2000s and he graciously received us. It was his book that tipped me off about the key role of variability in the basic game of the Cosmos = continuity.

    In the early 2000s, we also made pilgrimage out to "Brookhaven at Lexington" (called something less precious then) to visit Carolyn Shaw Bell, Wellesley College economist and columnist for the Boston Globe.

    After lunch, I asked a tall chap at the next table who had been overhearing some of my natter on "astrophysical economics" (top bracket$ exert powerful "gravitational" force on $$ & wind up creating "black hole" = massive coagulation beyond whose "event horizon" there's no escape = no "trickle down") if he was actually E.O. Wilson, the ant man of Sociobiology (cuz I could just see the last part of his nametag).

    He confessed he was indeed that E.O. Wilson, and à propos of my blackhole metaphor said he'd just returned from a fundraising trip to the land of Paul Allen, cofounder of MicroSoft, a guy so $loaded that he had not just a Caribbean island but a whole Caribbean archipelago of islands, not just a private jet but a whole private fleet of jets with a staff of 100... Ed was still shaking his head from this experience.

    My friend Jane Blanchard Gibson cut cane in Cuba with Che Guevara in the '60s.

    My friend Colin (gotta check with him before I "out" him on this) is a genuine aristocrat, the Marquesa de la Cedra, I believe it is, an orginally Spanish title filtered through Italy, with the result that he does not actually "use" the title.

    My friend Ruth (gotta check with her before I "out" her on this) is the umpteenth descendent of Giles Corey(?), who was pressed to death in the Salem Witch frenzy.

    (I don't often think this way = namedropperingly, but I guess I should roust 1-2 of my own while "this passion is upon me":)
    I followed Bucky Fuller around New England in the 70s whenever I could find out in time when and where he was giving a lecture: Kresge Auditorium (MIT), Concord Academy, Waterville? CT,...
    I attended the Limits to Growth seminar at MIT in 1973 when Bill Behrens and Jörgen Randers (sorry, JR, the umlaut O is as close as I can get on this keyboard to the proper Norwegian) were attending and we got so frustrated with jetsetter Carroll Wilson's name-dropping and dragging herrings across the trail whenever we were about to flush a creative quail that we split off and met at Duck Soup in Harvard Square a coupla times to lick our wounds, cuss out Carroll, and try to finish flushing out them Creative Quails, which became for me in the next few years a Quest for the Holy Grail of Economic Design = the Single All-Sufficient Control (SASC) or regulation, so comprehensive, well-designed and centrally positioned in the body economic that it could safely supercede all other regulations. This quest resulted in the Timesizing Program and its several upgrades.

    I ran against the Kennedy's three times for US Congress: 1996 & 98 (as a, ohnooo, Republican, ulp) for 8th Mass. Rep. against Joseph P. II and 2000 against Teddy for Senate. Phil (another persona of Mr.Hyde speaketh, nyahaha!) of course met both - Joe had the sportsmanship to debate Phil (on public TV in 96 and withdrew from the race halfway through the 98 campaign) but Teddy did not.

    Phil met Sen. Ted Kennedy at John Kenneth Galbraith's funeral.

    But more fun at the same funeral was...kissing beautiful woman's libber Gloria Steinem on both cheeks at the lavish reception/wake afterwards - we were both a bit tipsy.

    In the course of qualifying for my Congressional candidacy in 1996 and 98, I got some famous signatures, usually at the Star Market in on Mt.Auburn near Belmont or the Belmont Star further wests. Two were economists: Wassily Leontief (it was outside the Belmont supermarket that Wassily gave his signature like an ordinary good citizen and Phil read it and said, "Wait a minute, aren't you...?" and he was!), and ___ (Paul Samuelson?).

    And one was the beeyooteefull wife of ... da Mitten, Ann Romney (definitely not as scary as the bride of Chucky). (I guess the signature papers are still around here somewhere.)

    I'm "Philip Hyde III" not only to one-up Joe Kennedy II but even before that, to live-down the suicides of my grandfather and father, Philip I and Philip II. Strictly speaking, none of us are entitled to these formulas because we're actually Philip Edward Hyde, Philip Henry Hyde and Richard Philip Hyde.

    A new "elevator speech" formulated without the hotlinks for Phillip Howard of Common Good - "common sense solutions to big problems" (e.g., legal problems, electric grid, dirty diesel trucks, Bayonne Bridge...):
    Thought you might be interested in a common sense solution to economic slowdown based on the idea that the more of the money supply you concentrate and the smaller the population you concentrate it in, the more you slow down your economy - because the higher the income and wealth bracket that people are in, the smaller the percentage of their money that they spend or donate. So to avoid economic slowdown, we need to deconcentrate, or centrifuge, the money supply as much as possible. This can be accomplished via market forces by engineering an employer-preceived labor shortage, to raise general wage levels (and consumer spending!), as during the wartime prosperity of World Wars I and II (a prosperity also seen in the history of plagues). The most common sense way to engineer such a labor 'shortage' (actually a labor-employment balance at last) is to achieve full employment by work spreading or sharing. And the common sense way to do that is to tax away any overtime incentive and grant a complete exemption for OT-targeted&funded training and hiring - call it ART, an automatic reinvestment threshold - plus let it automatically fluctuate against comprehensive unemployment (including welfare, disability, homelessness, prison, clientless self-employment, suicide...), meaning for the foreseeable future that the point where overtime starts will come down 40-39-38-etc. hrs/wk as far as it takes to achieve full employment. You can probably sense how this one design modification to our core economy would solve more and bigger human problems than any other single change. The website is TimesizingNotDownsizing.com, or just Timesizing.com.

    It's apparent that job creation isn't keeping pace, despite its high hopes and media visibility, and we need to turn to some less ambitious goals, such as job preservation via worksharing and employment spreading via timesizing.

    I'm sooo old there's hardly a year between birthdays!

    The ultimate "closing circle" that Barry Commoner could have but didn't talk about was: we've got to fund our own markets. We've got to finance our own customers. Because ultimately, there are no reliable, predictable markets anywhere in the rest of world to do it, especially with the stresses of human pressure on planetary constraints mounting exponentially. And that means we need better mechanisms to activate or centrifuge or deconcentrate vanishing resources (including employment and wealth), mechanisms such as timesizing and its successors.

    Timesizing is essentially tying the workweek to the unemployment rate (unemployment too high? LOWER the workweek) and smoothly converting overtime into training and jobs.

    Here we are on a planet with a Closing Circle (book by environmentalist Barry Commoner) with everything getting tight and accountable. And yet we have a disconnected and frozen workweek - except connected only to the number-brains of Wall Street - and disconnected and unenforced immigration laws - except connected only to guilt-sloughing or detached feel-good impulses of still well-off liberals who still do not feel and have not yet realized the implications of mounting ecological stress despite all their talk about it. Not to mention our disconnected and absolutist trade policy of "Free Trade," and our disconnected and superstitious attitude to "business cycles," not realizing either that economic sustainability let alone growth depends on monetary circulation, like the body on blood, nor that circulation starts with the vastness and diversity of consumer spending, nor that consumer spending has no necessary with ecobashing consumption and waste, nor that consumer spending depends on employment, nor that therefore all the disconnected concepts mentioned above - the workweek, immigration laws and enforcement, trade, and the business "cycle" - ARE connected to employment whether we acknowledge it or not, and WILL SUFFER from our failure to connect each of them intelligently and problem-preemptively with employment in a way that maximizes employment. Some of us yap about intelligent design while we all fail to implement intelligent design in the most important-to-us area, the core economy, and connect the workweek to counter the unemployment rate, connect the immigration rate to counter unemployment and enforce the immigration laws we have instead of indulging in feel-good scoff-law advocacy, or connect our trade controls to counter unemployment at home and low standards abroad.

    As long as you have high unemployment (as defined by annual referendum of the affected population), you have less than maximum potential consumer spending per capita, less than maximum potential domestic markets, less than maximum potential marketable productivity, less than maximum potential profitable and sustainable investment opportunity, and less than maximum potential support for economic growth. You are sacrificing it all to stroke the egos of a cushioned and stupid tiny minority of your population who will proceed to interfere with free-market operations and system-feedback in order to divert ever more of the national money supply (income and wealth) to themselves and necessarily decirculate, deactivate and coagulate it because they rapidly accumulate far more than they spend, or donate, or eventually even sustainably let alone profitably invest.

    This is what underlies the long wave, the Kondratieff. Some crisis, such as World War II, spreads around the money supply and hugely increases consumer spending and all dependent markets = ALL other markets (c2c, b2c, c2b, b2b, f2c, c2f, f2b, b2f, f2f, g2c, c2g, g2b, b2g, g2f, f2g, g2g where we have consumer, business, financial, government) and then it takes a generation for the wealthy to reconcentrate on funneling money to themselves again and starving their spending arm (= government, even though they wriggle ever more control of it away from the demos, the public, first by dirty tricks, then by rigged voting machines, and first and last by strategic campaign contributions - they may even get into murder, such as JFK,RBK,MLK,Wellstone) under the everso sensible heading of "keeping more of YOUR money" - and by the time another generation (30 years) or so passes, they are seriously decelerating the circulation of their support system, the money supply, and making their bloated holdings more and more unactivatable and valueless. At this point, they are so self-insulate & -isolated, stupid, existential, ahistorical, naive, self-obsessed and blind-to-less-obvous-threats, that they start to destroy the institutional bulwarks (e.g., Glass-Steagall) against a repeat of the governmentally unconcealable lows of the business cycle (e.g., Great Depression) on the everso sensible assumption that they are "old fashioned" and "times have changed," and the funneling and circulatory deceleration of the money supply is greatly increased by pervasive and culture-embedded conflict of interest and unimaginably diverse and versatile contract design and selective violation.

    At this point they are basically mass-producing and distributing flamethrowers to be used against themselves and their vast and increasingly Market-starving&stifling holdings.

    Einstein made two huge mistakes in his fundamental, supposedly informing and illuminating metaphor of "riding on a light beam," mistakes that have distorted physics ever since, prevented the articulation of a UFT unified field theory or GUT great unified theory, and wasted vast amounts of thinking time on the part of even quite famous physicists such as Stephen Hawking in trying to rationalize the "Santa Claus" of forward and particularly backward time travel: (1) he introduced an unacknowledged second viewpoint watching himself of the photon whizzing past - more than one simultaneous viewpoint unaccountabilitizes and invalidates all conclusions, and (2) he absolutized his fastest perceptual medium, sight, in claiming that the speed of light was a limiting speed in the universe (relative apparently to any viewpoint with any velocity) - while covering-up this absolutization by calling the whole theory "relativity."

    Indeed, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"...for the power elite. Because a child can see in a moment that "the emperor has no clothes" - that the power elite are incompetent: naive about sustainability, and self-destructive in their policies; however, everyone but the child is denying their incompetence for political and economic reasons.

    L'usage seulement fait la possession. (Usage alone constitutes possession.) LaFontaine.
    (Contrast "Possession is nine tenths of the law.")
    Wealth is wasted money, period. Wealth is THE Economic Problem, not scarcity. Because wealth is the cause of scarcity.
    The wealthy claim they're entitled and functional because they get all that money right back to work creating jobs. So where are the jobs.
    Wealth is the problem. A series of centrifuging programs is the solution = timesizing, income sizing, wealth sizing, credit sizing...
    So what dysfunctionalizing, system-violating activity is wealth being "used" for?
    Pecking order/chest thumping/&synonyms, which as the metaphors indicate, can be done a lot more efficiently.
    This is probably what the book Social Limits to Growth is referring to.

    The fiscal approach isn't working. The monetarist approach isn't working. Marxism isn't working. Mixed economics isn't working. The wealth approach isn't working ("get as many wealthy people as you can" cuz for every new wealthy person there are a hundred new poor people due to the effective decirculation of all that dough). But the full worktime approach has never been tried, because people get confused about time and no one before Phil Hyde had put it all together. Walter Reuther came close with his "fluctuating adjustment of the workweek against unemployment," but he didn't put it together with smooth overtime-to-jobs conversion via a confiscatory tax on OT profits (corporations) and earnings (individuals) and a complete exemption for reinvestment in OT-targeted training and hiring. Plus he didn't point out to the rednecks that this was as close as you could come to DEREGULATING the workweek and "Let(ting) The Market Decide" what the workweek should be. We don't need George Bush or any other nitwit to be The Decider. We need The Market to be The Decider, because The Market, despite receiving the lip service of every rabid capitalist, is the most functionally effective socialist there is.

    New wordings -

  • The onepercenters are sitting on such a big percentage of the money supply that THEY're slowing the economy into a never-arriving "slow recovery." Jan.1-2, 2013 recession sec.
  • ...Taxpayers with more than $400,000 in taxable income or [married] couples with $450,000 would see the top marginal tax rate rise to 39.6% in 2013 from 35% in 2012... [A mere bagatelle compared to World War II tax rates (65% and up) when American money was really really circulating and America was really prosperous - though we could have done the same thing without the war OR the high taxes if we'd simply continued our 1938-1940 2hrs/yr workweek reductions - which had already brought unemployment down 1% for every 1hr cut - until we reached the low levels of WWII (1.2% in 1944!). How does war (and workweek reduction) do it? It's a paradox: switch from running capitalism on a wage&spending-bashing labor surplus to running capitalism on a wage&spending-boosting labor shortage. Market forces reward a shortage by driving up prices. Labor prices = wages. Higher wages for the 99% - and not just astrohigh pay for 1% of 1% (CEOs and banksters) - means MUCH higher spending and marketable productivity and stable and profitable investment. It's win-win all round. But at the moment, most of the 1% is too stupid and myopic to see it so they pursue their Suicide, Everyone Else First. Government is their spending arm since they aren't doing it, and if they start attacking government spending and taxes on themselves, financial failures follow fast. At least they get to beat their chests and whoop over their megaloot before Uncle Sam takes his chunk, and pecking order is all they're using it for anyway, cuz they certainly aren't "getting it right back to work creating jobs" as they promise.] Jan.1-2, 2013 recession sec.
  • Shinzo Abe [new P.M.] has pledged to take Japan back to the glory days of its past, evoking a retro mood in parts of the Asian nation's business world, 1/2 WSJ, A1 pointer to A10.
    [The only thing that could bring back Japan's glory days is something that would combine the consumer confidence of their old Guaranteed Lifetime Employment with their new, but consumption-clobbering and recession-evoking, freedom to fire. And the only thing like that is Timesizing, where anything goes in terms of market-demanded downsizing at the micro level, but management is disciplined with a macro level workweek that goes as low as it takes to achieve and maintain full employment and the plentiful job openings and maximum consumer confidence and spending that goes with it. But China doesn't do that & China is the future, sez you? Oh yeah? -]
    Chinese fly cash west [ie: to US & Canada] Jan.1-2, 2013 recession sec.

    The curious thing about Boston is, that there are more than seven million people to the north of us talking French!
    Quebec hovers over (north being "up") all of Vermont and New Hampshire and part of Maine and New York.
    How far west into New York would you have to travel to get out from under Quebec's direct connection with New York which ends just east of Massena? = distance from the border of Vermont to Massena divided by distance from the border of Vermont to the Lake Erie border with Pennsylvania just east of Erie.
    And the indirect "hovering" of Quebec is even more extensive because it goes northwest up the Ottawa River nearly to Cobalt, Ont., and then straight north to the mouth of the Mattagami River at the southernmost tip of James Bay, the southern extension of Hudson Bay.
    A line south from there passes between Toronto and Hamilton, and to the west of Buffalo and both Niagara Falls's, US & Can., and almost as far west as the Lake Erie border of Pa.
    North of all this are people talking French!

    "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." Groucho Marx. Quoted somewhere in Boston Globe sometime around 1/1/2013.
    It strikes me that this old saying about time has functioned as a hugely misleading and confusing metaphor for our understanding of time, and has led to the idea of the linearity of time, a misconception that time is an abstract straight line or motion along a straight line that is therefore reversible, like ordinary motion along a straight line.
    But time does not fly like an arrow.
    Time flies like a spiral within a spiral within a spiral... and not "like an arrow."
    For example, the Moon seems to be circling the Earth, but meanwhile the Earth is circling the Sun so the Moon's motion is actually a spiral around the Sun-orbiting Earth. Ditto the Earth around the Sun while the Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy (tautologous for Greek students) or an intermediate center such as superstar Sirius, the Dog Star.

    Critique of Louise Randall Pierson's first philosophy for bringing up her children in her autobio "Roughly Speaking" (1943):
    rational does not equal lenient
    Better is strict, but including a 5-minute warning of need to stop playing with your rubber ducky and get out of the bathtub to go to bed.
    The 5-minute warning does not equate to lenience, because it's followed by a strict limit.
    [From colleague Kate's childhood.]

    Listening to *Hillbilly at Harvard's Christmas show Sat. Dec.21 9am-1pm (streaming live on the Web) makes one realize that Christmas carols are where Joe 6-pack learns to write (bad) poetry, alias doggerel, not to be confused with us-geriatricks' diet of kloppy doggerel (MDs call it clopPídogrel to boost their fees).

    Finally came up with a smooth connection between the frozen long workweek and the recession-breeding money-supply hyperconcentration -
    What ever happened to the future? by Virginia Postrel, 12/18/2012 Ottawa Citizen, D1.
    [The future was greatly constrained by the failure to adjust the workweek lower as technology got higher. That common sense approach was replaced by workforce downsizing whose harvest of insecurity drove wages down and currency concentration up. So much of the money supply was funneling to the onepercent that it far exceeded what they spent or donated and eventually what they "put back to work creating jobs," despite their rhetoric to that effect.]

    Let's work on the "elevator speech," eg: to Count Colin tonite. Say I'm working on High Strategy, or The Master Agenda = the minimal modification closest to the center of the prevailing, core economic design that is likeliest to solve (or facilitate solving) the most problems and trigger (or facilitate triggering) the most improvements in a given socio-economy for the most people in the longest term. This is sortof an exegesis of Jeremy Bentham's "greatest good for the greatest number." It would be easier if there were other High Strategies on the web and mine were one of an otherwise non-empty category or group - move from the sincerity (family-doctor?) approach to The Big Deal (havva seegar) - I'll pretend there are and this is, and see if it'll attract some reality and flesh itself out when I get back online - this would have the advantage of proving that if I'm an eccentric, at least I'm not alone, there are others - and I can imply a competition (which I already do with "the largest worksharing site in English" and "the most advanced economic design" etc.) and work on proving that my approach is best for some reason (easiest to implement? already starting by itself perforce? likeliest to solve the most, biggest problems? simplest? easiest to understand? easiest to motivate? whatever) and/or improving my approach from their ideas and crediting the max to them as on a web teamtask. At any rate it will change character from a nutcase's oppressive/boring/tedious hobbyhorse to a curious field that the other people in the "elevator" haven't heard of, like economic design.

    It harks back to my original metaphor of identifying the spot near the top of the mountain range covered with snow, where the least amount of effort will start an avalanche that will clear away the most snow=problems.
    Or the Star Wars metaphor, where if you can only get a shot into this one vulnerable spot/Achilles' heel at the end of this long artificial "canyon," you will trigger a chain reaction and the whole Death Star will blow...
    It's a kind of very high level project management, presumably amenable to treatment with a Pert Chart (or Gant chart?).
    So the question is, is there anyone else doing this on the web since I last researched this a bit (results on Articulations of the Big Question page)? And what do I google to find them? (Oy, Beethoven's An die Freude is on the radio on CBC 2(?) Ottawa. Alle Menschen werden Brüder wo dein sanfte Flügel weilt. Ich muss die Flügel designen und implementen! The Universe's message = get going buster, you OWE it to Ludwig and all the choirs that have sung this since 1805! Sei umschlungen(??) Millionen, diesen Kuss der ganzen Welt. "Some target, some kiss")

    Let's get Alan Applebaum's "Three Laws of Political[-Economic] Physics" here on the idea-collection page and then parallel it with Charlie Freifeldt's Flat Tax on Wealth, Rosemary Scragg's Pamphlet, Beth Lau's video(s)...
    1. Everyone believes they are in the majority, however unrealistic, and in political campaigns regardless of advance polls. Witness the GOP in the recent election, right up to the last minute. This could be called The Persistence of Hope.
    2. Everyone thinks they are moderate, because everyone can see people who are more extreme or radical than themselves on either side of them. So everyone thinks they are quite normal.
    3. Everyone sees people far away from themselves in their views but on all on one side, whether right or left, as having pretty much the same views as one another, no matter how far apart those people see themselves. It's like neighboring stars, which look close together to us but often are many more lightyears apart from each other than even the closest is away from us.
    [Compare Charlie Freifeld's Flat Tax on Wealth, Rosemary Scragg's poster, Beth Lau's video diagnosis and Santa Clara's video take on Timesizing.]
    From Thanksgiving in Brookline MA; finally keyboarded on 12/14/2012/ph3

    The lower you go on the income ladder, the higher the percentage of your money you SPEND, and the economy likes that very much, much more than hoarding, otherwise known euphemistically as saving - and as far as the healthy functioning of the economy is concerned, saving is greatly over rated and praised ... (and spending is lethally underrated and vilified).
    Wealth also is greatly over rated and envied, because the more money you funnel to the fewer people, the less circulation and prosperity.
    Our problem is riches, not poverty, and riches, not racism. Poverty and racism are just distractions by, for and of the self-insulating wealthy, whose unlimited gravitational pull on the money supply is constantly slowing down its circulation.

    One of the preconditions of existence seems to be denial, ie: non-existence. Everything that exists embodies a big chunk of non-existence, from the large spaces/lacks of existence within atoms to the huge spaces between clusters, galaxies, superstars, solar systems, planets and moons in the universe. From the self-denying motion of spinning to the self-denying consciousness of sleep, where we get, every day, to practice for the state we'll be in for most of our existence. Because ... for most of our existence, unless we choose cremation, we are dead, as thoughtfully demonstrated for us by Egyptian mummies and other Corpses On Exhibit.

    Government is the spending arm of The Onepercent, who spend a smaller percentage of their money than any other bracket. When the 1% start attacking and skimping government, recession follows fast. But onepercenters do have defectors:
    Buffett, Soros call for estate tax hikes, 12/12/12 Toronto Globe, B7.

    Early-a.m. stream of consciousness - No wonder we're confused. We've all come-in in the middle of a huge loooooooong movie. We naively assume we understand ourselves and we try to understand this movie we've come-in in the middle of, in terms of ourselves. Hence, God.
    But what if it's all much stranger and based only on ... continuity? And whatever continues better, con-tin-ues better.
    And what if WE are actually the strange and unusual thing?
    We inhabit robots that move on dual, separated, repeatedly replaced arcs of a wheel. (Bucky Fuller said we were tubes with a split end.) We live in the squishy stuff in the round thing at the top. We ARE the squishy stuff, or more focused, we ARE the compound-complex electrical activity in the intricate organic-wire patterns within that squishy stuff.
    We are prone to dysfunction. Each of the zillions of too-small-to-see building blocks, "cells," of our robothood are a team of smaller things, each doing something different.
    The ones that got left out of us can cause the "in" ones problems. Remember the guy in the "Northern Exposure" TV Series who wore a hygienic mask and tried to live in a microbe-free house or tent? But even the "in" ones can cause one another problems. Did he actually sleep with Maggie? How could he be so tolerant?
    Then there was Fleischman, meaning butcher. Compare Star Trek's doctor nicknamed "Bones."
    Butcher comes from buck /buk/ with the /k/ palatalized? A buck is a big animal (male deer), our robot fuel (food) for millennia. The sound/meaning reversal of /buk/ is /kub/ or cub = little animal. So maybe /buk/ buck was big food animal and /kub/ cub was small food animal. Maybe we signaled the weakening/quartering/breakingdown of the /buk/ by loss of point of articulation /k/ by more of tongue "resting" /y/ on the palate, ergo /ky/ or /ch/ or /tsh/.
    Then there's cubby as in cubbyhole, a little cave for a small animal, where the littleness of /kub/ is reinforced by a fully separate, vowel-functioning /y/.
    Which brings us to cave and the fundamental closure/consonant reversal /kv~vk/ = hollow~bulge, con-cave~con-vek-s, where the /v/ is akin to the /b/ of buck and cub: labiodental vs. bilabial, bilabial probably earlier because seemingly simpler.
    Compare /tp~pt/ top and pot;
    /lk~kl/ lock and key (kell, clef), lake and kill (Fishkill, Peekskill);
    with cluster, /skL~Lsk/ skull and (mol)lusc;
    /Psk~skP/ fish and ship; /Dsk~skD/ disc/dish and skid...

    In these pages I am telling myself things, explaining things to my inner child, things that nobody told me, none of my elders. And sometimes I'm angry at them for not telling me some of these more-obvious things: how could they be/have been so ignorant/irresponsible, etc.?
    For example, the six-step dimensional paradigm of Defining Time should be in every elementary-school physics book in every language, and isn't. I feel angry with my parents for continuing to lie to me about Santa Claus and making me waste a wonderful mind on trying to rationalize such nonsense when I was asking them for the truth. I think of Richard Dawkins and his anger at religionists for continuing to waste their own and other people's wonderful minds trying to rationalize the miracles of the Bible, but in this case, it seems to have been more valuable in human social evolution to have a collection of population-integrating stories than reality. (Can this be true?)
    11/30/2012 (after 12m Late=12/01)

    Rhyme, or original spelling before pedantic Dr. Johnson messed it up (source: John Wevers, UofTor.): rime (backword coincidence), is so powerful that kids will sacrifice beat and "foot" pattern (eg: iambic) and meter or scansion (eg: pentameter) for it and call the result poetry. But rhyming is unusable in the poetry of conjugating and declining languages, because it is pre-empted by the signalling needs of the grammar. Aand therefore it's unusable, e.g., in Old English before Norman French stripped off our grammatical genders and noun declensions. Before that, there was only beat and alliteration (frontword coincidence) - hwat, wey Gar Dene in yeor dagum... - impossible in languages declining the noun at the front of words. Beat came from tens, hundreds of thousands of years ago with impact-oriented activities like dancing and drumming. It was basic, and the key device in Hebrew poetry such as the Psalms. Alliteration or frontcoincidence spread to assonance or mid vowel(-only?) coincidence and when grammar dropped noun case endings, to end coincidence. Then end coincidence or rhyme took over and everything else was secondary and sacrificed in children's poetry.
    11/30/2012 (after 12m Late=12/01)

    The right wants free=irresponsible trade. The left was open=irresponsible migration. They both fall prey to the oldest longterm human problem in the book = overpopulation. Free trade rewards the cushioned management of overpopulated = high-unemployment economies where wages and standards are low. Open migration relieves pressure on the cushioned management of high-unemployment = overpopulated economies where wages and standards are low. The left is in denial that open migration is just as big a promoter of a race to the bottom as free trade. Both right and left turn destination economies into overpopulated = high-unemployment places where wages and standards are low. The right is guilty of short-sighted unsustainable profits for the cushioned lords of trade under the guise of (short-sighted unsustainable) low prices for consumers, and the left is guilty of short-sighted unsustainable warm&fuzzy feelings for the "poor and huddled masses longing to be free" = cruel kindness.
    11/30 (after 12m Late=12/01)

    It's better to do interviews in person face-to-face so you can "dance" better with the interviewer. Face to face you can see their expressions and body language, the better to pick up innuendo. You can better answer the basic questions: why are they doing this? Are they really out to learn something or just trying to embarrass you, cuz "if it bleeds, it leads"? You can faster pick up the vocabulary level of their audience by watching their face as they pronounce things. Also any general job or geographic-region leanings, You can more closely guess the further range of their verbal anchor words and metaphors...

    Better Schopenhauer than Schumpeter!  Schumpeter, or at least Schumpeterians, want to call black "white" with his famed phrase "creative destruction," which has licensed all manner of financier fools to light the way to dreary downsizing, which ain't exactly Growth alias UPsizing when everybody's doin' it, doin' it, doin' it, - while Schopenhauer would have us face the worst right off the bat and get on with mitigating it.

    Ye have heard that it was said in old times, He who laughs last laughs best, but I say unto you, he who laughs second-last laughs best because he has enough of a sense of humor and enough of a life to move on and not open the possibility of yet another unpleasant exchange.

    The real problem the rich have cannot be solved by bailout, because it's not about the inadequate amount of money they have but about its inadequate circulation.
    This is not so much a problem that the rich have as a problem that they pose for the host economy, because that high a percentage of the money supply circulating that slowly among that small a percentage of the population violates a fundamental system requirement.
    Like the human body, the economy has a circulatory system. Watching an economy where unlimited percentages of the money supply are being funneled to the small percentages of people in the highest income&wealth brackets is like watching a person whose heart muscle is getting weaker and weaker and pumping slower and slower. Parts of their body start to turn blue as cells all over the place "gasp" and shut down. Then those parts start to go cold. It can actually take a couple of hours after their heart stops beating, for them to become completely cold.
    Economies can take much longer.
    But today all over the world we have "ringside seats."

    The most important and devastating "tragedy of the commons" is the blithe kneejerk response to technology of downsizing, on the assumption that, lalala, the job market will take care of it. The job market is the most imposed-upon commons there is, and the most subtle and all-pervasive in its mediation of downsizing.
    Compare the idea that natural market-demanded human employment is the most important vanishing "species" in the age of robotics, and the most subtle and all-pervasive in its transmission of downsizing.
    (Convey to Ted Manning.)

    The more money you funnel to the rich, the more you slow down your (and their) economy.

    Just as "the best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with a passionate intensity" (Yeats, 1921), the important/macro/whole-system-focused appear to lack all conviction but have a sense of humor, of fun while the trivial/lowlevel/micronano-focused are full of a passionate intensity but lack a sense of humor, of fun. They squeeze the butterfly. They CONFRONT human beings, which they should NEVER do. They interrogate or lecture adults, as if they're naughty children.
    Lao Tzu: The sage appears as unstable as water, but underneath is solid as rock - and besides, there is nothing like water for wearing down rock. The sage appears halting, like a man fording a stream in winter, but basically he knows what he's doing - he knows his own worth, and makes no display.

    Of course "conservatives" idolize war. Of course the military is the "conservative" makework campaign and they'll vote billions for "defense" but not a dime for infrastructure. War is akin to death, and as don Juan Matus of the Carlos Castaneda books says, "Take death as your adviser. It helps minimize the crap in your life." And so naturally, the "conservatives" are more focused and more effective. Until it becomes All About Them and they begin to strangle their base while thinking and acting as if THEY are the base.

    We're still idolizing a lethal bug in our economic systems = the concentration of a lot of money in a tiny population, without limit on the bigness of the amount of money or the smallness of the population.
    Until we smarten up and implement on-the-fly corrections, our economic systems will continue to deteriorate and block real human progress.

    The big, unnoticeably slow human problems, like creeping longterm overpopulation, have always eventually evoked over-reactions, like the prehistoric disempowerment of women from the matriarchal to the patriarchal age, and the historic shift of desert-based Muslims from female-friendly to birqas. Trapped, resource-poor Easter Islanders cut down all their trees and had a population collapse. Englishmen cut down all their trees for fuel and substituted coal; when the only coal left was below the water table, they evolved the steam pump.

    We're still running on an obsolete sin&punishment&repentence model (as in "penitentiary"=some kind of monastery of penitents supposedly repenting?) whose absurdity peaks in the insanity defense, which says that murderers should be treated differently if they're insane or sane, as if any murderer is mentally healthy and not mentally unhealthy, "un+health-y" being the basic meaning of Latin IN+SAN-VS. And the same goes for any "crime" in a Timesizing-driven full-employment economy: the whole prison and jail system, which has been serving as a pretty efficient criminal-training program, disappears and a much more effective mental-health rehabilitation system replaces it. Hints of this new perception have existed for decades in Canada in the use of the word "reformatory," but this word has been used only in relation to youth offenders. Whoa, "offenders"?! - the more we notice our current vocabulary in this whole area, the deeper and wider we realize the challenge of change. (After hearing a CBC(?) radio program in Ottawa on the complaints of prison guards, ca.9:30am, 11/12/2012.)

    Now there's actually someone who's trying to apply the "lump-of-'labor'-'fallacy' " sneer to the money dimension ("lump-of-money fallacy"?) in order to ridicule those who back higher taxes on the wealthy, a braindead obvious leap from the worktime dimension: Doug Saunders in the 10/20/2012 Toronto Globe F9.
    In the money dimension, the truth of the "fallacy" becomes more obvious. Saunders tries to say the left or whoever has the common sense to favour what made the graduated income and estate taxes of WWar2 so necessary and successful fall for the belief there's a fixed pile of cash. No it's all about rates. If the rate of concentration of an increasing money supply is faster than the rate of increase, you have the same stifling top-bracket hoarding going on, violating economic system requirements for max-volume max-velocity circulation of the currency. In fact, most of the newly printed money goes to the Onepercent for immediate boasting (bragging rights, chest thumping, pecking order) - and hoarding - anyway. The topmost brackets have far far more than they spend, far more than they donate, and more than they invest and "get right back to work creating jobs" - else, WHERE ARE THE JOBS at this time of unprecented concentration of money supplies all over the globe?

    The Economist's roundup on inequality (10/13/2012 p.3ff) has made a big step forward in repeatedly tying that unactionable word with the actionable word, concentration.
    However, it has not mentioned the key role of technological productivity jumps followed by downsizing in this development, nor has it even asked the question, how do we deconcentrate without disincentivating, which of course begs the question, whose incentive do we want to maintain?
    The wealthy one percent talk self-righteously about the need to maintain the work incentive of the 99% but then they make sure any incentives go to themselves first.
    The 99% really needs to make the decision that the incentive of the wealthy is not the priority, not even necessary - they already have incentive up the wazoo, they do not need more, they do not need theirs even to be maintained because they have way more incentive than they're using for anything crisis-solving or recovery-building, or indeed, than they're using at all - it's way way more than they can spend, way more than they're giving away in charity, and more than they're investing and "getting right back to work creating jobs" as they keep saying they're doing, else where are the jobs?!
    And once the wealthy financial sector starts attacking its spending arm, government, and declining to fund it with graduated income and wealth taxes, economic downturn is rapid and bottomless.
    10/07 Plus The Economist is still preaching the smarts of competing with robots and overpopulation in "hard work" = a race to the bottom because robots don't buy their own output and there's no incentive in competing your way to the living standards of people who have no life.

    The Republicans flop because they have token diversity (in ads), continued downsizing (now reaching Wall St).
    Canada flops because it has token diversity (governess general), continued downsizing (of financial sector's spending arm = gov't).

    If there's anyone who exemplifies and typifies Jesus' advice about becoming as a little child, it's Audrey Hepburn. And viewing her life "Audrey Hepburn Remembered" (video) fleshes out the concept - other words pop up, like honesty...
    In her case, I would add "waifishness" - it was always present however quiet in a given scene.

    In her case, a contradiction or at least an unexpected incongruent bonus appears in that she is also more royal than the royal family and more perky and lovable than Grace Kelly. Did Prince Rainier try for Audrey first?
    In any case, we are piling up juxtapositions of extreme opposites, which define creativity because of the many more options that situation offers. She's an adult but like a child. She has instantaneous secret power over you and yet she's honest. She's waifish yet she's a princesse...
    She's Belgian yet Dutch, British yet française...

    As Fredric Jameson first observed, it is now easier for us to imagine the end of the world than an alternative to capitalism.
    [and the current widely publicized alternative, socialism, is so fundamentally flawed that it has allowed this irony to develop. Jameson's observation is noted in the Synopsis section of a webpage presenting Erin Wright's book, Envisioning Real Utopias (which however is still trying to clean up socialism despite its premature macro-extension of self-interest and resulting stifling effect - ironic that Jameson slams postmodernism for "spatializing" culture, presumably for defining altruism as the specifiable extension of self-interest, when as a Marxist he requires that "all men be angels," ie: that self-interest be maximally extended a priori).]

    Donald Soper, the Hyde Park soapbox preacher who visited UofToronto in the 1960s, used to say that the New Testament, compared say to the Koran, was not remarkable for what it had in it but for what it left out, as in, all the less important, less worthy stuff.
    Well, by that yardstick, the Tao Te Ching of Lao Tsu is even better.
    And by that yardstick, in my Copious Spare TIme I should go through all the stuff in these 4 long webpages of my "idea nursery" (nurserY,-Z,-X,-W) and distill out the good stuff.

    OK, let's try this again, in answer to the "bleakness" of Lucretius, according to self-deluding? believers in a rewarding afterlife, despite his emphasis on the wonderfulness of being here now midst all this fabulous variety:
    Before I existed, my chances of existing were zero to one.
    Now that I exist, my chances of existing are one to one, cuz, daa dada daaa, I'm HERE!
    Now that I exist, my chances of existing again are, the goodnews: not zero to one;
    the badnews: one to infinity;
    the goodnews again: assuming that infinity is an extreeeemely high number (loooong time, muuuuch energy),
    infinity does seem to be available in this universe,
    so there is a very small probability, but not zero probability, that I will exist again.
    And though with present technology, there is no compelling proof that I have the organic-or-whatever technology to remember that I existed before this, there is therefore the tiny but non-zero probability that I already existed before (but do not now remember).
    10/20/2012/ph4, the joker, the sense of humour, the 4th person of the Trinity...

    After the great Ideas programme on Lucretius -
    "Everything is in motion."
    And time is not money - time is motion.
    Money is time times velocity,
    because time is a special case of momentum and money is a special case of energy,
    and momentum times velocity is energy.
    10/20/2012/ph4 (typo, but... 3 didn't get the 2 stents in time & died Sept. 10-17?)

    What is man, that thou regardest him? (Psalms?)
    Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more (Shakespeare) - except in the library of VCRs of his TV shows on Somerville cable. And of course is read some more, in his writings.

    Why is economic slowdown so persistent?
    Because the wealthy CREATE recession by concentrating any amount of the money supply and thereby deactivating it. I doesn't matter how much more money Bernanke prints, the wealthy can concentrate and deactivate it and nullify its effect. And with unprecedented media concentration, we will never see this discussed.
    The wealthy have regressed the world to plutocracy.
    Democracy everywhere has become cosmetic only.
    Feedback is at a standstill, especially negative feedback = the kind that counts, because it indicates direction, location and desirable speed of necessary change and adaptation.
    The wealthy are accountable for nothing and to no one.
    Progress is at a standstill because the wealthy kaybosh any fundamental change.
    The system seems to be working to them, and "if it works, don't fix it.'
    Since adaptation is at a standstill, the world cannot adapt to changing conditions, however dangerous; cannot modify self-destructive or self-contradictory policies or behaviours, however dahgerous; cannot change.
    The wealthy have their world in a deathgrip of plutocracy and corruption.
    The foxy beegees, Bernanke and Geithner, are still in charge of the henhouse. They have not been replaced.
    No one else has been replaced except for a few token cases as much-publicized sacrificial lambs.
    The good and integritous have been replaced, such as Bill Black and Sheila Bair. All the rest are still in place and devoted, not to recovery through cleanup but merely to re-coverup.
    Obama done nothing, has perhaps been able to do nothing, has perhaps not even thought, not even imagined doing anything - not at least at the levels required.
    The learning is not being done and will be done, and so change will come about, with maximum inefficiency and cost and damage because of the resistance of the rich, the onepercent, and the 1% of the 1%.
    Some of them are getting worried, but they are few and vastly outnumbered.
    They are profoundly stupid and unimaginative. They have devoted and limited their lives to one thing and one thing only, money, and their performance reverses the standard saying, "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" to "If you're so smart, why ARE you rich?"
    The only modification that has the potential of correcting all this on a gradual, flexible, diverse, market-oriented basis is worksharing and timesizing, because only they galvanize the fundamental freedom of financially secure free time for the hundreds of millions, the billions, of potential watchdogs that are now SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS for decorrrupting, deconcentrating and refunctionalizing the financial sector - and reactivating the national and global economies.
    Worksharing is happening anyway, but too little too late to do the vital centrifugation of money supplies. People are being part-timed. But employers and financiers, complaining loudest and suffering least, are still using this development to further the lethal concentration and decirculation of the money supply.
    The integrity of my economic design process - diagnosis and prescription - is guaranteed by my background of family suicide, but as a matter of policy, I hereby confess in advance and subscribe to any and all accusations they charge me with and rumours they spread about me to discredit my ideas - I am a murderer, pederast, adulterer, drug dealer, bully - you name it, I'm it - but now we've got that over with, they cannot suppress my ideas because they are the mere common sense and nothing but BGOs = blinding glimpses of the obvious. Everyone knows them in his/er core/coeur, and they will keep leaking out against all attempts to ignore or suppress, like the real situation of the Soviet Union before glasnost and the Fall of the Wall. Even Chomsky prefers the WSJ over the NYT because as he says, it has to have SOME truth for investors. And five years of experience with both has borne that out = it's easier to find bad news in the WSJ - except on the editorial pages.

    Redistribution upwards gives the money supply to lots less people, who spend lots less of it and deaden the economy.
    Redistribution downwards gives the money supply to lots more people, who spend lots more of it and liven up the economy.
    It's so simple and obvious. This is the reason for the long wave, the Kondratieff Curve. Every 60-70 years the wealthy get stupid, start assuming that little ol' them couldn't possibly hurt the big gigantic infinite Economy, so they accelerate their lobbying for, and lobbying success in, changing all the little money sprinklers on the lawn of the economy from spray to stream and point them up to themselves. And purty soon, hey presto! RECESSION.
    Alternative, more practical version: There's No Way the wealthy can engineer Recovery by co-opting even more of the money supply. And they can certainly worsen Recession by trying.

    Maybe the reason the color orange has a happy effect on people is that sunrise and sunset are often orange (vermillion) in nature = times of change, and hope, openness...

    From the viewpoint of worktime economics, we are in a deepening recession and there is no hope of recovery with one particular economic "institution" that we have; namely, unlimited concentration of the money supply. It is this that nulifies the effectiveness of unlimited production of money by the central bank (U.S.: Fed) = money printing. The top brackets are capable of absorbing ANY new amounts theoretically printed to go into circulation, especially the WAY we try to put them into circulation today; namely, by injecting them into the financial sector, where dwell the top brackets whose sole simple-minded goal is to divert to themselves the unlimited maximum available money purely for chest-thumping and pecking order purposes.

    Our current definitions of "recession" and "depression" are ludicrously lax and loose, and the "not so bad" and "just around the corner" spin capabilities of our monopolistic media moguls are an abdication of our responsibility to the hopes of our ancestors and a dereliction of our duty of quality-of-life enhancement for our descendants.

    We have permitted boring twits to take over our big decision making. We have dragged taxpayers into liability for creating enough artificial busywork to fill a frozen pre-automation workday forever and annul all advantage of any technological work savings. By rejecting advances in the most basic freedom, financially secure and independent free time, we have proven ourselves unworthy and incapable of freedom. Vudda buncha putzes! We're an embarrassment to intelligent life in this quadrant of the galaxy.
    9/17/2012/ ph3

    Even if my will won't, my wont will.

    Shorter hours is the new normal. 35 hours max is the new full time. Overtime needs to start there. And everything above be converted into jobs.
    And we can save ourselves a lot of trouble by just fluctuating the workweek automatically against the unemployment rate (UE).
    As long as UE is too high, the workweek is too high. Thereafter, the workweek can only go up when UE comes further down, but in the age of robotics, there won't be much of that. It'll mostly be UE creeping back up and pushing the workweek further down - unless we want to go back to dragging taxpayers onto the hook for offsetting all future technological efficiencies just to preserve an arbitrary frozen workweek forever, as we're doing now.

    K: they said workweek reduction would hurt but it hasn't.
    They said minimum wage would hurt but it hasn't.
    R: I'm not so convinced about minimum wage because it's broken the wage ladder for people trying to get in at the bottom and work up.
    But minimum wage is a shadow of the second balancing program that after balanced worktime per person, balances income per person. And it's actually a foreshadowing of the upper limit (maximum freely spendable income per person), not the lower. Compare the way the frozen 40-hour workweek "maximum" has become the minimum for getting benefits, though occasionally lower for more humane companies seeking to access a higher quality cohort of employees.
    And note the chiasmus, the crossover = min to max. Compare the god-to-number double chiasmus: Thor to Frijja; Thor to three, Friyya to four. In terms of vowels: back to front; back to front, front to back.

    R: the need for demand, sales, purchases, shoppers, is greater and prior to the need for output or productivity, but currently we're back to yakking about productivity far more than demand. In other words, supply side economics is second to demand side economics. Productivity should never be mentioned without the adjective "marketable" as in marketable productivity. cuz without a market for it, productivity is meaningless waste (and often ecobashing).
    K: what's the big need for prolonged credentialling? more and more is turned over to consultants who are expected to come up to speed in a couple of hours or days, get something noticeable done, and disappear!
    For that matter, what's the big deal about needing lots of worktime to have productivity?
    9/12/2012 9:33a

    Employers and CEOs need a good whack on the side of the head. THEY are creating this downturn by downsizing instead of timesizing, and then they're turning around and complaining about it as if it's an act of God and they're the victims. Oh please.

    WE cause our own economic problems ourselves.
    We sacrifice 70% of our economy, consumer spending, for the sake of 17%, exports, with so-called "free trade" which allows Cheap People nations like China and India to dump the output of their self-disrespect on us and kill our livelihoods.
    (And we have the stupidity and nerve to rationalize this by yapping about INNOVATION?! - how we're forcing the disemployed to find new jobs in areas of INNOVATION?! - What a sick joke! - WHERE are the new jobs? All the wonderful INNOVATION is doing is taking over more jobs - for what? so we can continue our unsustainable split into workaholics/burnouts and parasites/homeless/jailbirds?)
    And prior to 2009, WE sacrificed our professed goal of Growth (via low-interest business borrowing and hiring and spending) to maintain the purchasing power of the tiny population in the topmost brackets that USES it by spending, or even just donating, the SMALLEST percentage of their incomes of any other bracket.
    We have done this sooo much and so weakened the economy in large for the useless sake of spending power in small, that we now can't cut interest rates low enough to have any effect.
    Brilliant - not.
    (And there is a much more natural and positive way to control inflation.)

    Merkel is coming to Canada today. Harper wants access to EU consumers whom he and Wall Street have not yet disemployed/foreclosed-on and pauperized, and Merkel presumably wants bailout help to save the U.S.-stemming mega-euro for a few more weeks on the mistaken assumption that Harper wants pushback against the new suicide-you-first USA-qua-WallSt as much as she does - and all this in a context where the minimal change that could really save the mega-euro is to split it into a north and south euro now that Wall Streeters and their agents in Deutschebank have spread their empire of megadebt from the third world to and through southern Europe.

    The wealthy really don't want to spend their money, they don't want to donate it, they don't want to pay it out in taxes, they don't want to risk it - basically they don't want to circulate it at all. They just want to stuff it all into their mattresses and thump their chests at each other and say, Nyaa nyaa, I've got more than you-oo! Somebody ELSE can bailout those who "need" it and btw, we need more bailout ourselves. And it's apparently the same in Europe or wealthy Merkel wouldn't be over here crying poor.

    Somebody else can supply the jobs that supply the consumer markets, and somebody else can supply the money and credit that allows the debt pyramid to bloat further.

    But if communism of property doesn't work at the individual level cuz there's no place for the buck to stop, why would it work on the inter-economy level? We've got three flavors of inter-economy communism going these days - the right has communism of trade euphemized as Free Trade, and also communism of finance euphemized as bailout, when no amount of money can bailout the wealthy because there's no such thing as enough.* And then there's communism of migration favored by the left, as if anybody should be able to move anywhere at will, regardless of language, skills, jobs and ecology. And maybe we should add the communism-when-it-suits-us of Monsanto and the rest of the testing-averse, secrecy-shrouded, monoculture-spreading, self-sufficiency-killing, sustainability-dissing GMO-frankenfood pushers.

    *So the wealthy, by definition, have what Al Pesso of Psychomotor Therapy used to call something-like "omnipotent hunger."

    World's problems are like Free Cell (episode 2 of below). Once things are unraveled to a certain point, the system "gets the knack" and takes over, finishing the solution. Right now we don't have the knack of prosperity. We have the knack of poverty in the midst of plenty. Or rather plenty in the midst of poverty, since it's poverty for many and plenty for a few.
    With austerity (for many), we are creating recession, or weekly worsening recession if we admit to already having it.
    Austerity IS recession.
    We lack an automatic centrifuge mechanism on par with our automatic concentration mechanism(s) = we have not kept our social software up with our computer software.
    The mechanism must be designed and implemented at the heart of the body economic and must be automatic work spreading and job proliferation (accompanied by the resulting consumer spending) in response to technological disemployment, then in response to technological dewaging, dewealthing, decrediting... - in that order.
    At some point along this way, we will admit that it's not technology itself doing this, it's our nasty and naive downsizing response to it, and our stupid attempt to get upsizing alias growth by downsizing.

    The world's problems are like the cardgame of Free Cell - you've got to do things in the right order, the order that makes easier further untanglings...further solutions, but the right order is not obvious and requires a lot of trial and error. And imagination... And observation skills... And freedom from rigid or obsessive thinking...

    It’s time for all economies, especially third-world, to stop sacrificing reliable homegrown economic dynamism from domestic employment, wages and majority-of-GDP consumption, on the cruel, uncontrollable, unreliable and minority-of-GDP altars of exporters and foreign investment. Every economy that survices the next 50 years will have automatic conversion of chronic overtime into OT-targeted jobs (and on-the-job training whenever needed), and automatic reduction of the workweek as far as it takes to achieve full employment and the maximum of domestic consumer confidence, consumer spending and monetary circulation which those two core design features (OT-to-jobs conversion & shorter-workweek-based employment spreading) provide. Not to mention “all-in-it-together” social cohesion. And third-world countries who want to rise above third-world levels fastest will refocus from capricious export-market “dependency” and investment begging onto cross-training, employment spreading and consumer-spending maximization – all based on the incidence of market-demanded overtime.

    Investors used to invest in what they thought consumers and businesses would buy.
    Now they just invest in what they think other investors will buy.

    This is the major key to when the money supply is overconcentrated, though how to measure and standardize it for use?
    Compare the early 90s when P/E ratios of stocks went off the scale relative to historic norms, and fundamentalists disappeared, completely replaced by technical traders.

    The idea that "the devil finds work for idle hands to do" is oppressively anti-freedom when applied to the most basic freedom, financially secure free time, alias leisure.

    Auntie Mame with Rosalind Russell on TV tonight - thought it was Kaye Ballard playing Pegeen but it was Pippa Scott = never heard of her! Tried to find Kaye Ballard's name on Google for half an hour - finally googled "funny TV women of the 50s" - omg, there's not even a Wikipedia entry for her! no string of photos! what is she, invisible?! she's commented on everyone and everything! - lord, this is the hugest gap on the Internet next to that coloring book from the 40s that I've been looking for for 3 years - about three stout brothers who leave home, bindles over their back, big polkadot toadstools, one falls in well in land of evil king...

    oops, in the immortal words of Gilda Radner, "never mind" - now it's giving me a wikipedia article and a kayeballard.com website...

    [After reading Sarkozy's original election motto Work More to Get More and seeing the original spin of giving workers more of their share of spending power supposedly taken away from them by the 35-hour workweek - as if there's something Sacred and Eternal and Permanent and Unchangeable and Non-Arbitrary and Non-Historically-Accidental about the 40-hour workweek, in disregard of history and technological productivity leaps without accompanying consumability leaps due to leaps in the funding of consumers - and their employee funders.]
    The problem for worksharing and timesizing is that they are sooo counterintuitive and paradoxical, to the current prevailing downturn-precipitating mindset of Work Hard to Get Ahead.
    K: you need an analogy. Think of the oil producers. To stop the fall of the price of oil, they withhold oil from the market and it worked.
    [Parallel: to stop the fall of wages = the price of labor, withhold labor from the market (as by timesizing = workweek reduction).]
    When Obama wanted to stop the rise of the price of gas as it approached $4/gal., in some places it was $5, he opened the US "strategic" oil reserves despite opposition, and it worked.

    Where to start? (eg: in curtailed Tufts talk this aft, or in new book)
    (Somerville MA kitchen, 9-10am, Livia Sohn's "Opera Fantasies for Violin" on the Bose.)
    Probably start with the most effective which you never hear: the concentration of the money supply and the deceleration of the currency as it is redistributed upward, and subsequent economic crisis. And timesizing as just one of the ways (tho most effective & least wasteful, most efficient & thoro) to prevent/reverse that.
    Or maybe start with just unearthing/articulating the great unspoken principles that behind all this:
    1. Money is a symbol which operates like a battery cum friction-generator - turn the handle to generate electricity with a friction generator - move, circulate money to get its meaning freshened and its value recharged...by agreement (as Castaneda's don Juan Matus said, agreement is power)...the more diverse and the faster, the better - in the form of solidity of charge and in the form of stability of charge in terms of flation-resistance, upward (inflation) or downward (deflation).
    2. Money among vastly more people at the bottom of the income scale moves, circulates, eddies and spirals, backwashes, pools and whirls much much much MUUUUCH more diversely (in terms of size of transaction and kind of service or product whose value it is symbolizing at the moment) and rapidly.
    Money among a comparatively much smaller population at the top of the income scale, though this will be denied up and down by the people involved, moves and circulates much much much MUUUCH more monotonously and slowly - because these people spend a MUCH smaller percentage of their money than the bottom, who spend 100% - or more if they go into debt.
    This phenomenon should have the maximum research and PhD theses lavished upon it - instead of the least.
    3. It follows that, as you redistribute the money supply UP the income scale, it de-diversifies and decelerates, and de-circulates, though TBTB (the powers that be) may again, to their OWN impoverishment and unsustainability!, deny this up and down and marshal all kinds of research and data and evidence to disprove it.
    4. Redistribution the money supply UP the income&wealth scales CAUSES depressions, or once TPTB has "depression" defined out of existence, CAUSES recessions (or once they get defined to a much lower frequency), "slow recoveries."
    5. Recessions only became possible when populations got big enough, internally estranged enough, to drop the great "resets," like the Small and Great Jubilees among the ancient Hebrews, the potlatches among the Haida, or the katchina and social dances among the Hopi - all of which kept the game going the same way we start all teams in all sports leagues in all sports at Zero Games Won every season - but economics is the only game, the only sport, the only pastime where we do not - except by the rough tactics of labor shortage via war-plague-starvation, disincentivization&revolution-by-the-gradually/quickly-dispossessed or conquest-by-foreigners, the inefficient tactic of makework, or the inefficient but still largely undeveloped and unapplied tactics of worksharing and timesizing.
    (Similarly, economics is the only game, the only pastime, the only area of human activity where we do not apply that otherwise ubiquitous design principle of, Make the Problem Solve Itself, else we would design for joblessness to automatically lower the workweek, create more overtime for conversion into training and JOBS, and spread the natural market-demanded work to the maximum number of potential consumers, no excuses.)

    Overpopulation in a modern economy is really just the lack of an adjustable workweek tied to un(der)employment.

    How can I explain this to myself? How can I get this through my head?

    You can't "bail out the rich" because the rich aren't in trouble. They aren't the source of The Great Leak - they're the destination - of The Great Leak UPWARD!
    They're doing fine.
    And whatever they're experiencing is actually part of a systemic solution, feedback on (and the potential correction of) risk = it's learning, it's discipline, and if we block it, the learning isn't done and the correction isn't made and the process doesn't improve.
    Instead, it gets worse.

    Even more obvious and hidden in plain view, you can't bail out the rich because they aren't sinking, they're still verymuch floating on top of everybody else.
    You can't bail out the rich because they aren't leaking - they're where all the money is leaking TO - THEY're the destination of The Great Leak Upward...from everywhere else in the system.

    And you can't bail out the rich because they can absorb ANY percentage of the money supply, however large, apparently in the name of the Holy Pecking Order. In short, there is no point at which the bailout is enough. It's all their say-so. And since they have no qualms about scaring-threatening Congress into such an outrageous exercise in the first place, there are absolutely no guarantees that they will care to "say-so," or "say 'when,' " in the limited period during which the system can recover - in 1 year, 5 yrs, 10 yrs...ever. Of course, a system can always recover with enough consistent application...but that depends on human agreement...

    Johnny Cash' "ain't no grave can hold my body down" - there are partitions in the brain, including a curious one where facts and science don't matter, are irrelevant, are depressing LIES - such that you cannot communicate from one to the other. It is impossible for person in one partition or "mood" to communicate with a person in some others, for example, a person in the science partition to communicate with someone in the "I'm going to meet Mother beyond the grave" partition - or vice versa, although the science partition has a more informative transcendent description of the situation than the science-be-damned explanation along the lines of "he's in the Devil's power."

    The first economy that implements mandatory reinvestment is going to be a powerhouse.
    And it starts with mandatory reinvestment of chronic overtime and smoothly, automatically, systemically breaking open the skill bottlenecks flagged by chronic overtime.
    The first economy that implements mandatory recirculation of the vast eddies in the money supply diverted by the 0.01% is going to be a powerhouse. (testing metaphor of the Niagara River and the Great Whirlpool)

    So not only is the US unemployment rate a vase of artificial flowers, but so is the poverty rate - see 7/22-23/2012 recession section. One gets the impression of a country adrift - no clue where it is, where it's been or where it's going.

    The wealthy depend on our gullibility to keep this dysfunctional system going, regardless it's "going" worse and worse.
    Specifically, they need us to believe that technology creates more jobs than it destroys (no matter how much they invest in downsizing, not timesizing) and they need us to believe that we can give any percentage of the money supply, however large, to any percentage of the population, however small, and that the money will get invested and get right back to work creating jobs. In both cases, the rebuttal is simply: Where are the jobs?

    And on our side, we need to drop the simple-minded default goal of limitless riches, or the idea that the super-rich (such as Bill Gates) have in any way "earned" their unspendable billions. Today's hyperconcentration of the money supply is THE CAUSE of our "stumbling recovery" - which is really a deepening depression if we had proper instead of propaganda economic indexes.
    We also need to drop the protestant work ethic = work hard to get ahead - in the robotics age? Let's get real! The more we try to compete with 24/7 robots, the sicker we're getting and the more we're kidding ourselves that we're doing a good job.
    And we also need to drop our delusions of indispensibility and the illiquidity of our job description - that WE are needed to do every bit of this too-big job and no one else can do any part of it. Between 1840 and 1940, people had these same self-flattering(?) illusions at every stage in the reduction of the workweek from 80 hours down to 40.

    Boston Globe, front page: Colo. gunman kills 12, wounds 59 in movie theater massacre - In full body armor, 24-year-old opens fire at 'Dark Knight Rises' - Uncertain line between fantasy, nightmare
    We glorify violence and virtually hand out guns, and then we're appalled when our best and brightest pick up on it.
    And this kid wasn't even Muslim - he would've slipped through all the checkpoints.
    Yes, Accused shooter was quiet intellectual - 'Shy guy . . . loner', p. A5.
    And no alarms ring when now some 20 little black kids just around Boston have been blown away over the months cuz it's all one at a time and . . . they're poor black kids.

    Americans pay lip service to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," but they control happiness in the form of marijuana and don't control death, suffering and grief in the form of automatic weapons. What scale of massacre will it take to get presidential candidates to say Enough! to the minority of Americans who agree with the national RIFLE asso. (who are suicidally trying to maintain easy access to weapons far beyond the rifle) and quit sacrificing the vast majority of Americans who want automatic weapons controlled - including the police? The A in NRA stands for assassins and we've already got too many of them in the CIA.

    The relevance of Timesizing? Right now America's youth have nothing to look forward to but student debt and joblessness. Our destructive technology has outpaced our common interest. But Timesizing offers a common workweek range, below which we will not let people sink and above which we will not let people rise without extended self-interest. Timesizing stops today's pervasive threat to people's livelihoods and gives everyone more money and financially secure free time to act as the millions of watchdogs we need to keep the complex temptations of our technologized financial sector resistable, and the massive risks of our de-diversification (think suicidally arrogant and simple-minded agrobusiness and monoculture and genetically modified seeds) countered by hundreds of millions of financially secure diversity initiatives (think community gardens and diversity banks).

    TR to Defining Time: Every analog clock is a moving analogy of the apparent motion of the Sun around the average observer on Earth surface. Early 24-hour clocks provided a closer analogy. The clock at 12 noon represents the shadowless Sun.

    The left flings voters to the right by pushing for unregulated immigration ("globalization" untied to the job market).
    The right flings voters to the left by pushing for unregulated imports ("free trade" unrelated to the job market).
    7/01 (fm c.6/15)

    By pushing for guaranteed (minimum) income, left-leaning economists give up societal integration and participation in a larger entity, the job market - and also attack all work incentive.
    The dramatic workweek reductions awaiting economies that implement fluctuating adjustment of the workweek against unemployment steal the fire of those who claim that many people just can't work or participate in the job market and self-support.
    7/01/2012 (fm c.6/15)

    Current attempts to fix the economy are barking up the wrong tree.
    7/01/2012 (fm c.6/15)

    Money always flows in the direction of scarcity = shortage, automatically, by market forces. If there's a shortage of job openings = employers, money flows to employers. If there's a shortage of job seekers = employees, money flows to employees.

    (Notice that we have NOT said that money always flows in the direction of productivity, per prevailing wisdom,
    and we have NOT said that money always flows in the direction of longer working hours per person, per prevailing wisdom. On the contrary, jobs and employers and employees and jobseekers work the same as everything else, by supply and demand. Labor shortage? Price of labor (wage level) rises. Labor surplus? Price of labor (wage) falls. Employment shortage? Price of employment (time needed to find job) rises and wage when finally found falls. And consumer spending falls and marketable productivity falls and sustainable>profitable investment opportunity falls. Employment surplus? Price of employment (time needed to find job) falls and wage when found rises. And consumer spending rises and marketable productivity rises and sustainable>profitable investment opportunity rises. Ergo economic growth happens with a labor "shortage" and recession happens with a labor surplus. In other words, capitalism works well (better and better?) with a labor "shortage" and badly (worse and worse?) with a labor surplus.)

    The vital additional factoid you need to know in this situation is...
    as money = a nation's money supply is redistributed UP the income scale, it loses velocity of circulation because the people with more money spend a smaller percentage of it and save a larger percentage of it, intended for investment.
    And as money = a nation's money supply is redistributed DOWN the income scale, it gains velocity of circulation because people with less money spend a larger percentage of it and save a smaller percentage of it, intended for investment.

    (Notice that this is at variance with the prevailing wisdom, which claims that we can transfer any amount of the money supply, however large, to any sliver of the population, however small, and it will get immediately spent, that is, "it will get right back to work creating jobs.")

    Corollary: It follows that as money is redistributed up the income scale, the economy slows down.
    And as money is redistributed down the income scale, the economy speeds up.

    Notice that the economy grows as it speeds up.
    Notice that the economy receeds and goes into recession as it slows down.

    Notice that financiers, CEOs and economists claim to want economic growth.
    But all their current policies are directed to minimizing employees and maximizing jobseekers; ergo, all their current policies are conducive to recession rather than growth.
    It follows then that these wealthy decision makers constantly create recession, which they claim to dislike, but this never becomes admitted or known or discussed or changed because...they own the media.

    Notice that these aspects, these angles, are completely ignored by the prevailing wisdom, which constantly mentions only inflation and stock prices and government spending and government debt.
    Notice that this narrative has so far not mentioned inflation or these other things at all. It has, however, mentioned unemployment right at the start in the guise of shortage of jobs, that is, of employers.

    Notice that the prevailing wisdom claims to dislike government spending, which results in government debt, but often, simultaneously, regards government debt, compared to private-sector stocks, as a safe haven for savings.

    Governments have therefore been functioning as proxy spenders for the wealthy, since the wealthier you are, the smaller the percentage of your income you actually spend and the more you save, intended for investment.

    Here's the linkage - the breakdown of feedback to the decision makers is dysfunctionalizing the greatest human invention, the economy, and blocking the invention of the next, even greater human invention, the ecology. It is doing this by allowing the decision makers the illusion that the system is working fine, "and if it works, don't fix it." The dysfunctionality is happening via the agglomeration and decirculation of unlimited percentages of the money supply(ies).

    Timesizing aka worktime economics aka SWT is the most developed sustainable viewpoint on the Web, and though it sounds outlandish to contemporary conventional "landish" ears used to listening through the mounting tinnitis and accepting huge deeply embedded contradictions and colossal self-destructiveness, it is not only sustainable but indefinitely upgradeable.

    How about:

    Jesus of Nazareth and his band of 12 Merrye Men


    King Jesus and his Knights of the Round Table


    Shared "poverty" isn't poverty because poverty is relative, and with no excess to relate it to, unfavorably, it becomes normal, not pitiful.
    As economic systems all over the world deteriorate, there is an increasing burden on the wealthy to show that their status is functional and sustainable, and not dysfunctional and system-deteriorating, an assault on the circulation of currency = stable flation, and on the reception by decision centers of change-indicating feedback.

    Saw an article somewhere recently saying that one of the functions of religion was to avoid cuckoldry by imposing on women a Morality of sexual exclusiveness.
    More broadly, the origin of private property would be this monogamy or more specifically, sexual exclusiveness, and the origin of sexual exclusiveness would be to conduce to investing in one's own genetic continuity and not someone else's.

    Just as "it's not how many events you attend, but how many invitations you get" that counts, so maybe "it's not how easily you make mistakes but how easily you recover from them" that counts. Or how about "it's not how much contact information you collect but how many you actually feel like contacting" that counts?

    For example, I feel less uncomfortable with, more like contacting, the medium height, less noticeable Coventry woman than the taller, thin faced, angular Welsh woman, even though this was the first time that I began to "get" the distinctiveness of the Welsh accent, which actually sounds more angular, checkered.
    4:44am 7/7/2012

    "Stuxnet"? = new type of worm, used not none, not just one, but FOUR "zero-___" vulnerabilities to disrupt Iranian nuclear project - guess who would have resources and motivation to design such. And they made a mistake in 2010 that triggered discovery of this worm. Now a whole new range of ranges of malware is not just possible but precedented. And subject to human error. And human error varies with human mood, as in, depression, as in job insecurity or any-source dissatisfaction - even if we have enough sheer luck to avoid good-mood, destructive intention, as in sabotage. So one of these babies could trigger a cataclysmic nuclear exchange. Back to "our computer software has far outpaced our social software." Compare previous program (on CBC Gamechanger show, Fri., 7/06/2012) re hitech prostheses from MIT. A lot of stuff started to go wrong once the default human goal was shifted from constant finite time (momentum) to variable unlimited money (energy). We've gone from "everyone wants longer life" (still constant, still finite) to "everyone wants to be rich" (unconstant, unlimited, potentially system-lethal because of Twofold Taint: 'tain't maximizing currency circulation and 'tain't maximizing accurate and timely indications of adaptation = negative feedback - because the 1% or 0.01% own the media - except not yet the Web...completely).

    So in yet another way, our failure to clear up and standardize presentation of the next three senses of measurement (dimensions 4-6, let alone the first three, which still have fundamental gaps in paradigm as in: X times length is Y // Y times width is area // area times height is volume) has had a negative and possibly fatal effect. We NEED this simple logical consistent metaphorical framework to rely on in order to inform and correct our research metaphor creation. In other words, we're distorting or completely skipping the time dimension in a rush to get to energy, and by calling it the fourth dimension we are doubling it up with mass, to which we have denied acknowledged 4th-dimensional status. And we have, by constant mention of the matter-energy equation, granted energy 5th-dimensional status. And then we've woo-wooed up the whole discussion so we can scarcely talk seriously about it.

    Ergo our current economic design is increasingly BASED ON the abuse of money, its fundamental energy transport medium, its blood. It's as if the body economic, or homo economicus, is increasingly devoted to, not blood cancer (leukemia) but concentration of blood somewhere in the body, which we might hope is the brain but is not necessarily so and even if it is, it's still lethal. We are in the process of concentrating money supplies, without limit on the large side, within small populations, without limit on the small side except one, or if we make the non-radical assumption that that one person has a partitioned brain, a subdivisable mind, maybe without limit on the small side without qualification. And we are printing money in a too-little too-late attempt to offset this hyperconcentration, offsetting the inflationary effect with deflationary pressure via mass impoverishment via employment-skill hyperconcentration.

    And even the CBC prosthetics program is not mentioning jobs except for the potential of job design with advanced technological-enabling for the "handicapped." Nor is it mentioning the lethal flaw of downsizing not timesizing in response to technology, glaringly obvious though this be, thus taking for granted this disintegrating common interest. And the sabotage-allowing>incentivating effect of that.

    Orwell's Newspeak has arrived - Worst case so far = "Right to Work" states = "right" to work without being in a union. Compare "right" to suicide, "right" to "choose" longer workhours, never mind ever more-steeply sloping jobmarket power gradient/playing field in favor of employers due to jobseeker surplus, jobopening shortage and consequent incentive to avoid employer-financed training.

    When you're depressed, you have to make the most of each tiny accomplishment unit.
    But when you're feeling OK, you've got to stop grandiloquizing even your biggest and most dramatic breakthroughs and realizations - otherwise further ideas are scared away (however big, they usually start small) and further advance is stopped.

    Consciousness is a decision center. The more options, the more decisions, the more consciousness; the more layers of options and decisions, the higher the consciousness.
    Decision center includes sense/sensory-reception center. And the short but fundamental layer of options&decisions flowing from that reception: bottom, dosomething/donothing; next, ifdosomething rolloptionstape choose.
    Corollary: In "now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep," soul is consciousness and consciousness is a decision center. In the case of sleep (unconsciousness), we infer reactivation of the decision center (wakeup) rather than non-reactivation (no wakeup: termination: death).

    Colleague Kate's talking about all the faking of data going on by "hard" scientists, even at Harvard.
    It's job insecurity and desperation.
    It's another cost of non-full-employment economics and another huge potential benefit of full-employment capitalism via overtime-to-training&hiring conversion and workweek-vs.-unemployment fluctuation.
    It's another mechanism, maybe THE mechanism, that blocks the extension of self-interest and sets definite limits on creativity in each era, as defined by the primary core value-centrifuge or sharing mechanism of given population and period. And the creativity limit limits national power and individual longevity.

    We need a webpage on Pivotal Women: Several HUGE scientific revolutions lately have been triggered by women.
    The first that jumps to mind is shift in biology from the three kingdoms (animal, plant, fungus) to the two cell types: simple and complex, solo and symbiotic (pro- and eu-karyotic) thanks to Lynne Margolis (The Symbiotic Origins of the Eukaryotic Cell).
    But reading How Writing Came About, by Denise Schmandt-Besserat - ohmygod, the care, the love, the gentleness-with-adversaries, the patience-leading-the-slow-thru-the-valleys-btw-the-highpts-of-the-theory that she put into that - I had NO IDEA of the extent of the data, the drawings, the categorizations, the imagination, the step-by-step process she envisioned. It's like Cal Watkins used to tell us in historical linguistics: don't even start if you've just got two or three instances. You need a ton of them to prove a systemic change. Denise's drawings give the last part of the book the look and feel of The Swarts Ruin: A Typical Mimbres Site in Southwestern New Mexico.

    Then didn't Marie Curie do most of the work on radium?...
    And who was the gal in the early history of computing? Was it just Mary Shelley and the artificial intelligence of Frankenstein's "monster"?

    Cut the moralizing preachments about executive pay 500-600 times ordinary employees and explore the way this level of money-supply funneling violates economic system requirements - e.g., velocity-of-circulation, diversity-of-transaction-size (circ.req.), feedback.

    "There's no free lunch."
    But employers think there are free markets, markets that they themselves don't have to fund with jobs and job earnings.
    So they're always weakening earnings with demands for H-1B work visas (47,000 of them), deeper labor surplus, lower wages and weaker markets.

    Contemporary economics' biggest failure is externalizing far too much; e.g., unemployment may be in, but welfare, disability, prison, homelessness, suicide and self-employment with no clients is out.
    Then we can mention:
    Markets are becoming less and less transparent.
    People behave in many different kinds of rational ways, often contravening self-interest.
    (E.g., In 1993, Swiss economists asked Wolfenschlessen if it would accept a nuclear waste facility (eg: for Swiss hospitals) if it really was the best spot and more than half the villagers said yes out of civic duty. But then when they proposed compensating the villagers, only a quarter said yes and even raising the offer couldn't return support to the previous level. In the first case, it was about civic virtue; money turned it into bribery. Ref: "How markets do moral damage," by Joshua Rothman, 5/27/2012 Boston Globe, K2.]

    The three big obstacles people have with Timesizing are:
    1. the general confusion about time, the tradition of feeling its victim rather than its master;
    2. the Protestant work ethic, the general identification of busyness and importance, and "work hard to get ahead" = the looming guilt over working less and getting paid more;
    3. the outrageousness and unprecedentedness (in human evolution) of having to create a SHORTAGE of ourselves in the job market - to discipline employers out of concentrating and decirculating a dysfunctional amount of the money supply that violates system requirements for a certain huge amount in circulation.

    How does "the onepercent" figure they're making their own lives better (or safer!) by making everyone else's desperate?

    Somehow I got explaining again to Gaby and Diane last night, at the Brewhouse(?) in Aylmer QC, why people are confused by time, why they can't easily define it, and why Einstein's contradictory results were wrong = a photon could arrive back at the same place before it left, etc. = the calculations that seem to have given root to reverse time travel, which even Steven Hawking won't rule out as a possibility!
    I've often sensed that it had something to do with the failure to upscale your timeclock when you're dealing with off-the-scale motion such as that of a photon, judged by a standard analog 24-hour "timeclock" modeled on the near-circular motion of an arbitrary theoretical mark (Greenwich observatory) on a planet's (Earth's) surface as judged from a theoretical viewpoint at the center of a lightsource (Sun), with the additional theoretical simplification of reorienting the axis (pole-to-pole line) of the planet's near-rotary motion to parallel or align with the photons from the reference lightsource, so that the view can suitably be schematized as a 24-hour clock dial with the junction of the Greenwich meridian and the circumference (Equator) marking the end of a theoretical "big hand," and ""stationery" theoretical marks equidistant around the circumference marking convenient equal parts of a "complete" (these quotes all mark things that involve finer mathematical complications) 360-degree rotation (near-circular motion) of the equator-Greenwichmeridian mark, such as 24 equidistant "stationery" marks gives you so-called "hours." Note the compounded confusion here. Without even mentioning the levels of originalbasis-neglect and simplification and viewpoint specification and axis reorientation and theoretical "let's say" going on here, we have three systems with different number-bases going on here - we're writing the numbers on base 10, but the 24 involves a 12-base light dial and a 12-base dark dial. and the 360 represents a large 12x15x2(light+dark) numberbase specifically designed for subdividing. And subdivided it became when we applied it to mark the number of 24-hour near-rotations (days) in a "complete" near-revolution (year) of the whole dial around the lightsource (Sun/Sol) with an additional much bigger but more distant lightsource required to judge this larger rotation (revolution) by - which we've never standardized or agreed on. We suggest Sirius if there's even just a 51% chance that Rodney Collins (Theory of Celestial Influence) is right about it being an intervening center of revolution between the Sun and the galactic (Milky Way) center.
    The point is, that the intuition-contradicting calculations involved in Einstein's stoop to showmanship (or was it his followers?) concern extremely small discrepancies, on a level that is easily affected by neglected actual discrepancies in the timeclock. The clock is always described as stationery, but that in itself is a simplifying (distorting) thought experiment, because the clock, even just relative to its lightsource, is NOT stationery. The whole scene is fluid; very slowly so, but fluid nonetheless.
    The easiest way to think of this is the first way it came to me. Real clocks are not circular motion but almost unnoticeably SPIRAL motion, and not even that simple, they are ...spiralwithinspiralwithinSPIRALwithinspiral... motion.
    When the motion you're considering goes theoretical (off-the-scale), it is not optional to upgrade your timeclock and your timeunits - you MUST upgrade your clock and your timeunits or you WILL get distorted results, because of all the smaller, almost infinitesimal, motions of your smaller timeclock that you have conveniently neglected in sending a photon off on a megamongohuge return trip, while fatuously and fraudulently (deceptively, self-deceptively too) assuming some kind of absolute stillness for your little clock or watch which has been "stationery" "back" on Earth.
    So again, we have Einstein erring because he's absolutized something relative, and packaged it up as "relativity" - before he absolutized the speed of light, but now, and even deeper, he has absolutized the size (too small) and situation (at rest, stationery) of the foundation of his measurement activity; namely, his timeclock.
    (I, Phil Hyde, am a mathophobic linguist, so any of you mathophiles who want to write this up as a formal disproof of Einstein's counterintuitive results and publish it and take credit for it, fine; all I ask is that you share the Nobel with me cuz with a little dough, I could greatly accelerate solution of our current economic "crises.")
    PS - This also solves the confusion about the difference between the "stationery" clock on Earth and the clock on the round-tripping, lightspeed-travelling spaceship - similar to Einstein's original and most self-deceiving metaphor, that of riding on a lightbeam (photon), which immediately violates the (absolute, LOL) scientific requirement of a SINGLE viewpoint.
    So a photon probably cannot leave a "stationery" clock on Earth, do a round trip of ? lightyears, and return before it left, because the clock is not absolutely stationery during the photon's trip, and even an infinitesimal motion on Earth during that trip covers a tiny but mathematically significant distance around Earth's solar orbit while the Sun is covering a short but mathematically significant distance around its Sirian orbit AND taking the Earth with it...and so on with Sirius around galactic center and galactic center around local galaxy-cluster center etc.
    So we can appeal to the basis of time in motion to straighten out the self-contradicting confusions that we've gotten into in talking about time.
    AND speaking of lightyears, we suspect there's a distorting effect on results in using this TIME metaphor (5th dimensional) as a LINE or distance measuring unit (first dimensional: dot x l = line, line x w = area, a x h = v, v x density = mass, mass x velocity' = momentum (special case: time), momentum x velocity" = energy; mass x v x v = e, cf. m x c x c = e, mcc=e, mc(2)=e, e=mc(2) ), and in treating an overall curved path as a (straight) line, and in substituting c for v (lightspeed for general velocity) and in using the same word for the two different types of velocity and in using the same word for the two different types of light speed.
    Note the huge self-deception potential of the many metaphors involved here, often overlapping, sometimes involving mixed metaphor, and in a sense, all language is metaphor.
    And note also the continuum from gentle/calm to angry here of: ...misleading-selfdeceptive-deceptive-fraudulent...
    Next episode: can we get a big enough clock to adequately compare the motions of the Earth"bound" clock and the photon's round trip? what's the SINGLE viewpoint? with complete relativity, why couldn't it with equal validity be the roundtripping photon, therefore assuming a relative huge roundtrip of the erstwhile "stationery" clock on Earth?
    11:11am same day/ph3
    All language is metaphor.
    We say, This is a chair. (pointing to one)
    But "chair" is not a chair.
    "Chair" has gone into your ears
    and this (pointing) hasn't.
    It's by way of their unexamined metaphors that physicists like Einstein and Hawking have allowed nonsense to enter.

    The most important thing in the world right now is time.
    It is time that we must balance right now, because all future balancings depend on balanced time:
    work per person vs. leisure, freedom, nature, wilderness, creativity...

    Does neutral feedback function as the "let's just move on" version of negative feedback on eBay and other auction sites?

    We haven't heard "the end justifies the means" much lately, and our old minister at St.George's United Church in Toronto (Dr. John Short?, a Scot) used to deny it with "the means tends to determine the end" - but when you think about it, isn't Shakespeare's "All's Well That Ends Well" saying same thing as "the end justifies the means"?

    I've long realized that the key function of religion ("rereading") in human evolution over the last 2500 years since the Hebrews and Hindus evolved special writings, has been literacy.
    But considering all the sanctions (e.g., "shame," "sin"=missingthepath) on biodrugs (sexual gratification) and support for structured biodrugs (e.g., monogamy or quadrigamy) in Christianity and Islam, a secondary function has been population control, motivated by experience of overpopulation traumas. The Catholic Church only started celibatizing the clergy around 1000AD, ostensibly to inherit the wealth of childless employees (is this from Cahill's How the Irish Saved Civilization?), but there was considerable "ready ground" for such a development: e.g., Jesus' "he that so much as looketh at a woman with lust in his heart is already guilty of adultery" and the Hebrew taboos of shame and incest going back to Lot and the second creation story when Adam and Eve eat of the Tree of the KNOWING Good and Evil (TKGE) and "realize" they're "naked," i.e., vulnerable, over-exposed: they feel defensive (from just one another?!) - and it's their "figleaves" that tip off Yahweh to the fact that they've trespassed His one and only boundary = the fruit of the TKGE, which He stuck right in the middle of the Garden and said, "Don't touch!"  As old Bill Staples used to point out, what did He EXPECT man to do? - He could have tucked the TKGE away in a corner somewhere hidden but oh no, He stuck it right bmodth hagan, "in the middle of the Garden" and said, "Don't touch!" And even so, very very long lives supposedly persisted for generations as noted in "the begats." The Torah has hints of overpopulation here and there, branches of families seeking further fields... Presumably the desertification of the Middle East due to post-migratory herding (goats-sheep-oxen-cattle) was ongoing at this period (ca.1500BC). And the passage of migratory herding itself was probably due to human population growth...

    The semantic kernel of holiness and sacredness is separateness = "Come ye out from among them and be ye separate." So the core of holiness is divisive and holier-than-thou provocation, which is inconsistent with the basic requirement of the universe for continuity. Note that Freud's "all human behavior is sexual" is a special case of the basic function of the universe is continuity.

    Money is for exchange. It only holds its value by exchange (= agreement that it has value: where two or three are gathered together in Mammon's name, there He holds His value). What slows exchange? Saving, investing, hoarding. We now have huge percentages of the money supply clinging to value in huge funds that are so abstract and derived, they can barely be called investments and retain their value only by pyramiding.

    Wilbur and Orville Wright experimented for years, reading omnivorously about gliders and any other relevant stuff. Änd then they discovered the secret of balance, which had been the unfailing obstacle in the almost countless flying-machine attempts of the era. They developed wings [that could] be warped [= adjusted for turning needs or against unpredicted winds], increasing or lessing the air pressure, and thus enabling the machine to keep an even keel."
    P.70, The North American Almanac 1927 (W.B.Hunt Co.: Boston, Mass.)

    So the LAST thing to be discovered was the secret of balance, and despite all economists' claims to neutral and self-regulation of the economy and the whole myth of The Invisible Hand. they still haven't discovered Walter Reuther's "fluctuating adjustment of the workweek against unemployment."
    But now at last we have conceived of workweek that can be ADJUSTED automatically downwards as long as unemployment is too high or rising, to create jobs by squeezing out the amount of natural market-demanded employment like toothpaste onto everyone who needs it.
    4/21/2012/ph3 1pm

    I've always felt defensive/vulnerable about recommending workweek reduction to create an artificial shortage of labor, but the tradeoff is, an artificial shortage of labor, non-arbitrary because it is determined by the market-determined unemployment rate (preferably redefined to include the whole problem of dependency instead of excluding discouraged jobseekers, welfare, disability, homelessness, prisons and clientless self-employment {and suicide} )
    evaporates the need for an artificial shortage of jobs (as in "government makework"), and the existence of an artificial, historically accidental workweek length frozen forever despite waves of worksaving technology.
    So an "artificial" (but indirectly market-determined definition of full-time employment) obsoletes politically vulnerable, totally artificial, eco-ignoring and arbitrary makework, and an artificial, historical-accident-type level of the workweek and an artificial, ignored freezing (cultural regulation) of the workweek at that level.

    And which would you rather have in the age of overpopulation and environmental constraints as in "global warming"? An artificial labor "shortage" (ie: labor-employment balance) which raises wages and job security and free time to plan ahead and stop externalizing the environment, or a burgeoning amount of desperate or discouraged jobseekers and artificial makework just to maintain an artificial and arbitrary definition of "full time employment" forever against all future technological productivity, efficiencies and worksavings?

    And an artificial but market-determined (via market-determined unemployment) shortage of labor levels the job-market playing field between employers and employees, currently ldysfunctionally skewed, which harnesses market forces to raise general wage levels (instead of just mongomegabucks for the superrich) and raise consumer spending (as in "consumer BASE") and MARKETABLE producitivity alias sustainable and profitable investment targets.
    4/21/2012/ph3 c.12n

    Basically, by regarding employees as "costs," managers and employers have come to regard their own best customers as a negative, and the many economists and business schools that foster this attitude have become hostile to markets and growth. So is it any wonder that growth is stumbling and "the recovery" is weak?

    Negative "promoting oneself to one's level of incompetence" may be seen positively as staying on the cutting edge of one's learning curve.

    Joblessness - the biggest obstacle to solving it is lack of imagination. Lack of the imagination to simply share the vanishing human employment. And to those who say it isn't vanishing, or even, it's infinite, I say, WHERE ARE THE JOBS? That should shut them up unless they say, But there are all kinds of job shortages. To which I say, These aren't JOB shortages but merely SKILL shortages which translate into TRAINING shortages which translate into such a majority of employers overwhelmed by floods of jobseeking resumes that they expect to be able to EXACTLY fill any missing jigsaw-puzzle piece in their skillset for a song, and push all training costs and responsibilties onto jobseekers. Return to Square One: Joblessness.

    The key thing to learn in life as you "go geriatric" is ... self-morale mgmt. Finagling the timing, the guilt hydraulics and the procrastination to get stuff done that you don't particularly want to do ... like taxes.

    It's real simple: the money supply spreads out = the rise of empire; the money supply funnels and coagulates = the fall of empire. Concentrate money = rise; centrifuge money = fall. BECAUSE? Centrifuged money gets spent, gets circulated. Concentrated money, all the rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, deactivates and decirculates.
    4/07 11am

    Zip[py] 'n Zerbina cartoon "Reap while you sleep" by Bill Griffith, 4/05/2012 Boston Globe, G27.
    Imaginative and satyrizing of the money grasping of product placements.
    Financial insecurity > job insecurity > job desperation on the part of the 99%.
    Nervous unimaginative MORE money on the part of the 1% who assume its the road to security - when it's the opposite.
    4/07 10:20a

    I need to connect the concepts of maximum workweek reduction and downward redefinition of fulltime employment - this is an obvious equation for me, but not necessarily for others.
    In fact, linguistic equations like this in general are troublesome and rarely laid out... and the obvious-to-me "slides" like: downsizing(+/-outsourcing)), less employment, less centrifuged money supply, less consumer spending, less marketable productivity, less profitable/sustainable investment, less incentive to invest, less investment, more downsizing, less employment...=self-fueling diagonally downward spiral... easily fixable by crossing an apparently huge mindset-gulf and substituting timesizing for downsizing both on the microeconomic/corporate level (equation alert!) and on the macroeconomic level with workweek-ceiling reduction designed to repeatedly self-adjust to counter un(der)employment and restore&maintain full employment and thus maximize consumer spending by maximizing M1/money supply (equation alert) centrifugation.

    Doing your taxes requires a particular peculiar mood: punctilious cynical conceding.

    Compare: Different countries have different specializations on their postage stamps:
    Nicaragua - distant mountains
    Peru - llamas
    Chile - portraits of Columbus (staked claim to Columbus in 1853)
    Colombia - eagle, displayed (didn't unite into 'Colombia' till 1862)
    Guatemala - quetzls
    Western Australia - swans
    Victoria State - a bizarre variety of often amateurish portraits of mostly young Queen Victoria

    Different cultures have different specializations:
    Japan: shindai = non-destructively violent conflict resolution/foreplay (pillo fighting)
    Pre-deforestation Easter Island: ever larger stone lookouts
    Pre-Roman Britain: ever larger astrological stones
    19th century Britain: ever larger steam locomotives
    Old-Kingdom Egypt: ever larger pyramidal tombs
    21st century Earth: ever taller office &/or residential towers

    Naive: Creativity is the juxtaposition of extreme opposites.
    Less naive: Creativity is the juxtaposition of extreme diversity.
    E.g. from Bill Gordon: flounder-back roof.

    The Solution-Loophole

    How are we going to get enough market-demanded, non-artificial, non-taxpayer-impacting jobs for over 7 billion people in the age of robotics, and therefore, how are we going to resolve our fundamental contradiction between swelling productive power and shrinking consuming power due to shrinking consumer spending due to shrinking consumer earning due to shrinking consumer employment?
    Solution: There's a loophole in a phrase that the question failed to mention right at the beginning =
    How are we going to get enough market-demanded, non-artificial, non-taxpayer-impacting, 40-hour/week jobs...?
    So the solution-loophole is = we're going to shrink the workweek and share the vanishing work instead of dragging taxpayers into the fool's errand of trying to invent enough artificial busywork to keep over 7 billion people spinning their wheels for a frozen 40-hour workweek...FOREVER, thus getting zero net-benefit out of any and all technological productivity.

    This is the big lie in rightwing and leftwing thinking =
    The right is forcing BIG GOVERNMENT (40-hr/wk) job-creation while trying to deny it and destroy big government in the process
    and the left is OK with artificial (40-hr/wk) job creation and big government and eternally (exponentially?) rising government deficits if not taxes.
    Neither side even thinking about, let alone mentioning, the critical variable = the solution-loophole = the length of the standard full-time workweek - which needs to fluctuate against unemployment (and the need to convert overtime smoothly and automatically into training and jobs).
    Neither side is sustainable.
    And the answer to the question that everyone with a little insight is already framing ("what about exponentially rising population?") is -We're going to tie it in to quality of life both on-the-job (management skill at suturing ever shorter shifts) and off-the-job (amount of financially secure free time) with regular, repeating polls and referendums to determine public comfort with further workweek reduction. If a pause in workweek reduction is indicated by referendum results, we serve up a menu of population variables to shift the pressure to.
    The population variables are: imports, offshore job-outsourcing, immigration, births.
    When both workweek reduction and population control is maxxed-out as solution variables, we switch to the next great series of disparities (or better, overconcentrations), the money dimensions; the first of which is income (inflowing money per person)
    We constantly dismantle per-job variable control (eg: no minimum wage laws) while constructing simple per-person variable controls, thereby building a clearer boundary between private and public sectors, business and government, market and state (builds on the separation of state and church).
    And we continually build reliance on deflationary incentive (eg: job satisfaction) to balance reliance on inflationary incentive (the money motive).

    Time to send Juliet Schor a valentine and comment-out of the bibliography page the criticism of her late-1990s lapse in focus after her wonderful 1992 book The Overworked American. (Cutting domestic spending before cutting the workweek is cutting your own throat, 'nuff said.) And her January/2011 article is fabulous (see 1/09-11/2011 #2: "Tackling U.S. Unemployment: The 80% Solution").

    Without workweek regulation as full-employment strategy, capitalism has become desperation creation and management - which is unstable and unsustainable.

    Consciousness is the major junction of impulses from all the sense receptors of organic robots (highly articulated organisms). The optionality created by this junction forces a unified, hierarchical, multipley-selfreferencing awareness to resolve mutually exclusive courses of action, and the resulting self-referencing decision-making unit(y) participates in the universal leaning toward continuity but also, appropriates the illusion of unique value and usually arrogates some attitude of exaggerated self-importance.

    Timesizing puts the 'zing' in worksharing.

    Timesizing® T-shirt label:

    Timesizing®- THE 4 BIGGEST QUESTIONS

    1. What's Timesizing?

            cutting hours, not jobs
              trimming workweek, not workforce (+ consumer base)

    2. How short a workweek should we have?

            as short as it takes to achieve & maintain
            full employment & markets (& never again frozen!)

    3. (Non-wealthy ask:)   Won't it cut wages?

            no, because with full employment,
            there's no flood of resumes coming in
            for every job opening
            employERs have to work a bit harder...

    4. (Wealthy ask:)   Won't it cause inflation?

            no, because the cap on the workweek
            - unless you reinvest in jobs -
            serves as an organic inflation control*
            that unlike our present control (higher interest rates)
            does not slow growth

      *explained fully on timesizing.com/1jobrinv.htm

      1/6-7 & 2/09/2012/ph3

    Significantly, humanity's greatest achievement, reaching the Moon, was achieved JUST before (1969) capitalism resumed its most debilitating condition, labor surplus (1970) when the grownup babyboomers really began to pour into the job market and replace the wage&spending-depressing labor surplus of the long-workweek but anti-luddite Depression.

    The desperatization of America - It may sound difficult, even outlandish- this idea of engineering an artificial labor shortage to discipline the wealthy decisionmakers to raise wages and restore the proper balance of massive spending power and activity to proportionately smaller but sustainable investing power and activity, but these are the right difficulties and outlandishnesses - the ones that lead on and provide a gentler and more sustainable future, and the elite that accept this discipline will create stability and security and they themselves will spread and grow. Those that do not will continue to destabilize their economies, throw pain and suffering and death on their "99%'s" ... and things will get violent for them.

    As each variable is balanced, the next variable (and variables) will skew much more extremely and cry ever louder for (and incentivate) balancing - worktimes balances and income (based on wage etc) disparity will unbalance much more extremely; income balances and wealth disparity will go off the charts; wealth balances and debt/credit disparity will go off the charts; etc, etc....

    As first a few, and then more and more economies show the way by moving into and through worktime balancing and then income balancing and wealth balancing and credit balancing, the frontrunner-populations of humanity will gradually free themselves from this massive debt-based control mechanism, get less imposing on their economy's own future and more existentialist and ready and able to respond to any shock.

    Marshall McLuhan: "Art is anything you can get away with."
    Lao Phil: "The difference between art and art therapy is: Does it sell?"

    Older people are the quality police. If they don't offer the toughest feedback to provide (negative), the quality goes down, because younger people just haven't experienced as many of the alternatives in as much of the diversity of products, services and situations as older people - they can assume all too easily that "it is what it is" - when in fact, older people have experienced much better and know it's possible because it once existed, so it can exist again and there's really no excuse why it shouldn't.

    Click here for our timesizing blog during 2010 and 2011, during the re-accelerating national death spiral of Obama's growing signs of impotent naivete.
    Click here for our timesizing blog from the election to the end of 2009, during the decelerating national death spiral of Obama's first year.
    Click here for our timesizing blog prior to Nov. 4, 2008 during the repeatedly accelerated U.S. death spiral of the Bush regime.

    Return to Top | Return to Home Page