©2010-11  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
during the decelerated economic deathspiral of the middle Obama years (2010-2011)
Here we experiment with and work out the language of the SWT (shorter worktime) movement and the new worktime economics, and probably more marketable right now, we experiment with the design of very long-term survivable (and even stable!) economic systems.

Our fastest-vanishing natural resource is not in nature; it's in the economy. Our fastest-vanishing natural resource is natural, organic, market-demanded human employment in a high-tech world of work-saving efficiency where unions are so weak, they can't protect themselves let alone everyone else in the 99% from imports of cheaper, no-labor-standard products and services or from outsourcings of jobs.

As human capital gets cheaper and lower quality, religion becomes so weak it can't protect its own or everyone else from family breakup. Local businesses get so rare, business ethics weaken and betrayal and bankrupting become standard business strategies. Protection rises as protectionism falls. From Bush to Putin, Berlusconi and Chirac, economies become gangstah economies. Train and bus routes are cancelled and homes and cars are repossessed. Rural areas become more self-sufficient as isolation brings back localism and tribalism. The cities decay and only a record prison population restrains record crime rates.

The financial world goes west, wild west, and corruption and coverup reign. Investments are termite-ridden with blood buckets, singlestock futures, swaps, ninja loans, liars loans. The home mortgage industry is "52 Fish" where all the cards are tossed up and come down all over the floor. Mattresses become stuffed with billions of inactive currency units. Depression, oops, recession, oops, stumbling recovery reigns. But those who own the media keep the legend alive - recovery is just around the corner, never mind they're still gobbling up the stock of downsizing companies, and hugging downsizing as the way to recover, or upsize.

Unless the 1% elite accept the discipline of an engineered shortage of jobseekers to flexibly raise wages and spending by market forces, there is no hope or prayer of recovery or growth.

And only defining and limiting each person's share of the fastest vanishing natural resource can impose that discipline.
Since the resource in question is the diminishing amount of hours of market-demanded human employment, we must define and limit each person's share of working hours. The key is the workweek. The 1840-1940 reduction of the workweek must be resumed.

Q: How does an elite get a wage-raising, spending-raising shortage of human capital in an overpopulated world with robots marching in?
A: The elite accepts the discipline of reducing the workweek as much as it takes.

Cutting to the chase: this disquisition is in prolix support of rapid movement by all nations to steady-state immigration: one out, one in.
One of the biggest energy leaks of self-designated progressives is the attempt to favor policies on the basis of ad-hominem compassion. For example, many Canadians (percentage never polled for? - probably lower but still considerable percentage of Americans) want to think of Canada (or US for Americans) as the best or richest country in the world and somewhat as a result of this claim (a remarkable triumph of guilt over modesty, btw), and somewhat to support it, they are susceptible to shock>outrage when a heart-rending story comes to their attention. Such a Canadian is Anna Maria Tremonti (plus evidently many of her listeners, at least in her mind). This morning she's featuring an Iranian? student who applied for citizenship five? years ago and subsequently? developed breast cancer. Her application has recently been denied on the basis of the high drain she poses on the Canadian health system.
Tremonti disagrees with the denial on the basis of the applicant's technical qualifications developed at the University of Ottawa, on the basis of how long ago the applicant applied, and on the basis of the likely time-delay expectations the applicant developed when she first applied based on a government chart. Tremonti might (if true - I'm guessing here) also have cited the failure of the government to publicize upfront the health requirements - but maybe Tremonti's not citing it cuz they DID publicize it but the applicant didn't notice it?
The interesting thing here is that for every one heart-wrenching story involving immigration applicants (who number yearly in the thousands?), there are at least two heart-wrenching stories involving existing Canadians, especially in view of the living standards in many native-Canadian towns and villages, which the CBC, and Tremonti, are frequently highlighting.
Which raises the question of the disconnectedness of these two areas in the news (immigration and Canadian poverty) and the complete lack of prioritization between them. This may be understandable in pure news reporting, but it is not understandable in news commentators like Tremonti. We should be able to expect more. We can do the raw emotional responses on our own, thankyouverymuch. What we need from the Tremonti's is some perspective, connection, prioritization and hopefully even some strategy to get our domestic situation improved, thus providing a better model.
But what about if the applicant faces sexism or torture or death if they return to their homeland? On the one hand, if they've got here in the first place, they're part of the elite in their homeland by definition, cuz non-elite don't travel, and this status, though it may raise unfulfilled hopes, will also to some extent protect them. On the other hand, one hears daily of similar problems in Canada, maybe not on the same scale, but especially among admitted immigrants, like the recent "honour killings" in Kingston, Ont.
Frankly, if Canadian immigration has figured out that maybe they should connect with the Canadian health system to support its sustainability, all to the good.
Canadian immigration should also be connecting with the Canadian job situation, which it evidently isn't if Canadians are commonly still assuming that any technical degree from a Canadian university will automatically result in a good job in the Canadian economy. As we see in the news, this is an increasingly data-contradicted assumption.
Evidently Canadian academics are not connected to either the health system or the job situation and just want "customers." Is there any requirement that international students may NOT apply for Canadian residence+citizenship given the current economic situation, and if not, why not? This leaves the university route a big obstacle in the attempt to curb Canadian population growth in an age of global overpopulation and resource depletion. Come to think of it, it's still almost anathema or sacreligion to even think that Canada is already way overpopulated for the population-support capacity of its mostly frozen vastness or that Canada should be curbing population growth from all sources as a national "secondority" after full employment as a national priority. (Come to think of it, it's the same in almost all the "developed" nations - again, a triumph of guilt over modesty, not to mention the principle of "charity begins at home."
[A.D.D. is cutting in...]

Do-gooders are always being criticized for dividing their vote and diffusing their energy - "jumping on their white horse and riding off in all directions." Their effectiveness has been negligible or invisible when it comes to measurable progress because they are almost congenitally unstrategic. They each have their favorite hobbyhorse that they've picked up from personal, family or close-friend predisposition and they're going to plump for that and raise money for it no matter how few people it would benefits.
We use the term do-gooders as a synonym for progressives, reformers, altruists...
But today with all our computational and modeling skills, our trips to the Moon and our femtosecond photography, it should be possible to get some figures on Jeremy Bentham's admirable goal of "doing the greatest good for the greatest number." (Marx's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" would be much more problematic because of the subjectiveness of personal "ability" and especially personal "need," not to mention the cavalier disregard of the vital underlying issue of incentive, which gave rise to the killer criticism of Marxism, that it "assumed all men were angels.")
In other words, it should be possible to identify a master strategy, agenda, plan, approach, solution, that would unleash the most other progressive strategies and positive solutions in the most people and get some visible improvement for a change.

The One Percent get sooo many things their own way that they wind up thinking they can get markets and marketable productivity to sustainably invest in ... out of poverty.
And it doesn't even have to be absolute poverty (whatever that is). The "poverty" can look pretty good and be pretty comfortable, but if it is any kind of relative poverty, as for example, The One Percent owning 30% of the money supply and the Ninety-Nine Percent owning only 70%: sirens...bells...warning lights - because there isn't enough circulation of economic blood (the currency) to feed, sustain, afford the massive embolism of "blood" coagulated in The One Percent.

The radical "conservative" (ha!) nitwits have been taking over and ruining our nations by pluralities but not majorities in the USA and Canada (and France and Australia and Egypt and Israel and Iran and...)
How can we salvage America and Canada (et al.) and avoid bloody revolution?
By not leaving it to the nitwits to vote,
by not letting The Perfect be the enemy of the good or okay (and winding up with OMG-pass the hemlock!-don't bother, it's here)
so we can focus our vote and not lose, again and again and again, by dividing our vote.

The navy is the cleanest of the military because insofar as it involves only sea operations and excludes land operations such as bombardments and naval-air over land, naval casualties and destruction sink beneath the waves.

Our frozen, long, pre-automation 1940 workweek has turned everyone who's still employed into a desperate irritant, desperately trying to sell you something or even force you to buy something, like all the crap on this new netbook that keeps popping up like Titanium something security and Bing search engine, crap that I've never heard of and don't givvadamn about - these pathetic desperate CEOs and employees, begging, forcing themselves upon you - what a disgrace to intelligent life - and all because we haven't adjusted our values from obsolete WORK HARD TO GET AHEAD to Work Smart and as briefly as possible using all the latest technology - AND adjusted our workweek accordingly

The reason time is a tricky measurement is that it implies a mandatory imaginary viewpoint, depending on the unit. The day and hour etc. imply a viewpoint at the center of planet Earth with a primary direction of regard looking toward the Sun and watching for the zeroeth meridian to pass directly under the Sun (or the Greenwich Observatory itself to pass nearly directly under the Sun), which you make the arbitrary decision to regard as a regularly repeating event that you can use as a standard motion with which to compare any activity (or inactivity) on the surface of the planet, and by extension, above and below that surface (but not too far above or you start getting distortion because you're in larger "clocks'" territory.
The hour then is actually a fraction (1/24 = 330.27 mi.) of a distance, the diameter of the Earth (7,926.41 mi.) near the equator, that passes under the Sun in one twenty-fourth of a complete rotation. Another "take": an hour is the distance (330 mi.) that a brightspot directly under the Sun on the Earth's surface travels in 1/24 of a day. Thus it is seen that the actual length of a day varies slightly as the Earth revolves around the Sun, because insofar as the rotation of the Earth coincides (or opposes) the general direction of revolution, the brightspot directly under the Sun at "noon" advances (or retires) a tiny fraction of distance with each rotation compared to its distance if the Earth was rotating but not revolving.

The year implies a viewpoint at the center of the star Sun with a primary direction of regard looking toward the center of our "local" star system (probably Sirius) and watching for the planet Earth to pass directly under Sirius (or most nearly so), and making the arbitrary decision to regard this a a regularly repeating event that we can use as a standard motion with which to compare any activity (or inactivity) at Earth's radius from the Sun, and by extension, outside and inside that radius (but not too far outside or we start getting distortion because we're in a larger "clock's" territory, i.e., at a larger clock's scale.
This explains the discrepany of flying an atomic clock around the Earth and comparing it to an atomic clock that is stationary on Earth surface. There are numerous violations of viewpoint and scale in this supposedly undistorting experiment. Introducing a tiny clock (atom level) to an Earth rotation level is a violation of scale, where the atomic clock's results are invalid, and we've confused a number of viewpoints - the center of the atom in the atomic clock on the plane, vs. on the fixed Earth-surface location, and the center of planet Earth for the Earth-diameter voyage of the plane.


It's not "quirky consumers" in the 99% who are "holding back" - they can't. They need stuff, they have to spend.
It's "quirky investors" in the top 1% who are "holding back." They don't NEED to invest as the bottom 99% NEEDS to spend. Investors can hold off indefinitely. And they do when interest rates are low and stocks are volatile and there's no incentive to invest. So "investors" in the top 1% become hoarders. Their trillion$ goes out of circulation. It is wasted. Useless. And the result is ... recession, and longer-term except for an intentionally tough-to-satisfy definition, depression.

The older I get, the less old it seems.

Economics is the science that has the biggest problem with data, especially the data particularly appropriate for its focus, history.

Which would you rather have?
A. More people spending more money (and employed with good pay).
B. More millionaires and billionaires = still just a relatively few people looking to place huge money in sustainable if not profitable investments (which require not just big production to invest in but marketable production {which requires more people spending more money - which you don't have when you've channeled all the money you can into making more millionaires and billionaires} ).
11/08/2011/ph3 (idea credit to Dian of Ottawa-Gatineau, the old capital of Canada, now that the sapper-in-Harper's clothing has abandoned Quebec-Montreal and Ottawa-Toronto and moved Canada's capital to CALGARY-EDMONTON, Alberta (USA!) and accelerated Canada's downward spiral to catch up with Dallas-Houston and Wall Street toward the scifi nightmare of China)

Three little words, three obsolete values: hard work, vs. smart work (alias long hours vs. short hours);
saving alias hoarding (currency decirculation) alias inability to find sustainable investments on a sufficiently mega scale vs. consumption alias consumer spending alias currency circulation alias economic dynamism alias Growth;
efficiency alias smartsizing alias leansizing alias downsizing alias unemployment alias dependency alias parasitism, vs. "inefficiency" alias hiring & training alias employment alias wages alias consumer spending etc.

You cannot have Free Trade, alias overseas product substitution (coupled with domestic product diminution), and Growth or Recovery, alias domestic production upsizing.
You cannot have investors buying stocks of "efficient" downsizing companies, and Growth, alias upsizing companies.
You cannot have investors buying stocks of "efficient" wage-cutting companies, and Growth, alias rising wages and consumer spending.
In other words, you cannot have falling wages and Growth, alias rising consumer spending.
And for that matter, you cannot have falling consumer spending, and Growth, alias rising consumer markets (b2c) and all their dependent markets, such as job markets (b2j), business markets (b2b), and financial markets.
You cannot have investors buying stocks of "efficient" companies with high executive-to-lowest-employee pay ratios, and Growth, alias rising consumer spending and currency circulation and currency velocity and currency value reinforcement.
In other words, you cannot have an extremely high percentage of the money supply held by an extremely small percentage of the population, and Growth, alias plenty of marketable productivity to provide plenty of choice of sustainable and profitable investment targets.

To have Recovery let alone Growth, investors must SELL companies that downsize and/or raise executive but not general-employee pay, regardless of other figures.
Recessions are the fault of investors. Recessions are caused by investors. When investors create incentives for DOWNsizing, there's no way they're going to get UPsizing alias Growth, no matter how many times they chant "Holy Schumpeter, father of machomgmt, bless our "creative destruction."

Wierd-But-True Pronunciation Dept. -
It's actually pronounced
Ine Rand, not Ayn Rand, but to compensate -
Kaynes, not Keynes (as in John Maynard...)
John Kwinky Adams, not Quinsy
guerrymandering, not Jerrymandering...
but who's gonna pronounce it right nowadays?

As the money supply is redistributed upward, it slows down and changes function from spending power to investing power. The One Percent were already spending all they cared to before they got the last $10-20 million. And they often don't even know they got it because their finances are so complex.
So the "stock effect" is silly when used to justify the rich getting richer. It's just an invention of Wall Street to justify its own mostly parasitic existence, like "over half of American households own stocks" - yeah, in inaccessible and depreciating pension funds.

Corporations should have only fees for services, not taxes, so they lose the system-suicidal notion that government represents them in their artificial and potentially immortal personhood (which is adequately served by The Dictatorship of the Market and all the sub-comprehensive freedom therein), when in fact government represents solely humans in their natural and mortal personhood (which is adequately served by minimalist most-comprehensive-level government regulation which optimizes=levels the market playing field and thereby optimally frames the Market for maximum unregulated variability>adaptibility>survivability within that framework).

The fact that politicians are just representing the rich and not the majority of their citizens makes them useless in human evolution, just as the fact that unions are just fighting for higher pay and benefits and not shorter hours (and jobs) for all has made unions useless in human evolution.

The difference between worksharing and workspreading is the point of view. For employers, the pressure is to spread the available work to more people. For employees, the pressure is to share the available work with more people.
10/11/2011/ph3 2:50 am

OK, with a highschool reunion coming up, I've got to get my name memory online:
This is LPCI, Toronto.
In Grade XI, with Mel Prideaux the home-room teacher of us, the lahdeedah German class of superior intellects, but not quite as superior as Margaret Mitchell who came in at 8am to take Greek on an individual tutoring basis from Big Vern Cunningham with the sexy socks, an ex-flyboy driving a T-bird (Ford Thunderbird sportscar) and walking at a 45-degree angle forwards (by contrast with laid-back math teacher Mr. Levitt who walked at a 45-degree angle backwards) - we had a clutch of girls in the middle of 5 columns of desks: first was Drewe Love, then Ellen Meredith or Mary Laziere or Lazear, (Fred Rosevear was in a different homeroom I think, compare Arthur Zimmerman from Huron Street Public School) then (I just heard something like this on the radio and REMEMBERED, first time in 55 years now I can't find my yearbook="Robur"!) Marilyn Hindmarch. Or was it Garr Maywood, dumb but reminiscent of Elvis enough to interest bombshell Karen Pruner who we all (or me anyway) wished was in our class. Drewe, Ellen and Mary were the 3 female musketeers, Marilyn was closely related and probably first desk on right or left of center column, and tall, blond, apprentice-brassy Sheila Smith was the dominant, most sociable female in the class, and sat at the front right desk. Probably violinist Bill Harmon and cellist Bill Findlay were in that class, with whom I (Richard Hyde, cellist) formed the original 3 male musketeers, though they became increasingly hostile, and possibly also Bob Flower of OTC and stamp club. Then there was a big dumb 3 musketeers that we maybe only met in gym class: there was big dumb Brian ____ (Baby Huey), Pete Casson (red hair, played football), and "Charlie Xray" (skinny med.tall a bit pimply - quite a trio of cutups...
Btw, does anyone remember who the two gals were who sang gorgeous duet "Ich harrete des Herrn" from Mendelssohn's Lobgesang at Assembly ca. 1957? reply to ecdesignr@yahoo.ca - they weren't in our home room cuz we were instrumental and they mustabeen vocal.

Mainstream economists spend a lot of time trying to explain away, or even ridicule, the obvious, like, "sharing the burden lightens the load," which to this day is ridiculed as the Lump of Labor Fallacy (despite its misnaming of employment as Labor).
Then there's the alleged rigidity and looming uncompetitiveness of the German workforce, saved in place by worksharing (Kurzarbeit) while mainstream economists continue to approve of massive layoffs in the USA, and the associated credulousness that this downsizing is creative destruction that will somehow produce upsizing alias growth, then there's their ignoring the 70% of the economy represented by consumer spending to obsess about trade and other dei ex machina, then there's their incomprehensible hope in exports despite calling the US consumer the savior of the world for the past 5-6 years...

The ultimate answer to the debate about corporate taxes is a transition to bills for actual government services rendered and ongoing, alias "fees for service" (which can be averaged on an annual basis like gas and electric bills to provide some degree of predictability. If corporations don't like individualized fees for service, the government should aggregate actual costs of government services for corporations and spread them on a graduated basis across all corporations in the jurisdiction. It is economy-corrosive to allow corporations to keep sloughing off costs onto the consumer base or the future, and in the current climate, amassing huge caches of inactive cash, or cash for the mostly-unproductive or downright-destructive game of mergers&acquisitions.

The economy-depressing hyperconcentration of the money supply in large corporations is parallelled by the circulation-decelerating hyperconcentration of the money supply among the wealthiest minuscule of the population.

And the question in both cases is, by what minimal modifications do we design a way for market forces to centrifuge these concentration$, and maintain that accelerated level of circulation characteristic of a decoagulated and deconcentrated M1 (money supply).

Note the strange phenom of the "secondary" project that is much more important than the "primary" project, e.g., fetching glasses from backpack ("primary") vs. finding and putting away passport & Canadian wallet ("secondary") on the way/in the process.

The moon taught us numbers - to track its phases: new moon to new half moon = first quarter (waxing to half), second quarter (waxing to full moon), third quarter (waning to old half moon), fourth quarter (waning to old moon); each quarter taking roughly seven days:
Sun (palm=whole,hole,half), Moon (thumb=one), Tiw (Mars=pointer,two), Thor (Jupiter=tallfinger, three), Friyya (Venus=ringfinger, four), Saturn (babyfinger, five), Woden (Mercury=space between tall and ring? cf. Vulcan salute).

Connection betwen Saturn and five, Germ: fuenf, N.Umbrian pomp? Old Germanic name for Saturn?

Source of six, seven, eight, nine, ten?
Sex, septem, octo, novem, decem...
sechs, sieben, acht, neun, zehn...

An increasingly necessary approach is to reframe, redo the basic metaphors we use to think about economics. Cycles? No. Lines? No. Income gap? No. => income concentration/coagulation/compaction. Wealth = good? No. Wealth = bad, cancer, tumor, elephantiasis, goiter... bad for the body economic. Dangerous, dangerously abusable...
Based on money = unpredictable? No. => based on time = consistent, predictable, accountable motion, activity, inactivity, intermittent activity, steady-state...

After reading Janet Gleeson's "Millionaire" about John Law and the Mississippi Bubble -
"In his eyes he had failed not because of any flaw inherent in his ideas or ability but because of his own impatience: "...If I could start again...I would go more slowly but more carefully; and I would expose neither the state nor myself to the dangers which must necessarily accompany disorder of the general system."
But I think he failed because of several inherent flaws.
First, there is the extremely beguiling illusion, when you're wealthy, of thinking that YOU are the foundation of the system, and not, say, the consumer base or its key component, the employment basement; of thinking that investment creates jobs and not, say, consumer demand; in short, of usurping the emergency powers of government to create military jobs for defense, infrastructure jobs for in-system circulation, and by unfortunate extension, private-sector bailout, rescue, support, reinforcement, and subsidization jobs - all on the excuse of course, that we "need" jobs which the private sector always presents as its argument to government when trolling to victimize taxpayers but never to itself when merging and "rightsizing" or "leansizing," etc.
Second, there is the fact that the concentration and decirculation of the money supply is the root and source of recession and depression. It has two unanswerable problems: (1) It concentrates decision-making among people who have also used their wealth to insulate and isolate themselves from any pain or inconvenience - and therefore concentrated M1 slashes the most vital kind of feedback = negative, the kind that indicates need and direction of change - and so the system loses adaptibility and survivability. (2) It starves the markets for the productivity it needs to invest in, since the One Percent cannot possibly spend their gigantic income and so it soon gets to the point where they can't sustainably invest it either, because of this contradiction that they must depend on multitudes of other people's spending - other people whom they have increasingly downsized and impoverished.

The highest calling of any human is to identify and solve the biggest human problem of his/er lifetime.

Being a stock broker/promoter or now a CEO or a mainstream economist suffers more from "smile! tyranny" than being a clergyman, especially fundies.

The problem for John Law and his Mississippi Co. was, how to stabilize hype. (Janet Gleeson's Millionaire, 180)
It's the same for today's investment "experts" & accomplices.

There is only one way to "stabilize hype": maximize employment and consumer spending by trimming the workweek as much as it takes to reduce unemployment to "frictional only" and smoothly convert overtime into jobs, and training wherever needed.

System requirements preempt all notions of individual "earning" or "desért" in ecological economy.
And ecological economy preempts political economy in the sustainable longterm, whose speed of "arrival" or relevance varies directly with system stress from, for example, population pressures.

Worktime economics and its flagship program, Timesizing, cuts across conventional right and left politics and economics, picking and choosing.
As is sometimes said of Green economics, worktime economics is "neither right nor left, but out in front."
Worktime economics may be seen as the cutting edge of Green economics because it makes capitalism (or socialism, whatever) SUSTAINABLE, with homeostatic mechanisms such as the automatically offsetting relationship between the unemployment and the workweek = if unemployment is too high or rising, the workweek automatically shortens to compensate and maintain employment and markets; if unemployment gets too low (if that is ever possible), the workweek can relengthen to compensate.

Basically, worktime economics is the only market-oriented solution to the ongoing and deepening economic crisis. Taxes are not market-oriented. Makework alias deliberate (ie: arbitrary) job creation is not market oriented.
Timesizing's exploitation of the market-determined incidence of chronic overtime to target, fund and pace training and hiring is market oriented. It doesn't get any better than that.

Grannie Hyde* used to say, "Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and you cry alone." And so says the 1930s song "When you're laughing..."  But it's not true, because on one hand, "Misery loves company" and on the other hand, sensitive people often fear that anyone they see laughing is laughing at them.
(Grannie was just trying to get me to stop crying. But she made up for it another time by letting me go on playing my tin drum - even though I was getting tired of it - R: "Grannie, aren't you going to tell me to stop banging my drum?" G: "No, Ritchid, you go right ahead." R: "Well, I'll stop anyway - I'm getting tired of it." = one of Grannie's favourite stories).
8/16 (*Louise Elizabeth Reppen, 1885 Nottingham - 1969 Toronto)

In trying for a metaphor that would answer "Where has the time gone?" and express amazement upon realizing how late it was or how fast the time had passed, we came up with something misleading, "Time flies."

But more accurately and informatively, time does not fly.

Time spirals.

In fact, time is best represented by nested spirals.

Circle plus displacement equals spiral.

Our great natural clocks demonstrate this:

A mark on the surface of Earth (eg: the old Greenwich observatory, or one of the ancient observatories in Sumer or Akkad) circles round the center of the Earth, which adds the displacement required for a spiral by circling round the Sun. So the time unit DAY is described by an Earth-radius minicircle spiraling along a much larger near-circle (ellipse) round the Sun that we call Earth orbit, and circling 365.25 times a year.

The Moon circles round the Earth, which adds the displacement required for a spiral by near-circling round the Sun. So the time unit MONTH is described by a circle with a radius of Earth-Moon distance spiraling along that same Earth orbit, and circling 12-point-something times per year.

The Earth near-circles round the Sun, which adds the spiral-required displacement by ellipting around, probably the middle of a local star system centered on Sirius, the Dog Star, since a double jump in scale seems called for by a direct ellipting round galactic center, though I've only seen this in Rodney Collins' book, Theory of Celestial Influence. So the time unit YEAR is described by a near-circle with an average radius of average Sun-Earth distance spiraling along a much larger ellipse round Sirius, and ellipting ? times per Sirius revolution round galactic center.

Notice that the Anglo-Saxon word year is cognate with "gear," which in association with "screw" was probably the concept closest to "spiral" in Anglo-Saxon before Roman contact. We think of gears as cogs, but many of the ancient water wheels used screws to turn cogwheels, and if the "cog" slides rather than turns, the pressure point on the screw describes a spiral. Is "helix" a simple synonym, or does it have some distinction?

The One Percent sucker themselves into one stupid fad after another. They are sooo vulnerable, and gullible. In the late 1990s it was the "New Economy" where the dot-com technology was so new you didn't have to get return on investment. In fact, return on investment was "so old." You just pumped money into dot-com companies and boasted to your firends.

Newt Gingrich and the other misnamed "conservatives" had planted the seed for the next one in the mid-90s: "Oh we can run the economy with a national debt and an annual deficit of MUCH larger percentages of GDP! Our current percentage is ridiculously small!" So the next stupid fad was running up the debt and the deficit. This would have the additional benefit to the One Percent of providing a lot more safe-haven Treasuries to invest in as the unprecedented money they were getting from rewarding "rightsizing," "leansizing," or just plain downsizing took its toll on non-top management wage levels, never mind the unintended consequences on the 70% of the economy provided by consumer spending.

The function of the non-rich is, by rapidly circulating the currency, to recharge it with value.

The functions of the rich are (I) to make sure there is a large enough percentage of the money supply among the non-rich to maintain the value of the currency and (II) provide enough MARKETABLE productivity to allow their (the rich's) percentage of the moneysupply to find sustainable investment.

These are (economic) system requirements.

After reading Thomas Walkom's article "A new world of work, and an old way of working," 7/30/2011 Toronto Star, A6 (about the Toronto District School Board's 10-page pamphlet "Labour Market") which ends, "This world of cutthroat competition and insecure work is not new. It may be disguised by new technologies such as the Internet or Twitter. But in essence it is very, very old. It is a world we thought we had conquered."
We lazily think that human institutions are different and special, bolstered with words like "rights" as in the "right to live a life beyond the perpetual search for subsistence" and "norms" such as the "norm during that golden period..when workers won their most basic rights was economic security." But linguistic packaging does not flout either the laws of evolution or the laws of its economic embodiment, The Market. And just as evolution is not the enemy, but low-ceilinged and unimaginative responses to it (yes, evolution requires a LOT more imagination and even credulity than religion! e.g., little SPELLING CHECKERS at the DNA level??! but religion just pushes all the difficulties and questions off to another big background level and says, THOU SHALT NOT ASK - it is for those who do not want to be told when they have cancer), so The Market is not the enemy (though even Thos. Walkom verges on blaming it), but low-ceilinged, in-the-box, unimaginative responses to it.
Evolution is like a succession of evolutionary designs. Take stromatolites for instance. They were the latest thing for millions of years. Towers of billions or trillions of specialized "bacteria" (simple one-cells) with layers from inside to out, of differently specialized but mutually complementing jobs. But then came the eukaryotic cell (complex one-cells) where these functions had been miniaturized and farmed out to members of a team of bacteria (mitochondria) who had efficientized to the point of one bacteria per function and formed a much more adaptive unit for the building of "higher" forms of life.
We thought we had created the "norm" of economic security based on the 40-hour workweek. We pushed the whole fight for shorter workweeks into the background and forgot about it. We forgot about the world of cutthroat competition (aka race to the bottom) and insecure work that we thought we had conquered.
But a RIGID solution does not conquer a FLUID problem (technological displacement).
[idea of adapting cadences from the gettysburg address here "but we do not long... nor long..."]
Only the economies that have the high-ceilinged thinking and outside-the-envelope imagination to visualize what Reuther in 1964 was calling "fluctuating adjustment of the workweek against unemployment" will avoid the massive suffering and talent waste described in the Toronto School Board's pamphlet. But in 100 years? 200 years? every economy will have it. It will then be as obvious and superior to the famed 40-40-40 Plan (40 cents minimum wage, 40 hours maximum workweek, in 1940) as a single eukarytic cell in comparison to what it everywhere replaced, except on a couple of Australian beaches, the six-foot stromatolite.

Once the militarists and military makework makers die out, the whole purpose of nations is to keep quantities down to a manageable level and speaking the same language.

Then all we'll have to contend with are the borrowers, of whom the most dangerous kind are the bleeding hearts, who want to solve dramatic problems elsewhere first, and generally solve them unsustainably by moving them into their own neighborhood (but hopefully NIMB). They are like today's "experts" about Rhode Island's Central Falls (the bankrupt town) who want to dress up municipalities by prioritizing decelerated currency circulation (bondholders get paid back first) over high-velocity circulation (employees and pensioners) so bad risks can get still more loans = total and worsening unsustainability.

The worksharing-timesizing approach is the only market-oriented way to save the US (or any other) economy in the age of automation and robotization. Here's why: Now that war no longer provides "wartime prosperity" for the USA and medicine has got too good to admit the possibility of the repeated visitations of plaguetime prosperity (both through the intermediate stage of wage-raising labor shortage), there are only two ways left to reverse permanent deterioration:
(1) by government fiat, through huge graduated taxes on the One Percent
(2) by matching technological productivity leaps with human spending-purchasing power.
how? gov't fiat via some sort of force chariity, or via work, how? wages for top or bottom how gov't set wages or labor shortage
how? This can only be done on a market basis by raising wage levels from the bottom up, since we've proven again and again that top down doesn't work due to longer and longer delays on the route through investment to job creation.

You can't really get ahead, if you're wealthy, by making other people unhappy. And many wealthy people have not yet realized this and made this decision.

The most lethal market failure is the market's inability to automatically maintain full employment and maximum consumer spending and currency circulation by adjusting the share of natural market-demanded employment per person to offset technological displacement.
The most lethal unfreedom of "free" market economics is the subtly but rigidly regulated workweek - it can get longer but not shorter, except when employers are trying to avoid paying full-time benefits.

People's reaction of incredulity and impatience when first hearing that the key to economic sustainability and ecological action is ... cutting the workweek ... can be avoided by starting with entropy-dump economics, pointing out that now we're using any fraction of the money supply, however large, held by any fraction of the population, however small, as our entropy dump - which is having two lethal effects: no feedback or change since the One Percent are so insecure and self-insulating, and, starvation of consumer spending and all dependent (= all other) markets, meaning weakening marketable productivity and the very value of wealth itself = a wasteful and unsustainable entropy dump. A much better entropy dump which has no adverse effects is free time because it can be amortized/averaged over the entire population, thus avoiding the alienating effect of wealth, and it has no adverse effects (wages are maintained by the absorption-reduction of wage-depressing labor surplus and wage levels are raised by deeper workweek cuts).

Astrophysical economics - a massive black hole of money crushed into the tiniest richest subpopulation with a spreading emptiness around them, is paralleled by entropy-zone economics - it's a contradiction to make the richest subpopulation into an unlimited entropy dump and the medium, money. Because entropy is unaccountable and money is accountable. Better to make the entropy dump the free time of the whole population and resolve the whole contradiction: entropy is unaccountable and free time is unaccountable.

Money is like a rechargeable battery that gets recharged...by changing hands = by exchange.

In a timesizing economy, nobody and nothing is "too big to fail," because the workweek responds immediately to higher un(der)employment, and any failures, however huge, have negligible effects on the job market, consumer spending and the economy at large. Therefore nobody and nothing hijacks taxpayers' credit for private benefit. Tax receipts and taxpayer credit are solely for the public trusts for which they were intended. Thanks to Icelanders for making this clear - see goodnews story 4/10-11/2011.

version to Gilles -
je viens de referencer l'article que Marc et toi m'ont forwarde / avant-vers-e = "Iceland mets ses culottes" pcq j'ai soudainment ce matin-ci / this VERY morning rendu compte du fait que dans une economie timesizeeng /temps-taillant? il ne serait (il n'y aura?) jamais quelqu'un ou quelquechose qui est too big to fail / trop gros pour faillir? cuz any additional un(der)employment would immediately be offset by a downward squeezing motion of the workweek on the natural market demand for labor,bour,beur, and there would be no noticeable effects on employment, wages, consumer spending, currency circulation or economic dynamism.

Subject: Response to your request for crisis-ready ideas for Club of Rome website Sunday, July 24, 2011 5:00 AM From: "RP Hyde" To: marcluy@scarlet.be Hi Marc - I'm the "brother" who was born two months after you (June 19, 1942) that you met at the informal Canadian Association for the Club of Rome (CACOR) meeting at the Canal Ritz in Ottawa, Canada a week ago Wednesday. I haven't forgotten you or your request for one-page sets of ideas for either the Club of Rome website or the E.U. website that you mentioned. I think I have just what you're looking for but first, I did not get a chance to present my "bona fides" at the lunch meeting so here's a bit more intro - I was auditing the Limits to Growth seminar in 1973-74 with Bill Behrens, Joergen Randers and Carroll Wilson. When Bill and Joergen and I dropped out in frustration over Carroll's distracting/diluting interventions, we three formed a small cafe circle at Duck Soup in Harvard Square to try to get deeper faster, and I continued for the next 25-30 years, inspired first by Herman Daly (Steady State Economics) who visited the seminar once or twice, and then by Juliet Schor (Overworked American) and Ben Hunnicutt (Work Without End) as I discovered there was a nascent shorter-hours movement in America. Driven by a tragic family past, I proceeded on my own to develop the kind of ideas that I thought were worthy of a 'Club of Rome' (role model: Buckminster Fuller) and simultaneously high-level and strategic enough to make such a club really useful in facilitating human evolution in a progressive and advancing direction (including the need to define 'progress' and 'advance'). My MA in linguistics from the University of Toronto (1968) put me in a good position to benefit from Thomas Kuhn's paradigm-shift thinking in his "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and Noam Chomsky's various techniques for discovering the underlying grammatical and semantic structure of languages, especially English ("Syntactic Structures" etc.), which I used to bust through the constraints posed by the Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis. I read a lot of the history of economic ideas on my own (Lekachman, Heilbroner, Fussfeld, Roll...) to avoid getting trapped in the emphasis on intimidating (but generally less relevant) quantification so fashionable in the economics profession of our time. And I audited Prof. Paul Rosenstein-Rodan's course on the history of economic ideas at Boston University (he had anticipated Chomsky's deep- vs. surface-structure distinction in his concept of deep vs. shallow economic interventions) and had several personal conversations with Veblen's successor, John Kenneth Galbraith at his home on my walks back from Harvard Square. So I welcome the opportunity you presented to "give back" to the Club of Rome for the start they gave me via the Limits to Growth seminar and I have prepared three 1-2 pagers for your perusal and suggestions. As a linguist, I try to meet people halfway in the vocabulary I use but I have no idea what the "hot words" are in your circles in Brussells (though I tried to take notes whenever you 'piped up' in Ottawa) so I'm "shooting in the dark." My general slant is to diagnose the problems and present the obvious (though resisted) deep-intervention solutions in either layman's terms or in terms of the self-interest of wealthy plutocrats insofar as I discover them. I am confident that you and I, or someone you might designate and I, can get some really substantial ideas on one or both of the websites you have in mind, since I've been working out the language of this new/old type of economics that I call "worktime economics" (started in 1819 by Sismondi) for over the past 25 years. It's tricky because it concerns the time dimension, which people generally prefer to stay in the background and always find disorienting when it doesn't. So if this is your correct email/courriel address and you're ready for the first three "one-pagers," send me a note and I'll send you the one-pagers. Best - Phil Hyde 617-776-3848 in Boston till Aug.4 617-620-6851 cellulaire 819-771-8546 in Gatineau-Ottawa for subsequent two weeks Economic design & debugging Timesizing.com - is my daily-updating website - retro but fast-loading - the largest in English on worksharing (German: Kurzarbeit) with over six years of diagnostic headline & data tracking from major U.S. and other newspapers (so-called Headlines from Hell, alias Doom du Jour), and four years of news about incipient deep-structure cures from Google News Search ("Hope du Jour") THIRD ONEPAGER - Fundamental ideas for (CA)COR-Brussells readiness for post-crisis E.U. cry "What shall we do now - QUICK!?"

The question arises, is it necessary to stop all concentration of employment alias overwork per person, dba (initially) corporate overtime? The answer is no, just the dangerous kind. What kinds are there? A: dangerous and non = inflationary and non. What are the features of each? The money motive is inflationary and job satisfaction is not. The money motive is exogenous - you're not working for the here and now but for tonight, or the weekend tomorrow, or the vacation next month, or reitrement next year - but never NOW, and what can compensate for the loss of NOW? You're always asking for a raise, more money, because no amount can really compensate for the sacrifice of all we really have = the here and now. It is the root and source of wage-push inflation (even though the ultimate source of inflation is the tiny but massive black hole of decirculated currency crushed into the accounts of the wealthiest 0.01% of the population, for example, the richest 30,000 among the total 300,000,000 of Americans. according to Paul Krugman. Job satisfaction is endogenous, inherent in the remunerated, present moment = the fun activity itself or great colleagues or a beautiful view...whatever...it doesn't matter and it's none of our business as economic designers and government regulators. It's the sacred province of the Market and that province can be safely private. The important thing is, you're working in and for the here and now which you enjoy. You would do it for less because you enjoy it. We don't have to cap this kind of work. People running on this kind of incentive can work all 168-hours of the week and still be system-safe because they aren't really working in the sense of toiling - they're playing, like the little toymaker who "never worked a day in his life." All we have to do is put a ceiling on the dangerous kind of work per person per week, the kind that is incentivized by inflationary incentive. But how to distinguish? How separate the sheep from the goats? There's a very easy way to do this: Put a 100% tax on overwork (overtime per person per week from all sources including self-employment) AND GIVE A COMPLETE EXEMPTION FOR REINVESTMENT IN O.W.-TARGETED JOB CREATION. The deflationarily motivated won't mind - they (eg: the self-employed) mega-reinvest anyway. They love their work. They love to share it. "No overtime alone." Hire your unemployed brother-in-law. Contribute directly to solving the top-priority problem of unemployment and weak consumer spending by only "consuming" free-market employment up to a point and then reinvesting overtime/overwork earnings in "producing" free-market employment. When this starts happening at the grassroots level and up/down the corporate hierarchies across the economy, there are plenty of jobs. And the magic labor "shortage" with which capitalism always runs well is created. Those with money motive will stop at the ceiling and leave any market-demanded overtime for the under-employed. They will be able to use the time to explore for a job where they can make what they think they need during straight time, or a job they love, and don't need more compensation for their sacrifice of the here and now. As increasing numbers of people gravitate toward such jobs, upward inflationary pressures diminish because the economy is finally running on a balance of inflationary (money to spend later) and deflationary (job satisfaction now) incentives, instead of on a gross overdependence on inflationary incentive ("I hate this job - I'm only doing it for the money"). Notice that we are only controlling per-person worktime, not per-job worktime. Per-job worktime is a free-market call, and may take part of one person's workweek or several person's workweeks. The key management strategy of the future is the smooth suturing of shorter shifts to get done the task at hand, the job demanded by The Market. Note also that we are making two distinctions that are not often emphasized or made by mainstream economics: (1) a distinction between the per-job (decontrollable) and per-person (controllable) versions of the same variable (here, employment per week), and (2) a distinction between only two economically relevant kinds of incentive: inflationary (money motive) and deflationary (job satisfaction..). We cannot progress into increasingly sensitive levels of ecological economics and economic ecology without making these two, still-unfamiliar distinctions.

This stage of balancing the economic core creates a common interest among a greater variety of humans based on sharing the vanishing market-demanded employment that is still not turned over to mechanization, automation and robotics. It establishes a common, safe workweek range, where people below create a downward pressure on the top to achieve and maintain, yes guarantee, full employment and markets. And based on this homeostasis, currency union is much more sustainable and less stressed by regional needs for finetuning, and based on the same five functional stages by which this homeostatic "worktime economics" is achieved, we can move on as cued by rising expectations to balance further economic disparities; for example, in income (flowing money) per person, wealth (standing money) per person, credit (potential money) per person..., each in their turn. SECOND ONEPAGER - Fundamental ideas for (CA)COR-Brussells readiness for post-crisis E.U. cry "What shall we do now - QUICK!?"

In the choice, do we save the means of exchange or the storage of value, we save the means of exchange because (A) it has been the sacrifice of exchange for storage that has created the problems, and (B) if we continue to save storage regardless, the problems will worsen, and (C) the storage capability is a subfunction derivative from and dependent on the exchange capability.

The only effective response to the "contagion" of investor unconfidence is quarantine. This means that worst-case plans are needed to "undo" currency unification stage-by-stage, a phased retreat as much as necessary with restoration of national currencies, drachma, lira, peseta, etc., as required to stop "sending good money after bad" dba inherently temporary "bailouts" or bandaids-for-cancer that merely increase moral hazard. If necessary, Germany and France alone can carry the euro, but if Sarcozy continues to sacrifice full employment and markets for the sake of imitating "competitive" (but system-destructive) American workweek expansion and employment concentration and population splitting (into diminishing workaholics and expanding parasites), Germany can decouple from France and return to a mark based on Kurzarbeit. Kurzarbeit is the foundation of a new economics, a real third-way economics but with more 'beef' and less bloviation than Tony Blair's version - a real green economics based fundamentally on natural homeostasis with extendability a new ecological economics that is sustainable and naturally much more stable. The sine waves of the various economic cycles, especially the long Kondratieff wave, are noticeably flattened. This new economics consists of a series of design upgrades to the economic core as expectations rise. There follows a presentation of the key features of the first upgrade, which takes place on the level of the employment dimension, or, worktime per person. We call this level, worktime economics. Worktime economics automatically guarantees maximum employment and spending per consumer (the secondary issue of ensuring the consumption is sustainable and not eco-harmful via Bucky Fuller's "doing more with less" we leave to later one-pagers) Overconcentration of the money supply is the ultimate depressant on currency circulation and robust market health. In other words, the One Percent cause recessions and depressions by means of the concentration of unlimited percentages of the money supply, however large, on unlimited percentages on the population, however small, a kind of "black hole economics," where the mass per volume is so intense that nothing leaves the event perimeter, because the One Percent have far far more than they can spend and also far more than they can sustainably invest, because sustainable investment requires not just "productivity" to invest in but MARKETABLE productivity to invest in, and the unlimited wealthy have effectively cannibalized their own consumer markets = "70% of the economy" in the USA but holding its share only if the overall economy is shrinking to compensate the shrinkage of the consumer spending per person. In worktime economics, the overconcentration of the money supply is automatically prevented on the level of the employment-per-person variable, which will eventually be inadequate because of the phenomenon of rising expectations, but is a necessary first step and foundation for continuing, overall, stage-by-stage economic finetuning. Kurzarbeit, or worksharing, is a temporary, unsustainable, emergency response to economic downturn because it is based on the unemployment insurance fund which is financed by taxes, one way or another, on employment (eg: on payroll). But as Milton Friedman says, you get less of what you tax and more of what you subsidize, so if we want more employment, we've got to stop taxing it. To be redesigned as permanent and sustainable, Kurzarbeit alias worksharing must be redesigned to be financed by taxes on something undesirable, like overwork, initially in the corporate form of overtime. For example, the funding can be switched from a tax on indiscriminate (and therefore mostly desirable) employment to a tax on undesirable over-employment per person, or overwork, which in the corporate setting translates into a tax on overtime. FIRST ONEPAGER - Orienting questions for (CA)COR-Brussells readiness for post-crisis E.U. cry "What shall we do now - QUICK!?" (and cutting through frustrations at meetings such as those at the Canal Ritz with failure: to listen, to focus on the question at hand, and to build on one another's contributions instead of introducing another total nonsequitur)

(©2011  Phil Hyde, of necessity since we're just working out the language of worktime economics)

What's going to go critical first, the economy or the ecology?
[our answer: economy, because job insecurity is blocking response to economic problem (unlimited coagulation of money supply dba plutocracy) and plutocrats are blocking response to ecological problems because system is working for them and "if it works, don't fix it" translating as massive subradar resistance to fundamental change and challenging of all change initiatives into superficialities in the sense of leaving the overwhelming centripetal force on the money supply undisturbed]

What's the biggest problem? the people at the bottom or the people at the top?
[our answer: top]

Are we getting adaptation feedback fast and full enough?

Do we primarily need another list of "18 urgent" (but not explicitly unconnected) starting points or crises - or, eg, a list of questions to explore the strategic connections between the items on the lists we already have and the possible PERT charts of what comes first, what dependson/derivesfrom what? Can we agree to ask the most obvious question and accept the obvious answer before we introduce another (delaying) buzzword/redherring/chestthumpinganecdote...? Can we build on the creative-idea thread that's on the table without introducing another one or injecting more unnecessary/minimallyrelevant vocabulary or topic or anecdote...? - do we know how to shut up and listen when the discussion in progress is hot and productive? - do we need a chairman (some in Boston look for a good "meeting nazi" to keep the discussion ontrack and cut off the multiple pressing tangents). We all inhabit different idea universes and favorite vocabularies and metaphor palettes - how do we recognize what we're looking for (a real solution?) when we read/hear one? Are we capable of relaxing our grasp on our current accumulation of favorite buzzwords long enough to discuss the design of what we want? Are we capable of delayed satisfaction in terms of finding out/designing what we want first and agreeing on it in some simple childlike mother'sknee vocabulary FIRST and then translating it into everyone's favorite buzzwords LATER? Are we among a group of people who can recognize and respect a creative thread to a conversation and STOP INTERRUPTING IT with our own favorite hobbyhorses/buzzwords/anecdotes/egoneeds? (This gets tougher when there's a steep power gradient in the room, or a hazy pecking order to jockey for (higher) position on - ie: almost always.) Have we asked our burning question(s) well enough? (It would be a lot easier to get what we want if we knew more unitedly and precisely what we want.) What is the primary problem? Is it ecological or economic? Is it global warming or some kind of economic collapse? Which is likely to come first? Is there one that derives from the other, and if so, which from which? (Sample TS solution assumes primary problem is economic and ecological problem derives from it because there is so much inertia-momentum {lack of flexibility-quick adaptability} in our current economic design.) Zooming in on the economic crisis... What is the nature/structure/design of the economic crisis? Is the economic crisis primarily monetary or something else +/- deeper? (TS: deeper) If monetary, is it primarily inflation-control, deflation-control, flation-stabilization or something else entirely such as money-supply allocation/distribution/redistribution? Is inflation best controlled by blocking growth (eg: by raising interest rates)? If not, what are the alternatives? Are there any? Is there really a problem with a "widening income gap" and ifso, what/why? Is there a more actionable way of speaking of the "income gap"? eg: overconcentrated money supply. We have seen in the US and elsewhere a redistribution of the money supply (national income and wealth) in terms of moving a percentage of the money supply, unlimitedly large, to a percentage of the population, unlimitedly small. Is there a point in this process where it begins to undermine itself and ifso, how do we find it, return to it, and design a system that automatically maintains it? What is the nature of the undermining process? Return to question above on nature of the economic crisis, or continue here with the assumption that, What is the real basis/base of any currency? Is it a key/mostimpressive/mostmalleable-modelable physical-material commodity, like gold or silver, or a key commodity such as human productive-accountable time like working hours per person per week? (TS: the latter) Can currency be sustainably unified without first unifying the underlying currency base? Would a fairly developed solution be useful - at least as a "whipping boy" (We have answered these questions X-Y-Z these ways; if you don't like it, what's YOUR way/alternative/substitute - don't have one? - then for gawdsake SHUT UP and let the creative thread continue instead of being interrupted yet again! Is there an ideal number of people in a discussion? (pls., god, not more than 8)

Despite their all-too-publicly-professed Christianity, the compulsive-perfectionists of the Teaparty etc. have forgotten one parable of Jesus - to the detriment of their country: "Lord, shall we tear up the weeds in the wheat field?" "No, lest you tear up the wheat with the weeds." Their "starve the beast" simplisticism is killing the good with the bad, "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." (Oh and then, of course, they're forgetting, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.")

Here's another BGO (blinding glimpse of the obvious) that misled Einstein: his image of riding on a lightbeam not only (1) snuk-in two conflicting viewpoints, that of the rider and, unacknowledged ("officially denied"), that of an observer to the side, but (2) the viewpoint for a scientific experiment is always assumed to be stationary (this unackknowledged assumption misled him into absolutizing his viewpoint on the lightbeam and fed into his sacrifice of the constancy of time = true, to the constancy of the speed of light = false), and yet the whole point of this metaphor was that, as a lightbeam, it was mobile, not stationary.

Time is motion; more specifically, momentum.
Here's the list again (see our book, Defining Time):
Nothing times something is speck or point or dot - too small to measure but at least you know it's there.
No Measurability is zero dimensionality.
Dot times length is line. 1D
Line times width is area. 2D
Area times height is volume. 3D
Volume times density is mass (in Newton's terminology: bulk) 4D
Mass times velocity (uniform) is momentum (Newton: motion), a special standardized case of which is time. 5D
Momentum times velocity (non-uniform) is energy, 6D
If we replace the two v's (velocities) with c, the speed of light, we get m x c x c = e, or mc(2) = e, or e=mc(2), about which Einstein was correct in the basics but misleading or insufficiently informed/ative about why we make those two v to c substitions. We also need to examine the whether the two v's are similar enough to have the same name in the first place. Unfortunately, Newton's definitions at the beginning of the Principia only take us to the 5D momentum/motion level so they can't help us though he may say something later that would help. One senses problems in trying to substitute c for v between mass and momentum = how do we visualize-to-understand the speed of light (= our fastest perceptual sense = another huge source of confusion) as constant? It would have to be going in a circle. It is probably demonstrated continuously everywhere by electrons zipping around the nuclei of atoms. But this is unbelievable constraint, even oppression, relative to photons flying forth across the universe. Their unbelievable activity exerts an attractive force on things outside and this is probably Gravity.
Should 3D to 4D then be: mass times levity is momentum,
and in reverse,
momentum times gravity is mass,
thus enabling us to replace the extra "velocity" with a more informative (though unfortunately confusable with facetiousness) term. Support for the replacement comes from the consideration that levitation is: rising above the ground, and in a modest way, going into orbit, but thereby you gain the ability to circle your principal, as the sun appears to circle the earth (though the in-orbit status here is more conveniently regarded reversed by changing viewpoint from the earth to the sun, and in-orbit status more elegantly ascribed to the earth, by this change of viewpoint, if only in imagination, from the earth to the sun {and thereby ascribing greater relative stationariness, and viewpoint-worthiness, to the sun!}, cuz you can then see all the other planets also simply circling/ellipting you, instead of taking strange looping motions around you as when viewed from the earth - in fact, Copernicus' "revolution" is probably best regarded as a change of viewpoint, from the earth to the sun, and therefore as an expansion of the human mind&imagination rather than the usual view that arrogant anthropocentric humanity is NOT the center of the solar system let alone the universe after all, nya-nya-nya so there!)
and therewith the ability to MOVE relative to your principal, not just outward from it, a sort of slave, but around it - a sort of inspector or observer, or assessor or measurer.
Thus mass times levity does conceptually, logically, give the possibility of motion alias momentum, and hints at things beyond because you're given a headstart on motion (potentially independent) by the previously assumed stationariness (alias dependent motion), now seen to be possibly movable relative to you (or v.v) of your principal (or planet or nucleus).
So there's a double viewpoint anyway? Switching back and forth between the planet and the satellite?
And a repetition of the first three dimensions has begun: line times width = area/field/plane // mass x outward/off/apart/separation x around/circling-obiting = momentum/motion
then, area times height = volume/space/room // motion/momentum x any angle x any speed = energy
7/14/2011/ph3, dedicated to surprisingly friendly, incredibly beautiful young Julie, whom I met yesterday at the Lansdowne Park bus stop and conversed-with across the aisle on the #7 till I got off at Nepean St (in Ottawa)

Latest self-definition: I am a biodegradable, organic robot with attitude and illusion (and plenty of both), who is multipley-nestedly, linguistically self-referencing a la "third watcher" (idea credit: Kate Jurow), fourth watcher, fifth watcher*, etc.

The mulltiplicity of the nestedness of the linguistic self-referencing in which I am tracking my awareness is responsible for the overwhelming illusion that I am real. (As Descartes said, "COGITO ERGO SVM" = "I think, therefore I am" = "i multipley-nestedly self-reference in language, tracking my impression(s) of my awareness, and therefore I really REALLY EXIST (don't I? don't I!)." (Methinks the Descartes doth protest/insist too much...) < 7/13

7/15 2:30pm > This means that to go beyond AI, the creation of artificial intelligence, and create artificial consciousness, all we have to do is program a computer to observe its lower level operations and optionally edit or change them - and to observe that process and optionally edit or change it - and... - probably the more levels, the more consciousness.

*Watcher definition: I do something = first watcher; I'm aware that I'm doing something = second watcher; I'm aware that I'm aware that I'm doing something = "third watcher," etc.

There's nothing wrong with socialism in terms of government management unless, as The Economist Magazine has pointed out, government managers happen at the time to be worse that private-sector managers, who have the advantage of greater numbers but the disadvantage of less transparency.

phil c6pm 7/12/2011
I like Workhorse's concept of Breadth of Demand - but bear in mind that it's not meaningful demand unless it's backed up by spending power, and that requires Breadth of Employment - in other words, a diminishing percentage of the population working longer hours cannot provide Breadth of Demand - but full employment, alias maximum population in work HOWEVER SHORT A WORKWEEK IT TAKES can provide Breadth of Demand, since wages will not shrink as workhours shrink, they'll be maintained by market forces responding to a decreasing labor surplus/job shortage and an increasing labor shortage/job surplus. Recall that "wartime prosperity" comes from the creation of a labor shortage in the worst possible way = killing a percentage of the workforce (and losing the potential consumer markets they represent).

Work Horse 45 minutes ago c4pm 7/12/2011 Report Abuse

The only Job CREATOR is a Breadth of Demand spread widely throughout the country.
Sounds scary, I know, but a strong Middle Class is the best thing for our economy.
They should be buying houses, cars, schools, colleges, tennis shoes, Big Mac's, Disney Worlds, boats, heavy construction equipment, retirement funds, beds, etc.
With a broad Middle Class there would be a breadth of demand that would result in full employment.

Scott Carney 's book The Red Market about organ, blood and baby markets says that people who receive organ donations should think of people who donated their kidney, for example, and not think of it just as a commodity. But doctors just say, "You need a kidney," not "You need someone else's kidney." But this amounts to mind control. Reprogramming doctors to say You need someone else's kidney, rather than You need a kidney. Reprogramming patients to think this way too.

But if what we're trying to do is stop harming other people who are 'donating' blood or body parts or time in drug tests, it's much less invasive and oppressive than mind control to just make it a lot easier to support oneself - in other words, switch the labor surplus/employment shortage to labor shortage/employment surplus.

For Christians, Timesizing is the "pearl of great price" to purchase which, the merchant sold all his other goods. In this case, Timesizing is the strategy of great value, because by giving everyone more free time and more money, it unleaches millions of activists to pursue improvements on all levels.

Website motivation:
Family suicide resulted in a quest for the most important human problem of the late 20th century, the one blocking solutions to the most other problems = working hours frozen at the pre-computer pre-robotics level of 1940, in breach of the promise that technology would make life easier for everybody. And now, over 70 years of time blindness and ignorance...

We are in a period where both labor and management are being suicidally stupid. Labor is still making disempowering demands like higher pay and benefits (witness the current rotating strikes of the Canadian postal workers), instead of the empowering demands of shorter worktime and stricter import-immigration-birth control.
Management is still following market-weakening policies like M&As (cut corporate diversity), downsizing and shifting taxes from non-consumers (the One Percent) to consumers (the Ninety-Nine Percent), instead of the market-growing policies of corporate spinoffs, timesizing and shifting taxes from consumers to non-consumers.

Our economic system design, since the restoration of the labor surplus around 1970, has been twisting itself into minimizing employees (and consumers!) while maximizing the concentration of the money supply for the sake of the highest rungs of the pecking order = self-destruct mode, instead of minimizing the concentration of the money supply and nudging the pecking order into some other, still-safe dimension while maximizing freedom defined as financially secure free time per person per week (or annualized).

The idea of work sharing (cutting the workweek as short as it takes to maximize employment and markets) was there from the beginning of the industrial revolution, but it has never before. or elsewhere to my knowledge (but check Bob LaJeunesse's and Tom Walker's recent books), been developed to the extent it has in Timesizing.

The language we need is not just, if funneling unlimited money to the richest gets right back into the economy creating jobs, then SHOW US THE JOBS, but also this "right back into the economy" - where??? - into huge carcinomas or goiters on the neck of the body economic in terms of unmerited compensation for CEOs, especially financial CEOs, unfounded investment instruments and weapons. So the other language we need is "right back into 'the economy' " isn't enough. It has to be into JOBS, and wages, and consumer spending to lay a foundation, a CONSUMER BASE, for the rest of the economy. The crap that Wall Street has invented to absorb this huge windfall corollary of fostered labor surplus is just taking coals to Newcastle. Just turbidly moving millions from one bloated moneygrubber to another. It's not the trillions of transactions of all sizes that constitutes the kind of dynamic monetary circulation that recharges the "money" symbol with exchange value.

From Kate - the financial industry is just playing with OPM, other people's money, taxpayers', or with huge loans using taxpayers' money as collateral, and at the same time, destroying its collateral by constantly reducing taxes, especially on those from whom the most money can be taken with the least impact on consumer spending and the CONSUMER BASE, namely, the very wealthy, despite the common knowledge of "wartime prosperity" when the graduated taxes on the One Percent were huge. So, we have a design for a suicidal economy.

And with the continuing expansion of government debt, the credibility of Treasuries and the credulity of their buyers is getting further and further strained. The deterioration happens in stages, and the current stage is that the interest on 10-year T-bills is down below 3%. So the incentive for getting all this concentrated money "right back into the economy" even in terms of the erstwhile most conservative investments, United States Treasury bills, is getting lower and lower, while the risk is getting higher and higher since these rich people are doing anything they can to avoid paying their taxes and to reduce them.

The US economy is a shrinking, walking skeleton with a huge and inflating goiter on its neck that makes it look big upon superficial inspection. Its head contains only 30,000 brain cells (the top 0.01% of the richest Americans) and these 30k cells are filled with contradictory and self-destroying ideas.

Then there's the propensity of later generations to carry things way too far.
eg: if Yesous Nadzarenos knew what they'd done to him, and in just 1-2 generations, but then on and on, he'd be mortified.

American "health insurance" (LOL) insures people who don't need health insurance and doesn't insure people who do.
[Tip of the hat to Jimmy Tingle.]
American "health insurance" only pays for procedures that don't work, and doesn't pay for procedures that do.
[e.g., Richard Green of Somerville MA to work on a piriformis muscle causing sciatica]

Our most dangerous pollutant is the overwhelming mass and variety of phony jobs that have evolved because of our rigidification of the pre-technology 40-hour workweek since 1940 - after over 100 years of reducing it (from above 80 hours/week).

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, there has been a conflict between the incentive for management's introduction of technology and the incentive for labor's acceptance of technology = management introduces technology to save money and labor accepts it to save time.
Somewhere along the line, management loses sight of the fact that when saving money by cutting employees, they're also cutting their own markets, indirectly by cutting their customers' customers and in the case of consumer companies, directly by cutting their own best customers.

A sneeze is a cough through the nose.
A cough is a sneeze through the mouth.

Productivity or efficiency is not downsizing.
Productivity or efficiency is timesizing.
A precomputer 40-hour workweek, frozen forever though deep in the age of robotics, doth not an economy make -
because the stuff the computers are making may be "productivity," but without consumers funded by money earned by working at jobs, it ain't marketable productivity.
Unmarketable productivity just makes for a downward staircase of investment bubbles that pop, one after another.

Obsoleting the use of threat to livelihood as a control mechanism would make the solution of all other problems easier, especially if it was done without encroaching on the detailed, per-job control province of market forces.

"The rich, the rich are different." F. Scott Fitzgerald?

HOW are they different?

The value of money is all relative, comparative. It depends on making decisions within a budget, a limit - setting priorities, making choices between alternatives. This is why great wealth is inflationary. There's effectively no limit so a person never has to choose between. They can always have all the choices, so there are never really any "choices" per se. The vast majority of players are of ordinary means and so they are are excluded from the game as soon as a very wealthy person enters the game. The wealthy person ends the game that ordinary people were playing precisely because the wealthy person doesn't have to choose between alternatives. They effectively limitless money means they are playing a different game from players of ordinary means and as soon as a wealthy person enters a game they change it. This is also the inflationary problem with speculation.

The phrase "disruptive technology" from Clayton Christensen's 1997 book Innovator's Dilemma is much better - more informative and actionable - than Schumpeter's oxy-moronic "creative destruction" often used to justify uncreative, unimaginative, consumption-clobbering, growth-braking downsizing instead of timesizing, from his 1942 book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy Chapter VII. The Process of Creative Destruction. The phrase "schöpferische Zerstörung" supposedly first appeared in Sombart's 1913 Krieg und Kapitalismus, based on ideas in Marx' and Engles' 1948 Communist Manifesto.

OK, let's test this rumour that all the best watches have German-French or French-German names (thanks to today's spam, selling replicas):

Longines-Wittnauer (check)
Baume & Mercier (check)
Raymond Weil (check)
Jaeger-LeCoultre (check)
A Lange & Söhne (check)
Patek-Philippe (check, but Patek could be Polish...)
Audemars Piguet (both French)
then some I never heard of (and what's the point of trying to impress people with a brand that you've never heard of?):
Alain Silberstein (check)
Richard Mille (both French or English+French?)
Franck Müller (both German)
Vacheron Constantin (both French)
All are probably from the Swiss, who are eager to demonstrate that they're neither just French nor German (but also Italian and Romansch).

A U.S. postage stamp from 1943 (1c green) lists four freedoms:
"freedom of speech
and religion,
[freedom] from want
and fear"

The Official Document Book [of the] New York State Freedom Train published in 1949 in Albany, NY by the NY State Freedom Train Commission lists six freedoms and one human-right in its Contents, in this order:
freedom of religion
freedom of speech
and press (grouped)
right to vote
freedom of person
freedom of education
freedom of labor

Notice that the lists agree on the first two freedoms but disagree on the rest.
Both miss the most obvious and fundamental type of freedom, on which all the rest depend: free time.

In almost every field and activity that I can imagine, someone or some group has gone further, much further than me. I intend that the field of my greatest reach and stretch is the most long-term, important-for-human-sustainability and strategic.

I wonder if the availability of mirrors diminished the extension of self-interest as people began identifying with just their own individual faces instead of with the faces of all those around them.

TPTB -the powers that be- love to portray the economy as an act of God so that they can pose as innocent victims of their success and entitlement (compare "X Corp. agreed to acquire Y Corp." as if X was a passive bystander) - or to portray the economy as far too complicated for anyone to understand or capture in actionable metaphors -

but the economy is not an act of God - it is the most artificial thing there is, and it's all a matter of design

and whatever is designed can be redesigned, especially if it just takes a small, central modification to remove the biggest contradictions and self-braking mechanisms to real growth...

(vs. Shane, who has absorbed TPTB's harrumph: "Too Complicated To Understand, Comprehend or even just Apprehend!")

The millions and billions of dollars that the robopathic richest are constantly redistributing, just like redistributive totalitarian Communists, and crushing into their own pockets, is totally and completely wasted. It is far beyond their needs or their spending capability. And it has become so huge that it is beyond their ability to reinvest sustainability since it represents such a huge percentage of consumer spending that they have diverted and monopolized. It is essentially decirculated and deactivated.

The richest rationalize by claiming it's getting reinvested and is creating jobs. So WHERE ARE THE JOBS?! The richest strain to justify their ongoing unlimited money-supply grab by giving charity. THE SYSTEM DOES NOT NEED CHARITY AND DEPENDENCY, whether on rich people's statistically niggardly charity or on the taxpayer - THE SYSTEM NEEDS JOBS AND SELF-SUPPORT.

Critique of Marxism -

Somehow Marx's brand got identified with anger & like idealistic capitalism, requires that "all men be angels." Historically, it's been more prone to gloves-off totalitarianism than capitalism. Granted that capitalism has been more prone to gloves-on totalitarianism than Marxism.

Marx's best insight is that the key tool of social control has moved from threatening people's lives to threatening their livelihoods - by fostering job scarcity & labor surplus ("reserve army of unemployed"). Marx wanted to stop this oppression with revolution, which just swaps roles of oppressor & oppressed rather than rewriting the script to lessen the oppression. His 3-point plan was: 1. workers of the world, unite, 2. cast off your chains (whatever that means), 3. seize (=nationalize?) the means of production, But there he stopped short, having "blown his wad," as so many others have, on 9 chapters of diagnosis and only 1 chapter on cure. He never focused on designing a more level playing field between employers (scarce, more power, higher pay) & employees (surplus, less power, lower pay).

In 1932 Arthur Dahlberg gave the clue: "Never, except for a few years during the World war, has Capitalism been permitted to function under a chronic 'scarcity of labor.' It has always been forced to operate under a scarcity of job & business opportunity."

We don't need revolution to toss out the baby with the bathwater. We just need targeted laser surgery. Dahlberg: "Our balking, backfiring profits economy can, by injecting one planned adjustment, be made to satisfy high-grade engineering standards of efficiency [& sociological standards of freedom instead of oppression], with even less governmental interference & industrial control than we already have." Dahlberg was talking about shorter hours alias workweek reduction alias work sharing (not makework) alias timesizing (not government upsizing or company downsizing).

Historically, & without Marxists focusing on & prioritizing it, the 10-hour day was won by 1865 & the 8-hour day by 1940.

Marxism failed to focus on & develop what might be called "worktime economics" = replacing downsizing with timesizing as technology rolled in machines, automation, robotics. So Marx, insofar as he represents anything beyond anger, just represents makework = bureaucratic market-bashing inefficient artificial government job creation, instead of sharework = sharing the vanishing still-unautomated employment via the redistribution of market-demanded working hours. Plus, Marx visualized just One Big Step to Utopia, same as Henry George, & failed to design a stage-by-stage approach path. True, "time" is hard to define & think about in terms of redesigning the economic core. "Work hard to get ahead" is deeply ingrained. But we succeeded in cutting the workweek in half, between 1840 & 1940, 80 hours to 40 - 80 to 60 by 1865 & Marx didn't notice this intelligent, non-wasteful, non-risky, gradual, market-oriented way of cutting the disempowering labor surplus & getting Wartime Prosperity - without the war? So it's unlikely that Marxism is going to help with the waves of worksharing technology since 1940 which have not been offset by cuts in the workweek. Marxism is just the familiar ineffectual angry makework alternative to the no-work of primitive capitalism. Technology without workweek reduction just creates job insecurity - no one wants to leave the office first at night unless they're still available by iPhone. If we're really interested in freedom & not oppression, we need to design a way to stop putting up with the withdrawal of more & more of the most fundamental freedom, free time, without which the other freedoms are inaccesible or meaningless. ca. 4/15/2011/ph3

Alternative first lines for top of homepage...

This website is centuries ahead of the rest of humanity. Some are nibbling at the most accessible diagnosis pages. A few have ventured into the first solution program. Almost none have explored the further reaches of the successor programs and the backgrounders.
The problem for other big thinkers is, resistance to accepting that someone else has gone beyond them, far far beyond them. It's an ego problem that is helped by two considerations: (1) Bucky Fuller's admonition to not linger in the backwaters but leap to the forefront, the cutting edge of other people's thinking AND GO BEYOND.
(2) This particular forward-thinker has no special merit and is just another mediocre, average shlemiel like you - but s/he was tricked into it by wierd life experiences, in this case, the three-months-apart suicides of his grandfather and his father - and he's next, has been next for over half a century but only cuz he came up the most convincing possible reason to stay alive = identify the biggest human problem of his lifetime, design a solution, design an implementation strategy and push the implementation as far as possible during his hopefully-natural-but-don't-squeeze-the-butterfly-and-hesitate-to-call-Jack-Kevorkian-when-circumstances-conspire lifetime.
P.S. The Boston Anime Festival yesterday was great.

OK, here's the rest of those alternative first lines for our homepage,..

The only thing that can save the global economy or any economy within it is emergency worksharing and sustainabile timesizing, followed as called for by paysizing, wealthsizing and credit sizing, and this website offers the fullest, gentlest and most market-oriented version of this strategy.

This website has 2 ideas. In 100 years, every prosperous economy will have 2 design features: 1. the workweek will be adjusted against the unemployment rate to provide full employment and maximum consumer confidence and spending, and 2. overtime will be smoothly and continuously transformed into training 9wherever needed) and hiring.

Young people, are you angry that the older generation left you a megaproblem without a solution? Here's a solution...

To the younger generations - Here you will find step-by-step instructions for solving the major problems we have left you with, instructions to enable you to move humanity to the next level (actually the next 4-5 levels with pattern for further) = particularly a comfort for the bored or turned-off, we would think...

Young people, rally together and CUT THE WORKWEEK - it's your only chance vs. the robots!

Whenever you're ready...or bored...or fed up... here are instructions for moving on to the next level... This economic core redesign solves joblessness, inflation, income poverty. wealth poverty and credit poverty, and enables populations that implement its four 5-phase programs to move on to some new and more interesting problems.

Bored with all the same ol', same ol' megaproblems year after year after year? This is your site!

Failures of the Market: where's LePage's mucilage today??!
Where the heck are ANY flipup sunglasses, let alone varieties thereof (eg: plastic, metal...)

Successes of the Market: MacGregor's Happy Foot Health Socks - still available at Zellers in Aylmer, Quebec as recently as April 18, 2011, giving them a lifespan of at least 70 years since a big billboard with a happyface plaid sock cartoon advertising them dominated Spadina Avenue (southbound) in Toronto on top of a building ca. 1949.

Let's examine this simple assumption that many wealthy people in the US and Canadian economies have, and even many non-wealthy people = You can't have too much money,
It's a simple, absolute assumption in the sense that it's unrelated to anything, such as a context, such as the monetary system whereupon it depends.
All it does is, it assumes you subscribe to this common fantasy about the universal desirability of being rich and you're not thinking too much beyond that when you hear it and nod your knee-jerk, "that's obvious" agreement.
But... - and it's a killer 'but' -
when you really start thinking about it...
Suppose you had 100% of the money in the monetary system within which you exist in this Economic Age.
What are the implications?
Well, number one, nobody else has any money.
Now suppose the total amount of money was just the $13 trillion of the current US national debt (btw, what % of the GDP is that, and what % of the actual total US money supply?)
OK, you, one individual, supposedly "can't have too much money" but you have, somehow, 100% of the money supply, of M1, in your $13T-total monetary system.
What do you imagine the other 99.999999999% of the population is using as a medium of exchange?
Well, all there is, is barter, ie: anything at hand.
What would your $13T be invested in?
In what form would you receive your interest, even if it's just 0.1%?
You probably wouldn't have enough space to store the bartered goods used to pay your interest, and you certainly wouldn't have any use for most of it.
But never mind the unsustainability and impossibility and worthlessness of that much money concentrated in the hands of one person.
- The rest of the population would be concentrated in the cities with but little open land to grow food.
In the last months and weeks as you acquired your 100%, farmers would not need the junk that citydwellers would be trying to trade them for food, and farmers would be straining to find space to put all that stuff anyway - that would leave space for continued food growing.
The truckdrivers who are supposedlyl bringing the farmers' food to the city dwellers would have that space problem times ten cuz truckers generally don't own nearly as much land where they could store stuff as the farmers.
So truckers would quit bringing as much food - no incentive to.
So there would be a total food shortage in the cities. The city gardens would be overrun and picked bare, including the roots. The trees would be stripped of bark which would be boiled and eaten. Ditto the grass, weeds and garbage if any. The birds would all be eaten, not to mention the dogs and cats and other pets. Cannibalism would start. People would be starving to death by the hundreds and then by the thousands.
There would be no economy and no society (and the ecology would be in tough shape).
In short, as in so many other cases, you CAN have too much of a good thing ... and ...
You CAN have too much money.
The common, "obvious" idea that "you can't have too much money" is wrong, dead wrong, and boy, do we mean "dead," garnished with cannibalism on its approach path.
If you had 100% of the money supply, you would have "too much money."
But the "too much" condition would start long before you got close to 100%,
The point at which your concentration of the money supply in your own individual hands would begin at a much lower percentage that 100%. The system would begin deteriorating at a much lower percentage.
So the question becomes, above what smaller large-percentage of the total money supply, in the hands of what larger small-percentage of the total population, would the system begin deteriorating as the concentration of money proceeded?
How do we find out these figures?
And is there an optimum - a lesser concentration in a larger population, in line with the standard simplistic, absolute assumption that the One Percent finance large projects and create jobs via investment?

Assumptions that are obsolete in the Age of Limits (Economic seemingly pre-empting Ecological):
"Some people earn their wealth. I've always just had it." (no mention of inheriting = symptomatic of deeply embedded entitlement)
"You can't have too much money."
i.e.: You can never have too much investment money in the topmost brackets because the more there is, the more that gets invested to create jobs (and the more jobs get created).
[So we've been concentrating the money supply in the topmost 0.01% since 1980 - SHOW US THE JOBS.]

Q: If true, why don't we give 100% of the money supply to Bill Gates?
A: Because there'd be no economy.
Q: Why not?
A: Because there'd be no money in circulation.
Q: Why do we need that?
A: Because for maximum sustainable investment (inv. that at least holds it value), we need maximum marketable productivity (not just bubble-blowing productivity regardless of marketability), and for maximum marketable productivity, we need maximum currency circulation (maximum velocity and volume)
(and for that we need maximum consumer spending, and for that we need maximum general wage levels, and for that we need maximum employment on an employed-population basis, and for that we need automatic adjustment of the workweek against unemployment and automatic conversion of overtime into training&hiring).
Q: Isn't full employment inflationary?
A: Not if it's accomplished by a workweek cap that is permeable to workers with deflationary incentive (job satisfaction), proven by their reinvestment of overtime (and overwork) earnings in OT-targeted training&hiring that "infects" more and more people with their love of their job (job satisfaction) and their ... deflationary incentive.
Q: Then is inflation history?
A: The real root of inflation is not the wage-price spiral but a long continuum of models of 25% more (H.F.Clark) provided by an unlimitedly large concentration of the money and credit supply in an unlimitedly small subset of the population. The Timesizing Program only controls the most accessible components of inflation = the current totally unlimited and overbalanced reliance on the money motive (= inflationary incentive) in employment and the unlimitedly large concentration of natural market-demanded working hours in an unlimitedly small subset of the population that is responsible for worktime inflation (alias makework or job creation, featherbedding, padding, covert charity). Timesizing's successor programs control other components of inflation that stimulate wage-raise demands; namely, unlimited concentration in the money dimensions, one at a time in strategic order (per-person income, wealth & credit).

Found downstairs, Richard Douthwaite's 1992 "The Growth Illusion - How economic growth has enriched the few, impoverished the many [sounds like Chomsky], and endangered the planet [sounds like Limits to Growth]" , but it's not growth that has done this - it's lack of an upper limit.

This is the age of upper limits. There is usually a default lower limit, and it's usually zero. For example, the default lower limit on per-person working hours, income, wealth and credit is zero. But there are no default upper limits as yet. And we better get some fast - whether by design or estimation.

Nature has default upper limits on everything, every variable, and this is the age when we have to find out what the each of the upper limits are and on which variables, prioritize them according to most threatening, 2nd-most threatening, etc., and live within the upper limits of the most threatening, and then the 2nd-most threatening, etc., and in each case, bump our competitiveness (eg: "I work harder/longer hours than you" or "I make more money than you" or "I'm richer than you" or "I can borrow more OPM (other people's money) than you, nya nya") over into the next variable or variables that aren't quite as threatening yet, and stop threatening our whole systemic underpinnings for stupid status symbolism or pecking order.

Timesizing and its successor programs make this about as easy as it's gonna get. Phase 1 does a pre-lower limit (above zero=disaster) and Phase 4 heuristically derives a pre-upper limit (below disaster) based on what it's gonna take to rise to the pre-lower limit and avoid zero (disaster). Phase 2 and Phase 3 outline what needs to happen at the upper limit (overtime needs to get changed into training (if nec.) and jobs). And Phase 5 outlines what happens when Phases 1-4 no longer work.

Note a couple of innovations here. (1) We're not, as usual, equalizing on a point - we're equalizing on a range, with a lower limit and an upper limit; in this case, a safe range of employment in terms of working hours (from which a person can derive freely spendable earnings without parasitizing the economy at the bottom or monopolizing a limited natural resource {market-demanded working hours} at the top), with a lower limit and an upper limit. (2) We're not, as usual, mixing per-person and per-job (except where they coincide for one-job persons as in Phase 2) - per-person variables get controlled or governed (hence they are rightfully the province of government) while per-job variables (or more to the point, while the per-job version of the same variable we've just dealt with on a per-person basis) get decontrolled and set free to reflect systemic pressures (hence they are rightfully the province of the free market dba free-market forces). So we're sortof defining a bridge for Bucky Fuller's insight that synergy is not just the sum of the parts, or the behavior of the whole system cannot be derived from the behavior of its parts, or whatever - we're defining a bridge from the parts to the whole, or from the whatever behavior of the parts to the ideal behavior of the whole. (3,4..?) The are two basic types of work incentive: job satisfaction and money motive, alias, respectively, deflationary and inflationary. A framework can be designed for them to control inflation (and that would be, for example, Timesizing Phases 2 and 3) instead of our idiotic current method of damping inflation (and damping growth at the same time!) by raising interest rates to discourage business borrowing and (job) expansion.

This is a tribute to Prof. Robert Dobbie of Emmanuel College in the 1960s (United Church of Canada theological cemetery, oops, seminary, erstwhile within Victoria University within the University of Toronto):
"No one can die for you."
Prof. Dobbie was a professor of Old Testament Studies, boring when he was on-topic, fascinating when he was off-. He had a wonderful Scots accent when he was speaking (when else?!), He was short, had a pointed white beard and white hair. Wore one of those black academic capes over a brown suit and tie. Looked like one of those gnomes you see pictures of from all over the world except he didn't have the red pointy cap and the gnome suit.
He was Emmanuel College's great mystic. He would tell us about the great mystics of the Church: St.John of the Cross, Catharine of Siena....
His most striking lesson happened when we students sensed he had a very different view of the Atonement than the rest of the professors and, "hot on the trail," sort of hungry and thirsty for something different, we began to question him about it, and his answers were most refreshing, at least to me.
He said there were three doctrines of the atonement: Christ the Sacrificial Lamb who died for us, Christus Victor over sin and death, and Christ the moral exemplar.
We asked him which he believed in.
He said, Christ the moral exemplar.
No one had been victorious over death. We all still died. And no one can die for us. We all still do our own dying.
Christ saves us from sin by setting a supreme moral example that teaches us and that we can follow. That is what atones for us = sets us "'at one" with God.
In short, he differed with Luther-in-the-"jakes," getting explosively regular by realizing, with Paul, "for by grace are ye saved by faith, not of works lest any man should boast." Maybe Prof. Dobbie could believe this way because there was no way he was going to boast. He was the holiest man at Emmanuel College, whatever "holy" may mean. (OK, the Hebrew. "qawdhoash," means "set apart" and as the most different man on the faculty, I guess he was definitely different and "set apart." Was he holy in the sense of reverend or reverable? Well, I've remembered him all these years since academic year probably 1965-66, and I treasure [dedramatize, demythologize!] OK, value (="revere"?) those memories.

Of the other professors at Emmanuel I have less valuable memories. Big young David Demson is famed in my memoire for his kind of dramatic and funny doctrine of the Trinity ("God the Father WILLS Himself to the Son in and through the power of the Holy Spirit; God the Son WILLS Himself back to the Father in and through the power of the Holy Spirit...") but mostly for Demson's wonderfully concrete definition of God's grace ("the stoopingness of God's love").
Principal Earl S. Lautenschlager (="luteplucker"?) had a funny kindof intense, deliberate, overbite accent; was quite rigid in his attempts at collegiality and identifying with students... He taught such things as Pastoral Psychology and his most memorable phrase was, in turgid tones: "For the first half of my ministry I was too young for anyone to listen to. And for the last half I was too old."
Guthrie (Christian Ed) also had a Scots accent and was memorable for taking 25 words or more to say "rapid turnover in the congregation."
There was an Englishman (name??) who taught New Testament but he was fairly normal and unmemorable.
And then, of course, there was Mumbles McMullen, the professor of ... public speaking - oy vay!
Maybe "comparisons are odious" - but then again, maybe that's yet another aphorism that developed to protect the guilty.

All this is just my opinion. But my opinion has a strange kind of validation: it has kept me alive for over half a century against the worst, the most devious enemy one can have = oneself. It has protected me from suicide, from a tradition of suicide: a double dose; namely, my grandfather and my father.
I had to have a reason to hang around rather than hanging myself. And that reason became: identify and solve the biggest human problem of your lifetime, and push the implementation of the solution as far as you can before you're "pushing up the daisies."
And that would be the economic problem, as per Heilbroner's book of the same title. He and most others identify the economic problem as scarcity or shortage. I don't. I think it's the opposite: surplus or excess. It's not the people who have too little that have a problem in any actionable sense. It's the people who have too much.
Humanity's biggest long-term problem, and it keeps recurring in different variations on the same grotesque theme, is: how to spread around the value of the age so that it is activated and utilized at a maximum level. All the greatest of human inventions, usually semi-conscious collective inventions, have been great SHARING systems, to solve humanity's biggest long-term problem as it keeps recurring in different forms.

Message to employers - There is no sacrosanct level of the workweek while you're continuously introducing robots - unless you want no humans left with the money to buy the stuff the robots are producing.

The One Percent destroy their foundations systemically without care or consciousness while progressives try to save the whole system one individual at a time, each with maximum emotionality. What a mismatch! Result? The system deteriorates.

As Jared Diamond points out somewhere near the beginning (or end?) of "Collapse," a society "chooses" failure when its adaptive needs come into conflict with some of its long-held values. And today more and more, our long-held value on Getting Rich is in conflict with a need for the faster smoother negative feedback that much greater equality facilitates and much faster adaptation than current plutocracy allows. Not to mention our long-held value on Hard Work in the age of robotics.

Everything in the universe thinks it's normal and mostly doing nothing. Everything in the universe thinks it's the center of it all, just as planet Earth did throughout most of its human history. This illusion keeps everything generally contented, and adds to the power of Continuity by inertial resistance to change, which might be harmful unless it proves itself noticeably-quickly or slowly-inconspicuously.

OK, here's the best solution to a growing problem that I've come up with so far. The problem is, the total lack of privacy on the Web. There's no way you can prepare for anything and everything. It used to be the case that, starting with "If the public can possibly miss the point of your life, they will, so conventionalize everything except That One Thing so they can't miss the point." But modern life is sooo compound-complex, it's impossible with an ordinary experimenting life to conventionalize everything except That One Thing, especially when there is zilch privacy thanks to the Web. Sooo, next recourse: Switch the area of your time investment to preparing answers for anything and everything that might come up 'thanks to' a mischievous or malicious interviewer or an interviewer who is working for a mischievous or malicious person or someone who disagrees with your agenda/main mission/the point of your life, and wants to discredit it in any way possible.
So what's the best solution? The best solution so far is to require upfront that any interviewer agree, possibly in writing, that they will not act as an "undisciplined interviewer"; that is, they will not depart from the subject that they have specified to interview you on and that you have agreed to be interviewed on. You develop a sort of gong. If the interviewer starts trying to embarrass or discredit you based on a real or possible or alleged invasion of privacy, endemic on the Web, they get gonged, labeled an "undisciplined interviewer," and blackballed from further interviewing.
This enables people with new points of view and organizations of reality, which may threaten certain existing powerful vested interests (a particularly valuable but vulnerable category is whistle-blowers) to tell their stories with interviewers who are basically in a contract of "I'm here to make you look good and vice versa" or at least, "I'm here to present relevany information on this topic in neutrally, not negatively, charged terms so that viewers can come to their own better-informed positions.
What about hypocrites with enormous power and a track record of destructive decision-making who deserve to be embarrassed? You have to hold a 'trial' for them with specified sources. In other words, This 'undisciplined interviewer' angle is similar to 'pleading the fifth' - except that where pleading the fifth is rather on the self-condemning side, this is simply a recognition of the complexity and experimentality of lack of privacy of what normal life has become in the Internet age, and the fact that many 'moralities' are just personal or outdated or mischievous or malicious - or in any case, not worthy of indefinite extendibility. 3/16/2011/ph3

We need a book like Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" that cuts to the chase and talks about "Economic Collapse - How Decision-makers Insulate Themselves with Wealth (=investment power =decirculated money), Choose Pecking Order (dba Philanthropy=Charity giving) Above All Else, and Cannibalize their own Foundations - OR choose to firm their foundations."
Another theme might be, How Disparity Kills.

The last stage is always cannibalization. And mergers and acquisitions (M&As) are the first phase of that last stage in economic terms. M&As are economic cannibalism. Next comes obsessing about Efficiency aka Productivity (no mention of whether it's Marketable productivity), perceiving overlap, and using Efficiency or Productivity to terminate employees (who are also consumers and dependent-consumer financers), raise unemployment and job desperation, lower wage levels thereby lowering consumer-spending levels, vacuum the extra income into their own top brackets - thus cannibalizing their own consumer base.

Our new God is the 40-hour week. We worship it. We sacrifice for it. We invent all kinds of busywork to maintain it at all costs or even expand it. It's like cremation on Easter Island. Since Easter Islanders needed lots of firewood to get their dead to burn, as well as for cooking and heating, they had deforested their entire island between 1400 and 1600. They basically let the needs of their dead kill them from a peak population of over 15,000 to less than half that when the first Europeans arrived with their coup-de-grace diseases in the 1700s. Source: Jared Diamond's 2005 book "Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed." And so far, wealthy elites all over Planet Earth are choosing, on behalf of us all, to fail.

The chief dislocation is the maintenance, at huge sacrifice, of a relatively tiny, insulated and isolated population of decision-making specialists.

They are extremely wealthy, and that massive concentration of money, a kind of black hole, is the key insulating and isolating factor. To them, the current system seems to be working and so, "if it works, don't fix it" - they are powerful inertial agents. The problem is that as we enter the Ecological Age and our uncontrolled population growth hits all kinds of planetary constraints, we need to install a lot of indefinitely sustainable (homeostatic) systems, and the current wealthy are still living in the past of infinite frontiers, infinite resources, infinite economies which aren't dwarfed and starved by their holdings... So effectively, they're "playing the float."

The most natural, gradual and diverse (ie: market-oriented) factor in centrifiuging that black hole of wealth, in the sporadic episodes when it happens, and getting enough of that deactivated circulating currency back into circulation (enough to support the value of the uncirculating amount sequestered under the sacred name of Investment is), as it always has been, a real or perceived shortage of labor (or job candidates, or resumes).

If that healthful labor "shortage" cannot be created by the ancient methods of war (now too robotized) or plague (now too quickly blocked by modern medicine), it must be created according to a less wasteful tradition only nearly as old as the Industrial Revolution: workweek regulation, recycling of overtime into training and hiring, and workweek trimming - as much as it takes to achieve full employment, full markets, and maximum sustainable investment opportunities based thereon instead of investment bubble after investment bubble.

The underlying base of all currency is the market value of the average working hour of all employees (counting here entrepreneurs and employers as employees of the overall market) who use that currency as a medium of exchanging the services rendered (counting products here in terms of the worktime they embody). If the markets for those services (and products) decrease because the employees won't or can't buy their own output, then the value of the output declines and the market value of the average working hour decreases and the value of the currency against other currencies declines. Is there inflation or deflation domestically? Prices fall for services that go into surplus ("excess inventory") because they aren't selling domestically and need to, and rise for services that go into scarcity because they're denominated in foreign currencies.

What is Free Trade except the Invisible Hand at the international level - the belief that without dams, rivers will still produce hydroelectricity, and without locks, rivers will still safely transport ships up and down their length despite rapids and waterfalls.
At least the Invisible Hand at the national level has some visible presence in the balancing and moderating effect of representative or preferably direct democracy.
(And the Chinese millions don't have a clue about quality because they've never had access to it. Ergo toxic babyfood and frozen showerheads.)
The U.N. notwithstanding, there is no such balancing or moderating mechanism at the international level. it is a clear race to the bottom, and the fact that economists like Paul Krugman still buy the Free Trade dogma is a mystery.
Basically Free Traders sacirifice 70% of the economy (domestic consumption) for half the remainder (the export industry comprises about 15-16% of the economy). 2/27/2011/ph3

The Kondratieff Wave operates on a frequency of two generations (60-70 years) because it is primarily a function of an alternation in the mentality of the very wealthy between spreading it around and clutching it close.
Take World War II, for example. The One Percent accepted super-steep graduated income and estate taxes which got that megamoola centrifuged and reactivated and recirculating. Plus the war created that sine-qua-non of well-oiled capitalism, a employer-perceived labor shortage (actually a labor-employment balance for the first time since World War I).
All this circulation and spending strengthened the consumer base and enriched the public goods, making it possible for a lot more people, with money obsession, to get rich. These nouveau riche began to outnumber the old rich, and their attitude of acquisition and hoarding began to overwhelm the "Pay Back" mentality of the old rich. They wanted to cut their own taxes, toughen the bankruptcy laws and poverty programs and seek "productivity" by downsizing the workforce with never a thought to need for marketable productivity.

Once the babyboomers grew up, entered the job markets around 1970, and replaced the disempowering labor surplus of the Great Depression, the numerous nouveau riche could start getting what they wanted and restoring the acquisition and hoarding that caused the Depression, and the hoarding that perpetuated it. Basically they sacrifice their foundation (consumer base and employment basement) for pecking order. All this eventually produces a crisis and the wealthy accept another level of centrifugation...for a generation. But the next generation forgets and starts vacuuming the spending power out of the consumer base and employment basement again. They dismantle all the little money sprinklers across the economic lawn or switch them from Spray to Stream and poiont them up to themselves. As they redstribute money up the income brackets, it changes function from spending power to investing power, cuz they have no need or time to spend that kind of moneyflood - they're just looking for profitable or at least sustainable investment destinations for it, meaning sustainably marketable productivity, but there's less and less to choose from because of the consumer markets they are weakening by downsizing and wage-cutting the employment "basement." They find it impossible to understand this so they just assume that "quirky consumers" are "holding back," never that they simply may not have the levels of discretionary spending power they had before.

And the one question that never occurs to them is this: Is there a point in the concentration of more and more the national (and global) money supply among a smaller and smaller population where the concentration process begins to undermine itself - because the super-rich vacuum-in so much more than they can sensibly spend and even more than they can sustainably invest that they're basically just deactivating money and nullifying it for use solely to mark and hopefully raise their level in the great financial pecking order - they can no longer even invest it sustainably because they have vacuumed so much of the spending power out of the markets for the mega-productivity they NEED to invest in.

The solution is embarrassingly straightforward - engineer a management-disciplining, wage&spending-raising labor shortage by cutting the workweek, as much as it takes to restore full employment and robust markets. And the most market-oriented way of doing that is immediate worksharing and longer-term Timesizing.

It's de troof, it's atchoo-us -
Everything is satis-fatuous.

Humanity's biggest problem has always been concentration of ideas or skills or any kind of value too much too long, and how to spread same most efficiently. Now we try to spread general access (ie: money) by charity. Charity is sooo comforting for the have's - they give just enough too maintain this huge group of have-not commoners, whose major raison d'etre is to exist so that the have's can condescend, at their caprice, to toss something to them, and thereupon feel generous, righteous, superior, entitled to heaven if any... - but like Hard Work, this game has become dysfunctional and unsustainable.

Basic timesizing statement on charity: any system that depends for vital functions (like centrifugation of value) on charity (capricious, separational) is lethally flawed.

Whoa, here's a little blinding glimpse of the obvious that I just realized:

Adam Smith's Invisible Hand is refuted by Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons.

What's wrong with economics? The invisible hand is what's wrong with economics and the invisible hand is what is killing today's economies and what in turn will be killed, once and for all, by ecology, the science of sustainability, survival, continuity.
There never was an INvisible hand anyway. It was simply the very visible, balancing influence ("hand") of the spreading vote in the political sphere leaking its balance into the economic sphere. But since economics was coopted early by the narrowly money-minded merchant class (merchants, money-lenders and wealth-focused philosophers // today's CEOs, financiers and B-schools), this wishful thinking cum dogma ("don't confuse me with facts, my mind's made up") was lodged early in the developing "science" of economics, which then began to resemble religion more and more, as pointed out frequently by economists themselves (Joan Robinson's 1962 Economic Philosophy, everything Galbraith and Veblen...) and the next few centuries of suffering and slow progress was clinched, despite economics' key advantage, the ability to share partial disagreement. How ironic that early economics was called "political economy." Economists, needing alumni donors, were completely invested and subverted by the politics and control needs of the One Percent, while being conveniently incapable of correcting the One Percent's tendency to grab the one mention of "invisible hand" in Adam Smith and running amok with it.
It's as if the One Percent, as they were losing the "one goldpiece, one vote" of the geographic age to the "one person (adult), one vote" of the ecological age, embedded themselves in the foundations of economics, and have succeeded to this day in suppressing and ridiculing worktime economics, the most quantitative, scientific, sustainable and agreement-building kind of economics there is.
The trouble is, the One Percent "graduated" from a convenient assumption - that a magic "invisible hand" would pick up the tab for and nullify any damage they did to their own economic foundations in the consumer base and employment basement by the narrowly focused but unlimitedly extendible grasping of their pecking-order game - to actively playing the game of tax evasion - thus guaranteeing that they would have an evermore costly dumb-parasitic effect on the economic systems that supported them.

Addendum - The "economic problem" IS the invisible hand, or rather, the seizing-upon-it by the One Percent to justify their assumption that nothing they can do to the economic system will significantly harm it.
It is similar to many people's assumption about the ecosystem.

There is a specific order in which levels of problems must be solved.
American progressives are all over the map of these levels.
They are deepening the "recession" with their self-distraction and their inattention to strategy in terms of priority.
Some are going after specific diseases, however small a percentage of the population they affect.
Some are going after fancy job benefit packages, immigrants' rights or animal rights, or saddest of all, world hunger and/or poverty, while the functionality and meaning of their own fundamental rights, such as the right to vote, is being reduced and removed from them, and thus their future and that of their descendants is closing down rather than opening up.
The Civil Rights Movement finally did what the Civil War was supposed to have done a hundred years before. But then it morphed into the Women's Rights Movement on the assumption that the job markets could absorb women without labor surplus depressing wages at the same time as the baby boomers, now grown up, were entering the job markets (1970 +/- 5 years) - good that Americans were responding to global overpopulation by shifting the basic social unit from the reproductive pair to the productive person, but bad that the response was based on a number of false assumptions: that somehow, all by itself, the job market would stay sweet and full employment would automatically persist and wages would magically keep rising. But the computer revolution was also happening during this period. Word processing was beginning to disemploy typists, then printers. Robots were beginning to disemploy assembly-line workers. The confluence of these "blessings" only served: to lock housewives and mothers into the job markets once they had entered, to swiftly obsolete the one-breadwinner family, and to standardize the family with both parents working.
American expectations far outstripped the capability of their core economic design to meet them.
Many Americans continued their more and more sensitive, not to say, precious campaigns for various causes, such as the aforementioned fancy benefit packages, immigrants' rights, and animal rights. Under conditions of a mounting labor surplus, signaled by Third-World-style stagflation in the early 1970s, many of these campaigns actually accelerated the general deterioration by glutting demand for labor and weakening wages and spending and marketable productivity and sustainable investment. So, ordinary (Ninety-Nine Percent) Americans have sacrificed their future for a dream by tolerating and subsidizing the rich and super-rich.
They have cut taxes on the rich, pushing more of the burden onto themselves and children and grandchildren and greatgrandchildren et al, because there is no reset. In sports leagues, all teams start the season with zero games won, but without estate taxes, wealthy families just get richer and richer and everyone else just gets poorer and poorer until their is virtually no marketable productivity for the rich to invest in, and so their money becomes more completely of symbolic use only within their pecking order, the economy begins to revert to barter and the One Percent have to spend more and more on security.
Ordinary Americans have changed graduated income taxes and estate taxes on the One Percent into government debt and sales taxes on themselves, thus reducing sales and consumption and monetary circulation and economic dynamism and resilience in the downward direction, and reducing marketable productivity and jobs in the sideways direction, and reducing marketable productivity and sustainable investments in the upward direction.
Wealthy Americans, for their part, have sacrificed their foundations for mere pecking order, which can be handled by variables a lot less double-edged than money. They have cut their unburdensome-to-them tax burdens and shifted them onto everyone else, thus reducing consumer spending and marketable productivity and sustainable, let alone profitable, investments. By supporting the redefinition of the American dream from quality in terms of freedom (based on financially secure free time) and variability (based on equality within a range), to quantity in terms of money and fame ("Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous"), they have spotlighted themselves, blown their very useful cover, and isolated themselves in gated estates and communities, thus weakening the relevance and sustainability of all the important decision-making that they have (ab)used their money to draw to themselves. Thus the overall system on which they rely is weakening from lack of adaptibility, because generally they resist change on the principle of If It Works, Don't Fix It and it seems to be working for them just the way it is, status quo forever. We see currently what this is bringing for Mubarak in Egypt.

Both right and left are divided against themselves with contradictory positions.
The left is diffused and distracted on all these premature, high-sensitivity campaigns - while losing power by supporting virtually uncontrolled immigration and accepting sales taxes.
The right is diffused and distracted with outdated campaigns, such as forced pregnancy completion-to-birth, gun rights, re-establishment of religion (unseparation of Church and State), while the non-wealthy right is impoverishing itself by supporting the wealthy right's disowning of taxes (estate and graduated-income) while appropriating more and more decision-making power via unreformed campaign finance and now, single-party designed and manufactured, no-paper-trail voting machines.
The workweek for those still employed continues to lengthen because of labor impotence. Minimal vacation laws are still missing and now a luxury/distraction. A fake form of universal health care or insurance was passed but is now being declared unconstitutional for merely mandating that all Americans buy health insurance. Traditional retirement continues accelerating its disappearance as CEOs loot more and more corporate retirement funds in M&As and Social Security starts, full and partial, get pushed off to later and later ages despite constituting a major anchor of the consumer base, still advertised as 70% of the economy but doubtful or dependent on the shrinkage of the remaining 30%.
Environmentalists, meanwhile, are voices crying in The Wilderness of the Long Term about global warming and unrenewable resource dependence ("peak oil"), but this has become just another distraction like universal health insurance from the increasing job desperation, or rather, jobless desperation. The economy is going critical before the ecology. And the ecology will remain a luxury cause, a distraction, until the economy is rationalized and sustainabilized.
Canada is still better relative to stronger banks and honester bankers due to regulation that Canadians maintained while Americans dismantled. Canada is worse from the point of view of sales taxes, but better from the point of view of the slower dismantling of estate and graduated income taxes, which remain to pay for universal health insurance, thus making it a more attractive location for any new factories, if any are to be found and any that aren't humanless all-robotized Lights-Out Manufacturing... Canadian provinces and territories even slipped in minimum vacation laws, like all the rest of the advanced economies except the U.S., and workweek-cap and overtime enforcement is somewhat stricter. Canada, despite the efforts of its current trogloditic prime minister (Harper), is still roughly maintaining its roughly 15-year lagtime behind the U.S. in terms of general deterioration and eventual cascade into the Third World. Europe is strongest with fuller employment maintained by the manipulation (generally shortening) of worktime per person per week (shorter workweeks) and per year (longer vacations), although per lifetime (earlier retirement) is weakening, but this is a good trend if we wish to continue increases in longevity.
The open moments for the U.S. to "catch the carrousel ring" of progress were in 1933 when a 30-hour workweek bill passed the U.S. Senate, after World War II when the prewar 2-hour/year reduction of the workweek could have been continued to maintain full employment despite demobilization without "Rosie the Riveter" leaving the workforce and going back into the kitchen, in 1956 when Nixon spoke of a 32-hour workweek on the stump in Pueblo Colorado, in 1964 when Reuther spoke of fluctuating adjustment of the workweek against unemployment at the UAW Convention in Atlantic City, and during the Jimmy Carter administration, 1976-80, before the window started closing with Reagan and Bush 1, only to be slammed by Clinton (repealed Glass-Steagall) and Bush 2 (single-party design & mfr of paperless voting machines). Now the U.S. is a not-quite-yet-paper so "cardboard" tiger, a geriatric with decalcified bones that could crack if it coughs or sneezes hard. The vultures have already picked dry the bones of its manufacturing and are working on its services, all of which weakens its consumer base via its employment basement. Its own brainless Free Trade fundamentalism on the right neons forth like a giant Rape Me sign and China accedes. Its bleeding-heart immigrantionism on the left bloats its marginal employment but plenty of desperate people throughout the Third World are ready to risk it and pick up the crumbs, some getting subsidized housing immediately despite people born here and on the list already waiting for five years. So the flow from long-term unemployment to welfare, and from the five-year welfare cap to disability or prison or homelessness or suicide swells and swells.
All parties' ideas are self-contradictory and self-undermining. Americans are cornered into re-examining their 100-year campaign to share the vanishing natural market-demanded employment by CUTTING THE WORKWEEK, but their residual Protestant work ethic, almost as strong as the workaholism in Japan and So.Korea (despite the latter's recent cut from 44 to 40 hours), continues to block, as does the general desperation to keep TIME in the background - stable, part of the woodwork - and not step forward and declare its candidacy for greater things, such as variable, economic variable, economic control variable; in fact, THE economic control variable of their current lifetimes.

The question here is, why do people have such a hard time understanding the importance and centrality and urgency of worksharing and timesizing? What is it about TIME that's so hard to understand?
And this leads us to the depressing observation that many big-name physicists evidently have a profound misunderstanding or confusion about time because they continue to entertain the impossibility that time can be reversed, meaning that the basic metaphor for time is a line, the so-called time line, and that time is linear, rather than it's true nature which is that of a spiral within a spiral within a spiral..., and also that of a spiral containing spirals containing spirals...
Einstein confused subsequent physicists with his basic "riding on a light beam," which involves three fundamental confusions: 1. two different viewpoints: the moving rider's viewpoint, and since the rider is riding on something, a photon, too tiny to see (because it's what you're actually seeing with or by means of), the rider at rest at a distance imagining seeing himself riding the photon, which is a huge problem, involving an unacknowledged (indeed, denied) faster-than-light perceptual medium by which he can see himself on a photon 2. two different dimensions: visible motion alias momentum = 5th dimensional*, a special case of which is time, and, vision-enabling motion, alias light, a special case of energy = 6th dimensional*
(*We refer to this paradigm: dot x length = line (D1), line x width = area (D2), area x height = volume (D3), volume x density = mass (D4), mass x velocity' = momentum (D5), momentum x velocity" = energy (D6); see Defining Time)
3. general and specific: we have a confused chiasmus here on both the fifth and sixth dimensional levels.
Light is just one kind of energy, a ""special case" of energy, but Einstein never clearly distinguishes it from energy, indeed attributing its speed to all energy and claiming it as an absolute maximum, quite a contradiction for someone claiming to assert relativity instead of absoluteness (the two may be clarified by the following consideration: there's no such thing as absoluteness, only specifiably extended relativity).
Time (days, hours, minutes, seconds) is just one kind of momentum or motion, one that we take as the most fundamental motion to be used as a reference, the motion of a REFERENCE EXTERNAL OBJECT dba the reference "big hand" of a huge imaginary reference-timepiece, namely Sol, our star, known to its friends as the sun, as seen from a REFERENCE STATIONARY VIEWPOINT at Greenwich meridian zero on the Ptolemaic center of the Universe, Earth.
Ohoh, looks like we're unearthing (no pun) the root of the confusion, and it was rooted long before Einstein.
We later had the humiliating idea that our astronomy would be a lot simpler and more elegant if we regarded the Sun as the center of planetary motion instead of Earth, and indeed, regarded Earth as just one of the planets ("wanderers") orbiting the Sun. So the stationary viewpoint (Greenwich) began to move, which viewpoints are not supposed to do, and the moving external object began to stand still, which moving objects are not supposed to do.
This compound confusion has been a major source of avoidance and obfuscation in thinking about time ever since.
Another source has been the difficult-to-reconcile long time unit, the year, which was originally based on the indirect motion of the Sun in crossing the zenith farther south in winter and farther north in summer. This already tricky observation was confounded (confusion meets compounding) when we decided the whole impression was due to the revolution of a constantly slanted top, the Earth, around a stationary Sun. The slight variation in the radius of the circle the Earth described around the Sun was taken as negligible, though strictly speaking the orbit is a very round ellipse, not a perfect circle.
All in all, physicists defaulted to an overly simple metaphor for time, the LINE, and why shouldn't linear motion be reversible?
And ordinary people just take time for granted and try to avoid any deep thought on the subject, because as your present reporter can testify, it can indeed hurt your head and give you a headache.

Where's the chiasmus (cross)?
Let's start with an easy one.
today (Sunday), oneday (Monday), two'sday (Tuesday), three'sday (Thursday), fourday (Friday)
This is the old counting method without zero, "today," so you start counting with what we zero-lovers would call the second one. It's based on the Sun and four of the six originally observed (because observable) planets, which in trun were named after local gods, thus giving us different names for the days in, for example, Babylonian, Latin and English.
The English gods' names were:
oneday (Moonday), two'sday (Tiu's day), three'sday (Thor's day). fourday (Friyya's day, root Friy-).
Notice the crossover in the vowels:
number three four
divinity Thor Friy
ergo chiasmus (X) if you write them on two lines like this and connect the words with front vowels and the words with back vowels, ee-iy and ou-o.
Now, Einstein has taken a special case on the D6 level, light, and identified it with D6 general-case energy.
That's why we always hear of e=Mc(2) instead of e=Mv(2).
And he has taken a special case on the D5 level, time, and identified it with D5 general-case momentum, which he never mentions, because he thinks time is the general case on the D5 level, and momentum would be the specific case because you compare different motions (momenta) by timing them, so they look more specific.
So we've got:
D# Dname specialcase
D6 energy light
D5 time momentum, these last two being reversed and providing a chiasmus if you connect the real dimensions and special cases: energy-momentum and light-time.
Notice this screws up our "four basic modern elements": space-time-matter(mass)-energy which should be space-momentum-matter(mass)-energy and belies the "space-time continuum" which is actually a space-mass-momentum continuum. It also renders obsolete talk of The Time Line, which is actually a spiral (rotational motion of Greenwich viewed with xray vision from the Sun) within a spiral (revolutional motion of Sun at radius of Earth center viewed from Sirius), or a spiral containing a spiral (v.v.). [getting tired: ca.4-7pm, 1/30]

What if there were not only new dialects/vocabs and hallmark activities generated with each new social-science era, but new pecking orders (and accompanying tax/tithe systems!) as well. In the anthropological age, we just had the tribe and the chief; the medicine man or wise woman, if any, was an ad-hoc singularity. In the sociological age, the chiefdom was recognized as having two roles and the chief was head of society as well as the cult. The priest-kings of Sumer inhabited the palace-temples and there was one hierarchy, influenced strongly by the old familiality and nepotism, and tribalism, but outsiders could and did get in.
The Hebrews emphasized writing early, and had a consonantal alphabet to make it easier. The king and the high priest were separate, and lived in separate institutions, the palace courts and the temple courts. And indeed, two kinds of law courts developed and two kinds of law, temple law (cultic-religious) and palace/administrative law (the judges). So we have the king and counsellors (including the prophets) orbiting the palace, and the priests and levites orbiting the temple.
Then came the Political Science Age, where the religious hierarchy split between the priests and monks, the clerics and monastics, and started a subhierarchy on the religious ("re-reading") side, which jumped to the state side continuingly when Henry VIII dissolved the English monasteries, separated the Church in England from Rome, stopped the draining of taxes/tithes out of the country, and usurped headship of the Church, reserving it for himself but then delegating it (to the Archbishop of Canterbury).

Then with more oscillations back and forth between Rome (Bloody Mary and James II) and Canterbury (Elizabeth... and William&Mary...) in England, we borrowed a protestant king from Scotland. Their James VI became our James I and started immediately started sinking back into cultism with his Divine Right of Kings, which was pushed further to the evocation of violence by his son, Charles I, and that violence, between the monarchist Cavaliers ("our king right or wrong") and the parliamentarian Roundheads under Cromwell. France, which had fallen seriously behind when England ditched Rome and France in not during the 1500s, now fell much further behind during the 1600s as Parliament executed its King while le roi a hausse/ son pouvoir (the Sun King - Louis XIV - tightened his grip) in France and the French, despite being out on the street protesting at every provocation today, did not execute their king for another 142 years (Louis XVI, 1791), giving England, now expanded with the inclusion not only of Wales via its absorption of the Welshman, Henry VII, but also now of Scotland, via England's absorption of the Scotsman, James I > VI.

So then the black RC priest-monk split changed into an England-Rome split and resurfaced as a brown CofE priest-monk split, with the ceremonial priestly part tied to the Monarch (high church) and the monastic part become larger, marriageable and democratized under Scots Presbyterian influence, and then purified (the Puritans), further democratized (the Congregationalists) and tied to Parliament (low church). This split survived at least into the 1950s (and maybe today) in the two CofE theological colleges in Toronto (*Trinity highchurch and *Wycliffe lowchurch).

So when Cromwell's son couldn't cut the mustard and Charles I's son was invited back from France, the social-antisocial (priest-monk) split => the Rome-England split => the high-low church split => the monarch-parliament split rooted deeper and spread to the New World, where it eventuated in a GreatBritain-UnitedColonies split => centrist-regionalist split (federalists-states'rightists), thence spread to other jurisdictions, such as foundationally schizophrenic Canada (Conservatives-Liberals) where it has evolved from bipartisanship to poly- or multi-partisanship (add NDP and PQ), and most advancedly, Switzerland, where it has overflowed into elaborated citizen initiatives and more direct democracy.

But to get back to this multiplying-hierarchy theme - humanity now has a fully developed political hierarchy and several economic hierarchies (CEO pecking order and super-rich pecking order and union chief pecking order). The political hierarchy, flexibilized with one person one vote and term limits to attempt to get additional negative, change-indicating system feedback, is being drowned by money from especially the first two of the economic hierarchies, thus is being taken over by later hierarchies who in their ignorance are sinking back into imperial (geog-hist) and sociological (priest-king) hierarchies, with economic dogma so entrenched that it can enforce an unmentionable, unquestionable, undiscussable power ("there are no classes in America") in a way that absolutely bars the mention or questioning or discussion of the most important questions, as if they were the divine tetragrammaton, YHWH, or some totemic animal renamed by taboo deformation like the Honey-Eater (bear): is there a point (or transition range) in the process of concentrating wealth (2 variables so far = largeness of money and smallness of population) where the process starts to undermine itself? (And how do we dynamically determine that transition-range and as much as poss. by market forces reverse the process to back within that range which is presumably optimal (or is it?) etc. etc.

Rec'd from my Canadian/Quebecois "congressman", Marcel Proulx, a survey:
"Tell us what you think: Who do you believe understands better the needs of Canadian families:" = "Dites-nous ce que vous pensez:
Qui croyez-vous comprends mieux les besoins des familles canadiennes?
|_| Michael Ignatieff et les liberaux (& the Liberals)
|_| Stephen Harper et les conservateurs (& the Conservatives)"
Because this was far too directive and leading a question to be useful on a survey, I answered the larger question as follows:
"Mais ce dont nous avons besoins le plus c'est des emplois, et dans l'age de robotisation, ca prendra notre programme federale de travail partage financee pas par les taux generaux mais par les taux sur le temps supplementaire sinon converti constamment dans (/en?)n des emplois pour des autres canadien(nes) - et formation ou necessaire."
Original and improved English: "But what we need most is jobs, and in the age of robotization, that will require our federal worksharing program to be financed not by general taxes but by taxes on any overtime not immediately converted into jobs for other Canadians - and training wherever necessary."

Progressives have a big problem with demonizing and attacking words that are needed and should not be demonized and attacked without strict qualification - like "the market" and "consumption." Markets see next para. Consumption - hardly a problem during a great recession, and no problem any time if subject to Bucky Fuller's dictum: "doing more with less."

The most strategic thinker at CACOR today distrusts the Market and thinks we should have income maintenance or guaranteed minimum income set by POLITICS, ie: some elite, some class system, some subset of the Market, no subset of which can decide details as efficiently and pragmatically as the whole. ! (This is more fearful regression, to POLITICS yet ! )
How depressing. How sad. How ignorant. It betrays a huge ignorance of how evolution works, of what markets are and how they function... This should all be well-known and taught in elementary school!
This man wants to breed dependency, parasitism, for the sake of his superiah status as a decision-maker for others - of course, he would never describe it this way...
The Market is a huge natural organism, as natural as you can get in the social-science era aka human evolution, whose function it is to reconcile all details, varieties and levels (aggregations - except the topmost/bottom-most/frame) of self-interest, continuously, dynamically.
This reconciling process involves matching complementary needs and desires on a phenomenally complex scale. There are duodecillion transactions, exchanges, going on all the time.
Is there deception, misrepresentation, bait and switch, etc. Sure, but the vast VAST majority of exchanges are mutually satisfactory, ie: fair.
I understand why the Market gets a "bad rep" - it's because we allow its framework to distort, its "playing field" to slope. The main factor is the power gradient, which is currently tilting steeply in favor of employers and the financial community.
Why? Because we have allowed the Promise of Technology to be broken. The Promise of Technology is that technological efficiency alias productivity alias worksaving will make life easier for everyone.
But we have never designed and implemented a mechanism for this to happen.
We often ASSUME its happening, but obviously it's not, as more and more people become marginally or un- employed, while CEO pay goes from 200-300 times average employee pay to 500-600 times.
And if technology has no way to keep its promise, it becomes a curse, creating labor surplus and a hugely tilted playing field in favor of employers and investors, who then rapidly concentrate much more money than they can spend and soon, more money than they can even invest sustainably since they're constantly diverting and sequestering more and more of the nation's M1, the money supply, the national income and wealth, and leaving a still huge but relatively insufficient proportion in circulation at a still rapid but relatively insufficient velocity to reinforce convincingly and widely the value (a matter of faith alias belief alias credit) of the huge amount of SYMBOLIC TIME (ie: money) that they have amassed and CRUSHED into their own accounts and entitlements.
The Market is like the Dao, which like water always finds a way, even around great rocks, even eventually silting up and overflowing great dams, if it hasn't already undermined or sidemined them.
Trying to abolish or sideline the Market is grossly inefficient to the point of impossiblity without triggering mass starvation in a large population, like USSR's when Lenin tried to equalize all wages, thus decompensating for the downside of millions of unsafe or otherwise unpopular jobs.

If the key progress from the geographic-historical age based on writing to the political(-science) age based on negotiation (+compromise, diplomacy, courtesy...) was a clearer separation of Church and State, of Politics and Religion (in a three-way development: God-King split apart (separation of Church and State, religion and politics, sacred and secular), split within religion (monastics vs. clerics, monks vs. priests), split between taxing power and poll, money and vote, all to gain that most precious and rare commodity, negative feedback, the important kind that indicates need for and direction of change.

(The geographic-historical age of religion was the age of institutionalizing theft, oops, taxation. After all, it was the age of selling people fantasy, wish-fulfilment, salvation, eternal life... - now a far cry between that and spectral evidence, the bane of Salem MA, which despite its name represents anything but shalom, peace and wholeness.)

Now we need to separate State and Market, by automatically guaranteeing a level field for market forces to play out their detail-handling, reconciling function upon. Thus the ecological age becomes the age of designing and implementing the missing balancing mechanisms, the mechanisms that prevent a skewed and sloping playing field in the great economic variables: employment (and skills), income (and skills), wealth (and skills), credit (and skills)...

These automatic, balancing mechanisms are going to define The Market, set its bounds, keep it level, fair and honest...
They are also going to define another slice of personhood = ourselves - another component in the phenomenon of humanness &/or intelligence, just as, on a more specific level(?) they are factoring out and controlling another component of inflation (which may not be necessary in detail if we control and balance the perimeter well enough - so there would be only two components, quantitative and qualitative, money-motivated and non--.

So what are the great institutions, going backward? It's like each subsequent age defines the institution of the previous age by making end-terminus to it. The definition of The Market by a series of balancing programs, or playing-field leveling programs, will happen only in the ecological age and put paid to the economic age.
The economic age said, one adult one vote, thereby defining the State, the taxing power, the "protection" selling racket, the band of legalized thieves.
The Political Age, the age of the poll or the individual voice or the Age of The Vote, said people have the right to reject society and its whole priest-king meshuggenah(bupkis?) (thus opening the door to secular politics where you could handle negative feedback without eternal damnation, and opening the door to science where you could quit pushing all the questions off one huge level by positing God and saying Don't Ask (cuz it SACRED/you disrespectful) and just ask the bloody questions, deeper and deeper and deeper....
The Geographic-Historic Age (alias the age of empire/imperialismage of religion) was the age of The Book in the hands of the priest-king or the divine emperor or pharaoh.

Review: homeostatic design defines the Economy (Market), the Vote defines the Polity (State), the Holy Book(s) define(s) the Throne-Cult, the ? of the Geog Age defines the ? of the Soc Age?, and the ? of the Soc Age defines the ? of the Anthrop Age? (This is like solving for X in math, which in its time was like solving for what/where/who/how/why in language, which all start with Q in Latin, which got stylized to ? at some point but I'm not sure when.)

Is it possible that some people do not know how to be happy? That happiness sits ill with their identity, formed during an unhappy childhood? Naida once accused me of not being able to stand happiness, or not knowing how to be happy, unfairly I think, cuz my childhood was generally happy. I accuse RM of it. Hers, I think, was not. Her brother was a inveterate rebel, and she was pushed into mediating between him and her parents, or at least, cushioning her parents from him.
Maybe happiness is best viewed as a learnable skill, which can become a habit.
Just as anger is and can.
This raises the possibility of happiness classes - is this new happiness movement John de Graaf wants to join, and Gail Stewart speaks of, aware of this and considering designing a curriculum and holding classes? Must phone Bro'Ken about this, plus Tom Walker (and more generally, Bob LaJeunesse).

Entropy dump analysis (see also 8/19 below) -
Where do we put things when we have too much of them - somewhere where we think we can put any amount without repercussions.
Too many people?
First we put them to death or pushed them away from the campfire or the village or the land or the continent, hence the myth of the frontier.
Somehow we got to a point where there was too much available effort or energy, and energy surpluses began to build up, so we started putting unlimited big money on unlimited few people in the population. The super-rich became our effort/energy dump in the form of symbolic time (=money) and the unemployed became our entropy dump.
But this is not a stable or sustainable situation when so much energy is concentrated so tightly that it becomes deactivated and begins to suck the energy out of a wider and wider region around itself (compare the widening "income gap" in the U.S. economy), similar to the effects on its environment of an astrophysical "black hole" which is so materially concentrated and massive that not even photons can escape its gravity and so there is a vast region of greater sparsity around it, void even of photons - thus an unlimited energy dump, if allowed to form on the excuse that it will create more energy, can actually get so massive that it creates less energy by coagulating and deactivating it, and effectively more entropy around itself with a wider and deeper entropy dump. Better far to accept the necessity and unavoidability, even inevitability of an entropy dump ("freedom") and craft it as harmless (eg: stable, sustainable and infinitely adjustable financially secure free time) rather than harmful (eg: unstable, unsustainable and potentially self-promulgating financially insecure free time alias unemployment).
The radius of the concentric entropy dump around a black hole would be the distance between its event perimeter, within which it vacuums-in even photons, and, what, its visible surface? but it has no visible surface cuz no photons are leaving. What can define its surface then? Does this wind up being arbitrary? How do astronomers define the surface of black holes? How do economists define the start of wealth and superwealth? Is it arbitrary after all? or is there some lurking logical start somewhere, like when the concentration of energy or money switches from energy or money producing to energy or money absorbing? Or from e/m-beyond-itself activating to e/m-beyond-itself deactivating?

Congresswoman [Gabrielle Giffords] critical, 6 dead in Tucson rampage, 1/09 Boston Sunday Globe, A1.
*Keith Olbermann points out that violent talk in American politics is currently the most serious threat to freedom of speech in the USA. How ironic that the talkshow hosts, self-styled advocates of freedom of speech, are using fear to curtail freedom of speech in the erstwhile Land of the Free. One of them apparently said they wanted to make a political opponent afraid to step out of his house. Is this still America?

It's like all those "patriotic" American CEOs talking the talking of freedom while removing from Americans the most fundamental freedom, leisure (= financially secure free time), without which the other freedoms are inaccessible or meaningless. They do this by downsizing the workforce instead of the workweek, leaving survivors working longer hours and victims financially insecure. But then, there are no market forces to discipline employers and investors and make sure the proportion of investment money in an economy has a large enough proportion of spending money in circulation to support it and maintain its value by that very circulation.

Kate reads in the Boston Sunday Globe p.N1 that a play about R.Buckminster Fuller aka Bucky Fuller is coming to the Loeb Drama Center 1/14-2/05 at Harvard U, Cambridge MA. Bucky laid the general comprehensive groundwork for a serious acceleration in human progress dba megaproblem solution design & implementation. He listed megapriorities in terms of "nine chains to the moon" including the world game and a new global accounting system. Phil played the world game in his head while studying linguistics and psychology from 1967, when he realized the Church has passed the buck to science (psychology/psychiatry) for hard cases such as himself, to ca.1972, when he judged his inner world pragmatically balanced enough to turn outward and start spreading the balance by seeking the next-more specific and strategic target areas beyond Bucky Fuller's general World Game groundwork (51% optimistic) and MIT's general World Model framework (=Limits to Growth, at least 51% pessimistic). Phil dismissed various popular target areas such as self-sufficient farming and renewable energy on the basis of Bucky's dictum, "If someone else is doing it, it's not the most important thing for you to do. Find something that no one else is doing. Corollary: Don't linger in awe: jump to the forefront of other people's thinking, including mine, and GO BEYOND = identify/take the next step. (But have patience, because despite all your success, the Universe may not call upon you to accomplish the Next Big Step. Just be ready if/when It does.)"

Phil eased toward his own interpretation of Bucky's New World Accounting System by realizing that there were professional dialects, insofar as many trades or professions (say, a truckdriver and a lawyer) could say exactly the same thing in totally different words, and that there were power dialects within English and the modern languages = professions that, more than others, had the ear of power, and that the power dialect had been politicese, it would be ecologese, but currently it was economese, potentially the most sparely quantitative of the social sciences, but apparently fundamentally flawed in some way related to the Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis (your language determines and limits the class of questions you can ask and ideas you can potentially think of) and Keynes' Livelihood Observation (your source of income determines and limits the class of questions you can ask and ideas you can potentially think of).

Basically this parallel pilgrimage in lingistics enabled Phil to take Bucky's design science idea and focus it into economic design, and to take Bucky's "the world can be saved by technology" idea and to focus it first on computer technology, then computer software, then on social software. Putting the economic design together with the social software, Phil got the idea of "saving the world" by redesigning the advanced-world's social software. This was further focused by Phil's conviction that the US was the basic world economic model so any innovations had to be published first in the US and in terms of the US economic model though they may not be implemented first in the US - they would picked up here and in these terms first because more eyes worldwide are on the US than on any other single economy.

And the economic design would have to be minimalist, no bottom-up, root&branch, scrap the market, etc. in line with the general strategy of evolution which seems to be: minimum necessary departure from status quo at each point. This argued for a brutal reduction in the number of simultaneous projects/parallel programs. The institutional tradition in US economics, though not currently mainstream, offered an especially US precedent in terms of approach, so that Phil could talk about design a minimally necessary modification to the core of the body economic in the USA in terms of minimally redesigning US economic institutions. Of course, the institutions that Phil eventually focused on (the workweek and the phenomenon of overtime) were not necessary "institutions" in the sense in which American institutionalists used the word - but maybe they were (Phil hasn't actually read much of their stuff).

And for political reasons and due to the drift of "the language of the age" toward "the right," any mention of socialism or Marx etc. would be toxic, but also any direct reference to religion would also be toxic. The left and post-left progressives fumbled the "football of history" in terms of never getting beyond the New Deal and makework by 1976 when they had their perfect opening during the Carter presidency - they came up empty, bankrupt of ideas, except national parks which are sortof like trying to save the world with chamber music as a new Boston group is attempting. But it took so long for Phil to think outside the box and develop worktime economics, and he senses that only one other person has got this far = Bob LaJeunesse of the EEOC - with a genuine economics PhD (tho alas, not from UChicago), though Tom Walker is close behind tho focused on LOLF (tho his recent book may correct this?), and Anders Hayden is percolating, but Juliet Schor has sidetracked onto fighting consumption (in a depression? when Bucky's "doing more with less" offers a solution? - but her latest book *Plenitude may correct this?)...

So Phil started self-directed study of economics, but being a mathophobe, took a linguistic approach and even taught a course for several years at the Camridge Y and Ctr for Adult Education called The Language of Economics. In practice, this boiled down to slowly reading, and making lots of marginal annotations on, several histories of economic ideas, starting with Lekachman's (not the best starting place) and going on to Heilbroner's (the best starting place!) and Bell's and Galbraith's and others. Phil sensed there was something blindingly obvious and glaringly flawed about our core economic institutions, but it took a while to even figure out what they were and identify them. He started with the Limits to Growth Seminar's targeting of compulsive economic growth. From his drugless psychedelic experience when he was elected the first full-time student president of the SCM of Canada at the Aurora National Council in Feb.1966, Phil had a technique in mind (stop running around reading other people's ideas and start by organizing your own, by: asking the obvious question, accepting the obvious answer, turning it into the next obvious question, and repeating). On this basis, Phil responded to the Limits to Growth imperative by asking how do you control growth instead of growth controlling you? A: you control what's driving growth. Q: What's driving growth? (ie: the fact that we CAN grow more because we can see people who have more than us, and according to Clarke (E.F?) the center of the human quantitative motivating range is: 25% more, much less and it's boring or impossible, much more and it's discouraging or hopeless.) A: Models of more.

This gave Phil the advantage of focusing him at the top, whereas most people start at the bottom with poverty or starvation or disease or ignorance. Phil worked out the middle three program phases of Timesizing first in terms of money, not worktime, quickly realizing that there were at least two kinds of money, flowing and static, income and wealth, and that you had to balance income first or it would undermine your balancing of wealth, and then realizing that you could not possibly start with money first - you must start with something more basic and actionable - what? - work. And only per-person, not per-job, variables could be healthily controlled, and this would move us beyond the separation of Church and State to a more perfect separation of State and Market.

So roughly 1972-1982 was working out the balancing in money on an independent scholar basis. 1982-1992 was switching to worktime on a solitary basis. 1992-1998 was discovering Juliet Schor and Ben Hunnicutt (ie: no need for solitary study of balancing worktime per person because there's an embryonic movement exists) and flinging Timesizing Not Downsizing into print as a 140-page campaign piece (barely) in time for the big Democratic Primary for Joe Kennedy's open seat in Massachusetts' 8th Congressional District. 1998-2002 was putting together and self-publishing The Football of Time (=another of Bucky's ideas) and Defining Time, capped by summer in the Grand Canyon with "Ranger Kate."

Meanwhile, 1999-2004 the Timesizing.com website and its daily updates of Doom du Jour and later Hope du Jour (based on Individual Inc.'s newsfeed search idea, transferred to Google news search) began to fill in what Kate had identified as the biggest weakness in the unfolding of "worktime economics" and the Timesizing program = lack of research. Revelations about U.S. voting machines (manufactured by fanatical Bush supporters) led to re-establishment of Canadian residence and sufficient emotional depression control to continue the website, but not the daily update, till 2008. Obama's election enabled resumption of the daily update in early 2009, to be decelerated to thrice a week in early 2010 to enable Finishing The Book (since Timesizing Not Downsizing had very little editing of the last five chapters = the Timesizing Program itself).

The whole period since 2004 has been a realization that there is a megaproblem level prior to balancing worktime but accessible through it, namely, the concentration of an unlimited muchness/maximum of money and power in the hands of an unlimited fewness/minimum of people, to whom the system seems to be working fine and who own the media and so can craft the language of the age to discourage or obscure or ridicule or debar any asking about, let alone solving of, the weakness of deconcentrating forces and the resulting, fundamentally deteriorating status quo.

So, wrap. Bucky Fuller provided the general list of problems or projects (Nine Chains to the Moon) that MIT's Limits to Growth focused a little and Phil gradually prioritized, solved and strategized, then realizing the deep-background dilemma = THE problem-people, the super-rich, OWN the media and can control to an amazing extent the public debate and discussion and thinking, eg: keeping Chomsky - a vital bringer of the important kind of system feedback=negative - OUT of the Beltway media, plus convincing millions (eg: the "Tea Party") to vote against their own interests - AND the interests of the super-rich themselves in any sustainable and long-term sense (where the "long" term is getting shorter every day). The business end of this is that currently the super-rich media moguls have enabled a total disagreement even on the facts in the USA. Under these conditions, it is unlikely that the USA will retain world leadership beyond this century.

New(?) concept: courtesy overkill: for example, gratuitous gratitude (such as radio DJs thanking you for listening to them), compulsive apology (as in movie "Send In The Clowns"), ...

Some relatives delete their relationship by functioning only as fair-weather "friends." This may leave them with stiff competition from your natural friends. And that may leave them...out.

Forgiveness (they hurt you) - "forgive quickly" says Bill Martin's Xmas card, and it sounds seductive - and your closest friends must be treated with some such numbness (alias self-anesthetization or spacedness) and duplicity (dignified as diplomacy) and acting skill (not unrelated to hypocrisy) - this is what can easily build up into divorce, etc. - but each of us is genetically coded to heal from various damage at various rates, and it's better to accept that natural rate and real healing, and protect yourself with emotional bandaids, casts, convalescent withdrawal - whatever it takes for real healing to happen at your genetically coded rate.

Apology (you hurt them) - quick apology is better replaced by acknowledgement of mistake, for which "oops" is sufficient, and most important, redesign of the situation to make the mistake impossible, or as unlikely as possible, in future.

We need a decision on when cemeteries become archeological sites - when they cease belonging to relatives and start belonging to humanity, with scientists (non-hoarding, please!) as humanities' agents. The U.N. should be moving toward global referendum capability. This would also accelerate direct democracy and crucial feedback capability in backward and democracy-challenged countries like the USA.

Economists are incapable of seeing the obvious because they're buried in academe, with all its job insecurity, competitiveness, struggles to keep young people (and untenured professors) OUT of the job market for as long as possible, and sacrosanct pecking order to keep inflated egos as inflated as possible for as long as possible.

Heard something on GBH-FM around 8 this morning that seemed so original and proto/arche-typical, yet I had no idea what it was. The pheenquee-sounding announcer said the name of a piece - sounded something like Le Tequoi Sholpe by Couperin - I looked on their online playlist and it turned out to be Le Tic Toc Choc, ou, Les Maillotins.

It's sooo basic, it's one of the corners of the musical cube or dodecahedron or whatever. Once Couperin got the basic idea and the first few bars, it wrote itself, each note an inevitable result of the foregoing. I need a webpage of such benhmark or milestone music. It establishes a level with the right hand repetitive, and dances over and around it with the left. This could be Timesizing's themesong!

What else would be there? The closest (so far thought-of) is Verdi's *Anvil Chorus, then the theme song to Mr. Peepers TV Show of the 1950s and Leroy Anderson's *Typewriter? The dinosaur part of Fantasia (as I remember it, not as it is), Gilbert&Sullivan's Doesn't Matter pattersong? Gounod's Soldiers' Chorus? Never mind that, what about ? Oy, this is all choral music - I'm diluting the "brand" - gotta get back to instrumental - but first, gotta get choral outa my system - so, McGarrigle Sisters' Moi, Je me promene sous Ste.Catherine, Shall We Gather By the River, Mein kleine gruene Kaktus,... G&S When the night wind howls, There was a little flow'r neath a great oak tree... BR>

In 2011, we go from self morale management [arms length - music based] to guilt hydraulics [honest - down&dirty] to incentive surfing.

Latest self-understanding:
I am an unconsciously self-constructing, consciously self-programing, organic, biodegradable robot, with attitude and illusion, and PLENTY (OK, basically waaay too much) of BOTH !

Maybe all Slavic palatilizations were from earlier L infixes, fossilized in Vladimir and Vladivostok... So vowel YA was previously LA, YE was LE, etc.

A secondary but very obstructive "toggle" in economics (after unlimited $concentration via is between export-led growth and spending-led growth (from domestic consumption which can be eco-neutral rather than -bashing on Bucky Fuller's principle of "doing more with less"). Export-led growth is a wildgoose-chase, less controllable, vulnerable to meddling, less predictable and critically, less sustainable. Growth led by domestic spending has plateaux and is not necessarily infinitely expandable, but with a growth-independent economy based on a balance of quantitative and qualitative incentive, such as provided by the Timesizing program and its successors, it offers a much more stable and more sustainable platform than any other currently published Internet plan for human progress, eg; toward greater freedom (based on ever increasing self-supporting and financially secure free time) and optional individual death deferral.

Ironically, the export-led approach frequently leads to the sacrifice, for the sake of one industry (the export industry), of all the other industries in an economy. Put more simply, a whole economy is frequently sacrificed for one industry, the export industry, on the flawed assumption that it creates jobs (unreliable in the age of robotics) and that it creates more jobs than any other industry (unreliable while elites can still send workers into killing fields for camouflaged monopoly interests and forever unreliable once the shift is made from wartime prosperity to worksharing prosperity).

The problem in a recession-depression is maldistribution, misallocation, decirculation, underconsumption, overproduction, hyperconcentration of M1, deceleration of the currency, decurrentization of the currency.

There is only one efficient market-oriented way to discipline the rich and deconcentrate M1 (the currency supply), to put a stop to their sacrifice of everything (including the economic system that provides their habitat AND THEIR WEALTH) and everyone else for their pecking order, their purely social-ranking use of money - that way is the adjustment of worktime per person, most efficiently, the workweek (more effective than the workmonth, workyear (longer vacations) or worklife (earlier retirement, prolonged education).

The workweek must be adjusted against un(der)employment, or weak markets, or insufficient wages, or whatever you want to focus on to have a real economic recovery and not just another bubble-based uptick.

Workweek reduction creates a perceived labor shortage among employers, and their whining complaining grousing angry or whatever reaction (AS THEY BID AGAINST ONE ANOTHER FOR GOOD HELP) leaches the money out of the black hole in the topmost brackets, re-activates it, gets it back into circulation, and restores the balance between spending power and investing power, which during a recession-depression is way tilted on the investing side, leaving insufficient spending throughout the economy to provide enough MARKETABLE productivity for sustainable investment of the overage of "savings" = primarily corporate cash, waiting for spending to pick up before moving into capital improvement and hiring, etc. See Toles' editorial cartoon in the Boston Globe 12/23/2010 A14.

Punchline cometh... the engineering of a labor shortage by the adjustment of the workweek (mostly downward) in a recession-depression disciplines the One Percent and forces them to spend money on wages, cutting thru their dysfunctional cant on "wages are costs," Workweek reduction and intelligent labor-shortage creation (as opposed to war or plague) CIRCULATES THE CURRENCY - and insofar as money is the lifeblood of the economy, the fact that "fluctuating adjustment of the workweek against unemployment" disciplines wealthy persons, whether natural (human rich) or artificial (corporations) and forces them to CIRCULATE MONEY means that workweek fluctuation-reduction IS THE HEART OF THE ECONOMY. In other words, fluctuating adjustment of the workweek versus e.g. unemployment IS THE HEART OF CAPITALISM, and any economy without it in some form is (heartless! and) dying - no labor "shortage" (actually a BALANCE of labor and employment at last, of jobseekers and jobopenings), no sustainability, no steady state, and certainly no growth aka upsizing (and certainly no UPsizing/growth from DOWNsizing).

Automatic Adjustment of the Workweek against underemployment (AAWAU) levels the market's playing field so that the market can take care of the blizzard of details in a sustainable rather than self-undermining and impoverishing manner. AAWAU circulates the currency. AAWAU is the heart of capitalism. Without AAWAU, we have only heartless capitalism, what the French call "savage capitalism" in which the whole system, everything, is sacrificed by the superrich for mere pecking order - "oh if only I had five billion more, I could nose out Warren Buffett!" etc. It disciplines the idiot gagnants (as well as the idiot savants teaching in B-schools and econ depts.), who THINK they're in touch but, hey, they think the system's working for them, and "if it works, don't fix it." Bill Gates wants himself and fellow billionaires to give away half their money - a process with themselves as the decision-makers, the allocators, the distributors, instead of the Market - despite their lip service to the Market. But destinations of that scale of money are already giantized so this is just "taking coals to Newcastle" - the money isn't really getting back into circulation, it's just staying within the black hole of turgidly, turbidly moving trillions in the overwhelmingly bloated crowsnest at the top, like a six-inch tick on the head of a 24-inch dog. If Bill Gates really cared about the Free Market, he would practice and promote AAWAU = automatic workweek adjustment versus underemployment, oops, now it's AWAUE, guess AAWAU is better - because then the billions would be much more efficiently and intelligently allocated, because no subset of the Market can do nearly as good a job at this as the whole Free Market itself, consisting of everyone at all levels and not just a few people at the "top."

Bill Gates, his father, Warren Buffett, any of them, can never have a heart without AAwau = automatic adjustment of the workweek against underemployment. That is the missing heart of capitalism.

And as Dahlberg points out (1932), capitalism only works well under a labor "shortage" (as during the world wars, yielding "wartime prosperity"). capitalism never works well under a labor surplus, tho' that is the condition that today's stupid One Percent are always trying to foster. AAWAU pumps the lifeblood money out of the superbloated head(s) of capitalism and gets it around to the rest of the body economic.
3-4am, 12/24/2010 starting when waterpic-ing teeth with core: aawau circulates money, money is economic energy/blood, the heart circulates blood, therefore aawau is the heart of the economy, of capitalism, and insofar as it has aawau, it has a heart and will survive, sustainably, and insofara as it doesn't, it won't.

Who are the poor? They are our most complete consumers. As we redistribute money down the income brackets, the higher percentage of it gets immediately spent. In fact, the further we redistribute money DOWN the income brackets, the faster IT - and the higher percentage OF IT - get spent.

America with Obama (and Canada with weak Governor General) is sacrificing sustainability for diversity.

If you can't handle spreading the work, you'll never be able to handle spreading the money, and you'll never have more than a third-rate third-world economy with a tiny minority of austrich astrorich and a vast majority of poor divided into an insecure mass of 24/7 workers and a vulnerable, constantly growing, constantly starving group of drones.

If you can't implement a system that automatically spreads the natural, market-demanded employment, you'll never get a system that spreads the money, let alone the subtler values, and you'll be the new Neanderthals - or mudmen - or Florian 'hobbits' = a footnote in history, a race forever split and warring, a house forever divided against itself, a curiosity, an object of pity, especially the insulated and isolated rich, who spend longer and longer trying to find a megainvestment as their downsized workers spend longer and longer trying to find another unlimited, "full" time job.
As Hunnicutt's subtitle says, "Abandoning shorter hours for the Right to Work."
(Funny how you never hear our big advocates of human rights mention the right to work - which means it's become an increasingly elite privilege, and not a "right" at all, because Hunnicutt's subtitle is misleading; if you have to earn it or trade for it, it's not a given, apriori "right" that all humans are born with, but a feudal privilege, like British knighthood, that only the few have, at the sacrifice of any advanced versions of economic "softtware.")

A Variation on the Six Social-Science Eras (Culminating in the Ecological Era)

Anthropology (ca. 500,000 BP...) - LANGUAGE generalized and spread specific food-getting experiences

Sociology (ca. 12,000 BP...) - AGRICULTURE (and counting and calendar) generalized and spread specific food-getting experiences with much greater control and repeatability

Geography-History (ca. 5200 BP...) - WRITING generalized and spread specific food-getting experiences from selves to descendents and READING generalized and spread specific food-getting experiences from ancestors to selves

Political Science (ca. 1800 BP...) - DIPLOMACY, NEGOTIATION and COMPROMISE generalized and spread partial disagreement from one food-getting literary tradition to specific concurrent alternative food-getting literary traditions, and by extension and fine-tuning, WITHIN each food-getting literary tradition

Economics (ca. 400 BP...) - MATHEMATICS and QUANTIFICATION of problems and disagreements generalized and spread partial agreement from one political community to another

Ecology (ca.10 BP...) - HOMEOSTATIC MULTIPHASE DESIGN generalized and spread from hyperconcentrations/coagulations of one central social variable (employment per person) to a prioritized series of future such concentrations within more complex central social variables (income, wealth, credit... per person) while flexibilizing parallel per-job variables

A qik history of U.S. Social Security
Democrat Pres. FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-45) fiddled with practically every legislation that came under his hand before signing it, and often made it worse.
Social Security started sustainable. He fiddled with it and made it hand to mouth, in and out = vulnerable.
Ironically in view of the then-GOP administration and his own later position, Greenspan fixed it in the early 80s by raising the SocSec/FICA tax and getting enough contributions to make SocSec sustainable again.
Then the Republicans set it up for ruin in the 90s by dissolving the hitherto untouchable wall that kept the SocSec fund separate from the general budget as a budget trick to cover-up their near-bankrupting of the US Government.
] Then after the dot-com bubble burst, Republicans and Wall Streeters began a campaign to privatize the SocSec by spinning it as near bankruptcy, though to do this they had to apply a ridiculously stringent definition of near bankruptcy, namely, CATASTROPHE! SOCIAL SECURITY IS GOING TO GO BANKRUPT IN 30 YEARS!
The country is still widely influenced by these self-destructive America-downsizing ideas amounting to "Suicide, everyone else first!" - and the Democrats aren't much better.
America will continue to deteriorate until full employment and markets are guaranteed, no matter how short a workweek or how much policing of overtime-to-jobs conversion it takes in this age of robotics.

Each social-science age, with its hallmark value-spreading mechanism, has a creativity threshold which it cannot transcend. Note article in 7/19/2010 Newsweek p.44, "The creativity crisis - For the first time, research shows that American creativity is declining - What went wrong, and how we can fix it," by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman. America can't handle the creativity it's already got - the economy and population are splitting three ways, a few super-rich, a shrinking majority of overworked and underpaid, and a swelling minority of un(der)employed and underpaid. What's to motivate creativity? It'll just be stolen by the super-rich and used to lay off and impoverish more employees instead of giving them more financially secure free time...

Given that we are unconsciously self-constructing (starting with huge RNA-DNA-genetic continuity), organic (not metallic-mechanical) robots with attitude and illusion, the most overwhelming illusion we have is that we, at least to ourselves, are so real, we could not possibly end, so we must continue somehow...indefinitely - and yet ending is actually very familiar to us, because we do it every night when we "fall" asleep... so why should we fear death? we practice for it every night and it is extremely familiar in our waking memory aka consciousness...
10/31/2010/ph3 2:30am
(Note interesting potential definition here = consciousness is waking/awake memory, implying that there is also sleeping/asleep memory, but it is unaware of itself, or of anything - unless it is in REM sleep and drawn upon for dreaming...)

There's a principle of textual criticism that says, LEGIUS DIFFICILIOR POTEST, or "Let the harder reading prevail" - because textual scribes and copyists tend to iron out irregularities.
This may also apply to the existence of a creator or intelligent designer.
It's much harder to comprehend looong-term evolution and all it can produce, so...we create a Creator...

All our morality in the ecological age we're entering comes from sustainability.
If something is ubsustainable, it's wrong.
If something is sustainable, it's right.
Its degree of sustainability is its degree of rightness. Its degree of unsustainability is its degree of wrongness. There are infinite shades of gray between black and white, infinite gradations between unsustainable and sustainable.

How do we get more sustainable? From the most important, most precious, most unwelcome kind of feedback = negative feedback. We don't want to hear it because it's uncomfortable and it means we have to change, and we don't want to change because it takes effort and we're tired. But negative feedback and change gives us more of the critical variable of all time, variability itself, the raw material of versatility and adaptability and ... survivability... and... reproducibility...

Timesizing - To maximize Employment-Markets-Marketable productivity-Predictable investment.

The key thing about the ecological age adawning is not homeostatic systems per se but the fact that we're getting on a much faster track of progress due to GENERAL homeostatic value-centrifugation systems, or general homeostatic systems to maximize system dynamism via value-circulation, or, to maximize the circulation of value and thus, system dynamism. In the body metaphor, the thing that automatically maintains resource availability (oxygen, nutriments) is the heart muscle, optimizing blood flow and pressure for different situations. If we can imagine a time before hearts evolved when blood just sortof seeped around, that's the period we're in today with economic resources like market-demanded employment, income, wealth, credit... It's primitive. The evolution of the heart mucle changed all that happenstance seepage into a regular and reliable resource-delivery system so you didn't have different body parts, say under pressure, lacking resources and necrotizing and gangrenizing as you still have all over the place in the economy.

So anthropological age of language gave us the necessary parallel manipulable universe. The sociological age of simple counting and the agricultural calendar gave us an existential, cyclical-stasis sharing of energyproducing sustianablizing routine. The geog-hist age of writing gave us made this parallel universe derivable backwards and projectable forwards in a breakout from mere repeated cycles. Each age was sortof generalizing. And the science names count, Man, society, story-graphy... The political age gave us shared partial disagreement, ie, options, parallel or sequential experiments. like heterosexuality`. The economic age gives us shared partial agreement, ie, merging options to get the best of both worlds. Now the econological age will give us sustainability of that, whatever the current dangerously or dysfunctionally disparate value happens to be at the time - it is a GENERAL value deconconcentrator/distribution&circulation optimizer and maximizer.

The feedback problem and the tendency of the money supply to coagulate, decelerate and decirculate occurs because the rich have partitioned minds and one part does not accept the fact that their rich and will grasp at any idea that argues against that. Remember when Granny said, "I'm not MADE of money, Richuhd!" They're handling big sums but there are big constant draws on those sums that make them feel sorry for themselves, make them feel drained and taken advantage of, like they're still paying $12k/yr for their oldest child's student loan, even tho that oldest child is now over 40. That's why they give a smaller proportion of their income in charity than the poor. People do not instinctively know when enough is enough. They don't instinctively realize their incredibly unusual or excessive advantages. They all think they are the norm, that everybody's like them, and if they're not, they could and should be, so it's their own choice that they're not, even if they're poor. They're surrounded by people like them, and preoccupied with the rarified problems or quirks of those people, like the guy on the next estate who's always fooling around with his property, digging holes here, digging holes there, making little ponds, filling them in, making little hills, little bridges, rearranging them... The rich aren't looking at the poor and their problems. That's too different. Too overwhelming. Too threatening. Too potentially guilt-producing. They "don't want to go there." And so the system gradually ripens and dies because the rich get dysfunctionally more and more, the system's circulatory system slows, more and more of it goes necrotic, and other systems that are earlier in the cycle take over = the first become last, and the last, first.
So contrary to Scott Fitzgerald, the rich, the rich are NOT different - we'd be acting exactly the same way if we were them - have just the same blindnesses and "committing suicide, everyone else first," just as they are doing.
This is all another argument for nihilism. There's nothing, no God, no evolutionary tendency, for this to correct efficiently and automatically. It only corrects by mutation and trial and error, and "whatever continues better, continues better," and this usually takes a LOT of false starts and deadend repeats - but as we get to further levels of self-balancing-system design, more and more intelligence is brought to bear on the problems, and the process of smoothing out the cycle becomes more efficient and less costly and traumatic.
So there's really no answer to the problem of evil except nihilistic cumulatively progressive (=harmonious mutually reinforcing complexity) evolutionism - all the God-based answers to the problem of evil were contrived and problem-replacive, like defining something with more difficult words, or in this case, solving a problem with a more difficult problem and saying, Don't Ask! because "asking" is disrespectful. The usual verb is "question" - the answer is Unquestionable. The poster boy is the Pope speaking "infallibly" Ex Cathedra - the attempt is to over-awe and intimidate into silence, and it often works. Economists have been doin' it for years with their jumps to quantification, their pre-mature econometicization, never mind it always a maximum of investment at points of minimal return, and maximal conclusions from minimal data.

More businessmen going into politics? Mismatch! Businessmen in the private sector can cut, cut, cut and assume (more and more incorrectly) that someone else in the private sector - or the government - will hire their disposables and clean up their mess. But once businessmen go into government and start cutting, there's no one else to clean up their mess, so their mess gets bigger and bigger.

There are two connections, two automatic links, that the Invisible Hand of the Free Market will not, cannot, make by itself, but that it needs to be made to continue operating smoothly and sustainably. These two links have to be made to correct the big long-term problem at the top of capitalism that is much worse than, and the cause of, the problem at the bottom and all the problems in between: the tendency of value to funnel in among a small proportion of the population. Whether in the form of natural market-demanded employment or in the form of income or in the form of wealth or credit, value funnels, concentrates, coagulates, and decelerates in the circulatory motion it previously had through the body economic.

(More accurately, they CAN be made by themselves - by accident, randomness - but that takes a long long time. It's the way physical and biological evolution happens, the way little spell-checkers evolved on the genetic code, the way little anvils evolved for the manufacture of DNA, etc. etc. We're talking millions of years here, "and whatever continued better, CONTINUED BETTER." You got that much time? The whole hallmark of social evolution is, it's faster, because we have a parallel reality, intelligence, to run "what if's.")

So what are the two vital connections the Market cannot make for itself? Let's exemplify them in the first and most actionable form, employment. If and when a "terrible" time comes when there are insufficient wars or plagues to cut down labor surplus, or when military or medical technology gets too good do the "job," or when general technology gets too productive too fast for rapid retraining and reabsorption of obsoleted employees, then the first connection must be made or the economy will wither - the connection between full employment, however defined, and the standard maximum workweek. If employment falls, the workweek must shorten as much as required to reraise employment to the "full" level, because without full employment, an economy does not have maximum consumer markets (business to consumer, b2c) or a maximum of all the other markets that derive from and rely on the consumer base, namely c2c, c2b, b2b, b2f (financial), f2b, f2f, c2f and f2c.

In brief, the workweek must automatically vary with employment, or against un(der)employment, to assure economic sustainability let alone growth, but that connection does not get there by itself - it is not an automatic gift of the Free Market or the Invisible Hand - there is no "free download and installation." The connection must be designed into legislation and enacted by clumsy cludgy political systems. But once done, the major pattern for building on the separation of Church and State in terms on a separation of Market and State is established, and all further connections are easier and quicker to make, giving us, in overview, better definition and distinguishing between religion (Church), politics (State) and economics (Market).

So what's the other, the second, vital connection the Market can't make for itself? Whatever it takes to change, convert, transform, metamorphose Overtime into Jobs. That is the sloppy but familiar-terminology way of putting it. The real challenge is on the per-person level of a person's total working hours from all sources, a total we might call "overwork" - and the per-job level is only a transitional convenience that is only really adequate for one-job, one-company persons. So correctly phrased, the second vital connection that needs to be made artificially (=politically) for economic sustainability or anything else (say, for example, Growth) is some way to transform Overwork for a few people into Employment for more people (remember More? that's what you Need for Growth, so stop substituting less for More and calling it downsizing-rightsizing-smartsizing using Schumpeter's toxic excuse, "creative destruction").

And btw, note that the negatively judged terms OVERtime and OVERwork are not arbitrarily or politically defined - they are defined by the Invisible Hand of the Free Market once you decide to maximize sustainable investment, by sustainably maximizing Marketable Productivity to invest in, by sustainably maximizing all markets, by sustainably maximizing the Mother of All Markets = the Consumer Base (it ain't called the consumer BASE for nuthin'), by sustainably maximizing the Employment Basement that the Consumer Base itself is based on - and maximizing the Employment Basement means achieving and maintaining full employment, defined as employing and Activating with living wages as many potential Consumers as you can manage, however high a level of worksaving technology you reach, and however short or intermittent a workweek that is required, and however much job-outsourcing and product/service-importing you allow in order to favor subgroups of employer-employees (e.g., importers) at the expense of the overall economywide group of employer-employees.

This of course means that the key management skill of the future is managing and smoothly coordinating more and shorter shifts for more employees. And it also means that everyone will have a lot more of the most basic freedom, Free Time, without which the other freedoms are inaccessible or meaningless. And if you're scared of, or can't stand the idea of, more Free Time, as in "more family time for family values" and "more leisure markets for leisure industries," and/or you really believe "the Devil finds work for idle hands to do" rather than the leisure industries finding fun things to do on your expanding Time Off, then for God's sake SHUT UP with all your hypocritical praise about Freedom and Liberty because you're a hypocrite and a coward - you don't know a damn thing about real Freedom and yer skeered of it.

Or maybe you don't want everyone to have a piece of the technology-limited (so LOLF is luddite!) natural market-demanded employment. Maybe you want CONTROL, people at your mercy. You've more or less stopped threatening their lives but gawdammit it, you're not going to give up threatening their livelihoods. You're going to dole out their food and lodging money and keep making it harder for them to support themselves by your constant erosion of the nation's pool of market-demanded employment-hours with evermore worksaving technology and a frozen pre-technology workweek of 40 hours. You're going to support them with charity and turn them into dependents, drones, parasites... just like the bread and circuses for the multitude of unemployed poor in ancient Rome... - pallida mors aequo pede pulsat / pauperum tabernas regumque turres = pale Death kicks with equal force at the hovels of paupers and the towers of kings... But poverty is dangerously unstable. It can (A) die off - and leave you with no consumer base, not just a weakening one as now. It can (B) convert into slavery - it is anyway, with a minimum of forced activities, such as going to the food kitchen or cashing your welfare check. Or it can turn violent, against itself = back to A, or (C) against you... So "unstable" is unsustainable.

LOLF is the Lump of Labor Fallacy which many mainstream economists (a diminishing number now - it's getting left out of economic Principles textbooks) accuse worktime economists of being true believers in. It's their kneejerk sneering at those who believe a supposedly obvious fallacy - the silly idea that there is a limited amount ("lump") of employment ("labor") that therefore needs to be divided up and shared around. Their assumption is that employment in infinite, because there's obviously an infinite amount of "work to be done." Of course, they never mention a timeframe, thereby assuming a meaningless indefinite timeframe, and anything is infinite in an indefinite, infinite timeframe. Worktime economists, on the contrary, are assuming a finite, immediate market term, where frequently in specific subeconomies or even whole economies, natural market-demanded employment is not even just limited and stable, but limited and shrinking. But above, I realized the fact that these mainstream economists assume technology is NOT limiting human work amounts to an anti-technology luddite slur against technology. Further, their assumption that work is infinite, means they're assuming artificial government makework is infinite, and therefore they are socialists (oh no!). Further, maybe it's obvious that "there's always more work to be done," but there certainly isn't always more money or willingness to PAY for it, and without remuneration, it's not "work" - it's hobby. And that consideration rockets their whole argument out of the realm of economics altogether, and back into the fuzzier realms of sociology, at which they sneer = self-sneerers. "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of sneerers..."

Suggested book titles: The Last Two Connections.
The Two Missing Links in Economics...
(not written yet)

"Accept the freedom - share the work."

"Accept the freedom - cut the workweek, the labor surplus and the wage-depressing job desperation."

How do we accelerate this agenda? Just heard Harper Valley PTA on Hillbilly at Harvard - a song immortalizes a trivial situation. How about a top-priority agenda? Start by researching existing songs about cutting hours...

I don't know if you're aware of this but we're being strongly manipulated, by the universe, to CONTINUE. That's all the universe is interested in, nothing more complicated. But everything we see around us, all the complexity, is just a corollary, a derivative, of this one CONTINUE agenda: our concept of beauty, our faces (which we take so for granted as Basic but which are entirely multifunctional for...continuation, ...
CONTINUE, a trisyllable, is really too complicated a word for it, but all the likely monosyllables have suffered semantic overload and ended up more complicated than CONTINUE: live? grow? Maybe 'last' or the morpheme 'dure' without the intensifying, dramatizing prefix as in endure and certainly not with the French connotation of 'hard (textured)'.'
What gets us from there (the barely imaginable simplicity of mere continuation, no frills, nothing elaborate or complicated) to here (mind boggling complexity) is ... evolution, a metaphorical motion away from greater violence and drama and toward greater gentleness and variety = harmonious (mutually neutral or non-interfering) or actually mutually reinforcing complexity... - ultimately, the beyond and beneath NOTHING that everything is, is actually reinforced by its complexity, because each part has Attitude and Illusion = Attitude that it itself is real and lasting, and Illusion that the other parts are real and pressuring it or being pressured by it, or just being there as reference or orientation entities.

The [Swedish] centre-right's periods in power coincided with economic crises [or corelated, or exacerbated, or caused...]. The Social Democrats boasted that only they could be trusted with the economy. 9/18/2010 Economist (London), p.64.
Of the two, the left certainly is the only one that can be trusted with the economy, BECAUSE THE LEFT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CIRCULATES MONEY. But there's a third way to circulate money that's much better.

The problem with adjusting the workyear (by lengthening the vacation) is, one hit annually? Impotent for worktime per person balancing.
Ditto manipulating the workmonth.
The ideal is manipulating the workweek - you get 52 hits per year.
The problem with manipulating the workday is, you haven't specified how many days per week, so adjusting to a 7-hour workday is still a 42-hour workweek if you're working six days a week.
The workweek is the best focus for adjustment against un(der)employment, because it is fully specifiable in one phrase.

There's really no such thing as the Kondratieff long wave. The seeming sine wave is really just a diagonally downward spiral of varying angles, disguised by diversifying technologies, rising technological productivity and chronic-dependency-tolerance (poster boy = Stephen Hawkins), and news control via evermore concentrated media ownership, spreading threat-to-livelihood and expanding job insecurity. The seeming up-cycles are really just the small up-arcs of the spiral. As the current theories of economics drift from crisis to crisis, based on really fundamental self-contradictions and the symmetries mentioned below, openings are found for sustainable theory to enter and apply, in the most unexpected places (eg: Germany) and under the most offbalancing names (eg: Kurzarbgeit). They are unsustainable transitional designs as wings were when they first evolved, but they so rapidly evolve into sustainable and advantageous designs that little of them remains in the fossil or data-"fossil" record (ie: the fossil "record" or the historical records).

Why wouldn't a citizen from a small economy want his/her economy to flourish in a certain way? If they were getting paid for promoting a particular damaging industry, say, exports at the expense of all the rest of the economy, and the way to flourish in question, say, timesizing, did not show partiality for that industry, or maintain belief in its indispensability or unlimited return-on-investment, a citizen from a small economy may well not want his/her economy to flourish in a certain way... - no matter how long it seemed to be taking for the believed-to-be-indispensable and unlimitedly beneficial industry, say, exports, to deliver for the economy at large - as long as it kept delivering, even on a modest scale, for the citizen's sponsor and the citizen him/herselt.

In the event, hundreds of economic leaders are sacrificing their economies at large for that one industry, exports, and framing this sacrifice as worth it in the name of freedom, specifically, Free Trade.
There's a kind of symmetry here - you can channel (redistribute?!) any fraction, however large (even 100%??) of your money supply to any fraction, however small (even 0.01%...) of the population and the overall economy will prosper - this belief has no specific name yet, as far as I know, but it is entrenched regardless of how long it takes to deliver and regardless of counter-evidence, and it is symmetrical with ...
you can channel (redistribute?!) any fraction, however large (even 100%??) of your money supply to your export industry (however small) and the overall economy will prosper - this belief is named Free Trade - and it is entrenched regardless of how long it takes to deliver and regardless of counter-evidence...
What primitive beliefs these are! And this is the age when they will all be replaced by homeostatic designs, to optimize key variables that are now being downplayed, ignored, at any rate sacrificed for the maintenance of these beliefs. Key variables such as full domestic employment and full domestic consumer markets yielding maximum domestic eco-neutral or -friendly (ie: sustainable) consumption per person (or "consumption per capita"). [9/16/ph3]

Humans and other mammals and herptiles are designed, by trial and error, and even more by trial and cumulative improvement, to play together, "improvement" in this case essentially meaning pleasure, essentially meaning biodrugs, essentially meaning endorphins. "Play together" in this case essentially means rubbing between one male and one female, and when rubbed in a certain way one playmate (male) experiences mounting wide-range tickling and eventually loses control in a general lower-body sneeze and almost incidentally pumps data-coded organic chemicals into the other player - this is the key transference that facilitates the basic requirement of the universe and of reality (continuity) - and the other player unconsciously directs these info-loaded chemicals into a buidling site, juxtaposes them with a symmetrical package of data-coded organic chemicals, and triggered by the proximity, the two sets of chemicals may combine and start an unconscious construction project that results in another small player, occasionally more than one.

"Why I am a devout agnostic" - because belief in God/god simply pushes all the big questions back one BIG level and says, "Don't ask." - but...can't rule it out completely, anything's possible - it's just that's it's not very probable, given new, scientific, connected accounts of our incredible, unconsciously self-constructing capability (proteins,4codingacids,RNA,DNA,acidcodespellcheckers?!!,genes,chromosomes... - it's way WAAAAY too amazing even without the Big Magician, way more amazing than WITH the Big Magician!...

OK, we've got the issue/page-ownership idea articulated: Joe Robinson for longer vacation, Ben Hunnicutt for history, the late Art Dahlberg for whacking private-sector makework like styles and fashions, Bruce O'Hara and the late John Kenneth Galbraith for graceful articulation of the overall concept...
We need to develop the positive vision into something more exciting, more engaging, more focused, more articulated, much more long-term and much more fleshed-out strategically in the short term - complete with specific fear-allaying mechanisms to guarantee diversification in the short-term...
We need to articulate the accountable connections and by-design delivery mechanisms for various big human goals, to connect them to = derive them from timesizing and its successor self-balancing programs, in order to attract and engage ...
Now we need task deployment, which is related (not necessarily task assignment because we don't have any unified power structure, just descriptive small beginnings of what people are doing and like to do, or might be interested in trying to do...) - eg: John deGraaf, videography (if & when he comes back from longer vacations) - we need a documentary on the history of the American workweek - maybe we could get Ken Burns to do it... would certainly midwive more progress than any of his current ones - we need to massively raise consciousness on the time dimension as a variable, as a control variable, and as THE control variable of our lifetimes...
we need advertising.., maybe Conrad in Vancouver could do that...
Who else have we got?...
we've got Dean Baker - he's lobbing at least one article a week into the Beltway media, still mostly online but...
we've got Robert LaJeunesse in the EEOC - gotta go visit and see what he's good at...
we've got Tom Walker whacking the Lumpalabor Fallacy sneer...
there are the people on the SWT elist, mostly now working uncoordinated and in isolation...
what could Gail and Arthur, in Ottawa, do?
we've got thousands of Jospinistes in France - totally deactivated or still operating below the radar? (on what? how can we help them?)
we've got millions of Kurzarbeiters in Germany currently triumphalizing and in need of converting the program from Emergency Bandaid and temporary funding to Standard Operating Procedure (e.g: fluctuating workweek vs. un(der)employment or underpay or underconsumption or weak markets) and sustainable funding (eg: overtime tax with exemption for reinvestment in OT-targeted training&hiring)...
we've got thousands of people working in/on the worksharing programs in the 20 U.S. states that already have them and probably hundreds working on getting worksharing progams in most of the states that still don't have them...
we need to swing over some illustrious but wasted/diffused resources, like the Club of Rome, the "Bildenbergers"?, relevant agencies in the U.N., the World Federalists, the Unitarians, the Lions, the Rotarians?, the Masons... - things could really get better a lot faster if we could get all these altruists focused on various lines in an actual Pert Chart for engineering the Next Big Step in human freedom (more free time and money for everyone) and creativity (let's get working on "optional (im)mortality" and intersolarsystem exploration-travel-colonization)...

The big problem is going to come from the control freakiness of THTB, who talk freedom but are scared of it - who think things are just fine the way they are (and "if it works, don't fix it") because, even though they can't find sustainable investments, they've accepted this problem as chronic and "better the devil they know than the devil they don't know" - though they would know if they read history...

Einstein hat ein Fehler gemacht.
"Relative" and "absolute" are opposites. "Relativity" and "absoluteness" are opposites. But Einstein betrayed his Theory of Relativity when he absolutized the speed of light, regardless of viewpoint, or speed and direction of viewpoint. Basically this was a type of anthropomorphism or anthropocentrism (in psychologeze, "projection") because it absolutized our best (fastest), commonly agreed, human perceptual sense, namely, sense of sight.
Einstein's fundamental metaphor, riding on a light beam, got him off to a bad start because it mixed together and merged subject and object, observer and observed, and confused all subsequent thinking. It introduced an unaccountability, as when a child asks 'why?' and a parent says, 'because I say so.'
To absolutize, or constantize, the energy dimension in terms of light energy, he then had to move the flexibility somewhere else, and he wound up sacrificing the constancy (in terms of the unidirectionality and irreversibility) of the time dimension and thereafter coming up with all kinds of nonsense, like arriving back from a light-speed trip before leaving, etc.

"Truth" is not so much reality as the lies we tell one another that none of us questions. Like "immortal battalion" or "deathless songs of the 20s and 30s." This is usually a matter of cultural correctness, which is deeper than political correctness, because not even the rednecks question it.

(after watching a clip of comedian *John Dore)
What is the meaning of life? Continuity.
You want more?
Continuity alone has given us all that we are, all that we see around us, and you want more?
What, like "heaven"? Think about it first. All Jesus came up with on heaven was "in my Father's house are many mansions [or 'resting places']." The big question is, what is there To Do in heaven? What prevents heaven from being a crashing bore?
Are there hobbies? pastimes? (forever is a pretty long time to pass) - games? sex? forget it! the angels are neither given nor taken in marriage - they have no gender - they are unisex - why would they need sex if they're eternal, immortal?
The most interesting description of heaven was - was it Robert Browning? = "A man's reach must exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" That would make heaven a continuation (there's that concept again) of this life on earth. But if it's just going to be more of the same, why bother? It's overall boring (and there's THAT concept again).
To stay interested and motivated to CONTINUE, we'd need a total memory flush. But that's what death basically provides anyway, so what's the big deal, the big objection?
What is the meaning of the Universe?
What is the basic verb, the basic action, of the Universe?
To continue.
Corrollary =
Whatever continues better ... CONTINUES ... BETTER. And the process is cumulative = you do NOT start back at the beginning at each point.
And that is basically Evolution 101. That's how evolution works.
It's all about Continuity - and whatever continues better, Continues Better.
So Continuity gets better and better, and that means bigger and bigger than the starting point "located" extremely long ago on an extremely large number of smaller and smaller scales than we would perceive as "nothing" - and that means greater and greater complexity. But continuable complexity, meaning harmonious complexity, sustainable complexity - complexity that can go on indefinitely without getting bored or discouraged. So preferably based on mindless entities that can't get bored, because they're going to be doing the SAME THING over and over again, from planet's rotating to electrons swinging around protons. And life is in the middle (but what else would we perceive being amidst life) - and we are amidst life (just judging from looking around).
What are our chances of existing again?
Well as far as we know, the chances of our existing this time were zero to infinity ("us" presumably being defined as a distinctive core-design pattern in our brains constructed by a distinctive genetic pattern). Now we're here, we know our chances have increased to one chance (this one) in infinity. Now that would be an increase in our chances of existence-in-general by one infinity, n'est-ce pas?
And as far as we know, infinity is available...
Gaudeamus igitur...
Let us rejoice therefore...
Meanwhile, once our brain shuts down, we have nothing to get bored with, and if it (existence again) doesn't happen to happen, we have no equipment with which to register disappointment. A very easy and complete solution.
Death is falling asleep with no dreams, and no wake-up in the same body, unless they get cryogenics to work and great leaps in medicine and/or cloning.

In a labor surplus, management skills disappear, because who needs management skills to fire high-"cost" senior employees and replace them with 20-somethings at minimum wage or no one at all?
Probably the biggest single mechanism of U.S. management's own recession-creation is blind focus on cost-cutting - and failure to distinguish between costs and wages, while carefully distinguishing between upper management salaries and perks, and everyone else's costly "wages," even middle management's salaries and perks.
Rationalization? Schumpeter's ever-ready "creative destruction" = the unrecognized opposite of Growth.
Result? The unnoticeably gradual weakening of consumption and deceleration of currency circulation.
U.S. CEOs with vanishing management skills in certain industries have committed suicide on behalf of those industries. Examples:
passenger rail (pre-1970: cutting
newspapers, especially via their newspaper delivery service, e.g., Boston Globe, especially Boston Sunday Globe (major suicide technique: outsourcing customer service to Philippines)...

My view is that effort on any other agenda is, comparatively speaking, wasted, because there is such a huge obstacle in the path of fundamental human progress. And that obstacle is the insulation and isolation of the decision-makers which is fueled by unlimited concentration of M1, the nation's income and wealth. That money dysallocation cannot be corrected first by a direct approach in a money dimension without encouraging dependency on one hand and capricious charity on the other. It must be corrected in the time dimension by reversing the concentration of natural market-demanded working hours and skills.

Luddite capitalism - America practices luddite capitalism which discourages technological advance by indefinitely retaining pretechnology workweeks and thus concentrating natural employment and wages on fewer people, thus cutting consumer spending and necessitating makework.
Discouraging technology is pure luddism.
Makework is luddism, because it pushes more human labor instead of more machine labor, thus enslaving humans rather than using machines to free up humans.
Luddism substitutes human labor for machine labor instead of using human labor merely to guide and supplement machine labor.
Luddism is the desperate only-alternative response of the majority of humans to the betrayal, by a small minority, of the promise of technology. The promise is that of making life easier for all, which can only be done by merely cutting worktime per person as technology is introduced, instead of cutting persons out of their jobs (and their consumer confidence and spending!). The betrayal of that promise is the job cutting instead of the hours cutting, thus incentivating welfare and disability and crime and murder and suicide etc.
A 120 hrs/wk of natural market-demanded employment can be:
one U.S. medical intern job before legislation reduced it to 80
one and a half current U.S. medical intern 80 hr/wk jobs after the legislation
two 60 hr/wk jobs
three 40s
four 30s
almost five 25s
six 20s and
eight 10s.
How many more jobs does YOUR economy need?

Investment growth from falling wage levels? Ain't gonna happen.

Market failures: 4' 8.5" RR gauge, not 6', standardized; QWERTY, not Dvorak, standardized; landscape, not portrait, computer screen standardized; PC, not Apple, standardized...

It's a funny thing about progress. It always starts with someone who's naive, someone who doesn't know that progress is impossible. Someone like the Wright brothers who didn't know that man couldn't fly. Guess that's why JC said ye must become like little children...

Get sleep, don't badger,* define & defend your boundaries (=don't allow yourself to be badgered).
*Don't ask questions more than once, especially when you haven't timed them.
Time your questions till when the other person is liable to be open to them.
The person with the slower clockspeed leads in the dance (sets the timing), whichever gender.
Compare the right-of-way rules in the Grand Canyon = people hiking up have priority over people hiking down (gravity helps downward hikers resume stride, but hinders upward hikers).

The One Percent these years are acting really stupid. They're sacrificing a good choice of great investmetns (bottomline = investment sustainability) for silly chest-thumping pecking order. They continually pass costs off onto their consumer base (meaning they shit where they eat), as in sales taxes (the most economy-killing, growth-reversing taxes there are!) instead of estate taxes and graduated income taxes. They're sacrificing sales and economic growth and functionality for pecking order by sloughing off taxes and changing from graduated income taxes to sales taxes - and you get less of what you tax (Friedman). They're being system- and self- destructive.
And for the rest of us, do we want prosperity or not? Prosperity is plenty of good jobs, maximum sales volume per capita and minimum economic disparity. So stop taxing sales and subsidizing the concentration and coagulation and deceleration of M1, the money supply,
You don't have to subsidize or coddle employers to have plenty of jobs. You just have to unblock demand.
STOP coddling employers. START unblocking demand, and let the employers follow it - that's their job. Not sucking up government subsidies while downsizing jobs and lowering wages (and demand). 8/22

On this planet at the moment, there are nearly seven billion of us = unconsciously self-constructing and repairing, biodegradable, organic robots, with attitude. The options are enormous. There is no reason why two of us should stay together for one nanosecond longer if we realize we're tearing each other down instead of building each other up.

Be easy to get rid of :=: Lao Tsu: "Keep out, and you will be kept in."

JC: on the one hand, "Forgive seventy times seven."
On the other hand, "if the village won't listen to you, walk away, and shake the dust of that town off your feet as you go."

But nothing is absolute. Everything is relative and changible. "Time heals all wounds." And you're entitled to take all the time you need to "get over it" - to let the fury tapes fade. Why should you jerk on the puppetstrings of other people's scheduling expectations and let them add injury to insult? Circumstances may arise, sooner or later, that cajole people back together. When Canadian buttertarts appeared at the local supermarket in darkest USofA, such a feeling of abundance and generosity overwhelmed...that the insulting mother-in-law was forgiven, again... grrmpf !

OK, world, here comes another provocative metaphor for the economy, a metaphor dedicated to that late master of mulltiple metaphor, John Paul Kowal of Buffalo NY and Brookline MA -
We have a diabetic economy. It keeps "going negative." It keeps "slipping into the negative."
What's "the negative"? "The negative" in the case of a diabetic is going hypoglycemic = too little sugar. In the economy's case it is sliding into a labor surplus so that wages fall and there isn't enough spending power left in the consumer base to purchase the economy's own output. Result? The CEOs lunge for those two desperate and unsustainable "solutions" = the Export "Solution" (no good when everybody else is in the same desperate-to-sell-elsewhere boat) and the M&A "Solution" (= mergers&acquisitions = "If I can't grow the old honest way with more of my own customers, I'll just buy somebody else's market share and appear to grow - I can fool investors and they'll buy my shares and I'll get super-rich and die A Winner").

A balance of labor and employment provides not only enough job openings for all job applicants by the numbers, but also high enough wage levels for the total workforce, amplified by its kin-dependent consumer base (not tax or charity amplified), to purchase its own output, regardless of how high go the levels of productive, efficient, worksaving technology. This balance will usually be higher than the level perceived by employers as a balance - they will perceive it as a labor shortage, often an acute labor shortage, because they must be responsible for their own specialized employee training, not the taxpayer, who must be responsible for all levels of training up to the general or average level where specialization begins. (And of course, every employer, however capitalist, is a corporate socialist when it comes to getting the government aka taxpayer to shoulder some of his costs, such as costs of specialized training.)

As Dahlberg points out, capitalism has always run smoothly under this kind of labor "shortage," but poorly under a labor surplus of the kind we generally have, thanks to employers' low-level mindset.

To do: develop the webpages for the next five centuries and develop the 'ownership' of issues, eg, vacation, Joe Robinson (hard till he gets new webpage in Nov/10)

Develop new websites for the three other books: football of time, defining time, acquiring language

Themes for acquiring language: s words, sound-meaning reversals, clusters that cling thru reversals, tree alphabet, fingers-numbers-days, onomatopeia (bebe,mama,papa..), placenames, want-wuensche-voglio-effaligalo rounding, wordfamilies (or words, ar words,cluster words), unpacking clusters/grunts (ghwilliam)

There are symmetries of unsustainability:
The right wants free unregulated trade, regardless of domestic consumption and currency velocity; the left wants free unregulated immigration regardless of labor surplus and wages (and domestic cons. & curr, vel.). (8/16/2010/ph3)

In a labor surplus, the money supply coagulates in the topmost brackets and the tiny proportion of rich people take longer and longer to place bigger and bigger investments (because there's so little marketable productivity to invest in); meanwhile, the huge proportion of non-rich people take longer and longer to find a more and more tightly clasped job regardless of how much they hate it (because there are so few alternatives due to lack of markets and years of automating, downsizing and outsourcing). (8/19/2010/ph3)

The surplus of money at the top is matched by the surplus of unremunerated human time (ie: surplus of labor = unemployment) up and down the rest of the scale.

So there's an entropy dump at the top in terms of unlimited unused and unuseable money in the topmost brackets and an entropy dump at the bottom in terms of unlimited unused and unuseable human time for which there is no funded demand - and there is no leisure anywhere in terms of anxiety-free free time, because the rich are anxious about their physical safety (gated communities) and the non-rich are anxious about their livelihood (their next meal).

Money means nothing to the rich because they have so much (it is virtually unlimited for them; they never have to prioritize purchases or price&value shop or choose between purchases - they can overwhelm the markets with impulse buying but almost never spend a significant proportion of their holdings); money means nothing to the homeless because they have none.
Concentrated money is inflationary because it provides the ultimate model of More for everyone to want, assuming it means Happiness, and because the One Percent can easily overpay for anything and pull prices up; poor neighborhoods sometimes create inflationary pressures because there are few cars to enable price comparisons and local merchants hype prices knowing their customers have no choice (prime example: exhorbitant interest on loans in poor neighborhoods).

The geniuses in the executive suites have gotten so efficient they've downsized their own markets. Would they still call this "rightsizing" or "smartsizing" when it looks so much more like wrongsizing and dumbsizing?

America's crutch economy -

EVERYbody in America now requires a crutch from government: "Obama plans $3B in aid to homeowners without jobs," 8/12/2010 Boston Globe, A16.
And all because we repeatedly missed the "ring on the carousel." We repeatedly failed to cut the workweek to appropriate the worksavings of new technology and avoid a wage-depressing labor surplus that would bar us from buying our own output. And so naturally we failed to take the next step and hook the workweek to the unemployment rate, so that any rise in joblessness would automatically adjust the workweek downward to compensate.
If we had only reached that "ring," it would have translated the blessing of miraculous technology into finanancially secure free time, the most basic and fundamental freedom, without which the other freedoms are empty rhetoric.
But 18-19 states have got started with worksharing programs, and all we have to do is extend worksharing to the other states or take it federal, and then switch it from temporary funding based on the unemployment insurance fund to permanent funding based on a 100% tax on overtime (OT) profits relative to hiring, with a complete exemption for reinvestment in OT-targeted hiring - and training if needed - by the companies themselves.

The One Percent have split the economy and the currency. Some money circulates, but much just sits - in their beyond-bulging pockets. And the more money they redistribute - just like Communists, but only to their own relatively tiny community - the more the economy slows down.

Is the "band of billionaires" pledged to give away half their wealth going to help solve this? No, because they're just going to donate to the richest charities that are set up to handle huge sums of money. This is just "taking coals to Newcastle," keeping the megamillions circulating slowly in the overstuffed upper echelons of the economy. It's not going to really spread the wealth and restore spending and markets, and get those billions back into fast circulation again. And any place the Gateses try to directly infuse money into a poor situation, they're going to give way too much since it means so little to them, the people on the receiving end are going to go into "money shock" since it means so much to them, and these newly rich are going to start acting weird - meaning it's going to do more harm than good and the Gateses only have time to to do this with a relatively small amount of their megadonation money anyway.

What question do they need to ask?
Q: Is there a systemic way I can get all these billions back into the consumer base (and a way I can do it without creating dependency)?
A: Yes. Reverse the surplus of jobseekers and the shortage of 40-hr/wk jobs so that market forces raise wages flexibly, gradually and on a natural, non-arbitrary, non-capricious, MARKET-targeted basis.
How? By backing gradual workweek reduction. We did it from 1840 to 1940 when we cut the workweek in half, from over 80 to 40 hrs/wk.
It worked great. It kept our economy perking as we introduced more and more machinery to do the jobs.

We need to go back to that approach and cut our pre-technology workweek shorter to levels more appropriate to a high-tech, now robotizing economy.

Colleague Kate, channel-surfing, came across the Oprah Show today (7/30/2010). Oprah was interviewing the wives of wealthy men recently incarcerated for fraud. They were mostly middle-class women who married very wealthy men. Asked what it was like being a trophy wife, they said there was definitely a facade to maintain, and after it was over, it was like returning to reality. Asked what happened with their wealthy women friends when their husbands got in trouble, one snapped her fingers and said, "Gone, just like that." Asked what it was like when they first wedded wealth, they said, "You lose touch with the world and enter a fog of affluence."

Wealthy decision makers think they're in touch, but here, from the inside, is testimony in support of our contention that the One Percent insulate and isolate themselves, and are actually the worst decision makers for the whole system that, with increasing waste, supports their increasing, and increasingly dead, weight.

Note that the knowledge loss of the downsizing economies is a form of luddism, just as inefficient as the poster workers of India = twenty women cutting the grass with scissors instead of one doing it with a power mower.

It's a difference between wage per hour and income per person.

When we cut hours on an individual basis, income may immediately go down but upward pressure on hourly wage is maintained or increased. When we increase hours on an individual basis, income may immediately go up but downward pressure on hourly wage is increased and we are more likely to lose those income gains down the road. This has, in fact, been the experience of the labor movement .

When we cut hours on a systemic basis, income may immediately go down but the reduction of the labor surplus inherent in that hourscut immediately pressures wages upward and in the midterm restores income and in the longterm increases income. When we increase hours on a systemic basis, as we've been doing the last 40 years, income may immediately go up but the increased labor surplus inherent in that hours hike immediately hikes downward wage pressures and in the midterm restores lower income levels and in the longterm decreases income, as we've been experiencing since the babyboomers grew up and entered the job markets around 1970 and restored the labor surplus of the Great Depression. 7/28/10/ph3

Ironically, the most effective inflation control we have is not interest-rate raising by the central bank but redistributing the money supply to the topmost fraction of the population who can't possibly spend these megamongo amounts. Basically, what this does is split the economy and intensify the "dual economy" effect, because the main thrust of inflation is transferred exclusively to the financial markets - the price of financial instruments skyrockets beyond all fundamentals, and bubble after bubble is produced, or, pyramid after pyramid, in a series of inflating bubble- or pyramid-scheme equivalents. They aren't actually pyramid schemes because they are systemic, any more than 9/11 was a conspiracy theory because it was systemic = too much money and decision-making power concentrated among too few nitwits. And the systemic nature of it is proven by the very high probability that I'd be doin' exactly the same thing as (prepositional here!) them if I were in their position. So, another system redesign challenge.

Relative to the current Kondratieff Wave, the start, as far as I know, of this financial-market inflation was in the early 1990s when the P/E ratios of stocks began to go way above historic norms, and one financial newsletter from Hawaii fingered the problem = so much money funneling to the relatively tiny population in the topmost brackets that there were just no alternative destinations for that much money that fast.
So then the accommodating wits of the financial world began inventing new financial instruments to absorb all this moola, starting with derivatives, and the financial landscape began to resemble more closely the scenery in the late 1920s, with leveraging and blood buckets, etc.
So basically, if you want to control inflation without increasing deflationary incentive (job satisfaction), take more of the money supply out of circulation by funneling it to the topmost income brackets, the more rarified in population numbers, the better. [(c)7/24/2010/ph3]

Woke up with nightmare about some authority trying to get two guys to fight to the death like gladiators, but to speed things up they were going to cut their hearts out first.
This is like our nitwit power elite, who to get the economy to grow are laying off consumers and rescuing their corporations by getting bailouts from government while cutting taxes. How suicidal can they get?

Our chances of existence, now that we exist, have improved infinitely (or, by +1 infinity) because our chances of existence have gone from zero in infinity to one in infinity now that we are here.

Let joblessness cut the workweek.
Let unemployment control the workweek.

(fm talking w Michel Robichaud Sat am Stanstead Qc)
It occurs that experimenting with thoughts of oneself as a "self-constructing biodegradable ROBOT with attitude" makes a lot of sense in the twilight of the Economic Age, the Age of Quantity, just before the Ecological Age clamps down on it with a vengeance, because now is when CEOs value their robots more highly than their human employees, they're SO much more productive! And at the moment, they're generally rarer = again, the overwhelming importance of supply and demand relative to valuation.

So maybe, in aid of easing the birth of the Age of Quality, it's time to remind CEOs of the fact that hominid workers represent far far superior robots (yes, we are robots using robots), largely self-fueling and -repairing in the time-consumingly detailed low-level areas, and infinitely programmable and versatile in many dimensions possible for organic robots but impossible for mechanical robots and impossible even for currently available simple levels of human-made organic robots.
And then, there is, of course, the one crushing advantage that hominid robots have over mechanical robots. Hominids BUY OUTPUT. They purchase it. They spend on it. They "consume" it. They provide the MARKETS. And mechanical robots don't, as enshrined in the famed Reuther Retort to to Henry Ford's taunt (Let's see you unionize these robots): "Let's see you sell them cars."
How ironic that Ford invited this face-slapping when he was the one that supposedly hiked wages so his workers could buy their own output (though it was actually, even back then (1912), only to forestall unionization). He should have gone on to realize that he basically needed to create and maintain, in a word, employ, his own markets. He and his fellow employers, that is, needed, and still need, to create and maintain their own markets. Who else is going to do it? The rest of the world? The rest of the world is "depending" on the U.S. consumer base to stay afloat - and destroying it in the process via the U.S. employment basement.

GOOGLE chocolate church

The super rich are sacrificing their foundations in the consumer base and the employment basement in order to save their precious but dysfunctional pecking order. They have gone far far beyond the maximum sustainable concentrated-money to deconcentrated-money ratio. They have starved their foundations and the first economy that reverses this with long-term worksharing and short-term graduated income tax will rule.

Einstein, despite talk of relativity, sacrificed the constancy/absoluteness of time in order to absolutize the speed of light.

The question of the century is - how far into the age of automation and robotics can we maintain a pre-computer workweek before employment collapses and with it, our markets?
It's no longer optional - we MUST cut the workweek and stop concentrating employment and earnings on fewer and fewer workaholics and burnouts while marginalizing and impoverishing more and more former full-timers.

U.S. wars have moved from feeding the consumer base and the whole economy by creating a labor shortage (the stupid way) to raise wages and centrifuge the national income and wealth out to the people who actually spend it, to feeding only the CEOs of the military-industrial complex, increasing the concentration and deactivation of the national money supply, diminishing economic dynamism and deepening economic recession. (6/24)

Death is going to sleep without waking up, and gradually losing the wherewithal to wake up with.

As the One Percent play their game of acquiring more money, they eventually get past a point of diminishing returns where the mere process of concentrating more of the nation's money supply begins to undermine itself. How? As money is redistributed up the income brackets, its circulation decelerates and it deactivates. It moves from trillions of tiny transactions to billions of small transactions to millions of midsized transactions to thousands of large transactions to hundreds of very large transactions to scores of huge transactions to dozens of gigantic transactions to handfuls of supermegamongo transactions, all the while with longer periods between activity.
The One Percent create recessions this way.
The One Percent cause depressions this way.
But this will be the last thing they realize and fix because it points to them, and they will repeatedly point to anything and everything ELSE before they point to themselves - and they own the media so they'll distract everyone else from the real villains as well. (6/21)

Notice that almost every proposal the One Percent come up with to solve a recession makes it worse. They want to belt tighten and privatize Social Security? They belt tighten on the Ninety-Nine Percent and further decelerate spending, alias markets (for the productivity they need to invest in), alias currency currency circulation, alias economic dynamism. And Social Security gives tens of millions of non-rich people more money which they spend much MUCH more readily than the One Percent who have far more than they can spend, or even invest sustainably.

Need a structural adjustment? Minimum necessary is timesizing.

Saudi Aramco World magazine doesn't feature much (any?) feminine attractiveness. And Islam's response in general is coverup. (Are the cultures that practice clitorectomy Islamic?) This is evidence of a history of population pressure and resource (food and water) shortage and lends support to the view that the longer term problem of humanity is not population shortage but population surplus, not underpopulation but overpopulation. It has come into Judaism and Christianity via the second creation story in Genesis ("Who told you that you were naked?"). It's an access-to-reproduction control but also unfortunately an access-to-pleasure control. The evolution of life on the biological level was about motivating reproduction, regardless of overproduction, while the evolution of life on the human evolutionary level (social evolution) was about demotivating reproduction, regardless of underproduction and at the sacrifice of pleasure. (5/27)

In regard to immigration, some people namecall anyone who advocates immigration regulation 'racist.' But the discussion about immigration in a world of 7billion-and-rising humans is on the species level (homo sapiens sapiens/cromagnonensis, not the subspecies level of race and culture. It's a matter of economics and ecology. On the economic level, as long as any economy is avoiding (import and) immigration (and birth) regulation, it is accepting labor surplus and downward pressure on wages and mass poverty. On the ecological level, it is accepting more hunger and desperation and more sacrifice of long term to short term: species diversity goes (great auk, dodo, passenger pigeon, cod, Gulf of Mexico...), and the resulting split of the population into two islands of income, a tiny one with astronomical income and a huge one with tiny income, means more and more insulation and isolation of the decision-makers and more and more resistance to change in the direction of balance and system sustainability.

Good companies for employees ... that went bad:


DEC - Compaq

the American military, especially the V.A.

for that matter, as Chomsky points out, the U.S. Government

Worksharing is the closest thing we have today to a genuine panacea.
"Peace is possible"? - only by worksharing.
"End poverty now!" - better start worksharing.
"Homeland Security"? - only when vanishing human work is automatically shared to maximize markets and avoid labor surplus and low wages.
"Bridge the income gap?" Only when rephrased as "deconcentrate wealth" and tackled with worksharing....

The new discovery of 1-4% Neanderthal DNA in populations outside Africa but not inside ("There's a little Neanderthal in us," by Carolyn Johnson, 5/07/2010 Boston Globe, A1) is the furthest reach of hard natural sciences into soft social sciences (deep into the anthropological age, 1m BP and on). This is like dinosaurs are still alive...in birds. With genome research, we can now find out the critical differences between Nseanderthals and Cromagnons or "moderns" (us). One difference is, we had/have better wound-healing, skin, energy-metabolism and cognitive-development genes ("better" in the sense of more sustainable/survivable). The key one here is the last, and its link to language development. The key thing about language is its unlocking "sector bunchup" of value or advantage by enabling sharing and spreading. Then the shared yearly schedule of the agricultural calendar took over in the sociological age (10k BP and on), the writing-based sharing from ancestors to descendents in the geographic-historic age (5300 BP and on), the negotiation-based sharing of partial disagreement in the political-science age (1800 BP and on), the quantification-based sharing of partial agreement in the economic age (410 BP and on), and now, struggling to be born, the homeostatic-programming-based sharing of a series of critical values (employment, income, wealth, credit...) in the ecological age (40 BP/Earth Day? and on). Timesizing is the first draft of the first of these homeostatic programs.

In my dream, I asked the ancient prophet deep in the Himalayas what was really going on in the world, and he said, "The U.S. would really like to be convinced that it should rule the world." (5/06)
I guess that means it should invade country after country and find its invasion routes lined with welcoming people waving flowers, just like it thought it would find in Iraq.
But fortunately for the rest of the world, the U.S. superwealthy, so blind to full employment and markets by workweek reduction, are now fostering such a huge wage-sinking labor surplus, and diverting-to-themselves and converting so much of the nation's money supply from actual spending to potential investing, that they are impoverishing themselves, everyone else first, and essentially transforming the U.S. into China, which is a lot weaker and less sustainable than the media portray.

Wars cut people, not machines, jobs or working hours.
Luddism cuts machines, not people, jobs or hours.
Timesizing cuts hours, not machines, people or jobs.
Choose one. (c.4/16)

If the phases of the moon take roughly 29&1/2 days, a better calendar would quit wasting odd-length months with no coincidence alternating 30-31 day months and switch to coinciding with moon phases by alternating 29-30 day months. Within each year, this would keep the same phase of the moon at each point in the calendar month, though at the end of the resulting 354-day year when 11 extra days were added (12 every leap year) to realign with the seasons, a different phase of the moon would coincide with same point in the calendar month - but it would hold constant for a year until the next 11-day intercalendric adjustment. This is probably the most regular coincidence with nature in terms of both sun and moon that we can get (but the days of the week would keep cycling through the dates of successive months). I prefer this one though, because there would also be a coincidence with the etymology and original concept of month, née moonth. (5/03 after reading pp. 65-66 of Marilyn Burns' 1978 This Book Is About Time this morning after buying it at the Bellows Falls Library book sale 2-3 weekends ago - 4/17.) Also, we're already used to adding and subtracting a day with month length - it's the 11 extra days we're not used to.

The alternative is to forget about nature in terms of the moon and just have 13 four-week months so that the same days of the week occurred on the same date each month. This multiplication results in a 364-day year and just requires one annual extra-day adjustment to keep aligned with the seasons (two extra days every leap year). This gives us an efficient regularity between days of the week and, e.g., monthstarts and ends (which some people might find too robotic) and the annual one-day adjustment to the seasons is minimal, but it does not tie us back into nature in terms of the beautiful phases of the moon - we would be able to judge the date each month by the phase of the moon. True it would change each year but by February we'd be getting used to it and better at it.

Not only democracy can get too sophisticated for its own good. There's lots of things. Like DOS relative to CPM. The Julian+Augustan calendar relative to the preceding 12x30days, plus five extra days, plus one more extra every four years...

The ultimate answer to the Lump of Labor Fallacy" sneer is, Put your money where your mouth is. You may be able to dream up an infinite amount of potential employment but where's the infinite amount of money to pay for it? And it's not actual employment until it's funded.

Afghanistan is the modern coliseum.

Human Contradictions Dept.
Humans like babies and baby things, but they also eat a lot of them.
There's roast NZ lamb (baby sheep), veal (calf, baby cow), suckling pig, baby carrots, and now...baby broccoli!

debt is "after-saving" = after you've bought the thing.
nondebt is presaving or "before-saving" - you save up enough money to buy the thing before you buy it and you don't need debt and interest - it's more efficient, yet the same people like Tamny that talk the talk of efficiency, accept debt, the inefficient "after-saving", without question. When saving after instead of before the purchase, the interest makes you pay more for the item, sometimes a lot more, twice or thrice its price, or more. Grampa and Gramma started up in 1903 on Major St (or 40 Harbord?) Toronto with only a table and one chair from relatives. They bought nothing on time - saved up for everything before they bought it. Granpa (Philip Edward Hyde) and Granma (Louise Elizabeth Reppen Hyde)... Government should be passing funding bills before any spending bills and get completely OUT of the financial industry. 4/24

There have been a number of cases where the power elite don't want any action, so they retail a story that a particular political or economic advancement doesn't need any deliberate or even conscious design and implementation. Three examples:

  1. "The invisible hand was supposed to make it OK to be as greedy and hoardy and selfish without limit or regulation, yet it all will redound to the common good." Uhuh, didn't happen. The hand was visible in the spread of the vote in the political sphere, leaking its balance into the economic sphere. The one adult one vote principle was invented to restore system feedback after default one monetary unit one vote had all but destroyed it. But then money did an end run around the vote via campaign funding and is in the process of all but destroying system feedback again.
  2. Then, "we don't really need birth policies, because as living standards rise, birthrates automatically fall by themselves." The flaw here is the prerequisite assumption that living standards are inexorably rising. What if they aren't and don't, and overpopulation and labor surplus guarantees that they can't? (But won't technology make them? Not if we keep responding to technology by downsizing instead of timesizing, and ignoring technology in scare stories about "We've actually got (or gonna get) a labor SHORTAGE because there won't be enough workers to support the population bulge of retiring babyboomers!"
  3. The latest: the Chinese who come here no longer want to stay in Canada or the US, so we don't really have to get serious about gearing immigration policy to the unemployment rate let alone default to one-out one-in steadystate ASAP. Yeah sure. (4/09)

Both parties are in contradiction. The Dems can't represent their big poor base because they've allowed campaigns to be drowned in money and they need money, so they wind up diluting their representation of their base with representation of their fundors. The GOP is in worse shape. They can't represent their conservative base because they've been taken over by the radical rich who "just want their share = ALL of it" and invoke all kinds of socialist redistribution to a tiny, relatively non-spending fraction of the population = themselves. So the GOP winds up radically starving the economy through rationalized unlimited hoarding, and the Dems wind up merely window dressing for their base. So the nation continues its deepening labor surplus, sinking wages and living standards and consumer spending and sustainable investments - in short, its trip to the Third World on a level with india with its luddism and China with its 20% unemployment. (4/09)

The freezing of the workweek thrust humanity into a big permanent nest like a bunch of baby birds, eternally peeping for Government help, while pushing one another out of the nest as the population rose and the nest shrank.
The freezing of the workweek forced humanity into an eternally immature, Take Care of Me role - and of course, there's no one to take care of them but themselves, a tiny insulated fraction of whom are rich beyond the dreams of Croesus, while the hundreds of millions of others are getting poorer and poorer. (3/29, upon hearing the Diane Rehm re student loans on NPR)

Humanity has made itself pathetic - by freezing the workweek = by downsizing in response to wonderful, worksaving technology instead of trimming the workweek and spreading the remaining, still shrinking human employment.

As for the LOLF, this is completely rebutted by claims of rising productivity. If you claim that output is rising, you are not entitled to sneer that shorter-hours advocates are true believers in the lump of labor fallacy, less deceptively and more accurately called the shrinking employment truism.

How's this for a title? - An indictment of our management craft from Chainsaw Dunlap to our B-schools and MBAs

We put the whammy of taboo on reproduction but not on immigration and imports - but it's all the same problem; surplus people and products. (3/24)

Obama is tugging the Democratic donkey to pass the Rush Limbaugh Deportation Bill (window-dressing healthcare), while the Republican elephant in the background has nothing to offer but faeces (but it has LOTS of them!). (Kate, 3/23)

Resto Transformatio - Menu
sardine cobbler
parsnip pie
turnip turnover

Canoe down the river of like-minded people. (reprise 3/17)

Project mgmt
Design science
Ecological/natural principles
Breaking out of the box

Maggie (3/16) - I think you have to work on everything at once, like Obama.
Phil - You'd be a terrible project manager. You see how effective Obama has been with this approach (and insofar as he focuses, he's one project behind - the Clintons wasted their political capital on gays in the military instead of universal healthcare, and Obama is wasting his on healthcare when he should be focusing on jobs).
Parts of projects have dependencies. Some have to go first because others depend on them - ask any building or bridge builder. That's why they have Gant charts and Pert charts. We need all the help we can get from project management in "saving the world."

There are certain design principles that we apply EVERYWHERE ELSE except economics, principles like "design the problem to solve itself." We need all the help we can get from design science.

There are certain natural or ecological principles like homeostasis and "minimum necessary departure from status quo at each point" that have been around for a VERY long time and that we should copy if we're aiming for very long-term sustainability. We need all the help we can get from ecological principles.

What is the box we need to break out of? The Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis says it's our language, which limits the class of ideas we can even GET. But the power elite have a lot to do with the subset of language that does the heavy lifting here. In the 1920s they invented the Gospel of Consumption to subsitute for shorter hours, They spread the label "conspiracy theorist" to cover their tracks and later, politically incorrect" or "racist", They also got their priests, the economists, to invent the "Lump of Labor Fallacy" to ridicule shorter hours even though we'd been cutting the workweek for over 80 years by then.
How do we break out of the box? We have to ask the taboo questions and discuss the taboo topics that these labels are designed to discourage. Linguistics can help, with techniques like "identify and fill the gap in paradigm."

Rules: don't argue from morality or ethics, don't argue from values - these are arguments from weakness. (3/14)

Worktime economics' central position in ecological economics -
* sustainably homeostatic = underemployment rate automatically decreases workweek, decreased workweek increases overtime, and overtime-to-jobs conversion changes underemployment into full employment and rising wages, however short a workweek it takes
* sustainably simple; the top problem (un/deremployment) triggers and funds its own solution and allows dismantling of obviated government programs within its bloated unsustainable role as employer and (forced) charity of last resort
* reverses $concentration which is starving $circulation in consumer markets and all dependent markets (all markets are immediately dependent on consumer markets except the financial market)
* reverses $concentration which is cutting negative feedback (= the important kind suggesting change) because the super-rich unconsciously insulate and isolate themselves from it
* reverses $concentration which is cutting negative feedback (the important kind) because it leaves the vast * * majority of Americans either overworked (too busy to watchdog) or underemployed (too anxious to watchdog)

We're using the One Percent as our sink, our dump, for excess, in this case, excess money. "The Great Leak Upward" - toss infinite, unlimited money to the topmost tiny fraction of the population - regardless of anything - instead of using free time as the sink. And never mind the opposite sink, the unlimited creeping expansion of poverty and unhealthinsured sickness and disability and homelessness and incarceration. Using a tiny fraction of the population as the sink for excess billions is much less stable and more dangerous than using financially secure free time for the entire population, because the top fraction inevitably loses touch, drifts off on their own planet and becomes weirder and weirder. If we need any corroboration, how about the "hugely cynical Republican Party memo on the care and feeding of big donors" that "disdains them as 'egodriven' check writers who can be bought by access to power and vanity tchotchkes." (quoted from editorial "The Escalating Price of Politics," 3/08/2010 NY Times, A18.

From Dave Barry's "the US Senate is 100 rich old men, working for YOU," to Garrison Keeler's "what do you call a lawyer who's gone bad? - a senator." (3/07)

Definition of freedom - Freedom is safe mutual flexibility/variability of action/inaction/behavior
under a general integrating principle/common interest/sharing mechanism. (2/25/2010/ph3)

In its variability guise it feeds directly into survivability/adaptability of large complex systems, cf. Ernst Mayr's statement on variability's priority importance to biological systems (Species, Evolution and Survival(?), p.398 (or 298?) ).

Another argument for health insurance a lower priority to timesizing = until we have the full employment that timesizing provides, we desperately need the luddism and makework provided by the wasteful, duplicated efforts of American health insurers. 2/26

You can impede downsizing at the microeconomic level as Europe has done.
But if you find that stifling, you must neutralize it at the macroeconomic level so it doesn't build up and weaken the domestic consumer base (a la Timesizing) or your economy is finished.

As during a labor surplus, you can have "spot shortages", so during a labor shortage you can have "spot surpluses."

You want to yell "Luddite!"? I'll give you "luddite"! The Protestant WORK ETHIC is LUDDITE in the age of robotization! There are paradoxes in the Timesizing "panacea" (closest we have during our lifetime!), but they are superficial, and based only on the Protestant work ethic. (1/17)

In a timesizing economy, the kind of suspension of sanity (eg: taking-on debt in other currencies and then your currency tanks a la Iceland) that took place in the banking community is much less likely to take place because there are myriads more watchdogs when the whole populace has more free time and more money to look ahead, behind, and upward into their government. Also, consumers are less likely to be drawn into crazy unsustainable loans and mortgages because less job insecurity and desperation means less running, running, running like today's no-option full-timers and soccer moms.

I see a potential role for Iceland, or any insular economy, in terms of leading the world into the Ecological Age. It won't happen with cultural workaholism (jobs manufactured out of 'creativity'), or lack of watchdogs over the government and financial industry, or by reform of the financial industry. There's a more profound shift to be modeled.

How, without being a luddite or a cultural workaholic, do you maintain or grow employment as levels of technological productivity skyrocket? (A cultural workaholic uses proliferating sports or art or music or theatre to justify maximum working hours, minimum "down time." And a culture that feels a bit beseiged, like Quebec or Iceland, is likely to put another connotation into the phrase, as in, we have to work hard (=long hours) to preserve our culture and heritage. There are some pretty questionable things that happen in the arts world because of cultural workaholism - the movie Me & Orson Welles shows quite a few of them - rehearsal to exhaustion, drug dependence, the casting couch... So long hours and job creation, however artificial, is justified by cultural insecurity,) 2/16

Rae Days were futuristic from the viewpoint of trimming hours for everyone instead of slashing jobs for a few...and a few more...and a few more, etc. but they were primitive in terms of their association with proportional paycuts - which of course was their whole motivation of saving the budget. When done on a whole-systems level instead of a bit here, a bit there, shorter worktime raises pay because it absorbs and reverses the deepening labor surplus that's been pushing pay downwards. As the surplus shifts to a shortage, market forces raise general wage levels in response. (2/16)

Shorter hours is a tough issue to go mainstream with because so many people misunderstand it. They associate it with lazy. They associate it with lower pay. If the pay stays high, they associate it with Undeserved = You should feel GUILTY... (2/16)

Longer hours on the other hand are Hard Work and Hard Work Is Good, because, Work Hard to Get Ahead and "if I'm busy, I'm important," etc.

Why is this so hard to understand? If there is a surplus of something, the price goes down. If there is a shortage of something, its price goes up. This goes for everything including humans in terms of accountable human time alias work. If there is a surplus of labor hours in the job market, general wage levels go down. If there is a shortage general wage levels go up. Capitalism has never worked well under a surplus. And has always worked well under a shortage, as during war ("wartime prosperity") and plague (the birth of the middle class after the Black Death in Europe, 1348...). (2/15)

If there is a surplus of labor hours in the job market, the extra money goes funneling up to a tiny population in the topmost income brackets who can't possibly spend it, so it is essentially out of circulation. THEY are the perfect rebuttal to mainstream economists' nonsense about human desires being infinite and therefore work is infinite. They have "infinite" money but they do not have possibly large but definitely limited desires.

There is no way to get growth out of shrinking. The only thing you can shrink while still growing is the workweek.

In other words, there is no way to get upsizing out of downsizing. The only thing you can downsize without downsizing your economy is the workweek. Downsize anything else - workforce, spending, investment - and you downsize everything. Reducing the workweek reduces labor surplus and harnesses market forces in raising wages and getting the national income out to the millions who really want and need to spend it, instead of allowing it to funnel without limit to the top 1% or less of the population who were already spending all they cared to before they got the last $20 million (and often didn't even know when or that they got it, so complex are their affairs and so meaningless is money to them - except as a pecking-order place marker. (2/13,9:30)

want a playlist for the future? want to watch the most exciting and inconspicuously influential happenings? - and possibly participate in nudging them along? want to contribute to the supreme charity, so comprehensive and strategic and central that it makes all the rest a waste of time and money by comparison?...

so Icelandic is fun, Canadian is fun, ethnicities are fun - American could be fun 'cept now it's dark with "self-destruction, everyone else first" - are we making fun of icelandic and canadian etc? no, we're just finding the fun that's there - veeving lay deeffayraunces... or raunches...

yes, Icelandic is fun - every nation has become a hobby, a brand, to be enjoyed and played with - every language, every sex - it's no longer needed for population continuity in the age of overpopulation, quite the contrary - social sexuality has overtaken reproductive sexuality, the basic social unit has shifted from the reproductive couple to the productive person, from the procreative pair to the creative individual - religion has become a hobby for the enlightened, and no longer a matter of eternal life&death...

worktime economics - This is a kind of economics that has never before been developed - for our generation, this is the stone that the builders rejected, the approach that the mainstream economists have scorned, caught in the box as their thinking is - you can trace it back to Sismondi in 1819 right at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. You can trace it thru offhand mentions and slips of the tongue thru the next 25 years till labor took it up when employers brought in gas lighting and tried to extend the working day in winter as long as it was in summer.... (2/13,4am)

like people? want to be on the winning team? - want to really help save the world in your generation? - not for something so boring as money (contra monty python 'there is nothing quite so beautiful as moneymoneymoney...') this is the website for you - we've really tapped into something here - it gives you a playlist of what's going to happen to humanity if all happens for the best (or the specifiably most efficiently improved 'marginally acceptable') over the next 40-400 years... it puts you at ringside and lets you check off the benchmarks of mainline human progress on this narrow road and strait path to optimum, to maximally substantial improvement at the deepest, most centrally influential balancing point(s), it mainly ignores the infinite distractions and detours, is it perfect? what's "perfect"?? there's no such thing, it's just specifiably improved IMperfect... (after talking to the Icelandic ambassador/dress/drix at the concert in the large loft over the horsebarn eve of 2/12)

There is no way that the indefinite concentration of a nation's money supply in the top 1% or less of its population can maintain anything resembling an advanced economy. (2/12)

The latest word for "share" is "bailout" - except that it's from those who have less to those who have more, from the poor to the rich via the tax system. (2/11-12)

The lower on the income scale the people onto whom you shift taxes, the more you cut directly into your markets, because these people spend all their income. The higher on the income scale the people onto whom you shift taxes, the less you cut into your own markets. (2/06)

What is the connection between the political activity of voting, the vote as providing more valuable feedback than hypermonied decision-making, and the political arts especially negotiation and loyal opposition? The crowning invention of the political age was the secret ballot - all the great advances of the political age are symbolized in it - it makes loyal opposition easier - it makes it harder to kill the messenger of bad news, the nego+tiator = deny+er, disagree+er...
(inspired by an attractive auburn-haired UQAM professeuse of art history on the 5pm Mtl-Ott bus reading the "economics of linguistics" and "motive and goal in Hannah Arendt's politics" and other delightfully effete articles to answer questions about "site specificity" (not why this particular (kind of) art arose in this partic location but how the art of a partik location snuggles up to its location &/or its history) that art history supposedly can't answer by itself (anyone for Trivial Pursuit?) - Ottawa arrives, me "have you got the answer(s)?" - she "it's a process" - hooboy, academe is populated by experts in keeping themselves irrelevant and keeping young people out of the job market for as long as possible, bless them both in a frozen-workweek economy! (such guilty pleasure bathing so deep in the waters of irrelevance again (I took Ancient Near Eastern Studies and 2 yrs of theological cemetery during the focusing 'process' of my lost youth) (must remember 'site specificity' for cocktail conversation right after Hammurabi's First Law = shumma awilum awilam kispi nertam idin la iktim, uttebibashu = if manAnomv manBdatv actsof sorcery threw not firmed heshallbekilled = if a man charges another man with acts of sorcery and has not proved it, he shall be executed = a law against the white witchcraft of going around and accusing other people of black witchcraft (compare Bush and his ilk seeing TERRORISM everywhere) - but I indulge my dilettantism too much (2/05am)

why is so easy to write about this and so hard to write about the relevant stuff I SHOULD be writing about to actually save the world? mayhap this whole thing answers that + guilty pleasure => "the human condition" => a bias toward mutation and survival progress in variability and adaptibility built into the genetic wiring design of our brains? a bias against the all-too-frequent "way to hell is paved by good intentions" ... the destructiveness of missionaries, do-gooders, world saviors ... the harmlessness of those who are simply enjoying themselves ... Quebeckers & les French in general are so good at this ...

We no longer have the luxury of rationalizing anything and anyone with Hard Work - in the age of robotization, we must resume our 1776-1940 workweek reduction, share the vanishing human employment, and quit the strain to maintain a 1940-level, 40-hour workweek forever.

How ironic that the solution* is so obvious, and yet so far outside current patterns of thinking, that it cannot "break through" into the mainstream debate. (*Full employment and markets in the Robotics Age via workweek reduction and overtime-to-jobs conversion.) 2/2/2009/ph3

Worktime economics is a subset of distribution or distributist economics. The big long-term problem for humans is spreading the value of the age, not generating it. It tends to concentrate in a subset of the population, whatever it is. Right now it's natural, market-demanded worktime per person and money per person (income, wealth and credit). 1/30/2009/ph3

Is it possible that 'you' and 'ye', the 2nd person plural objective and subjective respectively, simply came from the script representation of /th/ (voiced labiodental) for 'thou' and 'thee' (2nd person singular subjective and objective respectively? - because 'y' was used in many regions to represent /th/ voiced ('eth' or 'edh', as in 'either') while 'thorn' (looks like a p with the vertical line extended upward, or theta, an O with a crossbar) was used to represent /th/ voiceless labiodental (as in 'ether') instead of the digraph 'th'. Then people in other regions starting mispronouncing the 'y' the modern way as a voiced palatal fricative instead of a voiced labial dental, and some wag got the idea of retaining 'th' for the singular and restricting 'y' to the plural, with cases reversed, but eventually the 'y' took over the singular too (and the objective form 'you' usurped the place of the subjective 'ye' in both singular and plural) and replaced the 'th' forms completely, except for some American Quakers who continued, long after everyone else had dropped it, to use the objective singular for both cases in the singular (and also continued the possessive thy/thine?). Is this in the histories of the English language? What forms were previously in use for the plural? 1/29/2010/ph3

We've always believed that any amount of investment money is good; in fact, the more the better. Indeed, this belief has always been strongly encouraged by the One Percent and super-wealthy among us, in all the myriad ways available to them. But once again, economic depression is teaching us that this belief is false, that somewhere there is a point of diminishing returns in the concentration and coagulation of the nation's income and wealth among a small population of unimaginably wealthy people.

Now that we're discovering this again, what will limit that concentration? There are two potential limiting agencies. The ecology and the economy. That concentration demands increasing productivity, regardless of marketability or anything else, so we go from bubble to bubble. Increasing productivity means increasing waste and pollution, of commodities and people, against which we're already getting ecological pushback. It also means increasing demands on scarce resources, so we're getting strategic depletion, another looming ecological limit. Anders Hayden, in his book "Sharing the Work, Sparing the Planet," explores both these ecolimits.

But I believe that concentration will be limited by two economic factors. First, unlimited money leads the rich to insulate and isolate themselves from any negative consequences of any bad decisions that they increasingly make, so we have a huge complex system with no system feedback, no adaptibility, ... and therefore no long-term survivability in an age when human population pressure is making the long term shorter and shorter. Secondly, the unlimited concentration of the nation's money supply gradually accelerates toward the extreme of 1% of the population with 99% of the money supply, a situation that is pandemic in the Third World, a situation that basically starves and strangles it own consumer base (and employment basement) and leaves a showy center with piles of wasted excess surrounded by a huge desert full of sick and dying people, or people who have reverted to earlier timeframes of minimalist self-sufficiency and barter.

The only phenomenon that has limited the unbounded concentration of money in the past has been a money-spreading and -reactivating labor shortage due to war or plague. If they are "natural" labor shortages (though how natural is war?), we are now challenged to create an artificial labor shortage due to workweek reduction, or our economies will continue on their downward spiral of intermittent failure obscured by evermore veils spun and spread by the super-rich.

(Note that the unlimited investment approach does actually redistribute and funnel money upwards to the few super-rich, but never actually redistributes and spreads it downward to the millions of others - because in the investment model, the investor always retains title, and so ownership itself gets more and more concentrated.)

We're still in the dark ages of economic design when we're still threatening people's livelihood without an aggregate-level, system-wide guarantee ("safety net") that they will find another job.
If employers want all kinds of individual-level freedom to fire, they must accept systemwide controls that pressure for rehiring by someone else. If they don't want systemwide controls that pressure for rehiring by someone else, they must accept restraints on individual-level freedom to fire such as they criticize in Europe. If they will accept neither, then they will get a downward staircase of economic bubbles as their consumer base and markets deteriorate and they downsize their way to the Third World in the dread Race to the Bottom.

For years now, US executives and managers have followed a radical and destructive practice of adjusting to technology or just trying to maximize profits by disemploying consumers instead of merely adusting the workweek. The results of that practice are now evident in the cumulative weakening of consumer markets and all their market dependencies, and in the out-of-scale and dysfunctional volumes of investment money vainly seeking sustainable investment targets on anything like the same scale, which would require marketable productivity on a like scale - but as mentioned, markets have been gathering weakness, not strength. In fact, research would probably demonstrate that markets have been weakening in proportion to the bloating of investment power. (1/19/2010/ph3)

Another version of the big practical question of our lifetime: Is there an optimum proportion of investing power to spending power in the money supply? (or RANGE of proportions) - and how would be best discover it? (1/16/2010/ph3)

At the bottom, little money per person (very many persons) is 100% spending power.
At the top, very much money per person (few persons) is almost 100% investing power.

The bottom can't spare or afford the money to save or invest.
The top can't spare or afford the time to spend money on a scale corresponding to their quantity.
(They can hire others, but even then...)

So there is this conversion as we go up the income scale
of time into money
and as we go down the income scale
of money into time.

Seeking the most informative metaphor for what's happening -
(informative, helpful, agreeable, solvable, productive, suggestive, creative...)

is the US becoming Sparta to Europe's Athens?

government as the Luddite of Last Resort?!!!

the American economy is imploding
experiencing an implosion
and shrinking due to implosion
into a black hole of unlimited Waste Wealth and Entitlement
in the topmost brackets

money is being diverted and redistributed upward without regulation or limit
and converted from
spending power to saving power, either for investing or for hoarding or for both,
since you retain title even when you "spend" it for investment

so investing is not really spending,
so there is not really the circulation value of real spending!

as the implosion proceeds,
it accelerates
because it cannibalizes or sucks in or vacuums up its own infrastructure
it decalcifies its own bones, its own skeleton, its own framework, its own hull or husk

so in the choice of what to do with your entitlements or savings between investing them or plowing them back into their source (while still retaining title)
or hoarding
more and more hoarding gets chosen, because there's less and less infrastructure to invest in

and the more hoarding that gets chosen,
the more hoarding gets chosen -
there's an acceleration effect,
a reverse multiplier

the One Percent try to offset this with charity

but charity is deliberate and from the systemic point of view,
capricious, inconstant, unreliable,
and often uncentrifugal, neutral in terms of reversing the reverse multiplier,
and occasionally charity is actually centripetal and further concentrates the nation's money supply

Warren Buffett delegated his centrifugal-via-charity activity to ... Bill Gates!
yep, the Bill Gates Foundation, which already had billions

Bill Gates is the most intense and dysfunctional concentrator, accumulator, vacuum, centripetal force, coagulator of money
in the world
Warren Buffett is second
they've got us going down [metaphor] to the Third World
an implosion toward them and their 30,000 group (top 0.01% of US pop)
a collapsing inward from all directions
like a white dwarf star
inward, from all directions,
to the "center" where there's the greatest density of money per person,
to the "topmost" (metaphor) brackets
the biggest quantity (metaphor) of money held by the fewest people (metaphor!)
6am 1/04/2010/ph3

The Universe, by means of incrementing system complexity, is burrowing deeper and deeper into EXISTENCE.

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