©2008-09  Phil Hyde, 66 rue de Carillon ste.3, Gatineau-Ottawa J8X 2P2 QUÈBEC, 617-620-6851 & POBox 117 Harvard Sq PO, Boston-Cambridge, MA 02238, USA 617-623-8080 - HOMEPAGE
timesizing blog
during the decelerated national deathspiral of Obama's hopeful start (Nov.4,2008-Dec.31,2009)...
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, with the design of very long-term survivable (and even stable) economic systems.

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

Free trade is fine in theory when all nations are at similar levels of labor standards and labor supply (preferably an employer-perceived labor shortage) - not to mention in the same stage of social evolution - but when some nations have labor surplus and low standards and wages, free trade is a race to the bottom for the more advanced nations. (12/c.12/2009/ph3)

You cannot surplus (make redundant in the job market) the majority of your population (those below the top 1%) and still have quality of life for anyone, including the insecure, increasingly guarded rich.

All these initiatives to reverse the downturn have the wrong starting place. Even microloans don't reverse the economy-starving upward redistribution and circulation-slowing concentration of the money supply because they preserve IOUs and keep them in the same few hands. And you certainly can't reverse the downturn by transfering taxpayer money, real or potential, to the financial sector since that direction of redistribution has been what's caused the downturn. And you can't even do it by transfering taxpayer money to businesses, large or small, because that still represents a relative concentration and deceleration of the nation's currency circulation, reversing Keynes' "multiplier effect." You must redistribute the great economic variables in a certain strategic order starting with job-time per person. 12/24/2009/ph3

And you must substitute this "timesizing" for the downsizing with which America is downsizing its own future. You must substitute cutting "full time" hours for the job cuts with which America is cutting its own future.

Because by absorbing the wage-depressing labor surplus, timesizing also upsizes the pay of the middle class by centrifuging money out of the upper classes where it has coagulated on an unprecedented and completely dysfunctional scale. The financial markets are not the foundation as they seem to believe. They are a third derivative from the real fundation. They derive from the general business markets of which they are a tiny subset, which derive in turn from the consumer markets (=consumer base) of which they may be seen as a subset, which derive in turn from the employment markets (="employment basement") on which they are almost totally dependent.

There is also a confidence flow from the employment basement to the consumer base to the business markets to the financial markets. In short, the confidence of the financial industry is based on and derives from that of the business sector in general, which is based on that of consumers, which is based on that of employees. And employee confidence is based largely on employer loyalty. No employer-to-employee loyalty, no employee confidence, no consumer confidence, no business confidence, no investor confidence.

The shift in a growing labor surplus from nurturing non-dramtic hiring to the violent dramatics of downsizing and layoffs and firings is more exclusionary. You can't get more confidence out of exclusion, only a burst of braggadoccio and a nagging insecurity. Less inclusiveness, especially in a social species like homo sapiens sapiens, can only yield less confidence. Of course, inclusiveness can be overdone, and unlimited inclusiveness can rapidly impoverish an economy, whether from product/service inflows (imports), job outflows (outsourced jobs), or population inflows (immigrants and births). What is needed is bounded, inclusionary capitalism, not unbounded inclusionary capitalism or exclusionary capitalism.

FDR was a "traitor to his class" because he was a traitor to class itself, to the class concept, because it is exclusionary. FDR wanted inclusion, exemplified by universal healthcare, whereas some of his wealthy-class "mates" just wanted to maintain or increase their privilege, their specialness, their special privilege - how exclusive they were, how exclusionary they were.

In a general sense, the universe creates time at certain points in its evolution. Specifically, time is the rotational momentum of a planet under its star, for the short unit (day), and the revolutional momentum of a planet around its star (ie: the rotational momentum of a solar system at a given planet's radius relative to the next higher star center, eg: Earth's Sirius/Dogstar?), for the long unit (year). All other time units are fractions or multiples of these two fundamental units. 12/17

The Old Testament, in its most relevant passages, seems to be about advisors ('prophets') bringing system feedback to decision makers ('kings'*). These are not economic or political advisors because they live prior to the collective invention of politics (loyal opposition and poly-/bi-partisanship) and economics (quantification as a problem-resolution tool and math as a second language) and are part of the ramp-up for these "sharing technologies." They can accurately be called historical-geographic advisors since they probably all can read and write, living as they do in the early geography-history age "soon" after the collective invention of writing c.3200 BC in Sumer, and they occupied themselves with sharing wisdom from ancestors via written and oral tradition (this latter a characteristic of the prior sociological age) with their major decision-making contemporaries, the king* and his family. The Bible passages show their technique of dramatizing their message with a "prophetic sign" (eg: before this twig buds, Nebuchadnezzar will harrow the land" etc.) and giving it authority by sourcing it from their wargod YHWH, Lord of "Hosts" (=troops, armies).

* There were some queens - the Queen of Sheba springs (lightly we hope) to mind. Hmm, from a kingdom too distant to be of strategic interest... possibly circumstantially alone at the pinnacle of power like Hatshepsut of Elizabeth I... it's highly likely if not completely obvious, considering the time, that she cam to the famed wise king, Solomon, hoping to increase her authority and security by getting impregnated by him. But this is the first time I've seen this idea in print. (12/16/2009/ph3)

The amount of work available for people to do in the age of robotics is only infinite because worktime per person is infinitely divisible, giving each person a smaller and smaller share, which doesn't affect wages except insofar as it prevents a wage-depressing labor surplus or actually raises wages by creating a wage-increasing labor shortage. (12/13-16/2009)

Uncontrolled immigration is ecologically unsustainable and does not accomplish any of the goals the 'progressives' say it does - it does not 'save the world' from overpopulation because the US gets about 1m immigrants a year legal or not, while the rest of the world is reproducing at a rate of at least 20m a year (CITE video data source). The overpopulation problems of the rest of the world will have to be solved where they are, not in America. How can they be solved? The usual way: by copying the solutions of the most advanced countries in this field, as Meiji Japan copied various parts of Europe in various fields depending on which nation was most advanced in which field, eg: German engineering, British government...

Our usual statement about charity = Any system that relies for vital functions (such as money centrifugation) on charity is lethally flawed. Our new addendum =

Charity is a potentially high-pressure guilt-manipulation of lockstep cultural morality that has outlived its usefulness from times of simpler social-system design and is now a dysfunctional holdover. Charity within today's complex system designs is essentially capricious, ad-hoc, low-level, unprioritized, uncoordinated, unsystemic, inefficient, one-off, bandaiding that just barely prevents problems from getting so bad that they precipitate sustainable system-design solutions. The attempt to make charity sustainable by "pledges" is flawed by the deepening guild manipulation and the otherwise unconsequenced breakability of pledges under conditions of financial crisis for the donor or mere disagreement. (12/14/2009)

Charity will eventually be almost completely replaced by full employment.

The entire logjam of problems today can be traced to the simple-minded, rigid and lethal assumptions that when technology takes over a job, that employee must be terminated because that was eternally and inflexibly THEIR job and they cannot, for example, be retrained to do anything else. Furthermore, the consumer spending they have been doing is not necessary to the economy in general or directly or indirectly to their employer's company in particular. Indeed, the consumer base is infinite and invulnerable - no amount of discontinued consumer spending can harm it and no amount of idled and de-waged employees could possibly discontinue a damaging amount of consumer spending. There is no such thing as a point of diminishing returns in the concentration of a nation's money supply, and there is no such thing as a finite or shrinking amount of market-demanded employment. Employment is infinite because human desires are infinite, and the presence or lack of funding to turn those desires into consumer spending is irrelevant and ignorable.

But this is the age of limits.

The left acts as if there is no such thing as a point of diminishing returns in the growth of population in the advanced economies. The story goes that they caused the relative poverty of the Third World (in some cases, true) and therefore we should allow anyone from the Third World who wishes to, to come to the "First" World regardless of immigration laws - and promptly give them driver's licenses - regardless of the resulting de-skilling of their home countries, regardless of downward pressure on wage levels and living standards in the First World, in particular for existing legal minorities, and regardless of the newcomers' skills, aptitudes, language(s), home culture, cultural rigidity, evolutionary timeframe... or their multidimensional absorbability or lack thereof here in the First World - no matter, forget all that, just let them come here as many and as fast as they want or even, bring them here as many and as fast as we can, no questions asked. The left assumes we have infinite absorbability of increased and foreign population because that is politically correct.

But this is the age of limits. Both the left and the right are like children with no limits, children whose parents have not set them limits, so they have omnipotent greed of different kinds, the right for trade and money regardless, and the left for immigration and population regardless. They are both suicidal morons.

There seems to be something to the idea that one's thought has to have a center and be centered in the right place for you to come up with valid insights about anything. Economics is the most important area for this, and the toughest since it is upstream from one's income - ever a biasser. The otherwise insightful Milton Friedman is quoted in the Wall St Journal 11/28/2009 p.W3 to the effect that "The great advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government." Was he really ignorant of the centuries-long centralization of government in monarchs and their critical, lavish and extremely productive/creative patronage of the arts? Was he really ignorant of the huge stream of innovations that emerge (unfortunately) from the military under centralized command, as Buckminster Fuller points out, innovations such as the refridgerator that came into battleships 50 years before they came into civilian uses? This is an example of someone so eager to attack something that they lose balance and start making insupportable claims - not to mention the general rubric = it's impossible to prove a negative - Sherlock Holmes and mathematics to the contrary. (12/11/2009/ph3)

The best centering seems to be a start with the simplest level, and an attempt to complicate from there only minimally at each step, as per "minimal necessary departure from status quo." This seems to be the path of evolution at each step. The starting point is basic continuity - persistent sameness; lasting, enduring sameness. Differentness creeps in - as in "mutations" in later evolution, and aids? in continuity by enabling change resistant systems with their own eg: rotational integrity, such as moons (no sub-satellites) and planetary systems (including any orbiting moons) and solar systems (including any orbiting planets etc.) and possibly subgalactic star systems if Rodney Collins' Theory of Celestial Influence is right about Sirius (including any orbiting suns etc.) and galaxies (including orbiting stars etc.). It's hard to imagine evolution at levels less than nothing during eons before the coagulation etc. of any fundamental clocks (planets with at least one mark on their surface so you could tell they're rotating under a sun). A stylized start on this is provided by the neatened-up senses of measurement ("dimensions").

Those who want unregulated immigration have not asked the long-term questions of sustainability: (1) What is the carrying capacity of this country's geographic landmass? This varies with certain conditions: How far is it in human evolution? Because the anthropoligical carrying capacity (hunter-gatherer) is much less than the sociological carrying capacity (agriculture/calendar) - much less in turn than the geographic carrying capacity (trade/writing) - much less than the political carrying capacity (specialized jobs/negotiation) - much less that the economic carrying capacity (contracts/quantification) - much less than the ecological carrying capacity (maximum sustainable population/homeostatically full employment-income-wealth-credit... per person)...
(2) In terms of wholistic thinking (whole systems, long-term), am I making a significant dent on the problem of over-population in the rest of the world (no, instead, I may be allowing more population carelessness)
or am I giving a significant push to the problem of low minority-wages in my own country? (yes) (12/09/2009/ph3)

The two seesaws:
1. As jobs go down, employee wages go down ("wage costs") and employer wages (CEO salaries and perks) go up.
(Org. as ordinary, outsider job holders go down, elite, insider job holders/employees go up.) 2. As long-term investors go down, short-term investors go up.
(Org: as ordinary, outsider investors go down, elite, insider investors go up.)

Un(der)employment is a special case of overpopulation (= under-support from habitat). (12/08/2009/ph3)

How low recession will go globally and nationally is determined by two factors:
how much worksaving technology is introduced how fast, and
how much we respond to it with downsizing instead of sustainable "timesizing" (= redefinition of "full-time" employment downward to maintain, and increase, the consumer base and aggregate spending).

Free trade on the right and unregulated immigration on the left are like -
trying to stop an epidemic with no quarantine
being against dams on rivers - flash floods are like the resulting race to the bottom
fighting traffic lights...

How could I further the likelihood of such young people (see below) finding me in time? I've got to publicize more. But I'm reluctant: "Hyde's the name and hide's the game." And with Jesus: "He who testifies to himself, his testimony is not true." But on the other hand, with Gilbert & Sullivan ("Patience"): "You must stir it and stump it and blow your own trumpet or trust me, you haven't a chance!"

If there are any young people who think strategically in aid of human progress, let them contact me quickly 617-620-6851 or (tape) 617-623-8080, for I am getting scarily old. I didn't pull together my thinking on worktime economics (ie: discover the right book, Ben Hunnicutt's "Work Without End" (1988) c.1993-94, and read the right part c.1995-97) in time to talk to Arthur Dahlberg before he died c.1989. I didn't quite catch economic historian Charlie Kindleberger before he died. I did catch comprehensive thinker Bucky Fuller, evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, and John Kenneth Galbraith, Paul Rosenstein-Rodan ("Rosie") who had lived on Bloomsbury Circle when Keynes was there and used to meet him posting letters for the midnight(?) mail pickup.... (12/05/2009, 6:25a)

Course: Becoming an idea commando (12/04)

Since one's chances of existence are one in infinity, once one has existed, one's chances of recurrence are one in a very high number less than infinity. (12/04)

The unlimitedly wealthy one percent or less of Americans have made the rest of the nation their colisseum, where they can watch the suffering of millions with perverse gratification. It starts with their resentment of truckdrivers or even lawyers who are getting a lot of money - they resent this because they don't think this riffraff deserves it - or if that's the Way It Is, THEY the wealthy deserve A LOT more. So they repeal Glass-Steagall and toughen the bankruptcy laws in their 'righteous' resentment - they are a LOT more important than these people and they want numbers to reflect that beyond a shadow of a doubt. They assume that the system can take it, that there will be no adverse effects - at least on them - and all the institutional changes pushed through during the Great Depression to prevent its recurrence (though we've forgotten the main change (the effect of workweek length on labor supply)... so they push through laws that punish

Spin is old -
1894 version: In days of yore our hero Wolfe, Britain's glory did maintain, and planted firm Britannia's flag on Canada's fair domain...
This was a land grab by Britain, but note the word is not Britain's glory did "increase," because that might suggest Britain was not always as glorious...

Talked to hard-nosed wife of nice guy who was happy he foned 1&1/2 months ago and got a just-cancelled-res room at Tovar - she in PR - her idea for recovery, "innovation" - "good luck changing the world," says she
my response: innovation is like GDP/output/production/productivity - it is meaningless in itself, it's the response to it that counts. If productivity finds no marketability, it's meaningless or possibly a negative in env impact.
If innovation meets with downsizing instead of timesizing, it's meaningless and definitely negative in its impact on labor supply (deepens surplus), wages (depresses), prosperity (recession), cybernetics (more money, decision-making power and insulation-isolation for the top 1% > 0.1% > 0.01% of the population), and system feedback (negative alias change-indicating feedback vanishes) and adaptability (to decision-makers, no neg FB, system looks like it works, so why fix it?) and survivability (no adaptation to changing conditions, increasing system damage). (Thu, 11/12/2009/ph3)

Over time (especially peace time), wishful thinking about an Invisible Hand notwithstanding, the wealthiest minority in any economy becomes a dumb parasite upon the rest of the population and starts to harm (as in cannibalize) its host. (10/26/ph3)

So, en simple, timesizing is permanent worksharing and worksharing is temporary timesizing.
Worksharing is temporary because it is funded from the (Brit.) jobseekers' fund or (U.S.) unemployment insurance fund.
Timesizing is permanent because it is funded from a tax on (corporate) overtime and (individual) overwork.

The market is the natural environment of the economy - it is the woodwork - people assume it is reality. And if that reality becomes distorted, people become distorted.

The wealthy have allowed the market to become very distorted over the past forty years. They have got to stop being so stupid and wake up to the fact that, if they don't have any markets, they don't have any real investments,
and if they don't have any consumers, they don't have any markets,
Luckily there has always been a minority of wealthy people who realize this.
It's just that, the last few decades, this minority has shrunk drastically.

sujicide sensitivity
and we now have an economic system design that has suicide written all over it
f ex
trying to get growth by DOWNsizing?
trying to get consumer confidence by fostering job insecurity? (to control inflation)
trying to control inflation by discouraging growth? (arbitrarily raising interest rates)
homeland security with job insecurity?? (f ex, motivates gun and drug traffic)

Timesizing requires that we give up our favorite excuse: working hard, as in, "I worked hard for that!"

We need a safety net at the TOP to resorb, and thereafter avoid, dangerous (system corroding) coagulations of value & power

next level:
list companies/orgs. that now have some form of timesizing
list those that have recently had dto., with article refs.
create assoc. w suggs to network for workforce flexibility and trade

Another contradiction in conventional economic "science" &/or curr ec des -
homo oeconomicus' wants are infinite, vs.
homo oeconomicus is rational
human life is finite, and
the biosphere (the human habitat) is finite.
True there is a wide range but it is finite. (10/17)

[get qots f a & b & ins contrads pg & wiki]

The Third Watcher Philosophy (developed by Kate Jurow in her teens, already articulated in her 20s)

1st watcher = eyes looking out on the world, doing stuff - you're aware, and that's all; you have emotions in the sense of simple hormonal reactions (compare tbe first person of the trinity, god the father-creator, yhwh = make it so)

2d watcher = you're aware that you're aware - consciousness; you have "feelings" in the sense of awareness of your hormonal reactions: "hey, I feel happy today" (compare the second person of the trinity, god the son, yes thou hast created - the world & me in fact)

3d watcher = higher level, watching the watcher; aware of the awareness so can control the 2d watcher, so it's control over your consciousness, your attention (compare the third person of the trinity, god the holy spirit, the comforter, yes I don't have to feel so bad, I can feel better in my sorrow)

[4th watcher = awareness of the whole situation, the whole system (compare the "fourth person" of the trinity, god the holy ghost, boo! - the holy joker, the sense of humour, the appreciation of the validity of both sides of the contradiction, plus the possibility of adjusting/redesigning the framework to ease the contradiction?)]

People are always justifying/excusing actions or inaction with "hard work." "I worked hard for it." "I worked hard to get where I am." "I worked hard; (so) I deserve it." But they're also excusing things by blaming them on The Computer, or the Post Office: "it's a computer error; it's a bug (in the computer)"; "the check is in the mail." We used to blame things on the devil and still do, humorously: "the Devil made me do it."

But the fact that "hard work" justifies people in taking for themselves regardless of other kinds of fairness that may be in play in the situation: priority in line, age, beauty, infirmity, and regardless of the concept of sharing - not that there are any fine guidelines here - is something that even the apostle Paul was attacking 2000 years ago: "For we are justified by faith, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

But now this "faith" thing has run away with us. Our financial industry has become a cesspool of faith in the sense of unfounded optimism, happytalk, cheerleading. Bad news can't get through to the decision-makers. They're now sooo rich and insulated and isolated, negative feedback (the important kind that indicates necessary change/adaptation) gets less and less negative as it approaches them. It's one of the two huge system-science problems with our current jerry-built economic design: no feedback, as in, "Stay the course!" and "Hell of a [good] job, Brownie!"
(The other huge problem is The Great Leak Upward aka The Black Hole Economy = so much of the money supply coagulated in the top tiny fraction of the population that it has vacuumed needed spending power and circulation out of its own consumer base {via its employment basement}.)

What one point of pressure could unleash the most progress in the world today?

(We've come up with: the automatic conversion of overtime into training and hiring, valved by homeostatic adjustment of the workweek against unemployment.)

Saturday Night Live when it started had a subtext of child-to-child - now it's unwatchable with a subtext of psycho-to-psycho - it's become PSYCHORAMA !

Capitalism Ver. 2.0 - Now Ready

Our current economic design is in the crapper. It downsizes the workforce instead of timesizing, and depresses wages with an ever-larger labor surplus.
Super-wealthy decision-makers have outsmarted themselves. They have fostered such a huge labor surplus with downsizing instead of timesizing that they've basically cannibalized their own consumer base via the employment basement - and there is now insufficient marketable productivity for them to invest in. 9/26

Breath-earn and see-stern: I don't want to dwell on this or get distracted onto it as Art Dahlberg did (second book re depreciating currency), but I find ideas coming to me about "secondority" money management. If we're getting a dual economy and an income gap because of the coagulation of the money supply at the top, don't fight it - go with it a la judo/jujitsu - create a new currency just for circulation, and exchange only $100,000, $500,000 or $1,000,000 units of the old currency with it. The old can no longer buy anything but investment instruments - like a casino currency - and the investment instruments can be named by real employers but cannot touch them, for benefit or harm. The investor game can only use real employers' names for symbolic purposes. The unlimited concentration of the old currency is justisfied on the basis that it gets reinvested in jobs, but it doesn't, so go with it and make it as irrelevant and wasteful as it is = just a pastime, just a game - but now rendered harmless because we have encysted it and moved on, functionally, with a new circulating currency. 9/26/2009/ph3

We can even allow diminishing limited exchanges or percentage values of the old "credits" each year if necessary to gain the legislation.

The women in birkas are a warning to us of the terrible suffering of ecological disaster, such as the goat plague in the ancient Near East that desertified the whole area and left the previous population as a gross surplus relative to livelihood. The reproducers cloistered in beauty*-hiding sheets are the flip side of the young boys used to neutralize the active and interruptive reproductive programming of the adult males, as seen in ancient Sparta and in many Arab and Muslim populations today - see the "makework" story on 9/19/2009.

We talk a lot about freedom in this country, but we don't really have much of it when you consider that free time is probably the most basic freedom - the other freedoms aren't much good if you're too overworked to exercise them.

Mouthgasm! (description of Garrison Keillor's reactions to various spam-creation taste tests at the State Fair on 9/05/2009 - "mouthgasm" a neologism originating, as far as we know, with lumber heiress Margaret Sinclair Lindsay of Beacon Hill in Boston, Mass. at least as early as autumn 1988).

Money is little paper batteries that are recharged by changing hands and whose charges are weakened by redistribution up the income scales. The market that recharges the value of money fastest is the job market. The employer says, I will give you these colored pieces of paper in exchange for pieces of your life. And if you say yes, that money gets recharged with strong symbolic value. The financial/investment market is he most draining on the value of the currrency/symbol, because it is a third derivative - it derives from the business2business and business2consumer markets, which depend on the consumer2business market, which depends on the employment/job market. (c.8/19/ph3)

The promise of the plutocrats is, give us all the money and we will create jobs and get it circulating fastest - as if they will get it down the 'Mississippi' and out circulating in the Gulf of Mexico more efficiently than any other modality.
But what's happened instead is that they have created more derivatives and single-stock options and all kinds of other 'colored paper' to keep it among their own tiny population in the financial markets, as if they've created a much bigger Mississippi delta that absorbs all this extra water that's coming down their Mississippi, and as the Colorado never gets to the Gulf of California because it is diverted for irrigation, the Mississippi of concentrated money never gets to the Gulf of Mexico (jobs and circulation) because it is sponged up and absorbed by the hypertrophied delta (new and unaccountable investment products). (c.8/25/ph3)

This all relates to the supreme but taboo question - is there a point in the concentration of the national income and wealth where it turns self-undermining, because there is no longer the volume and velocity of currency circulation to provide investment destinations of sufficient scale and stability, let alone growth, to maintain the value of the investment capital put into them.

Our current economic design deactivates adn wastes hundreds of billions of dollars coalesced, compressed and coagulated into the top tiny fraction of the population, and at the same time,
deactivates and wastes hundreds of millions of consumers in all the rest of the population by starving them for spending power and the free time to use it in the shops and markets of the nation.

The argument always was that the topmost fraction needs as much of the money supply as possible in order to create jobs, but lately they've only been creating derivatives and other ways of bloating the economically meaningless or damaging delta that stops the river of national income from flowing into the sea of consumption and high-velocity circulation. And the trillion$ in this delta has simply been vanishing without trace or traceability, like votes for change in our no-paper-trails election system.
(Kate, c.8/24/09)

Unemployment is a function of overlong workweek length relative to level of worksaving technology, comprising mechanization, automation and robotization.
8/22/2009/ph3 fm 3d&Bk Bridgehead w Dian 8/21/09

Time is THE issue! (fm note on sp/09 Gat bus sched)

Ostracize the ostentatious! (fm note on sp/09 Gat bus sched)

CEOs and B-achools are always talking about the discipline of labor but the real and long-term problem is the discipline of management. And the greater the labor surplus, the more that management skills deteriorate and the less discipline of management. Who needs management skills when you're getting 5000 desperate resumes for every 5 openings, 5000 desperate youngsters who'll work for less? Just lay off your costly older workers and hire twenty-somethings for minimum wage. 8/22/2009

Free trade is like we shouldn't put fences around our gardens. We shouldn't apply pesticides or weedkillers. We shouldn't even figure out organic protections, which is what the Japanese have with their multiple languages in one and their multiple scripts. Globalization is like we shouldn't have quarantines to limit contagions.

The invisible hand in economics is simply a very visible hand in the political sphere spreading its balancing influence across job dialects into the economic sphere, specifically the better-feedback technique of one-person one-vote (suffrage) leaking its better adaptibilty across the membrane into the economic command centers (plutocracy) of a socioeconomy.

The only worthy goal for the ambitious person is to "save the world" - meaning, specifically, to identify and solve the biggest problem of his/her lifetime and push its implementation as far as possible before s/he dies. If someone else or others 'get it' and jump on this bandwagon, move onto the next one. This is in line with Bucky Fuller's advice: "The Universe may not call on you [to perform the top priority service in your bailiwick] - just be ready if it does." 7/30/09

kernel of FAQs page for timesizing =
but how do you convince the unions or the vast majority when cutting hours and reducing workweeks cuts wages?
answer: cutting hours does not cut wages in the bigger picture or the longer term - it raises them.
why? how? because cutting hours cuts labor surplus.
prove it from history!
Oookaaay - notice that as surplus labor hours were withdrawn from the job market in World Wars 1 and 2, the mainstream media magically switched from complaining about weak markets to complaining about wage-push inflation - in other words, rising wages that employers could not control - so as usual, still complaining about big government and government intervention, they dragged in government to set up "wage and price control boards" to stop this "runaway inflation" - actually a healthy and natural correction reducing the huge overconcentration of the money supply in the top income and wealth brackets by reducing the value of the quantities in the pockets of the rich while giving greater quantities to the non-rich who actually need and want to circulate it, dba "spend it" rather than "invest it." (7/16/2009)

Americans are getting screeewed by their dreams of being rich - and their consequent over-tolerance for the unlimited concentration of the money supply, however disfunctional and distorting to the society and the economy. (7/05)

Worksharing capitalism, relative to frozen-workweek capitalism, is like the alphabet compared to Chinese pictograms. It frees up so many human resources for other more important purposes. (6/28)

Inflation is achieved when the system design distributes more and more money to the people to whom it means least = the wealthy, while deflation is achieved when the system design distributes more and more money to the people to whom it means most = the poor. (6/17)

Bill Clinton is just a stretch version of Mickey Rooney.

"Some years ago a veteran member of the House of Representatives, retiring from that body after 18 years' service to become governor of a great state, sagely remarked that the secret of his success had been never to vote for a tax or against an appropriation." From "They Never Die" by Sen. Bennett Champ Clark in Jan/1936 Reader's Digest p.69.
Come to think of it, this is voting always and only for a free lunch, and against sustainability. For dumb parasitism and slow system-suicide. The way post-war Italy got around this is that PM Luigi Einaudi pushed through a law saying that no government spending bill could be passed without a prior or accompanying government funding bill to finance it.

Thee-ye and thou-you are the only front-end plurals in English. Was the only original spelling the 'y' forms and the only original pronunciation the 'edh' (voiced 'th') but when 'y' started being used in the modern pronunciation as old 'i' before a vowel in Latin (consonantal highfront constriction/onglide), did some influential population in another county start 'mispronouncing' thee and thou (spelt 'ye' and 'you') as /ye/ and /you/? (6/12)
Note that in modern spoken French, the plural has been displaced from the noun head onto an optional article. Unmodified nouns are therefore unmarked as to singular or plural in the spoken language (unless followed by a word starting with a vowel?). Does this bias the language toward articles and adjectives, i.e., wordiness?

The phrase, "trial and error," is misleading - it omits the really interesting part. It should be, "trial, and error, and cumulative success." But the introduction of the word "success" pushes out the word 'error' in favor of the opposite of 'success,' namely 'failure.' So, "trial, and failure, and cumulative success." But 'trial' really means 'experiment.' And Buckminster Fuller said no experiment is a failure because you can't learn less, you have to learn more - and that 'more' is cumulative. As Steve Bailey points out in his biological anthropology classes at Tufts University in Boston Mass., it's not 'what are the odds of a monkey typing Shakespeare?' (impossibly small) but if each time the monkey gets something right it is saved and he can build on it, the odds get vastly better. "Getting something right" here is coming up with a mutation that adapts better to the current state of the changing environment - that better adaptation will spread and replace the worse. Hence, what is the basic game of the Universe? "To CONTINUE." But not only just 'to continue' but, "to CONTINUE, AND...whatever continues better, CONTINUES BETTER." (6/10/2009)

First and second-world poverty have similar sources, namely, the unlimited concentration of the national income and wealth within the topmost income brackets of the population, allowed by rising technological worksavings and the gradual peacetime deepening of general labor surplus and market-depressed prices of a key surplus commodity, human labor hours, all made possible by the rigid control of official workweeks at arbitrarily high levels and their metamorphosis into a minimum from a maximum. So poverty in both is based on time blindness.
But third world poverty has an additional source = the IMF and the World Bank, as cynical pawns of the most paranoid and weapons-selling policy makers of the USA - forcing little countries into megadebts they can't possibly repay and if their leaders are too intelligent or honest to play ball, assassinating them. See John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, which corroborated from the inside decades of research by Noam Chomsky. (6/09/09)

Songs that juxtapose extreme opposites:

There's too much at stake in a high tech world to keep this many people this insecure - and it's easy to design full employment and job security for all if we sacrifice one constant = the workweek, and convert overtime into training and hiring. (5/29)

Basically, by concentrating the national work and income and wealth on a few people, you get the multiplier effect working against you, but by spreading the national work and income and wealth around on many people, you get the multiplier effect working for you. Why aren't mainstream economists pushing this? (5/27)

After reading pages 399-400 of Phillip Knightley's excellent book, "The First Casualty [when war comes is truth - Sen. Hiram Johnson, 1917] - From the Crimea to Vietnam: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist, and Myth Maker" [1975], I conclude that the United States of America is Genocide Central, and has absolutely no standing to criticize any other nation for genocide, racism, or anything whatsoever until we clean up our own act. These pages describe "Operation Speedy Express" in the Vietnam War, part of an "accelerated pacification program, where one American official estimated that, of the 11,000 Vietnamese who had been killed, 5,000 were been non-combatants. No wonder we didn't welcome our soldiers home as heroes from that war, although our power elite = weapons manufacturers and their lobbyists and investors, and not our soldiers, bear the primary blame.

Some merchants have the crazy idea that they can enhance consumers' confidence by tricking them. For example, on WCRB-FM 7 am radio news in Boston, folded right in with Malcolm Alter's traffic report is some commercial one-liner - as if it's part of the traffic report. Compare Bill Black's observation in his Bill Moyers interview that the bankers are trying to restore the public's confidence by lying to them. (5/27)

Re the 4/22 Economist 'get the rich' but 'that could be dangerous' - humanity's braindead focus on riches has become even more dangerous - it's time we focused on effectiveness in very long-term survival on this planet regardless of money or fame. The rich think they're in touch but they gradually insulate and isolate themselves from any negative consequences from the huge decision-making power they have gathered to themselves - and this makes for a huge complex system with no system feedback. Also, the idea that there is no point of diminishing returns in the concentration, by a small population, of a nation's (or a planet's) income and wealth is unexamined and increasingly dubious. (5/24)

The spectacle of the world's power elite milling around in abject fear and trembling of the next main steps in economic design enhancement and keeping the key terms - employment (full, no matter how short a workweek it takes), overconcentration (designed OUT), overtime (automatically converted into training and jobs) - out of the mainstream discussion ... is truly pathetic and destructive...for themselves as well as everyone else.

The biggest inefficiency in current capitalist design is 'the great leak upwards' = the fact that CEOs can manipulate 'free market forces' by bottlenecking their skills and contacts and thereby inflate their pay without limit, and that means dysfunctionally to the point of system deterioration via cannbalizing their own employment and consumer base foundations.

What we've got in our prevailing economic design is a jerry-built string of outhouses, not an economic edifice with a coherent disease-prevention program. (5/21)

How about this for a cue that we're passing the point where the concentration of the nation's income and wealth is positive and useful and functional and it's now starting to become system-undermining and self-undermining (over-concentration): the jump in the historic levels of stocks' P/E ratios in the early 1990s, meaning that the few in the top brackets were acquiring sooo huge a percentage of the nation's money supply that they had NO ALTERNATIVE but to throw it into the stock market, over-valuing everything and motivating the invention of all kinds of complex instruments like derivatives and single-stock futures that took us right back to 1928. (5/20)

Why strain to disprove that "technology creates more jobs than it destroys"? If someone agrees that technology saves work and makes life easier, then it cannot also be true that "techology creates more jobs than it destroys," any more than Geithner's two statements, "the banks need $4 trillion more" and "the banks are fully capitalized" can both be true. (5/20)
Then there's our the hypocrisy of our power elite with their worship of growth yet their own inflation-fighting tool clobbers growth (raising interest rates), their blather about fighting inflation and their eagerness to court hyperinflation by printing money when they've corrupted their financial system, their rhetoric about win win and their preserving sanctity of contract only among themselves and not with their employees.... It goes on and on. (5/21)

Aging involves an increasing divergence between how you see yourself and how strangers see you. You notice yourself passing by in store windows with increasing surprise and concern. ("That is not really me!")

To make the concept of 'work' work, AND to make the concept of market forces work in the determination of wages (and prices), we need to limit worktime per person as we introduce more and more work-shouldering technology. There is no sustainable alternative. (5/19)
Getting rid of all the surplus labor hours by war also, inefficiently, gets rid of a lot of valuable customers and spenders and purchasers.
Dragging government (and taxpayers) in as employer (and charity) of last resort means unending artificial job creation to support a frozen antique of a workweek. It means all kinds of superfluous production and disposability and pollution and built-in obsolescence that the environment can no longer absorb. It means more and more anxious overscheduled people who still have overlong 'full time' employ\ment on one side, and on the other side, more and more below the poverty line, and more and more un- or under-employed poor, homeless, 'disabled', incarcerated, 'self-employed' and suicides.

If we ask Bill Gates (or Warren Buffett) - If you had 100% of the national money supply, would there still be a functioning national US economy? No? Then it is hypothetically possible for too much money to be concentrated on too few people for an economy to function? Yes? Then how about 99% of the money supply owned by you and Warren (or Bill)? Still too much concentration? Then how do we find out where to draw the line on how much money to let concentrate on how few people? (5/09)

Maybe central bank goals are just like union goals:
If unions can only get one thing and it's higher pay and not shorter hours, they wind up with neither because they've just artificially slapped a higher price on a surplus commodity, labor, and market forces are flowing around their 'rock' like water. But if they only get one and it's shorter hours, they wind up with both shorter hours and higher pay because shorter hours reduces the labor surplus and harnesses market forces to raise wages and benefits.
Similarly, if central banks can only get one thing and it's controlled inflation and not full employment, they wind up with neither because the money printing they have to do in ignoring the employment and consumer markets to save the top-heavy financial markets, after an initial period of deflation, triggers massive hyperinflation.
But if they only target one thing and it's full employment - with automatic overtime-to-training&hiring conversion - they wind up with both full employment and controlled inflation, because they unleash the deflationary voluntarism within the workforce. 5/08

Here's the connection I've been looking for:
With contemporary consumption capitalism, we have the Gospel of Consumption - more and more lower quality (see "Chrysler's nagging quality issues," 5/13/2009,WSJ,D1), cheap, disposable gadgets, tools, appliances and vehicles stressing the environment and lots of lower-paid, overscheduled working hours and no free time to watchdog cushioned decision makers or think further ahead than tonight's dinner ... leading to a few lower-quality cheap disposable employees ... and lots of desperate poor marginalized people dba contingent workers or army-enlisted or incarcerated or homeless or suicides, sorta like China.* This means lots of advertising to generate lots of phony 'needs' to motivate lots of consumption at any cost - meaning at the cost of the environment that sustains all.
Before consumption capitalism got so intense, we had fewer higher-quality, more expensive, repairable gadgets, tools, appliances and vehicles, and more working hours and lots of financially secure free time to watchdog and think way way ahead ... leading to many higher-paid minimally burdened employees and few below the poverty line.
(idea credit: Kate 9am 5/07)
In the future after we get beyond consumption capitalism to leisure capitalism, it will be the same as before consumption capitalism except the invasion of the workplace by the gadgets means fewer higher-paid working hours carefully spread around and shared among more consumers to maintain consumer markets.
So the basic connection between worktime economics and ecological economics is the one explored by Hunnicutt (Work Without End) in his Gospel of Consumption chapter - in the choice between more leisure or more consumption, our cushioned elite picked the wrong one for us (and them) in the 1920s and its cost has been growing ever since. They decided that they wanted more control over people's lives, therefore longer workweeks instead of more of the fundamental freedom, free time, which some of them fear, and to justify longer workweeks they needed more production to fill those longer workweeks, and...more consumption (spending and purchasing) and ... more advertising to motivate that consumption. Hence the 'Gospel of Consumption.' The weakness, of course, is that they were sabotaging their own drive for more marketable production with technological displacement of human workers and as Reuther pointed out to Ford, technology doesn't spend and purchase (ie: 'consume'). So they had a triple contradiction going - fewer workers to do the spending, less time to do the spending, and lower wages to spend. Fewer workers because of more automation and robotization. Less time because of longer workweeks. And lower wages because of technology-fostered labor surplus they created by following technology with downsizing instead of the promised timesizing.

If we start the whole chain of deterioration with the downsizing response to technology ...

Ergo, consumption capitalism has absolutely no standing to talk about efficiency (or productivity!) - nor does it even have uncontradictory logic.

(*This is based on the broken promise: "technology will make your life easier" - but only if it's followed by hourscuts, not jobcuts. It's a bait and switch. cuz they keep delivering jobcuts, not hourscuts. Then there's "technology creates more jobs than it destroys" - but not if it's followed by jobcuts instead of hourscuts. Or maybe technology+jobcuts creates more jobs for doctors and lawyers by generating sickness and stress a la Gilbert & Sullivan's "Utopia Ltd.")

I don't have the time to dance indefinitely with a robot receptionist or grope through menus and wait indefinitely to get a new credit card authorized (or converge with the who's who woman) - CEOs have cut their own investment base by transfering more and more responsibilities onto consumers' shoulders and imposing more and more on their time. 5/07

Need a webpage devoted to: Docking the Timesizing solution craft with various diagnostic ships or problem worlds.

Here's a story whose header begs the question of how joblessness and poverty relate:
Joblessness spurs shift in Japan's views on poverty - Rising unemployment gives new heft [not New Left] to activist Makoto Yuasa's campaign to secure more government help for the poor, by John Murphy, 5/2-3/2009 WSJ, A5.
Never is the link clearly put: People with good jobs aren't poor, so to solve poverty, solve joblessness.
In fact, all the headline means to imply is that Japanese are getting more sympathy for the poor - why did they need it before when there was full lifetime employment for all based on makework and featherbedding? But they're now taking the wrong conclusion = more government charity instead of more private-sector work sharing. (5/07)

In terms of great ideas, fluctuating, automatic work sharing and spreading is a big one. It is being reinvented thousands of times a day all over the world but it's still completely missing from the mainstream discussion in the largest economy (US). I suspect that all the pain and suffering it takes to get it into the mainstream discussion and fully implemented is in store for us/US. (5/04)

Yesterday (4/30) I had a revolution in ideas. I thought, if the plutocrats are having a hard time connecting the dots between the workforce and the consumer base, their employees and their customers and markets, then I'll help them. Instead of designing for the unemployment rate to decide the length of the workweek (higher UE, lower wkwk, & v.v.) - when they don't care about the unemployed or the poor (or they think entirely in terms of their-call charity & not systemically) - then let's design for the GDP or 'sales' data or whatever is the most worrisome indicator of the month to control the workweek. They've almost completely dropped Employment from their thinking and their vocabulary anyway. Even some big supposedly counter-gurus like Dmitry Orlov and Gary Schilling have dropped all thought of employment. An 'employment collapse' does not figure among Orlov's "Five Stages of Collapse" at all, and in identify "five factors inhibiting future growth" Schilling makes no mention of unemployment - like they've both bought into the BS that finance (lending and paying back) is the ground and basis of the economy, and not jobs and sales (validating colored pieces of paper by exchanging pieces of your life for them).

Today (5/01) I had another revolution in ideas. I thought, hyperinflation always occurs in the presence of massive debt. In Germany in 1920, it was the massive vengeful indemnities that the allies loaded on Germany, even though they were just as stupid, destructive and guilty.* So maybe its opposite is blindingly simple = massive debt forgiveness. In fact, just as inflation is nature's way of gently centrifuging hyperconcentrations of money in the tiny top brackets, so hyperinflation is nature's way of virtually cancelling all the astronomical IOU's that this tiny portion of the population is holding, since they don't have the sense either to cancel them themselves or enable their debtors to repay them by providing sufficient employment with good pay, and maintaining the circular convection system of the economy.
*These days the massive debt is provided by stupidity compounded: The wealthy have been staving off a reality check (dba 'correction') for at least thirty years with one investment bubble after another. *These days the background of massive debt is provided by stupidity compounded: The wealthy have been staving off a reality check (dba 'correction') for at least thirty years with one investment bubble after another. It started in the Reagan era with the military-industrial bubble. But then that darn Gorbachev preached glasnost (openness) and tore down the Berlin Wall. So the MIC (military-industrial complex) had to scurry around like lab rats and trump up another threat. Presto, the incomprehensible writing and music of The Arab Street was waiting to be exploited, especially with increasingly angry, greedy and provocative governments coming to power in our toy theocracy, Israel, and providing an endless lode of Nobel Prizes that we could mine forever without solving or depleting it. The Mideast Problem, focussing on how do we torment the impoverished homeless and wounded bull of dispossessed Palestinians to puhleez do one more provocative act to justify more massive purchases of weapons systems from our lobbyists and campaign donors (a la "we've abandoned our democracies to the political donor class"- David Cay Johnston? via Diane?).

OK, the Long Trail of Bubbles (maybe native Americans can take this as revenge(neg.karma) for the Trail of Tears) =

  1. the Cold War till Gorby went and spoiled it
  2. the First Gulf War till Bush Sr. spoiled/stopped it by respecting the Iraq border and not crossing over and grabbing Saddam Hussein
  3. then there was the Dot-Com Bubble aka The Internet Revolution, bolstered by special spin from the bigboys to the effect that this was The New Economy where actually getting returns on your investment was just So Old and passé and finally spoiled by the realization that there were just not enough grannies with email yet so the markets just weren't yet there to provide enough sales and profits and dividends;
  4. then there was Cheney's MIC bubble where he lets Osama clobber the Twin Towers so he can keep saying terror-Saddam together tho they had zero connection and trump up phantom WMDs to invade Iraq and get upclose and personal with those detailed Iraq oilfield maps that he and his secret tho public-financed energy task force were examining in March 2001 and give another try for Wartime Prosperity and give a lot of unbid contracts to his buddies in Halliburton and Wackenhut and Lockheed Martin and that was all spoiled by the efficiency of modern weapons - not enough Americans were killed to engineer the perceived Labor Shortage with which alone, Capitalism Works Well - just innocent but US-economy-irrelevant Iraqis were killed by the 100,000s - so that hope for staving off the correction aka Great Reckoning trailed off and petered out into unending government change and mutual recriminations, much like Israel and Palestine - with the added bennie of Afghanistan where we can pretend to hunt Osama indefinitely while reaping the poppy harvest and outstaring our pet Pakistani...
  5. then there was the annex to the great record Tribeca Debt (record consumer, corporate and government debt) = the Housing Bubble, like the rest ever waiting for a real workout&stardom in the wings, this time democratized by multiple late-nite-TV get-rich real-estate schemes (I myself bought the one with the shared ownership where you put up the downpayment and hope they default so's you kin take over the whole property yerself, yahoo! them hicks dint need this here house ennyways! - they kin go back livvin with Mom) - but this bubble was popped by overwhelmment by the Great Record Tribeca, specifically Record Consumer Debt, so maybe that should have its own paragraph...
  6. the final abyss of The Record Indebtedness of the Consumer Base = or catchier, the Great Creditcard Bubble - let's see how many creditcards we can load on these people (parallel to, let's see how high a mortgage we can load on these rubes by gittin them to lie on their mtg applications about their jobs and income and we promise not to check, ergo Liars' Loans and Toxic Assets) - push em up to their credit lines and keep raising them credit lines, keep shortening the grace period, keep hiking Late Fees so's even if they pay off monthly, we've got our $30 old mbrship fee outa just one month's extortionate Late Fee - and that finally started toppling tho we rationalized it as Saving the World with the American Consumer Miracle - Import to Us - We'll Buy Anything frum Yoo aslongas it's cheaper than our fellow Amerkins can offer it so's we kin continue to screw ourselves and coupdegrace the Merkin ekonomie of which we are all a suicidal part. I guess this Bubble burst cuz the creditcard companies chickened out on infinitely raising our credit lines and got too nasty about dunning us for the last coupla months of exhorbitant Late Fees.
  7. at any rate the Great Merkin Consumer Miracle started weakening, and that precipitated the Record Corporate Loan Collapse, and that in turn triggered the great Financial/Banking Collapse, and now we're waiting for the great Record Government Loan Collapse (GLC), which brings us back to hyperinflation, because you stave off the GLC ultimately by printing money, and that makes money totally meaningless.
So we've had the superrich push us into debt that we can't possibly repay - with liars' loans and toxic assets - exactly the same as they did to many Third World countries per Chomsky and John Perkins - and now they have the suicidal gall to double the problem by forcing us to 'bail them out' and give THEM credit from the already bankrupt consumerbase aka taxpayerbase now that these idiots have sluffed off graduated income taxes and estate taxes ('death tax') and any other taxes they dislike with their army of job-desperate lawyers. This is just lies upon lies, mirage upon mirage, and the result either has to be major debt forgiveness that many are recommending to free the Third World, or, a hyperinflation such as has never been seen.
The system simply cannot afford their trillion-dollar pretensions, built on a scaffolding of complex, design-to-obscure financial instruments. Basically, the rich, one way or another, have to PAY THEMSELVES OFF, because no one else has that kind of money - they have it all. And there are three gentle ways for them to do this =
  1. wartime levels of steepness in graduated income taxes and inheritance taxes
  2. simple and outright debt forgiveness such as some are advocating on Third World debt
  3. worksharing to restore the employment and consumer bases no matter how low a workweek and how much skill liquidity that requires
If they don't have the long-range whole-system perspective to do it gently, or if we don't have the guts to make them correct it all gently and consciously, it will self-correct roughly and disastrously. That involves hyperinflation and you can read about what happens then in The Penniless Billionaires or Bertoldt Brecht's Berlin.

I argue that the first step in any correction is to restore the real base and foundation of any economy, the employment base dba the job market. If we don't want to adjust the workweek downward against unemployment, or sales weakness, then we can adjust it downward against financial weakness. We need to restore confidence, and only specifiably extended sharing can do that. And the easiest variable to share first is work in terms of worktime, and the skills that it requires. And the Timesizing program is the easiest and most gradual and most market-oriented way to do that. It has the added bonus of giving everyone more free time and more money to pursue all their more detailed agendas from single-payer healthcare to conversion from fossil fuels and global warming, and maybe most importantly, watchdogging, because as long as they've got us job-insecure and running around over-scheduled, we don't have what it takes to watch what they're doing as they drift off on another planet-mirage and pursue their money-acquisition games so robotically and insulatedly that their policy becomes Suicide - Everyone Else First.

First they start by ruining and starving the powerless in the Third World so it's illegal for them to grow their own food or plant their own seed - self-sufficiency has become illegal internationally and they'll selectively enforce this even though they won't enforce international laws against torture. Then when the Third World is either bankrupt or self-insulated from their clearcutting and dragnetting, they turn to their own fellow citizens, their own fellow Americans, and ramp up the money vacuums on them with Liars' Loans and Predatory Lending and Mortgaging. But the closer they come to themselves, the more obvious it becomes that they're off on some totally unsustainable balloon/zeppelin, with no one on the ground holding the string/cable. And the planet Earth ain't goin with them, and one way or another they'll change, either by having the string/cable break somehow, or by getting pulled back to Earth with everyone else somehow.

You can't keep indefinitely loading the gold cargo of a gold galleon in the crow's nest without the mainmast shattering or the ship tipping and foundering. One way or another it is going to stop. So the super-rich can either cooperate with a gentle stop and reversal of the accelerating upsizing of ever fewer of them and downsizing of ever more of everyone else, or - it will happen non-gently. And so far, Obama ain't anywhere near a gentle stop. By 'bailing' them 'out,' he's just delaying and exponentially extremifying the inevitable. It is now almost impossible that the USA should continue as gently as the UK as their empire changed - and had their cultural offspring in the US to help gentle things. Now the only economy remotely capable of helping out is China, and with the second-most alien culture (after Japan) and the most acute overpopulation and ecodisaster problems in the world, and therefore the least fundamental value on individual human life among the (semi-)advanced economies, - what they call 'gentle' is a lot rougher than what we call 'gentle.' Look at their exposure of female babies. Look at their toxic ingredients in baby formula.

If the current evangelical push of atheism does nothing but totally destroy the obstacles, mostly religious, to birth control (and any very sadly necessary abortions), it will have performed a vital survival function for humanity. The religious objections are curious, because religions generally viewed the spirit as entering the body with the first breath at birth. In fact, Hebrew has the same word for breath and spirit (ruach) and so does Greek (pneuma). In Hebrew, the 'soul' (nephesh) is the whole ship, the 'heart' (leb or lebhab) is the rudder (directionality) and the 'spirit' (ruach) is the sails - 'ruach' means wind as well as breath and spirit. As Jesus said, The wind (to pneuma) bloweth (pnei) where it listeth (thelei =wants/wishes) and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh nor whither it goeth; so is everyone that is born from-out of-the Spirit (ek tou Pneumatos - John 3:8).

Until we get the money back away from the robotic acquirers and unlimited money concentrators and (perforce) hoarders in the highest brackets, and back into circulation via wages for work, we are going down, we are reversing the exponential multiplier effect and engaging the exponential divider effect or diminishing effect, we are acceleratingly letting the air out of the economy (deflating) till there'll be nothing left but a black water stain as when the Wicked Witch of the West got doused with water in the land of Oz. (4/29)

One of the biggest mistakes in philately alias stamp collecting is mistaking George V (KGV - hair on top) for his dad, Edward VII (KEVII - bald). Of course, it's usually in the self-interest of a seller to make this mistake because Edward VII stamps, being older, generally have a higher catalog value than George V stamps.

We need a sys admin (system administrator) for the economic system just as we have for corporate computer systems - when the money-obsessed Type A's with the most money keep vacuuming up the money supply past the point of system sustainability and start shrinking ('depressing') the system, the sys admin would step in and start adjusting upward graduated income and estate taxes, and adjusting downward sales taxes and the national workweek. (4/28)

"There is something unnatural about marriage," Dustin Hoffman admits. "These two people are not going to be the same people in a few years." Recognizing that, he says, has been the key to the success of his second marriage. "The trick is to live your own life while sharing the same space." (AARP Magazine, April 2009, p.43.)

Retort to latest Harvard fundraising appeal - It's a depression because of the unlimited concentration of the nation's money supply by the likes of Harvard - it's time to start spending down your $25-30 billion endowment - or hyperinflation will do it for you.

Somebody (Rosemary Scragg of Ottawa?) had a rhyme for finding a penny lately - "See a penny, pick it up: the rest of the day you'll have good luck. See a penny, let it lie: you'll have bad luck till you die."

I think El Woodworth of Baltimore has some more of - "I'm off like a herd of turtles...", starting with "I'm off like a herd of fertile turtles...". Then there's the NooYock version: "I'm off like a hoid of toitles."

Worktime economics and its followup upgrades in economic and social system design generations provide a series of Benchmarks of Progress for humanity over the next few centuries. I believe this is unique on the Internet, so faute de mieux, it will have determinative influence, since otherwise it's all just pathetic wandering in a polluted marsh. (4/23)

I have been on many cusps - the shift from religion (even fundamentalism) to system science and evolution - and by my definition of religion (rereading), Hinduism may be the oldest surviving religion but is not the oldest. The oldest religion would occur in the culture that first developed writing and contemporary records, namely, Sumer, in c.3200 BC.

Think of all the things people are doing to save the world. But how inefficient it all is. And how diverse it all is. and most of that diverse effort must be wasted or possibly even hastening ecological collapse.
I have a map on my wall from Doctors Without Borders: 'We go where conditions are worst - the places where others are not going - and that's where we want to be.' Sounds so noble. But it's one-on-one level rather than systemic, and it costs a lot. And did I say how noble and compelling and full of bleeding-heart human-interest appeal? It's like political correctness. It's so taken over our minds that we can hardly here opinions that it might not be anywhere near the smartest and most strategy for saving the world.
Then there's that girl from Manitoba? at the Montreal SCM of Canada meeting last summer who just explicitly wanted to work long hours for low pay helping people, never mind that her 'happy slave' attitude is exactly what destroys the livelihoods of billions of people.
Then there's this guy in yesterday's Le Droit of Gatineau (4/16/2009), p.25, Alexis Drouin ('Sur les traces d'Alexander MacKenzie') who's convinced himself that searching for an extreme challenge in terms of re-enacting physical history is important or worthwhile, never mind any productive lasting output whatsoever - and he's GETTING MEDIA for it - retracing a 1793 exploratory trip of Alexander Mackenzie in the Canadian Northwest under as similar conditions as possible.
Goddallmidey, think of the money and effort poured down these sinkholes which, if focused and strategized, would improve conditions on this planet sooo fast. My candidate for the most efficient strategy is disarming the wealthy status-quo protectors of their powerful livelihood card and designing for full employment and ubiquitous on-the-job training via timesizing. This would give everyone more free time, the most fundamental freedom, and more money, due to resulting labor shortage, to pursue all these lower-level agendas, many of which are more important than any of the three agendas mentioned above, for example, watchdogging our financial community - for which we need thousands more volunteers.
Is it possible to construct a diagnostic-like flowchart to convince any uncommitted person, step by step, that timesizing is the most efficient and disciplinedly strategic approach to saving the world? I've thought of this fuzzily many times but never developed it. A book that would do it, perhaps. There's gotta be potential here. Why worksharing? Why unemployment or underemployment first? Why not poverty or starvation or disease or re-enacting exploration, or anything as long as we're overworked and underpaid? (4/17)

Dédié a Hervé Kempf - quelques idees ...

Un court? courriel pour t'avertir que l'adresse courriel (email) dans mon 'campaign piece' (Timesizing, Not Downsizing) est vieux - le nouveau courriel est simplement timesizing.com (ou meme, doomdujour.com en franglais pcq je cherche les pires 'headlines' chaq jour pour demontrer aux lecteurs les contradictions et tendences suicidales de notre dessin contemporain de capitalisme.

La reduction de la semaine de travail a un niveau plus santeux avec notre present niveau d'efficace technologie sera un tres bon vehicule pour nous amener en dehors de notre present espece suicidale de capitalisme, et tres facile de mesurer.

Le site web developpe un nouveau(?) flaveur d'economics du point de vue de population relative entre employees et employeurs, ou entre job candidates et job openings, que nous traduisons dans heures de labeur en offre/vente et heures d'emploi demandé par les forces naturelles du Marché Libre, et que nous appelons 'worktime economics.' Nous suivons la trace de worktime economics au moins au 1819 livre de Sismondi 'Nouveux Principes d'Economie.'

En effet, je n'ai pas bien compris vos paroles hier soir mais je pense que t'as attache beaucoup d'importance a 1980. Pour moi aux Etats Unis, c'est 1970 quand les babyboomers ont grandi et entré dans les marches d'emploi = et remplacé le surplus de labeur de la Great Depression qui a ete reduit par la reduction des heures 1938-39-40, 44-42-40 heures, 19,0-17,2-14,6% chaumage - et puis soudainement par le commencement de la deuxieme guerre du monde = world war II = WW2. Et la guerre a fait tout le monde oublié l'approche de couper la semaine de travaille, alors, ca est gelé au niveau de 1940.

Environs 1970, les salaires, qui se haussent depuis 1941-45, ont arrete (stagnated) par la restoration du surplus de labeur. Alors les femmes (housewives) ont entre dans les marches d'emplois pour aider leur maris - ca a fait la situation pire pcq le surplus de labeur est devenu plus profond et les forces de marche l'ont puni. Puis les democrats (parti pol.) ont hausse le quota d'immigration et ont passe plusieurs amnesties pour les illegales, et ca a fait la situation pire. Les minorites americains deja ici ont vu leur salaires se baissent. Les consommateurs americains ne peuvent plus consomment leur propre produit = beaucoup de productivite mais marches plus en plus faibles.

Alors j'ai l'impression que seulement les considerations des heures de travail, de la taille de la semaine de travail, coupes en moitie de 80 a 40 1849-1940 mais geles depuis 1940/WW2, peuvent expliquer la plupart de nos troubles depuis 1970-80 - et peuvent servir comme vehicule de notre sortie de la capitalisme suicidale. Et la partie centrale d'aucune solution doit etre ce que Walter Reuther (AFL, UAW) a appele la fluctuation de la semaine de travail contre le chaumage = pour balancer le niveau de technologie haussant - tout pendant que la technologie n'est pas gelé, la semaine de travail ne doit pas etre gelé, meme si nous devrons travailler les semaines alternants - autrement, le power gradient entre employees et employeurs restera grand, il y auront trop peu de 'watchdogs' sur le 'power elite' - pcq tout le monde est insecure et travaille plus en plus long pour eviter etre mis a pied, et les riches prendent plus en plus des revenus nationaux et s'isoler et s'insuler plus en plus = moins en moins de system feedback = Bush Jr.: 'stay the course!' 'helluva good job, Brownie!' etc. - trop trop plus d'argent concentré qu'ils peuvent depenser certainement et puis plus meme qu'ils peuvent investir soutainablement pcq la fraction des revenus nationaux qui ne va a eux est trop peu pour fournir marches pour tout le productivite dans lequel ils ont deja investi, surtout augmente maintenant par l'automation et le robotisation... conclusion = rebalancer tout par maintenir la semaine de travail fluide et couper couper coupe - au moins une heure par annee comme la France a voulu faire 1982-1987 mais ca a arrete avec seulement un coupage (alors le 39 heures pour 18 ans). Mais aussi, temps supplementaire (overtime=OT) doit se convertir aux emplois (et formation si necessaire) glissement, par exemple, par un impot sur OT et un exemption complete pour re-investir dans embauchage(?) ciblé par le OT...

En effet, appliquer les memes principes de dessin qu'on applique partout sauf que dans l'economie = homeostatique, automatique, thermostatique dessin. Le temps de travail est tellement important avec influence sur tout - Sismondi lui a dedie un chapitre dans son livre de 1819 Les Nouveaux Principes de l'Economie - si important et terrifiant aux riches que c'est n'est pas traduit en anglais jusqua 1991 (par Richard Hyse).

Time (le temps? ou = weather?) est le quantificateur supreme. C'est un espece de momentum, un momentum etandardisé - il a de l'influence sur tout, partout. C'est le moment pour le balancer.

Hervé Kempf is speaking at UQO-Taché tonite - drilling down, his only suggestion for a mechanism to act as a strategic vehicle to carry us out of unsustainable capitalism seems to be steeply graduated taxes to close the income gap - which suffers from not exactly being in line with the antitax mood of the decade, and from being arbitrary, since he seems to mention no homeostatic linkage, The timesizing approach uses taxation only as a transitional measure which is cut back drastically once full employment guaranteed by fluctuating adjustment of the workweek against unemployment and overtime-to-training&hiring obsoletes the 60-70% of modern government devoted to the roles of employer and charity of last resort.

In the ecological age where overpopulation has become the big background bogeyman, social sex has surpassed reproductive sex as quality of life has surpassed quantity of life for humanity, and sex has become a hobby, much like religion in the age of science* - sex itself has become a self-morale manager, like drugs, but sex is biodrugs, so it's healthier, in fact, organically integrated into and designed for your individual body - and it's a longevitizer, because 'active sex life' appears somewhere on everyone's survey results of what makes for longer life (after seeing 'How about a kiss' = 'Un baiser, s'il vous plait' twice.) 4/12

the basic social unit has shifted from the reproductive pair to the productive person, from the procreative couple to the creative individual

*since 're-ligion' = re-reading, has broadened and deepened into re-experimenting, re-experiencing, retesting, reverifying, rebuilding agreement/consensus/'truth'...

If we could ever possibly see thru the incredible white noise of modern distractions to the single question, what's the least we can do to get the greatest good for the greatest number, we would come upon the incredibly simple, basic and systemically applicable common sense of automatic, unemployment-determined work sharing.

It's not full employment that's the root and source of inflation - it's the meaninglessness of money to the people who have the most of it, the wealthy and superwealthy. Example: they can be crying poor even though they've just lent somebody $100,000.

I'm just finishing The First Casualty [in war is truth] = a history of war correspondents since Crimea, which reveals that job desperation and the weapons manufacturers and newspaper publishers have controlled the murderous and wasteful disgrace that has passed for 'foreign policy' for at least the last 50 years.

Next is the subject of hyperinflation - as described in Max Shapiro's Penniless Billionaires and Eckhardt & Gilman's Bertolt Brecht's Berlin.

Work sharing lays the groundwork for money sharing.

Money sharing must be done in three forms in this precise order:
1. income sharing
2. wealth sharing
3. credit sharing
And it must be done fast, starting with work sharing, because the relatively tiny number of people with all the money are faster and faster destroying the complex system on which we all, including themselves, depend.

The easiest, gentlest, most market-oriented work sharing design is Timesizing.

We're moving from quantity to quality, from seniority-based capitalism alias downsizing-tolerant capitalism,
to timesizing-based capitalism alias worksharing-tolerant capitalism (downsizing-intolerant). (4/05)

We need to move from free and open immigration to fair and eco-friendly immigration - as we have from free trade to fair trade.

Basically progress is about clawing money and power away from the cushioned and clueless decision-makers.

So the economy has gone totally unstable, split between people to whom money means nothing and people to whom it means basic survival. This is a crazy embarrassment for a self-styled 'intelligent' species. It just takes applying the design principles we apply everywhere else to...the economy. (4/4)

So the technique of the power elite has been to keep the millions of potential watchdogs overscheduled = to busy to 'watchdog,' and to discourage feedback in whatever form they find it. Today's example, "Times Co. threatens to shut Boston Globe, seeks $20m in cuts from unions - Paper reported to face $85m loss this year, as recession, Internet growth batter news industry," by Robert Gavin & Robert Weisman, 4/4/2009 Boston Globe, front page.
This does two suicidal things for the wealthy. It potentially dismantles some more useful (negative) feedback, and it harms the consumer base and their existing major strategy to discourage fluctuating adjustment of the workweek vs. unemployment to achieve full employment and full markets - at the cost of more money and more free time for the millions to 'watchdog.' (4/4)

[After watching Bill Black interviewed by Bill Moyers -]
We didn't learn from one person's bringing down Barron's (Nick Leeson in Singapore?) and the other example back in the 90s, and we hadn't enough system integrity to avoid Bush jr. in 2000 or get rid of him in 2004, so the unregulated corruption spread enormously, even, and exponentially, in just the last 4 years. Bankers cultivated high-risk loans, even encouraging lying to sweeten applications, because the higher the risk the more lucrative. Then they paid themselves huge bonuses and leveraged the toxic assets thus far into much greater debt, planning, evidently, to sucker the government.
And now they're covering up and lying to us to maintain our confidence! and Obama is still cooperating with them in keeping most of them in position and covering up, so we can't even discover the extent of the damage. Maybe Obama was even set up to fall into this trap. And Geithner is as corrupt as Paulson.
So the U.S. is still going down and still accelerating. (And Obama is still embarrassing us by trying to involve Europe in following us and covering up.)
This is the end of the American empire and American civilization. The American 'way of life' is over.
It started with the strategy of trying to avoid more real freedom, free time, back in the 1920s (see Ben Hunnicutt's 1988 book, Work Without End, chapter 2) when CEOs substituted straining for the Gospel of Consumption to avoid fluctuating adjustment of the workweek against unemployment (UE up, wkwk dn, and vv), a system that was saved by Keynes and FDR with demand-driven economics = consumption-driven economics, though they were ironically labeled 'traitors to their class' by ignorant members of their class. They saved coverup, long-hours, non-homeostatic, short-term, overproduction capitalism for another lifetime (c.70-80 years) but now it's gotten so bad that it can't be saved any longer.

The Boston Globe 3/22/2009 (G5) asks, "As consumers cut back, what will take their place?" and the only answer is the same thing that the Gospel of Consumption was invented to avoid, the Gospel of Worksharing. Basically, the CEO-mandated rigid-workweek regulation necessitated over-production to fill a frozen pre-high-tech level of the workweek, flexed downward slightly 1938-40 (44 to 40 hours), rigidity restored during World War II, and that overproduction determined compulsory overconsumption = the Gospel of Consumption.

This all had the advantage, for the increasingly detached, insulated, isolated power elite, of keeping the millions of ordinary people too busy to exercise effective oversight. People became and stayed overscheduled, buzzed up with trivia, short-sighted and narrowly interested like the power elite.

There were still a few exceptions, like John Kenneth Galbraith ("The Power Elite") and I. F. Stone (I.F.Stone's Weekly), and Noam Chomsky who's still with us. But Chomsky has been successfully sidelined from the major media which are debilitated by increasingly concentrated ownership. This has meant a huge complex system with virtually no system feedback or course correctability, since the power elite resist all change to the status quo. And this of course is a system science train wreck in progress.

So what to do. For worst case planning, try to figure out the worst case and prepare for it, and then back off to less and less bad levels at benchmark points and plan for them. The worst case, still unknown, may well be prepared for only by a Kevorkian kit. But what does that worst case look like? Germany in the early 1920s which Werner Jurkowsky and many others survived? How to find out? Re-view the Bill Black interview by Bill Moyers and completely read Dmitry Orlov's Five Stages of Collapse, even though he seems to be ignorant of the real First Stage, the Employment Collapse. (4/4/2009)

[In the midst of a pre-breakfast rant about Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick about "it's not just that he did it (setting up the sinecure for Walsh) but that he didn't GET it while proclaiming cleanup" -]
"There's just as much waste in private companies as in government but it all goes into CEOs' salaries."
Colleague Kate (3/31)
"It's the Great Leak Upward." - Phil. "At least in government it gets spread among thousands of bureaucrats."

If wealthy investors do not make sure that there is enough spending power circulating in the employment and consumer bases with sufficient velocity ('dynamism') to support their black-hole concentration of income and wealth - it will disappear through the repeated historical third-world pattern of stagflation.

Every very long-term surviving complex system relies on central self-balancing systems. We cannot have stability or even very long-term survival at current high human-population levels in ecoregions if we continue to rely on deliberate and conscious = capricious and occasionally (Bush regime) perverse - cybernetics. Timesizing offers the easiest approach to a series of self-balancing layers in the core design of economies. (3/29)

The latest core design needs to become 'second nature to us now' - if the latest generation of social core design breaks down or, as now, is inadequately designed, society slips back to the previous generation. Economics fails, societies slip back to the higher-friction higher-cost political safety net as the U.S. just did (miraculously because the election system was so rigged) in getting rid of the dysfunctionally unlimited and rapid resource concentration of the Bush regime, and gradually (decades) recover the lost ground. Politics fail (eg: if Obama keeps moving backward) and societies slip back to the higher-friction higher-cost religious-imperial 'safety' net, etc.

Capitalism always assumed it that market forces would automatically cut the workweek and spread the remaining employment across the entire population, thus maximizing wages and spending and markets as technology shouldered human working hours and freed humans for financially secure leisure.
In fact, market forces never did such a thing. It was always a matter of hard-fought labor action that succeeded in limiting and repeatedly trimming the workweek when its original darkness-based limits were erased first by gas lighting (1840s) and then by electric lighting (1880s).
So after that, the capitalist workweek never had any automatic limits and therefore lacked any way to smoothly and automatically pass along to the general public the timesavings of technology in terms of market-maintaining, financially secure free time or leisure instead of market-eroding, financially anxious un- or under-employment.
It is this lack of flexible, automatic workweek limits that Timesizing supplies. (3/28)

The wealthiest 30,000 Americans have become, in biological terms, 'dumb parasites.' Those are the kind of parasites that kill their host.

The labor movement should have gone for long-term higher pay via short-term shorter hours. Instead they went for short-term higher pay and got longer term higher unemployment and powerlessness.

Ladies and gentlemen [BBC accent] - I should like to speak to you this morning about the next generation of economic design. It will be everywhere in 100 years and possibly 50; at any rate, after all of us here in this room are terminated, speaking as one biodegradable organic robot to another (condolences to the theists among you), so my talk has the character of an 'apercu' into the future, a future that will seem to some of you like sci fi.
And do notice how little economic scifi there is.... (3/27)

So, what are the stages of group development?

  1. noticing a big problem, eg, poverty
  2. noticing more big problems, eg, poverty and hunger
  3. (the random grocery list of problems) getting a list of big problems, eg, poverty, hunger, joblessness, endangered species, depleting ozone, global warming, dying polar bears, lack of public transportation, lack of education, lack of marketable skills, restore streetcars, restore double-tracked rail, shortage of water, saving Canadian water resources for Canadians, getting individuals to think with their right brains
  4. (dawn of priority) prioritizing the big problems on the list, eg, 2 poverty, 1 hunger, 3 joblessness, 9 endangered species, 5 depleting ozone, 6 global warming, 10 dying polar bears, 11 lack of public transportation, 14 lack of education, 4 lack of marketable skills, 12 restore streetcars, 13 restore double-tracked rail, 7 shortage of water, 8 saving Canadian water resources for Canadians, 15 getting individuals to think with their right brains
    rearranging: eg, 1 hunger, 2 poverty, 3 joblessness, 4 lack of marketable skills, 5 depleting ozone, 6 global warming, 7 shortage of water, 8 saving Canadian water resources for Canadians, 9 dying polar bears, 10 endangered species, 11 lack of public transportation, 12 restore streetcars, 13 restore double-tracked rail, 14 lack of education, 15 getting individuals to think with their right brains
  5. (dawn of category) noticing the prioritized big problems on the list fall into completely different categories: eg, 1a hunger, 1b poverty, 1c joblessness, 1d lack of marketable skills, 2 depleting ozone, 2a global warming, 2b dying polar bears, 2c lack of public transportation, 2d restore streetcars, 2e restore double-tracked rail, 2f shortage of water, 2g saving Canadian water resources for Canadians, 3 endangered species, 4 lack of education, 5 getting individuals to think with their right brains
  6. (dawn of strategy - PERT chart level) noticing solving some categories, and some subcategories, are going to have a more positive effects than others, or facilitate others, or are dependent on others: eg, 1c hunger, 1b poverty, 1a2 joblessness, 1a1 lack of marketable skills
    rearranging: eg, 1a1 lack of marketable skills, 1a2 joblessness, 1b poverty, 1c hunger
  7. noticing blockages: eg, lack of demand for many 'marketable' skills under frozen 40-hour workweek due to increasing automation and downsizing...

The strange thing is, progressives who hate what free trade in products and services has done are still supporting open immigration which amounts to 'free trade' in immigrants, as if it doesn't have depressing effects on wages, especially minority wages, in the destination economies. (3/23)
Timesizing treats imports and therefore the whole area of trade policy whether free or protectionist within the same category of 'population variables' that includes IMMIGRANTS and births.
This is all in Phase 5 of the Timesizing Program where imports and immigrants are the first two of the three 'population variables' with births as the the third as in: 'The three population variables are imports, immigrants, and births = 1,2,3 in order of controversiality and therefore regulatability.' (3/24)

Once we get the 'timesizing, not downsizing' coordinated on a proportional paycut basis, the start we'll have made in clearing up labor surplus will start wages rising again, because it's been the labor surplus that's been holding down wages regardless of skyrocketing productivity. (3/21)

'Petits contes francais' - linguistic 'fossils' indicate that telling stories and counting were originally undistinguished and blended in the human mind - even the word 'telling' as in 'telling the rosary, 'he recounted his side of the story...' etc. [3/19]

I have been appalled at the level of thinking of most progressives - their thinking is vague and rhetorical and unstrategic in the extreme - most are focussed 99% on diagnosis and 1% on vague feel-good metaphors and buzzwords that pass as "solution." {3/18 after Kevin & the 6 women) A book is desperately needed on this just to get them into an actionable ballpark.

Re case of Bebe - a hospital ethics committee that makes decisions based on OPM (other people's money) is unethical. A hospital ethics committee that does not make clear that it's role is merely advisory, not totalitarian, is unethical. An ethics committee that steps in and indefinitely lengthens a painful decision is unethical. [3/18]

Two jobless blacks lounging/'loitering' in easy chairs at Galeries de Hull ... The fact is, our economic design is far behind where it should be for our level of technology - we should be balancing money variables by now but we're still stuck threatening people's livelihoods - still haven't balanced work time and achieved full employment by design regardless of the brevity of the workweek. (3/17)

ORVs - hunters & guns - all these abominations driven by desperate need to make a living - yet individual level spoonfeeding for full employment is stifling - needs to be full employment guaranteed at the overall, aggregate level for more flexibility, adaptibility, survivability... (3/17/09)

Workweek reduction is happening anyway because the demand isn't there, because there's less spending money in the consumer base, because wages have been sinking, because there's a growing surplus of labor, because employers have been introducing worksaving technology and compensating by cutting employees instead of the workweek. If they had cut the workweek at the start of this vicious circle, there wouldn't be a vicious circle. By cutting the workweek at the end of the vicious circle after they've cut employees, they guarantee they'll also lose markets and be "forced" to repeat the vicious circle. So now we go from a single vicious circle to a repeating self-accelerating death spiral. Brilliant, and sooo unnecessary.

My point is that it's happening anyway on a gigantic scale - we're losing human labor hours. But instead of cushioning the effect on consumption or offsetting some of it by cutting hours for everyone to keep everyone employed and spending, or cutting hours further to employ more people at a lower workweek level, we have created a self-fueling downspiral by cutting a few employee-consumers and traumatizing them by cutting them completely, thus throwing them onto the job market where there is already a huge surplus of job candidates competing for a shortage of job openings, thus driving down wages further and faster IN ADDITION TO driving down the population of consumers and defeating the boost that we get from the faster monetary circulation of more and smaller transactions among the lower and middle income brackets.

We absolutely must stop cutting jobs or we will all die. (3/13)

A game is being played in Washington today that would never be tolerated anywhere else any other time except between masters and slaves - the bankers and mortgage companies, who usually badmouth government and tell it to stay out of their business, are flipping a coin with our astronomically stupid, or corrupt, "representatives" in Congress and new President on the basis, for the bankers, of "heads we win, tails you lose."
The bankers and "investors" are trying to palm off on government and taxpayers, in return for billions of dollars, what they openly call "toxic assets."
But the whole game of investing is taking on risk, and this changes the game from investing to theft, because if the assets have little risk, the bankers and buds keep it, but if it has high risk - which THEY took on - they try to slide it off onto taxpayers. This is what Chomsky rightly calls, the privatization of profit and the socialization of risk, and the first economy that puts a definitive stop to it will RULE, because it's like a huge debilitating tapeworm clogging the main arteries and veins of our body economic.
These bankers and cronies deserve none of their power, because they take no responsibility. They don't take the bad with the good. They want only the good, and so there's never any "bad" - for them - and so here we have another huge way in which, in our current system dynamics, there is NO FEEDBACK - because there's no feedback of the most significant kind, the kind that signals the need for change and adaptation, NEGATIVE feedback - because any negative outcome in terms of high risk is sloughed off onto the weak, the unrepresented-by-"representative"-democracy public, the taxpayers, from among whom these bankers and cronies have also managed to largely exclude themselves. (3/10 after hearing a weak voiced, guilt-laden banker try to explain, on public radio from his mansion in Florida, why it was not insane for "experts" to be expecting government to take over mountains of "toxic assets" in return for billions.)

Can we handle more freedom? Are we ready for more of that most basic freedom, free time? (3/09)

"If we can only ignore the consumer base and buy stock on tech news or merger news or relocation news or government subsidy/backing/bailout news. If we can only ignore overall employment and buy stock on spot hiring news."

All our stock buying is based on "good" news which is actually bad news. What we see as buy signals are actually deepening disasters. Each wriggle we make, sinks us deeper in the quicksand of labor surplus and cheapening, consumer impoverishment and beggaring.

And until we restore worldl-war-two levels of graduated income tax, the imposition by the superwealthy on taxpayers via bailouts is nothing more than taxation without representation, the selfsame spark that split this country from its motherland in revolution.

This website diagnoses our current economic crisis as a disease that decision-makers are either blind to or dismissive of = gross over-concentration of the national (and global) income and wealth among a tiny 0.01% of the population, a kind of Black Hole economy fed by falling wages for the other 99.99%, driven down in turn by rising labor surplus, all officially denied or downplayed. The still-diverging surplus of job seekers and shortage of jobs is built on one contradiction and five additional factors. Although we haphazardly reduced each person's share of the economy's natural, market-demanded working hours from the founding of the Republic to 1938, and deliberately from 1938 to 1940, so that the standard full-time workweek was cut in half from over 80 hours to 40 hours, we have, ever since, frozen its further downward path, despite contradiction by wave after wave of worksaving technology. In addition, we have weakened the 1930's legislative safeguards against a repeat Depression such as the bankruptcy and banking laws (e.g., Glass-Steagall), we have broken contracts right and left with employees (e.g., pension fund escrow), we have catapulted mothers and immigrants into the job market, we have dropped tariffs on cheap foreign goods made by virtual slave labor, and we have outsourced American jobs to virtual slave labor camps in the Third World. In short, we have redistributed the money out of, and weakened, our domestic employment base and its derivative consumer base to such an extent that there's no way American consumers can purchase their own productivity. The 100's of millions just don't have the money.

Krugman got the Nobel within the context of Ptolemaic economics that still believes, with considerable dogmatism, that the whole economy revolves around the investment markets, that therefore we should place no limit on the concentration and consolidation of the national income and wealth, the more the better (concentrated on the fewer people the better?); and that international trade should be "free" (ergo "globalization") regardless of distance between them in social evolution and regardless of the sacrifice of control or nation-level (i.e., evolutionary stage level) finetuning.

What we could characterize as Copernican economics believes that the whole economy revolves around the employment markets, that therefore we should place a limit on the concentration of natural market-demanded employment (workweek limits) and keep enough competition between employers to prevent the concentration of the national income and wealth beyond the threshold where it begins to suck in the spending power necessary to sustain sufficient markets to maintain the marketable productivity which that level of concentrated income and wealth dba investing power needs to sustainably invest in.

And Copernican economics holds that trade can be as free as allowed by the necessity to maintain the living standards of both trading partners, and not to raise the one while lowering the other - and the measure is not just the short-term luxury living standards of the top traders in either economy but the median living standards of the whole population.

Gravity is opposed by centrifugal force, the individuating force. Therefore the upward dimensional paradigm can run:
volume x density = mass
mass x centrifugation = momentum, or mass x levity = momentum
The reverse direction -
momenturm x gravity(/inertia?) = mass
mass x sparsity = volume
Revolution is detached rotation, but if a satellite maintains the same position over the surface of its principal, is it really revolving or just extended-rotating? Or is this consideration a trivial detail unaffecting terminology?

wakitipu, not wakatipu There is a trade-off between penalties for later booking - later, surer; earlier, more changible.

Increasingly in America the wealthiest brackets are becoming a criminal danger to themselves and the system that supports them including everyone else - cf. 'malefactors of great wealth' (Teddy Roosevelt)

A foolish generation cries out for a 'bottom' - of the financial and economic plunge.
But no 'bottom' will be given to them until they activate the maximum of consumers by balancing employment and guaranteeing everyone a share of the vanishing, natural, market-demanded working hours that have not yet been automated. (3/3)

But won't wages be cut and poverty spread by cutting the workweek?
No, wage levels will actually rise as we cap and cut our current runaway labor surplus.

Zooming in on the period after we've achieved full employment, workweek adjustment once a year is not going to be often enough. We will need much higher frequencies and finetuning. Twice yearly, monthly, weekly, probably even eventually daily. Something that really extends our self-interest and keeps us wholistic in our consciousness in a not-just-rhetorical and good-intentioned way, but functionally, to keep ourselves together as a species and progressing through the great senses of measurement (dimensions): worktime per person (constant basic life/consciousness income), income per person (flowing money per person = generalized service/energy access income), wealth per person (standing money per person), credit per person (potential money per person) ... thence fuzzier to us now: creditability/credibility/power per person? (=importance of strategic focus? or trustworthiness of treatment of foci?)...

At the doorstep of the ecological age when we must, for our survival, shift from quantity to quality, the basic social unit has changed from the reproductive pair to the productive person, and hopefully from the procreative couple to the creative individual. That means sex becomes a hobby, social and not reproductive.

It becomes like religion, whose main function in human evolution was as a literacy campaign, and still is in less-advanced countries. In our tradition, it was the Hebrews and the Hebrew Bible < books < biblia, that initiated the religious era, which was the era begun with the evolution of writing in Sumer 5200 years ago. In social-science terms, it was the Geographic-Historical Age - 'history begins at Sumer' (title of book by Noah Kramer) because the Sumerians first and fastest developed contemporaneous records. Jesus of Nazareth built on this religious age by moving the attention from the past 'O Yahweh, Thou hast been our dwelling place throughout all generations' to the present, from drawing our flexibility and tolerance from knowing what 'we ourselves' did generations ago and how different it was, to knowing what our siblings in Christ are doing today and how different it is.

Jesus took us from the 'diachronic' to the 'synchronic,' as Ferdinand de Saussure would say. But then, that's the essence of the distinction between the two types of social studies, geography and history. Geography is the latest greatest snapshot, while history is the movie from the earliest visible up to the latest greatest snapshot (where a lot of material necessarily gets condensed). So Jesus took us from anchoring our tolerance to the there and then to anchoring it to the here and now, from citing surprising precedent to contemplating contemporary diversity - and enjoying, rather than fearing, it.

But then, at least during our long period, evolution is a gigantic trend away from greater violence and drama and toward greater gentleness and variety.

We are all able to respond (response-able) to the economic crisis because it's something inconspicuous that's wrong, something we all do every day that doesn't connect to the overall economy of which we're a part - we work any hours regardless of the concentration of overall, natural, market-demanded working hours in our economy, and the spread of underemployment and job desperation. But it's important, because we need to make more careful distinctions, not less, and in this case, it's a matter of distinguishing between on the job and off, between ceding control to something bigger than ourselves or being free for our own individual inclinations. (2/28+)

The answer to our economic and financial crises is very simple and easy. It's inconspicuous because it is so obvious. It's one little thing we are doing wrong every day. We take it for granted so it's invisible to us: we work as if we are alone or as if our little team or factory is unconnected to the whole system except by money. We work as if we are islands. We work without reference to the overall market. Our worktime is arbitrary, accidental, idiosyncratic, erratic. It needs to be linked to the health of the overall market. It needs to vary inversely with unemployment, so if there's too much unemployment, we immediately adjust and work less to leave more natural market-demanded employment for the disemployed or we immediately start reinvesting our overtime profits and earnings in training and hiring, - smoothly, automatically, throughout the grassroots of the economy and up and down the org charts.

Anthrop - need lang converge before can sustainably merge econs/currencies
Need skills converge before ditto (//rituals of soc era)
Need literacy converge? //geog/hist?
Need manners conv?//pol era
Need math conv?//econ age
Need ?//ecol?

Look at the main metaphor for their 'solution' = "bailout." You bail out a leaking boat, but there's never any mention of fixing the leak. Maybe that's because it's the Great Leak Upward - more and more of the national income and wealth, without limit, is being diverted from the hundreds of millions in the consumer base to the tens of thousands in the investor base.

We got another problem besides negative feedback getting less and less negative as it approaches our wealthy self-cushioning decision-makers,
Increasingly, the professionals in any field brick themselves into a corner and lock ranks against innovation or leaps in insight, and it's left to eccentrics to make the big leaps, - Copernicus, Galileo...outsiders.
How do we hear those eccentrics today thru all the noise on the Internet, blogs, comments....
Recently Google held a contest for world-saving ideas but the 20 they picked are pathetic = all internet-based, none world-saving.... They simply do not have the mental sockets to recognize world-saving ideas when they see them - their ceiling is low low low....
How do really big ideas get the big microphone when the big people of the current age are locked into the current age and can't see beyond it?
Even sci fi producers like Star Trek -
The projection of their own failure, so far, to ask the right questions that would enable their breaking through the qualitative barrier in projection/prediction....

Working families of the world, unite! The way you discipline the cushioned wealthy decision-makers so they don't destroy the whole of civilization from that Other Planet they live on, is by achieving and maintaining full employment, and the way you maintain full employment is by subdividing the natural, market-demanded human employment that still hasn't been automated and subdividing it enough to give EVERYbody a small piece of it - so we don't subspeciate into the unstable and unsustainable situation of workers and drones, or into dumb hosts and dumb parasites. (2/06/2009)

The power elite keep telling us that we're dependent on trade...and them, but neither is true, both are just icing. The import-export industry is dependent on trade, and they want all the rest of us to become vulnerable to the vagaries and risks of international markets via 'Free Trade' (a religious phrase) for their petty profit. Ditto the top brackets via their "You Need Business Loans" cult. But the truth is, the tens of thousands of them need the hundreds of millions of us more than vice versa. And the solution approach that accesses our power and independence is work sharing and spreading, and the most gentle and market-oriented design for work sharing is Timesizing.

And another contradiction in CCC= casualty-creating capitalism as opposed to long-term capitalism: Isn't it curious that the big boys are sooo interested in circulation at the international level - ergo 'free trade' - and so uninterested and discouraging of it at the subnational level?! - cuz of the way they constantly weaken their own domestic consumer base with downsizing and moving costs to employees and consumers - pump your own gas, be your own bank teller, travel agent, supermarket cashier, etc.etc.

"Obama to impose salary cap on excecutives at bailed-out firms" 2/04 BG A1
Whoa, he's jumping over the employment-balancing program to the income-balancing program - of course, purely in a primitive ad-hoc deliberate specific way.... That's the thing about social evolution, it's messy. Humans only learn by piling up a bunch of arbitrary specific fixes until somebody comes along and simplifies the burgeoning maximum of stifling details with a less energy-intensive generalized game rule alias a stable minimum of freeing generalizations, sorta like Chomsky writing a grammar, or choosing between two grammars - 'the better grammar is the one that accounts for the same data with fewer rules, or more native-speaker-acceptable data with the same number of rules, or both.'

"Daschle gives up Cabinet bid - Says he would be distraction with tax issues" 2/04 BG A1
"Taxes are for little people" - Leona Helmsley
Obama needs to have a 'frank talk' with Democrats - "Quit pretending that you're better than everybody else, or if you can't, GET OUT OF POLITICS - go buy yourself a Caribbean archipelago like Paul Allen and indulge your fantasy, but for Godssake, don't grab any decision-making power for the whole socioeconomic system because you can no longer receive the important kind of feedback, NEGATIVE feedback, cuz you've got everybody around you in terminal suckup mode and you've set your whole life up to be happyhappyhappy regardless of what's happening to everybody else or your own natural environment."

We have CCC = Casualty-Creating Capitalism = mainstream capitalism creates the labor shortage it needs to discipline management (just a teensy bit, mind you! the problem is really always labor discipline of course!), centrifuge the national income just a little bit, maintain some consumer demand and survive - by creating casualties, if not war casualties, then unemployed, welfare, "disabled," homeless, incarcerated, suicides.... altogether itself reaching unsustainable proportions along with the unlimited concentration of the national income and wealth in the top 0.01% of the population. (2/03)

When I started looking for what was wrong with the economy and our economics back in the recession and energy crisis of the mid-70s, I thought, "It's gotta be something everyday and invisible, something taken for granted and overlooked, something real inconspicuous and woodwork/background-level that no one is noticing - something that each of us is doing wrong every day that we're not aware of or noticing. Some "little" "harmless" thing that we're doing that builds up gradually and slowly and unnoticeably until finally ... - ... catastrophe ! " (2/03)

In the mid 20s, accordiing to Ben Hunnicutt's Work Without End, CEOs, worried about the movement for shorter hours after tHe demobilization from the Great War and the short sharp depression after that, set out to substitute stimulated, artificial demand for more stuff (new industry: advertising/Madison Ave) for more freedom in terms of the basic freedom, free time - they were probably control freaks and a bit paranoid meaning 'the devil finds works for idle hands to do' - never mind the leisure indulstries - and idleness breeds anarchists (today= terrorsits) and never mind the eventual clash with conservationism (/environmentalism/ecology). So they floated a number of slogans - 'Technology creates more jobs than it destroys'. Arthur Dahlberg tried to strangle this one in the cradle already in 1932 in his book "Jobs, Machines and Capitalism" by pointing out that by resorting to manufactured demand for more styles and flavors, we may have been creating jobs but those jobs were less urgently demanded.
Dahlberg may also have pointed out that first they mechanized agriculture, so people fled for jobs to manufacturing, then they automated manufacturing and people fled for jobs to the service sector. Now they're robotizing services and there's nowhere for people to run for jobs.
Worsening this dilemma, there's this new strategy of not just evaporating payroll costs with robotizing, downsizing and outsourcing, but also now pushing costs onto consumers. We're now "given the freedom" to pump our own gas (there go some gas station jobs), checkout our own groceries (there go some supermarket jobs), do our own travel agenting (there goes the travel agency business!), bank tellering (ATMs) and telephone receptioning (robot receptionists like Amtrak's "Julie" and Greyhound's "Gracie, your virtual travel consultant" but also the labyrinthine phone-menu systems, many of which are purposefully designed to tie you up and keep you, or at least delay you, from calling a human "customer care specialist" and some of which are actually designed to keep you going around in circles, big circles so it takes a long time to realize it and quit in disgust.
And then after transferring all thiese extra costs to their customers, CEOs have the blindness to wonder where their markets are going and why the consumer base is weakening - they think consumers have options (that is, time and money) and are just willfully "holding back" and "saving more," when actually consumers have less and less time and money - a circumstance many of the new billionaire decision-makers can no longer imagine. Thus real feedback is draining from the economic system.
So in a word, what CEOs have been doing despite their rhetoric to the contrary is fighting freedom - some are actually afraid of it except where it benefits them ("free trade") so they go on and on about loving freedom and liberty. Meanwhile, there's less and less money in your pocket to do things with, and less of the most basic freedom without which the other freedoms are inaccessilble, free time. Timesizing gives people more time and money, more of both the things that CEOs are currently draining away from people.
CEOs been successfully pushing for more face time, or failing that with the growth of the electronic cottage and working at home on your computer, they've been pushing for more of a blending of business and pleasure, destroying the boundary, the distinction, via spyware on their computers and pushing people to be always on call, phoning employees at night or on weekends, emailing them any time, pushing them to take their cellphones and blackberries to the beach so they're never, never really off-duty. So it's no accident that the USA is the only advanced economy with no minimum vacation legislation.
And all this after weakening their consumer base by more familiar methods of downsizing payroll and 'letting go' employees, pushing cheap imports (free trade) to replace more expensive domestic manufactures (never mind less free time to do for yourself, from handicrafts, plumbing and carpentry to raising your own children!) and then there's the releatively recent boom in offshore outsourcing of American jobs, and the traditional and still very successful promotion of immigration (immigrants need jobs, or at least welfare/taxpayer support) and the currently somewhat flagging push for having children - still-employed singles have been buying houses (and spurring construction) recently anyway.
And makework is increasing in the very heart and core, the inner sanctum of efficiency, high tech - in terms of repeated, though less and less urgently demanded, software upgrades. But to urgentize demand, more and more artificial 'cold wars' - jobs in adware (spam) and popup writing and - bonus! - jobs in spam and popup blocking. More darkly, jobs in spyware writing, justified in terms of market research and targeting. And -bonus - jobs in spyware blocking and extraction. And more darkly still, jobs in virus writing and bonus! checking. And more darkly still, jobs in rootkit writing and bonus, extracting.
And then of course, there's the jobs in internet sales of cheaper drugs including viagra, and huge jobs in internet pornography, blending now with jobs in internet dating for regular and straight singles and all types of irregular/married and queer>gay 'biodrug' (sex) seekers. (There's a pretty successful counterspin: queer to gay!).
And then, actual crime is increasing, sometimes artificially, because learning nothing from Prohibition, we've criminalizied drugs, and hundreds of thousands of Americans, mostly minorities, are maintaining huge growth in the largely privatized prison industry as inmates and guards.
Also internet pornography and dating sites blend slowly into child pornography and procuring for prostitution and slavery. White-collar internet crime is rampant with the legendary Nigerian need for an American contact "to transfer $37 million" and of course, get a cut...after paying some much smaller fees or at least giving out some vital-for-identity-theft information (phishing).
Meanwhile CEOs are backfilling. They've so successfully pushed demand for agricultural products (food) that Americanas have an epidemic of obesity, so then CEOs can push demand for diet drugs and foods and exercises and books. CEOs have successfully pushed built-in obsolescence, especially in automobiles so you 'had' to buy a new one every year or two, but the Japanese didn't cooperate fully and tended to take over that industry with better quality (a better repair record) and longer lastingness. And people in desperation turned to hair styling, tatoos, and unregulated services like massage and new age lore and learning. This is parallel to the cold wars going on in high tech mentioned above.
And CEOs have also successfully pushed down wages by pushing volunteerism. Volunteers compete with wage workers successfully and keep waged jobs at a minimum - for example, in Boston there are so many colleges giving away free or low-cost theater (Gilbert and Sullivan's Patience at Harvard's Agassiz Theater last year for $10-12) that it's difficult for legitimate theater to survive except for preBroadway productions. But volunteers are now "given the opportunity" of paying for their volunteerism with money as well as time, like with EarthWatch. Some non-profits are almost as rich as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, like Harvard with its $27 billion endowment despite the financial crisis, and STILL soliciting money from allumni!

People have a hard time getting beyond opposite alternatives, black and white thinking, to seriously consider a third alternative, possibly in between, possibly somewhere else entirely. (after talking to Walter outside chopping ice off his sidewalk, who saw only "free trade vs. no trade." 2/01)

Timesizing guarantees full employment at the aggregate level, leaving the detailed accommodations and permutations to free-market forces. It levels the playing field between management and labor in a general comprehensive way without micromanaging. (2/01)

This is a system-dynamics trainwreck -

How insulated and isolated are the top income and wealth brackets? Check it out:
Getting Theirs, article, 1/31 NY Times page B1.
...If you've never worked on Wall Street, it is hard to wrap your head around the idea that a company that lost nearly $19 billion in a single year, as Citigroup did in 2008, could still pay its employees billions in bonuses. It is even harder to believe that some [actually many] employees grumble about it.
"I feel like I got a doorman's tip, compared to what I got in previous years," said a 30-something investment banking associate at Citigroup's offices in Lower Manhattan.
[So it didn't just start last year. We'd say it started around 1970 when the postwar babyboomers entered the job markets, restored the labor surplus of the Great Depression, and cancelled any remaining management discipline because employers thereafter had a commanding advantage over employees, management over labor.]
That kind of glum talk is being heard all over Wall Street, where money is the measure, and bonuses the ultimate yardstick....
[But the measure isn't working. It's supposed to indicate success or failure but somehow the design has been doctored to
NEVER SIGNAL FAILURE - and any large system that cannot receive negative feedback alias the only kind which indicates that adaptation alias CHANGE is needed, is unadaptible and uncompetitive and unsurvivable.
[If their motto, "I just want MY SHARE!" actually means "I want it ALL!" then it is indeed the end of civilized life on this planet and we are heading for a huge die-off/kill-off... because if 1% of the population gets 99% of the resources, like money, then we're in a Third World situation where the volume times the density times the velocity = the momentum of the currency circulation cannot possible support the astronomical black hole of money in the topmost brackets, and the whole economic "solar system" begins to collapse into the center (hyperinflation) and die, as Hugo Stinnes arranged for the German currency to do in the early 1920s to pay off the Allies' vengeful (and within ten years, self-destructive) indemnities.
[We must design a way to never let this great a disparity happen again, and the most accessible approach is to discipline management with a perceived labor shortage, under which condition capitalism always works well.
[How? By restricting and rationing employers' access to employees, instead of having a blank check on their lives.
[How? By enforcing the maximum 40-hour workweek on everyone in the economy, and if that isn't enough to achieve full employment, then resuming the two-hour-a-year nationwide workweek reduction that we did 1938-40 but stopped after only two years.]

Once you have a disparity, you no longer have a free market, because the wealthy have access to much more time (other people's) than ordinary players, so they can write contracts that enable them to change without notice, such as creditcard interest rates, while creditcard holders have no such contractual right, and transparency has become a joke - there is no informed consent, it's all heads they win, tails we lose - so no wonder that currency circulation is falling and the consumer base is weakening - it has had cost after cost imposed on it while the princesses at the top yell and scream about every tiny pea in their bed twenty mattresses down.

"Lenders abruptly cut lines of credit - Fear excessive use amid hard times - Even responsible borrowers hit" 1/31 BG A1.
Every move we're making is making it worse.
We've been going along on "Give a man a fish and he'll live a few days" instead of work&skill sharing, that is, "Teach a man to fish and he'll live out his lifetime."
Now we're down to "Don't give a man a fish" so he'll die immediately, and we'll die soon after.
The investors and financiers are getting an object lesson in the fact that THEY do not represent the fundamental market, nor does b2b, nor even b2c and the consumer base. The market that feeds the consumer base is the fundamental, sine qua non, market, and that is the job market.
We need a new sharing base, work sharing.
We need automatically guaranteed FULL EMPLOYMENT.
We've stopped kicking people around by threatening their lives more or less.
Now it's time to stop kicking them around by threatening their livelihoods,
In 1989 when Japan went off its lifetime employment and stupidly started copying our downsizing, it was in the tank within 6 months and went into a series of recessions from which it has never emerged. Why on earth, when we were writing mgmt books about IT, Japan would change and start copying US?!? Dumb dumb dumb!
As Lincoln Electric figured out, the place you get the vital but sacrificed flexibility when you guarantee lifetime employment is by accordioning the workweek instead of the workforce.

Fundamental decisions looming -

If you're going to foster a labor surplus to depress general wage levels, then (A) you can't use market forces to centrifuge the money supply, you will have to use some kind of command economy like the old Soviet Union, and (B) you will have a real hard time getting the command economy to do any centrifuging, because the top thinks only about the discipline of labor, not the discipline of management, meaning themselves - which is the more challenging and more potentially damaging long-term problem.
So you need to make up your mind if you really want a market economy, or just a command economy disguised as a market economy - which we're pretty close to already.

Compare the decision that needs to be about subspeciating. If we continue with no reset, no point at which we all stand on a level playing field, like a sports league where all teams start at zero games won at the beginning of every season, we will split into two or more different species, ever fewer workers and ever more drones, like the Morlocks and the Eloi in H.G.Wells' The Time Machine = not a stable or diversity- and variability- and adaptability- and survivability-rich situation. The drones are always vulnerable, and in The Time Machine, the Morlocks eat the Eloi, eg: when the latter turn 30 or something. If we continue to dismantle the resets in our economy, such as the steeply graduated income tax of wartime, we will subspeciate, because the wealthy will just go off the scale in money - hell, they already have! (1/27)

This website melts the lethal partitions in your brain and connects the dots that need to be connected.

The USA has become the redistribution economy - a huge redistribution of the national income and wealth to the tiny topmost income brackets, who now can't even find sustainable investments at those huge volumes of credits. They focus entirely on whether the nation can stand more debt, and ignore whether it can stand more concentration of money in the topmost tiny fraction of the population. It's communism for the very richest, who, by blindered focus on acquisition regardless of level, have sabotaged workable capitalism, even and especially against their own interests in terms of having stable investments in which to even just store the present value of their astronomically consolidated and compacted income and wealth. See David Cay Johnston, "Free Lunch."
This scale of concentration of the national income and wealth undermines itself, but there is another equally important problem: they tend to cushion themselves more and more and "go off on another planet" - yet they have the most decision-making power for the whole system, including all the rest of us. That means virtually no negative feedback, the kind that indicates need and direction for change, reaches them

The 2 things you need to know about this depression are:
1. When money goes to a whole bunch of different people, it gets spent on buying all sorts of stuff, it gets circulated from one person to the next, its value gets reaffirmed each time, it provides a market for more products and services, and that provides more good jobs for the hundreds of millions of non-rich people and solid investments for the hundreds of thousands of rich people.
2. When money goes to a few rich people, it doesn't get spent because they were already spending all they cared to before they got the last ten million. Instead, they start looking for some marketable productivity to invest it in, but there is less and less of this. Why? Because by fostering a situation where employers are getting 5000 resumes for every 5 job openings, the wealthy stymy pay raises and gradually lower general pay levels. How? They keep financing more worksaving technology - machines, automation and now robotization - without cutting the workweek. So there's less and less demand for human workers. Then they make things worse by lowering tariffs and pouring in cheap products from China, and worse by glorifying immigrants and having repeated amnesties for illegal aliens, and worse by outsourcing jobs to China - and then they wonder why their home markets aren't growing. For every employee-consumer they deactivate by downsizing, they deactivate at least one other consumer who is dependent on that employee = not a formula for growth.
What to do? Stop giving more money to the few richest people.
How do it flexibly and naturally? Stop ratcheting the workweek so it can get longer but not shorter.
Stop fostering more job candidates and downsizing job openings.
Easiest first step? Copy our own American 1840-1940 experience of bringing the workweek down from unlimited to 40 hours a week but this time do it for EVERYone - Europe's current experience with its Working Time Directive can help - and then resume our 1938-1940 practice of cutting the workweek by two hours a year until we rebuild our monetary circulation and regain prosperity - capitalism works well for everyone (including the rich who then have strong investments in marketable productivity) with shorter workweeks and a perceived labor shortage - capitalism works poorly for everyone (including the rich who then have weak investments in unmarketable productivity) with longer workweeks and labor surplus. (Dahlberg) (1/27)

GOP leaders balk at stimulus - Object to specifics, size of Obama's $825B package, 1/26 Boston Globe, A1.
Obama has them where he wants them. They don't want the mega bailout? OK, good, it's braindead and self-destructive anyway. So what's their alternative? Don't have one? OK, now's the time to roll out the Timesizing part of Obama's inaugural address:
What "sees us through our darkest hours"? - "the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job"....
Timesizing is the one small part of the inaugural address that leads on, that has a sustainable future, that can be designed into a robust win-win-win-win solution.. Timesizing engages every fulltime employee in the economy, all levels, throughout the grassroots, up and down the corporate hierarchies, IN THE SOLUTION - not just a tiny fraction of extremely cushioned and wealthy people on Wall Street. The tiny wealthy fraction is not the problem in the first place, except insofar as their naivete about the necessity of workweek decrease during efficiency increase has meant that the workforce and its dependents can no longer consume their own output (and the imbalance between production and consumption is just as bad or worse elsewhere in the world - except in the shorter-worktime economies).

"Obama pressing for a quick jolt to the economy" 1/24/2009 NYT A1 - The metaphor of 'stimulus' is wrong (- though It's not surprising, because we are a drug-dependent society.) A correct metaphor would focus on the fact that our economy has been damaged and is operating at a fraction of its capacity, with the energy diverted from much of its functionality to a single tiny power station that cannot possibly do anything with it. It's not 'stimulus' then that's needed - it's energy undiversion.

Gradually over the decades since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, worker-consumers have been replaced by worker-nonconsumers (machines, automation and robots) - lots of working hours are still being demanded by the markets, but not at the level of 40 hours per week per producer-consumer, nor indeed at any fixed level as long as more and more worker-nonconsumers are being injected into the factories and stores. The level of workiing hours per worker-consumer must be reduced - there is no sustainable alternative - can you think of one? makework is not an answer when overproduction is threatening our biosphere.

And, as I'm an honest Puck,
If we have unearn-ed luck now
to 'scape the serpent's tongue,
We will make amends ere long -
else the Puck a liar call.

So, good night unto you all.
Give me your hands if we be friends,
And Robin shall restore amends.


Social science. The study of society and of individual relationships in and to society, generally regarded as including:
sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, political science, and history [and geography].
(American Heritage Dictionary, p.1226)

The foundation paragraph of economics - Sir William Petty, 1670, p.244 "The Political Arithmetick" -
...That men eat, drink, and laugh as they use to do, have encouraged me to try if I could also comfort others, being satisfied my self, that the Interest and Affairs of [the] land are in no deplorable condition.
The Method I take to do this, is not yet [1670] very usual; for instead of using only comparative and superlative Words, and intellectual Arguments, I have taken the course (as a Specimen of the Political Arithmetick I have long aimed at) to express my self in Terms of Number, Weight, or Measure; to use only Arguments of Sense, and to consider only such Causes, as have visible Foundations in Nature; leaving those that depend upon the mutable Minds, Opinions, Appetites, and Passions of particular Men, to the Consideration of others: Really professing my self as unable to speak satisfactorily upon those Grounds (if they may be call'd Grounds), as to foretel the cast of a Dye....
In other words, got a controversy? QUANTIFY it. What's your bottom line? - maybe we can agree once we numb out our inflammatory politics, religion, rhetoric and emotions with NUMBERS. Mathematics is a second language.

Newton, Principia, Definition I: The quantity of matter is the measure of the same, arising from its density and bulk conjunctly. In modern terms, mass is density times volume. So mass and not time is the fourth dimension and it's the space-mass continuum, not the space-time continuum.
Definition II: The quantity of motion is the measure of the same, arising from the velocity and quantity of matter conjunctly. In modern terms, momentum is velocity times mass. So momentum is the fifth dimension, and time is a special standard case of momentum. So time is fifth dimensional, not fourth, and it's the mass-time continuum, or the space-mass-time continuum, not the space-time continuum, whose continuity is interrupted by, and dependent upon, mass.
Furthermore, it is sloppy and imagination-distorting to speak of a "four-space" of length, width, height and time.
It is necessary, for the inclusion of time, to speak of a five-space of length, width, height, density and uniform velocity, or a five-space of line, area, space, matter and time.
So what level is time on? - on the plateau level of line, area, volume (space), mass (matter) and momentum,
or on the climbing level of length, width, height, density and balanced velocity?
Cuz if the latter, we lose our easy definition of time as a special case of momentum.
Arguing for the latter is the way we speak of time abstracted from everything else. And time is the number of rounds or orbits, or size-of-fraction of same.
Also arguing for the latter is our kneejerk association of time with climb-words length, width, height 5 sentences above.
Also arguing for the latter is the verb inherent in time - you can time something, which means to tell how long it takes. And tho you cannot length a line to see how long it is, you can lengthen it to make it longer.
Note the line-based adjectives long and short which are applied to time and which probably go far to account for the confusion of 5th-dimensional time with first-dimensional length and the resulting distortion of our imagination about time, especially our fantasy that time, like length, could be reversed, never mind the countless motions, from those of the largest galactic clusters to those of the smallest electrons, that would have to be reversed as well in order to travel backward in time. The fact that many of our leading present-day physicists, including Stephen Hawking, entertain the possibility of backward time travel is an insult to the intelligence of our species.

3 lists - bankrupt approaches, tried and failed; contradictions within our present economic design; requirements for an adequate economic design

bankrupt routes to economic prosperity, cornering us into doing the unexpected intelligent approach (timesizing & its successors):
do-nothing assumption that market forces can take care of everything, regardless of slope of playing field

Euro, once a boon, becomes a burden to poorer countries, by Landon Thomas Jr, 1/24 NYT A1.
The current economic crisis proves we have insufficient control of our economies in our current economic design and with our current economic theories.
The control freaks in the executive suites focus on the least important and more destructive kind of control, face time, and after that, prematurely unified currency (EU).
But if we jump to globalization or a common currency, we surrender control = no more fine tuning and that can extend to a pretty rough level.
Premature currency integration is unifying the currency without workweek or skill integration, and skill integration requires a high degree of language integration to carry it off across the common currency area.
Such premature stretches for control have proven self-defeating because now even small economies are hurting because of the euro. Better kinds of control to focus on are:
using common interest as an anchor because we're in it together through good times and bad
common shorter workweek-range more solidarity-building than higher pay
building loyalty, compare Lincoln Electric
reinvestment obligation

PPPD - the ppPolice Dept. of pressures on the planet = population > production* > pollution & depletion.
* note that this is gross and growing over-production to maintain an upwardly ratchetted 40-hour-or-more workweek against all future technological work savings.

It is essential that we make business schools and economics departments start teaching students to connect the dots between their employees and their dependents, and consumers, between downsizing their employees and downsizing their markets, between hiring more employees and growing their markets.

How do we maximize env-frndly consumption per person, ie: centrifuge most efficiently and reliably?
How to we minimize UE welf disab & prison costs?
How do we max MKBLE prody & thereby, sust invs?

Since work sharing involves cutting the workweek and cutting the workweek essentially rations and limits access to working hours for management, it is a disciplining of management. And of course - many managers don't want any discipline no matter how good it is for them - they want to do whatever they damn well please at any moment of the day or night, like little kids in a tantrum, no matter how bad it was for them, no matter if it even kills their markets and their businesses. That's why they glommed onto a single insignificant reference in Adam Smith's huge tome, The Wealth of Nations = "the invisible hand" - it seemed to mean that no discipline for them was necessary - everything would work out OK anyway, no matter how much they abused their customers (and they seem still to have this idea).
So they always yelp about the lack of labor discipline when the really serious long-term problem is management discipline - as we're finding out now from the economic crisis. And even when the crisis is upon them, they still don't want discipline, they want to be consoled for their embarrassing self-destructive mistakes by impoverishing their markets even more by requiring of them "bailouts," thus worsening the crisis and making the price they have to pay a little later a lot greater, because they have set up a situation wherein the only people who have any money are...themselves. As Will Rogers said when asked where he was going to get the money for HIS plan to solve the depression (he thought he better be coming up with a plan since everyone else was), 'Wal I guess I'll hafta git it from the rich cuz they's the only ones who's GOT any.' (1/23)

There are four obstacles to work sharing if Obama is serious about pursuing it.
It's the time dimension - uneasy unless stays steady, background.
It's upstream of our income - operating on our own retinas.
It's contrary to our work ethic - "work hard to get ahead" - if we're busy, we're important - attacks our self-importance.
Cutting workhours activates our guilt, especially if we keep the same pay. (1/22)

"Gap in paradigm" as a discovery method for sociologist-linguists may be supplemented by "paradigm coaxing" or teasing-out, for example, in the process of neatening up the hierarchical dimensional paradigm:
area x height = volume
------ x width = area
____ x length = ------

We've always relied on two centrifuges for the national income and wealth, (1) inflation and when we could get them through, (2) graduated income taxes and estate or inheritance taxes. Now the wealthy have become so suicidally clever at dismantling them and concentrating money beyond all historic norms, we need some new centrifuges. Every other long-lived society in history had centrifuges. Every sports league has a yearly reset to zero games won. We have none in economics and understandably, our economies are disintegrating.
We must start with a centrifuge on worktime per person because that's the least controversial and the most independence-linked.

Inflation is nature's most inconspicuous and built-in way of centrifuging the national income and wealth. Its ability rests on activity and utility - if you are active and useful, you can get more for your services. But the rich per se are inactive and useless for anything except getting money from. So their buying power diminishes while everyone else's maintains. Of course, they don't need their huge level of buying power anyway because they were already spending all they cared to before they got the last $10 million. It's all just symbolism to them, - they're looking for investing power, and if they keep up this level of concentrating the national income, there will be fewer and fewer sustainable investment destinations that will even just retain the value of their original investment, because they've vacuumed the spending power out of the markets for the productivity that they NEED to invest in.

WSJ frontpage: "Global trade posts deficit" 1/14 - there it is, the GLOBAL economy now has concentrated so much of its iincome and wealth that there isn't enough left for the billions of consumers outside the top hundredth percentile (0.01%) to purchase its own output without work&wage redistribution via access-to-labor rationing via workweek reduction. Rationing is usually typical of wartime - but then, so is prosperity, and perhaps we are in a war...with our own outdated values of Hard Work during the age of robotics. (1/15)

The easiest approach in the USA is (1) to first just enforce the existing 40 hour workweek maximum and only then (2) make the link between our shifting level of technology via the redefined unemployment rate.
But zooming in on the project of enforcing the 40-hour workweek, perhaps it would be easier and politically faster to start not with the 40-hour workweek which has been ignored for so long in practice, but with the highest actual levels of hours worked. Therefore, step one is to do a more thorough survey of actual working hours by job category, including all jobs right to the "top." Step two is to decide whether to start overtime-to-hiring&training at the standard 40-hour level or some other level such as the longest surveyed workweek. In the latter case, the workweek ceiling cum reinvestment threshold would be lowered gradually from the topmost level, and debugged en route, providing more and more of the most demanded jobs first. Step three would be to organize around a real 40-hour workweek with over-40 reinvestment - and if unemployment was still too high, slowly lower that 40-hour reinvestment ceiling as much as necessary to achieve the lower unemployment target.

The wealthy have their own cult - they know that humans are only biodegradable organic robots, and so they have no problem fostering wars and sending thousands to their death - it's merely robot termination - to sell their weapons and support their investments in weapons manufacturers.

The only way to guarantee a government action will result in more jobs is not bailouts (indirect, no guarantees) but public works and better, work spreading.

You can't base a steady money structure on an unsteady time structure, because time is inherently more steady and stable than money from the start. You've got to design a steady time structure first, that takes advantage of time's inherent constancy, steadiness, and comprehensively unifying nature. Repeatedly in the history of U.S. labor, shorter hours was a unifying issue for all employees, but higher pay was a divisive issue because low-wage employees couldn't understand sacrificing and going on strike to get higher pay for employees who already had much higher pay than them.

The long-term problem is always the discipline of management, not labor; of the elite, not the majority. And it has not gone unnoticed among the elite that being disciplined by the markets is a lot gentler, long-term advisable, and undeterrable than any other way of keeping ourselves from sowing and watering the seeds of our own destruction.
However, we have been leaning, for a long time, toward shifting from market discipline (despite our effulgent lipservice in its favor) to regulatory discipline, and it has not been working well because it doesn't take us long to take control of the government if we aren't already It, and start easing the regulatory discipline in myriads of imaginative little ways, most of which redound to our short-term advantage and our long-term destruction. The whole point of political democracy and free markets is to protect the necessary disciplining of ourselves, the privileged, from concentrating 99% of the privileges within our own 1% of the population and essentially plunging "intelligent" life on this planet back into brutish savagery.

Now they're talking about makework and job creation and large public works again, just like the 1930s, which sooner or later requires higher taxes, but if you don't like taxes, how about employment insurance with premiums paid in terms of hours, not dollars?
Makework in the 30s was such a hassle and so ineffectual that FDR gave up on it after two years and admitted his mistake in not pushing a shorter workweek through Congress instead, when he had the chance in 1933. Has anyone ever researched the full background of his admission - why he said that?

Worktime economics, borrowing on the comprehensiveness of system thinking and unlike the narrowness of mainstream economics, includes population dynamics in its 'story' = its account or explanation of what's going on.
For example, we explain the real-wage stagnation since 1970 as the replacement of the labor surplus of the Depression by the maturation to employable age of the postwar babyboomers, and their entry into the job markets in quantity. Then housewives entered to help the now-stagnant household income and worsened the labor surplus, so wages started sinking, and then the Democrats, who wanted more grateful new citizens to vote for them, started raising yearly immigration quotas and enacting repeated amnesties for illegal aliens, thus worsening the labor surplus and depressing wages further, especially since, all the while, worksaving technology was being injected into the system, and the worksavings were not used to increase the energy reserves or slack in the system by compensatorily reducing the workweek while maintaining or raising real wages, but on the contrary, abused to increase the stress in the system and its pressure on its natural environment by counterproductively rigidifying the workweek at its 1940 level (40 hrs/wk) and simultaneously weakening the demand for human labor and dragging government and taxpayers into the role of employer and charity of last resort, an abuse so common that the last resort became more and more often the first resort as poor rural disemployed and unemployables joined the military and urban disemployed applied for welfare or disability or turned to crime. Meanwhile the Great Leak Upward opened wider and wider, and more and more of the national income rushed in and funnelled to the top 0.01%, creating a black-hole situation where "trickle down" replaced the massive money-supply centrifugation which alone would have been on the same scale as the unlimited and now-astronomical volumes of the national income and wealth that were being diverted by the ever deepening labor surplus to the topmost ten-thousandth, and the whole system finally went into more and more diagonal, downward spirals instead of the usual postwar horizontal spirals or the traditional wartime upward spirals (based on perceived labor shortage and inter-employer competition for good help).
It also includes game theory to discover fundamental contradictions in mainstream economics; for example, the fundamental game of economics is earning your living by working; that is, giving control of pieces of your life measured in time units over to someone else who in exchange gives you little colored pieces of paper that you can in turn exchange for food and shelter alias a livelihood.
But mainstream economics accepts downsizing, laying off, mass firing without individual cause, and even justifies it with Schumpeter's "creative destruction" oxymoron - more moron than ox and certainly begging the question Y Y why! - because it excludes formerly stable units from its system, its fundamental game, and positions them as potential disrupters - truly a self-destructive strategy with little evident creativity about it. (1/13)

Rising wages are really the mechanism by which an economy recovers from a depression. Therefore wage-push inflation is a natural and unavoidable part of an economy's recovery. The usual wage-price control board (ie: inflation control) should entirely take the form of an agency to enforce reinvestment of overtime profits and overwork earnings in training and hiring - which will gradually offset our overdependence on inflationary incentive and block hyperinflation.

Despite all the praise for FREE market forces and criticism of the "inflexible" 1933 Black-Connery Thirty Hour Work Week Bill, there have been three huge areas of inflexibility in the last 40-70 years:
(1) downward rigidity of the workweek (last 70 years)
(2) mounting job insecurity and immobility (last 40 years)
(3) upward wage rigidity (real wages stagnated around 1970 when the babyboomers entered the job market and restored the labor surplus of the Depression, and real wages started downward soon afterwards when housewives entered the job market because their husbands weren't getting the same kind of raises as they did before 1970 - thus housewives heightened the labor surplus and strengthened the downward pressure on real wages)
All this is different for the top income brackets - the cushioned wealthy can cut their workweek or goof off on the golf course any time they want, they exhaust themselves heightening their own security: security systems, gated communities, all kinds of protectionism of the kind that they deny to everybody else - for example, everyone else is supposed to respect their dogma of Free Trade (so they have a clear looting field). (1/09)

This can best be presented as braindead obvious and blocked normalcy - and in many ways, it is. Thousands of companies and organizations are doing it all over the nation and the world. The profession (economists), top mgmt and top govt (Obama...) are still blind, specifically time blind - they have not caught up with the timesizing that tens of thousands of mid and small size businesses and organizations are doing AS AN ALTERNATIVE to downsizing cuz they realize that downsizing is a synonym for recession creation and depression creation. (1/09)

I can't do it all, I'm the front end of an idea assemblyline that isn't there - I need help - I can't write books well, I can talk but I can't write - I need a ghostwriter - I need money for a ghostwriter - I need somebody to find me speaking gigs cuz right now I just find them by accident - and preferably ones that pay cuz I have a 4800$ creditcard debt.
Hyde's the name and hide's the game - I prefer to be inconspicuous and keep getting ideas, but somebody's got to get this show on the road and get the top people in biz and govt talking in the right zone = workspreading instead of still in the ineffectual (makework) or destructive (more big $transfers to the top) zones.
I need somebody to help me get my books back on Amazon. And updated/revised.

For every employee you lay off, you deactivate AT LEAST two consumers, namely the employee and his/her dependents. True, not all employees have dependents but some have LOTS of dependents to make up for it and many have pets that they ordinarily spend money on, extra money in good times, less in bad....
Kate has read recently about animal shelters being overrun by people giving up their pets cuz they can't afford them. "Googlenews THAT and you'll find lots of articles."

"The poor have only one advantage [but it's a big one] - they know when they are loved for themselves."
Ingrid Bergman as Anastasia in the film of the same name.

CEOs welched on the promise they made to us all to gain our support when they wanted to introduce new technology - "It will make your lives easier!" They welched by failing to cut hours and give us the benefit of technological work savings, and instead they cut jobs and made our lives more insecure.

Timesizing delivers wartime prosperity without the war. How? By cutting the workweek to cut the wage-lowering labor surplus ... instead of killing chunks of the workforce.

What is the underlying problem threatening the world? In the advanced economies, it is job insecurity, which leads people to dragnet the fisheries, clearcut the forests, pump out the aquifers, deplete the ozone layer - as if there's no tomorrow. In the developing economies, it's job desperation, which leads them to cut down their rainforests in Brazil, eat their vanishing species in Africa and Madagascar, poison their milk and dam up their ecosystems in China - as if there's no tomorrow. To get people out of their short-sightedness and governments out of the role of 40-hr/wk employer and charity of last resort - which they always do poorly - we must drop the straining to fill those forty-hours-plus and just share the vanishing natural, market-demanded employment, regardless of how short a workweek that may require as our level of worksaving technology rises higher and higher. The most important management skill of the future is...coordinating shorter shifts.
Why won't that cut wages too? Because wages go by supply&demand of labor as of everything else, not by productivity or by working hours. If wages went by productivity, they would have doubled repeatedly along with productivity as we've moved from mechanization to automation to robotization, instead of stagnating and sinking as the babyboomers around 1970 replaced the labor surplus of the Great Depression and first housewives, then unprecedented numbers of immigrants, expanded that surplus. And if wages went by hours, China would have the longest-hours, lowest-paid workers in the world. Oh, there will be short-term hardship for low-wage employees in the transition before the labor shortage caused by workweek cuts harnesses market forces to raise general pay levels, but low-wage employees can be tided over the transition from the unemployment insurance fund which would otherwise have to support them completely.
The time has finally come for automatically guaranteed full employment - and the robust markets and strong and stable investments that it provides - regardless of how short the workweek needs to get to give everyone a piece of the natural, market-demanded employment action in the age of robotics - and get government OUT of the job of employer and charity of last resort (AND cut the taxes, safely, that are supporting all this government straining to uphold a 70-year-frozen workweek!).

This website deals with the least discussed human priority, full employment and maximum markets. The urgent shift from quantity to quality begins here. We give everyone more of the most fundamental and basic freedom, free time (and more money to make it quality time). We articulate the dominant paradigm and redesign it. This is THE website for postmodern economics or more informatively, worktime economics and its successors. We also articulate the prerequisite questions, which job-dialect to use (a mix of economese and ecologese) and which order of attack on the megaproblems is necessary. (1/08/09 - saved from old homepage)

Recessions and depressions are caused by a kind of tidal boredom or madness among CEOs and investors. In good times, they worship growth in terms of having large corporate empires with lots and lots of employees. But then they stop connecting the dots between their employees and their consumer base, and they start assuming that growth is part of the woodwork of the economy and can be taken for granted, the consumer base can be taken for granted and nothing they could do could possibly harm it or curtail it, the employment base can be taken for granted and nothing they could do in their little corporate empire could possibly have any significant effect on economywide employment - there are so many other corporate empires out there to bolster it and keep it strong....
So the tide changes. It was coming in. Now it starts to go out.
It starts among individual CEOs who start looking at their corporate empires and thinking, Sales are going up slowly and steadily. Profits are going up slowly and steadily, just like at all the other corporations. My stock price is going up slowly and steadily, just like at all the other corporations. I'm a nobody, cuz I'm just like all the other CEOs. But I'm NOT a nobody goddam it, and I'm going to figger out a way for MY profits and MY stock price to JUMP up, enough of this boring slow and steady. Let's see. How can I stand out on the Big Board? What can I do that's bold and different? How can I push the envelope and think outside the box? How can I jump my profits when I can't seem to manipulate my markets enough with advertising to jump my sales? I've got all these lovely employees who are dependent on me, and so are their dependents. But geez, I spend an awful lot on payroll. What a huge expense! Hmm, that gives me an idea. What if I do things more efficiently and trim my workforce a little?! - they are my biggest expense and just a little trimming here and there won't make any difference to my operation, in fact will probably improve it, and it will keep everybody on their toes and spur them to work a little harder.... I can transfer those payroll savings right from the Expenses to the Profits column. My profit margins will take an immediate little jump that will get Wall Street's attention, my stock price will jump, my bonus and stock options will jump,,,, Hmm, let's give it a try.
And then the madness infects investors. They see the jump in profits. They start buying that stock. It all works just like the CEO figured. But then more and more CEOs and companies and stocks start doing it. And you have to cut wider and deeper to get any attention. You see where we're going with this. Pretty soon you have a race to "lean and mean." And though this never ever enters CEOs' minds, partitioned as they are, it soon becomes a race to the bottom.
Add to it the virus of "free trade" so you're competing with third world countries, like Mexico, India and China, with louzy wages and zero labor standards and you really do get a race to the bottom - so if you own a few media, you start spinning China as a really great place that represents the future, never mind their 20% unemployment, massive pollution, eco-killing public works and, oh yes, very recent (and very incomplete) emergence from Communism (oh nooo, Mr.Bill!). Besides, China is more exotic than India (and certainly than Mexico) and if we focus too much on India we'll have to notice their luddism, and of course, we couldn't do that cuz that's a real Bad Thing, and New Technology has been sooo helpful to us in our corporate efficiency campaigns, never mind we excused its introduction by saying it would make everyone's life easier.
Add to it the hypersensitivity that all rich people have that they might be losing money inconspicuously through inflation, so (A) they get the central bank (the Fed) to focus exclusively on inflation-fighting and drop its other mandate, unemployment-fighting, and (B) the central bank's ONLY inflation-fighting tool, raising interest rates, actually works by scaring employees, with more unemployment, OUT OF asking for raises. So the central bank actually turns into a major brake on growth and markets via its poverty of tools for fighting inflation and its focus on wage-push inflation.
So pretty soon, all this stuff that started as an exception becomes more common, even normal, and everyone is doin it, doin it, doin it and... sooner or later, wondrous to relate, it starts to have an effect.... Your CEO 'compensation' for getting this bold idea skyrockets and you start having a harder time finding sustainable investments. Never mind how productive these companies are, their sales - and markets - aren't growing like they used to, quirky consumers! Quirky consumers, why are they holding back?
And the whole thing turns into a downspiral which eventually registers on our finely groomed economic indexes, doctored though they are to hide and minimize any bad news.... So eventually even the sacred priests who keep these indexes are forced to admit that there's a recession - and that it actually started a year and a half ago. (How useful is a diagnostic "tool" that takes a year and a half to tell you that something's wrong?!)
Why do CEOs and investors fail to realize their central role in creating recession and depression? Partitioned brains - a strange juxtaposition of self-importance (I'm leaner and meaner and deserve more money than Bill Gates) and self-denigration (oh the cuts I've made to my little corporate empire couldn't possibly have had any significant effect on the whole big huge, functionally invulnerable and infinite, economy at large! Don't blame me, I'm just not that important or influential! Recessions and depressions are purely totally inexplicable Acts of God, and I am just as big a victim of them as anyone else!).

I always thought that the conviction that shorter hours was the cutting edge of ecological economics was a stretch, but come to think of it, it isn't, because the ecological problems were CAUSED by our distorted economic design and the substitution of the Gospel of Consumption for shorter hours in the mid-1920s. and the use of the 30-hour bill as a reverse pole star for policy forumulation throughout at least the First New Deal in the 1930s. (1/06/2009)

Only worktime economists and the shorter worktime movement have a coherent story about what is going on today in the national and global economies.
Mainstream economists, investors and financiers are at a loss.

We are making the same mistake as we made in the 1930s - we know the answer, but we are refusing to believe how important it is and how fast we have to move on it.
The answer is,,,reversing our wage-bashing labor surplus by engineering a perceived labor shortage, so that employers get bidding against one another, raise wage levels flexibly and harness market forces to solve the general depression. In other words, design a system of self-MAXIMIZING employment and get government and taxpayers OUT of the role of employer and charity of last resort => first resort.
Obama has learned nothing from the Great Depression while he's still talking about public works.
Public works is just makework or artificial job creation - to maintain a workweek level that was outdated when it was instituted on Oct. 24, 1940.

Is there a series of books that best symbolize the beginnings of the great social science eras, such as Sir Wm. Petty's Political Arithmetick for the economic age? What about the end and middle of the eras? 1/06

And the "devil finds work for idle hands to do" argument against worksharing via workweek reduction can be rebutted (besides by historic success of halving of 80-hr workweek of 1840 by 1940 and the the eradication of crime-inducing unemployment) by the powerful socially integrating force that the visible sharing of our vanishing natural market-determined work will have.
Natural market-determined employment is the nation's most valuable vanishing natural resource in the age of robotics.
Historically, wage demands were divisive, but shorter hours demands unified all crafts and wage levels.
And shared adversity is lightened, easier-to-bear adversity. See article "Why We're Still Happy" by Sonja Lyubomirsky, 12/27/2008 NYT A19.

Another reason economists call shorter hours a "failure" is that the time dimension is confusing - we all want and need it to stay background...woodwork, not to come forth and demand manipulation let alone integration into a vital economic-design stage of human evolution - and no one has gone there, no one has gone deep enough into it - they've all stopped short on the doorstep or in the foyer of this approach and not delved deeper into the wondrous salons.

Why have I delved deeper? Driven by the suicidal family background and the need to pursue a convincing reason not to follow family tradition.
Step one: need a very convincing reason to hang around.
2. What's the most convincing possible reason?
3. (A) identify and (B) solve the biggest human problem of your lifetime and (C) push the implementation of the solution as far as possible.
4. I've lived 2/3 of my life and I'm ready for C. Just as psychotherapy should not last longer than 5 years at the most, so identifying and solving and reframing the solution of the problem should not last longer than 25 years. You never have complete information before moving on. You always have to make a decision with incomplete info. OK. It's time.
5. I've always seen myself as the wispy front end of a long idea assemblyline - that isn't there yet.
Now's the time to shift over and start materializing it.
A. What stages or parts are there to it?
B. Lord teach me to delegate!

How have I delved deeper? Linguistics and ecology.

We've tried the investors' solution = concentrate the national income and wealth without limit in the topmost income and wealth brackets of the economy because the more investment money, the better.
If the investor solution worked, it would be working now, because there is now a record amount of the national income and wealth concentrated and consolidated at the top. It's a "black hole" economy.
So clearly the investors' "give it all to us" mentality doesn't work - it is not the solution.
So let's try the opposite theory.
Let's assume that it is precisely the problem.
There's just far too much money concentrated among far too small a part of the population - its slow circulation of megabucks has way overbalanced the fast circulating part of the money supply in the consumer markets (b2c) and business-to-business markets (b2b), let alone the employment markets, business to employees (b2e).
Money needs to be exchanged to retain, renew, refresh its value - the bulk of it (exactly what percentage and how calculate??) needs to be circulating (how fast and how measure velocity?).
If it isn't, there isn't enought marketable productivity for the investment money at the top to be profitable in, or even to be stored in sustainably.
It's not enough to just talk about productivity as a destination for investment trillions. It has to be marketable productivity, or it's just a matter of camouflaged charity.

So what's the gentlest, most market-oriented way to spread the hyperconcentrated investing power around, that is, back to the consumer base?
Not through charity - that just creates dependency or in biologese, parasitism.
That only leaves through work and wages.
But if that worked in its present shape, we wouldn't be in this crisis.
So what minimum do we have to change for it to work?
What's its present shape and what's wrong with it? It's a gross and growing labor surplus, and market forces are responding with sinking wages and redistributing money to the topmost brackets.
So how reverse it?
How did we do it in the Great Depression without (before) the war?
From 1933 to 1938 we tried job creation and socialism.
Unemployment went from 25% to 14.3% and back to 19% in 1938.
So job creation did not work on a sustainable basis.
So then what did we try?
We established a nationwide workweek (44 hrs/wk) and cut it two hours a year for the next two years.
Unemployment went to 17.2% in 1939 and 14.6% in 1940 and 10% in 1941 before the war got really ramped up in 1942.
This is the only intelligent, gradual, market-oriented way to centrifuge the national income and wealth and restore a sustainable balance of spending power and investing power.
It worked between 1938 and 1941. It worked when we did it haphazardly from 1840 to 1925, when the CEOs substituted the Gospel of Consumption = straining for more consumption and production and advertising to save the above-40 workweek forever. It can work again - let's go back to cutting the workweek two hours a year till general wages and consumer markets rise again, leach the black hole of investing power back down to meet it so there's a sustainable g division of the money supply between spending power and investing power, and get back to focusing on how we can switch to a sustainable presence on this planet so we don't have the big population collapse that the Limits to Growth predicted in 1972 and that now virtually every ecologist is predicting. (1/03)

If the economic problem is the problem of scarcity, the critical scarcity is the scarcity in the labor-employment markets and whether that scarcity resides on the labor or the employment side.
If it locates on the employment side as usual during peacetime, the national income and wealth are gradually concentrating without regulation or limit in the wealthiest tiny fraction of the population and the economy is gradually splitting, disintegrating, returning to the Two Islands of Feudalism, one rich and tiny and one poor and huge, as typical of the Third World.
If, however, the scarcity locates on the labor/candidates side of the job openings/job candidates markets as usual during periods of plague or war, wages are rising, the national income and wealth are gradually centrifuging, the economy is integrating, the velocity of the currency is accelerating, the sustainable and profitable destinations for investment money are proliferating.
And the whole secret is running the economy with a perceived scarcity of labor instead of employment, of job candidates instead of job openings.
As Arthur Dahlberg wrote in 1932:
"I contend, however, that under a chronic and genuine scarcity of labor, Capitalism is potentially almost an ideal system of economy - that it can secure all and more than Communism has to offer, at the same time that it avoids Communism's major difficulties and evils....
"For I believe that our balking, backfiring profits economy can - by injecting one planned adjustment - be made to work in socially desirable ways, and even be made to satisfy high-grade engineering standards of efficiency, with even less involved governmental interference and industrial control than we already have." (pp. xii, 23, Jobs, Machines and Capitalism)

Free market capitalism works well and sustainably with a perceived scarcity of labor and employees but not with a scarcity of jobs,
A scarcity of labor harnesses market forces to level the playing field of relative bargaining power between management and labor, which otherwise is slanted more and more steeply in management's favor.
And the long-term problem is not the discipline of labor that we hear so much about but the discipline of management. (12/30)

The human ego takes repeated blows.
The American elite today, so self-cushioned, self-insulated, self-isolated, have backed the downsizing of their own employment base, swallowed their own consumer base, and now their stored billions are losing value hour by hour because there are no markets for the massive, Third-World or robot-produced output they're invested in. It's now clear that the investment markets, investors and financiers are not the base and center of the economy. They depend on marketable productivity, that is, the consumer base, and that in turn depends on the employment base.
Compare the Copernican Revolution when humans were displaced from the center of the Solar System and the Universe.
Compare the Darwinian Revolution when humans were displaced from deliberate, special, precedent-setting, rule-breaking creation by a loving creator.

Worktime per person in terms of the value of the average manhour in a given currency-defined economy is the real currency base, e.g., the value of the average American working hour. But this depends on marketable productivity, and as technology is introduced and responded-to with downsizing instead of timesizing, cutting jobs and sacrificing consumers instead of cutting worktime per person and sacrificing nothing that isn't offset by worksaving technology, the markets for productivity shrink meaning less productivity is marketable, and the value of the average American working hour shrinks accordingly. (12/25-1/1)

Bailouts are huge toxic bandaids. The more money in bailouts, the more money you redistribute up the income scale from the lower and middle brackets to the topmost income and wealth brackets and thus the more money you convert from spending power to investing power - which sounds OK except when the whole problem is the huge overbalance of consolidated money in the topmost brackets in the first place.
The more money you convert from spending power to investing power, the more you slow the circulation of the currency = the more you decelerate the velocity of the money supply and damage your economic dynamism and resilience. (12/25)

The current economic crisis is the result of repeated massive attempts at private-sector makework, such as the dot-com bubble and then the housing/construction bubble (a perennial favorite).
Definition: Makework is job creation without market demand, job creation only for its own sake alone.
The theory seems to be, if we produce it, it will sell (never mind at how low a price or how long it takes) - this is Say's Law of the inevitable clearance of markets, and like the Lump of Labor sneer, it assumes something that seldom if ever exists in the real world; namely, an indefinite timeframe. (12/28)

The Timesizing service mark is available to the shorter hours movement.
The slogan Timesizing Not Downsizing addresses the economic crisis because the whole problem is downsizing our consumer base via our employment base and downsizing the velocity of the circulation of our currency.
The slogan Timesizing Not Government Upsizing addresses the ecological crisis because the upsizing of job creation and marginally marketable productivity just to fill a 40-hour workweek long obsoleted by our rising levels of technology is the root of our burgeoning ecoproblems.
With Timesizing, we stop fighting more free time and stop straining to offset the benefits of technology with artificial job creation - we stop the workaholism and just embrace more of the fundamental freedom, free time, by sharing the vanishing natural market-demanded work. (12/26/08)

This is best spun as a battle for freedom - the most cushioned and powerful among us have shortsightedly blocked the most fundamental freedom for the last 68 years by freezing the workweek and preventing it from shrinking - they have blocked more free time and forced government and taxpayers to pick up tab as the employers and charity of last resort, to eternally maintain a frozen level of the workweek at a level appropriate to our technology level in 1940, thus preventing humantity from ever getting any real benefit out of worksaving technology, ever. And the last straw? - cutting the taxes on themselves, the richest, and pushing the rising costs of keeping people spinning their wheels forever at the frozen 40-hour level onto the middle and lower brackets who can much less afford it. And the main condtradiction? - this all just means there's even less spending power to purchase the flood of products and services made and performed by automation and robots - which do not buy their own - so there's less and less marketable productivity to invest in and less and less to store their black hole of income and wealth in and less and and less and less circulation of the currency to refresh the value of money and maintain and anchor it, and so their wealth hyperinflates and everyone starves, like Germany in the early 20s, and soon their billions and trillions is worthless, and all is reduced to barter ...with massive die-off - but the necessity of sharing will be obvious to the few survivors, and the need to repeatedly design new centrifuge mechanisms one after another throughout all future human evolution. (12/24)

Contradictions in our current economic design

The most fundamental contradiction is, we think we can have machines, automation and robots making all products and performing all services and we'll still have humans with earnings to buy those products and services. As Walter Reuther retorted when challenged by Henry Ford with "Let's see you unionize these robots!" - "Let's see you sell'em cars."
When your capitalist leaders turn communist -
Related to that, though our captains of industry claim to idolize growth and worship the Gospel of Consumption, they are now much more efficient destroyers of consumer capitalism than the communists ever were, because each time these "capitalists" downsize their employment base, they at least double-downsize their consumer base, what with the consequent deactivation not only of the disemployed themselves but also of their dependents, and also with the deceleration of the velocity of the currency and the subsequent insufficiency of marketable productivity even to maintain the principal of the megatrillions that the tiny investor base wishes to invest in it.

Welfare reform - Something for something - The fight against an ingrained culture of dependency goes on, 12/13/2008 Economist Magazine 65.
You can't solve a problem at the bottom that's really a problem at the top.
Employers and CEOs have spent so many decades making it hard for people to support themselves by fostering a labor surplus and pushing costs onto the workforce, and then they turn around and "deplore the dependency culture that blights some areas." Their self-contradictory policy? Overwork is fine, but underwork is not (except for themselves and their families).

NASA takes a leap in outsourcing - Agency awards two companies up to $3.5B to supply space station, by Andy Pasztor, 12/24/2008 WSJ B1.
So CEOs and employers cut, cut, cut - cut spending - save money any way you can - forget about quality - except for ordinary people who are supposed to spend, spend, spend.
This is another contradiction = CEOs and upper brackets can cut their taxes and cut their spending, but everyone else is supposed to pay for everything and spend, spend, to keep the economy going. The hypocrisy is thick enough to cut with a letter opener. (12/27)

Another contradiction? "Protectionism is bad. Free trade is good." - except for the intense protectionism of the topmost income brackets behind the walls of their gated communities, exclusive clubs and private islands and resorts. Basically, protectionism is "OK for us, but the rest of you take off all your clothes and bend over!"

Another contradiction - CEOs and employers, control freaks, they love control - want as much face time as possible from their employees - "longer workweeks! shorter vacations!" - fear of basic freedom in terms of more free time - talk the talk of freedom, walk the walk of sweatshop - and give up control to globalization - "globalization is inevitable" - yeah, just like socialism, catholicism, the hoola hoop - no controls, no regulation - out of control. (12/27)

Another contradiction is that when an economy has to fill a frozen workweek for everyone while introducing worksaving technology and weakening the demand for human workhours, all healers - doctors, virus blockers and cold-remedy makers - have a conflict of interest = a substantial incentive to create secretly the problem they're paid to solve - did the gospelers of consumption consider THAT when they decided to substitute makework and advertising for simple, unstrained worksharing?

Another contradiction is that growth is good but its only anti-inflation tool...clobbers growth (raising interest rates).

Time is the great quantifier of all activity great and small, and inactivity - time is the great leveller - it is the best foundation and anchor therefore as a level playing field for a free market.

If, as Einstein said, anything travelling at the speed of light (relative to what reference or view point?), has infinite mass, do photons have infinite mass? - cuz they, as light waves/quanta, are obviously travelling at the speed of light.
There appears to be some linguistic and/or metaphorical confusion here.

Time, as the all-pervasively, comprehensively quantifying measure, is also the Great Integrator and the Great Equalizer. As the Great Leveller, time answers the same question of all deeds, great or small : "how long did it last?" and it treats them all the same way it treats inactivity : "how long did it last?" It treats the lives of great people the same as ordinary people - "how many years did they live?" It treats the lives of people the same as insects - "how long do they live?"

There is only one way to restore the centrifuge function in a black hole economy such as ours, where a disproportionate entitlement to the circulating currency has been centripetaled to a disproportionately few people, and that is through market forces acting in response to perceived shortages of labor. General labor shortages have been "successfully" used in the past to restore prosperity but they have been achieved via plague or war, and thus the prosperity they achieved was always relatively smaller and riskier than if the general labor shortage had been engineered in a non-destructive way with all those extra potential consumers activated into currency-circulation accelerators by the additional centrifugation of the national income and wealth.

The only known non-destructive way is rationing employer access to employees by regulating worktime per person. This approach has been used successfully in many economies. In the current largest economy (US), the workweek was sporadically cut from above 80 hours to 44-48 by 1937, then officially established at 44 in 1938 and reduced 2 hours a year over the next 2 years to the 40-hour level in 1940.
France cut from 40 to 39 in 1982 and further to 35 between 1997 and 2001.
South Korea is currently cutting from 44 to 40 in a staged 7-year process between 2004 and 2011.

A less effective way, operating by shortening the workyear instead of the workweek, has been used extensively throughout Europe, where annual vacations have been lengthened to 5 and 6 weeks; that is, the annual workyear has been reduced from 52 weeks to 50 to 49, 48, and now 47 or 46.

"Like" for contemp teens and 20-somethings is the commonest word and morpheme. It's counterpart among the English vowels is the shewah, to which all vowels out of stress shrink. Shewah is the mid-central vowel, with maximum ambiguity or optionality. Ditto "like" among morphemes.
On Amtrak 68 at Rouse's Point, NT, listening to two teen/20 conversations at once.

Neighboring societies are often out-of-phase. Now the US with Obama coming in is ahead of Canada in top leadership vs. secret-government Harper, but with a continuing culture of paranoia behind Canada in news coverage and range&depth of political discussion. This out-of-phase phenomenon is due to social momentum/inertia. In his two years, Harper has not yet succeeded in destroying as much of Canada's open society (George Soros's term) as Bush in his eight-year reign of scare tactics and socialist redistribution in favor of the most wealthy.

Insightful CEOs like Charles Filene have always "connected the dots" between their employees and their customers' customers, their workforce and their consumers. Charles Filene said that mass production requires mass consumption, and mass consumption in the context of constantly improving worksaving technology requires shorter and shorter working hours and higher and higher pay. Unthinking CEOs and magnates might like to accumulate 99% of the money in the economy, but then it becomes valueless, because there's no circulation to maintain its value, and no employment to initiate its value by trading it for pieces of human lives.

If they instead foster a larger and larger labor surplus to hold down wages, they gradually create a situation like today's when the consumer base cannot buy its own output (and all the other consumer bases in the world are just as weak so exporting is no general solution), markets gradually shrink, and there is insufficient marketable productivity to invest in and to maintain the value of the massive "black hole" of money concentrated and consolidated in the top tiny fraction of the population.

What happens? The population splits into self-important but insecure workaholics and self-abusing and desperate parasites. The 300,000 wealthy decision-makers in effect become parasite breeders, just as the neo-cons with their obsessive and blindered international policy of pre-emptive war became terrorist breeders. Then they have to support them anyway because no one else has the money, including the lower and lower paid workaholics, or they have to find some kind of Nazi-like final solution for them, which would turn all the rest of the world against them and they better have their cyanide pills handy as Hitler did in the end.

Timesizing and its successor-programs are the only intelligent, humane, civilized, gradual, market-oriented, long-term way out of our current economic crisis. You may think there are difficulties along this path, and there are, but they are the right difficulties. You may think there are problems along this path, and there are, but they are the right problems - because they lead on, they open to a continuing future, and none of our recent solutions" - war, plague, population split into workers and drones, habitat desolation... do that.

It's not like we have a choice. We have to do this. It's the only strategy that has a future. We've tried all the rest repeatedly and they have failed. We've dropped this in order to try them again and again they've failed while we've spun this as a failure - despite the facts = 100 years of success as we cut the workweek in half from over 80 to 40, success in the US between 1938 and 40. success in France between 1997 and 2001, ongoing current success in South Korea from 2004 to 2011.

So stop objecting and resisting and just DO it. Get over it and get going. There is no future elsewhere, zero, nada, zilch. No other policy direction leads on = downsizing? outsourcing? government as the employer and charity of last resort with the last resort becoming the main resort and the first resort? From 1840 to 1940 we cut the workweek in half, from 80 to 40, and things worked better. We have introduced more worksaving technology since 1940 but we haven't cut the workweek one nanosecond. We need to cut further, and cut until we have maximized the consumer base for our level of population, and that means designing-in full employment. We need to centrifuge the money out of the black hole where it's concentrated in the topmost brackets and restore the balance of investing power and spending power. Only then will this economic "crisis" for the rich be solved and the centrifugal forces on the national income and wealth and decision-making balance the currently out-of-control centripetal forces.

In future, it will be necessary to minimize the impact on the environment while maximizing consumption (ie: markets and marketable productivity) by giving over control of the workweek to the unemployment rate, redefined to include the whole problem of non-self-support (welfare, homelessness, prison, forced retirement...) = as long as comprehensive unemployment is too high or rising, the workweek will be decremented on a referendum determined schedule. How does the impact on the environment get reduced? People have more free time to consider the long term, get product labeling, shop more wisely, and get more functionality for less ecological impact.

The financial markets are not the base of the economy - they are a tottering speculative scaffolding thrice derivative from the employment markets via the consumer markets (b2c) and the industrial and wholesale markets (b2b). The employment markets are the place where money gets its value by being exchanged for pieces of human lives, measured in working hours via wagework or in products and services via piecework.

Trigger article - The Partisan, by Michael Tomasky, 11/22/2007 NY Review of Bks 12ff.
...The normal economist's view is that economic changes drive political changes.
[Worktime economists agree with this (but note that Marx said it first).]
Thus, the Depression led to the New Deal, for example.
[Duh, yeah.]
In our time [ie: Nov. 2007?], global competition, the information technology (IT) revolution, and the demand for high skills led to a higher inequality,...
[Worktime economists disagree. Our "narrative" is this -
The repeated introduction of worksaving technology such as IT against downwardly frozen worktime per person that could only get longer, not shorter (eg: workweeks could easily get longer than 40 hours but not shorter and vacations could easily get shorter but not longer) meant that labor in general (human capital) became a commodity in deeper and deeper surplus. The same as with any commodity, market forces reward a scarcity but punish a surplus, so it was with labor - market forces drove labor price (wages) DOWN - and, respect for labor down.
CEOs continued protectionism for themselves - gated communities etc. - but pushed "free trade" = no protectionism for everyone else = "globalization" - which they also spun as "inevitable," though as often pointed out, no advanced economy had achieved its advance without protectionism (tariffs) - but what do CEOs and business schools and their robot army of mainstream economists care about history, or learning from experience?!
So labor surplus admitted unbuffered competition with undeveloped countries with huge population surpluses, low living standards and no labor standards, and that led to higher inequality ("wider income gap") and labor powerlessness in the U.S.]
...which in turn meant a shrinking constituency, among the winners, for the kind of top-down, class-warfare politics that today's GOP engages in.
[Unclear who "the winners" refers to, and unclear if "shrinking constituency" means "fewer supporters" (weaker) or "more concentrated support" (stronger).]
Krugman had always believed...that this was how things unfolded. "Yet," he writes of our era: "I've become increasingly convinced that much of the causation runs the other way - that political change in the form of rising polarization has been a major cause of rising inequality...."

The most cushioned among us have the most decision-making power. This does not a sustainable system make, because systems need feedback, especially change-triggering feedback, otherwise known as negative feedback, and as negative feedback approaches the decision makers, it gets less and less negative, even starts to look positive, till we get people like Bush saying, "Stay the course!" - right off the cliff, and "Helluva job, Brownie!" - despite the incompetence, and "Mission accomplished!" - despite another five years and counting of unnecessary slaughter and waste and terrorist breeding.

The only way to get the decision-makers off their own planet (and it's an ongoing problem long-term) is to create a situation of respect for ordinary people in the only sphere that counts - the market, and the only people the market respects have the same attribute as the only commodities the market respects - high prices because of constricted supply alias scarcity. And the only way to create a scarcity of people aka human capital in the market aside from war and plague is ... the regulation of worktime per person, most effectively, workweek reduction. And the most market-oriented and gradual workweek reduction program ever designed - complete with central-bank and population variables factored in - is timesizing.

There are two natural reasons why we're stuck here in social evolution with our computer software far surpassing our social software and our centripetal mechanisms far surpassing our centrifugal systems: one is the natural tendency of value and power to accumulate and pamper (= insulate and isolate) itself and two is the confusing nature of the next-up variable to centrifuge and balance, namely, time.

What now? BG
letter to obama
where's bruce book
where's TS ver I'm editing

I think it might help you to have a glimpse of the economy of the future - what all the economies look like ,,,if they survive? There are three common design features, borrowed from the design of natural systems, that they will reflect: minimum necessary departure from status quo, homeostasis and problem-triggered solutions, the last two really different sides of the same coin - they'll have unemployment-controlled workweeks and automatic overtime-to-hiring conversion - these two features are the filling of the sandwich - the bread on either side protects the filling - on one side we protect the core from distraction/priority displacement and monetary threats: hyperinflation inducement and over- or under-sensitivity to the problem - on the other side we protect the core from external threats in terms of runaway population variables, whether imports, immigrants or births.
In the core there is a natural flation stabilizer...as long as no extreme manipulation occurs. For example, currently there is talk of printing as much money as it will take to restore the economy. But an economy with an infinite and infinitely growing disparity cannot be "restored" because it is continuously pulling apart. And transferring more money to the top only deepens the disparity and pulls the economy apart further and faster.

what now?
we quit focusing on the bogus fundamentals and scare tactics "if we let the big guys fall, disaster will ensue" - as long as we buy this line, things will get worse - and we focus on the real fundamentals, jobs - in fact we focus on them so hard that length of job doesn't matter, "hard work" doesn't matter, smart work does matter and we focus on the real fundamentals, jobs - the financial markets are not the fundamentals - they depend on marketable productivity which means b2b and b2c Today's migrant worker: life in the shadows of opulence - In shadows of rich, migrants build lives, by Megan Woolhouse, 12/03/2008 Boston Globe A1, A16.
[Here's another problem with disparity - it is self-aggravating. Extremes foster extremes. Extremely Good (wealth and power) fosters extremely Bad (poverty and powerlessness). The split economy widens further and destabilizes further. The grasp of the wealthy, who can most easily afford high wages, for low-wage workers, depresses general wage levels throughout the economy, which weakens the "marketable" part of marketable productivity (and productivity without marketability is useless) and weakens the investments of the wealthy themselves. So, another suicidal habit on their part (besides discouraging negative feedback, the kind that triggers adaptibility and survivability).]

Report links safety to physicians' sleep - More rest lowers accidents among doctors in study, by Elizabeth Cooney, 12/03/2008 Boston Globe A1, A16.
...Current guidelines, set by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, say residents [ie: medical apprentices] can work an average of 80 hours a week [recently reduced from 120!] over four weeks and no more than 30 consecutive hours at a time.
[What a murderous outrage on the face of it! This is nothing but a thinly disguised gauntlet to strangle access to medical skills and hype doctors' wages.]
...A growing body of research [shows] that not only can patients suffer, but residents can too when they are deprived of sleep.
[Duh. Sleep deprivation is a standard kind of torture.]
Residents greatly increased their risk of motor vehicle crashes
[truckers take notice!]
and accidents with needles, called needlesticks, after working more than 24 hours straight, Dr. Christopher Landrigan, director of the sleep and patient safety program at Brigham and Women's Hospital, said in an interview.
[Amazing, huh? Who would have guessed?]
He presented his research on sleep and safety to the Institute of Medicine committee.\.that prepared.\.a national report recommending broad changes by hospitals..\.. His research...includ[ed] a study at the Brigham that compared residents who worked 16-hour shifts to their peers on duty for 30 hours. The frequency of medical errors was dramaticallyl lower in the 16-hour-shift group.
[What a surprise - not.]
"There are extremely clear data now that [among] doctors who work more than 16 hours without a break, the risk of making a mistake to themselves and others goes up," Landrigan said. "There's no clear data on what the perfect solution to the problem is."
[Ah, what about that "extremely clear data" this genius just cited about the risks of working more than 16 hours, duh? Or is he just another saboteur who careens from serious problem to "perfect" solution or none at all?]
..\..The new recommendations call for a maximum shift of 16 continuous hours, or a 30-hour shift that includes five hours of sleep. The sleep time would be included in the weekly 80 hours....
[This whole sick culture of workaholism among American "healers" is unknown in Europe.]

We like to think we're smarter than insects - just look at those dumb flies and bees and butterflies inside the porch that keep flying against the windows trying to get out, when there's an open door right behind them.
But we humans are doing the same thing. We keep trying to make unlimited disparity work as a basic economic design, and it just doesn't. We conservatives keep struggling to work harder and get more worksaving technology regardless of how many people we marginalize in and alienate from the labor markets, or we liberals keep straining to come up with more artificial job creation regardless of how little how late and how much pork and patronage we foster - when we could just stop straining, dismantle all the costly government makework programs, overt and covert, and share the vanishing natural market-demanded employment however short a workweek or workyear that might require.

Conservatives don't mind concentrating work on a few superior people, however few. Liberals don't mind manufacturing work however artificial, wasteful or unecological. Neither mind how long working hours become nor how many people are marginalized.
By contrast with both, worksharing advocates don't mind sharing the vanishing work and skills to include everyone in the self-supporting job market, however short the workweek and workweek become.

What is the connection between Jesus Christ and "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (Thomas Kuhn)?
One meaning of "the Christ event" that I hadn't phrased this way is the sobering and humbling lesson of how the power elite not only ignore, not only fail to sufficiently appreciate, but actually DESTROY some or all of their greatest human assets. (Jesus prepared for the political age by positioning himself at the crossroads of so many coincidences that he gave sufficient common interest/shared allegiance for people of different lifestyles and literary traditions (clerics and monastics) to talk out their differences instead of fighting them out or chasing/withdrawing them completely apart.) And Thomas Kuhn has tracked some afterstories to that in his book - the rejection of the next great scientific paradigm by the established scientists or "scientists" of each epoch (his main example was the geocentric-to-heliocentric shift in astrology/astronomy and also the rejection of Vesalius' anatomy book by the physicians of the time because it was, for the first time, illustrated, but more recently, there's the shift to plate tectonics in geology and the shift to pro- and eu-karyotic cells in biology and the pending shift to worktime economics). Another great area of examples here is the control of war correspondents documented in "The First Casualty" (Phillip Knightley).
"The most cushioned among us have the most decision-making power." Ergo, negative feedback gets less and less negative as it approaches the decision-makers and we get, "Stay the course!" and "Helluva good job, Brownie!" (George W. Bush) Ergo, poor or no system feedback of the sort that really counts = indications of CHANGE, ie: insufficient changibility/variability, adaptibility, survivability.
On the other hand, at the genetic level, most mutations supposedly would be lethal and, eg, human embryos with such are spontaneously squelched by the genetic machinery within the first 24 hours of their conception (ref: Steve Bailey of Tufts) at such an early stage that the women concerned do not even notice the event. There is a severely self-protective function to the status quo. Is not this a Good Thing?
How can valuable "mutations" that would increase system variability and survivability (survive and) get adopted and standardized? It seems they have to imitate standard functions in as many optional areas as possible, camouflage themselves as ordinary as it were. Of course, sometimes this backfires as when toxic viruses or bacteria camouflage themselves successfully (egs?).
Hopeful signs? The great social-science (and biological-science) eras are shortening = there is an accelerating effect. Whatever it takes to separate the sheep (good mutations) from the goats (bad mutations) is happening faster and faster from the big birdseye view.
What does it take? Experimentation. Gotta run some experiments. Debug the prototype(s). See how it all works in practice. Workweek reduction has worked pretty well in practice I believe. (Then why is it kneejerk spun as "tried and failed" by TPTB = the powers that be, eg, Lester Thurow at the BU talk in the early '80s? - why not ask him? 451-2094)

Fed to give lenders an $800B lift - New infusion brings concern about inflation, 11/26/2008 Boston Globe A1.
Companies are quick to slice their workforce, 11/26/2008 Boston Globe A1.

We're still doing exactly the wrong thing - giving money to those who already have most of it and to whom it therefore means least, while downsizing our real fundamentals = our employment and consumer bases - thus guaranteeing that there will still be no marketable productivity for those with the most to invest in or even store their "most" in.
And we're spurring stagflation because of the dual economy = taking money from those to whom it means most, the bottom 80%, and giving it to the people to whom it means least, the top 20%. Of course there'll be inflation = higher and higher prices for luxury goods - and deflation = lower and lower prices for barer and barer necessities because the majority of the population has less and less money. The rich will have a harder and harder time getting value for money, and the poor will have a harder and harder time getting money, period.

The repeated reliance of the tiny minority of the population with astronomical money on the huge majority of the population (taxpayers) with less or little money is an admission and a very practical proof that money without population has no anchor or foundation, while population without money still has anchor and foundation.
What is that anchor and foundation? Well, what do a lot of poor people have that a few rich people do not have?
The obvious answer is ... time, a LOT more time.
Ergo, the basis of money is time. Translation: the ultimate currency base is not some metal standard, such as the silver or gold or oil standard, but human time.
And how do humans get money (alias access to all goods and services)?
By exchanging time for money - they give up control over part of their life time, in exchange for money alias symbolic time.
What is this time of surrendered control called?
Work, or work time, or employment.
So how do we correct the huge imbalance of time and money? - certainly not by redistributing more money from the many with huge time but little money to the few with only huge money but little time! That just makes it worse.
We have only one general option:
We must redistribute time, and the money will follow, because money is derivative from time and, as mentioned, may be called symbolic time.
What is the most market-oriented, least traumatic, minimal necessary departure from status quo in achieving this necessary and now urgent redistribution of work time?

Received in the mail from Chase MasterCard offer of protection from ID theft - but they have a direct conflict of interest in making this offer to their own credit card holdlers because of the incentive it gives them to practice ID theft on their own clients. (11/2008)

Timesizing is the minimum departure from status quo needed to reverse our downward economic and ecological spirals. It starts with an automatic work&skill sharing toolkit that gets our "morality" caught up with our technology, our social software with our computer software and spreads around the huge black hole of money that has developed since 1970.

A tanking economy is like a swirling river - there are still lots of whirlpools where there's still some water going upstream - before circling round downstream again, e.g., Hewlett Packard actually had profits last quarter (3Q08).

What's better: supply-side or demand-side?
How about balance "side"? = a system that guarantees that, for any given population, you are getting the maximum, natural, market-driven consumer demand for domestic productivity so that you can maximize (and optimize!) marketable productivity = profitable investment targets.
What would such a system look like?
It would start with homeostatic full employment.
How do you get "full employment" in a tanking global economy?
You loosen your deathgrip on 40 hours a week as Full Time for benefits, and let the unemployment rate determine the workweek automatically - as long as unemployment is too high or rising, you trim the workweek.
We trimmed two hours a year from 1938 to 1940 and unemployment went from 19% to 14.6%.
France averaged one hour per year from 1997 to 2001 and unemployment went from 12.6% to 8.6% before the US-led recession hit France that summer.
South Korea is currently in the middle of a seven-year cut from 44 to 40 hours, so that averages just under a halfhour cut per year....

Another pointer: what's the one rigidity that's distorting economies most?
Downward workweek inflexibility.

Another pointer: if economics is the quantitative age, when we resolve problems by quantifying them, what is The Basic Quantifier of all activity and inactivity on the surface of this planet?
And what's the accountable form of time?
Put'em together with us and you get:
Worktime per person.
Easiest form:
The workweek.

Economics is suicidal, because it's short-sighted.
Ecology isn't suicidal, because it has a very very long time horizon.< P> Economics was a step ahead of poliltics because its quantification approach made for shared partial agreement,
while politics' two-party approach only conduced to shared partial disagreement via negotiation and compromise.

Ecology is a step ahead of economics because its homeostatic approach makes for very long-term sustainability,
while economics' quantification approach has a built-in bias for more and bigger, and despite anti-government and free-market rhetoric, interventions are accepted to keep the juggernaut going and growing as if there's no tomorrow.
(Note the extent of far-sightedness on the part of the most famous economist of the last century was, "In the long run, we're all dead." = Keynes)

Peace creates depressions with labor surplus.
War (or plague, if not totally depopulating) "solves" depressions with labor shortage, hence "wartime prosperity."
Modern war can't do it because it's either too depopulating (as for the Iraqis) or not depopulating enough (as for the American invaders - oops, can't say that in the sacred Land of Free Speech - how about: "as for the American liberators").

Throughout recorded history, labor surplus has been a mysterious corelative of every single depression and labor shortage a mysterious corelative of every period of prosperity.
Same with high crime of every period of unemployment and low crime of every period of full employment.
Does the data have to do handstands before mainstream economists construct a theory that accounts for these "corelations," or even discusses them?
(Oh, I forgot - history before 10 years ago does not exist for mainstream economists - and not surprisingly, their "future" is usually only as far ahead as the next quarter.)

Republicans create depressions with greed (taxcuts and jobcuts). Democrats solve depressions with sharing (lots of makework and charity - and a little sharework = shorter worktime). The parties switched roles in 1908 when Teddy Roosevelt passed the presidency to Taft and Taft dropped the ball ("right on Teddy's toes").

Consciousness of some level occurs any time there is a sense receptor at the other terminus of the nerve impulses initiated by that sense receptor, analyzing the impulses and making a decision (e.g., whether or not to move and ifso, re direction and possibly speed) based on that analysis.
"Experts" on consciousness, whether new-age or not, talk about a "dawn" of consciousness, often related to the development of language. But any break in the gradual expansion of consciousness, let's visualize the continuum of consciousness, is due merely to extinctions.

Time is not malleable (though it can seem so).
Time is not ductile (though it can seem so).
But there is one feature of time that is very useful and that we are using everywhere except in its most useful application, where any hint of its use is greeted with dismissal and ridicule.
Everywhere we are using the (infinite) fractionability, divisibility of time, e.g., ___________
except ... in the workweek.

Contrary to widespread myth, you do not create jobs by giving money to people and corporations that already have a lot.
You do not "create" jobs for jobs' sake at all.
You simply share the natural market-demanded working hours, sit back, and watch what happens when you've removed the job insecurity and desperation and made it easy instead of hard to support oneself.

In Canada, the capital city is full of beggars, like the Third World. We have made it so difficult for people to support themselves, because we failed to catch the ring on the carousel of shorter hours and CEO-perceived labour shortage and higher wages and spread-around money and power and a balanced, sustainable market economy where there was plenty of MARKETABLE productivity for the wealthy to invest in. We have dragged government into straining to manufacture busywork to fill an unchanged 70-year-old workweek so the CEOs can have more face-time control over us. And now it's all coming apart because unemployment-vanishing shorter hours is the only long-term sustainable option that doesn't ruin our habitat, the planetary biosphere, and make it toxic to our further existence.

Do we want big government or don't we? If we don't, the private sector is going to have to grow up, stop looking to Big Daddy government for bailouts and favors (subsidies) and freebies (taxbreaks), clean up its own messes and HIRE ITS OWN CUSTOMERS - instead of looking to government as the employer and charity of last resort or to foreign markets as the deus ex machina that by some not-available-at=home magic, is going to provide profitable take-up for all our automation- and robot- amplified mass productiion.
Then government can shrink and become merely the referee of the workweek reform (aka reduction) required for full employment during the Age of Robotics.
Don't like full employment? GET OVER IT - full employment is required for maximum markets and maximum marketable productivity for maximum STABLE investments. (Edward Filene of FIlene's Basement said it first - in 1932 in "Successful Living in this Machine Age.")
Make up your mind! - Do you want maximum STABLE investments or don't you? If you do, you NEED maximum marketable productivity, not mere debt-sustained consumption = inherently temporary - like the housing bubble, and not more high-tech bubbles like dot-coms that disemploy more people cuz now we have to do our own banking, travel agenting, and newspaper reading, etc. on the web - no network of local jobs required.

In short, we gotta disabuse ourselves of our comfy old lies, like, technology creates more jobs than it destroys - that is NOT the way our short-sighted CEOs have been using technology - they've been using it to downsize their payroll "costs" = their workforce = their customers' customers, and slit their own throats in the longer term, instead of to cut the workweek and give us all more of the most basic freedom, FREE TIME.

Then there's the one about, we need all the investment money at the top that we can get - there is no point at which the concentration of the national income and wealth in few pockets turns negative and self-undermining - UNLIMITED concentration of the national income and wealth is FINE and GOOD. Never mind if 99% if the money supply is concentrated in the hands of the top ONE PERCENT or less of the population - we've still got an economy (yeah, third-world!).

Businessmen and CEOs want something for nothing. They want markets without workforce, customers without employees. And they're only against government until they can get government handouts or even become welfare bums. They're like hobos, bums, beggars, drifters - the very people they despise. They're living on borrowed time, totally unsustainable. And they're ready to claim out of one side of their mouth that technology creates more jobs than it destroys, and out of the other side of their mouth they'll use the general anxiety and job shortage to pressure government into giving them taxbreaks and subsidies in return for all the JOBS they promise to create - but of course, let's not set up any accountability here - Fidelity Investments might actually want to move from Mass. to Rhode Island next year or so and we can't have any pesky responsibilities to the Mass. taxpayers via the legislature!

Trying to control the economy from the top, that is, from the thrice-derivative financial markets ) based on the business markets based on the consumer markers based on the job markets) is like trying to push a string.
Why would they want to control inflation by slowing growth (via higher interest rates)? Because that's something bankers alone can do easily.
The real solution involves offsetting inflationary job incentive with deflationary, money motive with job satisfaction or voluntarism. Right now voluntarism is wasted relative to the economy and excluded from it, or worse, pitted against it, so that, for example, it's hard for theater companies to survive in Boston because there are so many colleges there where students are just giving it away.

Click here for our timesizing blog prior to Nov. 4, 2008 during the repeatedly accelerated national death spiral of the Bush regime.

Return to Top | Return to Home Page