The Timesizing® Program
©2004 Phil Hyde, Timesizing.com, Box 117, Harvard Sq PO, Cambridge, MA 02238, USA 617-623-8080 - HOMEPAGE
"Saving the World" - Preliminaries
OK kids, we all want to save the world but we'd already have done it long since if we weren't goofing it up so bad. So let's bypass the babbling and bloviating stage by soaking up a few pointers from an old "save the world" hand, Phil Hyde III of Boston, Mass. & Stanstead, Que. -
Ironclad Principles for "Saving the World" -
Violate them and you join the long list of failures...
Quick Reference. The 5 phases of the public-sector stage of the Timesizing program (bear in mind there's a long private-sector stage preceding that) are:
- You cannot "save the world" with a random wishlist or "grocery list" such as the Democrats and Greens tend to generate.
- You cannot "save the world" with unlimited acquisition like the GOP has deteriorated to. This violates economists' own law of marginalism (they accept the marginal utility of concentrated value - that is, the diminishing, ultimately limited, utility of value as it gets concentrated among fewer and fewer people - except when it comes to personal wealth and income; then they switch to unlimited utility of concentrated wealth and income = reverse marginalism).
- You cannot "save the world' by solving individual low-level problems like curing cancer or global warming, or cleaning up the natural or corporate environment. You must "save the world" by attacking the big problems of hunger, disease, poverty, joblessness, skill-lessness (usually tagged with the unactionable label of "ignorance").
- You must "save the world" by attacking megaproblems in a certain order.
- You cannot solve hunger first because it's unsustainable (because it "gave a man a fish...") - since rich men rarely starve, you must solve poverty before hunger.
- You cannot poverty without distinguishing income-poverty and wealth-poverty - lack of flowing money or lack of standing poverty.
- You cannot solve wealth-poverty before income-poverty, or the flows will sabotage your solution.
- You cannot solve either kind of poverty first, whether income-poverty or wealth-poverty, without creating dependency or parasitism without creating dependency or parasitism (violation of mutuality and exchange) and without evoking resistance caused by uncompensated A when you take money from rich A to give to poor B -
You must solve unemployment before poverty. Therefore if you take work from overworked A to give to underworked B, you inherently compensate A with balance and freedom (free time, leisure), and you help secure the wages of both by avoiding a regional or skill-based surpluses of their labor hours on the job market.
- So how do you solve unemployment, which is admittedly a matter of political semantics?
- You deal with the politics with direct democracy.
- You deal with the semantics with well-worded referendums that gets at the contrast between self-support and dependency.
1. Referendums, to broadly define unemployment and set target rates
2. Corporate overtime tax with an exemption for OJT and hiring
3. Individual workoholic tax with an exemption for mentoring and employing
4. Making the workweek vary inversely with unemployment, newly defined to include welfare, disability, homelessness, prisons, forced part time and self employment...
5. If the workweek gets too low too fast, shifting the pressure to imports, immigrants, or births
6.=new 1. If the public doesn't want to squeeze imports, immigrants or births, we move on to the next program, "Paysizing," and go through the same private and public sector stages of 5 phases apiece with "income and poverty" instead of "employment and joblessness".
For more details, see our campaign piece alias social-software manual, Timesizing, Not Downsizing, which is available from *Amazon.com online.
Questions, comments, feedback? Phone 617-623-8080 (Boston) or email us.
Return to Top |
Return to Home Page