Nearly everything will be produced by robots and computers, how to distribute just dividends increasing with the trends ?
And not wars and death ?
See Alaska:
In a state where citizens already pay neither sales
tax nor income tax, Alaska's Permanent Fund provides
an annual dividend to every man, woman, and child.
In 2000, each Alaskan received a cheque for $1,963.68.
For a family of 4, this means nearly $ 8'000.- plus the savings of less taxes.
The fund is protected from inflation by statute; the
principal must be increased by an amount based on the
growth in the consumer price index. The fund is
managed as a separate trust, at arm's length from the
government of the day.
In a state where citizens already pay neither sales
tax nor income tax, Alaska's Permanent Fund provides
an annual dividend to every man, woman, and child. In
2000, each Alaskan received a cheque for $1,963.68.
The fund is protected from inflation by statute; the
principal must be increased by an amount based on the
growth in the consumer price index. The fund is
managed as a separate trust, at arm's length from the
government of the day.
From: Keith Wilde
"A former Alberta provincial treasurer participated in
the drafting of the plan, etc."
Who was that?
-------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
That was Ted Hinman:-
"In the early 1960's, the Social Credit Treasurer from
Alberta, Ted Hinman, travelled to Alaska to assist
that government in setting up a Heritage Fund."
http://www.socialcredit.com/subpages_history/heritage_fund.htm
I also refer you to a posting I made to OWNERSHIP and
this list last January 10 a copy of which is appended
below.
-
Alaska's Permanent Fund and Alberta's Heritage Fund
were established the same year: 1976. It is my
understanding that not only Hinman but several of the
same people participated through the years in
developing both.
It is certainly true that political defeat in Alberta
of the Social Credit government in 1972 weakened the
institutional momentum for the concept there.
But there was concerted effort to divert the concept
in Alaska, too, lead at the end by the Kelsoist's
stooge, Alaska's Democratic Senator, Mike Gravel.
There was big money behind Senator Gravel's effort
then; and certainly big money behind the opposition
that defeated Social Credit in 1972.
Whether there was a direct connection I will only
speculate at the moment, though it is a matter of
continuing research.
-
This is commentary relayed from the Fraser Institute
indicating some of the differences between the two
funds:-
"The CTF study holds up Alaska's Permanent Fund as a
model. Created in 1976, its assets now total US$27
billion, or roughly Cdn$40 billion. The fund's
specific mandate is to provide future generations with
income after the state runs out of oil. By law, at
least 50 percent of oil and gas revenues must be put
into the Permanent Fund. By law, income from the fund
is automatically reinvested back into the fund, and is
not included in the government's general revenues.
"In a state where citizens already pay neither sales
tax nor income tax, Alaska's Permanent Fund provides
an annual dividend to every man, woman, and child. In
2000, each Alaskan received a cheque for $1,963.68.
The fund is protected from inflation by statute; the
principal must be increased by an amount based on the
growth in the consumer price index. The fund is
managed as a separate trust, at arm's length from the
government of the day. Changing these laws requires
the approval of the majority of voters in a state-wide
referendum.
"In contrast, Alberta's Heritage Fund now stands at
$12.3 billion, even though it was created the same
year as Alaska's Permanent Fund. Alberta law does not
require the government to put a designated (or any)
percentage of resource revenues into the Heritage
Fund. In fact, only 14 percent of the roughly $82
billion collected in oil and gas revenues since 1976
has made its way into the fund. Unlike the situation
in Alaska, the annual earnings of Alberta's Heritage
Fund are included in the government's general
revenues, which the government of the day spends as it
sees fit. The fund is not protected from inflation,
and it is managed by the government, not as a separate
trust. The fund's mandate is vaguely worded, and the
laws which govern it can be changed without voter
approval.
"The principal difference between Alaska's fund and
Alberta's fund lies in the amount of political control
over them. Alaska's fund is beyond the control and
influence of the government of the day; Alaska's
governor and legislators have no access to it.
Therefore, they face no political consequences for
saying "no" to spending demands from special interest
groups. There is no need for them to exercise
restraint, because political discretion over the fund
has been fettered by law. Alaskan politicians may
raise or lower corporate and other taxes at their full
discretion, and cut or increase spending on different
programs, but unless Alaskans approve of a change, the
Permanent Fund and its annual dividends belong to the
people.
"Some critics decry the fettering of politicians'
discretion. But it is precisely this fettering through
legislation that, in Alberta's case, has required the
province to run balanced budgets and devote 75 percent
of any surplus to debt repayment. In turn, this
legislation has helped to create the "Alberta
Advantage" of lower taxes and progress towards debt
freedom. If this legislation were absent, it is
unlikely that Alberta politicians would have cut
spending in the 1990s to the extent that they did, or
would have repaid as much of the provincial debt as
they did.
"If partial fettering of political discretion was
effective for these fiscal goals, why not do the same
to grow the Heritage Fund and reach the goal of income
tax freedom? There is no reason why Alberta cannot
create legislative safeguards for its fund, as Alaska
has done."
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/2001/07/section_04.html
------------------------------------
----------------------
--------------------------------
Subject: [socialcredit] Replying to Shann Turnbull
Date: Monday, January 10, 2005 10:33:20 (-0800)
From: William B. Ryan
"How is the distribution of a social dividend of
social credit different from the centralized
administration of socialism? It would seem that both
depend on central control as hypothesized by Keith
Wilde in his posting earlier today."
------------------
-------------------
[REPLY] I think you may have misinterpreted Keith's
posting. I thought he was talking about the
complexities of statistical information gathering,
not "central control" of the economy or society. He
was speaking from the perspective of a professional
rather than theoretical economist, who has not only a
PhD. attached to his name, as you have (indeed, many
of us have), but also actual practical experience in
various government departments. Regardless of what
Keith may or may not have "hypothesized," the social
dividend has nothing whatsoever to do with "central
control." None whatsoever. Where in the world did
you get that idea?
The dividend is to be distributed directly to final
consumers, not government departments. How does the
Alaska Dividend (formulated with the help of Ted
Hinman, Treasurer in the Social Credit government of
Alberta during the 1950s), for example, involve
"central control"? The Alaska Permanent Fund has
performed well for more than twenty years, paying
dividends equitably to every man, woman and child
resident in the state.
http://www.apfc.org/alaska/dividendprgrm.cfm
-
"I accept the critiques made of the current form of
capitalism by Karl Marx, Henry George and Major
Douglas but not their centralized solutions."
------------------
-------------------
[REPLY] Without speaking for Marx or George, who I
abhor--I don't accept their critiques at all, what
"centralized solution" did Douglas propose? Perhaps
you will tell us.
-
"This lesson is also an argument against a
centralized single tax on land or central banking
instead of local communities establishing their own
financial arrangements."
------------------
-------------------
[REPLY] The Single Tax is indeed nonsense, but
central banking is what we in fact have. Douglas did
not advocate central banking but methods to deal with
its reality. The fact that there is a natural
monopoly that benefits the public because it is a
monopoly does not mean it has to be centrally
controlled and administered, or without checks and
balances in place to protect the public. The United
States and Canada have federal, not central,
governments. I daresay that Australia has one, too.
The same Ted Hinman I mentioned above, while
Treasurer, was top man at the Alberta Treasury
Branches, presently the largest Alberta based
financial institution in the province. The Treasury
Branch system, after years of wrangling over its
constitutionality, has become integrated with the
larger financial system, while at the same time
remaining locally controlled and administered.
http://www.atb.com/dev/aboutatb/atb_index.asp
http://www.duncanandcraig.com/articles/dgrweb.html
Bill
------original message------
From: "Shann Turnbull" <sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>
To: ownership@cog.kent.edu
Subject: RE: OWNERSHIP: Ireland's new Constitution
and land ownership.
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005
...How is the distribution of a social dividend of
social credit different from the centralized
administration of socialism?
It would seem that both depend on central control as
hypothesized by Keith Wilde in his posting earlier
today.
The laws of governance explain why centralization
cannot work to either efficiently or effectively
manage the complexity of modern societies.
Briefly this is because of information overload of
the central controllers, the inability of centralized
control to provide sufficient variety of controllers
to manage the variables, the impossibility of
directly amplifying regulation of variables, etc.
For these reasons, our bodies do not have a
centralized controller and neither does our brain.
Distributed control, decision making and information
gathering is the rule of nature that reflect the laws
of governance.
The complexity of the universe is created and
governed by a hierarchy of almost self-governing
components. Evolution proves that this is the most
efficient and effective architecture for creating
and/or governing complexity.
The lesson is that efficient and effective social
organizations need to follow the architecture of
nature. This lesson is also an argument against a
centralized single tax on land or central banking
instead of local communities establishing their own
financial arrangements.
This is why I am committed to Community Land Banks as
an almost self-governing component of a regional
authority and why I promote the ability of
communities to create as much credit as they can
justify through bio-regional competing private
currencies.
I accept the critiques made of the current form of
capitalism by Karl Marx, Henry George and Major
Douglas but not their centralized solutions. In
short I am a committed decentralist but accept
collective overrides as required that are found in
nature to sustain life...
Regards
Shann
Shann Turnbull PhD
http://www.aprim.net/associates/turnbull.htm
Principal, International Institute for Self-
governance
PO Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia 1350
h+612 9328 7466 Mobile 0418 222 378, Papers at:
http://ssrn.com/author=26239
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Go the swiss way, local, cantonal and swiss national bank for the good of the people, not as the FED for the good of a dozen of private owners...
plus see the wir bank at www.wir.ch
Pour nous soutenir, mieux résister aux manipulations, rester unis et recevoir des nouvelles différentes et vraies, un abonnement nous encourage. Pour la Suisse, 5 numéros par année de 16 pages par parution: le prix modique de l'abonnement est de 16 Sfr.- par année (envois prioritaires)
Adressez vos chèques à:
Mme Thérèse Tardif C.C.P. 17-7243-7
Centre de traitement, 1631-Bulle, Suisse
Avec mes meilleures salutations.
François de Siebenthal
Krach ? Solutions...
http://monetary.org/2008schedule.html
http://iousathemovie.com/ http://michaeljournal.org
http://desiebenthal.blogspot.com/
http://ferraye.blogspot.com/
skype siebenthal
00 41 21 652 54 83
021 652 55 03 FAX: 652 54 11
CCP 10-35366-2
Présent :
La femme est, comme toujours, l'avenir de l'homme, et réciproquement.
http://www.union-ch.com/file/portrait.wmv
Qui fera la pareille avec des visages masculins ?
http://non-tridel-dioxines.com/
http://m-c-s.ch et www.pavie.ch
http://ktotv.com/
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire