Re: Any takers?

[GeorgeCSDS@xxxxxxx]

I thought nobody would ever ask, or care -- or even think (about it)!

First, Aldo, I love your style and appreciation of words and alliteration -- 
which, with $4 (US) can get you a Starbucks coffee.

Second, and to the important points and caveats you mention, the following.

Most sincerely,

Robley E. George, Director
Center for the Study of Democratic Societies
www.CenterSDS.com
******************


SOCIOECONOMIC DEMOCRACY
Advanced Socioeconomic Systems

Robley E. George
Center for the Study of Democratic Societies

Introduction

It seems there have always and everywhere been two major thrusts of 
progressive political activity.  Determined or hesitant, but always present, they can 
be found throughout the Ages, in the United States of America, and throughout 
the "globalizing" world.  These two thrusts are the ubiquitous demand for more 
and more meaningful democracy and the equally ubiquitous search for a more 
sustainable and just socioeconomic system that resolves rather than creates and 
perpetuates serious, unnecessary, and costly societal problems.

Combining these two active thrusts produces, or certainly suggests, what has 
come to be called Socioeconomic Democracy.  It is respectfully submitted that 
the present state of the nation and the world, intimately interconnected and 
interrelated, make the realization of some form of Socioeconomic Democracy 
absolutely essential, not only for human progress but for human survival.

Socioeconomic Democracy is a theoretical model socioeconomic system wherein 
there exist both some form of Universally Guaranteed Personal Income (UGI) and 
some form of Maximum Allowable Personal Wealth limit (MAW), with both the 
lower bound on personal material poverty and the upper bound on personal material 
wealth set and adjusted democratically by all participants of society.  Many 
of the details, implications, and ramifications of Socioeconomic Democracy have 
been discussed in the book Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced Socioeconomic 
System published by Praeger (2002).

The essence of Socioeconomic Democracy may be traced back at least to many of 
the thinkers of ancient Greece, such as Thales, Plato and Aristotle, to all 
the great religions of the world, as well as Tom Paine (who gave the United 
States of America its name and the inspiration to perform the new experiment) and 
Tom Jefferson (who made the experiment official), and on down to include the 
many progressive thinkers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  All have 
pleaded for humanity to think about ideas similar to these.  It appears it is 
now time for humanity to act.

Basic Elements of Socioeconomic Democracy

UGI.  In the idealized state of the model, each participant in this 
democratic socioeconomic system would know that, regardless of what he or she did or 
did not do, a democratically determined Universally Guaranteed Personal Income 
(UGI) would always be available.  Put another way, society would guarantee each 
citizen some minimum amount of purchasing power, with that amount determined 
democratically by all of society and with citizenship the only requirement for 
eligibility to participate.

Depending upon the degree and direction of technological development, this 
democratically set, societally guaranteed minimum income for all could be 
sufficient to satisfy the typical individual's minimum subsistence needs.  
Alternatively, society might democratically decide to set the guaranteed amount at only 
a partial subsistence level, for a variety of legitimate reasons.  There are 
as many different forms of UGI (ranging from Basic Income (BI) to Negative 
Income Tax (NIT)) as there are reasons to establish some form of UGI.

It is noteworthy that the state of Alaska is at present the only governmental 
entity in the world that has a form of UGI, namely the Alaska Permanent Fund, 
which provides each and every resident an annual sum determined by revenues 
from the state-owned oil fields and recently ranging somewhat under $2,000 per 
year per resident.

MAW.  In the ideal theoretical model, all participants of the democratic 
socioeconomic system would understand that all personal material wealth above the 
democratically determined allowable amount would, by due process, be 
transferred out of their ownership and control in a manner specified by the 
democratically designed and implemented laws of the land.

Hence, a rational, self-interested, and insatiable (as the neoclassical 
saying goes) extremely wealthy participant in the democratic socioeconomic system, 
who is at or near the upper bound on allowable personal wealth and who further 
desires increased personal wealth, would be economically motivated, that is, 
have economic incentive to actively increase the well-being of the less 
materially wealthy members of society.  Only in this manner can these 
(still-wealthiest) participants persuade (a majority of) the also rationally self-interested 
less wealthy participants of the democratic society to vote to raise the 
legal upper limit on allowable personal wealth -- thus allowing those wealthiest 
participants to legally acquire and retain the increased allowable amount of 
personal net wealth and worth they so crave.

There is, in fact, strong economic incentive for those who are pegged at or 
are near the upper limit on allowable personal wealth to be successful in 
improving the general welfare.  For if the current level of MAW is not producing 
sufficient improvement in the general welfare, as democratically determined, 
there is the possibility and indeed probability that the democratic society might 
democratically decide to reduce the MAW limit even more in order to enlist 
even more still-wealthy participants and their extra wealth in the noble task of 
improving the well-being and welfare of society in general.

Democracy.  There is a simple procedure by which each individual participant 
in a democratic society (or each member of a democratic legislative body) can 
directly vote his or her particular preference for an amount, magnitude, or 
quantity of something in question, with the democratically determined, 
societally or legislatively desired amount unequivocally resulting.  As if to emphasize 
the significance of the discovery, Duncan Black and Economics Nobelist 
Kenneth Arrow independently and more or less simultaneously established the 
important mathematical result and procedure a half century ago.

Their now classic social choice contributions have provided the theory which 
shows that the median value of the participants' (voters') preference 
distribution is the amount the democratic society as a whole is "for" -- assuming the 
minimal operational one participant, one vote; majority rule decision-making 
process.  Only the median value can command a majority's favor in pair-wise 
votings with all other amounts.  Roughly speaking, this means that the 
democratically determined amount is such that half the voters want that much or more 
while the other half want that much or less.

It is by this simple, mathematically correct process that the society-wide 
lowest tolerable level of personal material poverty and the highest allowable 
level of personal material wealth can be established and adjusted over time as 
democratically desired in the democratic society.

Variations of Socioeconomic Democracy

First, observe that if a particular participant in this democratic 
socioeconomic system were opposed to a societally guaranteed minimum income for all, for 
any reason, that participant could vote to place the lower limit on UGI at 
zero.  If a majority of participants so voted, it would be the democratically 
determined desire of that society to have no UGI.  Similarly, any participant 
who would be opposed to a maximum bound on allowable personal wealth, for any 
reason, could vote to place that upper limit at, say, infinity.  If a majority 
of participants so voted, it would be the democratically determined desire of 
that society to have no upper bound on net personal wealth.

Four basically different possibilities are therefore immediate.  There could 
be democratically desired and established societies wherein there exist 
nontrivial bounds on both UGI and MAW, or where either one of the bounds is 
nontrivial while the other one is, or where there are no bounds on either fundamental 
societal parameter -- just as currently exists, though in this case at least 
societal approval of the extreme disparity would have been consciously and 
democratically given.

Beyond these four significant variations are the possible variations in the 
magnitudes and the degree of "tightness" of the UGI and MAW bounds.  Different 
societies may all want to institute some form of Socioeconomic Democracy but 
differ in the amount they democratically decide is appropriate for them at that 
time and under their circumstances.

Approximations to Socioeconomic Democracy

Then there are all the practical political approximations to Socioeconomic 
Democracy.  For example, there are the numerous alternative systems for 
guaranteeing some minimum amount of general or restricted purchasing power or 
guaranteeing some minimum amount of goods and services that would more or less 
approximate the ideal theoretical concept of UGI.  One particular long-established 
principle of any civilized society is universal public education, at least for a 
certain age range.  Universal guaranteed public education is a very real form 
of universal partial Basic Income, with the service in lieu of income being 
the governmentally funded and provided public education for people of certain 
ages.  Universal guaranteed medical care, likewise available in almost all 
self-proclaimed civilized societies, is another approximation to UGI.  Instead of 
unqualified UGI, various approximations could (and actually do) stipulate 
satisfaction of particular requirements or qualifications.  Thus all so-called 
means tested and/or targeted welfare programs (in the general sense) are 
approximations to UGI.

Seemingly the closest thing to a limit on personal wealth is a tax on 
personal wealth.  Depending upon the parameter settings (e.g., the tax rate on wealth 
and the level above which a wealth tax applies), which could all be decided 
democratically, the effect of such a tax could slowly approximate what a MAW 
limit, set democratically, could accomplish almost immediately.  Another 
familiar form of an approximation to a tax on wealth (which in itself is an 
approximation to a limit on personal wealth) is the Inheritance tax or Estate tax.  Of 
course, here also the particular parameter settings for such systems would, in 
a democratic society, be set democratically.

Approximations to democracy, like approximations to anything else, can be 
fairly close or fairly distant.  An approximation to all participants of society 
democratically setting the UGI and MAW limits would be having only those 
citizens at least 18 years of age, say, vote to decide the magnitudes of the two 
bounds.  Another kind of approximation to the democratic ideal is the situation 
characterized by different political parties and candidates advocating 
different amounts for the two bounds, depending upon their particular understanding 
of the general will of the society.  If democratic procedures were followed to 
determine ascendancy to political power, it would seem the winning political 
party might, in some sense at least, be said to have spoken (approximately) for 
the democratic society as a whole.  Certainly a democratic legislative body 
could use the democratic procedure and establish UGI and MAW levels that could 
be said to be an approximation to the democratic desire of the whole society.  
In passing we note that with such a representative democracy, it would at 
least now be clear just who is being represented by the representatives.

Feasibility and implementation of Socioeconomic Democracy

The serious study and objective comparison of alternative future 
possibilities provide the opportunity to make a contribution toward desirable societal 
development.  Complementing this opportunity is the necessity of establishing 
that the alternatives considered are in fact physically realizable and 
implementable.  Suffice to say here that the major general areas of voting procedures, 
administrative and legal technicalities, parametric economic analysis and 
simulation, as well as political considerations of instituting some form of 
Socioeconomic Democracy have all been extensively considered.  Socioeconomic 
Democracy is quite feasible -- requiring only an informed, functioning democracy.

For example, consider the political aspects of implementing some form of 
Socioeconomic Democracy.  Bounds on guaranteed personal income and allowable 
personal wealth democratically set can not be realized until at least a majority of 
the voting citizens in a contemporary politicoeconomic system learn about, 
understand and favor such a democratic wealth and income distribution boundary 
controller subsystem.  Actually, of course, it can be anticipated that 
something more than a majority of the citizens of a society will have to favor a 
democratic resolution of the matter before a democratic resolution of the matter 
can be realized. Especially if a constitutional amendment is required.  It is 
difficult if not impossible to recall any historical economic system change of 
such magnitude that was subjected to such informed public scrutiny prior to 
peaceful, voluntary, and democratic societal acceptance and adoption as by 
definition must be the case with Socioeconomic Democracy.  Such necessary public 
discussion of the matter would eventually democratically resolve not only whether 
some form of Socioeconomic Democracy should be established but more 
importantly would go a long way in determining where the bounds should be set at under 
the prevailing circumstances.

In any case, coalitions of political parties, committed to passage of the 
necessary legislation, is one possible adoption procedure open in some societies. 
 On the other hand, being an alternative to all existing economic systems, 
Socioeconomic Democracy provides a well-defined, humanistic, just and democratic 
focus about which a new or rejuvenated popular political party could 
(re)organize and (re)capture political power.  Prior to the legal establishment of an 
actually democratic bound-setting procedure, these political parties could, as 
earlier mentioned, propose specific magnitudes for the bounds, which would 
reflect their understanding of the general will of that society.  At least for 
the necessary transitional phase, this last scheme might be considered an quite 
reasonable approximation to the ideal theoretical model.

It should also be clear that the possibility of a just and democratic 
socioeconomic system, which would actually benefit all citizens of society, provides 
strong economic incentive for all rationally, self-interested citizens to 
actively participate in the political process -- something currently considered 
not worth the time and trouble, in the minds of many and indeed a majority, 
since, under present circumstances, it isn't seen to be relevant to their lives -- 
which is perhaps the point in presently existing politicosocioeconomic 
systems.

Ramifications and Benefits of Socioeconomic Democracy

As described in the book Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced Socioeconomic 
System, it can be shown that numerous serious and acknowledged (not to mention 
all the presently unacknowledged) societal problems would be reduced or more 
or less eliminated with Socioeconomic Democracy -- simultaneously.  These 
problems include (but are by no means limited to) automation, computerization and 
robotization; budget deficits and national debts; bureaucracy; children; crime 
and punishment; development; ecology, environment and pollution; education; 
the elderly; feminine majority; inflation; international conflict; intranational 
conflict; involuntary employment; involuntary unemployment; labor strife and 
strikes; medical and health care; military metamorphosis; natural disasters; 
planned obsolescence; political participation; poverty; racism; sexism; untamed 
technology; and the general welfare.

One example must suffice.  Consider international conflict -- that is to say, 
war, a perennially popular form of planetary pollution.  The enhancement of 
societal well-being possible with Socioeconomic Democracy ipso facto provides 
an effective and positive deterrent to international warfare, here assumed 
undesirable and to be eliminated.  The simultaneous resolution of a large number 
of serious societal problems eliminates at once many causes of -- and equally 
important, many excuses for -- war.

Beyond this, other beneficial effects can be anticipated.  For example, those 
participants in the democratic socioeconomic system who are personally at or 
near the societally, that is, democratically, set upper bound on allowable 
personal wealth would no longer have personal economic incentive to promote war 
or military intimidation, whether involving their own country or other nations. 
 They could no longer gain personal wealth by such action and could well lose 
it, especially if their society democratically decided to further reduce the 
allowable personal wealth bound to finance involvement in the hostilities.

Democratically set, governmentally guaranteed personal income for everyone 
also provides many direct deterrents to warfare.  Among other strong effects, it 
would eliminate any economically "handicapped" class which, of course, has 
historically provided warring nations with a convenient pool of combatants.  
Such guaranteed income also solves the very real and almost always neglected 
problem of necessary income for all those who presently derive their personal 
income from warfare, its threat, preparation, or promotion, either directly or 
indirectly.

Yet if some war is absolutely necessary (say because of different nations 
adopting Socioeconomic Democracy at different times) both democratically set MAW 
and UGI bounds, and the economic incentives they create, would go a long way 
to insure that all military personnel are provided adequate care, financial, 
medical, and otherwise, to meet all requirements for a deservedly dignified and 
healthy life, both during and after military service -- as opposed to 
outrageous present-day neglect and lack of attention to veterans' needs -- for, 
surely, obvious reasons.

Robley E. George is the founder and Director of the Center for the Study of 
Democratic Societies, a research and educational institution dedicated to the 
examination and explanation of the properties and possibilities of democratic 
societies and democratic socioeconomic systems.  His latest book is 
Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced Socioeconomic System and was published by 
Praeger/Greenwood in 2002.

Center for the Study of Democratic Societies
http://www.CenterSDS.com

************************

In a message dated 6/7/03 4:57:36 PM, aldo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>>>Dear friends,


Iâm Swiss, retired in New Zealand, and a long lost friend of Michael.

Thatâs how I got recently admitted to your sancta sanctorum (NO, not

Santorum!!!) â your email network, thanks to the marvels of electronic

globalisation, I guess.  For a little while the volume of messages

overwhelmed me (and my hotmail account too). It has calmed down a bit. So

I exploit the fact that the system seems to be becalmed to urge you to

join together in doing some constructive and progressive contingency work.


Bushism is rampant, and seems unstoppable. Two things could do it in â

quickly.


For one the issue of the missing WMD, but thatâs nothing we can do

anything about. We can gloat, we can rejoice (Watergate revisited), but

we cannot influence the process. Though the Commander in Chief grossly

misled Congress, he seems unassailable at the moment, unless the

situation in Iraq deteriorates, and the quagmire becomes more obvious. As

with Johnson, he may fall victim not to the lies he used, but to the fact

that he got the US into a mess. Winners never lie.


The other is the economy. Depression, deflation, the buzz words are all

there â buzzards perched high on the skeleton of the US economy and

watching the lonely ranger on his mangy military nag careening madly

through the desert landscape and shooting at the saguaros of social

services while the wild asses scamper in a cloud of dust.


In a yearâs time, a serious Democratic candidate may be facing down the

lonely ranger. We donât know who the candidate will be. But heâll need

good economic programs in a hurry. Someone has to prepare the ammunition,

and keep it dry. FDR had such a team of academic advisors. We have no FDR

(yet â but donât worry, the opportunity makes the man) but we need the

programs now. They cannot be improvised.


So her is the challenge to all of you professional economists. What about

drawing up an effective economic program for the next electoral showdown?

It could be articulated along the following lines:

       Macro-economic policy

       Social benefits (social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.)

       Fiscal policy

       International trade policy

       Labour policies

       Deregulation.


Now such a program should be progressive, and not utopian. For one you

need the votes, not the glory of perfection. It has to be coherent, and

doable. And it must be something that even a donkey can defend. Hence it

is not simply the current program multiplied by â1.

No Marxist jargon, please, take a shower.


Maybe itâs the fact that I leading a charmed life in Oceania that makes

me feel guilty about doing nothing for (a) change. My pet gripe is Social

Security and other social programs. I could contribute marginally in that

department. But unlike Michael, who has remained faithful to academia,

Iâve no academic claim to fame. And while professors may be absent-

minded, Iâm scatterbrained.


Iâve thrown down the gauntlet. Who picks it up? The alternative â rest

assured â it to leave the joust to the modern Duke/Count/Knights (of

Microsoft etc.), around whom we knaves shall huddle, polishing his

shining armour. Wizard Murdoch will preside, and languorous King George

the Speechless will trip over his own words as he urges the best to win.


Have fun

Aldo

Aldo Matteucci

61, Ludlam Cr.

LOWER HUTT 6009

NEW Zealand

aldo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (preferred)

aldo_matteucci@xxxxxxxxxxx

aldo.matteucci@xxxxxxxxxxx>>>