Punctuated Predictability

["John Gelles" <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>]

	Paul Davidson and those who buy his view of
	the uses of fundamental uncertainty is a stalwart
	reformer -- in all his writing there is an underlying
	theme that asks us to model economic systems
	ultimately to make them kinder to those in need
	and more reliable as partners of law and politics
	-- the pillars of reasoned democracy.

	So why would he interpret fundamental uncertainty
	as useful more to progressive reformers than to
	supporters of the status quo?  Both sides look at
	life as a very predictable circus, punctuated by
	unpredictable events.  Both sides are compelled to
	accept unpredictable events that puncture their
	expectations -- both also recover and arrive at
	newer rules of thumb they believe can, if applied,
	with some degree of probability, benefit the
	human condition.
	
	That said, and all parties now agreed to offer their
	"rules, beliefs, models, axioms, ideas, etc." in the
	spirit of pragmatic proposals to solve current
	problems -- which may involve bursting financial
	asset bubbles, natural disasters, human evil doers,
	or any other specific -- let us get on with it.

	Political tyranny, terror, and unreasoned war are
	the acute problems to be solved.  Poverty, pollution
	and unemployment are the chronic ones.

	Paul advises use of precise tools of communication
	if we are to convince ourselves and others we know
	whereof  we speak.  Agreed.  So why would I
	forbid quoted authority -- especially after I just used
	Paul for authority for the previous sentence?  Well,
	my rule of thumb against authority comes from the
	authority of Bertrand Russell and all our scientific
	experience.

	We will be compelled to refer to authority, just as we
	are compelled to use words not for the first time.  But
	the reference can be ignored.  The content of every
	sentence stands apart from any attributed authority --
	that is all I mean.

	We are now back to a tight discussion of money and
	financial markets -- they are a means to an end.  The end
	is total wealth in the necessities of life for a population
	not too large to make the end unattainable.  Without
	money, we would all have to be better coordinated than
	we are.  It allows us to be connected without slavery or
	excessive obedience to authority.

	Without financial markets, money is less powerful than
	with them.  These markets, too, allow us to be connected
	yet apart, joined one moment, free the next.  Above all,
	we have no evidence they don't work.

	                    The unequal distribution of personal
	spending money is not the result of these markets.
	It is a result of laws to prevent inflation.
	                    These laws impose taxes on income
	and gains -- they ought to impose more equality in
	personal spending.
	                    These laws use unemployment to squeeze
	out general inflation when unemployment is the worst way
	to try to accomplish the goal.  Witness the unemployment
	and inflation that together give impetus to radical
	nationalism and the destruction of middle class good
	behavior such as it is.

	So there we have it.  Accept money and financial
	markets until something better is tested and found
	promising.

	What about interest and wages?  The status quo today
	sees wages low from the middle on down, and interest high,
	to the disadvantage of producers and consumers.  What
	can voters do about these facts?  That is what our
	discussion ought to reach.

	Zero unemployment under law would be a good beginning.
	This can be tried within 	any category of people or places.
	If it works without inflation, it works!  That is what we
	would have to convince the voters of.

	The remainder of a comprehensive program has been
	offered many times under the name, "individual estate
	account" savings in lieu of taxes.  But the immediate
	discussion does not require mention of it.

	Let us hear from those conducting the Henwood seminar
	post mortem an independent view of the issues without
	resort to interleaved ad hoc conversation (which is best
	left to professional playwrights) or to authority more than
	reason.
	          ----- end -----