"Global" Authority and Responsibility

["John Gelles" <johng@xxxxxxxxxx>]

        James Cumes writes, "We cannot but be ashamed
        and distressed that we -- so-called professional, highly
        trained economists -- could have been and can still be
        so stupid and irresponsible for so long."

        "Irresponsibile", in the sense that had Cumes or any
        of us been listened to, the "system" of production, trade,
        lending, aid, and taxes, etc., that defines democracy in
        a global economic sense, would boast higher production
        for need, higher minimum monetized demand vested in
        the billions of people at the bottom, obedience to law
        likely to sustain a healthy inviting environment for ages
        to come, none but essential monopolies -- constantly
        challenged to open competition to all if monopoly was
        no longer necessary, and training and educational
        programs reflecting our human potential to learn.

        We were not and are not listened to, not because the
        goals we might set would be wrong, but because our
        plan of action was not trusted. We did not plan to rely
        on markets and prices, such as they can be defined
        from time to time, to dictate to us what nations needed,
        what people needed, and what direction employment
        and investment had to take solely because we were
        not at war or not facing absolute disaster if we failed
        to act outside the "box" of accustomed accumulation
        of wealth.

        Rather we planned to match our famous war
        production boards with peace production boards.
        They might act with less absolute authority, but
        they would act -- to end involuntary unemployment
        once and for all, to prescribe rising minimum wages
        that raised the minimum standard of living to reflect
        the comfort and security science and technology
        made possible, and, above all, to reorganize debt
        so that it could finance -- but never inhibit -- steady
        economic growth for as long as necessary.

        Wait a minute!  No one wants such boards. They
        would only lead to totalitarianism -- and an end to
        human rights.  All we want is a higher minimum
        wage, a lender of last resort to finance self-
        employment (or the employment of others), and
        tough environmental laws.  OK.  I'll settle for that.

        Wait a minute!  No one wants such pie-in-the
        sky panaceas.  All we want is central banks and
        national budget planners to work together to
        stop deflationary spirals, prevent hyperinflation,
        and pay for a safety net that protects people and
        the general economy in a pinch.  OK. I'll settle
        for that.

        Wait a minute!  Few nations can afford your
        final settlement.  And you have not said where
        the money or real products will come from for
        poorer nations to afford it too. You don't know
        how ro replicate Denmark. And you certainly
        don't know what ails Japan or the USA.

        In fact if you went to Washington to advise those
        turkeys (responsible for the world's economic affairs)
        on global policy -- you would not know what to say.
        OK.  I'll settle for that.  They're getting paid to do
        this sort of thing. Why don't I just take down a book
        and read a good story about something else. How
        about, David Liss' "a Conspiracy of Paper"?

            John G.