Re: Economic reform policy: Some views and proposals

[paul davidson <pdavidson@xxxxxxx>]

At 03:24 PM 4/27/03 , you wrote:

> > We can all agree on the neeed for full employment-- for it is
> > like motherhood
> > a wonderful social value --.
>
> I don't agree on the need for full employment.
>
> Should we advocate putting the idle rich to work?
>
> Do we need everyone to work for money?  Motherhood is the most important
> work, but since it doesn't pay it can't solve the need for income in a world
> with surplus human labor.


Full employment is DEFINED as all those people WILLING AND ABLE TO WORK AT
THE GOING WAGE CAN FIND A JOB!  It does not meean forcing people to work
who want to stay home to be mothers, etc.-- or even forcing "the idle rich"!


> If capitalism allows inearned income why can't that serve to distribute
> wealth in an economy that has been automated?

See the Woody Allen picture "Sleepers"..--)

> Isn't the "need" for full employment the reason we have plundered the world
> for resources?


NO!


> Perhaps the 10 hour work week, or the 10 minute work week could be full
> employment.

As long as people want the products of industry -- then industry should
produce these products under the entrepreneural system,

> Should we open cans all day to keep our can openers busy?

That'a why I suggest the employment be in the private sector as much as
possible

Paul