Higher Spending to Match Higher Production

["John Gelles" <indexed-savings@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

William B. Ryan writes in a related message that he wants
payments from central banks to be sent directly to ordinary
people "to keep pace with the increasing productive capacity
that finance and technology have ultimately enabled."

He is right that the purchasing power of ordinary people can-
not keep pace with the output of the leading current commercial
nations -- the output, that when not sold, keeps unemployment
and poverty as twin  curses these nations have not lifted from
their societies.

His choice of central banks as paymasters, for what might be
called a "global or national citizens dividend", instead of the
legislatures (parliaments) of nations -- our more traditional
paymasters-- is (in my view) novel.

But even if legislatures made the payments I would be not
as enthusiastic about his suggestion, as I would be for a
similar idea: namely, for legislatures to buy (or implement
programs to achieve) that which will accomplish national and/
or global priorities.

Rather than cater to current desires of consumers "to buy more
showy sneakers", I would have society buy now the water, food,
medicine, homes, etc., that would tend to end poverty.

In many cases the actual buy would be of huge new projects
that meant these end products would be produced.

The money injected into the total economic system by such
national "buys" would employ people and end poverty. Why?
Because the buys would continue -- to include health and
educational systems, etc. -- until there were no more unemployed
or poor people left: until huge armies of robots were in fact being
bought to produce our rational needs -- and at that point Ryan's
dividends might be the best next step.

The central banks are intended to help the private banking system
function. Open market operations are aimed at managing interest
rates and liquidity for commercial (for profit) loans.  Legislatures
have the broader mandate to promote the general welfare.

            ( Useful material on central banks is at
                         http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/overview.html  )

Where Ryan and I are as one is in, I believe, our demand that some
money in use be debt-free government issue -- not borrowed from
those who have money to spare. My site develops the idea in one
way. Other sites develop it other ways. It is an idea whose time
is now:  www.tiea.us

When such debt-free supplemental money is spent we will need
a good deal of automation to make up for the possibility that
human labor will gradually be withdrawn from hard dangerous
work.  Presently, such hard work is done in part by what amounts
to a "system of wage slavery and poverty" -- which Ryan and I abhor.

It seems to me that Wes Burt,  Rodney Shakespeare, Sabine Kurjo
McNeill, Alexander Baron, and others, ought to be able to write
short contributions to a description of the problem of poverty
and unemployment in the midst of gargantuan wealth -- and that
a joint website ought to emerge.

We blame Greenspan and Bush for all that ails us. But why can't
we blame ourselves first -- for not being able to talk sense to
each other -- and to the voters we need to persuade that there is
a solution and we know how to find it?  Long messages won't
cut it.  We need persuasive presentations that convince each
other and will convince voters.

John Gelles