ReformSoft, a Presbyterian software company, has reported that Reformed theologian Lorraine Boettner would still consider communism a threat to Christianity if he were alive today. How do they know this? They have created a Lorraine Boettner emulation program.
"So much emulation software today has been focused upon re-creating original Pac-man, Space Invaders and old Atari 2600 games for their modern PC" says CEO Scott Dylan "We went a step further and decided to create software that emulated a dead person. And what better dead person to emulate than Lorraine Boettner?"
Lorraine Boettner studied Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary under C.W. Hodge, graduating in 1929. He taught the Bible at Pikeville College, Kentucky. He was the author of seminal 20th century works as The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Roman Catholicism and The Christian attitude towards war.
"As soon as the code was written, we downloaded the entire Wikipedia site for the program to digest as background material. As soon as it had finished, the software reported that Communism was still a threat to Christianity" Dylan said.
Readouts viewed by this writer confirm this situation. The Boettner software's prime concern was that Christians everywhere need a better understanding of Communism and how to fight it.
"Interestingly, the software seems to see Communism and Roman Catholicism as essentially the same thing. We couldn't really understand it when the software referred to the 'Politburo in Vatican City', but deeper analysis confirmed this link."
Dylan sees a huge market for the Lorraine Boettner Emulation Software amongst Christians and conservative non-Christians alike. "I think every person will be thrilled to have the wit and wisdom of Lorraine Boettner at their fingertips" he says.
ReformSoft's next project is slightly more complex, and involves studying every issue of Banner of Truth to emulate the archetypical Reformed Pastor. This software is due in the Summer of 2006.
From the Department of Attempted Humour
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
You are free:
* To copy, distribute, display and perform this work.
* To make commercial use of this work.
Under the following conditions:
* By attribution. You must give the original author credit.
* No derivative works. You may not alter, transform or build upon the work.
* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the author.
Additional copyright information from the author:
* You may remove the "Department name" from the text when copying.
* You may Americanise any minor spelling (eg Humour, Humor).
2005-07-29
Clairvoyant says Keith Green is unhappy in hell
Keith Green, the deceased Christian musician, is apparently quite unhappy about being in hell, according to Christian Clairvoyant Jenna Gilmour.
"He says that he was quite surprised that, after his untimely demise in a light plane crash, that he should end up burning in hell rather than enjoying paradise in heaven" she said.
Keith Green was Christian music's foremost musician and preacher during the late 1970s and early 1980s. His albums included For Him Who Has Ears to Hear, No Compromise and Songs for the Shepherd. In 1982, after he and his wife, Melody Green, started Last Days Ministries in Texas, the Christian singer was killed in a light plane crash along with some of his own children.
"He can't understand it" laments Gilmour "He says that after a lifetime of good works and giving glory to his maker, that the same maker should condemn him to hell. He's still trying to work it out."
Gilmour also points out that Keith Green has been recently forced to join a county and western band headed by the late Johnny Cash. "He hates it. He didn't realise that the Devil loves country music. He's been forced to play the drums, which is tortuous because he's a musician, not a drummer"
Keith Green's ministry was popularised in 1970s America during a period of painful retrospection for the nation. The failure of authorities to deal with inflation and rising unemployment, the malaise in politics due to Watergate, the after effects of the Vietnam war and anti-establishment feelings from the "Hippy" revolution during the 1960s led to a "crisis of confidence". This affected the church as a whole, which was struggling to remain influential during this tumultuous period. In the midst of this came Keith Green, a modern-day prophet, who called Christians everywhere back to the basics of the faith.
"Everyone thought that Keith had been called home" said Gilmour "No one expected his home to be in hell"
Gilmour also reported that Keith's bed was too small and that he was sharing a room with Oswald Chambers who is "a very loud snorer"
From the Department of Attempted Humour
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
You are free:
* To copy, distribute, display and perform this work.
* To make commercial use of this work.
Under the following conditions:
* By attribution. You must give the original author credit.
* No derivative works. You may not alter, transform or build upon the work.
* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the author.
Additional copyright information from the author:
* You may remove the "Department name" from the text when copying.
* You may Americanise any minor spelling (eg Humour, Humor).
"He says that he was quite surprised that, after his untimely demise in a light plane crash, that he should end up burning in hell rather than enjoying paradise in heaven" she said.
Keith Green was Christian music's foremost musician and preacher during the late 1970s and early 1980s. His albums included For Him Who Has Ears to Hear, No Compromise and Songs for the Shepherd. In 1982, after he and his wife, Melody Green, started Last Days Ministries in Texas, the Christian singer was killed in a light plane crash along with some of his own children.
"He can't understand it" laments Gilmour "He says that after a lifetime of good works and giving glory to his maker, that the same maker should condemn him to hell. He's still trying to work it out."
Gilmour also points out that Keith Green has been recently forced to join a county and western band headed by the late Johnny Cash. "He hates it. He didn't realise that the Devil loves country music. He's been forced to play the drums, which is tortuous because he's a musician, not a drummer"
Keith Green's ministry was popularised in 1970s America during a period of painful retrospection for the nation. The failure of authorities to deal with inflation and rising unemployment, the malaise in politics due to Watergate, the after effects of the Vietnam war and anti-establishment feelings from the "Hippy" revolution during the 1960s led to a "crisis of confidence". This affected the church as a whole, which was struggling to remain influential during this tumultuous period. In the midst of this came Keith Green, a modern-day prophet, who called Christians everywhere back to the basics of the faith.
"Everyone thought that Keith had been called home" said Gilmour "No one expected his home to be in hell"
Gilmour also reported that Keith's bed was too small and that he was sharing a room with Oswald Chambers who is "a very loud snorer"
From the Department of Attempted Humour
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
You are free:
* To copy, distribute, display and perform this work.
* To make commercial use of this work.
Under the following conditions:
* By attribution. You must give the original author credit.
* No derivative works. You may not alter, transform or build upon the work.
* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the author.
Additional copyright information from the author:
* You may remove the "Department name" from the text when copying.
* You may Americanise any minor spelling (eg Humour, Humor).
Billy Graham "will repent on death bed"
Billy Graham, perhaps the most successful English-speaking evangelist of the 20th century, has stated that he will not accept Jesus as his Lord and saviour until he is lying on his death bed. "There is still so much in life I want to enjoy" the 86 year-old evangelist said "Being a Christian means I won't be able to have much fun or freedom, and I think I want that first before I accept Jesus into my heart."
Graham, whose ministry has blessed millions and who has had private audiences with Presidents and Prime Ministers the world over, admits that he believes that the Bible is right. "Yes I'm a sinner" he said "And I do need my sins forgiven. I believe all that. It's just that I want to wait until a more appropriate time. I have my retirement to plan, my grandkids to raise... God just isn't on my priority list"
The son of a dairy farmer and the grandson of a Confederate soldier, Billy Graham came into international prominence during the early 1950s. His Bible-thumping gospel preaching was an instant hit and he drew massive crowds to evangelistic events. Despite being ridiculed by the mainstream church, Graham preached a simple and straightforward message that led to many coming to Christ and becoming part of the church.
"My life has been quite successful, I'll give you that" Graham stated "But I still have many more years I want to enjoy. When God finally decides that my number's up, I'll make a prayer of commitment then. It's the only option I have available."
From the Department of Attempted Humour
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
You are free:
* To copy, distribute, display and perform this work.
* To make commercial use of this work.
Under the following conditions:
* By attribution. You must give the original author credit.
* No derivative works. You may not alter, transform or build upon the work.
* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the author.
Additional copyright information from the author:
* You may remove the "Department name" from the text when copying.
* You may Americanise any minor spelling (eg Humour, Humor).
Theologian admits "God can't lift a rock he created to be too heavy for him to lift"
Dr Robert E. Southerton, professor of theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, has admitted that "God cannot lift a rock that he created to be too heavy for him to lift."
The debate, which has been running for weeks amongst students and professors at Fuller alike, was raised by an unknown student who scrawled a question on a classroom blackboard. The question "Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?" was immediately the subject of classroom discussions all over the seminary.
Southerton, who has been a professor at the college for 15 years, spent considerable time in open debate with his students and fellow teaching staff in order to work out the question. "On one side" Southerton said "there was a group that said that, for God, nothing was impossible. Yet this seemed to contradict the nature of God's omnipotence in relation to the relevant question. On the other side was a group that said that God's own nature, while perfect, is limited. While this group appears just as wrong, we have to remember that any limits that God has are part of his divine nature. God cannot sin, for example, yet this does not mean he is not all-powerful."
While Southerton has effectively solved the question, some students are quick to denounce him. Aaron Richards, studying for his Masters of Divinity in Church Planting, says "To say that God can't lift a simple rock is like saying that God is not in charge of his creation. To say that he can create a rock specifically so he can't lift it, and then fail to lift it, shows that God is weak. I'm sorry, but that is not the God I believe in." When asked what the alternative is, Richards states that "God can lift anything he wants, even something he created to be too heavy for him to lift".
Southerton is in the process of writing a paper for the theological journal Bibliotheca Sacra, which outlines the nature of the question itself, the possible positions people have taken, and the position that makes the most theological and philosophical sense. In this paper he critiques those who hold to Aaron Richards' position. "To say that God can lift such a rock goes against God's creative ability. If God can lift a rock he created to be too heavy for him to lift, then it destroys the very fabric of the universe. If God has chosen to make such a heavy rock, then who are we to deny God?"
From the Department of Attempted Humour
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
You are free:
* To copy, distribute, display and perform this work.
* To make commercial use of this work.
Under the following conditions:
* By attribution. You must give the original author credit.
* No derivative works. You may not alter, transform or build upon the work.
* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the author.
Additional copyright information from the author:
* You may remove the "Department name" from the text when copying.
* You may Americanise any minor spelling (eg Humour, Humor).
Democracy without Elections
This essay was written before I discovered that this system had already been proposed years before by someone else. They named the system Demarchy. My system is slightly different because it is designed to replace elections in a large democracy, while the original proponents of Demarchy envisaged it almost exclusively for small communities and implied a move away from centralised government. I call my system Demarchy too, but it is more accurate to call it Klerostocracy (kleros = Ancient Greek for throwing lots... ie random selection).
Random Representation - an alternative democratic system
In our modern democracy today, we rely heavily upon a system that requires people to vote for which person or party they think will do the best job. This democratic system has been in place for centuries and there is no doubt that it is a superior governing model to the various monarchies, dictatorships and feudal systems of years past. Giving people the right to vote is seen as a civil rights issue, and much sweat and blood has been spilled over giving women the vote, as well as racial minorities like African Americans in the USA.
Despite all this, I believe that our political system is fatally flawed, and this flaw is based upon the very thing that gives us the impression of democracy - the individual's choice of who to vote for, or which political party to vote for. In this paper, I will not only argue that the modern democratic system is flawed and ultimately destructive, but that a better model be adopted by democratic nations the world over - the Random Representation model.
So firstly, what is wrong with our current model? We need to remember that those who fought for democracy and freedom in its early days honestly believed that it was the best and only viable model at the time. In this belief they were correct. The problem is that because democratic government relies upon elections, voters are more likely to vote for whichever person or party appeals to them the most. This may not seem problematic, but it is. It means that politicans and political parties are more likely to lie and decieve the voting population in order to gain votes. And when these lies are exposed after the election, it does not do the damage it should for that particular party because, by the time of the next election, people have forgotten or no longer care. In this sense, political parties are the same as rival companies who advertise their particular product. Advertising is not about truth or objectivity, it is about feelings, it is about impressions, it is about image. The fact that we have people who rely upon impressions and misleading information who make important decisions about our nation is a huge problem.
The second thing wrong with our current model is that those in political power are easily corrupted by those who wield other power in our society. It is no secret to say that, in Australia, the Liberal party is funded and controlled by big business, while the Labor party is funded and controlled by trade unions. the same can be said for the Republican and Democratic parties in the USA, and the Conservatives and Labor party in the UK. The fact is that money talks in our society, and big business wants to have sympathetic politicians in their pocket. They do this by granting huge donations to the political party to enable them to have the resources to advertise to the people and make them vote for them. Big business have also managed to keep the left-wing parties under their control through their checkbooks - by appearing to be non-partisan, big business funds both sides of politics, but what you have is two sides of the same coin. The same can be said for unions and the left wing parties, although they have far less monetary power than big business. The result of this situation is that politicans are controlled by minority groups in our country that have enormous monetary or social power. Our politicans today would not be influenced by these groups if they didn't rely upon a voting system.
The third thing wrong with our current model is that, because politicans worry about feelings and impressions and are funded by minority groups, they do not make intelligent long-term decisions. Instead, they will make decisions that are politically expedient at the time, and ensure that they remain electable next time an election occurs. An example of this might be a huge tax cut announced before an election, which rests upon that party's remaining in office. People think that would be a great idea, vote for them, and for the next decade have to deal with a rising and debilitating fiscal situation that requires drastic cuts to government services to control. What we have are short-term gains that are more than offset by long term pain. Many European governments, I believe, are suffering fiscally and with high levels of unemployment that can be traced back to unintelligent fiscal policy based upon political expediency.
The fourth thing wrong with our system is that it promotes the politics of aggression and hatred. All Australians are sick of question time, where politicans get up and deride the other party publically. The fact is that the people who run our nation are not rewarded for working together, they are not rewarded for praising the other side of politics, they are not rewarded for being kind and gentle to one another. If we wish to have a society based on trust and friendship, why are our elected representatives so aggressive? So long as our political system remains adversarial, so will our society.
The fifth and last thing wrong with our system is that, when you draw all these points together, is a system that does not reward the honest, hard-working. courageous and intelligent person who wishes to enter politics, but rewards the most selfish, conniving, self-seeking person. Altrusim has no place in politics, yet we as voters want our politicians to make the best decisions for our nation, rather than the best decisions for themselves and their political party. One of the great ironies of our system is that despite all these rewards for bad behaviour, there are politicians who genuinely do want to make a difference, who are courageous and honest. But these are in the minority, and they may have to sacrifice their political position in order to remain true to their beliefs - a situation that may force them out of politics, or to renege on their beliefs.
There is no doubt that our current system is flawed, but it is so much better than having a dictatorship or a feudal system. But we need to remember that our current system is not actually democratic, because corporations and powerful interest groups keep our elected officials on their payroll. In many ways, we live in a corporate state. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a monetocracy posing as a democracy.
So what is the solution? Hopefully what I've outlined to you is nothing you haven't heard before. You all may have known of these problems for many years but what solution can there be? Proportional democracy maybe? It could work, but remember that whenever people become career politicians they have to be dependent upon donations, which come from minority groups in society. The problem is still there.
My solution is radical, and I'm sure someone has thought of this idea before - if they have I haven't read about it or studied it. So what I'm proposing to you today is my own idea, even if it may not be totally original.
The democratic system I propose is called "Random Representation". It does away with the electoral process of voting but does not do away with democracy. It will do away with the career politician and, I'm afraid, will do away with virtually all political parties. This is not really as big a problem as you might think, since special interest groups and lobby groups will have some influence over government policy. The good thing is that these interest groups will have to work on intellectual persuasion rather than monetary influence - although one can never rule out bribery.
The proposal is this. Rather than electing our politicians via the ballot box, we determine how many politicans we need and select them randomly from society. How? We can do it via a random number generator from a computer or we can draw ballots from a ballot box. Either way, our politicians will be randomly selected. When these people become our politicians, they then have a four year term of office, and are then obliged to stand down as a new random selection occurs. If any of them are lucky enough to be selected again (akin to winning the lottery twice) then they can serve again - however the chances of this are remote.
The randomly selected politician has an advantage over the current system firstly because they are less likely to be corrupted by special interest groups. In order to rise to the top of politics, career politicians have to be in bed with these special interest groups over a long period of time. A randomly selected politician is much less likely to have these relationships. When they make their political decisions, they do so with less personal interests at stake.
The second advantage of the random politician is that only having four years in the job, they will not be making short-term politically motivated decisions. They will know that their time in politics is short and they should do the best they can while they are there, which will involve a more balanced and objective analysis of important issues, as well as a desire to learn issues while they serve. This means that any decision they make is likely to be made from honest convictions - they might still be wrong, but at least they had no hidden agendas.
The third advantage of the random politician is that the desire for aggression and disagreement with other politicians is lessened. I'm not suggesting that this new breed of politician will always be nice to each other, but we need to realise that the structures that cause division and aggression in our current political system will no longer be around. This means that the politicians will disagree with each other more politely, or at least with less of their personal interests at stake. After all, their performance in parliament is not going to keep them elected is it? This system will reward consensus and objectivity rather than back-room deals and political conniving.
The fourth advantage is that the entire system rewards the politician who is open, honest, objective and altruistic - simply because it is does not reward the politician who lies and who makes decisions based upon personal gain or toeing the party line.
Now what I've given you is a bare bones explanation. What I'm going to do now is answer some of the questions you have before you even ask them. Namely, how will the random selection process work when you want the best type of person for the job? and how will this system fit in with our current parliamentary system?
First question. Although I have stated that the selection will be random, I am not suggesting that just anyone can enter politics as though they have won lotto. I believe that those who are randomly selected should meet a certain criteria. In other words, we only select from the pool of the best people in Australia. Now this in itself is controversial. What is this criteria? If the criteria is too broad, then we can get all sorts of weirdos and half-wits to run our country. If the criteria is too narrow, then we lose the ability of the random system to represent Australians. So what is the solution to this?
I believe that we should start with a relatively narrow criteria, but then ensure that future generations are more likely to meet that criteria in order to broaden its base. What should the criteria be? These are my suggestions:
The first thing they should have is a university degree awarded by a recognised tertiary institution. This does not have to be an Australian University, but it does have to be a degree. Why should this be compulsary, after all it is surely elitist and too narrow a criteria? I believe that those who run the country should have had the opportunity to develop their intellect at university, and have passed all the requirements of a degree. We need intelligent people running our country. This is not to suggest tha non graduates are stupid, but it does recognise that the position of politician is a professional position, and requires a level of intellectual competence. The only way to broaden this criteria is to increase the amount of university graduates - which means we should have a better education system as a result. I am certainly in favour if this.
The second thing they should have is some recognised study into many facets of learning that will enable them to at least understand the different issues facing political decision makers. So while I'm saying they should have a degree, I'm also saying that at least part of their education should be well-rounded to incorporate all sorts of different areas. I've thought of around ten areas that these people should be competent in. They should have an understanding of Economics and Accounting (to fit into the right hand side of politics), they should have an understanding of Aboriginality and Socialism (to fit into the left side of politics), and they should have an understanding of Mathematics, History, some form of Religious studies, English literature, Environmental Science and Legal studies (that all fit into a more neutral part of politics). Ideally I would like all of these areas to be studied at the level of a university subject, but, if not, then they should be of a greater standard than you find in the final year of high school. There are probably more subjects that can be studied, but these are the ones I think are pretty important at the moment.
The third thing they should have is that they be fluent in a language other than English. Many politicians in non-English speaking countries have made the effort to learn English, so why shouldn't we learn one of their languages? Why should this be a criteria? Our politicians will have to make decisions about other nations, and the ability to speak a foreign language will obviously enable some to relate more directly and personally to representatives of other nations. But it will also enable our politicians to have some level of knowledge about another nation, thus giving them a different perspective to our own limited one.
The fourth thing they should have is Australian Citizenship and, if they have become Australian citizens after migrating to Australia, have been naturalised for a decent period of time - say 15 or even 20 years. This criteria will ensure that Australians or long-term migrants will be our politicians.
It also goes without saying that anyone convicted of a serious indictable offense cannot be considered as a politician, even if they meet the other criteria.
The most obvious problem with this is, who meets the criteria? Not many people at the moment. That is why it is important to promote it. University courses should include the study of some or all of the broad areas I mentioned above - Mathematics, English, Aboriginality and so on - as part of the award for their degree. Professional bodies such as the Institute of Engineers, Chartered Accountants, Medical Fellowships and others should also include the meeting of the criteria as essential to membership. All nurses and teachers should fit the criteria as well.
I suppose my argument is that if more and more people fit into this criteria, then we will actually have a better and more informed society, not to mention a greater pool of people to randomly select politicians from. For this to work there needs to be a generous influx of economic resources in important areas, namely basic education at primary and secondary level. In the meantime what can work is that the selection criteria be broader at the beginning (taking away the need for a second language and the broad knowledge base, but still requiring a university degree) and then made narrower as more people begin to fit the criteria.
In terms of gender balance, the random selection should ensure more female representation in parliament, though this will obviously be determined by whether there is a gender imbalance in those who fit the criteria. People from a non-English speaking background will also be adequately represented since they already fit one part of the criteria. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation will not reflect their position in society because their low socioeconomic status will ensure that they find it more difficult to meet the criteria. I do not believe we should have special requirements that let people in on the basis of their race or their skin colour, mainly because it doesn't address the problem of why they can't meet the criteria in the first place - namely, that more educational and health resources need to be spent to ensure that they are able to make it on merit.
One more thing before I move on. People who fit the criteria should probably be rewarded with some form of public recognition and even having letters after your name, Member of the Australian Representative Body, M.A.R.B. or something like that. It would look good on resumes and confer some amount of respectability upon such people.
Alright, how can Random Representation fit into the current Australian Parliamentary system? How about listening to my fastasy first. My own preference is for a unicameral system based on a proportional random representation alongside a president as head of state. This would mean the merging of both Senate and House of Representatives into one representative body. I'd like a relatively small amount of representatives, say 101 people to make all the decisions and create all the bills. The President will not be elected by the people of Australia, but by the Representative Council, who, after their four years in office, elect one of their own members to serve as President for four years after that. In other words, the president will be a former member of the Representative council, who will be signing the bills presented to him by the council that replaced the one he was a part of. We get rid of state governments, and merge a few local government areas, who use exactly the same random representation model except that people who are residents of the local area will form the pool of representatives that can be randomly drawn from.
So that's my model. I like it. It seems simple, but obviously needs a lot more work. What about our system now?
We must remember that the House of Representatives currently offers the clearest representation of the nation, while the Senate confers equal power to the States, regardless of how many people there are in them. Many people have bemoaned the fact that NSW and Tasmania have exactly the same power in the Senate, despite the fact that Tasmania has a much smaller population base. As far as my memory of Australian history informs me, the reason why the Senate is what it is is because each state was given some form of individual right to ensure that they are not swamped by the numerical power of other states. It has something to do with the rights of individual states as part of the constitution.
The system can work as follows. Both House of Reps and Senate appoint their members as per the random representation model. There are no more geographically based "seats" in Parliment, instead the lower house draws its members randomly from the entire Australian Population. The Senate is similar, except that it draws its members equally from each state. Say, ten people from NSW, ten people from Tasmania, and so on. The governor-general is appointed at the end of their four-year term from one of the members of the Senate or House of Reps, and is elected jointly by both houses as their final decision before they are all replaced by new representatives.
State governments can work exactly the same, as can local governments. Rather than people voting for people, people who meet the basic criteria are randomly selected to serve a four year term.
One variation I can live with is that representatives are appointed every year to serve a four year term. This means that at the end of each year, one quarter of the representatives retire and are replaced by new people. In the election of the governor-general, his or her selection will only be determined by a successful completion of four years as a representative, no matter how many years difference there has been between their completion of parliamentary service and their appointment to the office. For example, a man has finished his four year term of office and was generally liked and admired by all he served with. Unfortunately, the office of Goveror-General has another 2 years to run. He spends two years out of parliament, but is then elected by Parliament as the new Governor-General when the other one steps down.
So, what place is there for influence in the system? Apart from the death of political parties, it will ensure that single-issue entities form lobby groups to try to influence representatives. You can be assured that the Housing Industry Association, people representing the Australian Stock Exchange, people representing big businesses like Microsoft, will all have their people in Canberra ready to influence these random selected politicians. But groups like Greenpeace, Amnesty International and others will as well. And because these politicians have not been directly influenced by these entities (although they may be indirectly influenced by propaganda and advertising) they are more likely to make objective and selfless decisions than our current politicians.
I well realise that this system is not perfect either. One skill that politicians have is the art of compromise, and there may be some randomly selected representatives who do not have that skill. I am also sure that a lack of experience in government will also affect decisions. However I do believe that the system of Random Representation is a far more democratic and workable governmental system than the system we have been running now for years. It will be revolutionary, and I believe that it will change the way individuals in our country perceive politics and government. For once we will have relatively honest and intelligent politicians.
From the One Salient Overlord Department
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
You are free:
* To copy, distribute, display and perform this work.
* To make commercial use of this work.
Under the following conditions:
* By attribution. You must give the original author credit.
* No derivative works. You may not alter, transform or build upon the work.
* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the author.
Additional copyright information from the author:
* You may remove the "Department name" from the text when copying.
* You may Americanise any minor spelling (eg Humour, Humor).
Zero Unemployment Economic System
Introduction
There are two forces at work in our world today - the forces of individuality and the forces of community. The practice of economics and economic policy can quite easily fit into both categories depending upon one's political view; the Laissez-Faire free market policies as typified presently by the United States of America and the theories of the Austrian school of economic thinking; and the Communist or Socialist beliefs as typified by the Soviet Union and the theories of Karl Marx.
It is my assertion that neither system will work when applied to their logical conclusions. The Free market economy has caused so much poverty and inequality in its midst, while the Communist system has proven no match for the flexibility and productivity that is an integral part of the Capitalist system.
The solution lies in the middle of the two. But rather than seeing the two forces as opposites, we must see both as complementary - they need one another to survive. This is not based on some idea that "Good" and "Evil" must co-exist and somehow learn to live in balance.
When it comes to understanding how a market economy works, I prefer to view capitalism as though it were fire. Fire is extremely useful, but it is dangerous if it is out of control, and next to useless if it goes out. Fire can only be useful when it is contained and controlled, and allowed to work freely within its own limits. Fire cannot be used if one does not recognise its behaviour, nor its danger. Capitalism is like fire. Left to its own devices it runs out of control because its very nature is chaotic and consuming. But fire can't be useful if you are continually dousing it with water. Communism and Socialism, for all their good points, have in practice acted to douse the fire and have not benefited from it.
The purpose of this paper is to present an alternative Labour market model that combines the principles of Socialism with the natural workings of Capitalism. Hard-line proponents of one or the other belief will find this paper unappealing. I believe that if this model were applied on a national or even international stage, it will inevitably lead to full employment, higher economic growth rates, an eradication of poverty and a severe reduction in crime and warfare. Not many Economic theories or models (with the exception of extreme Marxism and Communism) would declare that about themselves, so it is with much trepidation that this paper be produced.
To introduce myself, my name is Neil Cameron. I live in Waratah in the city of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. For the past 8 years (1995-2003) I have studied economic theory at an amateur level. This alternative labour market model was developed in 1997-1998. Because of its natural political and economic consequences, combined with my lack of formal training in the field of economics, I felt that it could not possibly be right. Since then I have developed other theories and ideas on different aspects of economic policy. Some ideas I discarded as I learnt more about this subject. Fortunately (or maybe unfortunately), the original labour model could not be disproved by my own knowledge or skills. I am writing this paper to explain the simple details of this model, as well as potential problems with it, in order for it to be published, disseminated and critiqued amongst academics and experts.
The function of the Labour Market as a Market
It seems strange to describe the Labour Market as a Market - after all, doesn't it describe itself properly initially? The reason why I have pointed this out is that many who try to solve Labour Market problems (notably unemployment and low wages) have promoted solutions that seem to ignore the fact that it functions as a market.
All markets work on the basis of supply and demand. When demand is high and supply is low, the price for that commodity increases. When demand is low and supply is high, the price for that commodity decreases. The exact same principle works in the Labour Market. Each human being, sadly, has a commodity called labour, and they can sell their labour to those who wish to purchase it (their employers). Moreover, the market rewards people who are skilled in areas in which there is high demand and short supply with higher wages. The same principle applies to those who have generic or universal skills that are easily procured by the marketplace - their labour costs less.
In most other areas of the economy, the market functions quite efficiently this way and with a minimum of complaint. The Labour Market, however, is different because of ideas like equality and fairness make market-based operations difficult for both suppliers and buyers of labour. This is because human beings are different to all other commodities - our society views people with an infinitely higher regard than, say, petrol or newspapers. This is the view that people are valuable and the economy, supposedly, exists to benefit both individuals and communities. This is the idea espoused by Marx and modern-day Socialists, who argue that social concerns must co-exist alongside economic concerns. Marx and other proponents of Socialism have pointed out that poverty and low wages are linked, and that steps must be made to ensure that the poorer people of society share in the benefits that a growing economy has.
The problem with many of the solutions proposed by those from this position is that they ignore the basic function of the marketplace. Since the Labour Market is a market, these solutions have not worked.
The first flawed solution was to ensure that a law exists to determine what the minimum wage should be. Most Western countries have this law because of the influence of politicians and lobby groups sympathetic to Socialism. Although the law exists to make things fair for workers, it circumvents the normal operation of the marketplace by arbitrarily setting a minimum price for a particular commodity. If buyers of labour (employers) feel that they cannot afford to pay this minimum price, then they are not compelled to buy at all. The result is that an oversupply of labour exists, but laws prevent buyers from determining the price necessary to use up this labour. What this inevitably leads to is unemployment.
Evidence for this can be found in a present-day comparison of the Labour markets of the United States with those in Western Europe. Western Europe, with higher minimum wage laws, has a much higher level of unemployment and a much higher proportion of long-term unemployed when compared to the USA. Moreover, the last 10 years have shown that the USA is capable of lower unemployment during periods of economic growth than Western Europe.
The second flawed solution was to ensure that those who were unemployed received a level of Government benefits to ensure that they were kept out of abject poverty. Again, this idea was proposed by those who have sympathies with Socialism. Unfortunately, this compounded the problem outlined in the first flawed solution by creating a competing situation to wage-earning. By being on unemployment benefits, unemployed people are given a choice of earning money by doing nothing or earning more money by working.
While I am not against the idea of unemployment benefits per se, their existence in an economy with high levels of unemployment ensures that a large proportion of the workforce are given incentives to not work. While each individual is different, it has caused long term welfare dependency amongst many people with a lower socio-economic status.
So while these two solutions were created to help the lower wage earner, they have actually acted to make it worse for them by ignoring the basic functions of the market. If I were to use my "fire" analogy from the introduction, these solutions ended up dousing the fire rather than controlling it.
Given that these solutions do not work, perhaps we should abandon them and follow the opposite direction? This would involve a reduction in the minimum wage level (and maybe even its eradication) and a reduction in unemployment benefits. Sadly, these solutions will not work either.
The Market is always unfair
The market places value upon a commodity because it finds that commodity useful. When it comes to the Labour Market, the same principle applies. Unfortunately this means that those who cannot produce the more valuable types of Labour are punished with low wages.
It is a myth propagated by proponents of Laissez-Faire style economics that people are paid more because they work harder and smarter than others. In terms of physical and mental effort, there are plenty of low-wage paying positions that are far worse than those endured by the modern entrepreneur or CEO. While this myth seeks to promote the idea that those who are rich deserve to be rich, it also promotes the idea that the poor are poor because they deserve to be poor.
While I believe that we cannot circumvent normal market behaviour, I do believe that people are equally valuable. It is important, therefore, to create a solution that takes into account both normal market behaviour and the needs of the poor in our society.
The market rewards those with certain skills and punishes those with other skills through the manipulation of wages. It has nothing to do with effort or intelligence or fairness. In this sense the Market is brutal and is inherently unfair. Perhaps we should dispense with the Market altogether?
The benefits of Capitalism
Perhaps the best way to examine the benefits of Capitalism is to examine the results of its alternative - Communism. It is now well over a decade since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and economic theory since then has followed a very strict free-market line. But was Communism really as bad as it has been portrayed?
Modern-day proponents of Communism point out that the inherently dictatorial structure of the Soviet Union ensured its downfall, and that a more democratic form of Communism can succeed if given a chance. This will not do.
The real problem with Communism is that it ignored the power and necessity of markets. After the revolution in 1917, Lenin himself had to resort to a market-based economy in the 1920s to provide the resources needed to eventually lead to collectivisation in the 1930s. With supply and demand determined by committees and politicians, the Soviet economy grew until it reached its peak in the 1970s. From that point on the economy stagnated, partly as a result of recalcitrant members of the Politburo, and partly because Communism as a practice had reached its limits.
In his book "Imperial and Soviet Russia" (1997, Macmillan London), David Christian, former lecturer in World History at Macquarie University, said this about the collapse of communism and the triumph of capitalism:
"There is no stable balance of planning and markets. Instead, there is a wide range of systems in which one of these two elements dominates the other. And looking back from the end of the twentieth century, it appears that systems in which the market dominates are best at sustained growth." (Pg 433)
Hearing Dr Christian myself while at Macquarie University in the late 1990s was quite informative. He himself studied in the Soviet Union and held Communist beliefs. While he has certainly abandoned Communism as an economic force capable of competing with capitalism, he nevertheless laments the fact that capitalism is unable to provide the Socialist outcomes that Communism attempted to provide. During one of his lectures, Christian pointed out that capitalism was able to be far more flexible and productive than Communism because the market was more efficient at punishing waste and inflexibility than a planned economy.
This is not to say that Christian supports capitalism. He admits that he has no alternative system that can compete, but that Socialist outcomes must come from another source, as yet undevised, that will re-assess the necessities of economic growth proposed by both Communism and capitalism.
Australian economist Clive Hamilton has helped to promote the idea that capitalism is flawed in that consumption and material goods are unable to provide satisfaction in most people. This is an interesting theory and one that I am eager to examine further. I have only discovered Hamilton's theories recently, so I must go on with this paper without him.
Nevertheless, higher levels of production have led to an increase in the availability of basic needs for people within mature market economies. While it is good to question the basis of satisfaction within capitalism (as Hamilton has done), the basic fact is that poor people who live in mature market economies have a higher standard of living than most people who live in third world countries. The example of countries like Japan and Korea need to be pointed out. Both nations had low standards of living by Western standards at the end of the Second World War, but the combination of industrialisation and the free market allowed both countries to progress to comparatively high levels today. Japan, in particular, has come a very long way since the devastation of 1945 - and this because they were able to harness the power of capitalism, despite its many faults.
One of the arguments put forward by free-market proponents is that free trade and globalisation will inevitably benefit poorer nations more than richer nations, and that the key to eradicating world poverty is to encourage stability in third world governments, while at the same time encouraging the rule of law within a free market framework. This argument does contain many flaws, but it is a powerful one, and must be pursued and fought for if only for the reason that it will bring these nations out of poverty.
No other theory of economics has yet to replace the practice of free-market capitalism in terms of promoting growth and riches. Communism is fatally flawed, yet we must not ignore Socialist outcomes when we consider the benefits of the free market. The fact is that while capitalism works marvels, it also has serious side-effects, namely the disparity of wealth and the fact that those with money have the most power in society. Since many believe in equality rather than monetocracy, something has to happen within capitalism to ensure that its terrible side-effects are reduced or even eliminated, while still accepting its substantial benefits. This can be achieved through government intervention.
The relationship between government and non-government markets
No economy exists outside the influence of government, not even the most Laissez-Faire of nations like the United States. Indeed, it is the workings of the Federal Reserve Bank and its Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) that can act to inflate or deflate the economy accordingly. Since 1945, the world economy has stood upon the pillars of Keynsian Fiscal Policy and, later, Monetary policy. Both have been very useful in controlling inflation and promoting long-term growth, but both have never been successful in achieving full employment over a long period. Without government intervention in these areas, national economies would be severely restricted.
Governments, from the 19th century onwards, also realised that the free market is incapable of providing certain services that a nation needs. The free market cannot provide an effective standing Army, universal health care, universal free eduction or an effective way of maintaining law and order. As a result, many nations, under Socialist principles, provided these services for the good of the community, and raised revenue from taxes to pay for them.
Since the 1970s and the influence of economists like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Von Hayek, many market-leaning politicians have been arguing that governments need to be "smaller" to allow the free market to work more efficiently. Thus, for these proponents, taxation and government services are "evils" that need to be eradicated in the name of liberty. The result of this has been a slew of economic reform in nations like the United States (under Ronald Reagan), the United Kingdom (under Margaret Thatcher) and, to a lesser extent, Australia (under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating). This has become so accepted today that it is almost a mantra to those who are its proponents - privatisation, deregulation and less government spending.
This is not to say that these things have not worked. Deregulation and Privatisation have increased efficiency and decreased waste in many industries because they have been exposed to market-driven activities. The result has been cheaper goods and services and an increase in the buying power of people who live and work in these economies.
The assumption, however, is that government will always be wasteful and inflexible while the market will always be efficient and dynamic. Anyone who has examined in detail the wasteful activities of companies like Enron in America or HIH in Australia will realise that this is not the case. Nevertheless, the effects of Privatisation and Deregulation has generally led to higher economic growth.
The fact still remains, though, that the market cannot provide services that the whole community needs equally. Economic resources have to be collected from tax and distributed to schools, hospitals, fire departments, the armed forces and to police officers. Even if some level of privatisation occurs within these areas, the "user pays" system cannot work properly, otherwise only the rich will be able to afford the benefits that we all enjoy now. Moreover, the social costs of anarchy, low educational levels and bad health will inevitably turn into financial costs that will be borne by the economy as a whole. It is far more cost-efficient to ensure that these services do remain equally available to all people, despite the inequality of taxation required to pay for them.
Governments do have a place within a market economy. Government cannot replace the market, but neither can the market survive without government. Government cannot have its direct (fiscal) effect or indirect (monetary) effect without dealing with money from the marketplace. Taxation to pay for government services is therefore a given. People may not like it, but without tax there will be no government services they can benefit from.
Since the government can provide essential services, they can also provide the basis for wage equality. Not through ineffective wage laws, but through a direct intervention in the labour market.
The Full Employment solution: The Universal Wage Subsidy
You may have realised by now that everything I have written above has been building up to something. Originally I called this idea "Free Market Income Redistributing Economics", or FMIRE for short. Yes, a terrible name, and opponents of this idea would have had a field day in reinterpreting the "F" part of the abbreviation.
I have avoided using the terms "The General Theory of...", mainly because I do not wish to seem arrogant enough to compare myself with Maynard Keynes, but also because my idea is not a "theory" per se - it is merely an "engineering" principle based upon a theory. This idea may be all mine (it was certainly thought up by me, although others may have discovered it as well), but it is not the discovery of a new "theory". It is simply based upon what has been discovered before.
The idea of a wage subsidy has been around for a long time, and has been abandoned mainly because it distorts the normal function of the marketplace. Whether the subsidy is for goods, services or labour costs, it has tended to work against market behaviour. I am not, however, proposing what has gone before, I am proposing something new - a universal wage subsidy, that is, a minimum wage paid by the government to every single employee.
Critics of this idea will continue to argue that it still distorts the marketplace. This may be true, but we must also remember that there is something that works exactly the same way as a wage subsidy except that it takes money away from wage earners - this thing is called income tax. It is essentially the same principle, except that tax is taken away as a proportion of a person's income, while a subsidy is a flat payment to a person's income.
Many critics would still argue that taxation is a distorting factor as well, but these experts would also adhere to a more libertarian view of government and work towards a Laissez-Faire economic system. Given that taxation is expected in a modern functioning economy and that taxation is not seen as a distortion of the marketplace because its effects are universal, then it can also be argued that a universal wage subsidy (whereby all working people receive a flat payment from the government) will have no effect either.
The germ of this idea occurred around Christmas 1996 - or at least as a result of it. During that time I was working as a storeman and packer in between my first and second years at University. I worked for a labour hire company - they were my employers, but I worked for their customers. Every week I would get my time sheet and fax it to my employers, who would then pay me my wage. They would also bill the company I worked for for my labour, but they would naturally charge more in order to make a profit - the difference between the wage they paid me and the money they received from the company I was working for.
I applied this idea to the national stage. What if the government acted as a gigantic labour hire organisation? Moreover, what would happen if a person could only work for the government? This was not communism, but it was a situation in which the government would be paid the person's wages, and then the government would pay the employee. The difference would be that they could actually pay more or less according to how much money the employee made. If their wage was high, then they would be paid less. If their wage was low, then they would be paid more.
As I pondered this idea, I originally believed that it could probably work in getting the long-term unemployed a job. After a qualifying period (say 18 months of unemployment), the unemployed person could then apply for jobs at a lower than minimum wage rate (and thus be cheaper and more likely to be hired) but still get a decent wage granted to them by the government. Over time, the government would pay them less and less, which would happen alongside their growing employability (those who work longer are more likely to be employed when they change jobs than those who have been unemployed a long time).
It was then I hit on the idea that a universal income redistribution could not only increase the wages of the poorer sections of society, but could actually eliminate unemployment altogether and increase the participation rate. This would occur if the minimum wage laws were scrapped and employers were able to hire people for whatever price they wanted to charge, even ridiculously low amounts like one dollar per hour. But rather than hurting these low wage earners, because income is redistributed they end up getting a lot more than they would have had they only been paid the low amount in the first place.
So I set about thinking - how should wages be redistributed? The answer was deceptively simple.
Because each working person would be employed by the government (since the government is a labour hire organisation), all their wages would be paid by the company they work for to the government. The government tallies up their wages and then pays them 50% of what they earned. If they earned $200 that week, then the government pays them $100; if they earned $1000 that week, the government pays them $500. So now the government has exactly half of their wages. What does it do with them? It then divides all the money it has gained by how many people are employed, and gives that basic amount to everyone. Perhaps the best way to explain it is to use some examples.
Let's say that our economy consists of three people who work 40 hours per week. Jane, who earns $350 per week, Peter, who earns $1200 per week, and Tom, who earns $700 per week. The government then takes half their wages. Jane is given $175, Peter is given $600 and Tom is given $350. The government now has $1125. It divides it by three - $375 - and then gives that amount to each of the three. Jane now gets $550 for her week's work (175+375), Peter is given $975 (600+375) and Tom is given $725 (350+375).
Notice that Peter is still earning the most, but he has also lost the most. Jane still earns the least but she has gained the most. Tom's wage has only gone up by $50 because he is earning slightly less than the average of the three employees. This model still allows the market to reward those who have higher earning capacity, but it gives a very generous "floor" which the lowest wage earners can enjoy. Market operations still occur - the most qualified is paid the most while the least qualified is paid the least - but through the intervention of an income redistributing tax we can ensure that the lowest paid workers are given a decent wage, while still allowing higher wage earners the benefits of being richer.
As I thought about this concept the other day I realised two things about it - firstly, by creating a generous absolute minimum wage, won't it naturally create a corresponding maximum wage? And secondly, won't this concept discriminate against higher wage earners and act as a disincentive for them?
There is no doubt that such a major change in incomes will lead to radical changes in the Labour Market. The fact is, however, that wages will be set by employers - they can choose how much or how little they can pay their employees. While this idea will create a "floor" for a minimum wage, the price will not be paid by employers - but by all employees. So to mangle the analogy a bit, we can assume that while the floor is solid, there is no ceiling - higher wage earners will always earn more, but they will earn less than what they would have before.
As far as this idea being a disincentive for earning higher wages, what I can say is that our current system acts as a disincentive for lower wage earners. While higher wage earners will earn less for their work, they will be earning more overall anyway. The only way that high wage earners would be discriminated against would be if there was some reversal policy present in the concept that would end up paying lower wage earners more than higher wage earners. That policy would be ludicrous. I do not believe that in order for the poor to become rich then the rich should become poor. I do think that poverty can be determined objectively, and that all steps should be made to ensure that people are taken out of poverty. If this happens then I do not care how much more money the rich have.
A summary of the system
Just in case my prose was too difficult, let me just summarise the The Zero Unemployment Economic System.
- Minimum wages are scrapped. Employers can pay employees as little or as much as they want.
- All employees work for a single government run labour-hire organisation.
- When employers employ people, they are actually employing the services of the labour hire organisation.
- Employers pay the employee's nominated wage to the government.
- The government then pays 50% of that wage to the employee.1
- The government then tallies up how much money it has collected and then divides it by how many contributing employees it has.
- The government then pays the employee that fixed amount of money.
- All people who earn more than the average wage will have a net loss of income.
- All people who earn less than the average wage will have a net increase in income.
- In all cases, no wage earner will earn less than the fixed amount of money the government has determined.
Why will this system lead to Full Employment?
If this system is applied within a modern industrialised economy, the result will inevitably be full employment. Firstly, because wage rates are so low, an unemployed person can easily negotiate wages with a potential employer, who can employ them accordingly. Many of the financial constraints that employers have in employing people can be met by the government (such as sick leave, holidays and so on), thus making it even cheaper for people to be hired.
Secondly, it is to be assumed that since everybody will have the opportunity to work, that unemployment benefits would cease. With no disincentive to work, all unemployed people can both find work, and have no financial reason to avoid it.
It is important to realise that while Full employment is possible under this system, it will not inevitably lead to the "job for life" scenario enjoyed by previous generations. Permanent long-term employment by one employer may not be achievable, but at least permanent employment by multiple employers can be. In this sense, wages will always be available, even if employment by one single employer may not.
It is also important to realise that, because the lowest wage level is so high, people will opt to work rather than not to work. In countries with low wages, there is still a significant problem with people who are still in poverty while working - which is in itself a disincentive to work. If this system is followed, then a person will be compelled to work because of the great incentive to do so.
The knock-on effects of this system
As you may have already realised, the knock-on effects of this system are considerable. If it can be proven to work, then not only will it ensure Full employment and the eradication of poverty, but it will also make major adjustments to how an economy and a society will function. I have made short comments about important areas below
1. The Participation Rate
If an economy has Full employment then there will be an increased demand for labour. This demand will be met, in part, by a return to the workforce by people who are currently out of it. In Australia, the Participation rate hovers between 60-65%. This means that approximately one third of people of a working age are not actively working or seeking work. There are a variety of reasons why this is the case, and these reasons have been adequately explained by experts in that field.
It can be assumed that if there is Full employment and an increased demand for Labour, then people who make up this non-working proportion of an economy will opt to work. I am not an expert in how participation rates work, but my belief is that it would exceed 70% under this system.
2. Wage increases
If the economy has Full employment then there will naturally be a disparity between supply and demand. With supply drying up, the demand for Labour will ensure that labour costs will increase. This augers well for the system because the more money people are getting, the more money is gained by the poorer elements of society through income redistribution. The advantage of this is that, as labour prices increase, so too does the wages of everyone in the economy.
3. Economic growth
Full employment coupled with a high participation rate and a market capable of setting its own price for wages will ensure that there will be significant increase in economic growth. This in itself is not necessarily a good thing (as per Clive Hamilton's thinking), but it does ensure that the benefits of economic growth are distributed more equally
4. Part-time work
Because this system is flexible, people can opt to work as much or as little as they wish. It is obvious that people who work part-time should be paid less, even by the government. If the redistribution rate is set at, say, a 35 hour week, then people who work only 20 hours only receive 57.1% of the money they would have been given to them by the government. This system should encourage part-time work for all people who wish to sacrifice wages for time.
5. Retired people
Retired people will also benefit from this system. Naturally with zero unemployment even the labour of retired people would be in demand. This will be very useful if the economy has a large amount of retired persons due to low birth rates. It will ensure that retired people can work as hard as they wish, and still receive the benefits of their pension or superannuation - they will not have to rely solely on the younger generation to provide enough resources to support them.
6. The "Sea change" principle
"Sea change" was a popular Television show on Australian television about a woman who opts to move to the country for a better lifestyle, yet sacrifices her wage to do so. Since full employment will ensure jobs, people may feel less constrained about moving to a country location. Employers and businesses may even be forced to set up in country areas to take advantage of the lower wages people will be prepared to work for.
What this will lead to is a probable movement away from urban and suburban areas into less populated areas. In Australia we might see the major cities losing people to the coast and inland towns as they seek a better lifestyle. There are naturally disadvantages to this, but I have to admit that it does sound quite compelling.
7. Flexibility and globalisation
Because wages will be determined by the market, an economy will have a greater flexibility in supporting a wider range of businesses and industries. Labour intensive industries, especially, will find this system a delight to operate in. Moreover, global economic shocks such as major recessions or wars will allow such an economy to be flexible enough to change its output accordingly. There will no doubt be negative effects, but the economy should "bounce back" relatively quickly because of the cheap labour available.
8. Taxation and government spending
Naturally I have presented this proposal as an untested model - one which did not include such things as taxation for government spending. The redistribution tax can be modified and increased to take into account income tax. In fact, it may even make it much simpler. I've given an arbitrary figure of 50% as redistribution. Let's increase that to say, 70% of a person's income. The extra 20% is then taken away to be used on government spending. In this sense. everybody is paying exactly the same amount of tax in dollar terms. This may not seem fair, but if such a tax would lead to unacceptable poverty then, rather than set up rules and investigations into eligibility and means-testing, the entire tax rate is upped again to compensate. When this happens, the poorer members of the workforce will be better off.
9. Environmental concerns
I believe that the world needs to drastically cut back on CO2 emissions or face the long-term environmental damage it will cause. I believe that all coal-fired power stations (as well as nuclear and gas) be replaced by wind turbines and solar panels on residential roofs. I also believe that cars should be powered by hydrogen and that alternative mass transit systems (such as subways, railways and bicycle ways) be adopted.
Unfortunately such a change in energy supply would cause a huge jump in electricity cost. Coal and Oil are far cheaper to use than the wind and the sun. What we need is an economic system that can absorb the costs of moving over to Green Power.
This system will ensure not only full employment, but much higher levels of economic growth. The negative impact of spending billions of dollars on Green Power can be absorbed by an economy that is running at the highest level.
10. Collective and Enterprise Bargaining
It remains to be seen whether collective and enterprise bargaining will be affected by this system. Naturally with no minimum wage, individuals can negotiate with prospective employers quite happily. But what about wage awards that have been worked out between Unions and Government and employers?
My initial reaction to this idea was to simply "scrap" the collective bargaining system, but that does not have to be the case. Unions and employers can still negotiate over wages, but with one interesting point - if workers are retrenched by a company then they will still be able to find work - maybe not at their previous wage, but they will never be unemployed.
The international effects of this system
Assuming that this system will work, it is now a good point to discuss its international implications. Specifically, how do poor third world nations benefit from both the system itself and those countries using it?
It is likely that this system will encourage an international currency and monetary unions between rich and poor nations alike. A poor nation and a rich nation - the former wishing to join with the latter in a monetary union - will negotiate over the specifics of the deal. In terms of finances, the rich nation has little to gain. But when both nations are joined into a monetary union, the combined economy will out-perform the two nations if they remained separate.
Care must be taken to ensure that the same rules and regulations apply to both nations, so that businesses and investors in the poor nation will be covered by the legal system of the rich nation. Once this has been done, the rich nation freezes its contribution rate to its own people, and gives the balance over to the poorer nation. Eventually, after many years, the poorer nation will have gained enough resources to have the same standard of living, and the contribution rate for both will go up together, as one unified economy.
On a related note, countries that run this system will be able to assimilate migrants and refugees quite easily into their economies. In fact, they might even be welcome, such would the demand for labour be. I have often thought of my own country, Australia, opening its borders to whoever wants to come here simply because more labour is needed.
How this system might be applied in the European Union and its expansion
Of all the economies in the world that would adopt this system, I would predict that the European Union take it up initially. Why? Because the EU is already a monetary union and is committed to Social Market economics, as opposed to the Laissez-Faire model of the USA.
There is, however, a great disparity in wages and conditions in the EU. Germany has some of the highest wages, while Greece and Spain have some of the lowest. If this system were applied to the EU (specifically the Euro zone and not in non-Euro EU member countries) then it needs to be done carefully.
As with my previous point about the international effect of the system, we must assume that individual nations might protest at this system because of the negative effect it would have. Again, the solution is the same - the contribution rate in rich countries is frozen and the balance given to poorer countries. As the poorer nations get richer, eventually the contribution rate will all go up together. Such a move may require some form of work permit to prevent poorer people from entering rich nations and getting jobs, but I will leave that one to the experts.
Potential problems with the system
While I have a great regard for this idea, I nevertheless concede that it needs to be tweaked and modified to prevent corruption. As a Calvinist, I believe in the theology of "Total Depravity" - that is, the belief that all mankind is capable of evil and is guilty of sin. When I examine the idea presented in this paper, I realise that steps need to be taken to ensure that the system is not abused. It therefore needs to be policed, and this will be an additional cost.
The first problem with this system is that at the higher end of the wage spectrum, we will have people who will attempt to gain monetary rewards without paying enough of the redistribution. In other words, they will attempt to hide their real income. I have no solution to this at present except that rich people should probably be subject to random investigations to ensure that this does not happen.
The second problem with this system is that at lower end of the wage system we will have people who will attempt to do as little work as possible to gain the same amount of money. The only solution to this that I can think of presently is for employers to gain some sort of permission from the government to employ people below a certain wage, and for investigations of businesses to ensure that wage earners are actually working.
The third problem that I can foresee is relationships with other nations who do not have this system running. If this system can be proven to work, then I predict that the United States of America be the last nation on earth to adopt it. Yet I can see that their relationship with trading partners who use this system will be strained, mainly because they will see wage redistribution as some form of subsidy that prevents their own people from competing equally. If trade embargoes ensue because of this system, then we must remember that full employment will still be a reality, and that industries will start up to take up the slack caused by this embargo.
The fourth problem is that the very rich will find it difficult to continue living in a country with this system running. It is likely that they will flee to live in countries which offer better conditions to rich people. Despite what some left-wing commentators might think, this is not a good thing. The only solution I can see for this is that the very rich be allowed some sort of leeway - say any money earned over six times the average wage will be taxed at a lower level, or maybe even not taxed at all.
The fifth problem is that while a lot of money is spent on wages, a great bulk of money is owned by businesses and corporations and will not be affected by the redistribution. Since it is wages, not company profits, that are redistributed, we can assume that this will be a problem. One solution is to raise business tax. Another solution, which I believe is better, is that some of the money that the government takes in tax is used to invest in the marketplace. This investment is then used as an additional means of revenue to income and sales tax. The idea here is that the people (as represented by the government) are investing in the market, and will all benefit over the long term as more and more money from dividends and interest is paid back to them.
No Conclusion
As you are no doubt aware, this work is only the tip of the iceberg and I do not have the skills nor the time to develop it in great detail. It may contain such basic flaws as to make it unworkable, in which case I appreciate any comments or thoughts. While I do subscribe to certain "left-wing" beliefs I am also rather conservative on others, so please do not assume that I fit into a certain political "box".
From my own experience and my own understanding of how economics works, I have yet to find the "fatal flaw" which will disprove this idea. I think it might revolutionise the entire world if it is applied judiciously, and make the world a far better place as a result.
From the Osostrian School Department
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
You are free:
* To copy, distribute, display and perform this work.
* To make commercial use of this work.
Under the following conditions:
* By attribution. You must give the original author credit.
* No derivative works. You may not alter, transform or build upon the work.
* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the author.
Additional copyright information from the author:
* You may remove the "Department name" from the text when copying.
* You may Americanise any minor spelling (eg Humour, Humor).
2005-07-28
Faith and Echinacea
"The only cure is bed rest. Anything else I give you would only be a placebo." - Dr. Hibbert (speaking to mob)Once again Science has rigorously proved something that no one is going to take notice of - that the herb Echinacea has absolutely no effect at all upon people who suffer from colds or 'flu. The study, which was reported in The New York Times, was apparently rigorous and completely unbiased. Like all pharaceutical trials, half of the subjects were given a placebo while the other half were given the drug in question.
"Where do we get these placebos!?" -Crazy mob woman
- The Simpsons, "Marge in Chains"
It seems obvious that the only reason why people took the herb for their colds is based on that wonderful Latin phrase post hoc ergo propter hoc - literally, "after this, therefore because of this". Remember the story of the guy who spread elephant powder around his house? Well, no elephants came around so it obviously worked! It's the same logical fallacy. We catch a cold, we take some echinacea and we get better. The problem is, of course, that this study proves that we would have gotten better anyway, without any echinacea.
If we were a society that took notice of the hard work done by testable scientific study, we would put the echinacea industry deservedly out of business. But we're not such a society. Most of us don't actually live in a reality-based community, but one in which faith plays an important part. The problem is, of course, what the definition of faith actually is.
It is a peculiarity of America that faith is expressed as some form of reality-altering "force" that people have the power to use in order to change their lives and their surroundings. It's the sort of faith that you hear expounded by motivational speakers like Tony Robbins - you know, the believe-in-yourself-and-you-can-do-anything attitude. It is also prevalent in the message of many popular modern Christian preachers, like Joel Osteen.
From this definition of faith, we can therefore understand that people who live in the "faith-based" community are the proactive ones - the ones who are actively changing their lives and the world through their acts of faith. Those of us who reside in the reality-based community, well, we're there to study what they've been achieving, forever consigned to observer status.
There is only one problem with this - it doesn't work. How do we know? Echinacea.
The recent study into echinacea shows that personal faith in something may not bring about any changes at all - no matter how strong that faith may be. We may believe very strongly that our sickness can be treated by this herb, but, in reality, it makes no difference whatsoever because rigorous study proves it does not work.
But people will not believe scientific study. It's too hard. It's much easier to buy the book from the self-help guru who spends the entire book telling you how wonderful you are and how you can change your own life.
In fact, people can get so irrational that they may see scientific study as undermining their system of beliefs. Science then becomes the enemy - or at least, the reliance upon the scientific method. It's this sort of activity that leads people to give up their medical treatments, stop seeing their doctor and go on an all-banana diet or some similar quackery.
But this is not what faith is about. There is no dichotomy between the so called "reality" and "faith" based communities. All we have is varying degrees of stupidity.
Faith and reality are not mutually exclusive. The classical and historical definition of faith is unrecognisable from the one that is pandered today by its salesmen. This definition of faith is more akin to the word "trust". I have faith that my chair will hold me up. But it is not my faith that keeps me from falling to the ground, but the chair. The strength of a person's faith, therefore, is not as important as what that faith is in.
One of the more noticeable "faith-based communities" are evangelical Christians - of which I am one. The problem is that many evangelicals have fallen for the modern definition of faith. As a result, walking into a modern evangelical church can often not be dissimilar to walking into a self-help seminar.
The problem is that the Bible's definition of faith is one of trust - the classical and historical definition. This means that many evangelical churches and popular preachers are actually misinterpreting the Bible. So when the Bible speaks of faith, it does not speak of the strength of faith but what that faith is directed towards - Jesus Christ. Yet so many preachers today have forgotten this. I once heard a person preach on faith without mentioning Christ once.
Evangelical Christians, though, are merely part of the world that we live in. Sadly, they too have imbibed the lie that we can determine our own reality. In this, evangelicals are being swept along by the very forces that they are trying to avoid.
So what are we to do? We need to investigate. We need to engage in critical study. Science itself is not immune from the subjective, so it is always good to question how certain tests and studies are done. The Nazis convinced us of that one.
We cannot afford to live in a society that is governed entirely by an individual's right to determine what is real and true. That is why we have traffic lights. Moreover, we all need the right to be be proven wrong. Truthful and reliable information is a basic human right because our belief system always determines our course of action.
How do we achieve this? Simple: When you catch a cold, save your money and don't buy echinacea. Everything else will follow.
From the Department of "Wha Happnin?"
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
2005-07-27
To safeguard our freedom, we must destroy it.
In the wake of the London bombings, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is now seriously considering new anti-terrorism laws that could potentially lead to suspects being imprisoned without trial for up to three months. To be fair on the PM, he has not made any decision yet, but the idea is there all the same.
Some find such an idea appealing, arguing that these are dangerous times, and require special responses to deal with it. Others, like myself, cannot support such an idea because of the huge risks to the ideals that our western nations hold dear.
But, some may argue, it is easy for people like me to sit at my keyboard and pontificate. After all, I have not been directly affected by any form of terrorist action. I have not seen the bloody results of a suicide bombing. I have not had any cuts or broken bones or lost limbs from such an event. I have not sat by the phone with dread, waiting to find out if my loved ones are safe or are dying in hospital.
But bloody, vengeful attacks can often lead to bloody, vengeful responses, with innocent people suffering all round. We have an advantage over the terrorists in that we live in a civil society that follows the rule of law. We have police, courts, judges and forensic experts at hand to ensure that the guilty are punished and the innocent are set free. It may be tempting to weaken our system of laws in order to feel more protected, but we will all suffer if and when that occurs.
The history of Britain's handling of terrorists is a case in point. In Ireland during the 1970s, British forces had the right to hold suspects without trial for long periods of time. This was due entirely to the terrorism that had been perpetrated by the IRA. Moreover, pressured by public opinion and hasty politicians, many innocent people were tried and convicted for terrorist activities - such as bombings - on either flimsy or contrived evidence.
In hindsight, we acknowledge that these people were subjected to a grossly incompetent justice system. We remember the suffering that the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and the Maguire Seven underwent as they fought for years to prove their innocence. Evidence from these events showed that law enforcement officials were willing to lie in order to force convictions.
British law eventually exonerated these people. But it was obvious that police investigators were pressured from above to get results that the public wanted. There is no difference between the events that occurred in the 1970s, and the events that occurred in the last few weeks. Already we have had one incident where an innocent man was executed by police. With the British PM seriously considering holding suspects without trial for three months, we may again be falling into the trap of blind revenge rather than dispassionate justice.
We cannot safeguard our freedom by destroying it. We cannot uphold our values by forgetting them. We cannot promote peace and harmony by being vindictive and emotional.
By all means let's get the terrorists. Train more police and give them generous pay rises. Spend time and money setting up a covert spy network within known extremist Islamic groups. Train more sniffer dogs to detect explosives at tube stations. There are a lot of simple solutions that will help. And, to pay for it, raise taxes - most people would be happy to directly pay the government to keep us safe.
From the Department of "Wha Happnin?"
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
Some find such an idea appealing, arguing that these are dangerous times, and require special responses to deal with it. Others, like myself, cannot support such an idea because of the huge risks to the ideals that our western nations hold dear.
But, some may argue, it is easy for people like me to sit at my keyboard and pontificate. After all, I have not been directly affected by any form of terrorist action. I have not seen the bloody results of a suicide bombing. I have not had any cuts or broken bones or lost limbs from such an event. I have not sat by the phone with dread, waiting to find out if my loved ones are safe or are dying in hospital.
But bloody, vengeful attacks can often lead to bloody, vengeful responses, with innocent people suffering all round. We have an advantage over the terrorists in that we live in a civil society that follows the rule of law. We have police, courts, judges and forensic experts at hand to ensure that the guilty are punished and the innocent are set free. It may be tempting to weaken our system of laws in order to feel more protected, but we will all suffer if and when that occurs.
The history of Britain's handling of terrorists is a case in point. In Ireland during the 1970s, British forces had the right to hold suspects without trial for long periods of time. This was due entirely to the terrorism that had been perpetrated by the IRA. Moreover, pressured by public opinion and hasty politicians, many innocent people were tried and convicted for terrorist activities - such as bombings - on either flimsy or contrived evidence.
In hindsight, we acknowledge that these people were subjected to a grossly incompetent justice system. We remember the suffering that the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and the Maguire Seven underwent as they fought for years to prove their innocence. Evidence from these events showed that law enforcement officials were willing to lie in order to force convictions.
British law eventually exonerated these people. But it was obvious that police investigators were pressured from above to get results that the public wanted. There is no difference between the events that occurred in the 1970s, and the events that occurred in the last few weeks. Already we have had one incident where an innocent man was executed by police. With the British PM seriously considering holding suspects without trial for three months, we may again be falling into the trap of blind revenge rather than dispassionate justice.
We cannot safeguard our freedom by destroying it. We cannot uphold our values by forgetting them. We cannot promote peace and harmony by being vindictive and emotional.
By all means let's get the terrorists. Train more police and give them generous pay rises. Spend time and money setting up a covert spy network within known extremist Islamic groups. Train more sniffer dogs to detect explosives at tube stations. There are a lot of simple solutions that will help. And, to pay for it, raise taxes - most people would be happy to directly pay the government to keep us safe.
From the Department of "Wha Happnin?"
© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)