[Leica] IMGS: check out Keith Wessel's photographs

[imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)]

On Mar 12, 2011, at 4:59 AM, FRANK DERNIE wrote:

> What I do mean is that however much we want the service they 
> provide we can not have it if our economy does not have a significant 
> number of 
> people in genuine wealth creating employment who are net tax contributors.

Frank, I do understand your underlying point re: net taxpayer.
Though I believe we must consider some fundamental systemic underpinnings.
Money = a medium of exchange as a measure of perceived value; nothing more 
and nothing less.
Can't eat it. Can't build a house with it. It won't keep you warm
(unless you have very large quantities of small bills to burn).

> Who are net contributors, from this perspective?

One could postulate that only the planet itself offers a NET contribution to 
our existence:
Top soil, flora, fauna, minerals, water, oxygen, various forms of fuels, etc.

Let's assume that you, me and eight other naked human beings exist in this 
eco-system.
Further let's assume that we agree to work together for our mutual survival 
and propagation.
(yes - we have women among our tribe of 10). We begin to discuss our "needs"
and agree on who will perform which tasks to accomplish our various goals of:
building shelter, creating clothing for the coming winter,
gathering food, water and fuels, handle sanitation issues, etc.
everyone has role to play for our mutual benefit.

"Who are net contributors, from this perspective?
Anyone who performs their assigned and accepted duties within the system.

Now - what do we do when one of us wants to store and control "more"
food, water, and fuel than everyone else in the tribe? (s)he says it's a 
good plan.
We won't have to run around looking for berries and hunting game each day.
So we come up with these beads (money). We bring our game, our buckets of 
water,
our bushels of grain and receive beads. When we need a chicken we just hand 
over some beads.

The net contributors still remain: The planet; Those who hunt, gather, build;
And now the one who stores and distributes resources.
The beads themselves do not contribute;
they function only as an agreed upon means of exchange and measure of value.

I think you know where this is going. The storage guy ends up with lots of 
real and necessary
commodities; as well as a whole lot of beads; pretty soon he needs guards
to keep his stores safe; and several millennia later here we are.

The "net" contributors still remain the planet, birds, bees, top soil, and 
those who nurture it.

We seem to have arrived at a point where we pretend the "net contributors"
are those who exploit,  excessively profit from, and over value their own 
worth in the system.
Some even imagine that the bead exchangers deserve 5,000,000 times the 
quality of life
than the human beings who pick the food for the bead exchangers' table.
When the bead exchangers start gaming the ecosystem - we have serious 
problems.

> Artists, such as yourself, who create from almost nothing valuable art 
> which 
> people pay for. Anybody who takes a lump of clay and makes a brick, 
> anybody who takes a sheet of 
> steel and makes a washing machine, anybody who takes a pile of bricks and 
> builds 
> a house.

We certainly agree on what is of true "net" value in our society.
Though I will add to your list - Those who pickup my garbage, plow the road 
in front of my home,
stand ready to put out a fire in the community, teach my children and 
grandchildren, etc.

> The payment received for all these efforts is taxed and is "new" money 
> going into the tax pot. It is this "new" money that allows us to pay for 
> other 
> things, not the money which circulates into and out of the tax pot. This 
> circulation keeps people in work but is unsustainable without the "new" 
> money 
> since the money will dry up otherwise.
> If nobody is making "new" money nobody can spend it. However much we thing 
> we 
> "need" something.

Here's where we may need a lot more, research, paper and time;
as it becomes conceptual and philosophical.
The term "new" money does not ring true for me;
though I can certainly accept "real added value."
We seem to lack a basic agreement on:
1) levels of equity between all the tribe members 
2) who contributes to the common good of one another
3) ownership of the ecosystem which supports us all
4) the systems of storage and distribution of the fruits of our labor.

At this point in time I observe a tiny minority of tribe members hoarding 
the vast wealth of nations.
The vast majority of tribe members who played very important roles in 
creating that stored wealth ask for fair distribution and circulation.
This discussion has been going on since the first granary was built and the 
first coin minted.
An open discussion must include the concepts of greed, subservience, usury 
practices, false pretenses, and many more.

Bottom line - who is actually interested in building a "just society?"

Regards,
George Lottermoser 
george at imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist