Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gail on February 29, 2012 at 8:48am

You said " Without fear there is no courage and without taking a stand for social justice, no humanty"

I disagree strongly.  There are only two kinds of fear:  That which is irrational and that which can be avoided.  Fear of a car coming at you at 80mph is one that can be avoided by using one's powers to keep one's self away from that kind of situation.

Permalink Reply by Jeff Mowatt on February 29, 2012 at 9:00am

Then disagree and agree to disagree, rather than making disagreement your purpose. . 

Permalink Reply by Gail on February 29, 2012 at 9:04am

No need to get huffy.  Just trying to point out that there is more than one hole in the hypothesis you offer, and I'm doing so in order to be of service to mankind.  But I will agree to disagree and leave it at that. 

Permalink Reply by Jeff Mowatt on February 29, 2012 at 9:12am

I don't thinks so Gail. everything you bring up assets that I advocate something I haven't. You aren't serving anyone in doing that  

Permalink Reply by Gail on February 29, 2012 at 9:19am

Jeff, I am absolutely not advocating what you suggest.  What I am saying sounds similar because the ideas are similar, but your ideas are incomplete because they ignore or contradict certain scientific facts (or their implications) that are known to exist.  It's as if you are speaking in 3D and I am speaking in 4D.  That which you see fits nicely within that which I see, but I see more that you do not take into account, so your theory begins to crumble.

I'm not here to argue.  I simply read an interesting posts and came here for the first time in months to respond to it.  I love learning - not arguing.  I'll just opt out of this thread so that I don't get any more notices, and you can continue preaching to the choir.

Permalink Reply by Jeff Mowatt on February 29, 2012 at 7:41am

A minority  position, I agree. Are you suggesting that I don't see Gail? How about this:

"Hallman concludes that social business and social enterprise must be done by working backwards, from the problem: identify the worst social conditions in any given location, then analyze why the problem(s) exist.  This method will always reveal all factors and barriers.  Only then can the problem be understood, and then possibly fixed.  But, he notes, barriers are often found in various organizations who are supposed to be trying to fix the problem, but have vested interests in direct conflict with achieving actual solutions.

On his article on 3-D investing, I point out to Rod Swartz that the 1% who engage in what can be described in a social economy, we are opposed by 15% engaged in an anti-social economy, and 84% who are agnostic. Solutions like the Tobin Tax which buy into global capitalism by tapping the proceeds are not my solution.  . 

Permalink Reply by Gail on February 29, 2012 at 7:47am

I understand that you are not suggesting that we buy into global capitalism by tapping the proceeds, but I still disagree with you (respectfully, of course)

Permalink Reply by Jeff Mowatt on February 29, 2012 at 8:42am

No. as I've already pointed out to you we transcend 20th century production and profit maximisation, corporate capitalism with localised people- centered economies  The Tobin Tax which Anna advocates, buys into global capitalism.

 

Permalink Reply by Jeff Mowatt on December 29, 2011 at 2:01am

There's a legal form which is seemingly congruent with the P-CED model in that it goes further than the CIC in defining the role the Community Benefit Society or Bencom has in serving the community rather than a membership, as with a coop

I've created a new group on Linkedin to discover why it's so difficult to find support for creating this I&PS form.      

Permalink Reply by Gail on February 29, 2012 at 6:00am

I think, Jeff, that the difference between your vision and mine is where power is placed.  You argue for placing power at the top - so that the top has power over that which is beneath it.  I argue for placing power in the hands of the individual.  The paradigm is so different!  It's as different as a man is from a woman.  I think that your gender in our current culture may have more to do with your vision that you may know.  There is a difference between anarchy and rational anarchy.  One is chaos.  The other is rational.  A power-over model is not rational and it creates chaos.  A power-of model is pure, logical reason.

Permalink Reply by Jeff Mowatt on February 29, 2012 at 7:00am

Sorry, but that simply isn't the case Gail. In the first instance it began with a project in Russia after capitalism crashed in 1998. This was to propose turning what Harvard had stewarded, the top down implementation of laissez-faire economics on its head and placing funds in the hands of those who needed it most. It was to become the Tomsk regional initiative which introduced a community bank and over the next 5 years helped 10,000 people, more than 80% women, create micro enterprises.

This is how er describe it later in a strategy paper for Ukraine.      .

'This is a long-term permanently sustainable program, the basis for "people-centered" economic development. Core focus is always on people and their needs, with neediest people having first priority – as contrasted with the eternal chase for financial profit and numbers where people, social benefit, and human well-being are often and routinely overlooked or ignored altogether. This is in keeping with the fundamental objectives of Marshall Plan: policy aimed at hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. This is a bottom-up approach, starting with Ukraine's poorest and most desperate citizens, rather than a "top-down" approach that might not ever benefit them. They cannot wait, particularly children. Impedance by anyone or any group of people constitutes precisely what the original Marshall Plan was dedicated to opposing. Those who suffer most, and those in greatest need, must be helped first -- not secondarily, along the way or by the way.'

It's difficult to see how anyone reading You, me, we, ethics and people-centered economics could possibly see it as top-down. It is entirely about localisation. post growth people-centered economies.    

Permalink Reply by Gail on February 29, 2012 at 7:46am

OK, I hear what you say, but it still demeans and fundamentally disempowers the individual.  A disempowered person does not have power.  We need a system that empowers people in a visible and meaniingful way. I don't want to be one in a cooperative (IN THE SENSE THAT I HEAR YOU EXPLAIN IT) because I would be not only disempowered, but enslaved by it.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page