To:  Yves Bajard on list ATTAC, John Courtneidge on list LETS, and other 
defenders of the Commonwealth.

Dear Yves,

I owe you an apology for a recent statement of mine which was offensive 
because it was poorly phrased and incomplete.  In reply to your 99-06-19 post 
to list <[log in to unmask]>, I wrote:

(WSB:  Yves, you have covered every aspect of our global problematique except 
for the most important possibility, that is, the possibility that you might 
be mistaken.  (Snip)

Now I have visited your web site at URL <list [log in to unmask]> and saved 
all of your recent posts to list <[log in to unmask]>, and nothing you have 
written can be called mistaken from my point of view.  What I wanted to say, 
and should have written, was:

(WSB:  Yves, you have covered every aspect of our global problematique except 
for the most important possibility, that is, the possibility that the simple 
solution, identified as option 4 in my post of 99-06-16, might be the 
shortest path to the solution of the global problematique.  Being simple, 
more of the public can understand and support it,  Having its historical 
roots in the Pentateuch and its contemporary roots in corporate financial 
policy, more of the public can verify it from their own religious beliefs and 
their own working experience.  But the simple solution does have this serious 
disadvantage, it will under-cut the monopoly of knowledge presently enjoyed 
by the Wealthy, Healthy, Inteligent, and Powerful members of society (the 
WHIPs), but as compensation, it will also secure their status at the top of 
society if the public knows that they support and promote it.
    .  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> End conversation with Yves Bajard <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Dear John Courtneidge,

In your 99-06-28 note to list <[log in to unmask]> you wrote:

>> "Within the following, our friend Wes uses the words "the defect of the 
whole
system"

Can he and we define in, say, ten/twenty/which-ever words or less what "the
defect of the whole system" is?" <<

John, to define "the defect of the whole system," even with a few million 
words, requires that the audience share a common conceptual framework with 
the writer, a framwork which can comprehend the normal (as designed) 
operation of the whole system, so we will know a defect when we see one.  To 
date, only one or two members of my audience have even admitted to looking at 
URL <http://www.freespeech.org/darves/> where my global model has been posted 
along with the writings of Noam Chomsky of M.I.T. and other distinguished 
contributors to this topic, so we do not, as yet, have a shared common 
conceptual framework to work with.  But I can define in a few words the 
simple technical principle, the neglect of which creates the "defect," where 
ever the defect is found in societies with an advanced division of labor and 
a circulating medium of exchange.

In 1953, I inadvertantly included in my technical proposal to a small 
Mid-West Power Company a chart of unit cost ($/KWH) versus output (KW) in 
which the unit cost declined as the output of the Boiler/Turbine/Generator 
plant increased from no-load up to design output.  My potential customer, the 
Chief Electrical Engineer, pointed out my mistake, saying: 

"you cannot compute a Pareto optimum dispatch with fixed costs included in 
the cost data of your plants." (17 words)  

I corrected my mistake the way our bankers create money, with the stroke of a 
pen, by drawing a straight line on the chart from the unit cost ($/KWH) at 
design output, back to a slightly lower unit cost ($/KWH) at the no load or 
minimum output on the chart.  That change on the chart (control 
charactoristic of each plant) put my customer's mind at ease.  With that 
correction, every thing in the proposal was in accord with the current 
standard operating practice (SOP) of the Mid-West Power Company, and every 
other power company, so my manufacturing company was awarded the contract for 
an automatic dispatching system to compute and execute the optimum dispatch 
of production from nine Boiler/Turbine/Generator plants by simulating the 
operation of a classical free market price mechanism.  

Consumers of electric power cannot perform that classical free market 
function for electric power, as they can for other products, because they can 
neither select which plant to get their power from, nor can they know what 
the cost of power is from each plant.  And if they could, they would not want 
to be bothered with evaluating nine (or more) variables all day long as the 
demand for power varied from boom to depression during every 24 hour period.  

I am sure that power systems are dispatched on the same principle everywhere 
in the world.  But to see how the neglect of that principle impairs the 
performance of a corporate, national, or global system; a shared common 
conceptual framework to focus the discussion is essential.  Without the 
shared conceptual framework, we get decade after decade of words, but no 
solutions.

It might help to make the global model more interesting if a few well chosen 
words were used in my next post to add to Fig. 8, The U.S. Systemic Defect Of 
Omission, the data on who in the workforce pays interest, and, who in the 
workforce receives interest, without increasing or decreasing the amount of 
money (M1) in circulation.

Kind regards to all,

WesBurt



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%