Shamcher’s First Book: Distribute or Destroy

This English translation of Shamcher’s first book, Distribute or Destroy, was first released in 1936, after the success of the Norwegian version. Now republished in paperback and kindle, the book is an overview of the economic theories popular in the Depression, as the western world looked for answers to the dire economic problems. For more info go to the Book Website.

distribute or destroy kindle cover


Experimental Economic Theories: An Energy Theory of Wealth, Technocracy, Social Credit, Stable Money and Barter Systems

by Shamcher Bryn Beorse (Brynjolf Bjorset)

Now, almost 100 years since some of these theories were first drafted, we can look with fresh eyes at the ideas that were emerging in those tumultuous times after the first World War.

Rapidly increasing production power, expanding industrial output and the revolution in electric power met both left- and right-wing political ideologies in an arena of war debt and post-war shock.

The Great Depression caused economists the world over to re-examine the economic cycles of the century past. New fermenting ideas were everywhere.

Combining the work of various “heretical” economists into one accessible volume, this book by Brynjolf Bjorset (aka Bryn Beorse) leads up to a tested Scandinavian economic experiment: Nordic Clearing, which was established during the Depression as a bridge to a new applied economy. Behind it was a radical overview dedicated to rethinking the nature of money, particularly in the climate after WWI.

When asked to outline the basic work of the best known new economists of the day who offered an assessment of the situation of poverty in the midst of plenty, Beorse produced Efter Oss Kommer Overfloden (After Us the Glut), his world economic survey (published by Aschehoug in Norway in 1934.) It was immediately translated into English, and released in Britain and the US as Distribute or Destroy, subtitled A Survey of the World’s Glut of Goods with a Description of Various Proposals and Practical Experiments for its Distribution.

This is the book that brought the young civil engineer, Brynjolf Bjorset, on to the world stage as a firebrand economic thinker who applied radical theories for the greater good.

ISBN: 978-0-9783485-6-4

Page Count: 170
Binding Type: Trade Paper
Trim Size: 6″ x 9″
Language: English
Color: Black and White
Alpha Glyph Publications

The Future is (Still) Ours

Jim Dempsey added this inspired and thoughtful comment which I felt should be foregrounded here in the archives.

After reading this post I decided to purchase the book The Future is Ours.

It was extremely interesting and covered the banking system, money, inflation, deflation and basic stabilizing the economy but with a focus on allowing all citizens to have enough money/buying power as they needed to get by. This current economic crisis that began in 2008 is very relevant to the discussion in the book. It is clear that some of the solutions in the book are based on economic theories and are used to varying extent in our current economy. Likewise infrastructure spending is recommended as a mechanism to increase the money supply when excess capacity exists, but no money in the system to access this capacity. It is quite interesting because economics is about human energy or ability and the interaction between humans in the utilization of their energy or goods/services is the essense of economics.

In the quotes and theories section of the book Shamcher has questions and then answers them. One is: “How do most of us want it to be?” The answer is “Prosperous, adventurous, unrestricted, secure. We want opportunities for realizing our abilities and resources. We want free choice in every walk of life, no shortages in our stream of supplies, good and happy neighbors”

Economics is about people not money. Economic instability creates imbalance and can cause problems for all society. We need to work towards economic balance for all this will allow our minds to be free to explore more important areas of human existance.

The chapter quoted in this blog on clearing centres was of extreme interest to me. While Shamcher discusses inflation, deflation, deficits, surpluses, money supply, etc. and the associated solutions to a balanced system. The clearing system discussed above was interwoven into the discussion and its benefit of minimum inflationary impact on the money system was very interesting.

But more interesting was the idea of a mechanism for people/businesses to get credit for goods/services and use these to access others goods/services through a clearing system. I recognized this as a way to generate an economy and not being dependent on the money supply. How many communities are money poor but human energy rich and if these energies could be tapped through a clearing system described in this posting we could allow people/businesses to access the goods/services they require in exchange for their goods/services therebye rejuvenating the community and its economy.

Another quick thought is look at developing countries and specifically places like Afganistan or Iraq or any other country in distress. Many of the problems stem from lack of jobs which creates money to purchase the goods/services needed to survive. A bank where people could deposit goods/service credits and exchange with others for their requirements would create an economy from the human energy in these places. Likewise it would strengthen the community as they would be creating most of their needs internally.

Another interesting quote from Shamcher in the book is: “The scientific method can be used to explore the the atom, but let it be applied to human affairs and at once the pressure of …. party loyalty, of nationalism, or merely of established customs prevent the acceptance of valid conclusions. It is the full revelation of the spirit of science, and the fact that it envisages all of civilization and not merely useful gadgets that will bring us to the age of science. To call on present science for help is futile. To call on politicians, lawyers, clergymen, economists, is equally futile until they have learned, from science perhaps, the spirit and method of research.”

The interesting thing about this quote for me is that it suggests that we have to understand research the concept of critical thinking and looking at the facts and coming to a conclusion that makes sense.

The “Future is Ours” discusses the facts and issues trying to create understanding. There is so much that needs to happen in the world and the process of faciliating this is through researching and understanding topics and coming to balanced approachs that can be tested and adjusted helping stablize humanity.

Within the context of the above context I am currently interested in two areas of research and development:

1. The clearing bank model: I am interested in more information on this topic with the goal of fully understanding the various models available. I then plan to develop a framework for these type of bank(s) that could be used to start actual banks. I then hope to start a bank of this type and work with others to do the same. If anyone has further information on these types of banks from the past or current models please let me know.

2. The second area is the topic of research and development or the scientific model. More specifically this is an area I have been interested in a while in conjunction with some reading I have been doing of Harold Innis works on communication and media as well as some thoughts regarding frameworks for creating venues for dialogue on topics for those interested in researching and developing thoughts and projects in specific areas of human/planetary/universal interest.

Again I have a similiar idea of development of a framework for dialogue on topics through multiple medias that could help progress thought and development patterns influencing social/human development. The “spirit and method of research” Shamcher quotes aligned with the ideas regarding dialogue and information that have been percolating in my mind lately.

If anyone has any interest in either of these areas or ideas please feel free to contact me for further discussion. I have started writing on # 2 and plan on working on #1 in the near future, further information will be available somewhere on the internet as they progress. I can be reached at

Full Employment and Inflation

From the Appendix to Every Willing Hand, Shamcher’s book advocating full employment for all which is particularly relevant today.

A concluding word about inflation. If full employment were, as so often alleged, bound to generate inflation, amending the Employment Act to give it real teeth might have little point. But two recent developments have brought that gloomy thesis into the most serious question — first, the ample demonstration that inflation now tends to occur even without full employment, and second, the not unrelated shift of informed public opinion into favoring an incomes policy of some kind to help maintain price stability. Thus full employment need no longer carry such burdens as do not, properly speaking, belong to it.

More than that, however, it is here submitted that a program of guaranteed full employment along the lines suggested would not only not feed inflation but actually be the best cure for inflation. This is asserted for two reasons in combination. First, the ceilings on employment and on consumer spending that would be imposed under this approach would choke off upward demand spirals almost entirely. That is the built-in “mechanical” aspect. It would limit “demand pull” directly, as already emphasized, and indirectly it would also moderate the wage-demand side of the “cost push” by holding down the prices that make up the worker’s cost of living. Second, there is the psychological point that cannot be proved but that should appeal to common sense-a point that would arise from the very fact of the government’s readiness to commit itself in this unprecedented way. An agreement on the part of the government to assure a total market adequate for business prosperity, and to assure continuous full employment for labor, should be enough to persuade business and labor leaders to agree to abide by some reasonable set of price and wage guidelines.

Those who blame inflation on the incurable wickedness of Big Business or Big Labor or both often seem unaware of how far the behavior of both has been caused by the malfunctioning of our economy — its cyclical instability combined with secular weakness — the inevitability of which is precisely what needs to be denied. Once the government stood ready to assure continuously adequate total demand for products and for workers, (1) all businesses would have more chance to spread their overhead costs and hold prices down; (2) management in areas of administered pricing could logically give up planning for extra profits in boom times to cushion losses in future slumps; and (3) union leaders would feel less pressure to demand extreme hourly wage rates on the one hand, or annual pay guarantees on the other, to fortify their members against the return of unemployment.

To put this in context — as these words are being written, the country is deep in President Nixon’s economic Phase II. Whether this experiment with a Wage Board and a Price Commission will, be followed soon by selective permanent legal controls or by some other incomes policy is impossible to say. But what the government commitments proposed in this article would in any case contribute, when it comes to resolving the ultimate hard-core part of the “cost push” phenomenon, is to open the door as wide as possible to achieving essential results by voluntary cooperation.

To SAM: Sufis, Economics

28 Dec 66
My dear Sufi Ahmed Murad Cheleby Baker Sam Lewis,

Thank you very much for letter. Yes, I know Cecil Gibbings, he must be 84 by now and still going strong. He is first to be highly recommended for being a rector, a priest, a vicar in the English Church and a sufi, much appreciated and initiated in Murshid’s rank by Hazrat Inayat.

What I am now going to say must not be repeated: As with so many, these initiations and his strenuous life and fine intentions have gone to his head so he has found time to denounce and damn a lot of innocents such as both Maheboob, Ali Khan, Musharaff and Vilayat, who all, whatever they have done or not done, benefit nobody by becoming victims of damnations. Many apparent prophets have indulged in damnations. The best that can be said about it is that it is superfluous, a waste of sound, a waste of thought forms, a waste of breath. Also, he concocted on his own a sort of agenda for a “sufi order” in which Mrs. Duce’s Meher Baba outfit was the only USA sufi group worth mentioning in his view. I wrote him nicely and bleakly telling him about US Sufis without even mentioning Mrs. Duce or Meher Baba. We both know these two persons well, the dragon, and the dragon’s innocent victim. You should have seen me with Meher Baba! His four mighty bodyguards were ready to devour me. But Meher retained his composure. That is one thing at which he is good.

Yes, I am writing the White House regularly about Vietnam and Red China. Those who have the solution mostly say nothing. I talk for them, always beginning by praising the President and his utterings for they deserve praise. But here in the US we have the most exquisite men to do the job that needs be done — except that these men are not used. But I write again and again, more patient, more sweet each time, now pretending that some of these men may have been sent already (since they have disappeared from their homes) etc. etc. These are men who personally know the great figures — Mao tze Tung. Lin Piao, Liu Shao Chi, Ho Chih Minh. There is no communication, none whatever, except through already trusted friends — at this point. Officialdom is nonsense.

Social Credit–not a good name now. John F Kennedy was rising from ignorance to a good grasp of the main principles, until he uttered “The myth of the Federal Budget”. So true, but I asked Seymour Harris, his tutor and senior advisor to the Treasury if it wasn’t too blunt. “No no, just right! It had to be said.” US economists now are social crediters in the right sense as those Canadians (simple) in Alberta were years ago, but you do not now have to go to Canada to learn about what is now more developed here at home. Douglas, the creator of Social Credit was much of a Babbitt, too, fond of simple mathematical formulae which did not at all fit the complex economic structure (more advanced math may be used discernedly) and refused to go to Canada to see what was really then better than him, afraid he would be embarrassed. I still have a better overall view of economics of any country but less knowledge of details, than most. But if I am appointed anywhere I can collect, digest and use the details toward solution. It is a complicated instrument, not to be played with.


(Click here for a random post from somewhere else in this blog.)

To SAM: Ali Khan, also Social Credit

What happened to Gavin? What happened to Gavin!
8 August 1966

My dear Sam S.A.M.

Yes, in my present financial condition I could finance three of the books you mention and I was planning to send a check along with this letter but more fair would be to just wait for your bill which may be slightly higher due
to taxes and postage etc. At first I had imagined you wished to sell me superfluous, used sufi books which I would have welcomed, but now we may achieve the Same by you loaning me the books you buy with my assistance when you have finished with them temporarily. At such time I could have them for two-three months, but we should agree first which books would be so disposed, since I already have a few.

Musharaff Khan, while here, laid open many movement points by statements to my wife or myself which have provided welcome opportunities for me to exchange letters with him about the Hazrat Inayat message in relation to the more ancient traditions of the East, Ali Khan and some of his idiosyncrasies, and Vilayat and his special mission, all of which must have caused considerable headache for good Musharaff but he had it coming and his answers have been rather desperate. Truth is, the senseless quarrels initiated by Ali Khan have kept highly important parts of Hazrat lnayat’s message frozen and unknown and now Musharaff, who is rather an innocent in these matters, has the beautiful but urgent chance of repairing Ali’s mistakes by embracing Vilayat — the best of their crew but not enough in himself. Well, we’ll see.

A new mureed here is Mr. Taylor recently of Alberta who confirmed my impression that Eberhart and Manning, Alberta Social Crediters, good, honest and astute men who had carried to great success, against tremendous odds, the weak but basically true id [sic] as of social credit. Douglas, its “inventor” and champion was not very clear or wise, and his “equations” were never accepted in Alberta, luckily, nor was he ever willing to go to Alberta and see the only practical application of his theories, though he was invited while I was in London with him.

Best of all, blessings granted and accepted

Shamcher Bryn Beorse

(Click here for a random post from somewhere else in this blog.)

It’s Not Enough to Sit There

Should we talk about it at all? Or should we keep meditating upon the light? One sufi, the same Sam Lewis, said, “In order to be a masterful sufi, in order to become really a light, you have to go into the darkness and fight the darkness.” Its not enough to sit there and meditate upon the light and do all these things. Well, if you are concerned mainly with yourself and your progress, that’s all you can do. but if you understand the reality of the whole flowing universe, you are not satisfied with helping yourself, you must bring everybody with you. As it is said in the Buddhist scripture, before the Buddha can go up to heaven he had to have the whole humanity with him. Well this is sufism essentially. It has been expressed as a difference between sufism and yoga. That isn’t quite true anymore because the better yogis also have this view, you must have the whole humanity with you.

So a real yogi or a real sufi isn’t the least bit interested in doing phenomenal things. He is interested in bringing humanity forward – by delving into dirty economics, war-mongering, energy, food supplies.

(Click here for a random post from somewhere else in this blog.)

Letter to Governor Brown

2539 Durant # 3
Berkeley, CA 94704

2 April 1980

Dear Governor Brown,

You are quite right quitting the silly primaries but that doesn’t mean you won’t be president this time. You are the only candidate so far with a clear stand on nuclear. That alone may draw half the voters to you alone, if sufficiently strongly emphasized — in the last 4 weeks before the election. A man like Walter Cronkite or one like Jack Anderson, if they appeal to you and if they will, by stressing this fact in appropriate fashion on TV and in the press many times a day for 4 weeks is enough to turn half of the voters or more from any “winner” to you. More important: People who would not have voted will come out or the woodwork and vote.

I have tried to reach you through my friend Russell Schweickart. I don’t know if he has conveyed my messages.

I am a graduate from 67 countries’ sciences and idiocyncracies and have been able to reach any American audience, make it stand up and whizzle and scream in face to face with me, or making them phone or write by mass effect when I talk on radio or TV, more now at my age of 84 than before. Therefore I have delusions as to what the public likes and will do. Russell once said you would commit political suicide by following my advice. Wilson Clark, present on that occasion, said no, he thought I was right.

Another of your brilliant ideas was military draft for the over 50. In World war II I had to browbeat my way into the services at 44, finished up at 49, a better soldier and airman than when entered at 44, drafted and published the brilliant plan to kidnap Hitler, put him down in a Scot apple orchard and let talk to his heart’s desire to newsmen. The British Cabinet was enthused, but Franklin Roosevelt turned us down with: “No, the Germans must be beaten so they know it.” To which British general C.C. Fuller replied “The 56% of Germans who never voted for Hitler do not need that lesson. The rest cannot be taught and do not matter.” But Roosevelt was the boss. Apart from this , the British had a dogma: All people on critical missions must be under 35. They came to change that dogma right around. You are right that the over 50 (or over 40) should be drafted. And I can tell about that — and other viewpoints you may have.

I don’t think we can risk another four years with either Carter or Reagan. We need above all to start an energy policy now. We have 10 non-polluting, cheap, fast-to-build energy systems ready to go with no more research required. This is my specialty. I am an engineer, worked on OTEC (Open Cycle) since 1948, know the nine other ready systems too. We may chose one, six, all ten, whatever Carter has had all the chance to see, learn and act. He hasn’t understood.We may go down to chaos — pull the whole world with us. Except if you…

Thank you

PS: The inflation is 70% energy-caused. My top economist friends: Dr. John H.G. Pierson, ret. UN Advisor, Harvard’s John Philip Wernette — Leon Keyserling — can handle all that.

(Click here for a random post from somewhere else in this blog.)

Planet Earth Demands (Excerpt)

Chapter Two from the Manuscript of Shamcher's book, Planet Earth Demands.


I came to Turkey as an engineer in the twenties. The Adana plains were ideal for cotton raising. The Turkish farmer is knowledgeable and hard-working. There was an urgent need for cotton all over Eastern Europe and Asia Minor. This would seem a beautiful and secure business for any bank or combine of banks to finance, but those approached had other commitments (maybe race tracks or circus performances?) so the plains remained unproductive and people had to go without clothes. Then a new regime took over the country, "the Young Turks." Their new Secretary of the Treasury, Saraguglu Shukri Bey, consulted with me who advised him there was no reason why the Government itself couldn't act as a bank and provide the money, if operating as responsibly as banks do, or preferably a bit more responsibly. So the Adana Plains were cottonized, everybody profited and my career as an economist, my third career, had been launched.

I wrote books. I helped run a new Scandinavian bank supported by merchants and the Government, to help relieve the depression haunting us at that time. After World War II, when the Nazi occupiers had crushed the Norwegian economy by reckless printing of money in the face of dwindling supplies, I was named to a commission to repair the damage. This caused our senior economist Wilhelm Keilhau to remark, "If that idiot, Bryn, is going to serve, I quit.” To which Premier Nygaardsvoll responded, "Good, Dr. Keilhau, that rids us of you." I rejected the commission's report and wrote my own.

This ‘Minority Report’ was later accepted by the Norwegian Congress. Luckily a better man than I, the outstanding Norwegian economist Dr. Ragnar Frisch, implemented that policy, while I returned to the States.

In the thirties I had talked to American bankers, who gently comforted me, “Yes, yes, Bryn, we must certainly do something in line with your ideas, though not now, maybe in twenty-five years.' So, twenty-five years later I turned to ingenious Seymour Harris, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury under Kennedy and Johnson, and caused him to miss important appointments while he listened, contemplatively. Lovable Arthur Schlesinger even missed luscious luncheons.

I went to Tunisia, heading a United Nations mission as Economiste-Ingenieur to bring relief to Southern Tunisia. When I came back a slam-bang meeting was planned to turn this country into a full employment paradise — when tragedy struck. At present Yale's Dr. John H.G. Pierson, Leon Keyserling of Truman’s time and John Philip Wernette are working for the same policy of full employment, each in his own way. Through these and some others' voices and language patterns we shall look at money, what it is, what we can and cannot afford.

In THE CONTROL OF BUSINESS CYCLES (Rinehart 1940) Harvard’s John Philip Wernette defines money: If we were to attempt to be precise we should probably end with an array of definitions of what is never-money, sometimes-money, always money, legal-tender-always money, non-legal tender-often money and many others. The purest form of money is bank deposits. They have no physical substance but are mere figures in books. Pocket money can be used to make jewelry, to fill teeth or paper walls. Not so bank money. It is generalized purchasing power and cannot be used for any other purpose. Dr. Wernette goes on to explain how, when a bank grants a loan, new money is created throughout the banking system.
This touchy subject has been discussed as long as this republic has been in existence. Some refuse to believe it. Some think it should only be discussed among bankers, not the general public. Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln and Mariner Eccles, Chairman of the Federal Reserve System under Truman, all elaborated forcefully on this subject.

Dr. Wernette asks, "Is there any reason to suppose that the amount of money so created – i.e. – the amount that borrowers wish to borrow from banks and the amounts that banks are willing to lend, will turn out to be equal to the amount of money that the people of this country wish to hold and equal to the right amount for functioning of the economic system?" In his later book FINANCING FULL EMPLOYMENT (Harvard University Press 1945) Dr. Wernette proposes, "Control of the total amount of money must be assumed by the Government.” He envisages a "stabilization Board" for creating or withdrawing money when and as necessary for carrying out the nation's wishes within the limits of manpower, resources and monetary stability.

About the risks involved he writes, A do-nothing policy presents greater dangers. On the one hand we have the danger of mismanagement. On the other hand we have the danger of mass unemployment and social upheaval. Of the two, the latter is both the greater danger and the most likely to occur. The less risky course is to implement a stabilization program and to make every effort to see that it is skillfully administered. Anticipating the "bootstrap gag he writes, "We pull ourselves down into depressions by our hat brims. The only way we ever get out is by lifting ourselves by our bootstraps.”

For the "Sound Money" boys he has this: "That money is soundest which contributes most to the economic well-being of the country.” Clearly such a stabilization board would handle urgent functions that no private bank could or would touch, but great care must be shown in the composition of such a board. A "pure” government body with only bureaucrats could wreck the economy through ignorance or corruption. A healthy input of private bankers, as in our present Federal Reserve System, seems mandatory.

Yale's Dr. John H.G. Pierson seems to me to accomplish a smooth cooperation between private and public interests in his plans for guaranteed full employment. His first book, FULL EMPLOYMENT was published by the Yale University Press in 1941. Since then he has been holding responsible positions in the national and international economy and has written three more books and a vast number of articles, some in professional journals (THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW), others for a wider public in the New York Times. Washington Post, Congressional Record etc. He has stuck with his FULL EMPLOYMENT aim as his basic theme. He was one who tried to strengthen the Employment Act when Congress was adopting it in 1946 and now he works for the completion of that act so it may achieve what was originally intended. The only condition he would impose on the money managers and other administrators concerned would be a definite level of employment, determined by Congress each year, based on the economic situation.

Not only is this feasible today, but it would lift our entire economy to a higher and more stable level and achieve more of what we wish our economy to achieve. There would be no ‘leveling-off’ of income but a general lift at all levels and the awkward matter of welfare would be reduced to manageable levels, as employment would be available to all who want jobs.

If the current money managers would not know how to help achieve this, able men waiting on the sidelines would step in; assuming, of course, that the citizenry would be sufficiently bright to elect the appropriate teams and not fall for the scare yarns of those who don't understand; w ho think their position is threatened or who have managed to collect or inherit a few dollars and from then on think the ‘system’ that made this bundle for them must be perfect and any change must have a sinister purpose.

There are even some who philosophize: “A little unemployment is good. It will teach those workers and their unions not to make ‘unreasonable demands’ and, so thinking, if they are in key positions they may cause unemployment not merely of the unskilled but, as now, of engineers, scientists, productive minds who contributed more toward the standards and the comforts lie enjoy than any of these self-appointed philosophers.

A few extracts from Pierson's writings will round out the picture. In the WASHINGTON POST May 14 1972 he quotes various politicians’ promises of full employment and adds, Without an explanation of how it can be accomplished, this does little more than widen the credibility gap. Once the focus shifts from merely reducing unemployment to guaranteeing full employment – without going against the grain of tradition — some new ground rules have to be observed. First, the approach must not threaten to have the public sector undermine private enterprise. A Government pledge to serve as employer of last resort needs to be supported by a further pledge that the market for the output of private produce will be sustained at a level high enough to maintain full business prosperity and preclude excessive reliance on the last-resort work program. This is one side of the equation. Yet a basic problem in our society today is its obvious need for greatly expanded services (and capital investments) in the public sector, to counterbalance our over-emphasis on the production of gadgets.

Both our cities and our backyard rural areas cry out for attention. Health, education, housing, anti-pollution, mass transport. Those expenditures, partly private, partly governmental, should be made for their own sake and clearly some initiative must come from Washington. In this sense the government should, as Michael Harrington put it, serve as employer of first — not last — resort.

There follows a detailed explanation' of what action must be taken to implement the plan or to make the Full Employment Act of 1946 work.
In the Congressional Record for March1, 1972, he writes:
A word is needed, about what really is at stake because the arguments over the full employment issue are often pitched on altogether too narrow ground. In briefest summary:

(1) Involuntary unemployment is destructive of personality.
(2) An assurance of continuous prosperity and full employment would weaken the antisocial (usually inflationary) compulsion of business, labor, farmer and other interest groups.
(3) Racial peace seems impossible in this country without universal job opportunity — the present lack of which is also partly responsible for the alienation of youth, not to speak of the helpless bitterness of many older people.
(4) Getting rid of poverty would be greatly simplified as a result of the cash-income effects of continuous full employment (more paid labor, less chance of exploiting labor by paying substandard wages).
(5) The extra wealth (GNP) which would be created under those full activity conditions — the staggering amounts now wasted through avoidable non-production is needed to help finance programs to meet the problems of the cities, backward rural areas, and the environment generally including again problems of poverty but not limited to them.
(6) Internationally, that extra wealth would confirm our ability to extend more generous aid to the world's less developed countries.
(7) More (and more fundamental) than that, confidence in our ability to maintain a market adequate for our own full employment prosperity through domestic policy would substantially deflate our fear of imports and exaggerated preoccupation with export markets and export surpluses; thus it would enable us to be a “good neighbor" that encourages and helps the less developed countries to shift "from aid to trade" as they become ready for it.

The NEW YORK TIMES, 23 January 1972:
To attain full employment is not enough; its continuation has to be assured… universal opportunity to have a bona fide life is what America is supposed to be all about … the vital amendment to the FULL EMPLOYMENT ACT (of 1946) would be this:
Congress would be obligated not to rest content with criticism but to establish final decisions on
(a) a full employment target
(b) a consumer spending target consistent with the recommended government spending program
(c) procedures for adjusting the job total up or down if the target was being missed
(d) similarly contingent methods for adjusting consumer spending.

From the overall economic standpoint guaranteed full employment would make recessions impossible and inflation highly unlikely, paradoxical as that may seem.
First, the employment and consumer spending guarantees would have ceilings as well as floors to restrain inflation from the side of demand and prevent the price-wage spiral. Secondly, because the Government was offering such guarantees, it would be in a position to persuade business, labor and farm leaders to agree to follow some reasonable set of guidelines in establishing their selling prices so that "cost push” inflation would be restrained too. This is why the outright guaranteeing of full employment would itself provide the best cure for inflation.

Dr. Pierson has purchased a piece of eroded, though in his view reclaimable land on the island of SYROS in Greece, where he plants trees, hoping to remake the land into what it was in Greece's heyday; the work of a generalist, symbol of the wholeness of his outlook.

Beside Dr. Wernette's and Dr. Pierson's approaches to continuous full employment we have the more widely known views and ways of Dr. Leon Keyserling, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors to President Truman. Dr. Keyserling now operates out of his Washington D.C. office, more alive than ever.

While there will always be periodic changes in business activity, it may be maintained at levels that are at all times satisfactory. While some may still dislike their jobs, it is possible, in view of our many urgent options, to offer a choice of several jobs to any applicant. The Kennedy Administration planned a supersurvey that would list resources, manpower and potentials and thus put the entire nation to work based, less on workers' previous experience, rather on being taught and trained at work in the new procedures of coming decades.

A slam-bang meeting, a talkaton of all the groups working on various parts of this jigsaw puzzle was planned when tragedy struck. These workers, who had toiled with financial nightmares in many corners of the world, scattered. The effort collapsed.

These repeated efforts to bring sense and reason into the chaos of our economy has been followed by keen observers abroad, not the least because the whole world's economy and happiness is so closely related to America's. Sir William Beveridge, one of England’s clearest and most dedicated thinkers, said on various occasions, "If the United States, possibly the only nation able to achieve full employment here and now — would actually accomplish this, she would thereby do more good than by all her aid and all her wars — not only for herself but for all of us.”

William Beveridge was a long-time leader of England's "Liberal Party" and to understand that term in its English version one needs perhaps to have lived in England. The English liberals do not base their views or their politics on past or present prophets or theories. They look directly, without noticeable bias, at the complex problems facing us.

This chapter on money, to be complete, needs one more face, a Britisher, A. de V. Leigh, General Secretary of the London Chamber of Commerce for thirty-five years. He became the behind-the-scenes leader of world trade and lifted the British Pound Sterling to world prominence.

During World War II he anonymously wrote "A TWENTIETH CENTURY ECONOMIC SYSTEM" from which is quoted his analysis of the then-existing money or banking system — why it so often failed:
When the effective demand for goods is increased so suddenly and largely that current production cannot be speeded up to keep pace with it, stocks begin to diminish and prices rise. The first impetus upward may be given by a relatively small increase in demand from the ultimate consumer or it may be due to psychological causes. The upward movement when once started is however carried forward by the urgent and largely increased the holder of stocks, whether manufacturer, wholesale or retail trader. His action is based upon fear or greed — the fear that if he does not buy now, prices will go higher and the hope that if he does buy now, prices will rise.., still higher and he will reap the benefit. The result of his action is, in fact, that of driving prices higher. When prices are falling he holds off the market in fear that if he buys now his competitors will later buy at lower prices and the hope that if he does hold off, prices will go lower. The effect of his holding off is to drive prices lower. This psychological factor could, it is submitted, be reversed and be made to work in favor of stability.
Under the proposed system traders would know that when prices fell, new purchasing power would speedily be put into the hands of ultimate consumers. The trader, therefore, would rush in to buy before this happened thus helping to bring prices and general business conditions back to stability without intervention. Similarly, when too much purchasing power has forced prices to rise and threatened inflation, the trader would know that action would be taken to contract currency and credit. He would therefore hold off the market waiting for this to happen and by so doing again possibly make official intervention unnecessary. The present psychology would be reversed, with beneficial results.

Money is a mysterious, largely invisible part of our environment. It has been shown how it can be made to serve us rather than haunt us. In addition money is an essential part of any and all aspects of our environment and how to turn it in our favor. But it is not as essential as often assumed, at least not yet. It is not yet time for any overall estimate of reversing the pollution trend. Not for a long time. First of all we must look at the choices facing us.

Letter to CoEvolution Quarterly

From his letter to Co-evolution Quarterly, printed in Fall 1979 under the heading OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion)
(In the late 70’s Shamcher often said that there would be war over oil in 20 years unless something was done to implement the ten ready technologies of alternative energy)

Dear Eds:
….Years ago the fallacy was clear and open – except that those who had worked so hard and now actually saw a think that worked, mechanically at least – were conned into lying, cheating and roaring to utilize their monsters. Three bold engineers of General Electric quit in protest – this should have aroused the nation – later 2,600 of our 10,000 nuclear technicians demanded a “moratorium” on all nuclear plants until research had been “completed.” Even this did not rouse the nation. What does it take? A football hero? Or an earthquake? Or ten more Three Mile Islands? The latter apart, the waste products alone should have made us stop.
Of the ten ready technologies wind, OTEC and Space satellites are ready now. OTEC alone could be built in five years. In fifteen we would have enough of these plants to stop all oil import. US OIL would still be used – no reason for the oil companies to panic about the “competition.” Although this is as far as most of them can see, or not see. Biomass, from land and sea, photovoltaic, tidal power, waves are also ready and some of these much cheaper than either oil, coal or nuclear. to produce 1,000 BTU of energy or heat, you need to spend over 3,000 BTU for either coal or oil energy, but only from 125 (says Lockheed) to 500 (says Richard Arlen Meyer of OTEC Liason) to produce your 1,000 BTU. OTEC can be built for half the cost of nukes – plus free fuel (the ocean) while nuke fuel rises all the time – say New Orleans Shipyards. “Competitive” says OTEC builder TRW. (My colleague here, Dr. Cal Herrmann, is deep into salinity research along with being an enthusiastic OTEC Man).
I trust you see – and will express – the dark side of this scenario: the government is geared for research – not implementation – by nature as well as by co-interest with narrow corporate views – that may kill us all in 20 years or so. Are we crazy? Yes, and dancers around the Golden Calf – dancing so crazily that we don’t even build the half-as-costly OTEC-Space-Wind-Biomass plants in half the time it takes to erect nuke monsters. Can you get these facts into the heads of your readers?
Thank you,
Bryn Beorse

(Click here for a random post from somewhere else in this blog.)