Continued Studies - 03/04/2005

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

03-04-2005

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Of

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

03-04-2005

In examining Tracy’s opinion on maintaining an invariable price on necessities – so as to maintain an acceptable minimum wage, it is in my opinion that those who labor to produce the goods for those staples, should be compensated in other ways besides and in addition to the controlled and limited price they get for their produce at market. I believe the idea I have already addressed here-in would be one option to consider, while yet another is simply to issue some sort of credit notes yearly/quarterly to those who own and work their fields. Surely, especially within the modern dynamic of bulk productions – there is ample amounts of surplus to accommodate such “credits” with little displacement. These I see as a form of grant which the recipients are not to be indebted for… and such would be in the interest of balancing the lack of ability in setting and naming their own price for their goods. Further, it is meant only for use in meeting those basic needs for those who labor to produce at that level.

I do realize that there are already programs of subsidizing said incomes… but from my recollection, these subsidies become a “push and pull” which is similar to having to meet a quota- targeted number, in order to obtain an optimum remittance… which then effects the output and on and so forth.

Their “cost of living” is at least that of the average workman/woman, and again as much as the average businessman I would presume.

To keep such people impoverished is lunacy – especially given that there is no need to, and given the importance of what amounts to the service they provide.

Such augmentation of their income seems would be in the greater interest of society, government and individuals.

Those who utilize and benefit from those mandatory lower prices, should provide some form of access to goods they themselves even produce for such augmentation to meet the needs of those basic- staples producers.

I do think that such should be entirely independent of existing programs – food stamps, workers benefits…. And such.

I can see where some interests would insist on such “grants” being spent selectively – that is to say, in the areas from whence they came so to speak. Personally, I can see where such contained spending could be a detriment where it is that the stimulation of the market is concerned. The interest to contain said spending, again is evidence of that tendency I’ve just described.

I do believe however, that such subsidies… said separate certificates and such, should be limited to living needs – food stuffs, medical…etc. and definitely separate from the cost of production.

Certain trade areas it would seem, would even stabilize – especially within certain commodities.

It could be said that such would be directly contrary to the idea of exciting and stimulating the market, even removing instabilities which are seen to fulfill such needs in some degree, but I would then argue that the only said “instabilities” which would decline, would be those that are of the topical and therefore the more detrimental versions of such stagnation deterrents.

In such augmentations, I could then see the “sporting” aspects of business again being just that – opposed to the underhanded, scheming “bad deals” and get it while you can type of atmosphere which dominates the modern day.

The “artisan” aspect of business and production could again be a focus…. And again find a more stable place within the workings of said dynamics. The meaning, the quality of the “deal,” instead of “what you could get out of the day.”

I can see where such could provide incentive and opportunity within the market without disrupting it, for new farms and farmers to begin… and again, without causing a saturation effect. The idea of “fixed pricing” yearly/seasonal, should equate to the higher quality of product “all the way down the line.” Especially with more producers working more land within that set standard and dynamic.

It would seem that such affordable abundance of quality, would then mean “less overhead/cost” worries for manufacturers… which means “less filler” as it were, and even greater and growing diversity of product.

Variety in larger quantities without substantially saturating the market. Which is a great consumer want.

I can even see where new/more farmers/producers would mean less/fewer impoverished people (I realize there are organizations which depend on the impoverished, but that is for other observation).

I can see such effecting reservation lands in a positive manner. “Tribal” farm lands being included in this new compensation.

I believe that such would provide stable employment and productivity….. which of course are things which lend to value within society.

(Here I will note how I can see this direction being conducive with another thought I will put forward elsewhere pertaining to the modern development of NEW townships and cities – as well as in conjunction with immigration tendencies).