Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism

Dear "Rotary will continue to be charitable, but it can do more than that. Let us make Rotary exterminate the cause that makes charity necessary". This pearl of thinking by our founder Paul Harris was published in "The Rotarian" magazine of August 1916. In this line I will add the reflection by the French writer Victor Hugo: "We practice charity when we could not impose justice". Because it is not charity that we need. Justice reaches the causes of the problem; charity mitigates its effects. Monsignor Jacques Gaillot, also a Frenchman, with a serene look and pondered voice, dedicated his religious vocation to the defense of human rights, particularly those of the poor and of the prisoners of justice. He completed this reasoning: "I do not say that one must deny a plate of soup or a warm shelter to someone living in the streets. There are urgencies". I will do this, but my conscience will not be at peace, because I think that we must struggle against the structural causes that bond these people to injustice. The saddest thing for me is that people get accustomed to injustice. For this reason I say: "Wake up! This is shameful! Let us show our indignation towards injustice!" This is the reason why I now address you these words - I think that we can lead discussions in the Rotarian world to including in our agenda the focus on poverty and its causes. In this way we will not only mitigate its effects with philanthropy, but also attack the causes of social exclusion. Only with acts will we attract support and build

credibility to include this topic in the agenda for discussion. I am enclosing herewith, for your consideration, my text titled "Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism". Several Rotarian bulletins are publishing it in Brazil, in 7 chapters. I am pleased to offer this text for your Editor to consider it for publication. Please count on my sincere cooperation.

Ronaldo Campos Carneiro

PDG 2008-9 District 4530 rcarneiro@salutecafe.com.br

Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism

Proposal for an agreement of wills

Why the government intervenes in the economy Conception of the right: the entrepreneur State Conception of the left: the providing State Methods of technocracy The political system Bases for an agreement of wills Natural consequences of this agreement of wills Ronaldo Campos Carneiro

rcarneiro@salutecafe.com.br Brasilia, dec., 2007, Brazil

Why the government intervenes in the economy

A system of human coexistence which does not provide equal opportunities to all is incompatible with market economy. Those who have had opportunities in life, that is, proper nourishment and health services since their childhood, coupled with access to the educational system, will have high consumption needs and a high purchasing power. They will have all the money necessary to consume the goods and services that meet their aspirations and expectations. In a market economy, where people freely decide what to produce and consume, under the relentless law of supply and demand, societys savings will naturally flow to the more profitable sectors, because all investors desire to maximize their capital gains. It is more profitable to produce television sets, video recorders and personal computers than to tend to the primary needs of human beings like nourishment, health services and education. To face this problem in the

spontaneous allocation of societys savings, the government is forced to intervene, so as to encourage investments on education and medical care, as well as the production of medicines and basic goods like meat, milk and potatoes, for example.

The capital represented by the available savings is an absolutely non-ethical entity, which will not normally distinguish between manufacturing food for babies or canons for war. It is the financial attractiveness of each productive sector that matters for investors. These spontaneous imbalances in the capitalization of the different sectors lead the government to tax the wages of workers and the profits of entrepreneurs, because these are the two generators of resources in a society. Everything, absolutely everything that the government does is made financially possible by taxes and fees on the productive process. This means that the entrepreneur and the worker will pay for all official bills. When it intervenes in the economy, the government acts simply like a pump of financial resources, taking them from the productive process to subsidize agriculture, cattlebreeding, health services and education, for instance. However low in efficiency, this pumping mechanism is necessary, within the current rules, to correct imbalances in the capitalization of the economic sectors. Another instrument used by the government is the banking system, which operates like a dam controlling the flow of a river: it determines the allocation of the available capital according to the priorities of government bureaucrats. In

this situation the banking system loses its important condition of inductor of development to become a simple governmental instrument. The taxes applied to the productive process reduce its vitality, because they are added to the final price of goods and services, thus reducing their penetration in the market and creating vacuums of production.

The bureaucracy will then fill in these vacuums through compulsory destinations of resources resulting from acts of will of the government. In this manner savings are blocked in the banking system to subsidize small enterprises, exports, agriculture, etc. The need for government intervention in the economic process is limited to encouraging or supporting the sectors of nutrition, health and education, which cannot progress alone. That is why governments around the world have to subsidize those three sectors of the economy in some way. All other governmental operations stem from this need of subsidies, since nutrition, health services and education are precisely the sectors that determine equal opportunities within any society. In error incur all those who consider it possible to remove the interference of the State in the economic process, under the rules of coexistence currently prevalent. Without this interference hunger, disease and illiteracy would completely block the production and distribution of goods and services, thus increasing the distance between the rich and the poor. Once the economy does not spontaneously produce what is needed, the government

must pump resources into those sectors, to make them operate as needed. An admirable analyst of the European economy, the late JOAN ROBINSON, diagnosed with great accuracy the need of profitability for investments to induce development, but she did not present operational solutions for the production of socially necessary items. The government is a bad manager of resources under any perspective: financial, economic, institutional or technological. It is not wise to leave to the government the incentive, production and distribution of socially necessary goods and services which are like any other: they need to be efficient in their goals, profitable to attract investment and competitive in their development of technology.

It is a great inconsistency to imagine that manufacturing TV sets is an economic process and that providing health is a social process. Both processes are socio-economic. When in charge of providing health, the government will take resources from the television factory, by levying taxes on the workers salary and the entrepreneurs profit, since it does not generate its own resources. From an economic and political point of view, the most meaningful in all this is that a systematic transfer of resources is established in the productive process, not according to the natural law of supply and demand, but according to the human will of government bureaucrats. This results in the sterilization of resources.

No matter what concept one has of democracy, the fate of citizens must never depend on the virtue of their rulers. It was a huge amount of financial resources, taken from the productive process in the form of taxes and allocated by acts of human will of government bureaucrats, that made possible all world-wide conflicts and the recent arms race.

One must always question human fallibility. It is certain that if "we, the people" could decide where to apply our resources, we would not have the current state of belligerence. This only happened because the fiscal mechanism raised resources from the production process and allowed their allocation by an elite of rulers. That is an essentially undemocratic process. Democracy requires not only universal suffrage but also the deconcentration of resources by the ruling power, in a way that will allow each saver to freely decide what to do with his savings. These are the general lines of the AGREEMENT OF WILLS proposed below, to workers, entrepreneurs and the government, that seeks to stimulate production and ensure the consumption of nutrition, health services and education, while promoting the de-concentration of resources now allocated by acts of will of government bureaucrats.

To stress the need of such an agreement of wills, we will study the methods used and the results obtained by the

ideological right and left, as well as the performance of technocrats and politicians in the management of the resources taken from the workers salary and the entrepreneurs profit. To manage such a huge amount of financial resources with acts of human will, many different currents speculate about the peoples will or about how to manage those savings to induce development.

Conception of the right: the entrepreneur State

How does the right manage those resources? Or rather, how does it allocate the resources taken from the productive process? They believe they must generate productive jobs, investing in the basic sectors of the economy such as energy, transportation, telecommunication, etc. They thus create state companies to fill the vacuums created by the government itself, with its taxes that stifle the private production process.

In a market economy, whenever there is the will and the economic potential to consume, there will always be the financial possibility to produce, according to the available technology. This means it is totally unnecessary for the government to use the resources of society, suffocating private initiative, to produce steel, energy, etc. If that society has the will and the economic ability to consume, private enterprises will do so with much more competence.

This government interference will, moreover, lead to the creation of state monopolies, as harmful to the economy as

the private ones, because the lack of competition engenders technological stagnation and an undesirable distortion in growth that increases the vulnerability of society as a whole. The oil shocks in the 70s and 80s put in check the development of all societies depending on this energy source as the basis of their economy. A handful of producers threatened global stability as a whole when they decided to manipulate oil prices.

But what would happen if the energy sector were in the hands of the private initiative, freely operating in a competitive market? Who would build our huge hydroelectric facilities? It is quite possible that we would not have these majestic works, but there would be no lack of energy, and growth would be multi-sector, at a cost much lower than that determined by state-owned companies.

The investments of the private initiative are based on economic rationality, as a matter of survival in a competitive market; the same does not apply to the investments decided by a handful of bureaucrats. If development were left in private hands, we would have several energy sources being developed simultaneously, using the sun, the wind, hydrogen, alcohol, etc., all competing among themselves for a lower cost and reducing the vulnerability of most societies.

Encouraged by an alleged developmental momentum and having suffocated private initiative to the limits of its

survival, state-minded leaders will borrow, from other economies, the funds needed for their monumental projects, starting a process of indebtedness that the entire society and future generations will have to pay. Borrowing savings from another society is only advisable with a corresponding policy of incentive to exports, to stabilize the balance of payments. Otherwise that debt will require a new state intervention in the productive process.

It is a strange kind of nationalism, where the State controls companies in the productive process and in order to maintain their investments and operations needs to raise funds abroad, thus submitting society as a whole to the whims of external creditors. This is indeed nationalism the wrong way round.

The most paradoxical aspect in the rationale of stateminded rulers is that they concentrate on physical energies like oil, ethanol and hydroelectricity, to the point of indebting all of society, when they have available, at home, the most fantastic of all energies, manpower, that ends up wasted and relegated to a secondary plane.

Concerned with the vulnerability model of growth dependent on imported energy sources, as induced by the government itself, state-minded managers started a campaign for technological alternatives and, for the sake of nationalism and energy independence, stimulated the production of alcohol to replace gasoline. This was one more campaign by the government, which would have been

unnecessary, had energy production been originally left to the private initiative in a competitive market. Each of these interventions costs money that the government will take from the salaries of workers and the profits of employers.

As a matter of fact, the state-minded philosophy represents a conception to supply goods and services in the economic infrastructure. But what about consumption? In an economy with concentrated income, it is inevitable that the tariffs of a state-owned company become instruments of government to control inflation. If its tariffs do not cover the production costs, that companys budget will then depend upon more taxes on the private productive process.

If state-owned companies can operate in a competitive market, on purely commercial terms, that is, according to the forces of the free market, they need not be stateowned, for the private initiative will play that role more efficiently. When deficit-stricken, they will need foreign or domestic credit, or resources from the public budget. Who then pays the bill is either the consumer of their goods and services or the taxpayer. As the government uses their tariffs to control inflation, state-owned companies generally have deficits and require additional taxes. The fact of the matter is that the economy has no nationality. It does not behave as bureaucrats would like it to, but according to the possibilities of production and consumption, regulated by the law of supply and demand. This law operates in the broad economy just like the law of

cause and effect works in the physical world. Admitting nationalities in the economy is like imagining that the law of gravity applies only to certain countries! Periodical changes in the command of state-owned companies, for political reasons, also make them vulnerable from an institutional point of view. Unlike private initiative, one must keep in mind, a democracy usually replaces its top managers from time to time, making change inevitable in official companies as well. On account of political change, some societies are right now in the process of deconstructing what had been done with the arduous work of many years. Democracy must be preserved, of course, but the space now occupied by state-owned companies should be left to private initiative. Job-generation is not a task for the State, which produces only lesser jobs. It is private initiative that creates productive employment. Well, this brief evaluation of the philosophy of the right for the management of resources taken from the salary of workers and from the profit of entrepreneurs takes us to the conclusion that such interference by the State is unnecessary. First, because it occupies spaces belonging to private initiative and suffocates it with a growing need of taxes; second, it engenders vulnerable growth, in each sector and institutionally; third, it stimulates monopolies that block technological development and result in the indebtedness of society as a whole. But the most significant and perverse in all this is the evergrowing need to transfer resources normally regulated by

the law of supply and demand into the control of government bureaucrats. This leads to the concentration of power in the hands of a few and builds an antithesis of democracy. Conception of the left: the providing State Let us now see how the left tends to manage the resources taken from the salary of workers and from the profits of entrepreneurs. Believing that such resources should have a social purpose, they adopt social reform as their watchword. The truth is that in a society with concentrated income, social demands are so strong that the amount of resources required by them is enough to kill private initiative and the market economy itself. The methodology of the left is above all assisting, paternalistic. Its ideologues falsely assume that wealth is the cause of poverty, so they must tax the rich to help the poor. This is true only in a stagnant economy, where available resources are constant; but in a developing economy with equal opportunities for all, it is perfectly possible to grow and distribute simultaneously. Society must rationally seek to provide equal opportunities and not simply stress the effects of inequality. A system of perverse coexistence that does not offer opportunities to all is indeed responsible for the concentration of income, the proliferation of slums, the persistence of rural poverty and many more problems. Leaders from the left seek to correct the effect, not the cause of that distortion. They strive to obtain income distribution, instead of increasing income generation, in a manner that would incorporate marginal workers into the economy.

How can one distribute income, if each person individually is willing to increase their own income? It seems that everyone is in favor of distributing every others income, never their own! The provision of employment according to job demand results in decreasing salaries, so the government is forced to establish a remedial minimum wage level that is often incompatible with human dignity.

With sound reason, the left postulates to increase this minimum wage, but any salary increase without the corresponding productivity increase will eventually augment the price of goods and services and reduce their market penetration, thus bringing about more unemployment. A smaller number of workers will be earning more, while others will be simply excluded from the labor market. Such is the perverse effect of a commendable postulation. What happens in practice is that some organized labor unions, having more leverage on their employers, obtain higher wages, better working conditions, reduced working hours, etc; but all of these advantages will inevitably increase the final price of goods and services. Then autoworkers, for instance, will improve their standard of living, but automobiles will cost more and fewer consumers will be able to buy them. Economic activity will be reduced and unemployment generated, precisely in the more vulnerable area of unskilled workers, who have less power of mobilization and pressure.

Unemployment then becomes a problem for the government, which has to tax the productive process even

further to meet social needs. In this vicious circle some workers do improve their standard of living, but at the cost of excluding or marginalizing substantial portions of the labor force, which the government will have to assist in unemployment. More resources will be needed to help the jobless and for public security, penitentiaries, philanthropy and so on.

All those expenses are paid with levies on the wage of workers and on the profit of entrepreneurs, in a process where the bureaucrat is just an intermediate. This is a nowin game. It is a natural desire for any citizen to earn more, but such a progress is only possible through economic growth, with the productive process in expansion. Around a constant cake all guests will be fighting to take the larger slice, inevitably excluding the weakest. The most nefarious effect of all this is unemployment, which brings understandable despair: youths trying drugs to escape the cruel reality of their lack of opportunities, children suffering the pangs of hunger with no prospects in life. It is degrading to human condition to passively observe this situation; so much human energy dissipated and wasted because of our inability to create a system of coexistence carrying that energy to productive employment.

Development is only meaningful and valuable when all benefit from it. Confronted with the shortage of housing, government bureaucrats establish funds collected with mandatory

contributions taken from the wages of workers and the profits of entrepreneurs to finance home construction. They also stimulate, in the savings market, voluntary funds for the same purpose. But homes are a cumulative property, so their owners can have as many of them as their purchasing power permits, and then use them not only for living but also for rental.

In practice, this mechanism results in the allocation of the savings of poor and rich alike to finance buildings for the rich. It also leads to the official control of savings, when governmental agencies operate as costly intermediates between savers and consumers. In a market economy, whenever the government decides to intervene for the production of cumulative goods, it will benefit those who have greater purchasing power. Concerned with the existence of much unproductive land and many landless peasants, leaders from the left decide to promote mandatory land reforms. This interference, apparently beneficial, brings disastrous results. In addition to generating conflict between landowners and the landless, it violates the fundamental right to private property and polarizes society. The simple combination of workmanship and land is not enough for agricultural production, because other inputs are necessary, such as capital, technology and management.

The result of an improper land reform is low productivity (in many cases to the point of risking the peasants livelihood), and sometimes confrontations of unpredictable political consequences. Every private property represents a social mortgage, indeed, but in this case the ends will not justify

the means. Such social responsibility cannot be enforced through denial of the right to private property. There are smarter ways, more ethical and less violent, to redeem that social mortgage. Force is the weapon of the incompetent, whereas intelligence is the instrument of the wise. Whatever cannot be transformed by intelligence, cannot be transformed by force, either. Whenever society uses unethical means to achieve its goals, no matter which, it brings imbalances to the legal symmetry and thus contributes to the deterioration of the positive values of mankind. If the government, which is responsible for the shared values of society, may violate the principle of property, then private citizens may perfectly rob banks. The fact is that, in the name of social values, the left promotes a genuine festival of inconsistencies paid for by the worker's salary and the entrepreneurs profit. The system of lotteries and gambling promoted by the government is a clear example of inconsistency and lack of sound alternatives for raising financial resources. With alleged social purposes, the government violates its own distributive principles: the lottery operation means no more than taking money from the many to put it in the hands of a few. What it promotes is an industry of dreams and illusions, effects without cause, money earned without work, contributing to the further alienation of human beings. Ethics should always prevail in human attitudes. Within this mediocrity of government actions, the day is not

far when prostitution will be exploited in the name of social values! The most perverse effect of this attitude, difficult to measure but with terrible consequences is the deterioration of societys values, in view of the example set by the government itself. Well, this superficial appreciation of leftist philosophy leads us to conclude that while the ends pursued are as healthy as possible, the means used by them are ineffective, unethical and inconsistent in a market economy, because they generate unwanted conflicts to distribute income and property, leading to state-controlled savings and stimulating the alienation of human beings. From a political point of view, the philosophy of the left leads to a growing transfer of resources normally governed by the natural law of supply and demand to the human will of government bureaucrats. This is the antithesis of democracy, because it concentrates power and subordinates the fate of all citizens to the virtue of rulers. The method of technocracy Placed in the epicenter of the confrontation between right and left, the technocrat is invited to organize the process of collection and allocation of government resources. This is the formula found to give a supposed technical rationality to human action in political systems. Ideologically neutral, technocrats seek to replace the law of supply and demand in the relations between the government and society. Government is an institution that invariably spends more than it collects, either because of the high social demand in

societies with concentrated income, or because of a perverse desire to feed the military might in rich societies. Technocrats are thus faced with the chronic problem of financing public deficit. This dilemma will shake the selfassurance of any serious economist and take him to the conclusion that his government is an unfeasible economic institution. To make it feasible, four formulas can be adopted: tax increases, domestic indebting through the sale of government bonds, borrowing external resources or issuing currency. The hard point is to determine the most nefarious of these formulas. Tax increases suffocate the production process and their maximum limit is the survival of market economy. Internal or foreign indebtedness draw against the situation of future generations. Finally, the issuance of currency without growth is an inflationary crime, equivalent to forging money. The only difference is that forgers will be arrested, whereas technocrats will go unpunished. Whatever the formula adopted, the bill is always paid with the worker's salary and the entrepreneurs profit. Rich and institutionally stable societies withdraw the power to issue currency from the executive branch of government, granting autonomy to their central banks. They get along with low inflation rates and finance their eventual deficits with loans or taxes. The situation becomes critical in societies with a high social demand, where the power to issue currency is directly linked to the political survival of the government, and the central bank issues currency according to the rulers instructions. In this case technocrats become accomplices in an economic crime of disastrous consequences.

It is even understandable when politicians adopt this solution, ignoring the economical consequences of their decisions. But any technocrat who lends credibility to the issuance of currency without economic growth is a charlatan more interested in keeping his post than in managing a sound financial system.

The internal placement of government bonds in the financial market creates an unproductive circulation of papers in which societys savings are channeled to the public coffers through financial intermediation. These paper transactions lead to the most absurd results, because they benefit the banking system to the detriment of the productive process. A society that gives priority to sterile sectors, penalizing the productive ones, is inconsistent and cannot reach stability over time. This technocratic solution tries to engender an impracticable economic process. For in the economy, as in physics, it is impossible to generate energy from nothing. Only productive work will generate real wealth.

The external debt of poor countries in modern economy revives the colonialism of past centuries, because it submits entire societies to the guidelines of the creditor nations. The technocrats instrument is the control of the flux of financial resources, which brings a fragile stability to the system by heating or cooling demand according to macroeconomic needs. The control of financial flows, however, cannot by itself generate development.

Available savings, representing the fruits of work accumulated in the past and not yet consumed, should have the single destination of becoming investment, flowing directly from savers to the production process via the stock market, a truly efficient and democratic system to generate productive employment.

Inflation, the deterioration of the purchasing power of any currency, is the price paid by society for its inequality of opportunities and corresponds to the cost of the social debt. Its causes are structural, stemming from rules of coexistence that result in price increases without a corresponding productivity, or from the multiplication of capital without productive work.

These structural causes are represented, among others, by unprofitable State investments, subsidies to official tariffs, artificial raises in salaries, social reforms and consumer credit allowing prices to be established by the producer, not the market, as well as the technocratic control of profits and salaries. They all result in public deficits.

The most cruel tax paid by society is inflation, for it directly harms the poor who are defenseless.

The so-called inflation of demand or inflation of cost results from a technocratic incompetence in regulating the fiscal and monetary policies or in managing supply and demand of capital in the financial system. There is no limit to the creativity of technocrats and the unorthodox group tries to

explain inertia as the cause of inflation. For them inertial inflation is the diagnosis and price control is the medicine. This concept is as absurd as the troubles brought about by the application of its antidote.

The false attractiveness of price control is in providing additional oxygen to the political survival of rulers, but with a strait jacket on the profits and salaries that will pay for this senseless approach. When easing price control, technocrats act as if the structural inflationary forces had been eliminated when prices were frozen.

This is like temporarily blocking the valve of a pressure pan and concluding that there is no more pressure at all. Multiple indexes, tables, graphs and miraculous acronyms, supposedly faultless, are used by technocrats to manage prices and salaries and to measure the catastrophe in course. So many acronyms are used that the alphabet will soon become insufficient to name all of their infallible formulas!

Inflation is the by-product of a distorted socio-economic system that does not offer equal opportunities for all. As a structural phenomenon, it cannot be eliminated under the current rules for coexistence. If the causes themselves are not dealt with, their results will inevitably remain.

The graphic result of those unorthodox adventures is a valley followed by a peak in the structural inflationary curve, where the area of the former is exactly the same as the area of the latter, with inverted signs. Serious troubles

in the productive sector bring about anxiety, anguish and perplexity to investors, who prefer to place their capital in the financial system rather than in productive investments, while they try to monitor the changeable will of technocrats in charge. The number of failures corresponds to the number of attempts made.

To enable the poor to have nutrition, technocrats impose control on the prices of basic products. When the price of meat is frozen, for example, capitals will abandon the cattle-breeding sector, since no farmer will accept to work at a loss. As a consequence less meat will be produced and the pressure to increase prices will be inevitable. To assist the cattle-breeder who argues that it is impossible to produce meat with current costs, technocrats must control the prices of his factors of production: fodder, fuel, salaries, agricultural equipment, etc. This goes on and on, resulting in a need to control all prices.

This way, in societies with concentrated income, bureaucrats end up controlling the price of all goods and services, that is the profits of all entrepreneurs and the salaries of all workers. Once more, the formula adopted will not reach its original purpose: allowing the poor to consume meat products. The Austrian economic school, through Ludwig Von Mises, identified this paradox in the technocratic formula. The simple solution for it is in stimulating production and simultaneously ensuring consumption.

The fact is that all technocratic propositions are extremely mediocre and have terrible side effects. When acting as the

absolute judges of prices and salaries, bureaucrats take all vitality from the productive process, which cannot then generate productive jobs. Technocratic schools like monetarism and structuralism, supply-side economics, etc, have no logical consistency at all. They are failed techniques with no scientific confirmation, sometimes adopted in societies that accepted to become big laboratories for a process of trial and error.

That is why international agencies, which try to monitor the economy of indebted nations, acting as auditors for creditor banks, have harvested resounding failures: recession and unemployment, hunger and poverty. The best they could obtain was a compromise solution between inflation and unemployment, called stagflation. Such a result is an offense to human intelligence.

The government is economically impracticable as an institution because its revenue and expenses are determined by acts of human will. Economics is a science whose mechanisms are valid and applicable when the will of economic agents is limited by the natural law of supply and demand. For this reason the economic formulas employed by the government are inefficient and poor in results.

From an institutional point of view, government bureaucrats are very bad managers of resources, because they grow in the shade of favoritism, subservience, incompetence and obsequiousness, in an environment where friendship and political influence count more than merit and efficiency. Deprived of the healthy competition that generates professional stimulus and technological advancement, this

system is prone to the proliferation of monopolies, oligopolies and cartels.

Private initiative, operating in a competitive market with full employment, is a superior model for the production of goods and services. This does not mean that workers and entrepreneurs in the private sector are superior beings, chosen by divinity. The model of private initiative is superior because it operates in a circumstance where human will is limited by the inflexible law of supply and demand. If the technocratic method presents ridiculous results in the economic field, its political consequences are disastrous: protected by an aura of respectability, bureaucrats give apparent credibility to an increase in government revenue, that is, to the concentration of power, the antithesis of Democracy.

The political system

If in the production and distribution of goods and services the State is a disaster, in the regulation of social contracts and in the solution of conflicts it has an essential and irreplaceable function. The executive power grew expressively in those societies experiencing a combination of market economy and central planning, to face their inequality of opportunities.

When access to nutrition, health services and education is assured to all, the strong presence of the totalitarian State becomes unnecessary. It is parliament, made legitimate by

direct elections, that concentrates the real focus of democratic power. The complexity of modern societies cannot be managed by central planning, and the so-called democratic centralism is a sophism appealing only to autocratic leaders.

The hypertrophy of the executive power and the enormous amount of financial resources available to the State, to be allocated by acts of human will, take unscrupulous politicians to a frantic race for power at any cost, where they do not disdain, in certain cases, alliances with deceit, fraud and corruption, in the words of Vilfredo Pareto.

In fact, these politicians progress demagogically, making promises with no support in real possibilities. This kind of State is financially impracticable, considering that to every increase in its revenue corresponds a reduction of the resources available, suffocating the productive process.

Confronted with a lack of solutions for socio-economical problems, politicians seek new forms of organization or new constitutions for their societies, as if this were a universal panacea to solve all of their problems.

Capitalism and communism are two dated theories that did not work in the history of mankind. They can be compared to a boat with two oars: one is the social, the other the economic dimension. Directing this boat is the political dimension. Capitalism concentrates on the economic oar, whereas communism emphasizes the social oar. That is

why the boat keeps turning around itself, with evident damage to the political dimension.

These two systems of human coexistence are circular theories: no matter what the starting point, their dynamic will always bring you back to where you started. It is useless to change the oarsman or to replace the ruler, because the mechanism remains the same.

The fundamental problem of this changelessness lies in separately considering the social and the economic dimensions. There is no social process dissociated from the economic process: all productive processes are socioeconomic in their nature. When the government conceptualizes as social the productive process of nutrition, health and education, it must tax the productive process, establishing an insoluble vicious circle.

No society can progress without human energy, which depends on nutrition, health and education.

One conclusion of what has been said is that the sectors of nutrition, health and education must be made attractive so as to stimulate their capitalization and to avoid the iron hand of the authoritarian State. Another is that the right, the left and technocracy have no feasible solution for the management of savings as a whole, that is, the taxes levied on the productive process. The earlier this is perceived, the less will be lost in frustrated attempts.

Well, making mistakes is not a tragedy. The real tragedy is not learning from mistakes. The great truth is that, in the field of political economy, we are all incompetent, incapable of setting rules conducting the simultaneous production and distribution of wealth, to a just and democratic social dimension.

We are Homo sapiens who, according to anthropologist Linneu, only dare to call ourselves this way in Latin. We managed to create fantastic technologies in broad sectors of society, but we are just toddlers as far as human coexistence is concerned.

Only a holistic paradigm, a global view of the socioeconomic and political dimensions, will reach practical solutions for human coexistence. The formal speech we hear is about democracy, but the methods employed serve only to fill the coffers of the State. This paradox transformed the democratic regime of the people, by the people and for the people in the autocratic rule of a regime for the people, in which the fate of the ruled depends on the virtue of rulers.

The world witnesses nowadays, between perplexed and impotent, the supremacy and domination of the bureaucratic class, for in their practical evolution the capitalist and communist systems converge inevitably to a totalitarian regime. That is to say, the inequality of opportunities under the rules of human coexistence is generating the most terrible process of domination and human bondage: the dictatorship of bureaucracy.

The right seeks to allocate the compulsory savings of society in the economic plane and the left on the social plane, both pressing public deficit in an inflationary way. They both have their reasons based on an ideological reference, but the whole is not logical. One must replace the changing reference of ideas with the invariable logics of life. The lack of concrete solutions for the aspirations and expectations of the people is totally discrediting politicians.

However, if an ideological consensus or a complete, sincere and truthful agreement in the field of political ideas is unfeasible and undesirable because it leads to a dictatorial State, The Agreement of Wills must seek the consensus of interests. All those able and willing to join this agreement will do under the motivation of their own interests, provided that the mediation of these interests is regulated by the natural laws of supply and demand or of cause and effect.

Bases for an Agreement of Wills

Complaining is to no avail, as Karl Marx said, because Philosophers just interpreted the world; it is necessary to transform it. This assertion and the reasons stated above lead us to the need of new rules of coexistence, or an agreement of wills assembling workers, entrepreneurs and governments. Let us consider its fundamentals:

The productive process, that is workers and entrepreneurs, will directly take responsibility for providing nutrition, education and health care to the social nucleus depending on the production of goods

and services, after acquiring them for their free market prices; and the government will reduce its taxes in an amount corresponding to the cost of these new responsibilities taken by the productive process.

Applying this formula one will have a labor-capital relation in which a specific clause will indicate in each labor contract that nutrition, education and health care will be assured by employers, to each worker and his beneficiaries. It is evident that such mechanism can only be made financially practical if the State withdraws the taxes corresponding to the cost of those services.

Stress must be made on the fact that this will not be one more tax on the productive process, but a redistribution of responsibilities with a reduction in taxes: the productive process appropriates the economic profit, by taking over the social cost of nutrition, education and health care. As a matter of fact, it is the productive process that currently pays the bill of nutrition, education and health care, through an expensive and inefficient flow of resources resulting from taxes, for the government to allocate resources to agriculture and to maintain an inefficient system of education and health care.

Our proposal eliminates this flow and recognizes that private initiative is much more competent to provide those goods and services. It also recognizes that the consumption of those goods and services is independent from purchasing power, because it constitutes the necessary condition for survival and progress in any society. Finally, it admits that

the human work force is a process of transformation of energy only made practical if the human energy is assured.

Included in our proposal is the recognition that nutrition and health care are interdependent, non-cumulative needs. In other words, no one gets hungry or sick voluntarily; moreover, there is no point in providing education if health and nutrition are not assured, up to an optimum point.

In this way the production process will have costs of two different natures, one of them economic and corresponding to the acquisition of the necessary production factors like raw material, equipment, salaries, etc, the other social and equivalent to the cost of nutrients, education and health care, to provide these elements to the social nucleus depending on the productive process. On this social cost the government levies no taxes, to make possible the agreement of wills.

Human life on earth is thus made possible in dignified conditions.

What incentive would be given for the productive process to take over those responsibilities? Evidently, one must not expect any act of solidarity, for that would not be expectable from human nature. The fundamental stimulus, as usual in the language of entrepreneurs is cost, that is, the interest of those involved. It is cheaper to directly take those responsibilities than to transfer them to the government. Taxes will be progressively reduced, making practical a market economy totally free to produce and

consume for completely free prices. The heavy hand of the authoritarian State is progressively suppressed and an invisible hand will end up in charge of the production and distribution of wealth in society.

The State, or the executive power, is economically weakened and civil society is enriched, in a pattern where all, rich and poor alike, have the same opportunities. This makes it possible for the nation to control the State.

Well, let us name these rules for human coexistence as a Humanist Regime and check the deep changes that will occur in the social, economic and political fields.

Natural consequences of the Agreement of Wills

In the Humanist Regime agriculture no longer requires subsidies, because it becomes an extremely attractive sector, spontaneously capitalized through the stock market under totally free prices. The Malthusian limiting law will no longer impose itself. In an equal manner, the sectors of education and health care no longer need the crutches of the State and become naturally profitable, receiving resources from the stock market.

The banking system, as far as the acquisition and sale of currency is concerned, is made impractical by the loss of function and high cost, since the government no longer needs to use banks as instruments for the mandatory allocation of resources. All other applications used as

savings reservoirs lose their function as well, because savings start to flow naturally and directly from savers to the productive process, via the stock market. This brings an end to speculation. The unproductive bureaucratic sector also becomes unnecessary: a small portion of it can be absorbed by the legislative power, the rest by private initiative.

State-owned companies in the productive sector will no longer receive official subsidies, because the flow of resources will have been reverted, being allocated by private initiative. In this new reality, they will have to open their capital and take resources from the stock market, thus having to reveal competence and rationality in their investment decisions.

This results in the privatization of state-owned enterprises and, with total freedom for production and consumption, there will be no room for monopolies, oligopolies or cartels. Thus comes back the healthy competition that generates technological progress. Society ceases to be vulnerable in its unidirectional growth and evolves to a broad, multidirectional and competitive development. In the energy sector, for example, several sources will be developed and will compete among themselves with totally free prices, bringing evident advantages.

The complete liberation of prices and salaries will inevitably conduct to full productive employment. The historical experience of the industrial revolution of two centuries ago corroborates this assertion, with a difference: in the Humanist Regime the sectors of nutrition, education and

health care will be tied to the multi-sector explosion of development.

In a situation of full productive employment, a fundamental change occurs in the labor-capital relation: salaries are no longer determined by acts of will of employers, but by the market. There is no need to establish a minimum wage level. This system engenders expansion and distribution, simultaneously. More workers will be joining the labor market, so more members of the active population will reach dignity and make progress. With the spontaneous capitalization of agriculture, the development of this sector is tied to the other sectors of the economy, that is, the results sought by land reform are obtained: land for the working peasants. Ethical principles are not violated and the right to property is respected.

Urban reform will be inevitable, as well, because the social cost subjacent in the productive process will press those enterprises with a high demand of workmanship, precisely in the crowded urban centers where nutrition, education and health care are more expensive. In order to increase profits in a competitive market, these enterprises will move to areas distant from the great urban conglomerates, taking schools and hospitals with them. Decentralization will be automatic, because the social cost will become one of the factors for companies to choose their location. The stagnation and later reversion of the migratory flow will promote a balanced occupation of rural and urban areas, bringing evident advantages to the quality of life.

The Humanist Regime attaches economic profit to the social cost: the profitability of the productive process depends on the improvement of nutrition, education and health care. In this new reality, the economic power starts to work in favor of society, not moved by solidarity, but by sheer economic interest.

This way the sectors of basic sanitation (water and sewage), housing, transportation, environmental care and all the others which in some way have a role in the welfare of communities, can be operated on purely commercial terms by private initiative, in a competitive regime. Capitalization will be done via the stock market, under prices and tariffs allowing profitability, and all social classes will have access to these goods and services.

As a matter of fact the Humanist Regime, offering equal opportunities to all, allows wealth and forbids poverty. The economically active market is now society as a whole. Production and distribution rests with private initiative, that operates in a competitive market with full productive employment. Technological development will be fantastic in all fields of human activity. We will have a world deserving the pride and admiration of our children and grandchildren.

Social security can be totally private, in a situation where people freely choose their institutional plans or put their savings on their own savings accounts, for old age. Under stable and long-lasting socio-economic rules, that is, totally free prices and salaries, all individual savings in each society will be channeled directly to the stock market, in this way contributing for the generation of productive jobs

and eliminating all financial intermediation. We will have a society of maximum efficiency, both productive and distributive, where poor and rich will have identical opportunities.

Suppressing financial intermediation will suppress consumer credit and prices previously determined by the producer as a function of his costs. The productive process will adequate its output of goods and services to the purchasing power of the market. Simpler, cheaper products will become available. Significant in this is that the Humanist rule leaves the allocation of financial resources under the control of private initiative, instead of the State, and regulated by supply and demand instead of human will.

The admission of previously marginalized workers into the labor force will allow societies indebted internally and externally to pay for the debts accepted by our incompetent generation. After that, markets will be opened internationally, allowing the free production and circulation of wealth. This opening is inevitable, since the economic process has no nationality. We will also witness the end of the humiliating negotiations of foreign debts, in which indebted societies, begging without dignity, are submitted to foreign economic policies based on false theories that often end in resounding failure.

Sports will have and extraordinary development; the productive process will quickly observe the influence of their practice on human health. It will be cheaper to invest in sports than to buy medicines. The competitive sports that have mesmerized the world in the Olympic Games and

other international events will be indications and inspiration for the technologies to be developed in a competitive scenario. Human beings will overcome their own limits.

Having his basic needs satisfied, man will search for spiritual nourishment and all expressions of cultural manifestation will circulate in a market as big as the population. Nourishment will be our medicine, as Hypocrates proposed, because the productive process is extremely competent in the optimization of the binomial nutrition-health when profits are at stake. Agricultural and cattle-derived products will be commercialized very differently, flowing directly from producer to organized consumers, thus capitalizing the productive system and eliminating undesirable intermediation.

Society will have more jobs, progressively higher salaries, less taxes, less violence and less prisons, in a continuous process where independent, active and productive human beings will write their own history.

In the political field, the legislative and judicial powers are strengthened, whereas the executive is weakened, leaving to private initiative the production and distribution of all goods and services. This will leave no room for adventurers, demagogues and opportunists. They will lose interest if they no longer have resources to allocate by their own will.

Reliability will be restored to political activities, carried out by citizens competent for the legislation and adjudication of

conflicts around social contracts in favor of the community. Each politician will be respected for his skill, not for his power to distribute selfish favors. Universal suffrage and the free press are infallible medicines for this depuration. We will finally have a democracy of the people, by the people and for the people, where we the people shall decide our own destiny, according to the irreplaceable and inalienable participation of each one, in the pursuit of happiness.

Human rights, sung in prose and verse in the well-meaning universal declarations, will be finally made financially possible, under just and democratic socio-economic structures.

Inflation will be definitely deleted from the economic vocabulary, after the suppression of its structural causes that were engendered by the pressures of the right, the left and technocracy on the public budget.

In other words, suppressed will be the pressures from the entrepreneur State for investments, of the social State for social subsidies and of the technocratic State for the emission of currency. Under the Humanist Regime the production and distribution of goods and services is totally private. Governments lose their economic function, including the emission of currency, in view of the circulation of companies bonds. Citizens will use those bonds to exchange goods and services that represent the unequivocal and legitimate ballast of capital: productive labor.

The suggestions below, made by Adam Smith as I recall them, are especially meaningful advice for managers of the humanist regime:

It is, therefore, greatly presumptuous and impertinent for kings and ministers to intend to regulate the economy of private citizens and to restrict their expenses, either with sanctuary laws or forbidding the import of foreign luxury products. It is always them, with no exception, those who most spend in society. They must then control their own expenses, leaving to private citizens the control of theirs. If their extravagance does not ruin the kingdom, neither will that of their subjects do it.

In another passage Smith stresses:

The statesman who intends to determine to people how they shall employ their capital, will be not only overburdening himself with unnecessary care, but will presume an authority that could never be safely trusted to a single person, or to any council or senate, and that nowhere will be as dangerous as it is, in the hands of a man endowed with enough senselessness and presumption to feel capable of exerting it.

When We the People can freely decide where to allocate our savings, the arms race will be rendered impractical.

Although the means proposed by the Humanist Regime are distinct from other philosophical currents, the results it

proposes will appeal to all those in the current political spectrum: conservative, liberal, laborites, democrats, communists, socialists, conservationists and many more.

These results can be entirely reaped in no more than 20 years, the time when children born today will join the labor market. The transition period will require the utmost care to keep social balance. Before anything else, this proposal and its expected results must be exhaustively discussed by all those who use intelligence as an operational instrument. Solutions are available for our current problems. The hottest places in hell are reserved for the undefined, the passive and the opportunist.

The Humanist Regime is devoted, above all, to the development of all human potentials. It is based on a philosophical conception very close to that under which we, human beings, were placed on this planet, when there were no diseases, no hunger, no poverty or illiteracy, nor capital accumulation. Nature gives us everything with no prices attached. From nature we get nourishment and healing, and we learn, observing it, how to produce goods and services useful to us, in total freedom of creation and reproduction.

These ideas require a profound meditation by all those who have responsibilities in the conduction of their societies. Before it is too late, we must go back to our origins, to deserve any future at all.

Ronaldo Campos Carneiro

PDG 2008-9 District 4530

rcarneiro@salutecafe.com.br De: wls@pldtdsl.net [mailto:wls@pldtdsl.net] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 25 de maro de 2011 14:01 Para: Ronaldo Carneiro Assunto: Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism Dear Ronaldo, Thank you for sharing your writings, they are deep insights which can guide legislators. Keep in touch. Best regards. Wilfredo Segovia --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------De: Rotary Africa [mailto:rotaryafrica@mweb.co.za] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 25 de maro de 2011 03:45 Para: 'Ronaldo Carneiro' Assunto: Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism Many thanks for your e-mail, I have passed it on to the Editor. Warm wishes, Sharon Robertson ROTARY IN AFRICA PBO: 18/13/13/3091 Tel: 031-267-1848 Fax: 031-267-1849 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------De: sakuji tanaka [mailto:sakujitanaka@nifty.com] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 25 de maro de 2011 00:48 Para: Ronaldo Carneiro Assunto: Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism

Dear Ronaldo Campos Carneiro, Thank you very much for your message. I will study by your e-mail from now on. Sincerly, Sakuji Tanaka --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------De: David Campbell [mailto:dcampbell@MaketuNZ.com] Enviada em: quinta-feira, 24 de maro de 2011 21:23 Para: 'Ronaldo Carneiro' Assunto: Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism Dear fellow Rotarian Ronaldo, Your email says I can count on your sincere cooperation with respect to your paper on Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism. Trusting the sincerity of your statement, I would ask your cooperation in observing a very central tenant of Rotary. That is, Rotary is a non-political and non-sectarian organisation and that it is inappropriate to use Rotary as a vehicle to promote ones personal political or religious views. Respecting this fundamental tenant of Rotary has always been a challenge for us as Rotarians. But, one of the miracles of Rotary is that because of its nonpolitical/sectarian foundation it is able to accomplish great things and transcend the political and religious barriers that so easily divide people. I have been a member of 4 different Rotary clubs in three countries. My fellow Rotarians have been liberal and conservative, royalist and republican, capitalist and socialist. They have been Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Atheist. I am mindful that while Rotarians are political creatures as individuals, ROTARY IS NOT POLITICAL. I genuinely

understand that there will be gray areas as to where ones personal political views cross the line into violating Rotarys non-political principles. However, I doubt if many would disagree when I say that that the paper you are asking Rotarians to disseminate is not in that gray area. It is a very political document with strong positions about a wide range of political philosophies. As someone who sees himself a political liberal, I can personally agree with a great many of the ideals that you promote in a call for a Humanist Regime. However, I cannot ignore the extensive political statements you make. I see no conflict with a Rotarian making those kind of statements as a personal political position but doing it in the name of Rotary, or using Rotary as a vehicle to promote political positions, compromises our organisation and its worldwide service. After reading your paper I was impressed by your commitment to service and your desire for a more humanistic society ideals that are cherished by all Rotarians. And I can see your passion. Yet I know that passion often blinds us to principles. So I again appeal to you to be respectful of Rotarys non-political principle. Warmest Regards David Campbell Maketu, New Zealand
From: Ronaldo Carneiro [mailto:rcarneiro@salutecafe.com.br] Sent: Saturday, 26 March 2011 9:05 a.m. To: 'David Campbell' Subject: Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism

Dear David thanks a lot for your comments. I really appreciate although disagreed of some of your evaluation. In fact Im confronting values but Im not supporting capitalism or socialism Yes, I support market economy because there is no solution out of market Yes, I support nutrition, health and education basic Rotary presidential

priority over the last years Yes, I support exterminate the cause that makes charity necessary instead of disseminate philantrophy!! Im not interested in discussing personal politics and Im sure that passion is not blinds my principles. I prefer to focus on causes instead of mitigate the effects of exclusion. The paper Im asking Rotarians to disseminate is very political document with strong positions about a wide range of political philosophies and principles that I strongly support. Im absolutely sure that Im in line of rotary principles since our founder Paul Harris - "Rotary will continue to be charitable, but it can do more than that. Let us make Rotary exterminate the cause that makes charity necessary" The Rotarian august 1916. Count on me to shake that incredible organization. Ron Carneiro -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------De: David Campbell [mailto:dcampbell@MaketuNZ.com] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 25 de maro de 2011 20:22 Para: 'Ronaldo Carneiro' Assunto: RE: Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism Dear Ronaldo When I said that passion blinds people to principles I was not referring to your principles but Rotarys principles. I suspect that your passion has blinded you to Rotarys fundamental principle of being non-political. In your email below you state very clearly that your paper is a very political document. I totally agree... it is highly political and therefore it is contrary to Rotarys principles to use Rotary as a forum for promoting your personal political views. It is a huge leap of logic to say that being in line

with Rotarys humanitarian principles makes it OK to disregard Rotarys non-political principles. While we as Rotarians honour Paul Harris as our founder, and while his words still motivate Rotarians today as they did a hundred years ago... we must be careful not to make the mistake of using his words about Rotarys commitment of humanitarian service as a reason to ignore Rotarys commitment to being non-political. Rotary is very clear about this and you need to look no further than the concise statement which appears on Rotarys website. If you click on About Us you will be presented with two very short paragraphs that express the essence of Rotary for all to see. In the first paragraph it says that Rotary is an organisation made up of 1.2 million community leaders who provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations, and help build goodwill and peace in the world. I have no doubt that this is a Rotary principle that you passionately endorse. It is a principle that leaps out to any reader of your paper. It is a principle that we both are passionate about. Then, in the second paragraph it goes on to state the principles that make it possible for Rotary to effectively carry out its humanitarian values when it says that Rotary is nonpolitical, nonreligious, and open to all cultures, races, and creeds. Notice the word NONPOLITICAL. Finally, Ronaldo, I find it quite ironic that you and I seem to be in total agreement on virtually every aspect of your paper. We both agree that is consistent with the humanitarian principles of Rotary. We both support Rotary working to eliminate of the causes that make charity necessary. And surprisingly there is no disagreement between us with the fact that your paper, while supporting humanitarian principles is also a very political document (your exact words below). And that is where the problem

lies. In the end, its really a matter of your decision to disregard Rotarys fundamental non-political principle and seek to use Rotary as a forum for your personal political views. In the spirit of finding a common ground with you I would like to reflect on your statement that you seek to exterminate the cause that makes charity necessary instead of disseminate philanthropy. The word Philanthropy is a wonderful word composed of two Greek words: philos which means to love, and anthropos meaning humankind . Philanthropy simply means love of humanity. So, I submit that the extermination of the cause that makes charity necessary is not the opposite of philanthropy. it is philanthropy at its very best. Rotary reminds us over and over that we can promote philanthropy without involving politics. And if fact, the effectiveness of Rotary depends on respecting this principle. Regards David
De: Ronaldo Carneiro [mailto:rcarneiro@salutecafe.com.br] Enviada em: sbado, 26 de maro de 2011 12:20 Para: 'David Campbell' Assunto: Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism

Dear David few disagreement with big agreement. Thank you for your comments. As rotarian I really appreciate dedication of your time to smart comments on my text by the way, the meaning of philanthropy as love of humanity from greek is new concept for me thanks. Well David we need to discuss more the meaning of political in my understand Rotarys principles of being nonpolitical, nonreligious, and open to all cultures, races, and creeds basic idea is not allow discussion on themes

that split persons means not to discuss political party but political philosophy is highly recommended. In other words: how can we bother with a big social exclusion treaten effects and not focus on causes? Hope to find you to go deeper in this theme. Regards. Ron Carneiro

De: Artur Lopes Cardoso [mailto:arlc@lopes-cardoso.pt] Enviada em: segunda-feira, 28 de maro de 2011 05:16 Para: Ronaldo Carneiro Assunto: Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism Meu Caro Comp. Recebi e vou apreciar para eventual publicao. Muito obrigado. Artur Lopes Cardoso Portugal Rotario De: Richard Fisher [mailto:iam@durbs.com] Enviada em: tera-feira, 29 de maro de 2011 06:44 Para: Ronaldo Carneiro Cc: Alan Isdale Assunto: Re: Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism

Good Day. Thank you for the thought provoking sentiments contained in your email which I will pass on to those who will be interested. Kind regards Richard Richard Fisher Address: 10 Marwick Road, Cowies Hill, Durban 3610 Email: iam@durbs.com

Phone: Cell:

+ 27 31 7011894

+ 27 82 8976509 Fax: + 27 86 6053150

De: contato [mailto:contato@salutecafe.com.br] Enviada em: tera-feira, 29 de maro de 2011 09:57 Para: 'Massimo Massi Benedetti' Assunto: Rethinking the world for future generations!! Thanks Massimo Im happy that youre interested in such matter. Ethics of labour thats what we need!!! My private address: Ronaldo Campos Carneiro SQN 106 bloco F apto 305 70742-060 Braslia DF Brasil I agreed that text is too long, but Several Rotarian bulletins are publishing it in Brazil, in 7 chapters. See below a short text about Democracy, capitalism and socialism. Count on me. Ron Carneiro --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

De: Massimo Massi Benedetti [mailto:massi@unipg.it] Enviada em: tera-feira, 29 de maro de 2011 03:12 Para: Ronaldo Carneiro Assunto: Re: Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism

Dear Ronaldo, thanks for sharing with me your highly valuable thoughts. I fully share your views and as a matter of fact the main focus of my year was dedicated to the ethics of labour from different perspective. I took as a platform the Rule of St. Benedict which is extremely modern and more advanced than any communism or capitalism (for more information go to the "Folador Massimo" web site. I did organize six forums on the subject whose proceedings have been published recently. Although they are in Italian I would be pleased to let you have the book if you send me your private address. In regard to the publication of your manuscript it is to long in the present format to be published in the district journal. It would be helpful if you could produce a concise abstract which I could forward to the editor and may be the full text could be downloaded in the district's web site. However the management of the journal is not under my responsibility so that I cannot promise any positive outcome. What I can assure is my support to the initiative. Looking forward to hearing from you, Yours in Rotary Massimo

Massimo MASSI BENEDETTI Rotary International District 2090 (I) Governor yr 2007-2008 Via della Vendemmia 7, 06125 Perugia (I) Tel/Fax +39 0755899768 Mob. +39 3488403067 De: contato [mailto:contato@salutecafe.com.br] Enviada em: tera-feira, 29 de maro de 2011 10:31 Para: 'alokbillore@gmail.com'

Assunto: Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism Dear Alok thanks for your interest see below another text. Count on me. Ron Carneiro De: ALOK BILLORE [mailto:alokbillore@gmail.com] Enviada em: tera-feira, 29 de maro de 2011 01:15 Para: Ronaldo Carneiro Assunto: Re: Reflections on Democracy, Capitalism and Socialism

Dear PDG Ronaldo, I have gone through your article which is the reality of life and a proper expression of concern to make this world a better place to live. I am immensely impressed to go through your views and thank you for including my name in your email list.

I am forwarding this article of yours in our district on the group mail for the benefit of our Rotarians which would provide a guideline to those who are interested to contribute through their time and energy.

You are a philanthropist and I admire your concern for the cause.

Respectful Regards,

Alok. De: Debasish Mitra [mailto:ipdg3290@gmail.com] Enviada em: tera-feira, 29 de maro de 2011 00:28 Para: Ronaldo Carneiro Assunto: PDG DEBASISH MITRA ONLINE

Dear PDG Ronaldo,

Greetings,

I truly appreciate the Article presented by you which I feel is thought-provoking. I have forwarded the same to my friend Prof Sanjoy Mukherjee who is a Professor at the Indian Institute of Management for reading & comments. I shall also forward this to our Bulletin Editor.

Keep in touch & stay well.

Warm regards

Debasish De: roberto na uol [mailto:robertopdaraujo@uol.com.br] Enviada em: quinta-feira, 31 de maro de 2011 16:53 Para: 'Ronaldo Carneiro' Assunto: RES: Reflexes sobre democracia, capitalismo e socialismo

Ronaldo;

Grato pelas consideraes a meu respeito. No estou me lembrando de onde nos conhecemos, se que nos encontramos alguma vez. Dei uma lida rpida no texto que voc mandou. Se voc conhece minhas posies a respeito do setor eltrico brasileiro, assistiu a alguma palestra ou participa do grupo de discusso que participo, sabe que, respeitosamente, discordamos em alguns pontos. Por no ter nenhuma formao poltica ou econmica que possa avaliar o que voc diz, s posso usar a minha experincia profissional. Sou engenheiro formado por uma empresa estatal que, infelizmente, parece estar morimbunda aps o tsunami neo-liberal do governo Fernando Henrique e o cancer do aparelhamento poltico da "companheirada". Tenho muito orgulho desse currculo e acho que essa empresa tem resultados histricos para mostrar. O que eu tenho presenciado em todos esses anos, pelo menos na minha rea, no confirma as suas teses. Lembre que a empresa do desastre nuclear japons privada. Mas, no fique zangado, pois hoje, dado o estrago no quadro proffisional dessas empresas, no mais certeza se vale a pena mant-las como esto.

Abraos

Roberto Araujo De: Waldecy Rodrigues de Souza [mailto:waldecy.souza@frsp.org] Enviada em: segunda-feira, 16 de maio de 2011 15:46 Para: Ronaldo Carneiro Assunto: Portugal rotario- reflexes sobre democracia

Prezado Ronaldo

L atentamente as suas reflexes sobre democracia, capitalismo e socialismo. Obrigado por ter enviado e parabns pela qualidade do texto.

Cordialmente

Eduardo de Barros Pimentel Presidente da Fundao de Rotarianos de So Paulo F/ (11) 3829.2872 De: Henrique Lellis [mailto:hclellis@rodoporto.com.br] Enviada em: tera-feira, 17 de maio de 2011 16:02 Para: Ronaldo Carneiro Assunto: Re: Rotary and democracy Carssimo Ronaldo Receba nossos sinceros cumprimentos pelo belssimo trabalho que nos serve como grande aprendizado. Gostamos tanto que reenviamos a companheiros nossos. Sinceramente Henrique Lellis De: Ing. Otakar Vesel Rotary [mailto:vesely.rotary@kamen-ck.cz] Enviada em: quinta-feira, 9 de junho de 2011 10:13

Para: 'Ronaldo Carneiro' Assunto: Rotary and democracy

Dear Ronaldo Campos Carneiro,

Thank you for your offer. I think that here, in our District 2240 (Czech and Slovak Republic), this would not find a use for the present. But I leave it open. If a situation would change I will contact you.

Kind regards

Otakar Vesel PDG 2005-06 Rotary International Distrikt 2240 Potovn adresa: Lineck 277, CZ-381 01 esk Krumlov Tel.: +420 380 702 112 Fax: +420 380 711 875 E-mail: vesely.rotary@kamen-ck.cz www.rotary.cz; www.rotary.sk De: Davide Zoggia - PD [mailto:redazione@pdnetwork.it] Enviada em: quarta-feira, 6 de julho de 2011 11:11 Para: RCARNEIRO@SALUTECAFE.COM.BR

Assunto: Cancellando la parola "province" non si riducono i costi della politica

Ciao , ieri il PD alla Camera si astenuto sulla proposta di cancellazione delle Province perch non cancellando una parola che si risolve il problema dei costi della politica. Esiste una nostra proposta per quanto riguarda il riordino complessivo del sistema delle autonomie locali e delle regioni e in questa si colloca anche quella specifica relativa alle province. Un riordino che non deve e non pu avvenire indipendentemente da una nuova e pi snella visione dello Stato, per fornire cos servizi efficienti e non duplicazioni burocratiche. Ecco perch non sufficiente dire che si aboliscono le province. E facile demagogia tracciare un segno sulla parola province, sarebbe una operazione identica a quella fatta da Berlusconi con le grandi opere, con i famosi cartelloni pieni di segni che, da inchiostro, non si sono mai trasformati in infrastrutture. La nostra proposta concreta e riorganizza il settore con veri tagli e grandi possibilit di risparmio, essa gi depositata in parlamento ed visibile sul nostro sito internet allindirizzo partitodemocratico.it/leggeprovince Se si vuole fare serio bisogna quindi dire a chi, una volta abolite , vanno le funzioni delle province, almeno quelle essenziali, come verr dislocato il personale che oggi vi lavora. Altrimenti, parlare di costi della politica solo per le province diventa un modo per eludere il problema, per non affrontarlo mai sul serio.

E i tempi di questa nostra riforma saranno brevissimi. Il paese va riformato e riavvicinato alle esigenze dei cittadini e in questo ci stiamo impegnando. Grazie per l'attenzione, aiutaci a diffondere la proposta del PD Davide Zoggia, responsabile Enti Locali Pd Partito Democratico Sede legale - Via Sant'Andrea delle Fratte 16, 00187 Roma - Tel. 06/ 675471 - Fax. 06/ 67547319 Sede nazionale - Via Sant'Andrea delle Fratte, 16 00187 - Roma CF: 90042750472 - Tel 06/ 695321 Ricevi questa comunicazione perch iscritto al portale partitodemocratico.it. Per non ricevere ulteriori comunicazioni da questa newsletter clicca qui ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------