Binary economics is a school of economics expressing a new universal paradigm which challenges the fundamental assumptions of conventional economics. It states that it is a private property, market economics which ensures that, over time, all individuals come to ownership of an independent capital estate providing an income.[1]
A summary of binary economics might be – a justice which creates efficiency and an efficiency which creates justice.[2] A more detailed summary could be – the use of central bank-issued interest-free loans, administered by the banking system, for the development and spreading of ownership of various forms of productive capacity (and the associated consuming capacity) to all individuals in the population thereby creating a balance of supply and demand and forwarding social and economic justice.[3]
Some quick illustrations of the binary proposal to use central bank-issued interest-free loans are:- a) a halving or more of the usual cost of a bridge, sewage works or hospital; b) a halving or more of the usual cost of micro-credit for poor people to start a business; and c) the enabling of any individual in the population (from a baby to a retiree) to become a shareholder in one of the great corporations. There are also binary plans for pensions and universal health care.
The central bank is used as the source of the interest-free loans to emphasise that the money supply is society's money supply which (although administered by the banking system) can be interest-free for the purposes of an efficient, just and market-driven economy. This contrasts with today's money supply which, largely originating with a mere private grouping (the banking system), imposes interest as well as administration cost. It would also be possible for binary economics to use other sources to fund interest-free loans - e.g., spare funds in the Islamic ummah or Islamic zakah.
Because a major aim is to ensure that all individuals in the population come to ownership of a substantial capital estate providing an independent income binary economics cannot be placed anywhere on the conventional left-right spectrum for understanding economics and politics.[4] Communist Pravda, trying to make a logical placing of binary economics and patently failing, thought it extreme right;[5] while 'free market' capitalist economist Milton Friedman thought it extreme left.[6] The fundamental objection to binary economics made by Pravda, Friedman and also by many conventional economists is that it spreads the ownership of productive capital to everybody in the population - the Pravda view is that the state should control/own everything; and the view of Friedman and many conventional economists is that it does not matter if the capital is narrowly owned.
Binary economics expresses a concept of unicity and relatedness. At the core of the concept is the upholding of an ethic whose substance is that there is an absolute duty to ensure that all humans have clean water, good health, housing, education and a reasonable independent income. The duty extends to the fauna, flora and environment of the world in which we live. Because binary economics makes extensive use of central bank-issued interest-free loans (interest-free, but not free of administration cost) it is compatible with the traditional opposition of Islam and Christianity to Usury (defined as the practice of profiting from the interest on loaned money).[7]
Proponents of binary economics claim that their system contains no expropriation of wealth, and much less redistribution will be necessary (for example, by taxes in order to fund forms of government spending including welfare benefits). Because there is less redistribution there is less taxation.
Binary economics states that it cannot cause inflation and is of particular importance in a world where, increasingly, more of the physical contribution to production is being, and will be, done by machines and near-robots.[8] Many developing countries do not lack human and material resource and advocates of binary economics believe it to be particularly helpful in addressing the issue of why they unnecessarily languish.[9] However, paradigmatic change will be necessary.[10]
Advocates of binary economics contend that implementing their system will lessen national debt and encourage national unity. They believe that binary economics creates a stable economy and associated financial system which is not subject to unsustainable booms and resulting crashes.
The ‘binary’ (in ‘binary economics’) means ‘composed of two’ because it suffices to view the physical factors of production as being but two (labour and capital which includes land; money is not, in itself, a physical factor of production) and thus there are only two ways of genuinely earning a living − by labour and/or by the ownership of productive capital. In viewing the two physical factors it can also be observed that humans own their own labour but they do not necessarily own the other factor – capital.[11]
In its intent to involve people in ownership and participation binary economics has affinity with the Mondragon region of Spain, the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy and Distributism.
Binary economics is currently a minority discipline.
Background
Although elements of binary economics can be found elsewhere (for example, in Pope Leo XIII Rerum Novarum 1891; Harold Moulton (1935) The Formation of Capital; the Distributism of G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc; and Ibn Ashur (1946) Maqasid al Shari’ah al Islamiya) the first clear formulation of the subject was by American lawyer Louis Kelso and Mortimer Adler (the Aristotelian philosopher and educationalist) in their momentous book The Capitalist Manifesto (1958) which can be downloaded from the Kelso Institute The title of the book is best viewed as a thing of its time being a Cold War reference in opposition to communism. More information about Mortimer Adler can be found at Center for the Study of The Great Ideas
Kelso and Adler continued to write together - The New Capitalists (1961) contributes greatly to the understanding of collateral and capital credit insurance - and then Kelso teamed up with political scientist Patricia Hetter Kelso to explain how capital instruments provide an increasing percentage of the wealth and why capital is narrowly owned in the modern industrial economy.[12] Their analysis leads to a consequence understood by market theorists – if what increasingly produces a larger percentage of the wealth (capital) is narrowly owned, then a properly balanced economy implementing Say’s Theorem (Law) cannot come into being unless, on true free market and private property principles, capital becomes much more widely distributed. This is at the heart of the binary claim to create an efficiency which creates justice and vice versa.
Kelso and Hetter then proposed new binary share holdings which (with exception for research, maintenance and depreciation) would pay out their full capital earnings, be capable of being insured and, if loss occurred, would occasion no recourse to the new binary owners. Because of the full payout provision the binary holdings could pay out more than five to nine times what is typically paid out today. This could allow a new widespread capital ownership to achieve a widespread income, and associated individual incomes which could be possessed by anybody in the population irrespective of whether or not that person is in a conventional job.
Employee Share Ownership Plans (ESOPs) and other Plans
Very often the first acquaintance people have with binary economics comes through today’s Employee Share Ownership Plans (ESOPs).[13] These stem originally from Louis Kelso & Patricia Hetter Kelso (1967)Two-Factor Theory: The Economics of Reality; the founding of Kelso & Company in 1970; and then from conversations in the early 1970s between Louis Kelso, Norman Kurland (Center for Economic and Social Justice), Senator Russell Long of Louisiana (Chairman, USA Senate Finance Committee, 1966 - 1981) and Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska. There are about 11,500 ESOPs in the USA today covering 11 million employees in closely held companies. Another estimated 15 million employees in public companies participate in one form or another of ESOP variation.
Productiveness is forwarded by employee ownership[14] and involvement - binary techniques for this are called Justice Based Management. The legal entity which acts for the employees and oversees the capital acquisition and distribution of profits, is the ESOP trust.
The binary ESOP is a capital credit device which institutionalizes the basic binary property right - the right for all individuals to acquire capital, to pay for it out of its pre-tax earnings, and then to receive its income.
However, it is important to understand that (the original binary concept having been implemented for the purposes of the old paradigm rather than the new binary one) today's ESOPs are not true binary ESOPs. Among other things, today's ESOPs do not have full payout of earnings, and do not make use of the key binary concept – the use of interest-free loans issued from the central bank and administered by the banking system - and thus are reliant on the past savings and present earnings of labour so that, in the event of the corporation failing, the workers suffer a loss. In the true binary ESOP, if the corporation fails, the loss to the workers is of something that they would not otherwise have had.
It should be noted that the ESOP is only one of several techniques − e.g., Individual Share Ownership Plan, Consumer Share Ownership Plan, General Share Ownership Plan,[15] Mutual Share Ownership Plan − which can be used to broaden capital ownership but all the techniques have at their heart the use of central bank-issued interest-free loans for the creation and spreading of productive capacity. Without those loans the primary defect in the present ESOP legislation will remain in that it requires poor and working people to acquire capital primarily with the past and present earnings of labor rather than primarily with the future earnings of capital.
Iraq Plan and other Plans
The trust mechanism and binary technique are fertile with possibility and an example is the Iraq Plan proposal of the Washington D.C. Center for Economic and Social Justice which would use a combination of interest-free loans and future earnings to transfer ownership and control of Iraq's oil resources to all individual Iraqi citizens. Each citizen, as a right of citizenship, would receive a personal lifetime non-transferable dividend-generating equity share in the national oil company.
By giving each individual a big economic stake in the future of a country stability and unity can be encouraged.Iraq Plan
Other binary Plans exist for Palestine and Kashmir.
Conventional economics compared with binary economics
A good understanding of binary economics can be obtained by contrasting various aspects with comparable aspects in conventional economics.
Very broadly, the first contrast is between 'positive economics' (the analysis of 'what is' - conventional economics) and 'normative economics' (the critique of the existing system and the proposing of 'what ought to be' - binary economics).
However, also central to binary economics is an analysis of physical reality, i.e., of what is. The binary productiveness analysis is claimed to be a superior account of reality and so binary proposals for change are ultimately firmly grounded in everyday life. Conventional economics upholds productivity[16] which is the calculation of a ratio or rate of total output divided by unit of input. In contrast, binary economics has the new concept of productiveness (see below) giving a much fairer and more accurate credit to the physical contributions of both labour and capital to production. Very importantly the productiveness concept goes a long way to answering the fundamental question at the heart of economics - Who or what physically creates the wealth?
The third contrast is that conventional economics believes that interest (as distinct from administration cost) is always necessary but binary economics states that, certainly where the development and spreading of productive (and the associated consuming) capacity is concerned, interest (as distinct from administration cost) is not necessary.[17] Moreover, where newly-created money is concerned, conventional economics upholds the doctrine of the time value of money whereas binary economics does not because, nowadays, money is created out of nothing by pressing computer buttons.
Fourthly, an assumption of general scarcity is at the heart of conventional economics. Binary economics, however, denies the assumption. Amartya Sen observed that starvation is due to lack of money in the hands of the starving and not the absence of food: thus it is human attitudes, practice and institutions which are at fault.
Binary economics also rejects conventional financial savings doctrine (that there must be financial savings prior to investment) - no financial saving is necessary because money today is not gold; rather it is created out of nothing.[18] What matters is whether the newly-created money is interest-free, whether it can be repaid, whether there is effective collateral and whether it goes towards the development and spreading of various forms of productive (and the associated consuming) capacity.
The contrast continues. Thus conventional economics:-
• is largely unconcerned that the present money supply is generally not directed at the development and spreading of productive capacity together with the associated consuming capacity -- broadly, productive capital is narrowly owned[19] (and conventional economics thinks that this does not matter)
• has two separate lots of financing (one for production and one for consumption) and so in practice engenders a continual inflation
• conceives of a self-centred homo economicus
• believes that the outcomes of the present 'free market' are just
• ignores the imbalance in power relationships between people.
And many conventional economists do not seem to be aware that the banking system, by the use of fractional reserve banking, creates vast amounts of money out of nothing.
But binary economics views it as essential that:-
• the money supply be directed at the development and spreading of productive capacity together with the associated consuming capacity
• there be only one lot of financing which acts, at the same time, for both production and consumption (this is called simulfinancing) and so cannot be inflationary,[20] indeed, is counter-inflationary[21]
• recognition be made that humans are capable of going beyond self-interest
• it be understood that the outcomes of the present 'free market' are inevitably unjust
• account be taken of the imbalance in power relationships between people.
And binary economics is well aware that the banking system, by the use of fractional reserve banking, today creates vast amounts of money out of nothing.[22]
Very fundamentally, binary economics rejects the claim of conventional economics that it promotes a ‘free market’ which is free, fair and efficient. Binary economics states that the present ‘free market’ is unfree, unfair and inefficient not least because the ‘free market’ thinks it does not matter who owns productive capital and how it is distributed; does not worry if people do not have independent incomes; and does not have mechanisms to ensure the widest possible capital ownership.
The two economics differ on the subject of democracy. Conventional economics upholds the periodic political vote. Binary economics does the same but then deepens democracy[23] by insisting that productive capital and the practical everyday power its ownership gives to individuals be widely distributed as well. In binary economics freedom is only truly achieved if all individuals are able to acquire an independent economic base. In short, binary economics upholds political democracy plus economic democracy.[24]
Perhaps most importantly of all in the long run, is the ability to address environmental issues. In this area binary economics claims to have a big advantage over conventional economics because it can use the supply of interest-free loans. (See Environment section below.)
Uses of Central Bank-issued Interest-free Loans
Binary economics proposes that central bank-issued interest-free loans should be administered by the banking system for the development and spreading of productive (and the associated consuming) capacity, particularly new capacity, as well as for environmental and public capital. While no interest would be charged, there would be an administrative cost as well as (should forms of collateral be inadequate) capital credit insurance.[25]
Because the loans are repaid and cancelled they cannot cause inflation and they leave behind in existence the productive (and associated consuming) capacity for which the loans were originally lent. The general result is counter-inflation (which is not deflation).
The supply of interest-free loans takes place in circumstances of a move (over time) towards banks maintaining reserves equal to 100% of their deposits. Thus the banking system would not be continually creating money (as happens today as a result of the fractional reserve system) but would be confined to lending (with permission) depositors’ money and the bank’s own capital at the same time as administering the interest-free loans. Some binary economists propose that, assuming understanding of binary principles, the International Monetary Fund and its Special Drawing Rights could implement capital ownership for all citizens of the world.
The main uses of the central bank-issued interest-free loans are as follow:-
Public Capital Investment Interest-free loans would allow hospitals, sewage works, social housing, roads, bridges etc. to be built for one half, or one third of the present cost. (This use is also advocated by the USA Sovereignty movement - Dennis Kucinich, Ken Bohnsack et al.). However, the capital projects can still, if wished, be built, managed, even owned, by the private sector and use made of Community Investment Corporations and the like.[26]
In the past these loans have been successfully used in Canada, New Zealand and Guernsey. Malaysia is today believed to be experimenting with them.[27]
Moreover, a major consequence of the use of interest-free loans would be a great diminution of the National Debt.
After 1949 central bank loans were a major factor in the Taiwanese Land to the Tiller program which spread land ownership from the few to the many. This was done without causing inflation and was an overall binary solution because, in various ways (including financing the buyout with industrial bonds, thus giving capital to small industries to provide things for the newly empowered farmers to purchase) the money went into the spreading of both productive and consuming capacity.[28]
Private Capital Investment Ownership of productive (and the associated consuming) capacity, particularly new capacity, can be spread by the use of central bank-issued interest-free loans.[29] Interest-free loans should be allowed for private capital investment IF such investment creates new owners of capital and is part of national policy to enable all individuals, over time, on market principles, to become owners of substantial amounts of productive, income-producing capital.[30] By using central bank-issued interest-free loans, a large company/corporation would get cheap half-cost or more money as long as new binary shareholders are created.
It is proposed that all large corporations should have to pay out all their earnings all the time (with exception of reserves for maintenance, depreciation, repair and research). Large corporations will then have the option of obtaining interest-free loans on condition that they help to spread ownership. Medium-sized corporations (which would not be subject to the full pay out provision) will be able to have interest-free loans if they spread ownership.
‘Green’ Environmental Capital Investment Interest-free loans should be used, in particular, for clean, renewable energy. At present, a lot of green technology projects are not financially viable. With interest-free loans, however, they would become viable and so we would be able to have clean electricity through tidal barrages, wave machines, wind turbines, solar electricity, and geothermal power stations etc.
There are many 'alternative' technologies - at present viewed with varying degrees of skepticism by mainstream science - that, in principle, would be eligible for research and development funding under binary economics. Some of these technologies, if physically possible, would enable the clean generation of electricity for cars, houses, trains and factories and they can be found among the Top 100 Technologies which are a mixture of that which lies within, on the edge of, and outside existing science e.g., Blacklight Power (Randell Mills); and Steorn.
Small and Start-up Businesses Including Microfinance Interest-free loans should be used for micro-finance, small business and farms thereby freeing them from the huge pressure of compounding interest-bearing debt. Farm capital can be one half or less of the usual cost. The world’s poor people (e.g., Bangladesh women[31] - 55% of the world's population live on under $3 per day) could be enabled to halve or more the cost of building small businesses by the use of interest-free micro-finance being funnelled through the Grameen Bank and similar institutions such as the Institute for Integrated Rural Development.
Loans to Students It is binary policy that, since further and higher education should be encouraged, student loans should not bear interest. If they do, students can become burdened by debt for the rest of their lives.
Homes At present the money supply largely goes into existing assets (e.g. the continual inflation of house prices around the world) rather than into the development and spreading of new productive capacity. It is not the intention in any way to risk adding to the inflation but, certainly when there is 100% banking reserves, the use of interest-free loans for homes will be considered.
Estate duty As part of binary policy to develop capital ownership for each member of the population, there is no estate duty (or Inheritance Tax) on death IF the estate devolves in such a way as to spread capital estates, and therefore capital ownership, to more individuals. If it does not do so, then there is a graduated tax.
The Income of Individuals - the Binary Competence
Even more importantly, the spreading of ownership enables the spreading of the associated incomes. Indeed, over time, on market principles, binary economics would enable all individuals to obtain a proper independent income or binary competence. The competence is defined as a capital estate large enough to supply sufficient current consumer income to support at least one half of an affluent life style (measured in the context of what society as a whole can efficiently produce).
Figures contained in a 1998 study by Northeast Ohio Employee Ownership Center, Kent State University, Ohio and a 2005 study from the Center for Economic and Social Justice in Washington, DC indicate (2005 figures) that, aged sixty five, an adult would have a binary income of about $26,000 and a capital accumulation of at least $200,000 with both figures continuing to increase after the age of sixty five.
Along with the competence, of course, individuals will also be free to gain income from employment as now.
Mothers One important consequence of the competence is that mothers will be able to bring up their own children without financial pressure.
Small children Even small children have an income from binary competence, sufficient for basic needs which include the provision of education. At the age of five the competence increases to allow for payment of basic school fees, with increases at eleven and sixteen. Thereafter the income stays with the child (now an adult) as part of the increasing adult binary competence which comes from an independent capital estate.
Environment and Population
Binary economics spreads productive (and the associated consuming) capacity so that all individuals in the population - including babies, carers and those not normally in conventional employment - have at least some form of secure, independent income. A major goal of this income is to ensure that all people feel materially secure which is essential if there is to be any hope of changing people’s attitudes towards excessive consumption.[32] There is an inter-generational obligation[33] and Gaia is threatened.[34]
Population The world’s rapid growth in population is inimical to hopes of preserving the environment and natural resources. The growth must be moderated. However, it happens that populations do stabilise when there is a reasonable standard of living, good education and health and at least some status for women. Binary economics provides these things and is essential if the present growth of the world’s population is to be lessened.
New technologies There is also now an extraordinary range of ‘alternative’ green technologies capable of generating clean electricity but which cannot be used because, in the present system of interest-bearing money, they are not financially viable. With interest-free loans, however, they will become viable.
Deleterious effects of interest The present financial system encourages excessive consumption by creating sufficient money for the principal of interest-bearing loans to be repaid but insufficient money for the repayment of interest. The result is that more interest-bearing money has to be created (with more inflation and more people going into debt) and more activity in the endeavor to try to make repayment. This favours the short term destruction of natural wealth rather than its long term maintenance.[35]
Productiveness
Binary productiveness and conventional productivity are distinct concepts.[36]
Conventional productivity, generally labour productivity, is the ratio of labor as input to the overall output.[37]
In contrast, binary productiveness is the percentage of total physical input that labor and capital each contributes to the output.[38] Capital contributes an increasing physical percentage as even Marx understood.[39] Consider the example of a man digging a hole. Using his hands this takes him four hours. But, by using a form of capital − a shovel − he can dig the hole in one hour or dig four holes in the same amount of time it took him to dig one hole with his hands. The physical productiveness of the human labor is 25% while the physical productiveness of the capital shovel is 75%. The position changes even more radically when a mechanical shovel, or machine digger, is used. Although the man uses skill and effort they may not amount to much more skill and effort than that involved in the man using the shovel alone and, in any case, there is very much less effort. The mechanical digger, however, is now contributing a huge percentage of the total output. Together, of course, man and shovel, or man and mechanical digger − labour and capital − produce much more by co-operation than they would produce separately.
Where binary productiveness is concerned, it is also useful to consider the examples of an automated factory or a huge dam producing electricity and fresh water. In the case of the automated factory there is minimal or no human input (the work involved in design and building is over and has received its payment, and maintenance and repair are only maintenance and repair rather than a direct contribution to production).
In the case of the dam, with relatively little human input although it is critical, the physical output of the capital is huge and binary economics views the sun, weather and gravity as greatly contributing to the production. The latter are co-operating capital assets even if they are ones which cannot be owned. Binary economics views both humans and capital assets as production factors having an independent productiveness which does not stop their co-operating with other independent production factors but which does mean that their contribution to production requires individual recognition.
A criticism of the hole and shovel example has been made by Timothy D. Terrell[40] summarizing a critique given by Timothy Roth.[41] The criticism states that: a) somebody invented the shovel; b) the shovel cannot be independent. Roth argues that someone with human capital had to invent the shovel before it could be used, so the presence of the shovel is not independent of human capital. Also, Roth notes the presumption that the human hole digger has no role in the productiveness of the shovel.
However, binary economics states that the fact that somebody invented the shovel has nothing to do with its present use for digging a hole and the shovel is viewed as an independent contributor which co-operates with the man just as the man co-operates with the shovel. Moreover, just as two humans can, and do, co-operate, so the man and the shovel co-operate to dig the hole and produce far more holes than either the man or shovel could do by themselves. Binary economics does not say the human digger has no role in the shovel’s productiveness − both binary economics and Roth[42] agree that man and shovel together produce far more than man or shovel separately.
Binary economics states that the productiveness analysis (as compared with conventional productivity) is a superior account of physical reality and so binary proposals for change are well grounded in an accurate comprehension of who or what creates the wealth.
Other criticism of binary economics usually comes from those who wish to maintain a narrow private ownership of capital or who wish the state (in practice) to own everything (see the opening section of this article).
Selected External Links
- Binary Economics now
- Center for the Study of The Great Ideas
- Binary Economics In A Nutshell
- Center for Economic and Social Justice
- Global Justice Movement Net
- Global Justice Movement Org
- Integrating Islamic Finance into Mainstream
- Binary Economics - An Overview by Professor Robert Ashford
- The Binary Alternative & The Future of Capitalism
- The Binary Economics of Louis Kelso
- http://ssrn.com/abstract=277508
- http://www.cesj.org/binaryeconomics/price-money.html
- http://cog.kent.edu/lib/TurnbullBook/TurnbullBook.htm
- Capital Democratization
Selected Texts
• Albus, James S.(1976) Peoples’ Capitalism - The Economics of The Robot Revolution.
• Ashford, Robert & Shakespeare, Rodney (1999) Binary Economics - the new paradigm.
• Ashford, Robert Louis Kelso’s Binary Economy (The Journal of Socio-Economics, vol. 25, 1996).
• el-Diwany, Tarek (2003) The Problem With Interest.
• Gates, Jeff (1999) The Ownership Solution.
• Gates, Jeff (2000) Democracy At Risk.
• Gauche, Jerry Binary Modes for the Privatization of Public Assets (The Journal of Socio-Economics. Vol. 27, 1998).
• Greenfield, Sidney M. Making Another World Possible: the Torah, Louis Kelso and the Problem of Poverty (paper given at conference, Colombia University, May, 2006).
• Kelso, Louis & Kelso, Patricia Hetter (1986 & 1991), Democracy and Economic Power - Extending the ESOP Revolution through Binary Economics.
• Kelso, Louis & Adler, Mortimer (1958), The Capitalist Manifesto.
• Kelso, Louis & Adler, Mortimer (1961), The New Capitalists.
• Kelso, Louis & Hetter, Patricia (1967), Two-Factor Theory: the Economics of Reality.
• Kurland, Norman A New Look at Prices and Money: The Kelsonian Binary Model for Achieving Rapid Growth Without Inflation.
• Kurland, Norman; Brohawn, Dawn & Michael Greaney (2004) Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen: A Just Free Market Solution for Saving Social Security.
• Miller, J.H. ed., (1994), Curing World Poverty: The New Role of Property.
• Reiners, Mark Douglas, The Binary Alternative and Future of Capitalism.
• Shakespeare, Rodney & Challen, Peter (2002) Seven Steps to Justice.
• Shakespeare, Rodney (2007) The Modern Universal Paradigm.
• Turnbull, Shann (2001) The Use of Central Banks to Spread Ownership.
• Turnbull, Shann (1975/2000), Democratising the Wealth of Nations.
References
- ^ Robert Ashford & Rodney Shakespeare (1999) Binary Economics – the new paradigm.
- ^ John H. Miller ed. (1994) Curing World Poverty: the New Role of Property.
- ^ Rodney Shakespeare (2007) The Modern Universal Paradigm.
- ^ Robert Ashford (1990) The Binary Economics of Louis Kelso: the Promise of Universal Capitalism (Rutgers Law Journal, vol. 22 No.1. Fall, 1990).
- ^ Robert Ashford & Rodney Shakespeare (1999) op. cit;
- ^ Time Magazine, June 29, 1970.
- ^ Rodney Shakespeare & Peter Challen (2002) Seven Steps to Justice.
- ^ James S. Albus (1976) Peoples' Capitalism - The Economics of The Robot Revolution.
- ^ A notable lecture on this matter was given by Ing. B.J Habibie (former President, The Republic of Indonesia) at the international conference Islamic Economics and Banking in the 21st Century, Jakarta, Indonesia, November, 2005. The former President, a successful aircraft engineer, well understands the potential of technology to create wealth. See also Thoby Mutis (1995) Pendekatan Ekonomi Pengetahuan dalam Manajemen Kodedeterminass.
- ^ Sofyan Syafri Harahap (2005), Accounting Crisis. William Christensen Search for a Universal Paradigm: Making Justice Live For All International Conference on Universal Paradigm of Socio-Scientific Reasoning, Asian University of Bangladesh, 2005.
- ^ Louis Kelso & Patricia Hetter Kelso (1967) Two-Factor Theory: the Economics of Reality.
- ^ Louis Kelso & Patricia Hetter Kelso (1986 & 1991) Democracy and Economics Power - Extending the ESOP Revolution through Binary Economics
- ^ William Greider (1997) One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism.
- ^ John Logue et al. (1998) Participatory Employee Ownership. C. Rosen & M Quarrey (1987 65 Harvard Bus. Rev.) How Well is Employee Ownership Working?
- ^ Jerry Gauche General Stock Ownership Corporations: Another Step in Broadening Capital Ownership (30 American University Review, 1981)
- ^ Robert A. Solo (1991) The Philosophy of Science and Economics
- ^ Rodney Shakespeare (2007) op. cit.
- ^ Michael Rowbotham (1998) The Grip of Death. James Gibb Stuart (1983) The Money Bomb.
- ^ Edward N. Wolff (1995) Top Heavy: A Study of Increasing Inequality in America and (1995) How The Pie Is Sliced: America's Growing Concentration of Wealth.
- ^ Norman Kurland (1972/2002) A New Look at Prices and Money − The Kelsonian Binary Model for Achieving Rapid Growth Without Inflation
- ^ Norman Kurland, Dawn Brohawn & Michael Greaney (2004) Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen: A Just Free Market Solution for Saving Social Security
- ^ John Tomlinson (1993) Honest Money. Joseph Huber & James Robertson Creating New Money. Peter Selby (1997) Grace and Mortgage.
- ^ Roy Madron & John Jopling (2003) Gaian Democracies.
- ^ Louis Kelso & Patricia Hetter Kelso (1986 & 1991) Democracy and Economic Power – Extending the ESOP Revolution through Binary Economics.
- ^ Norman Kurland (1998) The Federal Reserve Discount Window — www.cesj.org
- ^ Norman Kurland, Dawn Brohawn & Michael Greaney (2004) op. cit.
- ^ Rodney Shakespeare & Peter Challen (2002) op. cit.
- ^ John Medaille (2007) The Vocation of Business: Social Justice in the Marketplace.
- ^ Shann Turnbull (1975/2000) Democratising the Wealth of Nations and (2001) The Use of Central Banks to Spread Ownership. Jeff Gates (1999) The Ownership Solution and (2000) Democracy At Risk.
- ^ Norman Kurland (2001) Saving Social Security at www.cesj.org.
- ^ Abulhasan Sadeq Microfinance, Poverty Alleviation and Economic Development: Theory and Practice international conference on A Universal Paradigm of Socio-Scientific Reasoning at Asian University of Bangladesh, 2005.
- ^ Robert Ashford & Rodney Shakespeare (1999) op. cit.
- ^ Amartya Sen (2000) Development as Freedom.
- ^ James Lovelock (2006) The Revenge of Gaia.
- ^ Tarek el-Diwany (2003) The Problem with Interest.
- ^ Mark Douglas Reiners The Binary Alternative and the Future of Capitalism available at Center for Economic and Social Justice.
- ^ Robert Ashford Binary Economics − an overview (2006) http://ssrn.com/abstract=928752.
- ^ Robert Ashford Louis Kelso’s Binary Economy (The Journal of Socio-Economics, vol.25, 1996).
- ^ Louis Kelso Karl Marx: The Almost Capitalist (American Bar Association Journal, March, 1957).
- ^ Timothy D. Terrell Binary Economics: Paradigm Shift Or Cluster of Errors? Ludwig von Mises Institute.
- ^ Timothy P. Roth, (1996) A Supply-Sider’s (Sympathetic) View of Binary Economics, Journal of Socio-Economics 25 (1) pp. 58–59.
- ^ Timothy P Roth (1996) op. cit. p. 60.