|
Hi Tim:
I have not been following this conversation in its
entirety, but I will try to answer your question.
I believe you stated that money is nothing more
than a series of debits and credits which must balance to 0 at any point in time
(or something along those lines). Therefore, there is no need to label
money into "M's".
I have never seen Douglas himself label money into
"M's". The labelling of different types of money is done in Economics to
explain the money mulitplier effect, and how banks create money based on cash
reserves by loaning it to businesses and consumers.
I believe that the concept of money which is most
important in understanding Social Credit is that money operates in a cycle, and
is either creating costs, or cancelling them. Therefore, money has two
"directions" with respect to costs.
Douglas states this in "Social Credit" when he
says:
"The financial mechanism
has a positive and negative aspect, the positive aspect being represented by the
issue of money, and the negative aspect being represented by the exchange of the
money thus issued for goods and services, through the medium of
prices."
This means that money has two different "flows",
and the direction of the money itself cannot be understood in terms of the
balance, or the "stock", of money.
Douglas also said:
"Now any attempt, by current financial methods, to
reduce prices (or even to stabilise them, as the phrase goes) is a
mathematical absurdity unless the cost of this stabilisation, or lowering of
prices, is met from some extraneous source. Or to put the matter another
way, the margin of profit which makes it possible for a producer to go on
producing, disappears unless the financial cost, and consequently the price of
production, is allowed to rise steadily in relation to direct labour cost.
"
This is why Douglas always said:
"Since A will not purchase A+B, a proportion of the
product at least equivalent to B must be distributed by a form of purchasing
power which is not comprised in the description grouped under
A."
B exists because there is physical capital creating
costs to the point of retail for which there is no equivalent purchasing power
to liquidate those costs. And orthodox methods to control price, or solve
the "unemployment problem", by manipulations of A are apt to bring about
inflation, or bankruptcy.
I hope this is what you were looking for, or you
can just chalk it up to the ramblings of some crazy Canuck.....;).
Take care,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 10:45
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Douglas - A +
B and the Bankers - January 1925
Kenneth Palmerton wrote:
I too have struggled with A+B over many
years. The conclusion for me is that the confusion comes from the
detractors. The concept is simple enough. But put yourself, if you will,
in the shoes of those who wish to retain control over the issue of new
money into circulation.
Tim Knight now writes:
First, may I say that I think Social Credit in
general (and A+B in particular) is a very distinct subject from reform of the
financial system. I believe that you are talking here about reform of
the financial system?
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am more
than willing to believe that those in power may well be acting out
of passive or active self-interest. However, I
personally have no self-interest here, and the conclusion
for me (so far), in the absence of more coherent argument, is that
the confusion is in the minds of the promoters.
In particular, and I am repeating myself
ad-nauseum her, promoters will keep using expressions such as 'money'
without pausing to check that there is an economically-significant factor on
which the reader/listener could 'hang' the expression. When I read the
expression 'money' above, and when I read 'the issue of new money
into circulation', my brain went into numb. I haven't the faintest
idea what you're talking about. With respect, I suspect you and all
others who use the expressions don't know either. I have to assume that,
because I've laid down more than enough challenges in this forum and
elsewhere, and no-one has even acknowledged that there is a need to pin down a
worthwhile meaning for such expressions before using them. Most seem
happy to use such expressions as a form of 'economic musak'. For many
years, medieval clinicians banged on about 'the humours'. For many
years, physicists banged on about the nature of the ether (the presumed
carrier of light). Both communities were highly respected professionals,
but we now know that they were talking complete codswallop. Without
clearly-defined terms, I have to suspect that Social Crediters (including
Douglas himself) and money reformers, may well also be talking complete
codswallop.
Please, please help me out here. When you
wrote 'the issue of new money into circulation', what did you mean?
- If you meant 'the state printing and
distributing cash', I would argue that:
- The quantity of cash in circulation
is determined at the absolute discretion of the
bearers. No-one can 'push' cash into circulation, and
no responsible state would undermine the fluency of trade and employment
by constraining the quantity of cash in circulation below what potential
bearers wanted to bear.
- Each item of cash reflects a debt owed by the
issuer to the bearer, but that debt is
economically-indistinguishable from any other
debt.
- When a bank 'withdraws' cash from the state,
the bank credits the state in a current account and debits the state in a
cash account in a single indivisible transaction. Nothing of any
economic significance has
happened.
- If you mean 'banks processing a
zero-sum debit-credit pair to intermediate a debt created by trade or
employment', I would argue again that nothing of any
economic significance has happened.
So, what exactly did you mean? Please do
not use the expression 'money' in any answer you feel
inclined to make!
I'm sorry to be so strident,
but I can't get anyone to even
try to address my concerns, or even to acknowledge
that there is a case to answer. Most simply repeat their arguments,
re-using the expressions which fried my brain first time round! I
suspect that that is the real reason why social credit and proposals for
reform of the financial system have made so little progress, and will continue
to struggle. All of the advocates talk in 'insider' terms, and
dismiss as naive or fools those who have reservations. None appear
willing to speak in language with which non-believes can 'engage'.
Best Wishes
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 3:26
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Douglas - A + B and
the Bankers - January 1925
> In-Reply-To: <01e801c54b53$e0ee2780$0200a8c0@mshome.net>
> Dear Tim.
>
> I do not know whether my
comments would either be welcome, or even if they
> could be useful to
you. But I too have struggled with A+B over many years.
>
> The
conclusion for me is that the confusion comes from the detractors. The
> concept is simple enough. But put yourself, if you will, in the shoes
of
> those who wish to retain control over the issue of new money into
> circulation.
>
> Should some clever clogs come along
and offer an explanation of why it is
> essential for the health of
society for there to BE a regular, and
> controlled issue, because
there is a fundamental and inevitable flaw in
> the orthodox notion of
equilibrium, would you not, if you had the power,
> mobilise all the
forces at your command to defeat that explanation?
>
> I for one
Tim have scanned reams and reams of mathematics that attempted
> to "prove" A+B, and Keynes "deficiency of effective demand" , its
second
> cousin, to be false. All it really achieved is what it was
intended to
> achieve, to confuse me.
>
> But what it did
NOT achieve was to persuade me of the falsity of the basic
> idea. For
I, like many others, am an essentially practical person. And I
> would
suggest to you that there is an essentially practical test of
> whether
or not there was something in the idea of a lack of money in the
>
publics pockets. And the test can be conducted in any High Street , in any
> town in this country or anywhere else.
>
> If you look
at the windows of the stores, stores that are bursting with
> goods and
services, almost without exception they have emblazoned across
> then
offers of CREDIT.
>
> Why, if there is enough purchasing power to
buy all those desirable goods,
> do the shopkeepers assume that they
need to offer deferred payment?
>
> Add that to the need to offer
an explanation for escalating indebtedness,
> and I think you can
forget the reams of mathematics.
>
> Does any of this make sense
to you Tim?
>
> Ken.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're subscribed to this list with the email jschroeder@shaw.ca
To unsubscribe, send a message to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
