| Subject: | [socialcredit] air and land? | | Date: | Saturday, September 11, 2004 11:16:10 (-0700) | | From: | william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| Subject: | (no subject) | | Date: | Thursday, September 9, 2004 17:41:37 (+0200) | | From: | Jessop Sutton <sutton @...........za>
|
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.eListas.com/
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
--0-2140742612-1094926570=:33560
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>I have appended some comments below:<BR>-</DIV>
<DIV>From: "Jessop Sutton" <<A
href="mailto:sutton@kingsley.co.za">sutton@kingsley.co.za</A>><BR>Date: Thu, 9
Sep 2004 17:41:37 +0200 </DIV>
<DIV>On Wednesday 08 Sep 2004 5:12 pm, <BR><A
href="mailto:william_b_ryan@yahoo.com">william_b_ryan@yahoo.com</A> wrote:<BR>>
The new assumptions are:<BR>> [1] Resources are abundant.<BR>> [2] Growth occurs
through entrepreneurial <BR>initiative,<BR>> [3] facilitated by credit,<BR>> [4]
resulting in the displacement of labor.<BR>> From these assumptions it may be
concluded that<BR>> saving is the dependent variable of investment,<BR>> rather
than investment being the dependent variable<BR>> of
saving.<BR>======================</DIV>
<DIV>Not on the same subject, but may I chip in here?</DIV>
<DIV>> [1] Resources are abundant. It seems to me that <BR>there is one resource
which is scarce, and that is <BR>land. It must surely be pressure upon land that
gives <BR>rise to the unstoppable increase in prices of urban <BR>erven and
farmlands? Since land is at the very bottom <BR>of the capital-pile, it must have
a continuous effect <BR>upon PRICES of every new production round, must it
<BR>not?</DIV>
<DIV>And it is the land more than the buildings erected on <BR>it that is the
factor. Here in a CBD a multi-story <BR>building can sell for the full market
price only to <BR>be demolished so that a new and bigger, posher, <BR>building
can be erected. </DIV>
<DIV>We bought a house in 1976 for R25,000. I couldn't buy <BR>the same house
today for R800,000. Of course, <BR>locality, locality, locality is the important
catch-<BR>word, but effect on prices ripples outwards to the <BR>remotest useable
pieces of land. </DIV>
<DIV>Population increase is at bottom of it in the long-<BR>term -- I can
remember gasping at a world population <BR>figure of three billion (probably in
the late <BR>sixties). In mid-1994 the figure was about 5.5 <BR>billion, with a
projection (mid-range) of 9.7 by <BR>2050. These people will need space to live,
space for <BR>more factories, more forests converted to farmlands <BR>for food
production, even with increases in farming <BR>and factory efficiencies.</DIV>
<DIV>These factors in themselves must surely spell out <BR>'scarcity' in the
total living picture?</DIV>
<DIV>Would it not be true to say that land-scarcity (with <BR>resultant
spiraling prices of property) is a major <BR>factor in growth in money supply?
</DIV>
<DIV>Jessop.<BR>-------------------------------------</DIV>
<DIV>From: "Michael E. Etchison" <<A
href="mailto:etchison@m">etchison@m</A>...> <BR>Date: Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:53 am
</DIV>
<DIV>w_b_ryan:</DIV>
<DIV>>Air is a resource that is definitely abundant, would <BR>you not agree?
Abundance does not mean available in <BR>unlimited or infinite quantities.
Otherwise, it could <BR>not be squandered or polluted, resulting in global
<BR>warming, adverse health effects, etc. Right?<</DIV>
<DIV>One generally does not much care about "air." One <BR>cares about, say, the
air in which he is at present: <BR>whether it is, say, clean. To the extent he is
not at <BR>all concerned about the quality, etc., of air, in <BR>what way could
he be said to be concerned with air <BR>_as a resource_? On the other hand, if he
is <BR>concerned about the quality of air, then "clean air" <BR>would be a
limited resource, would it not?</DIV>
<DIV>Put another way: Does one "economize"
air-of-no-<BR>particular-quality?</DIV>
<DIV>In any event, by "abundant" you mean either "for all <BR>practical
purposes, unlimited," or you mean "there's <BR>a whole lot of it, but it's not
infinite." If the <BR>latter, then "air" is a limited resource; if the
<BR>former, in what way does it matter economically?</DIV>
<DIV>Michael
Etchison<BR>----------------------------<BR>-----------------------</DIV>
<DIV>[COMMENT] The abundance v. scarcity discussion is <BR>largely one of
philosophical perspective: Is the <BR>glass half-empty or half-full? And here
the <BR>discussants pose the apparently opposite examples of <BR>air and
land.</DIV>
<DIV>Scarcity is economic shorthand for the concept of <BR>diminishing returns.
The new economics counters with <BR>ideas about the "cultural heritage" and
"increment of <BR>association" that counteract what would otherwise
<BR>result in diminishing returns in a situation where <BR>technology is
static, without explorers, inventors <BR>and entrepreneurs.<BR>---></DIV>
<DIV>[JESSOP] And it is the land more than the buildings <BR>erected on it that
is the factor. Here in a CBD a <BR>multi-story building can sell for the full
market <BR>price only to be demolished so that a new and bigger, <BR>posher,
building can be
erected.<BR>----------------------------<BR>-----------------------</DIV>
<DIV>[COMMENT] That is one way the utility of land is <BR>continuously
augmented. The operative term is <BR>"redevelopment" made possible through
credit. I've <BR>appended a photograph of the South African Reserve <BR>Bank
building also archived at<BR><A href="http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium/sareservebank.jpg";>http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium/sareservebank.jpg</A><BR>Surely
it is the most impressive central bank <BR>building in the world, putting the
headquarters <BR>building of the United States Federal Reserve to <BR>shame. The
SA Reserve Bank is also probably the most <BR>orthodox and conservative central
bank in the world. <BR>What the SA Reserve Bank can accomplish for itself -
<BR>marshalling the credit at its command - is <BR>conceivably possible (in a
general sense) for the <BR>economy as whole from realizable productive capacity.
<BR>But that would require it to become something other <BR>than the most
orthodox and
conservative central bank <BR>in the world.</DIV>
<DIV>From *Notes for Swanwick*:<BR><A href="http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium/swanwick1924.txt";>http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium/swanwick1924.txt</A><BR>***But
the essential point in the position of banks, <BR>which is so hard to explain,
and which is grasped by <BR>so very few people, is that their true assets are not
<BR>represented by anything actual at all, but are <BR>represented by the
difference between a society <BR>functioning under centralised and restricted
credit <BR>and a free society unfettered by financial <BR>restrictions. To bring
that perhaps somewhat vague <BR>generalisation into a more concrete form, the
true <BR>assets of banks collectively consist of the <BR>difference between the
total amount of legal tender, <BR>or Government money, which exists, and the
total <BR>amount of bank credit money, not only which does <BR>exist, but which
might exist, and which is kept out <BR>of existence by the fiat of the banking
executive.***<BR>---></DIV>
<DIV>[MICHAEL] then "clean air" would be a limited <BR>resource, would it
not?<BR>----------------------------<BR>-----------------------</DIV>
<DIV>[COMMENT] Neither abundance nor scarcity relate <BR>directly to whether or
not resources are limited. <BR>The physicists tell us that the dimensions of the
<BR>very universe itself have limits. In economics we <BR>are dealing with
rates of production and consumption. <BR>The fact that resources are abundant
does not mean <BR>that there are not *instantaneous* limits to the rate <BR>of
production that present choices to the consumer. <BR>Now, instantaneous is a
mathematical term. The <BR>objective is to achieve increasing rates of
<BR>production to meet increasing real demand. But the <BR>rate of increase
to real demand is decreasing to the <BR>point of satiation, which is the real
limiting factor <BR>in a world of optimism rather than pessimism. So <BR>while
the curves in the new economics may themselves <BR>intersect at hypothetical
"equilibrium," as they do <BR>in the old economics, they are curves of an
entirely <BR>different
nature that more closely approximate <BR>conditions in the better world toward
which we
<BR>strive.<BR>-<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV><p>__________________________________________________<br>Do
You Yahoo!?<br>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
<br>http://mail.yahoo.com
<center><br><hr><br>
<!-- BEGIN LINKEXCHANGE CODE --><a href="http://leader.linkexchange.com/X1727123/clickle"; target="_top"><img width=468
height=60 border=0 ismap alt=""
src="http://leader.linkexchange.com/X1727123/showle?"></a><br><img
src="http://leader.linkexchange.com/X1727123/showlogo?" width=468 height=0
border=0 ismap alt=""></a></center><!-- END LINKEXCHANGE CODE --></center>
--0-2140742612-1094926570=:33560--
<center><br><hr><br>
<!-- BEGIN LINKEXCHANGE CODE --><a href="http://leader.linkexchange.com/X1727123/clickle"; target="_top"><img width=468
height=60 border=0 ismap alt=""
src="http://leader.linkexchange.com/X1727123/showle?"></a><br><img
src="http://leader.linkexchange.com/X1727123/showlogo?" width=468 height=0
border=0 ismap alt=""></a></center><!-- END LINKEXCHANGE CODE --></center>
|
air and land?
Reply to this message