Thanks, Keith, for that wonderful opportunity to show it clearly!
The builders of the bridge obviously didn't assess enough data for a
start, or it was just a "con" like the present banking system?
Douglas worked on carefully researched data.
But they certainly did take a very expensive method of destructively
testing their hypothesis. Just like the present banking system, which,
however, also destroys the lives of millions of people in the poorer
countries.
And the beauty of applying this to A+B is, as I have stated before, that
there is only one alternative, the opposite. Which clearly falls down
like the bridge under any wind of scrutiny.
(Looking back, my political experience is showing, so please take the
"gist" rather than the exuberant wording.)
Regards. John
R.
>From: "Keith Wilde"
<keithwilde@sympatico.ca>
>Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
>To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
>Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying
to John Rawson re Bethune vs. others
>Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 08:45:53
-0400
>
>Well, John, as a testable hypothesis how is yours
different from that of the engineers who were sure they could build a bridge
across the St. Lawrence River at Quebec? Two of the gigantic structures
buckled and went down to the bottom, taking the workmen with them. They had
some pretty sound physics to work with, but their faith in the prediction that
they could complete the span turned out to be a vain hope.
>
>For
a better comparison with A+B, consider the neoclassical analysis of product
and factor prices with its implications for general equilibrium and optimum
social welfare. I dare say that it has had a lot more ink spilled over it with
the same end product as you claim for A+B, i.e. that "since nobody has ever
pointed to any fault in his methods, at that level it may be taken as
something generally agreed... ." Before Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo there
were not many objections to the method of those who believe in a geocentric
vision of the universe. General agreement does not amount to a tested
hypothesis. I haven't noticed any disputes over Douglas' methods, as you say,
but there has been plenty of controversy over his analysis, on this list
alone. It might be useful (I think it would) to have some explicit discussion
about just what his methods were, and to contrast them with those of Jevons
and the Austrian and other marginalists who followed.
>
>How is
your explanation below of a "testable hypothesis" different in form from the
dirge of the neoclassical market fundamentalists that "the market system has
never been tried"? (Note the precise parallel with the socred theme that
"practical Christianity has never been tried".) The market fundamentalists
have been getting their way in recent decades, with the progressive success of
their campaign for "de-regulation". They seem to think that it is also a
"scientific" success in the sense that it has improved the general welfare.
There are many these days who disagree with the evidence of success. What
evidence or argument can you provide that a trial of A+B would be any more
conclusive in the direction you prefer? I asked you for a testable hypothesis
and you have given back an armchair rationale of the kind that is supposedly
despised by "inductivist" disciples of Douglas.
>
>Consider the
possibility that you are confusing science with engineering. Market
fundamentalism, based on neoclassical rationale, and Social Credit, based on
A+B rationale, are social engineering projects. Each contains some
presuppositions that might be capable of scientific testing. (That is why I am
interested in the 'philosophy'.) I haven't tried hard to conceive of a
refutable test involving A+B (or some other element of the Douglas analysis),
short of the big engineering project; that is why I reacted to your claim that
one is available.
>
>If you investigate the subject, I think will
find that social scientists spend quite a lot more time reading and thinking
about the essential nature of scientific method than do persons whose training
is in the natural sciences. That is because the latter learn techniques that
have been time tested and show good results. In the social sphere we have to
try much harder to devise techniques that get comparable results and we are
therefore quite a lot more self-conscious about method. One could characterize
it as the difference between technicians and
philosophers.
>
>Keith
Wilde
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message
-----
> From: John G Rawson
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 4:23 PM
> Subject: RE: [socialcredit]
Replying to John Rawson re Bethune vs. others
>
>
> Thanks
Keith. I did cover this before when dealing with a scientific approach, but
everything seems to get covered many times in this group.. From that
viewpoint, the A+B statement has two standings depending on where it is
applied. As discovered by Douglas in relation to industry, since nobody has
ever pointed to any fault in his methods, at that level it may be taken as
something generally agreed as Vic Bridger states, i.e. a
"fact".
>
> As applied to the whole economy, where other factors
come into consideration, it ranks as a "hypothesis". Were it accepted by a
large proportion of those dealing with it, it would rank as a "theory". As a
hypothesis expressed in tangible form, in this case a mathematical inequation,
it IS, in this context, a "model".
>
> Taking it from this
viewpoint and assuming that the discipline of Economics adopts scientific
method, I predict that it will become the great unfying theory of that field,
equivalent (as someone said recently) to Einstein's work in Physics, or to
Evolution in Biology, or Continental Drift in geology.
>
> Two of
my reasons are that it explains groups of facts that orthodox economics can
not (as I noted before) and unifies in that application of policy based on it
would, for example, reconcile Say's "law" with other conflicting
views.
>
> While doing this, I will risk a couple of comments on
other recent statements, first Don's "child of ten" one. When I was young
enough to go five miles over our then muddy clay roads on the front of my
Mother's saddle on a small pony, I forget when, but obviously much younger
than ten, I heard our Col. Closey speak. In reference to A+B he used the
example of a bootmaker investing some earnings to buy a new machine and thus
costing the one amount of money into two cycles of production. Not only did I
understand it, but years later as a candidate I used the same example. I was
no infant prodigy, my level of intelligence is sufficient to get with hard
work what many would regard as an "easy" degree in natural sciences. (But
perhaps better than one in Economics?!) Closey by repute had been the youngest
Colonel in the British (incl. NZ) armies, was brilliant, and obviously able to
explain it clearly. One of those people (like many top American scientists)
completely and humbly confident on his topic who didn't need to obscure with
long words and bad definitions.
>
> The other was that my comment
on "original sin" was by no means intended to create a sideline, but to head
one off. I believe SC has a great deal in common with Christianity,
particularly its absolutely basic accent on the worth of the individual. But
it has nothing to do with a doctrine that tends to regard the individual as
worthless until he "sees the light", usually according to the precise rules of
the particular sect promoting it. To me, that is equivalent to broadening the
field to include binary economics on the SC side.
>
> Regards.
John R.
>
>
>
>
> >From: keith wilde
<kwilde@tc-biodiversity.org>
> >Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
> >To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>
>Subject: [socialcredit] Replying to John Rawson re Bethune vs.
others
> >Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 05:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> >John, I thought I had sent this question yesterday, but it
doesn't seem to have registered, even in my own e-mail window. To repeat,
therefore:
> >
> >What is the specific hypothesis you have
in mind, and how do you propose that it could be tested?
> >
>
>Keith Wilde
> >
> >John G Rawson
<johngrawson@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Thanks,
Don.
> >
> >To put it another way, if Sherlock Holmes had
spent months discussing what note he was playing when the idea popped into his
head, what his temperature was, whether he was facing east, west or upwards,
even perhaps the relative discomfort of his bladder at the time, how many
crooks would he have caught?
> >
> >These discussions have
partially or completely reinvented the hypothesis something like fifty times
from about as many diections, while seldom or never testing its
veracity.
> >John R.
> >
> >
> >
>
> >From: <donzbeth@ihug.co.nz>
> > >Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
> > >To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>,<sutton
@kingsley.co.za>,<Walt.p@free.fr>,<murshed@choudhury77.fsnet.uk>,"Wallace
M. Klinck"
<wmklinck@shaw.ca>,<jschroeder@sympatico.ca>,<hermann@picknowl.com.au>,"L
Manning" <manning@kapiti.co.nz>,"Pabo"
<pabo@paradise.net.nz>,<weddel@paradise.net.nz>,"Bill Daly"
<b.daly@xtra.co.nz>
> > >CC:
<corodoor@wave.co.nz>,<nvp@theosophy.org.nz>,<theredbrick@xtra.co.nz>,"Neville
Aitchison" <naitchison@farrowjamieson.co.nz>,"Don Bethune"
<donzbeth@ihug.co.nz>,<otherside532@yahoo.co.nz>,<john.rabarts@ihug.co.nz>,<ekkirion@rogers.com>,<philippa@clear.net.nz>,"David
Wilson"
<wilson_df@xtra.co.nz>,<wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>,<james@jamesrobertson.com>,"Henry.
Raynel" <henry.raynel@actrix.gen.nz>,<sooriuk@yahoo.com>
>
> >Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Replying to Vic Bridger (and including
all on this list).
> > >Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 22:38:33
+1200
> > >
> > >
> > >Dear Jessop
(especially) & Other Interested Parties,
> > >As a lifetime
supporter of the Social Credit Philosophy it deeply saddens me
> >
>to read of you initially seeing S.C. as answering South Africa's
needs,
> > >and then because of the incessant arguing and
semantics among the very
> > >people who delude themselves into
thinking they are S.C. experts
> > >and so must be helping its
progress, you become disillusioned to the point
> > >of forfeiting
any hope of S.C.
> > >being of practical assistance while you are
still alive...
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>You're subscribed to this list with the email
johngrawson@hotmail.com
> >To unsubscribe, send a message to
>
>socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
> >For more information,
visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Become a fitness fanatic with XtraMSN Health &
Fitness!
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>You're
subscribed to this list with the email keithwilde@sympatico.ca
>To
unsubscribe, send a message
to
>socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
>For more information,
visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>You're
subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com
>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
