Perhaps we should leave this to our great grandchildren to decide in
retrospect. If civilisation lasts as long as that. Neither of us ever will learn
who was right.
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: Thu, 19 May 2005 20:23:25 -0400
>
>No, John,
I don't think we are at cross purposes. You would like to see Social Credit
policies implemented. So would I.
>Where we have not yet agreed is on the most
effective means of getting it to happen. Your approach is hopeless, partly
because it is not scientific. I suspect that the environment is close to being
ready to entertain the policy if it is presented in the context of some
well-conceived and effectively executed scientific research. (I am using science
here as you, following Douglas, have defined it
rather than in the way you propose to apply it.)
>
>Keith
>
>----- Original
Message -----
> From: John G Rawson
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Sent:
Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to John
Rawson re Bethune vs. others
>
>
> Well, Keith, we are certainly at cross
purposes.
>
> My interest in Social Credit is not as a cold-blooded experiment to
see if it works, but as a warm-blooded and much needed remedy for human economic
afflictions ranging from discomfort in some to downright misery and even death in
extreme ("third world") situations.
>
> My interest in bringing scientific method
into the picture is to get a much more intelligible method of explaining it to
reasonably intelligent people who may then influence enough others to give us a
chance to "give it a
go". Inductive reasoning is so basic to nature. A barefoot kid experiments by
standing on a thistle. The test quickly makes obsolescent his assumed hypothesis
that it is safe to do so. All technicians etc. work that way. Economsts need to.
And I'm thrilled to discover at this late stage how strongly Douglas felt about
this!
>
> 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: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:03:08 -0400
> >
>
>John, I think you are still missing my point. Implementing Social Credit
policy (whatever that means) by a willing government of whatever name would not
provide an acceptably scientific
test. That should be evident by the experience of at least two jurisdictions
(Alberta and British Columbia) where parties labelled Social Credit have formed
governments. To all but the converted, these were demonstrated failures of Social
Credit principles. To insiders, they were no test, because the real principles
were never applied. Compare the long dirge of market fundamentalists that the
market system has never been tried. The point being that satisfactory testing
requires controlled experiment, which just isn't possible in most social
contexts. This means that the implementation of any economic policy innovation is
like trying to build a bridge with engineering principles inferred from unsound
(because insufficiently tested) knowledge. The best that can be done is to
marshall evidence to make the most plausible possible argument for the proposed
innovation, and to also establish
some empirical criteria for judging relative success. The most direct way of
doing that, it seems to me, is a long slog to construct a believable estimate of
the National Credit. But that would be work (a good approach for a political
party, istm), and one of Douglas' principles seems to have been that people
should not have to do real work--just do enough jawboning to create an
overwhelming demand that government do it.
> >
> >Keith Wilde
> >
> >
> > -----
Original Message -----
> > From: John G Rawson
> > To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 5:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Replying to John Rawson re Bethune vs. others
> >
> >
> > Hey! I'm not calling
for the construction of a political bridge, unless you are referring to our
Party, which I see as
our only hope here. The Movement tried being non-political for 30 years and
simply went backwards.
> >
> > I do call for testing of the lousy political or
economic bridges being constructed every day by our opponents.
> >
> > But
thanks. Your comment could have been lots worse.
> >
> > 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 22:36:18 -0400
> > >
> > >Yes, John, it is the politics and not the
science that is showing. Engineering is not science, and the failure of the
bridge was not a failure
of science. Calling for the construction of a political "bridge" to test the
outcome of Social Credit is the approach of the bumbling engineer, not the
careful scientist. Pay close attention to Michael Lane's example.
> > >
> >
>Keith
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: John G Rawson
> > > To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:47 PM
> > > Subject:
Re: [socialcredit] Replying to John Rawson re Bethune vs. others
> > >
> > >
> >
> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Find the coolest online games at XtraMSN Games
> > >
> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >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
> >
> >
> >
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Read the latest Hollywood gossip at XtraMSN Entertainment
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >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
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Check out the latest video at Xtra
Broadband
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
