| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] note pt2 | | Date: | Friday, May 20, 2005 19:35:52 (+0100) | | From: | Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk @........uk>
|
Jim,
Further to the note (and sorry for delay), I can see now how the Œsecond set
of costs¹ as you describe can come about in a form of Œdeadly embrace¹, for
to avoid it I can see that one would need a particular series of phasing (as
defined in the attached diagram), namely that the workers paid by the first
supplier (X) retrieve all their investments back from supplier or retailer
(Y) in the second phase before (all) the costs of their wages are recouped
by the retailer (X) who sells the result of their initial labour.
Now the sequence above CAN happen but is unlikely in the vast majority of
cases. I recognise that there is always a high probability of deadly embrace
in varying degrees (deadly embrace being when the investment does not return
in time for the investor to spend the money in the same cycle that requires
its retrieval), for I can see people working in short-cycle industries may
well invest in long cycle industries. The scenario applies to retained
earnings being used for investment.
If we use the discount to break the Œdeadly embrace¹ for retained earnings
we can end up with Œtoo much money¹ as retained earnings will not be
cancelled like bank credit but may eventually be returned to the
worker-investor. I can see why Douglas did not want retained
earnings/savings used in this way.
The issue does not occur if we use bank credit unless that bank credit,
being spent on wages is re-invested by those workers, triggering the above,
only delaying the problem by one cycle.
I believe, but correct me if I am wrong, that Douglas proposes that retained
earnings are not permitted for investment.
QUESTION: Is it (still) understood that SC is suggesting that the entire
stockmarket and private equity markets are barred to those with savings and
all growth and investment finance is the domain purely for those with
banking licenses?
Tim
On 6/5/05 6:23 pm, "Timothy Carpenter" <timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Jim,
>
> I have been working through a multi-stage flow and may be seeing what you have
> described as Œsecond set of costs¹ in a retained earnings investment scenario
> in addition to the gap caused by the simple effect of the retention. In this
> case I can see timing playing a part (the issue can be mitigated but the
> sequence needs to be, well, rather unrelaistic in terms of investment-return
> phases between cycles). I have not had time to work through the effects of
> discount (I am still concerned about inflation) and to shake it out into a
> clear diagram.
>
> I will be unable to return to this until late next week, so pls be patient and
> thanks for your help.
>
> Brgds
> Tim
>
>
> On 3/5/05 6:09 pm, "Jim" <jschroeder@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> In my correspondence with Tim Carpenter I said:
>>
>> It's really quite simple. You are correct in saying that the initial loan
>> causes inflation, and then when the item sells it's deflation, so in your
>> mind it all balances.
>>
>> This is factually incorrect, but I want to explain this to Tim using his
>> terminology. The loan never causes "deflation".
>>
>> What Tim means is that is that the money distributed in advance of the cost
>> showing up in a consumer good is equivalent to the cost in the consumer good.
>> The money is then taken back in the price of the consumer good (what Tim is
>> deeming "deflation"). This is not deflation as it's not a decrease in price.
>> However; what he means is that the money distributed in advance is taken back
>> in the future via price.
>>
>> This is true. And the quantity distributed in advance of the cost showing up
>> in a consumer good would be equivalent to cancel that cost. However; the
>> money distributed in advance is not saved up as purchasing power (i.e. saved
>> in a sock). It is reinvested back in industry; thus creating a second, or
>> more, set of costs.
>>
>> I just wanted to make sure that I was aware of the incorrectness of my
>> original statement, but you cannot teach someone something in your
>> terminology. First they must understand the underlying problem, then debates
>> over semantics can take place.
>>
>> There is no actual "deflation" that takes place when a capital cost shows up
>> in the price of a consumer good sold.
>>
>> Jim
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> You're subscribed to this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
>> 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 timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
--B_3199462553_19655281
Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [socialcredit] note pt2</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Helvetica">Jim,<BR>
<BR>
Further to the note (and sorry for delay), I can see now how the ‘second set of
costs’ as you describe can come about in a form of ‘deadly embrace’, for to avoid
it I can see that one would need a particular series of phasing (as defined in
the <B>attached diagram</B>), namely that the workers paid by the first supplier
(X) retrieve all their investments back from supplier or retailer (Y) in the
second phase before (all) the costs of their wages are recouped by the retailer
(X) who sells the result of their initial labour.<BR>
<BR>
Now the sequence above CAN happen but is unlikely in the vast majority of cases.
I recognise that there is always a high probability of deadly embrace in varying
degrees (deadly embrace being when the investment does not return in time for the
investor to spend the money in the same cycle that requires its retrieval), for I
can see people working in short-cycle industries may well invest in long cycle
industries. The scenario applies to retained earnings being used for
investment.<BR>
<BR>
If we use the discount to break the ‘deadly embrace’ for retained earnings we
can end up with ‘too much money’ as retained earnings will not be cancelled like
bank credit but may eventually be returned to the worker-investor. I can see why
Douglas did not want retained earnings/savings used in this way.<BR>
<BR>
The issue does not occur if we use bank credit unless that bank credit, being
spent on wages is re-invested by those workers, triggering the above, only
delaying the problem by one cycle.<BR>
<BR>
I believe, but correct me if I am wrong, that Douglas proposes that retained
earnings are not permitted for investment. <BR>
<BR>
QUESTION: Is it (still) understood that SC is suggesting that the entire
stockmarket and private equity markets are barred to those with savings and all
growth and investment finance is the domain purely for those with banking
licenses?<BR>
<BR>
Tim<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 6/5/05 6:23 pm, "Timothy Carpenter" <timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Helvetica">Jim,<BR>
<BR>
I have been working through a multi-stage flow and may be seeing what you have
described as ‘second set of costs’ in a retained earnings investment scenario in
addition to the gap caused by the simple effect of the retention. In this case I
can see timing playing a part (the issue can be mitigated but the sequence needs
to be, well, rather unrelaistic in terms of investment-return phases between
cycles). I have not had time to work through the effects of discount (I am still
concerned about inflation) and to shake it out into a clear diagram.<BR>
<BR>
I will be unable to return to this until late next week, so pls be patient and
thanks for your help.<BR>
<BR>
Brgds<BR>
Tim<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 3/5/05 6:09 pm, "Jim" <jschroeder@shaw.ca> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial">In my correspondence with
Tim Carpenter I said:<BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Helvetica"> <BR>
<FONT COLOR="#800000">It's really quite simple. <U>You are correct in saying
that the initial loan causes inflation, and then when the item sells it's
deflation, so in your mind it all balances.<BR>
</U></FONT> <BR>
This is factually incorrect, but I want to explain this to Tim using his
terminology. The loan never causes "deflation".<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial">What Tim means is that is that the
money distributed in advance of the cost showing up in a consumer good is
equivalent to the cost in the consumer good. The money is then taken back in the
price of the consumer good (what Tim is deeming "deflation"). This is not
deflation as it's not a decrease in price. However; what he means is that the
money distributed in advance is taken back in the future via price.<BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Helvetica"> <BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial">This is true. And the quantity
distributed in advance of the cost showing up in a consumer good would be
equivalent to cancel that cost. However; the money distributed in advance is not
saved up as purchasing power (i.e. saved in a sock). It is reinvested back in
industry; thus creating a second, or more, set of costs. <BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Helvetica"> <BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial">I just wanted to make sure that I was
aware of the incorrectness of my original statement, but you cannot teach someone
something in your terminology. First they must understand the underlying
problem, then debates over semantics can take place.<BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Helvetica"> <BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial">There is no actual "deflation" that
takes place when a capital cost shows up in the price of a consumer good
sold.<BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Helvetica"> <BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial">Jim<BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT
FACE="Helvetica">---------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
You're subscribed to this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk<BR>
To unsubscribe, send a message to<BR>
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com<BR>
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit<;BR>
<BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Helvetica"><BR>
<BR>
---------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
You're subscribed to this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk<BR>
To unsubscribe, send a message to<BR>
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com<BR>
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit<;BR>
<BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Helvetica"><BR>
</FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--B_3199462553_19655281--
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message