| Subject: | [socialcredit] RE: dividend, cultural heritage | | Date: | Friday, July 1, 2005 09:35:43 (-0700) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
Think of B-payments as ESSENTIALLY reimbursements for
past A-payments.
----------------------------------
But this is not correct either. It is tantamount to
saying that the B component in cost flowing to the
point of retail is available to consumers in the form
of their savings from past income--which is the
orthodox assumption.
What you need to compare is the rate of A payments
from all the stages of production as compared to the
rate of A+B being impressed to the point of retail.
It is simply not mathematically possible for the sum
total of A to equal A+B if the ratio of B is
increasing to A.
If the ratio is increasing, the sum total of A + some
extraneous factor = A + B by necessity.
The goal of the Douglas reforms is to replace that
extraneous factor presently controlled by the
entrepreneur and his financier with dividends paid
directly to consumers thereby enabling consumer
sovereignty.
-
------------original message-----------
Subject: dividend, cultural heritage
Date: Friday, July 1, 2005 11:15:42 (EDT)
From: Triumphofthepast <Triumphofthepast@aol.com>
Since I think of you, Jim, as the Philosopher of our
little group, maybe you won't mind if I ask you to
rethink something.
Think of B-payments as ESSENTIALLY reimbursements for
past A-payments. Then improving efficiency would
simply be A falling over time. This is better than to
speak of "B growing relative to A." The latter might
suggest that all you have to do is increase the
proportion of payments to organizations in your budget
and you are automatically more efficient.
"It's a dividend of cultural heritage, and can include
processes."
If the conclusion of the A+B Theorem is the necessity
of the dividend/compensated price, and it's a dividend
of cultural heritage, then the gap that leads to the
necessity for the dividend ought to be driven by the
cultural heritage, rather than people's arbitrary
decision to invest money rather then spend it.
Hence the relevance of the "burden of Atlas" quote,
which refers to the dividend ("set free") and
countless others like it. It is "implied" in the same
way that your investment-of-savings assumption is
"implied," that is, it is in Douglas but outside the
wording of the "theorem."
I was, by the way, surprised that you twice mentioned
the primacy/rights of individuals as an example of
something that has nothing to do with A+B. I think it
has everything to do with it. The dividend is our
economic right and would establish the primacy of the
individual consumer.
Once and for all, production merely to distribute
money was never an issue between us and was never what
this conversation was about, as far as I am concerned.
You don't have to grind corn to eat bread, provided
you are satisfied with the sufficiency of your
dividend.
Michael
-
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
RE: dividend, cult
Reply to this message