|
Hi Michael:
"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."
Thank you, and before I respond, I
want you to think about something.
The only difference between the
opinion of myself and Mr. Ryan boils down to the difference between necessary
and sufficient causes.
If B is growing relative to A due to
advancing technology, that is a sufficient cause to explain the gap created in
A+B. However; it's not a necessary cause.
Other than that, I agree with almost
everything Mr. Ryan has to say about advancing technology, and the A+B
theorem. I just don't agree that in order for A+B to be true, technology
must be advancing, and B must be growing in relation to A.
Take care,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 9:15 AM
Subject: [socialcredit] dividend,
cultural heritage
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email jschroeder@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
