| Subject: | [socialcredit] Re: dividend, cultural heritage | | Date: | Friday, July 1, 2005 14:31:58 (-0700) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 2043 (written by Triumphofthepast) |
If you confine yourself to thinking in terms of
_rates_ in respect to how they flow through time in
comparison to to one another, you have abstracted from
the conversation consideration of tabulations of
things that happened in the past. A+B is concerned
with the comparison of the rate of flow of A+B in
respect of A as they are measured _instantaneously_
through time. B is not defined in terms of A in the
theorem. The definition of B is unrelated to the
definition of A. It is unrelated to what happens to A
or what happened to A. Nor is A defined in terms of
B. If there is "labor displacement" the flow of A is
_falling_ in divergence from A+B. "Labor
displacement" is taken to be understood very broadly
to mean "broadening" or "lengthening to the structure
of production." Another term meaning the same thing
is increasing "roundaboutness" in production which is
itself a form of technology.
Saving and the effects of saving are separate
phenomena considered separately from labor
displacement. Douglas's integrated model considers
both.
The decreasing "propensity to consumer" (Keynes' term)
is the fall in the rate of spending from income in
comparison to income, in the Douglas interpretation,
causing sales to fall in respect to the costs of
production, pinching off production short of real
demand from otherwise realizable productive capacity.
[see the note below] We should expect to see this
phenomenon to increasingly manifest with increasing
wealth. In the Douglas theory this natural phenomenon
is accommodated by the retail discount to those who
would consume from productive capacity. This
technique is counter-inflationary in terms of prices
in respect to the flow of goods and services into
consumption.
Labor displacement causes the flow of income released
by the productive process to fall in respect to the
costs of production, also causing sales to fall in
respect to the costs of production. The dividend
augments income so that total income keeps pace with
the costs of production. This technique is
inflationary in terms of prices in respect to the flow
of goods and services.
Both techniques are needed and complementary in the
balanced market system.
-----
Note: Regarding the "propensity to consume," from the
caption from 1919 I quoted this morning:-
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/diagram
___In the case of large individual incomes, although
considerable surplus purchasing power is available,
there is no psychological demand, except for the
purpose of "making money." There is consequently an
increasing surplus production which must be met by
credit.___
--- Triumphofthepast@aol.com wrote:
"Think of B-payments as ESSENTIALLY reimbursements for
past A-payments." (me)
"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." (Bill)
No, not available, because already spent, or saved
only by leaving other goods on the shelf. As I
recommended in a different context once, try on the
idea as a thought-experiment. Even in this "best
case," in a climate of improving efficiency, you still
come out needing a 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