| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: productive capacity | | Date: | Monday, August 8, 2005 07:24:51 (-0700) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
We are trying to communicate between ourselves here in
this forum, so I have to ask you a question: Is your
first language English? I ask this because your
grammar and syntax is non-standard. Quite readable
but non-standard. Also because of your confusion over
the meaning of simple phrases.
Productive Capacity means productive capacity. Full
Employment means full employment. I am so informing
you. These are not points for discussion or debate.
They are completely different phrases with completely
different meanings in the English language. What they
may "smack of" to you is entirely your personal
misinterpretation.
-
*Are you suggesting that Douglas meant we produce to
capacity of production?*
-----------------------
------------------------
[Reply] No. Nothing in the excerpts I supplied
suggest that's what he meant. Nothing that Douglas
ever wrote suggests that. Indeed, Douglas in the
quoted excerpts suggests we are consuming only 25
percent of what the economy is capable of producing.
-
*I think he meant to the capacity of our needs which
is quite different...*
-----------------------
------------------------
[Reply] That's not what he meant. Our needs may be
greater than our capacity to supply those needs. Or,
they may be less than our capacity to supply those
needs.
-
*...I have never had the book.*
-----------------------
------------------------
[Reply] It is quite evident that very few of you New
Zealanders have read the fundamental literature of
Social Credit. The name you append to your movement
should spark a curiosity in learning about the theory
of the original movement's founder, I should think.
It's not entirely your fault that this literature have
been unavailable to you, for much of it has been
suppressed by Social Crediters themselves since
Douglas' death more than half a century ago.
We are trying to rectify that, mostly through the good
graces of list member Wally Klinck.
-
*And interest free debt money which monetary reformer
want will do the job!*
-----------------------
------------------------
[Reply] This might be what you believe and what New
Zealand Social Credit promotes, but it has no
correspondence to the theory of C. H. Douglas.
-
--- cymric@xtra.co.nz wrote:
Subject: Re: productive capacity
Date: August 8, 2005 12:36:33 (+0200)
From: cymric <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
Howdy William,
Having read the second excerpt, no I havent changed my
opinion. My objection remains that "capacity to
produce" smacks of the "full production" and "full
employment" but by debt free money.
The sixth paragraph of the second excerpt covers my
point which I made before you put out these excerpts
and which I had never seen before because I have never
had the book.
The sixth paragraph reads:
"It is vitally necessary to be clear as to the
difference between what actually takes place under an
economic system based, essentially, on currency, and
the position which we are discussing, which would be
based, essentually, on the CAPACITY OF SOCIETY TO
ACHIEVE ITS DESIRES."
The former is dependant on capacity to produce (rather
than achieve what is desired). Under S.C. there will
be less money required and less work and less
production and less waste of resources to achieve what
we desire. If this isnt so there is no such thing as
compounding 'increment'! And interest free debt money
which monetary reformer want will do the job! What
part of this do you want me to change?
Peter H
-------------------------------------
Subject: Re: productive capacity
Date: August 8, 2005 04:16:53 (+0200)
From: cymric <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
Howdy William,
This is the second time you have responded to the same
issue, is it not? The first time you qualified the
expression which I told you I understood and explained
why I objected to using the phrase myself and why.
This second occasion to someone else makes it plain
why I think the phrase unwise, it is inviting
misinterpretation by those who welcome an opportunity
to distort S.C. in my view. I did read your first
quote and made comment on it.
Are you suggesting that Douglas meant we produce to
capacity of production? I think he meant to the
capacity of our needs which is quite different, and is
thus consistent with the consumer being dominant and
not the producer.
Peter H
-
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message