| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: productive capacity | | Date: | , August 9, 2005 10:46:33 (+0200) | | From: | cymric <cymric @.......nz>
|
Howdy William,
"We are trying to communicate...." And you can underline the word 'trying'.
Yes, my first language will be English.
The essential point I have been making is that the phrase 'capacity to produce'
suggests that of full capacity. A sports car for example may have the capacity
to travel at 100 kilometers and hour but normally if people talk about its
capacity they would be discussing its top speed of 250 kilometers an hour.
The matter of what percent of full capacity we actually consume, and I would
expect the ratio is far greater ( more than 75% not to our benefit)today given
the progress of industry since Douglas enlightened the world, adds to the
ludicrous situation of full capacity. My objection was related to the
possibility that S.C. might be misunderstood to believe we would continue in that
vein and by debt free money. ( I raised the matter of a deputy-leader of a
political party in NZ, earlier, who was opposed to SC because of this) This is
the third time I have spelt this out.
In the light of this revelation by Douglas I see no point in you suggesting we
may not have the capacity to meet our needs.
My view points expressed are conducive to the economy/industry being for the
purpose of the people ( Needs) and dominated as I have already said by the
consumer and not the industrialists. This is the only S.C. details I have
touched on as I recall and I know they are correct. The point about why I
wouldnt use a certain phrase or certainly be careful about how I would use it
with non-S.C. people was not a matter of interpretation or what Douglas said in
relation to that. My motive is to be careful Douglas' revelations are not
misconstrued ( as the Green Party leader got it).
Most of what you objected to was not my interpreatation but merely in response
to your approach, some of which were begged, and you took it seriously. You seem
to tend to discount any perceptions that are outside your manner of thinking and
words.
The disdainful steriotyping of NZ Social Crediters only slights yourself. As for
your reference to a name we 'append' to our 'movement' I have no idea what you
are trying to say or who you think you are referring to.
Peter H
"William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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?*
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message