| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Where does the interest go? | | Date: | Monday, August 22, 2005 19:13:21 (-0400) | | From: | Keith Wilde <nschwartz @......ca>
|
Thanks. That is helpful.
KW
----- Original Message -----
From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Where does the interest go?
> What time I have for the "systematic treatment" of
> anything apart from my employment (I have two young
> children to support as a single parent) is to complete
> my dissertation, which has changed course too many
> times already. I've simply got to bring it to
> completion.
>
> I believe the HOMESTEAD forum to which Keith refers is
> one of the currently disabled COG lists, am I right?
> Dan Bell told me he is working to get the COG site
> back up, possibly by later today (Thursday). We shall
> see.
>
> Let me translate Keynes' jargon:
>
> By "liquidity preference" he means hoarding. If there
> is a fixed quantity of circulating money ("medium of
> exchange"), then the increase in the amount the
> community holds from their incomes rather than spends
> might logically have deleterious effect to the general
> welfare by depressing economic activity. This was
> Silvio Gesell's primitive hypothesis.
>
> Gesell's solution was to make money a hot potato you
> can't or don't want to hold on to through gimmicks
> like tax "stamps" that would reduce money's value the
> longer you held on to it. Keynes submitted an
> elaborate theory of "pump priming" (not however
> Keynes' term but that of certain "Keynesians") through
> government deficit spending that would increase
> general economic activity through the "multiplier"
> (Keynes' term that he attributed to his student Khan
> but with a somewhat different "spin").
>
> It is important to note that in both simple Gesellism
> and Keynesian Gesellism the focus of attention is
> deliberately shifted away from the policy of those in
> charge of the the financial system to the "psychology"
> of consumers and entrepreneurs (or "investors"). We
> observe this phenomenon in both socialism and Georgism
> -- who ignore the financial aspect of the matter
> almost entirely. "Monetary reformers" who concentrate
> on the "structure" of the system rather than policy
> fall within this same category in diversion from the
> real problem. In their blissful ignorance they don't
> see that. The problem as we see it is the policy of
> those in charge not structure. By structure we mean
> the outward forms and conventions of the financial
> system we have inherited, which are quite good
> fundamentally.
>
> Keynes does not appear (in *The General Theory*) to
> have been familiar with the modern creditary theory of
> money, though the Post Keynesians in the 1990s
> discovered a pioneer of the theory, Innes, through a
> review written by Keynes some two decades before the
> publication of the famous book. Whether Keynes was
> feigning ignorance in 1936 I can only speculate. The
> discovery of Innes has enabled the Post Keynesians to
> reach some of the very same conclusions reached by
> Douglas some eighty years earlier.
>
> The Douglas theory is solidly based on the creditary
> perspective; indeed, it is incomprehensible without
> it.
> -
>
>
> --- Keith Wilde <keithwilde@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> If Bill accepts Joe's request for a systemmatic
> treatment, one that also incorporates the John Hermann
> intervention, I wish that for my benefit he would also
> work in the following excerpt from J.M. Keynes that
> John Medaille contributed to discussion of my Carey
> review on the HOMESTEAD site:
>
> *Provisions against usury are amongst the most ancient
> economic practices of which we have record. The
> destruction of the inducement to invest by an
> excessive liquidity preference was the outstanding
> evil, the prime impediment to the growth of wealth, in
> the ancient and medieval worlds. I was brought up to
> believe that the attitude of the Medieval Church to
> the rate of interest was inherently absurd, and that
> the subtle discussions aimed at distinguishing the
> return on money-loans from the return to active
> investment were merely Jesuitical attempts to find a
> practical escape from a foolish theory. But I now read
> these discussions as an honest intellectual effort to
> keep separate what the classical theory has
> inextricably confused together, namely, the rate of
> interest and the marginal efficiency of capital. (GT,
> 351-2)*
>
> Keith Wilde
> -
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 nschwartz@cogeco.ca
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message