| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: exchange vs. distribution | | Date: | Thursday, September 1, 2005 14:38:00 (+0100) | | From: | Kenneth Palmerton <kenpalmerton @................uk>
|
In-Reply-To: <20050813015146.12188.qmail@mail.egrupos.com>
Hi Peter.
Sorry to take so long to reply to this post, it got lost in the pile :-)
You are right, to me "Distribution" does have more to say than the actual
movement of goods, or services.
If you are interested I can show this from a bit of background to the
political scene here in the UK. The main party of the "left" here has in
recent years been the Labour party, originally the home of our Socialists.
Before the new gang took over, and changed the name to "New Labour" they
had a Socialist constitution that had, as its clause Four, the words. "The
proletariat shall have control of the means of production, distribution,
and exchange."
As a Liberal party member, now Liberal Democrat, I had great fun in
discussion with opponents of their misunderstanding of their own
constitution. Though I did not agree with the first part.
In fairness they were not of the generation that had framed that
constitution, and there had been great efforts on the part of most of
their Grandees to have that understanding fuddled. In fact eventually they
had the whole of "clause Four" deleted from party policy.
It seemed that I, as a NON party member, understood its words and
implications better than they did :-))
But the full meaning of that phrase was rarely spelled out, though it
should have been. And even when, in 1946, the Labour party, in Government,
"Nationalised" the bank of england, the vast majority of Labour party
members STILL did not understand the implications. Most, and that includes
the vast majority of British people too, thought the bank now belonged to
them, or the Government, and they had control, they thought, of
"distribution".
I still get a lot of flack when I say that the bank is now what it has
always been, a PRIVATE institution. Just like your Federal Reserve.
Ken.
-------- Original Message --------
X-Envelope-From:
socialcredit-return-2461-kenpalmerton=cix.co.uk@elistas.comReceived: from
q2.elistas.net (q2.elistas.net [216.66.20.200]) by mta05.mx.cix.co.uk
(8.13.4/CIX/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7D3p08n001055
for <kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk>; Sat, 13 Aug 2005 04:51:01 +0100
Received: (qmail 1037 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2005 05:56:07 +0200
Received: from mail.e-listas.com (66.7.164.206)
by 192.168.0.150 with EMQP; 13 Aug 2005 05:56:07 +0200
Mailing-List: socialcredit@elistas.com
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Post: <mailto:socialcredit@elistas.com>
Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
List-Help: <mailto:socialcredit-help@elistas.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-subscribe@elistas.com>
Delivered-To: list socialcredit@elistas.com
Delivered-To: moderator for socialcredit@elistas.com
Received: (qmail 12189 invoked by uid 501); 13 Aug 2005 03:51:46 +0200
Date: 13 Aug 2005 03:51:46 +0200
Message-ID: <20050813015146.12188.qmail@mail.egrupos.com>
From: cymric@xtra.co.nz
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
References: <68.5b5bdd05.302dea63@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: [socialcredit] Re: exchange vs. distribution
X-Envelope-To: kenpalmerton@cixcouk.cix.co.uk
X-UIDL: _nQ.m4W_CB.mta05.mx
Howdy Michael, Ken and others,
I find this very interesting and stimulating. I am going to make a number
of comments not to dispute or argue but to expand lateral thinking if you
like.I think I am beginning to appreciate the reason Ken thinks schools of
thought can be inflexible. Sometimes we go around the block and merely
come back to the same spot but better sighted about what we believe.
My response to Kens comment "I dont see the difference between exchange
and distribution" is 'good'.
There are differences and they have been given as they aught to but I dont
think it is all just as simple as that and I suspect he (Ken) may think so
as well. Why I make my response of 'good'is because that tells me that he
doesnt think of distribution as most people would as that part of the
economy that relates to transport and supply systems etc. He can see that
the most essential factor in distribution is the ticket system and this is
having its efect as people exchange and claim.
For me when someone can see this perspective of distribution I think that
it is now possible for them to be presented with the question of who
should create and dispurse these tickets and by what fair means? Because
they are already capable of intelligently thinking outside the square.
I can say I agree with what Michael has said but I want to make some
commentsbecause there are perspective that need airing and no doubt it
will invite further ones from others.
Michael's reply was largely from the perspective of the buyer but it may
be a little different from the sellers point of view although there is a
commonality overall. The customer holding out the ticket (claim) is
taking what represents work of the seller whose work was for the purpose
of exchange to aquire claim tickets. However one could say the seller due
to having worked is now claiming their right to claim forms for their
contribution to society and its needs. But it is unquestionable that both
of these things, 'exchange' ( swopping ) and 'claiming', are happening for
total distribution and that 'money'( tickets/claim forms) is/are a
practical utility in both to this end.I see no point in telling people
that S.C. is based on reality when people see reality as what I am talking
about, but it must be only seen from a certain perspective.
I am not refuting what Douglas said and the historical context of the word
exchange. He never expected the rank and file of society to be a
professor of the ecconomic science of S.C. and if you cant keep up you are
not a social crediter! If one can digest the whole gambit great. Is the
increment of association only effective at a certain intellectual level?
God forbid.
Michael game a difference between Exchange and Distribution which as I
said I can agree with. It was largely a historical appreciation but I
think there needs to be further discussion to clarify reality.
Exchange does imply some kind of work to produce something to exchange
which tends towards the prespective that ones welfare then depends
intirely on ones ability as a diligent or clever worker. Social Credit
adds to this dimension which provides a wider social benefit everyone
gains from, based on reality.Ok, but in the situation regards work, the
person who sells labour in exchange for claim forms is trading/exchanging
not claiming. The seller of tickets who runs a factory buys labour by
exchanging claim forms. And he ends up with goods to trade. Now is
manufacturers trade related to claim or exchange? And is the distribution
of claims forms only by 'distribution'?I am not disputing the science
behind it all as expounded by Douglas, I am emphasising the reality of
where the rubber meets the road. Thats where the vast majority of the
people are, which is part of reality.
I am not talking about 'Michael', I am talking about the things WE say and
to whom we say them, and they are not transparent as to their needs in
trying towalk with us through our world.
"Distribtion, in contrast, means money is a ticket for goods and services
pure and simple." This is indiquate in my view and doesnt imply that the
limitations indicated in the definition of exchange are necessarily dealt
with better. Merely the 'worker' of all kinds has the right to a claim
forms and that is the limit to the distribution unless we can introduce a
'free' element besides. I think Ken already appreciated the degree of
this comment, so why should he see them as very different?.
The next issue relates to the 'unearned' increment due to science or
social interaction. It is referred to as 'free'. Is this adiquate? I
dont think soin the same regard the dividend isnt charity. Both are
property. If they are free then can they be stolen and perhaps we should
apologise to the bankers?If it is 'property' regardless of how or who
worked for it and when, or partly natural resources not paid for, then it
is either justly appropriated or mis-appropriated by theft. So we can be
right but are we also adiquate, and that is what started this, the view
that Ken wasnt right and not quite adiquate and therefore he was wrong.
So the claim form system is arrived at by direct effort commonly referred
to as work of some kind and by 'unearned'( by time cost) as dividends are
but because of ownership direct or indirect in the social-economy not
included in the definition of work. So all claim forms are property
rights and the national dividend ensures a basic whole- of- society
distribution of claim forms, in order to ensure the same extent of
distribution of a similer quantity of goods and services. This to me
speaks of something of far greatersignificance than getting something free.
The only 'free' factor regards the claim forms is their manufacture.
Society isnt charged for them under a S.C. society.
Peter H
Triumphofthepast@aol.com wrote:
>
> "I do not see the difference, in money terms, between exchange and
> distribution." (Ken)
>
> This was addressed to Wally, but I thought I'd butt in.
>
> Exchange implies that money is two-way street. It implies that buying
> something is only the second half of a transaction, the first half being
that you
> have to do some work or give something up in order to get the money to
obtain
> what you want, and if you don't, then you are the benefactor of someone
who did.
>
> Distribution, in contrast, means money is a ticket for goods and
services,
> pure and simple. If due to improved process some portion of the goods
and
> services become free, they can be distributed by means of free tickets.
That is
> not exchange, because the tickets don't represent anything other than
the goods
> and services they claim. Money is backed by what it buys.
>
> 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 kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message