In-Reply-To: <20050910052253.3268.qmail@mail.egrupos.com>
Hi Peter.
The reason I try not to get into too deep debate with some of the
"purists" of SC, and risk being branded an ignoramus, who does not know,
or understand what Douglas said, is for the reasons you write about.
For all the attempts to, as you say, "Tweek" the analysis, the solutions
are simple.
And therein lays their problem, I think. We are not used to simple
solutions. We are taught that no workable solution is simple.
A good example this side of the pond is the presentation made to The
Labour party in the 1930s. The SC representatives at the meeting just
could not grasp that they had to make answer to people who BELIEVED in
LABOUR as the distributor of purchasing power. The labour theory of value.
The transcript of that meeting is a dandy. You would not believe the mess
that group of SC advocates got themselves into. And no wonder that
discussion within that party never again raised its head, despite there
being MPs within the party who were most competent in their understanding
of SC.
The killer phrase used to have the ideas sidelined was "Its not Socialism".
Quite right, its not. But that, as I think you might agree, is not the
point:-)
Ken.
-------- Original Message --------
X-Envelope-From:
socialcredit-return-2777-kenpalmerton=cix.co.uk@elistas.comReceived: from
q4.elistas.net (q4.elistas.net [216.66.20.202]) by mta05.mx.cix.co.uk
(8.13.4/CIX/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8ABeNV8004162 for
<kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk>; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:40:23 +0100Received: (qmail
30505 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2005 13:50:46 +0200Received: from
mail.e-listas.com (66.7.164.206) by 192.168.0.152 with EMQP; 10 Sep 2005
13:50:46 +0200Mailing-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 3269 invoked by uid 501); 10 Sep 2005 07:22:53 +0200
Date: 10 Sep 2005 07:22:53 +0200
Message-ID: <20050910052253.3268.qmail@mail.egrupos.com>
From: cymric@xtra.co.nz
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
References: <memo.304282@cix.compulink.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: the accounting model
X-Envelope-To: kenpalmerton@cixcouk.cix.co.uk
X-UIDL: _NBB.oYsIDB.mta05.mx
Howdy Ken,
I am well aware of the S.C. heritage principle, the point I was making was
that it was being stretched to include everything industry etc was doing
currently which then distorts the composition the S.C. policy is based
on.It never ceases to amaze me that although Douglas has made a
superlative analysis of the whole financial-economic system and its
problems and then has proposed such a simple and concise remedy that
people then has to play around with it. And usually its people who
actually contribited nothing themselves but they have to bend, twist or
delete something created by someone else. Its easier to have respect for
people who try and compose something original than a squatter.I really
appreciated that post that showeed that the S.C. dividend isnt the same,
although similar, to the business dividend. We are neither animals nor
something as subordinate as a business organisation, to be run for the
benefit of 'owners'.Peter H.
kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Kenneth Palmerton) wrote:
>
> Howdy Michael,
> Its not clear to me who's comments make up the post. My guess is your
> comments are from "Its a usefull analogy...", and the rest is Bills.
> I dont recognise the Cultural Heritage, seems to me the author thinks
> everything of value up to last night is such and yet he has read
Douglas.
> Douglas is so much clearer and easier to understand, seems to me this
> version is good for confusing people.
> Peter h
>
> Triumphofthepast@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Bill has suggested that the National Credit Account is modeled on the
> capital
> > account of a single business. The National Dividend would then be
> analogous
> > to drawings or dividends.
> >
> > In Douglas's boots example in Economic Democracy, animal skin is turned
> into
> > rawhide, the rawhide is turned into leather, and the leather is turned
> into
> > boots. The national credit account is correspondingly written (1) up
by> the
> > value of the hides, (2) up by the value of the leather and down by the
> value of
> > the (consumed) hides, and (3) up by the value of the boots and down by
> the
> > value of the (consumed) leather.
> >
> > If the national credit account is thought of as representing the
> Cultural
> > Heritage, then we can say that the boots enter the stream of the
> Cultural
> > Heritage incrementally with each stage of production. Each stage makes
> the nation
> > richer and so results in a net increase in the National Credit Account.
> >
> > The nation, through a banking system as public servant, will have to
> devote
> > some quantity of consumer goods on the shelf as an incentive for new
> production
> > (by allocating them to production). Due to improvement of process,
this>
> > quantity may well be less than the full tally of goods on the shelf.
> Then the
> > balance of goods constituting the Cultural Heritage in effect already
> belong to
> > the public. They only need to come and take physical possession by
> presenting
> > tickets (money). A National Dividend of tickets is a way to ensure
that> this
> > National Dividend of goods takes place.
> >
> > How does the Cultural Heritage compare to the capital account of a
> business?
> >
> > A business is an association. The capital account of a business means
> that
> > all the assets of the business that are not owed externally
> (liabilities) are
> > owned internally by members of the association. Some of its assets
are > > physical things like property, plant, and equipment. But part of
its> assets is
> > cash.* Cash is tickets to the nation's goods and services, so we can
> say that part
> > of a company's assets are claims to other companies' inventories.**
The>
> > greater part of these claims to other companies' inventories is
retained> and
> > invested in new production. Claims to other companies' inventories not
> retained is
> > paid out to members in the form of dividends, or drawings.
> >
> > Similarly, a nation is an association. The National Credit Account
> means
> > that the wealth of the nation that is not owed externally (to foreign
> entities)
> > is owned internally by the citizens. Similarly also, some portion of
> the
> > wealth of the nation (at the discretion of a banking system as public
> servant?) is
> > invested in new production. The suggestion is that the portion of
> consumer
> > goods and services not needed to be invested in new production should
be> paid
> > out to members of the association of the nation (i.e., everybody) in
the> form of
> > a National Dividend.
> >
> > It's a useful analogy, but I note three key differences:
> >
> > 1. The concept of the Cultural Heritage implies that the national
> dividend
> > is a right, whereas a stockholder has no right to a dividend unless and
> until
> > it is declared.
> > 2. Stockholder dividends are paid out of retained earnings, which come
> from
> > sales; whereas the national dividend is money created for the purpose.
> Cash
> > is a limitation to the single business, but not to the nation. If the
> goods
> > and services exist, the nation can create the cash.
> > 3. Stockholder dividends are offered as an incentive to attract
> investors to
> > production. The national dividend is the opposite, a release from the
> > necessity for more production.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > *In accountants' language, "cash" includes money in a bank account.
> > **Douglas called attention to the error of counting the thing and the
> money
> > that claims it both as assets.
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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