| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: the accounting model | | Date: | Saturday, September 10, 2005 15:20:10 (-0400) | | From: | Keith Wilde <keithwilde @.........ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 2780 (written by Kenneth Palmerton) |
Very interesting!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Palmerton" <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Cc: <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: the accounting model
> 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