Dear Marc,
You have written:
"Now the point is that the imbalances addressed by
the A+B theorem cannot exist if the the following principles are
observed:
1) Money be created by issuing new money in
the form of credit upon presenting new collateral i.e. as it is
today
2) That the entities responsble for keeping the
accounts of credit and debit operate interest free charging a competitve service
charge instead."
What you appear to be saying is that Say's Law is valid. The A + B
Theorem is an explicit challenge to that assumption. The Theorem is a
macroeconomic statement which says that the total rate of flow of financial
costs in industry proceeds at a greater rate than the total rate of flow of
financial incomes. Bank charges including interest are explicitly
included in the flow of B Costs and are not neglected. The primary
deficiency of purchasing-power is related to capital financial cost accountancy
and the necessity of business to collect from the consumer and prematurely
cancel purchasing-power as such. The Social Credit measures of the
Consumer (National) Dividend and Compensated Price are designed to compensate
for this deficiency, which grows exponentially as a result of the increasing
ratio of real capital to labour costs in the modern economy. By ensuring
that the consumer has income equivalent to the whole of financial prices of
consumer goods, sufficient consumer income would be provided to meet all
production costs, including bank charges, and the need for consumer debt is
eliminated. With the elimination of the need for consumer debt, the whole
question of consumer borrowing at interest is obviated and ceases to be an
issue.
Your comments seem to indicate that you have never studied Douglas's A + B
Theorem. Hence, I attach some PDF documentation for your reference.
(10 files by separate e-mail)
Sincerely
Wally Klinck
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [ijccr] Re: Extrapolating A+B Part
1
I disagree, irrespective of the A+B theorem which I
do not believe exludes interest in my opinion it is expressed the way it is to
avoid confrontation with the establisment but at the same time includes interest
as a cost. Otherwise it would be ridiculous to expressly ignore it as it is
a substantial liability.
Now the point is that the imbalances addressed by
the A+B theorem cannot exist if the the following principles are
observed:
1) Money be created by issuing new money in
the form of credit upon presenting new collateral i.e. as it is
today
2) That the entities responsble for keeping the
accounts of credit and debit operate interest free charging a competitve service
charge instead.
If these two principles are observed there can
never be a shortage of money there can only be a decrease in money as a function
of a decrease in total wealth or conversely an increase in money as a function
of an increase in wealth. But there can never be a shortage. Volume of
money would mirror accurately all "wealth" created by humans i.e. anything that
one person will pay another person for which includes services, capital wealth
and intellectual property.
Also, in a world without interest and free wealth
based creation of money the earners have no incentive to hoard and even if they
did, charging interest wouldn't solve the problem it would compound
it.
So, to ignore interest as a cost is an error and to
not see that interest is the axis of credit and therefore a deficit in
purchasing power is also an error. Now all the kids under 18 in the world
that are struggling with 90 hour work weeks for 16 dollars a month these errors
are really expensive it could cost them a bicylce even a mattress for their
sister, oh it could also cost them their sibblings lives, but what the
hell we can afford to theorize and live high off the hog and wonder whether
charging interest matters.
One day all those who chose to theorize at the
expence of the needy ( I say this because this is serious stuff that is not
to be talked about lightly) will feel as Schindler felt when upon realizing that
he was bribing the Nazis for every life he saved from the gas chambers with his
surplus fortune and that he hadn't given up enough i.e. he still lived
well. But those who clearly see the error of interest and proclaim it are
liberated because they saw the answer for everyone and anyone and defended it
without flinching and very importantly no matter the consequences unleashed by
those who would continue usury.
Best,
Marc
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 6:24
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [ijccr]
Re: Extrapolating A+B Part 1
The point is, that Douglas's A+B theorem deals with
principal, not interest, and shows a deficiency of purchasing power in the
hands of consumers quite apart from anything to do with the interest rate
charged. If interest on capital were zero, the deficiency of purchasing power
would still exist wherever capital formation is financed by new bank
credit.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 8:21
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [ijccr]
Re: Extrapolating A+B Part 1
Disagree all you want but the truth of the
matter is that Banks do not spend back the money they earn fast enough to
compensate for the difference between the demand created by principal +
interest and the correspondng amount of money in circulation. What is
possible is that the payment schedules are calculated in such a way that
what is demanded is available given a constant growth in lending. However
this is truly unrealistic because in real life such would assume a perfect
concert in lending between all banks. In any event when the volume of
lending slows, the timing required in schedules are affected with a tendency
to manifest a deficit of money leading to a spike of debt
failure.
To say that this has nothing to do with A + B
when prices of goods have everything to do with A + B and credit
availability and minimum price thresholds have everything to do with
outstanding liability per economic cycle, is to have a very narrow vision of
reality and of Douglas.
Marc
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005
8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re:
[ijccr] Re: Extrapolating A+B Part 1
I rather disagree with you.
As Governor of the Bank of Canada Graham Towers once
said "A Bank manufactures credit, just as a steel plant manufactures
steel".
The difference is that, because bank credit is in a
sense "pretend" money, it cannot be given away, only rented out, so that
the Bank charges for printing the tickets, and the community works to put
on the performance.
The idea that the "gap" between purchasing power and
prices has anything to do with bank interest is a red herring that has
confused explanations of Social Credit endlessly, including on this list.
There are moral reasons for saying usury is wrong, but they have nothing
to do with Douglas's A+B analysis, which deals with principal, not
interest.
| 
Fw: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
