| Subject: | [socialcredit] the trade-off | | Date: | Thursday, November 3, 2005 04:38:19 (-0800) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
"...seems to me to justify from statistics the concept
that variations in the Consumer Price Index are
closely connected with the amount of purchasing power
in the hands of consumers, balanced by the quantity of
consumer goods reaching the market for sale."
------------------------------------------
Well, I suppose it does depend on what you mean by
"closely connected," but it would seem to infer that
you believe the statistics show that the factors are
linearly (or directly) related. But how do you
reconcile your observation with the Phillips Curve
that was derived from a study of UK statistics from
1861 to 1958? Or our own A+B Theorem?
In your mind, visualize three curves plotted on the
same chart against time: The real flow of goods and
services; A+B and A. A+B and A relate to pricing and
purchasing power.
If the ratio of B is increasing A ("labor
displacement"), it is not possible to financially
manipulate things such that A+B remains proportionate
to the real flow of goods and services without
at_the_same_time causing A to fall in respect to the
real flow of goods and services.
Conversely, it is not possible to financially
manipulate things in such a way that A remains
proportionate to the real flow of goods and services
without at_the_same_time causing A+B to increase in
respect to the real flow of goods and services.
So, there is a necessary trade-off in the absence of
an independent control variable (that might add to the
denominator without adding identically to both the
numerator and the denominator) along the lines of the
social credit dividend.
-
--- Martin Hattersley <hattersleyjm@interbaun.com>
wrote:
Just for information:
C. Marshall Hattersley, author of "The Community's
Credit", "This Age of Plenty" and "Wealth, Want and
War" as well as other smaller works, was my father,
who died after emigrating to Alberta in 1952. I am his
son, who joined the family after his death, and after
completing degrees in Economics and Law at Cambridge
University in England. I later served as director of
research for the Social Credit Association of Canada,
and Personal Secretary to Robert Thompson, then Social
Credit leader in Parliament between 1962 and
1964.
The brief I submitted to the MacDonald Royal
Commission was done in 1983, and this was before the
fractional reserve system disappeared in Canada: a
modern version of the brief would have to take that
into account.
The link between various monetary factors and changes
in the Consumer Price Index between 1926 and 1983,
which I deal with in an Appendix, seems to me to
justify from statistics the concept that variations in
the Consumer Price Index are closely connected with
the amount of purchasing power in the hands of
consumers, balanced by the quantity of consumer goods
reaching the market for sale. It may not currently be
possible to make the same connection, since there has
been such an expansion of "plastic money" since that
time, that it is today difficult to establish a firm
figure for consumer purchasing power. Anyone who would
like to continue the series beyond 1983 is welcome to
consult me as to the methods I was using!
Martin Hattersley
1970-10123-99 St., EDMONTON AB CANADA e-mail:
hattersleyjm@interbaun.com>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 8:18 AM
> Subject: [socialcredit] Replying to Rawson
> commenting on Hattersley
>
> > John, I was referring to Martin Hattersley, not
> his
> > father. Whether or not his father made a similar
> > recommendation I do not know. This is from
> Martin's
> > submission to the Royal Commission:-
> >
> > "The present system of fractional reserve
> banking...
> > must be replaced by a system whereby banks wishing
> to
> > extend credit beyond their actual reserves will
> apply
> > to the Bank of Canada to issue loans against the
> > Public Credit, and will pay appropriately for this
> > privilege. Other 'near banking' institutions, and
> > issuers of travellers cheques and credit cards,
> must
> > similarly be required to pay interest to cover the
> > reserves of Public Credit being held against the
> > credit limits they extend."
> >
> > This would still be a fractional reserve system
> with a
> > federally imposed tax (at an arbitrarily
> determined
> > rate) that could not fail to be passed on to the
> > general public in the form of higher interest
> rates.
> >
> > If a bank's reserves are X, and its deposit
> > liabilities are Y, Y - X will be considered to be
> > "borrowed" from the public's credit, and will be
> taxed
> > at some percentage per accounting period.
> >
> > Y - X must be "applied" for and presumably might
> not
> > be granted. I fail to see how this would not be
> > tantamount to a fractional reserve requirement
> over
> > and above what the banker might prudently keep in
> the
> > absence of the requirement.
> >
> > What you would have is essentially the system we
> have
> > now with the addition of an arbitrarily imposed
> tax
> > (and the reimposition of reserve requirements).
> >
> > By the way, are you claiming that reserve
> requirements
> > do not restrain bank credit?
> >
> >
> > ----------original message----------
> > Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to John
> Rawson 1
> > Date: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 04:49:41 (+0000)
> > From: John G Rawson <johngrawson@hotmail.com>
> >
> > Not the one I was referring to. His submissions
> to a
> > Canadian Royal Commission, as circulated quite
> > recently.
> >
> > I don't think I've made another boob and quoted
> the
> > wrong person. But currently I haven't time to
> check
> > back.
> >
> > F.P. Soddy wouldn't be the only one who couldn't
> get
> > away from the instilled idea that banks lend their
> > deposits and therefore we can stop them creating
> money
> > by tying up their deposits. It includes some who
> > realise fully that banks do not lend their
> > liabilities, but they don't tie the two pieces of
> > information together.
> >
> > Regards. John R.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
the trade-off
Reply to this message