| Subject: | [socialcredit] the subsidized price | | Date: | Monday, November 7, 2005 08:59:49 (-0800) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3012 (written by John G Rawson) |
"...I was told that this concept was all wrong. The
C.A. would simply refund the purchaser a certain
percentage of his payment on receipt of dockets
proving purchase, regardless of price. Now I need
someone to explain to me how this would work without
simply subsidising increasing prices and thus
fostering inflation."
----------------------------------
Take the ratio A+B/A, where the numerator corresponds
to price and the denominator to purchasing power. The
social credit dividend in each of the two forms
emphasized by Douglas would add to the denominator of
purchasing power without correspondingly adding to the
numerator of price. Inflation, the increase to A+B
(that is to say the accounted for costs of production)
of the numerator in respect to the flow of goods and
services is unaffected by the dividend, which
effectively increases purchasing power in respect to
the flow of goods and services. You control inflation
by independently controlling the flow of bank credit
(A+B) in respect to the flow of goods and services so
they increase proportionately to each other through
time.*
It appears that you remain confused over what the
rebate proposal entails. The proposal is simply to
credit the retailer a percentage of retail sales that
he has actually made, which has the effect of
increasing his accounted for rate of profit.
-
*If not for the dividend, the increasing ratio of A+B
to A from labor displacement would continuously have
the effect of pinching off production short of real
demand capable of being supplied from increasing
productive capacity.
--- John G Rawson <johngrawson@hotmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to John Rawson 1
Date: Monday, November 7, 2005 05:13:31 (+0000)
From: John G Rawson <johngrawson@hotmail.com>
Greetings, Jim.
Many, many years ago, my elders, betters and mentors
explained a "Just Price Discount". The principle was
that any retailer who sold at an agreed fair or "just"
price, had it topped up by funds from the Credit
Authority or whatever. Those who sold at a higher
price did not get it and therefore had a hurdle to
overcome if they wanted to charge more, and thus
prices would be controlled from rising. When I noted,
later, that setting fair prices for all goods etc. in
every part of the country would be a bureaucratic
nightmare, I was told that this concept was all wrong.
The C.A. would simply refund the purchaser a certain
percentage of his payment on receipt of dockets
proving purchase, regardless of price.
Now I need someone to explain to me how this would
work without simply subsidising increasing prices and
thus fostering inflation. And please don't hand me
"competition" in a time when it is becoming less and
less effective. And could be much less so in a Socred
economy without a shortage of purchasing power. Also
tell me how to put this across to the public without
it simply looking like pure "funny money".
Clinch these points for me and I'll start yet another
crusade, for the Party to adopt this principle. But
let's have some practical data, not just reference to
the time Douglas spent promoting it. Even the most
brilliant people are not right every time.
Regards. John R.
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
|
the subsidized pri
Reply to this message