|
We're not going to 'control' prices of goods item
by item, John. The CPD mechanism is a 'macro-economic' concept. The
ascertained 'price factor' applies across the board to all prices of goods
sold for final consumption, i.e. at 'retail', by those merchants who
choose to participate.
There is no 'compulsion' to participate, as Jim
noted. Other than the simple fact that if we had such a device those
merchants who did not would run the risk of being constantly undersold by their
competitors. Under CPD, when a merchant makes a sale he gets the
price sufficient to cover his costs and take his profit from 'two'
sources. Instead of as now, where it only comes from 'one' ~ the
customer. It allows for goods to be sold below their normally
accounted for 'financial' cost plus the merchants profit when that is
necessary. Without the merchant going broke, and all the supply lines
behind him shutting down and eventually following suit.
The merchant might be required, when
participating in such a scheme, to agree to limit his profit on turnover to a
pre-determined level that he considered reasonable. Where is the
problem in that? If I could be assured I'd get a profit on my
turnover that was 'reasonable', rather than risk the vagaries of one that wasn't
in the chance I might be able to get an excessive one some other time, I'd
sign up in a minute. So, I think, would most merchants.
Remember now, the profit is on 'turnover'.
Not on 'capital' employed. I, or any other merchant, has to have sales to
book any profit at all. So there will be 'competition', but it will be to
offer the best goods and best service at the best price. Not the kind of
'competition' we see today, the one that breeds 'monopoly'.
If his prices rise above accounted for 'cost'
through increased demand for his product, the merchant is then getting his
profit from 'one' source, the customer, and the 'discount' becomes
inoperative. He doesn't get to 'double-dip'.
If you go back to the Douglas link Bill provided,
the one for "Social Credit", (the book), Chapter 2 of Part 2, entitled "The
Nature of Price", or re-read it in the book itself if you have it, you'll get a
better conception of what's behind the idea.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:25
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to
John Rawson 1
Thabks, Jim. That's all very fine theory, but the actual
price of a good is what it costs the vendor plus the profit he wants to make
on it, the latter being modified by whether he can get away with it or
not. In any free society such as we envisage.
And the last part of your message suggests the "just price" mechanism to
control prices, which I have been told is not what is envisaged. But if
it is, I simply can't imagine the army of clerks needed to set "just" prices
for every article and service, modified by geography in many cases to allow
for distance of transport etc. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare,
even if it did bring full employment, mostly by the government.
Obviously the other method is the one considered, and I can not see how it
would stop prices rising.
Refgards. John R.
From: Jim <jschroeder@shaw.ca>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying
to John Rawson 1
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:10:48 -0700
Hi John:
Well, I'm certainly glad to hear that you are
receptive to the idea of a compensated price.
The logic is as follows:
1) The true cost of production is
consumption of all production over an equivalent time period. "For example, the real cost under all
conditions of growing an ear of corn is the seeds from which it
grows." (The Nation's Credit)
2) Therefore; the real price of a good
is:
Price* consumption/production
Consumption is the mean consumption for a given
time period, and production is the mean production for a given time
period. Capital depreciation is included in consumption statistics,
and capital appreciation is included in production statistics. Since
consumption is less than production, the real/just price of a product is
less than it's monetary price by the ratio of
consumption/production.
This cannot be inflationary because prices are
falling.
"No legal
compulsion would be necessary. Retailers who would not accept the JUST PRICE
scheme would be free to sell at the ordinary financial price, but in that
case they would receive no money from the State and would have to try and
sell their goods in competition with others, who had accepted the JUST PRICE
and were in a position to undersell them." (The Nations
Credit)
Take care,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:13
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying
to John Rawson 1
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.
From: Jim <jschroeder@shaw.ca>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Replying to John Rawson 1
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 17:22:04
-0700
The compensated price principle is probably
the most important aspect of Douglas' economic analysis. The
replacement of the wage with a dividend is secondary. I find it
odd that any "Social Credit" Party would focus on the latter, but ignore
the former, when Douglas spent most of his time explaining the
former.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005
2:01 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Replying to John Rawson 1
Sorry, Joe, not biting. All I was doing was stating
fact. It seems nobody has ever convinced the Party of the
practicability of the price discount in action, and that includes
me.
Regards. John
R.
From: Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject:
Re: [socialcredit] Replying to John Rawson 1
Date: Sat,
05 Nov 2005 08:49:18 -0800
Without trying to bring down any 'new
controversy', or add to any old ones, how in the world can the NZ
Democrats be ''bound by constitution to the Douglas analysis and the
National dividend" WITHOUT also having a 'compensated price
discount'? Is that analysis not primarily concerned
with 'consumer' incomes and their relationship with 'consumer'
prices, or am I missing something in my reading of Douglas and
others on here and elsewhere who've been interpreting
him?
Seems to me you're not trying to "build
up, from the individual", but rather "down, from the
State". Why not look at and offer what the man originally
proposed? If you're determined to go the 'politcal party'
route could you do any worse with the electorate by
that than in going the way you've gone? Why do you people
so 'fear' the empowerment of 'consumers', and yet profess to believe
that 'democracy' is the ability of the individual to "choose or
refuse one thing at a time"? Or is that 'one thing at a
time' as envisioned by the Democrats drawn from a list of
things only pre-selected by the annointed?
And where is the difference between the
'government' using the central bank to finance some of its
expenditure, and private industry borrowing from private banks to
finance theirs? Do not both 'inflate' the money supply and
dilute the general purchasing power by raising prices of
'consumer' goods almost exactly the same way? Oh, I know,
you're going to save "all that awful interest", and that just makes
it so worthwhile. But can't you see you're trading
a smaller problem for a bigger one? How long will it
be after the 'infrastructure' that might be necessary and
desirable to have is completed before the purpose of that
'infrastructure' will be perverted into the all-too-familiar, "Now
if we only financed another hydro scheme, port facility, railway,
whatever, the same way, just look at the potential for
'capturing' new 'export' markets and all the 'jobs' we could
create. Not to mention how much 'easier' it will be to pay for
what we've already done"? Where does that ever end? Are
you not right back to 'guns before butter'? Where is
the "Douglas analysis'' you're ''constitutionally bound to" in
that regard?
And what difference does it make how
much of the money supply is in 'notes and coins' versus
electronic blips that transfer figures from one account to another
everytime someone uses a debit card or receives their income by
direct deposit? The 'money' in your account and accessible to
you that way is no different than coin or cash in your pocket
providing it will be accepted as effective demand for goods and
services. And is it not that 'effective demand' we should be
concerned with? And does not that 'effective demand' have as
much to do with CONSUMER PRICES as it does with distributing
incomes?
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 04,
2005 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Replying to John Rawson 1
Thanks Martin. And also thanks (belatedly) for the
material in your submissions which I consider brilliant.
Our NZ Democrats are bound by constitution to the Douglas
analysis and the national dividend concept, but have never
really adopted the price discount one. And contrary to
Douglas, we consider that so little modern money is notes and
coins (M0) that it is the government's duty to use central bank
credit for some of its expenditure, if only to restore a past
status quo. As was done very successfully by our 1935 Labour
govt. before that Party lost its principles.
I am not seeking to bring a whole new controversy down on my
head (again) by noting this; just stating our current
thinking for your information.
Regards. John
R.
From: Martin Hattersley
<hattersleyjm@interbaun.com>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Replying to John Rawson 1
Date: Fri, 04
Nov 2005 16:21:21 -0700
>I think you are right, that
"100% money" doesn't really provide a
>practical way of
making the economy work in an optimum way.
>
>The
problem is that "The cunning device That all costs enter price
>Ensures that the price can't be
paid".
>
>That is the argument for a Just Price
discount, paid for from an
>external source, such as
newly created "fiat" money.
>
>The essence of the
problem identified in the A+B theorem is that
>capital
spending, if fiinanced by borrowing new bank credit, leads
>to the community paying, through inflation, for the
privately owned
>asset so created. A Just Price discount,
which can be administered
>with no more difficulty than
existing sales taxes, would repay the
>community for this
sacrifice when new production comes on the
>market, and
correct any inflation of prices that has taken
place.
>
>As I see the present situation, monetary
policy of providing very
>low rates to borrowers to
encourage investment, is promoting
>excessive capital
development at the expense of the ecology, also
>speculation and continuous inflation. This distributes
incomes
>through employment on capital projects, but
leave a trail of debt, a
>concentration of economic
power, and a growing gap between the
>"haves" and the
"have nots" both domestically and between
nations.
>
>Not good.
>
>Martin
Hattersley
>1970-10123-99 St. Edmonton AB
Canada
>Phone (780)423-2081; Fax
(780)425-5247
>e-mail:
jmartinh@shaw.ca;
>hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
>
>
>-----
Original Message ----- From: "William B. Ryan"
><w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
>To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
>Sent: Monday, October
24, 2005 3:48 PM
>Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to
John Rawson 1
>
>
>>Hatterley's proposal
was based on Frederick Soddy's
>>one hundred percent
reserve proposal, called "pound
>>for pound" in Britain
and "dollar for dollar" in
>>America. It was also
called the "Chicago Plan." It
>>was precisely this
proposal that Douglas was correctly
>>arguing against
in his 1933 letter to Denis Byrne
>>previously
cited:
>>http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium/douglas-byrne-1933.txt
>>
>>In
a true one hundred percent reserve system there
>>could
be no loans.
>>
>>What is usually called one
hundred percent is a legal
>>fiction where one hundred
percent reserves are
>>required against "checking"
deposits, and something
>>less than one hundred percent
are required against
>>"saving" deposits, or some
variation thereof.
>>
>>So something less than
one hundred percent is required
>>against the totality
of deposits.
>>
>>The difference between the
quantity of reserves and
>>the quantity of deposits is
inevitably bank created
>>credit, whatever you want to
call it.
>>
>>Loans create deposits; there's
no getting around
it.
>>
>>Period.
>>
>>What
you would have in reality is a system perhaps
>>more
tightly regulated that the one we have today,
but
>>still very much fractional
reserve.
>>
>>Otherwise, no modern economy
could
function.
>>
>>
>>
>>---
John G Rawson <johngrawson@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>>Joe, surely you know the "line" of
the orthodox
>>economists as well as I do. "All
inflation is a
>>result of too much money ....". They
admit to the
>>phenomenon of cost push inflation, but
then proceed to
>>ignore it. Even now, when we have
inflated prices
>>caused by high oil costs, our RB (and
I think others)
>>are considering the ridiculous remedy
of raising
>>interest rates to control the volume of
money in
>>crculation. But, of course, increased
interest rates
>>tend to increase bank earnings, and
the central banks
>>tend to serve the banks, not the
nations.
>>
>>But apart from all these asides,
what I am looking
>>for, IF we decide to take away from
the banks the
>>right to create our money, (as the
Movement has
>>preached loudly in this country from
when I was a
>>child), HOW can we do
it?
>>
>>And despite some opinions, obviously
it CAN NOT be
>>done by manipulating reserve ratios,
which, when
>>applied, relate to deposits, not
advances. (For once
>>I am trying to be very precise,
for the benefit of
>>those who persist in avoiding the
main point and
>>picking up side issues.) I still think
the Hattersley
>>(apologies for previous mis-spelling)
approach is the
>>only reasonable one I have
encountered yet.
>>
>>Regards, John
R.
>>
>>
>>
>>__________________________________
>>Yahoo!
FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one
click.
>>http://farechase.yahoo.com
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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
>>hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
>>For more
information, visit
>>http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>>
>>
>>--
>>No
virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG
Anti-Virus.
>>Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database:
267.12.4/146 - Release Date:
>>10/21/2005
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>No
virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free
Edition.
>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161
- Release Date:
>11/3/2005
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>johngrawson@hotmail.com
>For more information,
visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Read the latest Hollywood gossip at XtraMSN
Entertainment
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Need a new job? Check out XtraMSN Careers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 jschroeder@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Discover fun and games at XtraMSN Kids!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 jschroeder@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Shop ‘til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
