|
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
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
