|
I really don't see where there would be any
'interference' in a business at all, John. What is to be interfered
with?
Martin's just mentioned one mechanism
by which such a scheme could be carried out. Easily, in Canada,
since all the GST administrative bureaucracy is already in place.
Right now, if we have a month where there are more
'Input Tax Credits' than there have been taxable sales, the business
receives a cheque back for the difference between the GST it's paid on
purchases and the GST it's collected on sales.
I would think the CPD could be worked into that
with very little extra expense or trouble. If there was a necessity to have
a pre-arranged restriction of net profit on turnover with each participating
business, the possibility of a surprise 'spot' audit just as is now
done with GST and BC Sales Tax, should certainly keep that from being
violated. (Personally, I doubt that would even be a problem.)
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 1:57
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to
John Rawson 1
Thanks Jim. If I can make two replies in one ...
You assume that competition will be sufficient to keep prices down.
Experience leads me to believe otherwise.
Joe says the retailer might be expected to control his profit, but I can't
see a SC government interfering in business that extent.
I suggest that it is fairly obvious why our Party has never got
enthusiastic about this concept, and expects to put purchasing power in the
hands of consumers by other means.
Which detracts in no way from the brilliance of Douglas basic analysis and
most of his other ideas. I suspect it was a logical proposal in his
time, when most retail businesses were small and industry price setting much
less important.
In any case, thanks to the Group for the opportunity to air the
subject.
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: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:08:14 -0700
Hi John:
The theory would be very easy to put into
practice, and Bill already explained how it would be done.
"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." (Bill)
Competition
naturally forces the rate of profit down to 0
(assuming opportunity cost on capital included in cost with
risk - i.e. the interest rate plus a risk factor). Companies can
charge whatever price they want now, but what keeps prices and profits down
is competition. The rebate would allow companies to sell below cost
and still make a profit, and competition would force them to do
this.
Take
care,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 10:25
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 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
Become a fitness fanatic with XtraMSN Health
& Fitness!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
