| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] investing in a painting | | Date: | Tuesday, November 15, 2005 18:10:21 (-0800) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3074 (written by Kenneth Palmerton) |
Hello Ken,
I haven't seen that example used before, Ken. Even by Socred detractors. It
was a poor choice on my part to try to illustrate something about whether
there is sometimes a 'blur' between a 'consumer good' and an 'investment'.
I believe Michael's earlier reply (posted under the above heading in
reference to what I had written) is correct. There may be another aspect of
a possible 'blur' between a 'consumer good' and a 'capital good' that I
might ask about sometime, after I've thought things through a little more
thoroughly.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Palmerton"
> Hi Joe.
>
> Interesting that you refer to the painting instance. Is it possible that
> at some time a Socred detractor put up this idea?
>
> For many years ago, when I was struggling with these outlandish ideas,
> exactly that problem was put to me by a party member who was held in high
> regard. In fact it was nearly the issue that had me abandon the analysis
> as unworkable.
>
> I was asked "If you claim that it is possible to calculate the required
> level of purchasing power in circulation at any time, how do you allow for
> the sale of such things as old master paintings?"
>
> It took me a long time to figure THAT out, even with the help of surviving
> Socrediters. I am not sure I remember the solution even now :-)))
>
> Ken.
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message