In-Reply-To: <20051210144926.55824.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
Hi All.
I recognise that there are people in this world who absolutely LOVE
playing with words. Sometimes it is most entertaining.
However, when it comes to the attempt to bamboozle all the people, all the
time, those of us who do not like the way the world of money is persuaded
and forced to work now, need to take care.
As I understand it, Douglas at Swanwick was joining with other economists
in putting the boot into that bloke Say, and his idiotic statements about
what he said was the inevitable availability of purchasing power. And at
the same time kicking away the other plank of orthodox economics, that
said that all investment came from "savings".
Have I got this wrong ?
Ken.
-------- Original Message --------
X-Envelope-From:
socialcredit-return-3199-kenpalmerton=cix.co.uk@elistas.comReceived: from
q53.elistas.net (q53.elistas.net [216.66.20.25]) by
mta03.mx.cix.co.uk (8.13.4/CIX/8.13.4) with SMTP id jBAEp1GE027289
for <kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk>; Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:51:02 GMT
Received: (qmail 26848 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2005 16:26:22 +0100
Received: from mail.e-listas.com (66.7.164.206)
by 192.168.0.153 with EMQP; 10 Dec 2005 16:26:22 +0100
Mailing-List: socialcredit@elistas.com
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Post: <mailto:socialcredit@elistas.com>
Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
List-Help: <mailto:socialcredit-help@elistas.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-subscribe@elistas.com>
Delivered-To: list socialcredit@elistas.com
Delivered-To: moderator for socialcredit@elistas.com
Received: (qmail 26659 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2005 15:43:08 +0100
Received: from unknown (HELO web60519.mail.yahoo.com) (209.73.178.167)
by mail.egrupos.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2005 15:43:08 +0100
Received: (qmail 55826 invoked by uid 60001); 10 Dec 2005 14:49:26 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Conte
nt-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
b=pcu5wJK/qxAMiqHi5iIuvlrz1f7Ly25UTCagS8IfrK5U5/30don8kFCgGt2AOwd7qB
5NS7CyKaw1kgrYfZSOlJppFNj5hYoLNYrTaqXALQMPQep+dd1fWezlhlOMcwSPD
khNfmEQeiSY05D1jlg5+XPr1yfQUbL283ORmcyQ6KU= ;
Message-ID: <20051210144926.55824.qmail@web60519.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [64.219.197.58] by web60519.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat,
10 Dec 2005 06:49:26 PST
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:49:26 -0800 (PST)
From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
In-Reply-To: <287.19c7ba7.30caf461@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Swanwick Principles
X-Envelope-To: kenpalmerton@cixcouk.cix.co.uk
X-UIDL: _LrG.ZtumDB.mta03.mx
Michael, aren't you the guy who can discern
differences in meaning between exactly the same words
in exactly the same sequence if paragraph breaks are
changed? You once reprimanded me for doing so to one
of your pieces. I repeat my apology for that
transgression.
Please for the moment put aside what Douglas intended
to say in Swanwick 2.
Is it not a fact that the incremental increase to
investment was already supplied by financial credit
("banks") rather than savings before Douglas wrote
those words, and it is mathematically impossible for
it to be otherwise within the system of double entry
accounting?*
I once read in a famous financial journal, it might
have been Forbes or Fortune, these exact words: "It is
an axiom of economics that you can invest only what
you have saved, or borrowed from someone who has
saved."
The first is what today we call the creditary
perspective; the second is orthodox economics.
Which do you prefer?
More importantly, which more correctly describes the
world in which we live?
-------------
*[2] Compound Interpretation: Statistically, each firm
or equivalent accounting entity is making A payments
to people as final consumers, and B payments to other
firms in the course of business. These payments
accumulate into the consumers' and manufacturers'
funds, which, if the economy is growing, are expanding
nodalities. From the consumers' fund, goods, services
and securities are are being purchased from the
manufacturing sector--A receipts. From the
manufacturers' fund, continuing payments are being
made to consumers and firms, which are B receipts to
the sector. Since inputs must exceed outputs from
expanding nodalities, the compound equation of
macroeconomic exchange is: A + B payments = A + B
receipts + credit. If this credit is not forthcoming
for any reason whatsoever, economic growth stagnates.
--- Triumphofthepast@aol.com wrote:
"That the cash credits of the population...SHALL at
any moment BE..."That the credits required to finance
production SHALL BE..."That the distribution of cash
credits to individuals SHALL BE..."
Obviously, these are all prescriptive, not
descriptive. Bill's statement that the second (alone)
is not prescriptive but is merely "recognizing the
existing reality" is completely untenable. If his
dissertation hangs on such a misreading, better start
over!
Michael
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.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 kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message