|
He could be using 'shall be' if the three
principles were just different ways of expressing the same idea. 'Cash
credits' SHALL equal collective 'consumer prices'. If any part of the
'cash credits' were saved and used to purchase capital goods instead of consumer
goods, then 'new credits' for 'new production' SHALL take their place. If,
as 'labour displacement' occurs, the 'dividend' SHALL replace the
'wage'. The pieces of the puzzle ARE all there, Michael. If a
'mechanism' for the implementation of Swanwick 2 were necessary in a
'microeconomic' sense, don't you think someone who was as thorough an engineer
as Douglas would have given us one?
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:47
AM
Subject: [socialcredit] Swanwick 2
Supposing Douglas wanted to convey, as a
principle of social credit economics, that production should be financed with
new credits, rather than savings, what would you have him say other than what
he did say? No one with any ear for language or any respect for Douglas
would suggest that in three parallel Principles using "shall be," one of them
was a mistake for "are." There is really no question what Douglas
SAID. The only question is whether he MEANT what he said. Because
he didn't work out by what MECHANISM Swanwick 2 should be applied, some people
refuse to believe he meant what he said.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
