| Subject: | [socialcredit] Swanwick 2 | | Date: | Friday, December 16, 2005 10:36:34 (EST) | | From: | Triumphofthepast <Triumphofthepast @...com>
|
"If you believe that Douglas was referring to a 'micro-economic' prescription . . ." (Joe)
Joe, I've never known what you were trying to say with this micro/macro thing.
". . . out with the birds." (John)
Which is no worse than what's been said about every other social credit concept.
"I simply don't buy the supersitious approach . . . who believe that he must be treated as completely infallible." (John)
Here I am with you 100%. And one way to approach Swanwick 2 would be to say that noting the problem arising from investing of savings, Douglas voiced this principle -- but then dropped it, being unable to work out the mechanics to his satisfaction.
But if Douglas dropped it, the problem still remains. The less we spend and the more we invest, the more money we get. The more we get, the less we spend, and so on. More investment means more production, but less spending should mean less production.
"I doubt if Douglas suddenly turned his back on all small private enterprise. . . . No dubious but possibly successful enterprise would ever get off the ground without the entrepreneur risking something of his own. . . . In my small flower production business, . . . I need about $10,000 to propagate [a new calla] in large numbers sufficient to make some sort of impact. . . . And I am not allowed to risk my own capital. Do I go to one of the banks and demand, by right of being a citizen, a loan of this amount?" (John)
I am all for discussing this to see where the principle of Swanwick 2 may lead and to see if we can solve the problem Douglas dropped.
I have more than once, under the heading "What Use Is Money to the Seller?" called attention to the fact that sales receipts are like cancelled stamps. They represent goods taken off the market and do not have any automatic correspondance with new goods put on the market. You take in $10,000 and deposit it in your account and think of it as "your money." But it might be better to say that the money you deposited was cancelled and new credits were issued to you on the strength of the evidence of your sales, which in theory means you served consumers. So there is no problem with investing the proceeds of your business. The problem comes only with investing PERSONAL funds.
I very tentatively suggest that you might also be able to spend personal funds on propagating a new calla as long as you didn't regard it as a business cost and charge it into prices. You would regard propagating a new calla as its own reward. Even in the context of an existing business, there could be elements that were financed from the bank or from the proceeds of the business and therefore would represent costs to be passed on to the public in prices, and elements that were financed from personal funds as leisure activity and therefore would not be passed on to the public in prices. (It would be as if the business received a free donation.)
I say "tentatively" because if propagating a new calla can be "consumption" or "production" or part of each depending on how it is financed, how can we ever know how much "consumer prices" are? And in that case, how do we apply Swanwick 1?
Michael
|
Swanwick 2
Reply to this message