| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Swanwick Principles | | Date: | Saturday, December 10, 2005 06:49:26 (-0800) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3195 (written by Triumphofthepast) |
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
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message