|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] Re: Swanwick Principles|
|Date:||Friday, December 10, 2004 01:47:35 (+0000)|
|From:||Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk @........uk>
Such assertions as I have made are always difficult to put across as they so
often provoke the kind of understandable but nonetheless unjustified
reaction you have made - shrill cries of elitism or worse.
The issue here is how people feel about themselves and how they then relate
to the world around them, not what I or anyone else thinks of them. I made
that very clear in my post.
It is not 'elitist' and it is not callous in accepting human behaviour for
what it is. Far from describing people as 'subhuman' I am just discussing
human behaviour and trends and saying some will behave thus. Many people are
lazy, period and many poor are incredibly hard-working. It does not speak of
the poor remaining so and I fully support opportunity for people to rise and
part of this desire is an opposition to social dividends which IMHO not only
dissuades some people from striving but lures others not to. My feeling is
many will escape poverty when receiving the social dividend but a (ever)
larger group will flop down into it.
As to the arguments about 'justify their existence', this your invention.
The whole trail involving proportion of surplus and some idea that I am
overlording them is nonsense and a pure fabrication. You are inventing then
falsely attributing concepts to me then criticising me for them. This is the
flaw in your reasoning even before the logic is examined.
Your logic, if it has any place, refers to those who are in work - the true
barnyard animals to be milked and whipped to generate the prosperity to
enable that social dividend.
As to justification, 'fundamental equity' is not justified at all but is
utopian. There is no legal, cultural or moral obligation in this form.
People deserve equality of opportunity. What keeps people poor is this and
then when you remove it, wars aside, they will rise or remain poor due to
another form of poverty - the poverty of ambition.
On 9/12/04 11:12 pm, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
> Unfortunately "Beckham's rule"^ will almost certainly
> kick in and render large sections of the workforce
> not only idle, restless and frustrated but demanding
> ever greater 'social dividend'. Once they become a
> sizable majority then a government could get in who
> will create more dividend than practicable and
> bankrupt the nation while the strivers will abandon
> the country.
> What a callous opinion you have of your fellow man,
> Timothy. If this is not an elitist position, I don't
> know what possibly could be. Do you realize what you
> are saying? You are essentially saying that the poor
> are poor because they are subhuman compared to you.
> The only way you can justify their existence is to
> make them work so they produce at least the
> equivalent to what they eat. If they produce more
> than what they eat, you--being kind hearted and
> liberal spirited--will allocate some of the surplus
> to them in such a way they do not lose the motivation
> to work. The portion of the surplus you retain is
> remuneration for keeping them in existence. If there
> is a flaw in this logic, please tell me what it is.
> It is the logic of regarding the mass of humanity as
> barnyard animals. It benefits them and you that you
> control them as barnyard animals. How is this not
> the rationale for slavery?
> The Social Credit dividend is justified on several
> levels, not the least of which being fundamental
> equity. There is an unearned increment of
> association that everyone deserves a share of. Our
> barnyard animals don't deserve a share of it, but our
> fellow humans most certainly do.
> Furthermore, if the financial theory regarding labor
> displacement (A + B) is correct, the increment
> increases for everyone if everyone is paid a
> dividend, because it helps close the cycle of
> production, enabling it to proceed. The assumption
> is that the costs of production equal the incomes of
> the public. The dividend is the accounting
> adjustment that makes the assumption the reality.
> --- Timothy Carpenter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Hi Bill.
>> 1. Although I have seen discussions wishing to
>> discount the influence of
>> consumer credit, if (as) people were paid before
>> goods were sold right down
>> the line would this not close the gap significantly?
>> Would it not be
>> possible to use credit at zero interest to bridge
>> the gap even further at
>> point of sale?
>> I raise this as...
>> 3. Unfortunately ?Beckham?s rule?^ will almost
>> certainly kick in and render
>> large sections of the workforce not only idle,
>> restless and frustrated but
>> demanding ever greater ?social dividend? . Once they
>> become a sizable
>> majority then a government could get in who will
>> create more dividend than
>> practicable and bankrupt the nation while the
>> strivers will abandon the
>> country. Is there some other way to inject liquidity
>> into the market without
>> giving away ?money? which will almost certainly be
>> resented and taken for
>> I can see that exporting has been used to find a
>> home for output and I agree
>> with you that this cannot be relied upon if one
>> considers the global
>> ^ = Beckham?s rule is when rules and systems
>> introduced to control behaviour
>> alter it so that the original purpose of the system
>> is distorted, bypassed
>> or neutralised or it encourages the wrong sort of
>> behaviour, e.g. High
>> charges and low fines encourage non-compliance.
>> Payments and fast-track
>> housing to unmarried mothers increases the number of
>> unmarried mothers.
>> On 6/12/04 7:57 pm, "email@example.com"
>>> 1. That the cash credits of the population of any
>>> country shall at any moment be collectively equal
>>> the collective cash prices for consumable goods
>>> sale in that country, and such cash credits shall
>>> cancelled on the purchase of goods for
>>> The key phrase here that alerts us to the proper
>>> interpretation is "at any moment." It is from
>>> calculus and refers to the instantaneous
>>> of rates of flow. The context is retail sales.
>>> Prices (in the way that Douglas uses the term) do
>>> mean actual sale prices but the flow of accounted
>>> costs of the totality of production to the point
>>> retail. Cash credits (in this context) refer to
>>> effective demand concurrently flowing to the point
>>> retail from consumers. He is saying that the flow
>>> costs and the reciprocal effective demand shall be
>>> equal. Contrary to the orthodox assumption (Say's
>>> Law) they do not automatically equal now. They
>>> consciously made equal in the Social Credit
>>> through the consumer dividend and retail discount
>>> paid to the credit of consumers. Remember, that
>>> without the consciously applied Social Credit
>>> adjustments, effective demand tends to fall in
>>> respect to the costs of production for two
>>> 1. With labor displacement (an increasing ratio of
>>> to A) purchasing power (in the form of salaries,
>>> wages and dividends) is tending to fall in respect
>>> the costs of production being impressed to the
>>> of retail; and 2. Spending from consumer income
>>> retail goods and services is tending to fall in
>>> respect to consumer income with increasing wealth
>>> (decreasing "propensity" to consume). The first
>>> addressed through the consumer dividend. The
>>> is addressed through the retail discount. These
>>> should be thought of as macroeconomic accounting
>>> adjustments rather than "funny money" schemes.
>>> 2. That the credits required to finance production
>>> shall be supplied, not from savings, but be new
>>> credits relating to new production.
>>> He is referring to saving from income that has
>>> costed into production. New production means
>>> increase to the flow of production. A constant
>>> of new goods is not new production in this
>>> In this respect, new production is presently
>>> by new credits relating to new production through
>>> conventional loans. The problem is that these new
>>> credits cannot be amortized from income that is
>>> falling in respect to the spending of these new
>>> credits. In respect to producers that income
>>> ultimately from sales over the retail counter.
>>> solution is to implement programs that sustain
>>> such that sales remain proportionate to the costs
>>> production through time. Orthodoxy would do that
>>> through the export market, which Social Credit
>>> regards as irrational in that it is unsustainable.
>>> Moreover, such a program requires that real goods
>>> exported in exchange for foreign credit
>>> used merely to close the "gap" between domestic
>>> "prices" and "purchasing power." The gap is more
>>> rationally closed through the domestic
>>> of credit instruments distributed through the
>>> consumer dividend and retail discount. Such a
>>> program would contribute toward the more efficient
>>> division of labor between the nations, enabling
>>> to more closely approximate their natural
>>> advantages to the benefit of all.
>>> 3. That the distribution of cash credits to
>>> individuals shall be progressively less dependent
>>> upon employment. That is to say that the dividend
>>> shall progressively displace the wage and salary.
>>> This is actually happening erratically and
>>> inadequately now (pension plans, mutual funds,
>>> The Social Credit program would rationalize this
>>> natural process.
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
> You're subscribed to this list with the email firstname.lastname@example.org
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net