|Subject:||[socialcredit] labor displacement|
|Date:||Saturday, December 18, 2004 08:40:41 (-0800)|
|From:||william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
As to rights. Everyone has a right to MAKE a living,
but not a right to GET a living IMHO. If they do have
such a right, then I have an equal or even GREATER
right to abdicate from paying taxes of any kind. If
one person can unilaterally decide to contribute
nothing then so can I, and I have a greater right to
do that as I am only not paying as opposed to both
not paying AND receiving.
[REPLY] After all of our discussions, Tim, you still
don't have the slightest idea what the social credit
dividend is all about. It - meaning the consumers'
dividend + the retail discount - is not a tax
transfer. It doesn't take anything away from you or
anyone else to give anything to anyone else. Let me
repeat - it is not a tax transfer.
Really, do try to think of it as a accounting
adjustment rather than a "funny money" scheme. Get
"funny money" out of your mind. Get "accounting
adjustment" into your mind. Try, Tim, try. It is an
accounting adjustment to make the system of free
enterprise work better.
The conventional assumption is that, in the
macroeconomic sense, salaries, wages and dividends
(meaning corporate dividends being paid to final
consumers) automatically equal the costs of
production being impressed to the point of retail,
and that the costs of production being impressed to
the point of retail automatically equal sales to
final consumers. The theory is that the competitive
market supplies the goods and services that people
want to purchase with the money they are receiving.
First, I want you to delete from the assumption the
Second, I want you to delete from the assumption the
implicit assumption, "random fluctuation about the
In terms of A+B, with "labor displacement," - which,
being a long-term trend, is definitely something
other than a random fluctuation - the ratio of B is
increasing to A, which means that the ratio of A is
decreasing in respect to the accounted for costs of
production, A+B. The totality of A+B remains the
same, while A is proportionately decreasing with
The theorem is in fact a theorem about inadequacies
in the system of accounting as it has historically
evolved. It is not strictly speaking a theorem about
If aggregate sales to final consumers are falling in
respect to the costs of production being impressed to
the point of retail, false information is being
reported to the entrepreneur. He is being told that
his decisions are continually wrong in terms of
consumer satisfaction, so he continually scraps
existing projects and starts new ones, even if in
fact the old ones were better than the new ones from
any realistic perspective. His debt to the financier
piles up - from which he tries to slough off as much
as he can to the final consumer to save his own skin.
The financier assumes a too powerful a role in such a
system, being the aggrieved party, since his contract
with the entrepreneur is never being fulfilled
because it cannot be fulfilled. The entrepreneur
cannot serve the public, since he is receiving false
information about what the public wants. The
consumer is short-changed, and much goes to waste
that would otherwise compound into increasing wealth
with the progression of time. So, not only
ourselves, but future generations are being cheated.
And the financier does indeed covet his role.
Relevant materials are at
Join the discussion at
by sending a message to that address to the
attention of the list moderator.
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net