| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] social credit in one nation | | Date: | Tuesday, December 21, 2004 14:43:14 (-0800) | | From: | william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 372 (written by Timothy Carpenter) |
"Here is the flaw in SC as I see it. One cannot
inject liquidity (National Dividend and the
Compensated Price adjustment) to increase consumption
of domestic production otherwise international trade
orgs will slam down that country."
----------------------
-------------------
[REPLY] Tim, you are not demonstrating a "flaw in SC"
but that you do not understand what is proposed, nor
its effects. It is a matter I have addressed in at
least two previous postings.
It was never proposed that there would be a domestic
content requirement on the "injected liquidity," nor
is there a need for such a requirement. It would
accomplish nothing in respect to the specific Douglas
financial proposals except to make them unnecessarily
complicated.
The deleterious effects of the perennial "trade
deficit" are not exacerbated by the "injected
liquidity," because it represents "liquidity" that
was never costed into domestic production in the
first instance, so therefore, its "export" for goods
from abroad will not immobilize its equivalent in
domestic productive capacity.
The "trade deficit" is a separate issue that can only
be addressed through "protectionist" import
restrictions.
As to international trade organizations "slamming
down," so what? It's time for sovereign nations to
begin acting like sovereign nations. They need to
begin looking after the best interests of their own
people, and become models for others to emulate.
The United States opened its markets as a means of
supporting its allies, particularly Germany and
Japan, during the Cold War. In the process it
surrendered about forty percent of its industrial
capacity and standard of living.
In this respect the Soviet Union was more efficient
than the United States. It supported its allies
through barter arrangements that did not involve the
"export" of money that would have deleteriously
impacted its domestic economy. It was of course less
efficient in most other matters and eventually
collapsed first. The subsequent "advice" from
Western "economics experts," who in their "orthodox"
theory didn't have the slightest idea how
"capitalism" actually works, inflicted the knock-out
punch. What should be one of the richest nations on
earth is a basket case.
Now coming on line rapidly is China, following what
it calls the "Taiwan" but what is really the "Japan"
model, which can potentially produce not just the
equivalent to forty percent of America's productive
capacity for export to America, but its totality. It
is a model that is unsustainable for both China and
the United States. Its unabated continuance must
result in the collapse of both.
-
--- Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Dear V. Bridger,
>
> Thank you for your keen eye. I shall rephrase in an
> attempt to make my point
> clearer -
>
> "Here is the flaw in SC as I see it. One cannot
> inject liquidity (National
> Dividend and the Compensated Price adjustment) to
> increase consumption of
> domestic production otherwise international trade
> orgs will slam down that
> country."
>
> If one is happy to move back to a tariff and trade
> barrier world then it is
> a further discussion :-).
>
> Right now the EU is being slammed for its
> agricultural subsidy. If tariffs
> and price adjustments are favoured then am I right
> in thinking "Le Methode
> Francoise" for supporting domestic production is
> endorsed?
>
> Tim
>
> On 19/12/04 12:37 am, "socred@ecn.net.au"
> <socred@ecn.net.au> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday 14 Dec 2004 6:38 pm, Timothy Carpenter
> wrote:
> >> Dear Bill,
> >>
> >> Here is a flaw in SC as I see it. One cannot
> inject liquidity only for
> >> domestic output of production otherwise
> international trade orgs will slam
> >> down on that country.
> >
> > The only flaw that exists is in the above
> statement where the premise is
> > false.Therefore the rest of the argument needs no
> comment.The basis for
> > injecting liquidity (I assume that this means the
> National Dividend and the
> > Compensated Price adjustment) is not for domestic
> output of production.
> >
> > Production is not the problem. Consumption is.
> > V. Bridger
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.eListas.com/
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message