| Subject: | Re: Fw: [socialcredit] the Titanic | | Date: | , December 24, 2005 20:13:32 (+0100) | | From: | cymric <cymric @.......nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3258 (written by Martin Hattersley) |
The 'Titanic' represents two things. Firstly a normal extension of an economy
and secondly a more specific example of that in a social credit society - the
development of leisure industry/service.
The factors regarding the labour force availability- whether one industry looses
labour to another is unknown or whether new industry is creating employment is
also unknown. To what extent the savings create costs in a new cycle and leave
costs unmet in a previous is also unknown in detail but these factors are real
and also the tempary push towards inflation in various areas while simultaneously
there also deflationary pushes elsewhere in the economy. We dont need to worry
about labour lost in one area to another and its effect anymore than labour lost
to technology or leisure time.
The simple fact is that Douglas didnt suggest we try and stamp them out anymore
than close down the banks by passing a law. The dividend and the just price
mechanism not only counter these problems but help cause a new centre of grivity
if you like that causes these things to wind down in their effect on and in the
economy.
People are going to save if they are better off. One reason will be to take a
trip on the Titanic. So the demand for bank credit created against deposits will
deminish and the amount they have of saving will increase and they will want to
find new businesses and extentions to put the saving to use or go broke. Banks
will conform to the new economy and become just another service INSIDE the
economy just as the economy has to conform to the banks now because who ever
control the creation and distribution of money will control 'gravity'.
The only interest I see in all this is what is the criteria for the just price
mechanism to apply in new industry- after it has proved itself or at the building
stage from day one? Because until we know that we can only guess where the funds
are going to come from. So if banks are the main sourse it could be a one off,
easily repaid and be consisting of savings more than new money created out of
nothing, which will be a major victory for a social economy.
If we take the medicine why panic as though we hadnt? The dividend and just
just price mechanism will respond to the needs to keep the system ( macro)
healthy and functional in service to man and not the reverse as now.
"Martin Hattersley" <hattersleyjm@interbaun.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> All I'm saying is that those working on the "Titanic" are not available
=
> to work on a farm raising food, so will need others to provide this. If
=
> the "Titanic" is financed, directly or indirectly, by new bank credit, =
> that means more credit chasing a diminished supply of foodstuffs, and an
=
> inflation of food prices. If it is financed by savings, the money going
=
> to workers is balanced by money not spent on foodstuffs by investors, =
> and the inflationary pressure is removed.
>
> The aim is to maintain a balance between consumer goods reaching the =
> market, and the amount of money (credit) in consumers' pockets to buy =
> them with.
>
> Martin Hattersley
> 1970-10123-99 St.,
> EDMONTON AB CANADA
> Phone (780)423-4081;Fax(780)425-5247
> e-mail: hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Triumphofthepast@aol.com
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:06 AM
> Subject: [socialcredit] the Titanic
>
>
> "If we spend, say four years in building the 'Titanic', we distribute
=
> incomes to workers and suppliers for that four year period, so =
> withdrawing other goods and services from the market, [without putting =
> any product of value on the market]. If financed by new credit, that is
=
> an inflationary thing to do. If financed by savings, it simply means =
> that consumer buying power in total has been redistributed from the =
> investor to the workers and suppliers, with no inflationary effect." =
> (Martin)
>
> I think the example would be better with the words in brackets taken =
> out. If no food is being produced, there is nothing to feed the workers
=
> with. If food is being produced, new credits can distribute it. That =
> is what new credits are for. If food is produced and we need the =
> Titanic built, people will work for food (new credits as financing). If
=
> food is produced and we don't need the Titanic built, people will eat =
> for free (new credits as dividend). It isn't true that we can't build =
> the Titanic until we have a four years' supply of food stored up. Nor =
> would it be desirable to do it that way. That is, it's not financed =
> from unconsumed goods from a prior period ("personal savings"), but it =
> is financed from goods that exist. That is not the same thing.
>
> Michael
>
|
Re: Fw: [socialcre
Reply to this message