| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Putting it all together | | Date: | Saturday, December 31, 2005 00:32:44 (-0800) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
(Ken wrote:-) > It has always puzzled me why Douglas, of all people, went
along with the assumptions of classical economics on the subject of the
upper and lower limits of price.
(Joe replies:-) I would suppose they are generally true. 'Upper limit'
does seem to be affected by the quantity of money available, modified by
'competition' amongst sellers to make sales. 'Lower limit' can't be less
than 'financial cost' for long, or either the 'willing seller' disappears
from that market, or the firm goes broke when its own source of funds is
exhausted, or further into debt for as long as its banker will extend it
further credit. (Sometimes, it seems, with some firms, that can be quite a
long time.)
(Ken continues:-) That these are assumptions, and that as such they fail to
work on many
> many occasions for me makes them all but worthless as economic tools.
(Joe replies:-) There doesn't seem to me to be many things in economics
that we can say work all the time. People do not always behave 'logically'.
But we have to start somewhere, that system is what we have, and obviously
Douglas saw the practicality of modifying it rather than what would probably
be the still greater challenge of trying to promote something completely
different. And then finding out it's worse. With his proposals for SC,
there is still plenty of latitude for it to evolve in the way it's found to
work best.
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message