|
Tim, look at this for an example. My
neighbour has a large cherry tree, but seldom picks any cherries. Usually
they fall on his lawn or the birds get them. If he said to me, "Joe, you
can have those cherries for the taking if you want to pick them.", and I do just
that, I have 'created' a product that doesn't have any 'financial' cost.
If I eat the cherries or my wife makes a pie out of
them, all that has happened is that we've enjoyed them as cherries.
If, on the other hand, I have a distaste for cherries and cherry pie, but
think I might be able to 'peddle the product of my labours', and put a 'price'
on those cherries and offer them for sale, and someone else accepts my offer and
pays me some money for them, what has happened?
The previous possessor of that 'money' didn't use
it to buy something else he might have exchanged it for. He bought
cherries, and presumably ate them. End of story as far as cherries are
concerned. I now have a sum of money I didn't have before, and instead of
him using that money to buy something else with, I do.
While in one sense I have gotten something for
nothing, because the cherries, to me, were 'financially' costless, in
another sense my 'profit' and my 'wages' for the effort I expended,
which my customer paid me in money for my part in the production of
cherries, are one and the same. Money in quantity has neither 'grown' nor
'shrunk' because of this, since the process by which money is 'made' (and
'destroyed'), is entirely separate from the process by which 'goods' are made or
'services' are provided. (Including my cherry picking.) Nor have any
of the 'costs' which the creation of money enabled been liquidated, because
there has been no sale of any product which any of this money was 'costed' into
when I sold the cherries.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 8:42
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Swanwick
2
Joe,
If you enter the world and
offer for sale an item newly created you compete with others for finite
spending – that could be said to be deflationary and so it does matter who
consumes the costless but priced (via margin) product. If you consume it
yourself (without buying it) then no effect, but if it is up for sale and sold
it affects the price of other products.
If that sale price does not
comprise entirely of previously spent money of wages and costs (i.e. It has
margin added) then it will have an effect different than if it were sold at
cost.
I use the costless product here to ‘cut the rope’ from the
impact of previous cycles.
It might be said that every person begins
the process by working/supplying for a margin then uses that income to spend
on goods, save or invest can be seen as the beginning of the
spiral.
Investment unspent is the same as savings. Margin has a similar
effect in that it absorbs the market spending power temporarily. So too does
latency.
Investment and savings are unspent margin. If it were not
margin but unsettled/due cost, then it is latency.
I doubt we need to
ensure that we have sufficient money to enable ALL margin and latency present
in the market* to be covered. Why do I say this? It is that, IMHO, will cause
inflation in quality items which will absorb a disproportionate amount of the
injected liquidity and thus not resolve the issue of unliquidated costs in
those items that are left on the shelf, thus not serving the stated intention
of liquidating all costs.
*margin in the market is the sum of all
margins on all products offered for sale, wanted or
not.
Tim
On 30/12/05 08:12, "Joe Thomson"
<thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca> wrote:
Some
comments inserted below in 'green'.
(Tim wrote:-) My apologies,
Joe, I think I may have not made myself clear (clumsy wording).
No
apologies necessary, Tim. My own wording is far from perfect,
and understanding most likely worse than that! Lets look at it
further.
(Tim:-) When I say it takes money OUT of the economy, I mean
it increases the range of items to absorb demand and the value of products
“out there”, therefore if this product entered the market it could/would
create a ‘shortfall’ in money vs product, but that shortfall would be
restored once the creator re-spends the earning from that product. This is
different from costs, which are disbursed first then recovered. Again, it
is a matter of timing.
I
think you are saying that once the 'costless' product has been purchased
and 'consumed', and its producer has spent the money he sold it for on
something else, and consumed that, everything's back as it was. He
could have consumed his own creation. Instead he let someone else do
that, in exchange for the money they possessed, and thus he enabled
himself to then consume some other product the buyer of his product
otherwise might have. There was no new money that entered the picture when
the 'costless' product was created, so no money will leave the picture
when that product ceases to exist. Actually, would it have made any
diference if the person who consumed the 'costless product' was the
costless producer or the one he received payment for his product from?
Somebody still got something for
nothing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some
introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are
at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to
this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
For more information,
visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
