|
Precisely, Michael.
Major Douglas's "A + B Theorem" includes the TOTAL
flow in a given production cycle of ALL money costs representing ALL factors of
production AND total financial payments as consumer income in the same
cycle. Financial price includes associated land costs which are
claimed in prices along with all other costs of production. The A + B
Theorem is an all-embracing, macro-economic, concept which is applicable
to the economy as a whole. The intrinsic, exponentially increasing
deficiency of effective purchasing-power which the Theorem describes is related
to the progressive reduction of labour costs relative to capital costs.
This trend toward increasing technological efficiency results from the
knowledge and technique learned over time immemorial and passsed as an
accumlating Cultural Heritage from one generation to another.
Unfortunately, and seemingly incongruously, the very process of increased
production efficiency due to the increased utilization and refinement of
physical capital, results, under the present defective financial system of
cost-accountancy, in the consumer being increasingly marginalized from
participation in the economic process. Inasmuch as the true end of
production is not to create work but rather to enable consumption, this
phenomenon is contrary to what would be expected logically and
realistically.
Social Credit would compensate this increasing
deficiency of financial purchasing-power by the periodic issue to individual
citizens of consumer credits originating outside the business financial
accountancy costing system--which system prematurely withdraws, via final
financial prices, and cancels credit with respect to physical capital which
endures much longer over time. The consumer at large is currently charged
in consumer prices with total national capital depreciation but not credited
with capital appreciation, which latter greatly exceeds capital
depreciation. By means of the supplementary issue of non-cost-creating
consumer "credits" to assist consumption through increased individual
buying-power and a general decline of the price-level, we would all as
individual citizens acquire a continuing and expanding BENEFICIAL ownership in
the Cultural Heritage--accomplished by increasing automatic access to the
PRODUCT of industrial endeavour.
No form of taxation is involved in this
process. It is not not re-distributive. It would be accomplished by
supplementary, distributive means--by a National (Consumer) Dividend and
Compensated Prices at the retail level.
Capital is most productive when operated by those
who have developed over time the skill and expertise to use it
efficiently. The modern producer cannot and does not want to consume the
outflow from his own enterprise. To continue producing he requires an
effective demand for his product so that he can recover his financial costs and
continue the process of creating and delivering goods and services. What
the consumer wants is not primarily a direct physical ownership in the various
forms of capital, but rather access to the usable wealth which flows from the
successful utilization of capital. To interfere with that successful
utilization because of misguided notions about the merits, or "justice", of
"ownership" (private OR collective) in productive capital would sabotage the
efficiency of its operation to the actual detriment of all citizens. This,
of course, was the result of the Marxist delusion which placed ownership of
industrial capital and "work" above distribution of the proceeds of industry and
the provision of "leisure."
Sincerely
Wally Klinck
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 1:53
PM
Subject: [socialcredit] land
I have thought some more on this question of
land. I am coming into this discussion in the middle, as I simply
haven't been reading submissions for several weeks.
We social crediters
recognize something we call the Cultural Heritage as the biggest factor in
production. Production is represented by various business organizations,
each of which embodies a piece of the Cultural Heritage. Each of them,
indeed, could not have been formed without the benefit of access to money,
which is a social product. For that reason, we all by right are invested
with BENEFICIARY OWNERSHIP of those organizations -- which means a claim to a
certain share of their fruits. This ownership is expressed in the form
of a National Dividend, but it is not expressed in the form of a tax on the
business organizations.
Productive land (and I don't just mean
agricultural production) is also a part of the Cultural Heritage. It has
been cleared, ploughed, fertilized, excavated, raised, built on, etc., etc.
for countless generations. We are by right invested with a beneficiary
ownership in it, that is, a claim to a certain share of its fruits.
Our
beneficiary ownership of production, in social credit, is expressed by a
National Dividend to claim all its otherwise unclaimed fruits (and discharge
all of its otherwise undischarged debts). Since it doesn't limit itself
to the fruits of one or another factor of production or one or another piece
of the Cultural Heritage, the social credit National Dividend ALREADY INCLUDES
the dividend based on universal beneficiary ownership of the land that Jeff
calls for.*
Michael
*This would be true even if we talked of
primeval forest and so took the "Cultural" out. The social credit
National Dividend would capture the fruits of that Heritage, too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 wmklinck@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free
Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release Date:
3/9/2006
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
