| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] labor displacement | | Date: | Wednesday, December 22, 2004 11:14:34 (+0000) | | From: | Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk @........uk>
|
Dear Bill,
On 18/12/04 4:40 pm, "william_b_ryan@yahoo.com" <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> As to rights. Everyone has a right to MAKE a living,
> but not a right to GET a living IMHO. If they do have
> such a right, then I have an equal or even GREATER
> right to abdicate from paying taxes of any kind. If
> one person can unilaterally decide to contribute
> nothing then so can I, and I have a greater right to
> do that as I am only not paying as opposed to both
> not paying AND receiving.
> -------------------------------
> ----------------------------
> [REPLY] After all of our discussions, Tim, you still
> don't have the slightest idea what the social credit
> dividend is all about. It - meaning the consumers'
> dividend + the retail discount - is not a tax
> transfer. It doesn't take anything away from you or
> anyone else to give anything to anyone else. Let me
> repeat - it is not a tax transfer.
>
Yes, Bill, I think you will see that, from my replies to Joe previously, I
have now understood the dividend is not a tax transfer. I have understood it
to be a means to enable complete consumption of the results of production
with the benefit of removing the distortions you cite below, e.g.
Discounting of otherwise sound products due to lack of wealth in consumers
"now" caused by automation.
Btw The para you refer to above is in reply to Joe and is a discussion on
the human psychological and societal reaction to forms of universal income.
> Really, do try to think of it as a accounting
> adjustment rather than a "funny money" scheme. Get
> "funny money" out of your mind. Get "accounting
> adjustment" into your mind. Try, Tim, try. It is an
> accounting adjustment to make the system of free
> enterprise work better.
>
Bill, when people talk of time delays, credit cards to bring spending
forward etc you say it is just an aberration of accounting, yet now you talk
of this being an accounting adjustment. I am not too worked up about the
liquidity injection per se as it already occurs now (credit loans) and the
noble and valid idea of the SC movement would be to make sure it is injected
in the 'best' place or in the most advantageous way, right?
> The conventional assumption is that, in the
> macroeconomic sense, salaries, wages and dividends
> (meaning corporate dividends being paid to final
> consumers) automatically equal the costs of
> production being impressed to the point of retail,
> and that the costs of production being impressed to
> the point of retail automatically equal sales to
> final consumers. The theory is that the competitive
> market supplies the goods and services that people
> want to purchase with the money they are receiving.
>
> First, I want you to delete from the assumption the
> word "automatic."
>
> Second, I want you to delete from the assumption the
> implicit assumption, "random fluctuation about the
> mean."
>
> In terms of A+B, with "labor displacement," - which,
> being a long-term trend, is definitely something
> other than a random fluctuation - the ratio of B is
> increasing to A, which means that the ratio of A is
> decreasing in respect to the accounted for costs of
> production, A+B. The totality of A+B remains the
> same, while A is proportionately decreasing with
> labor displacement.
>
> The theorem is in fact a theorem about inadequacies
> in the system of accounting as it has historically
> evolved. It is not strictly speaking a theorem about
> economics.
>
If it is not a theorem about economics then I would like to see it evolved
into one so, if truly sound, it could be implemented.
> If aggregate sales to final consumers are falling in
> respect to the costs of production being impressed to
> the point of retail, false information is being
> reported to the entrepreneur. He is being told that
> his decisions are continually wrong in terms of
> consumer satisfaction, so he continually scraps
> existing projects and starts new ones, even if in
> fact the old ones were better than the new ones from
> any realistic perspective. His debt to the financier
> piles up - from which he tries to slough off as much
> as he can to the final consumer to save his own skin.
>
> The financier assumes a too powerful a role in such a
> system, being the aggrieved party, since his contract
> with the entrepreneur is never being fulfilled
> because it cannot be fulfilled. The entrepreneur
> cannot serve the public, since he is receiving false
> information about what the public wants. The
> consumer is short-changed, and much goes to waste
> that would otherwise compound into increasing wealth
> with the progression of time. So, not only
> ourselves, but future generations are being cheated.
>
> And the financier does indeed covet his role.
> ---------------------------
>
Almost all companies starting up are kick-started using saved A of the rich.
If the aim of social credit is to enable consumption of the product of
consumption at a point in time to offset the fact that people have already
(over?) spent their wages previously and have a lower ability to earn it
'now' due to automation and increased efficiency, you appear to be delaying
the problem at best.
The previous spending of wages before the final consumer has purchased the
goods produced have surely distorted the value of goods already so their
later fall is a correction. Would it have been better for people to save,
reduce price inflation and have savings to spend later when their labours
reach the shelves? Would this cause stagnation or deflation? If automation
causes price deflation due to efficiency then more people can buy the goods
with less money. Now this is the rub - you appear to trust central control
over market forces. I distrust BOTH, btw!
Now has this "early" spending actually been enabled/funded due to the
savings of unspent income being invested to enable a company to purchase
those supplies and labour before selling their goods? Are the wages of the
past actually funded in part by the savings of an even earlier past? I
believe they are, for companies are rarely if at all funded by fractional
reserve credit loan to start up or expand and are almost always funded by
private equity.
In truth labour is already displaced into a swathe of new jobs to relieve
the middle and upper classes of their earnings - government, insurance,
services, marketing, branding, handbags, leisure etc...Is that so bad? How
would the theorem cope with displacement from one industry into a
'frictional' industry such as real estate or insurance that produces
nothing?
Tim
>
>
> Relevant materials are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium/
>
> Join the discussion at
> socialcredit@elistas.com
> by sending a message to that address to the
> attention of the list moderator.
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> You're subscribed to this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> http://www.eListas.com/
> The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.eListas.com/
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message