| Subject: | RE: [socialcredit] Rent for everyone | | Date: | Tuesday, March 21, 2006 22:06:00 (-0800) | | From: | thomsonhiyu <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3678 (written by Jeffery Smith) |
(Peter Haines wrote:-) require me to pay a deposit, shall we say, to
get the return I already have.
(Jeff Smith replied;-) You own an oil field? A corner of a downtown
market?
(Joe asks;-) Why would he want to? Why would anyone want to? Is it not
primarily only the ability of these assets to be employed to make a
price for their products in excess of their costs ~ their 'credit
value', in other words, that would cause most people to want to own any
such productive assets, or anything that they can't directly 'consume'?
What Peter, you, me, and all the rest of us really want, are the
'products' from that oil field or that downtown market in a form that
are useful as 'consumables' to us.
'Gasoline' for our vehicles is of 'use' to us. 'Crude oil' is useless.
'Groceries' from the market are what we need and want on an ongoing
basis. Not the 'market' itself. The meat in the grocer's freezer
doesn't nourish us one iota until it's been thawed out, cooked and
eaten. 'Wealth' is what we 'consume', not what we have. We don't need
to 'own' either the oil field or the downtown market. Most of us know
nothing about running an oil field, and probably not much more about
managing a downtown market. And why should we want to, unless these are
occupations that we've chosen to enter as our careers?
Our common concern is with accessing the 'products', at a price we can
afford. A price which should, to us as 'consumers', be continually
dropping as production and distribution efficiencies are effected. For
it to be so, we need to be properly credited as individual
citizen-consumers with the 'capital appreciation' our inherited share of
the cultural heritage that made those efficiencies possible has created.
It is not necessary to communize 'land' to do that, and in fact, would
likely be a major impediment to it. 'Land', and the more important
factor, 'how to use it', are already included in our overall 'cultural
heritage'.
(Peter;-) The Douglas system is based on the goods and services, as
opposed to land or gold, which assures directly the just share ( and
just
price!),
(Jeff:-) Isn't that a function of supply and demand?
(Joe:-) Only the upper limit of price is governed by the so-called 'law'
of supply and demand. The lower limit of price, which, if there's
competition and an absence of 'monopoly', is governed by 'financial
cost'. The businessman cannot long sell for below 'financial cost' or
he exhausts his financial reserves and goes broke. To the extent that
he does sell below financial cost and is financed by his banker in doing
so, he demonstrates that an expansion of credit can just as easily be
used to 'lower' prices to consumers as to 'raise' them.
(Peter:-) > since it is the foundation.
(Jeff:-) How can Douglas be a foundation since it does not exist yet
economies
do?
(Joe:-) Ah, but it already DOES exist, Jeff. Social Credit can be
defined as "the power of people in association, or society, to produce
an intended result, as measured by their satisfaction" (with it). Do
people ever 'associate' to produce any 'intended results'? Do they have
increased 'power' from this 'association' to produce those results? And
are they ever 'satisfied', to any measurable, or comparable, degree with
the results intended that their 'association' has wrought? If the answer
to all three of those questions is 'yes', and I don't really see how it
could not be, then 'social credit' is already a 'fact'. It already
'exists'. It's only up to us to learn how to increase it.
(Peter;-) > Your system, land is the foundation
(Jeff:-) As you read this, what is beneath you? Where is land,
literally, not the foundation? Nowhere (literally).
(Joe:-) If you were placed on 'land' in any one of a variety of areas
in the world, say the area of your great southwest desert occupied by
the Apache or Navajo, or the 'Camas prairie' region of the Oregon-Idaho
border, or the high Arctic of Canada's Nunavut territory, all places
where human habitation has been sustained by the 'land' for time
immemorial, and you were there in isolation from the normal inhabitants,
but in accompaniment with a few other companions from downtown Portland
chosen at random, what do you think your chances of survival would be?
Do you have the 'knowledge' a Navajo has to get water and food in a
seemingly bone dry desert? Do you know for certain which colour of
flower on the 'camas' plant indicates the one that's edible, versus the
one that's poisonous? Do you have any knowledge comparable to that of
an Inuit (Eskimo) in how to survive in the Arctic without succumbing to
the cold? The 'foundation' all of us stand on is most certainly the
'land'. But without the 'cultural heritage' that enables us to use it
we wouldn't last long on it. It is that body of knowledge specific to
the lands we occupy that enables us to survive, to go forth and
multiply, and to increase our prosperity and well-being.
|
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message