|
That is a very significant point you made
John.
I attended an evening session put on by
the Waikato Uni about ten years ago, it was on the free market, and gave an
over view of the decade 1984 to 1994. On display was a huge graph of the
economy of the decade showing production running high from the Muldoon years and
dipping strongly through the reform years and debt/cost going higher, which
clearly showed according to the graph we had turned the economy upside
down.
The lecturer was spouting free market
dogma and showed on the white board how hypertheticaly it was true if the
premisies were true. So I spoke up and asked how come if all that is true
why then does the graph show the oppersite? It took the wind out of his
sales and he instantly said, and clearly in justification at that very brief
instance of exposure, it was financial costs and then he went silent for a
second. He never explained that side and no one asked any questions
because the subject of finanace is naturally not something people talk about
because it is a mysterious elite area, none of our business.
The issue of too much money/ debt in relation
to/ demanding production isnt the same as too much consumer money
demanding production.
Peter H
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:28
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] special
attention jeff
Would you care to give us one current example of "too much cash causing
inflation?". And if so, where did the cash come from and what effect will that
have on the econolmy in future?
The NZ experience was that inflation of prices was at its worst at a
time when the ratio of "cash" to goods was being reduced drastically.
But interest rates were highest. Regards. John R.
From: Jeffery Smith <jjs@geonomics.org>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] special
attention jeff
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:37:41 -0800
>On
Mar 21, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Triumphofthepast@aol.com
wrote:
>>
>> "Can you give an example of an aspect of
cultural [heritage] not
>>showing up as a site value somewhere?"
(Jeff)
>>
>> Yes, a shovel.
>
>Try again. What
was the value of land before the shovel? What was it
>after? What was
the value of Egypt before the plow? What was it
>after? What was the
value of Arizona before irrigation? What was it
>after? What was the
value of suburbia before cars? What was it
>after? What was the value
of Cape Canaveral before rocketry? What
>was it after?
See?
>
>>Are there costs that go into the potatoes that are
not included in
>>the rent? Obviously there are. It is
true that the rent reflects
>>the fact that the ground is near
civilization, where shovels are to
>>be had. But I still had
to buy the shovel, not to speak of
>>fertilizer, etc. The
rent alone, distributed, is not enough to buy
>>the
potatoes.
>
>Nor should it be.
>
>> The Social
Credit dividend is simple. Here are the potatoes,
>>here is
the money - enough to cover all the costs that went into
>>the
potatoes, including the rent.
>
>Even without the surplus cash
or credit of SC, there can easily be
>enough money to represent the
exchange value of all goods and
>services in exchange. Just legalize
competing currencies. The bigger
>problem is too much excess cash
creating inflation.
>
>> The rent TODAY, on the other
hand, constitutes cost of a FUTURE
>>crop.
>
>Sort of.
More precisely, it's how much people are willing to spend
>to call
some site theirs, based on anticipated value, whether from a
>crop or
a mine or a deep harbor or simply a lovely view.
>
>>You
said, 'Rent is a natural phenomenon'; but there's nothing
>>natural about saying the cost of a future crop increases because
>>today's crop was good.
>
>What's natural is the
market. Bidding on land is a market process.
>
>>to ask
production to do double-duty as our money-distributing
>>machine
is to hamstring it as far as its real purpose goes.
>
>Good
point. Issue any needed new notes to newcomers, who'll consume
>then
produce.
>
>>it is a mistake to make the Dividend, whose
purpose is to
>>distribute goods already
available,
>
>That's one "dividend", but the full array of
income - wages,
>"interests" (returns on physical capital, not
financial capital),
>and a share of "rent" (Earth's worth) - can do
the job splendidly.
>
>> conditional on someone paying us
rent-costs for future
>>production.
>
>Everyone pay
rent for excluding others, sometimes based on expected
>output (as
you explained above), sometimes on the mere anticipated
>psychic joy
of a spectacular view.
>
>> P.S. You didn't take me up
on my offer of a 20-page introductory
>>piece on social
credit. Is that because you are not interested?
>
>It's
because your explanations engage me while the longer piece is
>an
unknown quantity. Some minds learn best engaged in exchange of
>ideas. Mine is one of them.
>
>SMITH, Jeffery J.,
President, Forum on Geonomics
>7536 SE Milwaukie Av, Portland Oregon
97202 USA
>503/232-1337; jjs@geonomics.org;
www.geonomics.org
>Share Earth's worth to prosper and
conserve.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>johngrawson@hotmail.com
>For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Looking for love? Check out XtraMSN Personals
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
