(Peter:-
) If the fundamental flaw is in the accounting side the
perspective of the accounting side isnt eligible to expalin to us how to
look at things, is it?
(Joe
replies:- ) Just because the
‘accounting side’ is currently incomplete, doesn’t mean it
isn’t ‘‘eligible to explain how to look at
things’’. The
‘flaw’ lies not with the ‘accounting’ system itself,
which continues to serve us well, but what it currently lacks at the
macro-economic level.
(Ps
responce- If the accounting system isnt at fault then the theorem must
be. Flaw, fault, incomplete are just words. If you prefer
'incomplete' then you suggest they are working on it? Is this
necessary? The point I was making was that we cant take it for granted )
(Joe replies:- ) No, they are not
“working on it”. And that’s
the problem. There is no fault in the
Theorem itself, only that it hasn’t been well understood in WHAT it
actually illustrates, the WAY it illustrates it.
Throughout Douglas’s works there are numerous instances where
he ‘turns things around’ to illustrate some point he wants us to
think about in ways other than we commonly do.
It is a technique that I believe is called ‘reductio
ad absurdum’,
reducing something to an absurdity, (because unless this
technique is used, the ‘absurdity’ involved in our current
conception of some particular issue can never be seen.)
For instance, our
common conception of , say, a 20% unemployment rate,
is that it’s a terrible thing. That we should be going flat out doing
everything we can to ‘re-employ’ those
people. Douglas might turn that around and ask whether or not we
are still able to produce more than 100% of all our requirements with only 80%
of the workforce that’s still employed. And if so, is it ‘unemployment’ itself
that’s the bad thing, or does the real problem lie elsewhere.
He’s not
advocating for 20% unemployment in doing this, only trying to get us to see
something beyond our common perceptions. A+B is a complex ‘reductio’
that he is using to try to get us to see something we’re otherwise never
going to. Something that is just so
difficult for us to conceive because of all the connecting factors involved,
that the only way we’re ever going to get a proper perspective of what’s
really going on is through employment of this method.
There
is no ‘National’ equivalent to the ‘capital account’
found in the Balance Sheet of
every business operating under the conventions of double-entry
accountancy. Were there, the overall
relationship between the Banks and the rest of the economy could finally be
rationally established. Something
that’s currently irrationally established, and the ‘cause’ of
our problems.
(Ps
responce- A national 'balance sheet' would be based on REALITY not aggregates
of the 'incompete' systems.
(Joe replies:-) It would
be based on ‘REALITY’, or as close to it as we can get.
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
