| Subject: | [socialcredit] metaphysical assumptions | | Date: | Friday, May 19, 2006 07:48:01 (EDT) | | From: | Triumphofthepast <Triumphofthepast @...com>
|
>1. What does it mean to say Douglas regards Money as an Object? Is a
>symbol
>an Object?
The classical Aristotelian metaphysical assumptions involve only Subject and
Object. The Subject is the Individual: Money and Capital alike are Objects.
As far as I know, Douglas, like all other schools of Economic thought
regards Money as an Object, whether he calls it a "Symbol" a "Ticket" or
anything else.
>2. What does it mean to say Douglas regards Property as an Object?
>Douglas
>doesn't use the word Property particularly. But in connection with money,
>he
>speaks of goods and services? Is being served a meal an Object?
Presumably Douglas addresses Property rights implicitly rather than
explicitly. But again it would come down to a "Subject" Individual "owning"
an Object (whatever it happens to be)
>3. What does it mean to say Douglas regards only the individual, and not
>Capital, as productive? Douglas says THE chief factor in production is the
>Cultural Heritage, and the Cultural Heritage is capital.
It appears to me implicit in Social Credit (since I believe that Credit
arises only from the Sovereign Individual - and that a Government which is
separate from the Individual has no more business creating Credit than Banks
have).
>4. What does it mean to say Value is "indefinable, or rather, definable
>only
>in relative terms"?
This is my Metaphysical assumption - that one cannot define "Value" (or
"Quality" or "Beauty") except in relative terms.
>5. What does it mean, then, to say Money is Value in motion?
In my analysis, Capital is essentially "Static Value" or "Money's Worth".
It is "potential Money" and becomes "Money" only in that transitory moment
of Exchange by reference to a "Value Unit". Money is a "Relationship", not
an Object.
E C Riegel's description of Money is conclusive, I believe.
âThe purpose of Money is to facilitate barter by splitting the transaction
into two parts, the acceptor of Money reserving the power to requisition
value from any trader at any time. The method of Money is to employ a
concept of value in terms of a Value Unit dissociated from any object. The
monetary unit is any adopted value, which value is the basis relative to
which other values may be expressed.â
Furthermore, Riegel came close when he described Money as the "Relativity of
Desire" and went on to speculate that it exists only in motion.
There is, I believe, a very close analogy between Physics and Economics,
with Capital analogous to "Matter" (or Static Energy) and Money analogous to
Kinetic Energy. Economics may be thought of as the Physics of Value,
therefore.
>6. What does it mean to say Capital is Static Value and "therefore
>potential
>Money"? What do you mean by Capital here? Tools? Knowledge?
Any form of "wealth" or money's worth, and any form of obligation (ie
debt/credit)
>7. I don't understand #6, but I WOULD understand if you said tools and raw
>materials represent static, or potential, value and consumer goods and
>services
>represent dynamic, or real, value.
Both the former and the latter have a Value in Exchange and are therefore
Capital, but the latter are not "Productive" in that they are not capable of
producing more Value when interacting with productive Individuals.
>8. What do you say to the following argument AGAINST the redistribution of
>capital a la Belloc and Kelso:
This comes down to the nature of ownership and property rights. In my view
it is ownership of the Commons (as opposed to - say - equipment) which is
questionable and I concur with Henry George's view that those who have
exclusive rights of use of a Commons should compensate those they exclude.
It is quite possible to distribute Capital/Wealth without requiring the
recipient to take any role in managing it. That is one of the principal
reasons for the superiority of the "Open" Corporate "Capital Partnership"
over the deeply flawed Joint Stock Limited Liability Company where ownership
and control go together.
In the Capital Partnership the Investor and user of Investment share
revenues and therefore their interests are aligned. Which gets rid of the
"Principal/Agency " problem as well.
Best Regards
Chris Cook
|
metaphysical assum
Reply to this message