| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] EoK_ to Joe re monoply and growth | | Date: | Thursday, June 29, 2006 09:07:04 (-0700) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4208 (written by Keith Wilde) |
I'm sorry, Keith, but I've skipped the entire
Wojciechowski discussion, didn't read it. I don't
know who he is and have not researched the matter. My
apology. I am reserving it for a future
project--perhaps a self-imposed homework assignment.
But this from your recent posting did catch my
attention:
"Is it correct to generalize that Social Credit shares
the attitude toward ‘natural monopolies’ that is (or
was) found in standard economics texts? That is, that
from a physical, engineering perspective, efficiency
is served by having one power line, one water main,
one sewer system, for examples, instead of several
competitors for each? If that is the case, then does
the Social Credit perspective on regulation of those
natural monopolies (involving governance and
government employees) differ in any fundamental
respects from a "standard" view?"
------------------------------------------------
Regardless, it is not now the "standard" view or
consensus. It perhaps was during the
Populist/Progressive era, more than a century ago.
The era of "deregulation" in which we live has
dismantled most of the reforms instituted by the
Populists and Progressives, and has done so before our
very eyes.
The prevailing ideology, beginning with the Carter
administration and expanded particularly with Reagan
and Thatcher, is that "government" is the enemy ipso
facto, rather than centers of concentrated power,
wherever found.
So, the "solution" is not checks and balances, with
government as an essential tool in the process, being
itself a natural monopoly, but the elimination of
"government," whose "intervention" in the "market" is
the sole and single cause of monopoly, without which
they could never form.
They have no theory of "natural monopoly" whatsoever,
except that they are figments of our imagination.
--- Keith Wilde <nschwartz@cogeco.ca> wrote:
Reflecting on Joe's comments about consumer power
(reproduced in full below) prompts two more questions:
1. Is it correct to generalize that Social Credit
shares the attitude toward ‘natural monopolies’ that
is (or was) found in standard economics texts? That
is, that from a physical, engineering perspective,
efficiency is served by having one power line, one
water main, one sewer system, for examples, instead of
several competitors for each? If that is the case,
then does the Social Credit perspective on regulation
of those natural monopolies (involving governance and
government employees) differ in any fundamental
respects from a "standard" view?
2) In respect of this excerpt from Joe’s comments,
"There is, however, very much of an ‘indirect’ bearing
on the issue. For in receiving the SC ‘dividend’,
which allows the financial cost-accountancy cycle to
come far closer to being completely ‘self-liquidating’
without further ‘capital’ spending, (or a raft of new
‘home mortgages’ for more new ‘developments’ of the
"build it, and they will come" variety), we have taken
some of the ongoing pressure off the currently viewed
‘necessity’ of never ending ‘growth’., …"
I (Keith) wonder if the view of capital spending to
promote employment via growth has become somewhat
anachronistic—at least insofar as it is a conscious or
deliberate outcome of government policy. A principal
"industry" these days seems to be the shuffling or
manipulation of papers and figures in the domain of
financial transactions, plus other activities that are
straightforward fraud and scams such as theft of
public resources to ‘rebuild Iraq or New Orleans’ at
exorbitant prices compared to what is actually
delivered.
This observation implicates a question about the
sources or impetus to growth. Are we not in a
situation these days where we are stumbling over
ourselves to cope with the consequences of past
"growth"? It is true that governments and politicians
of all stripes pay lip service to economic growth as
the essential guarantor of comfortable incomes for
all, but I wonder if that is not an obsolete leftover
from Depression-Era thinking—one that is shared with
special emphasis or urgency by admirers of Major
Douglas?
The alternative view suggested by the Wojciechowski
concept is that knowledge in its ecological
integration with human impulses has become the driver
of growth. To use an old bit of inflation analysis as
metaphor, growth has become "demand-pull" rather than
"cost-push". This is a clear contrast with the view of
capital spending as deliberate effort to keep
activities moving. Does a change of perspective on the
impetus to growth have implications for the
effectiveness of the Social Credit prescriptions?
Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: thomsonhiyu
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:40 AM
Subject: RE: EoK_back to Joe
(Keith wrote:- ) "Joe’s response (below) to my
question about how the citizen/consumer would cope
with certain kinds of public spending decisions under
a social credit system is that it would be much the
same as now. It’s a highly plausible answer. Had I
thought the answer to be so obvious I would not have
asked the question—which suggests that I have had a
faulty impression of social credit attitudes to
governance and the appropriate functions of government
agencies and natural monopolies.
"I had formed the notion from exchanges on this list
and a modest amount of reading in social credit
literature that the ideal is to minimize the scope and
size of government and of bureaucratic agencies.
Institutions would be altered in ways that made
democracy much more direct than it is now. Not only by
assuring a more representative _expression of consumer
interest via distribution of spending power but also
through an emphasis on non-monetary means such as
initiative and referendum."
(Joe replies:- ) I believe the ‘notion’ you say you
have formed above is largely correct, Keith. But the
“non-monetary means such as initiative and referendum”
are simply two of many methods by which citizens might
make their wishes known to ‘government’, (or
‘industry’) as regards to what they want. Or even
more likely now, do NOT want.
There are other ‘methods’ already in existence now
that are equally effective, if and when people
concerned about some particular issue wish to use
them. Governments still do ‘yield to pressure’, if
that ‘pressure’ is actually applied. I personally
don’t really see ‘formalizing’ the initiative and
referendum process as being the great panacea it’s
often made out to be by many Socreds. As being
something that’s vitally necessary to impress our
‘will’ upon ‘government’. It still comes down to
whether or not there IS a ‘common will’ to be
impressed on some issue. And if there is, and it’s
strong enough, it’s my own opinion it will be
impressed anyways.
If we go back to the “consumer and her dividend” it is
unlikely that any ‘consumer’, whether they receive
their income from a ‘dividend’ or any other source,
could individually determine whether future electric
power generation will come from nuclear, hydro, wind,
thermal, geo-thermal, tidal, or any other means.
What’s she going to do? Refuse to pay her power bill
because, say, the new nuclear plant’s power is
‘tainted’, in her opinion?
While it’s certainly a possibility that consumers
opposed to some new choice of generation might
organize and all refuse to pay their power bills, or
even threaten to disconnect en masse from the
transmission system (just as they might do if those
bills continue to keep rising ! ), one individual
‘consumer and her dividend’ protesting in this manner
would simply find she was without electric power. So
I don’t really see how receiving part, or even all, of
one’s income via the ‘dividend’ really has much of a
direct bearing in instances like this.
There is, however, very much of an ‘indirect’ bearing
on the issue. For in receiving the SC ‘dividend’,
which allows the financial cost-accountancy cycle to
come far closer to being completely ‘self-liquidating’
without further ‘capital’ spending, (or a raft of new
‘home mortgages’ for more new ‘developments’ of the
“build it, and they will come” variety), we have
taken some of the ongoing pressure off the currently
viewed ‘necessity’ of never ending ‘growth’.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message