| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] EoK_ editorial correction | | Date: | Saturday, July 1, 2006 06:50:40 (-0400) | | From: | Keith Wilde <keithwilde @.........ca>
|
In my reply to Bill Ryan a few minutes ago I failed to proof-read carefully.
The word "subject" should obviously be eliminated in the following sentence:
"My collection of "standard" economics textbooks subject ends in the early
seventies... ."
Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Cc: "Michael Caley" <shanshui@shaw.ca>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] EoK_ to Joe re monoply and growth
> 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
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 keithwilde@sympatico.ca
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message