|
Bill, this reaction leaves me more puzzled than
ever. (And the point at issue does not depend on familiarity with the
Wojciechowski discussion.) I hope you (and others) will expand on a
couple of your statements below:
That "the era of deregulation
has dismantled most of the reforms instituted by the Populists and
Progressives" is undeniable. Among the reactions to that dismantling
are the recent book and movie by law professor Joel Bakan (The
Corporation) and "The Anti-Trust Case Against Wal-Mart" in the current
(July) issue of Harper's Magazine. (If you haven't read the
Bakan book, I have published a review of it which could be posted
here.)
The question I have concerns the position of
economics rationale on the issue. I am postulating that there is a
"standard economics" view and am asking whether a Social Credit
view differs substantially. If I interpret correctly, you have said that
the question is irrelevant given the political reality of deregulation. An
implicit sub-question is therefore whether the opinion of "standard economists"
has changed or whether the opinion of economists doesn't really count for much
in the prevailing political climate. My collection of "standard" economics
textbooks subject ends in the early seventies when I left teaching and took
a job in government. Nevertheless, I got my hands on a currently popular
university text, that by Gregory Mankiw, and find that it still incorporates the
chapters on monopoly, oligopoly and other departures from perfect competition
that imply a role for government. The extent and nature of that role is
subject for (endless) political debate, but the underlying rationale about
market competition and its limitations is still there.
To re-phrase my question, therefore, does the
"standard" analysis of limitations to market competition (involving
both the "natural" or technological aspect of some activities and
the evolutionary path of firms and their internal "instinct"
toward growth and dominance even if they are not natural monopolies) have a
place in Social Credit analysis?
When you say that "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," are you describing a Social
Credit perspective or a "revised standard" version of economics circa the
nineteen seventies and beyond? Your reference to "they" in the final
paragraph is unclear. Who is it that has no theory of natural monopoly
except to say that it is a figment of our imagination? My question involves
an aspect of Social Credit rationale that remains enigmatic to me.
----- Original Message -----
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
