| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] EoK_ to Joe re monoply and growth | | Date: | Saturday, July 1, 2006 10:42:48 (-0700) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4215 (written by Keith Wilde) |
I will await and invite others to comment on the more
important aspects to your post, Keith, except for
three brief points in clarification:
1. "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."
--------------------------------------------------------
This is true. It is also true that "principles" texts
are eclectic hodge-podges, more or less variegated
clones of one another. Most that I have seen at any
rate. Far more important from our perspective is
ideology in respect to human interaction, and more
important than that is the ideology that is prevailing
in powerful circles. Certainly in respect to a
pecuniary incentive.
Mankiw has parlayed his prestigious sinecure as
Harvard professor into supplementing his personal
income as very effective "expert witness," or
"mouthpiece," for the prevailing ideology--in numerous
articles in Fortune and The Wall Journal and other
publications over the years. Then as Chairman of the
Council of Economic Advisers spanning both Bush II
administrations. (May 29, 2003 through February 18,
2005). An impressive addition to his resume.
The text that I've archived at
http://www.geocities.com/w_b_ryan/mankiw/
may be taken to be a Litany to the Prevailing Ideology
from this high church official.
Count me among the dissenters.
-
2. "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?"
--------------------------------------------------------
Definitely not a social credit perspective but quite
opposite to it. I apologize for the lack of clarity.
-
3. "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."
--------------------------------------------------------
By "they" I meant the theologians of the prevailing
ideology. By "our" I meant "us" the social crediters
(and those who travel with us) as opposed to "them."
Again, I apologize for my lack of clarity. I was very
lackadaisical when I was subjected some years ago to
English grammar. They--referring to them--say the
concept of natural monopoly as something that really
exists is a figment of our--referring to
us--imagination. Silly we and silly me.
They say that "monopoly" is in every place and
everywhere the product of "government" intervention.
Government is the problem not the solution, as Reagan
put it in several of his speeches. We would say that
government is necessarily part of the solution in the
broad scheme of checks and balances.
Perhaps you will expand on your question.
-
--- Keith Wilde <keithwilde@sympatico.ca> wrote:
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.
Re: [socialcredit] EoK_ editorial correction
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>
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
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