| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Douglas: 1923 Ottawa - Part 1 | | Date: | Thursday, December 21, 2006 03:57:26 (-0800) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4414 (written by Jim) |
"Fair enough, but if you look at the graph along the
horizontal axis, (Costs - A+B) begin when there is no
income. Income is not disbursed until a later time.
If the graph is merely a representation of incomes and
costs occurring concurrently starting at any point in
time, then doesn't the graph itself assume that A+B >
A for all t>0? And doesn't this then beg the
question?
---------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Oh, I see. The rendering of the graph confuses you.
You must assume that the lines are extending
infinitely in either direction. At any point in time
there are both costs and personal income.
As to your second point, the assumption of the graph
with straight lines is quasi-steady state expansion.
A+B is indeed greater than A for all points in time in
the condition of expansion. But the reflux from A
will fully amortize A+B because the conventions of
accounting have the effect of delaying the expensing
of A+B so that it matched against some future reflux.
Only if A is falling in respect to A+B will the reflux
from A not fully amortize A+B, which is parametric
shift through labor displacement in deviation from
quasi-steady state.
-
"From the diagram, it appears to me that the whole
$100,000 is delayed 10 years before it is expensed."
---------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
The diagram is macro as opposed to microeconomic, in
that it pertains to the economy as whole, rather than
particular individual transactions. The effect of the
conventions of accounting is that the expensing of A+B
is delayed through time so that it is matched against
future sales. See the diagram appended also archived
at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium/accounting_profit.gif
-
"Perhaps this is the crux of my misunderstanding with
regards to this diagram. Are you attempting to
introduce labour displacement within the A+B analysis
(i.e. assuming A+B to be true), or are you attempting
to demonstrate the validity of A+B with the concept of
labour displacement?"
---------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
It depends on what you mean by "true." In the absence
of labor displacement, the theorem demonstrates that
in the theoretically possible steady state or
quasi-steady state there is no shortage of purchasing
power in respect of prices, but if there is labor
displacement there is necessarily a shortage.
"Purchasing power" in the Social Credit jargon meaning
"unattached" purchasing power in the hands of
consumers, not "money" as it is commonly measured.
Incidentally, practically every so-called refutation
of A+B over the past eighty-five years has consisted
of demonstrating that there is no shortage in what
amounts to a condition of steady state or quasi-steady
state, and we will agree with them. But steady state
or quasi-steady state is a special theoretical
condition, whereas the parametric shift of labor
displacement more closely approximates conditions in
the modern world.
--- Jim <jschroeder@shaw.ca> wrote:
[snipped]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message