| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Douglas: 1923 Ottawa - Part 1 | | Date: | Saturday, December 23, 2006 07:36:57 (-0700) | | From: | Jim <jschroeder @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4415 (written by William B. Ryan) |
Hi Bill:
Instead of inserting comments in colour throughout the passage, which can be
confusing to follow. I will snip some of your statments, and respond.
(Bill) "Oh, I see. The rendering of the graph confuses you. You must assume
that the lines are extending infinitely in either direction."
(response) That's what I figured you probably meant by the diagram. Of
course, the lines can't really extend to infinity in either direction, but
it makes no difference, because I agree with you that it matters not where
the starting/ending points are.
(Bill) "As to your second point, the assumption of the graph with straight
lines is quasi-steady state expansion."
(response) Do you mean A2=B1? Where A2 is income from capital production,
and B1 is B costs at the point of retail?
(Bill) "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."
(response) Assuming "quasi-steady state"?
(Bill) "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."
(response) I agree. There are periods of time where there is no shortage
of purchasing power; however, these exist only in periods of heavy capital
production and debt.
Labour displacement, or increasing productivity, forces B to grow relative
to A, and this makes it increasingly difficult to use capital production to
bridge the gap between incomes and prices.
(Bill) " but if there is labor
displacement there is necessarily a shortage."
(response) Between total incomes and retail prices?
(Bill) 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.
(response) I believe we do agree with them that there are periods of time
where total incomes are sufficient to purchase all consumer goods. I don't
believe we agree with them that the source of money to acheive this "steady
state" or "quasi-steady state" should derive from debt created money which
goes through the productive system. In other words, we do not agree that in
order to acheive "steady state" that we should "prime the pump".
(Bill) parametric shift of labor
displacement more closely approximates conditions in
the modern world.
(response) I agree.
Take care,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 4:57 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Douglas: 1923 Ottawa - Part 1
> "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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 jschroeder@shaw.ca
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message