| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Douglas: 1923 Ottawa - Part 1 | | Date: | Monday, January 1, 2007 08:40:28 (-0700) | | From: | Jim <jschroeder @....ca>
|
Hi Bill:
I see Wally beat me to the punch in regards to referring you to other
analysis of the A+B theorem which uses the terminology (A1, B1, A2, B2).
The only sacred text that I know of is the bible itself, so I do not
consider any of the writing by Douglas or his contemporaries to be "sacred".
And I agree that all knowledge is expandable; however, there is a difference
between expanding on a concept an re-writing it. I'm not claiming that
you're doing either, but am trying to understand what you're doing in order
to make a reasoned judgement.
You define steady state, and quasi-steady state as follows:
"Steady state is a dynamic process where nothing is
changing--every relationship between the elements is
remaining constant both quantitatively and
proportionately.
Quasi-steady state is a theoretical concept that
admits that things may be changing in the dynamic
process, perhaps quantitatively, but where the
relationship between the elements is remaining
constant. That is to say, from the atomistic
perspective of any single element, everything appears
to be remaining constant while the process is
continuing."
In a previous email you stated:
"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."
My questions are these:
1) Can you explain precisely how in a "quasi-steady state", the reflux from
A will fully amortize A+B?
2) Are you claiming that income will always be less than retail prices?
Thank you,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Douglas: 1923 Ottawa - Part 1
> "The A1+B1, A2+B2 analysis is present is Joseph's text
> as well as others..."
> ---------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------
>
> There may well be others, though I'm not aware of who
> they might be. If you know of who they might be,
> perhaps you will refer us to them. Any such
> information would be most welcomed.
>
> I've converted the two Joseph papers that were
> forwarded to us by Wally Klinck into plain text that
> I've archived at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium/joseph
>
> The theoretical structure of Social Credit inherited
> by us from Douglas and his colleagues is very sparse.
> Either we build on it (rather than accepting it as
> sacred text, which the remnant Social Crediters are
> prone to do) or admit the entire project is a complete
> waste of time.
> -
>
> "...but since you say he does not consider 'steady
> state', or 'quasi-steady state', I must assume that
> you have not answered my question."
> ---------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------
>
> I've certainly answered your question in regards to
> the 1934 paper from Joseph, in which he simply does
> not consider either steady state or quasi-steady state
> in his analysis. It goes to relevancy. He
> specifically mentions changing coefficients in
> reference to labor displacement, which makes it
> consistent with Douglas' approach. If you're asking,
> What is quasi-steady state?, that's a totally separate
> question. I've pointed out a potential weakness in
> Joseph's taxonomy, in which he tells us where B1 goes
> but leaves open where B2 goes.
>
> Steady state is a dynamic process where nothing is
> changing--every relationship between the elements is
> remaining constant both quantitatively and
> proportionately.
>
> Quasi-steady state is a theoretical concept that
> admits that things may be changing in the dynamic
> process, perhaps quantitatively, but where the
> relationship between the elements is remaining
> constant. That is to say, from the atomistic
> perspective of any single element, everything appears
> to be remaining constant while the process is
> continuing.
>
> In respect of human cultures there are several
> examples that remained in quasi-steady state for
> centuries, where the language, mode of dress,
> agriculture etc. remained essentially the same, with
> only the population increasing. As more and more
> people were born, more and more land of essentially
> the same quality was brought into cultivation using
> the traditional methods, until there was no more land,
> and the culture collapsed when the population outgrew
> its means of sustenance.
>
> The Mayan culture in the Yucatan and Central America
> appears to have been one such culture, which had
> already collapsed centuries before the Spanish
> conquest.
>
> It appears that much of the area, subsequently
> overgrown with jungle, was once an elaborate system of
> raised bed fields watered by canals.
>
>
> --- 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