|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] A brief outline of Social Credit|
|Date:||Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:22:34 (-0700)|
|From:||william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|In reply to:||Message 4579 (written by Joe Thomson)|
"...why did Douglas mention there even being any need
for restrictions on profit on turnover? Which I see
he did, more than once, and even in his testimony
before the House of Commons committee in Ottawa in
1923 (section 3, in the 'plain text' you posted)."
I believe you are referring to my posting on October
14, under the heading, "Douglas Ottawa: Part 3." I
had broken Douglas' testimony into several parts due
to the file size limitations of Notepad. Later that
same day I posted the complete document in one PDF
file. I have excerpted Douglas' comments regarding
"turnover" from Part 3 below.
It would be helpful if you would post actual
quotations from Douglas where he mentions, in your
opinion, "any need for restrictions on profit on
As to the excerpt from Part 3, the word "agreed" is
used twice. The first is "an agreed percentage on
turnover." I interpret this to mean not a limitation
but agreement or consensus as to their expected
percentage on turnover, which with the discount they
will be expected on average to achieve.
The reason for this is that different types of retail
businesses have different margins depending on volume.
There are high volume businesses with low margins,
and low volume business with high margins. To apply
the same discounts to both would unfairly advantage
the high volume businesses, so you would apply
different discounts to each. It is important to know
what the expected or "agreed" margins are to calculate
the appropriate discounts.
"Their agreeing to put the costs on the table in
proper form, at proper periods of time" simply refers
to the requirement for disclosure.
From Douglas' 1923 Ottawa testimony:-
"Supposing that you arranged with a large number of
departmental stores that they should sell the whole of
the products that they dealt in at cost, plus 10 per
cent on turnover, not 10 per cent on their capital, or
anything of that sort, yet 10 per cent is not
vital—one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight
or nine per cent, it makes no difference, plus an
agreed percentage on turnover. In consideration of
their agreeing to put the costs on the table in proper
form, at proper periods of time, you would authorize
them to issue with each sale—the sale would take place
in the ordinary way—the ordinary amount of money, the
ordinary price, et cetera. You might authorize the
departmental stores to issue vouchers to a percentage
of the purchase cost, and such a percentage might be
given which would meet the provisions that I shall
come to later on. These discount vouchers might be
turned in to the private accounts of the ordinary
purchaser at any bank and the bank would treat these
discount vouchers as a credit."
--- Joe Thomson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
"To ensure this co-operation, businesses would be
invited to register with the National Credit Authority
to trade on mutually agreed margins of profit
according to the nature of the business concerned. The
profit would be high enough to encourage ample
production, but not high enough to permit
(Bill Ryan replied:-) I doubt that you can find
textual support in Douglas for this proposal, meaning
the part about agreeing to trade on "mutually agreed
margins of profit." Regardless, it is an inappropriate
proposal if our intention is preserve the system of
free enterprise. Under Social Credit, competitive
firms would be allowed to earn whatever profit they
could get individually, as at present. The Just Price
or Retail Discount are coupons or their equivalent
paid directly to final consumers through registered
firms, which would have the effect of lowering the
prices they are effectively paying to those registered
firms. Nominal prices from the registered firms may
in fact rise. The intent is to increase effective
demand in offset to the costs of production, thereby
increasing the general rate of profit, so that more
firms survive, producing and distributing more goods
and services into final consumption than would
otherwise be the case.
(Joe asks:-) This pre-supposes there would be normal
'competition' for sales in the marketplace then? And
that 'monopolies' would be regulated?
If a firm raised its prices, even with the CPD in
place, it really wouldn't be any different than if a
firm raised its prices right now? Except with the CPD
there is sufficient 'effective demand' in the economy
as a whole, without a requirement for a further
overall increase in 'loan-credit' or 'export-credit'
to cover the 'gap' and maintain business profit?
If that's the case, then why did Douglas mention there
even being any need for restrictions on profit on
turnover? Which I see he did, more than once, and
even in his testimony before the House of Commons
committee in Ottawa in 1923 (section 3, in the 'plain
text' you posted). Would that possibly have been done
just to assuage fears that businesses might 'unjustly'
profit through the CPD, considering the sentiments of
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.