| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] In reply to Keith, more on A+B | | Date: | Sunday, April 8, 2007 12:06:43 (+0000) | | From: | KEITH WILDE <keithwilde @.........ca>
|
OK Bill, you have clarified that it is the term “precise amount” to which
you object. I suspected that was target of your comment. But it seems to
me that your explanation adds precision to the nature of required
calculations (and data gathering/estimation) rather than to support the
assertion that “there is no need to calculate any amount whatsoever”.
You have in fact affirmed my presumption that “we want to look at…the ratio
of A + B, or entrepreneurial spending, to real production”.
This seems clearly to imply some work for a central data gathering and
analysis agency. That was the point of my comments to Joe. (I remain
interested and uncertain over just what that activity entails and what its
ramifications and implications might be.)
You add the further precision that “what we want to is introduce an element
C through the dividend/discount such that the ratio A + B remains constant
to A + C through time”.
Do you mean the ratio of A+B to A+C, or that A+B is itself a ratio rather
than a sum? Or is what we want a rate of change in A+B to be equal to the
rate of change in A+C? “The ratio will not become constant until C is
raised sufficiently. You keep increasing C until, if and when, the ratio
becomes constant.”
Keith
>From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>Subject: Re: [socialcredit] In reply to Keith, more on A+B
>Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 10:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Again, Keith, it was this statement to which I was
>objecting:
>
>"...the social credit solution would have a government
>office to calculate the precise amount of new claims
>to goods and services that should be distributed to
>keep the system churning without inflation."
>-
>
>There is no need to calculate the *precise* amount at
>all. There is no need to calculate any amount
>whatsoever so long as the dividend/discount is
>introduced gradually from the inception of the
>program. The inherent instability decreases as the
>"gap" between "prices" and "purchasing power" is
>closed.
>
>Before, A + B and A will diverge from each other with
>labor displacement, so either A + B or A or both must
>diverge from real production. It is impossible with
>the orthodox tools to make both change proportionately
>with real production, so we have the trade-off we
>observe empirically in the Phillips curve.
>
>The monetary authorities have attempted to strike a
>balance between moderate inflation and moderate
>unemployment, and they have been reasonably successful
>in doing so. It also means that the economy is kept
>in a permanent condition of under-performance.
>
>If the ratio of B is increasing to A, the ratio of A +
>B is increasing to A.
>
>What we want to is introduce an element C through the
>dividend/discount such that the ratio A + B remains
>constant to A + C through time. The ratio will not
>become constant until C is raised sufficiently. You
>keep increasing C until, if and when, the ratio
>becomes constant.
>
>Up to that point A + B is the dependent variable of C.
>
>The statistical variable we want to look at is the
>ratio of A + B, or entrepreneurial spending, to real
>production.
>
>If A + B begins to increase in respect of real
>production, leading into inflation, you reduce the
>rate of increase to C.
>
>The limit will be at a significantly greater level of
>economic activity than at present.
>-
>
>--- keith wilde <kwilde@tc-biodiversity.org> wrote:
>
>Thanks for this expository effort, Bill. I have spent
>quite a lot of time with it, and have also read your
>more recent reaction to "Mark".
>
>And I think I have understood fairly well. But I am
>still puzzled by just what it is that you disagree
>with. My point was that there must be some kind of
>government office to perform the functions of the
>Credit Authority. I had no intent to be making a claim
>to understanding the nature of the function. So when
>you observe that "the statistical variable to watch
>becomes the relationship of A + B to real production"
>I take that as a more accurate statement of the
>function. The function remains, however, and I presume
>that it would be undertaken by a pre-existing
>government statistical agency. Do you agree with that?
>
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
>in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
>http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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 keithwilde@sympatico.ca
>For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message