| Subject: | [socialcredit] Re: in point of clarification | | Date: | Saturday, May 19, 2007 08:48:11 (-0700) | | From: | william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|
"For my logic, if you reduce labour, you reduce labour
costs as well as wages, giving equation in relation to
that aspect."
-----------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
Labor is being reduced *per unit output.* It is not
necessarily being reduced in the absolute sense,
because the scope of what can be produced with the
assistance of labor is increasing with discovery and
development. That's why I prefer the term
displacement rather than replacement.
The ratio of A to B is reducing in the ratio of A/A+B,
reducing consuming purchasing power represented by A
in the numerator in respect to the costs of production
represented by A+B in the denominator that are being
impressed to the point of retail.
In other words, reducing A reduces A, but B is not
reducing commensurately.
Another way to put it--and it is admittedly a
simplification--is that the structure of production is
lengthening and broadening in respect to consumption,
requiring increasing working account balances in the
firms sector for day to day operations.
Working account balances held by the firms sector are
therefore increasing in respect to personal account
balances. A dollar in a working account balance
cannot simultaneously be in a personal account
balance.
This disproportionality in the costing process through
time is not adequately addressed by double entry
accounting without external adjustment.
Which can be irrational, as it is now, or rational, in
a system of social credit.
----------------original message-------------
The term "labour displacement" seems to me to be a
perfect example of label thinking. Sounds good, but
needs explanation.
For my logic, if you reduce labour, you reduce labour
costs as well as wages, giving equation in relation to
that aspect.
But if you introduce machine costs in the form of
depreciation, then you are back to the parallel
situation to reinvestment of profit. The only
difference is that the latter charges costs into
prices at an earlier stage. Direct reinvestment of
profit to buy a new machine puts (wages ) out early,
saving to buy one in the future does it later, but the
principle is the same. (Lets not go down the side
issue of what might happen to the money in the mean
time, that's another cycle completely.)
I would be prepared to claim that the only cause of a
"gap" in purchasing power versus costs (the only
overall generation of "B costs") comes from a
reinvestment type situation where the costs are
charged into the prices of goods and services twice,
but only released as wages etc. once.
Regards. John R.
____________________________________________________________________________________Fussy?
Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it
on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
|
Re: in point of cl
Reply to this message