|
Message 521
|
|
< Previous | Next >
|
|
|
| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: the A+B theorem: Replying to Radu | | Date: | Tuesday, February 1, 2005 00:51:20 (+0000) | | From: | Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk @........uk>
|
Dear Bill,
Actually, what can be done for me is at least partly in progress by your
reply to Jessop and others' replies for which I am grateful. You seem to
have a determination never to accept that I see aspects of what is said
here. That is unfortunate.
You touch on a very important point when you mention in other posts that
explanations can confuse more than clarify.
An example is when people say wages now cannot match the costs of past
production. Most people will go 'urrrr' and not agree as they ignore the
credit supporting demand. I have also thought that in the past.
I believe I can now see how A+B is so, even though some explanations I have
seen are either incomplete, outdated or incorrect. I have outlined how I see
A+B working out VERY 'roughly' below, so maybe we can move on to further
aspects.
A number of issues are niggling me.
1) that all past wages are often assumed to be already spent yet the
recognition of that spending is not highlighted in many a first pass
explanation. I can see that any spent or unspent past wages are funded from
either credit or retained earnings used to fund/invest in a company from
trade cycles even further in the past. It appears to be that companies
starting from funds are still unable to spend all those funds into wages.
Thus retained earnings used to fund new ventures still add to the
theoretical pipe's increasing volume from what I can see (Note I do not
accept the need to describe equity funding for companies as cancellable
credit in one sense of 'cancel' - as in removing from circulation - if an
investor is paid off they will not cancel the money, but re-use it).
2) labour displacement - unemployment increases, ignoring the ability for
displaced labour to find new work (but just draw wealth from others?) - but
then again I see the 'service industry' as non-productive unless it improves
efficiency, such as lawyers (trust), stockmarkets (transparency, liquidity)
etc. if this is taken too far when (ha!) lawyers are paid more than their
value or stockmarkets just churn for commissions, then they begin to be a
drain on the nation's wealth which begins to subsidise this
unearnt/unproductive income.
3) I believe people are actually selling their time to a company. I would
like to consider disposable income as the 'true' A, with wages consisting of
employee's costs and employee's disposable income. Note I am NOT saying this
is what the A in A+B means, but it is an attractive concept in drafting a
parallel version of the theorem in such terms to potentially enable wider
understanding and adoption. People work for net, not gross, for what is a
huge gross to anyone if it is taxed away? By removing the concept of
'consumers' as some beast fed with A we break the arbitrary 'end' point of
costs and so reduce the need for a beginning point.
I am very keen to understand how the credit introduced at retail to
subsidise purchases works in a global market, how prices are truly
controlled by this injection and how it is cancelled and thus
non-inflationary (as suggested on this list).
Tim
++++++++++
Core outline of how I see costs impressed to the point of retail which,
excluding the expect of additional consumer credit, cannot be matched by
demand.
If you look back into the production cycles that make up the B element, the
costs, we see a 'history' of costs from various suppliers which are partly
made up of A, and indeed could be said to be mostly made up of bits of old
A.
As an example, let us say we have a company that sells furniture.
They sell furniture to Joe Public for price = A0t0 + B0t0, being their wages
"A0" now "t0" and their costs "B0" now.
Their costs, B0t0 are made up of the furniture supplier's price, which is
made up of A1t1 + B1t1, being the supplier wages "A1" in the past "t1" and
their costs "B1" in the past.
The supplier's costs are made up of wood costs from the manufacturer, being
A2t2 + B2t2, being the wholesaler's wages, commission ("A2t2") and the cost
of the wood, B2t2.
The cost of the wood is the earnings of the woodcutter who owns the land,
his A3t3 and his costs B3t3.
Thus we can say that the price = A0t0 + B0t0
Or.... Price = A0t0 + A1t1 + B1t1
and... Price = A0t0 + A1t1 + A2t2 + A3t3 + B3t3
But today earnings in the market are A0t0 + A1t0 + A2t0 + A3t0
Thus we see that even if A0t0 reduces in comparison to B0t0, it depends on
how the wages component stretching back into the past of B0t0 compares to
the wages components of those businesses NOW - e.g. is A1t1 >= A1t0 as the
furniture manufacturer automates? Yes.
.
On 27/1/05 8:34 pm, "william_b_ryan@yahoo.com" <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "First, it is important to note that most companies
> start with funding from Entrepreneurial savings or
> corporate venturing from accumulated profits, not
> bank credit loans. This may not be pivotal but is
> significant inasmuch as the money being repaid is not
> normally destined to be cancelled."
> ---------------------
> -------------------
> [REPLY] Typically, you miss the point entirely.
> What am I to do with you, Tim? The theorem is
> irrelevant to where the money "starts" from, or in
> what form. Entrepreneurial (or productive) spending
> creates "costs" that are "cancelled" through "sales."
>
> Another name for "costs" in this context is "debt."
> Debt to yourself, to your investors, to your banker.
> Doesn't matter. You're trying to operationally clear
> the debt and make a profit. Another name for
> "cancellation" in this context is "amortization."
> The point of A+B is that incomes are tending to fall
> in respect to the costs of production, therefore debt
> is never becoming fully amortized in the economy in
> the whole, but is accumulating in an expanding
> "bubble" that will at some point burst. It's an
> accounting flaw that's easily remediated.
> -
>
>
> --- Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Vic,
>>
>> I have been reading the attachment you so kindly
>> sent and it is of great
>> interest. I am hopeful that I may be in agreement
>> with A+B, but it worries
>> me when I see such articles which may contain
>> serious flaws in thinking or
>> at least ambiguous explanation, that it may lead to
>> the Theorem being
>> dismissed out of hand.
>>
>> First, it is important to note that most companies
>> start with funding from
>> Entrepreneural savings or corporate venturing from
>> accumulated profits, not
>> bank credit loans. This may not be pivotal but is
>> significant inasmuch as
>> the money being repaid is not normally destined to
>> be cancelled. It is
>> important to bring this out so as to manage
>> credibility.
>>
>> In the "B becomes A" section, I do need to clarify
>> something: does B equal
>> all the costs and wages of the supplier, or just
>> their costs, with the wages
>> of the suppliers and retailer being represented by
>> A. I.e does B=A1+B1 and
>> B1=A2+B2, or is A=A1+A2+A3?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On 21/1/05 1:25 am, "socred@ecn.net.au"
>> <socred@ecn.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> I do not normally become involved in discussions
>> when it is obvious that
>>> some participants have not done their homework.
>> Recent postings concerning
>>> the A+B theorem and in particular comments
>> claiming that the Bs in the the
>>> Theorem become As indicates the existence of the
>> continuance of the
>>> fallacious beliefs and an inability to apply some
>> lateral thinking.
>>>
>>> Attached are two articles extracted from recent
>> issues of The Australasian
>>> Social Credit Journal. There are those who will
>> not accept the truth because
>>> they have an imbedded belief that as an
>> intelligent person they have the
>>> ability to defend their position. So be it, but
>> why waste time of others
>>> because of either a lack of or inability to
>> understand or because of a
>>> desire to defend a mistaken belief held so dear as
>> to be the truth.
>>> V. Bridger
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> You're subscribed to this list with the email timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message