| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: the A+B theorem: Replying to Radu | | Date: | Wednesday, February 2, 2005 06:28:41 (-0800) | | From: | Radu Seserman <radudelona @.....com>
|
William B. Ryan,
Even we agree on Social Credit in principle, we have
opposite views on the A+B theorem. It is true you put
in time to reply my post. I did not reply back
directly because I did not what to say. Basically I
agree with nothing you say. My congested schedule and
your rather aggressive style made me try to use my
time in a more effective way as oppose to just argue
with no hope for an agreement.
You insist on separating retail purchases from
business purchases, that is completely wrong to me.
You reject the process of saving/accumulation as a
cause to the imbalance between purchasing power and
goods available.
I will use your own arguments to prove A+B theorem is
wrong.
1) In a recent post Wally presented Major Douglas's
essay, "Social Credit Principles". A few excerpts
that, as I understand them, prove without any doubt
that Douglas considered savings a problem for the
economic cycle:
- "2. That the credits required to finance production
shall be supplied, not from savings, but be new
credits relating to new production."
- "The complaint which is levelled at the banks is
generally that they pay too large a dividend. Now
curiously enough, in my opinion, almost the only thing
which is not open to destructive criticism about the
banks is their dividend. Their dividend goes to
shareholders and is purchasing-power, but their
enormous concealed profits, a small portion of which
goes in immensely redundant bank premises, etc., do
not provide purchasing-power for anyone, and merely
aggrandise banks as banks."
2) In recent post you expressed A+B theorem in
mathematical form:
"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"
I cannot agree more with you here. Only the
conclusions you derive from here are incorrect.
The general form for the price is:
PRICE = SUM(AnTn) + BnTn where 'n' is an the
infinite because, even with a handful of participants
in the economic cycle, you can never stop the
iteration; always B it will have an 'A' component.
What mathematics tells us in this situation is that
'BnTn' is negligible, virtually ZERO!
Also 'today earnings in the market' are for most of
the time (excluding deflationary periods) HIGHER than
the total price of goods available today.
I doubt I will change your views but I tried. To me is
more important how to apply the Social Credit
principle.
My best wishes,
Radu Seserman
'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' Ghandi
--- william_b_ryan@yahoo.com wrote:
> Radu, this posting of yours is a great
> disappointment. The arguments you make are exactly
> the same arguments you made in your posting of
> January 16, to which I replied the same day.
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/ryan-01-16-05.txt
> I put some effort into the reply. I will expect you
>
> to address those counterarguments in your next
> posting. By ignoring them, you have basically taken
>
> the "ignoramus who knows it all" approach, which is
> not acceptable.
>
> While I appreciate your participation in our forum,
> I
> do expect you to become minimally conversant with
> the
> subject matter. Some introductory materials are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium .
>
>
>
> --- Radu Seserman <radudelona@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Vic and A+B supporters,
> >
> > Please do not support the A+B theorem because it
> > seems
> > to have an answer to a problem. It is the wrong
> > answer
> > and therefore it cannot solve the problem. Try to
> > see
> > the entire process as a whole and do not focus on
> > only
> > one link.
> > Vic, you say:
> > 'A payments are not used to cancel existing loans.
> B
> > payments when received by the recipient may be
> > banked
> > into a loan or overdraft account. Full stop.
> Period.
> > This may allow for the recipient to make A
> payments
> > depending upon the position of the business but
> > there
> > is no guarantee that the recipient can or will
> make
> > an
> > A payment.'
> > Where the recipient would make the A payments from
> > if
> > not from the proceeds received as B payments?
> >
> > Vic, you continue:
> > 'Such a payment would be a completely different
> > transaction and as such would create a new set of
> > costs (wages etc) in establishing a new set of
> > prices.'
> > There is not a separate set of costs/prices
> because
> > the price the supplier charges, and receives B
> > payments for, is included in the price the
> retailer
> > charges. It is true that the A payments for the
> > retailer cannot offset all outcome from the
> > retailer.
> > The difference is to be offset by the A payments
> at
> > the supplier. 'A' payments offset only new added
> > value.
> >
> > The distinction between retail sales and business
> > sales is incorrect for the macroeconomic aspect.
> For
> > a
> > baker,how is it different the income received on
> > bread
> > sold to an individual (walk-in customer) from the
> > similar bread sold to the restaurant next door, to
> > be
> > used as 'raw material' in its business? There is
> no
> > economic difference between a person buying a loaf
> > of
> > bread and a power plant buying coal; both entities
> > use
> > the purchase to produce their specific outcome:
> man
> > power in the case of the individual, energy in the
> > case of the power plant.
> >
> > While I agree with your last statement: 'There is
> no
> > real connection between the receipt of a B payment
> > and
> > the expenditure of an a payment.' I would apply
> that
> > to A payments as well. The reality is that people
> > and
> > business do not spend/exercise their purchasing
> > power
> > immediately. Some accumulate purchasing power for
> a
> > long time, so at any given time there is a portion
> > of
> > the purchasing power stagnant. For any period of
> > time,a day, a month, a year there will be an
> amount
> > of
> > purchasing power excluded from the economic flow,
> so
> > an imbalance exist but not because A+B theotem.
> >
> > The A+B theorem is an example of the old saying
> > 'Cannot see the forest because of the trees'.
> >
> >
=====
Sincerely yours,
Radu Seserman
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi
"Life is meant to be fun!"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message