| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] John Rawson's Questions | | Date: | Monday, December 24, 2007 10:16:57 (-0700) | | From: | Martin Hattersley <jmartinh @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5180 (written by John G Rawson) |
John, aren't you just tilting at a straw man?
Consumer preferences will mean that different products and services in
competition with each other will give diffrent margins of profit, depending
on the public's evaluation of their merit. That alone gives guidance to
producers as to what the public wants, and will steer them in the right
direction to fill these. There's no need to force anyone into bankruptcy to
do this.
Martin Hattersley, 5929-189 St.,
EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
Phone (780) 483-5442
e-mail <jmartinh@shaw.ca>
----- Original Message -----
From: "John G Rawson" <johngrawson@hotmail.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 11:53 AM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] John Rawson's Questions
Joe, if people can buy all goods available, how does competition work? Or do
we have to postulate a system where there in NEARLY enough purchasing power,
so that inferior goods remain unsold and competition does occur?
Frankly, I don't think all this has been fully thought through, and that is
why so many put forward the controlled "just price" version.
And would you like to get into public debate on an idea like this that can
only be defended by saying "Yes, it will work" without explaining how? Not
for me. I like to attack the enemy, not defend.
Regards. John R.
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:59:19 -0500From: thomsonhiyu@shaw.caTo:
socialcredit@elistas.comSubject: Re: [socialcredit] John Rawson's Questions
Hi John,
Well, I don't really see how there couldn't be competition, the same as
there is now. Because the discount doesn't increase anyone's purchasing
power until AFTER the sale has been made. No one gets any money from it
unless something sells first. And that would be true in the application of
either of the two mechanisms cited.
Now if you contrast that with having your Government, or its Reserve Bank,
''spend money into circulation for infrastructure" to try to bridge the
'gap', you don't get an increase in the purchasing power of each dollar that
way, you simply get access to more dollars. It's not in any way tied to a
reduction in consumer goods prices. And that increase in the number of
dollars will most likely raise prices of consumables.
Under the CPD the merchant does still have to compete for sales, same as
now. He has fixed costs which go on month by month whether he sells
anything or not. And his only source of revenue to meet these expenses is
from sales. He competes, or he loses out.
Regards,
Joe
From: John G Rawson
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 4:51 PM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] John Rawson's Questions
Thanks, Joe. OK, we're down to the crunch point. Competition, you say,
will apply. I say it won't and never has in times of sufficient purchasing
power to buy all goods available. Next question: how can we find out who's
right?!!Happh New Year too.
John R.
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:59:07 -0500From: thomsonhiyu@shaw.caTo:
socialcredit@elistas.comSubject: Re: [socialcredit] John Rawson's Questions
Hi John,
I'll add some comments below yours below.
(John Rawson wrote:-) Gotcha, my friend. You have added to the confusion
on this issue. Somewhere we read that the buyer will get a discount back
after the purchase. Here you say the retailer's prices will be lower if he
works the scheme because he gets the payment. (Which is obviously the way to
go if it is to be used.)
(Joe replies:-) These are two possible separate 'mechanisms' of applying
the CPD. Either one would work, and there are some obvious advantages to
both. The effect though is the same, whichever method is chosen. The
customer gets the goods at a discount. The merchant gets his Sales revenue
from two sources instead of one.
The whole scheme had been clouded by mystic statements, with nobody prepared
to state plainly, step by step, how it would work.However, I take it we have
established firmly that it will not be a "just price" scheme, contingent on
prices not rising.
(Joe replies:-) Well, I think it is a 'just price' scheme. Only you have to
look at it 'macro-economically', as it applies to the whole economy over
whatever time period is chosen.
That concept has been around as long as I can remember, and I wonder where
this traditional SC term comes in if not here.
(Joe replies:-) It comes in from a passage in ''Economic Democracy'' where
Douglas is describing the relative merits of "Medievalism" to a modern
Industrialised economy. In pre-Industrial Revolution times a far greater
percentage of the cost of any article was current labor cost. And more
fully available to the craftsman at the end of the process when his product
sold to "..buy more raw material and the product of other men's labour."
There was not the 'lengthening and broadening' of the structure of
production, labor displacement, allocation of costs into price, etc..
Which came with Industrialism, and an economy powered by energy sources
other than human muscle. The 'just price', in Medieval times, was the price
that articles could sell for, and what they could sell for was the 'just
price'. That is the advantage we lost 'financially' with modernization, and
what the CPD would help restore.
But you have not countered my assertion of the danger of price rises in an
economy where all goods etc. can be sold, as opposed to the present one that
forces srtong competition.
All you have done is give an opinion to the contrary without underlying
reasons.
(Joe replies:-) I don't really see what you're getting at. You'd have more
problems that way if your government 'spent money into circulation' for
infrastructure, I think.
There is still going to be competition for sales, and price will play a
large role, as it does now, in determining who'll get the business. The
price is not 'controlled' rigidly. The merchant sets it, each one
independently using whatever criteria he takes into account, just as now.
The discount does not apply unless the price is lowered. And it will be
lowered.
One thing we would not want though, I think, anyways, would be to have
large merchants who already do a high volume of business at a very low
profit margin, try to use the CPD to help 'predatory price' their smaller
competitors out of business. But there are certainly safeguards available
that could be used to prevent that from happening.
Our present experience in this country shows that demand inflation is
possible in one sector even now, in our case housing. While concurrently we
have an increasing number of hungry people. Yes, here.
(Joe replies:-) We've had a tremendous run up in housing prices here, too.
And an increasing number of hungry people, even amongst many who are
working. But simply cannot meet the cost of living for adequate
necessities, no matter how hard they try to 'economise'. All the more
reason for a CPD, I think.
And all the best for the festive season to ye!
Same to you,
John!---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 jmartinh@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.8/1195 - Release Date: 24/12/2007
11:19 AM
--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 19208 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
|
Re: John Rawson's 
Reply to this message