|
(John Rawson wrote:-) 2. We have a diference of opinion on whether
competition will work in a sellers' market. I say it won't; I believe you
need to prove it will. Until such time as someone does, I could not
honestly promote this particular policy.
(Joe replies:-) If you had a "seller's market"
you wouldn't need a 'discount'. Your merchant is getting his profit
from Consumer's incomes alone, unaugmented. Prices rise, and
the 'discount' becomes inoperative.
There is still competition because not everyone's price
will rise the same amount. Ongoing business costs still have to be
met, and ongoing sales are necessary to meet them. And, all other things
being equal, the merchant with lower prices will still get the business
first.
Besides, we are talking about the CPD being an
aggregate discount that applies to all items. It makes all things
more affordable, for sure, but that doesn't mean any one who wants some
particular thing then necessarily has enough money as an
'individual' to immediately buy it. Some things would still have to be
saved for. Or financed, if the desire or need to possess is
immediate.
Many people already have most of the articles they need,
or want, and no reason to purchase a replacement or duplicate item, no matter
what the price. What we want to do is allow those who don't, (and the rest
of us, too), easier access 'financially' to the full productive realities that
are 'physically' extent.
Staple items like food and clothing are highly unlikely to
be caught in a "seller's market" ~ the existing and potential productive
capacity to supply both is normally far ahead of consumption.
(John continues:-) 3. While this is a point of agreement, I would
emphasise that we all prefer the carrot to the stick. There must be
worthwhile incentives to work, whether financial or other, such as
self-esteem.
(Joe replies:-) Some of the hardest working people
are those who have the least 'need' to be. Either financially, or as
a matter of self-esteem. Many times, I believe, they just have a great
interest in the job at hand. They are doing something they like to do, and
what is deemed 'work' by most others, is more like 'play' to them. It's
what they enjoy. There's nothing wrong in this, so long as their 'work'
isn't towards being a furtherance of their "will to power" over
others.
(John continues:-) 4. Sure, people could afford to pay their
taxes. But the system would still give with one hand and take away with
the other, with costs involved in both processes.
(Joe replies:-) That's the 'cost' of democracy,
John. Would you deny the accused a trial by jury, simply because it's "too
costly"?
People worry about the Banks being able to claim real
wealth from money created "out of nothing". But doesn't the
Banker need his borrower's default to do this? A default, which, with the
macro-economic accounting uncorrected, is virtually certain to occur to
some borrowers, in the economy as a whole. And one which may be
induced in particular instances by a Bank's refusal to lend. These
things are correctable.
But when your 'Government' creates ALL
the money, and is the only show in town? When it can claim YOUR
property simply by printing a 'ticket' of likely declining value and
giving it to you in 'forced' exchange for it? You can't break a 'monopoly'
by making it more absolute, or just changing the name of the
monopolist.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 4:14
PM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit]
Summarising
Thanks, Joe. I see no argument with most of your points,
which seem to me to be putting what I wrote in different (and considerably
more) words.
Only four comments:
1. You cling to the antiquated
word "Theorem" which may mean something to economists but is meaningless
outside Euclidian geometry to anyone else. I prefer the term "model". In fact,
whether anyone likes it or not, a theory expressed in such a form is, by
modern definition, a model. What is more, a theorem is something set up to be
proved, a process that is impossible outside pure theory.
2. We have a
diference of opinion on whether competition will work in a sellers'
market. I say it won't; I believe you need to prove it will. Until such
time as someone does, I could not honestly promote this particular
policy.
3. While this is a point of agreement, I would emphasise that we
all prefer the carrot to the stick. There must be worthwhile incentives
to work, whether financial or other, such as self-esteem.
4. Sure, people
could afford to pay their taxes. But the system would still give with
one hand and take away with the other, with costs involved in both
processes.
John R.
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:14:14 -0500
From: thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Summarising
Hi John,
I'll come back to your Summary
and respond in 'green' beneath yours below:-
(John Rawson wrote:-)
I believe it is time to summarise key points that have
emerged over the course of long discussions:
A+B ANALYSIS.
In terms of
Douglas analysis of individual businesses, this must be taken as
factual. Were it not, someone would have shown the data to be
fallacious long ago.
When it is applied to the whole economy, because
other factors may come it, the model becomes theoretical. But many points of
evidence suggest it is more correct than the orthodox theory, none the least
being the fact that banking systems in modern times have
increased money supplies comparatively astronomically without
causing the equivalent disastrous inflation that orthodox theory would
predict. It has only occurred at a lesser level.
I thought we had established
that A+B was a 'macro-economic' accounting theorem, in the manner of a
complex 'reductio ad absurdum'. One that helps
illustrate what happens, for various reasons, when A is diverging in
ratio to A+B over time in the economy as a
whole.
That when total incomes
are falling in ratio to the total costs of production coming forward into
prices at the point of final retail, Profit from Sales will be declining and
increasingly unable to fully amortize existing loans. Which won't be
renewed, ultimately pinching off potential production short of existing
plant's actual capacity.
That the 'correction' was
to restore and maintain A+B in constant ratio to A by augmenting A
with sufficient 'new credits' not 'costed' into production. Allowing
the community as a whole a fuller access to the potential goods and services
that would be 'physically' available otherwise, but are 'financially'
denied us through insufficient 'effective
demand'.
EFFECTS. Douglas predictions that the tendency towards a
deficiency of purchasing power would cause periodic financial collapse,
struggle for markets and even war appear to have been justified.
Well, the conditions necessary
to try to maintain a sufficiency of purchasing power under the current
arrangements cause those things to occur.
REMEDIES PROPOSED.
1. A system of national accounting for each
country, to determine how much new money would be required over a following
period carried out by a government agency, (note small "g"), a national
credit authority, independent of political institutions, which would
also create the necessary credits and distribute them as:
a. Subsidies
(if this word grates, please provide an equivalent within present accepted
lantguage) to reduce the cost of all comsumer goods (?and services), local
or imported, at retail point, without any price control mechanism,
and,
It doesn't grate on me, but
Douglas used the word 'rebate' in his testimony before the MacMillan
Commission, and that's probably a closer description of the idea than
'subsidy', since that latter is usually thought of as something coming from
taxation. In one of the suggested CPD mechanisms, the customer would
indeed be receiving a 'rebate' after first having paid the regular
price.
b. A
national dividend, its value obviously dependent on the state of the economy
as per the national balance sheet, to be paid equally to every adult
citizen.
Presumably the authority would decide the proportion to
go each way.
Presumably.
It is
accepted that no retailer will raise prices to higher levels, despite the
fact that they would continue to be subsidised at any level. (Because
we say so, presumably.)
If the retailer's costs
increase he might well raise his prices, might he not?
But I think we're assuming that 'competition' will contine to make the
lower limit of price the ruling one. And there's no reason for us to
assume otherwise, so far as I'm aware.
It is also
accepted (I believe reasonably) that sufficient people will desire to better
themselves by working to produce goods etc., or will simply work for the
good of the community because they enjoy so doing.
Most people, given a free choice, WANT to
work at something. Maybe not as much as they work now, in terms of
hours. But that doesn't necessarily always mean that
they'll be any less productive. Sometimes they might even be more
productive, and take a renewed interest in their work. And that's
something any manager should embrace with open arms. People HAVE
to do something, most of us, anyways. We'd be bored to death
otherwise. But there's a big difference between 'forcing' someone to
work by making it impossible for him to live unless he does, and work that
is undertaken because the worker feels he is doing something he wants to do,
that "in some way", (maybe not 'monetarily', or maybe so), is profitable to
him.
No new credits will be issued to central or local government agencies,
which will continue to rely on present methods of finance:
1. Taxing,
i.e. taking back from the people money distributed as above, and/or,
But taxing is not as now.
Something which presently makes the 'gap' between prices and purchasing
power ever wider. Something which has a lot to do with trying to keep
money scarce in the hands of the public, to install in us firmly the
conception that we can't 'afford' to do anything for themselves.
But rather must rely on 'government' to do it for us. Under
SC we're closing the 'gap' between earned incomes and prices first, and
then, for what taxation is necessary, only opening it a bit. That's my
interpretation of it, from the example Douglas gave in his testimony in
Ottawa, and mentioned elsewhere later, (like the "Draft Plan for Scotland"
for instance.)
Regards,
Joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
