|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] What is the actual "gap"? Addendum|
|Date:||Thursday, February 7, 2008 08:05:24 (-0500)|
|From:||Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|In reply to:||Message 5243 (written by Joe Thomson)|
Hi Bill (Ryan),
The pages I quoted where that passage can be found in the "Control and
Distribution of Production" were what Mairet listed as his source in "The
Douglas Manual". In the edition I have, it will be found on pages 36-37.
Later, in that same edition, (which I think is the one you have), on page
60, Douglas states:-
"I t is a little difficult to state with any accuracy what the proportion
of cost prices ought to be because of the distorting effect of waste,
sabotage, and aimless luxury. I am making some rather tedious
investigations into this, and I can only say that I am convinced that even
now prices are five times too high, and that with proper direction of
production this figure would be greatly exceeded."
"Credit Power" was first printed as a book in 1922. In the preface it
states that certain chapters were previously delivered as lectures at Oxford
and before the National Guilds League, while others had appeared in "The New
Age", or the "English Review".
Considering that, and that there would have been an enormous increase in
British manufacturing capacity built up during the World War One years, much
of which must have subsequently been available for 'civilian' uses at the
cessation of hostilities; plus the fact that on de-mobilization there would
have been a huge increase in the available workforce, the potentialities of
production of "ultimate products" must have been prodigious indeed.
Douglas did note elsewhere at how rapidly the destruction wrought by four
years of war was being overcome, so the capacity to produce was obviously
there at that time. Maybe that's why the 'gap' figure used was so high
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Thomson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] What is the actual "gap"?
> (Bill Ryan wrote:-) "I do not recall that in *Credit Power,* or elsewhere,
> that Douglas said the discount should be an astounding
> seventy-five percent. I may have missed it. Perhaps
> someone more familiar with Douglas' work than I am
> will cite exactly where he said it."
> (Joe replies:- ) I lay no claim to be more familiar with Douglas's work
> than you are, Bill, but one place that the 75% figure is mentioned is in
> "Control and Distribution of Production" , pages 47-49. That passage
> also be found in "The Douglas Manual", by Phillip Mairet, pages 92-93.
> As quoted in the "Douglas Manual" it reads:-
> "In order, then, to acquire public control of economic policy, we have to
> control the whole mechanism of effective demand ~ the rate at which its
> vehicle, financial credit, is issued, the conditions on which it is
> and take such measures as will ensure that the public, from whom it
> are penalized by withdrawal of the vehicle to the minimum possible extent.
> It must be obvious that the real limit that the rate at which something
> representing purchasing power could be issued to the *public* is equal to
> the maximum rate at which goods can be produced, whereas the 'taking back'
> through prices of this purchasing power should be the equivalent of the
> fraction of this potential production which *is* delivered.
> Let us imagine that wages, salaries and dividends, added together, were
> issued via the productive industries at a *rate* representing the maximum
> possible production of ultimate products, and the actual consumption was
> only one quarter of potential production. Then, clearly, the community
> would have only exercised one quarter of its potential demand. But the
> whole of the *costs* of production ~ the issue of purchasing power through
> the agencies of wages, salaries and dividends ~ would have to be allocated
> to the *actual* production as at present, and if we charge the public with
> the whole cost of production their total effective demand is taken from
> But if we apply to the ascertained cost of production a fractional
> multiplier equal to the ratio of actual consumption to potential
> then we take back in prices that portion of the total purchasing power
> represents the actual energy draft on the productive resources of the
> community, and the price to the actual consumer would be, in the case
> mentioned, 75% less than commercial cost."
> I remember seeing another piece from the early 1920's where I believe
> Douglas mentioned he was trying to determine the 'gap' more precisely, but
> that he felt (un-discounted) prices were at least "five times" more than
> they should be. Perhaps Wally or someone else may remember just where
> was. I haven't been able to find it again tonight yet.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:51 PM
> Subject: [socialcredit] What is the actual "gap"?
> > Wally Klinck has just circulated a paper from 1924 by
> > Francis L. Leet, L.L.D, a negative review of Douglas'
> > *Credit Power and Democracy,* where he makes the
> > following claim:
> > "...we are informed by Major Douglas that our own
> > Government is to print Treasury notes to the extent of
> > the value approximately of three-fourths of our
> > national output of commodities we feel how good the
> > assurance is that no inflation can or will result.
> > Also, as this is, beyond all question, the vital point
> > in his system, we cannot doubt that Major Douglas and
> > his collaborators have tested its soundness and
> > genuineness with scientific care and accuracy."
> > This is referring to the retail discount program. I
> > do not recall that in *Credit Power,* or elsewhere,
> > that Douglas said the discount should be an astounding
> > seventy-five percent. I may have missed it. Perhaps
> > someone more familiar with Douglas' work than I am
> > will cite exactly where he said it. It has, however,
> > been used from the very beginning to ridicule the
> > Social Credit concept profusely. You might remember
> > that we had a discussion a couple of years ago about
> > Frank Ramsey's paper, which was much admired by
> > Keynes, where Ramsey made the same claim, which I then
> > characterized as a straw-man type of argument--the
> > setting up of a ridiculous version of the theory, to
> > knock down.
> > I was therefore astonished to read in another paper,
> > which Wally circulated a few days earlier, the text of
> > Orage's BBC address from 1934, given, I think, a few
> > hours before he died, where he claims:
> > "The stream of Price-values to the shop-window moves
> > much faster than the stream of Money-tickets to the
> > shopping public, with the result that the annual
> > collective shopping tickets of the nation, called its
> > Income, are insufficient to meet the collective annual
> > Price-values created in its shop. Now this is a matter
> > of fact and not of theory; and it can be proved by
> > simple arithmetic. Our shop-keeper, for instance, has
> > told us that, at a rough estimate, our annual output
> > of Price-values is ten thousand million pounds and
> > probably more. And our taxing officials tell us, more
> > accurately, that our annual Monetary Income is about
> > two thousand five hundred million pounds. As four is
> > to one, so is our output of Price-values to the
> > Money-tickets with which to meet them. The nation's
> > means of Consumption measured in Money-tickets, in
> > short, is at least no more than a quarter of its means
> > of Production measured in Prices."
> > It is indeed a matter of simple arithmetic, but where
> > the numbers appear to be quite arbitrary on Orage's
> > part. I would have thought that in more than eighty
> > years of political agitation, someone would have put
> > meat behind the numbers, in determining what they
> > actually are.
> > My guess, and it's just a guess, is that the actual
> > "gap" between "prices" and "purchasing power" is no
> > more than two or three percent.
> > Which is actually very profound and economically
> > significant, in its compounding effect over time.
> > It is counter-productive to overstate the case.
> > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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 email@example.com
> > For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> You're subscribed to this list with the email firstname.lastname@example.org
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit