|Subject:||[socialcredit] in further reply to Joe Thomson|
|Date:||Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:04:36 (-0700)|
|From:||william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
Just to expand somewhat, Joe, on my earlier reply.
Firms sell and consumers purchase goods, services AND
securities. The problem now is that consumers are
severely limited in their ability to purchase
securities, because they as a class have only a small
surplus in their wages and salaries over their costs
of living. With the Social Credit dividend and retail
discount, consumers will increasingly purchase
securities, and here I use the term broadly defined,
from which they will increasingly derive unearned
income in the form of dividends from firms whose
profit is being sustained through the Social Credit
program. The Social Credit dividend and discount are,
in the final analysis, nothing more than macroeconomic
accounting adjustments that compensate for the flaw in
double entry accounting demonstrated through the A + B
theorem, something like leap year adjustments to the
calendar. The full scope of the "dividend" in
Douglas's theory is not limited to the Social Credit
dividend and discount. Some of the profit to the
firms will be invested in new productive capacity
without the necessity for loans from the banks. The
result is an economy not nearly so financially
constrained as at present.
Bill, thanks for this explanation. This is truly
fascinating. It is a difficult conception for me to
immediately grasp, and I'm sure others would find it
so, too, since it requires looking at things in a way
far differently from the way we usually do. But put
as you've put it here, it does seem to make sense.
When you wrote one time before, I believe it was in a
discussion with Michael Lane a few years ago, that
consumers buy goods and services, and 'securities',
then with the Social Credit augmentations to income we
could expect to see a broadening of capital ownership,
(and more investment in 'new' product development and
discoveries), as the "propensity to consume",
(existing) product diminished and more of our
individual incomes could be directed into investment?
If that's the case, then that would certainly be
something different and more meaningful from what the
Kelso ESOP schemes, ("scams", because I think you're
right in what you've written previously about a lot of
them being just that), have to offer.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.