| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] in further reply to Joe Thomson | | Date: | Saturday, March 22, 2008 13:10:27 (-0700) | | From: | Vicky Davis <eyeswideoopen @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5303 (written by william_b_ryan) |
Why on earth would people with small amounts of money invest it in the stock
market? The stock market is a rigged game. The little guys - even when they
band together in mutual funds LOSE. Pray for an earthquake to drop the
entire east coast of America into the ocean. That would solve the
problem.
william_b_ryan@yahoo.com wrote: 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
------------------original
message-------------------
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.
Joe
____________________________________________________________________________________
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 eyeswideoopen@yahoo.com
For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Vicky
Davis
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the
tranquility of
servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in
peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands
which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that you were our countrymen." ~ Samuel Adams
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
|
Re: in further rep
Reply to this message