| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] in further reply to Joe Thomson | | Date: | Saturday, March 22, 2008 20:07:47 (-0800) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5303 (written by william_b_ryan) |
Thanks, Bill. I agree with all that.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:04 AM
Subject: [socialcredit] in further reply to Joe Thomson
> 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 thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: in further rep
Reply to this message