Social Credit is not about explaining human nature
or attempting to change human nature. "Que cera, cera". I am at a loss to
understand why dicussions of this calibre are occurring.
If the implementation and application of Social
Credit principles does have any effect on peoples' behaviour it will be an
effect and not an objective. All I can say is that properly instituted it would
be for the good unless one wishes to argue that the elimination of a debt money
system as currently exists is a bad thing.
We are talking about a correction of the financial
accounting system to reflect the truth and reality and what people HAVE to do
now. What people will do in the future under the current system or a Social
Credit system is like arguing about the winning numbers in the next lottery and
what people will do with their winnings.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:19
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: Replying
Joe appears to say there is another answer
(and that is?) and Bill has a vague hope of less incentive to
Yet to get a proper answer. What will people do? Unless we know
this we do not know the effect of SC liquidity on human
On 10/2/05 4:19 pm, "Joe Thomson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
(Tim wrote:-) Are you saying that
even in a recession the firewood sells better? I would also think if you
stock premium materials that these lines hold up better than many lesser
products. Well, it depends on your catchment area mentality I suppose. It
might also explain why some people suffer more in recessions and it is
partly their own spending mentality that is to blame and not just evil
The lower, cheaper grades of lumber consistantly sell faster than
the higher grades, Tim. 'Recession' or not. The customers may
like to have the 'best', may even know that there's a greater 'economy' in
the long run in buying better products, but a lot of their decision all
comes down to the amount of ''effective demand'' they have available at
the time of purchase. Many building supply outlets here will not
even stock the 'upper grade', more pricey products, simply because they
know it takes too long to turn this stock over. There is an old
saying in our business, "If you want to survive, fall in love with the
'margin', not the 'lumber'." And there is no 'margin' til the sale
is made. It does little good to manufacture and have on hand
beautiful, but 'expensive' (price-wise) red cedar siding if five customers
come in looking for it and four tell you the price is too high, and walk
out, and only one actually buys. All that means is that it takes
four times as long to liquidate the costs of making and handling that
stock. And so it doesn't pay to make it. Instead siding is
made out of some 'cheaper', but 'inferior' species, say, hemlock.
Which won't stand up, and from a 'proper' perspective of 'genuine'
long-term 'economy' is really a poor buy. Yet the other four will
buy that, because it's cheaper, and that's all they believe they can
afford. (and considering the rise in personal 'debt-levels' vs.
'incomes' nowadays, they're probably right!) I believe there are
parallels to this in every industry, with virtually every product.
There may be many things that are its 'cause', but one of the ones
that certainly looms largest is what Douglas revealed in his analysis of
the reasons for insufficient 'effective demand'.
(Tim continues:-) How do you
see their spending altered by social credit? Do you see them continuing to
spend on splintery planks, spending EVEN MORE on splintery planks or
I think there would be a truer indication given of what the
customers really want.
subscribed to this list with the email email@example.com
unsubscribe, send a message
For more information, visit
You're subscribed to this list with the email firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe, send a message to
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit