| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] social credit: over and weakly stated | | Date: | Saturday, August 2, 2008 08:22:20 (-0700) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5480 (written by william_b_ryan) |
(Bill Ryan wrote:-) A more realistic discount I think would be on the order
of no more than 2.5 percent, so the Social Credit proposal is overstated at
least by a factor of 30 to 1.
(Joe replies:-) Even at the seemingly low figure of 2.5%, if that, indeed,
were what it turned out to be, this would put a great deal of new credit
into the hands of consumers.
In BC we are burdened by both the Federal government's GST and the
Provincial one's BC Sales Tax. Both apply to a wide variety of similar
goods and services, and both were set at 7%. Both are 'visible' taxes ~ not
hidden in prices, but added onto the net amount and shown separately on the
invoice.
Recently, the Federal government has lowered the GST to 5%. And while a 2%
reduction doesn't seem like much, amounting in many cases to less than a
dollar on many small sales, the difference is really quite substantial when
the day's and monthly sales and tax takes are totalled.
Take that over the whole economy here, and there's a lot of money that's no
longer being removed from consumers that's again available to them. And
this is money that was being removed that's already been, or is being,
'costed' into the price of articles for sale. While the 2.5% discount from
the CPD hasn't been.
Could make quite a difference, and might be a very realistic figure to start
out with, so far as political 'saleablility' of that part of the Social
Credit proposals are concerned.
----- Original Message -----
From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 10:06 AM
Subject: [socialcredit] social credit: over and weakly stated
> Wally Klinck has recently very graciously circulated photocopies of
Maurice Colbourne's *The Meaning of Social Credit*, which, under a different
title, is reportedly the book that inspired Aberhart to adopt Social Credit,
thereby changing world history.
>
> It contains the typical seventy-five percent retail discount assertion
that, in my estimation, is so overstated as to be ridiculous. A definite
turn-off to people with ordinary common sense and education. In this
proposal new money is being created by the credit authority in the amount of
seventy-five percent of retail sales. One wonders where all the money is
going and how this could not result in massive inflation. A more realistic
discount I think would be on the order of no more than 2.5 percent, so the
Social Credit proposal is overstated at least by a factor of 30 to 1.
>
> Another problem is the weakly stated A + B theorem. The following
statement is typical:
>
> "The essential problem is that the consumer is charged in prices, quite
properly, with capital depreciation, but, quite wrongly, not credited with
capital appreciation."
>
> I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. What, for example, is
meant by "capital appreciation"? One would suppose that somehow the
dividend and discount is the crediting to consumers of "capital
appreciation." One thing for sure, this is not the justification for the
dividend and discount given in Chapter 10 of *Credit-Power and Democracy*.
> http://geocities.com/socredus/compendium/chapter10.txt
>
> Social Crediters had decades to firm up their argument in terms that made
sense. Professional economists once took the Social Credit argument
seriously, and devoted chapters in their books refuting the Social Credit
argument for endemic underconsumption. The famous economist the late Robert
Heilbronner devoted chapters in his macroeconomic college textbooks until he
stopped publishing textbooks in the 1990s. During the past fifteen years,
for the first period since 1918, professional economists have completely
ignored Social Credit. I think the reason for this for the large part is
the lack of anything new from that camp. They have said everything they are
going to say on the matter until something new comes along.
>
> In fact, perhaps the strongest argument for A + B ever presented is not
from anyone identified with the Social Credit movement, but the obscure P.
W. Martin in 1924.
> http://geocities.com/new_economics/martin-douglasist
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message