| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Richard C. Cook: Monetary Crank | | Date: | Sunday, September 7, 2008 12:11:52 (-0700) | | From: | william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|
In reply to Rodney Shakespeare:
"In the knol on binary economics, I wrote one sentence making a brief reference
to the Fund. In your nit-picking frenzy you did not even manage to quote the
whole sentence. It was this:-
*The Alaska Permanent Fund takes the annual income from the Alaskan oil pipe
line and distributes it directly as income to each individual Alaskan citizen —
somewhere between $900 and $1800 per year (in 2005 dollars).*
"That is a reasonable one sentence summary of the situation. Could you do
better in the same number of words?"
-----------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
No Rodney, it is almost the complete opposite of the situation, so you're not
telling the truth, though perhaps not intentionally. In the history of the fund
I linked to yesterday the pipeline is not even mentioned. http://www.apfc.org/home/Content/reportspublications/tp5-2.cfm
The fund receives twenty-five percent of state "mineral bonuses, royalties and
related income" which is not paid directly to citizens but invested into a
diversified investment portfolio. Some of the income to the portfolio is
reinvested and the remainder is distributed as dividends.
Remember that the fund and its dividend plan was established in direct
opposition from the Kelsoists, who pushed then Senator Mike Gravel's GSOC plan to
purchase one-sixth of the pipeline, which would have been a massive boondoggle to
the sellers, and was rejected by the people of Alaska in referendum.
The keyword here is diversification, which is anathema to Kelsoists. See my
correspondence with Mike Gravel in a public forum: http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/ryan-05-01-03.txt
Your colleague Norman Kurland quite absurdly describes the immensely popular
Permanent Fund as the “bastardization of trickle-down socialism and
trickle-down capitalism.”
-
"Alas, everything you say indicates that you hate wide ownership..."
-----------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
This is a gross slander.
-
"...even if you are right that the costs will work out the same as at present,
the point is that the ownership will become more widely distributed."
-----------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
This won't happen if you wreck the system of free enterprise, which is what I
fear will happen if by some chance your proposals are accepted. And I demarcate
Kelso's proposals from your additions to the theory. Kelso's proposals were
quite modest in caparison.
-
"You think productive capacity backs the currency at present? Heh, heh -- you
must be joking or -- heh, heh -- perhaps you're not.
-----------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
At present the determination of what is productive is determined in the final
analysis by consumers in free and competitive markets through the mechanism of
profit and loss. Productive investments earn a profit and unproductive
investments do not. Every investor expects to earn a profit when he initiates
his investment. The market determines through the free choices of consumers if
he will succeed. What you want to do is substitute a non-market decision by some
bureaucrat or quasi-bureaucratic board to direct credit to what he or it has
decided is "productive" and denying credit to what he or it has decided is not
"productive," abstracting the independence of the entrepreneur and consumer
from the equation. In your blissful ignorance you don't realize that this was
the old Soviet Union's system, in their monopolized financial sector, which
directed grants and "interest free" loans to favored enterprises. Binary
Economics, as you submit it with its
quirky additions to Kelso's theory, is the economic system of the old Soviet
Union.
-
"And you're obviously one of those who think that the great 'free market' global
economy is having a few temporary difficulties and that soon all will be in back
in equilibrium."
-----------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
But remember that I believe there is a flaw in the system of national
accountancy that distorts the market, which in principle is easily corrected
through macroeconomic accounting adjustment. The existence of this flaw is
denied by conventional economists, who through their misguided advice imposed a
"Western" style economic system on what was the Soviet Union after the
collapse of Communism, that caused a colossal depression in that great land that
spans eleven time zones, that retarded the progress of freedom and liberty by at
least several decades.
-
--- On Sat, 9/6/08, Rodney Shakespeare <rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com>
wrote:
Re: [socialcredit] Richard C. Cook: Monetary Crank
Saturday, September 6, 2008 2:43 PM
From: "Rodney Shakespeare" <rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com>
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Cc: "Discussion Forum for Global Justice" <Discussion@globaljusticemovement.net>
Bill,
Would you kindly do me a favour and:-
a) say where you stand on national bank-issued interest-free loans and
debt-free issuance (as I have requested of you)
b) stop your nit-picking.
Moreover, you have problems following what I write because your mind is locked
within the old paradigm (and its vocabulary and concepts). In contrast, what I
write is a reflection of the new paradigm. The old/new paradigm conflict
inevitably results in intellectual and psychological problems for you.
Alaska Permanent Fund
In the knol on binary economics, I wrote one sentence making a brief reference
to the Fund. In your nit-picking frenzy you did not even manage to quote the
whole sentence. It was this:-
The Alaska Permanent Fund takes the annual income from the Alaskan oil pipe line
and distributes it directly as income to each individual Alaskan citizen —
somewhere between $900 and $1800 per year (in 2005 dollars).
That is a reasonable one sentence summary of the situation. Could you do better
in the same number of words?
I like the Fund because it provides citizens with an income from a productive
asset. You are fixated on destroying any phenomena related to the spreading of
ownership (or beneficial income).
Adminstration cost
My last email to you discussed administration cost fairly extensively and
clearly but your old paradigm mindset prevents you from understanding.
I fully explained the public capital and micro-credit situations (which you have
deliberately ignored) and that leaves the private capital situation. Alas,
everything you say indicates that you hate wide ownership and, even if you are
right that the costs will work out the same as at present, the point is that the
ownership will become more widely distributed. .OK?
100% banking reserves.
Goodness me! You are out of date! And you did not understand the meaning of
the Present Developments section in the knol -- a considerable number of
post-Kelso developments (1999 onwards) are clearly set out (and some others are
not mentioned).
Get with it, Bill!
Productive capacity backing currency
You think productive capacity backs the currency at present? Heh, heh -- you
must be joking or -- heh, heh -- perhaps you're not. And you're obviously one of
those who think that the great 'free market' global economy is having a few
temporary difficulties and that soon all will be in back in equilibrium.
Public housing
That naughty old mindset is showing itself again. Public housing (and private
housing in particular circumstances) can be cheaply financed but that does not
stop competitive tendering etc for construction. Low cost public housing has
been done before (e.g., New Zealand) and it can be done again.
Incidentally, nothing that you say ever seems to relate in any way to the
policies, critique and generous attitudes of the New Zealand (Social Credit)
Democratic Party. Please tell me, have you heard of the New Zealand Democrats
and what do you think of them?
I do not have any more time to reply to the rest of your email but you are wrong
on all points e.g. you do not seem to understand that the Humber Bridge debt has
been substantially written off because, due to compound interest, the
astronomical debt became unrepayable.
I will be blunt -- I do not understand how you can ever claim to be some form of
Social Crediter. You support interest and everything you say seems to end up as
a defence of the status quo.
Rodney Shakespeare.
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message