|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] Argument through Irony|
|Date:||Wednesday, March 9, 2005 15:12:32 (+0000)|
|From:||Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk @........uk>
Re: [socialcredit] Argument through Irony
If employment is rising then where is the ‘labour displacement’? Odd that you disregard points raised by Jim but used account balances as the reason for the ‘gap’ with me.
I can see that account balances cause a gap and even without account balances we can see that a growing economy currently needs debt to fund its growth under the present mechanism – see my post Feb 1(below), which takes the A2, A3 point further in differentiating between A3 in the past, say, and A3 now.
However, this ended for some unknown reason, awaiting your and Vic’s reply, I believe. I awaited Vic’s response on the ‘discussions of calibre’ when I asked reasonable questions and tried to discuss a subsidy and yours when you did not touch the algorithm and then would not discuss subsidy.
On 9/3/05 12:36 pm, "William B. Ryan" <email@example.com> wrote:
Jim, please answer the question I posed to you earlier under the heading, Question for Schroeder:ORIGINAL Feb 1 POSTING:
...My question to you: If B=A2, the condition of steady state, then A1+B=A1+A2. So where's the gap between prices and purchasing power?
Jim <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
You're subscribed to this list with the email email@example.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
On 1/2/05 12:51 am, "Timothy Carpenter" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Dear Bill,
> Core outline of how I see costs impressed to the point of retail which,
> excluding the expect of additional consumer credit, cannot be matched by
> If you look back into the production cycles that make up the B element, the
> costs, we see a 'history' of costs from various suppliers which are partly
> made up of A, and indeed could be said to be mostly made up of bits of old
> As an example, let us say we have a company that sells furniture.
> They sell furniture to Joe Public for price = A0t0 + B0t0, being their wages
> "A0" now "t0" and their costs "B0" now.
> Their costs, B0t0 are made up of the furniture supplier's price, which is
> made up of A1t1 + B1t1, being the supplier wages "A1" in the past "t1" and
> their costs "B1" in the past.
> The supplier's costs are made up of wood costs from the manufacturer, being
> A2t2 + B2t2, being the wholesaler's wages, commission ("A2t2") and the cost
> of the wood, B2t2.
> The cost of the wood is the earnings of the woodcutter who owns the land,
> his A3t3 and his costs B3t3.
> Thus we can say that the price = A0t0 + B0t0
> Or.... Price = A0t0 + A1t1 + B1t1
> and... Price = A0t0 + A1t1 + A2t2 + A3t3 + B3t3
> But today earnings in the market are A0t0 + A1t0 + A2t0 + A3t0
> Thus we see that even if A0t0 reduces in comparison to B0t0, it depends on
> how the wages component stretching back into the past of B0t0 compares to
> the wages components of those businesses NOW - e.g. is A1t1 >= A1t0 as the
> furniture manufacturer automates? Yes.