| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Replying to Jessop Sutton | | Date: | Friday, April 15, 2005 07:17:50 (-0700) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 920 (written by Jessop Sutton) |
"With respect, I think you have missed the point
entirely."
--------------------------
---------------------------
It seemed to me, the way you worded it, you were
saying that businessmen would get together and jack
up their prices, nullifying the beneficial effect of
the social credit. I now see you were asking: Why
aren't businessmen for it? Finding the answer to
that question was one of my goals when I established
this list.
-
"It is implied, sometimes implicitly and sometimes
explicitly, in SC discussions that the reason why SC
has not been accepted in the 80 or so years it has
been mooted is because the financial and banking
powers are against it."
--------------------------
---------------------------
Well, if "it" is taken to be the theory of C. H.
Douglas, it is apparent to me that not only bankers,
but the majority of those who call themselves "social
crediters" are against it--if postings to this list
are a representative indication. Finding why that is
so was also one of my goals in establishing the list-
-determining why so many of the people who call
themselves social crediters seem to demonstrate such
a poor understanding of the theory of C. H. Douglas.
It is almost as if they had never seen it, yet
apparently many of them have.
-
"Why should they be against it if it ensures a market
for their production which is the source of their
profit?"
--------------------------
---------------------------
Well, it ensures a more favorable market for the
statistical entrepreneur, to the extent the public
wants his product and he is able to supply it. But
the musical chairs aspect to competition, where a
chair is removed with every tick of the clock,
demonstrable through A+B etc., is ameliorated.
Rather than a chair being removed from effective
demand (against the accounted for costs of
production) with every tick of the clock, so to
speak--a chair would be added, accommodating the call
by final consumers upon increasing productive
capacity.
Yes, the case will have to be made. It is in my view
not so much a matter of logical persuasion, but
public relations. The core theory is very good and
innovative, and really not all that difficult to
comprehend. Certainly, in that regard, the movement
has not done a good job in presenting its fundamental
beliefs, or refining them into contemporary language.
There is a whole science of public relations, almost
every principle of which the movement has ignored. I
would say that repeatedly it has shot itself in the
foot. And frankly, I would say that Douglas himself
did some of the shooting.
Which brings us back to, among other things, the
matter of anti-Semitism, whether perceived, or real.
Douglas needed his Karl Rove (or James Carville) to
tell him when he needed to put up, and when to shut
up.
-
--- Jessop Sutton <sutton@kingsley.co.za> wrote:
> Bill,
> With respect, I think you have missed the point
> entirely.
> It is implied, sometimes implicitly and sometimes
> explicitly, in SC
> discussions that the reason why SC has not been
> accepted in the 80 or so
> years it has been mooted is because the financial
> and banking powers are
> against it. Why should they be against it if it
> ensures a market for their
> production which is the source of their profit? The
> reason can only be
> either because they see something which Social
> Crediters do not see, or the
> Social Crediters have failed to make it clear to
> them. Which is it?
>
> In my note I didn't use any superlatives. If I
> implied any conspiracy, that
> was not intended because it was not the point. The
> prospects would just be
> commonly perceived among the entrepreneural sector.
> Ordinary market forces
> would always apply. People would still be people.
>
> Jessop.
> =======================
> On Wednesday 13 Apr 2005 5:02 pm,
> william_b_ryan@yahoo.com wrote:
> > "....[I wonder] why the entrepreneurial and
> financial
> > wizards of the world haven't taken it up? If you
> were
> > sitting somewhere up there with them what would
> you
> > make of the prospect of turning out goods knowing
> > that the PRICES you create will always be met?
> Would
> > you not say to your colleagues in the Chambers of
> > Commerce and Industry, 'Go for it, chaps! Send the
> > PRICES out to the retail outlets and we will draw
> in
> > the cash!' Would you not say that?"
> > ---------------------------------
> > -----------------------------------
> >
> > This has got to be the most specious argument
> against
> > the Social Credit adjustments that I have seen.
> > Because businessmen might get together in a
> > conspiracy against the public is an argument
> against
> > the adjustments? Come on, Jessop! Be real. It
> > seems to me it is an argument against the
> conspiracy,
> > not the adjustments. You build checks and
> balances
> > into the system. Sanctions against anti-social
> > monopoly, etc.
> >
> > Look, the presupposition is a competitive, market
> > economy.
> >
> > Businessmen engage in business activity with the
> > expectation to recover their costs including a
> > profit. But we know from A+B and the other
> Douglas
> > analyses that that is a general impossibility,
> that
> > the statistical businessman cannot recover his
> costs
> > plus a profit due to the accounting flaw
> identified
> > by Douglas. So an incentive is created to break
> the
> > rules in what is effectively an intensifying game
> of
> > musical chairs. They cheat, gouge and lie to
> survive
> > in a situation in which it is not possible for all
> to
> > survive.
> >
> > That particular incentive is removed with the
> Social
> > Credit adjustments.
> > -
> >
> > --- Jessop Sutton <sutton@kingsley.co.za> wrote:
> > > On Monday 11 Apr 2005 10:01 am, Timothy
> Carpenter
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > I was about to argue that collection would be
> > >
> > > difficult and invasive as
> > >
> > > > Keith suggests, but I decided to be positive
> and
> > >
> > > look for a solution to
> > >
> > > > resolve the issue, and it could be a voluntary
> > >
> > > carrot-stick mechanism - who
> > >
> > > > would want to remain outside the discount?
> > >
> > > ==========================
> > >
> > > Why should any more carrots be necessary than
> the
> > > opportunity that SC would
> > > already present to the entrepreneur? I expressed
> > > this thought elsewhere but
> > > no one seems to take the point:-
> > >
> > > ".... [I wonder] why the entrepreneural and
> > > financial wizards of the world
> > > haven't taken it up? If you were sitting
> somewhere
> > > up there with them what
> > > would you make of the prospect of turning out
> goods
> > > knowing that the PRICES
> > > you create will always be met? Would you not say
> to
> > > your colleagues in the
> > > Chambers of Commerce and Industry, 'Go for it,
> > > chaps! Send the PRICES out to
> > > the retail outlets and we will draw in the
> cash!'
> > > Would you not say that?"
> > >
> > > Jessop.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message