Re: Two items

[Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight]

It is amazing to me how Munson's account (primarily pages 141-143) of
the ways in which Douglas said purchasing power was removed from the
economy so accurately reflect my explanations. I have to give myself
some credit there. :)

On May 28, 7:45 pm, johnwip...@gmail.com wrote:
> First item:
>
> The attached files are:
>
> Chapter Seven from Gorham Munson's *Aladdin's Lamp*,* *in which a diagram
> showing the nature of the "time gap" drawn up by a J. Adamson is included.
>
> A spreadsheet of mine mimicing this diagram, except that I added the extra
> cost of loan repayment into the costs that are included in the various
> prices of production, and assumed that consumers did in fact save their
> money while the goods that they worked on producing had not yet appeared on
> the market.
>
> I had read this diagram, and after meditating on it for a while, I decided
> that I wanted to see what would happen if I included the reality of paying
> back loans in this diagram.  To up the ante I decided to see if consumers
> would have enough money to pay the prices of production even if they did
> save the entirety of their earnings and starved in the meanwhile.
>
> Second item:
>
> What do you think of editing Wikipedia articles to include Social Credit
> thinking?  For instance, on the page "Velocity of money" there is a
> criticism of the theory from an Austrian school economics perspective.  It
> would raise awareness of our theory if we were to include a Social Credit
> perspective on the velocity of money, of course the criticism being stated
> clearly and concisely with sources for reference.
>
>  Aladdin's Lamp--Gorham Munson CH7-Creeping Error.pdf
> 2353KViewDownload
>
>  Modified Adamson Diagram with Debt.txt
> 3KViewDownload

[John Parr]

I also wanted to ask, is P in the C/P ratio the total dollar value of
all costs that are currently in production, or merely the ones that
are at the moment in prices?

[John Parr]

Also: As far as I understand, the Dividend is intended to be an
amount for decent if modest living, increasing as paid employment is
made obsolete by automation. The Dividend is then included in "C" and
C/P brings prices to the correct ratio. Is this correct?

[John G Rawson]

John, a dividend, plus other money put into circulation by the Credit Authority is intended to "fill the gap".
It would be totally dependent on how much extra purchasing power is needed to give the public sufficient funds to buy all the goods and services they produce. Production goes well; higher dividend.  Earthquake, drought etc. resulting in fewer goods; less dividend.
In a healthy economy, replacement of labour should result in lower prices, as has happened to a remarkable degree in the field of electronics. It would also result in loss of jobs and incomes, a situation the present economic system can not handle adequately.
A dividend is not a socialist guaranteed income proposal.
If you want to estimate how much would be involved, work on what Wallace just wrote about the gap and indebtedness.  The annual increase in total debt should be a good estimate. My guess is something between 7 and 10% of GDP.
But because it would be paid to all adult citizens, it would have some "levelling-up" effect.
A discount scheme, on the other hanmd, would increase the gap between rich and poor, because its amount received by each person would depend directly on how much each already had to spend.
Regards.
J R
  

> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 17:13:03 -0700
> Subject: [socialcredit] Re: Two items
> From: johnw...@gmail.com
> To: social...@googlegroups.com

> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "socialcredit" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to socialcredit...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

[Joe Thomson]

 (John Rawson:-)  A discount scheme, on the other hand, would increase the gap between rich and poor, because its amount received by each person would depend directly on how much each already had to spend.'

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

That is simply not true, John.  But what would it really matter even if it were true?  How are the poor further disadvantaged by an increase in the purchasing power of the money they do have relative to anything they need or want to buy with it?   

 

That's what the CPD gives EVERYONE, John, an effective increase in the purchasing power of  money.   EACH dollar buys more.  Do you get that with the National Dividend?  Or just more dollars?  Taken back in higher prices?  Which the poor still can't afford.   It seems to me we might pay a lot less attention to "equality" for all,  and a lot more to "sufficiency" for all, and the CPD is the best vehicle to do just that. 

----- Original Message -----

From: John G Rawson

To: social...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 4:10 PM

Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Re: Two items

John, a dividend, plus other money put into circulation by the Credit Authority is intended to "fill the gap".
It would be totally dependent on how much extra purchasing power is needed to give the public sufficient funds to buy all the goods and services they produce. Production goes well; higher dividend.  Earthquake, drought etc. resulting in fewer goods; less dividend.
In a healthy economy, replacement of labour should result in lower prices, as has happened to a remarkable degree in the field of electronics. It would also result in loss of jobs and incomes, a situation the present economic system can not handle adequately.
A dividend is not a socialist guaranteed income proposal.
If you want to estimate how much would be involved, work on what Wallace just wrote about the gap and indebtedness.  The annual increase in total debt should be a good estimate. My guess is something between 7 and 10% of GDP.
But because it would be paid to all adult citizens, it would have some "levelling-up" effect.

 Adiscount scheme, on the other hanmd, would increase the gap between rich and poor, because its amount received by each person would depend directly on how much each already had to spend.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3184/6373 - Release Date: 05/31/13

[Vi King]

Hi all,

 

If we're worried about increasing the difference between rich and poor, as two of the Johns are, wouldn't a maximum amount for the price discount settle that to a considerable degree?  It could be set to, say, 150% of the mean income, enough to satisfy all thru high middle earnings, but with only a small fraction of the truly wealthy's potential expenditures covered.

 

Viking

On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 6:04 AM, <johnw...@gmail.com> wrote:

Unless we do want there to be a gap between richer and poorer on that basis, I can't think of a purpose for the just price.  At that point, the only thing I can think of to justify it is that it ostensibly stops and reverses inflation.  How it does that is something I've been trying to figure out for a while now. 

Then again, I'm not really sure I understand inflation either.

[Jim Schroeder]

Hi John P.:

 

The purpose of the "just price" or price rebate mechanism is to equate consumption and production.  As Douglas demonstrated in his earliest works, the real cost of production is consumption over an equivalent period of time. Orthodox economics claims that real costs are "opportunity costs". 

 

The price rebate mechanism also reduces prices and increases the purchasing power of money over time.  This will lower interest rates, and help those who have saved their incomes, or those who live on fixed incomes. 

 

 

On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:04 AM, <johnw...@gmail.com> wrote:

Unless we do want there to be a gap between richer and poorer on that basis, I can't think of a purpose for the just price.  At that point, the only thing I can think of to justify it is that it ostensibly stops and reverses inflation.  How it does that is something I've been trying to figure out for a while now. 

Then again, I'm not really sure I understand inflation either.

On Friday, May 31, 2013 6:10:58 PM UTC-5, John G Rawson wrote:

--

Jim Schroeder

 

http://social-credit.blogspot.com/