P = In < Pr
55 views
Skip to first unread message
Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
Jun 12, 2013, 1:14:06 PM6/12/13
to socialcredit
A post to the New World Economics Review blog:
(CAPS are for emphasis only)
Garrett,
I would say that what is required is two things: an accurate
description of the present and moment to moment essential state of
production that at the same time includes an accurate description of
the totality of the market itself. And I would say that this can be
expressed thusly:
P = In < Pr The act of Production is equal to total Individual
Incomes being less than total Prices.
That fulfills the requirements above. The ongoing state of production
described with ALL of the ESSENTIAL elements involved, namely
INDIVIDUALS with incomes and products with PRICES. And since
production ITSELF CREATES this inequality and production does not have
a mind of its own, WE, INDIVIDUALS, who DO have minds, must ACT to
provide the described element of the inequality…additional individual
income.
The problem is not that macro-economics and microeconomics don’t
aggregate. It’s that WE DON’T MAKE THEM AGGREGATE. We must stop
worshiping the false god of a non-thinking market, WE ARE THE MARKET,
WE CREATE THE MARKET CONDITIONS WHICH WILL GIVE EQUAL CONSIDERATION TO
BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE SYSTEM…..AND YET WE, AS INDIVIDUALS, MUST
BE THE ONES ULTIMATELY IN CONTROL….BECAUSE THAT IS THE PROPER
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OURSELVES….AND THE SYSTEM.
Social Credit….the right kind of radical individualism.
(CAPS are for emphasis only)
Garrett,
I would say that what is required is two things: an accurate
description of the present and moment to moment essential state of
production that at the same time includes an accurate description of
the totality of the market itself. And I would say that this can be
expressed thusly:
P = In < Pr The act of Production is equal to total Individual
Incomes being less than total Prices.
That fulfills the requirements above. The ongoing state of production
described with ALL of the ESSENTIAL elements involved, namely
INDIVIDUALS with incomes and products with PRICES. And since
production ITSELF CREATES this inequality and production does not have
a mind of its own, WE, INDIVIDUALS, who DO have minds, must ACT to
provide the described element of the inequality…additional individual
income.
The problem is not that macro-economics and microeconomics don’t
aggregate. It’s that WE DON’T MAKE THEM AGGREGATE. We must stop
worshiping the false god of a non-thinking market, WE ARE THE MARKET,
WE CREATE THE MARKET CONDITIONS WHICH WILL GIVE EQUAL CONSIDERATION TO
BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE SYSTEM…..AND YET WE, AS INDIVIDUALS, MUST
BE THE ONES ULTIMATELY IN CONTROL….BECAUSE THAT IS THE PROPER
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OURSELVES….AND THE SYSTEM.
Social Credit….the right kind of radical individualism.
Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
Jun 13, 2013, 7:00:35 PM6/13/13
to socialcredit
What actually constitutes monetary Grace? Obviously work for pay and
lending are not Grace. Redistributed funds are also not Grace because
they are actually money taken from someone to pay another. The mature
price of a Bond is not Grace because it requires work, and hence a
scarcity of individual incomes to prices, by someone some place in
order for that increment to be fulfilled. Common stock is similar to a
Bond because it has the risk of variable value and also requires work
and thus the same scarcity inherent in commerce/Production that Bonds
do.
Charity actually is Grace, but as good and noble a gesture, especially
if by individuals who already have a scarcity of income, it will not
satisfy and equate P = In < Pr . The kind of monetary Grace that WILL
satisfy that equation is NEW AND ADDITIONAL debt and interest free
money GIVEN to every individual responsible for themselves and/or for
family members. That kind of monetary Grace is truly reflective of
God’s Grace which is unconditional. Unconditional Grace, what every
human requires if they are to effectively understand Grace at all, and
what the economic system REQUIRES in order to be truly functional….and
FREE.
On Jun 12, 10:14 am, Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
lending are not Grace. Redistributed funds are also not Grace because
they are actually money taken from someone to pay another. The mature
price of a Bond is not Grace because it requires work, and hence a
scarcity of individual incomes to prices, by someone some place in
order for that increment to be fulfilled. Common stock is similar to a
Bond because it has the risk of variable value and also requires work
and thus the same scarcity inherent in commerce/Production that Bonds
do.
Charity actually is Grace, but as good and noble a gesture, especially
if by individuals who already have a scarcity of income, it will not
satisfy and equate P = In < Pr . The kind of monetary Grace that WILL
satisfy that equation is NEW AND ADDITIONAL debt and interest free
money GIVEN to every individual responsible for themselves and/or for
family members. That kind of monetary Grace is truly reflective of
God’s Grace which is unconditional. Unconditional Grace, what every
human requires if they are to effectively understand Grace at all, and
what the economic system REQUIRES in order to be truly functional….and
FREE.
On Jun 12, 10:14 am, Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
Jun 17, 2013, 1:29:11 PM6/17/13
to socialcredit
Reply to Norman L. Roth who charges that Social Crediters are double
counting:
Double counting? No, its actually just a closer look at the empirical
data of cost accounting and confronting the relationship between
incomes and total costs to be found there. Elements don’t change
unless you add something to them, and the elemental state of
production which is characterized by a scarcity of total individual
incomes in ratio to total prices will not change unless you supplement
individual incomes in a way that does not incur additional cost. Is
adding $5 of income to -$5 of ability to liquidate a price double
counting? No, its the closer look at economic reality (as opposed to
the once removed and hence prone to less accurate theorizing about it)
…that will enable “free” market THEORY to become free market reality.
On Jun 13, 4:00 pm, Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
counting:
Double counting? No, its actually just a closer look at the empirical
data of cost accounting and confronting the relationship between
incomes and total costs to be found there. Elements don’t change
unless you add something to them, and the elemental state of
production which is characterized by a scarcity of total individual
incomes in ratio to total prices will not change unless you supplement
individual incomes in a way that does not incur additional cost. Is
adding $5 of income to -$5 of ability to liquidate a price double
counting? No, its the closer look at economic reality (as opposed to
the once removed and hence prone to less accurate theorizing about it)
…that will enable “free” market THEORY to become free market reality.
On Jun 13, 4:00 pm, Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
Jun 17, 2013, 2:51:19 PM6/17/13
to socialcredit
To Paul Grignon on Ellen Brown's forum:
I know you're not engaging me. Apparently you prefer to joust with the
tenaciousness of the "interest is the TOTAL problem" crowd, but while
you're mulling the "failure of velocity" you might consider that the
problem with velocity is that it fails to consider that any re-
circulated money occurs ONLY AND INEVITABLY within the context of the
economy and production itself and so it misses the appropriate metric
in that context.....both incomes and prices produced. Hence P = In <
Pr is revealed as the correct equation for the act of production
itself, and the "failure of velocity" is also understood as its
complete irrelevance due to it not measuring the correct metric.
On Jun 13, 4:00 pm, Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
I know you're not engaging me. Apparently you prefer to joust with the
tenaciousness of the "interest is the TOTAL problem" crowd, but while
you're mulling the "failure of velocity" you might consider that the
problem with velocity is that it fails to consider that any re-
circulated money occurs ONLY AND INEVITABLY within the context of the
economy and production itself and so it misses the appropriate metric
in that context.....both incomes and prices produced. Hence P = In <
Pr is revealed as the correct equation for the act of production
itself, and the "failure of velocity" is also understood as its
complete irrelevance due to it not measuring the correct metric.
On Jun 13, 4:00 pm, Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
Jim Schroeder
Jun 17, 2013, 7:30:55 PM6/17/13
to social...@googlegroups.com
Steve,
Where is this posted, I'd like to respond if you don't mind
--
---
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.
--
Jim Schroeder
Wallace Klinck
Jun 17, 2013, 8:17:08 PM6/17/13
to social...@googlegroups.com
The notion that if money travels more rapidly this increases its purchasing-power is, as Douglas demonstrated, "a complete fallacy" based upon misconceptions such that there exists a permanent stock of money and that producers do not have costs which must be liquidated. There is of course no permanent stock of money. Producers rely upon bank loans which are not issued from an existing supply of money but which are a creation of new credit serving as money--credit issued as repayable debt. Money in essence flows and ebbs--is continuously issued and cancelled. That this process may happen more rapidly might or might not be a good thing in generating more goods and services, but this is quite irrelevant to the question of an adequacy of purchasing power available to liquidate permanently production costs. An inadequacy is an inadequacy and is not assisted by "velocity of circulation." Indeed, the more production, the greater the deficiency of purchasing-power relative to prices is likely to be. Any abstinence from consumption leaves business costs unliquidated and any investment of saved consumer credits in new production would create new financial costs aggregating with the number of reinvestments whiteout creating new purchasing power.
From my years of considering these matters I am convinced that the difference between conventional "monetary reformers" ("amateur currency experts" as Douglas called them) is that the amateurs spend their time in speculative theorizing, whereas Douglas was grounded in serious and disciplined science.
I like your emphasis on Grace as the essential factor. Surely, it is central to distributive Christian economics. I wish you success in dealing with the exchanges on Ellen Brown's site. As soon as I began to talk about Leisure she concluded that my message was an obstruction to the "work" that they were doing.and politely removed my name from their list. Some Social Credit advocates have found that the quickest way to become blocked from the comments section of various sites is to start talking about Leisure as a desideratum! As Douglas said, society is hypnotized and certain prevailing elements obviously intend to keep it in that condition in perpetuity.
Sincerely
Wally Klinck
From my years of considering these matters I am convinced that the difference between conventional "monetary reformers" ("amateur currency experts" as Douglas called them) is that the amateurs spend their time in speculative theorizing, whereas Douglas was grounded in serious and disciplined science.
I like your emphasis on Grace as the essential factor. Surely, it is central to distributive Christian economics. I wish you success in dealing with the exchanges on Ellen Brown's site. As soon as I began to talk about Leisure she concluded that my message was an obstruction to the "work" that they were doing.and politely removed my name from their list. Some Social Credit advocates have found that the quickest way to become blocked from the comments section of various sites is to start talking about Leisure as a desideratum! As Douglas said, society is hypnotized and certain prevailing elements obviously intend to keep it in that condition in perpetuity.
Sincerely
Wally Klinck
Wallace Klinck
Jun 17, 2013, 10:05:09 PM6/17/13
to social...@googlegroups.com
Steve, could you provide a source and/or quotation for Roth's allegation the Social Credit analysis double accounts costs? This is an old orthodox criticism of Douglas's analysis and has been rebutted on many occasions. A few years ago Victor Bridger assembled many of these allegations and replies in his book "$A + $B and All That." , a PDF of which I have forwarded o you by separate message. A Web search suggests that Roth quite likely would have an ingrained cultural aversion the the concept of a "National Dividend.".
Sincerely
Wally KlincK
Sincerely
Wally KlincK
John G Rawson
Jun 18, 2013, 12:58:39 AM6/18/13
to social...@googlegroups.com
Ellen herself has come round towards several S C principles and can be persuaded further.
The Public Bamking group is not moderated to any extent and welcomes all sorts of comments. Including the rubbish they have been getting on interest etc., which tends to get ignored by the key people.
It is not helpful if S C sources feed in abstract material with weird meaningless supposedly mathematical equations and pseudo-religious padding.
For Heaven's sake, at least keep this material for this group where the background enables us to understand what the authors are really trying to say. Or we will surely lose what has been gained on her site.
J R
The Public Bamking group is not moderated to any extent and welcomes all sorts of comments. Including the rubbish they have been getting on interest etc., which tends to get ignored by the key people.
It is not helpful if S C sources feed in abstract material with weird meaningless supposedly mathematical equations and pseudo-religious padding.
For Heaven's sake, at least keep this material for this group where the background enables us to understand what the authors are really trying to say. Or we will surely lose what has been gained on her site.
J R
> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:51:19 -0700
> Subject: [socialcredit] Re: P = In < Pr
> From: ataus...@yahoo.com
> To: social...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [socialcredit] Re: P = In < Pr
> From: ataus...@yahoo.com
> To: social...@googlegroups.com
Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
Jun 18, 2013, 5:46:18 PM6/18/13
to socialcredit
Jim,
It's on Ellen's google groups forum. Here is the url. You'll have to
join the group which should not be a problem. And fire away. :)
> > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
It's on Ellen's google groups forum. Here is the url. You'll have to
join the group which should not be a problem. And fire away. :)
Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
Jun 18, 2013, 5:55:54 PM6/18/13
to socialcredit
Lol! Heck Wally, maybe you should re-apply for membership there as
Retired and Loving It!....just to kind of nudge them out of the idea
that work is the only purpose and possibility for human beings.
On Jun 17, 5:17 pm, Wallace Klinck <wmkli...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> The notion that if money travels more rapidly this increases its purchasing-power is, as Douglas demonstrated, "a complete fallacy" based upon misconceptions such that there exists a permanent stock of money and that producers do not have costs which must be liquidated. There is of course no permanent stock of money. Producers rely upon bank loans which are not issued from an existing supply of money but which are a creation of new credit serving as money--credit issued as repayable debt. Money in essence flows and ebbs--is continuously issued and cancelled. That this process may happen more rapidly might or might not be a good thing in generating more goods and services, but this is quite irrelevant to the question of an adequacy of purchasing power available to liquidate permanently production costs. An inadequacy is an inadequacy and is not assisted by "velocity of circulation." Indeed, the more production, the greater the deficiency of purchasing-power relative to prices is likely to be. Any abstinence from consumption leaves business costs unliquidated and any investment of saved consumer credits in new production would create new financial costs aggregating with the number of reinvestments whiteout creating new purchasing power.
>
> From my years of considering these matters I am convinced that the difference between conventional "monetary reformers" ("amateur currency experts" as Douglas called them) is that the amateurs spend their time in speculative theorizing, whereas Douglas was grounded in serious and disciplined science.
>
> I like your emphasis on Grace as the essential factor. Surely, it is central to distributive Christian economics. I wish you success in dealing with the exchanges on Ellen Brown's site. As soon as I began to talk about Leisure she concluded that my message was an obstruction to the "work" that they were doing.and politely removed my name from their list. Some Social Credit advocates have found that the quickest way to become blocked from the comments section of various sites is to start talking about Leisure as a desideratum! As Douglas said, society is hypnotized and certain prevailing elements obviously intend to keep it in that condition in perpetuity.
>
> Sincerely
> Wally Klinck
>
Retired and Loving It!....just to kind of nudge them out of the idea
that work is the only purpose and possibility for human beings.
On Jun 17, 5:17 pm, Wallace Klinck <wmkli...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> The notion that if money travels more rapidly this increases its purchasing-power is, as Douglas demonstrated, "a complete fallacy" based upon misconceptions such that there exists a permanent stock of money and that producers do not have costs which must be liquidated. There is of course no permanent stock of money. Producers rely upon bank loans which are not issued from an existing supply of money but which are a creation of new credit serving as money--credit issued as repayable debt. Money in essence flows and ebbs--is continuously issued and cancelled. That this process may happen more rapidly might or might not be a good thing in generating more goods and services, but this is quite irrelevant to the question of an adequacy of purchasing power available to liquidate permanently production costs. An inadequacy is an inadequacy and is not assisted by "velocity of circulation." Indeed, the more production, the greater the deficiency of purchasing-power relative to prices is likely to be. Any abstinence from consumption leaves business costs unliquidated and any investment of saved consumer credits in new production would create new financial costs aggregating with the number of reinvestments whiteout creating new purchasing power.
>
> From my years of considering these matters I am convinced that the difference between conventional "monetary reformers" ("amateur currency experts" as Douglas called them) is that the amateurs spend their time in speculative theorizing, whereas Douglas was grounded in serious and disciplined science.
>
> I like your emphasis on Grace as the essential factor. Surely, it is central to distributive Christian economics. I wish you success in dealing with the exchanges on Ellen Brown's site. As soon as I began to talk about Leisure she concluded that my message was an obstruction to the "work" that they were doing.and politely removed my name from their list. Some Social Credit advocates have found that the quickest way to become blocked from the comments section of various sites is to start talking about Leisure as a desideratum! As Douglas said, society is hypnotized and certain prevailing elements obviously intend to keep it in that condition in perpetuity.
>
> Sincerely
> Wally Klinck
>
Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
Jun 18, 2013, 6:06:39 PM6/18/13
to socialcredit
Wally,
He just made the grand statement and didn't give any specific quote,
although he referred to Keynes so I'm sure he misinterpreted/got it
via contagion from...him. Here is the url for the Real World Economic
Review blog. The discussion is on the post: The Neoclassical
conspiracy against Post Keynesian Economics (1)
http://rwer.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/the-neoclassical-conspiracy-against-post-keynesian-economics-1/#comment-35423
On Jun 17, 7:05 pm, Wallace Klinck <wmkli...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Steve, could you provide a source and/or quotation for Roth's allegation the Social Credit analysis double accounts costs? This is an old orthodox criticism of Douglas's analysis and has been rebutted on many occasions. A few years ago Victor Bridger assembled many of these allegations and replies in his book "$A + $B and All That." , a PDF of which I have forwarded o you by separate message. A Web search suggests that Roth quite likely would have an ingrained cultural aversion the the concept of a "National Dividend.".
>
> Sincerely
> Wally KlincK
>
He just made the grand statement and didn't give any specific quote,
although he referred to Keynes so I'm sure he misinterpreted/got it
via contagion from...him. Here is the url for the Real World Economic
Review blog. The discussion is on the post: The Neoclassical
conspiracy against Post Keynesian Economics (1)
http://rwer.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/the-neoclassical-conspiracy-against-post-keynesian-economics-1/#comment-35423
On Jun 17, 7:05 pm, Wallace Klinck <wmkli...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Steve, could you provide a source and/or quotation for Roth's allegation the Social Credit analysis double accounts costs? This is an old orthodox criticism of Douglas's analysis and has been rebutted on many occasions. A few years ago Victor Bridger assembled many of these allegations and replies in his book "$A + $B and All That." , a PDF of which I have forwarded o you by separate message. A Web search suggests that Roth quite likely would have an ingrained cultural aversion the the concept of a "National Dividend.".
>
> Sincerely
> Wally KlincK
>
Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
Jun 18, 2013, 6:15:07 PM6/18/13
to socialcredit
John,
I disagree. Not only is Ellen a very reasonable person but she has in
the past responded positively to what I have posted there with the
statement, "An economics of Grace. An intriguing thought."
And I am quite careful anymore to say that my use of the word and any
reference to the experience of Grace...is an entirely NATURAL
capability of individuals. I think the tool of philosophy is actually
Social Credit's strong suit.
On Jun 17, 9:58 pm, John G Rawson <johngraw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ellen herself has come round towards several S C principles and can be persuaded further.
>
> The Public Bamking group is not moderated to any extent and welcomes all sorts of comments. Including the rubbish they have been getting on interest etc., which tends to get ignored by the key people.
> It is not helpful if S C sources feed in abstract material with weird meaningless supposedly mathematical equations and pseudo-religious padding.
>
> For Heaven's sake, at least keep this material for this group where the background enables us to understand what the authors are really trying to say. Or we will surely lose what has been gained on her site.
>
> J R
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:51:19 -0700
> > Subject: [socialcredit] Re: P = In < Pr
> > From: ataushu...@yahoo.com
I disagree. Not only is Ellen a very reasonable person but she has in
the past responded positively to what I have posted there with the
statement, "An economics of Grace. An intriguing thought."
And I am quite careful anymore to say that my use of the word and any
reference to the experience of Grace...is an entirely NATURAL
capability of individuals. I think the tool of philosophy is actually
Social Credit's strong suit.
On Jun 17, 9:58 pm, John G Rawson <johngraw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ellen herself has come round towards several S C principles and can be persuaded further.
>
> The Public Bamking group is not moderated to any extent and welcomes all sorts of comments. Including the rubbish they have been getting on interest etc., which tends to get ignored by the key people.
> It is not helpful if S C sources feed in abstract material with weird meaningless supposedly mathematical equations and pseudo-religious padding.
>
> For Heaven's sake, at least keep this material for this group where the background enables us to understand what the authors are really trying to say. Or we will surely lose what has been gained on her site.
>
> J R
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:51:19 -0700
> > Subject: [socialcredit] Re: P = In < Pr
Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
Jun 19, 2013, 9:52:22 AM6/19/13
to socialcredit
Wally,
Yes, I often laugh when economists and others obsess over work, and
fail to think that self determined purpose is so much more fulfilling.
We are hypnotized.
On Jun 17, 5:17 pm, Wallace Klinck <wmkli...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> The notion that if money travels more rapidly this increases its purchasing-power is, as Douglas demonstrated, "a complete fallacy" based upon misconceptions such that there exists a permanent stock of money and that producers do not have costs which must be liquidated. There is of course no permanent stock of money. Producers rely upon bank loans which are not issued from an existing supply of money but which are a creation of new credit serving as money--credit issued as repayable debt. Money in essence flows and ebbs--is continuously issued and cancelled. That this process may happen more rapidly might or might not be a good thing in generating more goods and services, but this is quite irrelevant to the question of an adequacy of purchasing power available to liquidate permanently production costs. An inadequacy is an inadequacy and is not assisted by "velocity of circulation." Indeed, the more production, the greater the deficiency of purchasing-power relative to prices is likely to be. Any abstinence from consumption leaves business costs unliquidated and any investment of saved consumer credits in new production would create new financial costs aggregating with the number of reinvestments whiteout creating new purchasing power.
>
> From my years of considering these matters I am convinced that the difference between conventional "monetary reformers" ("amateur currency experts" as Douglas called them) is that the amateurs spend their time in speculative theorizing, whereas Douglas was grounded in serious and disciplined science.
>
> I like your emphasis on Grace as the essential factor. Surely, it is central to distributive Christian economics. I wish you success in dealing with the exchanges on Ellen Brown's site. As soon as I began to talk about Leisure she concluded that my message was an obstruction to the "work" that they were doing.and politely removed my name from their list. Some Social Credit advocates have found that the quickest way to become blocked from the comments section of various sites is to start talking about Leisure as a desideratum! As Douglas said, society is hypnotized and certain prevailing elements obviously intend to keep it in that condition in perpetuity.
>
> Sincerely
> Wally Klinck
>
Yes, I often laugh when economists and others obsess over work, and
fail to think that self determined purpose is so much more fulfilling.
We are hypnotized.
On Jun 17, 5:17 pm, Wallace Klinck <wmkli...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> The notion that if money travels more rapidly this increases its purchasing-power is, as Douglas demonstrated, "a complete fallacy" based upon misconceptions such that there exists a permanent stock of money and that producers do not have costs which must be liquidated. There is of course no permanent stock of money. Producers rely upon bank loans which are not issued from an existing supply of money but which are a creation of new credit serving as money--credit issued as repayable debt. Money in essence flows and ebbs--is continuously issued and cancelled. That this process may happen more rapidly might or might not be a good thing in generating more goods and services, but this is quite irrelevant to the question of an adequacy of purchasing power available to liquidate permanently production costs. An inadequacy is an inadequacy and is not assisted by "velocity of circulation." Indeed, the more production, the greater the deficiency of purchasing-power relative to prices is likely to be. Any abstinence from consumption leaves business costs unliquidated and any investment of saved consumer credits in new production would create new financial costs aggregating with the number of reinvestments whiteout creating new purchasing power.
>
> From my years of considering these matters I am convinced that the difference between conventional "monetary reformers" ("amateur currency experts" as Douglas called them) is that the amateurs spend their time in speculative theorizing, whereas Douglas was grounded in serious and disciplined science.
>
> I like your emphasis on Grace as the essential factor. Surely, it is central to distributive Christian economics. I wish you success in dealing with the exchanges on Ellen Brown's site. As soon as I began to talk about Leisure she concluded that my message was an obstruction to the "work" that they were doing.and politely removed my name from their list. Some Social Credit advocates have found that the quickest way to become blocked from the comments section of various sites is to start talking about Leisure as a desideratum! As Douglas said, society is hypnotized and certain prevailing elements obviously intend to keep it in that condition in perpetuity.
>
> Sincerely
> Wally Klinck
>
Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight
Jun 19, 2013, 9:53:41 AM6/19/13
to socialcredit
Jim that url didn't seem to go through. Here it is:
http://rwer.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/the-neoclassical-conspiracy-against-post-keynesian-economics-1/
> > For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://rwer.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/the-neoclassical-conspiracy-against-post-keynesian-economics-1/
Jim Schroeder
Jun 19, 2013, 12:53:15 PM6/19/13
to social...@googlegroups.com
Hi John:
Ellen has come around to some Social Credit ideas. Steve has done an admirable job in coming to understand, and communicating the Social Credit message. His primary focus on philosophy and overcoming the "this for that", or all income must derive from work barrier is an excellent way of communicating our message, since I believe the biggest obstacle is philosophical, not technical.
I have not delved too much into his mathematical equations, because I don't understand them and need futher clarification, but I'm sure if he explained them, they probably would make sense.
Why are you criticizing Steve for promoting Social Credit on Keen's and Ellen's websites? From what I've seen, he's done an admirable job! We should ALL take note, and that is why I try to help him whenever possible.
In my opinion, you should be encouraging Steve, not admonishing him.
Jim Schroeder
Jun 19, 2013, 12:53:35 PM6/19/13
to social...@googlegroups.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages