Post to Asymptosis' blog

[Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight]

The problem is not capitalism versus socialism, its the system versus
the individual. Capitalism and socialism have both been given chances
in the modern world and both have failed. And it’s BS that “they
(either and both) haven’t been tried”. It’s time to evolve a new
system by looking closer at the actual workings of Commerce/the
economy. That includes de-constructing all the orthodoxies of the
present system because orthodoxies are not always true and/or accurate
and also often actually inhibit closer analysis….as we have come to
see. Two of the orthodoxies that need to be looked at are the Quantity
theory of money and the velocity of money’s circulation. To that
purpose the following theorem:
Where C/E is Commerce/the Economy, i is an amount less than I, I is
total individual incomes, P is total prices and -5i represents the
continually enforced scarcity of individual incomes imposed by the
realities of cost accounting (labor costs [incomes] are only a
fraction of costs and yet all costs must go into price)
C/E = – 5i + I + P < I + P and – 5i + I + P – I + P = – 5i and cannot
equal 0, therefore C/E is not self liquidating.
Furthermore, if – 5i + I + P persists and/or is a constant systemic
condition of total individual incomes because it is caused by an
integral part of the system itself (realities of cost accounting),
then that system (C/E) is price inflationary and income deflationary.
The problem cannot be resolved by adding money, especially only money
as loans back into the economy, because doing so initiates the
system’s scarcity of incomes to prices. Also, any possible or actual
money “re-circulating” back through the system re-initiates the same
scarcity of individual income. Thus the Quantity theory of money is at
best a less than ultimately causitive factor in inflation and velocity
theory is invalid as any re-circulated money, again re-initiates a
scarcity of incomes to prices.
The solution to the problem is the raising of total incomes by at
least 5i via a direct payment/monetary gift to individuals so that no
additional cost is incurred, the income scarcity inherent in C/E is
avoided/not initiated and thus C/E can be self liquidating.

[John G Rawson]

Steve, please define your understanding of "commerce" and "the economy".
Show me where they are not the same thing.
For me, "commerce" is all the transactions occurring in the nation and the economy is the sum of such.
Regards.
J R
 

> Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 23:01:37 -0700
> Subject: [socialcredit] Post to Asymptosis' blog
> From: ataus...@yahoo.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.
>
>

[Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight]

John,

Yes, I only meant to equate the two.

On May 11, 2:50 pm, John G Rawson <johngraw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Steve, please define your understanding of "commerce" and "the economy".
> Show me where they are not the same thing.
> For me, "commerce" is all the transactions occurring in the nation and the economy is the sum of such.
> Regards.
> J R
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 23:01:37 -0700
> > Subject: [socialcredit] Post to Asymptosis' blog

> > From: ataushu...@yahoo.com

[John G Rawson]

Thanks Steve.
Since C/E = 1, what is its significance in your equation?
J R
 
 
 

> Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 16:45:07 -0700
> Subject: [socialcredit] Re: Post to Asymptosis' blog
> From: ataus...@yahoo.com
> To: social...@googlegroups.com

[Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight]

Actually I was thinking that because incomes ideally and theoretically
should liquidate prices and result in a balanced stasis of 0, that C/E
ought to be considered 0 in this case. I should have prefaced the
equation with that.

On May 13, 2:12 pm, John G Rawson <johngraw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Steve.
> Since C/E = 1, what is its significance in your equation?
> J R
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 16:45:07 -0700
> > Subject: [socialcredit] Re: Post to Asymptosis' blog

> > From: ataushu...@yahoo.com

[John G Rawson]

That makes either C=0 or E=infinity.  Tough maths!
 J R
 

> Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 11:34:08 -0700

> Subject: [socialcredit] Re: Post to Asymptosis' blog

> From: ataus...@yahoo.com
> To: social...@googlegroups.com

[Jim Schroeder]

Hi Steve:

 

I posted on this blog as well.

--

---
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

 

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

 

 

[John G Rawson]

Jim, this remains rubbish until you can define the difference between "commerce" and "the economy",  Without that they are the same thing and the fraction is meaningless, equal to unity.
 
J R 

---

Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 18:11:50 -0600
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Post to Asymptosis' blog
From: jimsch...@gmail.com
To: social...@googlegroups.com

[Jim Schroeder]

Jim?

[Steve Hummel BenFranklinWasRight]

John,

I'm not a mathematician....and that shows I guess. I was using the /
symbol in the same sense that it is used in writing which would mean I
was equating them....as the same thing, not actually placing them in
an equation. I should have just not used C and explained that the
economy to be balanced was the equivalent of 0 because theoretically
incomes should liquidate prices. The -5i was signifying the "Gap"

On May 17, 2:27 pm, John G Rawson <johngraw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jim, this remains rubbish until you can define the difference between "commerce" and "the economy",  Without that they are the same thing and the fraction is meaningless, equal to unity.
>
> J R
>

> Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 18:11:50 -0600
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Post to Asymptosis' blog

> From: jimschroed...@gmail.com

> To: social...@googlegroups.com
>
> Hi Steve:
>
> I posted on this blog as well.
>

> For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[John G Rawson]

Yes Jim.
Line 10 of your message as it appeared on my screen.
I know you didn't invent it, but you accepted it.
J R

---

Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 07:17:53 -0600

[Jim Schroeder]

John, what the hell are you talking about?  Steve posted this message, not me.

[John G Rawson]

Jim, please read your message that starts "Hi Steve.  I posted this blog as well ....."
You quoted his ridiculous fraction. 
He appears unable to explain it, so I thought you might. What I am getting at is that, if one person in five or even ten million in the English-speaking world took enough interest in S C to come on this group, we would have some hundereds of correspondents.
How many have been put off by this sort of of material?
J R

---

Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 17:49:15 -0600

[Jim Schroeder]

Yes John, that's all I said.  The rest is Steve's message which automatically copies when you hit "reply" to an email.

 

I'm trying not to get too frustrated, but you should really read before you respond.

[John G Rawson]

Jim, did you or did you not, by inference or by re-stating it, accept that "commerce/the economy" was a valid fraction?
My memory it that either you used it in your own message, or passed it on as a valid consideration.  Either way, neither of you appear to understand what it signifies and neither do I.  All I am asking is that you define it. 
Please!  Then, if it does make sense, I'll apologise.  If it doesn't, the ball is in your court.
J R

---

Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 09:19:09 -0600

[Jim Schroeder]

John,

 

I was making no comment whatsoever in terms of the equation.  I didn't understand the terminology.  I was simply letting Steve know that I had also responded on that blog.  Even my response at the blog had nothing to do with that equation.  Steve created it, so I'll let him explain it.

 

You know what happens when you ASS U ME?

[John G Rawson]

Right Jim.
I no longer have access to the statements and can't  prove my point, so I do apologise.
I'm no mathematician either.  Just enough to recognise gibberish when I see it. 
And to be embarassed when it is taken seriously on this group.
J R

---

Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 08:10:59 -0600

[Jim Schroeder]

Hi John:

 

Apology accepted.  My minor in university was mathematics, which doesn't make me a mathematician, but I do have a fair amount of exposure to it.  Mathematics is merely a form of deductive logic.  Mathematics can be insightful or "gibberish" depending on your assumptions and how you define your terms.  I did not understand how Steve had defined his terms, so I did not comment on his equation.

Take care,

[John G Rawson]

Thanks Jim. Failed Maths I was the result of an overconfident and lazy approach in my first year. I never went back to it, so you are one up on me there. I was very lucky not to be stopped rightthere and "manpowered" into wartime industry.
However, when later I had to go teaching to feed my family, I found I taught Trade Maths to slower learners far better than the Head of Dept. because I understood their problems.
There was a profound lesson in life for me in both situations!
I like your statement in your other message.
Regards.
J R
 

---

Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 07:48:15 -0600

[Wallace Klinck]

My impression is that Steve has made considerable progress in grasping the essentials of Social Credit and for that reason he needs to be encouraged.  I did not take time to analyze his math.  The essential math from a Social Credit standpoint is contained in the attached document (page 2):

[Jim Schroeder]

Yes, Steve has come a long way in understanding Social Credit, and his philosophical approach to the problem is exemplary.  I particularly like the fact that he posts on other blogs, and gets quite an interest in the subject through his approach.

 

Well done Steve.

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Wallace Klinck <wmkl...@shaw.ca> wrote:

My impression is that Steve has made considerable progress in grasping the essentials of Social Credit and for that reason he needs to be encouraged.  I did not take time to analyze his math.  The essential math from a Social Credit standpoint is contained in the attached document (page 2):

--

---
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.

Wally

[John G Rawson]

While this statement comes to the right conclusion, it is so long-winded that few would classify it as mathematical. What is more, these days very few would read it right through.  It is the sort of incoherent argument that decreases the credibility of Social Credit.
An orthodox economist could appear (incorrectly but credibly) by saying "What rubbish!  V can be shown to exist.  It is defined as the fraction GDP/M, M being the average volume of money in existence during the year". Which is not avalid answer, but would appear to be.
What V really measures is almost entirely the number of times money is cancelled and created again during the year. As is shown in part of the message, any sum of money is cancelled out of existence at purchase point when it meets equivalent debt on the retailer's account. He can't purchase more goods for sale without increasing his debt level again.
To make the argument stick, of course, it is necessary to get the oher party to realise that practically all business works on borrowed money in a modern economy. That is the key point that most people do not understand.  It is not stated clearly enough in the message quoted, which also weakens its credibility.
J R

---

From: wmkl...@shaw.ca

Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Post to Asymptosis' blog

Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 01:21:43 -0600
To: social...@googlegroups.com

My impression is that Steve has made considerable progress in grasping the essentials of Social Credit and for that reason he needs to be encouraged.  I did not take time to analyze his math.  The essential math from a Social Credit standpoint is contained in the attached document (page 2):

-- --- 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.

Wally

On 2013-05-24, at 8:10 AM, Jim Schroeder <jimsch...@gmail.com> wrote: