This posting raises several points that
may help make clearer where Keynes
system and Douglas's system both differ
from mainstream economic theory,
Keynesian or otherwise. The two
are far more closely related than it
may seem if one takes the so-called
Keynesian analysis of Samuelson and
Dear Friends,
Per Rodney Shakespeare's request, I have resent him my notes of 1/15, 1/22, and 1/23 on the issues between social credit and binary economics, so that he can respond.
Michael Lane
==^^===
This email was sent to:
I thank both Vic and Bruce for this discussion. I hope it continues.
--
(6) Money is a nothing. It is simply a man made
invention to exchange our goods and services as a step
above barter.
Here Douglas' system is closer to mainstream economics than to GT reasoning, in which
Money is a
Bruce,
Thank you for your reply to mine, and sorry that I have not responded. I'm
still mulling over it.
Jessop
-
On Sunday 26 January 2003 10:57, you wrote:
At 09:22 AM 25/01/03 +0200,
Jessop Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] P. W. Martin
