[Ekky] Such disagreements are obviously not peculiar/particular to Marx's or Douglas' ideas, but I've made this connection deliberately, because they do connect (and here, in this explanation quoted form the Norwegian philosopher Jostein Gaarder who tries to explain Marx in simple language to a neophyte, yours Bill, and my central interest regarding the 'displacement of labour' is specifically mentioned :) "...which means production as a whole is continually being made more effective. Factories become bigger ad bigger, and are gradually concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Fewer and fewer workers are required, which means there are more and more unemployed. There are thereafter increasing social problems, and crisis such as these are a signal that capitalism is marching toward its own destruction. But capitalism has a number of other self-destructive elements. Whenever profit has to be tied up in the means of production without leaving a big enough surplus to keep production going at competitive prices.... .....when the factory owner cannot make ends meet, cannot buy the raw materials you need to keep producing, when facing bankruptcy. So now my question is, what can he/you do to economize? ....Cut down on wages, that really is the smartest thing you could do. But if all capitalists are as smart as that, the workers would be so poor that they could not afford the goods any more. We would say that purchasing power is falling...." --------------------
A+B is a formulation of Marx's law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit. The difference is that it is expressed purely in financial terms that call for financial adjustment rather than scrapping the competitive market or private ownership of the means of production. -- [Ekky] But one who thinks that unearned and undistributed interest is part of the problem, as I think Douglas did too. Though he may have paid insufficient attention to it? -------------------- You would have to say that being the Gesellist you are. Douglas was not opposed to income that is unearned--that's what the dividend is: unearned. You would moreover have to demonstrate that payment for financial services rendered, as a general matter, is unearned. The Gesellist assumption is that people (especially bankers and capitalists) don't or can't spend their income fast enough on the products of industry to keep people employed. So confiscate their income and give it to people--especially the government--who will spend it faster. Keep people employed! Crack the whip! Sieg Heil! ____________________________________________________________ Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail! http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005 ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^================================================================
