Curtiss, Since you appear to be fronting for Professor Ashford it seems fair to ask what essential difference you can see between this from Ashford: "Capital and labor are independently productive and the distribution of capital ownership has a positive relationship to the employment of unutilized productive capacity and economic growth." -- and the opening paragraphs from the critic (Terrell): Introduction Binary economics, also called two-factor economics, is a new approach to economic growth that places emphasis upon the distribution of capital, rather than the quantity of capital or the productivity of labor. Its roots are found in the work of Louis Kelso, originator of the Employee Stock Option Plan. Regarded as a paradigm shift by its proponents, binary economics maintains that capital is productive independent of the labor input, and that most economic growth occurs as a result of capital accumulation, exclusive of increases in the knowledge or skills of humans. As binary economists Robert Ashford and Rodney Shakespeare explain,
"[Binary analysis] says that while humans undoubtedly make contribution to the growth, the capital assets such as machines and technological processes are making an even bigger, ever-increasing, contribution...So, from a binary perspective, growth is primarily a function of increasing capital productiveness rather than increasing labor productivity."1 Those who rely exclusively on their labor input as a means to earn income are therefore consigned to increasing poverty, since labor productivity is shrinking in importance relative to capital productivity. Interestingly, binary economists assert that growth is best promoted by spending on consumer goods, and that investment in capital by existing capital owners "sterilizes" the production of that additional capital. If the typically wealthy capital owners have a lower marginal propensity to consume (as the binary economists argue) than the laboring poor, then distributing capital more evenly would produce greater spending and therefore growth. "Binary growth is a distribution-based growth that is presently impeded by the prevailing pattern of concentrated capital acquisition. Thus the binary paradigm reveals a potent distributive relationship between capital ownership and economic growth, a growth which is not comprehended by conventional economics and which is suppressed by conventional economic practices and institutions."2 ----- And in your function as go-between, could you get Prof. Ashford to provide the names of any economists (or other analysts) I haven't heard of through the COG forum who have both understood the point of binary economics and agreed that the analysis is cogent? Thank you, Keith From: W. Curtiss Priest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: List, Social Credit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 7:25 AM Subject: RE: [SOCIAL CREDIT] binary economics critique > I forward this one line from Prof. Ashford: > > "It is clear from their analysis, the author and sender > miss the point of binary economics" > Regards, > > Curtiss > -- > > > W. Curtiss Priest, Director, CITS > Research Affiliate, Comparative Media Studies, MIT > Center for Information, Technology & Society > 466 Pleasant St., Melrose, MA 02176 > 781-662-4044 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://Cybertrails.org > > ==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
