Dear Rodney, Since you have taken note of the following exchange, why don't you give us your answer to the question I addressed to Curtiss--i.e. in what respects does the quotation I have supplied from the "Austrian" critic depart from the spirit and intent of the more pithy statement from Robert Ashford that Curtiss transmitted?
Keith ----- Original Message ----- From: Rodney Shakespeare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Social Credit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:28 AM Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] binary economics critique > Dear Social Credit members, > It was not necessary for Keith to say Curtiss is fronting for Professor > Robert Ashford. Rather it is good of Curtiss to get any comment at all > out of Robert because Robert generally feels it is pointless discussing with > anybody who has not read the book on Binary Economics and consequently gets > everything wrong -- as this list, and others, frequently demonstrate. > > On another matter, I think I may have made a mistake in reading a previous > email, construing "quantity" for "quality" or vice versa. > > Rodney Shakespeare. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Keith Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 11:28 PM > Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] binary economics critique > > > > 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 ==^================================================================
