I have inserted replies [REPLY] below. ----------
From : Rodney Shakespeare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject : Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] questions to Rodney-1 Date : Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:20:18 +0100
Bill,
You are again censoring my emails without warning and without explanation. Do you do this deliberately or does it happen by accident? Why have you not posted my response to the first part of the Austrian's critique? ---------- [REPLY] Rodney, moderation is not the same as censorship. They are different words that are spelled differently with different meanings. Look them up. We are in different time zones on the other side of the world from each other. It might be twelve or fifteen hours or more before I see your message. Sometimes it might be a day or two. Your message regarding the first part of the "Austrian" critique was forwarded to the list before I posted my question to you about how you define "earnings." I have no idea why you didn't receive it. It is in the archive. --
My ideas do not need clarifying to anybody who understands that wide capital ownership is desirable. People who wish to keep the present narrow ownership will, of course, make any excuse to hide the fact that they do not want ordinary people to have the economic independence which comes from owning capital. ---------- [REPLY] So, people who do not agree with you haven't a) read your book, or b) have read your book and really do understand but say they don't understand due to perverse motives. They are lying. Can't you be open to the possibility that they do not understand because you are using non-standard terminology? --
I have, in the past, answered all the questions made over an extensive period in the COG Ownership group. I suggest you look there for the answers.
Alternatively you can stop being lazy and manage to read Binary Economics where you will find the definition of "earnings". ---------- [REPLY] Why don't you just answer the simple question? I'm simply asking for your definition of "earnings." How can you accomplish the "full pay out" of something you refuse to define? --
I will not be responding further to you until you publicly admit that you are censoring my postings to the list and attempt to justify it.
Rodney Shakespeare.
----- Original Message ----- From: "William B. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 6:28 PM Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] questions to Rodney-1
Rodney, in the quest to clarify your ideas so they might become understandable to others, I propose to ask you a series of questions. I think it will be useful to you to devote some of your valuable time in responding.
You write:
->"...do you, or do you not, wish to have all members of the population having a substantial ownership of productive capital paying out its full earnings?...In responding to the first part I pointed out that Austrians strongly object to the idea of EVERYBODY in an economy (that even includes children) having some ownership of productive capital paying out its full earnings...In previous posts I have dealt sufficiently with Austrians and replied sufficiently to Gunnar [Tomasson], all of whom are determined to let huge rich-poor divisions remain in the world because they are opposed to the wide ownership of productive capital paying out its full earnings."<-
Question 1: Please define "earnings."
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
