Bill, You are missing the point -- the binary payout of earnings will be many times the existing payout, for the reasons extensively given. The definition would therefore be "binary full payout of earnings paying the full return (net of reserves for depreciation, research and development." I would add that for the big companies, retention for investment would not be allowed -- to expand, such companies would have to take interest-free money linked to wide ownership. I think that is clear but, alas, it involves concepts which are simply not in your mental box of tools. So we might as well stop arguing about it.
As usual, you are seeing everything with a conventional mind and -- if you will allow me to put this bluntly -- exhibiting on a grand scale an antipathy to wide ownership. Such your antipathy that you fail to understand that existing capital certainly pays for itself but you then seem to have a problem with understanding that binary capital will even more be able to pay for itself becasue it is based on interest-free money (repayable interest-free loans issued by the central bank) You are also daring to blame binary economics for the fraud, abuse etc of e.g. Enron. Enron is not a binary company, thankyou. Among other things, it was NOT based on interest-free money with employees having a proper say. It was based on employees savings (which binary economics is not) and had a corrupt management not subject to overall surveillance by the bulk of the workforce. You are egregiously exhibiting that you do not understand binary economics by saying that, (in binary economics) the bankers get paid upfront. The repaid interest-free money goes THROUGH the private bank back to the state central bank (from whence it was issued). Yes, the bank has a small administrative charge. But it is NOT the private bank issuing the interest-free money -- it is only administering it. I object to your reference to Michael Greaney. You have continually libelled him in a way that was never necessary. As regards Social Credit co-operating with others (or vice versa, whatever is agreeable to Victor) I would now like to draw the attention of this elist to a major development -- the website at www.globaljusticemovement.net. The website is not officially open to the public because there is still work to be done but you can certainly read about the Five Justices and also about the basic income coming from a Social Credit-type payment. You see, the new global justice movement IS capable of co-operating with others even if those others are determined not to co-operate at all. A very important aspect of the situation can be gleaned by reading about GJM and Islam, my Foreword to Professor Choudhury's big new book and my paper for the coming Oman conference. I tell you all this becasue Social Credit has to ask itself an interesting question -- is it capable, by itself, of having any appeal at all to the Islamic world, for example? Frankly, it seems unlikely. But in the context of the Global Justice Movement, it could have its ideas extended to a much larger range of people than at present where, (excuse the bluntness) a certain opacity and unwillingness to define policy turns off many people who would wish to give Social Credit a fair hearing. The GJM, however, has what might be called a Socred-type basic income and I happen to know it is being welcomed in modern social credit circles some distance away from the somewhat narrow compass of this elist. The welcome is essentially based on Seven Steps to Justice (which founds the intellectual and moral content of the Global Justice Movement). So you are invited to go to the website -- condemn it if you wish but -- remember -- if you condemn you are condemning something which has taken a goodly part of Social Credit on board and this may be your only chance of ever getting anywhere with Social Credit. Rodney Shakespeare. ----- Original Message ----- From: "William B. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 3:57 PM Subject: Spam Alert: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] The earnings of capital in binary economics > Rodney's lengthy post is not responsive to the > question: How do you--Rodney--define earnings? > > He uses the word twenty-three times in a post that > prints to ten pages, but does not once define it. > > Inasmuch as the "full dividend payout of earnings" is > a critical element of their scheme, and since there > are several possible definitions, it would seem it is > impossible to understand what they are saying without > having their specific definition. > > I wonder if Rodney's definition differs in any > significant way from Norm Kurland's and his sidekick > Michael Greaney's "free cash flow" definition, which > not only ignores the necessity for expensing > depreciation but actually says that depreciation adds > to earnings. > > The definition of earnings goes very much to whether > the capital acquisition loans can "self-liquidate" as > they so boldly claim. If "self-liquidation" depends > on the overstatement of earnings as I believe it does > from their oddball understanding of accounting, we > are being presented with a fraud. > > It becomes a sophisticated con game that may well > have entrapped Rodney himself in fanatical true > belief. > > Indeed, liquidation in their scheme depends on a > combination of tax credits and share dilution that > transfer value from the taxpaying public, existing > shareholders and workers. > > Billions have already been taken from pension funds > and shareholder equity. > > First in line as beneficiaries of the largesse-- > really theft--are the bankers who get paid upfront, > before even a single dollar is paid as "dividends" to > the "new capitalists." > > Also scooping up the gravy are the "advisers" and > "ESOP practitioners" who put the deals together. > > > ---original message--- > From: Rodney Shakespeare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Social Credit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] The earnings of capital in binary economics > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:57:50 +0100 > > Dear All, > > Since, no doubt, you are eagerly awaiting this information, I have put > below three emails from the COG Ownership archives about the earnings of > capital in binary economics (in response to Bill Ryan). > [snipped] > > _________________________________________________________________ > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail > > ==^================================================================ > This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcQuHz.Um9kbmV5 > Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! > http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html > ==^================================================================ > > --^---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
