I did raise the question that I thought this was a Social Credit site. This=
has not appeared. From the number of postings on items completely irreleven= t to Social Credit it appears the words are used just to enter into discussions on completely different agendas. Perhaps the site should change= d to Orthodox Economics and Heresies. That way Social Credit need never be mentioned and thus avoid the misuse of the words as well as the confusion that is generated. VicB ----- Original Message -----=20 From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Social Credit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 11:33 AM Subject: RE: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Sun, cow, fish, machine, hydroelectric dam, =3Di=3D3Dnternet That's funny. For some reason I keep getting [SOCIAL CREDIT] in the Subject title for these emails! -----Original Message----- From: John M=E9daille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 21 July 2003 11:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Social Credit Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Sun, cow, fish, machine, hydroelectric dam, =3Di=3D3Dnternet At 11:10 PM 7/19/2003 +0100, Rodney Shakespeare wrote: >John, > Alright, I was wrong, you do not ascribe to the labour theory of value >(however, see my remarks later on). But to say that a tomato only has valu=3D >e >when it is picked is to ascribe to something which is ridiculous. Does a >gold nugget only have value when it is picked up? Does fertile land only >have value when it is tilled? Does a mahogany tree (alas) only have value=3D > >when it is cut down? Do the fish breeding in the water only do it the >moment before someone catches them? The fish only have *economic* value when caught, the tomato when plucked, the gold when mined. Gold especially is something that gains value *solely* from human commerce. I presume that "binary economics" deals with economic values and not with aesthetic or other values. >The binary productiveness analysis deals with who or what produces the >wealth -- the mineral-bearing land massively contributes, as does the >fertile land and the mahogany tree. But these things do not contribute "independently", which is your argument. the real question of course is not whether the unplucked tomato is "independently productive" but whether the driverless lorry has an economic utility whatsoever. Quite obviously, it does not. This being the case, and it is the case, what possible basis could there be for a claim of it "independent" productivity? Its productive values only appear when in the presence and activity of man. This is not an argument, it simply describes the facts of the case, and there is reason to stay clear of an economic theory that stays clear of the facts. > To say otherwise is to say that the ma=3D >n >who picks up the nugget is the one who produced it; But that is precisely what all economics, binary or otherwise, says, namely that the one who mines the gold or plucks the tomato owns all of its economic values. Binarians do not dispute this claim, but assign all economic benefits of the mined gold to the owner of the mine. In this sense, BE is very conventional. It is rather strange of you to challenge your own theory in this regard. The socialists, the distributists, the georgists, may lay claim to a portion of the values in behalf of the community, but certainly not the binarians. > that the man who cuts >down the tree did all the growing; and that the man who ploughs the field >has done all the growing. Frankly, that's preposterous. But he certainly derives all the benefits, at least according to BE. > You are perfectly right that the sun cannot be counted a capital item >becasue it cannot be owned but that does NOT deny its contribution to >production. It is a hubristic madness to deny the sun's contribution not >just to tomato-growing but to a vast range of productive activity on this >planet (including the provision of energy in various forms). Just becasue >something is not a capital item does NOT mean that it does not contribute t=3D >o >production. Of course, you are making category errors. You are confusing the contribution of the sun (which, because it is equal and free, is not charged to anybody's account) with capital items, like tractors and trucks. When asked to show how these are "independently" productive, you point to the sun. Is there not reason to believe that you have been staring at the sun too long, and have confused it with man-made artifacts such as trucks? The argument is not about the sun but about the truck, and the owner of the truck. And it is difficult to see the "productiveness" of the driverless truck. If we could concentrate on that, I believe we could come to some resolution. > Yes, I do disparage the effort it takes to dial a telephone number and =3D >I >just cannot believe that you think that pressing telephone buttons warrants=3D > >a statement that the dialler does all the work of communicating a message >across the Atlantic. Nobody said the dialer did, but I have said that somebody did, that the work of the phone is still human work, and that if the humans withheld their work then the phone would not work at all. Parts of the network may indeed continue for a brief time, but in short order the whole system would crash. The phone, like all human artifacts, is not "independently" productive, but only productive in the presence of humans. >You say the telephone network "represents countless hours of human labour >and ingenuity". That is the congealed labour theory (which you deny >ascribing to). Rodney, why do you hang labels on everybody, instead of sticking to the point? Are you denying that the phone network represents human labor, or are you asserting that it got their by itself? As a point of mere fact, insofar as you are capable of being impressed by facts at all, ALL capital is the result of prior labor. If there is an exception to this rule in the real world, I know of no economist who has located it. It is true that some give no respect at all to the origins of capital, but only to the present ownership thereof. But even they did not assert the absurd, that the capital created itself apart from human labour. I hope we are all clear on that point. > It may have been built by humans but, once built, it goes o=3D >n >contribuiting to production by itself . That huge hydroelectric dam outsid=3D >e >Las Vegas had a lot of humans building it but, today, it does most of the >work itself, requiring but supervision and maintenance from a handful of >humans. Then by your own admission, it is not "independently" productive, if this production only appears in the face of human administration and maintenence. Your argument rapidly collapses. The truth is that you, Rodney, are the biggest advocate of "independent" productivity among the binarians, a theory which makes of BE a complete laughingstock. Yet can you tell be what, exactly, would change if you dropped the claims entirely, and adopted the standard marginal productivity calculations which you may find in any standard text? I say that *nothing* would change. Binary theory would work as well or as poorly as it does. BUT, you would be able to enter into ordinary economic discussions and have the theory examined by ordinary economic analysis. Further, you might have something that actually corresponds to reality, and wouldn't have to talk about something that is *never* seen. > OK you approve of wide ownership but do not approve of the binary >arguments in support of that wide ownership. You don't read very well, do you? I do not oppose BE and support wider ownership, as just about everybody does on this list and the COG list. I have written on BE writings praised by Norman Kurland, writings which I see no need to retract. I do oppose silliness, particularly the silliness which keeps your movement small and fractious. I do oppose the silliness which seems to have so little relation to reality and which forces you to argue that everybody else if crazy (or at the very least, insensitive of new pardigms), or to engage in other such and much worse ad hominems. John C. M=E9daille "A dead thing can go with the stream... but only a living thing can go against it." -G. K. Chesterton http://www.medaille.com/distributivism.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED] --^---------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bdvOHB.Y2FtX3Jh 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
