Dear All,
At last!
Keith Wilde has openly admitted that non-human things play a part, and often
a considerable one, in production, just as humans do. That is EXACTLY what
the binary analysis of physical productiveness says. Productiveness is
about work done -- who or what does it in the physical world -- and about
prospective capacity -- ability or potential to do work. I have noticed
that physicists and chemists and engineers usually have no difficulty in
understanding the binary concept of productiveness but economists (whose
training is designed to maintain the narrow ownership of capital) most
certainly do.
Keith sees that pushing and pulling (or, if you like action and
reaction) are real things and admits that Nature is productive. Thankyou,
Keith -- and about time, too!
Keith says "Once domesticated by human action, however, parts of nature like
seeds and donkeys can become capital."
Here he is fudging the issue. Seeds are seeds and grow largely by
themselves (some human help may or may not improve germination) and donkeys
do all of the physical work of the carrying even though they have to be
guided to the destination.
And -- wonder of wonders -- Keith says "Show me a place where I have ever
denied that automation is a progressive
reality!" Yes, it is a progressive reality because (I guess) he has
just re-read the A/S book and realised that it blows apart the conventional
concept of productivity. As machines maintain or increase their output and
less and less humans are involved, the usual productivity definition (output
divided by human input) rises..and rises and then rises exponentially to
infinity before, with no human input, it suddenly crashes to zero! Thus the
conventional productivity concept is shown as a complete falsity. But --
credit to you -- you are now recognising the falsity.
I am amazed by this weird paragraph from Keith--
"Our persistence in this dialogue has brought me a clue to what may be the
blind spot in binarian thinking. You want to believe in magic, in a world
of abundance where capital creation isn't really necessary--whether by
direct toil or by waiting (using part of the product in further production).
."
What blind spot? Since when has binary economic ever said that capital
creation is not necessary? Binary economcis is ALL about capital creation
and its wide ownership -- it's completely weird that you should say the
opposite.
But then comes the giveaway -- Keith talks about capital creation requiring
direct toil or waiting. In the word "waiting" Keith is revealing his
complete dependence on a savings doctrine which is a hundred years out of
date -- financial savings is NOT necessary before there can be capital
investment although physical saving may (but rarely) be. Keith and the
Austrians should make a bigger effort to get up to date.
Rodney Shakespeare.
>
> > Do you accept that the physics book accurately portrays the situation?
>
> Rodney, the pushing and pulling you describe is a personification, used by
> the physicists' to get their heads (and those of students) around ideas
like
> mass, force, work and energy that were new to European peoples in the
> 16th-17th century. I readily agree that mass, force and movement existed
on
> this planet and in the cosmos long before the appearance of humankind.
Our
> subject here, however, is capital. Capital is not a topic in physics.
> Before Man the Toolmaker there was no such thing as capital. Capital is a
> human creation, involving the combination of thought and action on
non-human
> parts of the planet earth. And that is not the end of the definition,
> because not all of such products of human action become capital. Some are
> consumed directly. The parts that become capital are withheld from
current
> consumption in order that they can contribute to further acts of
production,
> enabling further decisions on what portion should be consumed and what to
> retain as a conributing factor to still more production.
>
> > And do not fish breed etc without human intervention? And trees grow?
> And is not the sun an independent contributor to=
> > production (even though it cannot be owned?
>
> I have never suggested that Nature is not productive. Lots of things
happen
> in Nature without human intervention. But raw Nature is not capital, and
> human beings are no longer part of nature. (Remember that Kelso's first
> co-author wrote a long book on "The Difference of Man and the Difference
it
> Makes".) Once domesticated by human action, however, parts of nature like
> seeds and donkeys can become capital.
>
> >Are there not automatic machines (even though they require occaisonal
> > maintenance and repair?). > And, frankly, if you do not understand that
a
> driverless lorry, (like a
> > driverless train) really does have no driver, then I cannot help you any
> > more and I suggest, for the sake of the others on this elist, that we
end
> > the subject.
> > Rodney Shakespeare.
>
> Show me a place where I have ever denied that automation is a progressive
> reality.
>
> Our persistence in this dialogue has brought me a clue to what may be the
> blind spot in binarian thinking. You want to believe in magic, in a world
> of abundance where capital creation isn't really necessary--whether by
> direct toil or by waiting (using part of the product in further
production).
> If that is the case, then it is a grave injustice that everyone should not
> have a share in the magic of abundance without either toil or saving. And
> since finance is or could be free......there is no excuse for not moving
> immediately to a world where everyone has a share of the free magic. This
> seems to have been the reaction of Richard Stutsman when he saw where
tough
> thinking was leading him.
>
> There is an element of the freely available abundance attitude in Social
> Credit, but it is far more firmly grounded in coping with awkward
realities
> by rigorous thinking. When binary economists are confronted by awkward
> realities, the reaction is to simply deny them and cling to the simplistic
> magic. The binary analysis is delusional, and the refusal to do hard
> thinking is immoral.
>
> I do agree that would should not be cluttering the Social Credit list with
> this discussion. More of it should be addressed toward your more recent
> co-author.
>
> Keith
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John M=E9daille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Social Credit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 4:05 PM
> > Subject: Spam Alert: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Sun, cow, fish, machine,
> > hydroelectric dam=3D,=3D3D =3D3D3Di
> >
> >
> > At 10:23 PM 7/21/2003 +0100, Rodney Shakespeare wrote:
> > >John,
> > >I specifically asked for your -- and Keith's response -- on the
> > following:-=3D
> > >
> > >"Could I try a little physics example? If you push on a wall, the wall
> > >pushes back becasue you, and it, remain in balance. That is basic
> > physics.=3D
> > >
> > >Now you and Keith would deny that the wall pushes back becasue you
would
> > sa=3D
> > >y
> > >the wall has no volition. And yet the "pushing" happens even if no
> humans=
> >
> > >are involved e.g. tables are pulled down by gravity and the floor
pushes
> > >back so that they remain in balance."
> >
> > What is the relevance to the question of "independent" productivity?
Were
> > is any "productivity" involved in the example? How does this relate to
the
> > "productivity" of driverless lorries?
> >
> >
> > 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.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
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
