John,
Binary productiveness is an analysis of the PHYSICAL contributions to
production. Fish breed and grow without human intervention and that is a
physical fact.
And trees grow. That is a physical fact. And automatic machines act
automatically. That is a physical fact.
And Keith Wilde has conceded these matters -- see another email to this lis=
t
in which, among other things, I point out that physicists, chemists and
biologists generally have little difficulty in understanding productiveness=
but economists (trained to maintain the present narrow ownership of capital=
)
generally do not.
And the hydro-electric dam? Do you still wish to ignore the fact of the
physical contribution to wealth creation that the sun, weather, gravity,
water, concrete and turbines make?
And it has been observed that Marx most certainly understood all this -- se=
e
pages 114-115 of the A/S book.
As regards the independence of non-human things in phsyical production,
consider first the human who is also an independent contributor acting by
her/himself, or co-operating with others or co-operating with things like
machines, seeds, trees, fish, mines, oil wells etc etc -- non-human capital=
assets. You don't deny the independence of human beings, do you? But that=
does NOT mean to say that they cannot co-operate in a thousdand different
ways - with each other or with non-human capital assets -- does it? And
it's the same with the non-human capital assets. They do their work by
themselves, or linked with other non-human assets or linked with humans in
thousand of different ways. Like humans, their independnence is recognised=
by payment for contribution to production -- although whether present
recognition is an accurate recognition is another matter.
You ask if it would matter if b.e.quietly dropped the concept of independen=
t
productiveness. In response, I would ask why, if people genuinely wish
substantial capital ownership for ALL individuals, they feel an obvious nee=
d
to attack something which points out capital's big physical contribution to=
wealth production. The answer is obvious -- they attack the one thing whic=
h
defeats the present line of conventional economics that nothing need be
changed and that it does not matter who owns the capital. Yes, conventiona=
l
economics has woven into it that it does not matter who owns the capital
(and on a New York TV programme with me, Edward Wolff confirmed that).
Thus, in practice, one way or another, most economists -- and you -- end up=
in practice supporting the status quo. It happens becasue, all the time,
they are subtly supporting the status quo arguments. You refuse to allow
the physical contribution of capital to production and so play the game of
the big capital owners who say "Oh labour does most of it, in fact. does it=
all, and THAT'S why there is no case for wide ownership...jobs and, if
necessary , welfare benefit are enough for the ordinary people...."
And YOU are playing their game, John. You have taken up their analysis and=
in practice, your will is weakened. And who are these people you claim are=
deterred from supporting wide ownership by the productiveness analysis? I=
f
it so upsets them, why don't they just campaign for wide ownership? But
they don't do they? The fact is that they pick on this, then they pick on
that -- and will always pick on something to avoid supporting wide
ownership.
And do you know why? It's usually becasue they do not wish ordinary people=
to have the independence and everyday power which would come from a degree=
of capital ownership. They will ALWAYS find some excuse to deny capital
ownership to others.
So the answer is that without the productiveness analysis the forces which
wish to retain the narrow ownership of capital would no longer have any rea=
l
opponent and they would sit back smugly and say "Yes, it's as we've always=
said...jobs and welfare are enough for ordinary people....."
One last thing -- in another email to this list which does not appear to
me, to have been circulated to the list, I deal with binary economics and
Islam and give some indication of the latest developments. You might like
to go to the website I have mentioned and read the Foreword to Prof
Choudhury's latesrt book and my Oman paper both in Articles. After reading=
them it will probably occur to you that binary economics is making rather
more progress that you are capable of imagining.
Rodney Shakespeare.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M=E9daille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Social Credit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: Spam Alert: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Sun, cow, fish, machine,
hydro=3Delectric
At 02:26 PM 7/22/2003 +0100, Rodney Shakespeare wrote:
>And do not fish breed etc without human intervention?
Does the fish have any economic value while it remains uncaught? Have you
ever seen a fish jump out of the water, scale and gut itself, and then jump=
into the frying pan?
> And trees grow? Are
>there not automatic machines (even though they require occaisonal
>maintenance and repair?). And is not the sun an independent contributor
to=3D
>
>production (even though it cannot be owned?
>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.
I think I just heard an admission that there is no such thing as
"independent productivity." Rodney, your theory of IP has brought great
discredit and ridicule on Binary Economics and made it impossible for
serious people to take it seriously. It is no accident that its primary
economics texts are written by lawyers. Not that that would a problem in
itself, but the unwillingness to enter a normal dialog in normal terms has
consigned what might be a useful theory to the realm of crackpots.
I ask you again, what would change in BE if you just quiety dropped
Independent productiveness?
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
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
