I share a relevant anecdote. This past week I had a visit from a cousin I
was close to in childhood and youth, but whom I have hardly seen in forty
years. He came with some of his family and they strolled around in my
suburban yard. I apologized for its appearance, for it is quite large and
with my crippled right arm I have been unable to take proper care of it this
season. He smiled and responded with the case of a man who was showing off
his quite beautifully tailored garden to a visitor. The visitor commented
"Isn't it wonderful what a man can do with the help of God!"
"Well, maybe so," replied the gardener, "But you should have seen the
mess this was when God was doing it alone."
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodney Shakespeare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Social Credit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Spam Alert: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] At last! Keith admits
productiveness of cap
> 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
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
