Sorry, the last message was for Wes Burt. -----Original Message----- From: Campbell Rayfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 23 August 2003 10:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Fw: #2, W. B. Ryan, 08-21-03, Re: Communication problem with
Please Remove -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 23 August 2003 10:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Fw: #2, W. B. Ryan, 08-21-03, Re: Communication problem with Maj Hi folks, I had to resend this without the attached file to satisfy topica size limits. Fig2-3b.gif is in the URL below. Wes --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:22:13 -0400 Subject: #2, W. B. Ryan, 08-21-03, Re: Communication problem with Maj. C. H. Douglas. Message-ID: (Deleted by Wes Burt) To: Many devious defenders of the status quo on my copy list. A few friends are already singing in the choir, but more of the DDotSQ must be persuaded to join in the singing before the public will hear us. Dear Bill, Your response to my statement of 08-21-03 is copied below for the enlightenment of my copy list, with comments inserted. You are right again, Bill, "a node is simply a circuit point in DC circuits." Back in the 1950s, nodes were also "simply a circuit point" in A/C power grids because A/C power cannot be stored efficiently. Consequently, the nodes or corporate operating areas appear as "points" on the map of an A/C power grid, and have no storage capacity. And all connections of the "point" to other operating areas must be metered at the area boundaries so production within the "point" can be continuously equated to the consumption of electric power within the "point" by the dispatching function, which General Electric automated in 1954, but Ronald Reagan never mentioned in GE's public relations programs. Now, fifty years later, we have a third world power grid and are headed for a third world economy, to join Afghanistan and Iraq, if frequent posters on the Internet have their way. --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:14:04 -0700 Subject: RE: [SOCIAL CREDIT] W. B. Ryan, 07-03-03, Re: Communication problem with Maj. C. Message-ID: (Deleted by WSB) Wes, a "node" is simply a circuit point in DC circuits. It is not a component. Say's Law does parallel Kirchoff it that it regards economic sectors somewhat as nodes where inputs equal outputs and outputs equal inputs. Leontief follows the same line of reasoning and is equally fallacious. [WSB Leontief's national Input/Output tables have received as little public exposure as GE's Automatic Dispatching System. So the public does not have a valid conceptual framework for evaluating the effects of deregulation or tax policy on its power grid or on its economy. WSB] This from your post is not a proper rendition of Kirchoff: ***>...all flows, in or out of the node, must be measured and accounted for in the equation for the particular node and the sum of the flows must equal the measured change of inventory within the particular node.<*** There can be no "change of inventory" within a node because a node has no inventory--it is simply a point. The sum of currents into the point must equal the sum of currents simultaneously out of the point. Economic sectors are more like components than points. Inputs do not automatically equal outputs in terms of financial flows. [WSB That is true. But every business and household can hold cash balances and lines of credit to accommodate the unexpected. WSB] ***>[WSB If social credit had contained a complete and technically valid general theory of human development (GToHD), surly C. H. Douglas would have won public acceptance of it.<*** This is a ridiculous statement on several counts. The technical validity of anything does not guarantee the "public acceptance" of anything--surely you know that. And "public acceptance" does not indicate the technical validity of that which is accepted. Note that the operative term below is "nodality" not "node." [1] In a system of continuous flow such as a pipeline, let N be a nodality which contains a volume V defined by the dimensions of N. Let the rate of flow of aggregate inputs to N be designated I. Let the rate of flow of aggregate outputs be designated O. Let the rate of change in V be designated dV/dt. Then I = O + dV/dt. Now if N's dimensions are fixed, dV/dt = 0, so that I = O. But if N's dimensions are expanding, I is > O. [2] Assert axiomatically that in respect of an expanding nodality in a system of continuous flow, the rate of flow of aggregate inputs must exceed outputs. Now let there be one such nodality P with inputs flowing at rate I and outputs flowing at rate O. Then configure P in a closed circuit with a second such nodality Q so that the outputs of P are the inputs of Q, and the outputs of Q are the inputs of P. Consistent with the assertion above the following conditions must simultaneously obtain: X > Y and Y > X, which is impossible. It is therefore concluded through implication that for such a circuit to function, it must be inferred that it contains within its structural complex a counter-nodality that has outputs greater than inputs that must be factored into the calculation. That counter-nodality in financial systems is credit. [3] In respect of financial institutions, let deposits = D, loans etc. = L, cash in hand = C, and capital = K. Then: assets = L + C, liabilities = D + K, so that L + C = D + K. Differentiating with respect to time: dL/dt + dC/dt = dD/dt; K being fixed, dK/dt = 0. Assuming cash in hand is kept constant, dC/dt = 0. Therefore dL/dt = dD/dt, which means that loans create deposits and the repayment of loans cancel deposits. [WSB Surely, You jest. WSB] ---original message--- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:59:58 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [snipped] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thanks for the enlightenment, Bill. I trust your concern, and that of Ken Palmerton, for the amount of M1 and M0 will explain why my two local newspapers stopped publishing M1 when it reached $1,200 Billion in 1994, as shown on Fig2-3b.gif attached. Kind regards, Wes Burt To further explore "The Optimum Policy" illustrated at URL <http://www.epie.org/cyber-soc/default.htm> please join me at list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. ____________________________________________________________ Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail! http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005 ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! --^---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
