To: A few sincere reformers and many devious defenders 
     of the status quo (DDotSQ) on my copy list.

Keith,

Your thoughtful statement, copied below, gives two precepts 
of social credit, as you understand this "policy of a philosophy."
Everyone who dares to venture an opinion on this subject 
seems to agree on the philosophy, which thinks well of human 
beings as a species and desires liberty and justice for each 
individual.  But our frequent posters part company on just what 
policy will effect the "Paradigm Shift" that Wally, others, and I 
believe is necessary to enable the "optimum policy."

I agree completely with your first precept: "that social wealth 
accumulates."  Here is; Karl Marx's "surplus value" seized by 
the capitalist, the root of Douglas' A + B Theory, and the 
wealth to be distributed among "New Capitalists" by 
Louis Kelso's policy.  The mal-distribution of this wealth 
accumulated "by virtue of natural human striving" offends 
every sincere reformer.  But is the mal-distribution caused 
by corporations and governments becoming too powerful, 
or, by parenting households becoming too weak?  The 
second cause can be corrected, with advantage to all 
concerned, by an open discussion of how to strengthen 
parenting families.  Only the DDotSQ will be opposed, 
and the status quo is a policy of genocide done slowly.

I disagree completely with your second precept: that the 
mal-distribution can be corrected "via monetary policy."
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the 
English speaking WHIPs (Wealthy, Healthy, Intelligent, 
and powerful folks) have been ahead of the curve in 
developing the methods and institutions needed to 
maximize the efficiency of, and the return on investment 
from, their capital plant.  The US banking industry and 
the Federal Reserve System works like a charm and is 
envied by other industrial nations.  The three great 20th 
century injections of money (M1) into the economy, shown 
in Fig10d.gif, simply created speculative bubbles because 
the deficiency of purchasing power among parenting 
households had depressed the demand for additional 
investment in productive capital plant.  When I wrote to 
Katherine Graham, Patrick Moynihan, and Peter Peterson 
about monetary policy in 1994, the 7%/year run up of 
M1 over the previous three decades was halted abruptly 
at $1,200 Billion, and stayed at that level for nine years 
as shown in Fig2-3.gif at the URL below.  

M1 of $1,200 Billion is more than adequate to run our 
$10,000 Billion GDP economy as illustrated by a 
technically valid macro model, Fig4-3.gif, backed up 
by Wassily Leontief's 42 industry Input/output table, 1966, 
to show how the "real" economy (250% of GDP) works.  
That deficiency of purchasing power is not a monetary 
problem, it is a moral problem which Japan and 
Europe solved after World War II.

Notice, Keith, that cswriter1 responded to your inquiry 
by asking, "Is this social credit concept different from 
technocracy?"  And [EMAIL PROTECTED],com 
answered: "Yes."

They are indeed different policies from the same 
philosophy, but they have this in common with all other 
policies of the 20th century, none of them presented the 
public with a technically valid model of an industrial 
economy, such as Fig4-3, to inform the public interest.
If anyone has a better model than Fig4.3, by all means 
let's use it to inform our discussion.

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]>.


--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Keith Wilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 08:23:48 -0700
Subject: Re: RE: [SOCIAL CREDIT]  "Fungibility"
Message-ID: (deleted by Wes Burt)

Wes,

It seems to me that both you and Michael are so wrapped 
up in preaching your own brands of economic reform that 
you have not paid any attention to the fundamental concept 
and precept of Social Credit which are, as I understand them:

1,    --Social wealth accumulates (or can, if conditions permit) 
by virtue of natural human strivings, mainly via embodied 
technology and culture;

2.    --The vehicle for equitable sharing of this accumulation 
is NOT via taxation and government spending, but rather 
via monetary policy.

I invite corrections from the Social Credit experts.

Keith

---- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 5:54 PM
Subject: Fw: RE: [SOCIAL CREDIT] "Fungibility"


> Hi folks,
>
> In the forwarded message below, Bill Ryan chides Michael
> Bindner for his opinion that the benefits of a social dividend
> must be deferred "until the debt is paid off and the scope
> of government reduced."  This exchange reminds me of
> "The Screwtape Letters," 1943, by C. S. Lewis, Professor
> of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge
> University, in which the Senior Devil "Screwtape" chides
> his nephew "Wormwood" about the hazards of being
> too specific when teaching human beings what they
> should never think about.  In this age of reason, only
> one thing remains that the congregations of our Judaic,
> Christian, Islamic, and Protestant tradition are forbidden
> to think about: namely, the "geometric relationship"
> between the fixed costs of acquiring a productive asset,
> the fixed cost of sustaining the asset when in production,
> and the variable costs of production over the useful life
> of that productive asset.  Unfortunately, that "geometric
> relationship" occurs twice in every human enterprise, first
> in the capital asset at 90 degrees and again in the human
> asset at 270 degrees in the macro model, Fig4-3.gif  But the
> "geometric relationship" remains invisible until we view it
> in the micro model, FIG7-9D.GIF and Fig8.1.gif
>
~~~~~~~~ (Balance of post deleted by WesBurt) ~~~~~~~

--^----------------------------------------------------------------
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
--^----------------------------------------------------------------

<<fig10d.gif>>

<<Fig4-3.gif>>

Reply via email to