On Monday 01 Sep 2003 2:30 am, Wes Burt wrote: > 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. -----------------------------------
What I am really trying to find out is: Can the amount available for Social Credit disbursements be simply derived from the relationship between GDP and M1 (or M2, or M3) money supply at any cut-off point? It is easy to state that �the value is there� but not so easy to find something solid enough with which to start convincing any politician. Jessop. --------------------------- On Monday 01 Sep 2003 2:30 am, you wrote: > 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
