Michael, whether or not the arguments for A + B are valid, the diatribe below addresses none of them. Certainly many of them have been made available to you during the past few weeks. I can only say that your failure to address even a single one of the arguments must be evidence of either intellectual laziness or dishonesty. It can't be both. Since I am personally inclined to believe that incompetency rather than conspiracy explains much of what is wrong with the world, I will assume that you are inexcusably lazy in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary.
***>This is my key point - if purchasing power is lacking then sellers respond by lowering prices. This is why A+B is a bit of a red herring. In essence, WalMart makes A+B obsolete. <***
Except for the WalMart bit, this is nothing more profound or significant than the quantity theory of money.
But the WalMart phenomenon is confirmation of A + B. Sellers will not continue to produce and employ if they are required to sell below their costs of production. So the WalMarts will strive to find suppliers anywhere in the world whose costs are defined by slave labor. --
----original message----
From : Michael Bindner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] To : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject : OWNERSHIP: A+B Date : Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
I have been dabling lately on the Social Credit list, although I have recently moved off of it. I do have one comment, however about A+B.
A+B is only important if prices are static or rising faster than incomes. If incomes increase faster than prices, on average and especially for the majority of workers, there is no problem. If incomes for the majority of workers stagnate or are decreased by regressive tax policy, the economy will slow.
A+B would have been a problem in England at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution except for one thing - the consumer revolution. Because of overproduction, price levels dropped and workers were able to afford the goods being produced. Whenever industrialization occurs, consumerism follows - followed by the organization of workers and the rise of progressive politics.
Clinton's economy succeeded because the total distribution of taxes was initially more progressive. When he eventually bowed to the congressional demand to cut the capital gains tax rate, etc., late in his presidency a recession resulted. Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy and on capital made it worse. Luckily, tax cuts have their own safety valve - deficits. Massive deficit spending (in excess of borrowing) stimulates the economy by putting more money in the hands of lower income individuals and less in the hands of higher income individuals. The marketplace responds by lowering prices and purchasing power results, irregardless of A+B.
This is my key point - if purchasing power is lacking then sellers respond by lowering prices. This is why A+B is a bit of a red herring. In essence, WalMart makes A+B obsolete.
Michael Bindner
_________________________________________________________________
Try MSN Messenger 6.0 with integrated webcam functionality! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_webcam
--^---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
