Unless I missed something, you have so far not given a reason for your belief that the A + B theorem is the correct starting point for this purpose. I have agreed that the A + B theorem itself is logically correct. It is, after all, based on an accounting identity. The real question is whether it is relevant. 1 + 1 = 2 is correct also. But it is not relevant to the question of whether there will be a chronic deficiency of purchasing power. To answer that question, it is my contention that you must tell the goal you are trying to achieve.
Dear Prof. Gunning,
I've been following your discussion with Bill Ryan and Wally Klinck with great interest. While I'm aware of the folly of our trying to convert a 'conscious objector' to Social Credit to the philosophy of social credit, as per Vic Bridger's comment, it must be said there seems to be a fine line dividing an already decided 'conscious objector' from one who still has an 'open mind'. I believe you've shown you have an 'open mind', even though the concepts involved in Social Credit are obviously unfamiliar, and can be difficult to understand at first. As to our 'goal', I can only say that in my opinion it is to ensure that the rate our standard of living advances exceeds the rate our cost of living does. I hope you will continue in your discussion with Bill. With your academic backgrounds the two of you can explore the concepts at a level new to many of us, and that's really beeen quite informative.
Yours truly,
Joe Thomson,
Courtenay, British Columbia
--^^--------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^^---------------------------------------------------------------
