Me: That’s good solid advice Jim. Actually I’ll venture an extension of Social Credit policy solutions. Why not extend the retail discount policy solution to the retail product of each business model in the economy? In other words the retail product of the mining industry is the resources they take from the ground and sell to producers. The retail product of producers is…whatever product(s) they produce and sell to wholesalers or retailers, and of course the retailer is the end point for the entire process. The end of any economic process is the correct and valid point to apply policy. Each sale by a business model is a stopping point. Extending the discount policy to each business model would invite greater participation and “buy in” to SC theory and policy, help to better saturate the economy with monetary gifting and so more thoroughly integrate that new paradigm into the present monetary paradigms of Debt, Loan and For Production ONLY…helping to make gifting the primary one instead of Debt etc. It also would further guard against these businesses/models from exploiting the additional demand they saw coming via the dividend to incrementally inflate their prices.
DM: Steve, if you do a spreadsheet to model this, you will find this to be enormously inflationary. Douglas had the math right. You only offer the CP to the end consumers. Intermediate producers don’t need rebates to prosper. All they need is for there to be enough money in the economy to empower effective demand in consumers at large, and they need to offer a product those consumers actually want to buy. The present order of things only offers the latter. The gap constrains the former.
Me: Ok, but I don’t see how extending the discount to every business model in any way would or could create price inflation so long as it continued to be policy at retail sale as well. And the more the cost of operating enterprise at all levels and business models is reduced the more profit and hence ability to re-invest that profit instead of using new finance which is spectacularly expensive compared to re-investment of profit. The less need to borrow the more the business model of Finance is downsized. The business model of Finance has been problematic for over 5000 years, and the monopolistic powers of Finance to enforce compound interest is the primary STRUCTURAL economic problem whose power prevents a sane and fair policy like a simple interest mark up for services provided. The Social Credit A + B systemic economic insight would still apply of course, and the monetary paradigms of Debt, Loan and For Production ONLY are the primary, deeper and philosophical problem) but integrating the macro/aggregated policy at retail with a micro/individual enterprise policy…integrates and solidifies the effects of those policies.
GM: a one man or small consultancy of which there are now many. Lots of businesses have laid off staff and brought them back as independent contractors/consultants. I know freelance writers incorporated for tax purposes, whose only real “expense” is their own pay. You can find Indian software engineers who use the same business model and generate customers through online search engines. Wake up and smell the New Economy coffee.
Me: Even if such enterprises were the only ones in the economy, which of course they’re not and won’t be until the Star Trek replicator technology becomes a reality for creating fixed assets and productive facilities, profit being a systemic cost of doing business would reduce individual incomes in ratio to total costs/prices.
A + B still would apply and require some level of costless individual income supplement and a reduction of price at retail sale as well.
Excellent analysis as always. My frustration with Greg is his unwillingness to even try to understand Social Credit, and then making accusations towards me based upon something someone else wrote. His misunderstandings of the A+B theorem and Social Credit stem from this unwillingness to even try to learn about it.
However, you are right in that he has a very legitimate criticism about our inability to sell the concept to a general audience. I have actually spoken about this at great length with Oliver. You are also correct in asserting that the political route is a dead end, and that the excuse of “suppression”, while probably true at one time, is no longer relevant.
I think the problem is multifaceted, but this is what I believe.
1) People who are attracted to Social Credit today tend to be high in IQ, but not necessarily very high in EQ. We understand the concepts and can communicate them among ourselves, but have an extraordinarily hard time communicating them to others. None of us are “salesmen”, and are likely the type of people who hate salesmen. I know that I’m someone who hates it when someone is trying to “sell” me something.
2) We haven’t learned one key aspect of Social Credit as it pertains to promoting it – the increment of association. We are all out doing our own thing, and none of us act in any coordinated manner (I actually think this is our biggest impediment). We need to organize, and create an organizational structure. At one time we had one (the Secretariat), but I would think everyone on this list would agree that Francis has sabotaged that organization (intentionally or unintentionally) with her socialist leanings.
3) The information age has some great attributes, but I think one of the negative factors of the information age is that people want all their information quickly. Social Credit is a concept that takes time to grasp. Further, when we do put out information, like Oliver’s excellent book, it’s too long for most people to want to read. I think we are not making use of the youtube medium properly. I like what Robert has done, but we need music and effects to make people want to watch it, not just a person talking – something along the lines of Zeitgeist.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
Excellent insights both Joe and Jim. Social Credit’s most difficult problem is that it’s basic philosophy and policies are based on a new economic and monetary paradigm. The curse of any new paradigm is that in perceiving it and then trying to communicate it….you go completely out of communication with virtually everyone….because the old paradigm and all of its valid or invalid justifications is generally and habitually held in the minds of everyone. That’s just the nature of a paradigm which is a generally held idea and its habitual justifications.
And you’re also both right that we need a modern way to organize and get our message out. The group of disciples was the youtube and facebook of the day when Christ communicated the new spiritual paradigm of Grace in the first century. So let’s use facebook and youtube. Christ’s guerrilla marketing technique was to over turn the tables of the money changers and then get on about his ministry. We need a similar tactic to get attention. I’ve raised the idea of an organization focused on dissimilar political constituencies like students and the small to medium sized business community. I think that if you also included the very large constituency of women and showed them how social credit would better give them the option of being either a parent or a professional…or both, that such a message would far out compete the feminist “option” of becoming a careerist who burns out from over work, job instability and lack of full fulfillment in either area. Puzzlingly at least to me, each time I’ve suggested such there is a resounding silence here. I’ve suggested similar things to Ellen about integrating the Public Banking and Social Credit insights and gotten little feedback as well.