>From: "Dan Parker"
>The problem in a nutshell is this. There are several monetary reform >groups with >a specific view of how to enact the needed changes. My idea is not to >get tied >up in any one view. There are strengths and weaknesses to the different >proposals. >A major weakness to many proposals are that many who identify with one >proposal, >see it as the only, and complete, solution. This leads to a house >divided on the >first task, which is to get the idea that the current monetary system is >an unjust >monopoly out into the mainstream debate; where the truth will out.
>I understand social credit,[Ryan] But you don't understand it. That's the point. You don't understand any of it, or you wouldn't have made the uninformed comments you have made, for example regarding the compensated price.
Do you regard sales tax to be "overly bureaucratic"? All the compensated price is, in terms of mechanism, is a sales tax in reverse. There's nothing complicated about it. It couldn't be simpler.
Technocracy Inc (yes I know they are >over-centralized), >binary economics (at least the basics of the two different streams at >the Kent >State group) and on and on. I am not detailing my responses to the >social credit idea, >which I understand far better than what you might imagine
[Ryan] No, you probably understand it less than I imagine. I was astounded when I read your earlier comments.
, because in >the final >analysis, the proof will be in the pudding. We are dealing with human >psychology, >in a complex system. Prototypes and double loop feedback, with a >recognition >of the basic thermodynamics at work, are the ways ahead. Not getting >bogged down >in the details of unproven theories.
>Speaking of human psychology, you might have more luck communicating >your perspective that you admit to having no luck with, by reviewing >such >comments as 'you don't have the foggiest idea what you are >talking about, and I'm not insulting you'.
[Ryan] Very intelligent and educated people who have tried to understand it do not understand it. From the beginning, for that matter, very few Social Crediters have understood it, with the exception of Douglas himself and some of his closest colleagues, Orage, Lord Tavistock, etc. Even in the early days very few Social Crediters understood it. The current leadership of the Social Credit Secretariat do not understand it. I do not intend to insult them and I do not intend to insult you.
I am stating a fact.
If you think the concept is simple, then what you are accepting or rejecting is not the theory of Social Credit.
For that matter, most members of mass movements are merely responding to slogans. That was certainly true of Social Credit when it did hold some degree of popularity. It is true of every mass movement.
The mechanisms (dividends/discounts) for implementing Social Credit are simple, they require no fundamental structural reform whatever to the system as it has historically evolved, they are presently available to policy-makers already and have been utilized sporadically in the past and will no doubt be utilized in the future, i.e. perhaps Japan and Argentina; it is the underlying theory justifying the implementation on a more general basis that is profoundly subtle.
It doesn't take exceptional intelligence to understand it, just hard work.
Its difficulty of comprehension I might compare to Relativity. Most educated people are familiar with the term and have some rudimentary understanding, but few people have ever really understood it. Nor do they need to understand it. What it is is a powerful analytical tool available to specialists who have made the effort to understand it.
Apparently, you do not care to make the effort.
What I object to is your claim that you understand it when you do not.
This is doubletalk ;-)
And , - "We are dealing with human psychology, in a complex system. Prototypes and double loop feedback, with a recognition of the basic thermodynamics at work, are the ways ahead. Not getting bogged down in the details of unproven theories." - is not doubletalk? ;-)
> >The compensated price system looks like a bureaucratic nightmare and >something >that would be open to abuse in my opinion. It might be better than the >current system, >but that's not saying a lot I think. Again, I have read and understood >some excellent >A + B articles that Wally Klinck has sent me. The idea of flows of >money, rather >than stocks, the effects of interest etc., are not difficult to grasp.
The "effects of interest" have nothing to do with the A + B Theorem nor any aspect of the Douglas theory.
>If I have not >communicated my knowledge of this thoroughly, it is because I am more >concerned >with accomplishing something beyond what can be seemingly endless>discussion.
And what do you hope to accomplish from the basis of utter ignorance?
>
>Regards
>Dan Parker
>