still more on A+B

[william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxxx]

With reference to diagram-1 attached also archived at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/diagram-1.jpg

Every firm is individually making A1 payments and B
payments, the totality [see note 1] of which are
becoming translated into consumer income (A1 + A2).
Consumers are receiving A1 immediately and B after a
delay (A2) from the spending of each firm.  In
dynamic stasis B = A2 because inputs to aggregate
firms sector account balances will equal outputs.  So
while the balances are some positive number which is
a subtrahend from system flow, the amount adding to
the balances as B payments exactly equals the amount
subtracting from the balances as A2 in stasis.

If A1 + B are increasing in steady-state, B must be
greater than instantaneously measured A2 because
account balances are increasing in the firms sector,
but also the ratio between B and A2 is remaining
constant.  So while A2 is less than current B it is
equal to B at some previously determinable point in
time.  Because in steady-state the delay is constant
(some fixed period of time) the delay is easily
accommodated through term contracts and double entry
accounting recording the requirements for future
performance.

But if the ratio of B is increasing to A1 [see note
2], more and more consumer income is becoming delayed
in terms of the costs of production.  Plotted on a
chart with time being the horizontal axis, A1 + A2
will be seen to be falling in respect to A1 + B.  See
diagram-2 attached archived at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/diagram-2.jpg

[note 1]  This is an simplifying assumption for the
purposes of developing the argument.  In actuality,
less than the totality is translated into consumer
income.  Some of it is ultimately "short circuited"
back to the banks without ever reaching consumers.

[note 2] Variously called "labor displacement,"
"lengthening in the period of production,"
"increasing roundaboutness in production," etc.