more on parametric shift

["William B. Ryan" <william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx>]

The shifting differential in accumulation has no
resolution in double entry accounting.  A + B
represents the *flow* of costs being *expensed*
against sales at the point of retail.  A represents
the commensurate *flow* of purchasing power to final
consumers through the ordinary industrial process.
Double entry works if the ratio of A + B to A is
remaining constant through time, a quite unnatural
condition.  With lengthening to the structure of
production with industrialization, the ratio of B is
increasing to A, consequently the ratio of A + B is
increasing to A.  This means that "investment" in the
macroeconomic sense cannot be deriving from consumer
saving since consumers in the aggregate are receiving
no surplus whatsoever over the costs they are
expected to pay at the point of retail.  Not only are
they not receiving a surplus, they are progressively
receiving less than they are expected to pay.  Since
consumers are receiving progressively less than they
are expected to pay, debt accumulation must be
"accelerating" in terms of real production crossing
the retail counter.  At the very least it means that
entrepreneurs and their financiers are receiving less
than perfect information from their profit-loss
calculations, in a system where consumers can hardly
be called sovereign.




---original message---
Re: parametric shift   	  sut-@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Mar 14, 2004 08:53 PST

On Saturday 28 Feb 2004 4:21 pm, Bill wrote:
 	By parametric shift
is meant the INCREASE in ratio between the rate of
flow of receipts and the rate of flow of
disbursements. The instantaneous differential
between the rates of flow represents accumulation to
account balances.
-------------------------------

Me again.

I would like to get this clear once and for all.

Is not the whole of "B" expressed in this same parametric shift?

And does not that 'accumulation to account balances' consist in 'money' that
cannot be spent into the local economy because of lack of opportunity to do
so? -- ie., because the holder of the account balance:

(a) has everything he needs for the moment out of the local production
capacity? and

(b) he cannot invest (spend) it into the local economy because there is a
surplus of production capacity which cannot be alleviated because of the lack
of real demand locally as a result of A+B in Prices?

He could, of course, invest in production capacity for export, in which case
'A' will filter into the local economy and both 'A'+ 'B' costs in Price will
be sent off-shore. But I suppose that activity opens the way for imports
which bring A+B costs into the local market with no, or little, 'A'
disbursements into the local economy? So the position ends up being the same
as in the previous paragraph as more money accumulates into account balances.

Until when? Until bankruptcy intervenes?

Jessop.




____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10