query

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

Van Trier is apparently active in "basic income" circles.
Frances Hutchinson, chairwoman of the Social Credit
Secretariat, also mentions the Ramsey paper in her
"Political Economy of Guild Socialism" book, though she does
not respond to my queries.  Anthologies of Ramsey's work do
not include the social credit paper.  Cambridge has
not been helpful at all.  Geoffrey Gardiner, a prominent
Cambridge graduate, whom I communicate with through the
"Gang8" creditary economics list, was unable to get it
for me, even though he continues to be extremely well
connected otherwise.

The thing is, from the interpretive snippits I've read like
that in Manning from Van Trier, is that the paper is
probably theoretically supportive of the theorem, properly
understood.
--

--------- Original Message ---------

DATE: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:29:08
From: John Hermann <hermann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx
Cc:

>No, I've never had contact with Van Trier -- only came across his name in
>the Google search. However we know that he was at the Department of
>Sociology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium during 1995.  I will
>undertake a search for further information.   John.
>
>
>At 09:13 PM 25/03/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>>"In 1922, Frank Ramsey proved mathematically using calculus that the A+B
>>Theorem was unfounded, using scientific null-hypothesis. He showed that
>>below-cost pricing was justified (and in a dynamic, as distinct from a
>>stationary, economy) only when dividends are paid on less than the
>>national capital, and when the rate of interest on new investment is less
>>than that included in costs."
>>http://www.geocities.com/socredus/manning-1997.txt
>>--------------------------
>>This is Manning's paraphrase from Van Trier.  Van Trier may have seen the
>>Ramsey paper but I'm quite sure that Manning has not.  The theorem itself
>>uses concepts from calculus and pertains only to a dynamic economy in
>>expansion.  It is strictly speaking a theory of accounting not
>>economics.  The flow of purchasing power to final consumers is falling in
>>respect to the flow of costs "expensed" against sales at the point of
>>retail.  Hence, debt is increasing "exponentially" as compared to
>>consumption.  Orthodoxy simply assumes fallaciously that "costs"
>>necessarily equal "income."  There is a bit of loaded jargon here, i.e.,
>>"null-hypothesis."  I suppose that means argument by reductio ad
>>absurdum.  But A + B is
>>itself argument by reductio ad absurdum.
>>
>>Do you know Van Trier?  If so, will you ask him to send me a copy of the
>>Ramsey paper?

----
In one of my very recent discussions with a monetary reformer
he mentioned that he thought A+B had been "disproved" in 1922
by a mathematician named Frank(?). I have not encountered this
story previously. Can anyone on the list provide useful information?
If it is true then I would like to know (a) whether the "proof" was
published, and (b) whether it was challenged or refuted.

JAH
--


That would be Frank Ramsey, the elder brother of Michael Ramsey, later
Archbishop of Canterbury.

Frank died in 1930 at the age of 26.

He was a Cambridge philosopher, logician and economist.

'The Douglas Proposals', The Cambridge Magazine, 11, no. 1, (January 1922), 74-6.

I have been unable to obtain a copy of this paper.

Perhaps you will assist me?

Bill


____________________________________________________________
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