>This points to the difference between the Douglas and >Keynes approaches to analysis. Douglas aggregates >salaries, wages and dividends. Keynes aggregates >salaries, wages and profits.
Its not either or, is it? So-called "Earned Income", which simply means income as the liabilities of firms, is equal to aggregate final expenditure. Only a portion of that earned income finances final expenditure. The difference is saving. For profit income, corporate savings is deducted from earned income at the same time that net transfers are added in, to reach disposable income, and an additional share of the distributed profit income will be devoted by small business owners and shareholders to wealth accumulation, which the more saving that comes out of profit income. Under the logic described in _Social Credit_ (2nd ed.), it would seem that with no net saving there would still be a shortfall of effective demand. ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^================================================================
