"The essential distinctions in the binary analysis are that capital and
labor are independently productive, and that therefore the distribution of
capital ownership has a potent, positive relationship to the profitable
employment of unutilized capacity and economic growth. Douglas did not see
these points ".
Before I can comment on the above I would like to see a definitive
definition of what is meant by:
Capital, Labor, Capital Ownership, Distribution of Capital Ownership,
Unutilized Capacity, and how the distribution of capital ownership has a
positive relationship to the profitable employment of unutilized capacityand
economic growth.
I will leave the question of economic growth for the moment .The comment
that "Douglasdid not see these points" is an opinion and may or may not be
correct. Saying it does not make it true. Only a thorough understanding of
what is being said may reveal the truth.
V.B
----- Original Message -----
From: "W. Curtiss Priest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "List, Social Credit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:05 AM
Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] a commentary from Dr. Robert Ashford
I worked with Robert's brother, Nick, at MIT on
social, regulatory economics and issues of technological
innovation.
Dr. Ashford, as most know, is co-author of "Binary Economics"
with Rodney Shakespeare.
With regard to:
[SOCIAL CREDIT] Social Credit and Christian Philosophy/Policy
posted by keith wilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
I forwarded the note to Robert.
This is his reply:
Dear Curt,
Thank you for the e-mail.
I was aware of the existence of these discussions, but have not followed
them ...
Binary economics is like plane geometry; even though one has studied,
algebra, calculus or complexity theory, one cannot just "wing" the
subject
without reading it carefully. Most of the people who attack, criticize,
or
dismiss binary economics, or maintain that it is like some else, have
never
read it with the care it requires.
The essential distinctions in the binary analysis are that capital and
labor
are independently productive, and that therefore the distribution of
capital
ownership has a potent, positive relationship to the profitable
employment of
unutilized capacity and economic growth. Douglas did not see these
points
(Nor did Keynes, Smith or Marx) and it is therefore absurd to believe
that
Kelso based his analysis on the work of Douglas.
With best wishes and highest regards,
Robert Ashford
PS
Robert makes mention of an unpublished article -- not
ready for distribution:
Using Christian Principles to Enhance Economic Theory and Practice:
Binary Economics as the More Christian and Scientific Way"
Symposium on Christianity and Economics:
Integrating Faith and Learning in Economic Scholarship
Baylor Universitys
November 7-9, 2002
© 2002
Professor Robert Ashford
Syracuse University College of Law
***
My primary quarrel with your excellent analysis of economic matters is
that
(as it seems to me, please forgive me if I fail to do you justice) you
do not
distinguish between debt for consumer and capital goods that
concentrates
ownership, and debt for capital acquisition that broadens ownership.
(See
part VII D of the article.)
--
W. Curtiss Priest, Director, CITS
Research Affiliate, Culture & Media, MIT
Center for Information, Technology & Society
466 Pleasant St., Melrose, MA 02176
781-662-4044 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://Cybertrails.org
==^^===============================================================
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
==^^===============================================================
