|
COG
|
Homestead Discussion |
|||||||||
| |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] HOMESTEAD: Rabbit trick or elegant solution?
John,
1. Your email sends a
contradictory message -- on the one hand you refer (with pejorative implicaton)
to a "financial rabbit trick" whatever that means) but, on the other, you
say (with positive implication) "It was an elegant solution that
vaulted Taiwan from an agrarian, feudal society to an industrial
powerhouse in only one generation."
So which is it -- "rabbit trick"
or elegant solution? (I am asking you separately for your Taiwan
paper).
2. As far as I can ascertain,
you are missing the point that binary economics uses interest-free
issuance (ultimately coming from the central bank) to enable capitalless people
to purchase newly-issued shares. A worker's earnings or those
of a binary beneficiary, are not used for the purchase. Yes,
those shares will eventually become very valuable.
3. You say that the use of
interest-free issuance is expropriation because only one group gets the use of
the money. The present system is expropriation because it
enables the existing holders of capital to deny others their right to own
capital. Binary economics stops that expropriation.
You either agree with a genuine
wide ownership (not least to turn Say's Theorem into Say's Law) or you do
not.
The use of interest-free
issuance has been extended to public sector capital projects,
small/start-up businesses and green capital projects.
If members of this elist (or of
Ownership) are not unequivocably bent on an extension of capital
ownership, I am wasting my time in engaging in corrspondence.
Rodney Shakespeare.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Médaille" <john@medaille.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: HOMESTEAD: Ray Carey's Democratic
Capitalism > >Dear Keith and John, > > > >1. All of binary economics is concerned with financing production and > >consumption at the same time with one lot of money. (The Kelsos used the > >word "simulfinancing"). > > For an example of this, see the "land to the tiller" program in Taiwan. > E-mail me privately for my article on this. The Taiwanese used the same > financial rabbit trick to finance both increased farm ownership and > expansion of the industrial base. It was an elegant solution that vaulted > Taiwan from an agrarian, feudal society to an industrial powerhouse in only > one generation. > > > >3. I think John, saying a worker could not afford to buy a share, is a > >bit confused over productiveness and the price of newly issued shares and > >is forgetting basic binary policy that interest-free money is used. > > Surely you cannot mean what you seem to be saying: that price is related to > interest on money more strongly than return to capital. Surely the price of > an equity is well correlated to the return to that equity and less > correlated to the interest rate used to buy the equity. If "productiveness" > pushes up the returns to equities, will it not also push up the price of > the equity? Furthermore, lower interest rates do not necessarily mean lower > prices--as witnessed by the housing market. Please clarify for me what you > mean, for surely I am reading you incorrectly. > > > > > Also much of binary policy is concerned with newly-issued shares -- a > > corporation gets the benefit of interest-free investment if wide > > ownership is allowed (in circumstancers where there is full payout of > > earnings). > > Right, one group will get a privileged use of interest free money--a form > of expropriation. But you are opposed to expropriation, so it sounds as if > your theory is inconsistent, no? You are assuming that the current owners > will voluntarily allow their ownership to be diluted. And if that happens, > well and good. But with returns as high as you say they should be, why > would they do that? For interest free financing? Maybe, but your whole > increased returns scheme mitigates against that argument. It sounds to me > like the theory has it both ways. > > > John C. Médaille > > "A dead thing can go with the stream... > but only a living thing can go against it." > -G. K. Chesterton > http://www.medaille.com/distributivism.htm > john@medaille.com > > To subscribe to this or another of COG's discussion groups register at: > http://cog.kent.edu/register.html > To unsubscribe from this group send a message to majordomo@cog.kent.edu > with a single line in the body of the message that says: > unsubscribe homestead >
|