Homestead

Rodney and Keith

The meaning of “Neutral Money” is explained by Professor Dieter Suhr who unfortunately died some years ago at a relatively young age, Refer to his explanation at http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/suhr/nngengl.html

Also refer to:

Suhr, D. (1989) The Capitalistic Cost-Benefit Structure of Money, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.

Cheers

Shann

From: owner-homestead@cog.kent.edu [mailto:owner-homestead@cog.kent.edu] On Behalf Of Rodney Shakespeare
Sent: Wednesday, 27 July 2005 9:07 PM
To: homestead@cog.kent.edu
Subject: Re: HOMESTEAD: Ray Carey's Democratic Capitalism

Dear Keith,

I spent about half an hour dipping into the internet version of the book but had some difficulty in discovering the answer to certain questions, of which the following are but some.

Can you answer them for me?

1. Does Carey have any proposal for those who are not employed in the usual sense?

2. What is meant by "money should be a neutral medium of exchange"?

3. a) Am I right in thinking that Carey views the money supply (which must be "ample, low-cost, non-volatile and patient") as directed solely at capital investment and in no way directed at consumption?

b) In Carey-land, who issues the money supply?

c) To whom?

d) For what purpose?

e) Is interest attached?

f) Apart from optimistic exhortation, exactly how does Carey propose to make the money supply ample, low-cost, non-volatile and patient?

4. In what way is Carey saying anything more than that employees should be involved in their corporation, and should share in the profits, and should have an ESOP and stock purchase (out of the employee's earnings) etc?

5. Does Carey have anything to say about a corporation sacking its employees (when, for example, it is no longer at the leading edge of technology)?

6. a) Is there any relation between what Carey is saying and Social Credit? If so, what is it?

b) Specifically, what (proposed) financial reforms of the 1930s are being referred to?

7. Is there any relation between what Carey is saying and the position of COMER? If so, what is it?

8. Is Carey saying anything new? If so, what?

9 How does what Carey is saying differ substantially from, say, cesj's Justice-based management?

10. You state Carey "comes back at the end to essentially the same conclusion as Douglas: the vision will be constrained until the parasitical financial adversary is defeated, and that will take an informed as well as an outraged (or more likely desperate) citizenry."

I am fascinated by this statement because it seems to hint at something which I did not come across in my (admittedly brief) dipping into the internet text. What are the precise arrangements Carey proposes for defeating the "parasitical financial adversary"?

I look forward to your response.

Rodney Shakespeare.

PS I hope this is not a duplicated email -- I have tried to send it three times because of a computer problem.

RE: HOMESTEAD: Ray Carey's Democratic Capitalism