OWNERSHIP: Moulton was a Kelsoist?

["William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>]

Through a link in the document appended to his
message, Norm references a recent open letter from
Michael Greaney, which states:

___According to Harold G. Moulton in his 1935 classic,
"The Formation of Capital" (Brookings Institution),
periods of the greatest industrial expansion in the
U.S. between 1830 and 1930 were neither preceded nor
accompanied by increased saving, but by increased
consumption.___

This is a fair summary of what Moulton wrote, then
Greaney conjures out of thin air something that is
definitely not what Moulton wrote, though deceptively
attributing it to Moulton:

___Financing was supplied by the extension of bank
credit, collateralized by the newly formed capital
itself, and repaid with the income generated by those
same assets.___

It is pure Kelsoist ideology, falsely given "credence"
by "backdating" it to Moulton.

And it is precisely this statement that is repudiated
by the A+B theorem, which concludes that the extension
of bank credit cannot be be fully "repaid" with the
income "generated by those same assets," if there is
labor displacement.  This of course strikes at the
heart of the Kelsoist ideology that Norm and Michael
parrot in their "consulting" business.

The differential must come from some extraneous
source--acceleration in the extension of bank credit
in respect to future rather than current production,
"favorable" balance in foreign trade, increasing
government deficit spending, etc.

If A+B is taken to represent the totality in the flow
of bank credit to industry for capital expansion or
whatever, and A is taken to represent the flow of
purchasing power to final consumers through salaries,
wages and dividends, and if the ratio of B is
increasing to A (labor displacement), it cannot be the
case as a matter of mathematical logic that the reflux
from A will amortize A+B.

It was Norm's objection to this rather innocuous
comment of mine June -- that set into motion his most
recent flurry of bizarre behavior, calls for deletion
of archived messages that take issue with his peculiar
ideology and business practices, the banning of
additional postings, etc. :-
----------------

But John, A+B is a deductive argument that refutes
Say's "Law."  It is an included subset of Douglas'
more comprehensive inductive argument in which the
Dividend becomes the independent variable in place of
the bankers' (or capitalists') independent variable,
where economic sovereignty it transferred to consumers
expressing their free choices in free markets.  It's
what he meant by Economic Democracy.

>From Per's most recent post I do not know if he has
converted to believing the theorem.  I doubt it,
though would welcome his reply in clarifying the
matter.  I've attached below in PDF his initial
posting to this list with my replies from September,
2004.

The problem is that you cannot prove or refute the
theorem using algebraic manipulations alone, because
it involves parametric change through time.  Change
through time can be expressed mathematically, with
calculus.  Or, it can be expressed graphically on
charts with plots of the phenomena you are examining
analytically on the Y axis against time on the X axis.
 It can also be explained rudimentarily through
certain relationships expressed algebraically with
change in those relationships expressed verbally.

For example, take the relationship A/A+B.  If the
ratio of B is increasing to A, then it is necessarily
the case that the ratio of A is falling in respect to
A+B.
-



--- "Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org> wrote:
[snipped]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com