Rodney Shakespeare wrote:"So kindly explain why ANY of Ryan's
emails to Ownership are relevant since they are not about capital
ownership. "
Rodney, personally I am more interested in what Ryan's answer to this
question is as he can answer for himself...but I'll dive in anyway,
answering on my own responsibility.
Inasmuch as the real credit of the people is the monetization of
the wealth that makes up the "cultural heritage" I would think that social
creditors might have an intense interest in capital ownership. Most social
creditors probably believe that it is just fine that the cultural inheritance
itself largely exists under the stewardship/ownership of millions of private
actors. Nevertheless they are drawing a scenario in which a common credit is
issued universally in the form of a dividend drawn from the cultural
inheritance. This implies the possibility of broad ownership of that
cultural inheritance, and some social creditors may want to develop this idea
further along the road than Douglas did, as Francis Hutchinson and others on the
European left are doing.
Another dimension of the legitimacy of a discussion of social credit
on this Capital Ownership list is Social Credit's link to guild socialism.
It has been argued that Social Credit has its origin in guild socialism. I can
imagine that in this case it is understandable if social creditors were to
take the position that the bird of economic democracy requires two wings in
order to fly: a social economy and social credit.
So yes, a discussion of social credit is relevant to a discussion of
capital ownership, and furthermore relevant to establishing the weakness
of BE's problematic "two factor theory".
Regards
Alan Avans