|
COG
|
Ownership Discussion |
|||||||||
| |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: OWNERSHIP: Kurland's Con Game
Dear All,
Conventional
economists like to claim that Say's Law is a natural law when it is
better described as Say's Theorem. I think it was Keynes who described the
"Law" as a self-evident identity. In practice, of course, (in the present
unfree markets of neoclassical finance capitalism), supply does not
create its own demand and so the "Law" does not work.
Because of the conflict between a self-evident
identity and reality, Say's Law (or rather, Theorem) has been the subject of
great controversy for over 175 years. And it will remain a subject of
controversy while people have the fundamental misconception that labor creates
most of the wealth. Moreover, it is remarkable
that Say himself realised that "Say's Law" -- which was not original to Say
but goes back at least to Adam Smith -- could not work in practice if the
power of producing values is ascribed to labor alone (as Smith generally
ascribes it). See Binary Economics, pages 100-101 and 289 - 296.
Social Credit is in a muddle over this
subject because, on the one hand, it claims to understand the contribution of
capital to output but, on the other, it has no serious proposal for spreading
capital ownership (or, for that matter, for capital investment). Which is
the underlying reason why Bill Ryan is so hostile to binary
economics.
It really is tempting fate for Bill to use phrases
like "con game" in respect of binary economics because it is now getting a big
welcome in international conferences and is making good progress in the
university teaching world -- the first teaching has just taken
place in a prestigious Indonesian university -- and it is likely
to be soon taught in other universities.
Rodney Shakespeare.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 7:51 PM
Subject: OWNERSHIP: Kurland's Con
Game > YOU mischaracterize Say's law to mean something quite > different than what Moulton meant by the term--thereby > mixing apples with oranges. > > Say's law is called a law by economists due to its > allegedly automatic nature, that demand allegedly > automatically equates to supply. > > You, in your typically quirky "binary" Kelsoist > oddball definition, redefine Say's law to mean that if > we consciously manipulate things in such a way > suggested by the Kelsoists, demand will equate to > supply. > > So, when you use commonly understood terms like Say's > law, they mean something quite different in your > peculiar language. > > Therefore, in your con game, you can "prove" anything > you want. > - > > > > --- "Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org> wrote: > > > Dr. Harold Moulton, president of the Brookings > > Institute during the > > Depression, offered the clearest statement (see > > below) I've seen to > > explain why no nation would ever substitute Major > > Douglas' A+B theorem > > for Say's Law. > [snipped] > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Sports > Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football > http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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 ownership >
|