Re: OWNERSHIP: liar in collusion with a liar

["Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org>]

I'll steel myself from your obnoxious remarks about Mark Reiners and Dan 
Parker (what qualifies you as an intellectual authority?), as well as 
your slanderous innuendoes about my motivations, and answer you by 
suggesting that you do some homework.  Go to our book Capital 
Homesteading for Every Citizen (which you can download free at 
http://www.cesj.org/homestead/capitalhomesteading.pdf.)  Start with our 
Glossary definition on page 174 and then go to pages 184-185.  Say's Law 
of Markets is also mentioned on pages 18, 25 and 137.  There is also an 
excellent discussion of Say's Law in the Ashford-Shakespeare book Binary 
Economics: The New Paradigm (on pages 100-101, 275-278, 286-296), but it 
cannot be downloaded free on the web.  After reading the above, I would 
be happy to respond to further specific questions you have on what I 
have written on the subject.

Frankly, your new thread suggests to me that you may be in need of help 
with a personal problem.  You remind me of former Senator Joe McCarthy's 
abusive way of handling people who had different ideas than his 
perspective on the world.  I'll let John Logue and Dan Bell decide how 
you should be handled.

Again, who are you?  What are you hiding?  If you need help, let me know.



William B. Ryan wrote:

>Norm, wouldn't it be better to defend your peculiar
>understanding of Say's Law among other things with
>quotations from actual economists supporting your
>definition--if you could find them--rather than
>diversionary personal attacks on me from such renowned
>authorities like Mark Reiners and Dan Parker?  Really,
>is it impossible for you do better than that?
>
>Will you please explain to all of us how the
>"economics" in "binary economics" is anything more
>than quicky usages for well-known terms like Say's
>Law, or ridiculous ideas like the "independent
>productiveness" of inanimate objects, the reversal in
>meanings between "endogenous" and "exogenous" etc.
>that convey to the gullible what is quite conventional
>theory in support for Kelsoist financial gimmicks that
>are a subset of the larger set of leveraged buyout
>schemes--that have done so much harm to America--that
>have so discredited the concept of free enterprise?
>
>How is it anything more than the deceptive "rationale"
>from the tool bag of the ESOP "professionals," with
>you the self-proclaimed leader of the pack--who
>promote such schemes?
>-
>
>I do have to comment on this forwarded message from
>Dan Parker.
>
>When I first encountered Dan I thought he simply
>didn't know better when he associated the Social
>Credit of C. H. Douglas with Nazism and Communism.
>
>His train of "logic" begins with this assertion:
>
>_"I think the primary shortcoming of the original
>design of social credit was its reliance on having a
>small group of experts run the monetary system."_
>
>The fact is, a small group of experts presently run
>the monetary system.
>
>_"This would eventually lead to the usual abuses, if
>not by corruption of the original individuals
>involved, then by the hijacking of this excessively
>concentrated form of power by unscrupulous groups."_
>
>I suppose from this it would seem that Dan feels this
>has not already occurred.
>
>What is so outrageous about this is that Dan does know
>better.  He has been informed on several occasions
>that the Social Credit of C. H. Douglas is about the
>DECENTRALIZATION of power over money and everything
>else that intrudes on personal liberty, and is the
>diametric opposite of Nazism and Communism.  Dan has
>been supplied with several citations from Douglas'
>work, beginning with his first book Economic
>Democracy, 
>http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium/dobbs-introduction.txt
>and has failed to supply even a single counter
>citation that would support this libel.
>
>I am now quite certain he is not merely a pitiable
>ignoramus.
>
>He is simply a liar in collusion with a liar.
>-
>
>
>[I had written] 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.
>
>[Kurland} "Kelso's binary economics leverages
>Moulton's recognition of the 'social nature' of
>banking and credit policy to make Say's Law of Markets
>workable through universal access to capital ownership
>and dividend distributions, without violating property
>rights of existing owners."
>---------------------------------------
>
>
>
>--- "Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org> wrote:an,
>Dan,
>
>Your comments about Ryan are on point.  I'll give
>others on the ownership discussion group the benefit
>of your thoughtful and honest comments.  Maybe it will
>wake up those responsible for creating the COG
>facility to the need to set some minimum standards of
>behavior for participants.  Like money, the bad drives
>out the good.
>
>Norm
>
>Dan Parker wrote:
>
>I think the primary shortcoming of the original design
>of social credit was its reliance on having a small
>group of experts run the monetary system. This would
>eventually lead to the usual abuses, if not by
>corruption of the original individuals involved, then
>by the hijacking of this excessively concentrated form
>of power by unscrupulous groups. Social credit entered
>its adolescent phase during the time Nazism and
>Communism were in full totalitarian swing, and so it
>seemed the lesser of evils in regards to concentration
>of power. In part, because of the exposure of the
>policies of the Nazi and Communist regimes,
>understanding of human psychology and concentration of
>power has advanced. Some in social credit evolved with
>this understanding of the concentration of power, some
>did not. 
> 
>I do remember when I was adolescent and thinking of
>world problems, I thought if I had 'the ring of
>power', I could solve the issues of the day. Then I
>grew up.
>
>I would submit that the mathematical problems, from a
>Kelsonian perspective of Say's Law, to the A + B
>Theorem, are relatively easy to solve. Set up
>prototypes, pilot projects, feedback mechanisms etc.
>that can adjust monetary flows; to show how the
>theories can work in practice. I believe both concepts
>have validity, as does the social credit concept that
>it can issue a National Dividend in a non-inflationary
>manner. However, time spent arguing these concepts
>directly takes away from the time before it will be
>possible to get prototypes going, which will settle
>the arguments definitively.
> 
>As for Bill Ryan, he could not do a better job of
>forestalling all needed change, whether it be
>Kelsonian or social credit, then if he were employed
>by the industrial age money system. I'm not saying
>this is the case, just that this is the effect of his
>discourse.
>  
>Norm, if you want to forward this to the COG list, you
>are welcome. I am not worried about getting into any
>more time wasting discussions with Bill Ryan as I do
>not read his e-mails. This is often impossible on a
>list, as other posters interweave their response with
>Mr. Ryan's post, so I would leave a list where Mr.
>Ryan was posting.  
> 
>Regards
>Dan Parker
>-
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.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
>
>
>  
>


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