Comment

Comment by mike montagne — architect, MPE™ on February 4, 2010 at 6:25pm

Douglas' never even identified the problem, much less the solution. He presumes there is some substantial fault in the present, pretended economies, but so far as all the information provided to me by "social creditors" indicates, all Douglas accomplishes is presuming that because the income of labor is less than the market price of the production of industry, thus it is impossible for labor to purchase the production of industry. So Douglas claims that labor needs to be compensated for this difference, ostensibly to fix the economy.

Douglas then is WAY off base:

1. First of all, OF COURSE the income of labor is less than the total income of industry. This is because the income of industry is further distributed amongst management and ownership. The total income of industry therefore IS equal to the distribution of that income; so therefore the problem which Douglas thinks he perceives -- that industry cannot purchase industry's production -- is non-existent!

Now, if on the other hand, Douglas meant to assert that the income of labor SHOULD BE sufficient to purchase the entire production of industry, then he certainly fails to prove so, or provide even any convincing argument.

2. He then takes his postulate (theorem with no proof whatever), and launches into his "A + B Theorem" (inaptly named, because it HAS no proof), which asserts by convoluted and ambiguous argument, how his presumed, damaging undercompensation of labor requires "social credit" -- paying labor the difference by issuing them credit.

So Douglas, or "Social Credit," or "A + B Theorem" as they are called are mere pipe dreams. As they fail to identify the fundamental problems of the obfuscated monetary system, neither then can they point the way to solution.

Of course, it raises the ire of "Social Credit" advocates to raise the blatant faults of their life-long delusions; and so they have viciously attacked myself and mathematically perfected economy from their first discoveries of my theses. Many years ago, I was invited by a William B. Ryan to join their "Social Credit" and Douglas' "A + B Theorem" forums to explain my proofs a) that any pretended economy subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt; and b) that there is one and one only integral solution to the categoric faults of the imposed systems -- which faults of course are 1) inflation and deflation; 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; and 3) inherent, irreversible, and therefore terminal multiplication of artificial indebtedness by interest.

Immediately upon doing so, I was viciously assaulted by a handful and then dozens and then hundreds of pathetic emails. On the side, a number of members thanked me for answering so many of them for so long, defeating every argument.

But in the end of course, there was no point in continued dialog with people who just refuse to recognize that indeed, a) the presented thesis of inevitable failure explains the problem Douglas was after and never found; and b) the thesis of singular solution likewise solves the problems he never found, because he stopped, thinking he must have discovered a problem which never existed.

So the Social Credit people are hardly genuine theorists, because they refuse mathematic proof of both problem and solution.

Mr. Ryan's first invitation quite evidently was intended to bait a victim to the kill. Many years after our vicious encounters in the Social Credit forums, he attempted to prove my thesis of inevitable failure, wrongly thinking likewise that his attempted disproof of cause would disprove my proof of singular solution. If you would like to follow along with his attempted disproof and my response to him, likely, you will readily understand how Mr. Ryan instead disproves himself:

http://perfecteconomy.com/pg-william-b-ryan-ad-hominems-disprove-mp...

Comment by T. Pedemonti on February 4, 2010 at 4:07pm

I agree that usury is the problem. I have long adhered to C. H. Douglas's solution to our monetary problems. MPE is certainly on the right track.