Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

a little simplistic?

One of the concepts that's absent from current economic theory is the difference between synergy/symbiosis and expropriation.

It's not just simplistic: it's plain wrong.

It assumes that credit is necessarily money, whereas the truth is that credit is a necessary part of a monetary relationship but credit neither needs to be nor should it be monetised, IMHO.

It ignores the fact that - contrary to the anthropocentric assumption of conventional economics and Marx alike - Capital may also be "productive", in that it has a "use value" with a value in exchange (eg a Kilo Watt Hour or a Square Metre Year). There is a strand of heterodox economics Binary Economics based upon this "Binary" assumption, and I understand that the US policy of Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) owes its origins to the "Binary" thinking of Louis Kelso.

The Social Credit movement was based upon Colonel C H Douglas' view of money as a credit object, and his

 Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A + B theorem
in relation to the draining of purchasing power out of Economies, and the need for what he called "Social Credit" to be fed into Economies - according to formulae he had developed -to replace it.

In my view there is a qualitative difference between

(a) Static credit - tied up in secured Debt and Equity; and

(b) Dynamic credit - aka time to pay;

and that the equations of monetary flow must incorporate this distinction if they are to reflect reality.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Mar 21st, 2009 at 10:50:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series