Friday, December 21, 2012
Types Of Modular Buildings
Modular construction, also called prefabricated construction, is mainly of two types: mobile offices and modular buildings. Mobile offices are generally supply buildings used by construction companies for temporary office space while modular buildings are custom-built as per the user's specifications.
modular buildings are constructed in a factory-controlled environment using the same materials that are used for traditional buildings. The floor plan nf the building is broken up into individual modules. The size of the module generally ranges in size from ten to eighteen feet in width and thirty six to seventy six feet in length.
Review: La Porta Ristorante and Wine Bar, Media, PA (Edgemont)
In June of 2011, before we discovered Anthony’s Coal-Fired Pizza in Wayne as the first top-shelf pie anywhere near West Chester PA and Philly’s Main Line, we read about Peter McAndrew’s plan to open a bistro/pizzeria in Edgemont, PA in the site of the old Locust Tavern. It’s been a long wait, but La porta is finally open and a large group of us headed there for lunch on a summer Tuesday.
The interior of La Porta oozes with rustic charm. There are two small but airy dining rooms that look like a converted farmhouse, and a smallish but chic wine bar. Our friendly waitresses pushed together three table to accommodate our party of eight. The non-pizza menu looked fascinating, but we were on a mission; we ordered eight pizzas (personal size, but bigger than the typical personal pizza) for our crew of eight and a few salads/starters.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Send The Civilians Home
The other day I overheard an Air Force Staff Sergeant tell a civilian the following:
SS: “I wrote to my congressman and told him that all the civilians should be sent home. You guys get paid too much”.
Civ: “I’m here because I want to be here. I like my job. You can apply for a civilian job when you get back”.
SS: “I like my family too much to do that to them”.
That exchange got me to thinking… what would happen if all the civilians were sent home? How would the dynamics change at Bagram? How would that affect the military in the long run or the short run?
Most of the civilians live in B-huts, relocatable buildings (RLB’s), or tents. Some civilians live in connex containers and a very few of them live in block barracks. The civilians living in block barracks generally work for the Air Force.
Most of the military live in tents (really big tents) or B-huts. Some of the military live in RLB’s or block barracks. The majority of the military in RLB’s or block barracks are Air Force.
So, living conditions for the military and civilians are on par (except if you are Army , Marine, or Navy).
Civilians are generally here longer and provide continuity when the military leave BAF (I arrived here 28 August 2007). Not all civilians have health coverage on BAF and must leave for simple things like a tooth filling.
Most of the time, civilian pay is based on US laws and computations. We do not generally get to negotiate our salaries (although, some of us have that luxury).
Most of us have families and the reason we are here are varied. Again, for the most part, we are here to make money to support our families. I know a 63 year old man that drives trucks outside the wire. He is here to send his grand kids through college. A few husband & wife teams are here to: pay for their house, pay down their bills, pay off credit cards, save money for their kids educations, or just for the pleasure of serving their country in a different fashion. I know a woman who is here just for the experiences to put on her resume (another "ticket punch") - in the hopes of getting her dream job when she leaves.
Modular Building
Modular Building. Commercial Modular Buildings are code-compliant, non-residential structures 60% to 90% completed offsite in a factory-controlled environment then transported or shipped to a final destination where the modules are then placed on a concrete foundation to form a finished building. The word "modular" does not describe a building type or style, it simply describes a means of construction.
Sandwich panel Indonesia.The commercial modular construction industry comprises two distinct divisions:Permanent Modular Construction (PMC) – modular units built offsite and assembled onsite to create a permanent facility and not intended to be relocated. They are comparable to buildings built strictly onsite in terms of quality, life span, and materials used for construction.
relocatable buildings – modular units built offsite and assembled onsite that can be partially or completely reused and relocated at future building sites.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Social Credit is Salvation Through Deflation
By: Socred - B.A., SCMP
One of the primary criticisms of Social Credit is that it is inflationary. Gary North has written a critique of Social Credit entitled “Salvation Through Inflation”. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate the claims that Social Credit policies are inflationary are fallacious, and to demonstrate that its policies are in fact the only way to reduce prices given that labour is being replaced by capital in production. Economists define inflation as too much money chasing too few goods. They argue that an increase in the money supply with a relatively fixed amount of goods and services for sale tends to increase the price of those goods and services. This assumption is based upon the quantity theory of money, which is critiqued in another article on this blog.
Douglas said there were two forces that governed prices: 1) the upper limit of price is governed by supply and demand, or what the good or service will fetch on the open market, and 2) the lower limit of price is governed by the cost of production and the rules of cost accountancy. Economists focus solely on the forces of supply and demand and their effect on prices, but they tend to ignore the rules of accrual accounting and its effect on prices. As such, economists always see rising prices as a result of too much effective demand, which they believe is the result of too much money being created. Their only policy recommendation to eliminate, or reduce, inflation is to reduce the quantity of money being created. The quantity theory of money ignores how money is created by banks as a debt. It also ignores the fact that the creation of money for capital production is prior to said capital being able to produce any consumer goods.
When physical capital (machines, raw materials, factories etc…) is created it is generally financed through loans from banks. This increases the money supply at the time the capital is being constructed, and this money makes its way to consumers as effective demand through wages, salaries and dividends. Since the capital is being constructed, it is not capable of creating any new consumer goods, so the income disbursed in its creation makes its way to consumer goods and services already on the market. This has a tendency to inflate the price of those goods and services, and this is what economists would call “too much money chasing too few goods”. But is it too much money? The money disbursed via the construction of capital has to be given to consumers, because eventually said income will be part of the cost of that capital. If that money was not disbursed, consumers would not have enough income to pay for the capital as it was expensed at a later point in time. In other words, rising prices at the time capital is being created is not caused by “too much money”: it’s caused by income making its way to consumers prior to the capital being built being able to produce any consumer goods and services. This income is necessary to defray the cost of the capital being created, but it is not used to purchase the consumer goods said capital produces, because consumers have to use it to purchase goods and services at the time the capital is constructed in order to meet the needs of living.
Once the capital is constructed its costs are generally capitalized and expensed over a period of time using the rules of accrual accounting. Douglas’s A+B theorem divides costs into two categories: 1) A = income = wages, salaries and dividends, and 2) B = payments to other organizations. Over any given time an organization will distribute A in income and charge A+B in prices. This is true for all organizations. Consequently if we sum all of the income disbursed in an economy over a period of time it will always be less than the total prices generated over the same period of time. If this is true, how has the economy not collapsed? It has not collapsed because income in the creation of capital is distributed prior to the capital’s costs entering the market and being charged to the consumer. So long as capital is being created, and debt/money is increasing in order to finance its creation, the economy functions fairly well. As soon as the capital’s costs enter the costs of consumer goods, income is insufficient to defray those costs, unless more capital is being contructed, because the income disbursed to create the capital was used to purchase consumer goods at the time the capital was created.
As labour is displaced in production by capital, B costs increase relative to A costs. How does this influence prices? Price = A+B, and if B is increasing relative to A, then any attempt to stabilize or increase A (income) has to be met with rising prices. Conversely, any attempt to stabilize prices (A+B) has to be met by falling incomes (A). In other words, even if there’s not “too much money chasing too few goods”, prices will rise so long as the government tries to stabilize or increase incomes. Inflation is systemic given the rules of cost accountancy coupled with the fact that labour is being replaced by capital in production and a policy of full employment is being pursued. This is why the government accepts “limited” inflation: they are afraid of the effects of reducing prices will have on people’s incomes and economic activity.
Fortunately, there is a solution, and it’s the only mathematically viable solution. The solution is reduce prices at the point of retail with monies with no cost attached to them. If money passes through the productive system, it has to have a cost attached to it, but if the money is given directly to the consumer it does not. Prices can be reduced to the consumer via a price rebate distributed with debt/cost free money given to the consumer. For instance, if the price of the good or service is $100 and the rebate to the consumer is $25, then the price of the good/service has been reduced by $25 to $75. The retailer receives $100 and the consumer pays $75 – the difference is made up via the creation of new debt free money.
In summary, prices are governed by two limits – supply and demand and the cost of production. The quantity theory of money, and the belief that inflation is only caused by too much money chasing too few goods, focuses solely on supply and demand and assumes that prices are only governed by these factors. However, prices are also governed by costs and the rules of accrual accounting. The fact that labour is being displaced in production, combined with a policy of full employment, increases the costs of production and consquently prices, even though consumers have inadequate incomes to purchase all of production. The only way to eliminate this type of inflation is to give consumers a price rebate at the point of retail. Therefore, not only is Social Credit not inflationary, but its policies are the only viable way to eliminate the real cause of most inflation today which is the displacement of labour in production coupled with full employment policies.
One of the primary criticisms of Social Credit is that it is inflationary. Gary North has written a critique of Social Credit entitled “Salvation Through Inflation”. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate the claims that Social Credit policies are inflationary are fallacious, and to demonstrate that its policies are in fact the only way to reduce prices given that labour is being replaced by capital in production. Economists define inflation as too much money chasing too few goods. They argue that an increase in the money supply with a relatively fixed amount of goods and services for sale tends to increase the price of those goods and services. This assumption is based upon the quantity theory of money, which is critiqued in another article on this blog.
Douglas said there were two forces that governed prices: 1) the upper limit of price is governed by supply and demand, or what the good or service will fetch on the open market, and 2) the lower limit of price is governed by the cost of production and the rules of cost accountancy. Economists focus solely on the forces of supply and demand and their effect on prices, but they tend to ignore the rules of accrual accounting and its effect on prices. As such, economists always see rising prices as a result of too much effective demand, which they believe is the result of too much money being created. Their only policy recommendation to eliminate, or reduce, inflation is to reduce the quantity of money being created. The quantity theory of money ignores how money is created by banks as a debt. It also ignores the fact that the creation of money for capital production is prior to said capital being able to produce any consumer goods.
When physical capital (machines, raw materials, factories etc…) is created it is generally financed through loans from banks. This increases the money supply at the time the capital is being constructed, and this money makes its way to consumers as effective demand through wages, salaries and dividends. Since the capital is being constructed, it is not capable of creating any new consumer goods, so the income disbursed in its creation makes its way to consumer goods and services already on the market. This has a tendency to inflate the price of those goods and services, and this is what economists would call “too much money chasing too few goods”. But is it too much money? The money disbursed via the construction of capital has to be given to consumers, because eventually said income will be part of the cost of that capital. If that money was not disbursed, consumers would not have enough income to pay for the capital as it was expensed at a later point in time. In other words, rising prices at the time capital is being created is not caused by “too much money”: it’s caused by income making its way to consumers prior to the capital being built being able to produce any consumer goods and services. This income is necessary to defray the cost of the capital being created, but it is not used to purchase the consumer goods said capital produces, because consumers have to use it to purchase goods and services at the time the capital is constructed in order to meet the needs of living.
Once the capital is constructed its costs are generally capitalized and expensed over a period of time using the rules of accrual accounting. Douglas’s A+B theorem divides costs into two categories: 1) A = income = wages, salaries and dividends, and 2) B = payments to other organizations. Over any given time an organization will distribute A in income and charge A+B in prices. This is true for all organizations. Consequently if we sum all of the income disbursed in an economy over a period of time it will always be less than the total prices generated over the same period of time. If this is true, how has the economy not collapsed? It has not collapsed because income in the creation of capital is distributed prior to the capital’s costs entering the market and being charged to the consumer. So long as capital is being created, and debt/money is increasing in order to finance its creation, the economy functions fairly well. As soon as the capital’s costs enter the costs of consumer goods, income is insufficient to defray those costs, unless more capital is being contructed, because the income disbursed to create the capital was used to purchase consumer goods at the time the capital was created.
As labour is displaced in production by capital, B costs increase relative to A costs. How does this influence prices? Price = A+B, and if B is increasing relative to A, then any attempt to stabilize or increase A (income) has to be met with rising prices. Conversely, any attempt to stabilize prices (A+B) has to be met by falling incomes (A). In other words, even if there’s not “too much money chasing too few goods”, prices will rise so long as the government tries to stabilize or increase incomes. Inflation is systemic given the rules of cost accountancy coupled with the fact that labour is being replaced by capital in production and a policy of full employment is being pursued. This is why the government accepts “limited” inflation: they are afraid of the effects of reducing prices will have on people’s incomes and economic activity.
Fortunately, there is a solution, and it’s the only mathematically viable solution. The solution is reduce prices at the point of retail with monies with no cost attached to them. If money passes through the productive system, it has to have a cost attached to it, but if the money is given directly to the consumer it does not. Prices can be reduced to the consumer via a price rebate distributed with debt/cost free money given to the consumer. For instance, if the price of the good or service is $100 and the rebate to the consumer is $25, then the price of the good/service has been reduced by $25 to $75. The retailer receives $100 and the consumer pays $75 – the difference is made up via the creation of new debt free money.
In summary, prices are governed by two limits – supply and demand and the cost of production. The quantity theory of money, and the belief that inflation is only caused by too much money chasing too few goods, focuses solely on supply and demand and assumes that prices are only governed by these factors. However, prices are also governed by costs and the rules of accrual accounting. The fact that labour is being displaced in production, combined with a policy of full employment, increases the costs of production and consquently prices, even though consumers have inadequate incomes to purchase all of production. The only way to eliminate this type of inflation is to give consumers a price rebate at the point of retail. Therefore, not only is Social Credit not inflationary, but its policies are the only viable way to eliminate the real cause of most inflation today which is the displacement of labour in production coupled with full employment policies.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
What Do These People Have In Common
1. Anonymous posted a concern and was immediately responded;
2. Somebody sends an e-mail directly to me and was immediately answered;
3. Someone texted me several times in the middle of the night about a demand letter;
4. I called the defaulter about his worries, at my own expense;
5. Requests for call diverts were accommodated;
6. All concerns were addressed immediately to the satisfaction of the defaulters.
Answer:
http://failuretopaycreditcard.blogspot.com/2009/12/parable-of-ten-lepers.html
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Anti-Child Abuse Law
RA 7610
"Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following:
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;
Penalty : Minimum six (6) years imprisonment
Procedures:
1. Before dealing with collectors, ask for his ID and Agency;
2. If he berates you and you child, STOP talking altogether to him ( talikuran mo) ;
3. Call the emergency number of your barangay/police ( 911) para ipahuli ito;
4. Pag-umalis, file a blotter at ipa-dampot later on.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
What to do when credit card collectors harass you
What to do when credit card collectors harass you
By Dolly Palisada
YOU are a credit card defaulter. Your credit card debt has blown out of proportion. The amount is so huge you can no longer pay it in full. A few months after, a credit card collector comes knocking at your door, harassing you, threatening to sue you or try pulling out your properties to settle your account.
In the Philippines, you hear horror stories of harassment and intimidation by credit card collectors. To equip yourself with basic information of your rights, here are several useful pointers that you may use in a likely scenario:
1. You have the right to ask the debt collector a copy of your Statement of Account (SOA) duly signed by the bank. A demand letter or an offer letter showing a discounted rate of your debt is not your SOA. If they provide you an SOA, make sure to verify it with the bank for its authenticity. Make your request clear or adopt a mantra: No SOA, No Pay.
2. You have the right to decide on how much you can afford to pay your debt. Do this by sending a proposal letter through email or the post office for your proposed mode of repayment and it should be according to your financial capacity.
3. Once you confirm agreement, it should be officially written (never a verbal one). A written proof is what you need in case they deny your payments.
4. In case of disagreement in the proposal, then don’t pay. Challenge the collecting agency to pursue the case in court where it is handled properly. It should be noted that credit card debt, done in good faith (such as bankruptcy, unemployment, etc) is not a criminal act but a simple case of breach of contract therefore constitute a civil case. Credit card debt eventually turns into criminal act at the issuance of bouncing checks (estafa) or was stolen and used by another person.
5. In some cases, collecting agencies may use police presence as shock factor to knock at your door: will dangle a piece of paper in your face as “warrant of arrest” but will not allow you to read it. These are one of the many ploys to pressure you out of your wits to pay your debt. Don’t panic. Instead, get their names, their precinct and their car’s plate number. You may also take a picture of their faces through your phone camera or press start a video. Again, be wary that this is not the job of policemen, barangay captains or kagawads. File a complaint or case against them for abuse of authority if they keep on harassing you.
6. Credit card collection agencies will use guises and disguises for the sole purpose of collecting money from you. Commonly used are “LBC uniformed men” to enter your home by announcing a package delivery. Once you allow them to enter the house, they will reveal their true identity and will try by all means to purge money from you or pull-out appliances at your house to swap for your debt. At times they will claim to be the sheriff of the court and extort money from you. Be vigilant and tell them to go or you file a criminal case against them for trespassing, extortion or unjust vexation.
7. Some initial pressures used by credit card collectors are in the form of text messages or persistent calls. Messages may say you have a pending warrant of arrest or will contain details of court case number, name of the judge, branch of court and time of hearing. The purpose of this is to sow panic and fear. However, a text message containing information of an impending warrant of arrest is a give away. A proper court will not issue such nonsense. Warrant of arrest is for criminal cases and credit card debt is a civil issue. It should be noted that warrant of arrests are personally delivered by court authorities by surprise and not over the phone or texts messages, fax or email messages.
8. What is RA 8484? Most often, this republic act is used by collecting agents to intimidate defaulters. In essence, Republic Act 8484 is also known as the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998. In layman’s language, an access device means any card, plate, code, account number, electronic serial number, personal identification number and other telecommunication services, equipment or instrumentalities-identifier or other means of account access that can be used to obtain money, goods, services or any other thing of value to initiate a transfer of funds. RA 8484 is also applicable to person/persons who applied for a credit card using fake identity/identities which is classified as a fraudulent act and has nothing to do with your credit card debt or non-payment of debt.
9. Having said all that, it is worth mentioning as well that credit card defaulters can still travel abroad. Do not believe if collectors will threaten to file a hold departure order against you because it’s merely a bluff. For those getting an NBI clearance for work or other purposes, don’t believe in hearsay that you cannot get your clearance despite your standing debt. Take note that NBI records reveal criminal cases only and not civil cases.
Are credit card debt collectors telling lies? Yes. It’s their modus operandi to put pressure on the defaulter to collect money. We know they are only doing their jobs but a defaulter has rights as well to protect themselves from such harassments. Collecting agencies are paid for by the banks to collect debts. For as long as you’re not running away from your responsibilities, or you’re not in hiding, then move on with life and learn a great deal from the experience.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
CIDG
bank frauds large scale smuggling, estafa, dollar salting, hoarding, profiteering and other crimes
of such magnitude and extent as to indicate their commission by highly placed or Professional syndicates and
organizations
www.failuretopaycreditcard.blogspot.com
--------------------------------
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Saturday, January 14, 2012
INTERPOL
These are the oft-repeated lines of collectors:
the Interpol will be hunting you.
What is INTERPOL?
It is the world’s largest international police organization.
Created in 1923.
it facilitates police whose mission is:
"to prevent or combat international crime"
aren't you flattered when collector says
"You are a big time criminal - worldwide pa!"
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Debt and Living beyond Our Means
By: Socred, B.A., SCMP
It is often said by supposed financial experts that the reason there is so much debt, both public and private, is that we are “living beyond our means”. Their argument is that if we all just “tightened our belts” and consumed a little less, then we would not be in this financial mess. On the surface, this argument seems to make sense. We all know that we have a certain household income and if we spend more than our household income, then we must go into debt in order to do so. If we continue to spend more than we earn, eventually the debt will become too large to pay off and we will have to default on our debts.
Does this argument hold true for the economy as a whole? If all agents in the economy balanced their budgets, would we be in a better situation? Let’s explore what it really means to “live beyond our means”, and the possibility of balancing all budgets in an economy.
First we must eliminate money from our analysis, because money is just (or should be) a symbolic representation of the ability to consume and produce. The purpose of any economy is consumption, and this is only limited by our ability to produce. Finance should merely be a mathematical representation of these activities.
Production not meant for consumption is waste. In other words, the purpose of production is not to provide work, but to provide goods and services to consumers with the least amount of effort. This may seem to be common sense, but when we add money back into our analysis, common sense seems to leave most people, including supposed financial experts.
Now, without a doubt, it is possible for any individual agent to “live beyond their means”. What this means in real terms is that someone consumes more than they produce. However, if one individual consumes more than they produce, another must consume less than they produce (you cannot consume what has not been produced). The second agent is engaging in “savings” in real terms. Of course, the second agent would only consume less than he produced if there were some incentive to do so, and this is why the first must pay back the amount of goods and services “borrowed” from the second with “interest”. However, consumer goods only have a limited shelf life. They depreciate over time. Therefore, savings in this form does not exist in the macro-economy because goods and services cannot be “saved” for any length of time in order to be consumed at a later date.
The ability to "live beyond our means" seems to make sense from a micro-economic point of view involving individual economic agents, but from a macro-economic point of view it is completely absurd. Is it possible for an entire economy to “live beyond its means”? Momentarily excluding foreign trade - any economy produces a certain amount of goods and services, let’s call that quantity X. Is it possible for all of the agents in that economy to consume X plus a certain amount more (A)? If the economy produces X, is it possible to consume X+A? Clearly this is impossible! You cannot consume something that does not exist. A has not been produced, so you cannot consume it. For the economy as a whole, it is impossible to “live beyond our means”. Consequently, the “financial experts” advice, which applies to individual economic agents, does not apply to the economy as a whole. If we all consumed less, this would mean that more and more production would be waste, because consumer goods have a limited shelf life, and cannot be saved in order to be consumed at a later date.
Hold on, some will argue, you have exluded foreign trade from your analysis. With foreign trade, it is possible for one country “to live beyond its means” by importing more than it exports in goods and services. So it is possible for individual nations to “live beyond their means”. This is true. However, all countries are attempting to pursue a favorable balance of trade simultaneously. A favorable balance of trade means that a country wants to export more than they import. In real terms, this means that all countries are trying to give more goods and services away to other countries than they receive from those countries in return. From a macro-economic perspective, the country that exports more than it imports engages in “savings”, and the country that imports more than it exports is “living beyond its means”. Nations are individual economic agents in this analysis, and the macro-economy is the world economy. As we discussed previously, this type of savings is not real, because consumer goods have a very limited shelf life. Further, it is impossible for all countries in the world to consume less than they produce without a huge amount of waste. Thus, we need to understand why all countries pursue a favorable balance of trade.
The main reason why a favorable balance of trade is pursued by all countries is that it leads to economic growth in terms of GDP accounting. China is a prime example of how this policy leads to this type of growth. China had a balance of trade surplus of 14.5 billion dollars in November of 2011, and its economic growth was 9.1% in terms of year over year increases in GDP. Exports represent almost 40% of their GDP, yet the Chinese people themselves have a GDP per capita of less than $6,000 per annum in U.S. dollars. Their balance of trade surplus represents approximately 3% of their GDP. (source: trading economics). In other words, the Chinese live in relative poverty in order to give away 3% of the goods and services they produce so that they can pursue a policy of a favorable balance of trade in order to have economic growth. What causes this seeming paradox? Why would the Chinese give away 3% of their GDP to other nations while their citizens live in poverty?
This paradox is the result of confusion in regards to the purpose of the economy. The real purpose of the economy should be to provide goods and services to consumers. It does not exist to provide employment. It is true that a certain amount of employment is necessary to provide goods and services, but the less amount of employment required to provide goods and services, the better off we are. This is the whole purpose of science and technology. Advances in technology reduce the amount of labour necessary to produce goods and services. If we adhere to the belief that the economy exists to provide employment, then we will account for a favourable balance of trade as an increase in prosperity because it provides employment to those who are producing the goods and services. This is exactly how GDP accounting accounts for a favourable balance of trade. In other words, the purpose of an economy, according to the way we account for economic prosperity currently (GDP accounting), is to provide employment .
There is nothing wrong with foreign trade so long as the purpose of that trade is to give one country something in return for something else. However, there is a problem with foreign trade when the objective is to give away more than you receive back. This policy of a favourable balance of trade inevitably leads to a trade war between nations, which often results in a real war. War is the ultimate favorable balance of trade in that a country “dumps” bombs and bullets on another country at no cost to the other country with the intended purpose of not receiving any bombs or bullets in return. In fact, if war was accounted as an “export”, which it truly is, the United States would not be running as large of trade deficits in times of war. This is why the US economy is so dependent on war for its proper functioning. A large amount of propaganda in the United States is aimed at creating enemies so that the country can dump large amounts of exports on the enemy. This activity leads to employment and allows for economic growth.
These policies are insane in the truest sense of the word because they are all linked to confusion in regards to the true purpose of an economy. This policy has at its basis a philosophy which is non-congruent with reality. All policy derives from philosophy. Work is a by-product of an economic system, not an ends in and of itself. Because money is created as a debt and prices increase faster than incomes, the result is ever increasing debt. This increase in debt does not mean that we are “living beyond our means”, which in macro-economic terms is a complete fallacy. It is due to a misguided philosophy that is wreaking havoc on our world’s economies. There is a statement in the bible that “if any will not work, neither should he eat” (Thessalonians 3:10). This was certainly true at the time and place it was written, but that does not mean that this is a universal truth that holds for all time and all places. Just as Jesus said, “go sell what thou hast, and give it to the poor” (Matthew 19:21), he did not mean that everyone has to sell all they have and give it to the poor. This statement was true for the intended recipient, who valued his material possessions above all else. It was not meant as a universal truth to applicable to everyone.
Technology is replacing labour in the production. As such, employment is becoming an ever decreasing factor of production. This fact is responsible for an accounting flaw, which in turn makes it impossible to balance all budgets within an economy simultaneously. In a letter to the Social Credit Premier of Alberta, Douglas wrote:
"This seems to be a suitable occasion on which to emphasise the proposition that a Balanced Budget is quite inconsistent with the use of Social Credit (i.e., Real Credit – the ability to deliver goods and services 'as, when and where required') in the modern world, and is simply a statement in accounting figures that the progress of the country is stationary, i.e., that it consumes exactly what it produces, including capital assets. The result of the acceptance of this proposition is that all capital appreciation becomes quite automatically the property of those who create and issue of money [i.e., the banking system] and the necessary unbalancing of the Budget is covered by Debts."
In other words, a policy of attempting to balance all budgets in an economy simultaneously implicitly assumes that technological progress is non-existent. It assumes that the economy consumes exactly what it produces, including its capital assets (factories, machinery, etc..). However, we know that capital assets can last for years, so they are not consumed at the same rate as consumer goods. As a result, all capital appreciation (increases in capital minus depreciation of capital) becomes the property of those who issue money (the banking system) due to the fact that they are the only ones who can monetize the use of that capital. Since the banking system only issues money as a debt, capital appreciation and the monetization of its use results in ever increasing debt. This means that as we advance technologically, we are forced into ever increasing debt. It is technological advances and the displacement of labour in production which causes increasing debt loads, not "living beyond our means".
How do we solve this dilemma?
Douglas demonstrated in his A+B theorem that prices increase faster than incomes as a result of technological progress and the replacement of labour by capital in production. If we give people the necessary purchasing power to buy back all of production through a compensated price mechanism and a national dividend given to all, then debts will not increase over time. Further, the ability for consumers to obtain purchasing power without employment will end the pursuit of a policy of full employment. This will stop the insane practices of war and a favourable balance of trade in order to make the economy function properly. Increasing debt is not a result of “living beyond our means”, but the result of technological progress and the inability to balance all budgets in an economy simultaneously with this parametric shift. The Anti-Christian philosophy of Salvation through work perceives technology as something that enables us to do more work (and as consequence, producing ever increasing goods and services, and falling further and further into debt). The Christian philosophy of Grace enables technology to become a positive factor for progress because as physical labour is replaced by machines, people's purchasing power can be increased without having to do more work or go into every increasing debt. Only by increasing our purchasing power in accordance with capital appreciation, can technological progress become evidence of God’s grace. God’s grace is imperative to our salvation.
"The most dangerous man at the present time, said Major Douglas in answer to another question, was the man who wanted to get everyone back to work, for he perverts means into ends. This is leading straight to the next war - which will provide plenty of work for everyone."(Tragedy of Human Effort)
It is often said by supposed financial experts that the reason there is so much debt, both public and private, is that we are “living beyond our means”. Their argument is that if we all just “tightened our belts” and consumed a little less, then we would not be in this financial mess. On the surface, this argument seems to make sense. We all know that we have a certain household income and if we spend more than our household income, then we must go into debt in order to do so. If we continue to spend more than we earn, eventually the debt will become too large to pay off and we will have to default on our debts.
Does this argument hold true for the economy as a whole? If all agents in the economy balanced their budgets, would we be in a better situation? Let’s explore what it really means to “live beyond our means”, and the possibility of balancing all budgets in an economy.
First we must eliminate money from our analysis, because money is just (or should be) a symbolic representation of the ability to consume and produce. The purpose of any economy is consumption, and this is only limited by our ability to produce. Finance should merely be a mathematical representation of these activities.
Production not meant for consumption is waste. In other words, the purpose of production is not to provide work, but to provide goods and services to consumers with the least amount of effort. This may seem to be common sense, but when we add money back into our analysis, common sense seems to leave most people, including supposed financial experts.
Now, without a doubt, it is possible for any individual agent to “live beyond their means”. What this means in real terms is that someone consumes more than they produce. However, if one individual consumes more than they produce, another must consume less than they produce (you cannot consume what has not been produced). The second agent is engaging in “savings” in real terms. Of course, the second agent would only consume less than he produced if there were some incentive to do so, and this is why the first must pay back the amount of goods and services “borrowed” from the second with “interest”. However, consumer goods only have a limited shelf life. They depreciate over time. Therefore, savings in this form does not exist in the macro-economy because goods and services cannot be “saved” for any length of time in order to be consumed at a later date.
The ability to "live beyond our means" seems to make sense from a micro-economic point of view involving individual economic agents, but from a macro-economic point of view it is completely absurd. Is it possible for an entire economy to “live beyond its means”? Momentarily excluding foreign trade - any economy produces a certain amount of goods and services, let’s call that quantity X. Is it possible for all of the agents in that economy to consume X plus a certain amount more (A)? If the economy produces X, is it possible to consume X+A? Clearly this is impossible! You cannot consume something that does not exist. A has not been produced, so you cannot consume it. For the economy as a whole, it is impossible to “live beyond our means”. Consequently, the “financial experts” advice, which applies to individual economic agents, does not apply to the economy as a whole. If we all consumed less, this would mean that more and more production would be waste, because consumer goods have a limited shelf life, and cannot be saved in order to be consumed at a later date.
Hold on, some will argue, you have exluded foreign trade from your analysis. With foreign trade, it is possible for one country “to live beyond its means” by importing more than it exports in goods and services. So it is possible for individual nations to “live beyond their means”. This is true. However, all countries are attempting to pursue a favorable balance of trade simultaneously. A favorable balance of trade means that a country wants to export more than they import. In real terms, this means that all countries are trying to give more goods and services away to other countries than they receive from those countries in return. From a macro-economic perspective, the country that exports more than it imports engages in “savings”, and the country that imports more than it exports is “living beyond its means”. Nations are individual economic agents in this analysis, and the macro-economy is the world economy. As we discussed previously, this type of savings is not real, because consumer goods have a very limited shelf life. Further, it is impossible for all countries in the world to consume less than they produce without a huge amount of waste. Thus, we need to understand why all countries pursue a favorable balance of trade.
The main reason why a favorable balance of trade is pursued by all countries is that it leads to economic growth in terms of GDP accounting. China is a prime example of how this policy leads to this type of growth. China had a balance of trade surplus of 14.5 billion dollars in November of 2011, and its economic growth was 9.1% in terms of year over year increases in GDP. Exports represent almost 40% of their GDP, yet the Chinese people themselves have a GDP per capita of less than $6,000 per annum in U.S. dollars. Their balance of trade surplus represents approximately 3% of their GDP. (source: trading economics). In other words, the Chinese live in relative poverty in order to give away 3% of the goods and services they produce so that they can pursue a policy of a favorable balance of trade in order to have economic growth. What causes this seeming paradox? Why would the Chinese give away 3% of their GDP to other nations while their citizens live in poverty?
This paradox is the result of confusion in regards to the purpose of the economy. The real purpose of the economy should be to provide goods and services to consumers. It does not exist to provide employment. It is true that a certain amount of employment is necessary to provide goods and services, but the less amount of employment required to provide goods and services, the better off we are. This is the whole purpose of science and technology. Advances in technology reduce the amount of labour necessary to produce goods and services. If we adhere to the belief that the economy exists to provide employment, then we will account for a favourable balance of trade as an increase in prosperity because it provides employment to those who are producing the goods and services. This is exactly how GDP accounting accounts for a favourable balance of trade. In other words, the purpose of an economy, according to the way we account for economic prosperity currently (GDP accounting), is to provide employment .
There is nothing wrong with foreign trade so long as the purpose of that trade is to give one country something in return for something else. However, there is a problem with foreign trade when the objective is to give away more than you receive back. This policy of a favourable balance of trade inevitably leads to a trade war between nations, which often results in a real war. War is the ultimate favorable balance of trade in that a country “dumps” bombs and bullets on another country at no cost to the other country with the intended purpose of not receiving any bombs or bullets in return. In fact, if war was accounted as an “export”, which it truly is, the United States would not be running as large of trade deficits in times of war. This is why the US economy is so dependent on war for its proper functioning. A large amount of propaganda in the United States is aimed at creating enemies so that the country can dump large amounts of exports on the enemy. This activity leads to employment and allows for economic growth.
These policies are insane in the truest sense of the word because they are all linked to confusion in regards to the true purpose of an economy. This policy has at its basis a philosophy which is non-congruent with reality. All policy derives from philosophy. Work is a by-product of an economic system, not an ends in and of itself. Because money is created as a debt and prices increase faster than incomes, the result is ever increasing debt. This increase in debt does not mean that we are “living beyond our means”, which in macro-economic terms is a complete fallacy. It is due to a misguided philosophy that is wreaking havoc on our world’s economies. There is a statement in the bible that “if any will not work, neither should he eat” (Thessalonians 3:10). This was certainly true at the time and place it was written, but that does not mean that this is a universal truth that holds for all time and all places. Just as Jesus said, “go sell what thou hast, and give it to the poor” (Matthew 19:21), he did not mean that everyone has to sell all they have and give it to the poor. This statement was true for the intended recipient, who valued his material possessions above all else. It was not meant as a universal truth to applicable to everyone.
Technology is replacing labour in the production. As such, employment is becoming an ever decreasing factor of production. This fact is responsible for an accounting flaw, which in turn makes it impossible to balance all budgets within an economy simultaneously. In a letter to the Social Credit Premier of Alberta, Douglas wrote:
"This seems to be a suitable occasion on which to emphasise the proposition that a Balanced Budget is quite inconsistent with the use of Social Credit (i.e., Real Credit – the ability to deliver goods and services 'as, when and where required') in the modern world, and is simply a statement in accounting figures that the progress of the country is stationary, i.e., that it consumes exactly what it produces, including capital assets. The result of the acceptance of this proposition is that all capital appreciation becomes quite automatically the property of those who create and issue of money [i.e., the banking system] and the necessary unbalancing of the Budget is covered by Debts."
In other words, a policy of attempting to balance all budgets in an economy simultaneously implicitly assumes that technological progress is non-existent. It assumes that the economy consumes exactly what it produces, including its capital assets (factories, machinery, etc..). However, we know that capital assets can last for years, so they are not consumed at the same rate as consumer goods. As a result, all capital appreciation (increases in capital minus depreciation of capital) becomes the property of those who issue money (the banking system) due to the fact that they are the only ones who can monetize the use of that capital. Since the banking system only issues money as a debt, capital appreciation and the monetization of its use results in ever increasing debt. This means that as we advance technologically, we are forced into ever increasing debt. It is technological advances and the displacement of labour in production which causes increasing debt loads, not "living beyond our means".
How do we solve this dilemma?
Douglas demonstrated in his A+B theorem that prices increase faster than incomes as a result of technological progress and the replacement of labour by capital in production. If we give people the necessary purchasing power to buy back all of production through a compensated price mechanism and a national dividend given to all, then debts will not increase over time. Further, the ability for consumers to obtain purchasing power without employment will end the pursuit of a policy of full employment. This will stop the insane practices of war and a favourable balance of trade in order to make the economy function properly. Increasing debt is not a result of “living beyond our means”, but the result of technological progress and the inability to balance all budgets in an economy simultaneously with this parametric shift. The Anti-Christian philosophy of Salvation through work perceives technology as something that enables us to do more work (and as consequence, producing ever increasing goods and services, and falling further and further into debt). The Christian philosophy of Grace enables technology to become a positive factor for progress because as physical labour is replaced by machines, people's purchasing power can be increased without having to do more work or go into every increasing debt. Only by increasing our purchasing power in accordance with capital appreciation, can technological progress become evidence of God’s grace. God’s grace is imperative to our salvation.
"The most dangerous man at the present time, said Major Douglas in answer to another question, was the man who wanted to get everyone back to work, for he perverts means into ends. This is leading straight to the next war - which will provide plenty of work for everyone."(Tragedy of Human Effort)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)