[GJM] Transfinancial Economics Project, and New Thinking on Electronic Controls over Inflation

[robert searle]

--- Steve Consilvio <steve at behappyandfree.com> wrote:

> Robert,
> 
> This is an easy problem to fix.  Simply require all
> manufacturers to  
> print the price of the item on the product being
> sold.  Consumers  
> will "report" retailers that charge less or charge
> more; tampering  
> with the price will be obvious, and a databank with
> the correct  
> pricing is easy to post on-line.  I am not sure why
> you would even  
> need an "inflation control authority," if you are
> already doing  
> everything else correctly.




              What you are saying is true to a point.
However, the whole picture is more complex as economic
data suggests especially  in connection with incomes
policies of the recent past. 

With highly flexible controls via computers we have a
better, and more effective way of enforcing any
breaches in inflation legislation directly, and
quickly. A system with no direct registration of most
products (or alternatively only on raw materials to
make products as indicated in the previous email. This
would be a better idea) via electronic means is less
easier to tackle effectively. This is certainly true 
if it involved the authorized transmission of huge
sums of non-repayable money without currency
devaluation, and rapid inflation.............


> 
> I believe in some countries "fair trade pricing" (as
> it is usually  
> called) exists.  It seems to me a precept of a
> normal society that  
> the same good should cost the same price for
> everyone, everywhere;  
> unfortunately we are not a normal society.  As much
> good as fixed  
> pricing provides (fixed by the manufacturer, not the
> government,) it  
> does nothing to address the cause and effect of
> inflation, which lies  
> elsewhere.  An ICA would only be treating the
> symptoms of the  
> problem, and would not address a cure to the source
> in anyway.   
> Calling it "inflation control," when it does nothing
> of the sort,  
> would be the perfect name for a bureaucratic
> boondoggle.





   The ICA would not be another "bureaucratic
boondoggle" such as the American IRS as the work with
inflation checks of transactions would be largely
automatic on bank computers. Moreover, the pricing
would be in the main fixed by manufacturers rather
than governments. This would make the process of
market capitalism efficient, and "natural".




> 
> BTW, I call the current system "financial Jim Crow."
>  Rather than  
> charging Blacks and White different prices, people
> pay different  
> prices for all sorts of invented reasons (coupons,
> age, volume, day  
> of the week, etc.)  In a land where all men are
> created equal, nobody  
> is treated equally.  We have made "buying and
> selling" as confusing  
> and as difficult as it could be.  The subprime
> meltdown, of course,  
> is the latest dramatic example of financial Jim
> Crow.  If everyone  
> were paying the same interest rate (as terrible as
> interest is) the  
> system would work much better than charging
> different people  
> different rates for the same thing.





          Ofcourse, degrees of subjectivity can
certainly come into pricing of products. 


> 
> As I have mentioned previously, Transfinancial
> Economics shares a lot  
> of similarity with my own ideas, some of which I
> abandoned because  
> they did not really get to the root of the problem. 
> The problem is  
> that we refuse to count honestly.  Any system based
> on 2+2=5 will  
> fail.  There are an infinite number of wrong
> answers, and until we  
> accept that 2+2=4, nothing will work.  Of course, we
> are free to try  
> an infinite number of combinations instead. (2+2=6,
> 2+2=7, etc)   
> Afterall, what we believe is what we want to be
> "true," and people  
> are willing to believe anything, and have always
> eager to believe  
> that an easy gain is possible.  The more absurd the
> claim (2+2=1  
> million,) the more people want it to be true.
> 
> The economy is a zero sum game.  We need principles
> before policies.



      Yes, principles before policies if possible in
most cases..............
> 
> peace,
> steve
> 
> 
> On SundayDec 2, 2007, at 2:00 PM, discussion- 
> request at globaljusticemovement.net wrote:
> 
> > Dear All,
> >
> >       The Transfinancial Economics Project is
> still in
> > the process of research, and development. There
> are
> > now a very large number of references to TFE on
> the
> > internet. Thus, the message is spreading far, and
> wide
> > reaching many thoughtful people. Sometimes,
> feedback
> > occurs.
> >
> >
> > One innovation which may appear in an updated
> version
> > of the present TFE essay is that retail, and trade
> > pricing could remain unregistered by the Inflation
> > Control Authority(ICA) replacing the Inland
> Revenue.
> > However, price rigistration for the RAW MATERIALs
> > which make up products could be mandatory instead.
> > Thus, most trade, and retail prices would freely
> rise,
> > or fall without any kind of legal registration
> > requirement. Ofcourse, taxation, and interest
> would
> > not exist in the future.
> >
> > There are also a  number of other  evolving ideas
> > concerned with high flexibility pricing, and these
> > could be developed in consultation with certain
> > economists, and IT experts.
> >
> >
> > R.Searle
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
>
http://globaljusticemovement.net/mailman/listinfo/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net
> 






      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com