Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Response to Professor Shakespeare, I: CESJ’s Position


A few months ago, Mr. Chris Dorf, an occasional participant in the “Kelso Binary Economics Discussion Group” and on this blog who supports Keynesian theory, published some vague accusations against Dr. Norman G. Kurland, president of CESJ.  Mr. Dorf refused to support his accusations with either evidence or logic.  This encouraged a number of other critics of CESJ to join with Mr. Dorf in making further unsubstantiated accusations, particularly after he falsely accused CESJ of “banning” him.

Further accusations and allegations came in while we were preparing a response to the most vitriolic of the critics, Professor Rodney Shakespeare in the United Kingdom.  This required almost constant revision and expansion of the response while in process, greatly lengthening the preparation time.  In addition, verifying facts and checking our logic took more time, particularly since (as readers of this blog are aware) we have other things to do besides respond to people, even professors, whose only consistency is to violate basic principles of reason.  Violating the principles of reason results in what the late Fulton J. Sheen called “mental suicide” in his first book, God and Intelligence (1925).

The response was finally completed, edited, formatted, and sent out.  (For your convenience, this “Response to Shakespeare” has been posted on the sidebar to the right, under “CESJ Occasional Papers.”)  The following cover letter in an e-mail accompanied the response:

“June 17, 2013

“Attached is CESJ’s response to the comments made and the issues raised by Professor Rodney Shakespeare.

“While somewhat lengthy, the nature and depth of Professor Shakespeare’s misconceptions about binary economics, particularly in the areas of money, credit, banking, and finance, made an in-depth treatment essential.  Mere assertion, appeals to authority, and personality issues, such as characterized the comments by CESJ’s critics (while no doubt critically important in some circles) were, we believe, neither adequate nor proper as a response to Professor Shakespeare’s concerns.

“We hope that this paper will inspire you to visit the CESJ website, http://www.cesj.org/, and the EEI website, http://www.eei-consultants.com/, to gain a deeper understanding of the theory and practice of binary economics and the Just Third Way, respectively.

“CESJ’s publications, such as Curing World Poverty (1994) and Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen (2004), both of which are available as free downloads and in printed versions from many booksellers by special order, are also useful.  CESJ also publishes economic classics, especially Dr. Harold Moulton’s The Formation of Capital (1935), on which Louis Kelso based his recommended monetary and fiscal reforms.  The CESJ foreword to The Formation of Capital (although not the book itself) is available as a free download from the CESJ website.

“Kelso’s reforms would end today’s government monopoly on money creation, returning the money power to the people in whom it is naturally vested.  One of the goals of binary economics is to finance universal capital ownership with new money created by the private sector backed by the present value of the new capital to be financed with the new money, instead of government created money backed by debt.  This is in contrast to Professor Shakespeare’s proposal to have the State issue “non-repayable money,” a contradiction in terms that, in effect, amounts to counterfeiting.”

Professor Shakespeare’s rejoinder was not long in coming.  It will be posted in full on this blog next week on Monday, July 1.  Tomorrow we will have our analysis of Professor Shakespeare’s reaction.

#30#

No comments: