Reciprocal System #522 The Road to Permanent Prosperity-ch1-Introduction [Thomas Newsome]

Transcript

all right hello everyone and welcome to my channel uh this is an educational Channel and uh we look at Great theories of everything from the past ancient and modern and um try to tune you into how they can be used uh in your own life to help you out with your Paradigm shifting or your uh Awakening to 5D kind Consciousness or your formation of a holistic worldview or uh really anything else and um today is our 522nd video that we've done on the reciprocal system of theory by Dewey B Larson and we just spent a lot of time working on larsson's book basic properties of matter which is his book on chemistry one of his books and um we finally finished that yesterday so we're about to embark on a new adventure um and um this book here that we have in front of us is called the road to permanent prosperity and this is one of Larson's books on economics I'm not exactly sure when he wrote this book I believe it uh at least he started writing his economic stuff back in the 1960s but I don't exactly know when this book was finished but it's interesting because you know he uh he applies his theory to so many uh so many different subjects you know we just got done doing chemistry he's got a book on astronomy physics but then he also has work on philos philosophy and religion metaphysics and here is his offering on economics and so this is Larson's opportunity to kind of U apply his general theory to uh a liberal art subject such as um social science subjects such as economics and he comes up with some interesting stuff um and so it also helps you to kind of figure out how to plug in larsson's theory to other subjects as well um because it is a generalized Theory and so you can employ it in any way that you'd like now I'm going to give a just a short introduction of Larson's Theory and then we'll get into the text here um Larson's reciprocal system is also known know as the universe of motion because Larsson is one of the few scientists who attempted to construct his uh Universe based on motion uh not matter not energy but motion and uh Larson in 1959 proposed his two fundamental postulates about how he believed the universe operated and uh those are the first postul is that the universe is composed entirely of one component motion existing in three dimensions in discrete units and with two reciprocal aspects space and time and then the second postula is that the Universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics its primary magnitudes are absolute and its geometry is ukian and then from there Larson uh through a process of deduction arrived at a theoretical Universe what he uh what his Universe would look like if his postulates were correct um now he takes these uh postulates and um Works them into uh an economic theory where I guess you know he uses the re reciprocity idea but kind of backs away from the space and time of it and uh as far as I can tell um his two kind of polar uh reciprocals are um purchasing power and goods but um we will see how he formulates this as we move into the text now I don't believe that we're going to read the whole text of this book um like we have in other books we're definitely going to read the introduction and the first chapter and maybe the first two or three chapters but then I'm going to kind of summarize some of his other findings uh and maybe go a little bit faster through the book that way um but we will definitely uh listen to the introduction in its entirety and then U move on from there okay so here is uh the per the road to permanent Prosperity by Dewey B Larson chapter 1 introduction Modern Man Homo sapiens as he calls his species with a characteristic lack of modesty has left evidence of his presence in various locations on Earth for 50,000 years or more during this long interval his fortunes have fluctuated widely um periods of relative Prosperity have alternated with grim struggles for survival but there has been an unmistakable General Trend towards a better understanding of the problems of existence and human life is far different today from what it was in the old stone age when we stop to analyze this progress however it is apparent that the forward movement has been far from uniform in most fields of activity the gains have been meager and painfully slow indeed in some of these fields is questionable whether we have advanced much beyond the point where our ancestors stood at the dawn of recorded history politically war and the threat of War are still the same psychological and material burden on the nations of today as they were on the Rival tribes of the prehistoric era economically the great majority of the human race still live under one version or another of the same primitive communal economic organization that developed from Man's first awkward efforts at group living and where more advanced systems have evolved they are imperfectly understood and ineptly handled ethically the conduct of the populace in general is still far below the standards of even the earliest of the great moral and religious teachers in Striking contrast progress toward understanding and control of the physical environment has been outstanding and during the last last few centuries knowledge in this field the province of physical science and its applied branches has been expanding at a rate that might well be termed explosive recent spectacular achievements in certain special areas have merely dramatized this rapidly accelerating forward movement which is taking place all along the physical front this situation wherein one branch of knowledge is continually reaching out for new worlds to conquer while its fellows still grapple unsuccessfully with the problems of the cave dwellers is a strange anomaly in our present day society and the reasons for the extraordinary disparity deserve much more serious consideration than they are commonly given a comparison like this is usually Shrugged off with the assertion that the problems in these other fields are more difficult than physical problems and that the slower rate of progress is due to this Factor we are entitled however to take this kind of a contention with a grain of salt it is one of those statements that can neither be proved nor disproved the kind of an explanation that is made in order for those who wish to rationalize failure to reach their goals from a purely detached point of view it is hard to understand why the maintenance of full productive employment for instance should warrant being classified as a more difficult task than the design and manufacturer of an airplane if exactly the same methods have been applied to the solution of both problems we might perhaps be just ified in concluding that the problem which resisted these methods was the more difficult but where totally different methods have been utilized we are certainly not out of order in suspecting that failure in one case and success in the other is a reflection of the relative in relative adequacy of the methods used rather than the relative difficulty of the problems um I believe this is a quote here um one of the most significant discussions now in progress in progress turns on how far the methods by which the astonishing results in pure and applied science have been achieved may be transferred to other human artifices uh sorry other human activities and uh that is I think from James P con B Conan um I'm a little bit unclear on that moving forward of course many economists contend that scientific methods are not applicable in their field Frank H Knight a prominent Economist of the postwar World War I era wrote extensively on the subject and expressed the opposing view clearly he characterized quote the notion that social problems can be solved by applying the methods which man has achieved Mastery over Nature by which man has achieved Mastery over nature as quote false and ucer in support of this conclusion however he makes this state M quote but obviously the basic problems are value problems to which Natural Science has little re uh relevance science shows how to do things how to achieve a concretely defined objective not what objectives to pursue end quote the implication of this statement is that the identification of what objectives to pursue is the primary task of economics and that the issue of how to reach a concretely defined objective is irrelevant Paul Samuelson takes makes the same point by defining the objective of Economics as obtaining the answers to three questions all of which are addressed to the issue of what objectives to pursue he lists lists the following what Commodities shall be produced and in what quantities how shall Goods be produced and For Whom Shall Goods be produced we need to look no further to see why progress in economics has been so slow compared to the rate of advance in the scien ien ific Fields the inevitable result of the policy of concentrating attention on identifying the objectives is that economics is now um long on commendable objectives and short on methods by which to reach those objectives clearly there is a wide Gap here that needs to be filled by systematic study of the factual side of Economics which we may Define as obtaining the answers to two very different questions as follows how does the economic system operate and how can we manipulate it to attain our defined objectives the economists challenge the assertion that there are factual answers to these questions and even deny that there are factual data that can be applied to a resolution of the issues from H Brunner and thorough we get this assessment of the situation quote one of the most important attributes of modern history is lodged in a striking difference between two kinds of knowledge the knowledge we acquire in physics chemistry engineering and other sciences and that which we gain gain we gain in the sphere of social or political or moral activity the difference is that knowledge in some Sciences is cumulative and builds on itself whereas knowledge in the social sphere does not end quote Frank Knight agrees he tells us that quote the data with which the social science is are concerned are themselves not objective in the physical meaning are not data as scent observations he goes on they consist of meanings opinions attitudes and values not of physical facts end quote this has been the opinion of the leading economists ever since the beginning of systematic study in this area one of the the early theorist Alfred Marshall explained quote economics is a study of men as they live and move and think in the ordinary business of life end quote and on this basis he asserted that quote the actions of men are so various and uncertain that the best statement of Tendencies which we can make in a science of human conduct must need be inexact and faulty end quote H Brunner and thorough say that quote economic economists observe the human Universe just as scientists observe the physical Universe in search of ordinary orderly relationships end quote Jacob Viner a contemporary of Knight contended that there are no relationships in econom ICS comparable to those found in science uh I believe this is a quote here we have uh from uh Viner we have no logical justification for belief in the existence of important economic functions that are simple stable through time and space and characterized by stable and fixed parameters the social order in these respects different is in these respects different in kind or different in so higher uh so high a degree as for the most practical purposes to be equivalent to a difference in kind from the physical or even the biological order of nature end quote as these statements demonstrate the the economists by and large look upon the subject matter of econ economics as a study of human behavior they view it as an uncertain and Elusive field where exact correlation of cause and effect is impossible business scientific and Technical people on the other hand find that the economic forces that they encounter in the course of their daily task move steadily and relentlessly forward to their inevitable consequences regardless of human desires and opinions we have found that if we accommodate ourselves to these Natural Forces they can be made to serve our purposes if we do not they mow us down without a trace of compassion the very best of intentions are of no avail the utmost of human determination is futile either we stay onid on solid economic ground or we go down to certain defeat forces of this kind are no strangers to us throughout our everyday work we are dealing with physical forces that display exactly the same characteristics if we wish to erect a building we must design the structure in Conformity with the physical principles that govern the E of the various elements if we neglect or refuse to do so there is no argument about it the building collapses and that is the end of the matter we cannot protest the decision we cannot appeal to higher authority so far as our experience would indicate there is no essential difference between the physical laws and the economic laws with which we come in contact neither can be challenged or ignored with impunity neither is affected in the slightest degree by our approval or disapproval it is apparent that we are concerned with aspects of the economic process that are quite different from what the EC uh what the economists see they are focusing their attention on the objectives of economic actions which are the results of human decisions whereas we are primarily concerned with the effects of those actions which are controlled by natural laws independent of human preferences and opinions our observation is that when an economic action is once taken the ensuing events March inexorably forward to definite and certain certain consequences that are wholly independent of the hopes and desires of those who initiated the action here then is another side of Economics a field that has been overlooked or disregarded what we now propose to do in this work is to apply scientific methods to an examination of this hitherto unexplored or at least underexplored field economists like the workers in other non-scientific fields are what the medical profession calls General Practitioners there are different ideas as to methods to be sure and individuals have their own personal fields of special interest but there is no division of labor labor which is at all comparable to that in the scientific ranks for example John mayard KES the most influential of the modern economists makes made his own basic studies and constructed his own theories thus performing functions analogous to those of the pure scientists he then applied his findings and his theories to economic problems and arrived at methods for handling these problems which he believed were appropriate on the basis of the theories which he had devised thus performing functions analogous to those of the engineer finally he took over the role of ad Advocate and work strenuously and effectively to get his theories and recommendations adopted by governmental agencies and others concerned many other less publicized members of the economic profession have covered similar ground still others confine their activities to one or two of these three Fields but they are all recognized as economists they get their training in the same college classes and from the same textbooks they read the same journals and they belong to the same professional societies no distinction such as that between pure scientists and Engineers is ever made nor does The Economist NE uh normally recognize that in waging a partisan battle for the adoption of his favorite economic reform program he is stepping outside the field of economics and into that of politics the determination of public policy the final stage of economic planning the decisionmaking process requires consideration of the social and economic uh social and political aspects of the issues under consideration as well as the economic aspects these are items of a nature very different from the factual considerations that enter into a determination of how the system operates and they call for a very different approach to the subject matter in absence of any definite subdivision of the field it is practically inevitable that either one or the other of these two these different approaches should dominate the thinking and the activities of the economic profession it is interesting to note that there was actually a trend in the scientific Direction at one time in the early days of economics in the United States the authors of two of the most widely used textbooks were scientists General Fran Francis a walker one of the early presidents of MIT and Simon Nukem the celebrated astronomer um however the close relation between economics and social problems tended to draw many of those was primarily interested in such problems into the economic field uh with the result that economics has become a branch of Sociology rather than a branch of science a classification which both the standard Library systems and the college curricula recognize unfortunately the Triumph of the sociological Viewpoint in economics has had the result of distorting the economist's picture of what is taking place in the world the individual who looks at economic activities through sociological spectacles sees people in their social settings and classifications not in their economic environment for instance he sees capitalists a social class rather than suppliers of capital an economic class if he were dealing with social problems this might be quite appropriate but it is fatal to the validity of his conclusions regarding economic matters as the suppliers of of capital are not necessarily or even usually capitalists in the social sense indeed there is no economic reason why they should ever be capitalists the picture is further distorted because the sociologically oriented economist usually has a strong bias against capitalists the social class which prevents him from recognizing the true place of suppliers of capital the economic class in economic life in the subsequent analysis we will find many other examples of this same situation the socioecon economists sees a social picture rather than an economic picture and when he tries to make economic sense out of what he sees all too often there is confusion following the usual sociological pattern the literature of econ of the economic profession is primarily partisan the great majority of economic writers past and present have been special pleaders rather than unbiased Searchers for the truth exponents of a particular point point of view rather than impartial judges of The Facts economists in books and articles and letters to the editor tirelessly urge this policy or that says one of their own number if the policies that were adopted on the strength of their theories had been successful in practice The Economist would have had a good case in favor of continuing to Advocate measures based on these theories but the reality is far different the pessimistic assessment of the present situation in the economic field by H Brunner and thorough has already been quoted Samuelson likewise concedes that the econ economic profession has failed to accomplish its principal objectives it cannot find the combination of policies that allows full employment stable prices and free markets end quote he admits that quote what may be needed are new approaches to the problems of productivity wages and price formation end quote John Kenneth galberth uh blames the economy for not conforming with the theories as he puts it the economic system operates in defiance of the rules uh laid down by the economist and those Ru makers cannot account for what Galbraith admits is at least at times a brilliant performance Joan Robinson a devout Keynesian tells us flatly quote it is impossible to understand the economic system in which we are living if we try to interpret it as a rational scheme end quote when those who have undertaken the task of analyzing our economy not only admit that they are unable to discover the true rules by which it is governed but come to the conclusion that it has no rational basis at all uh which means that the remarkable results that the system achieves must be accidental then Common Sense warns us that it is no longer sound policy to continue relying on the methods and procedures that have brought us to this dead end we need to recognize that the basic elements of econ uh economics are Pur ly factual the underlying reason for all economic activity is the iron law that man must work or starve a law that the human race as a whole cannot evade no matter how distasteful it may be similarly the primary economic processes are governed by fixed and immutable principles which are beyond the reach of human powers any action taken in defiance of or in ignorance of these principles must inevitably fail in its intended purposes no matter how commendable the objective of that action may be under present conditions relatively few people recognize the existence of these matters of fact in E economics the socio economists present their arguments for or against proposed measures which involve factual questions price controls Public Works programs minimum wage laws EMP employment measures Etc almost entirely on the basis of the desirability of the objectives uh at which measures are aimed with little or no reference to the question as to whether such measures are capable of reaching those objectives with very few exceptions legislators decide whether to vote for or against legislation of this nature on exactly the same basis that they are uh that they use in deciding how to vot vote on Purely policy measures never realizing that the in the former case the hard facts of economic life may nullify or even reverse the effects which they are trying to produce by passing such laws far too many econom uh uh far too many e economic experiments initiated with enthusiasm and High Hopes have ended in bitter disappointment because their authors ignored or dis disputed the existence of permanent and unchangeable laws and principles in the economic field we live in a period in which most of the conventional wisdom of the past in economics has been tried and found wanting econ uh economics is in a state of self-scrutiny dissatisfied with the um this is a quote from H Brunner row by the way um with its established premises not ready to not yet ready to formulate formulate new ones indeed perhaps the search for a new vision of Economics is the most pressing economic task of our time um and uh that's the end of the chapter chapter 2 is called the scientific approach and we'll kick that off tomorrow um thanks for tuning in today