Lord Keynes wrote about economic activity and some of his work tended to rest on "the intangibles" surrounding business and creating prices, and that these intangibles rested on the supply side of the market, i.e. trying to gauge what the consumer will stand.
We have already said that wealth is an accumulation of money and that wealth is a power, but where does wealth come from? If you are a private individual (apart from winning the pools) it comes from revenue, i.e. income from activity; if you are a company it comes from original and subsequent investment but thereafter it also comes from revenue, i.e. all the accumulation of wealth, i.e. wealth creating is as a result from commercial activity But there is the important note that at the beginning there is an injection of wealth from private individuals or banks which was generated from activity.
So we have a kind of chicken and egg situation - which came first, the wealth or the activity? Answer - activity - and in the case of the UK the family coffers. So it becomes fairly safe to examine activity. But when you examine activity as economists do, what you are examining is how trade is established and you are then faced with the view that profit and loss is the result of trading. We are going to suggest that profit/loss is the cause of trading in a rolling economy, i.e. the market exists to effect profit/loss, not to affect profit/loss.
We have already seen that wealth compounds and becomes a power, that power is reflected in effect on the market by varying degree, i.e. companies that are more or less wealthy by degree command a greater or smaller share of the market; consequently their impact on the market will vary by degree according to the product, the power of advertising, ability to secure adequate final distribution, i.e. the bigger you are the better chance you have of maintaining market share, etc.
The other point is that the bigger company has greater need (yet more difficulty perhaps to maintain its momentum) so it needs to assess a market. Momentum is the operative word because it does not just apply to the product service alone; it also applies to the asset value of the company. In other words, there is a need to maintain the wealth creating/power over reality drive of the company as well as a need to sell more products to achieve it. In fact there is a need to satisfy shareholders and maintain percentage return on capital employed, so in effect there is a one-way drive-capital appreciation. It is suggested that in a rolling economy there is a mainstream of wealth and wealth creating drive. Around the edges of the economy there are companies trying to get a foothold on the ladder and these will succeed or fail by whatever virtue.
However on the whole the economy is made up of companies all pushing one way for one reason and these companies represent wealth, i.e. there is wealth looking to compound wealth and they will or will not be successful in compounding wealth. The activity that effects an adjustment to wealth is the market and the force of the market is all one way. The difficulty in trying to look at market force comes about because looking at companies in isolation is confusing, i.e. there are losses and there are gains, but at the end of the day it would take Great Britain Ltd to make a total loss to suggest that the market overall is two-way.
There is a reason to suggest that it is impossible to make a loss that would result in Great Britain Ltd shutting up shop. We have to remember that money can only be a value of reality i.e. an existence; consequently if trade is profitable and at the end of the day there is a surplus to be adjusted to capital, that adjustment becomes a real capability and an imposition upon reality.
However, if a company is drifting into loss there are two important things to remember: a company is never actively trying to push further towards loss (except for some more sinister motive). There are always attempts to reverse the situation back towards wealth creation and if it does make a loss it is embarrassed insofar as it is easy to put red figures on a piece of paper but it is impossible to reflect it in reality. There is no such thing as an anti-existence that anti-money can buy. A loss-making company forced to dose is faced with current assets that had value and have not changed in reality, having to be realised for what they can get, and if they are lucky, fixed assets that will help. However, if they are still faced with a loss after that, it becomes unresolvable without additional cash.
The whole point is that there is no such thing as swings and roundabouts. There is a force, wealth creating force, which is all one-way. There are loss makers but in reality it is necessary to offset them against the profit makers and look at the total picture to see what is really happening. Great Britain Ltd is into wealth creation in a big way, increasing power over reality, depreciating the real world, finding it necessary to find markets to dispose of instantly depreciating services and rapidly depreciating goods.
The real essence of the gravity of the situation is when you realise that wealth creating and the power of wealth has assumed a life of its own and in order to keep feeding it we have to feed it raw materials and labour and energy and keep consuming what gets spewed out.
There is another way that wealth creation (for the sake of it) is a problem and that is in distorting the relationship between reality and the power over reality in the home market.
It is my contention that there is only one major force in the commercial economy and that its force is one way. Here we are back to the straight line theory being a man-made invention and we have wealth to which we are intrinsically tied. Taking that path the truth must be that if straight lines do not exist and everything is a cycle, somewhere along the line wealth creating will run out of steam unless it becomes manageable and to do that we have to strike a balance. We have to ask ourselves whether we want wealth to pervade our lives in such a way that it depreciates the ambiance of life, or whether we want to gain control if it to stop out-of-hand development.
Market forces are said to consist of supply and demand with price the contentious point of resistance/acceptance of any contract for the goods/services offered.
It is felt that many of the theories about supply and demand and price were a legacy from dealing in commodities and that for manufactured goods, particularly in today's trading climate, when sophisticated marketing techniques are used to influence demand, or perhaps when items of particular specialist need are developed, that price is not such a relevant issue supporting contract, and as I will support below I consider that the notions of supply and demand as separate notions is phoney. Furthermore I am going to suggest that all the "intangibles" connected with supply and so-called demand are on the side of the consumer and that there are no intangibles in supply.
Firstly, to deal with supply: there is no supply until goods are supplied. In order for goods to be supplied a company has to be up and running. Any notions about whether
a commodity should be X or Y price depend upon a supplier's reaction to market for similar products where they exist, but essentially a determination of how many need to be sold-in order to be wealth-creating. All supplier ideas about how to market a product or how to develop a product etc are based upon the supplier not as a supplier, but as.a potential purchaser. Therefore when a supplier is trying to assess "demand" he is doing what only humans can do, and changing his hat.
Everything that a supplier does is based around money and realities. A supplier in the strict sense of the word consists of assets and expenses and any notions, marketing ideas etc, come under the category of expense - a supplier is a wealth creator and nothing else; every other aspect of his business is an expense and this has to be taken into account when pricing. In reality there are only two things that a supplier can get wrong as a supplier: price and quantity which are both tangible.
So-called demand is not demand: it is acceptance of the goods and very rarely (with the exception of foodstuffs, etc) does price strike the bargain. Demand is not a free notion and the reason is that no-one can demand something that does not exist. In reality, supply comes first, i.e. a product arrives in the market place at a price. Acceptance of the goods is dependent upon a host of intangibles and the reason is that the human being can make decisions about acceptance of a product for any reason, simply because in -essence the human is intangible. What is more of an influence to contract than price is capacity to buy; i.e. I would like a Rolls Royce; I know they are out of my pocket but I would still be prepared to buy one of I had the capacity to buy.
I would suggest that price is simply an arbiter in most cases today, representing the price the supplier needs to effect wealth creation and the price to pay if someone has the capacity to buy.
The other influence in market force is revenue. Most private wealth is paid out of revenue for goods and services; consequent upon that is that suppliers are active in business, therefore there is a two-fold notion: one, that private purchasers are effecting their wealth out of the wealth creation drive; secondly, given that the wealth is funded out of wealth creation, the only decision that private citizens are faced with is whether or not or how or why to accept which goods.
In reality the market is funded out of the exhaust gases of a wealth creation fund only to recycle wealth creation revenue back into the fund. In the process a good or service is dropped with a consumer subsequently to depreciate.
The picture one can draw is of wealth being a kind of impeller, steadily growing, and attached to it is a market spiral that draws out funds, drops off a good, then returns funds to the impeller. However, as the impeller grows up, the market force spiral gets bigger (see below); i.e. there is constant real value inflation, accompanied by wealth growth.
What shows up is that wealth, the power over reality, creates energetic activity; within the energetic activity is expense which is a displacement of revenue which is accompanied by displacement of a depreciating reality, i.e. wealth displaces reality to gain more power over reality. The nonsense is that in the real world, reality is a constant which can only depreciate in quantity; therefore wealth creation for the sake of wealth creation is a sinister imposition and a devaluer of the earth. To go back to the previous chapter where I quoted the example of the football match, it becomes clear that the wealth is the player, wealth creates market activity, adjustment to wealth is the product in a one-way game.
Great Britain has always been an exporting nation so we do not feel the impact totally of what wealth creation is doing but we all know what a force of impact imports can make to our wealth, i.e. there is no wealth creating process to support their existence, consequently they become a drain on revenue yet they are wealth creating for distributors, and wealth creating for the country of origin, but export is essential to create overall profit.
The reality is that there is an artificial phenomenon steadily growing in power to the point where it is simply an all-embracing energy force that sucks in reality and people, blows out depreciating assets in ever-increasing quantities, nothing less than a pariah.
In wealth creation, man has a power that diminishes reality and such is wealth's self-perpetuating form that all man can do is respond to it and the response is in two forms: pressure to create its existence, acceptability of what it produces. In effect, wealth has all the qualities of cancer, a kind of created existence of a third force.
I am not going to suggest that wealth is directly responsible for cancer, but it is impossible to escape the notion that if man diverts all his energy into the creation of wealth and subsequently created value (in his mind) from what wealth creation produces, and that all notions of creation value/product value are in the mind, and that the mind is the portent of the brain, also the portent of the brain is the central nervous system which sends messages to the creative forces of being, therefore it is not unreal to suggest that there has to become some kind of self-levelling force within the human that responds to a sustained attack of the product of artificial creation and invented values.
