|
"Without clearly-defined terms, I have to
suspect that Social Crediters (including Douglas himself) and money reformers,
may well also be talking complete codswallop. "
Definitions have been stated and the only
codswallop I have witnessed is that above. Please, if you do not wish to learn
or do not have the ability to understand I suggest that you leave the forum.
Vic Bridger
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Douglas - A +
B and the Bankers - January 1925
Kenneth Palmerton wrote:
I too have struggled with A+B over many
years. The conclusion for me is that the confusion comes from the
detractors. The concept is simple enough. But put yourself, if you will,
in the shoes of those who wish to retain control over the issue of new
money into circulation.
Tim Knight now writes:
First, may I say that I think Social Credit in
general (and A+B in particular) is a very distinct subject from reform of the
financial system. I believe that you are talking here about reform of
the financial system?
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am more
than willing to believe that those in power may well be acting out
of passive or active self-interest. However, I
personally have no self-interest here, and the conclusion
for me (so far), in the absence of more coherent argument, is that
the confusion is in the minds of the promoters.
In particular, and I am repeating myself
ad-nauseum her, promoters will keep using expressions such as 'money'
without pausing to check that there is an economically-significant factor on
which the reader/listener could 'hang' the expression. When I read the
expression 'money' above, and when I read 'the issue of new money
into circulation', my brain went into numb. I haven't the faintest
idea what you're talking about. With respect, I suspect you and all
others who use the expressions don't know either. I have to assume that,
because I've laid down more than enough challenges in this forum and
elsewhere, and no-one has even acknowledged that there is a need to pin down a
worthwhile meaning for such expressions before using them. Most seem
happy to use such expressions as a form of 'economic musak'. For many
years, medieval clinicians banged on about 'the humours'. For many
years, physicists banged on about the nature of the ether (the presumed
carrier of light). Both communities were highly respected professionals,
but we now know that they were talking complete codswallop. Without
clearly-defined terms, I have to suspect that Social Crediters (including
Douglas himself) and money reformers, may well also be talking complete
codswallop.
Please, please help me out here. When you
wrote 'the issue of new money into circulation', what did you mean?
- If you meant 'the state printing and
distributing cash', I would argue that:
- The quantity of cash in circulation
is determined at the absolute discretion of the
bearers. No-one can 'push' cash into circulation, and
no responsible state would undermine the fluency of trade and employment
by constraining the quantity of cash in circulation below what potential
bearers wanted to bear.
- Each item of cash reflects a debt owed by the
issuer to the bearer, but that debt is
economically-indistinguishable from any other
debt.
- When a bank 'withdraws' cash from the state,
the bank credits the state in a current account and debits the state in a
cash account in a single indivisible transaction. Nothing of any
economic significance has
happened.
- If you mean 'banks processing a
zero-sum debit-credit pair to intermediate a debt created by trade or
employment', I would argue again that nothing of any
economic significance has happened.
So, what exactly did you mean? Please do
not use the expression 'money' in any answer you feel
inclined to make!
I'm sorry to be so strident,
but I can't get anyone to even
try to address my concerns, or even to acknowledge
that there is a case to answer. Most simply repeat their arguments,
re-using the expressions which fried my brain first time round! I
suspect that that is the real reason why social credit and proposals for
reform of the financial system have made so little progress, and will continue
to struggle. All of the advocates talk in 'insider' terms, and
dismiss as naive or fools those who have reservations. None appear
willing to speak in language with which non-believes can 'engage'.
Best Wishes
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 3:26
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Douglas - A + B and
the Bankers - January 1925
> In-Reply-To: <01e801c54b53$e0ee2780$0200a8c0@mshome.net>
> Dear Tim.
>
> I do not know whether my
comments would either be welcome, or even if they
> could be useful to
you. But I too have struggled with A+B over many years.
>
> The
conclusion for me is that the confusion comes from the detractors. The
> concept is simple enough. But put yourself, if you will, in the shoes
of
> those who wish to retain control over the issue of new money into
> circulation.
>
> Should some clever clogs come along
and offer an explanation of why it is
> essential for the health of
society for there to BE a regular, and
> controlled issue, because
there is a fundamental and inevitable flaw in
> the orthodox notion of
equilibrium, would you not, if you had the power,
> mobilise all the
forces at your command to defeat that explanation?
>
> I for one
Tim have scanned reams and reams of mathematics that attempted
> to "prove" A+B, and Keynes "deficiency of effective demand" , its
second
> cousin, to be false. All it really achieved is what it was
intended to
> achieve, to confuse me.
>
> But what it did
NOT achieve was to persuade me of the falsity of the basic
> idea. For
I, like many others, am an essentially practical person. And I
> would
suggest to you that there is an essentially practical test of
> whether
or not there was something in the idea of a lack of money in the
>
publics pockets. And the test can be conducted in any High Street , in any
> town in this country or anywhere else.
>
> If you look
at the windows of the stores, stores that are bursting with
> goods and
services, almost without exception they have emblazoned across
> then
offers of CREDIT.
>
> Why, if there is enough purchasing power to
buy all those desirable goods,
> do the shopkeepers assume that they
need to offer deferred payment?
>
> Add that to the need to offer
an explanation for escalating indebtedness,
> and I think you can
forget the reams of mathematics.
>
> Does any of this make sense
to you Tim?
>
> Ken.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're subscribed to this list with the email socred@ecn.net.au
To unsubscribe, send a message to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
