| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Solomon Islands from Electronz - To Kenneth Palmerton | | Date: | Sunday, July 31, 2005 17:26:08 (-0600) | | From: | Jim <jschroeder @....ca>
|
Hi Daniel:
You said:
"The solution is to have a stable money supply, something that cannot be
created out of thin air. Gold is a good candidate for sound money."
Douglas said:
"The difficulty in dealing with the subject (gold standard) arises largely
from the fact that it has never at any time been what it pretends to be.
Originally gold itself was supposed to represent the only true and
universally accepted claim for goods. Previouly to 1914 the gold sovereign
circulated freely in Great Britain, and the illusion of a gold currency was
fairly successful. Within two days of the outbreak of war in 1914, however,
the available stocks of gold sovereigns had been withdrawn from the banks by
depositors who imagined that in this way they were safeguarding their
possesions, with the result that it was necessary to declare a moratorium,
during the progress of which, treasury notes of a face value of $1 and
10cents were printed in large numbers and handed over to the banks for issue
to their depositors. The fact that the Gold Standard was a fraudulent
standard was demonstrated in twenty-four hours." (The Monopoly of Credit -
paranthesis added).
There never has been a real gold standard, as fractional reserve banking
lends out more gold than the banks have in reserve. And to force banks to
hold 100% reserves would cause such a contraction in the economy due solely
to a lack of available gold, that the standard would be deemed useless in a
short period of time.
The value of money is not what it's made of. The value of money is it's
ability to obtain goods and services at any place and any time.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Morin" <dan@danmorin.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 8:08 AM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Solomon Islands from Electronz - To Kenneth
Palmerton
> Dear Peter,
> > There is no common ground between Douglas and Von Mises
> > outside the recognition of the fractional reserve banking
> > system as being a curse on mankind.
>
> So why promoting fractional reserve banking? I believe fractional reserve
> banking is fraud. Some individuals believe politicians should control the
> money supply instead of the banks. Instead of having a "Federal Bank" (or
> "Federal Reserve") would have a "Federal Government" printing money. That
> would be the same, at best. Politicians are much more short-sighted than
> bankers, and would cause havoc in the economy by printing excessive money.
> The solution is to have a stable money supply, something that cannot be
> created out of thin air. Gold is a good candidate for sound money.
>
> Sincerely,
> -- Daniel.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cymric@xtra.co.nz [mailto:cymric@xtra.co.nz]
> > Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 5:41 AM
> > To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> > Subject: Re: RE: [socialcredit] Solomon Islands from Electronz - To
> > Kenneth Palmerton
> >
> >
> > Howdy Daniel and all,
> > I have had debate with a Von Mises supporter in the past. Those
> > who don't know where Daniel is coming from try Libertarianism
> > based on a gold standard money system, would be fair, is it not Daniel?
> > Von Mises, makes an analysis of money and the banking system,
> > those who are educated by Douglas will note a subtle detour that
> > takes them down the track to 'sound money', ie based on gold,
> > which then like a philosophy dictates all policy. Those who
> > control the gold as previously however control liberty.
> > There is no common ground between Douglas and Von Mises outside
> > the recognition of the fractional reserve banking system as being
> > a curse on mankind.
> >
> > Getting back to the Solomons it has been said that SC is only for
> > an idustrial society. The principles apply in any society. The
> > solomons might like to create an appropriate constitution first.
> > I didnt follow the discussions on Guernsey money, and since
> > Guersey isnt an idustrial society and is a small island
> > community, someone here should have something to say that would
> > be appropriate regards issuing local currency to stimulate local
> > enterprise and development of infrastructure which was referred
> > to in the original Electronz
> > post in NZ then a non industrial country as well.
> > Peter H
> >
> > "Daniel Morin" <dan@danmorin.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Kenneth Palmerton,
> > > I am standing for human rights and individual freedom. Again, let me
> > define
> > > liberty for those who don't know: the absence of invasion by another
man
> > of
> > > any man's person or property. I believe liberty brings justice and
> > > encourages morality and ethics. Using politicians as safeguards to
> > secure
> > > morality and work ethics is absurd. Honesty is not additive: if you
> > have a
> > > group of 100 politicians, each 1% honest, the result is far from being
> > an
> > > honest political party (or government).
> > >
> > > > You seem to write from a very authoritarian...
> > > I am speaking about liberty. How does giving liberty to individuals
can
> > be
> > > authoritarian? You tell me.
> > >
> > > > ... and in generally accepted political terms far right wing agenda
> > > What I am describing is not far right at all. Stalin was considered
far
> > > left and Hitler was considered far right. Both regimes were
supporting
> > > massive regulations, big state spending and no individual liberty.
What
> > I
> > > am proposing is the opposite: limited government (as in the American
> > > Constitution) and individual liberty (again, in the American
> > Constitution).
> > > I don't understand why you consider liberty such a threat and a danger
> > to
> > > mankind. Countries offering the highest liberty are the best to live
> > (US,
> > > Canada), and countries with little liberty are with chronic government
> > > crises, riots, high crime rate, rampant corruption and pervasive
> > pollution.
> > >
> > >
> > > > God save us from the sort of uncaring regimes that you describe :-(
> > > Same here. The regime you are proposing uses force and extorsion to
> > promote
> > > government spending. Under the Social Credit Regime, citizens will be
> > > forced to give their income or property to politicians so they can
spend
> > it
> > > on their "good cause" (ie, friends). What will you do with citizens
> > > refusing the coercive Social Credit Regime? Beat them? Put them to
> > jail?
> > > Torture them, or kill them? This is the recipe for a civil war. There
> > is no
> > > freedom in what you are describing... never mind blight the lives of
> > > ordinary people. A good intention is no substitute for ignorance.
> > >
> > > If you are guinely interested to learn my opinion, you should read my
> > reply
> > > to William H. McGunnigle and the following:
> > >
> > > http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae8_1_5.pdf (Justice and
> > > Redistributive Taxation)
> > > http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/8_1/8_1_3.pdf (Enforced Equality -
Or
> > > Justice?)
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> > http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> > You're subscribed to this list with the email dan@danmorin.com
> > For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email jschroeder@shaw.ca
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message