| Subject: | RE: [socialcredit] Solomon Islands from Electronz - To Jim | | Date: | Sunday, July 31, 2005 20:40:30 (-0400) | | From: | Daniel Morin <dan @........com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 2330 (written by Jim) |
To Jim:
> There never has been a real gold standard, as fractional
> reserve banking lends out more gold than the banks have in reserve.
You are right. The scenario described in Great Britain was not a gold
standard. Having a Central Bank is the perfect tool to increase fractional
reserve banking. The Central Bank allows the banks to lend out more gold
than they have in reserve, because the Central Bank acts as an "insurance"
of a bankruptcy.
There is no need to force banks to hold 100% reserve of Gold. The
competition of the free market would push the banks to hold 100% reserve of
Gold. Would you deposit your Gold in a bank over-lending your deposit?
> And to force banks to hold 100% reserves would cause such a
> contraction in the economy due solely to a lack of available gold.
The quantity of Gold is not important. To learn more about the Gold
standard, you should read "The Case for 100 Percent Gold Dollar" by Murray
N. Rothbard. You are welcome to read the article
http://www.mises.org/story/1829 for an executive summary or download the
entire book in PDF from the link. You can also purchase the paperback
version for $5.
> 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.
I agree with you. However having the ability to create (print) money is very
dangerous. A sound monetary system must have a stable currency where its
value (purchasing power) remains stable.
Cheers,
-- Dan MOrin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim [mailto:jschroeder@shaw.ca]
> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 7:26 PM
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Solomon Islands from Electronz - To Kenneth
> Palmerton
>
>
> 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,
> > >
>
|
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message