| Subject: | [socialcredit] Untrustable politicians & M1. | | Date: | Sunday, August 7, 2005 23:11:49 (+1200) | | From: | donzbeth <donzbeth @.......nz>
|
Hi Kenneth, Your assertion that a U.K. Treasury Officer told you that in
U.K. the term M1 meant ONLY legal tender or cash is surprising. Note that
I do not say astonishing, because we find generally among those involved in
the orthodox financial world that people will say all sorts of things to
throw off balance anyone wanting to change things.
eg: Electronz has been copied with several letters on specific items which
directly contradict eachother. One quotes the (NZ) Minister of Finance as
saying that trading banks cannot create credit; that they can only lend
funds deposited with them. Another letter from the (NZ) Deputy PM (Jim
Anderton) states that the N.Z. owned Kiwi Bank is "able to create new credit
in making loans as is done by the (privately owned) trading banks".
We have another letter from an officer in the (Government owned) Reserve
Bank saying that of the current N.Z. M1 Money Supply, only about 3% is legal
tender, with the rest having been created by the trading banks. The
definition of M1 in the N.Z. high school textbooks, and from memory I think
the state published "Monetary & Fiscal Policy in N.Z." defines M1 inter
alia as "The total credit funds in the trading banks Current Accounts of
customers, plus the total of cash/legal tender in the hands of the public."
Your group should have at its disposal at least one economics textbook as
approved by the Education Ministry for use in tertiary educational
institutions. I would urge you to fill that gap and then ask the "Officer"
how he would reconcile that definition with his assertion that in U.K. M1
means only legal tender (in the hands of the public). I can certainly give
you N.Z. references supporting my quote, but that would not be as strong as
an Approved U.K. publication. Then please update me.
Rob Muldoon certainly was a very domineering PM, and a ruthless debater.
Yes, he was a strong supporter of the W.B., IMF, etc., so naturally
antagonistic to any form of people power controlling politicians. However, I
do not see the relevance of that to support your apparent reservations about
whether BCIR is a democratic and therefor a desirable mechanism.
Nor do I accept the inference that because the Chartists were in England
a century back and still have some following, it has any bearing on the
question we are discussing. Furthermore, your assertion that there are
differences between the Swiss cantons is agreed, but with the important
proviso that legislation of a national nature is universal, and is operated
accordingly. That the Swiss Initiative does operate nationally and is run
on a national basis was apparent in a recent issue of the English Language
"Swiss Review" given me recently by a business friend, dealing with this
particular question. It included the complete geographic breakdown of votes
cast for the 4 questions right across the country. It also noted that
although on one question, while the margin of affirmative votes was small,
the people have spoken, and so it is binding on the government. It is also
relevant that the responsible organ of government for referendums is
obligated to provide ALL voters with summaries of both sides to every
question , so it is almost as bad as blasphemy for a party or group with a
vested interest in the outcome to make any public comment which could be
seen as intended to skew the vote - Such of course being the virtual
opposite to what happens in USA, as I have seen myself with blatant
saturation advertising campaigns.
If you still think there is relevance in the chartist point you might like
to try and explain it to us.
(End of Don's comments.) ########################################
-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Palmerton [mailto:kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, 5 August 2005 03:14
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Cc: kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Solomon Islands & Untrustable politicians
In-Reply-To: <MCBBLOEGDNFMNFMOAAKLCEADCKAA.donzbeth@ihug.co.nz>
Hi Don.
I hope that it does not surprise you to know that I agree essentially with
what you have written. So please do not think I am nit picking if I make
one or two small points.
M1 for us here in the UK means notes and coins. Cash.
I raise this point because not long ago a newcomer to our body of ideas
got carried away and entered a public demand for State created M1 from
within the Forum for Stable Currencies, the vehicle we use to promote our
monthly meetings in the House of Lords committee rooms. This demand was
picked up by the treasury, and we had a great deal of difficulty in
getting the debate back on track, when we were being accused of not
understanding that a cash economy alone would create a most difficult
situation.
Yes I know it was a red herring indented to blow us off course. For a
while it succeeded, and we had a very red faced newcomer. She did survive
:-)
What little I knew of Muldoon leaves me with little surprise at his
authoritarian utterances. He was the IMFs man was he not ?
As for Switzerland, the practice there differs from Canton to Canton. And
some of them have a much more "conservative" population than others. And
in fact their general practice is very similar to the movement here in the
UK of the early Nineteenth Century, the Chartists. Ideas that have not
completely died out.
Ken.
|
Untrustable politi
Reply to this message