| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Switzerland & People Power | | Date: | Tuesday, August 9, 2005 13:22:04 (+1200) | | From: | W. McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 2418 (written by Joe Thomson) |
Hi Joe
I forgot to add in my last missive that your last comment about
needing luck is true in many ways. We are under no illusions about the task
that faces us to turn around the "traditional" financial thinking. We also
know that the bodies supporting the "traditional" or "orthodox" way of
financial thinking are deeply entrenched, basically corrupt and have a large
measure of control over our major political parties. This is one of the
reasons we have created our own political organisation because for twenty
years joined the traditional parties and attempted to sway their thinking
without success. We realised it was a waste of time so we became a political
force in our own right. Our other major problem is that most of the
financial advisors to our government were trained in the London School of
Economics who perpetuate the myths supporting the present inefficient and
corrupt finanmcial system. However we persevere. People are now aware there
are major problems with the financial system, and we get sympathetic
responses to our ideas now. Something that would have been unthinkable even
10 years ago. Moving a dinosaure takes a lot of pushing.
W.H.McGunnigle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Switzerland & People Power
> Hello Bill (McGunnigle),
>
> Thanks for that. But does it not point out what might be the situation
> again today if you were to revert to using your 'Reserve Bank' as
proposed?
> Correct me if I'm wrong, (as I very well may be), but does New Zealand not
> still have large, and growing, 'foreign debts'? And ususally a 'balance
of
> trade' deficit as well? Or is there some other genuine, but more
sinister,
> reason why there seems to be constant complaint that your interest rates
are
> higher than those of other countries?
>
> Now I know there may be some mitigating factors; your economy nowadays
is
> more diversified in its products and markets, you have overseas
investments,
> and your debts aren't all held by one creditor nation on whose markets
> you're virtually totally dependent. But still, as long as you're not
> 'self-sufficient' in the degree you'd have to be to sustain the standard
of
> living you've become accustomed to, would you not be putting yourselves at
> considerable risk of what you say happened before happening again if you
> decided to 'swim against the current' using your Reserve Bank as has been
> suggested?
>
> I'm no 'expert' in the matter, that's for certain, but it seems to me that
> if you did use your Reserve Bank that way, (to fund 'infrastructure',
> interest-free), you'd be decreasing what a given unit of New Zealand
> currency could 'buy' in New Zealand products for sale in New Zealand, and
to
> the rest of the world. Wouldn't foreign lenders, whose currency you must
> obtain to buy needed imports, be loathe to hold New Zealand currency
unless
> you 'bribed' them a good deal more than you're already doing with a still
> higher interest rate?
>
> Beyond that, are two other immediate questions that come to my mind.
First
> of all, it seems to me for such a policy to be successful against the
> considerable risks noted, you'd have to have a huge majority of Kiwis 'on
> side', and determined to see it through. To do this, the 'threat' they'd
be
> facing would seem to me to have to be a very much more 'visible' one.
> Otherwise, as soon as the going got a bit rough, you'd have an immediate
cry
> to revert to previous practices. Can you hold enough people 'on side'
> through the 'politcal party' path? Personally, I seriously doubt it.
>
> The other thing is, how much of the 'infrastructure' you plan to build
will
> actually result in your 'cost' of living declining in relation to your
> 'standard' of living? You may think you're making a big savings through
> eliminating long-term 'interest' charges, but if the price of every
product
> you buy in your domestic markets rises, where's the savings? You seem to
me
> to be setting the stage for 'inflation'. This is what I don't understand
> about the 'Democrats' stated policies ~ they don't deal with the effect on
> 'prices' that each of you will pay for those things you need and desire ~
> 'consumer' goods. It's as if you can completely ignore that, and the
great
> saving in 'interest' will assure all is well. If you do ever get into the
> position of being able to form a government, and are determined to proceed
> this way, I wish you luck, For I fear you'll really need it.
>
> Regards,
> Joe
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "W. McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 3:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Switzerland & People Power
>
>
> > Hi Joe
> > From my research into NZ history between the two world wars
> > Reserve Bank of NZ credit was initially used by the1935 Labour
Government
> to
> > fund infrastuctural developement in NZ, but the finance markets in the
UK
> > that held NZ's Sterling reserves threatened to embargo those reserves if
> the
> > NZ government continued the practice. At that time the trading balance
of
> > payments favoured the UK so the threat was very real. This took place in
> > 1938. There was a haitus until war broke out in 1939 after which the
> > question became irrelevant because the balance of payments swung
> > dramatically over to the NZ side of the ledger and the threat
> evapourated.I
> > hope this clarifies part of the question.
> > W.H.McGunnigle
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> > To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Switzerland & People Power
> >
> >
> > > Hello Peter,
> > >
> > > Some comments inserted below.
> > >
> > > (Peter wrote:-) > I agree with your first comments regards the seeds
of
> > the
> > > war were sown much earlier and predicted at least as early as 1923 by
> > > Douglas if my memory serves me well.
> > > > But as to the "myth" about Mickie Savage and 'social credit' policy
> > > getting the country out of the depression, whether from Hughe's book
or
> > not
> > > is synical
> > > > for some unknown reason.
> > > > Savage's party campaigned on the promise of nationalising the
Reserve
> > Bank
> > > ( Montague Morman creation) and using it to build NZ by its direct
> > creation
> > > of credit rather than borrowed pounds from the Bank of England.
> > >
> > > (Joe replies:-) This seems to me to be a similar policy to the one
> > > President Roosevelt was pursuing in the USA. And our BC Premier of
that
> > > time, Duff Pattulo was advocating for this country. Of massive public
> > works
> > > spending to create 'employment'.
> > >
> > > Whatever the merits of such a policy at that time, it wasn't 'social
> > > credit'. And for some to infer that it was, is deceitful. What
Douglas
> > > proposed for New Zealand was something quite different, and my
question,
> > to
> > > which I await an answer from those Kiwis who no doubt know their own
> > history
> > > far better than I do, was how many of those Douglas's proposals were
> > enacted
> > > by the Savage Labour government?
> > >
> > > (Peter continues:-) > Curton in Australia and McKenzie King ran
similar
> > > campaigns which won them elections as well, but only Savage actually
did
> > > anything, is that whe reason for the synicism?
> > >
> > > (Joe replies:-) MacKenzie King fully nationalized the Bank of Canada,
> > which
> > > had been created by the previous government as our central bank, and
> > > originally had private shareholders as well as government
participation.
> > He
> > > did not, to my knowledge, use the Bof C to 'deficit finance' and
pursue
> > > trying to 'spend' our way out of the Depression like Savage's
government
> > may
> > > have done in your country. In this, he was at odds with people like
> > > Pattulo, who wanted to go that route, (and continually tried to put
'the
> > > bite' on Ottawa to finance 'infrastructure' in what was called here
> Duff's
> > > 'mini-New Deal'). Even if Mackenzie King had gone that way, it still
> > would
> > > NOT have been 'social credit'. The desired 'end' was something quite
> > > different from that of Douglas.
> > >
> > > (Peter continues:-) And as you said they all benefited from the
primary
> > > produce sold to Britain in war time, which totally irrevelant to what
> > Savage
> > > did.
> > >
> > > (Joe replies:-) They did, but that's not what I said. I referred to
> the
> > > period well before the war, where NZ (and also Canadian) 'export'
> markets
> > > had collapsed, leaving your country with a massive foreign debt,
> > (primarily
> > > to Britain), and no 'conventional' way to pay it.
> > >
> > > In the case of BC, our primary export in that era was lumber, and we'd
> > built
> > > up a good trade with the USA as well as with Britain and other
> countries.
> > > After the onset of the Depression the US enacted the Smoot-Hawley
Tariff
> > to
> > > protect its domestic lumber industry, and that priced BC lumber out of
> the
> > > US market. Britain, at that time, was sourcing lumber from here, but
> more
> > > fom Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, Russia, and the US. When Imperial
> > > Preference was established in the early '30's, countries outside of
the
> > > British Empire had their products tariffed while ours were not. There
> was
> > > intra-Empire 'free-trade', so to speak. This re-vitalized the BC
lumber
> > > industry, and, I believe, also made quite a difference to the
> agricultural
> > > industries of New Zealand and Australia, since your closer European
and
> > > American 'competitors' were largely frozen out of UK markets
pricewise.
> > So
> > > much so that when Britain 'entered Europe' decades later that seems to
> > have
> > > had quite some impact on the 'favoured position' previously enjoyed by
> > those
> > > 'down under', did it not? Or was all the 'hand-wringing' when that
> > happened
> > > just pure nostalgia?
> > >
> > > (Peter continues:-) > The late Prof. John Hotson who had the Economic
> > Chair
> > > at US Waterloo university toured NZ about 1990 was persuaded Savage
did
> > > something effective as compared to you and Hughs. He praised NZ for
> > getting
> > > out of the depression by the practical and sovereign use of the
Reserve
> > Bank
> > > and not using the war like the rest of the world, and advocated we
> return
> > to
> > > that policy.
> > >
> > > (Joe replies:-) That may well be so, Peter, but what you're
advocating
> is
> > > NOT 'social credit', and shouldn't be called such.
> > >
> > > (Peter continues:-) > AFter his ( Savage)death Nash who was the
Finance
> > > Minister took over and when visiting the Bank of England was
threatened
> > with
> > > an embargo on our exports if we didnt realise the error of our ways.
> Now
> > > why would they want to do that if Savage and Hotson had only talked
> > through
> > > a hole in their hat?
> > >
> > > (Joe replies:-) Why should that be of any concern to you if you could
> use
> > > your 'Reserve Bank' to fund yourselves as you are advocating you
should
> > 'get
> > > back to'?
> > >
> > > (Peter continues:-) > Would you like Kiwi's to tell you your political
> > > history?
> > >
> > > (Joe replies:-) If they are familiar with it. The perspective from
> afar
> > > is always useful in that we cannot always see things ourselves about
our
> > > countries that others elsewhere can.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Joe
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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 wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
> > > 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 thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
> > 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 wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message