| Subject: | [socialcredit] usury et al | | Date: | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 08:28:45 (EDT) | | From: | Triumphofthepast <Triumphofthepast @...com>
|
"Can you provide any quote from Douglas that indicates he thought [usury] was irrelevant? . . . Can you provide any quote also that shows he accepted that banks should continue to create ( monopolise) the communities credit, as you infer they should? Also please provide any quote from Douglas that infers that the National Dividend will counter the effects of the exponential growth of debt as you suggest it should." (Peter)
I can't tell you exactly where to find these quotes, but Douglas did say once that usury is not the point, and beyond that, he doesn't think it important enough to write about. At the very least, it is but the tip of the iceberg when compared to the "charge for use" in PRICES -- the fact that to buy the shirt you have to rent the factory.
He also said that if the central bank is private, there is no need to nationalize it. It WILL be forced to act as a public agent in its money-creating function. IF individual private banks continue to create money, they, too, will be forced to act as public agents in that respect.
When the banking system acts as a public agent in its money-creating function, then I am thinking it will want to act more like a partner in production rather than treating money as a commodity by lending it at interest.
Since the national dividend will be sufficient to liquidate all costs of production, then by definition it will prevent the growth of debt. In other words, if interest is charged, you will also give people the money to pay it.
Michael
|
usury et al
Reply to this message