| Subject: | [socialcredit] Re: usury et al | | Date: | , August 23, 2005 21:31:48 (+0200) | | From: | cymric <cymric @.......nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 2540 (written by Triumphofthepast) |
Howdy Michael,
The subject was actually the exponential growth of debt not usury. I have
already said I think it (usury ) is a red herring and would expect Douglas to
have by passed it as well for obvious reasons.
Douglas didnt gloss over the effects of debt on economies or it cause of wars
etc.
One wouldnt talk about the debt problems that Africa is going through, the
poverty and deaths by famine etc through the moral issues of usury.
If the whole problem is simply about a faulty costing and pricing system then
Douglas wouldnt have objected to the monopoly of credit nor advocated a national
credit authority to take over the monopoly of credit.
I agree with your perception that if banks are allowed to assist in monitarising
the communities credit under the direction of the NCA that it would be as a
partnertship disposition and no interest, only a fee.
I though W.Ryans comment in response to a point you made there was unnecessary.
There was a second instrument besides the dividend ( because it wont be
sufficient alone as you think)and that was debt free many to manufacturers like
an anti-tax if you like that also acts to keep costs and prices down. These are
to go along with the retrieving of control of the communities credit as well
spelt out by Ken, it has been usurped.
Peter H
Triumphofthepast@aol.com wrote:
>
> "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
>
>
|
Re: usury et al
Reply to this message