| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: COGEXEC: Rebuilding New Orleans | | Date: | , September 4, 2005 06:32:22 (+0200) | | From: | cymric <cymric @.......nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 2693 (written by Keith Wilde) |
Howdy Keith,
We need to be mindful of the fact that present conditions represent the dynamics
of very different systems and policy than what S.C. ones do. We tend to take for
granted too the so called glory of the past century inspite of third world
conditions increasing in the developed world.
A S.C. society would be substantially different. I notice when people get a
little financial freer many tend to prefer lifestyle blocks, or get outside the
bigger centres and comute from smaller communities.
So I dont see a S.C. society trending towards what has developed because the
dynamics are totally different. Thus dont expect us to be consciously thinking
of the unthinkable- people living like battery-hens.
Have you noticed anyone showing any negative thoughts towards public education
or hospitals, Police etc? A lot of these things were established by the
cooperative spirit of settlers etc and thus in part taken for granted. There is
no grounds to suspect that Douglas purests are of the Ayn Rand anarchist kind and
opposed to public utilites.
When I look at the world at the feet of the fractional reserve banking system I
see subsidiary industries of it, and I have no doubt the insurance industry is
one, I see them as like father like son etc, growing in the image of the banking
system, shaped by the same dynamics.
So I expect a S.C. society based on a public untility money system to create
some like-father-like-son developments based on its dynamics and cooperative
philosophy. Basic things like education, roads, emergency services, water and
others are just as likely stay part of the public sector as not but the power of
govt is likely to deminish in contrast with that of today and could decentralise
into Swiss like Cantons. One of the forces that drives the growth of govt is the
problems of the debt money system. No point in talking about dealing with these
problems ( symptoms) if they are going to disappear. It seems to me that there
is a lot of discussion about things that will disappear or at least become
insignificant.
If democracy has a new lease of life the people living in it will decide not us.
This is one of the contradictary issues involved in S.C. party politics, they
asume to tell people whom they are trying to help become freer to decide what
they want, what they should have.
As for S.C.ers looking to form alliances with people of similar concerns I would
have thought that there has been enough wrestling over finer points on this forum
between S.C. people and those who are not but have a small area of common ground
to show how impossible that is. Is it not true you would prefer that we
compromised with your school of thought.
Even though Douglas' formula to create a sound financial and economic system is
very simple and justified by an analysis of the current systems that is far more
explicit than anyone else, people tend to want to argue than try to understand
its foundation and results or if they do they will oppose it because their left
wing or right wing tendencies cant abide the philosophy.
It is very clear to me that the notion of interest free debt, a dividend of any
basis whether tax or public enterprise based, plus money backed by gold would win
any appeal to the public who are concerned and have some knowledge of issues.
We have already had comments that Germany, Belgium and Japan have been down the
interest free track and even some form of 'dividend' yet where are they all
today? And there isnt enough gold to back the worlds money supply. One of the
problems is that people only look at money in itself which is why only termporary
benefits are found. S.C. is a whole package upon which to base a type of society
in which the individual is sovereign. When people want the whole lot and not
just more money it will be a lot easier to agree. People want money not
responsibility. "There is only one sound basis for co-operative society, and
that is individual and personal responsibility." p64 The Big Idea.
The other reason is because people dont know what democracy is, let alone
practical democracy where people vote with their wallet and their feet. The
subjects of democratic power and financial power arent recognised as directly
related. So as soon as people want S.C. to compromise they are reducing the
possibility of a long term foundation for sustained reforms.
People who are only interested in money clearly dont have the credientials to
solve societies problems. You were disgusted, which I agree with, at the
interest expressed in opportunites for profit-progress to come out of New Orleans
but it is a reflection of society based on the worship of money. At the bottem
is a 'conception of reality', we also have one but how do you compromise or why
should one compromise with people who dont have one or have a conflicting one?
To unit over opposition to something ( negative based) is not the same as
uniting for specific results ( positive) sought. Any campaign must be positive
based otherwise if the first opponent is put down the alliance will then
unavoidably go into a civil war power struggle. There is no power or philosophy
vacuum. People dont understand that either.
What makes Douglas a genius for me is that he had multi-dimentional wisdom and
people who only think about money are only capable of appreciating only parts of
what he said about money because its not an end only a means.
"Integrity is single-mindedness- the mind of a little child. It is the test of
quality before quantity.
If success is to attended the efforts of monetary reformers, inter alia, it will
be not because of numbers. It will be because of a sufficient quality of
integrity." P 65, The Big Idea, C.H.D.
Peter H
"Keith Wilde" <keithwilde@sympatico.ca> wrote:m
>
> A truly disgusting aspect of this disaster is the "contribution" of
> conventional economic doctrine. Within hours of the hurricane's
passage,
> possibly even before the break in the levees, the NYT had an article
from
> the "economic growth" enthusiasm gloating over all the jobs and
resources
> consumption that will be stimulated by the rebuilding of the old city
and
> the gulf coast. A disaster maybe, but also an opportunity for gold!
>
> Disgusting, but inevitable from the acquiesence of economic theories to
the
> greed of speculators for quick bucks and grabbing of resources in the
name
> of providing opportunity for peasant farmers and other slaves to work
for a
> living. The faulty doctrines are of course responsible for the great
gap in
> national data gathering and analysis, reinforced in the Keynesian
Revolution
> by a narrowing focus on pure activity and income flows to the neglect of
any
> effort to document and estimate the value of existing wealth.
>
> I am a bit surprised, or at least curious, that advocates of Social
Credit
> do not seem to put more of their efforts into looking for alliances with
> potential cooperators who could understand the concepts of permance and
> wealth-creating, building for posterity instead of consuming ourselves
to
> death in the name of "keeping the economy growing". There are people
out
> there (some of whom Ryan likes to denigrate as Malthusian) who might
join in
> a movement to build the data banks that could eventually be used to
promote
> the compensated price and dividend policies, even though they may not be
> aware of those policies at the time of making common cause. Why is this
not
> the primary focus of activists?
>
> Another curiosity, possibly a gap in my reading of orthodox texts, is
the
> attitude of Douglas purists on the increasingly collective nature of
real
> investment as society becomes progressively urbanized. Surely public
> sanitation, water supply, electrification, telecommunications
facilities,
> parks and green spaces, regulation of many kinds, policing, fire and
rescue
> capacity are all critical elements in "cultural heritage". But they
also
> are "public goods" to a great extent, meaning that they do not get built
in
> the best ways for cost-effective service (as contrasted to exploitative)
> without a collective financing effort--public utilitities financing.
This
> aspect seems to be left out in my scattered reading, leaving me with the
> impression that Douglas orthodoxy entails only private initiatives to
> provide new and better (productive) services on a rather piece-meal
basis.
> This, it seems to me, would be an inhibitor of many positive (possible)
> aspects of urbanization. Can someone clear that up for me from a purist
> perspective?
>
> Keith Wilde
>
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message