|
Message 2910
|
|
< Previous | Next >
|
|
|
| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: [ijccr] Re: Extrapolating A+B Part 1 | | Date: | , October 1, 2005 22:28:29 (+0200) | | From: | cymric <cymric @.......nz>
|
I agree also because Douglas specifically mentioned interest in the B payments
but however I think that Martin meant the degree to which this ongoing argument
does.
However I agree that the amount of debt and interest overall has become a major
problem way beyond what was evident in the life time of Douglas.
What is necessary for those who fight our agument is to show that debt isnt
exponential over time. When money is being produced at about 300 to one and in
Douglas' day only ten to one I suggest they are pushing the proverbial uphill.
Your point one is consistent with the National Credits Authority.
Your point two is the equivalent to the removal of interest due to the return of
the Communities credit, the incement of association, the correct relationship
between the individual and organisation/systems, the control over policy and govt
administation to them through the National Credit Authority leaving just bank
fees.
You are correct that subsequently the money supply must shrink over time as the
productive system become functional from its dysfunction state due to banks using
the 'bottleneck' and 'scarsity' to grow their power over governemnts and
economies and waste eliminated and quality replacing built in absolescence etc
and will "mirror
accurately all wealth..." as it should and there will not be the need for
haording.
It is quite evident you have been reading Douglas.
Willim's argument is that if you dont reach perfection in the techicalities of
the dysfunctional systen you cannot understand Douglas. I understand that those
well educated in the orthodox systems generally cant get to grips with social
credit and the fact that William has been able to do so with both is a complement
to him However social credit is not economic theory but the policy of a
philosophy. A sliderule mentality leads to obfuscation of the fundamentals of
our metaphysical life. Lenin failed at trying to interpret the metaphysical life
via the sliderule and the result was untold horror that makes the 'holocaust' a
rained out picnic in comparison.
The A plus B is relatively simple and to go in search of the holy grail last
dollar of the gap or to try and exact every variable merely puts people off
the benefit of Dougals' genious. As I have said before there is the accademic
knowledge and intellect of Douglas which has proved quite exceptional and then
there is the X factor to match which I call wisdom. It was the two together that
made him a genious. There are times when the technical details of the systems
need to be clarified but the obsession with its perfection in order to uderstand
social credit is nonsense and the Douglas publications were for the public just
as the Social Credit magazines articles were not for an exclusive elite.
Douglas only went into the technical detail far enough to make it clear where
the current system was dysfunctional...fools rush in where angles fear to tread.
I appreciate you frustration over the indifference about the suffering today due
to the "mounting debt" to use a Douglas term, while we are being subjected to an
argument that effectively is based on the fact that if you took accounts of
business at random and looked at the items of expenses or liabilites labelled
"interest" and compared them to others there clearly is no outstanding
problem regards interest which then claims to be a reflection of reality.
Meanwhile corporate cannibalism and increasing centralisation, rationalisation
and restructuring, plundering of national resouces, sale of public sector assets,
'flexible labour policy' to drive wages down to poverty levels etc are driving
this world into a set of global monopolies which Lenin dreamed of achieving all
driven by this exponential debt needed to fund these actions and fill the
increasing gap. Which is why Marx and Lenin never attacked the central banking
systems because it was the greatest and most obfuscate force possible to achieve
their and the international bankers goals.
In a system based on reality the opposite of the debt growth would be happening
- incement of association from which we could all live substantially and
increasingly as people today can live off interest. How can you talk about the
one and deny its opposite?
Is it TRUE OR NOT that the A plus B theorem exposes the orthodoc system as
techincally disfunctional? Then how can we build a conception of reality (
physical and metaphysical) from a technical perfection of economic and accounting
practise ( pertaining to the physical)that is dysfunctional?
Well if A can pay for A plus B then of course we can hope to.
Peter H
"Marc Gauvin" <gauvin@wanadoo.es> wrote:
>
> I disagree, irrespective of the A+B theorem which I do not believe =
> exludes interest in my opinion it is expressed the way it is to avoid =
> confrontation with the establisment but at the same time includes =
> interest as a cost. Otherwise it would be ridiculous to expressly ignore
=
> it as it is a substantial liability.
>
> Now the point is that the imbalances addressed by the A+B theorem cannot
=
> exist if the the following principles are observed:
>
> 1) Money be created by issuing new money in the form of credit upon =
> presenting new collateral i.e. as it is today
> 2) That the entities responsble for keeping the accounts of credit and =
> debit operate interest free charging a competitve service charge =
> instead.
>
> If these two principles are observed there can never be a shortage of =
> money there can only be a decrease in money as a function of a decrease
=
> in total wealth or conversely an increase in money as a function of an =
> increase in wealth. But there can never be a shortage. Volume of money
=
> would mirror accurately all "wealth" created by humans i.e. anything =
> that one person will pay another person for which includes services, =
> capital wealth and intellectual property.
>
> Also, in a world without interest and free wealth based creation of =
> money the earners have no incentive to hoard and even if they did, =
> charging interest wouldn't solve the problem it would compound it.
>
> So, to ignore interest as a cost is an error and to not see that =
> interest is the axis of credit and therefore a deficit in purchasing =
> power is also an error. Now all the kids under 18 in the world that are
=
> struggling with 90 hour work weeks for 16 dollars a month these errors =
> are really expensive it could cost them a bicylce even a mattress for =
> their sister, oh it could also cost them their sibblings lives, but =
> what the hell we can afford to theorize and live high off the hog and =
> wonder whether charging interest matters.
>
> One day all those who chose to theorize at the expence of the needy ( I
=
> say this because this is serious stuff that is not to be talked about =
> lightly) will feel as Schindler felt when upon realizing that he was =
> bribing the Nazis for every life he saved from the gas chambers with his
=
> surplus fortune and that he hadn't given up enough i.e. he still lived =
> well. But those who clearly see the error of interest and proclaim it =
> are liberated because they saw the answer for everyone and anyone and =
> defended it without flinching and very importantly no matter the =
> consequences unleashed by those who would continue usury.
>
> Best,
>
> Marc
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Martin Hattersley
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 6:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [ijccr] Re: Extrapolating A+B Part 1
>
>
> The point is, that Douglas's A+B theorem deals with principal, not =
> interest, and shows a deficiency of purchasing power in the hands of =
> consumers quite apart from anything to do with the interest rate =
> charged. If interest on capital were zero, the deficiency of purchasing
=
> power would still exist wherever capital formation is financed by new =
> bank credit.
>
> Martin Hattersley
> 1970-10123-99 St.,
> EDMONTON AB CANADA
> e-mail: hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marc Gauvin
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 8:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [ijccr] Re: Extrapolating A+B Part 1
>
>
> Disagree all you want but the truth of the matter is that Banks do =
> not spend back the money they earn fast enough to compensate for the =
> difference between the demand created by principal + interest and the =
> correspondng amount of money in circulation. What is possible is that =
> the payment schedules are calculated in such a way that what is demanded
=
> is available given a constant growth in lending. However this is truly =
> unrealistic because in real life such would assume a perfect concert in
=
> lending between all banks. In any event when the volume of lending =
> slows, the timing required in schedules are affected with a tendency to
=
> manifest a deficit of money leading to a spike of debt failure.
>
> To say that this has nothing to do with A + B when prices of goods =
> have everything to do with A + B and credit availability and minimum =
> price thresholds have everything to do with outstanding liability per =
> economic cycle, is to have a very narrow vision of reality and of =
> Douglas.
>
> Marc
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Martin Hattersley
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 8:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [ijccr] Re: Extrapolating A+B Part
=
> 1
>
>
> I rather disagree with you.
>
> As Governor of the Bank of Canada Graham Towers once said "A Bank
=
> manufactures credit, just as a steel plant manufactures steel".
>
> The difference is that, because bank credit is in a sense =
> "pretend" money, it cannot be given away, only rented out, so that the =
> Bank charges for printing the tickets, and the community works to put on
=
> the performance.
>
> The idea that the "gap" between purchasing power and prices has =
> anything to do with bank interest is a red herring that has confused =
> explanations of Social Credit endlessly, including on this list. There =
> are moral reasons for saying usury is wrong, but they have nothing to do
=
> with Douglas's A+B analysis, which deals with principal, not interest.
>
> Martin Hattersley
> 1970-10123-99 St.,
> EDMONTON AB CANADA
> e-mail: hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marc Gauvin
> To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com ; socialcredit@elistas.com ; William =
> B. Ryan
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 9:12 AM
> Subject: [socialcredit] Re: [ijccr] Re: Extrapolating A+B Part 1
>
>
> But the banks do not spend back 100% of the money they take =
> in, therefore they do not compensate fully for the difference in the =
> spread between the +ve feedback on loans and the +ve feedback on =
> deposits. the interest function continues to make money scarcer than =
> the aggregate demand in the form of debt.
>
> Banking taken as a business is unlike any other business and =
> interest is unlike any other "price" on any other good in society. =
> Banking is power under the guise of being a business and the banking =
> sector shows this in being the only sector that in the aggregate thrives
=
> both during economic crisis and economic boom. It is the only oligarchy
=
> that doesn't require ownership of a unique resource to establish itself,
=
> it is an oligarchy that establishes itself by making a concept i.e. =
> promissory notes a scarce commodity. It does so through the combination
=
> of a unique recipe where layman ignorance, circumstance, psychology, =
> hope, desire, honour and fear are combined with social convention in a =
> dynamic that transcends the grasp of most of their fellow human beings.
>
> The banking system is one that starts the cycle of damage =
> while monopolizing the means to address suffering. The banking system =
> is scourge the result of a tremendous error in history the error of =
> applying exponential control loops as a control of a complex system. It
=
> was initiated when the potential to grow out and beyond the limits of =
> its unjust demands existed and when the consequences of exponential =
> control loops where not known. We are now in an age where systems =
> theory has developed to the point that banking systems and their faulty
=
> design represent elementary examples of folly.
>
> What is not simple and herein lies the challenge, is the =
> tremendous psychological hold exponential debt money has once it has =
> become as ingrained and fundamental part of the workings of all aspects
=
> of society. Nonetheless, the cause of the nightmare remains deceptively
=
> simple.
>
> Interest is +ve feedback and it affects our behaviour in a =
> destabilizing way and if we do not free ourselves of it we are likely =
> not going to survive.
>
> Best,
>
> Marc
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William B. Ryan
> To: ijccr@yahoogroups.com ; socialcredit@elistas.com
> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 6:11 PM
> Subject: [ijccr] Re: Extrapolating A+B Part 1
>
>
> "But the interest paid by the banks is much less than
> that exacted on loans..."
> ------------------------
> --------------------------
>
> It is less but there are also ordinary business
> disbursements from banks for salaries, utilities, etc.
> plus dividends to stockholders. Net interest received
> is merely the gross profit from which expenses are
> deducted.
> -
>
> "...and you have not accounted for the fact that
> lending is the only source of new money to pay
> yesterday's interest."
> ------------------------
> --------------------------
>
> It is also the "only source of new money" to pay
> yesterday's phone bill, yesterday's utility bill, and
> yesterday's wage bill.
>
> The flux and reflux of loan principal is something
> different than transfer payments from one party to
> another in ordinary transactions; they are
> conceptually in different categories.
>
> The banker as businessman is in the second category
> when he receives interest or makes payments from his
> income; he keeps his books like any other businessman
> and must cover his checks while operating his business
> with the intention of making a profit, like any other
> businessman.
>
> The socialist is dead wrong but less wrong than the
> tunnel-visioned monetary reformer; he sees the problem
> in profit, the "evil" to be eradicated.
>
> M -> C -> M + P; his version of the paradox is posed
> thusly: If the capitalist spends M with the intention
> of getting back M + P, from where does P arise?
>
> His more generally stated but only slightly less
> simplistic solution: Abolish profit.
>
> The socialist expresses his utter contempt for the
> monetary reformer who says abolish interest only, for
> the socialist more correctly recognizes, if only
> slightly, that interest is merely a subcategory of
> profit.
>
> In either case, the "solution" is the spanner in the
> works of the market economy.
>
> And with the spanner goes the hope for economic
> democracy.
> -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Marc Gauvin <gauvin@wanadoo.es> wrote:
>
> William,
>
> But the interest paid by the banks is much less than
> that exacted on loans and you have not accounted for
> the fact that lending is the only source of new money
> to pay yesterday's interest.
>
> Best,
>
> Marc
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: ijccr@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: ijccr-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: ijccr-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: ijccr-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> IJCCR website: http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/ijccr
>
>
>
|
Reply to this message