| Subject: | [socialcredit] Re: Replying to Peter--The Dance of the Crackpots | | Date: | , September 27, 2005 13:30:44 (+0200) | | From: | cymric <cymric @.......nz>
|
Obviously knowledge of maths and economics has nothing to do with the skills of
tutoring.
No point in overkill by contemptious insults when your behaviour is not in
contract to the definition you publish with relish.
My mind isnt closed to Douglas, try quoting him instead of Ryan for a change.
If you intend to tutor on Douglas then do it by using his works direct.
You would prefer to quote Eric Hoffer, and its your free will that you make
these choices.
You will never have a meaningful discussion by demeanful talking down at people.
There is no point in boasting everyone can see that the modern economy needs
interest when Douglas proposes to replace the banks money and their interest, and
pompously claim I dont know anything and you do. Since when was popular thinking
the way forward anyway?
You seem more interested in defending the banks than Douglas.
Regards the piece you chose to quote and make comment on, I made refernce to the
specific issue Douglas was speaking to there and it wasnt hoarding although he
did go on to refer to those you mentioned. If he wanted the reader to know about
hoarding he would have said so. He was referring to the system affording the
players ( businesses) to all ( hopefully ) gain a profit and the increasing
money supply was necessary for that since the gap needed filling in order for
this to happen through likewise the consumer abtaining what he produced.
The reference I made to the arithmetic model was based on the comment Joe made
that it was about the same volumn of lending being retained or in other words and
I said I couldnt find your original detail to confirm this so I went on what Joe
said. It wasnt a perfect fit but the conditions were similar but obviously the
notion I had taken wasnt a correct fit either.
I have recognised there are some very different mindsets interacting here
regards how things are looked at and I fail to understand how you have obviously
failed to notice.
The developments in the world since the seventies till now reaching a very
critical stage needs more than double entry bookkeeping and basic A plus B. I
believe the banking system has survived longer than Douglas gave it credit for,
but he probably didnt expect such costs prepared to go to to articifially prolong
it. Debt and its impact, including interest is like nothing Douglas witnessed
and to trivisalise it rather than move on from 1960s will likely bring the crank
and time frozen criticism from those who see what is causing crimes against
humanity today.
There were perspective I hinted to in the material I chose to put together and
no doubt in a somewhat unorthodox fashion which I have no doubt you missed
altogether but because my mind functions different from yours I am a crank. I
quite enjoy seeing things from unusual perspectives and I would prefer to stay
that way than be a sieve with one hole.
Douglas said that it wasnt what we had in common that was the most important but
what made us different. If you have a superlative grasp on the
financial-economic side, fine, congradulations and good on you but for your
information it is the lesser part of social credit.
Peter H
"William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Peter, firstly, you cannot fully understand Douglas
> without a similar educational background to his, in
> mathematics and economics--whether self-taught or
> otherwise. Most of us however are capable of
> comprehending the key points if properly tutored.
>
> Secondly, you will never understand Douglas if your
> mind is closed to new perspectives; that is to say, if
> you are the psychological type that I spoke of.
>
> The ordinary person with good sense acknowledges that
> interest is a necessary thing to the modern economy,
> although he may not be able to quite explain why.
>
> The crackpot is quite certain that he knows the pure
> and absolute truth, though it may be the opposite of
> what the person with ordinary good sense believes, he
> can explain exactly why he is right and everybody else
> in the whole world is wrong.
>
> He is what Eric Hoffer called the "true believer."
>
> The true believer can believe in anything that he
> happens almost by chance to latch upon, and will hold
> to his belief quite tenaciously, regardless of the
> preponderance of evidence to the contrary. Whether
> monetary crankism, communism, or the belief we are the
> victims of a conspiracy of three-eyed Martians.
>
> It is not possible to have a meaningful discussion
> with such a person.
|
Re: Replying to Pe
Reply to this message