| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: [ijccr] Re: Extrapolating A+B Part 1 | | Date: | Saturday, October 1, 2005 10:17:36 (-0700) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
[Gauvin] 2) That the entities responsible for keeping
the accounts of credit and debit operate interest free
charging a competitive service charge instead.
-----------------------------------
------------------------------------
To help you explain the difference between
"competitive service charge" and "interest" beyond the
fact that the same concept is expressed by three words
in the one, and one word in the other, perhaps you
will answer the following questions:
1. Describe how the "competitive service charge" is
determined?
2. Who makes that determination?
3. How is that person chosen and who appoints him?
3. Let's say $1000 is borrowed for one year, and X is
deemed to be the "competitive service charge" for that
one year by the person who makes that determination.
Ceteris paribus, what is the "competitive service
charge" for a term of a) ten years; b) one hundred
years; and c) one thousand years?
-
By the way, the "entities responsible for keeping the
accounts of debit and credit" falsely infers that
banking is analogous to the bookkeeper of a firm who
tracks interdepartmental transactions within the firm.
Banking does not nor has ever performed that
function.
I take that back: That's how banking in the old Soviet
Union worked, I assume you did not know.
--- 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
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message