| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] RE: [NZ_Banking_Reform] Re: [socialcredit] RE: NOT TRUE(02) - the world is in the same boat. thecure is vigorously use democracy. | | Date: | Sunday, October 16, 2005 14:14:27 (-0700) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
Hello Henry, and John, and all,
Thanks very much for your reply, Henry. It is much appreciated. I have
the greatest respect for Vic Bridger and the continued efforts he's making
to promote Social Credit in Australasia and worldwide. A subject of which
I'm sure he has one of the best understandings of anyone alive today.
That being said, part of John Rawson's response which I enclose below,
encapsulates the question that troubles me. Still. John said, and I quote
:- "As I understand it, Douglas advocated attacking the "monopoly" of
credit creation by allowing the Credit Authority also to create money and to
use it in sensible ways to overcome the shortage of purchasing power due to
the system. If he anywhere gave a mechanism for taking the creation of
money completely away from the banks, that is what I am asking you to quote.
Complete with where the hell the banks are going to get the money they will
lend, because we know they can NOT lend their deposits."
The words *completely away* in John's second sentence above are what I have
a concern with. For I, as I imagine does he, do not really see the "how" of
the alternative, i.e., vesting ALL new credit creation in a National Credit
Authority would work towards ENDING the ''monopoly of Credit", (though it
would most certainly end it in regards to 'private banking' ~ something
which, in my opinion, very much needs to be ended).
Rather, I believe it would just TRANSFER that 'monopoly' to the NCA. And
the NCA, while it will be an agency of 'Government', (as are most country's
central Banks), is still not ''the People" as the community from whom
'credit' arises, and to whom it really belongs
. Personally, I still do not think such a 'transfer' is quite what Douglas
envisioned in restoring 'credit' and its control to its rightful 'owners'.
(Though, as I tried to convey in my earlier post, my mind IS open on the
subject.)
This is but one of the problems I see with such a proposal. In the closing
pages of Douglas's second book, "Credit-Power and Democracy", (which
unfortunately I don't have immediately at hand right now ~ I've been
re-reading it in the office at work yesterday, in between customers ~ but I
will, if necessary, find the exact quote later), Douglas talks favorably
about the encouragement of individual initiative and inventiveness in
private enterprise.
Part of what is necessary for that 'individual initiative' to flourish is
access to 'credit'. As it stands at present, I or anyone else, as an
entrepreneur, have a multiplicity of sources from which financial 'credit'
might be accessed. If I approach one bank, seeking a loan for some new
project I am certain will succeed, and for some reason am turned down, or
not presented with borrowing terms and conditions I find favourable, I can
take my business elsewhere. No 'ONE' private bank has a 'monopoly of credit'
in this aspect of their operations. Not yet, anyways.
And I don't think we'd have to search very far for examples of many
successful enterprises making many of the most familiar and now seemingly
'necessary' products we know today, that, in their formative period, were
turned down for financing from one, (or more), banks, only to finally secure
it elsewhere.
Now what would happen if the 'private banks' were reduced to the status of
'on-lenders', and had to seek permission to make a loan to a 'producer' or
'potential producer' from the NCA? Aside from being an easily envisioned
bureaucratic nightmare of inefficiency, the NCA, would in fact, become an
all-powerful entity, would it not? Is that the role Douglas envisioned for
it? At present, I think not. And where, in all of Douglas's writings, of
which I believe I've now seen most, does he call for the NCA (or its
equivalent), to get involved in deciding which PRODUCERS are to get loans
and which ones are not? This is what, if it exists, I would like to see,
directly from Douglas himself.
It is my understanding that the NCA is concerned with determining and
issuing appropriate CONSUMER credits, in the form of the National Dividend
and the Compensated Price Discount. And that's it. This is to be the way
that CONSUMERS, all of us in 'society', are to be credited with the benefits
of aggreagate 'capital appreciation' which is rightfully ours as a result of
our ongoing unearned increment of association and cultural heritage. And
that, further, each cost accountancy cycle can finally be made fully
financially 'self-liquidating' in any society with on-going 'labour
displacement' through technological progress..
Further, Swanwick principle number two, "new credits" for production, rather
than from "savings", are, to my knowledge, simply conventional 'bank loans'
from private banks. Not loans to PRODUCERS from the NCA 'through' the banks.
When CONSUMERS are so credited, and when the cycle IS fully
'self-liquidating', the private bank's ability to effect POLICY through
their present "Monopoly of Credit" will be ended. Beyond that, while like
any natural 'monopoly', I believe they should most certainly be 'regulated'
in the public interest, and subjected to some other very necessary changes,
I still fail to see where restricting them to being 'on-lenders' will be
necessary.
We, in British Columbia, as have others in Western Canada, have long been
subjected to similar effects such a policy might bring about. The large,
eastern Canadian controlled chartered Banks have long kow-towed to
'centralized' lending 'policies' determined in their head-offices far
removed from this region. This has been, to us, an equivalent of sorts to
'on-lending'. And an ongoing, though now diminished, (because there are now
some Banks headquartered here or in western Canada), source of discontent
here as long as I can remember. Many a period of local 'prosperity' was
brought to an abrupt halt by a 'centralized' restriction of 'credit'
initiated elsewhere. It was the main reason given for BC's former 'Social
Credit' League Government to seek the chartering of a Bank of British
Columbia, which would have operated as a conventional bank, only attuned to
BC conditions first.. The situation in New Zealand may indeed be different,
though in my opinion to vest any "Authority", public or private, with such
'absolute' power over ALL credit creation is not something I can easily
imagine Douglas being for.
Best wishes,
Joe Thomson
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message