| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Replying to John Rawson 1 | | Date: | Friday, November 4, 2005 16:21:21 (-0700) | | From: | Martin Hattersley <hattersleyjm @.........com>
|
I think you are right, that "100% money" doesn't really provide a practical
way of making the economy work in an optimum way.
The problem is that "The cunning device That all costs enter price Ensures
that the price can't be paid".
That is the argument for a Just Price discount, paid for from an external
source, such as newly created "fiat" money.
The essence of the problem identified in the A+B theorem is that capital
spending, if fiinanced by borrowing new bank credit, leads to the community
paying, through inflation, for the privately owned asset so created. A Just
Price discount, which can be administered with no more difficulty than
existing sales taxes, would repay the community for this sacrifice when new
production comes on the market, and correct any inflation of prices that has
taken place.
As I see the present situation, monetary policy of providing very low rates
to borrowers to encourage investment, is promoting excessive capital
development at the expense of the ecology, also speculation and continuous
inflation. This distributes incomes through employment on capital projects,
but leave a trail of debt, a concentration of economic power, and a growing
gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" both domestically and between
nations.
Not good.
Martin Hattersley
1970-10123-99 St. Edmonton AB Canada
Phone (780)423-2081; Fax (780)425-5247
e-mail: jmartinh@shaw.ca;
hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to John Rawson 1
> Hatterley's proposal was based on Frederick Soddy's
> one hundred percent reserve proposal, called "pound
> for pound" in Britain and "dollar for dollar" in
> America. It was also called the "Chicago Plan." It
> was precisely this proposal that Douglas was correctly
> arguing against in his 1933 letter to Denis Byrne
> previously cited:
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium/douglas-byrne-1933.txt
>
> In a true one hundred percent reserve system there
> could be no loans.
>
> What is usually called one hundred percent is a legal
> fiction where one hundred percent reserves are
> required against "checking" deposits, and something
> less than one hundred percent are required against
> "saving" deposits, or some variation thereof.
>
> So something less than one hundred percent is required
> against the totality of deposits.
>
> The difference between the quantity of reserves and
> the quantity of deposits is inevitably bank created
> credit, whatever you want to call it.
>
> Loans create deposits; there's no getting around it.
>
> Period.
>
> What you would have in reality is a system perhaps
> more tightly regulated that the one we have today, but
> still very much fractional reserve.
>
> Otherwise, no modern economy could function.
>
>
>
> --- John G Rawson <johngrawson@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Joe, surely you know the "line" of the orthodox
> economists as well as I do. "All inflation is a
> result of too much money ....". They admit to the
> phenomenon of cost push inflation, but then proceed to
> ignore it. Even now, when we have inflated prices
> caused by high oil costs, our RB (and I think others)
> are considering the ridiculous remedy of raising
> interest rates to control the volume of money in
> crculation. But, of course, increased interest rates
> tend to increase bank earnings, and the central banks
> tend to serve the banks, not the nations.
>
> But apart from all these asides, what I am looking
> for, IF we decide to take away from the banks the
> right to create our money, (as the Movement has
> preached loudly in this country from when I was a
> child), HOW can we do it?
>
> And despite some opinions, obviously it CAN NOT be
> done by manipulating reserve ratios, which, when
> applied, relate to deposits, not advances. (For once
> I am trying to be very precise, for the benefit of
> those who persist in avoiding the main point and
> picking up side issues.) I still think the Hattersley
> (apologies for previous mis-spelling) approach is the
> only reasonable one I have encountered yet.
>
> Regards, John R.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161 - Release Date: 11/3/2005
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message