|
Without trying to bring down any 'new controversy',
or add to any old ones, how in the world can the NZ Democrats be ''bound by
constitution to the Douglas analysis and the National dividend" WITHOUT also
having a 'compensated price discount'? Is that analysis not
primarily concerned with 'consumer' incomes and their relationship with
'consumer' prices, or am I missing something in my reading of Douglas and
others on here and elsewhere who've been interpreting him?
Seems to me you're not trying to "build up, from
the individual", but rather "down, from the State". Why not look
at and offer what the man originally proposed? If you're determined
to go the 'politcal party' route could you do any worse with the electorate
by that than in going the way you've gone? Why do you people so
'fear' the empowerment of 'consumers', and yet profess to believe that
'democracy' is the ability of the individual to "choose or refuse one thing at a
time"? Or is that 'one thing at a time' as envisioned by the
Democrats drawn from a list of things only pre-selected by the
annointed?
And where is the difference between the
'government' using the central bank to finance some of its expenditure, and
private industry borrowing from private banks to finance theirs? Do not
both 'inflate' the money supply and dilute the general purchasing power by
raising prices of 'consumer' goods almost exactly the same way? Oh, I
know, you're going to save "all that awful interest", and that just makes it so
worthwhile. But can't you see you're trading a smaller problem
for a bigger one? How long will it be after the 'infrastructure' that
might be necessary and desirable to have is completed before the purpose of that
'infrastructure' will be perverted into the all-too-familiar, "Now if we only
financed another hydro scheme, port facility, railway, whatever, the same
way, just look at the potential for 'capturing' new 'export' markets and
all the 'jobs' we could create. Not to mention how much 'easier' it will
be to pay for what we've already done"? Where does that ever end?
Are you not right back to 'guns before butter'? Where is the
"Douglas analysis'' you're ''constitutionally bound to" in that
regard?
And what difference does it make how much of the
money supply is in 'notes and coins' versus electronic blips that transfer
figures from one account to another everytime someone uses a debit card or
receives their income by direct deposit? The 'money' in your account and
accessible to you that way is no different than coin or cash in your pocket
providing it will be accepted as effective demand for goods and
services. And is it not that 'effective demand' we should be concerned
with? And does not that 'effective demand' have as much to do with
CONSUMER PRICES as it does with distributing incomes?
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:16
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to
John Rawson 1
Thanks Martin. And also thanks (belatedly) for the material in your
submissions which I consider brilliant.
Our NZ Democrats are bound by constitution to the Douglas analysis and the
national dividend concept, but have never really adopted the price
discount one. And contrary to Douglas, we consider that so little modern
money is notes and coins (M0) that it is the government's duty to use central
bank credit for some of its expenditure, if only to restore a past status
quo. As was done very successfully by our 1935 Labour govt. before that
Party lost its principles.
I am not seeking to bring a whole new controversy down on my head (again)
by noting this; just stating our current thinking for your
information.
Regards. John R.
From: Martin Hattersley
<hattersleyjm@interbaun.com>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying
to John Rawson 1
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:21:21
-0700
>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
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>johngrawson@hotmail.com
>For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Read the latest Hollywood gossip at XtraMSN
Entertainment
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
