| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Replying to John Rawson 1 | | Date: | Sunday, November 6, 2005 09:01:20 (+0000) | | From: | John G Rawson <johngrawson @.......com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3008 (written by Joe Thomson) |
Sorry, Joe, not biting. All I was doing was stating fact. It seems nobody
has ever convinced the Party of the practicability of the price discount in
action, and that includes me.
Regards. John R.
From: Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Replying to John Rawson 1
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 08:49:18
-0800
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Need a new job? Check out XtraMSN Careers
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message