(Don Bethune wrote:-)
Yes I was the author of a response to one of your list
letters which had some uncomplimentary comments about your shallow line of
reasoning, which among other things, apparently supported the privately owned
international banking complex being allowed to create M1 (National Money
Supplies) out of nothing as their own private property, because in a
70 year old letter C.H. Douglas had written that politicians could not
be trusted.
(Joe replies:-) I don't recall the post to which you
refer, Don. Nor do I remember ever saying that I supported the idea that private banks
should create money "out of nothing as their own private property" .
I do recall replying to a piece you wrote once
which suggested that the Central Banks of various impoverished African
nations could create their own money interest-free rather than borrowing
funds from the international banking system. I think you were comparing
them to New Zealand's experience in the 1930's, and my response was to ask
just what were any of these countries to do with this newly-created
money.
Since it seems obvious to me that unlike even New Zealand in
those times, there is virtually no existing 'industrial system' there
capable of providing goods and services for them to spend all this
money on to self-develop themselves into the 21st century. And it would
not be accepted in exchange for goods from abroad, nor
another developed country's currency, and especially not if
the African nation's Central Bank was just going to keep printing
more of it.
Have you ever heard of Zimbabwe, Don? And that's
one that WAS (once, as Rhodesia) more developed than most, until Comrade Bob
destroyed everything seventy year's of 'colonialism' had built up.
Maybe you should send him a donation, so he can keep using his Central Bank as
you suggested. Last I heard Zimbabwean currency notes cost
more in paper and ink to print than they were
worth.
How you misconstrued what I was getting at into the above is
quite beyond me. For the record, I do NOT support the idea of
banks claiming the credit they create as their private
property. It is not their private property.
(Don
continues:-) In material written for publication , which has
a completely different status, he (Douglas)emphasized several times that before a
Social Credit economy could be introduced it would be necessary to get control
of "the money power", and if that doesn't mean retaking
control of the sovereign right to create credit, then I don't know what
else it could mean.
(Joe replies:-) Ah, yes, "Control of the Money Power".
Well, Don, here's what Douglas had to say about that. Some of his
latter-day thoughts, that were gathered together in "The Development of World
Dominion" and re-published after his death. I'm sure you, as
a student of 'Social Credit", must have read it. And I quote:-
"It is as sensible‑neither more nor less‑to speak of
the necessity of restoring the control of currency and credit to the
Government" as to speak of "the necessity of restoring the control of
wheat‑growing to the Government". Mr. Mackcnzie‑King, in his much quoted and
significant speech at Saskatoon in
1935, knew exactly what he was saying when he used those words, because he had
been told. The control of currency and credit has been in the hands of the
“Canadian Government" as well as of the "British Government" for nearly ten
years. And where we are is where it has got us, and Bretton Woods is where we
are going.
What matters both about money and wheat is: who gets
it, and on what terms. It should hardly be necessary to refer again to the
fallacy that individuals of the general public have any control over the
Government, either directly, or through "their" Members of Parliament, and
Bretton Woods is explicitly above Governments.
(The Social Crediter Jan. 26,
1946)
Need more be said? Or shall I find some other pertinent
quotes from the earlier body of his writings? I don't want to give you
anything too 'dated'.
(Don
continues:-) From a slightly different angle, if the state
does not acquire credit emission rights, what sort of a circus do you
think would erupt if the Minister of Finance approached the commercial
banks (not state Reserve Bank) with a request along these lines:
"Okay you guys, our "Z" million citizens have
accumulated a deficiency of purchasing power in period
"X" amounting to "Y" million dollars and they need that
creating and refunding to them , preferably via shops they deal with;
but we realise that may be impracticable. Maybe you would
rather
credit it to their
personal accounts. How would you like to share round that credit
creating and distributing responsibility, or should our government call
for tenders to see which of your commercial banks could do
it cheapest ?"
(Joe replies:-) "Major Douglas: The Policy of a Philosophy", an
excellent book by the late John Hughes, printed in Canada very recently, (and
which I seem to recall seeing you either enquire about, or place an order
for), has an Appendix which contains the testimony of Major Douglas before the
MacMillan Commission. If you read that, you'll find almost your exact
question has been asked, and answered there. I won't spoil it for you by
re-quoting what's said here, but I will tell you the answer will surprise
you.
(Don
continues:-) Apparently the type of democracy you tolerate is no more
trustworthy now than in the days of C.H. Douglas, and yet Switzerland
has had a whole century of people power enjoying complete control
over their politicians and parliament, and you have the audacity to question
my education.
(Joe replies:-) Were you educated in Switzerland,
Don? Ever live there? No, I'm not trying to be facetious.
It's probably as you say. But how 'big' is Switzerland? About
the size of Vancouver Island, where I live? Maybe we could make it
work, too. But in a unit the size of British Columbia as a whole?
Or the Dominion of Canada, as a whole? You get it going in New Zealand, and tell me how you make
out.
(Don continues:-) The Social
Credit movement in N.Z. set in motion the movement to achieve
Proportional Representation (PR) , and its success has already fractured
the absolute dominance of Parliament by the two party club; and is
philosophically supporting the BCIR initiative, on the Swiss
pattern. It is progressing.
Why are you not
supporting these initiatives , instead of undermining and causing
confusion about what most monetary reformers accept as conditions precedent
for the introduction of people's democracy and a Social Credit
economy?
(Joe replies:-) Don, you look at Switzerland for
a BCIR example. People here look at Washington State and California,
where it also exists. I don't think they particularly like what they
see. I've written on this before, so I feel I'd be going over
territory already covered to dwell on it to any extent. In principle,
I'm not rejecting the idea of BCIR. In fact I do think there's a place
for it in determining certain
issues, and as a sanction. But it can be abused, just like any other
system. There is a 'grey area' in the determination of what should be in
the realm of 'policy', and that which should be in the one of
'administration', sometimes. That concerns me. As
does the fact that some issues to be decided are not just "either-or"
propositions, and there's no opportunity for a practical, workable compromise
as might be arrived at through debate in a Legislature.
(Don continues:-) In your present situation , I am forced to
conclude that you are doing much more harm to the cause of monetary reform in
general, and Social Credit in particular, than any good. You
would be doing both movements a good turn if you completely
disconnected. Why not openly help the Money Power instead of
just doing it by recycling confusion to this list
?
(Joe replies:-) And this from someone who once sent out to me as
a prize package some books purportedly on "Social Credit", one of which says
that, "the national dividend will be financed through TAXATION" !!!! I
thank you, again, as I did before, for the books.
Fortunately, I knew enough to realize that wasn't correct. But what
of someone being introduced to the subject for the first time?
Confusion, Don? You talk about the 'intellectual horsepower " of C.
Marshall Hattersley. And I agree. Like his son, Martin, Mr.
Hattersley, Sr. was obviously able to expound very well many Social
Credit concepts. And was also gentleman enough to note clearly in
one of the other books I received in that package, one he'd
authored, just where his ideas might not be in agreement with those of Major
Douglas. (And I don't believe they were.) Now that's decency of a
nature I can appreciate. But what I do not appreciate is where
someone knowingly promotes something Douglas would be aghast at as "Social
Credit". That not only dishonors the man himself, but those who would
pervert his ideas to promote entirely different purposes and
objectives. If you want 'monetary reform' where the 'government', for
whatever purposes, controls all credit creation, fine. But why not be
honest about it and call it something else, for it clearly is not
''social credit".
Cheers to the other participants.
Don B
Same
Joe T
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Re: THE MONEY PO
Reply to this message
