Hello Joe, I am being forced to consider
that I may be wasting my time trying to reason with you , for the benefit
of other parties interested in improving their understanding
of how the financial system currently functions, and could be made to
function for humanity for a change; or to help sort out your own
misconceptions of the whole subject. If I stop responding it will indicate
that I should put my time into less frustrating and more
deny ever saying that the privately owned banks could create credit out of
nothing as their own private property; with the inference that if you
didn't say it, then it must be wrong. Whether or not you said it is
irrelevant. It is an indisputable fact that, within traditions and
conventions the banks accept in return for being allowed to continue it,
this is precisely what is happening now, world wide. Just look at
any English language Monetary Commission Report, or books by John
Kenneth Galbraith, or any credible 20th financial authority, and you should
be able to see it in words you can understand.
Galbraith's comments on this legal scam, after explaining it, was that its
simplicity "repels the mind". Yes people like you have difficulty
took me up on my suggestion that instead of developing African countries
getting IMF loans, they should use their own nationalised bank, like
N.Z. did from 1935 onwards. As if to negate my suggestion, you
asked: "What would they spend the money on?" Let me answer
that with a currently functioning example.
some good intentioned friends who have not yet woken up to the way the debt
finance system works, and every year they make donations through World Vision
to help rural communities in impoverished areas like
Uganda. In this example, the women were having to carry water vessels on
their heads for 3 miles each day to supply their family
needs. My friends made a donation of $100- so that
a well could be dug in the middle of the village. So how did it work
friends' bank account in NZ had $100- deducted out of it,
ostensibly to go over seas. But instead, a document referred to as a
"T.T." was emailed to a bank in Uganda, saying what had happened in
NZ. This on current conventions, and on agreed "Exchange Rates" set daily
by the international banking fraternity, allowed a bank in Uganda to
credit the World Vision Account there with the equivalent in their
currency of NZD$100-. It was irrelevant whether the friends'
bank account was in overdraft or not. By convention, money cancelled out
of an account in one country by a bank, can have another bank in another country
create an equivalent amount , and credit it to an account
there, to maintain the illusion that an international transfer has taken
place, when it has not done so.
the World Vision Bank Account has figures representing money in its account with
Bank X in Uganda. In line with their good intentions and promises their
project Manager negotiates for the purchase of some locally produced
shovels, buckets, etc, and then for several of the local layabouts to do some
useful work for a change over the next several weeks. In due
course, praise be to Allah,
women are saved their daily 2 hour water carrying drudgery visiting the
next village's well, because they have their own. They can now
put extra time into being mothers and teachers, working like humans
instead of beasts of burden.
case the lesson in this example went over anyone's head, I will
stress its unarguable implications. The tools made in the city had been
waiting in a trader's
for months, waiting for a buyer with enough money to pay for
them. The idle youths and fathers engaged to do the
digging did not have work since they came home from being insurgents in a
private army, which instead of paying them allowed them to take whatever
they could from their "enemies" or the government and who could
blame them ? World Vision sent photos of the new well, and had
them printed in their newsletters, to make my friends feel really
this incident makes me feel sad , not good. The story shows the
absolute hypocrisy of our so-called civilization when, in propping up the
charade of the existing debt finance system for the benefit of its
super rich shareholders, whole governments and international
organisations (which should know better) take part in, and support, a legal
racket, rather than share knowledge of how even poverty stricken
communities can use their own, idle resources, to live like human beings
rather than animals. For anyone who doesn't think I answered Joe's
to it is: Credit or money created by an administration in Uganda to
match available productive resources and capacity there (currently laying
idle) can be spent on employing those resources, for the benefit of everyone
concerned; with the sole exception of the international debt
Joe's attached argument he is antagonistic to nationalized, centralized
banking; but says that he supports socialized and decentralised
credit to consumers. This could include , by a stretch of the imagination,
a network of Green Dollar schemes, though if he were seriously
suggesting that I would have to say that on the basis of history it's a
virtual dead duck. While I accept they can and do take the edge off
hardships in communities with high unemployment and existing in harsh
financial conditions, when they are efficiently run, with only rare exceptions,
every time that any green dollar exchange has developed to the point of looking
like threatening the dominance of commercial banks, the professional debt
merchants' club, pressure is brought on the "government" to
stamp them out; and so that is exactly what happens. In the well
documented Worgyl City example, the Mayor was openly threatened with jail
if he allowed the practice to continue.
in an attempt to prop up Joe's argument about the "untrustability" of
politicians and governments , he asserts that it is a fallacy that any
citizens can have any control over their governments. (Penultimate
paragraph.) Then he cites the charades of referendums in California
, as props. Those spectacles simply demonstrate how far down
the slide towards corporate fascism that country really is. Anything
else is just a joke for well governed people to laugh at, while marvelling at
how misinformed some otherwise educated humans can be - when it suits big
business to keep them that way. The Swiss Initiative is apparently a taboo
subject, that has to be avoided at all costs.
years back I was in Los Angeles as part of a Trade Mission in the lead up
to a referendum about restricting smoking in public places. I could
neither listen to radio or TV for more than a few minutes without getting
earbashed about "A Yes vote is a vote for Communism. It is a step
towards a dictatorship !" I hoped in vain for someone to
counterbalance that by reminding listeners about how many thousand Americans
died annually from the consequences of side smoke, but there wasn't a
word about that. Naturally, the tobacco TNC's won
there, BUT in Switzerland behaviour like that would see the TNC's
lined up as criminals.
Swiss protocols have the proponents on both sides of each issue summarise
it factually and fairly, and then at state expense provide every voter ,
even their nationals overseas, with both sides of every issue,
and as a consequence, there is a pattern of clear, sensible decisions. God
help any corporate which decides to buy brainwashing time and
publicity to skew the results......Mature democracy
Joe's contention that my support for
national , rather than private, credit creation , means I
would be supporting Mugabe's dictatorship, reads
like nastiness born of desperation, and I see no reason why I
should not respond. I have relatives and their friends, some of whom are
still in Zimbabwe. All were there while it was revered as "The breadbasket
of Africa", even through years of the misguided U.N. Sanctions, at the
behest of do-gooders who were just ignorant rabble rousers. That
Rhodesia managed to survive and prosper , under
N.Z'er Ian Smith, was remarkable, and with a decent break from the rest of
the world would now be one of the continent's most civilized
states. But your country and the U.N. backed Mugabe,
and they have been going down the drain ever since, so how dare you
suggest that any of my philosophy helped establish one of the world's worst
raised questions about the mechanics of "decentralised credit
creation" and asked you to explain them. Instead, you side stepped
and said to read the book on C H Douglas by Hughes, and "be
surprised by the answers". So I have zipped through it again,
and guess what ? Instead of it supporting your peculiar
referred to by you as decentralized, socialised
credit creation, it does the opposite.
quotes Douglas himself on Pages 133 + 134, in his reconstruction recommendations
, having to "secure access to the Public Credit," and then "the strategy
to secure that control" , obviously acknowledging that the banks would not
part easily with their privilege of credit creation. It continues
more specifically to recommend the establishment of a "Credit
Institution" under Canadian Banking Acts, to handle and "give access to
the creation of effective demand through the credit system".
Effective demand is commonly used as an alternative to the
clumsier and more accurate description of "money of any kind,
whether as legal tender, credit or debt, or credit figures in bank
Current Accounts". Usually "M1".
Such should make it even clear to Joe that
Douglas recognises that the only practical location for
creating credit is at the level of the major administration, and provides no
support for it to be done around the place , where if the metaphor
can be forgiven it would become like a dog's
My comments end here. Don B.
I've a bit more time this
evening than I did this morning before work, so I'd like to come back to some
of the points you make below. I'll interject my comments in 'green' to
make this (hopefully) easier to follow.
(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
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
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
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
"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.
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'.
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
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.
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
(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
Cheers to the other participants.