| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Replying to John Rawson 1 | | Date: | Wednesday, November 9, 2005 04:02:44 (+0000) | | From: | John G Rawson <johngrawson @.......com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3022 (written by Martin Hattersley) |
Thanks, Martin. You are entirely correct about there being little cost in
running a discount scheme, if it is to have no price-controlling mechanism built
in. There sijmply remains the question whether it would control cost inflation
through businesses trying to increase their profits through higher and higher
prices.
Naturally one of the best ways of putting purchasing power into the hands of
people would be through tax reductions. All such measures would depend on what
we can honestly estimate the "gap" at, when we have the means of doing that. And
with the likely increase in the economy generally under a SC regime, even that
almost certainly would have to be done cautiously and by trial and error.
Meanwhile, we here would replace our 15% GST with an automatic financial
transactions tax on all withdrawals from bank accounts. Since it would apply
not only to production but also to the much bigger speculative industries,
we reckon a levy at 1% or (possibly much) less would more than cover it. And do
away with the compliance costs of accounting sums in and out of the cycle at each
stage, which are probably nearly as big as the tax itself. Once again, I am not
introducing this for discussion, because someone will certainly comment,
correctly, that this has nothing to do with Social Credit. Apart from the
philosophy, anyway.
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: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:33:04
-0700
I can't see why administration of a "Just Price" mechanism should seem so
complicated. Most countries already have in place a mechanism for collecting some
sort of Sales Tax, VAT or GST - whatever you want to call it. Surely, it would
not be so difficult to reduce the rate of tax, or even make it a negative amount,
in accordance with economic conditions. This would have the effect of reducing
prices automatically. In Canada, our GST is one of the most unpopular taxes
around, and abolishing it would be politically very popular as long as people
believed that the process being used was economically sound.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to John Rawson 1
Thabks, Jim. That's all very fine theory, but the actual price of a good is
what it costs the vendor plus the profit he wants to make on it, the latter
being modified by whether he can get away with it or not. In any free society
such as we envisage.
And the last part of your message suggests the "just price" mechanism to
control prices, which I have been told is not what is envisaged. But if it is, I
simply can't imagine the army of clerks needed to set "just" prices for every
article and service, modified by geography in many cases to allow for distance of
transport etc. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare, even if it did bring full
employment, mostly by the government.
Obviously the other method is the one considered, and I can not see how it
would stop prices rising.
Refgards. John R.
From: Jim <jschroeder@shaw.ca>
Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to John Rawson
1
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:10:48 -0700
Hi John:
Well, I'm certainly glad to hear that you are receptive to the idea of a
compensated price.
The logic is as follows:
1) The true cost of production is consumption of all production over an
equivalent time period. "For example, the real cost under all conditions of
growing an ear of corn is the seeds from which it grows." (The Nation's
Credit)
2) Therefore; the real price of a good is:
Price* consumption/production
Consumption is the mean consumption for a given time period, and production is
the mean production for a given time period. Capital depreciation is included in
consumption statistics, and capital appreciation is included in production
statistics. Since consumption is less than production, the real/just price of a
product is less than it's monetary price by the ratio of
consumption/production.
This cannot be inflationary because prices are falling.
"No legal compulsion would be necessary. Retailers who would not accept the
JUST PRICE scheme would be free to sell at the ordinary financial price, but in
that case they would receive no money from the State and would have to try and
sell their goods in competition with others, who had accepted the JUST PRICE and
were in a position to undersell them." (The Nations Credit)
Take care,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to John Rawson 1
Greetings, Jim.
Many, many years ago, my elders, betters and mentors explained a "Just Price
Discount". The principle was that any retailer who sold at an agreed fair or
"just" price, had it topped up by funds from the Credit Authority or whatever.
Those who sold at a higher price did not get it and therefore had a hurdle to
overcome if they wanted to charge more, and thus prices would be controlled from
rising. When I noted, later, that setting fair prices for all goods etc. in
every part of the country would be a bureaucratic nightmare, I was told that this
concept was all wrong. The C.A. would simply refund the purchaser a certain
percentage of his payment on receipt of dockets proving purchase, regardless of
price.
Now I need someone to explain to me how this would work without simply
subsidising increasing prices and thus fostering inflation. And please don't
hand me "competition" in a time when it is becoming less and less effective. And
could be much less so in a Socred economy without a shortage of purchasing
power. Also tell me how to put this across to the public without it simply looking
like pure "funny money".
Clinch these points for me and I'll start yet another crusade, for the Party to
adopt this principle. But let's have some practical data, not just reference to
the time Douglas spent promoting it. Even the most brilliant people are not
right every time.
Regards. John R.
From: Jim <jschroeder@shaw.ca>
Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to John Rawson
1
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 17:22:04 -0700
The compensated price principle is probably the most important aspect of
Douglas' economic analysis. The replacement of the wage with a dividend is
secondary. I find it odd that any "Social Credit" Party would focus on the
latter, but ignore the former, when Douglas spent most of his time explaining the
former.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to John Rawson 1
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 jschroeder@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
Discover fun and games at XtraMSN Kids!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 jschroeder@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
Shop ‘til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Free Edition.
Version:
7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/163 - Release Date: 11/8/2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free
Edition.
>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/163 - Release Date:
11/8/2005
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
Check out the latest video at Xtra Broadband
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message