|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] Re: Swanwick Principles|
|Date:||Monday, December 13, 2004 19:25:26 (-0800)|
|From:||Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|In reply to:||Message 352 (written by Timothy Carpenter)|
Thanks for your reply, and I'll try to answer your questions below.
You wrote:- "As to 'workfare' I am not aware that the UK's 'sure-start' is
such a thing.
> If it is I agree with you."
"Workfare" here seems to involve the idea that if those who are
'able-bodied' and on some form of 'social assistance' were forced to do some
type of unpleasant labour before they're paid it would 'motivate' them to go
get a (better?) job and get off social assistance.
It presumes that everyone 'able-bodied' on social assistance is there
because they are 'lazy', and that there are 'all kinds of jobs' out there,
just awaiting them. If only they'd get off their lazy little backsides and
go look for them. These presumptions don't seem to always be very well
founded in fact. But in BC, at least, many a political career has been
enhanced by promoting them.
'Workfare' may involve placing people in a position where they're compelled
to perform some menial task for the State.Usually something they couldn't
normally hire anyone to willingly do for the wage that would be paid for
such labour. Or, as is more the case in BC recently, their being compelled
to undertake some type of educational re-training. Usually of a nature that
doesn't seem to be of too much benefit to the recipient, from what I've
obseved of it. (How to write a resume, conduct yourself in a job interview,
etc., that type of thing. And also 'training', sometimes, in cursory
'skills' required to fill some very basic, permanently low-wage positions.
Hardly the kind of thing to provide much real 'motivation', especially when
the type of 'job' is highly likely to be the only type of job the applicant
is ever going to have. And there are ten applicants for every one of the
positions open! And 'living' on the low wages received for the low number
of hours worked is hardly what most would describe as much of a 'living'.
Training for higher wage positions, ones which might be in demand, though
also never in the quantities to which there might be applicants willing to
fill them, seems to be something that will not be paid for by the State.
Maybe they, too, can see the handwriting on the wall. And know that these
type of jobs are just as tenuous nowadays as the basic, low-wage,
(Tim:-) "Joe, as to rebates...how else is it then implemented? If you
rebate the cost
> of something then it costs less and people can then buy more, right?"
(Tim:-)"If it costs less which goods are going to be rebated?"
All goods, in a sense. The general price level would fall. The Social
Credit 'price factor' is calculated on the difference between a given credit
area's total production and total consumption over an equivalent period.
This price factor would then be applied to the 'regular' retail prices,
(what the merchants might normally charge ~ the good's 'financial cost' to
the merchant plus his mark-up), to get the discounted price which each
particular product might sell for. The rationale has already been explained
on here by others, so I won't repeat what they've previously said.
There are several ways the 'discount' can be passed on to the consumer.
He may make the purchase at the 'regular' price, then present the
bill-of-sale to his bank to be credited with the discount. The bank, in
turn, would be credited an equivalent amount by the Treasury. Or, it might
be possible for the same thing to happen right at the point of purchase by
manner of what's been called a 'negative sales tax'. There are other ways
as well. Whatever technique was deemed to work best under the particular
circumstances could be the method used.
(Tim:-) Are you seriously suggesting
> that country A rebates goods produced from country B?
I'm going to defer to a higher authority, or several of them, on that
question, Tim. And hope Wally, or Bill ,or Vic, will come into the
discussion on this point. The short answer I would give you is 'no'. But
there may possibly be mitigating circumstances if we were operating under
the principles of 'social credit' and trade between nations was as it
should be, an exchange of 'goods' for other 'goods'.
(Tim:-) "It does not matter if
> you rebate the purchaser, reduce the sales tax or subsidise the producer,
> whatever happens the net "ticket" price goes down and the company gets the
> sale, right? Help me out if I this rebate operates in a different way,
It matters in the sense that the 'Consumer Discount' under Social Credit is
an application of 'new credit' used to lower prices. That's the critical
point. It's not simply the dropping of a sales tax, though that certainly
also can lower the prices of the items previously taxed. But at the expense
of the government services that tax was paying for being unfunded.
(Tim:-)> "As to your 300lb oaf, indeed we all have such examples, but it is
> to know that they are, alas, exceptions that prove the rule and an entire
> economic model cannot rest upon an idealistic hope. The lazy rich-kids
> middle class too) are a different manifestation of the same affliction."
I find it interesting that Douglas observed we have nothing to fear from the
'lazy rich'. It was the 'hard working rich' we'd best keep an eye on! I
think he was right. Those seem to be the ones who'll always give the same
answer when asked, "How much is enough?" That answer is, of course, "Just
a little bit more!" It'll always be 'just a little bit more'. And the
reason for 'more', more often than not? The 'will-to-power'.
(Tim:-) > "Again, it is not about poor staying poor (for if this were the
case we would
> have no middle class) but about nurturing the lack of ambition and drive."
I've been an 'employer' most of my adult life, Tim. Since I was 21, and I'm
now coming up on 58. Before that, I was an 'employee' from the time I
graduated, with very few intermissions between jobs, until I went into
business for myself. I've been called many things in all those years, but
'lazy' hasn't been one of them! I have though, worked with people who were
'lazy'. In both my capacities of employer and employee. And some who were
In all that time that I have never seen a 'lazy' man turn into an
'ambitious' one. Though I have seen a few who were 'ambitious' develop a
'lazy' streak occasionally. I've seen some 'lazy' ones luck into finding
the 'ticket to riches', and occasionally become fairly well-to-do. But I've
never witnessed any of them change, and become hard-working to get 'that
little bit more'. People are as they are.
Now what perverse pleasure does anyone get in this day and age out the
belief that no one should be made comfortable unless they're made
uncomfortable first? I'd really like to know. Is it 'jealousy'? Or a type
of 'elitism'? That WE know what's 'best' for someone else? Some wretch
who'd sink into moral deprivation if WE didn't force him to keep his nose to
the grindstone? Why do people feel this way? Especially when there is no
rational 'economic' reason for it in our modern times?
Some people 'like' to work. Most people, to a degree, do. They want to
'do' something, not sit and vegetate. But I can tell you, from experience,
that efforts to get those who don't 'motivated', be they the truly 'lazy' or
someone not interested in the job he's been 'forced' to take, are a complete
waste of time and energy. We'd be far further ahead paying them to stay out
of the way, and let those who want to do the job do it.
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net