| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] straw vote (Joe replies to Ken) Addendum | | Date: | Wednesday, November 16, 2005 07:55:17 (-0800) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3082 (written by Joe Thomson) |
In my reply to Ken I said "the rate of national capital appreciation in
excess of the rate of national capital depreciation in any given time
period", and that may not be correct. I believe I should've said "the total
amount of national capital appreciation in excess of the total amount of
national capital depreciation in any given time period."
There are a great many things about Social Credit and banking which I have
yet to learn. Especially to a level where I feel completely confident in
my ability to explain them to others in a way that doesn't just add to the
general confusion that seems to surround both subjects.
And one of the most important lessons, for me anyways, is NOT to try to
explain something after working all day and my mind is cluttered with other
things and I'm tired. So if I've made mistakes, I invite correction. The
effort's never wasted if something's learned, even if that knowledge comes a
maddeningly slow pace sometimes.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] straw vote (Joe replies to Ken)
>
> (Ken Palmerton wrote:-) > Hi Joe.
> > Though I would not wish to argue with you on this point, you must be
right
> > that a free citizen can "spend " their money any way they wish. If they
> > DID in fact choose to so do there would have to be a mechanism to allow
> > for the costs that such "investment" set in train.
>
> (Joe replies:-) I believe under the Social Credit proposals there would
be
> such a mechanism, Ken. It involves having a proper set of national
> accounts, and a means to credit consumers overall with the rate of
> national 'capital appreciation' in excess of the rate of national
'capital
> depreciation' in any given time period, and distribute that to all
> individual consumers in 'debt-free' credit through the 'national
dividend'
> and the 'consumer price discount'.
> >
> (Ken continues:-) > I have not heard this compensation spelled out.
>
> (Joe replies:-) 'Investment' leads to an increase in the rate of 'capital
> appreciation' (if it's in new productive capacity), does it not?
>
>
> (Ken continues:-) Just as I have heard few argue that such issued credit
> needs to be kept
> > out of the hands of our trading banks. They have a nasty habit of using
> > ANY money they can lay their hands on to fuel the notion that they "only
> > issue what is deposited with them ".
> >
> > But then that is maybe another issue :-)
>
> (Joe replies:-) I don't think there's anything in Douglas to prevent the
> recipient of a National Dividend from depositing his dividend in the
trading
> banks, or buying securities, giving it to charity, getting drunk on it, or
> doing whatever he wants with it. And why should there be? It's HIS
money,
> and if converted to cash is indistinguisable from all other cash.
>
> As far as the 'trading banks' relation to it all goes, the basic
> proposition as I understand it is still , "Loans create deposits", not the
> other way about. It's a 'creditary' concept.
>
> But 'banking', as has been said on here often, has a similarity to
> 'insurance'. Just because Lloyd's of London, say, may have 'insured' the
> 'Titanic' against sinking or other specified perils, that didn't mean they
> 'owned' the 'Titanic', (at least while it was afloat), did it?
>
> Yet when it hit the berg and went to its watery grave the loss was
Lloyd's.
> To the extent they'd contracted to cover it. Not the White Star Line's,
> who'd paid them to assume most of the risk.
>
> So it also seems to be with 'banking'. Douglas said the actions of the
> banker were "...probably the only known instance of the possibility of
> lending something without parting with anything, and making a profit on
the
> transaction, obtaining in the first instance his commodity free."
>
> Now if we look carefully at the wording of that, notice Douglas says
> "without parting with anything", which I think precludes that the banker
is
> loaning something that has previously been deposited with him. If the
> banker were actually loaning his customers deposits, he would be parting
> with 'something', would he not? And since he (still) pays interest on
those
> deposits, that wouldn't exactly be "obtaining his commodity free" if those
> 'deposits' were what he was loaning, would it? So, if Douglas is correct,
> and he is, the banker isn't 'parting' with anything, is he? It's
entirely
> 'creditary'. Note, however, that Douglas doesn't say, ''without RISKING
> anything'', does he?
>
> The bank, while it most definitely DOES NOT OWN the credit it 'lends',
> (note Don Bethune, for what must be at least the sixth or seventh time
now,
> from me), nor lending its 'liabilities', (its customer's deposits), IS
most
> definitely on the hook for it if the borrower defaults. The financial
> 'loss' in that eventuality, like that to Lloyd's when the "Titanic" sank,
IS
> the bank's. And reduces the shareholder's equity in the bank the same
way
> Lloyd's 'names' would have their personal equity reduced paying out
claims.
> Less, of course, whatever can be recovered from the borrower through
> collateral pledged or by other means, in the case of the bank. Or, in
that
> of Lloyd's, whatever can be salvaged from the hulk on the bottom.
>
> A large enough loss could 'bankrupt' the bank, and it wouldn't be able to
> meet its 'liabilities', i.e. pay back all the money it held from its
> customers on deposit. And before it's said, "Oh, that couldn't happen.",
let
> me ask, "Why, then, do banks in this country, and I suspect most others,
> advertise they carry 'deposit insurance'?" It CAN happen, it has happened
> in the past, and could again in the future.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message