|
Reply to Joe Thompson : ref LS of
E
That organisation spends a great deal of time supporting the "orthodox" theories
of ecomonics. In particular, it is very adept at training its so called
"economists" at devising excuses as to why their predictions of economic
forecasts are consistently inaccurate. Its attitude reflects a certain mentality
among a specific ruling elite in the UK that cannot accept that its pet
concepts are flawed and untenable in the real world. The
LSE postulated a sequence of ideas many years ago regarding financial
management, and these are sacrosanct. Anyone disagreeing with them is either
termed " a crank" or vilified. History however bears out the unpalatable fact
that those governments who follow their precepts move into economic
decline, and, eventually, bankruptsy. The latter fact is the most unpalatable of
all, and LSE graduates have a plethora of excuses as to why their economic
"reforms" have not produced the economic revival they predicted. It is
usually blamed on the recipients of their ideas who are generally "have not
implementing their policies properly". This is despite the fact that LSE
graduates have the oversight of the so called "economic reforms" in every case.
Despite its international reputation the LSE is really an archaic organisation
devoid of any real inclination to inovate new approaches to financial
management. It steadfastly refuses to any exhaustive scientific analysis of
their teachings that question their basic concepts. They remind you of the
blinkered approach to life of religious fanatics intolerant of any other creed.
In a manner of speaking LSE graduates could, among economists, be
considered such a group, reminiscent of the Jesuits prominent in the Inquision
of the RC Church, and the Calvinists of the Protestant persuations.
Bill McGunnigle
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 6:19
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] "The
Ownership Conference": Saturday 19th November 2005
Hi Jim,
I think you're absolutely correct. Those
kind of 'property' or other 'capital' taxes are the worst form of taxation the
'independent producer', or anyone, can ever be faced with. They
literally squeeze the 'little guy' right off his property and right out of
business. Either through his inability to be able to meet their cost
directly by 'passing that cost on', or by forcing him to try to get
bigger. When all too often the market served and available
raw material at a cost he can afford are both inadequate for him to get
bigger. If the LS of E is giving credibility to any who promote such
taxation by adding any prestige it may have to sponsoring a conference on
those kind of notions, it truly hasn't changed from what Douglas
said it was.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 7:52
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] "The
Ownership Conference": Saturday 19th November 2005
Hi Martin:
I don't think it makes a difference whether
it's a single tax based on percentage of site value, or a death duty.
I think the important point is that you never tax any asset, because there
is a difference between an asset (i.e. land) valued at $1,000,000 and
actually having $1,000,000. The government will not accept land
in payment for taxes; they will only accept money. And I think what
will happen as a result of taxing any asset is explained aptly by
Douglas. I think there will be a real wealth transfer from the poor to
the rich, and from individuals to the state.
Take care,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005
8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] "The
Ownership Conference": Saturday 19th November 2005
That's an interesting quote - but my understanding of
George was that his main remedy was a "single tax" based on a percentage
of site value, rather than a Capital Levy which Douglas is discussing in
this passage (and which, through Death Duties in particular, really did
decimate the Stately Homes of England).
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005
9:43 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] "The
Ownership Conference": Saturday 19th November 2005
Hi Jock:
You're a Georgist aren't you?
I will quote Douglas from "Credit-Power and
Democracy":
CHAPTER VII
ANOTHER of the cliches
to which the official Labour organisations have committed themselves is
that which goes by the name of the Capital Levy" in its various forms.
It is so superficially familiar to everyone interested in these
matters that no extended description of it is necessary; with variations
it may be described as a graduated and ostensibly non-recurring tax on
the money-value of individual property, real and personal, such value
being estimated, not by its earning power, but on some basis such as
market price or expert estimation.
At first sight such a levy is an attractive expedient to a
party concerned with the flagrant disparity in worldly circumstances to
which" Capitalism" has at the moment brought us. If we can believe that
there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and we see, as we do,
that some have the good things of life
while many have hardly the necessaries, it would appear an easy path to
greater "justice" to take some of the "wealth" off the fortunate ones,
even thongh you do not directly give it to the remainder. Let us examine
the project more closely, therefore.
The law recognises two main classes of capital:
"real"-'i.e., land, houses, etc.; and "personal "-i.e., stocks and shares, cash, etc., 'which latter are
ultimately claims to some sort of "real" property. That is to say,
ultimately all property of any kind or description is a claim on
realty.
Now,
imagine all money values above, say, £5,000 held by individuals to be
subjected to a capital levy. 'What actually happens '? The levy,
remember, is on individuals by the
"State." The State has no concrete use for realty; it does not, broadly
speaking, administer productive undertakings; consequently what it
requires is a transfer of credit which' it can apply say, to tho
reduction of the National Debt, which in itself is an agency for
distributing purchasing- power.
Now, however steeply you graduate a tax it must leave some men "richer" than others.
Remembering this, consider the course of events when the tax is
collected. The owner of land has to sell to "raise" the money for the
tax. Who buys that land?
Similarly, the owner of stocks
and money parts with these. Who gets them ~ There are two answers.
If the titles to the land or shares are thrown on the
market together there will be a slump in "values" which will affect not
only those who are taxed but those who are not taxed, in so far as they
have any possessions other than money. At
first sight this seems a desirable
result, but on further consideration it will be seen that as the
National Debt. is a money-debt, not a "realty" debt, such a slump in
values increases the real
Weight of the debt, because it
requires a larger transfer of property at the lower price to liquidate a
unit quantity of it. Since, as we have agreed, this transfer of actual
property cannot be to the State in propria persona, it
must be from persons with less money to persons with more money; and the
greater the fall in yalues, the greater would be this transfer of real wealth from the less rich to the
more rich. That is one possible answer. But there is a modification of
this process possible. In order to avoid the fall in values that the
liquidation of large blocks of securities would entail, the banks would
be besieged for overdrafts withwhich to meet the cans of the levy. Which
class of applicants would receive preference in this scramble for
credit-issue ~ Undoubtedly those whose prospect of repayment seemed to
rest on the surest foundation; and, unless the previous arguments have
failed of their purpose, it will be plain that whatever costs may be incurred
by a produccr (who controls a market can be recoupcd by him in prices from the
consumer. Consequently, the
banks would extend credit most readily to those whose power of
price-making gave assurance of their ability to collect the levy, in so
far as it affected them, from the public, together with the bank's
interest on the loan. Such persons would not only not have to part with
any property, but would probably be found in a position of commanding
advantage from which to acquire the
property thrown on the market by their less fortunate· neighbours-a
result which, though differing slightly in method results in the same
conclusion as in the previous case: that instead of such a levy being a
transfer from the rich to the poor it ,becomes a transfer from the
consume; to the price-maker and the credit-issuer.
This is another way of stating the theorem on which stress
has previously been laid in these pages. Under the existing economic
arrangements, industry cannot be carried on unless the price of an
article includes all the costs - ie dispensations of
purchasing-power-which have been incurred during its production. If a
cost is not included in the price, then the pricemaker becomes poorer,
and eventually goes out of business. You cannot tax a capitalist-producer effectively because
his existence as a producer depends on his ability to pass on any
expense incurred to the consnmer. And it will be admitted by any unprejudiccd
observer that no excessive
reluctance to avail himself of this privilege is: noticeable in the
behaviour of the a average entrepreneur.
It is, however, possible to attack the Capital Levy on
more general grounds also, if it be realised that the situation with
which we are faced is only accentuated by and not fundamentally due to
the destruction of war. If the economic system under which we are
working is a sound system, then it is a flagrant "injustice" that such
persons as do well out of it should be penalised; and if it is unsound,
as it is, then the Labour Party, which clear;y regards itself as the
sole political concessionnire of justice, should be too highminded to
believe that an unjust system is improved by ,working it unjustly.
The cnpitalist system is tottering to its fall, but, like
the Bolshevik Government, which (according to official communiques)
began to totter at its birth, and has continued to totter until it has
infected half the world with its congenital instability, it may carryon
for a long while, if its opponents obligingly dcmonstrate at short
intervals their inability to supplant it
by something better."
(Credit-Power and Democracy Pge. 69-76)
Take
care,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 16,
2005 4:21 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] "The
Ownership Conference": Saturday 19th November 2005
Oi!
I'm no socialist...:)
Do you think I'll be training some?
Jock
On 14 Nov 2005, at 21:26, Jim wrote:
It seems Mr. Douglas was
absolutely correct about the London School of Economics being the
training ground for socialists.
Jim
"From
Ownership into Stewardship"
"Private
Property may not actually be theft
-
but it has some pretty nasty habits!"
The contributions will
include:
Jock
Coates: Community Land
Trusts
--
Jock Coats, Oxfordshire Community Land Trusts,
c/o Wardens' Lodgings, Flat 1e Block J, Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3
0FF
Mobile: 07769 695767
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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: 267.13.3/173 - Release
Date: 16/11/2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 jschroeder@shaw.ca
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: 267.13.3/173 - Release
Date:
16/11/2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 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 wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
