| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] LSE | | Date: | Monday, November 21, 2005 12:26:24 (+1300) | | From: | W. McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3135 (written by Kenneth Palmerton) |
Hi Ken
Thanks for your comment. You amplify comments I have made about
the LSE to Joe. I had forgotten about that little twist in the history of
the school. It certainly explains why it is so dogmatic in its opposition to
alternative ways of explaining economic theories. It also explains their
devotion to supporting an international finacial system that protects the
"developed world" at the expense of the"developing world".
Bill McGunnigle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Palmerton" <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Cc: <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] LSE
> In-Reply-To: <002d01c5ed44$24e566a0$0c049044@D4P37L51>
> Hi Jim.
>
> The facts as I understand them, and these are verified by William
> Beveridge in his Autobiography, that the foundation of the School by the
> Webbs, Sydney and his wife Beatrice, was declared to be the school for
> training the new Socialists in economics.
>
> The enterprise did get off the ground, but went bust in 1919. Not
> surprising really, they were in good company :-(
>
> Rockefeller, the money man, and Cassel, the armaments devil, stepped in
> and picked up the pieces. The rest, as they say, is history.
>
> Ken.
>
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message