|
Thanks, Bill (McGunnigle). We've had our
share of LSE trained 'socialists' here in Canada, too. With pretty much
the same results as everywhere else.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 3:07
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] "The
Ownership Conference": Saturday 19th November 2005
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
