| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] straw vote (Joe replies to Ken) | | Date: | Monday, November 21, 2005 15:26:00 (+0000) | | From: | Kenneth Palmerton <kenpalmerton @................uk>
|
In-Reply-To: <001b01c5ee05$d7f482a0$bad44246@cc.shawcable.net>
Hi Joe.
Fascinating discussion. And I hope that we can keep it friendly, and avoid
some of the entrenched positions, and bad temper that have torn this
movement apart in the past :-)
In trying to struggle with the intricacies of our money system, I have had
the benefit of many opinions about what we do for the future, which is
what interests me. These contacts I value.
Most come down to an understanding of the difference between money, and
wealth.
What went to the bottom of the Atlantic all those years ago was wealth,
not money. It was huge lump of raw materials that had been won from the
earth, and converted by human labour into something of value. The very
idea of the construction of such a product leaving behind it a money debt
is the stuff that Social Credit, before many other studies, has attempted
to address.
As for recompense for loss, this has been the subject of much debate this
side of the pond, with I think the conclusion that it is heartless to
stand aside and not help in the hardship of ones neighbours, when it is
within our power to do something constructive about that loss. Personally
I favour the sort of mutual response of the Amish, and their practice of
turning up with materials, and their labour, when a neighbours barn burns
down :-)
The New Zealand initiatives on "No fault" insurance has much to commend it.
Yes Joe, I know, utopian. But such condemnation comes mainly from those
whose power is being challenged. It does give some illustration of just
how far we have travelled down the road of damnation. We as a society seem
to care so little for our fellow man.
However, I do not see why we as a society should hand over all recompense
to a rapacious clan of money men. The increase in cost, though not
generally recognised, is considerable, and diminishes what we are able to
produce by that money cost. Not to mention all the devious practices that
allow too many to be defrauded of their livelihoods.
You mention "Risk" several times. That is exactly what our Usurers will
not take a part of. They alone are demanding certainty. Almost everything
they do is to shift that risk to others, if they can. The "laying off" of
their bets, which is what they enter into, is exactly like a racecourse
bookmaker. Maybe that is where they learned their trade :-)))
Ken.
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message