Frankly, I doubt if Douglas suddenly turned his back on all small private
enterprise. If he did, then this is one of his dicta that we must reject,
because his focus then seems to have been entirely on large-scale business. For
one thing, no dubious but possibly successful enterprise would ever get off the
ground without the entrepreneur risking something of his own. Or must he mortgage
his house to get a loan from the Bank and spend all his savings on consumer
goods? Great business!
But correct me if I'm wrong. I believe his statement was "new credits ... in
respect of ... new production." I.e. the credits should be available to purchase
it, not necessArily to finance its production. That is logical; the other
interpretation is out with the birds.
Regards. John R.
From: Triumphofthepast@aol.com
Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: [socialcredit] most unfair
Date: Wed, 14
Dec 2005 12:17:39 EST
"Your peculiar 'straightforward' reading is that the
economy is not already creditary in Douglas's estimation because he uses the word
'shall' in Swanwick." (Bill)
Not at all. We all know banks create the money
they lend, but that isn't what Swanwick 2 is about. It's about the fact that
some credits to finance production still come from savings. Swanwick 2 says this
SHALL no longer be the case. I once again point to the supporting CONTEXT
abundantly supplied in "Social Credit Fragments, 2003-2005."
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
