| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Swanwick no. 2 | | Date: | Friday, December 9, 2005 08:13:16 (-0800) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
(Bill Ryan wrote:-) So Swanwick 2 is not instituting a new mechanism but
is recognizing the existing reality so that it might
be formalized and controlled.
(Joe asks:-) How do you believe Douglas would have envisioned its control?
P.S. (My apologies to all for the previous blank message inadvertantly sent
under the "Swanwick Principles" heading.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 4:56 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Swanwick no. 2
> (Michael wrote:-) If you used it to purchase new
> stock issue, it would not be any different than if you
> used your earnings for the same thing; and per
> Swanwick #2 you are not going to do either, because
> production is not going to be financed that way any
> more.
> ----------------------
>
> Douglas was perhaps the first to recognize that the
> incremental increase to investment for the economy as
> a whole is not now financed from savings but credit.
> It is mathematically impossible for it to be
> otherwise. That was in the early 1920s. In the
> mid-1930s Keynes said that savings are a "residual."
> So Swanwick 2 is not instituting a new mechanism but
> is recognizing the existing reality so that it might
> be formalized and controlled.
>
>
> --- Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > (Michael wrote:-) If you used it to purchase new
> > stock issue, it would not be any different than if
> > you used your earnings for the same thing; and per
> > Swanwick #2 you are not going to do either, because
> > production is not going to be financed that way any
> > more.
> >
> > (Joe replies:-) This leads me to ask how do you
> > envision production being financed? Suppose I
> > decide to expand production in my mill and opt to
> > sell treasury stock, perhaps to one or more people
> > who might want to join me and take an active role in
> > the business, rather than the firm borrowing the
> > funds needed. Are you saying that such a potential
> > investor could not use his 'savings' directly to
> > invest, but would have to seek a 'bank loan'
> > instead? If this were the case, are we not back to
> > another examination of Douglas's 'pound for pound'
> > letter to Denis Byrne? Beyond that, are we not
> > imbuing the 'banks' with an increase in their
> > 'monopoly' powers if we interpret Swanwick # 2 in a
> > 'micro-economic' manner? The decision on whether
> > to grant 'new credit' on an 'individual' basis is
> > still going to be made by the bank as a practical
> > matter, (remember, Douglas called the administration
> > of the banks 'admirable' ~ and if deciding who is
> > likely to be able to repay a loan or not is not
> > 'administration', I hope you or someone else can
> > tell me what is.) If the banks decide that 'new
> > credits' are, in THEIR opinion, not warranted on a
> > particular 'individual' basis, and we interpret
> > Swanwick # 2 'microeconomically' and the would-be
> > private investor is forbidden to use his 'savings'
> > directly at HIS discretion, have we not just further
> > enhanced the 'monopoly of credit'?
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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