| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: Swanwick Principles | | Date: | Saturday, December 11, 2004 09:23:07 (-0800) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 346 (written by Timothy Carpenter) |
Hello Tim,
Thanks for your response below, Tim, and also for elaborating some of the
points you're concerned about here, and in your reply to Wally. I'll
interject some further comments below:-
>
{Tim:-}> Indeed, you hit a nail - but interestingly the response I got also
indicates
> that a "Guaranteed National Income" is implied by some who support A+B!
----------------------------------------------------------(Joe:-) I don't
doubt that there are some 'Social Crediters' who do believe in having a
substantial "Guaranteed" Annual (or National) income scheme. Though, in my
opinion, the only thing that would really 'guarantee' would be the truth of
a very old saying. The one that states "The only things 'guaranteed' in
life are death AND TAXES!" As I've seen such schemes usually proposed they
are highly 'socialistic' in nature. And would quite possibly have some of
the deleterious effects on 'initiative', you allude to. Though probably to
the 'initiative' of those 'contributing', rather than the recipients!
They seem to involve the 'Robin(g) Hood' idea of removing 'money' from the
'Rich' and distributing it, (less 'costs incurred', of course), to the
'Poor'. But are the Poor really poor because the 'Rich' are rich? Or
because of the way the current financial system 'works'?
We know, or should, that there are no real problems with 'production' in
regards to our ability to actually 'produce' anything our little hearts
desire. Not in the 'developed' world of today. (There may well be, though,
if we keep on our present course of 'outsourcing'~ we may lose the
'knowledge' of 'how' to do things, as well as the plants that actually did
them!) We also know that a considerable portion of our population, around
7% in Canada, (officially), is permanently 'unemployed'. A much larger
percentage is 'underemployed', in that they are not working at jobs which
provide what's considered to be a 'full' workweek.
An even greater percentage are engaged in employment which can only be
described as 'redundant'. And often a very costly, and largely unnecessary
redundancy. e.g. Does a small town really need an 'Investment Advisor's'
office on virtually every downtown corner? Or 300 of its citizens trying to
'earn' their daily bread peddling real estate? Or the most recent downtown
private plethora, now kitty-cornered to the Realtor and Investment Advisor
offices, (in BC, anyways), the JOB Training Centre?
And do we really 'need' to keep building 'new and improved' larger plants,
that often are no such thing, when the existing plants they'll replace have
never been able to run at anywhere near full capacity and are far from 'worn
out'?
There is, in other words, already an underutilized capacity for 'production'
far, far, in excess of our current requirements.. And would continue to be,
even if we had everyone now 'unemployed', or 'underemployed', all working.
And eliminated, if we could, the 'redundant'. For there would be still,
definitely, a problem in 'distribution' of that production. 'A+B'
identifies the reasons for that problem. The 'Swanwick proposals' hold the
solution. It cannot be successfully done otherwise, in my opinion, or we
would have long-ago done it.
----------------------------------------------------------
>
(Tim:-) > Indeed, I came across A+B when I was investigating such an income
as a
> possible alternative to social security which can be degrading, complex
and
> open to abuse. It makes a lot of sense initially but then in the UK we see
> rules and funding applied with idealism only resulting in the wrong result
> e.g. People now claim 'disability' instead of unemployment as it 'pays
> better'! On the flip side things like 'sure start' aim to help people up
the
> ladder out of the poverty cycle and this is where money appears to do good
> and boosts people's dignity because they are earning their way with honest
> effort.
----------------------------------------------------------(Joe:-) I'm
afraid I disagree with the whole concept of what we call in this country
"Workfare", Tim. It is 'patronising', and those on it know it. It's like a
school taking a kid who doesn't like sports and 'forcing' him on a sports
team, with the idea that it will build 'sportsmanship' in him. What it
really builds is 'resentment'. (I know, I was such a kid!) He doesn't want
to be there, (and I'm talking about 'extra-curricular activities' now, not a
mandatory Physical Education course that's part of the regular school day),
and he's going to make minimal effort towards the game. This detracts from
the enjoyment of those who DO want to be there, and their abilities to
excell at an activity they enjoy. And they resent having someone 'forced'
on them who they would never otherwise willingly pick for a team. One that
this 'someone' wouldn't want to be on anyways. What is really accomplished
in terms of 'human satisfaction'? Nothing. And is it not 'human
satisfaction' that we should be 'measuring' when we associate in all the
many ways we do?
----------------------------------------------------------
>
(Tim:-) > If it is a consumer discount it is interesting as I would think
that a form
> of sales tax refund could be arranged when people pay electronically. This
> has the benefit that it moves people away from potentially untaxable cash.
I
> will raise this thought with another who I believe has thought a lot about
> automatic price and inflation control.
>
> It could also be used as a form of tax relief for the domiciled companies
so
> they can remain competitive in the world markets (why spend dividend to
> encourage wealth to leave the country?) but then we get 'free trade'
> opposition from such 'subsidy', right? A combination could be a partial
> electronic sales tax refund for local companies only.
----------------------------------------------------------
(Joe:-)> I'm afraid you've missed the point, Tim. Which is easy to do when
discussing 'social credit'. The 'Consumer Discount' is not to provide
'companies' with a 'subsidy', but is more in the nature of a 'rebate' on
prices to consumers. To bridge the gap between deficient 'consumer incomes'
in relation to 'consuumer prices' at point of retail that's prevalent in
each accounting cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------
(Tim:-) > As to 'forcing people to work' I agree with your position. The
real issue is
> into the future by not encouraging such people to have children whom they
in
> general teach the same lifestyle - the cruellest child poverty of all -
> poverty of ambition! (If anyone says a person who is willingly idle can
> teach ambition and drive in their children then they have fooled
themselves
> first and now attempt to fool others).
----------------------------------------------------------
(Joe:-) Tim, one of my long-time customers was a 300 pound oaf who never did
a day's labour towards 'earning' an income all the time I knew him, (about
20 years, he finally had a coronary and croaked a few years ago). He was on
'social assistance' from the time he arrived in our area, until his death.
He had six kids, a wife to whom he was obviously happily wed, and bought
many a board from me to keep up his residence and outbuildings. Every one
of his kids were 'ambitious', found jobs, and have worked steadily since
they left school. One boy is probably well on his way to being a
millionaire, if he's not already there. The 'sins of the father' are NOT
always visited upon his offspring. His is not the only instance I've seen of
this happening. And I've seen the process in reverse, too, where the
'super-ambitious' bred the hopelessly 'lazy'.
---------------------------------------------------------- (Tim:-) Any
further down such a road then it
> becomes social engineering with sinister overtones (e.g. Do you reward
> graduate parents more, as in Singapore). Right now, a universal payment IS
> social engineering in that it engineers the growth of an underclass - how
> cruel! THAT is elitism...throwing bread to keep those below instead of
> offering out a hand to pull them up
----------------------------------------------------------
(Joe:-) There is a considerable difference between OFFERING out a hand to
help someone up and grabbing them and yanking them up when they may just as
well be satisfied with where they are
Best wishes,
Joe
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.eListas.com/
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message