|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] Re:- Swanwick Princpiples|
|Date:||Thursday, December 23, 2004 14:08:45 (+0000)|
|From:||Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk @........uk>
|In reply to:||Message 385 (written by Joe Thomson)|
I do see your point about interference, but remember that the BoE has only
been free from this since 1997, not 1799, but 1997! Before that economic
damage was often caused by tinkering to alter such things as exchange rates.
What is done can also be undone, even if it is stupidity to do so.
If we do not exchange before then, have a good holiday and a prosperous new
On 22/12/04 4:33 pm, "Joe Thomson" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hello Tim,
> At the risk of further engaging in what some have called the futility of
> "Essays in Persuasion", I'll attempt to answer some of your points below.
> If you've read, which I hope you have, the excellent post by Wally Klinck,
> (his first one since our previous discussion), you may realize that he is as
> likely admonishing me for not putting the 'philosophy' of Social Credit
> FIRST, as he is you, for not correctly understanding it.
> He, and Martin Hattersley and Vic Bridger have learned, probably from long
> experience, not to make that mistake. That's an acquired habit that I've
> certainly yet to learn, and practice. Bill Ryan has attempted to explain
> the 'economics', as regards the 'flaw' in the present method of cost
> accounting, and the distortion this causes. Hopefully he'll elaborate
> further to your reply on "Re: labour displacement". I don't think you'll be
> able to refute him. I won't go back into the part of our discussion which my
> lack of time at that particular moment cut short, since the comments of
> others since have rendered anything further I might have added superfluous.
> Instead lets look at what seems to be your particular objection to
> 'something for nothing'. You wrote:-
> (Tim:-) > "The negative effect is what I said originally - sloth followed by
> a feeling
>> of resentment at how little the dividend gets them then followed by a
>> movement to increase the dividend to unsustainable levels. What standard
>> enough? One car? New car? Two cars? Holidays? Foreign holidays? What is
> The 'dividend', under Social Credit, CANNOT be increased by that type of
> 'political pressure', Tim. Anymore than that type of 'political pressure'
> could force the Governor of the Bank of England, (or Canada), or the
> Chairman of the Federal Reserve to lower 'interest rates'. One Canadian
> Prime Minister tried to do just that, once, and all the then Governor of the
> Bank of Canada had to do was to resign in protest over the issue of
> 'political interference' in the independent administration of the Bank to
> end that idea, probably for good. (Though perhaps, in this example, the
> word 'independent' in regards to the Bank of 'Canada' might be a bit of a
> spurious description ~ in any case, it was made clear to Mr. Diefenbaker
> that it wasn't the "Parliament" of Canada that was to direct the
> administration of that Bank. Anymore than Mr. Bush could effectively
> instruct Mr. Greenspan in the direction of the Fed.)
> The National Credit Office would be as completely an independent authority
> as any could be. More so, because it is ''national" (not 'inter'-national).
> Of course there would be 'oversight', by those we elect. There has to be.
> But this is in the manner of the 'reserve powers' that the Sovereign might
> have in dismissing an elected government that was overstepping its
> Constitutional authority. Rarely, perhaps never used, but still there as an
> effective check.
> And now, unfortunately, I'm out of time again.
> Best wishes,
> You're subscribed to this list with the email firstname.lastname@example.org
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net