|
This is a Social Credit discussion group. Has
Dan done any reading of authentic Social Credit literature or is he just
engaging in a sniping exercise? Surely, one might fairly expect that
comments offered on this panel might be offered with the qualification that they
have been based upon at least an elementary reading of Douglas. What, Dan,
is your motivation or "agenda" for participating in these exchanges--and what
authoritative texts on Social Credit have you actually studied? To suggest
that Douglas was "biased" because he earned his living from government spending
seems to me to be both fanciful and outrageous.
As Joe has indicated Douglas was a professional
engineer who worked on various major projects for a number of large
firms. He worked as well on the London Tube System (subway) and at
the Royal Aircraft Works at Farnborough. The company which he and his wife
acquired for a short time before selling it had, according to John W.
Hughes, previously manufactured some boats for the Admiralty.
Apparently Douglas and his wife (also an engineer) made a success of private
yacht manufacturing. He became independently wealthy at a fairly young age
and so had the time and resources to pursue his Social Credit activities.
His objection to the production of excess capital or other waste production,
including war materials, was central to his ideas--and he repeatedly made
the point that the defect in the price system was the central factor in creating
the inevitability of production for war. He dedicated his whole later life
to effecting monetary changes which would essentially remove the financial
causes of both poverty and war in the modern world. Are you actually
suggesting, Dan, that Douglas was some kind of a war profiteer? If so,
this is hardly likely to win credibility for you among those who have been
sufficiently interested in Social Credit to make at least a reasonable effort to
research the subject.
As to the universality and equal payments to all
citizens of Social Credit Consumer Dividends, Dan, would you suggest that, in
the private sector, industrial dividends should not be paid equally to
shareholders? You seem very wedded to the idea that labour produces all
wealth whereas Social Credit make the point that production is increasingly
achieved by the application of non-labour factors. Under these
circumstances, which would appear quite irrefutable, any idea of income based
solely on contributed work cannot be upheld by any reasonable standard of
equity. Any attempt to pay the Social Credit Dividends out on a variable
basis to individuals according to different criteria would founder upon endless
complexity which would become a major political matter providing activities for
government until the end of time. The Social Credit Dividends are, as
Joe stated, not taken from anyone's earned financial income. They are
in fact a supplement to individual incomes, making possible the ability of
consumers to fully access production. Moreover, they would benefit the
producer by ensuring that his costs of production can be liquidated in each
cycle of economic activity so that he might continue profitably his function of
providing goods and services for the community to the extent that these are
desired by consumers. Surely, anyone who cannot understand the origin
and function of the Consumer Dividend, obviously can have no understanding of
Douglas's A + B Theorem and the general insufficiency of
effective consumer income which is indicated by
it.
As Gorham Munson has pointed out, the need for
capital expansion was great in the earlier days of the industrial revolution and
the monies distributed in respect of this production created much activity--and
much private debt--and, as Joe observed, a number of catastrophic
financial/economic collapses. This is not the type of economic
"prosperity" which Social Credit envisages. In those days, the state had
smaller budgets and was not so heavily involved in the nation's economic
activities. The public's floating debt was not to the same extent
converted into fixed state debt. This, no doubt, contributed to the
erratic conditions of boom and bust in the private economy as economic activity
alternately expanded rapidly with the issue of debt and contracted
calamitously because of the excess accumulation of debt which periodically
eroded financial liquidity beyond sustainable limits.
As to the matter of "bias", surely anyone who has
no bias can hardly have done much serious thinking on any subject
whatsoever. If observation and intellectual endeavour leads to no
conclusions, beliefs, or inclinations upon which to base action--then surely no
action can ensue. Surely anyone who derives no opinions from life
experiences must have less than nominal analytical faculties. Honesty
requires that "biases" be subject to modification if observations of the real
world indicate that one's beliefs should realistically be altered--but this is
another matter and does not invalidate justification of the formation of
biases. Social Credit most certainly has its "biases" based upon continued
observations of the real world as it functions over time--and it has a very
definite "agenda" (or policy) which has been stated, I think, in a thoroughly
honest and forthright manner for all to study and evaluate. What,
possibly, can be wrong or suspect with regard to this kind of presentation
of an "agenda?" No one is compelled to accept the Social Credit argument
but this is no excuse for distorting it. I am sure that most advocates of
Social Credit are more than willing for it to stand or fall on an accurate
representation of the subject--but I think they are entitled to require that it
be presented as it is, rather than as some persons might wish to represent it
from an uninformed, or possibly even disapproving, perspective.
Sincerely
Wally
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:09
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Inflation and
Price Control - Douglas was biased
Comments in 'green'
below.
(Dan Morin wrote:-) Douglas was obviously
biased since he was earning his living from government spending on warfare
material.
(Joe replies:-)
How was Douglas "earning his living from government spending on warfare
material'' ? His soldier's pay during the period of his service in WW
I, could hardly be classed as 'spending on warfare material'.
Douglas was a professional engineer who'd been employed on many
projects around the world prior to the First World War. None
of them, to my knowledge, involved anything to do with 'warfare
material'. After the War, he and his wife operated a boatyard that
designed and produced racing yachts. Hardly 'warfare material', or
anything the 'government' would be spending any money
on.
(Dan continues:-) Question: How
do you explain the great prosperity of the US during the late 1700s
and 1800s with treasury surpluses? During long time periods, the
US Government was running abundant treasury surpluses
and the economy was soaring. If
government debt was the key to prosperity, then people should have
been starving during that time.
(Joe replies:-) Answer; Shortly, "Go
west young man, go west." Some people were 'starving' during that
time, Dan. In spite of 'going west'. There were numerous periods
of financial 'panics' in the US in the late 1800's and into the early
1900's. The 'economy' wasn't always 'soaring'. There were quite
a few 'crashes'.
(Dan continues:-) I am always fascinating how
people project their own reality onto others. I am not emotional at
all, but a rational individual capable to have any conversation without
ever going emotional. My stake in this
"emotional claptrap" is you are biased yourself. I would be
curious to see what is your job and your source of funding. I would
speculate you are receiving money from government funding
and/or somehow dreaming of receiving money from the government in
the future. As a result, you support a theory fitting your own
agenda, that is, government spending is essential [for
you].
(Joe replies:-) Stick to the day job,
Dan, you're not a very good 'speculator'. As far as I know, John
Rawson is still actively engaged in the propagation, raising and exporting
of tropical flowers. At 80 plus years of age. Something of an
achievement in itself, I'd say. Advocacy of Social Credit, if nothing
else, seems to be a great prescription for useful longevity!
I doubt very much if he has much time to
'dream' about receiving any government funding. Unlikely it would be
forthcoming in any case. Though I hope NZ is still solvent
enough to pay him the pension his early efforts in the workforce no doubt
contributed to, and maybe his current ones still
do.
(Dan continues:-) What do you mean by "fair
distribution"? Who decides what is "fair"? You? Any
politician? To me, the concept of "fair distribution" is more
emotional than intellectual. Remember that fairness and equality are
antonyms. If you treat everyone equal, then you are not fair because
some individuals do work more than others and are entitled to have
more.
(Joe replies:-) If you, who obviously
pride yourself on your 'hard-workingness', and say, your neighbour,
who just happened to be the most useless, lazy, lout God ever put
breath into, each 'inherited' a share in a certain venture called 'Canada,
Ltd.', and that share periodically paid each of you a 'dividend', an 'equal'
dividend, would that be a ''fair distribution'', or not ? We're
not talking about this 'dividend' being funded out of any kind of income tax
on you, or any other 'hard-working' individual, or their property. It
was just someting that was paid, not at the discretion of some politician,
but on the independently ascertained fact that the overall 'wealth' of
'Canada, Ltd.' was increasing. And that you, he, and all the
other 'shareholders' should have a 'fair distribution' of additional funds
to allow you greater access to some of
it.
Now you could say, and probably will, "But
I worked harder, I should have more." To which could be replied,
"Well, you DO have more. So where's your complaint?" No
one has 'taken' any 'more' from you to enable the paying of this
'dividend'. If you don't want to have 'more' then just don't work
so hard. But still you protest, that he should HAVE TO work like you
did, or he's not entitled to anything. What is lost on you, though, is
the fact that if, through the advancement of technology, far more production
of 'consumer' goods is already possible than could ever be actually
'consumed'. So in reality there is absolutely nothing to be
gained in employing someone who doesn't want to work to make still more
again. Just to have what amounts to an 'excuse' to pay him an income
so he can 'justify' to you his 'consumption'.
But if that doesn't quite satisfy you,
lets look at it a little differently. Suppose, instead of a
payout of a 'dividend' directly in cash, (or by cheque, or direct deposit,
etc,), the 'price' of every good for sale in every store was subject to a
'rebate' that effectively lowered it to every purchaser 'equally' at the
time of purchase. You have 'more' money at your disposal through your
'hard-workingness', than your lazy neighbour has through his
unemployment benefit, welfare cheque, or from whatever other income source
he might have, so you can, if you so desire spend 'more' than he can.
When you do, who receives the greater benefit from that 'rebate'? You
or him? The rebate is 'equal' to all comers. Is that 'fair', or
is it not? So that's what we mean by 'fair distribution'. You
both benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 wmklinck@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free
Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/267 - Release Date:
2/22/2006
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
