| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Inflation and Price Control - Douglas was biased | | Date: | Friday, February 24, 2006 19:20:48 (+1300) | | From: | Peter Haines <cymric @.......nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3495 (written by Kenneth Palmerton) |
I believe Dan's 'predigree' was disclosed some months back. I believe it
was Ludwick Von Mises which is simply Liberatarianism based on a gold
standard. They are well aware of the shortcomings of the banking system.
They claim fiat money is the root cause of the problems.
Their interpretation of 'money;'and is function is different and thus we
canot agree as this makes for very different systems.
William Ryan at the time made substantial caustic comments that suggested in
no uncertain terms we are very different.
I think an issue of yard-stick can be introduced here. It seems to me that
the essentail difference between S.C. which has a Christian based
philosophical perspective of reality and the rest is that others try to
establish a material basis upon which to messure and regulate (
economically) life, such as land, gold or just the simplistic/ Old Testament
legalistic type 'work ethic'. These are on the same side as Marx and Lenin.
Social Credit economics basis the 'money' on the principle of faith which is
another dimension altogether. Here the 'law' is not above grace. Thus
Douglas said that the end of man is unknown. On the other hand the
materialistic prison of man systems make it quite clear the 'end' or
boundary of mans life is his debt limit and the legal limits set by the
politics regulated by debt (bankers policy).
Thus those of the materialistic regimes cannot accept the dividend as a
natural born right. It has to be earned and taxed- The Lord State giveth
and The Lord State taketh away. The dividend is a supplement but we should
specify it is first a natural born right lest people think it is a economic
invention to help balance the books. In this matter S.C. is restoring
something that was lost.
( according to then principle of grace each one must receive the same
dividend)
Peter H
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Palmerton" <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Cc: <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 4:38 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Inflation and Price Control - Douglas was biased
> In-Reply-To: <000d01c63863$bcb1e250$6400a8c0@cdv73pbgpo6eny>
> Hi Wally.
>
> In fairness to Dan, who s agenda I know no better than anyone else here,
> we should not be at all surprised at the shock expressed by those who have
> only been exposed to the propaganda of the merchants of death, and their
> doctrine of scarcity.
>
> To be suddenly faced with the possibility of sharing out the abundance of
> this world, without having to diminish the ability of any to reasonably
> better themselves, flies in the face of all we are taught. And I hope that
> most of us are big enough to admit that this IS what we are all taught by
> the orthodox teachers of economics.
>
> I think Social Credit repels through its simplicity. Are we not taught
> that nothing is easy ? There is no such thing as a free lunch ? And that
> non shall eat save by the sweat of their brow. Though as a committed
> Christian I have had more arguments with my fellow co-religionists on THAT
> text than any other :-(((
>
> I for one hope that Dan, and those like him, hang around. They MIGHT even
> learn something, or better still teach us a bit of tolerance.
>
> Ken.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> X-Envelope-From:
> socialcredit-return-3486-kenpalmerton=cix.co.uk@elistas.comReceived: from
> q53.elistas.net (q53.elistas.net [216.66.20.25]) by
> mta03.mx.cix.co.uk (8.13.4/CIX/8.13.4) with SMTP id k1NBLISi011181
> for <kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk>; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:21:19 GMTReceived:
> (qmail 18132 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2006 13:14:11 +0100Received:
> from mail.e-listas.com (66.7.164.206) by q5.elistas.net with EMQP; 23 Feb
> 2006 13:14:11 +0100Mailing-List: socialcredit@elistas.com
> X-No-Archive: yes
> List-Post: <mailto:socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> List-Help: <mailto:socialcredit-help@elistas.com>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-subscribe@elistas.com>
> Delivered-To: list socialcredit@elistas.com
> Delivered-To: moderator for socialcredit@elistas.com
> Received: (qmail 16651 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2006 11:15:45 +0100
> Received: from unknown (HELO pd2mo3so.prod.shaw.ca) (24.71.223.10)
> by mail.egrupos.com with SMTP; 23 Feb 2006 11:15:45 +0100
> Received: from pd4mr6so.prod.shaw.ca (pd4mr6so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca
> [10.0.141.69])
> by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004))
> with ESMTP id <0IV400B1YYDINA60@l-daemon> for socialcredit@elistas.com;
> Thu,
> 23 Feb 2006 03:27:18 -0700 (MST)
> Received: from pn2ml8so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.152])
> by pd4mr6so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built
> Mar
> 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IV400LPQYDIIO50@pd4mr6so.prod.shaw.ca> for
> socialcredit@elistas.com; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:27:18 -0700 (MST)
> Received: from cdv73pbgpo6eny ([68.151.6.18])
> by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004))
> with SMTP id <0IV400K7CYDH1LG0@l-daemon> for socialcredit@elistas.com;
> Thu,
> 23 Feb 2006 03:27:18 -0700 (MST)
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:27:23 -0700
> From: "Wallace M. Klinck" <wmklinck@shaw.ca>
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Message-id: <000d01c63863$bcb1e250$6400a8c0@cdv73pbgpo6eny>
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
> Content-type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01C63829.0FEFB4A0"
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-priority: Normal
> References: <NCBBKCEMIKELNEFLLFEHMEKNGNAB.dan@danmorin.com>
> <000901c63787$5d580500$bad44246@cc.shawcable.net>
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Inflation and Price Control - Douglas was
> biasedX-Envelope-To: kenpalmerton@cixcouk.cix.co.uk
> X-UIDL: _GvC.wqZ_DB.mta03.mx
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C63829.0FEFB4A0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> 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. =20
>
> 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 -----=20
> From: Joe Thomson=20
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com=20
> 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.=20
>
> (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.=20
>
> (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'. =20
>
> (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!=20
>
> 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. =20
>
> 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'. =20
>
> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C63829.0FEFB4A0
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
> charset=3Diso-8859-1">
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=3DGENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This is a Social Credit discussion =
> group. Has=20
> Dan done any reading of authentic Social Credit literature or is he just =
>
> engaging in a sniping exercise? Surely, one might fairly expect =
> that=20
> comments offered on this panel might be offered with the qualification =
> that they=20
> have been based upon at least an elementary reading of Douglas. =
> What, Dan,=20
> is your motivation or "agenda" for participating in these exchanges--and =
> what=20
> authoritative texts on Social Credit have you actually studied? To =
> suggest=20
> that Douglas was "biased" because he earned his living from government =
> spending=20
> seems to me to be both fanciful and outrageous. </FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As Joe has indicated Douglas was a =
> professional=20
> 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=20
> the Royal Aircraft Works at Farnborough. The company which he and =
> his wife=20
> acquired for a short time before selling it had, according to John W.=20
> Hughes, previously manufactured some boats for the Admiralty. =
>
> Apparently Douglas and his wife (also an engineer) made a success of =
> private=20
> yacht manufacturing. He became independently wealthy at a fairly =
> young age=20
> and so had the time and resources to pursue his Social Credit =
> activities. =20
> His objection to the production of excess capital or other waste =
> production,=20
> including war materials, was central to his ideas--and he =
> repeatedly made=20
> the point that the defect in the price system was the central factor in =
> creating=20
> the inevitability of production for war. He dedicated his whole =
> later life=20
> to effecting monetary changes which would essentially remove the =
> financial=20
> causes of both poverty and war in the modern world. Are you =
> actually=20
> suggesting, Dan, that Douglas was some kind of a war profiteer? If =
> so,=20
> this is hardly likely to win credibility for you among those who have =
> been=20
> sufficiently interested in Social Credit to make at least a reasonable =
> effort to=20
> research the subject.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As to the universality and equal =
> payments to all=20
> citizens of Social Credit Consumer Dividends, Dan, would you suggest =
> that, in=20
> the private sector, industrial dividends should not be paid equally to=20
> shareholders? You seem very wedded to the idea that labour =
> produces all=20
> wealth whereas Social Credit make the point that production is =
> increasingly=20
> achieved by the application of non-labour factors. Under these=20
> circumstances, which would appear quite irrefutable, any idea of income =
> based=20
> solely on contributed work cannot be upheld by any reasonable standard =
> of=20
> equity. Any attempt to pay the Social Credit Dividends out on a =
> variable=20
> basis to individuals according to different criteria would founder upon =
> endless=20
> complexity which would become a major political matter providing =
> activities for=20
> government until the end of time. The Social Credit Dividends are, =
> as=20
> Joe stated, not taken from anyone's earned financial income. =
> They are=20
> in fact a supplement to individual incomes, making possible the ability =
> of=20
> consumers to fully access production. Moreover, they would benefit =
> the=20
> producer by ensuring that his costs of production can be liquidated in =
> each=20
> cycle of economic activity so that he might continue profitably his =
> function of=20
> providing goods and services for the community to the extent that these =
> are=20
> desired by consumers. Surely, anyone who cannot understand =
> the origin=20
> and function of the Consumer Dividend, obviously can have no =
> understanding of=20
> Douglas's A + B Theorem and the general insufficiency of=20
> <STRONG><EM>effective</EM></STRONG> consumer income which is indicated
> =
> by=20
> it.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As Gorham Munson has pointed out, the =
> need for=20
> capital expansion was great in the earlier days of the industrial =
> revolution and=20
> the monies distributed in respect of this production created much =
> activity--and=20
> much private debt--and, as Joe observed, a number of catastrophic=20
> financial/economic collapses. This is not the type of economic=20
> "prosperity" which Social Credit envisages. In those days, the =
> state had=20
> 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=20
> converted into fixed state debt. This, no doubt, contributed to =
> the=20
> erratic conditions of boom and bust in the private economy as economic =
> activity=20
> alternately expanded rapidly with the issue of debt and contracted=20
> calamitously because of the excess accumulation of debt which =
> periodically=20
> eroded financial liquidity beyond sustainable limits.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As to the matter of "bias", surely =
> anyone who has=20
> no bias can hardly have done much serious thinking on any subject=20
> whatsoever. If observation and intellectual endeavour leads to no=20
> conclusions, beliefs, or inclinations upon which to base action--then =
> surely no=20
> action can ensue. Surely anyone who derives no opinions from life=20
> experiences must have less than nominal analytical faculties. =
> Honesty=20
> requires that "biases" be subject to modification if observations of the =
> real=20
> world indicate that one's beliefs should realistically be altered--but =
> this is=20
> another matter and does not invalidate justification of the formation of =
>
> biases. Social Credit most certainly has its "biases" based upon =
> continued=20
> observations of the real world as it functions over time--and it has a =
> very=20
> definite "agenda" (or policy) which has been stated, I think, in a =
> thoroughly=20
> honest and forthright manner for all to study and evaluate. What,=20
> possibly, can be wrong or suspect with regard to this kind of =
> presentation=20
> of an "agenda?" No one is compelled to accept the Social Credit =
> argument=20
> but this is no excuse for distorting it. I am sure that most =
> advocates of=20
> Social Credit are more than willing for it to stand or fall on an =
> accurate=20
> representation of the subject--but I think they are entitled to require =
> that it=20
> be presented as it is, rather than as some persons might wish to =
> represent it=20
> from an uninformed, or possibly even disapproving, =
> perspective.</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sincerely</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Wally</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE=20
> style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
> BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
> <DIV=20
> style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
> black"><B>From:</B>=20
> <A title=3Dthomsonhiyu@shaw.ca href=3D"mailto:thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca">Joe
> =
> Thomson</A>=20
> </DIV>
> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
> title=3Dsocialcredit@elistas.com=20
> href=3D"mailto:socialcredit@elistas.com">socialcredit@elistas.com</A> =
> </DIV>
> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, February 22, =
> 2006 1:09=20
> AM</DIV>
> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [socialcredit] =
> Inflation and=20
> Price Control - Douglas was biased</DIV>
> <DIV><BR></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000 size=3D2><STRONG>Comments in
> =
> 'green'=20
> below.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
> style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
> BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><BR></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006>(Dan Morin wrote:-) Douglas was =
> obviously=20
> biased since he was earning his living from government spending on =
> warfare=20
> material. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006><STRONG><FONT color=3D#008000>(Joe =
> replies:-) =20
> How was Douglas "earning his living from government spending on =
> warfare=20
> material'' ? His soldier's pay during the period of his service =
> in WW=20
> I, could hardly be classed as 'spending on warfare material'. =20
> Douglas was a professional engineer who'd been employed on =
> many=20
> projects around the world prior to the First World =
> War. None=20
> of them, to my knowledge, involved anything to do with 'warfare=20
> material'. After the War, he and his wife operated a boatyard =
> that=20
> designed and produced racing yachts. Hardly 'warfare =
> material', or=20
> anything the 'government' would be spending any money=20
> on.</FONT></STRONG> </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006>(Dan continues:-) =
> </SPAN></FONT><FONT=20
> face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
> class=3D109571415-21022006>Question: How=20
> do you explain the great prosperity of the US during the late 1700s=20
> and 1800s with treasury surpluses? During long time =
> periods, the=20
> US Government was running <STRONG>abundant</STRONG> treasury =
> surpluses=20
> <STRONG>and</STRONG> the economy was soaring. If=20
> government debt was the key to prosperity, then =
> people should have=20
> been starving during that time.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000 size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006><STRONG>(Joe replies:-) Answer; =
> Shortly, "Go=20
> west young man, go west." Some people were 'starving' during =
> that=20
> time, Dan. In spite of 'going west'. There were numerous =
> periods=20
> of financial 'panics' in the US in the late 1800's and into the =
> early=20
> 1900's. The 'economy' wasn't always 'soaring'. There =
> were quite=20
> a few 'crashes'. </STRONG></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006>(Dan continues:-) I am always =
> fascinating how=20
> people project their own reality onto others. I am not =
> emotional at=20
> all, but a rational individual capable to have any conversation =
> without=20
> ever going emotional. </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=3DArial=20
> color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN class=3D109571415-21022006>My stake =
> in this=20
> "emotional claptrap" is you are biased yourself. =
> I would be=20
> curious to see what is your job and your source of funding. I =
> would=20
> speculate you are receiving money from government funding=20
> and/or somehow dreaming of receiving money from the =
> government in=20
> the future. As a result, you support a theory fitting =
> your own=20
> agenda, that is, government spending is essential [for=20
> you].</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000 size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006><STRONG>(Joe replies:-) Stick to =
> the day job,=20
> Dan, you're not a very good 'speculator'. As far as I know, =
> John=20
> Rawson is still actively engaged in the propagation, raising and =
> exporting=20
> of tropical flowers. At 80 plus years of age. Something =
> of an=20
> achievement in itself, I'd say. Advocacy of Social Credit, if =
> nothing=20
> else, seems to be a great prescription for useful longevity!=20
> </STRONG></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000 size=3D2><SPAN=20
> =
> class=3D109571415-21022006><STRONG></STRONG></SPAN></FONT> </
> DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000 size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006><STRONG>I doubt very much if he has much =
> time to=20
> 'dream' about receiving any government funding. Unlikely it =
> would be=20
> forthcoming in any case. Though I hope NZ is still =
> solvent=20
> enough to pay him the pension his early efforts in the workforce no =
> doubt=20
> contributed to, and maybe his current ones still=20
> do.</STRONG></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006>(Dan continues:-) What do you mean =
> by "fair=20
> distribution"? Who decides what is "fair"? You? =
> Any=20
> politician? To me, the concept of "fair distribution" is more=20
> emotional than intellectual. Remember that fairness and =
> equality are=20
> antonyms. If you treat everyone equal, then you are not fair =
> because=20
> some individuals do work more than others and are entitled to have=20
> more.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000 size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006><STRONG>(Joe replies:-) If you, who =
> obviously=20
> pride yourself on your 'hard-workingness', and say, your =
> neighbour,=20
> who just happened to be the most useless, lazy, lout God ever =
> put=20
> breath into, each 'inherited' a share in a certain venture called =
> 'Canada,=20
> Ltd.', and that share periodically paid each of you a 'dividend', an =
> 'equal'=20
> dividend, would that be a ''fair distribution'', or not ? =
> We're=20
> not talking about this 'dividend' being funded out of any kind of =
> income tax=20
> on you, or any other 'hard-working' individual, or their =
> property. It=20
> was just someting that was paid, not at the discretion of some =
> politician,=20
> but on the independently ascertained fact that the overall 'wealth' =
> of=20
> 'Canada, Ltd.' was increasing. And that you, he, and all =
> the=20
> other 'shareholders' should have a 'fair distribution' of additional =
> funds=20
> to allow you greater access to some of=20
> it. </STRONG></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000 size=3D2><SPAN=20
> =
> class=3D109571415-21022006><STRONG></STRONG></SPAN></FONT> </
> DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000 size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006><STRONG>Now you could say, and probably =
> will, "But=20
> I worked harder, I should have more." To which could be =
> replied,=20
> "Well, you DO have more. So where's your =
> complaint?" No=20
> one has 'taken' any 'more' from you to enable the paying of this=20
> 'dividend'. If you don't want to have 'more' then just =
> don't work=20
> so hard. But still you protest, that he should HAVE TO work =
> like you=20
> did, or he's not entitled to anything. What is lost on you, =
> though, is=20
> the fact that if, through the advancement of technology, far more =
> production=20
> of 'consumer' goods is already possible than could ever be actually=20
> 'consumed'. So in reality there is absolutely nothing to =
> be=20
> gained in employing someone who doesn't want to work to make still =
> more=20
> again. Just to have what amounts to an 'excuse' to pay him an =
> income=20
> so he can 'justify' to you his 'consumption'. =20
> </STRONG></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000 size=3D2><SPAN=20
> =
> class=3D109571415-21022006><STRONG></STRONG></SPAN></FONT> </
> DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000 size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D109571415-21022006><STRONG>But if that doesn't quite satisfy =
> you,=20
> lets look at it a little differently. Suppose, instead =
> of a=20
> payout of a 'dividend' directly in cash, (or by cheque, or direct =
> deposit,=20
> etc,), the 'price' of every good for sale in every store was subject =
> to a=20
> 'rebate' that effectively lowered it to every purchaser 'equally' at =
> the=20
> time of purchase. You have 'more' money at your disposal =
> through your=20
> 'hard-workingness', than your lazy neighbour has through his=20
> unemployment benefit, welfare cheque, or from whatever other income =
> source=20
> he might have, so you can, if you so desire spend 'more' than he =
> can. =20
> When you do, who receives the greater benefit from that =
> 'rebate'? You=20
> or him? The rebate is 'equal' to all comers. Is that =
> 'fair', or=20
> is it not? So that's what we mean by 'fair =
> distribution'. You=20
> both benefit.</STRONG></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#008000 size=3D2><SPAN=20
> =
> class=3D109571415-21022006><STRONG></STRONG></SPAN></FONT> </
> DIV></B=
> LOCKQUOTE>
> =
> <P><PRE>-----------------------------------------------------------------=
> ----
> 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
> <P></P></PRE>
> <P>
> <P>
> <HR>
>
> <P></P>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG Free =
>
> Edition.<BR>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.0.0/267 - Release =
> Date:=20
> 2/22/2006<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
>
>
> <p><pre>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 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 kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> <p></pre><p>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C63829.0FEFB4A0--
>
>
>
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message