|
My apologies, John. I shouldn't have used
that term in that manner. My concern is similar to the one that Bill Ryan
seems to have. And it was also noted by Douglas. Namely, that it seems
highly unlikely we can 'de-centralize' the control of credit by increasing that
'centralization' through the central bank.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 3:27
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] "monetary
reform" v. "social credit"
At 10:55 AM 1/01/2005 -0800, Joe Thomson
wrote:
- (Bill Ryan:-) If they need to spend they can tax. A
government that can spend without taxing is a government unchecked by the
people.
- ------
- (John Hermann:-) There
are many checks and balances in a democratic society. One such check is
known as regular elections for the executive and legislature.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (Joe Thomson:-) YOU are able to vote for what
YOU want in Australia in a completely meaningful way, John? And
'check' what your 'executive' and 'legislature' are able to do to you,
once elected, in between elections? In your 'ballot-box'
democracy do you, as an individual, have the opportunity there to
''choose, or refuse, one thing at a time"? In regards to not
only deciding issues important to you, but also just WHAT issues are
important to you? Or are the only 'choices' you can make on
election day fairly narrow, all lumped together in the form of a Party
'platform', and just from a list pre-determined for you? Is a true
'democratic society' the ''rule of the majority'', or is it an association
encompassing the means of ''making the policy of the individual effective
in relation to himself''? How, if a 'democratic society' is the latter, do
the individuals within that society sanction which government 'policies'
THEY want made 'effective unto themselves' ? Especially if their most
effective 'vote', their 'money' vote (through taxation), is removed
from them?
[Response] I
understand and agree with your concerns. However note that I did not
assert that Canada, Australia or the U.S. are
democratic societies.
Real democracy is an ideal which should be aspired to, and indeed is a
necessary precursor for implementing
sustained economic
reforms.
- '.(John
Hermann:-) Also, a major basis on which high-powered money is issued
by the central bank to government lies in the ability and willingness of
that government to impose a social obligation called taxation upon its
citizens.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (Joe Thomson) The operative word here
seems to be 'impose'. And various Governments have certainly shown
that they are all too willing and able to 'impose' such a 'social
obligation' on its citizens in the limited number of experiments we've had
with 'high-powered' money being created this way so far. Are we not back
to the 'individual' existing to serve the 'system', John? Rather
than the 'system' to serve the 'individual'?
[Response] Governments
allow their central banks to create high-powered money (HPM) - also known as
seed money or the monetary
base - on an ongoing
basis. A central bank creates HPM whenever it perceives a need to
increase the level of reserves, and therefore the
money supply. HPM
is therefore an essential component of the mechanics of modern money
creation. Wherever did you get the idea that
HPM is an infrequently
performed experiment?
John.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
To unsubscribe, send a message to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Reply to this message
