|
Message 442
|
|
< Previous | Next >
|
|
|
| Subject: | [socialcredit] Sieg Heil, John! | | Date: | Monday, January 3, 2005 08:10:44 (-0800) | | From: | william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|
John, this message of yours highlights the profound
difference between "social credit" and "monetary
reform." You nitpick everything in my post but the
major point about dividends to consumers instead of
Wall Street, which you ignore completely. Instead,
you rant on about having the Federal Government
become the monopoly banker. Sieg Heil.
-
-------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/w_b_ryan/raven_thomson2.jpeg
Fascism certainly recognizes the inadequacy of
present currency and credit in circulation to
facilitate the distribution of production from
producer to consumer, and is prepared to establish a
managed currency based not upon gold, but upon
productive capacity. As the volume of currency
required will obviously vastly exceed that at present
available, the problem arises as to how this new
currency and credit are to be put into circulation.
Douglas says this must be by means of the "National
Dividend" - a free distribution to every man, woman
and child in the land. This is, however, an entirely
democratic, if not Marxist method, more political
than economic, and entirely contrary to Fascist
principles of "payment for service." Fascist
Government would issue the new currency and credit
direct without charge of usury...By this means a
permanent higher standard of life will be established
upon the present wages basis of payment for service,
and stabilized by the effective control of the
Corporate system over all economic factors.
Raven Thomson, Adjunct to Oswald Mosley
-
--- John Hermann <hermann@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
> At 04:33 PM 2/01/2005 -0800, Bill Ryan wrote:
> [Hermann] Government securities are also purchased
> by the Federal Reserve, that is, the Fed loans money
> to the Treasury - notwithstanding that this is only
> a
> small fraction of the national debt. ...
> ---------------------
> [Ryan] The point is that the Fed does not purchase
> directly from Treasury, but through the dealers,
> like
> everyone else.
>
> [Response] The word "directly" was not used.
> Which is not to say that the Fed and Treasury
> could not enter into such a direct arrangement,
> if they so chose. Moreover, once purchased by
> the Fed from whatever source, each security is
> effectively now a loan from Fed to Government.
>
> It is not exactly a "small fraction." It's about ten
> percent.
>
> [Response} Ten percent is a small fraction.
> Fifty percent is a large
> fraction.
>
> [Hermann] Their activities are an unnecessary drain
> on the taxpayer. No government ever needs to borrow
> from the private sector. Putting it another way, the
> national debt is the national sin.
> ---------------------
> [Ryan] Nonetheless, there are real costs to
> supplying financial services. It remains to be
> demonstrated that a government department could
> do it more efficiently. It certainly wouldn't be if
> the
> complete ignoramuses who typically make such
> proposals are running the show. Furthermore, even
> if it could be demonstrated that it is more
> efficient
> from a purely technical perspective, disregarding
> the
> probable incompetence of personnel in the relevant
> department, it would also have to be demonstrated,
> beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is significantly
> enough more efficient in principle to justify the
> danger to the public in totally centralizing the
> power
> of finance with government, and the Stalin who might
> be on top. Whether that can be accomplished is
> very much open to doubt.
> -
> [Response] Government can certainly do it more
> efficiently - from a macroeconomic perspective.
> For
> the simple reason that at present around one
> third
> of money collected from individuals by Internal
> Revenue is used to pay interest on the national
> debt.
> Wiping out this huge obligation would
> constitute a
> major cost saving and would help to open up
> several
> possibilities for progressive reforms that are
> now
> closed off for "lack of finance".
>
> I take your point about incompetence and the
> dead
> hand of bureaucracy. That can be minimized by
> running a suitably constructed mixed
> public/private
> financial system, together with imposition of
> further
> checks, balances and regulations, and measures
> designed to strengthen democracy. That may
> sound
> a little glib, but the bottom line is that I
> don't regard
> it as an insurmountable problem.
>
> [Hermann] Any money owed by government to the
> central bank is never paid back - because it does
> not
> need to be.
> ---------------------
> [Ryan] Every government security in the Fed's
> portfolio carries a redemption date. It is redeemed
> on its redemption date, because it has to be.
> -
> [Response] The misleading idea of government
> "debt to the Fed" is a total phoney.
>
> Government securities held by the Fed are, on a
> statistical basis, allowed to roll over upon
> reaching
> their redemption date. Overall, this "debt" does
> not
> have to be liquidated. It is, on average,
> allowed to
> continue, and even increases during an
> expansionary
> phase (ie, when the Fed creates new high-powered
> money to purchase new bonds) -- in perpetuity.
>
> The willingness of the Fed to provide government
> with this degree of latitude ultimately rests
> with
> government's very low credit risk, based upon
> its
> ability and willingness to impose a social
> obligation
> called taxation upon its citizens. The Fed is
> also
> mindful of the fact that it was originally
> created by
> Congress and might run the risk of being
> "uncreated"
> by Congress if silly enough to make undue
> demands
> upon the national budget.
>
> Furthermore the relative magnitude of "debt to
> the Fed"
> has tended to diminish over time, thus
> increasing the
> profit to the private financial sector. Data on
> securities
> held by the Fed shows that in 1973 they made up
> 18.9%
> of the nominal federal debt. By 1993 that ratio
> had
> dwindled to 6.5% (data from page 33 of William
> Hixson's
> book "It's Your Money", COMER Publications,
> 1997).
>
> [Hermann] Central-bank profit obtained from
> interest
> income always returns to Treasury.
> ------------------
> [Ryan] Perhaps.
>
> [Hermann] Indisputably.
> ---------------------
> [Ryan] Technically, the Fed does not rebate ninety-
> five percent of its interest income, but ninety-five
> percent of its self-calculated net profit, being
> something less than its gross interest income. It
> has only done that "voluntarily," the Fed's term,
> since 1948. The rebate really is an arbitrary
> credit
> to Treasury's account for political cover. A bribe,
> so to speak.
> -
> [Response] Correct ... except that I'm not sure
> about
> the 95% figure (my information source suggests
> that
> it is more like 100% of its self-calculated net
> profit).
> And it retains roughly one eighth of its overall
> interest
> income to fund its operating expenses.
>
> What is less recognized is the reality that the
> Federal Reserve is more than making up that
> "expense"
> or "lost income" to Wall Street by churning its
> portfolio (something it didn't do before - certainly
> not during the immediately preceding war years when
> the interest rate was "pegged") generating
> compensatory income to the "primary" dealers for the
> "service" they are providing, who are large banks
> and
> consortiums of banks, in one form or another. That
> sop to Wall Street is effectively interest. The
> rationale is they have to "fine tune" for monetary
> stability.
>
> [Response] This reality underpins the case for
> basic
> reform and re-regulation.
>
> [Hermann] You have provided yet another good reason
> for bringing in "monetary reform" and financial
> re-regulation.
> From the article supplied we learn that "... The
> churning
> serves only to muddy the waters, introduce
> uncertainty
> and speculation and waste the taxpayers' money".
> Might
> even be a case for nationalizing the Fed?
> ---------------------
> [Ryan] The Fed is already "nationalized" and always
> was. The President of the United States appoints
> its
> chairman and board of directors, subject to
> confirmation
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.eListas.com/
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
|
Reply to this message