| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] 'Geonomics' vs. Social Credit | | Date: | Sunday, March 12, 2006 12:43:36 (-0800) | | From: | Jeffery Smith <jjs @.........org>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3628 (written by thomsonhiyu) |
On Mar 12, 2006, at 9:20 AM, thomsonhiyu wrote:
>
> It is NOT one for the promotion of ‘Geonomics’.
Nor the promotion of reason.
> Nor to engage in promoting yourself as some superior intelligence who
> understands better than we do ourselves ‘‘what is good for us’’.
You are not alone in making this false accusation. I do apologize for
seeming that way to you. Is it a sect's insecurity that leads to such
interpretations of another?
> Otherwise, you are wasting our time, and your own, pedalling
> ‘Geonomics’ here.
Pedaling. Another mistaken interpretation. No, what interested me was
the overlap.
> As Peter Haines so succinctly put it this morning, we’ve “run into
> your type before” on here.
That is, you tar anyone you disagree with with the same brush.
> People who come to ‘blow their own horns’ promoting their own economic
> remedies of one type or another without even making an attempt to
> understand what Douglas ‘Social Credit’ has to offer.
Your explanation of SC offers, it seems to me, these four beliefs:
1, Person A always needs credit from person or persons B.
2, That credit must never take the form of A borrowing / B lending.
3, That credit must always take the form of B expanding the money
supply, with A spending the new currency into circulation. And
4, That expanding the money supply beyond economic growth is never
inflationary.
Yet, if what expands the economy is population growth, than the
legitimate recipients of new money would be new consumers. That is,
whatever accepted authority issues new money, should do so as a
dividend to those coming of age, not to everyone, somewhat similar to
how community currencies operate when a newcomer joins the system.
> the ‘‘Sierra Club’’ led to the continuing demise of the ‘independent
> producer’
Please explain your belief.
> If these so-called “Environmentalists” were truly concerned about the
> ‘environment’ they would have long ago re-directed their energies to
> finding and correcting the ultimate ‘cause’ of the degradation they so
> profess to deplore ~ a defective system of macro-economic cost
> accounting. But they won’t. Because they’d be ‘biting the hand that
> feeds them’.
Who there told you this, or is this just more of your unfounded
imputing?
SMITH, Jeffery J., President, Forum on Geonomics
7536 SE Milwaukie Av, Portland Oregon 97202 USA
503/232-1337; jjs@geonomics.org; www.geonomics.org
Share Earth's worth to prosper and conserve.
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message