| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re:- Swanwick Princpiples | | Date: | Wednesday, December 22, 2004 08:33:40 (-0800) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 383 (written by Timothy Carpenter) |
Hello Tim,
At the risk of further engaging in what some have called the futility of
"Essays in Persuasion", I'll attempt to answer some of your points below.
If you've read, which I hope you have, the excellent post by Wally Klinck,
(his first one since our previous discussion), you may realize that he is as
likely admonishing me for not putting the 'philosophy' of Social Credit
FIRST, as he is you, for not correctly understanding it.
He, and Martin Hattersley and Vic Bridger have learned, probably from long
experience, not to make that mistake. That's an acquired habit that I've
certainly yet to learn, and practice. Bill Ryan has attempted to explain
the 'economics', as regards the 'flaw' in the present method of cost
accounting, and the distortion this causes. Hopefully he'll elaborate
further to your reply on "Re: labour displacement". I don't think you'll be
able to refute him. I won't go back into the part of our discussion which my
lack of time at that particular moment cut short, since the comments of
others since have rendered anything further I might have added superfluous.
Instead lets look at what seems to be your particular objection to
'something for nothing'. You wrote:-
(Tim:-) > "The negative effect is what I said originally - sloth followed by
a feeling
> of resentment at how little the dividend gets them then followed by a
> movement to increase the dividend to unsustainable levels. What standard
is
> enough? One car? New car? Two cars? Holidays? Foreign holidays? What is
> enough?"
The 'dividend', under Social Credit, CANNOT be increased by that type of
'political pressure', Tim. Anymore than that type of 'political pressure'
could force the Governor of the Bank of England, (or Canada), or the
Chairman of the Federal Reserve to lower 'interest rates'. One Canadian
Prime Minister tried to do just that, once, and all the then Governor of the
Bank of Canada had to do was to resign in protest over the issue of
'political interference' in the independent administration of the Bank to
end that idea, probably for good. (Though perhaps, in this example, the
word 'independent' in regards to the Bank of 'Canada' might be a bit of a
spurious description ~ in any case, it was made clear to Mr. Diefenbaker
that it wasn't the "Parliament" of Canada that was to direct the
administration of that Bank. Anymore than Mr. Bush could effectively
instruct Mr. Greenspan in the direction of the Fed.)
The National Credit Office would be as completely an independent authority
as any could be. More so, because it is ''national" (not 'inter'-national).
Of course there would be 'oversight', by those we elect. There has to be.
But this is in the manner of the 'reserve powers' that the Sovereign might
have in dismissing an elected government that was overstepping its
Constitutional authority. Rarely, perhaps never used, but still there as an
effective check.
And now, unfortunately, I'm out of time again.
Best wishes,
Joe
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.eListas.com/
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message