| Subject: | RE: [socialcredit] land, money | | Date: | Tuesday, March 21, 2006 00:00:41 (-0800) | | From: | thomsonhiyu <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3680 (written by Jeffery Smith) |
(Joe wrote:-) Social Credit regards 'money' primarily as 'effective
demand', or an 'order' system (for the production and distribution of
'goods and services'), rather than as the more 'classical' notion of it
being a 'value measurement system'.
(Jeff replied:-) SC is not alone in regarding money as such. So does
community currency.
It's why they issue new notes to consumers, not producers, to spend
into circulation.
(Joe replies:-) I think the 'community currency' idea in the form it's
usually now presented, for whatever merits it might have, really is
something somewhat different than 'Social Credit'. At one time many
firms issued their own 'community currency' of sorts. Usually in the
form of notes or tokens that could only be spent in the 'company store'
in a one industry 'company town'. But not always.
Two 20th century instances of the differences between only being able to
spend this kind of currency in the business of the issuer, or being able
to spend it elsewhere, with other businesses that would 'accept' it,
took place in eastern Oregon.
Kinzua Pine Mills Co. owned and operated a large logging, lumber, and
wood-working plant in the now vanished 'company town' of Kinzua. And
issued its own 'money' good in exchange for merchandise at their
'Mercantile' there.
Harris Pine Mills, at the non-company town of Pendleton, operated a
similar type of business. And, during the cash-short days of the
Depression, resorted to paying its employees in 'scrip', too.
Since Harris didn't have a 'company store', to get Pendleton merchants
to accept this 'scrip' the Harris Company promised to redeem it in US
currency notes after a certain period (6 months, I believe), and pay 5%
per annum interest on it while it was outstanding. The 'interest' is
what made it fungible as a community currency. Without that, or some
other form of advantage to those exchanging goods for it, it wouldn't
have been accepted.
This is one of the problems with modern 'community currency'. It is not
completely 'fungible', and there is often no discernable advantage to
those being asked to accept it. And so it isn't accepted, and isn't
'money'.
(Jeff wrote:-) Hong Kong exists on public land. There, private
individual (or family
or corporate) owners of buildings had total security - until
reunification.
(Joe replies:-) My brother-in-law and his family lived in Hong Kong
prior to re-unification. They 'owned' a 300 square foot 'apartment'
through what we would call in BC a 'strata-title'. Similar to the way
most 'condominiums' are held here. They sold this 'title', for
considerably more than they paid for it, when they immigrated to Canada.
What they got for it, even with the exchange rate difference between HK
and Canada, provided enough funds for a pretty good down payment on a
nice house in the Greater Vancouver area. While I have no doubt they
would agree with your website's statement about HK being the world's
greatest place to do business, (he was an employee of an American owned
outboard motor manufacturer, not a businessman), and they've been back a
couple of times to visit his wife's family, they have no desire to live
there again in the kind of living conditions they previously 'enjoyed',
(which were pretty good, by HK standards.)
(Jeff continues:-) In most American cities, the port district is public
land. Again, building owners there enjoy complete security. Still, what
makes anyone's ownership of any site "proper", and thus "property"?
(Joe replies:-) This is also often the case in Canada. The building
owners on 'leased' City or Harbour Authority waterfront do enjoy
complete security. Until their lease is up for renewal.
Take the case of two former Vancouver lumber outfits whose plants were
on 'leased' land. One, Bay Lumber had, just shortly before losing its
lease, constructed a 'state-of-the-art' plant. The culmination of a
life's work by its owner, a fellow who arrived in this country as a
refugee from war torn Europe, and ploughed his heart and soul into
making a success in an industry not noted for small player longevity.
The 'lease' had come up before, and had always been renewed. He
employed a lot of people, paid all the Union wages and benefits, had
developed good markets for his products, and good connections with log
suppliers.
But right at the pinnacle of potential prosperity, the 'lease' expired,
and the powers-that-be decided that site would be better for waterfront
condos than a sawmill. Au revoir, Bay Lumber.
Case study number two, Sweeney Cooperage. Also on 'leased' land. A
living, working 'heritage site' if ever there was one. Equipped with
machinery from right out of the 1920's, steam-powered, still completely
functional, and turning out a still useful, but now rather rare, product
~ wooden barrels. Last place in western North America still able to do
that. A true treasure to watch, and handled properly, something that
could've been one of the greatest tourist draws the otherwise now very
uninteresting City of Vancouver could have ever wished for. Same story,
lease came up, sorry Sweeney, waterfront condos for yuppies is where
it's at nowadays. Get outta here. 'Security'? I'll 'own' MY land,
thank you very much!
|
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message