|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] land, money|
|Date:||Wednesday, March 22, 2006 06:22:50 (+1200)|
|From:||Peter Haines <cymric @.......nz>
|In reply to:||Message 3681 (written by thomsonhiyu)|
That was two great posts. The subtle shifts in taxing and land are the
stuff of Fabian tactics.
----- Original Message -----
From: "thomsonhiyu" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:00 PM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] land, money
> (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
> (Jeff wrote:-) Hong Kong exists on public land. There, private
> individual (or family
> or corporate) owners of buildings had total security - until
> (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
> 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!
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> You're subscribed to this list with the email firstname.lastname@example.org
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit