----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:23
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] ---Re:
ELECTRONZ - 611 and the 'Red Dawn'
Hi everyone
I haven't jumped into this debate before now, because I wanted to see what the
various members of the forum had to say about the topic. I make the following
observations:-
1) Douglas recognised the fundamental problem of
the present monetary system namely debt financing.
2) He then reached the conclusion, which I
believe is inarguable, that the system is unsustainable in the long term
irrespective of any efforts by financial insitutions to do
otherwise
3) The fundamental flaw in the present system is
simple. Money goes into circulation as a debt to the private banking system,
but the only way that debt can be redeemed is from the money in
circulation.
4) As a consequence there is no way that this
situation can be resolved without regular and deliberate "crashes" in all
finacial operations in order to start again, since it is obvious that the
present system is a self sustaining debt organising scheme. More debt has to
be incurred at an ever increasing rate in order to simply sustain normal
finacial transactions. Debt increases in order to sustain debts already
incurred.
5) It was this situation that Douglas attempted
to explain to everyone, and the ridiculous position of allowing it to
continue.
6)Douglas also recognised that it would,
ultimately lead to general stagnation of all finacial transactions as more and more financial transactions would be simply debt
repayments and
less and less would be involved in enabling
tradfe and commerce to be undertaken.
7) His solution to that problem was expressed in
the famous A+B hypothesis. This simply states that costs in
manufacturing always exceed wage and salary
payments. Axiomatically wage and salaries cannot equal manufacturing costs, and that there will never be enough "money" in
circulation to sustain industrial output on a constant basis. He grasped the
fundamental fact that the debt system was the
initial attempt to bridge that gap to ensure continued industrial output and
financial stability.
I believe all
correspondents are losing sight of this
fundamental reason for Socred monetary reform. The principles established by
Douglas are still valid today, and, although
some of his ideas for solving the problem may be archaic, there remains the
intractable conclusion that the present
monetary system is stiffling human developement because of the way it is
organised. We do not to follow blindly Douglas dogma. The Theory of Relativity
proposed by Einstein in the early 20th century has been modified tremendously
since then to take into account new Scientific knowledge, but its fundamental
breakthrough i.e. All motion is Relative remains inviable.We are allowed the
same leeway provided we remember the fundamental flaws in the present economic system as propounded by Douglas. Our duty is to
find a workable viable financial sytem that
does not incur progressive debt and economic stagnation. We must also remember
that a tiny minority of financiers control the system and they would always
fight to the death to avoid any changes that
would erode that control. Hence the deliberate policy of ridicule directed
towards us particularly the "funny money" tag.
Bill
Mc Gunnigle
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:28
AM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] ---Re:
ELECTRONZ - 611 and the 'Red Dawn'
(John Rawson wrote:-) “Such as, shall we
have a totally (or almost) government funded health system as in the
UK, or one
that is basically private, as I believe exists in the
USA. In
other words, is Government going to fund this directly, or ensure that
consumers have the necessary power to purchase "health" as
needed?
“I am sure a
topic like this could occupy as much time and space as this group covers, so
I have no intent of opening it up for discussion. But I could argue
for either side at length, using SC principles.”
(Joe replies:- ) I don’t really want to open the much
discussed (in Canada, anyways)
public or private ‘Health Care’ debate up here either, but I am curious to
know just ‘HOW’ you believe the
‘Government’ could “fund this directly” and still ensure the type of timely
healthcare that’s appropriate for the needs of all patients is
delivered? None of us want to
see those who are ill, or injured, or in decline through age, unable to
receive the best medical attention and needed care that’s ‘physically’
possible to provide simply because they can’t ‘financially’ afford
it. But it seems to me there is a bit of
the usual ‘hypnotism’ present when we operate under the
‘illusion’ that ‘Government’ funded healthcare is always going to be lower
cost or even ‘free’.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email nschwartz@cogeco.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
McGunnigle's Prime
Reply to this message
