eListas - My Lists: socialcredit: Messages

Bill, have you ever thought that the banks would have a perfect answer to your point 3 by claiming that all their profits are paid out as salaries, dividends, rents, power charges etc. and therefore that the system is self-liquidating because that money IS available to pay interest and other charges? It just "goes round"?

Very obviously, that is not true, if we test the system inductively by scientific methodology. Like any other business, they "reinvest". And further evidence comes from things like our banks refusing to divulge their hidden reserves publicly for the Royal Commission "in the public interest".

But I shudder when Social Crediters claim that ALL interest etc. causes part of the "gap". I believe this is the reason why some of our people have gone ridiculously overboard at times in estimating how much we could do. And this is one reason why I am so fanatical about the inductive approach, The data to work it out deductively is so complicated it is simply not possible to do it. But tested inductively, the Douglas analysis is the only one that answers questions about why we have slumps, stagflation, etc. etc. But quantification can only come from vastly better bookkeeping and a certain amount of trial and error. For a start we need accurate data for production, which I believe no nation has developed. I suspect "GDP" is still based on incomes and the theory that they equate with production, with "B costs" being ignored.

Sorry to be b. difficult the moment you come out of hibernation, but you would do the same to me!

Regards. John R.

From: "W. McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] ---Re: ELECTRONZ - 611 and the 'Red Dawn'
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 11:23:31 +1200

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 -----

From: thomsonhiyu

To: socialcredit@elistas.com

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 johngrawson@hotmail.com For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit

Services:	Home, List Hosting Services, Industry Solutions
Your Account:	Sign Up, My Lists, My Preferences, Start a List
General:	About Us, News, Privacy Policy, No spam, Contact Us


The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net

HOME SERVICES SOLUTIONS COMPANY