|
Messages from 3784 to 3843
|
|
|
|
| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] ---Re: ELECTRONZ - 611 and the 'Red Dawn' | | Date: | Saturday, April 8, 2006 05:19:44 (+0000) | | From: | John G Rawson <johngrawson @.......com>
|
Think again, Bill. We are talking about banks issuing credit, not currency.
But my main point concerns Social Crediters who think that banks put no money
into circulation that can help pay their charges. They do, because they pay out
some of their income as rents, salaries, power charges etc. If you want to know
an example, look at the oversimplified "Island" example put out by the Pilgrims
where the "Banker" obviously is atomic powered because he never even buys piece
of wood or an apple or a sausage or an egg or even some wheat for his own chooks
from the islanders.
We do ourselves no favours by putting up arguments that any intelligent reader
can destroy. And this applies to most attempts to "prove" A+B by deduction.
Either that or they become so long-winded that readers lose the theme. But,
tested scientifically and inductively, the whole thing just becomes so simple and
understandable.
To take a parallel example in geology, try "proving" continental drift by long
studies of heat expansion and contraction, effects of atomic transformation on
earth core temperatures, "solid flow" etc. and ignoring direct evidence from
mountains formed of sediments, earthquakes, tsunamis etc. that are readily
comprehendible.
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: Fri, 7 Apr 2006
23:58:57 +1200
Hi John
I don't see your argument John. That explanation is irrelevant to
the creation of "money" by the banking system. They can only issue currency on
the basis of treasury bonds. The "money-go-round" cannot alter the redemption of
those bonds from general circulation by the government. I conceed that Bankers
would attempt to use that argument, but they would founder as soon as figures
were placed into the equation. There is always a shortfall under our present
monetary system between funds needed to ensure commerce runs smoothly and what
the banking system demands from the system. "Money shufflers" are not investors.
Some may be speculators, but the system still doesn't balance unless new money is
created to supply the shortfall between the money issued into the system and what
the banking fraternity
demands from the system. That "New money"is the ever increasing debt to
thebanking system.
Bill Mc G
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] ---Re: ELECTRONZ - 611 and the 'Red Dawn'
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 -----
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
Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Find the coolest online games at XtraMSN Games
|
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message