|
Score one for Michael! I have been aware of this challenge for a few days, but
due to re-locating to a computer and consol I have been away from for several
weeks, I had trouble finding both this message and a copy of the Primer.
I have re-read the Primer and acknowledge that it is different in the last
half than the way I characterized it in the comment that Michael has challenged.
My memory failed me when I was writing that. (My excuse these days, for as long
as I can get away with it, is "chemo-brain".) The difference, in the last
half of the Primer, is that Even deals with political objections to the bare
bones of principle laid out in the first half and then extrapolates to the "warm
and fuzzy" prospects for a society that does adopt the Social Credit principles
and techniques. He also provides justification for persons and groups who would
like to attack bankers as villains, and
I was thinking of some quite scurrilous propaganda I have seen from Quebecers
in the name of Social Credit from few decades ago. But he is certainly no more
provocative in that respect than several other authors. I couldn't help
noticing the following, however: QUOTE The ultimate ‘collateral’ upon
which banks create and issue new money is the difference between actual consumption and potential production. And by doing exactly what the banks
do when they issue loans, make overdrafts, and buy gold or securities – namely, create money upon the ‘collateral’ of the nation's
unutilized productive resources,– the Treasury could finance public
expenditures without calling upon its citizens individually to
sacrifice a penny of their present incomes.ENDQUOTE--from Orage Now,
I believe that Michael and Bill have spilled some ink over the first part of this
quotation, but I seem to have missed it if they focused on the latter clause
which permits governments to issue money directly for public works (investments)
and public consumption (e.g. medicare). I am pretty sure that Bill is dead-set
against such a "privilege" for governments, but Michael seems to find some
latitude for it.(?) Their issue seems to be whether or not Orage actually said
it, or if he did, whether Douglas would have agreed. ?? Keith
Triumphofthepast@aol.com wrote:
"Beyond [page 12], the objectionable political elements become
transparent." (Keith)
For example?
Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 kwilde@tc-biodiversity.org For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message