|
Yes, a Social Crediter has some difficulties with
the simplified and imprecise presentation offered in the booklet "Salvation
Island." It is true that banks make payments which must be classified as
income to other players in the economy. There remains, however, the valid
unanswered question of the banks' hidden reserves and the writing down of
assets, etc.
Wally
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 11:19
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] ---Re:
ELECTRONZ - 611 and the 'Red Dawn'
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 wmklinck@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free
Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date:
4/8/2006
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
