I
appreciate now what you are getting at re 'monopoly'. I wont presume
to define the full realities of issues of which this is but one.
What would be required would be for a group of educated social crediters (
not on behalf of 'govt' !) to sit down with a whiteboard and with a list on
one side of the desirables and a list of undersirables on the other and work
through this as an exercise to see what would be a practical and credible
set of proposals.
(Joe
replies:-) I agree. But at the moment are ANY of
us really ‘educated’ Social
Crediters? Vic Bridger told me
one time that there was only ‘one’ master, and that was
Douglas. Implying that even he, (who, along
with Wally Klinck, I would say
were very well-educated Social Crediters ), still didn’t place himself on that
level. Bill Ryan, who has a
‘financial’ knowledge far beyond that which most of us will ever attain,
said himself that , “…we’re all
students here,” and that there was “….lots in
Douglas
to be explored yet”. Now
when people of that calibre, who have already developed a familiarity and
understanding the rest of us still aspire to, realize there’s still lots to be
learned from the ‘master’, I think we should realize we’ve a formidable task
ahead of ourselves just in properly gaining the
basics.
P
responds- You agree, then deflate the idea and then list possible
members but surely you dont mean that until the rest of us have achieved the
formidable task that no one should attempt such a
workshop?
I
think some of the discussions, sometimes driven by non-social crediters
have been as complex, in fact probably more so than this would
entail.
(Joe
replies;-)
I’m not trying to ‘deflate’ your idea, Peter. Sorry if it seems that way. I think it’s a very good idea so far
as determining what is ‘desirable’ and ‘undesirable’, as you said. In other words, just what the
‘objectives’ we are trying to obtain really should be. Once those ‘objectives’ have been
determined, however, assuming that there was agreement on what they were,
just how we actually go about attaining in them in a manner that doesn’t end
up defeating what we’ve all agreed we’re trying to do is where we have to be
careful.
(Peter
continues;- ) There are other things we are not touching on such as tax or
no tax. I would expect if you retain the present banking system you
retain taxing as you have no alturnative and this ( tax) is an area of
debate in its own right.
(Joe
replies:- ) I don’t think
there’s a problem with ‘taxes’ if you have the money to pay them, they’re
not imposed as a means of confiscating ‘property’, and they’re used to
provide necessary services best provided by ‘government’. But you’re right, it is an area for
debate in its own right.
P
doesnt respond to avoid a disgression.
(Peter
continues:- ) But regards 'monopoly' it wouldnt be worse because at the
present time the banking system is outside the economy and politics (
not the business politics you referred to) and once it has been moved to
within both the mystic is gone, the public automatically realise whose
credit it is and that it was misappropriated and it
become substantially transparent rather than shrouded by smoke and
mirrors ( in both banking and politics). The whole political
environment will change simply because of the public awareness alone, but
there will be other possitives as well. The public wont be blindsides
by a political monopoly on budget night, they will be looking closely at
what is going to be done with 'our money'. ie how it will be allocated,
similar to how taxes are now. The nation will adapt a 'shareholder'
attitude which what it should be and that is more like a social credit
society.
(Joe
replies:- ) What do you suppose
would happen if, say, the Democrats for ‘Social Credit’ finally attained electoral success and
decided to pursue their stated policy of funding Government
‘infrastructure’, and possibly ‘low-interest’ PRODUCER loans, too, as they
aver was once done so successfully? Through new, low or no
interest credit-issue by your Reserve Bank? What do you think would happen to
the international exchange rate of the Kiwi buck if you moved to do
this? Remembering that NZ is
currently not internally ‘self-sufficient’, and couldn’t be without your now
generally accepted ‘standard of living’ taking a bit of a hit. What do you think would happen
to the ‘domestic’ exchange rate, i.e., ‘consumer prices’, if this was
done? Alternately, if you
followed Douglas’s proposals for augmenting CONSUMER credit in NZ, using the
Reserve Bank to do that ‘debt-free’, and leaving ‘private banking’ to still
do as private banking currently does ~ assess and make fungible the
creditworthiness of individual borrowers?
P
responds- If you are indicating a third list would need to be included
which includes all the opposition from internal politics and internal
business sector to external influences such as the IMF, the
currency market etc, fine, but I am not interested in thinking through what
a political party would do in a society whose thinking was alien to social
credit. If the Democrats were the Titanic the iceberg would be the
media, forget the rest, a 'SC' party will probably never make
it.
This
moves the goalposts from what the discussion originally was. Since
when was social credit proposals not without
opposition
from powerful forces?
The
discussion for me was about what we should seek to do. To me that is
stage one. You look to be making 'what we are allowed to do' the
starting point- the line of least
resistence.
After
we set goals then we can look at the route and the
minefields.
(Joe
replies:- )
Well, I’m looking at what ‘political party’ Social Credit in your
country says it wants to do, no doubt with the best of intentions, and
asking what might be some of the consequences if that course were
followed. Versus what might be
some of the consequences if policies closer to Douglas Social Credit were
promoted instead.
(Peter
continues:- )
The
debate between us is over whether Douglas would have society retain the
banking system as it is or cause it to change and I believe that the
'formidable task' you referred to is largely formidable due to the
infrequency that Douglas is ever referred to to settle such issues, or
confirm arguments.
(Joe
replies:- ) Then refer me to where he ever said ALL
‘credit creation’ was to be ‘centralized’ in ONE ‘authority’, and settle the
argument.
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
