Hello Peter,
I don’t know
whether you’ve ever seen “The Development of World Dominion”,
which was a compilation of Douglas’s later writings taken from “The
Social Crediter” in the late 1940’s into
the 1950’s, but there are several quotes in there which might shed some
light on his position regarding what we’ve been discussing. I’ll reproduce the relevant parts of
some of them below:-
#159, page 128:- “…..it is difficult to assess
the activities of various monetary reformers, and their schools of thought,
which agitate for “the restoration of money issue to the Government (or
‘the people’) to spend money into circulation to keep prices
constant”.
“As things are, we consider that the
demand, under various names, for the further centralisation of money-creation
is the most dangerous activity extant.
And many monetary reformers, who appear to be more concerned to damage
private banking than to achieve individual benefit, are doing their half-baked
best to assist.
#130, page 106:- “Witness the deadly
nonsense regarding the “sole right of the State to issue money.”
“The whole
conception of a managed currency is both fundamentally dishonest and
pragmatically deceptive.”
# 89, page 75:- “But, you may
say, the banks “have no right” to create money to bribe John with a
decimal fraction of it. The only part of
this sentence which makes sense is the latter.
John, and others like him, ought to have a larger “interest”
on their deposit (really, a dividend on the money created). “
#59, page 47:- “It is as
sensible ~ neither more nor less ~ to speak of “the necessity of
restoring the control of currency and credit to the Government” as to
speak of “the necessity of restoring the control of wheat-growing to the
Government”.
“What matters
most about money and wheat is: who gets it, and on what terms.’’
Further to this, in
the archives of this List can be found what is known as the
‘‘Pound-for-pound” letter, where Douglas responds to a suggestion that the ‘credit
creating’ function be removed from private banks. I’ll reproduce it here:-
13th April, 1933
Dear Mr. Byrne,
In reference to our conversation yesterday afternoon,
I have not up to the present taken the "pound for
pound" business very seriously, but as, apparently,
Lord Tavistock is putting it forward at each of his
meetings, perhaps it ought to receive attention.
It is, of course, simply another way of stating that
the present banks are to be shut down, since under
this scheme a bank could neither lend nor borrow
since it would have to consult all its depositors
every time it lent money, reducing their deposits by
the amount lent, and it would, therefore, have to
become a safe deposit for paper bank notes of the
intrinsic value of 4/-per thousand, which does not
seem to require so elaborate a mechanism.
As you know, I consider the administration of the
present banks admirable, and I think to put forward a
proposal of this kind is either to court the
accusation that it is not understood by its sponsors,
or else to raise up a wholly unnecessary and
additional antagonism on the part of orthodox
bankers.
Yours sincerely,
C. H. Douglas
-
The private Banks most certainly do need to be
regulated, as we would regulate any other ‘monopoly’. More so, I would say, than they currently are,
and particularly as to the activities they can engage in. But I don’t
think it’s necessary to turn them into ‘on-lenders’ to do
that. It seems to me this would just
introduce another layer of ‘bureaucracy’ into the whole system, and
the public would only end up paying a higher price for it. Witness the ‘finance companies’
now existent, who, I suppose, already get their ‘money’ from the
Banks to ‘re-lend’ , and that their interest rates charged the
public reflect this by being higher, generally, than what might be paid for the
same funds borrowed directly from the Banks.
Douglas, in “Credit-Power and Democracy’’
remarked that ‘centralized’ financial credit control would break up
civilization, and I believe he was correct.
Regards,
Joe
-----Original
Message-----
From: Peter Haines
[mailto:cymric@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: June 1,
2006 1:58 AM
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] the
"effect" of interest ~ back to Peter
I underrstand the National Credit
Office ( 'monopoly' if you like) determined the volumn of new money supply but
I am not able to say anything further and no one is coming forward with
anything either so we cant go any further, but I understood your concern was
how the money was to be injected into the economy and you accepted the
devil-you-know rather than what seemed likely to be more monopolistic.
I cant make that decision until I
have investigated what Douglas said/inferred or indicated regards a/the banking
system in a SC society. The issue of whether the Dividend and the
JPM/CDis would neutralise the banking system's control naturally falls within
this as well.
No quote has been forthcoming regards
Douglas accepting the existing banking
system to remain either. The only thing that seems certain is the changes
to the finance system in response to the A plus B theorem.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:06 AM
Subject: RE:
[socialcredit] the "effect" of interest ~ back to Peter
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
