| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] the "effect" of interest ~ back to Peter | | Date: | Saturday, June 3, 2006 03:10:16 (+0000) | | From: | John G Rawson <johngrawson @.......com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4096 (written by Wallace M. Klinck) |
But surely, if Government is to spend none of the new money to be issued into
circulation, it will be faced for ever with the choice of taxation and/or
borrowing for its expenditure? And policicians in need of popularity will borrow
rather than tax, and government debts will continue to rise? Sounds as if the BC
administration was going right along Douglas' lines in this particular, if not in
others! "Let them borrow, but give the (people) the money to pay the
interest."?
And how does this gel with the atitude of some Social Crediters that most or
all taxation is unnecessary?
Seems to me like wanting to have the cake and eat it too.
Regards. John R.
From: "Wallace M. Klinck" <wmklinck@shaw.ca>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] the "effect" of interest ~ back to Peter
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006
03:06:07 -0600
Thanks for the comments, Joe.
There is no such thing in Social Credit thought as a "positive contribution to
keeping unemployment down" (see Bill McGunnigle's comments below). Properly
understood, our aim is progressively to release mankind from necessary work. We
wish to promote conditions which are conducive to an increasingly leisured and
civilized society--and the moreso the better. "Full employment" as a social
policy is fundamentally NOT a Social Credit objective and until this is clearly
comprehended beyond all doubt, one can never get "off the ground" toward becoming
a Social Crediter in any meaningful way whatsoever. Absolute economic security
IS a Social Credit objective and is to be pursued, in the financial
realm, essentially by means of the Social Credit National (Consumer) Dividend and
the Compensated Price.
Regarding a "balanced budget": The Douglas analysis explicitly demonstrates
the impossibility of a balanced budget under the orthodox financial regime. Debt
can at times be shifted from one jurisdiction or social or governent stratum to
another but in order to carry on as a society we must, as a society, go
increasingly into debt--unrepayable except by periodic refinancing
(i.e., borrowing). Essentially, the "floating" debts of society are converted
into expanding "fixed" debt of senior governments. Under the orthodox, or
existing, system of banking and finance, a "balanced budget" (see Douglas in
The Alberta Experiment) means:
1. That the economy is static
2. That we consume all of our real (i.e., physical) capital currently, and
3. That the issuer of credit (i.e., the banking system) owns, in final
analysis, all real capital
Comment on the above points:
1. We should never be physically limited in economic activity, whether in
production or consumption, by artificial financial constraint. Physical
potential for production and consumption should always be financially
accommodated, i.e., finance should always reflect physical reality.
2. Obviously we do not consume our capital currently inasmuch as it clearly
accumulates and lasts into the future. Unfortunately under orthodox financial
rules money in respect of real capital charges is withdrawn prematurely via the
price mechanism, i.e., long before the physical capital is actually worn out or
obsoleted.
3. Productive capital is created by society at large and banking institutions
have no right to appropriate effective ownership of it. The Social Credit
National (Consumer) Dividend and Compensated Price would confer beneficial
ownership of the communal capital upon individual citizens.
Actually, Douglas declared, and effectively demonstrated, that a "balanced
budget" is actually a bankers' policy. That should be obvious from a Social
Credit standpoint. I agree that the "Social Credit" administration in British
Columbia was anything but Social Credit--and you provide an excellent account of
the financial policies they actually followed in your Province. It is a
confirmation of Douglas's "thesis" that even though British Columbia "enjoyed" a
vigorous export trade, the de facto Provincial debt still continued to
escalate.
Sincerely
Wally
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:22 PM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] the "effect" of interest ~ back to Peter
Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
The original BC Social Credit League Government did, as you say, “run in the
black.” The experience of ‘political Party’ ‘Social Credit in BC was
substantially different from that in Alberta. While the original
‘League’ government won election after election here for 20 years, I don’t
believe they ever achieved over 50% of the ‘popular vote’. There was never an
overwhelming majority voting for ‘social credit’, (or some
version of it), as there had been in Alberta.
Consequently, Premier WAC Bennett, who was ‘fiscally conservative’, (and a
Conservative before joining Social Credit) could run ‘balanced (surplus,
actually) budgets’, something which is not consistent with original ‘Social
Credit’ doctrine, on the claim that by doing so he was “keeping the Province out
of the clutches of the moneylenders.”
What enabled him to do so was the tremendous growth in the BC economy in
that era through ever expanding resource exploitation. We had, at that time,
markets literally beating a path to our doors. At the same time, his
government engaged in what might be called some ‘creative accounting’. They
off-loaded some items which had been ‘direct’ Provincial Government debt onto
various Crown Corporations and ‘Authorities’, which were ‘guaranteed’ as to
payment by the Province, but could then be classed as ‘contingent liabilities’ on
the Province’s books. Much in the manner of someone ‘co-signing’ a loan ~ the
debt isn’t their’s, it’s the
‘borrower’s ~ unless the borrower defaults. In actual fact, real overall
Provincial debt (in total) continued to grow all through the WAC Bennett years.
‘Inflation’, which caught up to and surpassed the seemingly never
ending ‘prosperity’ by the early 1970’s, was their eventual undoing. Was a
good run while it lasted, but still fell far short of what could have been had
some greater attention been paid to ‘real’ Social Credit.
Regards,
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: W. McGunnigle
[mailto:wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: May 31, 2006 6:26
AM
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] the "effect" of interest
~ back to Peter
You have forgotten that since then there has been a vast
proliferation of government departments and consequently the number of
administrators needed to operate them "efficiently". The classic example is the
onshore administration for the British Navy. In 1919 when the British Navy had
more ships than any two other navies compined well over 400 vessels it managed
with an administrative staff of approximately 8000-10000. I believe today when
its number of active vessels can be counted on two hands it requires an
admin. staff of around 100000. Apparently all Western nations suffer from this
disease every civil service increases by approximately 12% per year irrespective
on the work load. There are more
administrators on most armed forces budgets than service personelle. When we add
Social welfare, Judiciary, and political administration costs for
parliamentary staff all of whom have proliferated like the proverbial maggots you
can see why governments needed all that extra revenue. On the other hand perhaps
by employing all these extra staff the government is making a positive
contribution to keeping unemployment down. I know that in the UK many offices
were decentralised and transferred to areas of high unemployment. A great pity
that BC lost its Socred government, From my reading it appears to only BC
government that actually ran consistently "in the Black". I know the NZ
government hasn't done this consistently for many years.
Bill McGOriginal Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 4:39 PM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] the "effect" of interest ~ back to
Peter
Hello Bill (McGunnigle),
Thanks for an interesting history and overview of taxation. I didn’t know
‘income tax’ dated back to Pitt. Taxes seem to be demarcated into ‘temporary’
and ‘permanent’ categories here, too. And many ‘temporary’ ones seem to become
more or less ‘permanent’ after they’ve been established. Most politicians,
once elected, seem to be convinced that they know how to spend your money
for you better than you know how to spend it yourself. Especially around
election time.
Here in BC, the original Social Credit League Government did remove
‘tolls’ on various major bridges once they were paid for. And generally
attempted to keep taxation low for everyone quite successfully. Later
governments weren’t so dedicated. And still toll one major arterial highway
that was paid off a decade or more ago, along with what’s suspected to be a
pretty substantial ‘sinking fund’ to cover maintaining it. The current mob in
charge tried to peddle that road and its toll booth off to a private operator
for an immediate multi-million dollar cash infusion to the Crown’s coffers, and
the opportunity to
share in future revenues through taxing the operator’s profits.
The normally passive BC public, in one of the most interesting examples
of what can be done when truly non-partisan ‘people-power’ is constructively
exercised, revolted. Two Government MLAs whose Ridings the road traversed, one
of them the normally ‘impartial’ Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the other
an important Cabinet Minister, got a lesson that wasn’t lost on them in ‘yielding
to pressure’. Massed public pressure.
Which completely overrode ‘Party’ affiliations, Cabinet solidarity,
ancient British Parliamentary precedents regarding what a Speaker is supposed to
say and do, and, eventually very substantial ‘Premier’ pressure from a normally
unmoveable dictatorial ideologue. The Speaker had to speak. Against what
his Government was planning to do. The road wasn’t ‘privatized’. But the
‘public pressure’ wasn’t sustained, unfortunately, and too quickly
dissipated. And when it did, the Government raised the ‘toll’ ! But, the road is
still ‘ours’,
and it did illustrate what IS possible, and could be done if the public wants
something bad enough and their determination and pressure could be focussed in a
way to get it.
Hard to believe sometimes that only 100 years ago many National
governments seemed to be funding almost their entire operations,
including infrastructure construction costs, mainly through Customs and Excise
duties on Imports. And today we embrace ‘Free-trade’, and wallow deeper in
debt.
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: W. McGunnigle
[mailto:wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz]
Sent: May 30, 2006 5:40 AM
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] the "effect"
of interest ~ back to Peter
Noted your comment on tax. Do you demarcate taxes into "Temporary"
taxes created to fund a particular publically incurred debt e,g, a war, and
"permanent" taxes designed to fund the general revenue for government
expenditure? I ask this because there is a particular temporary tax introduced in
1793 to fund William Pitt the Younger's war against France and eventually
Napoleon. It was called, surprise, surprise, INCOME TAX. I think that 213 years
for a "temporary tax" is a pretty good innings don't you. Or are we looking at
the political
expediency and duplicity practiced by rulers and politicians since time
immemorial? I have the jundiced view that a politician does not have the moral
capability of distiguishing between the two type of revenue gathering exercises
once he or she gets their paws on the money. Indeed I think they devise ways of
accounting to deliberately concealing funding sources so that they can avoid
fiscal responsibility for borrowing funds on the international money market.
Money laundering scams originated at government level to confuse everyone
into believing our taxes are being responsibly managed. In New Zealand the scam
is called the "Consolidated Fund" all taxation, revenue dues, road fines and
overseas borrowing disappears into this great black hole, and no one can
determine who is entitled to what because no government funding has been
previously earmarked for a particular purpose.The government SAYS that funds are
earmarked, but, if you attempt to trace the financial direction taken by any
peice of taxation or overseas borrowing, you find it is impossible to tie
down.The "Consolidated Fund" pays everything. What a magnificent way to conceal
financial fiddling and all perfectly legal. How do you combat this sort of
contrived creative accounting?
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 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:
7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/354 - Release Date: 6/1/2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Become a fitness fanatic with XtraMSN Health & Fitness!
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message