(John Rawson wrote:- ) 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?
(Joe replies:-) But if the Government DOES ‘‘spend
this new money to be created into circulation’’, (say for ‘infrastructure’,
in the way the ‘Democrats’ propose), you are going to get exactly what we got ~ ‘inflation’. It really doesn’t matter the source of
this ‘new money’ ~ private bank , Reserve Bank, or printing
press ~ the effect will be exactly the same, since NONE of it is being
introduced in a manner that will LOWER overall ‘consumer’ prices by
being directly applied to that purpose.
The ‘inflation’ will ‘tax’
you indirectly, and eventually far greater and more permanently than a ‘direct’ tax that you can see
ever will.
And policicians in need of
popularity will borrow rather than tax, and government debts will continue to
rise?
Government debts continue to rise because the
financial system as presently constituted is not completely ‘self-liquidating’.
If it were completely ‘self-liquidating’ we would not be faced with
having to continually convert the aggregate of unrepayable
‘floating’ private debt into ‘fixed’ government
debt that’s unrepayable, too. (Except potentially by having a permanently ‘favourable’
balance of trade with some other countries.
An increasing impossibility today.)
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."
The original BC Social Credit League Government
was, without any doubt whatsoever, the best administration this Province has
ever had in its nearly 150 years of existence under
the Crown. No other Government before or
since has come close to them in what was accomplished here in their 20 year
tenure of office. It was the ‘Golden
Age of British
Columbia’,
truly, and no criticism of their failings, which were many, can ever detract
from that. But, as Wally said, they were
anything but ‘Social Credit’. And that, in the end, proved to be their
greatest failing of all. They paid, and
still do, in the shell of what remains of the BC Social Credit ‘Party’,
lip service to some of Douglas’s philosophy. But there was precious little of most of it
that was ever brought through into ‘policy’. And a great deal more, particularly towards
the end of their tenure, that was the complete antithesis of genuine ‘social
credit’.
And how does this gel with the atitude
of some Social Crediters that most or all taxation is
unnecessary?
Aside from ‘debt service charges’,
just ‘what’ do most modern governments spend most of the money they
raise on? Is it not what might broadly
be described as ‘social programs’?
The latest version of which in this country is a proposal for subsidized ‘day
care’ so that those families who can no longer financially afford to ‘live’ on ‘one’ income
can have both parents ‘working’.
(and slide faster into ‘poverty’ on
‘two’ !) We already, it has been calculated, work the first half of
every year just to pay all the various taxes that are imposed upon us. And that’s without ‘subsidized
day care’ to add to the total. Still
it’s not enough to meet the needs that those who rule us say we’re
demanding of ‘government’. And
it never will be. For no matter how you
re-distribute an ‘insufficiency’, it’s still an ‘insufficiency’. And always will be until we consciously
recognize just ‘what’ is ‘insufficient’ (to us, money),
and ‘how’, (in its relationship to ‘consumer’ prices ).
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
