(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
