(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
