| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Control of Policy | | Date: | Sunday, June 4, 2006 11:27:32 (+1200) | | From: | Peter Haines <cymric @.......nz>
|
Thanks, much appreciated. I guess a lot of discussion could flow from this.
I read from this that we must "entirely move away" from the
"currency"system( the current debt based banking system which is able to
control policy, indutry and consumption) to a credit system that will see
'money' ( representing the price of production as demanded) being cancelled
by consumption rather than the banking system as now.
On achieving this an increase in consumption ( production as per demand)
will follow by the increasing value of the credit ( largely by reducing
costs of production )
This tells me that we are doing the opposite to what we should be doing.
How ever the role of the banks will largely remain the but the role of the
banks regards credit should inevitably change but that is a further matter.
Peter H
----- Original Message -----
From: "MODERATOR" <socredus@yahoo.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 2:52 AM
Subject: [socialcredit] Control of Policy
> The Control of Policy in Industry
>
> C. H. Douglas
>
> Chapter II, The Control and Distribution of
> Production, 1922.
>
> This address was given to the Students at Ruskin
> College, Oxford, who at the time were chiefly Marxist
> in outlook.
>
> Excerpt:
>
> ...There exists in civilized society in all countries
> to-day an institution whose business is to issue
> money. This institution is called a bank. The
> banking business is in many respects the exact
> opposite of the Social Reform business--it is
> immensely powerful, talks very little, acts quickly,
> knows what it wants, chooses its employees wisely in
> its own interests.
>
> When a bank allows a manufacturer an overdraft for the
> purpose of carrying out a contract or a production
> programme, it performs an absolutely vital function,
> without which production would stop. If you doubt
> this, consider for a moment the result of a rise in
> the bank rate of interest on loans and you see that
> the power to choke off producers by taxing them at
> will is essentially similar to that exercised by
> governments on consumers by orthodox taxation, with
> the vital difference that in the first case a purely
> sectional interest is operating uncontrolled by
> society, whereas in the second case the power
> undoubtedly exists, though ineffective because
> misunderstood, to control it in the general interest.
>
> Now the vital thing done by a bank in its financing
> aspect is to mobilize effective demand.
>
> *The effective demand is that of the public, based on
> the money of the public, and the willingness of
> producers to respond to economic orders; but the
> paramount policy which directs the mobilization is
> anti-public, because it aims at depriving, with the
> greatest possible rapidity, the public of the means to
> make its demands effective, through the agency of
> prices.*
>
> In order, then, to acquire public control of economic
> policy, we have to control the whole mechanism of
> effective demand--the rate at which its vehicle,
> financial credit, is issued, the conditions on which
> it is issued, and take such measures as will ensure
> that the public, from whom it arises, are penalized by
> withdrawal of the vehicle to the minimum possible
> extent. It must be obvious that the real imit of the
> rate at which something representing purchasing-power
> could be issued to the *public* is equal to the
> maximum rate at which goods can be produced, whereas
> the 'taking back' through prices of this
> purchasing-power should be the equivalent of the
> fraction of the potential production which is
> consumed.
>
> Let us imagine that wages, salaries and dividends,
> added together, were issued via the productive
> industries at a *rate* representing the maximum
> possible production of ultimate products, and actual
> consumption was only one quarter of potential
> production. Then, clearly, the community would only
> have exercised one quarter of its potential demand.
> But the whole of the *costs* of production--the issues
> of purchasing-power through the agencies of wages,
> salaries and dividends--would have to be allocated to
> the *actual* production as at present, and if we
> charge the public with the whole cost of production
> their total effective demand is taken from them. But
> if we apply to the ascertained cost of production a
> fractional multiplier equal to the ratio of actual
> consumption to potential production, then we take back
> in prices that portion of the total purchasing-power
> which represents the actual energy draft on the
> productive resources of the community and the price to
> the actual consumer would be, in the case above
> mentioned, 75 per cent less than commercial costs.
>
> If I have made myself clear you will see that
> credit-issue and price-making are the positive and
> negative aspects of the same thing, and we can only
> control the economic situation by controlling both of
> them--not one at a time, but both together, and in
> order to do this it is necessary to transfer the basis
> of the credit-system entirely away from *currency* on
> which it now rests, to *useful productive capacity.*
>
> The issue of credit instruments will not result in an
> expansion of money for the same or a diminished amount
> of goods, which is inflation, but an expansion of
> goods for the same or a diminishing amount of money,
> which is deflation.
> -
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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