eListas - My Lists: socialcredit: Messages


The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net

HOME SERVICES SOLUTIONS COMPANY

Home > My Lists > socialcredit > Messages

Message Index

Messages from 4078 to 4137

Subject From

capital Triumpho

RE: [socialcredit] thomsonh

Re: [socialcredit] Peter Ha

Peter/Joe Triumpho

Control of Policy MODERATO

RE: [socialcredit] John G R

Re: [socialcredit] Wallace

Re: [socialcredit] Wallace

Re: [socialcredit] Keith Wi

RE: [socialcredit] thomsonh

Re: [socialcredit] W. McGun

Re: [socialcredit] John G R

Re: [socialcredit] Wallace

Re: [socialcredit] W. McGun

RE: [socialcredit] thomsonh

RE: [socialcredit] John G R

Re: [socialcredit] Martin H

Re: [socialcredit] Peter Ha

Re: [socialcredit] Peter Ha

RE: [socialcredit] thomsonh

Re: [socialcredit] W. McGun

Re: [socialcredit] W. McGun

RE: [socialcredit] Henry Ra

RE: [socialcredit] John G R

Re: Neo-Georgism William

RE: [socialcredit] thomsonh

Re: [socialcredit] John G R

Re: [socialcredit] Peter Ha

Re: [socialcredit] W. McGun

ecology of knowled Triumpho

RE: [socialcredit] thomsonh

nature and capital Triumpho

Re: [socialcredit] Peter Ha

Re: [socialcredit] John G R

RE: [socialcredit] John G R

Re: [socialcredit] W. McGun

Re: Neo-Georgism-- William

RE: [socialcredit] John G R

Re: [socialcredit] W. McGun

Re: [socialcredit] Keith Wi

ecology of knowled Triumpho

Neo-Georgism Triumpho

Re: [socialcredit] William

Neo-Georgism Triumpho

Re: [socialcredit] Keith Wi

Forwarded from Kev William

Re: [socialcredit] keith wi

RE: 'Tendering" thomsonh

Re: [socialcredit] W. McGun

Re: [socialcredit] W. McGun

Re: [socialcredit] W. McGun

help! Triumpho

ecology of knoweld Triumpho

human nature Triumpho

Re: [socialcredit] Adavans

Re: [socialcredit] Martin H

RE: [socialcredit] John G R

Re: [socialcredit] John G R

Re: [socialcredit] Martin H

Re: [socialcredit] Martin H

<< Prev. 60 | Next 60 >>

socialcredit

Main page Messages | Post | Files | Database | Polls | Events | My Preferences

Message 4144 < Previous | Next >

Reply to this message

Subject: Re: [socialcredit] the "effect" of interest ~ back to Peter
Date: Tuesday, June 6, 2006 10:35:49 (-0600)
From: Martin Hattersley <hattersleyjm @.........com>

In reply to: Message 4114 (written by thomsonhiyu)
Frankly, thompsonhiu, I don't think your argument advances anything. Taxes do pay for the provision of public services, but the problems created by the A+B phenomenon belong in a different area altogether. Martin Hattersley 1970-10123-99 St., EDMONTON AB CANADA Phone (780)423-4081;Fax(780)425-5247 e-mail: hattersleyjm@interbaun.com ----- Original Message ----- From: thomsonhiyu To: socialcredit@elistas.com Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:08 PM Subject: RE: [socialcredit] the "effect" of interest ~ back to Peter (John Rawson wrote;- ) Straight to your second point. Because I can't build roads to a sufficient standard, can't bribe my own police, run border controls or build hospitals. (Joe replies:- ) Could you currently do those things through financing them from straight taxation without there being an increase in overall 'debt' in the country as a whole? If you could do that, would your country not be in debt up to its collective eyeballs, and beyond? Isn't it more that you CAN'T do that? Nor can any other modern country? Look at your 'taxes'. If they're deducted from labour 'incomes' (of individuals) they're already included in the 'prices' of consumables. Since it's the 'gross' income before the tax is deducted that forms part of cost, not the just the 'net' pay you take home. If there's already a 'disparity' between the overall rate of income generation and that of price generation due primarily to ongoing 'labour displacement' and a falling change in the ratio of A to A+B, what happens? Taxes are much beloved by Bankers, (long as they're not singled out unduly to pay them!) , because they remove immediate purchasing power from the hands of consumers. And making 'money' scarce in this manner tends to increase its 'value' in relation to what it will buy. It makes the Banker's income, his 'interest'' which he will receive over the life of the loan, more valuable to him, even if the 'interest rate' on loans being made may decline. (This is the same as with any other merchant ~ the decline in price (of 'money', in this case), broadens the market. You can't 'profit' until you 'sell'. Nor can the Banker, until he 'loans'. Bankers are normally 'deflationists', as Douglas told us. To us though, even if 'taxes' were supposed to keep consumer prices 'down' (which they really don't), they just make it more difficult for us to acquire what we need and want. Since we don't have the 'money' necessary to take advantage of acquiring consumables to the extent it's been removed from us by taxation. Unless we 'borrow' it, as 'consumer credit', that is. And the businesses nowadays couldn't exist without that. The only real answer to this is to augment consumer incomes with debt-free CONSUMER credits sufficient to maintain A in constant ratio to A+B through time. Taxes might then be for the provision of 'services' best provided through 'Government', and with the restoration of adequate purchasing power directly to consumers through crediting them fully with ongoing 'capital appreciation' through the CPD and ND, (including that of Government infrastructure, if it's sensible and useful and increases the 'real credit' of the community), could be restored to that proper function to the extent they're still necessary. And I believe very strongly that the function of hospitals, for example, is to care for the sick, not to make a profit for entrepeneurs. That's borne out in England where just making the cleaning of hospitals come into that category, so that the aim is no longer to keep hospitals clean, has resulted in periodical closures because of "H bugs" etc. (Joe replies;-) There are several interesting issues here. On the surface, on a 'moral' basis, I agree with you. It seems to me to be 'morally' wrong to believe there should be anyone 'profiting' from the misfortune of anyone else's injury or illness. But 'economically' is a 'doctor' also an 'entrepreneur', or is he not? If he cannot make a "price for his product in excess of his costs" ~ a 'profit', actually ~ could he remain in practice long? Would he remain in practice long? And would there really be any incentive to enter medicine as a career in the first place? To go through all the training, to work the hours, to do that very kind of demanding work, to assume the very real 'liability' (not to mention the 'legal' one that might follow!) that in trying to 'do no harm' a mis-diagnosis, or 'off-day' with the scalpel or other tools of the trade might cause? 'Altruism' there may be in many of us, and give me a doctor who has a genuine interest in his profession and treating his patient over one who's just there 'for the bucks' any time I've need of one, but we certainly can't 'demand' someone practice medicine just solely 'for the good of mankind', and restrict him to no more than his physical sustenance for so doing , can we? Would any of us do the same thing, day in and day out, for that? Maybe there are those amongst us who would. But should any of us 'be forced' to do the same thing for that? 'Socialists' seem to think so. Which begs the question, "What else do they think anyone else should be 'forced' to do?" For if that 'policy' is to be applied to 'doctors', it certainly isn't going to end there. Now to go beyond the MD's themselves, the business of cleaning hospitals should most certainly be done by those who know how to do it, and are paid wages commensurate with the very real risks they incur in pursuing that occupation. We've witnessed the very same thing in 'privatisation' here, and it is both a false saving, and fraught with the same problems you allude to. The 'problem' is trying, once again, to 're-distribute' an insufficiency. And it can't be solved the way current governments are trying to pursue it. Now to look at another side of the issue, 'profit' in modern double-entry accountancy is not analogous to the 'cash' profit that might ensue in a simple 'barter' type of transaction where 'money' is actually being used as a 'medium of exchange'. Rather 'profit', or change in it, is an indication of the correctness of some entrepreneurial action. And I believe this has some application in regards to 'medicine' and the provision of overall 'medical services'. In North America there has been a long-standing debate over the virtues of 'public' ( supposedly non-profit ) medical services versus 'private' (for profit) ones. One thing that seems to be overlooked in the debate by those on the 'public' side is the 'patient'. Doctors don't treat 'disease', they treat 'patients'. When you try to pre-determine what 'diseases' need to be treated by 'bureaucratic' fiat instead of actual 'patient' necessities you're bound to get inefficient application of available human and physical resources, higher costs, and endless waiting lists that can only be shortened by those on them expiring. And, from observation, that's exactly what we do get with 'socialised medicine'. 'Profit', it seems to me, and regarding it in the 'double-entry' sense' could actually be beneficial in determining just what 'services' are most in demand, and in attempting to satiate that demand. Presently, there will problems with this approach. But not from 'profit', per se, but from the current deceptive 'money system' that a proper application of 'genuine' Social Credit could correct. And dealing with your third point, you still have not demonstrated any mechansm to prevent retailers gradually increasing the price, steadily subsidised all the way at 2% as it climbs. Please don't quote competition, which only works to hold prices down when there is difficulty selling goods etc. If all your timber was going out as fast as it was produced, even a good honest man like you would begin to wonderr if all his hard work didn't really merit a little better return, in slightly higher prices. And believe me, the timber industry in NZ has had the structure of a jungle in the past, and I can't see it having changed too much. Is there not always 'difficulty' in selling goods when the capacity to produce them exceeds the ability to consume them? And we have to 'pay' for the provision of that 'capacity', but we're not 'credited' fully financially for it's creation? Or is the "progress of the industrial arts a complete fraud?" Most retailers are interested in moving product. They could put up the price and wait for a buyer who'll meet it, but while they're waiting they've got 'costs' of their own that are ongoing. And the 'profit' they might make selling a very few items, though it may well be larger per item than that of the merchant who moves his goods in volume for a lower price, is diminishing from these 'costs' each day that product sits unsold. The real 'competition' generally doesn't come from those who do the same thing you do, only charge the public 'more' for it, but from those who do the same thing you do and charge the public 'less'. If you were making a pile of money from growing Callas and other tropicals, how long before every other Northland Kiwi with a little piece of your Island's real estate and a horticultural bent would be trying the same thing? And what happens to the market then? If you're not making a pile of money from growing them, why not? To keep just that from happening, no? In lumber, the return generally has always been 'on volume'. Trying to get the 'costs' down relative to it. Sure we try to sneak the 'price' up whenever we're able to, but using the CPD to subsidise a 'raise' in prices to Consumers just wouldn't work. The greater problem would be ensuring that the 'big boys' didn't use it to unfairly subsidize predatory pricing, to try to eliminate the competition through 'lower' prices that couldn't be matched. There would have to be an agreed upon minimum profit on 'turnover', (not on 'capital'), but I don't think that would be hard to obtain, police, or enforce. If they want 'more' profit, then, they have to find a way to engender a still higher turnover. Which should mean 'better service', and more innovativeness in 'reducing costs'. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 hattersleyjm@interbaun.com 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: 268.8.2/356 - Release Date: 05/06/2006 ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C68954.FA699740 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"; xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content=Word.Document name=ProgId> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR> <META content="Microsoft Word 10" name=Originator><LINK href="cid:filelist.xml@01C687E8.BF086A40" rel=File-List><o:SmartTagType name="place" namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType> <STYLE>  </STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY lang=EN-CA style="tab-interval: .5in" vLink=blue link=blue bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV>Frankly, thompsonhiu, I don't think your argument advances anything. Taxes do pay for the provision of public services, but the problems created by the A+B phenomenon belong in a different area altogether.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Martin Hattersley 1970-10123-99 St., EDMONTON AB CANADA Phone (780)423-4081;Fax(780)425-5247 e-mail: <A href="mailto:hattersleyjm@interbaun.com">hattersleyjm@interbaun.com</A></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From: <A title=thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca href="mailto:thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca">thomsonhiyu</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">To: <A title=socialcredit@elistas.com href="mailto:socialcredit@elistas.com">socialcredit@elistas.com</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:08 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">Subject: RE: [socialcredit] the "effect" of interest ~ back to Peter</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV class=Section1> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <DIV> (John Rawson wrote;- ) Straight to your second point. Because I can't build roads to a sufficient standard, can't bribe my own police, run border controls or build hospitals. <o:p></o:p> (Joe replies:- ) Could you currently do those things through financing them from straight taxation without there being an increase in overall ‘debt’ in the country as a whole? If you could do that, would your country not be in debt up to its collective eyeballs, and beyond? Isn’t it more that you CAN’T do that? Nor can any other modern country? <o:p></o:p> Look at your ‘taxes’. If they’re deducted from labour ‘incomes’ (of individuals) they’re already included in the ‘prices’ of consumables. Since it’s the ‘gross’ income before the tax is deducted that forms part of cost, not the just the ‘net’ pay you take home. If there’s already a ‘disparity’ between the overall rate of income generation and that of price generation due primarily to ongoing ‘labour displacement’ and a falling change in the ratio of A to A+B, what happens?<o:p></o:p> Taxes are much beloved by Bankers, (long as they’re not singled out unduly to pay them!) , because they remove immediate purchasing power from the hands of consumers. And making ‘money’ scarce in this manner tends to increase its ‘value’ in relation to what it will buy. It makes the Banker’s income, his ‘interest’’ which he will receive over the life of the loan, more valuable to him, even if the ‘interest rate’ on loans being made may decline. (This is the same as with any other merchant ~ the decline in price (of ‘money’, in this case), broadens the market. You can’t ‘profit’ until you ‘sell’. Nor can the Banker, until he ‘loans’. Bankers are normally ‘deflationists’, as <st1:place>Douglas</st1:place> told us.<o:p></o:p> To us though, even if ‘taxes’ were supposed to keep consumer prices ‘down’ (which they really don’t), they just make it more difficult for us to acquire what we need and want. Since we don’t have the ‘money’ necessary to take advantage of acquiring consumables to the extent it’s been removed from us by taxation. Unless we ‘borrow’ it, as ‘consumer credit’, that is. And the businesses nowadays couldn’t exist without that. The only real answer to this is to augment consumer incomes with debt-free CONSUMER credits sufficient to maintain A in constant ratio to A+B through time. Taxes might then be for the provision of ‘services’ best provided through ‘Government’, and with the restoration of adequate purchasing power directly to consumers through crediting them fully with ongoing ‘capital appreciation’ through the CPD and ND, (including that of Government infrastructure, if it’s sensible and useful and increases the ‘real credit’ of the community), could be restored to that proper function to the extent they’re still necessary. <o:p></o:p> And I believe very strongly that the function of hospitals, for example, is to care for the sick, not to make a profit for entrepeneurs. That's borne out in England where just making the cleaning of hospitals come into that category, so that the aim is no longer to keep hospitals clean, has resulted in periodical closures because of "H bugs" etc.<o:p></o:p> (Joe replies;-) There are several interesting issues here. On the surface, on a ‘moral’ basis, I agree with you. It seems to me to be ‘morally’ wrong to believe there should be anyone ‘profiting’ from the misfortune of anyone else’s injury or illness. But ‘economically’ is a ‘doctor’ also an ‘entrepreneur’, or is he not? If he cannot make a “price for his product in excess of his costs” ~ a ‘profit’, actually ~ could he remain in practice long? Would he remain in practice long? And would there really be any incentive to enter medicine as a career in the first place? To go through all the training, to work the hours, to do that very kind of demanding work, to assume the very real ‘liability’ (not to mention the ‘legal’ one that might follow!) that in trying to ‘do no harm’ a mis-diagnosis, or ‘off-day’ with the scalpel or other tools of the trade might cause? <o:p></o:p> ‘Altruism’ there may be in many of us, and give me a doctor who has a genuine interest in his profession and treating his patient over one who’s just there ‘for the bucks’ any time I’ve need of one, but we certainly can’t ‘demand’ someone practice medicine just solely ‘for the good of mankind’, and restrict him to no more than his physical sustenance for so doing , can we? Would any of us do the same thing, day in and day out, for that? Maybe there are those amongst us who would. But should any of us ‘be forced’ to do the same thing for that? ‘Socialists’ seem to think so. Which begs the question, “What else do they think anyone else should be ‘forced’ to do?” <o:p></o:p> For if that ‘policy’ is to be applied to ‘doctors’, it certainly isn’t going to end there. Now to go beyond the MD’s themselves, the business of cleaning hospitals should most certainly be done by those who know how to do it, and are paid wages commensurate with the very real risks they incur in pursuing that occupation. We’ve witnessed the very same thing in ‘privatisation’ here, and it is both a false saving, and fraught with the same problems you allude to. The ‘problem’ is trying, once again, to ‘re-distribute’ an insufficiency. And it can’t be solved the way current governments are trying to pursue it. <o:p></o:p> Now to look at another side of the issue, ‘profit’ in modern double-entry accountancy is not analogous to the ‘cash’ profit that might ensue in a simple ‘barter’ type of transaction where ‘money’ is actually being used as a ‘medium of exchange’. Rather ‘profit’, or change in it, is an indication of the correctness of some entrepreneurial action. And I believe this has some application in regards to ‘medicine’ and the provision of overall ‘medical services’. In <st1:place>North America</st1:place> there has been a long-standing debate over the virtues of ‘public’ ( supposedly non-profit ) medical services versus ‘private’ (for profit) ones. One thing that seems to be overlooked in the debate by those on the ‘public’ side is the ‘patient’. Doctors don’t treat ‘disease’, they treat ‘patients’. When you try to pre-determine what ‘diseases’ need to be treated by ‘bureaucratic’ fiat instead of actual ‘patient’ necessities you’re bound to get inefficient application of available human and physical resources, higher costs, and endless waiting lists that can only be shortened by those on them expiring. And, from observation, that’s exactly what we do get with ‘socialised medicine’. ‘Profit’, it seems to me, and regarding it in the ‘double-entry’ sense’ could actually be beneficial in determining just what ‘services’ are most in demand, and in attempting to satiate that demand. Presently, there will problems with this approach. But not from ‘profit’, per se, but from the current deceptive ‘money system’ that a proper application of ‘genuine’ Social Credit could correct.<o:p></o:p> And dealing with your third point, you still have not demonstrated any mechansm to prevent retailers gradually increasing the price, steadily subsidised all the way at 2% as it climbs. Please don't quote competition, which only works to hold prices down when there is difficulty selling goods etc. If all your timber was going out as fast as it was produced, even a good honest man like you would begin to wonderr if all his hard work didn't really merit a little better return, in slightly higher prices. And believe me, the timber industry in NZ has had the structure of a jungle in the past, and I can't see it having changed too much.<o:p></o:p> Is there not always ‘difficulty’ in selling goods when the capacity to produce them exceeds the ability to consume them? And we have to ‘pay’ for the provision of that ‘capacity’, but we’re not ‘credited’ fully financially for it’s creation? Or is the “progress of the industrial arts a complete fraud?” Most retailers are interested in moving product. They could put up the price and wait for a buyer who’ll meet it, but while they’re waiting they’ve got ‘costs’ of their own that are ongoing. And the ‘profit’ they might make selling a very few items, though it may well be larger per item than that of the merchant who moves his goods in volume for a lower price, is diminishing from these ‘costs’ each day that product sits unsold. The real ‘competition’ generally doesn’t come from those who do the same thing you do, only charge the public ‘more’ for it, but from those who do the same thing you do and charge the public ‘less’. If you were making a pile of money from growing Callas and other tropicals, how long before every other Northland Kiwi with a little piece of your Island’s real estate and a horticultural bent would be trying the same thing? And what happens to the market then? If you’re not making a pile of money from growing them, why not? To keep just that from happening, no? <o:p></o:p> In lumber, the return generally has always been ‘on volume’. Trying to get the ‘costs’ down relative to it. Sure we try to sneak the ‘price’ up whenever we’re able to, but using the CPD to subsidise a ‘raise’ in prices to Consumers just wouldn’t work. The greater problem would be ensuring that the ‘big boys’ didn’t use it to unfairly subsidize predatory pricing, to try to eliminate the competition through ‘lower’ prices that couldn’t be matched. There would have to be an agreed upon minimum profit on ‘turnover’, (not on ‘capital’), but I don’t think that would be hard to obtain, police, or enforce. If they want ‘more’ profit, then, they have to find a way to engender a still higher turnover. Which should mean ‘better service’, and more innovativeness in ‘reducing costs’. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p></DIV></DIV> <PRE>--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 </PRE> <PRE>--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 hattersleyjm@interbaun.com For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit </PRE> <HR> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.2/356 - Release Date: 05/06/2006 </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C68954.FA699740-- --=======AVGMAIL-4485B6A7297F======Content-Type: text/plain; x-avgÎrt; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Content-Description: "AVG certification" No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.2/356 - Release Date: 05/06/2006

Services: Home, List Hosting Services, Industry Solutions

Your Account: Sign Up, My Lists, My Preferences, Start a List

General: About Us, News, Privacy Policy, No spam, Contact Us

Services:	Home, List Hosting Services, Industry Solutions
Your Account:	Sign Up, My Lists, My Preferences, Start a List
General:	About Us, News, Privacy Policy, No spam, Contact Us