| Subject: | [socialcredit] Fw: OWNERSHIP: Sieg Heil, John!: Wally Comments | | Date: | Monday, January 3, 2005 18:37:23 (-0700) | | From: | Wallace M. Klinck <wmklinck @....ca>
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wallace M. Klinck" <wmklinck@shaw.ca>
To: <ownership@cog.kent.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: OWNERSHIP: Sieg Heil, John!: Wally Comments
> Social Credit its a policy of a philosophy. That philosophy recognizes
> the special importance of the individual and of immanent sovereignty for
> each human being. The group or the organization (e.g., the "State")
> exists to serve the interests of the individual, not vice versa. The
> purpose of human association is to generate increments of association
> which redound to individual satisfaction. The only way to maximize this
> state of affairs is to ensure that the individual has sanctions to ensure
> that his or her wishes are served. On a practical level individual
> economic independence is the primary means of ensuring the freedom of
> choice and action for the individual. The essential, base, means of
> achieving maximum economic independence is encouragement of efficiency in
> production directed to the production of material abundance--i.e., freedom
> from scarcity or fear of it. This requires the replacement of labour by
> technology. Then, only, can genuine culture emerge--in a context of
> increasing leisure.
>
> Social Credit is not concerned with "stopping flows of money." Indeed,
> the concern is to facilitate the flows of money to serve the needs of
> production and consumption, according with human desires backed by actual
> physical possibilities.
>
> Douglas was primarily concerned with the problem of distribution or
> consumption: he recognized that, unimpeded, the production system was not
> the primary problem. He did recognize, and demonstrated, that the incomes
> paid out by the production system were not sufficient to allow society to
> fully access the goods and services emanating from the productive
> system--except by superflous activity and/or the accumulation of
> irredeemable debt. His proposals for a National Dividend to all citizens
> and consumption credit to compensate prices involved the creation of money
> without registering debt charges against future production--unlike the way
> money is created today to stimulate consumption.
>
> Money, per se, is a marvellous invention (a system of accountancy) which
> has facilitated economic transactions as no system of barter could do.
> Its creation has been essential to the development of modern
> civilization--and failure to create it has created economic disaster with
> concomitant human misery. It is not the creation of money that creates
> inflation--but a defective way in which it is created and cancelled.
>
> From the above comments should emerge the understanding that policy serve
> the individual and that the individual must have the power to ensure that
> this occurs. Social Credit aims to add another economic dimension to our
> present so-called democracy existing on the political plane. We wish to
> create a situation where economic policy is the result of consumer
> sovereignty where consumers are provided at all times sufficient effective
> demand in the form of financial income, enabling them fully to exercise
> their money vote regarding the entire flow of goods and services coming
> from the production sector--without engaging first in additional activity
> or being required to resort to debt. This involves creation of genuine
> economic democracy where distribution of the full product of each
> production cycle is to be potentially complete and dynamic!
>
> The individual consumer is to have the power to choose of refuse one thing
> at a time--the power to vote for and support that which is his choice or
> to atrophy a given function by contracting out of his role as a consumer
> in an economic relationship. This is where Social Credit makes its
> critical departure from the policies of fascism and socialism/communism
> which predicate their policies on a philosophy which regards work as the
> only moral justicication for consumption. That is why they appropriate
> and commandeer the credit of society and build monuments to the state in
> order to mobilize and direct the activities of citizens. Their policies
> are power-centralizing, whereas, Social Credit by means of distributive
> policy distributes power to individual by means of restoring to each
> individual his or her appropiate share in the credit-power of the nation.
>
> For those who believe in the policy of centralization and the exercise of
> external power over the individual, there is often an insurmountable
> psychological barrier to understanding or accepting the validity of
> Douglas's A + B Theorem--because the implications of it for appropriate
> corrective measures assault their fundamental philosophy of life and
> attitude toward their fellow humans. A statement attributed to Beatrice
> and Sydney Webb of the Fabian Socialist movement was that they did not
> care whether or not Douglas's economic analysis, i.e., the A + B Theorem,
> was objectively correct. They simply did not like his policy. Genuine
> Social Crediters are emancipated from the "will-to-power" syndrome which
> is inextricably bound with the unalterable fixation that the purpose of,
> and right to, Life is essentially dependent upon toil.
>
> Sincerely
> Wally
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Globalnet mail uk" <ros@globalnet.co.uk>
> To: <ownership@cog.kent.edu>
> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:32 AM
> Subject: Re: OWNERSHIP: Sieg Heil, John!
>
>
>> Bill, John, Raven.
>>
>> The first time I ever saw a politician I was about 4, and there was this
>> awkward cut of a fellow, badly dressed and with his crossbargate bike
>> slung
>> against the stonework below him, standing on the bridge before our
>> brewery
>> pond. He was shouting two slogans. "Monetary reform" and "Shoot the
>> Odlums" - the Odlums being the local millers. I mention this is the
>> context
>> of facism.This chap, who eventually retired with a Papal knighthood and
>> as
>> Father of the Irish Parliament, was a leftover from the Blueshirts, the
>> pre
>> war Irish proto facist party.
>>
>> But to a slightly more serious note. This level of monetary debate is
>> slightly beyond my expertise, despite the fact that when I did work in a
>> bank and was responsible for the central bank returns and was, eventually
>> a
>> reporter reporting on the BIS and WB. (That doesnt mean you have to know
>> anything about CB's but it helps)
>> The basic point I noticed is that you are talking about stopping flows of
>> money, as though that was a decision that could be taken on an arbitrary
>> basis and without any consequences. The flows to Wall Street are
>> dividends
>> and fees, mostly on behalf of clients for whom Wall St holds bonds and
>> shares. There is a relationship that underpins the situation, that
>> between
>> the actual shareholder and the company in which the shares are held.
>> Would
>> this proposal lead to the confiscation of dividends ? And if that
>> happened,
>> where is the cash to pay pensions to come from ? Manufacturing money has
>> not
>> to date been a solution to anything, and has merely fuelled inflation, at
>> least in the real world.
>> Kevin
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
>> To: <ownership@cog.kent.edu>; <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 4:10 PM
>> Subject: OWNERSHIP: Sieg Heil, John!
>>
>>
>>> John, this message of yours highlights the profound
>>> difference between "social credit" and "monetary
>>> reform." You nitpick everything in my post but the
>>> major point about dividends to consumers instead of
>>> Wall Street, which you ignore completely. Instead,
>>> you rant on about having the Federal Government
>>> become the monopoly banker. Sieg Heil.
>>> -
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------
>>> http://www.geocities.com/w_b_ryan/raven_thomson2.jpeg
>>> Fascism certainly recognizes the inadequacy of
>>> present currency and credit in circulation to
>>> facilitate the distribution of production from
>>> producer to consumer, and is prepared to establish a
>>> managed currency based not upon gold, but upon
>>> productive capacity. As the volume of currency
>>> required will obviously vastly exceed that at present
>>> available, the problem arises as to how this new
>>> currency and credit are to be put into circulation.
>>> Douglas says this must be by means of the "National
>>> Dividend" - a free distribution to every man, woman
>>> and child in the land. This is, however, an entirely
>>> democratic, if not Marxist method, more political
>>> than economic, and entirely contrary to Fascist
>>> principles of "payment for service." Fascist
>>> Government would issue the new currency and credit
>>> direct without charge of usury...By this means a
>>> permanent higher standard of life will be established
>>> upon the present wages basis of payment for service,
>>> and stabilized by the effective control of the
>>> Corporate system over all economic factors.
>>>
>>> Raven Thomson, Adjunct to Oswald Mosley
>>> -
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- John Hermann <hermann@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> > At 04:33 PM 2/01/2005 -0800, Bill Ryan wrote:
>>> > [Hermann] Government securities are also purchased
>>> > by the Federal Reserve, that is, the Fed loans money
>>> > to the Treasury - notwithstanding that this is only
>>> > a
>>> > small fraction of the national debt. ...
>>> > ---------------------
>>> > [Ryan] The point is that the Fed does not purchase
>>> > directly from Treasury, but through the dealers,
>>> > like
>>> > everyone else.
>>> >
>>> > [Response] The word "directly" was not used.
>>> > Which is not to say that the Fed and Treasury
>>> > could not enter into such a direct arrangement,
>>> > if they so chose. Moreover, once purchased by
>>> > the Fed from whatever source, each security is
>>> > effectively now a loan from Fed to Government.
>>> >
>>> > It is not exactly a "small fraction." It's about ten
>>> > percent.
>>> >
>>> > [Response} Ten percent is a small fraction.
>>> > Fifty percent is a large
>>> > fraction.
>>> >
>>> > [Hermann] Their activities are an unnecessary drain
>>> > on the taxpayer. No government ever needs to borrow
>>> > from the private sector. Putting it another way, the
>>> > national debt is the national sin.
>>> > ---------------------
>>> > [Ryan] Nonetheless, there are real costs to
>>> > supplying financial services. It remains to be
>>> > demonstrated that a government department could
>>> > do it more efficiently. It certainly wouldn't be if
>>> > the
>>> > complete ignoramuses who typically make such
>>> > proposals are running the show. Furthermore, even
>>> > if it could be demonstrated that it is more
>>> > efficient
>>> > from a purely technical perspective, disregarding
>>> > the
>>> > probable incompetence of personnel in the relevant
>>> > department, it would also have to be demonstrated,
>>> > beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is significantly
>>> > enough more efficient in principle to justify the
>>> > danger to the public in totally centralizing the
>>> > power
>>> > of finance with government, and the Stalin who might
>>> > be on top. Whether that can be accomplished is
>>> > very much open to doubt.
>>> > -
>>> > [Response] Government can certainly do it more
>>> > efficiently - from a macroeconomic perspective.
>>> > For
>>> > the simple reason that at present around one
>>> > third
>>> > of money collected from individuals by Internal
>>> > Revenue is used to pay interest on the national
>>> > debt.
>>> > Wiping out this huge obligation would
>>> > constitute a
>>> > major cost saving and would help to open up
>>> > several
>>> > possibilities for progressive reforms that are
>>> > now
>>> > closed off for "lack of finance".
>>> >
>>> > I take your point about incompetence and the
>>> > dead
>>> > hand of bureaucracy. That can be minimized by
>>> > running a suitably constructed mixed
>>> > public/private
>>> > financial system, together with imposition of
>>> > further
>>> > checks, balances and regulations, and measures
>>> > designed to strengthen democracy. That may
>>> > sound
>>> > a little glib, but the bottom line is that I
>>> > don't regard
>>> > it as an insurmountable problem.
>>> >
>>> > [Hermann] Any money owed by government to the
>>> > central bank is never paid back - because it does
>>> > not
>>> > need to be.
>>> > ---------------------
>>> > [Ryan] Every government security in the Fed's
>>> > portfolio carries a redemption date. It is redeemed
>>> > on its redemption date, because it has to be.
>>> > -
>>> > [Response] The misleading idea of government
>>> > "debt to the Fed" is a total phoney.
>>> >
>>> > Government securities held by the Fed are, on a
>>> > statistical basis, allowed to roll over upon
>>> > reaching
>>> > their redemption date. Overall, this "debt" does
>>> > not
>>> > have to be liquidated. It is, on average,
>>> > allowed to
>>> > continue, and even increases during an
>>> > expansionary
>>> > phase (ie, when the Fed creates new high-powered
>>> > money to purchase new bonds) -- in perpetuity.
>>> >
>>> > The willingness of the Fed to provide government
>>> > with this degree of latitude ultimately rests
>>> > with
>>> > government's very low credit risk, based upon
>>> > its
>>> > ability and willingness to impose a social
>>> > obligation
>>> > called taxation upon its citizens. The Fed is
>>> > also
>>> > mindful of the fact that it was originally
>>> > created by
>>> > Congress and might run the risk of being
>>> > "uncreated"
>>> > by Congress if silly enough to make undue
>>> > demands
>>> > upon the national budget.
>>> >
>>> > Furthermore the relative magnitude of "debt to
>>> > the Fed"
>>> > has tended to diminish over time, thus
>>> > increasing the
>>> > profit to the private financial sector. Data on
>>> > securities
>>> > held by the Fed shows that in 1973 they made up
>>> > 18.9%
>>> > of the nominal federal debt. By 1993 that ratio
>>> > had
>>> > dwindled to 6.5% (data from page 33 of William
>>> > Hixson's
>>> > book "It's Your Money", COMER Publications,
>>> > 1997).
>>> >
>>> > [Hermann] Central-bank profit obtained from
>>> > interest
>>> > income always returns to Treasury.
>>> > ------------------
>>> > [Ryan] Perhaps.
>>> >
>>> > [Hermann] Indisputably.
>>> > ---------------------
>>> > [Ryan] Technically, the Fed does not rebate ninety-
>>> > five percent of its interest income, but ninety-five
>>> > percent of its self-calculated net profit, being
>>> > something less than its gross interest income. It
>>> > has only done that "voluntarily," the Fed's term,
>>> > since 1948. The rebate really is an arbitrary
>>> > credit
>>> > to Treasury's account for political cover. A bribe,
>>> > so to speak.
>>> > -
>>> > [Response] Correct ... except that I'm not sure
>>> > about
>>> > the 95% figure (my information source suggests
>>> > that
>>> > it is more like 100% of its self-calculated net
>>> > profit).
>>> > And it retains roughly one eighth of its overall
>>> > interest
>>> > income to fund its operating expenses.
>>> >
>>> > What is less recognized is the reality that the
>>> > Federal Reserve is more than making up that
>>> > "expense"
>>> > or "lost income" to Wall Street by churning its
>>> > portfolio (something it didn't do before - certainly
>>> > not during the immediately preceding war years when
>>> > the interest rate was "pegged") generating
>>> > compensatory income to the "primary" dealers for the
>>> > "service" they are providing, who are large banks
>>> > and
>>> > consortiums of banks, in one form or another. That
>>> > sop to Wall Street is effectively interest. The
>>> > rationale is they have to "fine tune" for monetary
>>> > stability.
>>> >
>>> > [Response] This reality underpins the case for
>>> > basic
>>> > reform and re-regulation.
>>> >
>>> > [Hermann] You have provided yet another good reason
>>> > for bringing in "monetary reform" and financial
>>> > re-regulation.
>>> > From the article supplied we learn that "... The
>>> > churning
>>> > serves only to muddy the waters, introduce
>>> > uncertainty
>>> > and speculation and waste the taxpayers' money".
>>> > Might
>>> > even be a case for nationalizing the Fed?
>>> > ---------------------
>>> > [Ryan] The Fed is already "nationalized" and always
>>> > was. The President of the United States appoints
>>> > its
>>> > chairman and board of directors, subject to
>>> > confirmation
>>> >
>>> === message truncated ===
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________
>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>> Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
>>> http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To subscribe to this or another of COG's discussion groups register at:
>> http://cog.kent.edu/register.html
>> To unsubscribe from this group send a message to majordomo@cog.kent.edu
>> with a single line in the body of the message that says:
>> unsubscribe ownership
>
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.eListas.com/
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
|
Fw: OWNERSHIP: Sie
Reply to this message