Keithe wrote:
Reflecting on Joe's comments about consumer power (reproduced in full below)
prompts two more questions:
- Is it correct to generalize that Social Credit shares the attitude toward
‘natural monopolies’ that is (or was) found in standard economics texts? That
is, that from a physical, engineering perspective, efficiency is served by
having one power line, one water main, one sewer system, for examples, instead
of several competitors for each? If that is the case, then does the Social
Credit perspective on regulation of those natural monopolies (involving
governance and government employees) differ in any fundamental respects from a
"standard" view?
Peter replies
Q1: my answer is yes. The simple principle of people locally
acting together for mutual benefit is the basis. Through the 'Borough'
people formed they got on with the business of water supply, waste disposal and
power lines, etc, just as our farmers formed cooperative dairy companies by this
same practice. Govt may have passd laws to help facilitate this and it
(govt) was formed and functioned here are it should also consistent with
the principle that people should be benefiting and directing the policy for
mutual benefit.
Since 'deregulation' ( which has extended to include govt, if
deregulation now means incapable of being regulated by the people) no
private compmay in NZ has built water, power or sewerage facilities.
The only new facilites inground are gas lines which is a recent addition
to the market. The cost of laying alternative sewerage lines, or phone
cables etc and only pick up a few customers alone each street is not good
business. Wind-power mills and a hydro dam have been built by private
business recently and feed into the existing grid and remunerated for it.
People would not have gone off septic tanks and tank water wholesale if
private business had of developed in the thirties along these lines. The
logical thing to do was to boost the state enterprise which would have created
the infastructure and the legal foundations and thus a captured market then take
them over in time as debt would cause it be. The risk is so much
less this way.
Since 'privatisation' of our public telephone system we have had the highest
line charges in the developed world and recently the govt had to force Telecoms
to bring NZ phone/net facilites up from 22nd in the developed world to near
the top because we were forced, personal, govt and business, to make do
with slow outdated technology while or competitors were served by superior
technology. The slefish profit motive was the cause. This is the
reverse of the intentions of S.C.
A full and open debate on the pros and cons of privatisation and deregulation
was prevented in this country until after it was too late. CEOs in the
private sector are above the will of the shareholders and the CEOs in govt depts
are likewise unanswerable to the public. In both spheres the 'consumer'has
to carry huge inflated salaries in the costs at no benfit at all.
Efficency is a propaganda word and is denied by the huge expensive bureacracies
that have developed. In terms of social credit principles it is as unacceptable
as communism for the same reason. The Corporation culture just as Govt
culture have become venues of large scale planning for their own ends.
Little wonder Corporations have a great history-relationship in the last century
with the Soviet Union and the Third Reich. (In all this knowledge has
been used, mis-used, abused and hidden and hasnt driven any of it. It is
more often a means to an end. If you have read the 1933 Fed report by
McFadden you will see what Bankers have done with 'knowledge')
"2) In respect of this excerpt from Joe’s comments,
There is, however, very much of an ‘indirect’ bearing on the issue. For in
receiving the SC ‘dividend’, which allows the financial cost-accountancy cycle
to come far closer to being completely ‘self-liquidating’ without further
‘capital’ spending, (or a raft of new ‘home mortgages’ for more new
‘developments’ of the "build it, and they will come" variety), we have taken
some of the ongoing pressure off the currently viewed ‘necessity’ of never
ending ‘growth’., …
I (Keith) wonder if the view of capital spending to
promote employment via growth has become somewhat anachronistic—at least insofar
as it is a conscious or deliberate outcome of government policy."
P- It has been an anachromism since the revelations of C.H.Douglas, which is
highly likely why the powers that be used Keynes to head off the potential
revolt.
"A principal "industry" these days seems to be the shuffling or
manipulation of papers and figures in the domain of financial transactions, plus
other activities that are straightforward fraud and scams such as theft of
public resources to ‘rebuild Iraq or New Orleans’ at exorbitant prices compared
to what is actually delivered."
P- the monster has to be fed, whether by actual or virtual and clearly the
world cant sustain the actual alone. Secondly the fascist embrace of Govt
and the Corp has allowed this curruption to blossem. We (the world) cant
afford to be honest or efficient anymore we are desperate for short term
gains.
" This observation implicates a question about the sources or impetus to
growth. Are we not in a situation these days where we are stumbling over
ourselves to cope with the consequences of past "growth"? It is true that
governments and politicians of all stripes pay lip service to economic growth as
the essential guarantor of comfortable incomes for all, but I wonder if that is
not an obsolete leftover from Depression-Era thinking—one that is shared with
special emphasis or urgency by admirers of Major Douglas? "
P- Politicians are driven by demand and fear. They are advised by the
'knowledge' of the IMF, I thought you knew that. They are well aware of
all-powerful forces and the direction the wind id blowing and all career
polticians go with it. They dont only 'know' there must be growth, they
also 'know' that this is dependant on foreign investment and the
corporations.
It is all obsolete 'knowledge' it is based on, made obsolete by the Knowledge
Douglas made available that showed it was all un-neccessary. How can one
be an admirer of Douglas and still share what he made obsolete?
"The alternative view suggested by the Wojciechowski concept is that
knowledge in its ecological integration with human impulses has become the
driver of growth. To use an old bit of inflation analysis as metaphor, growth
has become "demand-pull" rather than "cost-push". This is a clear contrast with
the view of capital spending as deliberate effort to keep activities moving.
Does a change of perspective on the impetus to growth have implications for the
effectiveness of the Social Credit prescriptions?"
P- Man has progressed and suffed huge adversities with 'knowledge'
hand in hand since day one. The three main mediums of knowledge
in society are academia ( included the education system), politics and the
Media. All are controlled by money power. The 'knowledge' that
Douglas made available he expected to be taken on board by those in the
appropriate places of influence. The knowledge was an embarasement and was
ignored. We are still suffering from this choice of knowledge by those
deemed to be the responsible overseers of social progress. But even social
crediters shouldnt be motivated by this knowledge but by the philosophy which of
course is more than knowledge, its a conception of reality, of individual
and the world ( natural, social and organisational) around us. There is
much of the chicken or egg debate in this whole issue but I believe it
is really is a red herring.
Social credit isnt a reactionary/ regulatory economic school which
should be dragged into other philosophical messes to sort parts out. It is
a stand alone basis of a just and well balanced wholistic social-economic
society. There is a philosophy behind the existing systems ( the exact
opposite to S.C. ) and when people ignore this they become like a tennis ball
in a tennis tornament, looking at what this one says and the someone else
because they dont have or understand the need of a foundation. The compass
that was being developed over hundreds of years at great suffering has been
thrown away by 'junk' knowledge and concepts that began back two hundred years
ago.
John Ralston Saul has a good grip on it in many ways in his book "Voltaire's
Bastards".
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:40
AM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] EoK_back to
Joe
(Keith wrote:- ) Joe’s response (below) to my question
about how the citizen/consumer would cope with certain kinds of public
spending decisions under a social credit system is that it would be much the
same as now. It’s a highly plausible answer. Had I thought the answer to be so
obvious I would not have asked the question—which suggests that I have had a
faulty impression of social credit attitudes to governance and the appropriate
functions of government agencies and natural monopolies.
I had
formed the notion from exchanges on this list and a modest amount of reading
in social credit literature that the ideal is to minimize the scope and size
of government and of bureaucratic agencies. Institutions would be altered in
ways that made democracy much more direct than it is now. Not only by assuring
a more representative expression of consumer interest via distribution of
spending power but also through an emphasis on non-monetary means such as
initiative and referendum.
(Joe
replies:- ) I believe the ‘notion’ you say you have
formed above is largely correct, Keith. But the “non-monetary means such as
initiative and referendum” are simply two of many methods by which citizens
might make their wishes known to ‘government’, (or ‘industry’) as regards to
what they want. Or even more
likely now, do NOT want.
There
are other ‘methods’ already in existence now that are equally effective, if
and when people concerned about some particular issue wish to use them. Governments still do ‘yield to
pressure’, if that ‘pressure’ is actually applied. I personally don’t really see
‘formalizing’ the initiative and referendum process as being the great panacea
it’s often made out to be by many Socreds. As being something that’s vitally
necessary to impress our ‘will’ upon ‘government’. It still comes down to whether or not
there IS a ‘common will’ to be impressed on some issue. And if there is, and it’s strong
enough, it’s my own opinion it will be impressed anyways.
If we go back to the “consumer and her
dividend” it is unlikely that any ‘consumer’, whether they receive their
income from a ‘dividend’ or any
other source, could individually
determine whether future electric power generation will come from nuclear,
hydro, wind, thermal, geo-thermal, tidal, or any other means. What’s she going to do? Refuse to pay her power bill because,
say, the new nuclear plant’s power is ‘tainted’, in her opinion?
While
it’s certainly a possibility that consumers opposed to some new choice of
generation might organize and all refuse to pay their power
bills, or even threaten to disconnect en masse
from the transmission system (just as they might do if those bills continue to
keep rising ! ), one individual
‘consumer and her dividend’ protesting in this manner would simply find she
was without electric power. So I
don’t really see how receiving part, or even all, of one’s income via the
‘dividend’ really has much of a direct
bearing in instances like this.
There
is, however, very much of an ‘indirect’ bearing on the issue. For in receiving the SC ‘dividend’,
which allows the financial cost-accountancy cycle to come far closer to being
completely ‘self-liquidating’ without further ‘capital’ spending, (or a raft
of new ‘home mortgages’ for more new ‘developments’ of the “build it, and they
will come” variety),
we have taken some of the ongoing pressure off the currently
viewed ‘necessity’ of never ending ‘growth’.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 nschwartz@cogeco.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 cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
EoK_back to Joe
Reply to this message
