| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit | | Date: | Monday, October 16, 2006 15:54:56 (-0600) | | From: | Jim <jschroeder @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4344 (written by Martin Hattersley) |
Hi Martin:
You said, "The greatest mistake, it seems to me, would be to convert the
freedom of the
New Testament into a whole new set of laws!"
And my question is simply - why?
Take care,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Hattersley" <hattersleyjm@interbaun.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit
> Jim -
>
> I would say that the laws relating to property management, succession,
> employment, and economic matters generally, are what we should look to for
> examples. Laws relating to diet and worship seem to me to be suited for
> the knowledge and civilization of the time, and not necessarily applicable
> in today's society.
>
> The greatest mistake, it seems to me, would be to convert the freedom of
> the New Testament into a whole new set of laws!
>
> Martin Hattersley
> 5929 - 189 St.,
> EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
> Phone (780)483-5442.
> jmartinh@shaw.ca
> e-mail: hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim" <jschroeder@shaw.ca>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 9:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit
>
>
>> Hi Martin:
>>
>> Thanks for answering my query. I do value your opinion in this regard.
>>
>> You say that if we want to legislate a society, we should base it on the
>> the laws of Moses.
>>
>> I might suggest that this is what Douglas was getting at when he said,
>> "Speaking for myself, I should reject the so-called old testament as
>> containing little which, for the purposes of contemporary religion, is
>> not purely negative - a warning.", since laws are always formed in the
>> negative (don't do such.....).
>>
>> However; he went further to say, "Its connotation with "the Chosen
>> People" myth has distorted any usefulness it might have, and if it is to
>> be retained, it requires treatment in a highly critical spirit,
>> completely divorced from reverence.". I would suggest this means that
>> the "Chosen People" have distorted the laws to such an extent that they
>> have distorted any usefulness that it may have once had. I might also
>> suggest , IMHO (and I think that's important when speaking of God), that
>> Jesus said as much when he stated, "But in vain they do worship me,
>> teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men."( Matthew 15:9)
>>
>> Jesus then goes to rebuke Jewish dietary laws in the next sentence when
>> He states, "And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and
>> understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that
>> which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (Matthew 15:10 -
>> 15:11).
>>
>> My question then would be how are we to seperate the laws of God, from
>> the laws which the Pharisees/Saduccees created in the OT?
>>
>> I think this is what Douglas means when he says, "if it is to be
>> retained, it requires treatment in a highly critical spirit, completely
>> divorced from reverence."
>>
>> Take care,
>>
>> Jim
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Martin Hattersley" <hattersleyjm@interbaun.com>
>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit
>>
>>
>>> Thanks for the message, Jim.
>>>
>>> I would say that the laws of Moses do provide a code for a social order
>>> that IMHO should be entirely acceptable to the good Major, who I think
>>> agrees with the idea of "everyone sitting under his own vine and fig
>>> tree" (didn't he reside for a length of time in Fig Tree court?). There
>>> are the Ten Commandments prescribing individual behaviour, but again,
>>> these can be interpreted as being necessary requirements on the part of
>>> an individual for any society to operate.
>>>
>>> The New Testament in my view provides a method by which a society which
>>> has fallen short of the commandments of the Law can still be redeemed,
>>> essentially by "the just suffering for the unjust" - loving one's
>>> enemies, turning the other cheek, etc. etc. The Gandhi/Martin Luther
>>> King non violent approach.
>>>
>>> From a Socred point of view, it seems to me that if we want to legislate
>>> a "good society", we have to set up laws essentially following the
>>> ideals of the Old Testament. To get there, it would seem necessary to
>>> "labour, not asking for any reward, save that of knowing that we do Thy
>>> will", the New Testament approach. And perhaps, looking back on history,
>>> not to expect too much by way of results!
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin Hattersley
>>> 5929 - 189 St.,
>>> EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
>>> Phone (780)483-5442.
>>> jmartinh@shaw.ca
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Jim" <jschroeder@shaw.ca>
>>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>>> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:45 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Martin:
>>>>
>>>> I actually read this article of yours on your website.
>>>>
>>>> I do have a question.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be saying that the Old Testament is meant for the running
>>>> of a nation, and the New Testament is meant for the running of our
>>>> individual lives. I realize that I'm paraphrasing, but do you agree?
>>>> Or could you elaborate?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Martin Hattersley" <hattersleyjm@interbaun.com>
>>>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:46 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Bill & Peter -
>>>>>
>>>>> As a commentary on the different attitudes of Old and New Testament, I
>>>>> am
>>>>> attaching an article I wrote a while back on the Bible's view of a
>>>>> just
>>>>> social order.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Douglas is too quick to condemn the Old Testament, when what
>>>>> he
>>>>> really is condemning is Pharasism. I do see in the Pentateuch a very
>>>>> comprehensive plan for the establishment of a just and prosperous
>>>>> social
>>>>> order, consistent with the civilization of those times, and I think we
>>>>> can
>>>>> learn a good deal from it. It is not very far from the sort of society
>>>>> that
>>>>> Douglas envisages.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin Hattersley
>>>>> 5929 - 189 St.,
>>>>> EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
>>>>> Phone (780)483-5442.
>>>>> jmartinh@shaw.ca
>>>>> e-mail: hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Peter Haines" <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
>>>>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:07 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Peter:
>>>>>
>>>>> "God did not "change his mind". I agree. However; does a child have
>>>>> the
>>>>> same set of rules as an adult?"
>>>>>
>>>>> P - No, after we turn 13, 2 plus 2 makes 5. Theft becomes borrowing
>>>>> .......
>>>>>
>>>>> "Many of the rules of the Pharisees were traditions of men, not laws
>>>>> of
>>>>> God."
>>>>>
>>>>> P - This was the 'teachings of the Elders', the Talmud. This is part
>>>>> of the
>>>>> corruption Douglas referred to. On this point Jesus and Douglas
>>>>> agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew 15:1 The Pharisees come to Jesus
>>>>> Matthew 15:2 They ask Jesus about washing before eating which is part
>>>>> of the
>>>>> laws of Moses.
>>>>> Matthew 15:3 Jesus replies back to them and asks why they break the
>>>>> law of
>>>>> God, with their own traditions.
>>>>> Matthew 15:7 Jesus calls the Pharisees hypocrites.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew 22:34-40
>>>>>
>>>>> But when the Pharisees heard that He had put the Sadducees to
>>>>> silence,
>>>>> they gathered themselves together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked
>>>>> Him a
>>>>> question, testing Him, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in
>>>>> the
>>>>> Law?" And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all
>>>>> your
>>>>> heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the
>>>>> great and
>>>>> foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your
>>>>> neighbor
>>>>> as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the
>>>>> Prophets."
>>>>>
>>>>> P - Here is an example of the opposite to what Douglas said. If
>>>>> Douglas
>>>>> was referring to the Pharisees ( the corrupted word) he is correct.
>>>>> But
>>>>> Douglas didnt differentiate. Jesus went around bringing out the true
>>>>> meaning of the word ( O.T.) which is why he was called 'Teacher'.
>>>>> Douglas
>>>>> drew a blank. He is with the majority.
>>>>> There are two factors here, one is the traditions and also the
>>>>> translations some of which have been tampered with.
>>>>> There are numerous accasions where the Apostles referred back to Old
>>>>> Testament scripture to show the origin of the new understanding.
>>>>> This highlighting and underlining isnt me its the programme following
>>>>> your
>>>>> composition.
>>>>> The issue isnt about whether we are under the law or not, we arent,
>>>>> its
>>>>> about whether the O.T. has understanding and relevance or not- Douglas
>>>>> said
>>>>> it hasnt.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "And they did not believe the law as prophesying, but the bare word;
>>>>> and
>>>>> they followed through fear, not through disposition and faith. "For
>>>>> Christ
>>>>> is the end of the law for righteousness,"(Romans 10:4)
>>>>>
>>>>> P - "the Law as Prophesying" is exactly what I have been refering to.
>>>>> The
>>>>> Law for example prophesyed the two great commandments which Jesus
>>>>> explained.
>>>>> The spirit of the word is what transcends the first covenant into the
>>>>> second
>>>>> and this is what Jesus and the Apostles have done if you read every
>>>>> example.
>>>>> If the practice of the Law ( works) could bring righteousness then
>>>>> Jesus
>>>>> died in vein.
>>>>> "Christ brought forth a new set of laws which were meant for a
>>>>> maturing
>>>>> civilization. God fulfilled his covenant with the tribes of Isreal,
>>>>> and
>>>>> created a new covenant with all of mankind."
>>>>>
>>>>> P - we have got away from the point, in relation to what Douglas said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, take the two greatest commandments that are N.T. in
>>>>> 'replacement' of
>>>>> the Law in the O.T.: if they fulfill them has that meant the Law ( the
>>>>> Child) is dead? No its is fulfilled, matured as you put it. I agree
>>>>> with
>>>>> you on this aspect. But Jesus demonstrated that Douglas was wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> My original point was the the Law prophesyed principles regards money
>>>>> and
>>>>> trade etc for the new covenant age. The reply I got has been there is
>>>>> none/
>>>>> its not relevant/ cant be considered. That is the reply from thinking
>>>>> of
>>>>> the 'bare word' ( Romans 10:4 above)
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesus and the Apostles have shown the word isnt 'bare'. The 'letter'
>>>>> kills,
>>>>> the 'spirit' gives life.
>>>>>
>>>>> One could go further and say that the same people and the same spirit
>>>>> that
>>>>> made the original word dead and void are determined to repeat the same
>>>>> in
>>>>> regards the N.T. age, destroy individualism and faith with largescale
>>>>> planning in a materialistic society under financial and occultic
>>>>> bondage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter H
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Jim
>>>>> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:22 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Peter:
>>>>>
>>>>> God did not "change his mind". I agree. However; does a child have
>>>>> the
>>>>> same set of rules as an adult?
>>>>>
>>>>> Many of the rules of the Pharisees were traditions of men, not laws
>>>>> of
>>>>> God.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew 15:1 The Pharisees come to Jesus
>>>>> Matthew 15:2 They ask Jesus about washing before eating which is part
>>>>> of
>>>>> the laws of Moses.
>>>>> Matthew 15:3 Jesus replies back to them and asks why they break the
>>>>> law of
>>>>> God, with their own traditions.
>>>>> Matthew 15:7 Jesus calls the Pharisees hypocrites.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew 22:34-40
>>>>>
>>>>> But when the Pharisees heard that He had put the Sadducees to
>>>>> silence,
>>>>> they gathered themselves together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked
>>>>> Him a
>>>>> question, testing Him, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in
>>>>> the
>>>>> Law?" And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all
>>>>> your
>>>>> heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the
>>>>> great and
>>>>> foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your
>>>>> neighbor
>>>>> as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the
>>>>> Prophets."
>>>>> "And they did not believe the law as prophesying, but the bare word;
>>>>> and
>>>>> they followed through fear, not through disposition and faith. "For
>>>>> Christ
>>>>> is the end of the law for righteousness,"(Romans 10:4)
>>>>>
>>>>> Christ brought forth a new set of laws which were meant for a
>>>>> maturing
>>>>> civilization. God fulfilled his covenant with the tribes of Isreal,
>>>>> and
>>>>> created a new covenant with all of mankind.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Peter Haines
>>>>> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:27 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Howdy Jim,
>>>>> I appreciate the basis of Douglas' view ( Douglas Reed's book The
>>>>> Controversy Of Zion fully develops this same view of Douglas which in
>>>>> my
>>>>> view is another matter) and I also appreciate Jesus' view in not
>>>>> avoiding
>>>>> them ( Law and the Prophets) but in bringing out the true meaning and
>>>>> what
>>>>> they pointed to. It was through being mindful of the scriptures (
>>>>> O.T.)
>>>>> that he was able to fulfill them as the Messiah and introduce a new
>>>>> covernant. The quote you gave of Jesus shows he wouldnt have taken
>>>>> the
>>>>> Douglas advice as you quoted.
>>>>> This was the basis upon which he was to be recognised ( eg John the
>>>>> Baptist)and because of wrong teachings ( 'of the Elders' =Talmud) they
>>>>> failed to recognise him. The latter does not deny the former.
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont accept the inferred view that God changed his mind (
>>>>> philosophy).
>>>>> If one decides to only get a copy of the New Testament and avoid the
>>>>> Old
>>>>> Testament ( in complete contrast to Jesus) on that basis that He did
>>>>> change
>>>>> his mind so be it, that's their choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Spirit of the Word in both Testaments is the mind of God. His
>>>>> principles are behind the Law which was a teacher. If God had no
>>>>> principles
>>>>> then, then someone tell me what was being taught ( that was to be
>>>>> fulfilled)?
>>>>>
>>>>> This reminds me of those who want social credit money, forget the
>>>>> social
>>>>> credit principles ( philosophy).
>>>>>
>>>>> The conflict between the true meaning of the Law and Prophets and
>>>>> the
>>>>> Teachings ( bondage) of the Elders and the racial distortion is the
>>>>> same as
>>>>> that of the conflict between the philosophy behind social credit and
>>>>> that of
>>>>> those who rule the world which Douglas signified as masonic-judaic.
>>>>> Both
>>>>> have the seeds of their respective fulfilment.
>>>>> Peter H
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Jim
>>>>> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 4:12 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Peter:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I know where you are going with this, and wanted to
>>>>> respond
>>>>> briefly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Douglas said, "Speaking for myself, I should reject the so-called
>>>>> old
>>>>> testament as containing little which, for the purposes of contemporary
>>>>> religion, is not purely negative - a warning. Its connotation with
>>>>> "the
>>>>> Chosen People" myth has distorted any usefulness it might have, and if
>>>>> it is
>>>>> to be retained, it requires treatment in a highly critical spirit,
>>>>> completely divorced from reverence. It is only necessary to observe
>>>>> the
>>>>> extent to which the world tragedy is complicated by Zionism to
>>>>> recognise its
>>>>> vicious effects."
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or
>>>>> the
>>>>> Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
>>>>> (Matthew
>>>>> 5:17)
>>>>>
>>>>> Geoffrey Dobbs gave us the following tree graph:
>>>>>
>>>>> Geoffrey Dobbs in "Balance in Social Credit", "The Social
>>>>> Crediter"
>>>>> 11th April, 1953 represented Douglas' thought in three simple
>>>>> diagrams:
>>>>> PHILOSOPHY
>>>>> |
>>>>>
>>>>> POLICY
>>>>>
>>>>> /\
>>>>>
>>>>> / Economics
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> \ / Administration
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> \
>>>>> Consumer control of production Integral Accounting
>>>>> Hierachy
>>>>> Contracting out mechanisms
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> New Testament Philosophy
>>>>> | Old Testament Philosophy
>>>>> |
>>>>> Social Credit policy Monopolistic Policy
>>>>> / \ / \
>>>>> New Economics New Politics Old Economics Old Politics
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You will notice the seperation between the Old Testament
>>>>> Philosophy,
>>>>> and the New Testament Philosophy, which is the underlying philosophy
>>>>> of
>>>>> Social Credit.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a Christian were to ask me to justify Social Credit as
>>>>> practical
>>>>> Christianity according to the laws set forth in the Old Testament, I
>>>>> would
>>>>> respond that Jesus fulfilled those laws, and brought forth a new
>>>>> philosophy
>>>>> based on grace and forgiveness through the Incarnation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Social Credit is practical Christianity based on New Testament
>>>>> philosophy, and is incompatible with Christianity based on Old
>>>>> Testament
>>>>> Philosophy, or "Judeo"-Christianity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Peter Haines" <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
>>>>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 1:21 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Howdy Bill,
>>>>> > I was aware that the 7 yr law wasnt adopted into Christian
>>>>> tradition. I was
>>>>> > referring to principles behind the Law, as having spiritual
>>>>> value
>>>>> relating
>>>>> > to the will of God. Traditions of men are generally a barrier
>>>>> to
>>>>> such.
>>>>> > We know that the first Christians in Judea practiced a type of
>>>>> practical
>>>>> > social credit, be interesting to know how they saw the
>>>>> fulfilling of
>>>>> the law
>>>>> > in the field of money and trade. I suspect that is had
>>>>> something to
>>>>> do with
>>>>> > the persecution that soon set in, as it may have treatened the
>>>>> hold
>>>>> of those
>>>>> > who controlled tradition ( the establishment).
>>>>> > The bread and butter of Jesus ministry was bringing out the
>>>>> true
>>>>> meaning of
>>>>> > the Law and the Prophets. The Law was meant to be a teacher,
>>>>> in the
>>>>> end the
>>>>> > Author had to come and do the job himself. "Christian doctrine
>>>>> and
>>>>> > traditions" are in the main in the same state today, which is
>>>>> why
>>>>> they are
>>>>> > heading for the one world church to complement the one world
>>>>> govt.
>>>>> > Peter H
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> > From: "William Hugh McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
>>>>> > To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>>>>> > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 3:38 PM
>>>>> > Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Hi Peter
>>>>> >> The seven year amnesty on debt is not based on
>>>>> Christian
>>>>> >> tradition, but is derived from Jewish tradition. It has never,
>>>>> to
>>>>> the best
>>>>> >> of my knowledge, (which I modestly claim to be extensive) been
>>>>> part
>>>>> of
>>>>> >> Christian Doctrine or tradition. You can find extensive
>>>>> references
>>>>> to it
>>>>> >> in the Old Testament, but none in the New Testament except as
>>>>> references
>>>>> >> to the old Jewish Covenant.
>>>>> >> Bill McGunnigle
>>>>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> >> From: "Peter Haines" <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
>>>>> >> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>>>>> >> Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 6:45 AM
>>>>> >> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>I dont know where this line about usury stated but I agree
>>>>> that
>>>>> there is a
>>>>> >>>profound theological side and it hasnt been examined and raely
>>>>> does
>>>>> apart
>>>>> >>>from being only touched on in passing.
>>>>> >>> It is true that Christians arent under the law but it is true
>>>>> that
>>>>> the
>>>>> >>> Law isnt done away with it is to be fulfilled, that is the
>>>>> spirit
>>>>> of the
>>>>> >>> law isnt to be thrown out like a baby with the bath water,
>>>>> ( that
>>>>> grace
>>>>> >>> may abound) but to be fulfilled.
>>>>> >>> I see both usury and the Muslim version as both being
>>>>> contrary to
>>>>> the
>>>>> >>> spirit of what the Law was representing, under the general
>>>>> theme
>>>>> of true
>>>>> >>> and just weights and measures/honest dealing so no one cheats
>>>>> anyone
>>>>> >>> else/ do unto other etc. What about the clearing of debt
>>>>> after 7
>>>>> years?
>>>>> >>> What is the principle behind that? Since social credit
>>>>> claims to
>>>>> be
>>>>> >>> practical Christianity anyone at any time can challenge
>>>>> anyone of
>>>>> us to
>>>>> >>> 'prove' from the scripture the principles/ philosophy of
>>>>> social
>>>>> credit.
>>>>> >>> There is nothing in the social credit library that covers
>>>>> this
>>>>> side and
>>>>> >>> it is a field for much thrashing about in on its own.
>>>>> >>> Was Christendom in any bondage for baning usury for many
>>>>> centuries?
>>>>> >>> Salvation hasnt anything to do with the subject.
>>>>> >>> Peter H
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> >>> From: "Wallace Klinck" <wmklinck@shaw.ca>
>>>>> >>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>>>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:52 PM
>>>>> >>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> That is my understanding. Straining to prohibit interest or
>>>>> "usury"
>>>>> >>> is a moralistic-legalistic, abstract approach which is
>>>>> detached
>>>>> from
>>>>> >>> reality and would involve a power centralizing "top-down"
>>>>> approach
>>>>> >>> wherein the state would assume the control of credit from an
>>>>> >>> administrative and, inevitably, policy standpoint. What
>>>>> Douglas
>>>>> >>> proposed was a means of eliminating the need for unrepayable,
>>>>> >>> accumulating debt by making the financial accountancy system
>>>>> reflect
>>>>> >>> what he described as the natural law of cost, i.e., the price
>>>>> level
>>>>> >>> should be determined by the national mean ratio of
>>>>> consumption to
>>>>> >>> production. The distribution of goods emanating from the
>>>>> producing
>>>>> >>> system should be automatic and dynamic. The financial
>>>>> incomes
>>>>> >>> distributed during a cycle of production, under orthodox
>>>>> financial
>>>>> >>> rules always and increasingly inadequate to allow purchase of
>>>>> the
>>>>> >>> entirety of goods produced within that cycle, must be
>>>>> augmented by
>>>>> a
>>>>> >>> supplementary flow of non-cost-creating consumer credit.
>>>>> This
>>>>> would
>>>>> >>> ensure the potential for complete distribution of the
>>>>> products of
>>>>> >>> each production cycle by providing consumers with sufficient
>>>>> money
>>>>> >>> or "effective demand" by which to access the full flow of
>>>>> goods
>>>>> >>> emanating from the system. This is an organic and realistic,
>>>>> rather
>>>>> >>> than legalistic, approach to the role of money in our
>>>>> lives --and
>>>>> >>> would lead to balancing and normalizing influences throughout
>>>>> >>> society. Power over economic policy and independence of
>>>>> human
>>>>> >>> activity would increasingly move to individual citizens and
>>>>> would
>>>>> >>> become more widely distributed. "The only safe place for
>>>>> power
>>>>> is
>>>>> >>> in many hands." By eliminating the need for debt at the
>>>>> consumption
>>>>> >>> level, the whole question of "usury" would be eliminated.
>>>>> There
>>>>> is
>>>>> >>> no issue of "usury" when there is no need to contract debt
>>>>> against
>>>>> >>> the future in order to continue living at present.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Consumer credit issued according to Social Credit policy
>>>>> could not
>>>>> be
>>>>> >>> inflationary because it would be issued on condition that
>>>>> prices
>>>>> be
>>>>> >>> reduced at point of retail sale and, not being issued as
>>>>> debt, all
>>>>> >>> Compensated Price and Consumer Dividend credits would be
>>>>> available
>>>>> to
>>>>> >>> cancel all previous production costs while in no way adding
>>>>> to
>>>>> them
>>>>> >>> or transferring them as a charge against the future. Because
>>>>> of
>>>>> this
>>>>> >>> cost "pressure" being removed from the price-system citizens
>>>>> would
>>>>> >>> find meeting the cost of living easier over time and the
>>>>> current
>>>>> >>> escalating demand for higher incomes would no longer be
>>>>> needed or
>>>>> >>> justified by rising financial prices as these necessarily
>>>>> occur
>>>>> >>> under the present defective financial accountancy system.
>>>>> Douglas's
>>>>> >>> research, we Social Credit advocates believe, led him to the
>>>>> root
>>>>> >>> cause of economic and social problems. We need to
>>>>> concentrate on
>>>>> the
>>>>> >>> root and stop thrashing mindlessly around in the branches. I
>>>>> think
>>>>> >>> what Douglas meant, when he cautioned that too much striving
>>>>> for
>>>>> >>> "justice" can lead one to miss it, should be fairly obvious.
>>>>> We
>>>>> >>> exist in the real world and must deal with reality--not
>>>>> detached
>>>>> and
>>>>> >>> "other-worldly" moralistic abstractions.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> I just received an e-mail wherein one of our Muslim friends
>>>>> >>> emphasizes that debt may remain but interest, as an
>>>>> "anti-God"
>>>>> (i.e.,
>>>>> >>> "evil") institution must be purged from our lives. This is
>>>>> just
>>>>> >>> another example of the difficulty that Martin is discussing
>>>>> with
>>>>> >>> regard to ineffective approaches by usually sincere divers
>>>>> "monetary
>>>>> >>> reformers" to the financial problem. It is a very
>>>>> unfortunate one
>>>>> >>> because it appears to hold considerable psychological sway in
>>>>> the
>>>>> >>> very substantial Islamic part of our world and if the
>>>>> perception
>>>>> >>> could be changed in this sector of the population our task
>>>>> would
>>>>> be
>>>>> >>> considerably assisted. There is a profound theological
>>>>> aspect to
>>>>> the
>>>>> >>> problem and it relates to the concept of Salvation through
>>>>> Grace
>>>>> as
>>>>> >>> opposed to Salvation through Works--another "moralistic"
>>>>> stumbling
>>>>> >>> block which blinds society at large to reality and leads us
>>>>> from
>>>>> one
>>>>> >>> disaster to another. The question appears to arise: "Can we
>>>>> survive
>>>>> >>> it?"
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Sincerely
>>>>> >>> Wally
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> On 18-Sep-06, at 7:00 PM, Martin Hattersley wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> Could I just make a note that these extremely important
>>>>> extracts
>>>>> from
>>>>> >>>> Douglas do emphasise that the reform he was looking for was
>>>>> not
>>>>> the
>>>>> >>>> abolition of usury or the nationalization of the banking
>>>>> system,
>>>>> but a
>>>>> >>>> correction of a flaw in our credit system.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> When capital works are financed by bank credit, a situation
>>>>> is
>>>>> created
>>>>> >>>> whereby the community first pays from these works through
>>>>> inflation,
>>>>> >>>> and then is expected to pay a second time when repayment of
>>>>> the
>>>>> bank
>>>>> >>>> financing is incorporated into prices (which is
>>>>> impossible).
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Money issued as a Just Price Discount would reduce consumer
>>>>> prices to a
>>>>> >>>> manageable level, and that, or a National Dividend, would
>>>>> not
>>>>> >>>> necessarily be inflationary, because it would very quickly
>>>>> go
>>>>> back to
>>>>> >>>> the banking system in repayment of loans, and so be
>>>>> cancelled.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Martin Hattersley
>>>>> >>>> 5929 - 189 St.,
>>>>> >>>> EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
>>>>> >>>> Phone (780)483-5442.
>>>>> >>>> jmartinh@shaw.ca
>>>>> >>>> e-mail: hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
>>>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "MODERATOR"
>>>>> <socredus@yahoo.com>
>>>>> >>>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>>>>> >>>> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 10:45 AM
>>>>> >>>> Subject: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>> The following, courtesy of Wally Klinck, is excerpted
>>>>> >>>>> from *The Monopoly of Credit.* The text in this
>>>>> >>>>> excerpt appears identical to the earliest edition
>>>>> >>>>> printed some two decades earlier.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Inasmuch as international copyright law was amended to
>>>>> >>>>> protect the Disney and Microsoft franchises, posting
>>>>> >>>>> it in this extended form might well be interpreted as
>>>>> >>>>> being in violation of the Douglas copyrights, which a
>>>>> >>>>> former listmember claims to "own" through gift of some
>>>>> >>>>> sort from Douglas's widow.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Be that as it may, works published originally before
>>>>> >>>>> 1922 are unquestionably in the public domain, which
>>>>> >>>>> includes the entirety of *The New Age* under Orage,
>>>>> >>>>> now made available to the entire world via the
>>>>> >>>>> Internet by the Modernist Journals Project.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> This body of work includes the entire text of
>>>>> >>>>> *Economic Democracy* and *Credit-Power and Democracy.*
>>>>> >>>>> -
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> [BEGINNING]
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> CHAPTER IV
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> THE GAP BETWEEN PRICES AND PURCHASING POWER
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> It may reasonably be asked why a system which, on the
>>>>> >>>>> face of it, does not appear to have undergone
>>>>> >>>>> important modifications during the past hundred years
>>>>> >>>>> or so, has become so powerful and so oppressive. A
>>>>> >>>>> correct answer to this question is probably of more
>>>>> >>>>> importance than the solution of any other problem
>>>>> >>>>> before the world at the present time.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> A student of the preceding pages will have grasped the
>>>>> >>>>> important fact that money is not made by industry.
>>>>> >>>>> Neither is it made by agriculture, or by any
>>>>> >>>>> manufacturing progress. The farmer who grows a ton of
>>>>> >>>>> potatoes does not grow the money whereby the ton of
>>>>> >>>>> potatoes may be bought, and if he is fortunate enough
>>>>> >>>>> to sell them, he merely gets money which someone else
>>>>> >>>>> had previously.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Purchasing power, therefore, is not, as might be
>>>>> >>>>> gathered from the current discussions on the subject,
>>>>> >>>>> an emanation from the production of real commodities
>>>>> >>>>> or services much like the scent from a rose, but on
>>>>> >>>>> the contrary, is produced by an entirely distinct
>>>>> >>>>> process, that is to. say, the banking system. Bearing
>>>>> >>>>> this in mind, we can understand that it is impossible
>>>>> >>>>> for a closed community to operate continuously on the
>>>>> >>>>> profit system, if the amount of money inside this
>>>>> >>>>> community is not increased, even though the amount of
>>>>> >>>>> goods and services available are not increased. This
>>>>> >>>>> obvious but commonly overlooked fact forms the
>>>>> >>>>> justification, if any, for the idea on which Socialist
>>>>> >>>>> policy for the past hundred years has been based--that
>>>>> >>>>> the poor are poor because the rich are rich. If a
>>>>> >>>>> number of persons continue to sell articles at a
>>>>> >>>>> greater price than that paid for them, they must
>>>>> >>>>> eventually come into possession of all the money in
>>>>> >>>>> the community, and the only flaw in such a state of
>>>>> >>>>> affairs would be that it would be self-destructive,
>>>>> >>>>> since in a comparatively short period of time a small
>>>>> >>>>> section of the community would own all the money, and
>>>>> >>>>> therefore the remainder of the community would be
>>>>> >>>>> unable to pay, and production and sale would stop.
>>>>> >>>>> This process probably contributed largely to the rapid
>>>>> >>>>> accumulation of wealth in the hands of the
>>>>> >>>>> entrepreneur at the beginning of the nineteenth
>>>>> >>>>> century, and the limited extent to which the benefits
>>>>> >>>>> of industrial progress were passed on to the general
>>>>> >>>>> population; but the profit-making system is certainly
>>>>> >>>>> not to any great extent responsible for the present
>>>>> >>>>> situation, since profits have ceased to form an
>>>>> >>>>> outstanding feature of business. It is an
>>>>> >>>>> extraordinary feature of the controversy that they are
>>>>> >>>>> attacked as immoral as well as undesirable. It has
>>>>> >>>>> never been clear to me why any man in any position of
>>>>> >>>>> life should be expected to perform any action whatever
>>>>> >>>>> which was not in some sense of the word profitable to
>>>>> >>>>> him, and there is more than a suspicion that the
>>>>> >>>>> attack upon profits can ultimately be traced to a fear
>>>>> >>>>> of the economic security offered by this type of
>>>>> >>>>> remuneration, as compared with that of the wage and
>>>>> >>>>> salary.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> The factor which is probably at the root of the
>>>>> >>>>> problem is at once more complex and more subtle, and
>>>>> >>>>> has during the past few years been a matter of
>>>>> >>>>> acrimonious controversy. On its physical or realistic
>>>>> >>>>> side it is intimately connected with the replacement
>>>>> >>>>> of human labour by machine labour.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> The physical effects of this replacement are not
>>>>> >>>>> difficult to apprehend. If one unit of human labour
>>>>> >>>>> with the aid of mechanical power and machinery will
>>>>> >>>>> produce ten times as much as the same unit working
>>>>> >>>>> without such aids, it is obvious that there will
>>>>> >>>>> either be ten times as much production or only
>>>>> >>>>> one-tenth the amount of labour will be required.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> The productivity of a unit of human labour has
>>>>> >>>>> increased somewhat irregularly over the whole field of
>>>>> >>>>> production. In some cases the increase in a hundred
>>>>> >>>>> years has amounted to thousands per cent, in some
>>>>> >>>>> cases the increase of output per unit has been much
>>>>> >>>>> less. It is, however, broadly true to say that general
>>>>> >>>>> economic production, which may be defined as the
>>>>> >>>>> conversion of existing materials into a form suitable
>>>>> >>>>> for human use, is proportional to the rate at which
>>>>> >>>>> energy of any description is used in the process, and
>>>>> >>>>> this line of attack is probably closer to reality than
>>>>> >>>>> any method in which financial units are employed.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> On this basis it is safe to say that one unit of human
>>>>> >>>>> labour can on the average produce at least forty times
>>>>> >>>>> as much as was the case up to the beginning of the
>>>>> >>>>> nineteenth century. The following examples are some
>>>>> >>>>> indication of the progress made in the past few years
>>>>> >>>>> alone.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> The rate of production of pig-iron is three times as
>>>>> >>>>> great per man employed as it was in 1914. A workman
>>>>> >>>>> using automatic machines can make 4,000 glass bottles
>>>>> >>>>> as quickly as he could have made 100 by hand
>>>>> >>>>> twenty-five years ago. In 1919 the index of factory
>>>>> >>>>> output (based upon 1914 as
>>>>> >>>>> 100) was 146, and the index of factory employment was
>>>>> >>>>> 129. By 1927 output had risen to 170, but employment
>>>>> >>>>> had sunk to 115. In 1928 American farmers were using
>>>>> >>>>> 45,000 harvesting and threshing machines, and with
>>>>> >>>>> them had displaced
>>>>> >>>>> 130,000 farm hands. In automobiles, output per man has
>>>>> >>>>> increased to 310 per cent, an increase of 210 per
>>>>> >>>>> cent.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> When we approach the question of distribution,
>>>>> >>>>> however, we find a remarkable discrepancy. Professor
>>>>> >>>>> Paul H. Douglas states in his examination of the
>>>>> >>>>> problem that, in the first quarter of the twentieth
>>>>> >>>>> century, real wages increased 30 per cent,
>>>>> >>>>> productivity per employee increased by
>>>>> >>>>> 54 per cent. In 1923 production increased 38 per cent,
>>>>> >>>>> but consumption by wage-earners 32 per cent. In 1925
>>>>> >>>>> production increased 54 per cent, but consumption only
>>>>> >>>>> 30 per cent. These latter figures compare with 1913 as
>>>>> >>>>> a basis.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Eliminating the pseudo-moral complications commonly
>>>>> >>>>> introduced into this aspect of the subject, it is
>>>>> >>>>> clear that certain consequences were bound to ensue.
>>>>> >>>>> Either the requirements of the population must
>>>>> >>>>> increase at the rate at which the capacity for
>>>>> >>>>> production increases, and at the same time the
>>>>> >>>>> financial mechanism must be adjusted to provide for
>>>>> >>>>> the distribution of the production, or a decreasing
>>>>> >>>>> number of persons would be required in production.
>>>>> >>>>> Unless the wages of this decreasing number of
>>>>> >>>>> individuals collectively rises to the amount which,
>>>>> >>>>> previously distributed to a larger number of workers,
>>>>> >>>>> would buy the still greater production, either costs
>>>>> >>>>> and prices must fall, or an increasing proportion of
>>>>> >>>>> the goods must be unsold to the persons who produced
>>>>> >>>>> them. Certain consequences, readily understood if it
>>>>> >>>>> be remembered that wages, costs, and purchasing power
>>>>> >>>>> are only different aspects of the same thing,
>>>>> >>>>> accompany a continuous fall in costs under the
>>>>> >>>>> existing financial system, and a fall of prices, while
>>>>> >>>>> off-setting these consequences to some extent,
>>>>> >>>>> involves the entrepreneur in a loss on the whole of
>>>>> >>>>> his stocks, a loss which he is not usually willing, or
>>>>> >>>>> indeed able, to take.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> The first aspect of this complex situation which
>>>>> >>>>> demands attention is the financing of capital
>>>>> >>>>> production by means of the reinvestment of savings,
>>>>> >>>>> which, it should be noticed, is the method commonly
>>>>> >>>>> stated to be the proper method. It is doubtful whether
>>>>> >>>>> more than an insignificant proportion of financing is
>>>>> >>>>> done in this way, the greater part coming from new
>>>>> >>>>> credits supplied by banks and insurance companies in
>>>>> >>>>> return for debentures, but it forms the smoke-screen
>>>>> >>>>> which conceals the fact that public issues are in the
>>>>> >>>>> main acquired by financial institutions through the
>>>>> >>>>> medium of drafts upon themselves. The growth of
>>>>> >>>>> insurance has no doubt been a considerable factor in
>>>>> >>>>> accelerating the process. If we consider the case of a
>>>>> >>>>> workman earning, let us say, £5 per week, who saves £1
>>>>> >>>>> of this and at the end of a hundred weeks subscribes
>>>>> >>>>> for shares in a new manufacturing company, the effect
>>>>> >>>>> is not hard to trace. The original £5 per week was
>>>>> >>>>> wages paid to the workman, and these wages were, by
>>>>> >>>>> the orthodox costing system, debited to the cost of
>>>>> >>>>> the articles produced by his employer. Eventually, due
>>>>> >>>>> to his saving, these articles cannot be sold, as a
>>>>> >>>>> simple arithmetical proposition shows, since he has
>>>>> >>>>> taken 20 per cent of the necessary purchasing power
>>>>> >>>>> off the market. His investment of this 20 per cent we
>>>>> >>>>> may assume results in the manufacture of machinery in
>>>>> >>>>> which his £100 again appears as wages. Assuming that
>>>>> >>>>> no physical deterioration has taken place, or that the
>>>>> >>>>> goods have not been exported, the 20 per cent
>>>>> >>>>> deficiency in the first cycle of production has now
>>>>> >>>>> been restored, and the original goods could be bought.
>>>>> >>>>> But the machinery which has been made in the second
>>>>> >>>>> cycle of production is now a charge on further
>>>>> >>>>> production for which no purchasing power whatever
>>>>> >>>>> exists. This proposition may be generalised as
>>>>> >>>>> follows:
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Where any payment in money appears twice or more in
>>>>> >>>>> series production) then the ultimate price of the
>>>>> >>>>> product is increased by the amount of that payment
>>>>> >>>>> multiplied by the number of times of its appearance)
>>>>> >>>>> without any equivalent increase of purchasing power.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> With this fundamental proposition in mind we are in a
>>>>> >>>>> position to take a more generalised view of the defect
>>>>> >>>>> in the price system which is concerned with the double
>>>>> >>>>> circuit of money in industry, and which has become
>>>>> >>>>> known as the A plus B theorem. The statement of this
>>>>> >>>>> is as follows: In any manufacturing undertaking the
>>>>> >>>>> payments made may be divided into two groups: Group A:
>>>>> >>>>> Payments made to individuals as wages, salaries, and
>>>>> >>>>> dividends; Group B: Payments made to other
>>>>> >>>>> organisations for raw materials, bank charges, and
>>>>> >>>>> other external costs. The rate of distribution of
>>>>> >>>>> purchasing power to individuals is represented by A,
>>>>> >>>>> but since all payments go into prices, the rate of
>>>>> >>>>> generation of prices cannot be less than A plus B.
>>>>> >>>>> Since A will not purchase A plus B, a proportion of
>>>>> >>>>> the product at least equivalent to B must be
>>>>> >>>>> distributed by a form of purchasing power which is not
>>>>> >>>>> comprised in the description grouped under A.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Now the first objection which is commonly raised to
>>>>> >>>>> this statement is that the payments in wages which are
>>>>> >>>>> made to the public for intermediate products which the
>>>>> >>>>> public does not want to buy and could not use, when
>>>>> >>>>> added together, make up the necessary sum to balance
>>>>> >>>>> the B payments, so that the population can buy all the
>>>>> >>>>> consumable products. But an examination of the diagram
>>>>> >>>>> on page 37 will show that this is not a satisfactory
>>>>> >>>>> explanation. If we imagine consumable products to be
>>>>> >>>>> produced in five stages, each stage taking one month,
>>>>> >>>>> a product begun in January will be finished in May. We
>>>>> >>>>> can regard the first four stages as capital
>>>>> >>>>> production. It is irrelevant that in the modern world
>>>>> >>>>> all of these five processes are taking place
>>>>> >>>>> simultaneously and that the product may be found in
>>>>> >>>>> any of the five stages at any moment. It is still true
>>>>> >>>>> that you cannot bake bread with corn which you are
>>>>> >>>>> simultaneously grinding.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Consider the nature of these B payments. They are
>>>>> >>>>> repayments collected from the public of purchasing
>>>>> >>>>> power in respect of production not yet delivered to
>>>>> >>>>> the public. If the wage-earners in process "I" use
>>>>> >>>>> their current month's, i.e. May's, wages to buy their
>>>>> >>>>> share of one current month's production of consumable
>>>>> >>>>> goods, they are using money distributed in respect of
>>>>> >>>>> production which will not appear as consumable goods
>>>>> >>>>> till October. They are in fact involuntarily
>>>>> >>>>> reinvesting their money in industry, with the result
>>>>> >>>>> previously explained. When we consider the increasing
>>>>> >>>>> sub-division of process-and in "process" we may
>>>>> >>>>> include the using of machine-tools, buildings, and the
>>>>> >>>>> general plant of the country-it will readily be
>>>>> >>>>> understood that this period shown as five months in
>>>>> >>>>> the diagram may easily cover many years.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> As the economic system may be said to depend upon this
>>>>> >>>>> matter, it is essential that a clear understanding of
>>>>> >>>>> it should be obtained.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Let us imagine a capitalist to own a certain piece of
>>>>> >>>>> land, on which is a house, and a building containing
>>>>> >>>>> the necessary machinery for preparing, spinning, and
>>>>> >>>>> weaving linen, and that the land is capable of
>>>>> >>>>> growing, in addition to flax, all the food necessary
>>>>> >>>>> to maintain a man. Let us further imagine that the
>>>>> >>>>> capitalist in the first place allows a man to live
>>>>> >>>>> free of all payment in the house and to have the use
>>>>> >>>>> of all the foodstuffs that he grows on condition that
>>>>> >>>>> he also grows, spins, and weaves a certain amount of
>>>>> >>>>> linen for the capitalist. Let us further imagine that
>>>>> >>>>> after a time this arrangement is altered by the
>>>>> >>>>> payment to the man of £1 a week for the work on the
>>>>> >>>>> linen business, but that this £1 is taken back each
>>>>> >>>>> week as rent for the house and payment for the
>>>>> >>>>> foodstuffs.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Let us now imagine that from the time the flax is
>>>>> >>>>> picked to the time that the linen is delivered to the
>>>>> >>>>> capitalist, a period of six weeks elapses. Obviously
>>>>> >>>>> the cost of the linen must be £6, and this will be the
>>>>> >>>>> price, plus profit, which the capitalist would place
>>>>> >>>>> upon it. Quite obviously only one-sixth of the
>>>>> >>>>> purchasing power necessary to buy the linen is now
>>>>> >>>>> available, although "at some time or other" all the £6
>>>>> >>>>> has been distributed. It should also be noticed that
>>>>> >>>>> the arrangement is a perfectly equitable arrangement.
>>>>> >>>>> The employee obtains definite return for his services
>>>>> >>>>> in the form of bed, board, and clothes, which quite
>>>>> >>>>> probably he might not have been able to obtain had not
>>>>> >>>>> the knowledge and organisation of the capitalist
>>>>> >>>>> brought together housing, flax, food, and machinery.
>>>>> >>>>> In other words, the problem disclosed is not a moral
>>>>> >>>>> problem, it is an arithmetical problem.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Let us now imagine that half of the employee's time is
>>>>> >>>>> devoted to making a machine which will do all the work
>>>>> >>>>> of preparing and manufacturing linen, and that the
>>>>> >>>>> manufacture of this machine takes twelve weeks. We may
>>>>> >>>>> therefore say that the machine costs £6, the total
>>>>> >>>>> value of the production of machine and flax being
>>>>> >>>>> still £I per week. At the end of this period the
>>>>> >>>>> machine is substituted for the man, the machine being
>>>>> >>>>> driven, we suppose, by the burning of the food which
>>>>> >>>>> was previously consumed by the man, and the machine
>>>>> >>>>> being housed in the house previously occupied by the
>>>>> >>>>> man, and being automatic. The capitalist will be
>>>>> >>>>> justified in saying that the cost of the operation of
>>>>> >>>>> the machine is £1 per week as before, and if there is
>>>>> >>>>> any wear, he will also be justified in allocating the
>>>>> >>>>> cost of this wear to the cost of the linen. It should
>>>>> >>>>> be noticed, however, that he will now not distribute
>>>>> >>>>> any money at all, since it is obviously no use
>>>>> >>>>> offering a £I note a week to a machine. He will merely
>>>>> >>>>> allocate this cost, and once again the allocation will
>>>>> >>>>> be perfectly fair and proper, but no one will be able
>>>>> >>>>> to pay the price, because no one has received any
>>>>> >>>>> money.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> In the modern industrial system, this process can be
>>>>> >>>>> identified easily in the form of machine charges. For
>>>>> >>>>> instance, a modern stamping plant may require to add
>>>>> >>>>> 600 per cent to its labour charges to cover its
>>>>> >>>>> machine charges, this sum not being in any true sense
>>>>> >>>>> profit. In such a case, for every £1 expended in a
>>>>> >>>>> given period in wages, £6, making £7 in all, would be
>>>>> >>>>> carried forward into prices. Although this is an
>>>>> >>>>> extreme case, the constant, and in one sense
>>>>> >>>>> desirable, tendency is for direct charges to decrease
>>>>> >>>>> and for indirect charges to increase as a result of
>>>>> >>>>> the replacement of human labour by machinery. There is
>>>>> >>>>> no difference between a plant charge of this nature
>>>>> >>>>> and a similar sum repaid as a " B" payment. The
>>>>> >>>>> essential point is that when a given sum of money
>>>>> >>>>> leaves the consumer on its journey back to the point
>>>>> >>>>> of origin in the bank it is on its way to extinction.
>>>>> >>>>> If that extinction takes place before the extinction
>>>>> >>>>> of the price value created during its journey from the
>>>>> >>>>> bank, then each such operation produces a
>>>>> >>>>> corresponding disequilibrium between money and prices.
>>>>> >>>>> For these causes and others of a similar character, it
>>>>> >>>>> seems to me quite beyond argument that the production
>>>>> >>>>> of such a quantity of intermediate products, including
>>>>> >>>>> plant, machinery, buildings, and so forth, as is
>>>>> >>>>> physically necessary to maintain a given quantity of
>>>>> >>>>> consumable products, will not provide a distribution
>>>>> >>>>> of purchasing power sufficient to buy these consumable
>>>>> >>>>> products. This would be true even if prices and costs
>>>>> >>>>> were identical. But since prices can and do rise much
>>>>> >>>>> above costs, additional purchasing power from
>>>>> >>>>> intermediate production is rapidly absorbed.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> To say that at some time or other the money has been
>>>>> >>>>> distributed is in the nature of a general assertion
>>>>> >>>>> which does not bear upon the specific fact. The mill
>>>>> >>>>> will never grind with the water that has passed, and
>>>>> >>>>> unless it can be shown, as it certainly cannot be
>>>>> >>>>> shown, that all these sums distributed in respect of
>>>>> >>>>> the production of intermediate products are actually
>>>>> >>>>> saved up, not in the form of securities, but in the
>>>>> >>>>> form of actual purchasing power, we are obliged to
>>>>> >>>>> assume what I believe to be true, that the rate of
>>>>> >>>>> flow of purchasing power derived from the normal and
>>>>> >>>>> theoretical operation of the existing price system is
>>>>> >>>>> always less than that of the generation of prices
>>>>> >>>>> within the same period of time.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> There is another method of regarding this matter which
>>>>> >>>>> is helpful to the grasp of an admittedly difficult
>>>>> >>>>> subject. Suppose that the wages, salaries, and
>>>>> >>>>> dividends distributed were exactly sufficient to buy
>>>>> >>>>> the new production on sale at any moment and did so
>>>>> >>>>> buy it, i.e. let us suppose that the financial system
>>>>> >>>>> worked as it is supposed to work. Obviously numbers of
>>>>> >>>>> things would be bought, such as houses, furniture,
>>>>> >>>>> etc., which would have a considerable life. But ex
>>>>> >>>>> hypothesi the sale between consumers
>>>>> >>>>> (as distinguished from sales from producer to
>>>>> >>>>> consumer) of these would be impossible-they would have
>>>>> >>>>> no money, since at the moment of transfer of the goods
>>>>> >>>>> from the producing to the consuming system their money
>>>>> >>>>> value would have disappeared on its journey back to
>>>>> >>>>> the bank, to finance a fresh cycle of production.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Sales between consumers are an important though
>>>>> >>>>> frequently overlooked factor in distribution, and
>>>>> >>>>> require that the money value of "second-hand" goods
>>>>> >>>>> shall be in existence until the goods have physically
>>>>> >>>>> disappeared.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> It may, with reason, be asked how, if this be so, is
>>>>> >>>>> it that in fact consumable products are sold at all?
>>>>> >>>>> The answer to this is again complex, but the main
>>>>> >>>>> forms in which assistance is given to the defective
>>>>> >>>>> purchasing power of the population (although that
>>>>> >>>>> assistance is much less than is required to enable the
>>>>> >>>>> production system fully to be drawn upon) are the
>>>>> >>>>> redistribution of money through the social services
>>>>> >>>>> such as the so-called dole, the use of money received
>>>>> >>>>> from the sale of exports, from foreign investments and
>>>>> >>>>> from invisible exports such as shipping, redistributed
>>>>> >>>>> through the medium of taxation, the distribution of
>>>>> >>>>> bank loans (advanced on mortgage, debentures, ete.) in
>>>>> >>>>> wages for excessive capital production, and the
>>>>> >>>>> selling of goods below cost through the agency of
>>>>> >>>>> bankruptcies, forced sales, and actual destruction.
>>>>> >>>>> These latter three are a direct discouragement to
>>>>> >>>>> production, and in fact represent a subsidy in aid of
>>>>> >>>>> prices from private sources, a conception which it is
>>>>> >>>>> desirable to bear in mind in considering remedies, in
>>>>> >>>>> view of the fact that, so far from this subsidy
>>>>> >>>>> raising prices, it comes into operation only by the
>>>>> >>>>> lowering of prices.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> It is also clear that the longer the average period
>>>>> >>>>> over which money is collected in respect of the
>>>>> >>>>> creation and destruction of a capital asset (which
>>>>> >>>>> corresponds to the "life" of an asset), and the
>>>>> >>>>> shorter the average period over which money is
>>>>> >>>>> collected for day-to-day living on the part of the
>>>>> >>>>> community (which corresponds to the "life" of
>>>>> >>>>> consumable goods), the greater will be the discrepancy
>>>>> >>>>> between purchasing power and prices.
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> [END OF EXCERPT]
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>> >>>>> 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
>>>>> >>>>> 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: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.4/449 - Release
>>>>> Date:
>>>>> >>>>> 15/09/2006
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> --
>>>>> >>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>>> >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>> >>>> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.4/449 - Release
>>>>> Date:
>>>>> >>>> 15/09/2006
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> >>>> 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
>>>>> wmklinck@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
>>>>> cymric@xtra.co.nz
>>>>> >>> 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
>>>>> wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
>>>>> >>> 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
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> > 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
>>>>> jschroeder@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 cymric@xtra.co.nz
>>>>> 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 jschroeder@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 cymric@xtra.co.nz
>>>>> 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: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.2/472 - Release Date:
>>>>> 11/10/2006
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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 jschroeder@shaw.ca
>>>>> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.2/472 - Release Date:
>>>>> 11/10/2006
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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 jschroeder@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: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/476 - Release Date:
>>>> 14/10/2006
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/476 - Release Date:
>>> 14/10/2006
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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 jschroeder@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: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/476 - Release Date:
>> 14/10/2006
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/476 - Release Date: 14/10/2006
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 jschroeder@shaw.ca
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message