| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit | | Date: | Tuesday, October 17, 2006 22:59:50 (+1300) | | From: | Peter Haines <cymric @.......nz>
|
There is not thought at all in the New Testament towards creating new laws
or setting up a seperate governed society. The Christians were continually
under pressure from numerous people who joined them to keep the Law in one
form or another and they were exhorted to avoid going back into bondage.
When Douglas said "speaking for myself" he wasnt advocating Christians do
so, he was expressing his disposition as I see it, and I suspect it
represents his interest in the positive and practical things needed in
modern society. However I believe the tampering with the O.T. hasnt been as
serious as he suggets and over the centuries the scholars, Jewish and
Christian, who study them havent indicated such serious tampering. The
different sourses are well documented as to the extent of their reliability
and I find no grounds to virtually take them with a grain of salt as Douglas
seems to.
The main damage has been in the interpretation. The more famous teachers
among the Jews discussed to the inith point ( like some social crediters
want to track down the last dollar in the A plus B theorem) how far the Law
is to be taken to, such as what constitutes work on the Sabbath. This
together with the "Oral Law" gave rise, I suspect, to the "teachings of the
Elders" and the bondage Jesus countered and exposed as corrupting the Law
and the Prophets meaning rather than rewriting it to any substantial extent.
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were examined they found that the copy of Isaiah
amongst them was all but totally the same as in the Bible today apart from
three or four words, as I recall, which became an aid to countering those
who being anti- religion/Christian claimed the scripture were too messed up
to be reliable.
The "Oral Law" is unknown as far as I know in the O.T. I dont know how many
tape recorders Moses would have needed on the Mountain to cover all the
writen Law and the Oral which appeared later. I suspect that it was the
same game as played by the Holy See which for centuries denied the citizens
from reading the scriptures making then entirely dependant on the Priests
teachings and of course once the scriptures were published the public got a
shock to find they had been misled which led to the Reformation. My guess
is the the 'leaven of the Pharasees' Jesus warned about was the 'Oral Law',
inspired by man, mixed in with those inspired by God. Numerous cults have
done the same, not replacing the scriptutes but corrupting the meaning.
Anyway the spirit of the word cannot be seen by those in darkness so they
wouldnt know know enough to corrupt scriptures substantially, most of the
'works' of darkness have been to counterfeit of the original.
And further Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, so let
them try and corrupt God who is the living Word anyway. There is nothing in
the N.T. that suggests the O.T. cannot be used, this attitude is alien to
Jesus and the Apostles. The 'rock' upon which the 'church' is built is
divine revelation.
Here's another prespective- given the plethora of interpretations and
doctrines who needs to tamper with it?
Bible prophesy and its fulfillment is a major sign to humanity. Has God
been puny or careless that He hasnt protected the scripture adiquately?
Peter H
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Hattersley" <hattersleyjm@interbaun.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 6:23 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 cymric@xtra.co.nz
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message