| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Tutte's book (10 of 10 file):- a recurring question | | Date: | Thursday, February 22, 2007 07:39:30 (-0800) | | From: | william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4495 (written by Joe Thomson) |
"What I have highlighted above seems to me to be a
contradiction of what Douglas wrote to L. Denis Byrne
in his 'pound for pound' letter. Which I believe is in
the archives to this List. Is there anything else
that anyone is aware of in Douglas's writings where he
is consistent with what Tutte has written above? If
so, could I please be directed to it?"
--------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
I append the text from Douglas's letter to Byrne
below. He makes two very important points: that the
one-hundred percent reserve requirement means that
banks could not grant loans; and that the proponents
of the concept don't understand their own proposal.
What they are really proposing is merely a semantic
subterfuge. Typically, they would require one hundred
percent reserves against "checking" deposits; and
something less than one hundred percent reserves
against "savings" deposits. They would therefore be
requiring only fractional reserves against the
totality of deposits.
It requires a very deficient concept of money and
banking.
-------------------------------------
13th April, 1933
Dear Mr. Byrne,
In reference to our conversation yesterday afternoon,
I have not up to the present taken the "pound for
pound" business very seriously, but as, apparently,
Lord Tavistock is putting it forward at each of his
meetings, perhaps it ought to receive attention.
It is, of course, simply another way of stating that
the present banks are to be shut down, since under
this scheme a bank could neither lend nor borrow since
it would have to consult all its depositors every time
it lent money, reducing their deposits by the amount
lent, and it would, therefore, have to become a safe
deposit for paper bank notes of the intrinsic value of
4/-per thousand, which does not seem to require so
elaborate a mechanism.
As you know, I consider the administration of the
present banks admirable, and I think to put forward a
proposal of this kind is either to court the
accusation that it is not understood by its sponsors,
or else to raise up a wholly unnecessary and
additional antagonism on the part of orthodox bankers.
Yours sincerely,
C. H. Douglas
-
--- Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca> wrote:
[snipped]
____________________________________________________________________________________
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message