|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] A brief outline of Social Credit|
|Date:||Saturday, March 3, 2007 09:26:42 (-0800)|
|From:||william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|In reply to:||Message 4518 (written by Jim)|
Jim, we are trying to have a scholarly discussion
here. By contrast, the quotation from Douglas is
pulled from a speech during an electoral campaign, in
which rather strong rhetoric was utilized, in the
midst of a Great Depression in which people had every
reason to be unhappy with the situation. Douglas was
attempting to rally support to his cause with appeals
But look at what he actually does, or rather, does not
say. He does not call for the abolition of the
fractional reserve system. He does not call for the
nationalization of banks.
He does call for the imposition of controls over
banking, in which he specifically calls for crediting
the public's account for the profits of banking
remaining after the payment of the six percent
dividend on subscribed capital, and for the value of
their assets over and above that showed on their
balance sheets. This credit would be in offset to
debt owed to the banks.
Notice that he says that the essence of the fraud was
their claim to the ownership of the nation's money,
which means that they had the right, in their minds,
to determine policy, which at that point had brought
on the Great Depression, with no end in sight.
I would prefer that banking be regulated as if it were
a public utility.
By the way, beyond the short citations in this
address, I have not seen Douglas' "suggestions" to
"the New Zealand Government at the Monetary Commission
in 1934." Surely there are more complete transcripts
of what Douglas presented in the public record
--- Jim <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
You state below:
"Rather I've come to think it's often used to create a
sense of revulsion at what the bank is doing. As if
it's engaging in something 'fraudulent'."
But if we are operating under a purely 'creditary'
system now, is there anything 'fraudulent' in what the
Douglas answers your question in "Dictatorship by
"The essence of the fraud is the claim that the money
that they create is their own money, and the fraud
differs in no respect in quality but only in its far
greater magnitude, from the fraud of counterfeiting.
"At the instigation of the banking system, barbarously
severe penalties are imposed upon the counterfeiter of
a ten-shilling note, but a peerage is conferred upon
the counterfeiter by banking methods of sums running
into hundreds of millions.
"May I make this point clear beyond all doubt? It is
the claim to the ownership of money which is the core
of the matter. Any person or any organization who can
create practically at will sums of money equivalent to
the price values of all the goods produced by the
community is the virtual owner of those goods, and,
therefore, the claim of the banking system to the
ownership of the money which it creates is a claim to
the ownership of the country."
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.