| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] A brief outline of Social Credit | | Date: | Wednesday, February 28, 2007 22:45:41 (-0500) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
(From Vic's "Outline":-) "It must be remembered that the banks have
discretionary powers to call in loans and overdrafts even before the goods
they brought into existence have been sold, and they sometimes exercise this
power with
disastrous effects on the community."
(Joe asks:-) How much financing is still done this way, where the loan is
subject to 'call'? Would it be substantially more or less than loans that
are issued for a definite term? Ones that could not be 'called' so long as
the terms of the loan agreement were being adhered to?
In the case that one bank were to 'call' a loan, (of a firm that was
fundamentally financially sound, for reasons known only unto the bank),
could not that firm generally secure another loan from another bank?
I have seen some evidence that this has been the case here in Canada (one
instance is recounted in the book "The Acquisitors" by noted author Peter C
Newman, in a chapter on well-known (here, anyways) Vancouver Island lumber
entrepreneur H. S. Doman and Doman Industries Ltd..
Where, early in his firm's life as a trucking and milling company, the CIBC
'called' Doman's loan, even though the firm was 'sound' and was always
current on its payments. He quickly got another loan from Royal Bank of
Canada, paid off CIBC, and went on to undoubtedly make millions for the RBC
over the next three decades.)
(From Vic's piece:-) "The first step will be the establishment of a
National
Credit Authority to take complete control of the money system and put the
affairs of the nation on a proper accountancy basis. This would restore
money power to the people and do away with the monopoly of credit by private
interests."
(Joe replies:-) I realize that this piece is intended for the readers of
the "Michael" Journal, and so the way in which some things are phrased or
inferred may be designed not to alienate them from their present perceptions
of 'Social Credit'.
They are now the main SC group left in Canada. And certainly closer to
some of Douglas's ideas in what they advocate than either of the two
'political party' SC groups left here currently are. (The one here in BC
seeming to want to believe SC history began in 1949, and Douglas is a
complete non-entity.).
It seems to me, anyways, from reading some of the "Michael" publications I
have, ones they used to occasionally mail out across the Dominion, that
they focus considerabley on the "evils" of interest. And a desire to have
the 'government' ''take complete control of the money system". Only in
ways in which I believe C H Douglas would hardly have approved.
I really do not see why what is supposed to be a 'statistical agency' has to
be made into what I think could not help but being a 'political' one.
Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but isn't it a case that the 'problem' is
not 'debt' itself, but that under the current arrangements 'debt' cannot be
totally liquidated? Why do we have to have an all powerful NCA to correct
that?
Now I recall asking Vic about this once before, quite some time ago. What
I've called before the "recurring question", and where in Douglas could I
find that he specifically advocates having the 'government' "take complete
control of the money system." And as I remember he replied that it was an
area in which Douglas wasn't too specific about details, but what was
advocated could be a 'method' which might be used. And I suppose it could
be. But I'm not yet convinced there wouldn't be considerable disadvantages
and dangers in going that route. But i'm not closed minded about it, so if
anyone knows good reasons 'why', I'd sure like to hear them.
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message