| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] A brief outline of Social Credit | | Date: | Saturday, March 3, 2007 03:51:33 (+0000) | | From: | John G Rawson <johngrawson @.......com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4514 (written by Joe Thomson) |
Surely, Joe, in that the banks create money of the official denominations of
each country, that makes it fraudulent? If they issued their own named units of
currency, backed by their own reserves or securities, that would not.
I am sure forging notes requires considerable cost and a lot of expertise if it
is to succeed. Does that make it more acceptable?
Regards. John R.
From: Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] A brief outline of Social Credit
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:43:34
-0500
>Further to my previous response, "McCrary" should've been "McNary."
>
>In
regards to Vic's piece, he states on Lines 287-290 :- "THEY CREATE IT. In
>the
terse phrase of the English economist, Hawtrey, "They create the means
>of
payment out of nothing."
>
>Now this phrase seems to me to be true enough if we
viewed 'nothing' simply
>as an intangible. Something that does exist but doesn't
have any physical
>form. But I don't think that's necessarily the context most
Social
>Crediters use it in.
>
>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 bank does?
>
>Certainly if it was
still issuing promises to pay 'on demand' in 'gold' it
>was supposed to have, but
didn't, the argument could be made with conviction
>that it was. But we've moved
beyond that, I think..
>
>And is there anything 'fraudulent' about 'generalising'
the borrower's
>creditary instrument, his promissory note, and transforming it
into
>something that is acceptable in the broader community as forms of
credit
>that can be used as 'money'? Especially when the bank, and ultimately
its
>shareholders, are on the hook for the extent of that credit?
>
>In Line 304,
Vic states:- " The
actual creation of credit is an almost
>costless operation."
>
> Viewed in the
sense of how long it takes a banker to write some figures on
>a piece of paper,
or maybe now push a few keys on a computer, we could say
>this is true.
>
>But it
certainly isn't true when viewed in the larger sense of what's
>actually involved
in banking as a whole. The banks DO have costs, and I
>believe they are
substantial. Even for the modern 'on-line' versions, like
>ING Direct. Making
loans is NOT 'costless'. Far from it.
>
>Again, it seems to me, that there is a
conscious or unconscious effort to
>create a sense of revulsion in regards to
what banks do.
>
>Now I am hardly one who enjoys defending banks. I think there
are a great
>many areas in which they roundly deserve to be criticized, and in
which
>their actions are utterly unconscionable.
>
> And I think we've become
too lax in our oversight and regulation of them,
>and the 'powers that be' that
we elect to office are often far too trusting
>that the banker 'knows
best'.
>
>But I don't think we serve our cause well by creating impressions in
the
>minds of the general public that will end up eventually casting us in a
bad
>light as 'cranks' when it's revealed, as it will be, that banking is
not
>'costless'.
>
>Joe.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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 johngrawson@hotmail.com
>For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Discover fun and games at XtraMSN Kids!
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message