| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] A brief outline of Social Credit | | Date: | Saturday, March 3, 2007 06:57:31 (-0700) | | From: | Jim <jschroeder @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4514 (written by Joe Thomson) |
Hi Joe:
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 bank does?"
Douglas answers your question in "Dictatorship by Taxation":
"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."
http://www.alor.org/Library/Dictatorshipbytaxation.htm#1a
Take care,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] A brief outline of Social Credit
> 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 jschroeder@shaw.ca
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message