| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] A brief outline of Social Credit | | Date: | Sunday, March 11, 2007 13:25:02 (-0600) | | From: | Martin Hattersley <hattersleyjm @.........com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4548 (written by Joe Thomson) |
Joe -
I believe one answer is that under a Social Credit regime, much more of
production will be self financed by investors, who do not necessarily have
to establish a line of credit with a bank in order to go into business. In
other words, the publisher can tell the banks to go to hell, and raise funds
as necessary from like minded investors. It's known as "Economic Democracy".
Martin Hattersley
5929 - 189 St.,
EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
e-mail:----- jmartinh@shaw.ca
Original Message -----
From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] A brief outline of Social Credit
(Wally wrote:-) "Does the banking system have the ethical right to dictate
the use to which these resources are planned to be directed?"
(Joe asks:-) I would say, as a general matter, "No." The banking system
doesn't really have the 'ethical right' to do that. Douglas made that
clear, I believe, in one of his 'railway ticket, bank as the ticket office'
analogies. But it seems to me that there might be a bit of a 'grey area'
here, too.
To use the example you gave, of the 'publishing company' that had its credit
terminated because it printed a series of articles critical of banks, (and
I'm not saying such things don't happen), how would the Social Credit
financial proposals, which are applied to the economy as a whole, correct
that?
We have prevented a 'credit contraction' in that economy as a whole, and
eliminated that as a business risk. But aside from that, how does that
change the relationship between the bank, or banks, and its individual
customer? The errant publisher, in this case?
If the publisher's financials indicated his firm was otherwise sound, and
that the banks conspired to 'put him under' by withdrawing needed credit,
and prevented him from obtaining it elsewhere, in order to enforce their
'will' over him, then surely he would have recourse at law? How else would
the Social Credit proposals deal with such a situation?
Lets take it beyond that, hypothetically. Suppose in the publiher's
critical articles on banking there had been references to certain members of
the usual 'group' that's long been associated with all things 'financial'.
Suppose that some members of that certain 'group' took exception to the
tone of the articles, which we'll assume were mild enough to not be branded
'hate literature', (If that's still possible nowadays), and so couldn't be
dealt with that way..
But they were still annoying enough to them that they decided to teach that
publisher a lesson. Only rather than withdrawing his credit, which they may
not be in any position to directly do, they passed the word amongst members
of their 'group' to effectively 'boycott' that publisher's products. At the
'upper levels' of it, first, perhaps.
Perhaps one of those receiving that word was the owner of a major bookstore
chain. Which then declined to renew any orders for any of that publisher's
products.
Now this would surely affect the publisher's financials, if he had
previously been selling any quantity of his product through them, would it
not? . And if he were a puiblisher, as I would imagine a lot of publishers
these days may be, with his loan based primarily on 'earnings' and without a
lot of collateral security behind it, could the bank then be faulted for
withdrawing his credit?
For surely they couldn't be expected to continue to provide credit to a firm
which had just lost much of its ability to repay it? How would the Social
Credit proposals deal with a situation such as this, which is completely
hypothetical, of course, but still perhaps within the realm of possibility?
From: Wallace Klinck
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] A brief outline of Social Credit
Surely, we are all aware of businesses which have been terminated and/or
foreclosed by the calling of a bank loan, not because the business was not
viable in the ultimate sense but because of an arbitrary general credit
squeeze which restricted general demand and contracted what would otherwise
have been normal market demand for the goods and services offered by that
business. When a business gets a call from the bank it can be, and often
has been, an ominous sign for the fate of that business. Merely by way of
example, I know of one publishing company which was terminated promptly by
the calling of an operating loan. This was a publishing company which chose
to run a series of articles which were critical of the banking system. As
the old saying goes, a bank offers you a accommodation when the sun is
shining but withdraws it when the rain begins to fall! A bank loan allows
the monetization of one's real credit or assets in order that one can
obtain, for some chosen purpose to be pursued in association with others, a
general monetary claim on the community's resources. Does the banking
system have the ethical right to dictate the use to which these resources
are planned to be directed? Who owns the community's physical
resources--and who should own the monetary representation of them which
results from the accountancy services offered by a bank which simply allows
their monetization through extension of financial loan? The banks--or the
consuming public?
Wally
On 3-Mar-07, at 6:53 PM, Joe Thomson wrote:o
(Jim wrote:-) In my opinion, the problem with Vic's statement is that
it focuses solely on "call loans", which, as you state below, do not
represent most financing arrangements.
I think the point that should be made is that banks have the power to
set the terms of any loan, and according to those terms, the loans most
often get repaid before the goods that they brought into existence can be
consumed, and this produces a "gap" between income and prices.
(Joe replies:-) I'm sure there are a great many more ways of
'financing' available now than there were in Douglas's time. So I think
there would be quite a bit more flexibility nowadays in regards to 'terms'
than was once the case.
But the business still has to have 'prospects' of success, and likely
produce financial projections of viability, or have very solid collateral
security, or both.
And I don't think you'd find any banker, even from the Canadian
government's own Business Development Bank, ("the lender of last resort", as
it used to be known), who'd want to extend the period of repayment past the
expected life of the asset being financed. Unless he had a death wish for
his bank.
I would think that a properly constituted National Credit Office would
record and make the necessary corrections in regards to having sufficient
effective demand available in the economy as a whole in order to bridge the
collective 'gap' that develops from this cause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 wmklinck@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/718 - Release Date: 11/03/2007
9:27 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 7358 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message