| Subject: | [socialcredit] Economic Democracy | | Date: | Sunday, March 18, 2007 10:40:23 (-0700) | | From: | william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|
1. *Economic Democracy* has become available in
photocopy at Google Books
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0juSVawvP2v1hCtjo4&id=bvUBAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR5&lpg=PR5&dq=%22C.+H.+Douglas%22#PPA1,M1
and is easily read online in the full screen mode.
Our Compendium contains an introduction to the book by
Geoffrey Dobbs.
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium/dobbs-introduction.txt
2. Attached in mp3 format playable in Windows Player,
RealPlayer and similar programs is the last three
minutes of William Jennings Bryan's famous "Cross of
Gold" speech given to the Democratic Party Convention
of 1896, as read by Bryan himself into a microphone in
1921.
The significance of Bimetallism from a Social Credit
standpoint is its "free coinage of silver" aspect.
Silver was and is available, ready to be mined, in
much greater quantities than gold. Anyone with silver
bullion would have had the right to take it to the
United States Mint, and have it returned to him in the
form of silver coinage or silver certificates, which
would have been legal tender. As such, it would have
continuously entered circulation in offset to bank
debt, thereby ameliorating the "gap" between "prices"
and "purchasing power."
3. March 14, Martin Hattersley wrote:
"Banking could well continue as at present - but bank
promises to pay beyond the actual amount of legal
tender money they had in their possession would need
to be regarded as a draw against the National Credit.
The banks would be assessed a fee for so doing, since
the amount of their credit creation reduces the amount
of Dividend/Price Discount otherwise payable to the
public."
--------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
I fail to see what this is intended to accomplish.
The "fee" is effectively a tax on the banks, which
would be passed along inevitably to their customers in
the form of increased fees and interest, would it not?
And how does bank credit reduce the amount of the
Dividend/Price Discount otherwise payable to the
public?
In *Economic Democracy* Douglas differentiated between
"loan credit" and "cash credit," and said that both
were necessary. The weakness is on the "cash credit"
side as demonstrated through his A + B theorem. Hence
the necessity for its augmentation through the
Dividend/Price Discount.
--- Martin Hattersley <hattersleyjm@interbaun.com>
wrote:
It seems to me, Joe, that you are missing something.
When Banks create credit, they also create debt.
Credit created by the National Credit Authority would
not involve the creation of debt, just as coinage by
the Mint at the present time is done without debt.
Such money would reach the community through devices
such as the National Dividend and the Just Price.
Banking could well continue as at present - but bank
promises to pay beyond the actual amount of legal
tender money they had in their possession would need
to be regarded as a draw against the National Credit.
The banks would be assessed a fee for so doing, since
the amount of their credit creation reduces the amount
of Dividend/Price Discount otherwise payable to the
public.
The result of such a system would be that the nation's
credit was asserted to belong to the people, not the
banks. It would cause quite a revolution in the way we
regard the activities of the Banking system!
Martin Hattersley
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
[MIME component not shown: bryan-excerpt.mp3 (audio/mp3)
]
|
Economic Democracy
Reply to this message