|
If 'we mandate' what banks do with their profits
then Joe is observing the very thing he was afraid of- abuse of greater
centralised power.
I would expect that if the banks lose the
'ownership' of the money supply then 'reserves' would melt away and working
capital increase even to the point of copying the Muslim banks in becoming
silent business -partners for a percentage of the profits equal to what they get
in interest rates at present, and all be on the stock exchange. Saving
should start becoming investment/shares, both direct and through their banks,
which would reduce bank liabilities.
This money will be in demand because not only will
the economy be more boyant with much less debt deadweight ( making banks
busier) but simply because the NCA doesnt create money against the future,
only the non-static 'present'.
Forcing banks to loosen up profits into the economy
wont unravel nor compensate the compounding financial demands on the future
economy and its ability to meet societies needs, which is deminishing
continuously.
Peter H
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:46
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Economic
Democracy
Good points, Joe, and I'll be interested in comments from others.
Regards. John R.
From: Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject:
Re: [socialcredit] Economic Democracy
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007
06:43:33 -0500
(John Rawson wrote:-) You people must have much more friendly banks
than we have. Ours charge like wounded bulls all the time. I
don't think a fee of perhaps 1% or less would hurt much. And if we
take their pretence that they lend money deposited with them, it would
make their funds a lot cheaper! (Forgive a little facetiousness.) But
since the move would reduce and eventually eliminate the need for debt in
perpetuity at full interest rates, I think the objection is a litle
fatuous.
(Joe replies:-) If the bank is
regarded as a 'business' it's going to have to pass its costs on, the same
as any other business has to, isn't it?
So the public just ends up paying the
'fee', however small it is, to use its own money.
Don't we pay enough to do that
already? Or do you expect the bank is just going to
'swallow' the extra 'fee' without passing it on?
Why don't we just mandate that the banks
distribute more of their profits instead? Wouldn't that be more
in keeping with what Douglas wrote about the size of bank dividends and
their effect as a distribution of debt-free 'purchasing
power'?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Live Search delivers results the way you like it. Try live.com
now!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
