| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Economic Democracy | | Date: | Sunday, March 25, 2007 15:59:49 (-0500) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4618 (written by Peter) |
(Peter wrote:-) Martin is arguing that banks should do the drawing against
the Community
Credit and should be charged. Also sees not reason for a physical limit.
(Joe replies:-) In the third PDF file that Bill Ryan attached to his post
of a few days ago, "the study of Douglas", (the one of Douglas before the
Alberta Agricultural Committee), Douglas mentions that public control over
'land' could provide a "physical limit". I think that would be a land
control similar to what he outlined in the "Land for the (Chosen) People
Racket."
(Peter continues:-) William argues that the better approach would be for
banks to increase
reserves to tighten 'loan credit' as 'cash credit' increases.
(Joe replies:-) I think that makes a great deal of sense. It is a way of
getting from where we are now to where we want to go.
>
(Peter continues:-) I see it as the community ( individuals/business
entities etc) drawing on
the Community Credit not the banks, although the banks are the agents of
distribution. So the banks shouldnt be charged, but the applicants pay a
fee for the paper work to the banks, unrelated to the figures involved, and
that reserves behind banks should deminish over time.
>
(Joe replies:-) So someone 'borrowing' $ 10,000 would pay the same 'fee' as
someone 'borrowing' $ 1,000,000 ? How do you account for 'risk'? Not
only that, but there is likely to be a great deal more 'paper work' involved
in the larger amount than in the smaller, and likely over a longer time,
isn't there?.
(Peter continues:-) I expect that there would be a natural tightening of
demand (money) from
sources outside the Community Credit current allocation, simply because the
Community Credit allocation is based on the current situation not as
against
the future which is the current basis of credit creation.
If this is true then there is a natural physical limit at any one time to
the lending/credit available, because no one will be creating credit
against
the future. ( this is the nub)
(Joe replies:-) Then how would 'progress' be possible?
Peter continues:-) Naturally there would be huge public and political party
debate once the
Community Credit/National Credit Office was immanent and that would include
the issue of where is it all to go and I cant see the allocation for the
Dividend and Just Price being able to be syphoned off into some other
aspect
of the economy.
(Joe replies:-) I must have missed something in my reading of Douglas. I
don't recall there being any such mention of 'allocations' of Community
Credit in this manner whatsoever. As far as the ND and CPD are concerned,
if the latter lowers the price Consumers pay for consumables, some of the
difference between the 'regular' price and the 'compensated' price could,
if 'consumers' collectively as citizens so desire, be used to pay for
services provided by 'government'. Services, ostensibly, for which we are
currently charged taxes on top of the 'regular' prices of all the
consumables we need and want. That is the understanding I have of it, at the
moment, and that has been re-inforced by reading, again, the PDF files Bill
Ryan attached in his ''the study of Douglas" post. The ones concerning
Douglas's testimony at Ottawa and in Alberta.
(Peter:-) Thus there will obviously be consideration for bulk 'funding'
into 'zones', eg 20% dividend etc, 15% local govt/regional development, 40%
business sector and so on in any one month. Private lending, eg Finance
Co/banks etc will cover the private and business needs not met, especially
bridging finance until an application is successful,
like the following month if one misses out. This is how bank mortgages
were
done a few decades ago when they were not the major lenders here in that
market.
(Joe replies:-) Could you show me where Douglas envisions financing being
this way? I'm not saying he didn't, though I haven't understood it to be
that way, nor am I saying what you've outlined won't work, but it seems to
me that there are some things introduced of which I would question the
necessity.
(Peter:-) The 'ownership' issue of credit is tied up with the future, its
about who
owns both, not just the communities credit. So the implications of what we
are arguing is about who should 'own' the 'future'. Once we take the
'future' out of creation of credit it becomes clear who is the owner/ in
control.
(Joe replies:-) The 'consumer', or the 'State'?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Economic Democracy
>
>
> >I again don't see what this "fee" is supposed to
> > accomplish except perhaps in demonstrating to the
> > banks who's now in charge. Assuming of course that a
> > new regime is now in place. And I would presume that
> > this would be after a lengthy period of public
> > discourse, where the bankers themselves might have
> > become persuaded, obviating the need for the "fee."
> >
> > A more meaningful policy would be to gradually
> > increase reserve requirements on the banks as the
> > dividend/discount is gradually increased. This would
> > tighten "loan credit" as "cash credit" is increased.
> > Closing the gap between prices and purchasing power.
> >
> > The keyword here is "gradual," allowing accommodation
> > for unforeseen circumstances.
> >
> >
> > --- Martin Hattersley <hattersleyjm@interbaun.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Regarding the idea of the banks being allowed to "make
> > a draw against the National Credit".
> >
> > My idea would be that Banks, who make loans of what
> > they allege to be legal tender money but in fact is
> > thin air made valuable by people's acceptance, would
> > be charged some appropriate amount for doing so. Their
> > money creation, after all, reduces the amount
> > determined by the National Credit Office to be
> > otherwise payable to the public in Dividend and
> > Discount payments, and in fact is a form of borrowing
> > from the public at large by diluting the value of the
> > currency that they hold.
> >
> > As long as the charge for so doing is appropriate, I
> > see no reason why there would have to be physical
> > controls on the actual lending that takes place.
> >
> > Martin Hattersley
> >
> >
> >
> >
____________________________________________________________________________
________
> > Get your own web address.
> > Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
> > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message