|
The Reserve would need to be put to use, and
Joe's argument in parallel to mine (ie releasing it into the economy), they wont
need it in reserve but will need to use it since they cant create more, but earn
it. If they dont put it to use then they will not compete with those who
do. Its their choice and I see them using it.
The 'deposits' will be reduced to that which the
public was misled into thinking they were.
I believe Douglas did intend that the banks be
relieved of the power to create the community's credit as its own
property. I believe Vic Bridger and Eric Butler do/did as well and
others.
Banks will still make loans, and profits but
not 'money'. ( becoming what the public think they are)
One of our functions in todays world besides
breathing is to take out loans and pay them back more than once (reducing the
value of the currency). Breathing isnt man-made and we have no option but
breath what is in our face but the other is man-made and is
usually subject to change.
Chees,
Peter H
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 11:40
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Economic
Democracy
Two comments:
1. Reserve ratios as we understand them here apply to deposits, and
therefore might have no effect whatever on lending.
2. Peter, you seem to project a situation where the banks create no credit
(money) at all. That is not what Douglas promoted, and if you think about it,
it could be physically impossible. We breathe air, it is one of our
functions. Banks create loand, that is one of theirs.
Regards. John R.
From: "Peter" <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Economic Democracy
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:13:36
+1200
>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.
>William argues that the better approach
would be for banks to
>increase reserves to tighten 'loan credit' as
'cash credit'
>increases.
>
>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.
>
>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)
>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. 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.
>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.
>Peter H
>
>
>----- 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
>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
