|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] Historic accuracy?|
|Date:||Monday, April 2, 2007 08:26:50 (-0700)|
|From:||william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|In reply to:||Message 4635 (written by William Hugh McGunnigle)|
Then I take it you do not agree with this from Innes'
"...there is overwhelming evidence that there never
was a monetary unit which depended on the value of
coin or on a weight of metal; that there never was,
until quite modern days, any fixed relationship
between the monetary unit and any metal; that, in
fact, there never was such a thing as a metallic
standard of value."
Here's the thing. Douglas' theory makes no sense
whatsoever from the orthodox money is a medium of
exchange perspective. His theory makes perfect sense
from the creditary perspective expressed by Innes.
--- William Hugh McGunnigle <email@example.com>
With due respect the Innes papers were designed to try
to demonstrate that there was no control of coinage in
the dark ages. They ignored to a large extent the fact
that monarchs used the "tally stick" to keep track of
finances and these were used for "tax assessment".
Coin value was related to these. I therefore stand by
my previous statement that, although it appeared that
coinage was not really under control there was a rigid
value system related to weight of Gold, Silver and
Copper metal in coins. The methods of assessing coin
purity had been established long before the advent of
the Roman Empire by Archmeides of Greece. Although it
appeared crude by modern methods of assey it was still
adequate for practical purposes. Contrary to popular
belief the men who did this type of assey work were
skilled and generally honest because they were
appointed by Royal decree. The penalty for incorrect
assey was death. Innes work, while skilled and
undoubtedly honestly conducted, suffered from an
obvious bias. He was selective in his choice of
primary sources and tended to ignore sources that
contradicted his basic premises. In all fairness he is
not the only historian to do this, but he is open to
strong critisism because of it. I personally cannot
condemn him as a charletan he was too good an
historian for that, but do regard his work with a
great deal of reserve. You are however correct in
quoting his work as a valid source of contradiction to
my own research.
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.