| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] fascism | | Date: | Monday, April 9, 2007 19:20:27 (+1200) | | From: | Peter <cymric @.......nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4661 (written by keith wilde) |
re " the sanctity of old private property"-
"The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England brought a refined system of
commercial law: their own form of commerce and a system of rules to
facilitate and govern it. . . Several elements of historical Jewish legal
practice have been integrated into the English legal system. Notable among
these is the written credit agreement - shetar, or starr, as it appears in
English documents. The basis of the shetar, or "Jewish Gage," was a lien on
all property (including realty) that has been traced as a source of the
modern mortgage. Under Jewish law, the shetar permitted a creditor to
proceed against all the goods and land of the defaulting debtor. . . Jewish
law that debts could be recovered against a loan secured by "all property,
movable and immovable" was a weapon of socio-economic change that tore the
fabric of feudal society and established the power of liquid wealth in place
of land holding. . . . Jewish Law, wherein personal debt superseded rights
in real property had become the law of the land." "Foootnote 11: H.C.
Richardson, The English Jewry Under Angevin Kings 94 (1960) (Jews
liquidation of land obligations broke down rigidity of feudal land tenure
and facilitated transfer of land to new capitalist class). Footnote 15: CF.
1 F. Pollock and F.W. Maitland, supra note 3 at 469... (alien to English law
for creditor not in possession of land to have rights in it)."
"The Shetar's Effect on English Law", The Georgetown Law Journal; V. 71, P
1179 - 1200); Judith A. Shapiro.
( invasion and piracy almost exstinct, thuggery continues but 'debt' still
rules- Peter H)
----- Original Message -----
From: "keith wilde" <kwilde@tc-biodiversity.org>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] fascism
> Responding to Joe's questions/comments:
>
> --- Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> (Keith wrote:-) "In adding to the list, I'm
>> thinking of attitudes toward the sanctity of old
>> private property, often obtained through invasion,
>> piracy or other thuggery."
>>
>> (Joe asks:-) Could you please elaborate a bit on
>> that, Keith? Do you mean
>> 'land', or other types of property?
>
> Keith responds:
> I was thinking initially of issues between landowners
> and industrialists in Britain, landowners being an
> aristocracy descended from Norman invaders of many
> centuries previously. The similar principle of
> conquering and claiming founded many fortunes in the
> era of colonial expansion into the New World (thinking
> of Simon Schama's TV series on History of Britain).
> The residue was not merely land, but also substantial
> accumulations of gold, etc. from profitable
> exploitation of both lands and slaves. Closer to our
> own space, the conquest and appropriation of North
> America by European peoples generally, and in
> substantially unequal claims by some. And in very
> recent times, the seizure of public assets by
> oligarchs in the former Soviet Union and their
> conversion to private property that will be the
> foundation of a new aristocracy. Add to that the ever
> more widely understood principle that the way to get
> rich is to get big special privileges from government,
> whether it be grants of land and mineral rights, trade
> marks, copyrights, patents and other monopoly
> positions.
>
>
>>
>> (Keith continues:-) "....it does
>> shift monetary policy significantly into the hands
>> of government. And as
>> noted, that would be a movement toward democracy. I
>> wonder what have been
>> the musings of social credit writers over the years
>> about the probable
>> temptations and vulnerability to corruption via the
>> national credit
>> authority?"
>>
>> (Joe replies:- ) That would be like wondering if
>> the people who work for
>> Statistics Canada now ever 'slew' the 'figures' to
>> give a purposefully
>> manipulated meaning to various ongoing developments.
>> Do they? I don't
>> really know, but I suppose it might well be
>> possible. Maybe by omitting
>> certain data that should be relevant an 'intended'
>> result could be arrived
>> at.
>
> (Keith again)
>
> Well, yes they do, and heavily in the way you suggest.
> This is due to political influence rather than that of
> individual researchers, for the most part (the latter
> not being very able to do anything significant in the
> way of gathering big data bases without material
> support). There are lots of kinds of information that
> economists would like to have, working in and on
> behalf of governments, but StatsCan does not gather
> it--for political reasons. This is especially true
> concerning the incomes and wealth of the
> controlling classes--corporations as well as
> individuals. Data series also get dropped, not because
> researchers are not longer interested, but because the
> numbers could be used to embarrass privileged
> interests. Environmental data are another source of
> contention. It took years of campaigning by interested
> analysts before government would permit StatsCan to
> gather them, and even then reports based upon them
> become vulnerable. You doubless have several
> complaints yourself of data that StatsCan should be
> gathering but is not. Coming closer to our subject,
> data gathering is subject to skewing by large-scale
> exigencies of government management and policy. I'm
> thinking here of post-war adoption of Keynesian full
> employment policies and the national accounting
> systems that were required to implement them. I once
> did a study of dairy policy, and to get myself
> oriented to it, I looked through all the data
> publications about dairy factories in Canada from the
> earliest years available. (It was interesting to learn
> that until well into the 20th century, Canada's
> biggest agriculture export was cheese.) There was lots
> of interesting detail in these annual compilations,
> but as years went by, some of the series I had been
> following were dropped and the reports became
> noticeably thinner. After while I recognized that the
> data collected and especially the ways it was
> assembled and reported were becoming more and more
> attuned to national income accounts and to magnitudes
> of interest to macroeconomic management. I can imagine
> that a similar transition, perhaps even more
> fundamental, would occur if instead of a Keynesian
> Revolution there were to be a social credit one.
> StatsCan would be charged with a new set of data
> gathering tasks, but would almost certainly have to
> start from where it is at the moment.
>
> (Joe)But in a ''National Credit Office" under SC to
>> what end? Where, or
>> what, would be the 'incentive' to 'corruption'?
>
> (Keith) I don't know; am not sufficiently well
> acquainted with the detail of what it is expected to
> do to exercise imagination in that direction. But the
> adoption of a Douglas approach to economic management
> is not likely to end the political pressures on a
> statistical agency, from various sources.
>
> (Joe) Do the SC principles,
>> properly applied, actually shift 'monetary policy'
>> more into the hands of 'government'. Or 'consumers'?
>
> (Keith)
> Well, I don't see how they can be applied without
> first getting the Credit Authority up and running, and
> that seems to entail a statistical bureau. And the
> need for it won't go away, even after the dividend and
> discount get operating sufficiently that a shift
> toward consumer sovereignty becomes apparent. Or am I
> missing something big?
>
>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "keith wilde" <kwilde@tc-biodiversity.org>
>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 7:26 AM
>> Subject: RE: [socialcredit] fascism
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Re John Rawson's question: Do you mean
>> "distinction"
>> > rather than "confusion"?
>> >
>> > As a newcomer to the subject matter several years
>> ago
>> > I was initially puzzled by Bill Ryan's insistence
>> on
>> > making a distinction between social credit and
>> "money
>> > reformers". It didn't take too long to understand
>> the
>> > objection to putting so much decision power over
>> > resource allocation into the hands of government,
>> > hence his shorthand epithet of "fascist". The
>> > question that has remained, for me, is the degree
>> to
>> > which the social credit solution is different. (Is
>> it
>> > 90 or 180?) It has often seemed to me that Bill
>> > regards them as virtually polar opposites,
>> different
>> > in more than one respect. (In adding to the list,
>> I'm
>> > thinking of attitudes toward the sanctity of old
>> > private property, often obtained through invasion,
>> > piracy or other thuggery.) Instead of direct
>> spending
>> > on infrastructure, the social credit solution
>> would
>> > have a government office to calculate the precise
>> > amount of new claims to goods and services that
>> should
>> > be distributed to keep the system churning without
>> > inflation. I haven't been able to spend the time I
>> > would like to in contemplating just how big a
>> > bureaucracy that would entail, but it is not too
>> > difficult to imagine that it would be less
>> expensive
>> > than a public works department. Nevertheless, it
>> does
>> > shift monetary policy significantly into the hands
>> of
>> > government. And as noted, that would be a
>> movement
>> > toward democracy. I wonder what have been the
>> musings
>> > of social credit writers over the years about the
>> > probable temptations and vulnerability to
>> corruption
>> > via the national credit authority?
>> >
>> > On another point, John's observation about AMI's
>> > interpretation of deposits and reserves is
>> > interesting and seems plausible to me. I look
>> forward
>> > to other comments.
>> >
>> > Keith Wilde
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --- John G Rawson <johngrawson@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> >
>> > Where has the confusion betwen Social Credit and
>> OTHER
>> > monetary reformers come in? All would curb the
>> > monopoly of credit creation by the banks, all
>> would
>> > balance the increase of money supply against needs
>> or
>> > goods to avoid inflation.
>> >
>> > Douglas, basically, would leave the banks creating
>> > money, and in view of their nature this might be
>> > unavoidable anyway. That is their function, which
>> it
>> > appears could be impossible to stop. (But it could
>> be
>> > managed by specific controls of the actual money
>> > volume, and Martin has come up with the only
>> sensible
>> > way of doing this that I have seen.) But D. would
>> > have a credit authority also issue some new money
>> to
>> > be paid to the consumer in some form, hence
>> "economic
>> > democracy". He saw full central control of
>> > money-issue as giving central government too much
>> > power.
>> >
>> > Others such as the AMI would channel money through
>> > government (central and local) spending for
>> > infrastructure. While this may give government
>> great
>> > power, I still do see control of the nation by
>> elected
>> > representatives as better than the present control
>> by
>> > unelected bankers, as effectively so in all or
>> most
>> > "democracies". Fascism, or more correctly Nazism,
>> > consisted of puppet rulers acting on behalf of
>> > industrialists and bankers. This was the group
>> that
>> > put Hitler into power in Germany. Without pointing
>> any
>> > finger, there is very litle difference between the
>> > Nazi regime and some notable examples now.
>> >
>> > The AMI appears to have fallen for the
>> long-propagated
>> > fallacy that banks lend their deposits, which are
>> not
>> > their reserves but their liabilities. Banks gain
>> > assets by creating the money to purchase them.
>> Their
>> > reserves are needed for interbank transactions,
>> not
>> > lending, on which the only controls are willing
>> > borrowers and the risk of any one losing reserves
>> by
>> > outstripping the others in lending. (I am again
>> > quoting findings of our Royal Commission, not
>> personal
>> > theory.) In effect, the days of "fractional
>> reserve"
>> > banking are dead, and I believe the term lives on
>> > because it is useful to confuse reformers. Should
>> the
>> > AMI become powerful, it may be interesting to see
>> the
>> > banks reverse their "lending of deposits"
>> propaganda
>> > and admit that they don't, as part of a counter to
>> the
>> > reformers' arguments!
>> >
>> > In passing, our NZ Party believes that times have
>> so
>> > changed since the time of Douglas, with government
>> > assuming so many more functions, that we have
>> adopted
>> > a blend of the two approaches.
>> >
>> > Regards. John R.
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
>> > Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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